How to get on in life

As if we needed reminding that in this world it's not what you know but who, it transpires that Jacqui Smith is to front an investigation on BBC 5live into the porn industry

It's not enough that she's paid handsomely as a 'consultant' (i.e. back door to Parliament) for minimal work, on a gold-plated minister's pension for two years of ineptitude, and is actually being considered for appointment to the BBC Trust but she gets a stint in the media to present on an issue that led to her own downfall

Now it's clear where the production company are coming from, she was hit by a porn scandal and she's known so there's a good angle here, much like the 'Anne Widdecombe meets people she dislikes' documentary, but she is no more an expert on the issue than you or I, and considering her frankly appalling stint as one of the chief lawmakers of the country it seems rather a kick in the teeth that she is handed cushy jobs for simply having a public presence

She is, in short, a metaphor for what is wrong with our political system - she comes through the party system, is quickly promoted because she's a woman, put into a supposedly vitally important and prestigious role under an unelected and unwanted Prime Minister without any sort of qualification or experience for the job because essentially, there's no other candidates left, then f**ks up pretty much every decision and is forced to resign after less than two years due to a combination of ineptitude and revelations about fraudulent claims. She is then one of the relatively few Labour MPs to booted out of her constituency (I believe the appropriate term would be 'flogged') and is she punished for all this...

...no, she is given not only an MPs wonderful pension, but a ministerial one - now I do not mind MPs and ministers receiving pensions (although I'd rather they reflect the reality of the modern workplace) for their public service, but when a person has been parachuted into the role, with no accountability, and is generally regarded to have failed, is it right that they are rewarded for their failure?

Put simply there is no reason not to take these jobs, if the party offers you an important job in the government why not just take it? It's win-win as the worst that can happen is the media criticise you and you might lose your seat, for which you will be paid, there's no punishment, just get up there and do whatever you want

Then, to rub it in to us plebs who struggle to make ends meet, these people are handed consultancy work for large corporations, being effectively paid our yearly salaries in minutes - they have no skill, no experience, just an 'in' to the major parties, while we are told to work hard and be rewarded for our efforts in a 'meritocratic' system, if you get in to the political game all you have to do is pat the right backs and you'll find yourself right at the top being handed jobs you would otherwise never be considered for

sigh...rant over

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

Quote of the Day

Harriet Harman [regarding Phil Woolas]:

"It is not part of Labour politics to try to win elections by saying things that are not true."

'Nuff said, really

Best BBC Graph Ever

This is the 'savage' spending cuts in relative terms

As reported on the BBC ten o'clock news, by Stephanie Flanders

This is the truth, note the rise into a almost vertical incline after 2000, when Labour abandoned the previous Tory government's spending model and pumped huge amounts into the public sector, much of it the NHS

Does that look sustainable to you? Does it even look sensible? No - every post-war government, even the two Labour ones, has had to keep the constant rise in spending in line with economic growth - as shown by the broad trend, that rule was absolutely demolished in the past decade - to claw spending back to 2006/07 levels is moderate, even tame

I've known this for a long time, as these figures have been all over the right-wing blogosphere, I am no economist but people like Guido, the Taxpayers Alliance and others have all made the point that these are barely spending cuts, but reigning in the rise in spending, depending on inflation

This is the first time I've seen this graphic interpretation on any major broadcaster, and frankly it's about time - we can talk about the impact of the cuts, but this is the actual reason for them, and it really helps to show why we need them, and this rather dents the anti-BBC lot's case

The real issue is - why is essentially a clawing back of roughly 4% to the expenditure level of three years ago so bloody destructive? We're talking about a snip of money that simply wasn't there four years ago, and yet we're losing 25,000 MoD staff and god knows how many more public sector workers*

Not that I'm against reigning in the public sector, but it seems rather a lot for what is a relatively small cut - I know some is about future spending commitments, and it's over five years, but I can't help feeling it's a bit... inefficient, and it's the waste that's most important to cut, and I also can't help thinking that ring-fencing the NHS was a costly political manoeuvre

*though I may be underestimating the rise in the public sector workforce

Who cares about democracy?

