The new site for my ramblings can be found here
I hope you will continue to follow my posts by changing your feeds (although my Feedburner link remains the same)
I look forward to continuing our discussions.......
Simon
"What you call austerity, I might call efficiency"He was appearing in a carefully stage managed re-launch of his badly bruised coalition with his trusty Lib Dem deputy, Nick Clegg, at his side.
"I was shocked to see that some of the very wealthiest people in the country have organised their tax affairs - and to be fair it's within the tax laws - so that they were regularly paying virtually no income tax. And I don't think that's right."Of course, it has only recently become fashionable for politicians to question the morality of legal tax planning (avoidance) measures but it really does pose the question:
Yesterday was April Fool's Day when traditionally the papers publish a fake story to tease the reader over something that isn't real.
Having scoured the online editions, I thought I had found the BBC's attempt when I read that our coalition government, who spend so much time spouting on about 'The Big Society' are planning to resuscitate a policy which was buried by the previous Labour government - following severe opposition – advocating the state monitoring of our internet usage and email activity.
Sadly, it was a genuine article!
Of course, it's all because of those nasty terrorist people who cost us so much money and provide the perfect excuse for nosy intelligence agents to expand their remit.
Much of the opposition to the previous government's attempt to invade our privacy came from a smooth talking Conservative calling himself David Cameron (he has since changed his name to Prime Minister)
In 2009 he said:
"Today we are in danger of living in a control state. Every month over 1,000 surveillance operations are carried out. The tentacles of the state can even rifle through your bins for juicy information."
Of course, his coalition partners, the Lib Dems, were at the same time just as vocal in their opposition to the proposal, but have since been seduced by the spoils of political prostitution.
It seems bizarre that politicians have recently been raising merry hell over a few celebs being phone-tapped by a group of tacky journos, but are not demonstrating too much outrage at a government that wants to sift through the electronic equivalent of a dirty laundry basket.
A spokesperson for the Home Office tried to justify the government's new stance by saying:
"It is vital that police and security services are able to obtain communications data in certain circumstances to investigate serious crime and terrorism and to protect the public."
If I was a terrorist, or a criminal, I would be insulted by the assumption I was too stupid to use avoidance tactics or encryption when communicating with others. But, we all know that in reality it is about nothing more than controlling us all through the use of fear.
Conservative David Davis, who previously ran against Cameron for the Tory Party leadership summed it up thus:
It is not focusing on terrorists or on criminals, it is absolutely everybody,"
and he continued
"Historically governments have been kept out of our private lives. Our freedom and privacy has been protected by using the courts by saying 'If you want to intercept, if you want to look at something, fine, if it is a terrorist or a criminal go and ask a magistrate and you'll get your approval'. You shouldn't go beyond that in a decent, civilised society but that is what is being proposed."
It seems Cameron's speech writers inadvertently missed a word out of his 'Big Society' speech. It should have read 'Big Brother Society'
On the same day Dr Fox finally resigned his post in the cabinet, after realising the ‘sorry’ excuse didn’t work, another minister is forced to try the same tactic.
Oliver Letwin, a minister in the Cabinet Office was observed by the Daily Mirror, on at least five separate occasions, disposing of paperwork in the wastebins of St James Park which is nearby to Downing Street.
According to Letwin, the paperwork was not of a sensitive nature and only concerned correspondence from his constituents.
According to the Daily Mirror, whose jouralists retrieved the torn documents, he is being economical with the truth, and the documents referenced security matters, rendition, David Cameron and George Osborne.
A Downing Street spokesperson said:
“Clearly, it’s not a sensible way to dispose of documents. Mr Letwin has agreed he will not dispose of documents in this way again.”
Oliver Letwin has, predictably, activated the ‘sorry’ tactic in the hope of avoiding the inevitable questions concerning his lack of brainmatter.
Perhaps, though, now it has become common knowledge that government ministers frequent the public parks of London, their increased vulnerability to terrorist attacks will make them wish Letwin had been sorry earlier!
I’ve not posted on here for a long time and I just want to say ‘sorry’.
I don’t mean sorry in a genuine remorseful way but sorry in the sort of way that hopefully you will just accept I am sorry and forget to look any further into the reasoning for me being sorry in the first place.
When I was a child, I was taught by my parents that being sorry is something that is felt from within. It is a way of learning from mistakes by never making the same error again; it was normally about something I had never meant to do.
The sort of sorry I am displaying today, though, is the sorry I have learnt from watching politicians, celebrities and sportspersons (yes I am being politically correct - sorry) who apologise in public after being caught doing something they would rather have kept private and who wish to curtail any further questioning into their misdeeds.
The most recent victim of the ‘sorry’ bug is, of course, Dr Liam Fox who holds the government post (at least at the time of writing) of Secretary Of State For Defence.
He is facing questions over his personal and official relationship with a friend whom we are led to believe he met on numerous occasions during official visits over the past couple of years and in numerous cities around the world.
