MORE EU DRIVEL...

We're trying to keep out of this as much as we can, but nothing much else is happening and we don't want to bore you with more pictures of Munguin's garden (although we have gone some really interesting photographs from Bugger le Panda to come). 

So in the meantime we thought we'd just rejoice in the daftness of the Sun...

The Sun.  Today's UK Edition.

The Sun: Today's Scottish edition. 

The Sun's proprietor's views on Europe are more fashioned by his influence there (none) than by any concern for ordinary British or Scottish people's lives, and how these would be affected by either Leave or Remain.

It's interesting that once again the Sun takes a different view in Scotland from that which it takes in the UK. 

Above all The Sun likes to be on the winning side, and usually is. Then it can say, patronisingly aping its target readership, that it was "the Sun what done it"!

If it stays true to form, and its own polling isn't faulty, we can look forward to a Brexit in a couple of weeks time.

New adventures...Exciting times. 

**********

Shaun's North British News (the second last one) is up now...see side bar.

Don't miss it. It's hilarious.

THIS IS HOW IT WORKS!

OH JEREMY, WHAT HAVE YOU DONE NOW?

This week's cock up for the Tories seems to be centred on Jeremy Hunt, Culture Secretary, and his almost daily emails with the offices of News Corporation, while he (Mr Hunt) was acting in a quasi-judicial role, deciding on the future of the company's bid to purchase BskyB.


Interestingly, this work was originally the remit of the Business Secretary, Vince Cable, but was taken away from him when he made the catastrophic error of assuming that two young ladies who had come to his constituency surgery were who they said they were. You may remember that Vince, thinking himself a bit of a lad, and imagining that the girls were captivated by all the power he weilded, or perhaps even his sexy if somewhat ragged good looks, told them that he had 'declared war' on Mr Murdoch. The young ladies were, of course, undercover reporters and Vince's war led in the next day's Telegraph.


Cable should have lost his job over it, of course, but one presumes that the idea of Cable, a less than enthusiastic member of the coalition, on the outside of the tent, doing what people on the outside of the tent tend to do, was more that Cameron, and more particularly Clegg, could imagine being able to cope with! 


So Vince kept the Business role and poor old Jeremy got that part of the job that Vince had shown himself incapable of conducting in a responsible  unbiased way.


Hunt was already known to be a strong supporter of News International and the Murdochs, and his appointment to this role was one that a brighter prime minister might not have made. So what now of another minister, clearly not up to doing the job fairly, and too stupid to see that his bias was bound to be made public at some stage?


Gotta love the second photograph. It's Jeremy and that icon of culture Victoria Beckham at the Oscars or some other self congratulatory lovie bash, each trying to be weirder than the other... and both succeeding nicely.

CRUDIE DOES IT AGAIN!

This is Munguin's Republic's 1000th post, so I was looking around for something to write about... not so easy if you're bored with Granny Taxes, Bridie (Pasty) Taxes, Meeting Toffs Charges, lessons on how to create chaos from pretty much nothing (OK, our Francis really does deserve a special mention. The minister for crisis management... I ask you! There's a bit of irony for you. Did Cameron not bother to tell him he was supposed to "manage" OUT OF rather than IN TO crises?). 

Anyway, I was going to give up, then I noticed this little beauty on the BBC site. It's referenced back to the Sunday Times (behind a pay wall).

Peter Cruddas secretly taped making Tory Union claims

Now I thought that there was going to be an unexciting story about trades unions, but I reckoned it was worth a read... However, it's not about trades unions at all. It's about THE Union.

The gist of the story is that, our friend Mr Cruddas (who is turning out to be almost as accident prone, and as much of a liability as Great Uncle Francis), has been caught on camera letting the cat out of the bag about how the party REALLY feels about the Union.

And it appears that all this garbage from Cameron (looking back on which you might have said was a little dramatic and over acted...not to mention full of factual holes), was just that. Garbage.

They don't want to save the union, without which they would have a natural majority in the UK, London parliament. Not a bit of it. They want an end to it. they want to lose Scotland. But they must appear to want to fight for it, with, what was it Camergoon said... "everything I've got".