The BBC have highlighted just how few Brits enter the EU commission, less than 5% of the workforce, and it's set to decline as most joined long ago

To be honest their recruitment campaign is news to me, and the article says they don't even advertise here - so clearly it's the EU's fault for not being inclusive towards the second-biggest member, not the British graduate

And can you guess why we're so under-represented? Yes, that's right - you need to speak a foreign language (principally French and German)

The article says this could be dropped for our sakes, yet there is no hint that this is a totally unfair practice to start with - I've blogged a few times before about the pointlessness of learning either of these languages, while of course, huge swathes of Europeans learn the international language of business as a matter of course - we do not need to learn minority languages, unless we want to work in France, the Ivory Coast or Germany, or apparently the EU

This gives us a massive disadvantage simply because they are learning from an early age a highly useful way of communicating with the world, and we have little reason to learn their individual languages, which we are not exposed to nearly as much as they are English - this unfairly keeps out any native English speaker

And to top it off

"Brits working in the EU are not working for the British government, they are working for the European Union," he says.
"But what they bring is an understanding of British culture and of the importance in the UK of enterprise and of the British common law system. It's a reality that when you're working with a commission official, if you have a common background, then the relationship is different."
This subtle impact is acknowledged by the few Brits who have actually made it through the exams.
"The people who win in Brussels get 90% of what they want at the Commission (the executive arm of the EU)," a senior British EU official told the BBC, speaking on the condition of anonymity.
"You don't then need to send ministers in to defend red lines. It is simply a more elegant way of doing business, having people drafting the legislation who think in a British way influences law around Europe."
And there is also a frustration at the perception of the EU back home.
"This is an exciting place to come," the official says. "You work with a bright bunch of people and you make policy that affects peoples' lives."

Legislation...without elected ministers

We already knew the Commission is effectively an unelected government, but this is just brazen - no need for ministers, get whatever you want once you're in...

I'm the first to criticise democratic governments, but to paraphrase Churchill there isn't really an alternative - government by psychometric testing (Theocracy? Oligarchy?) is not right, making up laws without those pesky voters and journalists questioning you is easier, but not right

All Must Win Prizes?

I've just been reading Policy Exchange's report on the AV system (that's the Cameron-favoured think-tank)

Now, I agree AV is a pile of manure, but the report is full of pro-FPTP bias and patronising statements regarding reformers, have a full read here

As I said, and have already outlined, AV is a crock, and broadly their analysis of that system is correct - AV is just FPTP with a 50% threshold, any chump can see that - but it's the subtle digs at any other form of voting (MMP, STV, PR etc) and assumed fairness of FPTP that I take offence with

The concept of wasted votes, and safe seats, are brushed aside for the airy belief that MPs are fairly elected to represent us, and that a proportional system is the 'all must have prizes' system - this very statement is evidence of the inherent bias present before the report was even written, it's a belittling comment that one expects to hear about a primary school sports day where everyone gets a medal

To use it in reference to an electoral system is at best crude, and at worst plainly offensive

Is STV or another proportional system 'all must win prizes'? No - the concept is solely that for every vote you receive, you gain a proportion of a seat - every vote counts, if you get 10% of the vote, you get 10% of the seats

Is that really a patronising, egalitarian idea? The concept is not that the Greens are given equal footing with the Tories or Labour, but that if they can get a decent share of the popular vote, they are represented - the Tories get 40%, they get 40%

And note 'decent' - a proposed benchmark at 5% would see very few minority parties win a 'prize', but supported nationally by at least a million people (that's based on a low turnout)

Nothing vindicates this more than the Lib Dems - in the present three party system say they were to receive 20% in every single seat - they could potentially win none - that's 20% of the population missing out, or about 5-6 million voters, in actuality they got 23% of the popular vote, seven million, and 8.5% of the seats so I balanced it a bit

