Time constraints and a realization that most of this is just waffle have led me to suspend this blog for the time being and just post on Before I Forget. Sport and news posts will be added here if I feel the urge.

Why do so many politicians wish to stamp their name across a department and install fundamental change with targets to institutions that aren't performing that badly. This week has seen the Government back down over its NHS reforms after failing to underestimate the public goodwill towards the institution. The cynic in me fears that they will press ahead with their ideas but by the backdoor with no fanfare. The point is that any large organization whether in the public or private sector is bound to be a bit flabby with room for improvement but to overhaul the whole system can only destroy the good that it does. With regard to the NHS targets are set and league tables drawn up to highlight underperforming hospitals similar to that with schools then we are told that we have a "choice" as to where we get treatment as well as where our children are educated.
   The trouble here is that this is an area where choice is not necessary - we simply want to be treated or taught to the best standard no matter where we are in the country in the local hospital or school. Having to travel a further 30 miles to a hospital that was a few places higher in the league table is not choice: It is failing to take responsibility for the services you provide. Politicians, like business leaders, feel that they must appear to be proactive so talk about cutting waste and improving efficiency as if previous managers were simply burning money to keep warm and never had their own cost cutting exercises.
   I work for a medium sized company that has been around for nearly 150 years and there have been a number of changes of ownership in the last few decades each time with a new idea on how they could save more money with mixed results (one before I started was particularly disastrous as they bought in cheap ingredients resulting in poorer quality product and less custom). Each time the upshot is that there tends to be fewer staff doing more work between them but there is only so far this and various updated time and motion practices can go (despite how earnestly the latter are studied with their Japanese terms).
   Similarly with the Health Service the major way of saving money is by employing less people and increasing the workload on those that remain which can only undermine morale as well as annoying patients (or clients or customers or whatever they choose to call them). Why would patients be annoyed? Surely they would benefit from a better service. But why would it be a better service with fewer resources? In the private sector the onus is on producing generic product A cheaper than company X which is all well and good until company Y comes along and produces it even more efficiently and cheaper. The problem is that for all the talk of choice we are having the number of options limited as we are left with a number of companies all producing Product A ever more efficiently rather than a variety of products and services that people may actually want.
   The NHS is one of the great institutions of this country like the BBC which whilst they do have their faults perform a great service and will own up to mistakes, often too freely in response to the slightest criticism. By contrast private companies will deny any wrongdoing for fear that their share price would suffer. League tables and targets do not help the public sector as the nature of tables means that someone must come top and someone bottom. In the case of the former that hospital or school may become oversubscribed and the latter can only be stigmatised. Rather inspectors should merely report on the potential failings of institutes and show where improvements are required. If the standard is so poor that the public would suffer from attending then drastic action would be necessary but until then a more laissez faire attitude would be better all round.

Perhaps it's the pessimist in me but despite the celebrations in Yemen Idon't think it's the end of the trouble just yet. I hope I am wrong but after initial jubilation at the relatively quick overthrow of the regimes in Tunisia and Egypt the "Arab Spring" has stalled somewhat. Bahrain has cracked down on protesters whilst Formula 1 prepare to welcome them back into the fold and initial speculation that it would be a matter of days, or a couple of weeks at most, before Gaddafi was overthrown the fighting in Libya continues.
   Whilst it is certainly difficult for Saleh to return to Yemen after he receives treatment his regime is still in power with his vice president assuming control. Much therefore depends on whether the protesters are happy enough to see the back of someone who ruled them for over 30 years or as is more likely wish to continue to press on and seek reforms. Hadi may have a bit of time to assess his position whilst Saleh recovers as he is effectively in a caretaker role and he will have to decide which way to handle things should Saleh remain in Saudi Arabia: Continue with the damaged regime and risk going the way of Saleh or bow to the protesters demands and not try to hang onto what he has not had and spare more bloodshed.

After safely negotiating the recent apocalypse I am still curious as to what motivation lies behind people's reaction to such pronouncements. Undoubtedly the preacher or whoever proclaiming The Rapture is coming is getting some publicity and I am sure that in some cases they may genuinely believe what they say. Publicity seekers are common enough and there is often some scam involved to raise some money, but the true believer must think he is sending out a warning to prepare for your fate. However, with a couple of days to go it seems a bit late for the condemned to make amends and only gives them an opportunity to mock when the inevitable non event occurs (or doesn't).
   In this case Harold Camping has had his moment of glory (again: he predicted the World's end to be in 1994 as well) although he is certainly not milking it as no one has seen him since the appointed time. The inevitable thought that he may have ended his own world as other cult leaders are wont to do does cross one's mind but he may want another go. At 89 he does not want to leave the next one so far away as he miss it.
   The really curious aspect is with his followers who are obviously free to believe what they want and were no doubt grateful to say goodbye and prepare for their ascent but why do they think it necessary to give away all their money and possessions. Do they imagine a last act of charity will help determine whether they are on God's naughty or nice list? Granted if the world is coming to an end they will have no need of it but then neither will anybody else. Why not play it safe and carry on with your life as normal? God (the genocidal maniac one) has made up his mind and nothing you do now will change that and if this time proves to be yet another damp squib with nothing to show but a belching volcano in Iceland then you still have your job and life savings.
   Such people tend to be stubborn bastards and even the non ending of the World will convince them that they may have got it wrong. The poor calculation excuse was used last time (again if your preacher has shoddy maths would you give everything away on his word). They remain convinced that The Rapture is coming and everything they disapprove of will be swept from the Earth in a perverse delight reminiscent of a child's revenge fantasies.
   Still if their ilk are going to be throwing their weight around in Heaven then I will happily stew in my own juices down in the pits of Hell with all the other atheists.

