They're all as bad as each other...?

As the front row gets its knitting out to await the arrival of the tumbrel bearing the board of NewsCorp, we should at least acknowledge that Murdoch hasn't been subsidised from public funds and has created a lot of UK employment.

The gorily sanctimonious Guardian-BBC has enjoyed the past 14 years being publicly funded through the direct patronage of the Labour Party in government, and its traditional bloating of its client state recruitment. (The Guardian's hypocritical tax avoidance is nicely exposed by Guido Fawkes).

Apparently not bloated enough for some state employees, since it seems we also had a "Pay as you Go" Police Service to keep bunged.

Arguably the damage done by that unholy alliance has cost this country a £trillion as 1997's comparatively "fixed finances" were progressively squandered by Broon with everything from the preemptive pensions raid, to selling gold reserves off cheaply, to the asset bubble he created to fund credit to buy a phony feelgood factor - and then his parting gift of £8bn on pointless aircraft carriers to appease Scottish voters. And let's also recall Labour's super-cynical honours "appointments" - have given the other guilty parties a handy "they were all at it" excuse when nailed on the potential cash and favours for honours opprobrium.

The BBC has clearly used public money to curtail real markets in everything from home computers to digital media. Neither the BBC nor the Graun can make a living in the real world once that public funding has been withdrawn. So TMP suspects there are questions to ask and answer about the relationships between Guardian hacks and Labour spin doctors.

So if we are to use this "event" as the catalyst for a much needed clean up of all aspects of political press relationships, then no one and nothing should be "overlooked".

In terms of the vested interests of those baying loudest, the GMG faces early commercial oblivion. Its one hope may be to bring down the government and force and election which it assumes will return an eternally grateful Milliband.

BUT are we (the people) actually better off dealing with reptiles whose motivation is as crude and transparent as money, or shadowy schemers with social engineering agendas, led by Blair's legacy of sleazy political spin doctors, doing endless dodgy deals behind closed doors..?

Transparency ought to win every time; we'd rather know they were just after our money, than suspect they were scheming to curtail our liberty.

The banking scandal in microcosm

We don't think I've seen anyone yet draw the stark parallel with New Labours "nod and wink" relationship with some of the more conniving turncoats of the City and financial services industry, and what went on at Westminster. Talk about a mess of pottage.

Looked at overall, we can see the familiar pattern of trough-diving socialism of the type that has always rotted through any socialist administration. Sly deals being done with the purse keepers - and the comforting group excuse and belief that "they're all at it anyway".

The worst of this is the revelation that we have allowed our nation and its sovereignty to be taken to the brink of the economic and political abyss by a collection of least desirable white-collar criminals ever to walk the streets. What else have they got wrong and done wrong in pursuit of personal agendas?

However, someone has to stand up and call a halt to the fun in order to resume the struggle with the monster of Brown's slump - but now it clearly cannot be Broon or any of his trough-diving colleagues.

Blair was left the Clark/Major legacy of contained inflation as a basis for future growth which it now seems was squandered on wide boys and girls of the Scottish financial services industry to help fuel the fantasy property-lead boom that provided taxes to fuel the fantasy welfare state - but just what on earth is Brown leaving to his successor?

A shoebox stuffed full of worthless IOUs.