There is little defence for this anomaly, it's certainly not a patronising 'all win prizes' system, but one that recognises every vote, which is something people do note, otherwise they wouldn't even count the national shares - the only true argument against it is the local one, hence the defence of constituency MPs

That is where we move into the ideological and opinion-based concepts of elections - whether or not it is important, and fair to elect one person in a winner-takes all election in a small geographical region

For my money, and as I've said before, there's nothing wrong in principle with that system - but it's no longer reflective of modern society - we look at the national picture in elections, we have leaders' debates, MPs have virtually no freedom from the party, bizarrely even defenders of our antiquated system say we elect governments, therefore smashing a defence of constituency-based FPTP

If you are electing one person for one role (say, a mayor) then FPTP, or it's 50% threshold brother, AV, works, but we have taken this individual aspect away from Parliament so now that the main parties benefit on a national scale from traditional local voting patterns

If you are looking at a national party, and a government, not an individual MP, then the case for FPTP is dead, and I think you'll struggle to find many who don't vote on the 'national' level, therefore I feel that we need a fairer national system, and that's why I formed my subjective opinion, look at the broad picture and decide what is fairest, there's no 'true' answer - but I didn't feel it necessary to belittle my opponents with patronising phrases

In short we already have the result of a PR system, just without the fairest aspect of it, as far as I see

This article was biased from the start, and picked on the easy target of AV to belittle all reform - expect more of these tactics from both the Conservatives and their various supporters and think-tanks for the next nine months

And yet I have decided to vote NO on AV - the reason I didn't bother fully fisking the report was because I agree AV is wrong, for most of the reasons outlined, and I don't want to settle on a weak system, believing politically it's better if the Tories actually win, but disagreed with their obvious bias and patronising attitude towards reform

Personally I want to see a system that retains a direct election, thereby preventing ultimate safe seats like the EU Parliament system, but that is also proportional - stopping situations like in East Anglia, where there are two main parties and one just happens to lose 48 times out of 52, mostly on slim majorities, thanks to the boundaries - I think a multiple constituency system, possibly even based on FPTP, that brings in the most popular candidate(s) from hard-done by parties would be fairest. This 'FPTP+' system I have created would see slightly enlarged constituencies, grouped together returning those who win each seat, and the best runner-ups, representing the share of the vote and keeping direct elections, removing the need for a dreaded list system

In my example, this would see the Lib Dems move from about 7% of the seats based on over 25% of the vote, to about 15 seats, while the Tories would go down from a ridiculous 92% of seats to a more realistic level (forgive me, limited time, and I'm basing this on memory - they were rather close overall, and clearly nobody got near 92% of any popular vote)

And I also have to ask, Policy Exchange is fully staffed and has many professionals working for it, this was written by 'Director of Research' Natalie Evans and edited and proof-read - why then was a relatively short document (no more than 10,000 words) riddled with fairly obvious typos? I'm writing this in half an hour, for free...how many did I make?

'Equality'

So apparently Trevor Philips is still about, being paid by the rather frivolous 'Equality and Human Rights Commission' to tell us:

'The commission said that on average women earned 16% less than men, widening to 27% for women aged 40'

An average, widening in the older groups...I'm shocked - does this mean it's narrowing in the young?

'When it came to pay, the report said that the gender pay gap was lowest for the under 30s, rising more than five-fold by the time workers reached 40'

Hang on - five-fold? Does that mean it's roughly equivalent to a measly 5% in young people?

I've said before that to compare older workers is ridiculous when there is nothing you can do about their educational prospects thirty years ago - instead what we have is females being given massive advantages to even out the figures, which does nothing for older 'unequal' women, and creates real, state-sponsored inequality in the education and employment sectors

Among other equality issues, it said that girls of all ethnic backgrounds outperformed boys in education.

Essentially they offset older women being held back by deliberately holding young men back, this is 'equality'

Other gems include: 'while one in five people lived in a household with less than 60% of average income.'

