Split Horizons

Bad News on Redistributing Supermarket Salaries

2012-01-20T18:34:00.006Z

Zoe Williams's article on top vs. bottom-end supermarket salaries is interesting and full of good intentions, but I fear it doesn't lead us anywhere useful.

Her argument is that supermarkets don't pay their staff a proper wage (perhaps because of in-work state benefits), which allows them to make excessive profits and pay their CEOs an exorbitant salary. To these CEOs she cries out, "To grab so much in excess of what you could ever spend or need, at a cost of so much hardship, to so many people, defies comprehension."

She also gives us lots of handy numbers: the supermarkets' workforce is 900,000-strong, and the CEOs' salaries are as follows:

• Justin King, the CEO of Sainsbury's, receives £3.2m a year;
• Philip Clarke of Tesco, £6.9m;
• Dalton Philips, of Morrisons, £4m;
• Andy Clarke of Asda's pay is not in the public domain.

I'll be generous and assume that Clarke earns as much as the 'market leader', i.e. the Tesco CEO salary of £6.9m. That gives us a total CEO salaries of the big four supermarkets of £21m.

Redistributing that CEO income equally amongst the full supermarket workforce would give each supermarket employee just £23 extra per year. While I don't dispute that Every Little Helps, I'm unconvinced that less than 50p per week would make a significant difference to the lives of ordinary shop-floor workers.

There are serious inequalities in our society which need tackling, but all this focus on people's incomes distracts us from the real source of systemic unfairness - inequality of wealth.

Meanwhile, if we are to aim for high levels of social mobility, then while education and equal opportunities are vital, they are only enablers to the only way social mobility is ultimately achieved - income.

Alcohol Minimum Pricing is OK, but can't we do better?

2011-12-31T15:25:00.003Z

Alcohol is an addictive drug, with 1.5 million dependent users in the UK. There is nothing liberal about drug addiction. A life enslaved to a chemical is not a life with liberty.

Drinking is also a primary means of recreation and a national pastime. It is illiberal to restrict the recreational behaviour of adults when it is only themselves that may come to any harm.

Inevitably, when the issue of alcohol minimum pricing is raised, liberal opinion is split. Ewan Hoyle has made the case in favour, while Mark Thompson has made a harm reduction-based arguments against. As much as it matters, I support open-minded trials of alcohol minimum pricing to discover whether the benefits of such a policy would outweigh the negatives.

However, there seem to me to be flaws with alcohol minimum pricing within what its proponents wants to achieve. A price floor means that the alcohol supply chain gets to take all of the additional revenue that will be made from alcohol sales. This money may well end up being spend on more aggressive advertising campaigns by producers - something of an own-goal when the aim is to reduce alcohol consumption.

It would be far better if the government simply* raised alcohol duty. That way, a price floor would be created through tax, but the revenue would be taken by the government to fund rehabilitation services and education on the dangers of alcohol.

Clearly it is politically difficult to raise alcohol duty by such a large amount, so I would also make alcohol exempt from VAT at the same time. VAT is favoured by economists because of the way it encourages efficiency in the supply chain, but when it comes to addictive drugs, efficiency of supply should be of least concern. As a nice bonus, a switch from VAT to duty would also help put pubs and supermarkets on a level playing field. It is common knowledge that alcohol is cheaper in supermarkets than at the pub. Supermarkets are the epitome of an efficient supply, while pubs provide the added value of a social space in which alcohol can be consumed. With VAT, pubs pay more tax than supermarkets on alcohol that is equally as addictive.

* I say "simply", but the system of alcohol duty is far from it. The IFS has produced the chart below which shows the ridiculously complicated effective rates of alcohol duty currently imposed. All forms of alcohol should be treated like spirits, with taxes levied at a consistent rate relative to its ABV strength. This chart should be subtitled, "when lobbyists take control of the tax system".

Lib Dems Must Resist Any Further Restrictions Around 'Legal Highs'

2011-10-25T17:45:00.004+01:00

The ACMD has today called for further punitive laws to be enacted to tackle the growing number of new psychoactive substances being marketed an consumed in the UK. It wants analogues of already illegal drugs to be banned in the assumption that they will have similar effects.

The coalition agreement does state that the Lib Dems will enable legislation that "will introduce a system of temporary bans on new ‘legal highs’ while health issues are considered by independent experts."

We have already done that. This exact legislation was part of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act which passed earlier this year.

Liberal Democrat policy was recently brought up-to-date at this year's conference with the passing of a motion on protecting the community from drug harms. The party's stance is now crystal clear. Any further drug policy legislation that can be voted for by Lib Dem MPs must involve:

• an independent panel to assess our current drug laws,
• a switch to the 'decriminalisation' approach which has shown beneficial outcomes in Portugal,
• or a legal framework to enable a strictly controlled supply of cannabis.

