When do you use RPI to measure inflation and when do you use CPI? The answer is quite simply "whenever we feel like it!". In a response earlier this month to a petition to change the student loan interest rate from being linked to RPI to CPI to reflect the government's inflation figures, the Prime Minister's office has stated it has no intention to change a thing...in line with the general policy of taking in to account public opinion through the site.

I am fairly certain I've mentioned this before but thankfully the news has FINALLY picked up on this bullshit policy change by First Bristol that has hidden motives written all over it. This change is that when bus drivers don't have enough money on them to give you the change you are due, they can give you change tickets as they always have done, but now you can only redeem those at a travel store that are located in only two places in the City of Bristol.

It is often in the name of cultural integrity as well as social stability and national security that democratic reforms based on human rights are resisted by authoritarian governments. - Aung San Suu Kyi

Or, indeed, that reforms ignoring civil liberties and running contrary to the path we've been taking as a nation are so readily pondered by authoritarian governments. I do wonder how many more times I'll have to keep writing about the illiberal nature of the Home Office led by Jacqui Smith, it almost seems fantastical just how much one person can contemplate and implement in such a short time span. Today we are adding to the ever increasing list of authoritarian practice with the logical extension of where she is going with the current clampdown on under age drinking, as well as subtly not-quite-announcing plans for a what I can only satirically describe as a thought crime unit. (Heads up to Dizzy for that)

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...

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.

It was only three days ago that I discussed the recent news about electoral reform, the BBC's woefully inaccurate reporting of a document, and Michael Wills' statement to the effect of saying "we are happy to stay as we are". Now curiously there has been a separate news story surfacing today on the BBC website that pretty much breaks the same news again, but changes the way it is presented. Where has this come from?

My feelings on this remain the same, Michael Wills is a minister that doesn't bother to vote on parliamentary transparency yet has too loud a voice on this particular issue of the public/parliament relationship, and the whole statement is geared towards not implementing or properly discussing the necessary systems until after the next election. This is democracy at it's worst because the people are being denied a referendum on the issues on the basis of the current situation with the House of Lords, despite a referendum on the public's wishes not needing to be a promise to change straight away. What does the government have to lose by simply asking the people of Britain what they want, once and for all, to fully inform this debate they're supposedly so happy to have?

I am sitting here feeling pretty incensed after reading the news on the BBC news website about Labour , linked initially from Paul Linford's blog. Firstly because it is typical cowardly Labour who admit one thing in their government initiated report yet make some startling admissions about the "value" that they put on certain criteria in their practice, and secondly because it has spawned an absolutely piss-poor article from the BBC.

In the end the facts are simple. Labour hold between 48 and 96 seats more than they should based on public opinion, and despite there being working examples in our own union of PR systems working, not being too complicated, not reducing turn out, and making government more representative of the people this government is going to do whatever it can to keep hold of FPTP until it gets over the hurdle of what will be a messy general election between 2009 and 2010. It's despicable, it's an example of everything that's wrong with modern "democracy" and it is authoritarian bullshit that has to end as soon as possible.

There is not enough publicity given to consultations, and for as much talking as people like me make on subjects and issues in the blogosphere there aren't enough that actually engage with the processes available and try and do at least a little to influence the outcomes possible. You can see the current Home Office consultations here. If you want to check out a wider range of consultations you can see a linked list of government consultation sites here, just be aware you may need to click around on some sites to find consultations and *some* of the sites will make you want to commit suicide with poor navigation...you've been warned!