Really - 20% live in households more than 40% away from the average? As streams of people have said before - it's relative! If they earned more the average would in turn be higher! The only way of ever lifting people out of 'relative poverty' is to pay everyone the same

Mr Phillips said: "This review holds up the mirror to fairness in Britain. It is the most complete picture of its kind ever compiled.
"It shows that we are a people who have moved light years in our attitudes to all kinds of human difference, and in our desire to be a truly fair society, but that we are still a country where our achievements haven't yet caught up with our aspirations."

Is that code for: we can't catch up with the inequality of generations past? Or is he just bleating that we still haven't met the targets, and reality be damned

There 70 million of cuts right there (operational costs - £175k per employee, nearly twice that of the NHS)

In other news - people who are (about) my age are idiots, they think that of all cuts benefits Jobseekers' Allowance should be cut, many of whom said by 'a lot' - are they aware how tiny JSA is? It's a pittance, equivalent to less than a day's work a week and is heavily restricted - the real benefit money is in housing and income support, not counting disability

However, they did also support benefit capping (again, showing this cap is actually a good, popular idea, despite the Labour howls), but christ..cut the dole - to what? Zero?

Looking forward to 'the cuts' next week...

Punishing bigger families?

Now, while I can see inherent problems of fairness with the child benefit cut (yawn) - I do not have any issue with capping a family benefits at 26,000, or rather a 'salary' of 35k

What is wrong with this? That's a pretty nice amount to live on for an earner, why should someone on benefits take more when most workers will earn less?

I perfectly agree with helping people at the bottom - I don't people to be trapped in poverty, but I also want work to pay - this principally involves big tax cuts at the bottom and probable tax rises at the top (sorry), not giving massive hand-outs to people who don't, or won't, work, I do agree with benefits, supplements, tax breaks, but not funding a lifestyle that is actually better than the poor saps who work in the worst jobs can afford - that is not 'fair'

So capping benefits at a very reasonable level, seems rather appropriate to me

The only argument against this is that it hits large families, as your benefit won't keep going up as you pop out more dependants

But I'd like someone to explain to me, why it should keep going up with the amount of kids you have? - 35k is a decent amount for a typical family, and they do not get a salary rise with every kid - they budget, if they have nine kids on a salary of 35k that's their own fault...but if they are on benefit and not working, they should have their rising number of kids paid for by the state?

That's both unfair and economic madness - taxpayers do not get paid for children (except CB of course...), but major benefit claimants do - they are not subject to the same restrictions to those who actually work and live within their own means

I have every sympathy for the poor, but I don't see why they apparently have a right to reproduce ad infinitum, when the rest of us don't

Give them a salary and let them stick to it, like we do!

(also: for Diane Abbott's rather tetchy response that it punishes the ones who are already born - just make it a new contract, applies to children born after X date - then it's parents' own fault for their declining standard of living)

83%

Anyone would think the media types somewhat over-represent those top rate tax payers...

Yougov have produced a poll that shows 83% are in favour of this cut (sorry no reliable link)

Roughly 15% pay higher rate tax...

Yet the journalists harp on about it, when any chump could tell you the whingers are actually very few in number, even if they are very vocal on the BBC forums

Clearly, they're overpaying the journalists

I think we all agree it unfair on some level, but it's hard to have sympathy for people who earn enough to have the choice to not work and the unfairness is mostly theoretical - affecting I would bet, a few thousand lucky sods

I've seen the gripes about how these people 'can't afford it' - yes, you can, love, because I've been there and grew up on rather a lot less, and the rest of us do not even have the choice - they can whinge about two earners but the whole point is those two earners need to work, therefore you are better off in the first place!

I'm not saying you're 'rich' - but you're blind to the fact that you have the luxury of choice, which the vast majority of us don't, so welcome to our world!

