Maybe I will vote 'yes' after all

Another No to AV campaign video, and now it's just getting silly

To be honest this sort of bullshit where they make up all sorts of nonsense to scare people is starting to wind me up

Firstly Alan B'stard makes a comeback in a ridiculously unrealistic political scenario - fairly clearly aimed at your average man in the street who doesn't do politics, but I was struck by the fact that the result was exactly the same as what we have now - a party who tear up their manifesto and do a deal with the Lib Dems to form government and have no accountability

...in what way is that different to what we have? They just tacked on 'because of AV', when FPTP has given us exactly the same situation

Then they end with the frankly offensive statement 'one person, one vote' - one of the main beefs of reformers like me is that we do not currently have 'one person, one vote' - more than half of voters cannot win and therefore do not even have a chance of being heard, for FPTP campaigners to somehow claim it is one person and one vote is downright lying (of course it technically is, and the film deliberately obscured the lines between voting for a government and a single MP)

What they really want is 'one Tory/Labour voting person, one vote...in a safe seat'

Anyway - Yes to AV! Out of spite

Bye Aaron

I've never quite seen this level of headline feed (from Guido, but repeated elsewhere)

Porter Must Resign - Mark Wallace
Porter Must Resign – Nadine Dorries
Thank You and Goodnight -Niall Paterson [Unrelated]
Porter in Oct: “We’ll be More Militant than Ever” – Indy
Tory Twitter Stoning Joker Arrested - BBC
NUS President in Serious Trouble – Tory Bear
Were the Law Properly Briefed? – Dizzy Thinks
NUS President Should Resign Over Protests – LBC

That is a level of high-intensity pressure that even Brown was not subjected to...and this is the president of a toothless little bunch of activists, not a seasoned politician with an office of spinners to throw phones and printers at

Flash in the pan it may be, but we're talking about a relatively unknown upstart who has bugger all public standing and will quickly be served up to the tabloids without hesitation

The NUS have zero power or influence in the real world - they can get a few thousand to protest the 'cuts', and there were always a few activists who wanted to whine about fees, or more likely climb the ladder from student politics, at my uni, but that's about it - the five million-strong membership are effectively coerced into joining and simply carry their discount card around...which they now have to pay for (I refused at that point...proper little rebel, me)

In truth, they are a weak, virtually pointless organisation that do nothing but provide a step up into (Labour) politics and now charge a membership fee to do diddly squat but serve the interests of their 'elected' officials - of which Mr. Porter is a prime example

Frankly I'm glad I won't have to see him making inane comments about his 'members' (who mostly do not give a monkeys about anything except cheap beer) on Newsnight every time a student issue pops up... I watch and wait to see where he pops up again - Labour PPC I'd wager

And if any fresh young things about to apply to uni, or head off next year, here's some advice for you - in the heady days of Fresher's Week your Union, and possibly a bunch of annoying militants, will encourage you to join the NUS, with it's discount card, for a mere £10 fee...don't

You get a nice card, with some discounts in high street stores - but that's it

Your university provides support if you need it, you are a member of both your university, and student union, automatically, and for free (aside obvious tuition fees), this gives you a student card and everything your local union has to offer

This free card is valid to prove your position as a student and will take care of all your needs, including many, many discounts that are simply offered to students as a matter of course, or law (such as banks, transport, virtually all services, and usually even cinemas), hell, it will even work in the NUS-funded discount chains, either because the checkout staff are typically dopey or the companies don't mind, I never knew, all I do know is I never used the NUS thing for the one year I did have it (students really should look beyond the expensive high street chains, anyway)

Student politics is pointless, sometimes it's fun to practice what is a student tradition and have a good protest, but unless you want to climb the greasy pole into politics then there is little point to getting involved with voting and the dirty world of popularity contests student elections, you're just helping career politicians, the NUS is solely an umbrella group for all unions - it does nothing for you but that discount card*

So in short, unless you really want to get that ten quid back by shopping at an outlet of Topshop or Boots that won't take your regular student card for some reason, and you don't mind paying to prop up the 'union' who are paying these companies with that cash, simply so you are 'incentivised' to join in the first place, a scheme that nearly bankrupted them (hence the new fee), then don't bother

*I am not ragging on student unions, far from it - but the NUS itself, many people cannot distinguish between the two - I must declare a personal interest here and say I was heavily involved with my student union, societies and groups are great fun, but I came to despise the little Hitlers that supposedly ran it and would subsequently go on to work in the NUS and politics - the people actually running the functions of the union are normal people engaging with other students doing things they enjoy because they have the time they won't get once they graduate - the elected leaders are usually people with zero business sense and will likely turn your student newspaper into their own personal propaganda machine

Still here

Still having net problems (hopefully sorted next week) and now I'm behind and don't know what to blog about

The only really big news has been of Copenhagen and dear god am I bored of this rubbish

Most of the blogosphere has been raging against 'the lie', while the press have been indulging in it, the politicians are in their element away from their constituents, eating fine dinners and having cosy chats away from all accountability, and bloody annoying activists are...well, bloody annoying

So where do I sit? Am I a 'sceptic' or 'denier'?