Mind you, in fairness he did also say he would fight for benefit caps, the NHS, the jet contracts, the British corner in the EU and to let Turkey join the EU, 'with everything he had'...so I hope he's got an awful lot, because it's gotta go a long way.

Anyway, so far the Tories have refused to say anything about this. They are presumably looking for someone who can come up with some excuse for 'the Crude one', for the second time in a week, after all he can't resign again! (Boy, Rupert must really hate him!).

On the other hand Ms Sturgeon has said: 

 "This is another bombshell for the Scottish Tories who are isolated and irrelevant in the games being played by their London bosses.

"It shows that senior Tories in London are cynically faking their opposition to independence to position themselves for a post independence deal.

"The Cruddas revelations show that they believe in nothing except protecting Westminster interests.

"Their claims about winning the referendum are exposed as mere bravado. In fact they are already preparing for losing."

BET YOUR BOTTOM DOLLAR THAT TOMORROW THERE'LL BE THE SUN

According to The Sun (on Friday) mr Rupert Murdoch went on Twitter personally (gasp) to announce that the Sun on Saturday will sell for 50p, as will the fantastic new news of the World, no what am I thinking of, Sun on Sunday.


So there. Two pieces of the finest journalism you'll see, and not a single mobile tapped either, all for a quid!


According to the newspaper, it's readers are almost going out of their minds with excitement. Reader Joseph2011 went on the website to say, "Absolutely great value weekends as well as weekdays", just as if he worked for a publicity company. And reader Gavin Dowdall observed, "50p, that's cheap!" Not to mention c73 who said, "Fantastic, and worth every penny; cannot wait", just as if somehow, mysteriously, he knew what was going to be in it. 


There are new columnists in the character of Terry Venables, for English football lovers, Lorraine Kelly for all us Scots Fowks, Alex James, for people who like cheese, and for those that like that sort of thing there is that sort of thing in abundance in the form of Jeremy Clarkson.

Alex James

Who could ask for more?


It remains to be seen whether the Sun will be coming out for independence. 


I was inclined to disagree with the Scottish Liberal leader when he said that Murdoch's endorsement was the last thing that any politician wants. 


Whether papers' opinions have any great sway with the public, I really don't know. There's the example of my home town  going back many many years, with The Courier, The Evening Telegraph, The Sunday Post and The Weekly News, (and the now defunct The People's Journal), all staunchly Tory, and heavily read in the Dundee area. And yet Dundonians virtually always returned a Labour council and Labour MPs. It's only in the recent past that that has changed, and even then, not to our newspapers' beloved Tories, but to the SNP!


The truth of the matter is, I think, that Murdoch likes to back winners. He sees independence as a winner and doesn't want to be on the wrong side. If his support doesn't do us any good, it certainly won't do us any harm.


As for Willie Rennie, I suspect that had The Scottish Sun on Sunday indicated that it was going to come out for him, he'd have been doing cartwheels all the way to wherever it is that Liberals cartwheel!

DAVID HAS MADE MR FORSYTH CROSS

The Daily Record has a none too flattering thumbnail of Michael Forsyth which goes as follows:

"MICHAEL Forsyth was the Tory government’s enforcer at the Scotland Office during the late 1980s and early 1990s.

"The MP for Stirling was Thatcher’s under-secretary of state before being made secretary of state by John Major.

"During his reign, the right-winger grabbed every chance to offend the natural instincts of Scots by bashing the public sector and attacking the most vulnerable in society.

"He left the Scottish Office in 1992 – and when he returned three years later, the Record portrayed him as Freddy Krueger in a nightmare comeback.

"He campaigned against the Scottish Parliament and lost every single Tory seat north of the border in 1997. He was knighted in 1997 and appointed to the Lords in 1999."

Just when people were managing to erase his image from their memories, Forsyth has recently re-emerged from the dusty recesses of the upper chamber in London, to do his inadequate best to frustrate discussions on further devolution or independence, despite the penultimate sentence in the profile, and against all the trends shown in opinion polls, including the Scottish general election.