One year into the Coalition and pressure is building on more ministers in what can only be described as hapless. Straight away David Laws had to stand down over his expenses and Vince Cable had the decision on referring the Murdoch takeover of BSkyB taken away from him after he expressed bias against him along with other details when secretly recorded by a journalist. That the matter was given to Jeremy Hunt who was openly biased in favour of Murdoch obviously doesn't matter. The fiasco in releasing an error strewn list of school building schemes to be cancelled did not exactly get Michael Gove off to a flying start and as for Andrew Lansley's NHS reforms; even the Government have taken a break to let things calm down. Add in Liam Fox challenging Cameron on overseas aid and Chris Huhne allegedly getting someone else to collect his speeding points then what is needed is a moment's calm - perhaps one of the few senior cabinet members who have had previous ministerial experience to step up to the plate. Somebody with the calm, assured statesmanlike presence who can convince the public that somebody in power actually knows what they are doing.
   It is unfortunate therefore that Ken Clarke should get himself embroiled in a debate over rape.  Whether he truly believes that some rapes are worse than others as has been interpreted from his comments or he got himself confused the whole incident does not reflect well. As he himself stated people will try to spin what he said to their advantage to make him look worse but he has been in politics long enough to know that and should therefore judge his comments accordingly. This often makes for bland, anodyne statements from ministers frightened from straying too far from the party line but on an issue as emotive as rape it is probably best to measure what you say. Claiming that rape was being singled out when his policy of halving sentences for guilty pleas was for all crimes was because it added sexual excitement to the headlines is offensive at best especially as it was added during the phone in he was taking part in from a caller.
   I am always wary of immediate resignation calls as they smack of opportunism, whatever the merits, but these things tend to have a momentum of their own and will largely depend on public opinion and how much the media can continue to stoke the issue. The right wing press have never been overly keen on Clarke as he is on the left of the Conservative Party and the left of centre tabloids (basically The Mirror) will use any stick to bash the Coalition with so he may get a hard time and his survival may depend on how long the furore lasts.
   Incidentally as spinning goes they missed a trick with this policy by announcing that a guilty plea would halve your sentence as the public consciousness immediately thinks "Soft on Crime" even though such a policy already exists but with a discount of a third. If, however, they announced that if you are found guilty after pleading not guilty then your sentence will be doubled but with the tariffs set accordingly so that the sentence would be the same then the public mood may be different.

Well that's my civic duty done although I was a little perturbed to be asked if I wanted to vote for both the local elections and the AV referendum. Are people bothering to go out and vote and half arsedly only bothering to vote for one or the other. After all while you're there you might as well scrawl your X on two pieces of paper - how hard can it be. In the end the decision was straight forward: Yes to AV was a no brainer and the council elections were rather straight forward - 3 candidates from 10 with 3 from the main political parties and 1 Independent who I knew little of save for a badly printed and misspelled flyer that came through the letterbox. Now that Labour are in opposition the guilt one feels at voting for them or rejecting them because of differences of opinion / poor performance are gone so I happily selected all three Labour candidates wiping out any memory of choosing the LibDems at the last 2 General Elections.
   That is the problem of many arguments for and against changes to the voting system but it exists under the current system also and that is no matter how you vote you can not guarantee a proper selection of candidates to choose from. The last two elections saw me vote LibDem as I became disillusioned with Labour and there was no viable left wing alternative on the ballot paper. We once had a Respect candidate in what may have been a European election and there may have been someone from the SWP but that has been the sum total since 1997. Plenty from UKIP, Veritas and the BNP but no Greens or even Monster Raving Loonies and seldom few independents at least those who have more of a profile than a blurred photo and whose policies are little more than being unhappy with the current system.
   I would like to think that a win for the Yes camp would encourage smaller parties to take part but that may be wishful thinking, besides looking at the polls it would seem the public don't like change.

Well it hardly seemed worthwhile blogging anything on such a quiet bank holiday but after trawling through the various news websites I did stumble across this little reported story. When I got in to my car this morning the death of Osama bin Laden was still breaking news but by the end of my shift it had already been analysed that much that not only had he been buried at sea but the whole episode felt like old news already.
    The various factions had formed as to whether this made the world a safer place or not, whether he was really dead and incredulity that he wasn't slumming it in a cave. All agree that this will not affect the day to day running of Al Qaeda as he was more a figurehead but that his killing is still a highly symbolic message. Conspiracy theories are bound to crop up and no amount of evidence will persuade those convinced of a cover up. A lot of fingers have been pointed at the Pakistani authorities for not knowing bin Laden was on their doorstep and whilst it is embarrassing it is no proof of conclusion. He has undoubtedly had help from certain people but in his position he would not have risked too many from knowing his whereabouts let alone an entire Government or security agency. As for the mansion so close to the military headquarters there may be something in the "last place you'd think too look" adage and it may be safe to assume that the house was not in his name and he was not in the habit of walking around the town.
   The fact that it is just over 30 miles from Islamabad is irrelevant as even after 10 years I don't think they had got so desperate as to start with house to house searches working their way out from the capital. If they had it may have taken a little longer to check on all the million plus residents in Islamabad.
   Many have been quick to criticise when certain groups in the Arab world celebrate and fire guns in the air when a US airplane is shot down and American commentators are appalled to see the American flag being burnt. This mornings scenes outside the Whitehouse looked very familiar and no doubt those same commentators will be joining in the glee this time.

Perhaps it's the fact that as a male that I have no particular interest in weddings generally or as an anti monarchist that the Royal Wedding is leaving me rather cold. Fair enough that some people are enjoying the occasion but does it really warrant the rolling 24 hour coverage dedicated to who is attending, what they are wearing and interviewing people who bumped into the couple five years ago. Is this how Richard Dimbleby conducted state occasions? It has almost reached the stage where if there was to be a natural disaster any time soon today would be a good day to get it out of the way if only to break the monotonous news coverage. A little dramatic perhaps so I shall settle for the fact that I am almost pleased to be about to go to work although no doubt everybody will still be blathering on about Wills & Kate when I get back: possibly somebody will be stationed at the bedroom door to announce when the official consummation of the marriage has taken place.
   Like most weddings the ceremony is generally quite boring and everyone is waiting for the I Do bit and the kiss before legging it to the reception to get a drink. Unfortunately, despite paying for it this is denied the public who will have to make to with the boring bit and will miss the dubious pleasure of Prince Harry's best man speech.
   As I am only winding myself up by adding my own fuel I will end with the thought that presumably on his stag do Prince William actually went to shoot some stags.

It is hard to find sympathy on either side of the super injunction argument with all parties not particularly doing themselves any favours as self interest on their behalf continues to fuel my boredom. Andrew Marr's admission that he took one out himself to hide details of an affair is interesting only for the hypocrisy in him reporting on the topic whilst having one out himself. That he has recognised this himself and come forward is commendable and after the initial prurient sniggering his mistake will be largely forgotten as he joins the ever growing list of cheating public figures.
   The accusations that the use of super injunctions is tantamount to a rich man's privacy law are hard to ignore and can undermine any genuine use they may have when trivialised in this manner and equally worrying is that companies such as Trafigura can try to hide behind them to cover up any illegal behaviour. Claims that these are a hindrance to press freedom are correct but when the press are mainly bothered about reporting on the sex lives of footballers and minor celebrities then it is hard to see if it is worth the hassle especially as the phone tapping case has shown the lengths some journalists will go to for tittle tattle. Stories like Trafigura and Wikileaks show what good journalism can achieve when they are unshackled.
   Ironically as these minor celebrities take out super injunctions then that continues to add fuel to the fire as the public's interest is piqued as they try to guess who may be involved with social networking sites full of rumours concerning guesses as to their identity. If no legal framework had been put in place to prevent reporting on these stories then the papers would have reported it as a major scoop full of self righteous disgust only for the whole saga to have been forgotten about the following week.

