Proposals to increase charity donations by putting prompt messages on ATMs amongst other ideas have split opinion between those who don't see a problem and believe it will see an increase in donations and those who resent being asked and for whom the chief complaint appears to be that only large charities will benefit and that you won't know who you're donating to. This despite no further information as to the proposal.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12085506

   My main concern is the assumption that the government can implement any number of cuts and replace the lack of funding with a better system for charities to receive donations in the belief that they will simply pick up the pieces that the Coalition will behind. So instead of all being in this One Big Society together, those at the top can simply relieve what conscience they have with a simple charitable donation rather than, eg, pay tax and those on the bottom rung of society will have to rely on the help of willing volunteers as opposed to trained professionals to assist with their needs. Volunteers who are having to work longer hours on less pay and for more years to pay increasing bills, giving them less time and money to contribute to this big society.

I don't think that it is a great surprise that some Lib Dems feel uncomfortable with some of the policies that they have had to vote for as part of the Coalition in the same way that members of the same party are not going to agree on all matters but Vince Cable and some of his colleagues have certainly been naive in letting journalists from the Telegraph pose as constituents and speaking too candidly too them.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12053656
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/liberaldemocrats/8218224/Liberal-Democrat-ministers-condemn-scrapping-of-child-benefit.html

If I were slightly more cynical I might detect underhand tactics other than those of the Telegraph reporters as Cable has been stitched up to the extent that his public rebuke and stripping him of the Murdoch decision humiliates him enough to keep in line whilst hanging onto his job, without actually sacking him where he may become a more ferocious critic on Coalition policy from the back benches. The old adage of better having your enemies inside the tent pissing out rather than outside the tent pissing in rings true here and also allows a Tory friendly to Murdoch in Jeremy Hunt to take the leading role in News Corporations proposed takeover of BSkyB. Cables attitude towards Murdoch will hardly have come as a major shock to Cameron and Osborne so this provides them with the perfect opportunity of putting someone more pro Murdoch in his place - although if he is as pro Murdoch as some of his comments suggest doesn't that make him as impartial as Cable.

But would it matter if Rupert Murdoch owned two TV news channels in Britain? "The important thing is not whether a particular owner owns another TV channel but to make sure you have a variety of owners with a variety of TV channels so that no one owner has a dominant position both commercially and politically.
"Rather than worry about Rupert Murdoch owning another TV channel, what we should recognise is that he has probably done more to create variety and choice in British TV than any other single person because of his huge investment in setting up Sky TV which, at one point, was losing several million pounds a day.
"We would be the poorer and wouldn't be saying that British TV is the envy of the world if it hadn't been for him being prepared to take that commercial risk. We need to encourage that kind of investment."

The above quote is from http://www.jeremyhunt.org/newsshow.aspx?ref=452
Vince Cable has therefore shot himself in the foot and he has ended up with the opposite effect of what he intended. If he was serious about wanting to stop Murdoch becoming all powerful then he should resign his position and criticise freely from the backbenches, a move that would also go somewhere to restoring his credibility.

I've resisted the temptation to write about Julian Assange as it has been over discussed elsewhere and other sources provide far better analysis than I ever could but I may as well add my two pennorth now that he has been released on bail.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/blog/2010/dec/16/wikileaks-latest-julian-assange-bail-appeal

My point is that politicians seem to have misjudged the Wikileaks affair along with other self-interested parties in the media with regard to the public mood. Claiming that politicians are out of touch is hardly revelatory but there does seem to be added vitriol towards Wikileaks and Assange for poking their nose where they should not as darkly parodied (if only) by the Presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee when he said that whoever leaked the cables should be executed for treason.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/30/mike-huckabee-wikileaks-execution_n_789964.html

His claim that American lives are at risk by releasing information that was already considered of no serious threat is ironic when he is putting the life of Bradley Manning, the alleged leaker, at risk when calling for his death.
   Julian Assange's detention and the appeal by the Swedish authorities to keep him in custody is fooling nobody as even a work colleague, not usually associated with liberal views, said that it looked like they were trying to set him up. For someone whose political expressions are normally reserved for immigrants to stand alongside the thousands of supporters demonstrating on behalf of Assange the over zealousness to come down hard on him is their for all to see and the people don't like it. While not wanting to gloss over what are serious accusations it is disturbing the way Sweden are after their man when other rape cases are not always granted the same attention.
http://www.thelocal.se/19124/20090428/

