Do we need daddies?

In the aftermath of these riots-cum-looting, or general thuggishness, whichever you prefer, much has predictably been made of fatherless families

For example IDS has just said:

“We’ve been ambivalent about family structure in Britain for far too long.”

Of course, we all know this means single-parent families, predominantly single mothers, but are they really to blame?

Well, yes and no, I think

Undoubtedly the rise of the Vicky Pollard style teenage mother with her feckless brood is a problem - arguably if there were good hard-working fathers in those lives those children would be much better off (or alternate partner if you wish, I don't necessarily think it has to be a male, although generally it's going to be)

But this does not simply mean a single parent is worse, or a problem in itself

I come from a single parent family, did I go and out and rampage through the streets? I can't prove this here of course, but I'd like to think you believe me

You see it's all well and good to bang on about families and how bad people like me are, how I'm so much less likely to have a degree (masters) or a job (I do) or have a family (married), but the real issue is hidden in what I said earlier - 'good' and 'hard-working' - it is the stable environment that is vastly more important

I bet you we all know a single parent, and I bet, unless you roam around inner city ghettos that the kids are fairly standard, and likewise you may have right terrors born to 'proper' families

The statistics bear out of course, but they also bear out for black people - anybody want to suggest that's inherent to what they are rather than where they are?

You live in a place where young women are poorly educated, have little respect for themselves and are treated like dirt by feckless young men, who also have no respect for themselves or anything, then you are going to get social problems and out of control kids - even if you were to force marriage, and even fidelity, upon them, you are not addressing the root of the problem - the single mothers in question are a symptom, not the cause

So there's no need to worry about young Mrs Smith down the road, whose husband just buggered off with his secretary, producing the next gun-toting hoodlum

I do think welfare is misguided - we effectively encourage people to breed and be irresponsible, because we won't let anyone starve, but this just encourages dependency, ironically my mother never did, and never would, claim welfare

Ultimately this is about those willing, or able, to engage with society and play by the rules, and those who can't, or won't - a breakdown of respect, particularly for themselves, the individual family structure has little to do with that

So how could I ever say single parent families are to blame? I couldn't, and frankly anyone who says that is a dimwit, or just hateful

What I do say is a lot of these problems do happen to come from single-parent families, but what is needed is a stable and loving home, the culture that happens to create single mothers in deprived, inner-city areas rife with gangs is to blame - attacking the notion of single parenthood itself is, at best, just plain daft

rarghh!

Cyclists - don't you just hate them?

Apparently MPs are to discuss a bill about punishing cyclists for reckless cycling, or killing

To be honest, it seems a little frivolous as I don't think they are very likely to kill us directly, or even indirectly, very often

But what I really want to rant about is the defence of cyclists, who once again continue to believe the rules do not apply to them

They cite stats that say they don't kill anyone - is anyone claiming they do? Their main crimes are breaking road rules and causing distress to pedestrians, nothing so grand as killing - it's a few kilos of thin metal going at most 30 mph, it's not particularly lethal

In particular, Guardian columnist and cycling advocate Zoe Williams says she is exasperated by the references to red light-jumping whenever bikes are discussed.
She insists the practice largely stems from fear, not arrogance, due to the high number of cyclists killed each year by heavy goods vehicles turning left at junctions, and says ministers should concentrate on tackling such deaths if they really want to make the roads safer.

 In short, she doesn't care about the trivial issue of bikes jumping lights - does anyone seriously believe this has anything to do with heavy vehicles on left hand turns? To tell the truth I don't mind the left turn on red (an idea I support for cars) as long as it's not a pedestrian crossing, what about all the other times they jump reds? In my experience typically on straights

I make a note of cyclists I see in the city every day at work, I have so far noted one single cyclist that didn't break a road rule (nothing technical about lights or helmets, usually pavement surfers or light jumpers), the vast majority seem to drive on busy pavements at speed and expect you to move...I will snap soon

And guess what happened just yesterday? I was with my mother, who is fairly immobile these days thanks to a back problem and isn't that agile, crossing at a simple pedestrian light, no turns or anything, and this dickhead in lycra ploughs straight through the middle of us at full speed, nearly knocking her over - yes, the lights were very much red (she's not that slow) and cars were waiting, there was a group of people crossing and this guy didn't even look - I had already crossed so frankly he was lucky to not hit someone, wasn't like he even had a gap!