The friend was best man at Dr Fox’s wedding and has been present at meetings both in the Defence Ministry and abroad - despite the fact the friend has no official role or position in government.
Whichever way you look at the situation, Dr Fox is, at best, either guilty of complete naivety or abuse of the long standing ministerial code. Being a seasoned politician, it is hard to believe it is the former.
The question also arises of possible breaches to national security. What exactly has been discussed in the unauthorised presence of Dr Fox’s friend? Also, who paid the overseas travel and living expenses of said friend?
All legitimate questions which could have been easily answered but instead the minister decided to create a smokescreen relying on the old ‘sorry’ technique in the hope of demonstrating his public remorse to his colleagues in parliament and thereby saving his career.
Being a free democratic society, our members of the press have decided that ‘sorry’ in this case was not the hardest word and they have been digging even deeper hoping to uncover the ‘truth’.
Now we have questions concerning the government’s own complicity, for it is unlikely that no security or civil service eyebrows had been raised to stretching point over the unorthodox travelling companion of such a high ranking government minister.
Dr Fox is now forced to face the internal inquiry by senior civil servants who will report direct to the prime minister.
What is potentially much more embarrassing to all parties, however, is that investigative press hounds are seeking the answer to the most intriguing question of all: just how ‘best’ is the minister’s best man?
It seems there are now many others who could end up using the ‘s’ word over the next few weeks.
Perhaps they too, should have listened to their parents!!

The Work and Pensions Secretary, Iain Duncan Smith, has unveiled details of his plan for reform to the welfare system.
While he is correct that the present system is ridiculously complicated and needs simplifying, he is wrong in his assumption that most people want to stay in work indefinitely.
He claims that most people want to work up until, or past, the age of seventy when what we all really want is the choice to work beyond the present retirement age and not to be forced into a longer working life.
Of course, it is convenient for members of the government to take this view, as the longer we all work, the longer we are paying taxes and the longer they can delay paying out the pension. Mismanagement of the pension pot, the increase in our expected lifespan and the larger numbers of those of us who are eligible to claim, means there is a huge black hole in said pot.
Employers, though, do not want to be forced to keep people employed at an age when they are often not as productive as they once were. Healthy business needs new blood, with new ideas and enthusiasm. Most employers will, therefore, work around any legislation by finding loopholes like misdemeanors as a method of dismissing the aged employees. This will cause understandable friction and lack of trust in what were once loyal workforces and happy companies.
If people stay working for longer, the young remain unemployed - and often on benefits - for longer. The assumption there are jobs for all is totally flawed.
So, at one end of the equation we have people paying taxes for longer, while at the other, the government are paying out benefits for longer.
With a reduction in benefits also becoming part of the reforms, it is less costly to pay young people the benefit than it is to pay retired people the state pension. It is nothing more than spreadsheet politics.
Labour MP Stephen Pound summed it up by saying:
‘Forcing people to work on indefinitely condemns young unemployed people to the dole and destroys the life chances of older people who have spent 30 or 40 years working for a productive retirement – it is pretty cruel.’
and
‘Perhaps if you are a hedge fund manager you do not have the same level of exhaustion as a panel beater, but most people have had enough after 40-odd years.’
Well, I am neither of the above but I definitely know when I have had enough!!
“We should not stand aside while this dictator murders his own people”It seemed to be a rather strange and weak reasoning for entering into what could well escalate as a long and full blown military occupation, given that successive UK governments have been happy to ignore similar unsavoury behaviour from Robert Mugabe or China or Syria (the list goes on and on) for decades.
“I believe we should all be confident that what we are doing is in a just cause and in our nation’s interest.”I guess we'll have to wait to hear to whom the cause will be ‘just’ and exactly how it will be of direct interest to our country.
Yesterday’s paper had a good quote from Alastair Campbell which highlights the power of global communication in today’s world and its effect on the way governments and regimes control dissent:
“There are governments and leaders who continue to believe that they can shut down networks and keep dissent in its box. They can shut down websites, but they can’t shut them all and they can’t shut them forever, and nor can they silence all communication.”
The full article can be read on his blog here
I doubt there can be anyone who watched today’s events unfolding in Japan, who was not moved by the sheer scale of what they were witnessing,
It seemed unbelievable that an unstoppable ten metre high wall of water, caused by the earlier record breaking offshore earthquake (measuring 8.9) swept everything out of its path as it rolled across the shoreline. Cars, boats and even whole buildings were simply crushed and carried along by the Tsunami, as it drove ever onward across the land.
As I write this, it has been reported that at least 350 people are dead, a cruise ship is missing and two trains have been completely washed away. The final death toll can only be a guess, as many will probably never be found.
Perhaps, it is a timely reminder, to us all, that whichever religions we follow, however powerful our weapons or strong our armies, and whatever the political ambitions of the world’s feuding nations, we are not the ultimate controllers of our own destiny.
There is a much more powerful force at work than we can ever hope to invent. When it decides to demonstrate its power, we are all left helpless in its shadow.
My thoughts, this weekend, are with all those affected in Japan.