They are whingeing about a benefit cut to the wealthiest earners in society, while benefits to the poorest (deserving or not) are being cut at the same time - the fact is you cannot cut an expenditure without it hurting someone

I think I've boiled it down to a simple point:

We don't 'need' a universal child benefit, we don't have a sole breadwinner model anymore and the system is not designed to prop up the housewife model (nor does it) - it's a token from a bygone age, the problem people have is that they are losing money - which we all hate, but if you never have it, you can't miss it - a BBC documentary on high earners pointed out that wealthy GPs were living hand to mouth because of their mortgages, cars etc - when we have it, we spend it

doesn't mean we 'need' it

Are you really that pissed off?

The media are having great fun with this child benefit cut

The lefties naturally oppose any cut (despite it being against high earners...) and the Mail who usually rail against benefits, despise the cutting of middle-class benefits - so nobody's happy

But I have to ask - is it really that bad?

The Tories, and many supporters, will admit it's ridiculous to pay the wealthiest people (e.g. David Cameron, who can claim £2,500 if he chooses) benefits - and I point to the decent tax breaks in their stead being a far more sensible option than taxing and repaying the middle classes

So why is twenty quid a week so important? Everyone, including families (particularly at the bottom), will have gained hundreds in tax breaks by 2013, so what if we cut off the top 15% from a fairly minor benefit?

We have a huge welfare bill, and a small chop from those who can probably afford it, seems very reasonable to me

There are some notable problems, I admit - the main one being that a family can earn 35 grand twice and keep it, while a sole earner on 50 cannot, thus penalising stay-at-home-mother families

However, how many are being hit by this 'rough justice' as Philip Hammond put it? As he pointed out - the median earnings for a couple both under 44 grand is only 46, while sole earners were in the seventies

In short, just how many people are at the bottom end of this scale - i.e. sole income families earning around 45k? The stats show that the very few people who do live off one wage these days need a little bit more than the higher rate threshold anyway - you will always find people who do exceedingly well from a situation, and those who get caught out quite badly - that's the Mail's job

But as long as it remains a few this is a rather painless cut to the vast majority of people, and is highly unlikely to put anyone into poverty, if it does, I apologise, but I'll take the risk

I agree it's in principle unfair, and a few will benefit to the detriment of others - but the fact is the PAYE system is much, much easier to base this on than means testing all claimants, and therefore more cost-effective - I challenge you to work out a simple way of cutting an unnecessary benefit while keeping it totally fair

I agree it is against traditional Tory principles, they support stay at home mothers, but that's their problem, not mine, I think that's a more philosophical debate for them, for the rest of us however, it will have a tiny impact on families who can largely afford it

Likewise, the 'universality' line they used in the election is going to come back and bite them, because it is a break - they can claim they didn't win the election but who seriously believes this one was caused by the Liberals? They should be cutting extravagant benefits anyway - get some balls, and don't lie in your manifesto (it's not technically lying if you don't win...)

It's a few grand (tops), to those who are paying higher rate tax - I bloody wish I was paying higher rate tax...

Also, I must take issue with the man in the Newsnight crowd who claimed it went against aspirational values - i.e. people wouldn't aspire to earn 44k because they might lose a benefit of 20 quid a week

Does he not understand maths? If they are aspirational, all they have to aspire to is 47k before they wipe out the perceived loss (dependent on number of kids) and they are back in 'aspiring' territory - do people just get to the threshold and sit there forever more?

With the increase in the tax threshold and allowances we are getting a good deal for losing a bit at the top end - it's unlikely people are going to be worse off in general when you look at the overall picture of taxation, so I think this is a perfectly fair, and rational, decision

In my mind (though I doubt anyone else's), surely the Lib Dems are doing well here - without them we wouldn't have got the big increases in the allowance, and with them this wouldn't have been cut - I doubt anyone will note that they're the ones with the popular policies, however

Also this 'no families on more than 26k of benefits' needs some fleshing out - is that 'every' benefit? And how do you keep tabs on all the various payments made?

