The Guardian reveals today that, over the last seven years, the Government has spent £2bn on computer systems which have then been abandoned as they were not fit for purpose. Just to put that into context, it’s enough to have employed almost 20,000 nurses over for the same period of time.

This Government’s record on IT projects is abominable. From the CSA computer upgrade that didn’t work to the £12bn NHS computer system which is being rewritten as it was ‘not fit for purpose’, and from the loss of half the country’s personal data to the national police website which never worked, it seems that this Government is simply incompetent when it comes to the management of IT projects.

Even after condemning the MTAS computer system as useless and rapidly running away from it, this Government felt it would be a good idea to rehire the company which designed it for another NHS IT project.

Is there anything IT-related that this Government can get right? And in an ever-more technological society, can we trust this lot to represent the best interests of the citizens of the United Kingdom?

Is the US President really ‘Leader of the Free World’? It seems that some people think not – and they’ve got a petition going. It’s an interesting point, I think.

Hillary Clinton: Shapeshift, modified under licenceSuggestions abound in the blogosphere that Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign is ‘toast’ after coming third in the Iowa caucus.

I’m no expert on US politics, but I don’t see how you can write off a candidate who is nationally polling at 41%, versus a nearest rival at 24%. Clinton’s even leading by 6% over Obama in New Hampshire, so perhaps the results from Iowa mean less than many pundits suggests.

It’s mildly amusing that here in the UK, no-one really cares about the Republican candidates, to the extent that they weren’t even mentioned on one of the country’s biggest news bulletins last night. It’s hard to tell whether it’s because the nation is only interested in Clinton or because Bush has left us so disillusioned with the Republicans that we want to hear no more about the party…

I think either Clinton and Obama, as the two most likely Democratic candidates, would make a welcome change from Bush, who seems to have redefined the presidential role to achieve his own ends. Either would seem to provide a relatively level head in the White House – something that appears to have been missing for a while.

As for the Republicans… Meh, I have no idea… Who the hell is Huckabee?

But watching such a close race between seemingly good Democratic candidates is very exciting, and now I’ve started reading more about it, I’m becoming more and more addicted. It’s like The West Wing – but in real life! Well, almost.

The Iowa Caucuses seem truly nailbitingly exciting tonight. Does that say more about me or about politics?

From FreeDigitalPhotos.net, with permissionAirport security is increasingly becoming a hassle these days.

Just today, as well as removing my laptop, mobile and camera from my hand luggage, and everything from my pockets, I had to doff my belt, shoes, suit jacket, and overcoat in order to pass through security.

That’s a hassle, and with eight personal possessions slipping through a public security area separately, it’s a wonder that it all gets returned to its rightful owner at the other end. In fact, experience tells me that it doesn’t – I can’t remember the last time I was being screened and didn’t see someone called back as they’d left an item behind.

Add in the ludicrous arrangement that liquids can no longer be carried through security except in a clear plastic bag of specified dimensions and in bottles of specified volumes, and catching a flight has really started to become a serious hassle.

With the introduction of charges for carrying hold baggage and, with some airlines, even for checking in, we’re becoming used to being squeezed for every last penny when travelling by air.

So, given the combination of increasing numbers of reports of the utter uselessness of airport security as it is, and the increasing proliferation of schemes like this (UK) and this (US) which – for a fee – ease the burden of security checks on individuals, is the notion that airport security is being exploited to make money really such a foolish one?

After all, it’s hard to conclude that risk assessments will ever reduce the security hoop-jumping as long as airlines and airports are profiting from it – certainly a change in their fortunes since the measures were first introduced.

You have to admire the entrepreneurial ingenuity of airlines – after all, who’d have thought there was money to be made in allowing people to queue jump? It’s the perfect money-making scheme: Charging big bucks for something which costs the airline absolutely nothing.