Unfortunately, I wasn’t at home when they first called, so they left a note with an officer’s name and a telephone number with my son. The shift details and the reason for their call was left blank. When he emailed me all this info, I rang the officer, but kept getting his voicemail. Five calls later, I decided to go into town and call at the police station. I admit, I toyed with the idea of a "you ain’t taking me alive, copper" scenario, but wisely thought better of it.

At the cop shop, they weren’t able to get hold of the officer in question despite him still being on duty and had no idea what the issue was. They said they would email him…

I spent last night checking to see all my relatives were okay, including my ex – but she wasn’t in a coma or anything either. So I went to bed worrying about it all.

I finally got hold of the officer at 8 this morning and we met up at my office fifteen minutes later.

In future I will make sure all my crimes are those that are legally catered for under the various finance acts. Lesson learned.

Did I miss something? Has the bank rate jumped? No? So how come they’re blaming the "increased cost of funding a mortgage." Are they paying the staff more? Perhaps it’s because the differential between the rate at which they borrow and the rate at which we borrow is at an all time high and they have gotten used to it so they want more? Or maybe they though "Sod it, everyone else is screwing them, why don’t we?" Or perhaps it was just to fund the massive executive pay rises that are in fashion just now?

Answers on a postcard. Don‘t forget the stamp… at 60p a pop.

Nick Clegg has sent a clear warning to his party that he is not prepared to put the Coalition at risk to force through reform of the House of Lords against opposition from Conservative sceptics. The Independent

He really is an arse. Is there anything he won’t abandon in his headlong pursuit of power? Those of us who have worked the doorsteps in countless elections know for fact that the Liberal Democrats are a principle-free-zone, a party that takes the term ubiquitous to a whole new level. Clegg has really stepped up to the plate though – he’s batting for a new record in jettisoning core party policies. Soon, the only thing to differentiate them from the Tories will be the colour of their ties. Ohhhh…

Official government figures show that 72% of those who earned £10m-plus in 2010/11 paid tax at a rate of 40%. 12% paid tax at 30%-plus; 8% paid at 20%-plus; 3% paid at least 10% and just 6% paid tax at less than 10%.

Looking at it from another perspective: over a quarter of those earning over £10million don’t pay enough tax.

These are, of course, interesting figures but they do not reveal what those earning £1m to £10m pay in tax, which seems to me to be the key area of interest.

Here’s how the team is selected:

• The RFU Championship Dream XV is selected by the coaching teams of the respective clubs in the division and is issued on behalf of the clubs.
• Coaches cannot vote for a player at their own club.
• Votes are awarded to players that the coaching teams think has performed best in his position.
• The player with most votes in his position is selected. In the event of a tie, the player with the most ‘second-choice’ votes in his position, or with votes in an alternative position, gets selected.

The team is:

1. MARK IRISH (BRISTOL RUGBY)

2. DAVE WARD (CORNISH PIRATES)

3. AARON LIFFCHAK (LONDON SCOTTISH)

4. ROY WINTERS (BRISTOL RUGBY)

5. IAN NIMMO (CORNISH PIRATES)

6. ROBIN COPELAND (ROTHERHAM TITANS)

7. JAMES MERRIMAN (BRISTOL RUGBY)

8. SEMISI TAULAVA (ROTHERHAM TITANS)

9. GAVIN CATTLE (CORNISH PIRATES)

10. GARRY LAW (ROTHERHAM TITANS)

11. JOSH BASSETT (BEDFORD BLUES)

12. JUAN PABLO SOCINO (NOTTINGHAM RUGBY)

13. IAIN THORNLEY (LEEDS CARNEGIE)

14. JACK TOVEY (BRISTOL RUGBY)

15. ROB COOK (CORNISH PIRATES)

This is the third season in a row Welsh have featured in the semi-finals of the extended Championship playoffs, so they must have something about them. It seems not, as far as the coaches of the Championship teams are concerned. Even the hapless London Scottish, who escaped relegation by the skin of their teeth after losing to Esher, have contrived to find a player good enough to feature, and at that most crucial of positions, Tighthead Prop, too.

So, why not Welsh? I’m not really sure, but one thing is certain, the ever lugubrious Lyn Jones has something to do with it. It’s probably because Welsh aren’t the best in any position: they’re a team of journeymen who somehow have bonded into an effective unit and if they go on to win the Championship, no-one will be more pleased than me.

I hope Cardiff’s Peter Thomas is watching and is able to swallow his pride. But I suspect we have more chance of seeing him tap dancing naked live on Big Brother than actually hiring the one coach Cardiff really, really need.

London Welsh’s success despite limited resources isn’t really a surprise. Wales’s most undervalued coach is at it again. He did it at Neath, he did it at the Ospreys and he’s doing it again. Richard Lyn Jones is doing what he’s always done: making silk purses.

