Tiltshift London

I've been playing with a new app on my phone. Just a bit of fun. Here are the results when you mess about with a few photos of London.

Vive Le Tour!

It's not the right time of year, but it's never a bad time to watch this. A joyful little video about the 1962 Tour de France.

Vive le tour! from Bear Thunder on Vimeo.

Citizen Smith

In a moment of boredom the other day, I noticed that David Cameron's government have made some changes to the UK 'Citizenship Test'. I won't get into the "are we subjects or citizens" debate, but I do think this is a ridiculous idea.

The test is called "Life in the UK", and is a requirement for any new applicant for British nationality. So, you would think it would ask questions about everyday life in the UK, wouldn't you. But no. (Incidentally, British people of a more Celtic persuasion may have noticed that the test appears to apply to just one of the UK's four nations.)

I tried answering some of the questions here just for a laugh. I should declare at this stage that I was born in Hampshire, hold a British passport, and tend not to feel comfortable with bodily contact of any kind. In other words, I'm quintessentially British. Furthermore I have lived in the UK for all of my adult life, so I figured I'd be pretty good at this test. Er, no.

In fact I scored 18 out of a possible 24. Actually that's a pass - which is nice, as it presumably means I get to stay here for a while longer. But I couldn't help noticing that other people - British people, as well as foreign nationals who have lived here for some time - struggled with the test. These are intelligent people who are comfortable dealing with everyday matters in British life, so you would think that a test called "Life in the UK" would be a doddle. Again, no. An admittedly unscientific self-selecting sample of around 20 people all failed. Every single one of them.

So, I could only conclude there is something wrong with the test. Nobody needs to know when the first Census took place, or who the Queen is allowed to marry - or, indeed why the Queen is the Queen at all. What the test really needs is questions that do relate to life in the UK as we live it. Here are my suggestions, which Cameron is free to use. I won't even charge him.

If you can pass this test by scoring 50% or more, you should be entitled to claim a British passport. If you fail, you should have to give your passport back, and move somewhere more appropriate.

Question 1
Ownership of which item can protect you from deportation?
(a) A gun
(b) A copy of the Daily Mail
(c) A cat
(d) A whistleblowing website
(e) A huge pile of cash

Question 2
If you are caught exceeding the speed limit, what should you do?
(a) Admit liability and pay a fine
(b) Slow down
(c) Attempt to bribe the police officer
(d) Claim your wife was driving

Question 3
In a General Election, who controls the vote count and announces the winner?
(a) The Returning Officer
(b) Simon Cowell

Question 4
If a train leaves London at 0945 bound for Nottingham, what excuses will be offered for it being four hours late?

Question 5
Complete the following well-known phrase: "I see a little silhouetto of a man..."

Question 6
True or False: The Prime Minister is selected from the ranks of minor royalty.

Question 7
Healthcare in the UK is...
(a) Free
(b) Only available to those with expensive health insurance
The answer is (a), unless you are taking the test after 31 December 2013, in which case the answer is (b).

Question 8
Explain the rules of "Mornington Crescent" in 50 words or less.

Question 9
The correct response to "how are you?" is
(a) Very well thank you
(b) I'm fine, how are you
(c) Mustn't grumble

Question 10
Which is the odd one out?
(a) Short Leg
(b) Silly Point
(c) Deep Cover
(d) Wet Blanket

Question 11
Jammy Dodgers are:
(a) a professional baseball team
(b) one of your five a day

Question 12
Complete the following sentence: "I'm not racist, but..."

Question 13
Someone pushes into a queue ahead of you. Do you:
(a) Push back in ahead of them
(b) Protest loudly
(c) Do nothing
(d) Mutter quietly about the lack of morals in modern society

Question 14
Fill in the blank: "_______ Britain"
(a) Great
(b) Rip-Off
(c) Broken

Question 15
Explain the correct use of apostrophe's.

Question 16
Chips and _______
(a) gravy
(b) curry sauce

Question 17
_______ and chips
(a) Fish
(b) Whizzer

Question 18
What generally accompanies the phrase "you couldn't make it up?"
(a) A devastating exposé of the decline of Britain
(b) Shocking facts about the exploitation of hard-working white British families
(c) Something that is completely made up

Question 19
What is the correct name for a Snickers bar?

Question 20
You are leaving a pub after a long session of binge-drinking. What do you lose?
(a) Your phone
(b) Your clothes
(c) Your lunch
(d) Your self-respect
(e) All of the above


Welcome to Britain! Please let us know if you have any suggestions for further questions to be added to the test.

Not In My Back Yard

There has been much discussion in recent days of the Government’s plan to ‘reform’ the planning system.

Broadly speaking, on one side we have the ever-fragrant Gideon Osborne and his svelte chum Eric Pickles, claiming that planning ‘reforms’ will boost growth. On the other side, we have everyone else – except, of course, the private companies that will significantly benefit from these ‘reforms’.