Now we must be practical. We should not outright ignore the work of the ACMD - that was the attitude taken during the dying years of the Labour government. However, if the Conservatives wish to progress with any further drug restrictions with us in government, they must also be open to considering some of our party's drug policies too.

50p Rate Blah Blah Blah

2011-10-03T13:17:00.005+01:00

Maybe the 50p rate of income tax paid by the highest earners on incomes over £150,000 is bringing in a few hundred million a year. Maybe it isn't. Either way it won't be raking in billions.

What the debate about the 50p rate is all about generating headlines without really changing much. The government fiddles about with a few hundred million to grab headlines all the time. The government will spend £680bn this year. Throwing a fraction of one per cent of its tax raising and spending power changes nothing fundamental about the impact government has. The Coalition's commitment to raising the personal allowance to £10,000 (as promised by the Lib Dems) is a much bigger shift that will cost the Treasury £17bn once it has been realised (and benefits lower earners the most). Now that's what I call income tax reform.

There is nothing wrong with rewarding success - cutting the 50p rate to 40p would do this a very little bit. There is also nothing wrong with wanting to see the richest pay more of their fair share - keeping the 50p rate would do this a very little bit.

But given the trivial size of the change, it's frustrating is seeing progressives get drawn into this debate.

Yes, income tax is progressive and is directly linked to the ability to pay. Yes, the marginal rates look stupid when plotted on a graph and a few tweaks would make it technically fairer:

However, any changes to income tax of this nature would only affect a tiny amount of the money earned by the richest 5% shown in this graph:

Getting into a heated debate about the top end of income tax is like arguing over the position of a few grains of sand in a sandcastle, when what the argument should be about is what overall shape the sandcastle should actually be.

As an example, take property. The richest 5% of property owners have a hugely disproportional amount of wealth compared to the rest of us.

Fiddling with income tax will do nothing to redress this inequality. If anything it will distract attention from the fact that such a huge wealth disparity exists.

It is measures like Vince Cable's mansion tax that would really get the ball rolling on redistributive taxation.

(Hat-tips: Adam Corlett for the marginal income tax rate graph and ALTER for the income and property distribution charts from this PDF.)

Who's Getting Their Way On Spending Cuts?

2011-09-06T17:00:00.003+01:00

Before the general election, all the main parties agreed that the deficit needed to be tackled over the next 5 years. The country couldn't go on spending £1 in every 4 raised just on debt interest.

The IFS scrutinised the deficit reduction plans of the three main parties in the run up to polling day. They calculated that the Conservatives were pledging £96bn of spending cuts by 2015, while the Lib Dems would cut £80bn.

We now know that these two parties would form a Coalition government. In October they announced their Comprehensive Spending Review. Its figures show that the Coalition will cut £81bn from government spending by 2015.

I know my readers are intelligent souls, so I'll leave you to work out whether £81bn is closer to the Lib Dem £80bn or the Tory £96bn.

Let's not forget Labour in this. The IFS calculated they would make £82bn of spending cuts, only the slightest bit different from the Coalition's £81bn. Labour now oppose every single cut the Coalition is making.

Another Anti-Immigration Myth Blown Out Of The Water

2011-09-01T17:31:00.002+01:00

This was the Daily Express's frontpage on November 2nd 2007.

This myth has been circulated in our mainstream media for the last four years. There are more examples here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here.

Oh and here:

It is total nonsense. The 'maths' to make this myth work is basically equivalent to saying 2 - 2 = 4.

Thankfully, Left Foot Forward has today brilliantly destroyed this argument by doing the same calculation with disabled people.They took 219% of all new jobs last year!

The Net Migration Trap

2011-08-27T12:11:00.001+01:00

Fraser Nelson's analysis of the latest net migration statistics is generally sound:

He correctly identifies that "the inflow to Britain has stayed steady, but the number emigrating from Britain has fallen" (which many other journalists got wrong).

He also states that "Cameron has a snowballs's chance in hell of meeting his target" of reducing net migration to the tens of thousands. That's true too. The immigration reforms brought in by the Coalition will already be deeply damaging on both an economic and humanitarian level. But they don't go far enough to cut net migration to such a low level. ConservativeHome's Tim Montgomerie has spotted why: "At every turn the Lib Dems have frustrated Damian Green and Theresa May's efforts". I'm appalled by what has been done to the already horrid immigration system left by Labour, but I dread to think how awful it would get if the Tories weren't reined back by the Lib Dems.

However, some of Fraser Nelson's analysis raises more questions than it answers. He decides that "Cameron should only ever have pledged to stem the inflow". This is problematic though, in two ways.