With the debate on AV hotting up it is interesting to note the unusual alliances that are developing. We have a Coalition government with the Conservatives who want to keep first past the post and the Liberal Democrats who have entered into government for the chance to change the voting system which has been their bugbear for many a year. Aside from the Government not agreeing with itself Labour have allowed a free vote so that some MPs will vote yes and others no which to some may give the impression that the party is split over the matter. So far Ed Miliband has shared a stage with Charles Kennedy and today with Vince Cable in support of the Yes campaign while today the former Home Secretary Lord Reid was trying to persuade people to vote No with David Cameron.
   Ironically both the Conservatives and Labour use AV to elect their leader whilst the LibDems use STV and as was pointed out elsewhere if the former two parties used first past the post then David Davis would be Prime Minister and David Miliband the Leader of the Opposition.
   Personally I am inclined towards voting Yes despite this system not being much of a better alternative than first past the post as it does not guarantee more choice - the same candidates will appear on the ballot paper but instead of selecting who I want I now get to rank them in order of preference. I don't want to put any sort of mark against the likes of the BNP even if it is to put them bottom of the list and previous elections would have seen me grappling with whether my least favourite party from those listed was UKIP or Veritas.
Like many in my position who want a change to the system we will vote yes to AV because that is all that is on the table with the hope that once this becomes normal then a bolder reform may take place. However, I feel that a small turnout will see apathy win the day and the status quo  will continue as the public can't get excited about electoral reform.

Whilst I suppose on the face of it the Government's decision to pause with their NHS reforms as they seek further consultation and in the face of mounting opposition, which includes grassroots LibDems should be welcomed. The cynic in me, however, believes that they have announced this decision to placate the level of criticism but will introduce their reforms anyway in a couple of months when the fuss has died down. Probably introducing them on an incremental scale but without the big fanfare so that the general public are caught off guard.
   In terms of people demonstrating the curious case of the anti-debt rally seems rather futile. I understand that they are trying to be clever and stage a march to show support for the cuts in the wake of the large anti-cuts demonstrations and they are perfectly within their rights to do so but they do seem to have missed their mark. The smugness and snobbishness of the remarks from that camp don't help when dismissing half a million people on the streets of London as the loony left and having smelly armpits misses the impact of the ant-cuts movement which drew people from many walks of life. There are people from different parts of society who support the cuts but it would be equally easy to dismiss them all as well off, right wing and middle class who are not going to be seriously affected by the cuts. Comparisons to the Tea Party in the USA are nonsensical as apart from the current lack of vitriol they are supporting the Government. That is part of the fundamental problem with this movement, such as it is, in that you can not really protest in favour of something: "What do we want?" "The status quo actually". For this reason it is not too surprising to see that only 1600 people have registered which pales somewhat to the anti-cut demonstrators.
   The other smug point that particularly grated came from Mathew Sinclair of the ridiculously named Taxpayers Alliance when he stated that the tone is going to be very calm. A subtle besmirching of the movement for change by tarring them all with the same brush as the very small minority that caused trouble and suggesting that they were all rather nicer people and so no trouble would occur. As if right wing demonstrators had never caused trouble like Otis Ferry and some Countryside Alliance colleagues storming the House of Commons.
   Curiously after Charlie Gilmour's recent arrest there seems to be a pattern of the sons of 70s musicians getting into trouble.

Criticism of air strikes on Libya on financial grounds are misplaced as some things are more important than money and the use of a no fly zone should be decided purely on moral grounds. Whilst acknowledging that this is seldom the case the use of the financial argument does highlight the lie behind the need for the savage cuts when we are not quite so broke as the Government would like to make out. Indeed as suspected the deficit is purely an excuse for the Conservatives in particular to strip the state back as much as they can and hand over services to the private sector.
   After complaining about the price of the war only then do certain commentators make mention of similar situations where we have not intervened e.g. Bahrain, Saudi Arabia so for the benefit of Kelvin Mackenzie and any wannabee dictators the formula is quite simple. If you wish to rule your country in a tyrannical manner and oppress your people you need to ensure that you either have nothing of any worth in your country so that nobody will bother taking action against you, you are not in a strategic location geographically whereby access to your territory would be beneficial to another state or if this is not the case then to make sure you offer large rewards and incentives to other large nations so they fear overturning your rule would see the disappearance of such kickbacks. Another alternative would be build up your military prowess to frighten off possible invaders but in a way to suggest that you may lend your troops to aid in other wars.
   The polite and friendly despot will see him given freer reign to put down his people than the angry, rhetoric spouting ideologue who likes to fan the flames against all others. Such words may be enough to see him take power in the first place but they will not help him indefinitely no matter how safe he believes himself to be.

Budget Day. I don't know but I always feel a tingle of excitement before a budget as I wait to see how much more money will disappear from my pockets but after the headline statements I get bored and by the time the commentators are discussing how it is going to affect pensioners in Peterborough my eyes have sunk so far into my head I can see behind myself. This year the big talk was about the 1p cut in fuel duty as if we should be grateful for the scraps that George Osborne deigns to throw in our direction. As I need to fill my car every week and it now cost about £50 that should save me about 35p that I can reinvest elsewhere in the economy as I do my bit to stimulate growth.
   The whole fuel duty debate has left rather nasty taste in the mouth as it almost feels concocted between The Sun and the Tories whereby the former start a campaign and the latter "listen" and deliver so that the former can claim a victory and lets them think they are more important than they actually are and the Tories can kid themselves that they are being generous. In reality it makes very little difference and Osborne's claims that there is nothing in the kitty to dish out is all well and good and people do not necessarily want handouts but at the same time there is no mandate for slashing everything in sight and flogging the rest to the private sector whilst the richer elements of society remain relatively unaffected.

