Finally in this trilogy of posts on the issue of poor and sometimes frightening governance by Labour, and in this case to a degree parliament as a governing body, I cover the now well trodden subject of MPs and just how much power the government should be giving them. In particular this post is spurred on by the recent news about bugging MPs, but stems from the wording of anti-terror legislation on several counts, the debacle over police pay and partly how the idea of electoral reform has been dealt with.

Let's first look at the most recent furore, that of bugging MPs...

Second of a trilogy of posts here today about Labour governance, I just want to assure anyone reading this that I am not inherently anti-Labour, just anti-pointless and stupid policy decision making. It just so happens that Labour are trumping the market on that kind of news recently. This particular subject is about the missing-the-point-by-a-mile talk by Alan Johnson about adding fluoride to our water system to improve dental health.

This isn't a tinfoil hat reaction, I don't really buy in to the idea that adding more of this kind of stuff will detriment our health and most evidence is to the contrary of that view. In fact I don't necessarily disagree with the proposals in question, I just wonder what the point of them is given the state of dentistry in this country

When is a Labour MP not a labour MP? When they're government ministers it seems, when they have to roll out Tory-esque policies every day to seemingly stay in the news. The drivel that pours out of our central leadership today being that Caroline Flint, housing minister, suggests that those not seeking employment should be evicted from council homes. Following in the vein of Hazel Blears she wants to introduce yet more contracts, the theme of this government seemingly being to legally enshrine the British public in to some kind of duty to the state (do they enjoy being called Stalinist I wonder?).

Dave Hill, over at his blog, has written a very insightful piece that delves into the heart of the ambiguity over what we define as "patriotism". Stemming from the news that academics suggest we start taking a critical approach to the subject when taught in History lessons. The idea is, simply, that you have to show that Britains past is at times morally corrupt and therefore why simply teaching kids to "love Britain" is wrong. Dave ends his very personal thoughts by suggesting that because there is a complexity in the debate that it should be discussed at schools. I don't disagree, but I don't think that is where the academics are really coming from.