I agree it needs doing (and frankly 26k is too high), but it's going to be bloody difficult when you consider housing costs in certain areas (as Nick Robinson points out)

But this is way more fun than the sodding Labour soap opera

Update: The BBC are using 'human' stories from the people to point out the flaws (which are obvious)

'Trisha' from Hertfordshire claimed it was the only income she gets - right, besides the 44k+ that you get from your husband/partner?

Let's break that down - you are 'earning' £20 or £34 (average number of kids is two) a week, this is what? Spending money? That's not even a weekly grocery shop! Meanwhile, post tax your family earns roughly £610 a week minimum - otherwise equivalent to £2,500 a month against £130 (and that's minimum)

In no one's world is this your sole income, it's nice to get money but do you really need it? I am working on highly conservative estimates here, and while all cash is nice it is not an 'income' - it's a small supplement

Is Trisha's hubby getting 45k? Or is he getting more, like, say an MP? (I'd be interested to know where we draw the 'fair' line) And by 2013 will her kids be at school and will she be able to balance her budget so that this two grand a year fall in revenue can be expected, seeing as it's announced nearly three years in advance

Get a grip, people

If I want to call you Hitler, I will

Guido has the news that Sir Andrew Green is taking legal action against Sally Bercow:

after Sally dismissed a MigrationWatch report that proves a link between a rise in youth unemployment and immigration was “dangerous propaganda” and compared it to arguments used by Hitler and Mosley. Live on Sky News

He has since clarified the issue with a link to the Index on Censorship and doesn't expect anything to come of it, probably never did

The reason I am posting is to question why this issue ever came up in the first place - she called a MigrationWatch report 'dangerous propaganda' - surely nothing defamatory in that, certainly no more than in your typical tabloid rag

She then likened it to arguments used by Hitler and Mosley - again, I'm not aware there's a law that states you can't bring up Hitler - with the obvious exception of Godwin's, which isn't usually a legal matter

Even calling someone Hitler, or shouting 'fascist' at them, which she didn't do, is not defamation - it's all fair game in the discourse of politics

The English libel laws are a joke, their main use seems to be exploiting them to stifle political debate

...and I'll stop there for fear of legal action

They did not invent them!

Watching the Daily Politics, Oona King and Portillo are having a debate about inventions - main topic, who came up with the rent-a-bike scheme in London - Johnson or Livingstone

The real question is - who went to Europe and pinched the idea?

Launched in Paris in 2007, any tourist will see them - and indeed most major northern European cities had a scheme when I went round Europe long before Boris launched our system in London

As Wikipedia states - Lyon had the breakthrough in 2005, and even Portsmouth toyed with it in the 90s

Likewise, it's been popular in the US for many years

Basically we saw a good idea and stole it - nothing wrong with that, but it's not 'innovative', nor was it our invention, it's just about in the realms of forward-thinking, that's it - don't believe politicians when they state it's a London thing, we're as behind on this one as the famously useless Ozzies

Introducing the Oyster card was somewhat more impressive - certainly wasn't the first smartcard, but it involved massive changes to a pre-existing infrastructure system, and it actually worked, the bikes just required a copy of someone else's system to be built

edit: and as any Cambridge resident will tell you - we've been practising a reciprocal bike-sharing agreement for decades, they just call it 'bike theft' everywhere else

See!

(no pun intended)

While the likes of Guido have, rather bizarrely (for him, I feel), been lambasting the press for being atheist bigots because they are supposedly intolerant of a religious leader, it is clear that the Pope is trampling all over our beliefs the same way the metropolitan press supposedly do to his

Making comments about 'aggressive secularism' and 'Nazi tyranny that wished to eradicate God from society' are just as big a slight on the non-believers than a person of faith

As always with these debates, secularists have to show respect towards religious types, but conversely, they are allowed to criticise anything non-religious - this is why I shall oppose the Pope

He comes here belittling our secular beliefs, as the religious always do because they seem to think they have a (God-given?) right to be able to preach and convert the non-believers, which is a practice that would be condemned if it was addressed to members of another religion - but if you're secular you are fair game

I disagree with Guido on this, who I think is clouded by his own faith, this is not simply 'antipathy' towards the Church, it is a response to someone saying we're wrong, do we not have a right to stand up when someone criticises our ways? Can you imagine if he went to Israel and started belittling Judaism?