With the events in Japan and Libya dominating the current news agenda it may be easy for some to forget that things are still ongoing in other parts of the world. Specifically the news in the UK has been rather quiet, until recently, concerning the pro democracy demonstrations occurring in the Middle East. It almost felt like each country was taking its turn and after an initial flurry the protesters in Bahrain and Yemen had decided to go home and wait to see how the situation developed in Libya.
   Recent developments there as well as in Syria have though made the news where ironically Bahrain called in troops from neighbouring countries to quell unrest. Ironic as the Arab league sanctioned the UN to impose a no fly zone over Libya thus defending the protesters from Gaddafi on this occasion. In Yemen 46 protesters were killed when troops opened fire, but this may have been the catalyst that caused a a number of generals to switch sides and back the protesters. After sacking his cabinet in an attempt to placate those unhappy with his regime it may be drawing to the end of Ali Abdullah Saleh's reign as President and one only hopes no more blood is shed. Similarly the protests that have started in Syria follow the path of Tunisia and not Libya.

The Northallerton based estate agent Ian Bebbington was back tracking furiously on the local news last night over his description of a house on his books. http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/8914139.Agent_defends_house_advert/
Local residents took exception at the part where he claims the house suitable for being scruffy, discovering new smells and gazing at pond life. Claiming that he was running with the theme of the property having a large garden his explanation on Look North really felt like he was clutching at straws and he was making it up as he went along - in particular when running with his garden theme he said, referring to the pond life phrase "some gardens have ponds". He did not say that this particular house has a pond only that they are associated, which, if he was not being intentionally rude to the other residents by using a well known insult to describe certain undesirable elements of society, then he was guilty of false advertising. Certainly according to the details, which don't include the offending comments, the garden is described as large but only grass and make no mention of a pond. http://www.vebra.com/property/3535/22085591
   Still an esate agent not having a good relationship with the truth. Whatever next: disingenuous politicians, defecating bears.

Oh dear. Brian True-May should really have stopped digging when interviewed for the Radio Times. http://www.radiotimes.com/blogs/1215-midsomer-murders-producer-brian-true-may-no-ethnic-minorities-suspended/
It's bad enough that no ethnic characters have been included in Midsomer Murders in its 80 odd episodes but to them claim that the all white cast was because he wanted to keep the show English shows his ignorance of what is English. Claiming that the show was successful in appealing to a certain audience may well be the case but if that audience is the BNP or EDL does it need to be shown on prime time television.
One of the actors, Jason Hughes' comments were a bit clumsy when stating that the show would not have been any the worse if there was a black gardener in one episode. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12741847
I understand what he was trying to say in that there have not even been any ethnic background characters but it does sound like tokenism to have a black character portrayed as the manual labouring hired hand of a rich white person.
   It is quite staggering to think that out of 250 or so deaths not a single victim, perpetrator, witness or investigator was black. It would seem that Midomer was bucking the national trend for sending white people to jail when a disproportionate number of black people end up there. http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/oct/11/black-prison-population-increase-england

It might just be my impression but the rolling news coverage of the earthquake in Japan seemed to be trying to ramp up the tragedy even more than it already is as they pad out the programme. On the BBC News this morning they were interviewing somebody from the nuclear industry regarding the danger facing the nuclear reactors and the explosion at one. He was rather calm and not overly worried about the situation with the proviso that it was hard to establish the true nature of events in a country undergoing such difficulties from so far away. He was very measured and confident that some nightmare scenario was unlikely, with the relevant authorities handling the situation in the appropriate manner. You could almost see the disappointment in Nicholas Owen's face as the disaster turned out not to be as dramatic despite him actually mentioning Chernobyl to his guest.
   The ugly truth is that no matter what the horror, after repeating the same story on a loop every half an hour or so it becomes mundane without any new developments which is one of the main problems of rolling news. During times when such big news stories are not occurring then added gravitas is lent to minor items in an attempt to make them seem more important: a particular favourite being the time when the anchor detailed how French union members had started rioting whilst on strike and after crossing to the correspondent at the scene we were confronted by the horrific sight of an empty road with a burning tyre in it.
   To be honest it would be better for all concerned if they simply announced "There have been no further developments yet so go and have a cup of tea. Don't worry we'll give you a shout if anything happens."

Far too much deference is being awarded to Prince Andrew in the wake of the ongoing furore over his associates in his role as Trade Ambassador. It is not so much the fact that he has met and been friendly with people who we now view as undesirable - the nature of such a position means that such contacts are unavoidable - but that he has been very quiet on the topic himself. No regret that developments have shown that Saif Gaddafi and Jeffrey Epstein are probably not the best people to be associated with he has not yet publicly distanced himself away from them. It is embarrassing enough that he was on friendly terms with them but for government officials to show their support for fear of upsetting the Royals is equally embarrassing. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/mar/07/prince-andrew-david-cameron-full-confidence
   More embarrassing was to hear the Speaker shoot down Labour MP Chris Bryant for daring to ask questions about the affair in the House of Commons. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12604190
Just because he is Royal does not mean he is deserving of any more respect than anybody else and he is as accountable as any other citizen. If his behaviour is enough to warrant questions in the House then so be it: being a prince does not make him above the law and for the Speaker to dismiss such questions is tantamount to elitism and has no place in a democracy.

Certain commentators are getting themselves worked up over the latest EU ruling wishing to abolish the use of gender in insurance calculations. http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=MEMO/11/123&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en
The mention of EU no doubt sets alarm bells ringing in the heads of those obsessed that Europe are once again meddling in our affairs and upset that a perfectly respectable lady might see her premium increase at the benefit of some yobbish boy racer. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/article-1354051/Boy-racers-win-gender-insurance-shock.html
   Once again this misses the point that the way insurance companies calculate their premiums is biased by separating on gender grounds and the only major factors should be actual risk as opposed to perceived risk as well as value of item to be insured. The whole point of insurance is to spread the cost of replacing or repairing an item amongst the rest of the population but the companies have tried to second guess the markets and adding more on to the cost according to certain criteria. Currently one of these is gender whereby the price for men is higher as the statistics say that men are involved in more accidents. The trouble with these tactics is that people find it hard to argue with the facts but they do not say that every male driver is dangerous behind the wheel whereas every female is a safe driver. You can split the population into any set or group that you want and one will always come out better than the other in the statistics, but if the groups were split along racial lines then there would quite rightly be an outcry.
   The number of factors that these companies use are so numerous as to make the whole thing ridiculous - the one that I get stung on is mileage: their thinking is that as I spend more than an average amount of time on the road I am more likely to have an accident, whereas I would argue that I have spent more than an average amount of time on the road without having an accident so that makes me a safer driver. Every question that is asked is loaded with even the seemingly innocuous "Do you smoke?" counting against you if you answer yes. Back in the day when I did I questioned this to be told that if I tried to through a lit cigarette out of the car window and missed it could cause an accident as I tried to put out the back seat which was about to turn into an inferno. This indicated to me the level of speculation that they were prepared to go to and it was no surprise to hear of them keen on the idea of fitting monitors to cars to check the quality of roads that you were driving on.
   It is ridiculous to penalise a whole sub section of society by the actions of a few and despite the Daily Mail's protestations there are indeed girl racers as there are perfectly safe teenage boy drivers. The only thing that should count against an insuree is the number of claims made or points on licence which are an indication of that individual's ability. The only other things to consider should be the value of the vehicle and it's security. The problem is that there are so many insurers all trying to find an edge that these other factors are used to try to gain an advantage over each other. One thinks they have a new angle to identify risk and the rest soon follow leaving us all bombarded by lots of promotional post when the renewal is due and another group of people gain pariah status.

