Aren’t dirty deals sometimes necessary?

The Tories, quite rightly in political terms, are trying to squeeze as much as possible from the latest revelations suggesting that the Lockerbie bomber’s release was one of the prices that the Labour government seems to have been prepared to pay as part of an oil deal with the Libyans.

But what would a Cameron government have done in such a situation? Would it, in the interests of ensuring energy supplies, have followed exactly the same thinking as went on within the Labour government two years ago?

My guess is that a Tory government would have acted in the same way.

Where I think that Labour is going wrong here is in trying to cover up what has happened and by hiding behind the Scottish dimension. Why not come out and say that the paramount objective was energy and the need to open up new areas? A reference to Russia’s aggressive energy strategy would underline the point.

What’s becoming clear is that the truth will out – why not get in with their explanation first?

Mike Smithson

Mail

But will he lose the post-visit PR war?

There’s an interesting angle on Brown’s surprise trip to Afghanistan in the Mail on Sunday this morning which has all the potential to blow up into a big incident.

According to the paper the Tory leader was forced to call off a trip to the country after discovering that the PM had beaten him to it.

The report goes on: “The Tory leader scrapped his own visit – which has been in his diary since July – to avoid an unseemly cat-and-mouse game and wasting overstretched military resources. Unbeknown to the Tories, Mr Cameron’s plans were highlighted in No10’s weekly ‘grid’ – a confidential Whitehall spin doctors’ guide to key political events designed to help Labour win the propaganda war…”

With the general election only months away at the very most every action of the two leaders will be subject to the most intense scrutiny. Why for instance had Cameron planned to go?

Brown’s problem here is that he’s got form over visits of this kind as we saw with his surprise trip to Iraq on the day of Cameron’s conference speech in October 2007. This means that the most negative interpretations are placed on his actions however honourable in intent they might have been.

I’ve got a feeling that this will develop.

Mike Smithson

Sunday Times

Was it a “murky” deal for oil after all?

The main lead in the Sunday Times tomorrow looks set to take the Megrahi release debate into new territory for the paper says it has leaked ministerial letters suggesting this was all about an oil deal with Libya.

This is how the story starts: “The British government decided it was “in the overwhelming interests of the United Kingdom” to make Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, the Lockerbie bomber, eligible for return to Libya, leaked ministerial letters reveal.

Gordon Brown’s government made the decision after discussions between Libya and BP over a multi-million-pound oil exploration deal had hit difficulties. These were resolved soon afterwards.

The letters were sent two years ago by Jack Straw, the justice secretary, to Kenny MacAskill, his counterpart in Scotland, who has been widely criticised for taking the formal decision to permit Megrahi’s release.

The correspondence makes it plain that the key decision to include Megrahi in a deal with Libya to allow prisoners to return home was, in fact, taken in London for British national interests.”

If this is as the story reports then it could be explosive for both the Scottish and British governments.

Polling news: The August MORI is out in the Observer and has with changes on last time COM 43 (+3): LANB 26 (+1): LD 17 (-31) – so in line with almost every poll in August with changes in line with the margin or error.

Mike Smithson

BBC online

Won’t his trip just highlight the problems?

The big political story this afternoon is the surprise trip by Gordon Brown to Afghanistan and the suggestions that the scale of the British deployment might have to be increased.

Fine – but what’s the political point at a time when the opinion polls have shown increasing scepticism amongst voters to the whole undertaking?

Such a visit over such a distance is a massive undertaking and there really has to be a purpose beyond the obviously political desire to grab some headlines.

It will be recalled that just under two years ago Brown’s surprise trip to Iraq at the time of the Tory party conference was one of the factors that started the spectacular collapse by Labour that has continued.

The danger is that Brown’s travel might start to be seen as a substitute for policy. After all he has been there often enough.

Mike Smithson