And now, just to show how good for the independence cause Cameron's visit to Scotland last week was, he has come out with all guns blazing at his leader. Mr Cameron has "lit the touch paper for devolution-max". He says, probably quite rightly (Tris shakes head and pinches self...did I use 'Forsyth' and 'quite rightly' in the same article?), that he has given the First Minister the opportunity to push for more clarity about what he means.

It struck me, as soon as Cameron said it, that it was what all his followers must have dreaded. Unionists have been demanding that the SNP explain more about a wide range of situations after independence, not least defence, division of the horrific debt that the UK has stoked up, embassies, currency... Fair enough too. People need to know what they are voting FOR. 

Until now, they knew what they would get if they voted "no". Simply, more of the unpalatable same. Now, having said something along the lines of "If you vote no, we'll give you a little something extra; we're not going to tell you what. It could be fiscal independence, or it could be the right to increase the fines for late-back library books", Cameron has put the boot on the other foot. 

Forsyth also pointed out that Cameron's "promise" of some jam tomorrow (even without the indication of how much jam) had left their Scottish leader on the back foot. She campaigned for the leadership of the Tory's Scottish branch, and won, on a ticket that after the passage of the Scotland Bill, there was to be a line in the sand. No more devolution, ever. Cameron in his Flashman at his best way, has driven a coach and six through her leadership pledge. She either has to go back on that, or disagree with her London boss.

But why would Cameron care?

Incidentally, it's a thought that, if Scotland became independent, Forsyth would lose his seat in the House of lords. He might or might not be able to retain his many titles "RT Hon", "Sir", "Lord", but how utterly meaningless would they be if he was unable to take part in his beloved London debates? And a further though, having backed all the wrong horses, failed at being Scottish Secretary, lost every single Scottish Tory seat, why in the name of goodness was this man knighted and then ennobled? 

And politicians object to industry rewarding failure?!?!?

*****

I'm obliged (as I so often am) to CH bringing Murdoch's tweet to my attention. It seems the Dirty Digger (as Private Eye calls him) says that  Scotland and England would be better off apart. He also thinks that Salmond is the best politician in the UK. Now in the normal run of things no one would be in the least interested what an octogenarian Aussi-American thinks about this, but the fact that he owns and controls (even more now) the best selling Scottish newspaper, makes for an altogether different box of chocolates. 

Willie Rennie is wrong to say that an endorsement from Murdoch is the last thing a politician wants right now. The Scottish Sun still sells more copies than any other newspaper (314,000 to the Record's 275,000) and the Times, (another 20,000). Only a fool would think that The Scottish Sun had ceased to have huge influence, whatever its problems with phone hacking. And with a new Sunday Sun, that influence is set to stretch itself over 7 days.  I suspect that if Rupert Murdoch had come out for the Scottish Liberals, Mr Rennie would have been Waltzing Matilda!

IN WHICH ANDY IS IN TROUBLE, RBS INVESTS IN BOMBS AND TRIS REFLECTS ON UNFAIRNESS

Well now, it's not any surprise to me that Andy Coulson decided to resign as spin doctor to the prime minister. How could he have thought he would get away with such blatant lies to Cameron, the police, parliament, the public...? And what about James Murdoch and Rebekah Brooks, not to mention old Rupert ? They must all have lied through their teeth too.

And finally, what of Cameron? There's a choice of what may have happened... Firstly, he colluded with his dear friends Rebekah and Andy, and he knew all along... Or perhaps he is such a fool that he can be taken in by someone at an interview for a job at the heart of English and UK government, and he didn't bother to get MI5 to check out the truth, because he;'s a friend... Perhaps worse still he agreed to employ Coulson if Rupert agreed that "The Sun" would back the Tories for government, and him for prime minister.

In any case, he must now reflect on whether or not he considers himself a suitable person for the job of prime minister. Then he should ask to see the Queen, and resign.

**********

Cluster bombs are evil. They fall like little bomblets from the sky, scattering as they do. They land in trees, on the ground, on fences, in ditches, everywhere in fact. Many don't explode at the time they are dropped. In fact many don't explode until long after... after the war for which they were intended is long over. The saddest thing is that over 30% of the victims are children, who think that they are toys, and 60% are civilians. Small they might be, but deadly they most surely are.