If history has taught us anything then the only possible outcomes for Colonel Gaddafi in Libya will not make pleasant reading for him.
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2011/02/201122641559301766.html
The longer he tries to hold on to power the worse he is going to make things for himself and despite the rhetoric he probably knows that himself but is to proud to give in and wants to down fighting like some kind of martyr. The problem is that he is killing his own people in the process, despite the official line which nobody believes: Libyans on the ground know what is happening and the rest of the World see a beleaguered leader resorting to any measure to fool others into thinking nothing is happening. Rumours last week that he had fled to Venezuela were unfounded but were probably the only chance he had of getting away with what he had done whilst sunning himself in South America, assets still intact. In such a scenario no one would have pursued him as it would look vindictive and the West don't want to appear to be interfering. Because of this fear he may still be able to sneak out the back door but with reduced foreign assets but the way things are playing out he is more likely to be overthrown and it remains to be seen whether he is killed in the process or arrested for War Crimes. The more he attacks his own people the more likely the former but if the UN get involved then that would make his arrest favourite although by then his supporters may have taken him into hiding.
   Death, jail or on the run - not great prospects for a World leader but then that is the price he will have to pay for not listening to his people.

Well of all the cheek! Prime Minister David Cameron today gave a speech to the National Assembly of Kuwait and he naturally commented on the demonstrations taking place around the Arab World. http://www.number10.gov.uk/news/speeches-and-transcripts/2011/02/prime-minister%e2%80%99s-speech-to-the-national-assembly-kuwait-60983
In the section headlined "Recent Developments" in the above transcript he describes the events as a "movement of the people" and:

This movement belongs to the frustrated Tunisian fruit seller who can’t take his product to market. And to the students in Cairo who can’t get a fair start, and the millions of Egyptians who live on $2 a day. In short, it belongs to the people who want to make something of their lives, and to have a voice.

So are we now to believe that he is in support of students demonstrating on the streets against a government who are denying them a fair start by e.g. introducing tuition fees of up to £9000. He then adds:

So whenever and wherever violence is used against peaceful demonstrators, we must not hesitate to condemn it.

That was why he was quick to point out unruly student behaviour during the December protests like rattling a Royal but does not explain his reticence to speak out against the violence suffered by protesters like Alfie Meadows http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-11967098 or for the police kettling tactics. Presumably he feels such demonstrations are only valid in non democratic countries and the citizens of this country should sit quietly every five years until we are kindly called upon to deliver our judgement. Unfortunately democracy is more than just voting and we as a people have the right to express our view, especially when confronted with policies that were not mentioned in the manifesto in the same year as the election took place. It is often mentioned that compromises need to be made as we have a Coalition government and no one won complete control but that makes it all the more important that we express our views as not one of the major parties produced a manifesto that pleased the majority of the public we are left with a government that picks and chooses its policies as it sees fit believing it has carte blanche to do as  it pleases. It is therefore important that we let them know when we are not happy either through petitions or peaceful demonstration and they have a responsibility to listen.

Well congratulations to the local news team who have excelled themselves yet again. As I was quickly flicking through the channels earlier BBC Look North was on at the time and they were discussing Professor Robert Winston's visit to the area to open a new complex at the University of Sunderland. http://www.sunderland.ac.uk/newsevents/news/news/index.php?nid=1121
So far so mundane but in an interview with the TV scientist himself the caption came up with his name and underneath to describe who he was there was written "Really bright person". Was the producer debating what of the myriad possibilities they could use to describe him. Perhaps one of his current posts such as the Professor of Science and Society at Imperial College was considered, or maybe they thought that his TV work should be acknowledged and say he was the presenter of e.g. "The Human Body". Possibly they might have even thought to title him as a Labour peer but after racking their brains could not make up their minds and settled for "Really bright person" as this wasn't vague in the slightest and the jokey tone in no way patronises him or the people of the North for whom the visit of an intelligent person is news in itself. It almost says "Well done Sunderland University for this new science thingy, just as well as you've got a really intelligent person to open it for you - if you ask nicely he might explain what it's for".

The speed of change taking place in the Arab world at the moment is reminiscent of the end of communism which saw a number of Eastern Bloc leaders relaxing their totalitarian stances and replacing their leaders in 1989. Fom Solidarity being legalized in April to the fall of the Berlin Wall in November and ultimately to Ceausescu's execution in December once the people saw what was possible with organized protests their neighbours took heart and followed suit. So far this pattern is all too familiar with demonstrations in Tunisia and Egypt forcing out Ben Ali and Mubarek respectively and people now taking to the streets in Yemen, Bahrain, Iran and Algeria.
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2011/02/2011215101053354193.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12463600
It is still early days yet and we have the rather strange sight of people overthrowing a politician and replacing him with the military in Egypt as no strong opposition was allowed but hopefully elections later in the year give people time to organize. Oddly enough the countries currently facing demonstrators have not reacted too well as they see which way the tide is turning with Iran in particular being heavy handed and now calling for opposition leaders to be executed. http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/02/15/uk-iran-opposition-mps-idUKTRE71E1N620110215
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/video/2011/feb/15/iran-opposition-protests-tehran-video
   Ironically Iran 's leaders were praising the popular uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt but are not so keen on the one taking place in their own country and are quick to blame opposition leaders and make claims that such protests are exactly what their dreaded enemies in the West, with the US and Israel coming in for especial criticism for a change, whilst ignoring the obvious fact that the thousands of people on the street don't seem to agree. For a long time leaders in the Middle East have claimed, with a certain amount of justification, that Western style democracy was not suitable for them and there was no appetite for it amongst their people so pressure from Western governments to introduce it was only fomenting resentment. The people are speaking now and whilst they may not want what the West wants they have made it clear that they do not want what they have at present either and denying them their voice now is hypocrisy just because you don't like what their saying.
   Reassuringly even after strong arm tactics from the authorities against the protesters they are continuing to come out and demonstrate, no doubt buoyed by recent events elsewhere and confident in their numbers. How long and determined they are in each country remains to be seen but having seeing change in other states they are not going to give up easily and the stronger the government attack them the more it may spur them on as the fear of reprisals would be a genuine concern knowing what the authorities are capable of.