Not in the proper noun sense - I am a proper sceptic about pretty much everything, which means I view everything. particularly politics, with one eyebrow raised, much like the Roger Moore-era Bond - I am a very sceptical and cynical person

So I would be a hypocrite to totally and unequivocally accept the assertions of some incredibly preachy people and politicians, in all fairness I probably would accept the science if there weren't such a lot of idiots going around screaming 'we're all going to die'

I'm not sure if I've been reading too many right-wing blogs, and the old saying, 'repeat a lie often enough and you start to believe it', has come true and made me question something quite widely accepted

But as I say, I am not a 'denier' - I can't say I know either way, and I honestly don't believe most of those activists and politicians know a thing about the science either, I don't like blind faith

It's a bit sad that I can't believe scientists, one group I would usually always back - but from what I can tell their science is based on guesswork - what will happen, why this has happened etc - it's certainly not totally conclusive, and that means I can't come to a rock-solid conclusion either

There are a couple of points against it, but generally the 'scientists' quoted by 'deniers' are discredited, and/or in the pay of big oil (e.g Plimer) - it doesn't exactly help the case, I base my view on the evidence that I can see myself, or at least get a grasp of - while I can easily spot a flaw in someone's analysis, I still can't in all certainty agree or disagree that in 50 years Fiji will be underwater

Regardless of the science debate, I have always felt that pumping tonnes of black clouds into the sky is probably not a good thing, regardless of whether it's melting the icecaps, burning dirty things that we have a finite resource of is not the wisest idea, nor is chucking plastic into landfills and the ocean - so I have always wanted to move to clean, renewable energy and sustainable living anyway, the issue of global warming and why it's happening are by-the-by for me

All I have ever wanted the politicians to do is work towards supporting renewable energy with funding, but instead they talk about a few percentage points of emissions, and then tax the consumer to the hilt

This is probably the biggest reason I dislike Copenhagen - I have a similar end to the eco-loons, whether or not we agree on rising sea levels, so I don't hugely have a problem with a big climate meeting

No, my problem is my usual one - politicians, they aren't going to do anything

Their aim is for a 20% cut in emissions - that'll come down for a start, and presumably 20% won't halt anything, merely delay it a few years, if they were really serious, felt it was really urgent and about saving the world then they would actually do something serious

If the threat is real, like a giant asteroid hurtling towards us, as many activists see it, then they don't really fear it, perhaps because it's not visible, perhaps because they'll all be dead by then, as some woman who claimed to represent my generation put it (god, I hate those bloody activists)

Either way, this meeting is about as pointless as the Munich Agreement - there will be no drastic action to save us from the asteroid - no rocket sent up to destroy it, just more taxes to 'combat' the asteroid while we continue living normally

If they were really serious, they'd be wanting rid of all fossil fuels, funding research in more efficient renewable sources - but they won't, it'll be a bit of posturing and a 'pledge' to cut emissions, while the average person is fleeced of more and more money in the name of 'green'

So it doesn't actually matter if it's real or not - Copenhagen is a crock, the politicians involved would have more dignity if they didn't believe in it, rather than just going along with it and then doing nothing but taxing us

and I guess that's a blog - about global warming! Don't expect another one of those for a while

A Parliament of liars, by liars, for liars

Denis MacShane's ridiculous article in the Indie has to be given some prominence

it.is.complete.bollocks

I seriously can't believe the Indie would allow such partisan rubbish on it's pages - they may be extreme on climate change and some leftie stuff but this is really Mirror territory and won't go down well with anyone with a shred of intelligence

Once again, the issue of renting has been ignored:

If Labour MPs have to stay in boarding houses while Tory MPs retire to their Notting Hill homes, so be it.

Right...

The report is deeply misogynist with its demand that women MPs of all ages who live within a 60-minute train journey from London should leave the Commons after late-night votes to travel home to arrive at one in the morning to unstaffed, unlit stations on a cold night in November. 

Firstly, the demand is on all MPs, so isn't it a bit misogynist to imply women are weak? I'd rather meet Cameron than Widdecombe down a dark alley

If that means David Cameron's and Nick Clegg's employees cease putting out partisan press releases attacking Gordon Brown I suppose I should welcome Kelly.