Has Ed got it right? Can the man who the Conservative media are at great pains to paint as a poor leader be manoeuvring Labour into a winning position? Or are the Tories shooting themselves in the foot now, then hoping they can reap the benefits later? 

As of today Labour are ten points clear of the Conservatives now (following the ten point lead from ComRes yesterday, last night’s YouGov poll for the Sun has top line figures of CON 33%, LAB 43%, LDEM 9%. This is the first time Labour have managed a double point lead from YouGov since March last year) and I agree that’s probably little to do with the public perception of Ed, in fact it’s probably in spite of him.

The sound bites we get from PMQs often serve as the measure by which people judge politicians and that judgement is really a question of how you like your bread buttered. If you like the yah-boo stuff (and I accept that many people do) then Cameron is a clear winner, if you prefer solid, factual debate, then Ed is streets ahead. That allied to the perceived policy vacuum that is the current Labour Party and the unrelenting campaign of vilification in the press, has conjured an image of an ineffectual leader.

I disagree though, I think Ed is getting his strategy just about right by playing to his strengths. The people will see through a facade, so he would be wrong to try to position himself as a combatant in the Dormitory Bun Fight. He has to distinguish himself in other ways.

The question the Tories have to ask themselves is, if they are looking SO good, why are Labour moving ahead steadily? If you doubt that last statement, let me give you this to think about – of the last 20 polls by national polling organisations, Labour has made gains in 18 of them, the Tories gained in just 2. That’s now a trend.

So why are the Conservatives and Liberals being absolutely pummelled in the polls and can it be sustained?

There are lots of factors as to why Labour are moving ahead strongly, but the strategy being employed by the Conservatives of getting the bad news out of the way early on in Parliament is a well worn one. I think they call it "kick and run". They are hoping that a return to growth will fuel a wholesale return of voters to the Conservative Party and there are already signs already that weak growth has returned to the economy. So, perhaps their punt will show fruit.

The clever thing about this strategy is, I believe, Labour will gain nothing from pointing out that we have suffered unnecessarily and that our economy’s growth comes on the back of a stronger US economy, but there’s no harm in making that case, so I would anyway. It might chime with some of the more rational members of the electorate, but I also believe it is on other grounds that Labour will continue to dominate the polls.

The Conservatives are placing their bets on people forgetting that they have been instrumental in imposing a huge hike in taxation on ordinary people, while cutting it for the rich. I don’t think it will: the perception that the Tories are the party of the rich has taken root again and it will continue to grow, because they are. Losing the grey vote was a massive mistake as well. They are core Conservatives – people who are seeking to protect what they have – if I were Miliband I would have stated right from the outset that I would overturn the Granny Tax as soon as I returned to government, but I’m not doubting his timing, perhaps that will come later.

The coup de grace will be Labour putting forward an economic strategy that will make them credible and Miliband is right to keep his powder dry and just drop hints right now. Making noises about "Good capitalism" and "Bad capitalism" is already capturing the imagination (and News Corp has done nothing to dispel it with the latest revelations) – when he fleshes this out later in the Parliament, and make no mistake, he will, then people will have a clear vision of where Labour is positioned and where it is headed. The next election will be fought on fairness and common cause.

Labour is the party of everyone except the rich and while the latter are a formidable and cohesive force, they are numerically insignificant. Whether Labour will actually DO anything when in power is another matter and THAT is where the Conservatives can make hay. Ed has to clearly state what he is going to do, it has to chime with the collective British consciousness and then he has to go for it. One more failure to implement a programme of social fairness will do for the Labour Party for a generation and another opportunity will be lost, perhaps the last for Labour. Then we will have to open the question of Tory entryism into the Labour Party and that may cause a schism… again. The last one cost us three elections, the next one may cost us the Labour Party as we know it.

Ed cannot afford to fail to make Britain a fairer society, because the next Labour government may be the last if he does. Certainly, I would not blame the Trade Unions for seeking another avenue of expression, although I would fight against it, were the party to act against the common interest as it has done in government since the sixties. Drinking at the last chance saloon springs to mind. This is it, Ed. Get it right.

Update

Today, Ed will make a speech examining Osborne’s budget and will juxtapose the party funding scandal arguing the Conservatives have become the old Toxic Tories again.

To counter this is he will offer the electorate a credible set of measures in the form of a five point pledge to protect family budgets:

The five are:

1. stop the government’s raid on pensioners and block its £40,000 tax cut to 14,000 millionaires;
2. end rip-offs by capping fare increases;
3. force the energy firms to cut bills for 4 million over-75s;
4. stop excessive fees by banks and low-cost airlines;
5. and defend working families from the raid on their tax credits by reversing the government’s pension tax break for those earning more than £150,000 a year.

The Labour Party engine has restarted, it is fuelled up and soon they will be motoring.