This is really petty and I know others have complained previously but the BBC in depth weather map seems to be very biased to the South. Only being able to find the overview on their website I include this link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FzOGt-NlfLE

The south west seems particularly represented by towns with St. Ives, Newquay, Barnstaple, Falmouth, Plymouth, Taunton and Exeter all highlighted with 25 to 45 miles seperating many of these towns and cities. The area to the west of London appears to be well marked as High Wycombe, Basingstoke and Luton are all identified but in the north east the nearest town to Newcastle is over 60 miles away on the other side of the country in Carlisle and after that you have to go 90 miles out to reach Leeds and Scarborough. East Anglia curiously has King's Lynn, Cambridge, Ipswich and Colchester with the latter two only 19 miles apart yet does not mention Norwich. That, I think, is my main point: the selection of the towns seems quite random with no thought of having an approximate equidistance between them so that most areas have an urban centre to identify with or even just listing the most prominent major conurbations in terms of size or history. Aside from Norwich a number of other towns or cities have been omitted including Sheffield, York, Durham, Middlesbrough, Reading and Oxford. I appreciate that there is a limited amount of space but it is a bit southern heavy when the idea of putting them on is to see somewhere close to you to get a better gist of the weather in your area in which case why do Devon and Cornwall have three towns each wrote on the map but the entire north east only has Newcastle to get its bearings.
   I am fully aware of the slight tongue in cheek chip I have but it is not the only instance of the BBC (as much as I love the institution) not paying as much regard to the north. The fact that any news story that happened down south saw a report being filed by the relevant specialist correspondent had a similar story being filed by the"North of England Reporter". For instance if a school closed in Devizes then the Education Correspondent would provide the details, but if the school was in Sunderland then the North of England Reporter would get the gig. Similarly a stabbing in Margate would see the Crime Correspondent rush to the seen whereas the overworked North of England reporter would be clocking up the Green Shield stamps if a similar incident was reported in Manchester.
   Whilst a certain degree of metrocentricity is unavoidable it would be nice if the occasional non patronising acknowledgement that there is life outside the capital took place now and again.

A report for BBC Five Live has found that mephedrone is still freely available with some people able to buy it over the internet one year after it was banned. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12389321
Is this really so surprising? The majority of the suppliers are the drug dealers already trading in other illegal drugs but a bit of hunting around on forums can apparently allow you access to buy it online. This is not the fault of the internet, which many of these investigations seem to forget, it is only the market place and it is upto the authorities to police it better. There are many unsavoury things potentially at the end of a mouse click but actual criminal activity is generally hidden away, although foreign websites can add to the problem. Yet again with the latter, if a product is being sold legally in one country to another where it is banned then it still needs importing where it can be withheld if the authorities are aware of  the transaction.
   Underlying all this is that the knee jerk reaction to ban this chemical before all the test data on it has proved ineffective. Those who wish to take it can still access it but now it is likely to be more harmful as it gets cut with anything by the dealers. Some people would have been put off from using it but they have probably moved onto the next compound that will be marketed as a legal high until legislation catches up with that as well. Others may well have been attracted by something that they were initially wary of using until it was given Class B status when they may have thought that bracketing it with cannabis might mean it wasn't that dangerous after all.
   There are no easy solutions to drug policy but to say everything is dangerous don't touch will never work as long as people continue to take them and personally enjoy them without a bad experience. Labelling new compounds as drugs raises awareness and those so inclined will be curious to experience this new high. Perhaps if they were called poisons people would think twice but then as long as they are prepared to lick toads, smoke banana peel or whatever urban myths are doing the rounds at the time then probably not. The tragic cases of people dying when using drugs are relatively rare and users no this. They know heroin is dangerous and cannabis is comparatively safe and choose what they feel comfortable with for social purposes. Telling them that all drugs are bad gets no where as they won't change their lifestyle but a proper debate as to where these new chemicals fit in the scheme would be far more helpful than simply banning them with flimsy evidence.

In an astonishing fit of pique the think tank The Policy Exchange has claimed we should cut ties with the European Court of Human Rights because they are starting to dictate policy and they are obviously not keen on votes for prisoners. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12338931
   Whilst being interviewed their representative, Neil O'Brien, listed the various pros he could think of for such a move before stating that the only con was that it may mean withdrawing from the European Union but felt that this was unlikely. Seriously this is the only negative you could think of that such a drastic measure would have. How about eroding the human rights of every citizen of this country who would no longer have a higher court to appeal to once the established courts in this land had refused an appeal. The Strasbourg court have made a number of landmark decisions against the UK where the highest court in Britain was overturned. In Soering v UK (1989) the extradition of a German student to the US was prevented by the European Court as he possibly faced the death penalty. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soering_v_United_Kingdom
http://www.law-essays-uk.com/resources/revision-area/immigration-law/cases/soering-vs-united-kingdom.php
   Also in the case of Ireland v UK (1978) the UK was found guilty of inhumane treatment of prisoners after adopting the five techniques in Northern Ireland including sleep deprivation.
http://www.yourrights.org.uk/yourrights/the-human-rights-act/the-convention-rights/article-3-prohibition-on-torture.html
That is why a European wide court is necessary to keep national governments in check. You might not agree with all the decisions that are pronounced but they are not there to be popular similarly to most national laws and you can not pick and choose those that you don't like. I might declare that the law on theft was too autocratic and that I wished to opt out and follow my own moral code but as a member of society I must respect the rights of others within that society much as this nation must also respect the rights of other nations in the European Union (and everyone else).
   Incidentally how are these think tanks still existing? At a time when quangos are getting chopped down all over I would have thought paying a non governmental organization for policy advice when you have ministers for that sort of thing would come near the top of the waste pile rather than The Health Protection Agency or The UK Film Council.

Aside from the unpleasant views expressed by the EDL representative on Newsnight last night his argument showed a lack of logic which he failed to comprehend.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LeD5maZmAXg&feature=related
During his interview with Jeremy Paxman he started asking him whether he knew of any Muslims who had commented various crimes from drug dealing, paedophilia and murder before answering each question himself "You probably don't, but I do". His admission that others probably don't know of such criminal activity aside from himself and his prejudices highlights that such cases are very rare and that he has been very unlucky in his dealings with the Asian population or he's a bigot. The latter is the more likely especially given his brushing aside of Paxman's response to his claim of being worried by the presence of Muslims when Paxman said that people would be worried by his group claiming that they had a righteous cause. Just because you think you're right does not mean you are.

