Parliament Vs Press Pissing Contest Continues.

The bald fact is that neither the press nor Parliament want a truly independent press watchdog which is the reason for the protracted pissing contest we've had over the past few weeks..

The press don't want to lose control over "their" watchdog and so wail an plead that a watchdog that is not in their pocket is an afront to age old and hard-won press freedom. They state that the Royal Commission will be filled with government stooges who will be controlled from Westminster.

Parliament say that the press need to be reigned in as they were out of control and their toothless watchdog didn't have any control of them. They say that the Royal Commission will be independent and will no be controlled by government.

Now both sides are both right and wrong in this matter.

A truly independent watchdog is what the press needs to control the excesses we've seen in the supposed phone hacking affair. Now, I've seen the gutter press at work on normal people: wrecking lives and intruding massively into affairs that should stay private, just for a second or third page saucy small-column headline. That's not good journalism.

That sort of behaviour needs to be moderated. By all means when people break the law, or when a politician does something that their constituents should be told about, then the press should get stuck in and make these things public.

BUT: a Royal Commission run by government lackeys and the usual old-boy's network is not the right vehicle to do it, nor are the heinous rules that say that a person can make a malicious claim against a news agency outside the Commission's "protection" and still get their legal costs paid for.

Our press needs something better, truly independent and free from influence from BOTH sides.

Government Energy Policy Starting to Backfire on Politicians

I'm currently a SSE customer and today I received a letter from the company advising me of the rise in energy prices.

Unusually, the letter lays the reasons for the rise firmly at the door of successive governments.

It says: "We've worked hard to keep prices at their current level and delay an increase for as long as possible, but unfortunately we will have to put your energy prices up on 15 November 2013. There are many reasons for this, including the rising cost of energy efficiency programmes, support for low-carbon energy and help for vulnerable customers. While we support the aims of these Government-sponsored initiatives, they do come with a cost. In addition, the need for investment means the cost of using the electricity and gas networks has increased, and the cost of the energy we bought for this coming winter is higher than it was from the same period last year."

Hmm, Drawing a line in the sand? This far an no further government meddling in energy company affairs? Pointing the finger squarely at the reason for price increases? Or just sour grapes that they're being made scapegoats?

All I will say is get yourself a portable heat source and some battery-powered lighting. Forewarned is forearmed and reading between the lines I see interesting times ahead as we get to see who eventually backs down. Expect the full arsenal of energy cuts to be enacted in support of the energy companies power play.

How the government reacts will be interesting given that their hands are tied by EU energy policy. Can they react, can they change policy, are they allowed by their EU masters?

It seems both ships are lashed firmly on a collision course. Batten down the hatches and brace for impact!

The End of the Minimum Wage?

So yesterday the Conservatives at conference suggested that the unemployed should work for their dole money or attend job centres all week.

So that means the end of the minimum wage, because why would firms pay the minimum wage when they can get someone for free, paid for by the government? Even if the firm the "unemployed" person was working for was contributing something, I assume it would be a whole lot less than the minimum wage.

Of course there will be caveats: the work will be short-term (of course the position will be long term, it'll just be the people doing it that will be employed on short-term contracts, which will entail much shuffling in and out of unemployed people), or something similar.