An unpleasant lot

Oborne's Philippic today against Cameron's consorting with News International worthies manages to be too harsh. Every PM has tried to win the good opinion of Rupert Murdoch and his senior people. Cameron was no exception.

Not that this blog has any time for the practices revealed at The News of the World, which apart from anything else must be a deeply unpleasant place to work. Coulson's and Brooks' denials of responsibility look increasingly thin, and no one has denied that News International lied to the Press Complaints Commission when it claimed that hacking was the work of one rogue reporter. How high up the organisation would that decision have been taken? Who in News International decided to treat an MPs' Select Committee hearing with barely concealed contempt?

Nor does this blog have any time for Cameron, a cynical political manipulator with scant regard for voters' views on overseas aid, or the EU, or global warming, or practically anything that comes to mind.

Meanwhile, it's good to see rational discussion of the case against overseas aid aired here and here.

They provide a case to answer, but of course Mr Cameron has not condescended to argue against it.

The blog has a clear view on this too. In the spirit of the Great Society, overseas aid donations should come from individuals and businesses, with tax relief. Not from government.

Cameron, Osborne and co of course enjoy the warm glow of spending other people’s money. What they never argue is why they think it’s better spent on overseas aid rather than on potholes.

Or maybe the people the money belongs to should keep it and decide for themselves how to spend it.

Now that might be an interesting question for a national referendum.