On the one hand, you've got the banks, whom many have criticised for telling lies in their financial reports and elsewhere in order to sustain the economic boom for as long as possible, just so they can trouser their millions of pounds of bonuses. Politicians, none moreso than St Vincent of Cable, have lined up to put the boot into the bankers for telling lies just so they can hold on to their highly paid jobs.

On the other hand, you've got Vince Cable himself.  Up till yesterday he seemed a fairly happy member of the Cabinet, give or take a couple of gripes.  But then he spilled his guts when gently prodded by two pretty constituents who just happened to be undercover Telegraph reporters in disguise.  And we find out that Cable is a man who really thinks that what the Coalition is doing is wrong. Yet, he seems prepared to lie about it in public, presumably merely so he can hold on to his highly paid job.

What, honestly, is the difference between them? Is it too much to ask that people tell the truth to keep their jobs? Why are bankers excoriated while Cable is celebrated?

When we've finished with the bankers, can we reuse the piano wire?

People who read this post also read:

• nef idiotics
• Politicians vs accountants
• Bunch of Pircs
• Tax Journal on “government approved tax avoidance”
• Ritchie is still lying about why he got banned from Oxford

Filed under: Politics with tags banks, idiots, lies, politicians, telegraph, vince cable