It came as some surprise to me, seeing that I hate them with such passion, that I am a shareholder in a company that lends money to manufacturers of these evil weapons. Financing them is illegal in 108 countries, including the UK. However, there is a loophole that investment can be made in a company which manufactures them, as long as the money is not specifically for their production.

The Independent reports that an investigation by Dutch arms experts into how financial institutions continue to invest in the industry has revealed that the virtually state-owned RBS is the UK's worst offender. Saved by the public purse after its collapse during the credit crisis, taxpayers now own 83% of the bank. But that has not stopped it from investing hundreds of millions of pounds in the arms trade.

I am utterly disgusted.

**********

Inflation is at 5%, although under the government's preferred measure it is only 4.4% (you bet they. prefer it). Wage increases are running at an all time low. Another power company, Npower, has announced price increases of 16% and 7% for gas and electricity; train fares are set to increase by between 3 and 8 percentage points above inflation (in England, but that will affect the cross border services); food inflation is nearer 10% than 5; there are fears that this winter will be as harsh, if not harsher, than last and pensioners are having their winter fuel allowance cut (despite a specific promise that this would NOT happen).

People who took part in the London riots and those elsewhere in England are being imprisoned for as little as stealing a bottle of water. One man has been given 6 months in prison for water worth £3. A Scottish MP who stole tens of thousands of pounds of OUR money and was suspected of stealing a great deal more, served 4 months in prison.

What's the betting there will be more riots ere long?

**********

STOP PRESS:

I thought you guys might like this, from the Express. Another U-turn, it seems...

By Ann Widdecombe

I ADMIT to hooting with mirth when I read in the weekend press that David Cameron now faces difficulties reversing the hunting ban because the new breed of MPs whom he brought in through the A list and at the expense of the old guard whom he despises are actually anti-hunting.

Poetic justice was never more pleasing.

From the earths of a thousand woods you can hear the foxes laughing.

Tally, ho, ho, ho, ho

**********

IS THIS THE BEGINNING OF THE END FOR CAMERON?

David Cameron has made some errors of judgement since coming to power just over a year ago.

A coalition of his right of centre party with a left of centre party may have been the first, for, although it seems not to have hurt him in the country, he has made some dangerous enemies inside his party. From there on in he has U-turned himself into something resembling a corkscrew on health, welfare, law and order, crime and punishment, the environment, finance, the EU, the “respect” agenda, and on and on... so much so that whilst those of us who are of a different political colour have not known whether to laugh or cry, followers have found themselves with an easier choice and a bill for Kleenex!

I’ve always said that Cameron had no substance; that he owed his success to a mixture of wealth (and the clout that that brings), a distant familial relationship with royals (and the clout that that brings) and his natural ability as a PR man. He lacks depth and intellectual vigour and his upbringing has left him with as much idea of what goes on in the head of Monsieur Tout le Monde as I have of the passing thoughts of the Sultan of Brunei.

But perhaps the most important example of his lack of judgement has been in his choice of friends.

Every prime minister, it appears, has to make some sort of respectful concession to one of the country’s most powerful men, News International’s (NI) Rupert (I have a file on everyone) Murdoch, but David, because he could, decided to go farther.

Not only did he court friendship with Rebekah Wade-Brookes, inviting her to dinner, and dining at her home while her organisation was in the midst of negotiations to acquire BSkyB, over which the business and later culture secretary had the final say, but he insisted on employing, as press secretary, her disgraced colleague, Andy Coulson, who had resigned from NI over the scandal of phone hacking minor royals. “I believe”, he said, “in giving people a second chance”.

I wouldn’t have touched him with a tarry pole. He was damaged goods, and either he lied through his teeth to get the job, or Cameron believed that with the police in the pockets of NI, all would be well. The people at the top would look after each other, as they always had.

But bit by bit the stitching came apart. More and more people reported their phones had been tapped. This time “celebrities”, then politicians...then Coulson resigned, leaving us to suppose that the worst was yet to come.
As come it has. Victims of crime have been hacked; police inquiries into murder have been hampered; police have been in the pay of NI, and the person who signed the cheques was Cameron’s boy Andy (Second Chance) Coulson.

The last I read was that phones of soldiers killed in action may have been hacked. Just how much lower is there to go?