Poor, innocent Gordon! One word: McBride

thanks to the stupidity and cupidity of some MPs who abused the allowances and expenses system, we are well on our way to achieving this.

Like people who claimed over 18 grand a year to run an office out of their own garage for eight years? That's his 'office running costs' - so rent, heating, electricity, despite owning the property himself he still managed to rack up costs of £18,000 (smack bang in the middle of the table), oh and he claimed every last penny of the ACA

In the 19th and much of the 20th century, the Commons met only six months a year. Now we expect our MPs to do a five-day week and be in their constituencies most weekends, and constituents want instant replies to their emails 365 days a year.

2008-09 session: 128 days = Six *working* months, the shortest session since 1979-80

For five years, an MP is accountable to his or her constituents and to no one else. Whips may bully. The ambitious may toe the line. But there are plenty of MPs who can plough their own furrows and speak their own minds.

Speak...never vote

And you weren't given your seat by the party at all? And you would stand a chance without your little red rosette? Most MPs (except perhaps, this year) face absolutely no challenge from their constituents, who will never eject their favoured party

Have a read...If you have a strong stomach

Massage, Ms Harman?

Harriet Harman's office has been told to stop using that ridiculous 22.9% pay gap figure

But what I wanted tp pick up on was this:

The Government's equality watchdog, the Equality and Human Rights Commission, said the ONS report was 'important' but insisted it should also have compared the pay of full-time men with part-time women - which gives a 39.9 per cent pay gap in men's favour.

Now the logic of including this escapes me - it's clearly designed to simply maximise the gap - is it fair to compare part-time jobs with full-time ones? Considering men earn even less part-time surely it reflects the gap between full and part-time, not gender?

But I thought I'd work out the alternative

Full-time men vs part-time women = 39.9% gap
Full-time women vs part-time men = 33.5% gap [in favour of women]

Surely Harriet should be using both?

Unless she just has an agenda...

Riot, please, just riot!

I can't take this any more, I was going to write about the Youth Parliament last week, but I've seen Hattie's latest comments and entered a world of despair

But Miss Harman yesterday suggested that the report could be shelved if it goes too far.
She said a final decision would rest with the new Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (Ipsa), whose members will be vetted by MPs before being appointed.
Miss Harman said Ipsa will have to be sure that MPs ‘can both be in their constituency as well as in Westminster’.
She added: ‘No one wants to get back to a situation where MPs were sent to Westminster and then they said to their constituents “see you again in five years”.

I wasn't aware that had changed...

MPs are furious at the prospect of having to sell their second homes and move into rented accommodation. Some warn it will make it impossible for all but the wealthiest MPs to have their families with them in London.

Really? Have these people never rented before? You can rent whole houses you know

The Prime Minister is expected to tell him that the new expenses system must not be so harsh that politics ‘becomes the preserve of the independently wealthy and that ordinary people with families must always be able to become MPs’.

Gold star for Gordon, that's the original reason for introducing MP salaries over a century ago - I'd love to know how 65k plus fiddled expenses is anywhere near what 'ordinary people' support their families with

What exactly would the preserve of the wealthy be? You can still own a house, funded by your big salary, then rent a second house for work on expenses (I really don't get their issue with renting - they do realise they won't have to pay for it, right?), claim travel expenses that few commuters would get, and an office for work - what's the problem? What is so disabling in that scenario - I'd do it, and so would a lot of ordinary people I know - do I need to break out the graph that shows where ordinary people are and where MPs are (top 9%), and the list of Labour MPs who are millionaires or professional politicians?

These people really are just living in a bubble

...pop it

Tess, Toby and Teabag

Seen the news about the children's' book about travellers? Probably not, only the Mail regard a book choice as news

But they don't like travellers very much, neither do I really, but there is a line..somewhere

So Littlejohn went for his usual vileness, and I actually nearly agreed with him - I think most of us have experienced 'travellers' and it's never nice - but that's his trick, identify the broad sentiment and then take it to the extreme, but my object of criticism is more subtle than that - I would never shut up about the hateful bloke if I chose to write whenever I disagree with him

Where I found the bullsh*t was here:

Once upon a time there was Janet and John, who lived with their mummy and daddy in a neat suburban house. Their harmless adventures helped millions of children to read.

The perfect existence

Needless to say, Tess, Toby and Teabag lead an airbrushed, romanticised existence. This well-scrubbed trio roam the land, attending traditional gipsy dances, horse fairs and even an eco-camp.

Now pray tell, were not Janet and John rather romanticised? A perfect upbringing, father off to work in an office, mother at the sink, nice garden - in short a perfect suburban life

So we're allowed to venerate a romantic version of middle-class living, (which belongs in the 50s) to help us read, but not allowed to gloss over the existence of travellers

Now bad as the gipsies may be, the middle classes have plenty of their own foibles - the behaviour of their youths, indebtedness, affairs, domestic violence, and quite often - two working parents!