So, Zoe Williams, defend that one - still a minor issue? Should cars break reds if they have a gap? My answer would be licence bikes as they are becoming so numerous, I should be able to report this sort of person as he is far too fast for me to even kick, and any pleasant, law-abiding cyclist should have absolutely no reason to disagree with this simple rule that all other vehicles are subject to

She adds: "Can you imagine if every time we talked about cars people complained about drivers doing 80mph on the motorway?

This has got to be one of the most up-your-own-arse arguments I've ever heard - bikes jumping red lights is comparable to slight speeding?

Considering light-jumping is an offence for both vehicles why are we making this comparison? You jump a red in a car you will probably get in trouble, why is the same offence for bikes as trivial as doing an appropriate speed

And likewise - drivers can, and do, get punished for doing 80, bikes have no enforcement - get some actual rules being applied then maybe we'll start making crazy comparisons

BNP VOTERSSS!!

Guido has helpfully posted a NO to AV video that points out BNP votes would be redistributed and could choose the winner

Oh my God! The BNP voters could swing it...

Yes, as the video shows, the small amount of BNP votes would be added to the other parties, pushing the second placed party into first

I'm not sure if this refers to Labour or Tory, or even Lib Dem, it's pretty much hypothetical anyway - but it is either of these two parties that would win - that's the AV system, nothing changes - it just reinforces a two-party system

That's actually one of the reasons I don't want AV, and I'll vote against it, but this kind of argument just infuriates me - there is no logic to this

The word 'BNP' is essentially being used as a bogeyman here - it implies we will get the view of extremists, and also that these voters don't deserve a vote, when in reality we will get a similar result to what we have now and as much as we dislike the BNP, you are allowed to vote for them and there's perfectly legitimate grounds to boost a second placed party because for example, the majority is right/left but the vote is split by a variety of parties, allowing the minority view to come through the middle - this will work both ways, as UKIP, BNP, Greens, Lib Dems, and Labour all split the right or left vote

What I'm saying here is the typical AV argument still stands, it's a debatable point (and I'm not backing either side really), using the term BNP to scare people into thinking 'they' will dominate elections is just scaremongering and frankly pathetic - the real reason the second placed party wins is because they came a very close second and are more preferred by the majority of voters

And of course, it also misses the point that voting patterns would differ from those made in a FPTP system, where people are forced to back the lesser of two evils - there would probably be more votes for smaller parties with a preference system

That said, I'm still anti-AV - it's a rubbish, pointlessly complex system that no-one uses and produces the exact same results as FPTP,  which again, no-one uses (except the US) - the whole debate is a false argument

Sheila's Wheels Come off

I am, as usual, very late to the issue, but alas life gets in the way of my witterings

I take it everybody is aware of the week-old news that insurers will no longer be able to take a person's gender into account

Now you may expect me to rail against this decision, I love to bash 'equality' with statistics and of course the statistics clearly show that men, as a group, cost more - that's a statistical truth

But I'm going to buck my own trend here, unlike say, Peter Hitchens, I do not believe that the enforcement of an equality law here is a bad thing

Yes, men cost more, but what you have to ask is - is it fair to charge the average man 60% more than a woman simply for being a man?

Surely, if he's 60% more likely to crash (or rather, claim), then yes?

While strictly speaking yes, it is cheaper to insure women as they are less likely to claim, what this really comes down to is where you draw the boundaries - why only stop at gender? You could show a difference between people with different hair colour, eye colour, height, weight, and of course skin colour - all of these features could in theory be assessed for risk

But we choose some very simple, easy to measure categories - is this fair on men?