Mr Cameron is associated closely with the people at the top of an organisation which knew these things were going on no matter how hard they try to act as if they didn’t, despite everyone expressing “shock and horror”; Rebekah, David and even Rupert.

So, were all these people naive, gullible fools who just sometimes wondered where all these fabulous stories were coming from? Or are they hard hitting million/billionaires, who knew but didn’t care?

And are David Cameron and his premiership forever tainted by association with them? Indeed is it time to look for a prime minister with a little substance?

MORE RANDOM RAMBLINGS

* Am I the only one who thought that the Times headline the other day was wrong. EVERY ONE IN FIVE.... YOUNG ARE OUT OF WORK. The second part of the headline is approximate (and I can’t check it because it’s behind a pay wall), but it’s the first part that concerned me. It should surely read “ONE IN EVERY FIVE........” To think it used to be a newspaper of record!

* The Metropolitan police are the most incompetent lot, aren’t they? They seem to get precious little right. Now English high court has ruled that the way in which they kettled people during the G20 demonstrations in April 2009, was illegal. The court heard that police used mass detention against peaceful protesters, and that officers punched faces, slapped and hit out with shields as they tried to move a demonstration against climate change. It has opened up the possibility that up to 5000 people may sue the police for wrongful detention. Damned right. People were kept for hours with nothing to eat and no toilet facilities crushed up against one another. I hope to never see that kind of tactic used in Edinburgh. I don’t know what happened to England’s much acclaimed free speech. The fault of course was of the management. Well no surprise there. I wonder where Commander Dick was that day. Looking for a room maybe?

* MPs have reacted with anger at a 16% cut in the BBC World Service. They say that as the BBC is undergoing only a 10% cut (I didn’t notice a 10% cut in my licence fee), it is unfair that the Foreign Office-funded World Service is being penalised. They say that the BBC is used to promote British values around the world. So that got me thinking. What are British values? Are there such things? Are values different in Scotland from in England, what about Irish and Welsh, or for that matter Cornish, Manx, Jerseyman or Guernseyman values? Are British (or any part thereof) values different from say Danish ones? The things that go through my head. Answers on a post card to the usual address with the usual prize going to the usual winner.

* Annabel Goldie was a million miles better than Tavish in her interview with Gordon Brewer, and a fair amount of what she said made sense. Why keep 14 year olds who will learn nothing more at school distracting other people who want to do well, and making teachers’ lives hell.

But Brewer didn’t ask her what she proposed to do with them, or what it would cost. You can't just let them vegetate in bed.

And although I believe absolutely in free education, I could see some sense in Annabel’s argument for graduate tax. But again Brewer missed a chance. Annabel says that everyone knows that there is a black hole in the finances, and she will use the graduate tax to fill it. But the tax won’t start trickling in for 4 years, and then pretty slowly. How will she fund universities till then? And how much will it cost for the Treasury to collect it, as we can’t tax.

And wouldn’t a tax (as opposed to a loan) encourage people to go abroad after we have educated them?

I wonder how Gray will be tonight. How will he explain the 150,000 jobs out of thin air trick he’s going to pull off? Iain Dumblegray, Scotland’s greatest wizard. Not.

* Does anyone agree with me that it might be a good idea for the government to sing from the same hymn sheet? Headlines this evening have changed from “Cable attacks Cameron”, to “Cable agrees with Cameron”. Perhaps there should be a quick meeting of top advisors at the same time as Cabinet each week with each department giving a list of the speeches its ministers are going to make, so that if there is to be a major policy disagreement it can be thrashed out before they look like a bunch of unruly kids, not after.

* Would it not be best for the News of the World to come clean now? It all looked good for a while; the Metropolitan police hadn’t really investigated and long sighs were being heaved.

But there are too many “important” people among the victims; too many with clout in the right places. It is bound to come out in the end.

In the meantime, I’d say John Prescott is bang on the nail. No matter how many dinners the Prime Minister rather stupidly has with Murdoch’s son, and no matter how unprofessional Vince Cable is, there is no way that the BskyB deal can go ahead while this is hanging over our Rupert. I’m not suggesting any impropriety you understand... but it is going to look like dodgy deal.

