For various reasons I'm currently not filled with the enthusiasm to write anything here. Nevertheless, something has finally warmed my blood up enough for me to put a little effort in. And that's the Bank of England, and the whining banking industry.

The best thing Labour ever did was giving the Bank of England independence. This should, in theory, allow the BoE to manage the economy, rather than pandering to the vote grabbing tendencies of our political establishment. Nevertheless, as soon as there's a crisis the government starts turning the screws for the BoE to start bailing people out. And this time they've folded.

For those in areas with less tea consumption per capita, a large lender, Northern Rock, recently got itself in the shite. This was it's own fault, and that of the banking industry - they made silly loans to try and make more money, and now no one knows who is credit worthy and so they won't lend to each other. Indeed, the interbank rate is now above the BoE's punitive lending rate, which is not a normal thing, and not particularly good for the markets.

The ECB folded very quickly, pumping money into the market to bring this down. The Federal Reserve dropped rates significantly recently to try and do the same. The BoE, despite political pressure, kept on course with the very sensible objection that if the banks, especially Northern Rock, were bailed then this would serve as encouragement for a repeat. After all, if you take risks you deserve the gains - and the losses, should it go wrong. And at least one of the upper management earned over £1.4 million last year - so there's little call for them to complain that they missed the gains.

However, after Northern Rock applied for (and received) emergency funding, consumers panicked and started withdrawing money. The banking industry blamed the BoE for the 'humiliation of their industry' and politicians accused the BoE of mismanagement. How hypocritical can you get?

So now the BoE is taking the heat, and inprudent consumers and bankers are getting a reprieve at the taxpayer's expense. In a free market economy risk is often rewarded with gain - but without the chance of failure the market will collapse, and the taxpayer will be the one who loses. In a time of widening income inequality, and with financial sector bonuses at obscene levels, how can it possibly be the taxpayer's responsibility to bail out those who (with full knowledge) placed high bets? So much for liberal economics.

We all love our stereotypes. Especially about crazy Americans who eat nothing but doughnuts, drive hummers and believe in bombing the rest of the world until it stops whining about the completely appropriate Guantamano.

 Then someone goes and demonstrates there are people who actually believe such things.

 There are mad people everywhere, but some are madder than others...

Apparently Japan will now teach patriotism in schools. Patriotism is a useful tool in politics: indeed, one would be pressed to think of a better tool. For when you invoke patriotism you invoke tribalism; you invoke the spectre of your enemies; you simplify and view subtleties in black and white; but worst of all, you stifle debate. Two plus two not only appears to be five, but those who question the logic become targets, despite their intent.

This misdirection, of course, is a superb tool for the suppression of thought. Immigration is often assaulted not due to its faults or merits, but because 'immigrants won't integrate and will destroy our way of life'¹. A removal of a contentious war memorial becomes an attack on Russia, rather than bitterness over the Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe. Western nations are accused of attacking Zimbawbe with neo-colonial intent, while the lack of food (let alone political freedom) remains unanswered. And when politicians are rewarded with power for dumbing down their ideals and appealing to our baser natures we should not be surprised to see the increasing authoritarian bent of western governments.

Of course, it's not just governments and politicians who are to blame. The Scientologists have proved their lack of moral sense with their attack on Panorama: a mediocre piece of journalism has been turned into a media event in which shrills appear on both sides, attacking the anti-religious BBC and the Bond-villain evil Scientologists in equal measure. They've also accomplished their purpose, ensuring that everyone is talking about the story rather than the methods of the organisation itself.

The problem that presents itself it how to surpass the call of patriotism: or, indeed, if we can. We all have our pet beliefs that we do not subject to the rational exposure we should. But we do seem somewhat hamstrung in a society where whole sections of belief are considered outside the bounds of polite conversation, or (more worryingly) rational debate. And when you have these taboos you cannot expect people to behave sensibly, let alone constructively, when they do find themselves in a situation with such topics on the table. As always, it would appear perhaps education is the only answer: in which case teaching patriotism would seem to be the polar opposite to the sensible course, no matter what your affiliations.

¹ Which is somewhat ironic in a country where the natives are infamous for setting up expatriate enclaves, save from the corrupting influence of foreigners.

² It is not a church in the UK. Small mercies.

The only way in which democracy can claim to represent the people is if the people (such a wonderful, vague term) participate and stay informed. And by God, is it frustrating sometimes.