At this point I’m going to stop using their word – ‘reform’ – and switch to a more accurate word – ‘destruction’. Having failed to sell off the forests earlier this year, it seems the Tories are intent on selling off the rest of the country – whatever the long-term cost to this (soon to be formerly) green and pleasant land.

It’s not just sandal-wearing lefties, and NIMBY types opposing these plans. It’s mainstream establishment organisations like the National Trust and the RSPB. But the privatisation train rolls on. Nothing is not for sale. Not the NHS, not the prisons, not the schools, and not even the very hills and fields around us. Everything, and everyone, must subordinate their own interests to those of the corporations and the wealthy. It is “key” to economic recovery, claims Osborne – the man who has so far killed what little economic growth he inherited – to enable companies to build wherever they like, without regard to the old system of checks and balances.

As is often the case with Tory policies, particularly with this seat-of-the-pants Government, this plan doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. As Martin Harper, the conservation director of the RSPB points out, “the [existing] planning system is intended to protect and represent the interests of the public in the face of complex decisions, and it will fail us all if one factor – economic growth – is set higher than any other.” Not least because, like slashing public spending down to two shillings and sixpence, it doesn’t work.

The Government claims, naturally – and correctly – that there is a severe housing shortage in the UK. But let’s not be fooled by this. There is no sudden concern on the part of the Conservative Party to help those who can’t get on the housing ladder, or those who can’t get housing at all. They’re not Tory voters, and they’re not represented by Tory policies. Never have been, never will be. You may think I’m being cynical and partisan here. I almost certainly am. But given that the Government plans to reduce the budget for building affordable homes by 60%, further exacerbating the housing shortage and driving the vulnerable into the clutches of predatory profiteering private landlords, and that the inevitable increase in rents that will ensue will have to be paid for out of taxpayer funds, it’s clear that this new policy is not driven by the shortage in housing but by the shortage in profits of those development companies who doubtless help fill the Party coffers.

All semblance of control and balance will be gone. It’s now a case of build what you like, where you like. Except, that is, if you’re an undesirable.

In the same week as the Government’s destruction of the planning law was rolled out, it was finally confirmed in the High Court that around 400 Irish Travellers living at Dale Farm in Essex would face eviction. These people have lived on this land for ten years. (Note that I don’t say they “lived illegally”, as much of the media does, as if their very existence contravened legislation.) They own it – because, when the last Tory Government removed the obligation for councils to provide pitches for Gypsies and Travellers in 1994, they were encouraged to buy land and settle on it. So they did. They bought an old scrap yard, filthy and polluted, and moved their homes there - next door to an existing Traveller settlement that already had planning permission. Technically, it’s ‘green belt’ land, but the only green on that land is oxidised copper. We’re not talking rolling hills and fields here. It was a dump. Now it’s the only home they have left. Or it was – until they were evicted for not having planning permission. If only they had been a massive corporation, instead of 80-odd families struggling to survive, and protect what remains of their culture.

The Travellers that now face eviction in the next two weeks are already starting to make homelessness applications – and, of course, the council are obliged by law to assist the elderly, infirm and very young. Which basically means all of them. Except, of course, the Government has already slashed spending on housing. So they’ve nowhere to go. No roadside. No legal pitches. Not even their own land.

One of the Government’s own Peers says the eviction is ‘stupid’. Even the UN is wading in. Those who continue to support the eviction claim, rather too often and too loudly for my liking, that it’s not about them being Travellers, it’s just about upholding the planning law. The same planning law that faces total destruction in the entire United Kingdom except this one small corner of Essex. This is disingenuous rubbish. It’s incredible to find that there are people across the country who care so much about upholding planning law hundreds of miles away, yet don’t seem to have any concerns about any other development in the entire country. Because the other developments are for profit-making companies, instead of a few families who aren’t from their culture. This isn’t enforcement, it’s a vendetta.

I have been to Dale Farm, and spoken to the families there. Like any other community, the vast majority of them just want to live their lives peacefully and within the law. Over the past ten years they have tried again and again to obtain permission for developing their small square of concrete and scrap metal, and time and time again they have been refused. This is by no means unusual. In England over 90% of planning applications by Gypsies and Travellers are turned down, compared to only 20% of planning applications from the general population.

Yet the eviction continues, despite the clear and obvious inequities involved. In 2006, the then Labour Government published a document on planning for Gypsy and Traveller sites. Notable extracts from this document include:

In some cases, perhaps involving previously developed (brownfield), untidy or derelict land, the establishment of a well-planned or soft-landscaped gypsy and traveller site can be seen as positively enhancing the environment and increasing openness.

And:

Members of the gypsy and traveller communities have the same rights and responsibilities within the planning system as members of other communities. Planning permission is normally required for any changes of use of land. As with developments submitted by anyone the only times permission would not be required are;
i) if the land has already been granted planning permission for a particular type of land use; or,
ii) the use of the land has been established over a period of time without valid planning enforcement action having been taken by the local authority. This time period is 4 years for building or other similar physical works which do not represent a change of land use, or 10 years where the development has represented a change of land use.