PHONE HACKING IS SO 2010

No, don't worry, Rupert hasn't taken us over, yet.

The phone hacking scandal isn’t going away anytime soon.

That is one of the messages from this programme (which I think can only be seen in the UK).

I’d recommend you watch this if you can find the time. The unpalatable truth it uncovers, not just on the News of the World or indeed, News International, but a wide range of other organisations, including the police and the prime minister, is worth knowing.

It seems, as Munguin’s Republic has been saying for some time, that there are far too many people who are scared of Rupert Murdoch. People didn’t like to admit it, indeed Alistair Campbell denied it, but big John Prescott admitted that they were very wary of taking on the Sun or the News of the World. On all four occasions when MPs on the Cross Bench Media group asked Rebekah Wade (senior manager of NI) to testify before them, she declined. An option to ask the Serjeant at Arms to issue a warrant for her was dismissed because (it is alleged) they were afraid that their personal lives would be put under the microscope by the paper.

The police certainly seem dislike investigating any accusations levelled against News International and the programme looks at the reasons behind this. Could it be that they fear over cautious scrutiny of their personal affairs? Or could it be that Murdoch has the power to offer a career change? Certainly the officer in charge of the original enquiries into phone hacking which saw a royal correspondent and a freelance detective imprisoned, and was then dropped for supposed lack of evidence, now strangely works as a columnist for a Murdoch newspaper. A well paying, and relatively easy job (after all Coleen Rooney can do it). And him just a simple bobby!

Cameron’s judgment must come into question. Why did he employ Coulson? The NoTW editor was hands on to the point of micro management, but didn’t know his journalists were phone tapping? He was also accused of bullying his staff at the paper, and yet he was employed by Cameron at the very heart of government. Did Cameron ask any questions about his part in the phone tapping? After all he resigned over it. Did he ask about the bullying? If so, did Coulson lie, or did Cameron just take him on anyway? Or did Rupert make it a condition of his support. Was it the Sun what done it?

We also have to doubt the wisdom of the prime minister while his government was discussing the News International deal with BskyB, having dinner with Rebekah Wade, and passing it off as a meeting with a constituent (which she is), but neglecting to admit that James Murdoch (who is not) was also at the dinner. As Ms Wade is married, it’s unlikely that he was only there as a partner on a constituency matter. In any case, does the prime minister have the time to have dinner with all his constituents?

He should have been anywhere but near either of them while these matters were being examined.

The final part on this story looks to the future in the tabloid world. Phone hacking is now ‘stone age’ (and in any case most celebrities are wise to it anyway), but to replace it we now have wifi hacking where a journalist will hack into the wifi systems in, say, an hotel lobby where meetings are going on. (S)he will then feed spyware into the computers of the users in the lobby and be able to hack into documents, downloads, emails etc....

It’s worrying. And because the government and the police are afraid of the press, it’s not about to stop.

One cheering note. It appears with the information that is coming to light, that friend Coulson may have lied at the trial of Tommy Sheridan, as a result of which, he may be joining the tan man in the pokey in the not too distant future.

Pics: You can't really blame them. He is, after all scary! Bet that suit cost more than my house!! Dave "over my shoulder go 500 cares" Cameron. Rebekah sweetie, be careful with that phone. Maybe someone will play you at your own game. Wouldn't it just be the jam on the toast if someone wiped the supercilious grin off this one's face by putting him in the same cell as Tommy?

STICK TO 'STRICTLY' FROM NOW ON, WOULD BE MY ADVICE TO VINCE

Coalition government can be a good thing in my opinion. It can offer a more considered, thought out and less dogmatic approach to governance. But normally the parties involved have at least some policies in common, and have overall objectives broadly similar in direction of travel.

Having a centre left and a centre right party together in coalition was always going to be a risky business.

There have been problems from day one...well almost. Within a week of setting out on the journey to govern, one of the senior ministers, a Liberal, was forced to resign over financial irregularities in his expense claims. It was said that some Conservatives who had their hearts set on ministerial salaries were very unhappy about the number of Liberal Democrats in government. There has been anger too that Dave seemed to fold his tent at a hint of disapproval from Big Nick. In particular it is thought that Ken Clarke’s sentencing policies have their roots in lefty Liberals notions (given that it was a Tory pledge to jail people for having a knife, even if it was only to spread jam on croissants!)