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

   This morning the Conservative MP for Sevenoaks was defending the Governments decision to sell of forests and before long he got round to the "Big Society" and how local people would do a better job of running their local forests than the Forestry Commission can which has been losing money in that cut-throat economic cauldron of looking after some trees. This would be the MP Michael Fallon who is so keen on local issues that he used to represent us in Darlington (despite being born in Scotland) http://www.michaelfallon.org.uk/?page_id=1171 before losing his seat to Alan Milburn in 1992. Did he bravely stand by the people who had elected him since 1983 and continue to take an active role in local politics until the chance to win the seat back in the subsequent election in 1997 presented itself? I think you know the answer already. Instead he opted to be parachuted into the safe Tory seat of Sevenoaks which he has held since 1997. A hypocritical politician, whatever next?

As votes go the decision by South Sudan to secede from the North is pretty conclusive.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/01/30/uk-sudan-referendum-idUKTRE70T0KW20110130
The figures for turnout and majority of 98% and 99% respectively are the sort of numbers one would expect to see for a phony election in a non democratic election and as such are so overwhelming as to be impossible to ignore. Such a one sided vote may make the split easier but there is a number of issues to deal with, and while the people of the south may be overjoyed at the result the issues to be resolved may flare up old tensions that lay behind the war. Whilst ethnic and religious differences can be resolved by separating the people in the two new countries, economic matters may not be as readily solved as the south has most of the oil and the north has the pipeline as well as South Sudan being more arable compared to the desert in the north.
   I heard somebody complaining that we were trying to impose our Western ideology and system of government in the area again after not learning from previous experience of Westerners attempts at "Civilisation" of Africa. The point that African politics was more tribal based and the notion of nations a concept we forced on them, and they don't like the idea of a centralised government in a capital potentially miles from where they live is a little too simplistic. Many people living outside of the capital city fell isolated from the political scene and tribalism is not limited to Africa. All of Europe consisted of tribes until over time they congregated together for a common purpose - often working together to defeat a common foe. The Roman Empire helped in uniting the many disparate tribes and those that did not comply were wiped out but even after it's fall most countries as we know them now were still a congregation of regions. Isolated as we are in the UK from the continent and thus having a common purpose amongst ourselves still saw Saxons, Angles and Celts fighting with each other in Wessex, Mercia, East Anglia and Northumbria until Alfred from Wessex gained dominion over the other areas. After Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland also joined the Union we are now at the stage where we seem to be looking to devolve back ourselves. Scotland has it's own Parliament and there are assemblies in Wales and Northern Ireland. There are calls for a referendum on Cornwall's Independence and regional assemblies have been mooted for the rest of England. This is because despite the advantages of being a larger state with an increased revenue and with greater numbers of people to call on we believe we have lost a sense of identity when in fact it probably never existed. Everybody seems obsessed with this idea of local identity as if their region is any more special than the one next door or the one at the other end of the country. We tell jokes about our near neighbours and look forward to the local derby match when we can jeer at the opposing fans who we presume to be less intelligent, miserly and less happy knowing full well that they think the same of us. In some cases these character types become self perpetuating so that the Yorkshireman who has been brought up to think he has to be forthright and careful with his money fulfills the stereotype and we tick the box and say "See I told you they were like that". However the thousands of others not from that county that also fit those personality traits don't matter as no one is monitoring their behaviour as well as the bad apples from Yorkshire who refuse to conform who will simply be ignored (not literally only nobody will think it worth commenting on them as in "Look at him keeping himself to himself as he gets his round in: how atypical of a Yorksireman).
   Anyway my point, if I actually had one, was that people in Africa are not so different, just at a different stage in their political evolution - and even then not so far: Splitting of countries is so 1990s (apart from Germany who had to go the other way just to be different). We've done tribalism, we've done nations and at the moment we're not quite sure what we want flirting both with devolution and integration into a bigger state (i.e. the European Union) at the same time. Sudan has voted to split and until the possible Independence day in July we can only hope that the process is as smooth as possible and that the name of the new country is something less prosaic than South Sudan.

The new initiative announced by the Works and Pensions Minister Chris Grayling to increase work experience schemes from two to eight weeks for 18 to 21 year olds does not sound like a great solution to youth unemployment despite the fanfare.
http://www.dwp.gov.uk/newsroom/press-releases/2011/jan-2011/dwp007-11.shtml

   Aside from the fact that the government cuts are helping to create youth unemployment as well as the knock on effect of having to work longer thus not freeing jobs up as soon as regular all this is doing is adding 6 weeks of experience in the same place to put on a CV. If an employer does not have a position for the person on works experience after two weeks then they are unlikely to have one after eight weeks bearing in mind that is not for those under 18 where they may have the time to work somewhere whilst studying but for those who in the main are looking for a permanent job.
   A worse case scenario could see it reduce the number of available jobs as an employer can take somebody on for two months without having to pay them and get them to do menial tasks rather than actually employing anyone. After there work experience has concluded the employer can then take another 18-21 year old on work experience. No doubt there will be occasions where it does help improve a CV and lead to future employment elsewhere, or in some rare cases at the same company but employers are not going to hire people just for the sake of it. This is not a job creation scheme and as long as the cuts continue to bite then unemployment will continue to rise creating a buyers market for firms free to offer posts with low pay and long hours.

David Cameron may try to brush away accusations of poor judgement in the light of Andy Coulson's resignation and pretend the whole thing is a nothing story by wishing him well in the future but hoping the story dies down does not make it so.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12251456

At best Coulson was ignorant of what was going on under his stewardship as editor of the News of the World and at worst he was involved in illegal phone hacking, neither of which attribute is to be commended in the Prime Minister's spokesmen. So Cameron has shown poor judgement when he hired someone who was stupid or crooked especially as all this is hardly a recent development and Cameron was well aware of the potential for scandal when he appointed him as Director of Communications.