Question Time, one of the better presentations of political debate on the BBC, was in Edinburgh last night. And this means they had the SNP on board - in particular, Alex Salmond, leader of the aforementioned party. The SNP have this wonderful platform that independence will fix all of Scotland's problems (with oil money), and unfortunately seem to equate popularism with policy. Funnily enough, Labour often make the same mistake. And since all the major parties are represented on Question Time any Scottish show tends to disintegrate into a tub-thumping session about independence.

Iraq doesn't help either. There is nothing that unites the audience more than a statement on how we shouldn't be in Iraq. And both the SNP (and the Liberal Democrats, to a lesser extent) enjoy playing this card too often. The problem is, of course, not their statement that we shouldn't be there, but the fact that they'd rather play to the crowd than debate the issues.

This can only make more voters cynical. Yet, politicians don't care - when Hardeep Singh Kohli criticised the politicians for such things the Labour peer Baron Foulkes responded by telling him to stand himself should he be so concerned. Arrogance and popularism: a wonderful mix.

But never mind, because this morning we have a new bogey-man: Muslims (yes, again). As per every lobbying group, the Muslim Council are trying to make schools pay special attention to the religious needs of Muslims. And yet who can blame them when the Labour government promotes academies run by Christian fundamentalists like Vardy? The real question should be why are we pandering to those who believe in fairy tales? No doubt the screaming tabloids will ignore such things, however.

Every so often the government decides to create some mega-database that will contain all the information they need from citizens (or subjects, in our case). Viewing this optimistically, it is for the best of reasons - you'll only need to update your information once and hence it will be more accurate, queries will be faster and you'll start to miss the chance to send your passport in on each and every application form.

However, once pessimism (and a knowledge of history) kicks in, one has doubts - how will this information be used? What happens if a mistake is made? Can it be swiped? Who will have access? No country is short of scandals involving the theft and misuse of such information or the joys resulting from errors.

But there is an answer: public key cryptography. That may sound like gobbledegook, but it's very simple, very useful and [hopefully] very secure.

Public key cryptography is based on each user having a private key, that remains accessible only to the owner and is further protected by a password or similar means, and a public key, which is disseminated far and wide. By finding the public key of a recipient, you can then use your private key to either sign (thus proving yourself as the source) or encrypt (and thus hide the document from all bar the recipient) a document for that recipient. This document can then be checked or decrypted by the recipient using their private key and your public key. This system is used for many online security systems, and for the famous PGP (and its open source cousin, GPG).

Say you have a download-able piece of software (via WebStart for instance). This is open-source, allowing third-parties to verify the contents (and build their own if they wish). You enter your details, and then select which agencies you wish to make them available to (say, the DWP or HMR&C) and what parts of your details you wish to make available (e.g. name and address to DWP, NI number to HMR&C). The software then uses your private key (on your local machine) to encrypt these data for the public key of the appropriate agencies, and uploads the encrypted files.

This approach leaves you in control of your data - you decide who sees it and what they see. The data in the government's hands is encrypted - only you and the nominated agencies can read it.

Of course, this doesn't deal with cross-agency interaction. One thought is that you remain the middleman - data is sent back to you and you may choose to make it available to the receiving agency. This leaves complete control in your hands, at the cost of having to review such transactions.

Further, we're still stuck with human nature. People will loose their keys (via buying new computers, formatting their hard disc, or just plain silliness), forget their passwords and generally make life harder for themselves. Plus, given the reputed strength of the given encryption, this would wall off a lot of data from law enforcement agencies, and regardless of any other considerations this would be unlikely to find favour with our current authoritarian mob.

Still, it's one approach to making something like this work for the populace, not against it.

Just when I think politicians cannot sink any lower, they do. With little fanfare, the proceedings being covered by the arrest of Ruth Turner, the Commons have been sending the Freedom of Information (Amendment) Bill to a second reading.

What is this perfidious amendment?

There's nothing like accountability, is there? If you're in the UK, why not let your MP know just what you think of this?

Tony Blair has no bollocks when it comes to foreign policy. He appears to have no wish to go where Washington fails to lead. Hence Britain's [rather miserable] reputation suffered yet further when he failed to condemn Israel's foolish assault on Lebanon, and he has been nicely pre-empted this week by both the rather deplorable Prescott and heir-in-anticipation Brown. Today, however, reports have surfaced that, even if he has no backbone, he knows when it's time to chime in.

Interestingly enough, the Iraqi government has chimed in and said it may review relations with any country condemning the execution. Proof that the Iraqi government has no grasp of realpolitik. One can only hope they cut relations with the UK.