Wherever I see this debate, where usually Christians get offended and advocate their beliefs above non-belief - they never appreciate that being of no belief should command the same respect they demand for their faith, or others, we may not be a single organisation with rules and books, but we do have our own rational, secular beliefs and we are going to get just as pissy as a Hindu, Muslim or Jew who is being called godless by the Pope

I've said it before, even though I have my own history with the Catholic church and I know I'm completely biased against them and I'm also very sensitive to Catholic preaching, but the Pope is welcome to talk to his flock here - I have no interest in protesting him as an individual any more than I do Mugabe. However, he doesn't get to trample all over our secular values simply because he does not respect the idea of no faith, this is the ultimate irony of all the Christians who claim offence but never appreciate that they do the exact same thing

He keeps making comments like these then we are completely justified in protesting him

Questionable Time

I'm a bit perplexed by Question Time's Labour special

Now at first I found it rather amusing, watching them all scramble over each other over 'left-wing', 'new labour' and unions

However, once they started talking about Tory cuts it became very apparent this was a mistake - as much as Dimbleby tries to play devil's advocate you have five people who are, as D. Mili says, 'all united on this' - that they are all anti-Tory

Allowing them to set up a narrative against 'cuts' and the government was questionable in my view

I think Dimbleby has done reasonably well steering them away from unopposed Tory bashing, and it was inevitable they would bash their main opposition, but it makes me uneasy letting them say 'jobs are going', 'harsh cuts' etc without response

We knew it wasn't going to be balanced, so fair play, but this feels very strange on QT

By the by, Andy Burnham is by far the most appealing to me - not politically, of course, but he's honest, he admits mistakes of the past and he's got a more rational stance - he could've done a lot more before, while in government, but compared to the other three men he's a bloody saint

I like Abbott's sincerity, but she's just too far gone for me

The Big Questions need answering!

Such as:

What policies have the Tories/Liberals ditched?

Will there be a VAT rise?

Where will the cuts come?

and the really important one...

will there be a Tory and a Lib Dem on Question Time?

Above, None of the

Why does one have to win?

They all lie about what they will do, none of them need to actually convince the public, none of them will get a majority of votes, and one seems to have serious inter-personal issues (but we knew that didn't we?)

Our system just makes me want to bang my head against the wall, of course three years of unelected Brown has worn me down and I may get better in a few years, but seriously, it's so depressing and I feel so helpless - I'm just focusing on ousting the Tory from my safe seat with some jumped-up Lib Dem, who I don't actually like, just because it's all I can do

And so the only salvation for political geeks like me is.... a good old breach of electoral law! Because let's face it, we need some entertainment in this world

And it's doubly enjoyable because it's all thanks to that inane tool that allows us to get minute-by-minute blows of Stephen Fry's latest risotto

Thankyou Twitter!

Tories deserve what they get

I was just on Guido reading the latest Bingle diatribe and I thought I'd post my thoughts here too:

"There was a mixture of gallows humour and real concern. Nobody could understand why with the most unpopular PM ever and an economy on its back the Tory Party is polling at the same level as Michael Howard when he lost in 2005. The only solution was to have another glass of wine."