'Because you are a man, you are more likely to crash' - well actually, for this to be true it has to be shown to be something inherent in men generally

However, we all know that this is not the case - many men are excellent drivers without a claim to their name (me included), and they are not even a minority, but we all know there are some, shall we call them 'twats', who drive like loons and write off three cars before their 18th birthday - these are the minority

Is there any link between these two types of men? Other than sharing the same chromosomal combination, no, a minority within the group force the majority to pay more because they all happen to have the same type of genitalia - as I said, it's a simple measure to use, it's easy to draw a line through sex and offer women a better deal

But it's not really fair, saying everyone of one group is more of a risk because of a small group within that, there is nothing to stop them drawing lines around any of the features I outlined (except practicality) - imagine saying 'black people claim more, therefore black people pay more'

Could be a perfectly true statement (almost certainly there's a difference either way), but it's not done, and nor would it be done, I expect, if women were shown to cost more - that would be discrimination, because quite frankly, it is, as it's pre-judging you based on your particular grouping

The only way around this is, as Hitchens junior remarked, is that men and women are different, racially you can't get away with that argument even if the stats bear out because races are considered equal, but the assumption is made that men's brains are hardwired to be more dangerous...because of the actions of a minority, which is exactly the same principle that leads to racial stereotyping

It means I am the same risk as Paul Gascoigne or Tony Blair, but clearly there are other factors at work - if I were a tiny minority then I could understand, but the fact is the majority are punished because we are arbitrarily put into the same box as the offenders, you may as well lump us in with murderers and paedophiles as we are far more likely to be them as well

Our sex has not been shown to be the overriding factor in the risk, some men are twats, but not all (or most) - it's just an easy, and very lazy, way of measuring us

So yes, it is discrimination and there is no reason why my gender should mean I pay hundreds more a year than my wife, mother or sister, unless you're a lazy insurer who wants to cash in on women costing less, us green eyed people would cost less too!

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

I'm kind of glad...

...That we lost out on the world cup

or rather, that we lost out in such abysmal, ridiculous, painful and disgusting fashion

Oh yes, I am - don't get me wrong, I wanted the cup here as much as the next fan, and I even thought we might get it (although I bet on Russia, as is my rule), I was always expecting Russia to win

And so was every self-respecting football fan with an ounce of intelligence - deep down, we all knew that Russia would take it, because we are England, and they are FIFA, that is the natural order of things

For the last few years we have been hoping, even believing, that it was 'our time', that we would finally be allowed to host the biggest competition in the world again

But alas, reality bites - nothing was going to beat that map of world cups and those Russian puppy dog eyes (note: not actual map used), Prince William be damned

So. why am I glad about how we lost?

Well, simply because I think we expected decent support in the voting - we expected for it to go to the wire, sure Russia might win, but we'd lose in heroic fashion and say 'fair cop'

Instead, we get one non-English vote, crash out at the first hurdle with not even a look in, showing complete and utter disrespect from the governing body, cue outrage

It is not hyperbole to say that to be dismissed in such a way is outrageous, because it is - the hopeless, virtually token bid of Belgium/Netherlands received more votes than we did, England didn't simply lose, they were snubbed (as indeed were the greenie Low Countries, and symbolic Iberia)

And it is for that reason I find a little glint of hope - because from this we can no longer simply shrug our shoulders like we do after every penalty shoot-out we lose, this calls for drastic and severe action - FIFA needs reforming and we all bloody know it, I was pretty much brought up understanding that FIFA were corrupt to the core - had we lost by a few votes we'd just take it on the chin, say Russia had a point and sit back down, but now we're all rather pissed off*

Is this typical English 'arrogance' or sour grapes that your usual nay-saying smart-arse will claim? No, I've already said that I thought Russia would win, and I don't take issue with them winning, if anything it's Qatar that is the shining example of the absolute bullshit that comes out of FIFA, my real issue is the fact that clearly the FIFA delegates had decided who they wanted, while the bidders jumped through hoops, very expensive hoops

England did have the best bid, that's not my opinion or arrogance, but the opinion of FIFA inspectors - Russia had the worst of the 2018 bidders, and surprise surprise, Qatar had the worst of both

I've admitted Russia had a case, having never hosted it, but my point is what was the bloody point of spending astronomical amounts of money on technical bids and reports when it counted for absolutely zero? Why does FIFA insist on us saying how good we are when they don't even care and give it to the worst one?