First, it changes your motives for wanting reforms to the system. If you are worried about immigration because of the pressure it puts on public services, infrastructure, the number of jobs available to British workers, these are better dealt with by looking at net migration, as this tracks the change in population size. If you only want to cut immigration, it changes your agenda to the more cultural arguments against immigration. It would be hard to defend such a policy without sounding like Enoch Powell.

Second, the government can only control non-EU immigration. EU immigration, after a lull during the recession, is back to its mid-2000s strength. It could even be that reducing non-EU immigration causes EU immigration. Oops!

Fraser Nelson also uses this odd argument - "Governments of free countries can't stop people emigrating". Why is it a right for people to migrate in one direction but not the other? (Of course what's really happening is that the government is responding to voters' selfish demand that they can move freely whilst insisting other people can't. That's nothing to do with freedom.)

So it would appear the government is trapped by its own net migration target. They even had a golden opportunity to make life much easier for themselves when the Home Affairs Select Committee suggested removing foreign students from the immigration statistics (they are much more like visitors than migrants). The government rejected the offer. Talk about own goals! Fraser Nelson says that Cameron "deserves the flak he'll get". Quite.

But we are where we are. Labour's already tight immigration policy will be further tightened by this government. The reality is that migration is a natural part of an increasingly interconnected world. Our border controls are futile against this overwhelming force. There's evidence that the wasted human potential created by immigration controls is stopping a boost to global GDP of between 67% and 147%. That's $39 trillion at the bottom end. The global economy could really do with that boost right now.

Why Don't CAMRA Practice What They Preach?

2011-08-10T12:16:00.007+01:00

CAMRA have a long history of saying they promote responsible, healthy drinking. Their latest press release is no exception:

At the Great British Beer Festival today, CAMRA, the Campaign for Real Ale, has welcomed the Government's decision to introduce a 50% excise duty reduction on beers at or below 2.8% ABV from October 2011 in a move that will allow consumers to enjoy a lower priced and lower strength pint in their local.

CAMRA predicts the introduction of low strength beers - dubbed the 'People's Pints' - in pubs could be a huge boost to the licensed trade in light of new consumer research - out today - showing how 1 in 2 regular pub goers would like to see more pubs selling a low strength beer option.

Building on the success of a campaign which CAMRA has been leading since 2009, further new research has shown how pub goers would like to see more pubs selling low strength beers due to factors such as the ability to help regulate drinking levels, their more refreshing taste, their low calorie content, and their lower cost.

Last weekend saw the CAMRA-run Great British Beer Festival, which showcases 300 of the UK's finest real ales. Therefore you would expect CAMRA would be keen to showcase these "People's Pints" at its grandest event.

I'm a real ale drinker myself, and while I've been to the Great British Beer Festival in several times in the past, I didn't make it this year, so I don't have a guide in front of me. Handily though, their website provides a complete list of all the beers available. I went through it, and discovered that not a single beer available at the Great British Beer Festival was below 2.8% ABV.

The lowest ABV beer available was Bateman's Dark Mild, 3% ABV (FYI, it's a Cyclops-style dark mild, black in colour with a roasted smell and taste). Once you get up to 3.4% ABV there was a good selection available.

I can't find the June 2011 CAMRA Omnibus Survey where the statistic comes from, but let's trust that it's true that 1 in 2 regular pub goers say they want these less alcoholic beers. However what people say they'll do and what people actually do are not the same thing. I strongly suspect that breweries know that only beers above 3% ABV will find a market.

One possibility is that 3% ABV is the flavour cut-off point. Anything below this tastes bland, and there is a minimum level of alcohol content required as a base to bring out those delicious, complex flavours. However, CAMRA's own press release contradicts this:

On the eve of the Great British Beer Festival CAMRA conducted a taste test to find out whether beer experts could differentiate between a low and mid strength real ale. In a tasting consisting of real ales from 2% to 3.5% ABV, even a panel of experienced drinkers did not manage to correctly differentiate the products.

Who am I to argue with the panel of experienced drinkers?

This therefore suggests a different rationale - real ale drinkers don't just drink for the flavour, they drink to get drunk. To be clear, I'm no puritan - indeed this explanation would correlate with my own experience of real ale drinking.

