This Government has come up with some ludicrous ideas in its short tenure at the helm but surely nothing tops Iain Duncan Smith’s bizarre notion that wealthy pensioners might voluntarily return benefits they do not require? "It is up to them, if they don’t want it, to hand it back," Smith told The Sunday Telegraph while urging its readers to return their bus passes and winter fuel allowances and pay for their TV licences. I find this idea - and the blatant lack of thought that has gone into it - utterly staggering.

First of all there is the process to consider: Take, for example, the winter fuel payment. This benefit, available to all British pensioners across the EC, is administered by the pensions side of the already woefully understaffed Department for Work and Pensions, whose staff will, presumably, be expected to process its return, taking them yet further away from what one might be forgiven for believing is their real job; that of actually serving the multitudes of pensioners in genuine need. Forms will need to be drafted and printed. Pensioners will not be able to simply stick a cheque in an envelope, address it to G Osborne and send it to 11 Downing Street. With no research to indicate even roughly how many pensioners would be willing to return their payments there is a very real possibility that the administration will cost more than the figure recouped.

Then there is the small matter regarding exactly who will feel wealthy enough to repay their money. A large number of people who were in their 30s in the 1980s, and prospered handsomely under Thatcher’s money-grabbing culture of greed and self-fulfillment, will now be retired. Many of them are grateful to Thatcher for their wealth, showing their appreciation all over the BBC recently when she finally departed this mortal coil and repaying her by becoming lifelong Tories. They see nothing wrong with the values that made them their money and that they still hold dear - and why should they? Can we really expect these people, who were repeatedly told that there is no such thing as society, to suddenly develop a social conscience, or be able to make the marginally self-sacrificial decision that they have accumulated enough wealth already? Can they really be expected to discard their take, take, take attitudes and senses of entitlement, thus undoing everything that Mother Thatcher taught them and that put them in the comfortable positions they now superciliously occupy?

There is not enough money in the national coffers; of that there is no doubt. But for a Tory politician it is better to break this inevitably vote-losing news slowly, over 20 years, to today’s 40-somethings so that we can at least mentally prepare ourselves for our inevitable poverty in retirement, rather than lose the votes of wealthy pensioners now by taking away benefits they feel entitled to and have looked forward to, but do not actually need. And of course, this news must be broken in such a manner that it appears they still believe we will, one day, actually be able to retire.

Iain Duncan Smith told The Sunday Telegraph there is "no indication of change" to the current system. While Nigel Farage nips like an irksome Chihuahua at the heels of the Tories, could it be that IDS is fully aware of the consequences of telling today’s pensioners they will not be entitled to the same benefits their parents enjoyed?

I am not suggesting there are no pensioners in Britain who would be willing to return their OAP benefits on the basis that they do not need them. Indeed, I know at least two retirees who already give their winter fuel allowance to charity and have done for several years, one of them after trying, to no avail, to refuse it in the first place. I would like to think there are many more like them. But neither of these people have ever voted for the Conservative Party in their lives and - I can say with absolute certainty - will never do so.

David Cameron loves nothing more than following up the standard Tory rhetoric of robbing from the poor to protect the rich with soundbites to the media about ‘difficult decisions’. Oddly he never outright says; "look, let's be clear here; we really didn’t want to do this but we had no choice," but he likes to imply they have agonised over something that everyone knows is basic Tory policy. To make these pensioner benefits means tested would undoubtedly lose the Conservatives valuable votes. So instead, Iain Duncan Smith, the former leader of a party that scoffed at Greece’s ‘voluntary tax’ system, is effectively asking those who did not vote for him - socialists no less - to take responsibility for his Government’s right-wing failings by voluntarily returning their pensioner benefits to save this coalition from actually having to make a difficult decision for the first time in their administration. Like I said; staggering.

 Ask yourself this simple question: How many of your friends, colleagues and/or employees are criminals? Use your fingers to count them if needs be. Unless you indulge in crime yourself it is unlikely you will need both hands. Now discount the ones who have never been - and are unlikely to ever be - in jail, and those whose convictions are minor and do not involve victims, deception, fraud or collusion. Chances are you no longer even need one hand - unless of course you are near, or at, the top of politics.