It seems to me that under these criteria, Dale Farm is well within the bounds of acceptability. George Osborne claims that "sticking with the old, failed planning system puts at risk young people's future prosperity and quality of life". It’s a crying shame that the prosperity and quality of life that so concerns him does not extend to all of the population.

Reinventing The Wheel

I've been away for a little while. No time to post on Libya, phone-hacking or looting. But I did see this...



I used to cycle a bit. But not like that. Hats off to Danny.

Election 2015 - The Campaign Starts Here

I love this idea. The more I think about, the more I love this idea. Allow me to share it with you.

OK, so it's not actually a fully formed idea, as such. More of a notion, really. Or a suggestion. But it's out there now, and it can't be unthought.

During some idle chat on Twitter -- arguably that's a tautology, but we'll move on -- a chap called David Platt* suggested arranging candidates for all 650 constituencies** in the next UK General Election.

* No, not that David Platt. Or that one. Another one.

** Or however many are left after Cameron has finished his gerrymandering.

I like this idea. (I think I mentioned that already.) Many people in Britain are disillusioned about politics these days; perhaps more than ever before. The Liberal Democrats appear to be facing extinction at the next election, and Labour and the Conservatives seem just as out-of-touch as ever. So why not start our own party? (And like all good parties, this one's going to have a DJ.)

Before we get into the details of how to stand for Parliament, though, we need to cover the basics. Stuff like what the new party will be called. And, um, what it stands for. You see, we're already getting into a different kind of politics here, by actually suggesting we have policies. As far as I can recall, the two parties that 'won' the 2010 election hardly had any policies before the election - and those they did have were swiftly abandoned.

Today marks exactly one year since the Coalition Government took control of Britain, and that leaves us more or less four years to sort out how we take it back. It starts here, and it starts now.

To give us a headstart, I have shamelessly copied some policy ideas from Mark Thomas, who had a similar idea back in 2009. Perhaps some of these can be an inspiration for us to develop our own policies. Or, if we prefer, we can just steal the best policies off other people. It worked for New Labour, so why not for us?

Here are a few of my favourites.

All politicians should be forced to wear the names and logos of the companies that sponsor them or with whom they have financial links.

Anyone who opposes immigration into this country should be barred from travelling abroad.

To randomly arm OAPs with guns.

Require the Daily Mail to print the following on every front page: "This is a fictional representation of the news. Any resemblance to real life is purely coincidental."

Make clothes out of cheese.

Anyone found guilty of homophobic hate crime has to serve their sentence in drag.

There should be separate lanes for pedestrians based on the speeds they walk at. Ranging from a fast lane for people who know where they are going to a hard shoulder for window shoppers.

Anyone buying a second home in Somerset has to buy a house of equal value for someone who actually lives in Somerset. This house is to be built on a golf course.

OK, so we could have some sensible policies - you know, like a Tobin Tax, or scrapping Trident, or maybe rebuilding the nation's stock of council housing. But where's the fun in that? Let's be honest: there are few if any votes in proposing a tweak in business rates, but I'd wager there are plenty of votes to be won by any party proposing on-the-spot fines for anyone found in possession of a copy of the Daily Express.

But this isn't about me. I don't want to be Prime Minister. This is about YOU, people. The Great British Public. Here is our chance to really take control. Now I'm giving you the opportunity to get out there and change our nation for the better. All we need from you is ideas. And maybe five hundred quid for your election deposit.

Unlawful Killing

On 1 April 2009, newspaper seller Ian Tomlinson finished his shift and prepared to walk home. At the same time in Central London there was a demonstration going on, which had nothing to do with Tomlinson.

Ian never made it home. He died, without friends or family by his side, on the pavement on Cornhill. Just minutes before, he had been subjected to a vicious and unprovoked attack.... by the police.

If a passer by had not filmed this moment, the truth would probably never have been exposed, and yet another death at the hands of the police would have passed without any consequences for the guilty party.



Despite obstruction from the police throughout this process, the truth is now out there for all to see. An innocent man was unlawfully killed by the very people who were supposed to protect him.

We all now know that PC Simon Harwood is a thug and a liar. Tomlinson wasn't the first person he assaulted that day, and it seems certain that Harwood, and many others in the police Territorial Support Group, have got away with many other similar occasions simply because their victims didn't die, and their crimes were not filmed.

Now is the chance for the police, and the Crown Prosecution Service, to prove that things have changed since Blair Peach. Harwood is not the only guilty party in this episode, but if - even after the findings of the inquest into Tomlinson's death - he does not face trial for manslaughter, then any last remaining shred of trust between the public, and the police who serve them, is lost.

Pimp My Vote!