Admittedly Brown does seem to be getting off to a good start. Everyone knows Blair's days are numbered, as he has but six months or so to go. And so Brown has pre-empted Cameron and started to formulate some idea of what his premiership may look like: somewhat ethereal, but more concrete that the sound-bites of Cameron. He does lose points for invoking the spectre of 'patriotism' however.

The problem is, of course, as Blair leaves in the shadow of Iraq, corruption and general incompetence, Brown is left tarnished by his 10 years of association and lack of experience in foreign policy. Can he re-establish Labour as a force worth voting for, especially given his lack of charisma? Perhaps a moot point, given the increasing lack of difference between the major parties.

It appears Jack Straw has made himself a pariah and the cause of all sin by daring to voice that he'd prefer if Muslim women removed their veil when talking to him. Note the qualifier - “preferred” - he has repeatedly stated that he in no way wishes to force this, and I'm sure few would disagree with the state having no right to dictate the dress of its citizens.

What's decidedly worrying is that he is under attack for voicing a view many share. Even the Muslim community is divided on this - the sane members are saying that they can see where he is coming from, while others say it is an attack on their culture. One could equally say that the veil is an attack on our culture and the significance of eye contact and facial expression within conversation. But at the end of the day the problem remains one of intolerance - the inability to tolerate discussion of differences, instead mandating that this be a line one cannot cross. Yet how can one have a tolerant multicultural society unless all constituents are able to debate without the fear of misguided emotional backlash?

This is also nicely embodied this week in the incident of a PC who asked to be transferred from his duties at the Israeli embassy due to their invasion of Lebanon. The press appear to have had a mostly irresponsible field day with this, blaming the Met for overwhelming political correctness and bowing to religious demands. Yet the PC in question only tabled a request, which happened to be granted - not once did he fail to carry out his duties and there's no indication he would have failed to do so had the request been refused - and the least any of us can ask is the chance to raise concerns about our duties when they may conflict with personal beliefs.

Or perhaps it's just been a slow news week and the tabloids and tub-thumping. In which case, shame on them.

Don Brash, the leader of NZ's centre-right National party (think Tories but more incompetent), has been attacked for stating that if Maori die of lung cancer it's essentially their own fault. The attacks demonstrate the biggest problem with the modern age: everyone wants their rights but have no concept of responsibility.

We see this all around, smoking just being one example. Anyone who has kept smoking for the last twenty years, while the evidence of the damage it causes has become ever more clear, has only themselves to blame if they die because of it. And why is California suing vehicle manufacturers because the middle classes think a 4x4 is suitable for driving in town?

There are some great examples here as well. The BBC had a clip of some chav from Tower Hamlets stating that the council should pay or otherwise reward people for recycling, as otherwise there was no reason for them to do it. What can you say other than selfish tit? No wonder the western world is considered decadent, if people can't be bothered picking between two bins for waste.

Perhaps a better idea is to remove the council tax charge for rubbish collection and instead charge for rubbish bags - that way, waste costs money, recycling is free and the biggest generators pay for it. Sounds good to me.

It's very fashionable these days to knock the Last Night of the Proms as a display of misplaced imperialistic nationalism. In these days following the decline and fall of the British Empire we are left without a clear view of the UK's place in the world, and a predictable reaction follows whenever something harkens back to those days when Britain happily threw its weight around and got away with it.

Now I'm no imperialist. Heaven forbid. I'm firmly in the 'nationalism is evil' camp, and am with Samuel Johnson in believing that patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel. This, however, is not to say I'm against a fun and waving the flag, as long as no one takes it seriously. And quite frankly no one has taken the Last Night seriously for decades.

I leave it as an exercise for those panicky souls who feel threatened to tell me just what is so bad about thousands of people picnicking in the park, dancing and singing with abandon, waving not just the Union Flag but those of England, Scotland, Ireland, Wales, Canada, NZ, Australia, France, Italy, Romania and God knows what else (one person was somewhat conspicuous with a Jolly Roger) and really just having a good time. Further, this is England - the abandon within was mirrored by the stiff upper lip without: flags were put away and everyone once more retreated behind that mask that is a necessity for life in over-populated London. Hardly a threat to the new liberal Britain.

And let us not forget that the Last Night this year was hardly a jingoistic fest of Britishness - the Albert Hall has a programme of Russian Music, Hyde Park has the theme from Pirates of the Caribbean and Lionel Richie, and Glasgow has mad Scotsmen imitated motorbikes with a trombone. In short, a fitting end to one of the world's greatest festivals of music. Long may it continue.