For too long people have hidden behind religion to justify views counter to those of the majority or to the laws of the land but thankfully the ruling that the owners of a B & B, Mr and Mrs Bull, were wrong to turn away a gay couple from their premises shows that the courts are not always scared to question decisions when religion is mentioned.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-12214368

   The excuse that it was their property and they were entitled to dictate the rules therein is disingenuous as it does not give you the right to be discriminatory. If they were to claim that their religious views meant that guests must perform an animal sacrifice and the entrails examined to see if the omens were propitious to them being good guests there would be a public outcry. However, when they impose their beliefs on others to their detriment there does not seem to be as much of a fuss. A similar situation occurred when Christian groups that offered adoption services complained that they were uncomfortable arranging for gay couples to adopt children when the only consideration should be what is best for the child. If you are not comfortable with the rules of that profession you should not be working in that area. That may sound harsh in today's climate but I have my own set of moral guidelines that mean I would not seek work in certain environments, even if I were capable of doing them. So prostitution is out (I wouldn't earn much anyway) as is arms manufacturer, salesman (not pushy enough) and banker. As for the service sector I think you need to have a certain type of personality to deal with the public all day and I don't have it. Neither it seems do Mr & Mrs Bull who if they are prepared to open up their house to all and sundry must learn to be more tolerant.

The recent by-election in Oldham East and Saddleworth is a curious affair for a number of reasons starting with the courts overruling the General Election result and stripping Phil Woolas of his seat for his controversial election pamphlets. Ordinarily the party of government fares badly in these votes where there loss of vote from the general election result is used as some sort of referendum on their performance. In this case, however, we have two partied in government with the last MP a Labour member expelled for wrong doing - not a common circumstance. The public could have easily punished Labour for the dirty tactics of Woolas as comment on the Coalition. As it happened the Tories took a back seat to allow Labour's closest rivals, the Lib Dems a chance at winning the seat but as the Tory vote collapsed the Lib Dem vote stayed the same as borrowed Tory votes replaced those disenfranchised liberals who went back to Labour.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12191431

   In an interview the Tory MP Mark Pritchard (who has had a busy week after swearing at the Speaker http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12195973 ) seemed happy with the Conservatives not campaigning too heavily on the proviso that their Coalition partners reciprocated whenever a by-election occurred that the Tories were better placed to beat Labour. In seats with a three way split all bets were off apparently. This is assuming that voters who put their cross next to Lib Dem last time would vote Conservative. No doubt there will be a loyal group who will be happy to support the Coalition but if there share of the vote only stayed the same with Tory support it indicates that they are more likely to switch to Labour. Presumably Mr Pritchard and his colleagues are aware of this and are merely glossing over the poor showing that the Conservatives had by claiming it as a favour for their new friends. By-elections in this parliament could be more interesting than usual.

Aside from the case of Mark Stone / Kennedy appearing to have "gone native" as the undercover policeman found his sympathies changing as he allied himself with the environmental protesters he was supposed to be keeping under surveillance, it looks as if he was more of an agent provocateur.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12148753
Reports that he is not the only undercover operative in this area are staggering and must surely be a waste of resources given that he spent 7 years with the protesters until he was confronted by a group of people who can not seriously be considered a threat to society especially as his contribution was to give evidence supporting them.
   The strange thing about this case is some curious phrases by representatives on both sides that I heard on the radio. Firstly Andy Hayman was speaking to Victoria Derbyshire on radio Five Live in his capacity as a former Assistant Commissioner of the Met when as well as admitting that too many undercover operations would be a waste of resources made the astonishing claim that such operations as this one were valid as they were not only trying to collect evidence to prosecute somebody but also to prove innocence.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/console/b00xbf0n/Victoria_Derbyshire_10_01_2011

His interview occurs between 1hr 37 mins 25sec and 1hr 41mins 50 secs and is breathtaking that he believes we need undercover work to prove innocence in a country where we are presumed to be innocent already until proved guilty.

   Later on the same station the group's lawyer Mike Schwarz was talking to Gabby Logan when he was asked if he thought Stone/Kennedy had encouraged others to commit crimes and whilst he admitted that he had no first hand knowledge he believed he may well have done.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/console/b00xbf84/Gabby_Logan_10_01_2011

This interview occurs between 1hr 6mins 40secs and 1hr 10mins 50secs of this programme and the mentioned admission appears to contradict his statement on the affair:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jan/10/activism-climate-change?intcmp=239

In the above statement he claims that none of his clients were guilty of any crime yet by accusing Mark Kennedy of inciting others he implies that they did commit crimes. Presumably he was trying to have a dig at Kennedy, who had upset his clients, without thinking the implications of what he was saying through properly.

The polarizing nature of American politics at the moment has quickly shown itself as all sides seek to point fingers in the wake of the shooting of congresswomen Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson, Arizona.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12148761

As usually follows a tragedy people try to find someone or something to blame other than those directly responsible ie the gunman in this case. Whether it is death metal music, video nasties or Tea Party rhetoric we need to find society's bogeyman to unearth the underlying cause of why the tragedy occurred. None of these factors specifically told the gunman to pull the trigger and as of the moment his motives are unknown but to blame politics in general is slightly disingenuous when one of the victims was a nine year old girl who had probably not thought too much about who she would vote for when she was old enough. Saying that music and film are merely forms of entertainment whereas the Tea Party are a political organization who have hopes of power and as such owe a certain responsibility as to how they conduct themselves. One consequence may be that they calm down a bit, although the vitriol is such that this may only be for a short time, and it is interesting that Sarah Palin must have felt slightly guilty by taking down some of the more controversial messages from her website / Twitter account. If the crosshairs over Giffords' seat were not intended as gun sights why worry about taking them down now. What may cause them to calm down is the American public angered by this tragedy and making a link that is not necessarily there. Sick of the mudslinging and wanting to see serious politicians in office rather than attack dogs who can concentrate on forming policy instead of abusing the opposition, the public may decide that they will vote for the politician who conducts themselves like a politician and takes a more measured stance. I'll not hold my breath just yet.

I do not make any claims to be an expert in economics and in fact I find most talk of it boring as I have no interest in fiscal matters no matter how much it may affect my own pocket. However, even I can see that George Osborne is clutching desperately at straws to claim today's rise in VAT from 17.5% to 20% will help increase employment.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12110945

For all the pros and (more) cons of this policy his logic that  "it would "increase employment" because it would increase confidence that the government was tackling the budget deficit" just does not add up. Even if business leaders felt that they are now confident that the deficit was being controlled that does not then necessarily mean that they are going to start employing people. As it is most small businesses are using the recession to rationalize and save costs by reducing the workforce and freezing pay. This means that households have less money and with the VAT hike are less likely to buy anything other than essential. This could therefore see smaller retailers having to let staff go as their profits diminish creating a vicious circle. Rather than increasing the revenue gained from VAT if fewer purchases are made any increase from the higher rate may be negated by less items being sold. Such rates are always going to be a balancing act and economists better qualified than I will have differing views on the matter but the increased employment claim is fanciful but then the truth that "we're trying to raise some money and I thought I'd give this a go to see if it works" probably wouldn't play to well.