Appealing against his bail also seems churlish when he walked into the police station himself when the arrest warrant was issued - hardly the actions of someone ready to abscond. It all appears rather messy and will no doubt drag on to the detriment of all involved and with no clear resolution

                                 *************************************

   On the radio this evening they reported on one of these silly surveys that get mentioned every now and again when there is nothing else to report and which they even managed to discredit in their piece. The survey claimed that one in seven of us would consider shoplifting a turkey at this time of year. Thinking that it was quite a high figure the correspondent explained that the key word is considered and not would you steal? This makes the whole thing completely redundant and the other 6 out of 7 were either lying, suffering from Alzheimer's or as is more likely did not understand the question as everybody will have thought about shoplifting especially if you have just been asked the question but most would then dismiss this consideration. I've considered decapitating myself but that does not mean that I am going to do it or even that I have the slightest inclination in it happening but it does not stop the fact that the thought has crossed my mind. Please stop polluting the airwaves and my ears with this nonsense.

I feel horrible for complaining about this as it involves someone blameless presumably having a bad day. It is petty but on the news this morning one of the presenters came in to help read through the newspaper headlines and seemed to struggle as if surprised to be called on like a child in class being asked to read the next couple of paragraphs from the set text book after just being caught staring out of the window.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/console/b00wdfkf/Morning_Reports_10_12_2010

It was on FiveLive's Morning Reports programme just before 5:30 this morning and she seemed to struggle so much that I felt sorry for her. I understand that it was early in the morning and she did far better than I ever could (and that's not just trying to be polite: I really fear talking in public, whether they can see me or not, and the few occasions I have done usually involves mumbling quickly and sweat) but I suppose I feel more disappointed as I expect better from the BBC. I want to listen to the news and not be concerned by the person delivering it and this is heightened when on the radio as it much more intimate than television. There are many wonderful newsreaders on BBC radio who at their best have voices you can melt in which can produce a soothing, almost pleasurable experience for lighter pieces whilst still sounding like the voice of authority when required. Peter Donaldson and Harriet Cass make it sound easy when incidents like this morning indicate that this is not the case whilst the undoubted Godmother of them all is Charlotte Green who carries a hint of sensuality in her voice that can be playful on lighter stories and like a disappointed school mistress on harder items where you can almost hear her disillusionment at the world for letting her down with this latest tragedy.
   I have no idea about this woman's personal circumstances and it is certainly not the most disastrous broadcast on the BBC this week but whereas Naughtie and Marr made genuine mistakes this sounded unprofessional but perhaps this early morning slot is where new broadcasters start out and find there feet.

It's like the 1970s all over: no one party in overall control, rioting in the streets, shortened weeks approaching (granted that's for Christmas bank holidays but cut me some slack) and the bins weren't collected for a week (again the snow prevented the wagon getting out but I'm not going to let that stop my analogy). So most of the LibDems have decided that they are enjoying their brief moment of power too much and have voted to increase tuition fees. Where this leaves them remains to be seen but we already have two other parties that lie and break election pledges so do we need a third and it aside from the die hard activists it is hard to see who they can win votes from now. This would actually be a shame as I do like the idea of a genuine third party, and not just some fringe group, that can provide balance to Labour and the Conservatives as opposed to the US where the two parties have become so triballised as to waste their energies criticising each other.
   To emphasize the divisions in the party 27 voted for the fees, 21 against and 8 abstained so it could be argued that it is the minority giving the rest a bad name but as all the protesting students are being labelled as rioting insurgents it seems petty to quibble. Besides the abstainers bottled it and wanted it both ways so did not really keep their promise either. Perhaps they won't make such rash election promises in the future, but then that would make them less electable.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-JpNravrwZc