We're supposed to be swaying the opinions of 22 (24) men with this, if they aren't neutral judges then what's even the point - they knew where it was going and let us rave on about how much better we are, we even chose stadiums! All that is worth one vote, we might as well have put Afghanistan forward, there's an illusion of a meritocratic system, but it's clearly non-existent and I for one am grateful, unlike Blatter, that 2022 was decided at the same time, because it seriously showed up the weaknesses/corruption in the hosting selection process, the 2018 decision probably wouldn't have alone

They get our hopes up, pretending to have a fair contest, and in reality a dozen or so men long ago decided to give it to Russia and an oil rich micro-state

Why bother with a voting process? It seems to be completely against what FIFA espouse, and let's face it, they have always decided where to send the cup

2002 was effectively decided by Havelange (he before Blatter) deciding to have an Asian World Cup - there was at least a fair fight, but it was only between two nations and of course, resulted in a co-hosted event (so Sepp was wrong on Thursday when he said there must be losers)

2006 (which was ten years ago in voting terms) was the only time since 1992 to feature an actual open contest, in which Germany snuck through thanks to a Kiwi abstaining

That decision resulted in the frankly ludicrous rotation system which ensured that Blatter's choice for 2006, South Africa, was given 2010

This system was then used once more as it proved convenient to give a tournament to Brazil, who faced no competition, and then it was dropped - the rotation of five continents lasted all of two turns...

 And now we have a country that is half the size of Wales, in both area and population, hosting the 2022 cup - there are going to be 'cities' the size of...I can't even think of a famous place small enough for reference - Newmarket? hosting matches with over 40,000 spectators

It wasn't that long ago (about a week actually) that you would be laughed out of town for suggesting a small country could host such a big event - the European championships are deemed too big for Scotland and pretty much all of Europe, yet they give a whole world cup to a desert country the size of Cyprus? Can you imagine Ireland (over six times bigger) bidding? Or how about Kuwait, or Swaziland! The only nations that are smaller are mostly the always overlooked island members of CONCACAF, and the various micro and city-states around the world, invariably the issues of infrastructure and legacy come up

Making my point here? This isn't about new places, arguably there's the middle east angle - but that never seemed to be the agenda, and Saudi and Egypt seem much more sensible choices, Qatar's population of 1.5 million is laughable - how is that bringing football to the people? If it's for the middle east in general it's like playing a European cup in the Vatican, there will be no real home side, it's a bunch of stadiums in a small space for the world to come...actually that would be a good idea, create little zones in regions...

Anyway, do I even need to list the populations of previous hosts? Brazil are about 200 million, South Africa 50, Germany 80, Japan/Korea 180, France 60 and so on and so on, the only host that comes near to this level of anonymity are the first ever hosts - Uruguay, who at least have their own identity and aren't just an oil field full of migrant workers

oh and 2026 has already been earmarked for China supposedly...who knows how they'll decide to make that fit into the rules, a country that is virtually non-existent in the football world...after a country that is virtually non-existent in the football world

Then of course there's the human rights issue - FIFA make great statements about holliganism, racism and the environment - so they pick Russia, who have severe issues with all three, as you may know, and an absolute monarchy, where you can't drink in public, show affection etc, in a desert that will require a dozen fully air conditioned stadiums to be built - go FIFA!...maybe they are bringing gay rights to the Middle East?

So I think we have some right to complain here - and the people who think we're being arrogant really need to understand how this thing works, they are assuming that the meritocratic system that the media for some reason portrayed is true, and that we didn't 'deserve' to win really - nobody ever deserves to win, and this is how it has always been:

Italy were given their second cup in 90, France in 98, Germany in 2006 (so yes, Spain would have been truly a kick in the teeth this time)

The inventors of the game now will have to wait 64 years for a second tournament, longer than any other major power** except Brazil, and I bet Spain will be given the next European one...

In fact, if you look at it from the economic side (which FIFA always do) they are incredibly arrogant on this - by giving it to Russia and making western Europe wait even longer (12 years was already a record European gap) they snub their biggest market for probably 24 years, they act with complete disdain for England, but they are a huge market - not a growth area like Asia, and taken for granted, but still worth mega-bucks, there's a reason western Europe is overrepresented, and Blatter is callous by insisting on moving to expanding markets - Germany was the most lucrative cup in recent years and I would bet it stays that way past 2022

Of course, let's not overlook that Qatar was chosen for it economic situation - not only the oil and gas, but it's position in the world - a mere three hours ahead of GMT, meaning that games can be played at 10 or 11pm at a convenient time for Europe, and with that desert heat in the day...

