Almost from day one with the Bernie Ecclestone affair we’ve seen just how much lip service was paid to that grand ideal. What we’re seeing and reading about in recent weeks though just about beggars belief. Maybe as all these MPs and government Ministers are telling us, they are all claiming expenses entirely within the rules. Well maybe they are, but that merely brings home the point that the rules need changing.

No, what is really wrong with all this is that they just don’t understand why the public are so incensed. The latest to trot out this claptrap is Geoff Hoon.

Yes Geoff, of course you  may be entitled to claim the sorts of expenses you are, but isn’t there just a tiny bit of your conscience which says, ‘hang on a bit, is it acceptable for me to be claiming expenses for a second constituency home, whilst renting out the home in London that I’ve registered with the authorities as my main home, and all the time living in a taxpayer funded grace and favour home in Admiralty House?

Doesn’t that strike you as just a little bit unreasonable and wrong?

At first glance, and as a libertarian, perhaps I too should be against it. What right has the governnment after all to intervene in a straightforward commercial arrangement between citizens and publicans or shops. And yet I’m not – against it that is.

More often than not issues are rarely black and white and there is always a balance to be struck. This is no exception. For once the government has been given a lead and opportunity to do something which would benefit society in general, but as so often Gordon Brown seems to have a blind spot. Critics, and I even heard Ken Clark on the BBC Question Time program, describe the suggestion as a tax. It is nothing of the sort. No revenue would accrue to the government, it is simply a measure to impose a minimum selling price.

Critics also seem to miss the point that for the large majority of people it would have no impact. A normal strength pint of beer contains about two units of alcohol and would have to be sold for a minimum of £1. In a pub I guess the current average is probably £2.50. The measure is clearly aimed at the binge drinker and the supermarkets who are selling high strength lagers at loss leader prices.

If the anti-competitive nature of the supermarkets’ loss leaders were curtailed, it might also assist in slowing down or even hopefully stopping the trend of closures for the traditional British pub. A double bonus in my opinion.

Maybe, just maybe, people will now begin to recognise the insidious nature of all CCTV, and the implications for civil society in the breakdown of the relationship between the citizen and the state.

Factor in that many banks are effectively nationalised, and one must seriously question the competence of this goverment. If we’re going to have nationalisation why are the government allowing this?

It’s largely irresponsible borrowing that’s put us in this mess, why are we encouraging even more of this?

Where’s the equity in any of this?
Yet again in my lifetime has a Labour administration managed to screw up the economy so comprehensively.

Thanks for nothing Gordon.

Surely in these enlightened times no employer permits drinking in the work place do they?

At a time when it’s clear to just about anyone with half a brain, that the present problems stem from excessive borrowing, this wonderful government of ours is doing all it can to promote yet more borrowing in a vain attempt to kick start the economy. In the process of course slashing interest rates which is having an exceedingly detrimental effect on those of us who rely on savings to at least keep pace with inflation.

So what’s to be done? I have this half formed plan.

The idea is that if a large enough group of us could act in concert with our savings, then we just might be able to make the government sit up and take notice. Particularly so since the UK banking industry is all but nationalised. Suppose a few thousand of us made it known to the government that unless it came up with some system for compensating savers with better interest rates, then we would take concerted action. Next month we’d all transfer our savings to Bank A, and then the month after move them all out to Bank B. Each month putting them somewhere different, going round in a complete circle if needs be. The idea being to create uncertainty about the level of deposits in any one institution at any one time. This would presumably hamper decision making and reduce the levels of lending the banks could commit to.

As I say it’s a germ of an idea I have, and I wonder if there are any readers out there who would wish to comment and suggest just how we might organise this.

Even if you just read this and don’t wish to comment, perhaps you would pass it on to other friends, colleagues and acquaintances. If I detect a sufficiently large ground swell of opinion, I’d be prepared to move it on to the next level and see where we get to.

Over to you…..

C’est la vie.

Not only that but instead of tendering their bank card once the last item has been blipped through, they waste time continuing with the packing process, and only when the last item is safely in their bag or trolley do they start the process of fumbling for their card or cash. Don’t they realise that the payment process can be taking place in parallel with the packing process, thus saving time and the frustration of others in the queue behind them?

And no, it’s not just because it’s Christmas and queues are longer than normal. It’s something I’ve observed over the years at all times.

By playing hardball and refusing to accept the Lisbon Treaty, uniquely among all the member states they have been bought off, and seem to have secured for themselves the right to retain their own Commissioner (amongst other bribes). The majority of the other states, who have signed the Treaty which reduces the number of Commissioners, will presumably therefore not have a Commissioner whilst Ireland is guaranteed one.

I see trouble ahead.