On 5 May 2011, the nation votes once again in local elections - but this time there's a twist. For the first time ever (as far as I know), we are also being offered a chance to change the system which we use to elect our MPs. Surprisingly, this has been a more difficult choice for me than I had expected - quite possibly because both competing campaigns are fronted by arguably the two most unpopular politicians in the country.



For those of you who don't live in the UK, or have been hiding in Abbottabad for the past year or so, the referendum question is as follows:

At present, the UK uses the "first past the post" system to elect MPs to the House of Commons. Should the "alternative vote" system be used instead?

So, let's have a look at the two alternatives on offer.


First Past The Post ("FPTP")

The current system. You're given a list of candidates, you mark X against your preferred candidate, and the one with the most votes wins.

Under the UK's existing multi-party system, this often means a candidate is elected despite more people voting for other candidates than for the winner.

Alternative Vote ("AV")

The proposed new system. You're given a list of candidates, and you mark 1 2 3 etc in order of preference. (Or, just mark X against one candidate as with FPTP.) If no candidate has an outright majority of first choices, the least popular candidate is eliminated and their votes are redistributed to the other candidates in accordance with the second preferences expressed, and so on until one candidate has a majority.

This system can potentially result in the candidate who gains the most first-preference votes losing the final election due to redistributions of second and third choice votes. A recent examples of this is the election of Ed Miliband as leader of the Labour party.



OK. So far, so straightforward. But this doesn't help me much. I have lived in a variety of constituences in the past, from marginals to safe seats, but my current constituency is generally considered to be a very safe seat for the Conservatives. Of course there are a number of similar seats around the country, where one party (not always the Tories) are effectively elected before a vote is cast. What this often means is that one party can gain a majority of seats in Parliament while polling less than 40% of the nation's vote - in fact this happens in just about every election in my adult lifetime, except the last one.

Take 2001 for example. Under Tony Blair, Labour polled 40.7% of the votes, but won 62.6% of seats in Parliament. Surely, even for a die-hard Labour supporter, this can't be right. 60% of the country doesn't want you, but you've still got a strong working majority. Much the same could be said in Canada today, where the Conservatives won a crushing majority with a minority of the votes cast.

The problem with the FPTP system is that the parties tend to concentrate on the swing voters in the marginal seats, as a tiny change in voting share can make a huge change in representation in Parliament. Meanwhile, voters in the majority of constituencies where the result is pretty much obvious, are effectively ignored. This is the position I face in my constituency - basically, whoever I vote for (even if it's the Conservative candidate), my vote is wasted. FPTP doesn't really work if there are more than two parties - it's fine for Americans, but not for us.

So it seems to me that a change is required, but is AV the right one? I need to look at the arguments put forward by both sides, to see if that can help me decide whether AV would be a better, fairer and more representative system or not. If not, then should I vote to retain FPTP?

The following summaries of the arguments are as presented by The Guardian newspaper. I realise that paper doubtless has an editorial slant one way or the other, but the following summary at least looks to be factual and balanced. Whether their op-ed pieces are, is another argument.


The Yes campaign

The Yes campaign is supported by the Liberal Democrats and Greens, as well as the Scottish and Welsh nationalist parties, and some Republican parties in Northern Ireland. The Labour party are split both ways.



Supporters of a switch to AV say:

• The aim of securing more than 50% of the local vote would ensure MPs work harder to earn and keep voter support. Two-thirds of MPs at the last election were elected on less than a 50% share of the vote.

• It would end the "jobs for life" culture in safe constituency seats (campaigners point to MPs in safe seats who were embroiled in the expenses scandal that hit the previous parliament).

• It would encourage more people to vote, because voters would feel that their say matters more. Campaigners say many are deterred from participating because under first past the post because they feel their vote is wasted.

• AV is moving with the times: two-party dominance has made way for a more pluralist system (notably in devolved Scotland and Wales).

• It eliminates the need for tactical voting. Electors can vote for their first-choice candidate without fear of wasting their vote.

• A switch to AV would not mean changing the current MP-constituency link.

• Supporters say the system would make it more difficult for extremist parties to win an election, because they would be unlikely to secure many second or third preference votes.

• It encourages candidates to chase second and third preferences, which lessens the attractions of negative campaigning (one doesn't want to alienate the supporters of another candidate whose second preferences one wants) and rewards broad church policies.


The No campaign

The No campaign is supported by the Conservatives, as well as the BNP, and some Loyalist parties in Northern Ireland. The Labour party are split both ways.



Those against AV argue:

• First past the post is the fairest system because it is based on the principle of one person, one vote. AV is a "losers' charter" where the candidate who comes second or third in first preferences can actually be elected.

• Some votes will count more than others: If a voter gives their first preference vote to a mainstream party, their other preferences may not be counted. But if they vote for a fringe party candidate who gets knocked out, their other preferences will count.