FIFA gets to move in to the middle east, and Asia in general, while catering to its European cash-cows, thus having its cake and eating it

That's why it's unlikely Australia will ever get it - being both a small, already developed market, geographically isolated, and having a poor position in the world clock means they are a very weak prospect, despite being a great choice for many fans they would simply not offer enough to FIFA, even though I doubt Russia will create much wealth with it's known problems in security and travel, there's probably ample opportunity to line the pockets, and Moscow time isn't too bad

Anson's right, it's not even worth bidding without massive reforms to FIFA, and thankfully I can't see Blatter hanging on past this period of office, either professionally or physically, so maybe we'll have less of the supposedly all-powerful dictator with his crusade to take the tournament to such overlooked and under-appreciated members as Qatar

Was it the media?

No, and frankly anyone who has a whinge about out media exposing the truth should go and live in Russia or Qatar and see how they like it - do you want to live in a world where the media are simply yes men to the mighty FIFA so that they may reward us with a tournament once a century?

We have a free press, that should not count against us, and frankly if that has counted against us I don't want the bloody world cup, if all they want is a free ride from their mates in the media then all their talk of human rights is utter bullshit

We should be exposing their corruption, not condoning it, and the real issue here is that FIFA are totally unaccountable, they have no link to the fans and are isolated from the member associations, like some sort of bastard child of the UN and the EU - I'm glad our media stuck it to them (and so did the Spanish by the way) and they need to keep it up, the only way to make FIFA do anything is to hound people like Blatter out, not pander to him


So how do you reform FIFA?

It's complex, a lot people seem to advocate the IOC method, which opens the ballot to a far bigger electorate - but to be honest that has just as many problems these days, the World Cup is just a bigger event, I don't see how allowing 200 votes in itself would help - you would end up with the Eurovision Song Contest where Russia cajoles all it's little satellites into voting for it, while we get Ireland...if we're lucky

24 is a ridiculously tiny number and it should be expanded - that won't solve many problems, but it's a start, I'll give you a very odd, but true, scenario - Australia were the only bidder without representation on the voting panel (the 'ExCo')

Even England were allowed Geoff Thompson, but Australia were guaranteed no votes - Temarii, who was suspended, would have been a cert, despite not even being from the same confederation anymore, but regardless, to have eight of the nine bids represented by their own national associations is just plain wrong - I wouldn't say it's FIFA's worst aspect, but it shows a lack of consideration in the structure, either give them all a vote or none, like the IOC, don't allow a powerful nation like France or Russia to crush you

And there's a lot to be said for letting all members in, the block voting needs to be worked out, but clearly having some countries represented (like...Qatar) and most others not, affects loyalties and effectively skews the result, at least all members would be fairer, the panel of 24 are clearly only acting in self-interest so there's no point in them - let's face it, if Qatar weren't on that committee would they have had Blatter's ear? It's bizarre to think that Australia and Qatar (and indeed Japan and Korea) are both in the same confederation, and yet one is massively handicapped by it's own representative

Basically the whole system of lobbying individuals needs to be ceased, as does the remarkable executive power of the president, it needs to be a fair fight considering all the options - yes someone has to lose, but to waste countries like England, Australia, Spain, the US and Belgium's time is unforgivable when you give it to the countries with the worst technical and economic outlook, at least say beforehand that you want to give it to a country that needs to build 13 stadiums, rather than ones that already have the infrastructure in place because what was the point in even asking for that information when you wanted the converse??

You could weight or rank the bids, weight the confederations by strength, instead of giving crucial votes to minnows (see: New Zealand), anything to stop an old Swiss man and his cronies getting their own way - hell, give it to some external judges to decide, less people from dodgy organisations with their fingers in all the pies

*None of this means a thing will happen, it's politics after all, but I'm an optimist
**Major power being a country that has done well, and can still host it

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?