With Chris Huhne and Vicky Pryce facing sentencing today, one might reasonably imagine that the self-styled Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg, would want to publically distance himself from them. But this is to overlook his boss’s willingness to employ Andy Coulson after he resigned from his position as News of the World editor in 2007 following the conviction of one of his charges for illegal phone-hacking, or Cameron’s equally crass cavorting with the multi-arrested, husband-beating Rebekah Brooks, herself awaiting trial on numerous, serious charges.

Indeed, rather than distance himself from Huhne, Clegg has spent the weekend telling anyone who would listen what an ‘effective and outstanding’ politician the proven and self-confessed liar Chris Huhne is. Putting aside the cost to the public purse of the disgraced former MP’s dishonesty (more than £100,000 so far, the cost of his incarceration still to come) it does not take a genius to work out the values Nick Clegg - no doubt influenced by his boss - holds dear to his heart.

As children our parents warn us about hanging around with the naughty kids at school. Our judgement may not be totally sound and we may find ourselves attracted to the thrill of doing what we know to be wrong or encouraging our peers in their pursuit of rule-breaking. But when we mature we are expected to be able to recognise and act upon the lessons and counsel of our youth and make stable judgements for ourselves. How can it be then that we are genuinely expected to elect to office politicians with zero credibility, who clearly have no concept of right and wrong? How are these people still allowed to stand?

For years now -–whenever America is not dominating our news, that is - the standard theme in British news reports has been a massive lack of trust from institutions in authority and commerce towards the people. In 1995 the DNA register was established and it has now accrued the DNA of just shy of 6 million individuals. These days the hysterical calls for the register to include every citizen in the country are given a lesser platform, but we may be able to attribute that to the advent of a much easier method for monitoring the nation.

Recent news items have seen the Government unveil the Data Communications Bill; a bill which, if passed, will extend the range of data that telecoms firms will have to store for up to 12 months. This will include details of messages sent on social media, webmail, internet voice calls, gaming, emails and phone calls and is hailed as being ‘for our own protection’ yet it is inarguably the actions of a paranoid administration that trusts nobody.

The same day the Government also announced plans to allow more whiplash claims to be challenged in small claims courts. Currently it can be cheaper for insurance companies - without doubt the greatest ever perpetrators of legal theft  - to accept ‘questionable’ claims but this new legislation will change that, thus making bookmakers more reputable than insurance brokers - and certainly better value.

When one half of a relationship becomes erroneously paranoid that their other half is cheating on them it is not uncommon to discover that their paranoia stems from their own infidelities: I’m cheating on her so it stands to reason she’s probably cheating on me. While judging others by one's own standards is not always the best option it is also not a new phenomenon, showing no signs of abatement and apparent in all areas of life, never more so than now.

Today the news is full of revelations of lies: The detective who lied about Andrew Mitchell’s language; the question of why Mitchell did not accuse him of lying at the time; what the BBC knew and didn't know about Jimmy Savile and Lord McAlpine; the 23-year Hillsborough cover-up; Cameron’s cavorting with Rebekah Brooks and his fox-hunting pals.

It is pretty obvious what is happening here. Corruption breeds paranoia. It is not us, the electorate, that cannot be trusted, yet we are paying the price for the Government and the police judging us by their own standards. Corruption is rife within authority in the UK and the only method authority has of covering it up is to deflect it back onto us, which can only stem from the question they presumably genuinely ask themselves: “How could anyone not be corrupt?”

The expenses scandal laid bare how politicians screw their own benefits system - and surely continue to. This accounts for their unswerving belief that the unemployed are screwing theirs. The police lie to cover their sorry arses, therefore rendering themselves unable to believe that the public do not do the same. Nobody trusts anybody. Insurance companies don't trust the people, the people don’t trust the politicians, the politicians don’t trust the police, the police don’t trust the media, the media don’t trust the politicians, hell even the politicians don’t trust the politicians. In fact, the politicians don't trust anyone. Surely the more people you don't trust the less trustworthy you are yourself? Oh what a tangled web we weave.

Interestingly when it comes to tax avoidance we might assume that politicians' tax affairs are in order since it does not occur to them to enforce taxation on their peers, even when it is made crystal clear that tax responsibilities are not being met. But I digress.