Because we don't bloody want the Tories - just because Labour are utter crap does not mean you get to automatically win, that sheer arrogance is why all the swing voters are backing the third party, bring us some real policies, real ideas and real leadership - you do not deserve to win, and people will try their hardest to keep both parties down

How f***ing dare the Tories believe they are entitled to win, effectively they could have put a sheep as head of their party and expected to win - it's wrong, we deserve a choice to vote FOR, not against, our political system is badly broken and that is why the voters with brains will try to get a hung parliament, too long have we been kept down by the cosy collaboration of the big two

And don't even get me started on Cameron's line about voting for Clegg and getting Brown - vote for whoever you bloody want, and people are smart enough to know how to vote tactically on a local basis in our ridiculous system, I really hope that insult to the intelligence of voters pushes more people away from the chinless wonder

I don't actually need you, Dermot

Dermot O'Leary makes a good point

What's obvious is that these "young people" don't want to be patronised, they don't want to be pigeon-holed or spoken down to. They are better informed with far more information at their fingertips than the generation that went before them.
They just want some straight talking.
And you can bet that the decisions first-time voters make will be predominately on policy, trust and ideology - not who can use a smart phone, is the best dressed, the most attractive or who can name the coolest band

Oh so true, well done, that Dermot

Only, why exactly is this 36 year old bloke off X Factor supposedly representing my views?

Aren't the BBC stepping into exactly the same trap as the politicians by treating young people as some sort of mystic force that must be understood and communicated via the means of popular entertainment which we all must watch?

Dermot's bang on that we don't want to be patronised by idiots like Cameron and Brown trying to sound like they can rap, but nor do we want to be patronised by the BBC who thinks we need our own 'first voter question time' (not that I personally am), or that we all watch X Factor, listen to 'black and urban music' and use bloody Twitter

All we want is someone to represent the views of the disaffected youth, the main parties cannot offer that with their middle aged mandates - they never have been able to, and I don't need sodding Dermot O'Leary talking down to me to tell me that

Lazy Posting

I'm afraid I am rubbish at posting - work really screws up your free time doesn't it? No wonder it's only students and the unemployed who can handle blogging - also explains why so few people really bother with politics (I did know that before, it's just depressing)

Anyway...I'm thoroughly sick of the election campaign already - have we had any firm manifesto pledges? No...

As yet all we get are pledges to be 'fairer', and the Tories won't even rule out that VAT rise...(as Guido points out)

They are all talking crap and do you know why? Because they can...they are guaranteed to win one way or the other and that is why are politicians have no integrity or care for the good of the nation - we either need to wake up and defeat them, or we need a 'none of the above' box

Or we need to stop being whiny and bloody riot

Who's 'less knowledgeable'?

Apparently young people are

"less knowledgeable, less interested and less politically active than average"

I can agree with the last two, but less knowledgeable sounds a bit insulting - perhaps they are less aware of Nick Clegg, but these polls tend to focus on parliamentary politics, not actual politics

Actual politics is student loans, university admissions, gay rights, economic policy, and sigh...climate change, not old duffers on green benches taking potshots at each other, young people are as political as ever, they just have less interest in a pointless, weak and corrupt institution which they have no say over

The real answer is simple - young people aren't interested because they aren't represented, they don't vote because they can't win and therefore they aren't interesting to politicians, except in a few urban places like Brighton

The only votes interesting to the pollies are, of course, the elderly, and the various middle-aged groups, I forget how many MPs are under thirty now, it may only be one now, but possibly two

Two! To represent a third of the population...yes I'm counting kids in that, but for a simple reason - if you're born today you will have to wait thirty-to-forty years to see your contemporaries in power, the views of young adults are generally heard twenty years late, and so can you blame them when they don't get a chance to vote for their own generation? They have different views and different agendas, and they aren't heard by politicians, so why should they be interested in them?

What we get is incredibly patronising 'down with the kids' rubbish (a bit like that BBC article) where a massive age-band of voters are treated like fools by their parents' peers, I constantly hear older commentators wish to stop the under-35s getting into Parliament (I did count once - it was below twenty ffs...) but they get their views heard, why shouldn't the young? You may as well raise the voting age and be done with it

Simply put, if you place actual young people up for young people's votes, rather than getting David Cameron in a hoody, they might actually vote

(and yes, I vote...out of spite)