• AV is a "politicians' fix" because, instead of the voters choosing the government, it would lead to more hung parliaments and backroom coalition deals.

Critics counter that the current coalition was a result of first past the post and that AV is unlikely to lead to more coalitions because it is not PR.

• AV makes decisive electoral outcomes less likely (critics again point to the 2010 election, which led to an inconclusive win for the Conservatives under first past the post).

• Switching to a new voting system would cost £250m.

• It takes longer to count.

• AV will do little to improve under-represented groups, such as the Greens, in parliament.



Both very persuasive in their own way, I'm sure. But this doesn't really help me, as neither is entirely satisfactory. How can I decide?

Some people will vote along party lines - so natural Tories will probably vote No, regardless of their views. This might be a tough call for Labour supporters however, and either way it is again no help for me. I am not allied to any one party over another, and don't see why my views should be dictated by them even if I was. Similarly, some will vote according to their opinions of the two chaps pictured above, but this doesn't really work either, as the system will outlive either of their political careers - at least one of which looks to be in its final stages already.

So, I turn to the campaigns. What are the Yes and No camps saying to persuade us? Let's have a look.

The Yes campaign appear to be focusing on the general perception that the current political system is unrepresentative, and taking advantage of the fact that politicians are even less popular than normal these days.



The No campaign appear to be focusing on the current backlash against LibDem leader Nick Clegg, who is fronting the Yes campaign.



I'm not impressed by negative campaigning. And I've already pointed out that I won't vote based on politicians I dislike. This is about an electoral system, not personalities. So I dig a little deeper, and go to the respective campaigns' websites for more.


The Yes campaign's website links to a brochure released by the Electoral Reform Society: "Why AV?" It's only three pages long, including the title page.

Of the six reasons they give to vote Yes, one appeals in particular - the fact that candidates now need to appeal to more voters, in order to get their second and third choices, if they want to get to the 50% mark. This can only be a good thing. Instead of polling 34% and relying on a split opposition, candidates must now appeal to as many voters as possible.

On the other hand, their sixth reason (clearly they were struggling at this stage) is specious at best. "When parties need to win the goodwill of as many voters as possible, they lack the incentive to create imaginary differences or to focus on negative campaigning." Rubbish. No electoral system on earth will discourage negative campaigning, not least because it works.

The No campaign's website lists just three reasons. The first is that "AV is costly", and claims that it will cost £250 million to transition. A very quick bit of fact-checking proves this to be false, or at the very least misleading. The amount quoted includes the cost of the referendum - which will be the same whoever wins - and also assumes voting machines will be required. This is not the case in any country that currently uses AV.

The No campaign's second reason is that "AV is complex and unfair". I doubt anyone who can list a short number of choices in order of preference would consider AV to be "complex", but is it "unfair"? Their only stated support for this claim is that only three countries use AV. Popularity doesn't mean fairness though, so this looks to be an empty claim.

Finally, the No campaign claim that AV will lead to more hung parliaments - despite the current hung parliament being achieved under FPTP. Again, a quick look at Australia's election results proves this not to be the case.

As Channel 4 News' excellent FactCheck blog shows, both sides are making more false claims than accurate ones. So I can't even believe them.

What if the Australians (and Fijians and Papuans) are all fools? What if, as Baroness Warsi claims, the extremists will get in under AV? What should I do? Who can I believe? One last chance to make my mind up... let's have another look at those summary points the Guardian helpfully provided.


Supporters of a switch to AV say:

• The aim of securing more than 50% of the local vote would ensure MPs work harder to earn and keep voter support. Two-thirds of MPs at the last election were elected on less than a 50% share of the vote.

Sounds good to me, but what if someone gets 49% and isn't elected? The chances of that happening are small, but it could happen.

• It would end the "jobs for life" culture in safe constituency seats (campaigners point to MPs in safe seats who were embroiled in the expenses scandal that hit the previous parliament).

I doubt this. It wasn't large majorities that caused the expenses scandal, it was the laissez-faire attitude to expenses fraud. Most of the worst offenders were long-serving MPs, but many with large majorities were honest.

• It would encourage more people to vote, because voters would feel that their say matters more. Campaigners say many are deterred from participating because under first past the post because they feel their vote is wasted.

Impossible to prove. In my opinion, the difference in turnout would be minimal.

• AV is moving with the times: two-party dominance has made way for a more pluralist system (notably in devolved Scotland and Wales).

True, the devolved nations have moved to AV. But they tend to end up with hung parliaments, just as the No campaign warn. Of course, this may not necessarily be a bad thing...

• It eliminates the need for tactical voting. Electors can vote for their first-choice candidate without fear of wasting their vote.

True, and a good one. Many times I've voted on the basis of "who is most likely to beat X?" rather than "whose policies are best?" Anything that moves from this to a more positively-inspired vote must be good, and it would hopefully end the situation where (for example) 65% of a constituency hate Labour, but their votes are split between other parties and Labour still get in.

