Bottler's little porkie

It is by now well established that on May 14th the Prime Minister told the Commons that when the new extra car duty was fully in 55% of motorists will be either better off or no worse off. That is, that 45% would be worse off.

On June 4th he said that the majority would benefit, that is be better off, at least 51% would be better off.

Anyone who has not seen the calculations done by various bodies could accept the two figures as implying that 51% would gain and a further 4% would neither gain nor lose. The two figures are just about compatible.

The independent calculations all however show that the majority would lose. So the prime minister is wrong on both dates.

The remaining issue is what we are to make of the change? The latter one seems the more emphatic, and the less compatible with figures admitted even by Government departments, as well as independent researchers. You would hope that the more recent statement, perhaps revised from more recent calculations, would be more accurate.

It is this misleading of the House of Commons which is annoying most MPs, although Labour MPs are tying themselves in knots trying to explain or ignore the difference. Bottler himself, in his usual arrogant way, merely ignores the whole issue.

Why did he not quickly admit that he made a slight mistake in choosing words - he is after all in a political cockpit and it is easy to make a mistake? The answer, I'm afraid, is that he is incapable of admitting that he has made a mistake.

Or is it that with all his other porkies that he hopes to get away with making statements that are false, incomplete or true in only very special definitions of words?