So, what is the real reason behind this policy proposal? Well, the first is to play to the gallery, of course, without actually addressing the problem. Cameron likes to be seen as a man of action and the opinion in the Daily Mail and its ilk is always something high on his agenda. So, they – the Tories – present a policy that looks like it is doing something, but it isn’t really – because they do not really care if a load of working class yobs drink themselves stupid every weekend. They make noises about city centres being no-go areas on weekends, but what do they care? They’re off in the country consorting with their aristocratic and Nuevo-crim friends.

The other, and possibly the more salient reason, is revealed in the mechanism by which the Tories will enforce this. Is it a tax? No, it’s a price increase. So, nothing will be taken from this by the Exchequer that could be turned to useful purposes like alcohol education in schools. So, who will benefit from the price increase? Ultimately, it will be the supermarkets, or the brewers, who will see little in the way of reduced consumption, but will benefit substantially from competition being removed from one market segment with prices being held artificially high.

This is a government sanctioned cartel dressed up in a Public Health policy initiative. It’s brilliant: rip off Britain gets reinforced by the back door. Christ, it’s better than brilliant, it’s genius. We have moved on from stealth taxes which are then used to fund the profits of private businesses to Government directly forcing consumers to pay more than the market would normally sustain.

This is the world’s first stealth profit.

A dyro’th law, Myfanwy dirion I ddim ond dweud y gair "Ffarwél".

Last night, however, I had a little tantrum at an incident broadcast on ITV as part of their flagship political debate programme “The Agenda” (Monday 5th March 10:35pm), hosted by the affable Tom Bradby. The guests were Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg, broadcaster Mariella Frostrup, journalist Rachel Sylvester, and businessman Lord Digby Jones and the point at issue was a discussion about female representation in the Cabinet.

Frostrup made the perfectly reasonable point that there are more millionaires in the cabinet than women, but Digby Jones turned on her and demanded to know what was wrong with there being millionaires in the cabinet.  It was one of those car crash moments where a hardened debater meets a member of the chattering classes and completely cold cocks them. Frostrup was dumbstruck and Digby Jones smiled a smug, corpulent smile then pressed his attack. Again and again.

Why the normally intelligent and perceptive broadcaster didn’t just point out that his question was completely irrelevant because her point was not about millionaires being in the cabinet (although the desirability of that DOES have to be questioned), but rather it was about there being too few women, I really don’t know. The comparison isn’t necessarily an unreasonable one: millionaires are few in number as social groupings go, and there are lots and lots of women, but their representation in Parliament is ridiculously small. Women are the biggest single group in society, millionaires are one of the smallest, yet they make up the majority of the cabinet. This, to me, is a fair comparison and does not denigrate millionaires.

So, why didn’t Frostrup rip Digby Jones a new one? The answer is, of course, because she isn’t a seasoned debater and he is, because she isn’t a politician and he is. This calls into question the value of having “celebrities” mixing it with politicians and demonstrates the pointlessness of it all. Digby Jones’s intervention was fatuous, made absolutely no sense whatsoever and really only served to reinforce the position that rich, white males have a God-given right to make the rules and govern us with impunity.

The truth is, the cabinet is too male and too pale, but because Digby Jones was allowed to get away with his diversion of “what’s wrong with having millionaires in the cabinet?”, instead of addressing the central point “what’s right about having so few women in the cabinet?”, the casual viewer may well be left with the impression that the Digby Jones had made a telling point, which any deeper analysis would reveal he had not. What he had done is create a diversion, so he could present a practiced argument, by pretending Frostrup had said something she clearly hadn’t – this is known as a “Straw Man” argument, but the host and presenter didn’t pick it up.

This drives me nuts and is symptomatic of the shallow nature of TV political debate. In any sensible programme structure, the host would have stopped Digby Jones in his tracks once Frostrup had failed to do so and given him the rogering he so richly deserved for being irrelevant, but the ever so nice Bradby just smiled vacantly and let him get away with it. If they, meaning the programme makers, are going to set the bar this low, then they may as well go all the way and allow wholesale insults, because they are just as relevant as the point made by Digby Jones and thousands of pundits just like him across the spectrum of TV political debate.

Besides, wouldn’t it have been great if Frostrup had turned to him just said, “Shut it, fatty – you’re talking through your arse”? Well, no it wouldn’t, but I’m sure you get my point and while it might seem a small and petty point, it is one that is repeated endlessly throughout the political debates taking place across the world. The net effect is reasonable points are shouted down with irrelevancies, mostly because that’s the game TV plays. AND that is detrimental to democracy.

If you have a Google account of any kind, then the chances are they are recording your web history. You can delete this and "pause" recording of your history by going to:
https://www.google.com/history/
You can also change other settings related to your Google accounts here:
https://www.google.com/settings/
The privacy settings are here:
https://www.google.com/settings/privacy
You might want to go to
https://www.google.com/settings/general
and change those sites that are allowed to use your Google Login to supply you with customised "information".

Finally, you may want to browse this, just to check:

https://www.google.com/dashboard