• A switch to AV would not mean changing the current MP-constituency link.

True. So it's the same as FPTP in this aspect.

• Supporters say the system would make it more difficult for extremist parties to win an election, because they would be unlikely to secure many second or third preference votes.

This goes against what Baroness Warsi said. But it's telling to see that the BNP support the No campaign.

• It encourages candidates to chase second and third preferences, which lessens the attractions of negative campaigning (one doesn't want to alienate the supporters of another candidate whose second preferences one wants) and rewards broad church policies.

For me, the best reason so far. I'm fed up with my seat being so safe that not one party - not even the winning party - bothers trying to canvass my vote.


Those against AV argue:

• First past the post is the fairest system because it is based on the principle of one person, one vote. AV is a "losers' charter" where the candidate who comes second or third in first preferences can actually be elected.

Hm. Doesn't sound good, does it. These second preferences can be pesky. Here's an example of what happens, albeit not under AV but under a similar system. Scary eh.

• Some votes will count more than others: If a voter gives their first preference vote to a mainstream party, their other preferences may not be counted. But if they vote for a fringe party candidate who gets knocked out, their other preferences will count.

Not true. Everyone gets one vote, and one only. Say you go to the pub and ask for Guinness, but the Guinness is off. You opt for lager instead. You still only get one drink. Yes, if you vote for a 'fringe' party your second or third preference is likely to count more than your first, but surely this is a good thing. It allows smaller interest parties a chance to get a vote, even if they don't win the election. And yes, this can include extremists, but this is a democracy.

• AV is a "politicians' fix" because, instead of the voters choosing the government, it would lead to more hung parliaments and backroom coalition deals.

Coming from a coalition government, this is an odd argument. The last Australian hung parliament was in 1940 (when the UK also had a coalition). Since then, only one of 27 elections has resulted in a hung parliament - compared to 3 out of 28 in the UK under FPTP. Bad argument there, I think.

• AV makes decisive electoral outcomes less likely (critics again point to the 2010 election, which led to an inconclusive win for the Conservatives under first past the post).

See above. Not true.

• Switching to a new voting system would cost £250m.

Disproved. Scaremongering is most unedifying.

• It takes longer to count.

If it's worth it, then surely a little wait isn't a problem? India takes weeks to count their votes. So what?

• AV will do little to improve under-represented groups, such as the Greens, in parliament.

The Greens appear to disagree.



So. Time to decide. In the end I need to combine all the methods of decision-making to reach my choice.

Who do I dislike most? That's easy - the BNP.

Who do I support? Nobody right now.

Who has made the best argument? Neither, but Yes just shades it, mostly because the majority of No arguments are either irrelevant, or easily disproved.

Anything else? Yes. I don't like children.



That, in the end, is why I'm voting Yes. Because anyone who stoops that low doesn't deserve my vote. Or, perhaps, because I want to see babies die.

Fancy A New Job?

After all the fun I had with the BNP some time back, I couldn't resist this one.

The following job vacancy was recently advertised in The Guardian. Yes, the Guardian.

Daily Mail

•Britain’s most successful newspaper group is offering would-be reporters and writers an exciting and challenging yearlong training course, plus the chance to work at the Daily Mail and Mail Online

•We are looking for bright, sharp, intelligent writers who believe they can be fast-tracked to the very top

•You’ll be on the best journalism course in the business – and be paid a competitive salary while you train

•Successful applicants will probably have completed post-graduate journalism training or had experience working in newspapers

Apply by February 21, with your CV, 200 words on why you think you could be a Mail journalist, a 200-word news story and a selection of up to six cuttings and send to Sue Ryan, Trainee Reporters’ Scheme, Daily Mail, Northcliffe House, 2 Derry St, London W8 5TT.
Please send queries to sue.ryan@dailymail.co.uk

This has been covered brilliantly and hilariously by both Enemies Of Reason and Angry Mob, both of which are well worth a read. No doubt many others have also been inspired to join in. Although I'm sure that most, or even all, of them are better writers than I could ever hope to be, I shall still submit an application. Not least because being a good writer appears to be a major obstacle to getting a job with the Daily Fail. Yes, I think I've got a good chance with this one.

So here's my application letter which I have sent to Sue Ryan.

Dear Sue

While trawling through the sordid socialist rag that shall not be named, a beacon of truth and virtue shone out at me from the Job Vacancy pages that I could not resist. I have long dreamed of being a writer - not one of those poncy lefty fools like Slavoj Žižek or Noam Chomsky, but a proper writer like Richard Littlejohn or Jan Moir. Now I see that the very thing I had been looking for is available to me via the good offices of the Mail group.

Although I have no training or experience in journalism, I do know how to copy and paste, and I feel that this alone qualifies me to move swiftly into the middle ranks of Daily Mail reporters. I am perfectly capable of writing vindictive polemics based on nothing more than an overheard conversation on the bus, or even a hacked voicemail, and I have no qualms whatsoever about stitching people up in order to advance my career.