On the other hand some very big guns in the Liberals have been less than happy with the way that their pledges to students up and down England have been ripped up because “of the economic situation”, so Nick says, but everyone knows it’s because Big Dave says so.

There have along the way been some very unhappy groans coming from backbenchers in both parties. The Tories had to be placated with promises that Dave would personally do something about the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, proving that good though education at Eton is reputed to be; they surely don’t cover the meaning of the word “independent”.

Nick has from very early on been trying to persuade the Liberals to embrace government, not seeming to notice that there are a lot of Liberals who aren’t actually IN government, and that comfy car and big office that he enjoys, is well...what HE enjoys. The drop to 9% in opinion polls has been hard to explain away.

And so to today. Everyone knows the story so only the briefest of recap here... Vince Cable meets two young giggly mothers in his constituency; they ask about child benefit payments and then use their womanly charms to get him to explain his take on the coalition (already rumoured to be less than favourable). Vince begins thinking like his evil twin Vice Cable and spills how he really feels, bragging that he could bring the government down if he walked... and that he is at war with Rupert Murdoch, who just happens to have a case before the Business Secretary (that’s you Vinny) to do with the takeover of BskyB. Ewwwwwwwww.

Now I’ve always been of the mind that silly little mistakes are no reason to sack a minister. There are so precious few with even the remotest hint of talent that it seems a shame to lose them because they couldn’t keep their trousers up or their skirts down... but when a minister is so openly stupid as to advertise his vendetta in a professional and quasi-legal matter over which he has ultimate power, to two people whom he has never seen before and who, of course, aren’t quite as stupid and giggly as they seemed, being in fact broadsheet reporters... then it’s time for that minister to pack up and go, voluntarily or otherwise.

And yet Vince is still in post tonight.

WHAT?

PRICES AND INFLATION WILL RISE AS VAT GOES UP IN JANUARY

"No Sire, I promise, there will be no increase on Duchy Originals. No one could possibly consider them a luxury unless they were a registered sadist." Prince Chick enjoys a cup of tea, while wee Osborne is only allowed a glass of water and the guy at the back stifles a yawn.

So from January 4, VAT is set to rise from 17.5% to 20%. It will push up prices of a wide range of goods and services.

There are some things which are VAT exempt such as most food items, books, newspapers, magazines and children’s clothes.

But the increase will apply to items which the government considers to be luxuries; for example chocolates, ice cream, biscuits, etc.


Of course, when the last government reduced VAT in order to try to stimulate the economy by reducing prices, we all laughed at them. It was, we said, a matter of a few pence here and a few pence there. A t-shirt from Primark came down 6p; one from Next by 15p. A pair of shoes was maybe 40p cheaper. Even on big items the price difference was small enough not to make a huge difference. If you were going to spend £1000 on a tv, the saving was only around £20. Not much on that level of expenditure. It certainly wasn’t going to persuade you that, yes, after all you could afford it.

It’s the same kind of rise. A few pence here and there added to the price of ordinary items and even with big items, it’s not an earth shattering amount. Even a car which was priced at £15,000 will now have a price tag of £15,300.

However, in as much as the last government maintained (and was backed by figures) that the VAT reduction stimulated the economy, the VAT reduction will serve the opposite purpose.

The government reckons that the move will bring in around £13 billion... and that’s money that will now not be used to purchase other goods, keeping other stores and businesses alive. Another downer is that there will be an upward effect on inflation.

Of course if you go to France you’ll find VAT is already around the same percentage at 19.5% and in Germany it is at 19%. In some of the more prosperous countries of the Union VAT is far higher. However, it should be remembered that in different countries, different levels of other taxes may make up for this for example income tax starting at a far higher level or charged at a smaller percentage.

One question I have always wished to know the answer to is: there are items here which are exempt for the tax: essential foods and children’s clothes I can understand. What I do not understand is why books, newspapers, and magazines are VAT free.

It’s not that Mr Murdoch wouldn’t like it, is it?