Judging by the reaction in the various forms of media I'm not the only person who found the above slip of the tongue funny but I am slightly curious why certain people, no doubt egged on by the tabloid press, spit feathers at bad language when used by those they do not approve of. James Naughtie made a genuine mistake when he called the Culture Secretary Jeremy Cunt rather than Hunt and his response is the funniest part of his error and the first time I heard it I was unsure whether he was laughing or crying, but those who disapprove make no complaint, rightly so, at this even when the mistake is reproduced on YouTube and other areas as above and easily accessible via Twitter and the like. I am aware that I am also contributing to this and that is the point: more people are likely to get upset about the number of rude words in a programme even if broadcast after the watershed than when a simple error is exacerbated in this way. Those that did complain are obviously perfect and not prone to human error and not the sort to lambast the BBC at every opportunity.
   Curiously when Andrew Marr repeated the exact same mistake a few hours later he was discussing the incident as a Freudian slip when he did the same. As a Freudian slip is supposed to reveal a suppressed belief are we to assume that either James Naughtie or Andrew Marr really thinks that Jeremy Hunt is a cunt. If so I wonder if he would be as willing to laugh it off as he did on Twitter.
  

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11904630


Stepping outside court today after the verdict Phil Woolas was asked if he had any regrets and he said no. The arrogance of the man failed to see that he had done anything wrong and claimed that being stripped of his seat on a technicality because of "an outdated law". The leaflet that was the cause of his undoing was dismissed as being only one out of all he had produced in 15 years as if that is any justification. If a murderer asked the judge not to consider his victim but the hundreds of people he had met without killing them in the last decade he would rightly derided. He then tried to backtrack as to the tone of the leaflet without denying that he still claimed the Lib Dems were wooing extremists.
   Politicians seem to forget how there words and actions are interpreted and need to make more care when initially making a statement or printing a leaflet or writing a manifesto as to how it plays out with the public. Another example was a Lid Dem MP defending Vince Cable umming and ahing over how to vote in the tuition fees debate. John Hemming MP kept insisting that the manifesto pledge was to cut fees and deliver a fairer system and that they were doing the latter. Ignoring the fact that it says and and not or a fairer system is a vague notion open to interpretation and not something that would win too many votes unless some people were thinking you planned to introduce an unfair system until you kindly pointed that out. No what people take from that pledge is the first part about cutting fees and to try to manipulate that now is disingenuous. If they were up front and honest about the reasons they may be afforded more respect although if its "I want to keep my job" as opposed to "I don't like it, but if we support the Tories on this they might let us have our vote on AV" maybe not.

I caught pieces of Vince Cable being interviewed on the radio this afternoon attempting to defend tuition fees and I came away more adamant that they are wrong than before. I sort of accept that abolition of fees was never going to happen and I was more bothered by the fact that no senior LibDem had said that they agreed with their manifesto but as the junior partner in the Coalition they could not get all the policies that they wished through. On the face of it this seems fair enough although they appear to be giving a lot of ground on the hope that they get their watered down version of PR through but is slightly tempered by the fact they could make most promises knowing that they were never going to get power. I am reminded of the comedian (and Match of the Day reporter) Kevin Day who was in a studio one election night (vague I know but probably 2001 or 2005 on the BBC) when commenting on attractive policies in the LibDem manifesto he said that they could promise a free giraffe to every house for all it mattered as they were not going to get in. Now that they have actually got some semblance of power those rash promises are coming back to haunt them and instead of being that rather nice and friendly, but not very serious party they are going to be judged with the others and none of there policies will ever be believed creating a vacuum for the disenchanted Conservative or Labour voter. The Monster Raving Tory Party (UKIP) will always pick up loose Tories but there is a dearth of a unified left wing party on a national level. There may be the odd seat where a Socialist Party or Green Party candidate is standing (or God help us even Respect) but that choice is not available to all and there is a danger that some people may opt for the BNP (thankfully doing a good enough job of showing how ridiculous they are themselves). At the last election I had five candidates to choose from: the three main parties, UKIP and the BNP - that is not a choice. If anything good comes from the Coalition, I hope the alternative vote delivers a system whereby I can vote for somebody different next time - although as one of those disenchanted Labour voters who went LibDem for want of an alternative I may be re-enchanted by then.