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.