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

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

A few more tory lies

I'm developing a bit of a theme here - this isn't a partisan blog, and Brown is behaving like an overgrown 2-year-old, but he's not the one opposing reform for the sake of it, and lying about it

The Tories have an opinion on electoral reform but what are they actually lying about? I hear you ask

Take this from Dominic Grieve:

The current system delivered "clear, clean results" and allowed voters to "get rid of" MPs they did not want.

Have you ever 'got rid' of an MP you don't want?

The usual arrogant claptrap from the Tories - they keep most of their MPs through ridiculous safe seats where they face no scrutiny at all and with the first past the post system it is virtually impossible to defeat the biggest minority vote - this, in the Tories' minds (and Labour's btw), is a fair system and means people actually want those MPs...when most people don't actually know the name of their MP or PPC

I'll give you my own local example - all over East Anglia Tory MPs like mine hold majorities of a few thousand, few, if any, have a 50% majority but they win with a bedrock of support - the fact that 60% do not want the Tory is ignored, how is that electing the 'most popular' and indeed how can 'you get rid of' an MP when all the opposition votes are split - are you seriously telling me that since 1950 whatever Tory has held the seat has been wanted?

Alternative vote will (sorry, 'would') be a slightly better, less negative system as it will force a two-horse race, the Tories are right that it will cause a 'least unpopular' system, but it's a lie to suggest we have a 'most popular' system now, especially when they seem to support reality in choosing governments (ie. an unfair system for a distinct government change) but don't support that at constituency level

Their view is a slap in the face to all of us in the majority who don't want their hand-picked chums representing us

Put a sock in it, Simon, preferably a smelly one

You may or may not have heard that there is a 'campaign' to get Rage against the Machine to Christmas no.1 over whatever bilge comes out of X Factor this year

Simon Cowell has branded it as 'stupid' and 'cynical' and aimed at him

There's that ego again - actually it's not aimed at you personally, Simon - but is a reflection of our annoyance at having a major tv show produce an unmemorable album by some nobody at Christmas every year

"It does however change these guys' lives and we put this opportunity there so that the winner of the X Factor gets the chance of having a big hit record.

So we should ruin the race for Xmas no.1 because some karaoke singer wants a big hit? - Well here's some news for you, Cowell, there are 52 weeks in the year, and only one is vaguely interesting to the mainstream

Cowell also played down the impact of the trend for the X Factor's winner to take the No 1 spot.

He said: "Everyone has this slightly distorted view of Christmas numbers one being incredible. There was that ghastly Cliff Richard song a few years ago, Bob The Builder. So we haven't exactly taken away anything special, it just so happens that our record, to coincide with the show, goes out at Christmas."

 
If Christmas no.1 isn't so important then why don't you wait til January? These shows have always focused on the Christmas spot - seems strange, if it's not important, that every year since 2005 the X Factor song has been released specifically for the Sunday directly before Christmas, (as was Girls Aloud in 2002, in a specific two-horse race for Xmas No.1 orchestrated by the show)


You undermine the race and then say it's unimportant - so you've basically hijacked a bit of fun for the hell of it? Personally I think that's even worse than the commercialisation angle, at least admit this is exploitation - then it's good business sense rather than just pure humbug


It doesn't matter that crap songs have been Christmas no.1 (and bear in mind they are often for charity, unlike a certain someone's own crap songs) - the point is it's a bit of fun, it's supposed to be a race, not an automatic slot for the latest wannabe singer who'll be forgotten within 12 months - it has become the 'X Factor no.1' instead of the Christmas no.1


It's been hijacked by Cowell and his show, and we have every right to campaign against it - every year there is a campaign to get certain songs to no.1, long before you were even vaguely important, Simon, so don't take it personally, I know you think everything is about you, but it really isn't


And I must ask - why is it any worse to try and get Rage the no.1 spot when you, via manipulation of your viewers, do exactly the same thing? It's like Tesco complaining that Sainsbury's is competing with it

Why do people watch this irritating w**ker?


Raahh! Rant over!

edit: The only decidedly dodgy song since 1993 (Mr. Blobby) was the aforementioned 'Bob the Builder' song in 2000 - and guess what, that was a campaign which defeated Cowell's old band Westlife from claiming a second consecutive Christmas no.1

Go out and purchase "Killing in the Name" from Monday (13th)