So we should aspire to this glossy romantic version of middle-class life where everything is rosy, but it's somehow wrong to do exactly the same thing to travellers? It would appear there is only one 'right' way to live, and it looks like a second world war poster

Then there's this:

Nowhere is there any mention of Toby's father. Tess is a strong, capable single mum who can turn her hand to anything, including mending a flat tyre on their caravan.

The 'diversity' brigade can't bring themselves to acknowledge that fathers have any part to play in bringing up children.

'Single parenting is wrong!!' Apparently we shouldn't be promoting this image to children...

Right - I appreciate that the Mail believe there should be two parents, and I think most would agree, but to not accept that single-parent families happen, for whatever reason, is ludicrous (I will concede his point that travellers are actually a bastion of the nuclear family, however)

What purpose would it serve to always make a child in a children's' book have two parents - does the image of a single parent make those kids want to grow up and get a child just for themselves? Or is it far more beneficial to show real-life situations and show them to kids who may grow up in that same situation? I have no intention of deliberately following my mother, and I suppose Neighbours were wrong to kill off new-mother Bridget and leave a single-father, nothing bad happens to real people, after all (sorry if I spoiled any plots there)

As far as I can tell all their policy does is tell children that there is something wrong with their home, as it always presents a two-parent situation as the norm and leaves single-parent kids left out

That's very much wrong - similarly they had a go at books about black and Asian children (they dared to include a minority in a 2001 revamp of the J+J books), as it was 'excessive for a mainly-white nation' - again they are saying that white is somehow better, the ideal - and again all this does is leave people feeling different - the best kids' shows and books have always strived to include a variety of races (see: Sesame Street) - this helps kids to understand some people look different to them, rather than growing up in a totally white environment where they could become hostile to things that are different later in life - I'm being speculative, but I fail to see any problem with the alternative anyway

The Mail may want a perfect, white, middle-class existence for all but the underclass, but this is not reality and nor do their ideas on conformity address the issues they want to fix - it just sweeps them under the carpet, and at worst - breeds hatred

p.s. Women changing tyres is wrong!!

----

A follow up from my story about Mandy's plan to help poor students - I am actually agreeing with Dominic Lawson

It would appear there are very few sections of the press supportive of this idea, although I've given up on the Guardian lately

Skill vs Luck

Do you play Fantasy Football? - I do, and I love it

Think me sad all you will, but this year I have a little problem - they have introduced a head-to-head league format, run in conjunction with the normal league format (ie. where your players get points and whoever has more wins)

You are put in a league with 19 other teams and play one per gameweek - whoever 'scores' the most wins the match - sounds great doesn't it?

Well yes, but I have come to realise that it's little more than randomisation

Take my league - I am 7th, 10 points off the top (so I'm Arsenal...yay) - but I have the highest amount of points, ie. goals - well what's wrong with that you may ask? GD doesn't really matter in a league

But it does in this league - remember you are drawn against a team at random each week and whoever scores more wins, so even if you score really highly - you may lose to someone who isn't doing so well but does well one week

Obviously scoring the most pretty much guarantees you will be top ten or so - but winner - no, that is decided by who you play and when - you probably think this is sour grapes on my part, but think about it - you have no control over how much you concede

I have conceded 1385 points - this is in fact the second highest amount conceded (the guy with highest is in 12th with 1461) and guess who has conceded least? - yup, number 1 with 1176

A solid defence is a worthy attribute in football you may say - but that's just it - you have no say in how much your opponent scores - I have conceded the most through no fault of my own, simply when I have played each team has determined what I had to beat

This gives me a moral victory! But regardless it shows that this whole idea is flawed - you have to build a fantasy team to last over a whole season, that's the point of it - the head-to-head system is anathema to this - it requires you to change tactics each week, which you can't do because you only get one transfer per week (without penalties) - some weeks you have to suffer for the long-term glory

You cannot have both in the same system because they work differently - placing your virtually unchangeable squad against a different team each week is essentially creating a random result - obviously if you're useless then you won't do well, but if you do well you aren't guaranteed success

Take my current traditional league - me and the leader are within 5 points of each other - I am second, and have been for a while, but I have clawed back from a bigger deficit - meaning I have 'won' regularly for the past few weeks - looking at weekly results I've won 20, he has won 10 (indicating I'm consistent, and he's erratic) - but he has that five point lead - and that is right, because this game is all about the points - you can't simply translate those points into goals in a 'match'

The head-to-head league is basically whichever of the good teams gets the most favourable draws across the season - it's daft