Whether it is government, police or just large corporations meting out the distrust, it is obvious that we are viewed as an ever-more deceitful and dishonest  society. Psychologists talk about the self-fulfilling prophecy; the phenomenon that sees a person erroneously and continually labelled in a certain way until, eventually, it is easier - almost natural - for that person to take on the qualities they stand accused of. Hey, welcome to the Big Society.

Following the suicide of Jacintha Saldanha, the nurse who fell victim to a hoax call from the Australian radio station 2Day FM, I can’t help thinking the subsequent outrage, particularly in light of the recent Leveson enquiry, is totally misdirected.

Hoax calls from radio stations are nothing new. Enter the term in a You Tube search and it will yield thousands of results from all over the world. Hoax calls have been making people laugh/cringe for many years and will continue to do so for many more to come. That the victim of one chooses to commit suicide is as rare as it is tragic but a well-executed prank call can be very funny to even the most miserable of men.

When 2Day FM played their prank call on air -–without the permission of those involved it would appear -–nobody was particularly surprised or, I should imagine, particularly impressed. The call lacked any real humour and -–aside from the obvious breach of confidentiality - was newsworthy only because the accents of the DJs impersonating the Queen and Prince Charles were so appallingly bad yet were still believed. Nobody took umbrage at the ‘prank’, indeed Prince Charles even attempted a joke about it when asked how he felt about his daughter-in-law’s pregnancy.

Lord Justice Leveson has spent over a year conducting an inquiry into the behaviour of the press, in part, seeking to quantify what qualifies as being ‘in the public interest’. While there can be no argument that a pregnant girl suffering from morning sickness is not in any way newsworthy it could reasonably be claimed that this non-story becomes slightly newsworthy when we consider that the girl in question might be the Queen one day.

But how can it be in the public interest to station untold reporters outside the hospital where she was being treated for what is not an unknown part of early pregnancy? These are people on upwards of £80k a year with university educations! They are being asked to utilise their skills by standing around waiting for someone completely unknown to them - as well as to the public - to come out of a building and say ‘she’s fine’. And their bosses feel it in the public interest for them to inform viewers/listeners of all visitors Middleton does and doesn’t get! Is this serious journalism - and what we pay our license fees for - or just mindless bollocks? You decide. But if it is mindless bollocks how can it possibly be in the public interest?

When it comes to the Windsors, such is the behaviour of the press that every story, however inconsequential, becomes a huge media shitstorm generating headlines all around the globe. In this case it caught the attention of a couple of two-bit Aussie DJs simply looking for a cheap laugh, unaware it would culminate in the tragic death of a nurse; someone whose only crime was not to recognise the importance placed upon the royal family by the world’s media until it was too late.

And spare a thought for the parents-to-be. At what is supposed to be one of the happiest times of their lives, morning sickness or no morning sickness, even the staunchest republican would be hard-pressed not to feel some degree of sympathy for them. They tried to keep the pregnancy quiet but a condition beyond their control put them on a hiding to nothing. And now a nurse is dead. If there is a god, never has the maxim ‘what he gives with one hand he takes with the other’ been truer. Yet, aside from Prince Charles’ attempt at a joke before the suicide, the silence from the Royal Family is deafening.

The BBC is now reporting that Lord Glenarthur, the chairman of the private King Edward VII Hospital where Middleton was being treated, has written a ‘furious’ letter to 2Day FM citing their ‘ill-considered actions’. This follows the hospital’s chief executive, John Lofthouse’s, statement issued after Mrs Saldanha’s death that revealed, “We can confirm that Jacintha was recently the victim of a hoax call to the hospital. The hospital had been supporting her throughout this difficult time.”

One has to wonder what form this support took. Did her bosses - who unlikely ever deign to answer the telephone to general calls - tell her not to worry, that everyone makes mistakes? Or did they give her a thorough dressing down for being so gullible and bringing apparent disrepute on a private hospital used by the royal family–- and by extension the very same people administering the dressing down? We must assume it was the former since to assume the latter would be cynical and would not be supportive to the nurse at all. Indeed it might even have contributed to the tragedy that eventually played out.