Above all I feel I am qualified to write for the Daily Mail because I hate living in England, and have always dreamed of buggering off to sunnier climes, where I can observe the deterioration of a once-great nation from afar. This distance, as Littlejohn has proved, can be invaluable in giving me an objective viewpoint that is based entirely on prejudice and lack of research, rather than any pesky ideas like actually living here or talking to real people.

Please please please PLEASE give me the job.

Yours hurrahing for the Blackshirts,

Doug

I will let you know if I get a reply, but in the meantime please do make an application yourself. And if you do, I'd love you to share it with me on the comments below, either in full or by posting a link to your own blog. This is too good a chance to miss. Just think - the next paranoid scare story about Eastern European wheelie bin inspectors could be under YOUR byline.

A Voice In The Crowd

Like most of the world, I have watched the Egyptian uprising unfold since 25 January. There is something beautiful yet terrifying about watching millions of people stand up and say - "ENOUGH". Beautiful in its power and potential, but terrifying in the prospect of how it could all so easily go wrong, as it did recently in Burma and Iran.

Now the Egypt story has a more personal dimension. My wife has managed, after days of trying, to get in touch with a friend who lives in Cairo. Initially the messages weren't clear, but it appears that he was shot in the demonstrations on (we think) January 26th, and was wounded in the head. He spent several days in hospital, but as soon as he was discharged he went straight back to Tahrir Square.

Since then, they have been communicating by Facebook and phone, and whatever method works best with the situation as it is on the ground in Egypt. And the messages we get back are truly inspiring.

I have amended names and redacted contact details, but otherwise the following messages are unedited.

February 2nd

Ok my dearest friend. Get me posted with ur news. And I will pray for u. ALLAH is JUST. ALLAH is merciful.

Ok my friend. Take ur time. I'm sorry I can't open the link. I'm getting access from my cell phone. Takecare my good friend. And plz try to eat. Salam

February 3rd

im @ home now..... @ last i can send u now freeely from my desktop.

first of all i have to say that GOOD people appear in their support to others during obstacles. and u r 1 of those good people, ALLAH gave u that beautiful heart that beats with great sensation towards humanity. ALLAH loves that heart as well i swear to Him.

i've been thru torture my friend, i was 1 of those protesters from the very beginning, from the 25th, i was there.... we've been attacked by Police, injured most of us and even killed few of us. days after a complete withdrawal of police from the Egyptian streets took place.... they made way for the terror and gangs, the latter attacked our homes and families, they were about to enter my flat where i live with my parents but i stopped it. they stole many stores attacked many people down the road and did alot of corruption to Egypt. and finally we've been attacked by those supporters to Mubarak, but actually they r not, they r like those gangs who were attacking people in the streets but now they r attacking the protesters.. they were paid for that i bet.....

thats what happened very briefly, i couldn't explain it more coz mmy English is not supporting me as usual..... i am ok now my friend, i get better than before.

here is my cell phone
+20XXXXXXXX
n my address
XXXXXXXXXXX

so when r u 2 coming to visit me then? :P u have no more excuses, u now have the address...LOL

salam my friend : ) don stop smiling plz, i missed ur face although i never saw it.

Believe it or not! Few days ago Gangs and prisoners were let out from their jails to attack the cities. People of Mubarak and the police left the gangs to do what they want . They even planned for it. They let them attack our streets and houses. But we stood against it right. And now the youth are the protectors not the police. Every area, the youth and good sons stand with huge sticks and kitchen knives in the streets waiting for those bastards. Just to protect our moms and dads. And yesterday, they sent those people on horses and camels AGAIN to attack the protesters. IF WE ARE ALL KILLED FOR ALLAH's sake TO FREE OUR SELVES FROM THIS DICTATORISM, WE DON'T CARE, AS LONG AS WE BELIEVE IN HUMAN RIGHTS AND HUMAN VALUE. May ALLAH make those souls of the people who were killed among us rest in peace. May ALLAH support us more to end this unfair battle. MAY ALLAH bless u people of the west who know what A HUMAN is to be free. May ALLAH bless us all and lead us to the right guidance and the right track. Amin.

February 5th

i can't describe how happy u made me by that call.... ur support to me is always making me better......

my head injury is not so deep, just a superficial trauma caused by a direct hit on my head. It was there of course, in my heart, in Tahrir square. Those supporters to Mubarak were armed with huge sticks, swords and bombs. They wanted to threaten us by their attacks to us but it didn't work..... we stood against them although 4 died of us. That was an unfair battle. we didn't have even a small swiss knife to save us.... but we did it...

yesterday, i was at work..... i missed going o Tahrir square alot, as if i got addicted to stand for hours there... i missed the energy that we all share while we r there... i was on duty and i swear to God i cried when i saw them on TV standing peacefully, i wanted to take a permission and leave but coz i work at a hospital, but culdn't leave....... tat was tearing me appppppppppaaart.

Yes sure, let anybody add me on facebook and on twitter ( although im new on twitter and still do not know alot of things about it but it is ok with me). Ur friends are most welcomed coz they come from ur side and u r very special to me so they r special too,


thanks millions

i will get some sleep now, and i will send u at night again : ) ALLAH bless u and ur family and those people having good heart like urs.

ALLAH is Just.

February 6th

Hello from the middle of cairo, from Tahrir square. Yes. I'm back. Slept for some time, checked my family and came here all thru the obstacles of the ''avoid walking thru'' rules. They set that rule from 4pm till 8am next day. I'm here not with my friends this time but with my self. I don't feel strange, those faces were here and always stay here until we hear his resination news. ALLAH is Just. I've seenpeople in UK march today in the news. Infront of the American embassy :-) I said to my self ''those are the people of justice who do get our point from the first day''. Stones kept thrown against us from the buildings around the square on that night. 100's of people got injured deeply, to the extent that I consider my wound is nothing in comparison to theirs. ALLAH is Fair. Happy to know that u the English, the people of humanity see the image clearly and not biased and getting the hidden details easily, this is even much more promising to us, mmotivating as u said. Yes, the other side of the earth has a clear vision also :-) love u all for ALLAH's sake.

If I have the money, i'd have travelled to u as soon as we finish it here. U r a friend that really deserves travelling to. I'm praying ALLAH to make me rich first to take better care of my parentrs, help Egypt's economy in recovery and travel to my faithful friends like u. ALLAH is so fair and he is looking to those who ask him in prayers if they are honest. Imagine ALLAH turns his face to u while u r asking him. He never turn away from those who aask him, if they have faith and enough honesty. His reply to ur asking doesn't have to be immediate, the reply might take years and years. Just don't forget when it comes true that someday u asked for that, and don't forget to thank Him when u achieved what u asked. May ALLAH grant us honesty, faithfullness and patience.

February 7th

I followed the reporter. And I will get u updated my friend. My pleasure to hear that the people of the United kingdom are so attached to our issue. This is so noble, but i'm not astonished because I know that the English are very understanding to such critical topics before they judge.
Send him please my best regards and great appreciation from the people of the square.

I am now back home to see my family needs and tomorrow i'll be off from work so i'll go early to the square after I do some shopping. I'll buy alot of food for us there because it takes us everytime to leave the square inorder to get something to eat. So i'll pack my bag with food and water.

I'll get u posted with any updates. Takecare my NOBLE friend. SALAM.

Forgot to tell u that on Tuesday we will be making some maintenance to the square. It looks ugly now lol takecare

Hello my friend from the middle of Cairo, from the square. It took me alot to read all ur forwards. Sorry for not answering ur call, my cellphone is almost out of charge. I'll be leaving the square in half an hour. I've to look after my parents as well. I'll come back again tomorrow for another day in Tahrir.

Curfew has been narrowed to (8pm-6am). But it is safe to leave after 8pm as long as u have ur personal ID. It isn't that dangerous as u think, even if it is, no 1can stop ur now.

I don't have money these days. I didn't run to the bank today to withdraw as much as I can like many people did. I couldn't even reach an ATM. Most probably they've been raped violently by people's lust for cash today. Every 1 took his place from early in the morning in those ques regardless of what will happen MORE to our economy. They just wanted to drink it all now and not even tomorrow. I've to admit, this is selfishness. If I say that I am LOYAL TO MY COUNTRY THEN I'VE TO ACT IN AWAY THAT SUPPORTS ITS ECONOMY, NOT TO RUIN IT MORE. Sorry my friend for being nervous about that. I'm sorry.

Yes. Suliman is talking to OTHER opposition groups. Those who are standing in the square now are the ROOTS. Actually, Sulieman is discusing the issues concerning the leaves and guess what, of ANOTHER TREE.

Thanks to XXXX for his great concern, tell him not to worry. Even if we got arrested we won't stop.

Our country is writing a brand new chapter in her own history so as to tell those who are looking forward to being in charge, BE AWARE OF THE ROARS OF MY PEOPLE, THEY CAN DO ANYTHING FOR ME. Mubarak's tale ain't over yet, but its gonna make alot think twice before they judge on us.


To all GOOD PEOPLE of our earth. To all those very few clean hands knocking to help. THANK YOU FOR UNDERSTANDING OUR CASE THE RIGHT WAY. You give us hope I swear.

Sorry for being extra dramatic.
Salam

I wish them all the best of luck.



Photographs: Khaled Elfiqi/EPA & John Moore/Getty Images

Reactions To Tucson

I do have a lot to say about last week's shootings in Tucson, but rather than do so, I would just ask that you compare...



And contrast...



I think you get the picture