There's plenty of evidence to suggest that this is what's going on too. Looking at the other end of the ABV spectrum available at the Great British Beer Festival, we find:

Black Sheep Riggwelter (5.9% ABV)
Raw Grey Ghost IPA (5.9% ABV)
Titanic Nine Tenths Below (5.9% ABV)
Thornbridge's Jaipur IPA (5.9% ABV) and Raven (6.6% ABV)
Acorn Gorlovka (6% ABV)
Flowerpots IPA (6% ABV)
Peerless Full Whack (6% ABV)
Spectrum Old Stoatwobbler (6% ABV)
Twickenham's Daisy Cutter (6.1% ABV)
Greene King's Abbot Reserve (6.5% ABV), Old Crafty Hen (6.5% ABV) and Very Special IPA (7.5% ABV)
Elland 1872 Porter (6.5% ABV)
Brains' Strong Ale (6.5% ABV, "exclusively available at the GBBF")
Arbor's Yakima Valley American IPA (7% ABV)
Inveralmond Blackfriar (7% ABV)
All Gates Mad Monk (7.1% ABV)
Brodies' Superior London Porter (7.1% ABV)
Yates' Yule Be Sorry (7.6% ABV)

All are more than double the 2.8% ABV CAMRA say they promote. And those are just the casks. For that extra-special headache, there's always a bottle of O'Hanlon's Brewer's Special Reserve 2010 (12.9% ABV).

Finally, here's a photo from that you'll see on all the pages their website:

'Nuff said.

CAMRA need to drop the pretence. They should acknowledge that their members like getting drunk.

This Is The Youth Of Today

2011-08-10T01:50:00.000+01:00

Yesterday on Twitter... #londonriots

2011-08-09T01:55:00.000+01:00

I went through three stages of emotion looking at my Twitter feed yesterday - confusion, amusement, and then downright despair. I find it hard to comprehend what's been going on in London, what motivates these rioters, what the cause is. Twitter answered none of these questions. What it did expose was how nasty and callous some political activists can be.

I must first address the jokes. Most were tasteless, some were stupid, few were funny, and all were unnecessary. I can understand why people make jokes in an incomprehensible situation. It's a way of coping. But looking back over them, I can't help feel that those who wrote them probably ought to question their appropriateness. I'm one of them. I tried to make light of the heaviest of situations. I shouldn't have.

However what really angered me, and what provoked me into hitting the 'new post' button right now, is seeing the political agendas being tagged onto these horrid events. I saw my allies do it as well as my opponents.

Left wingers stated that this proved that the government's cuts were having devastating repercussions.

Right wingers stated that this proved that multiculturalism has failed, and that the youth of today had no morality.

Liberals stated how this proved that allowing the government to tread on our civil liberties causes serious repercussions.

Fascists stated how this proved that immigration had ruined our way of life and must be stopped.

Anarchists stated how this proved that if the government is allowed to steal property, it will mean citizens stealing each other's property too.

I saw all of these exclamations yesterday. If I was being kind, I'd file these opinions as "guesswork at best". As they tumbled onto my screen, I tried to make sense of them. But it was like trying to find meaning in randomly generated numbers. As they continued pouring in, it actually became funny. I began chuckling at the desperation some people clearly must feel to constantly justify their political persuasion. But they didn't stop. As London went up in flames, along with countless livelihoods, there were still people determined to manipulate the situation to preach their political gospel.

Why are these people interested in politics? I thought the whole point of it was to secure positive outcomes for people's lives. When the worst hits, and all you're thinking of is the propaganda, why are you doing it?

There are so few facts about what is going on and the events that led up to it that we can't draw any conclusions. I don't pretend to have no gut instincts myself, but no-one needs to know about the contents of my gut. The only thing I know for certain is that anyone drawing proof of any underlying political argument from this is telling you more about themselves than they are about society.

And yes, it may be that one or two of the answers that are out there may turn out to be accurate. I can guarantee that whoever wrote them will let you know about the accuracy of their insight. But that random number generator will also occasionally give the correct solution to a problem too.

Full Text of the Lib Dem Conference Drug Decriminalisation Motion

2011-08-05T09:53:00.001+01:00

Protecting individuals and communities from drug harms

Conference notes:

1) That drugs are powerful substances which can have serious consequences for the individual user and society in general; and that it is therefore right and proper that the state should intervene to regulate and control the use of such substances as it does the consumption of legal drugs such as alcohol and tobacco and both prescription and over the counter medicines.

2) That the misuse of drugs can blight the lives of individuals and families and the purchase of illegal drugs can help to fuel organised crime.

3) The need for evidence-based policy making on drugs with a clear focus on prevention and harm-reduction.

4) There is increasing evidence that the UK’s drugs policy is not only ineffective and not cost effective but actually harmful, impacting particularly severely on the poor and marginalised.

Conference further notes:

A. The positive evidence from new approaches elsewhere including Portuguese reforms that have been successful in reducing problematic drug use through decriminalising possession for personal use of all drugs and investing in treatment programmes.

B. That those countries and states that have decriminalised possession of some or all drugs have not seen increased use of those drugs relative to their neighbours.

C. That heroin maintenance clinics in Switzerland and The Netherlands have delivered great health benefits for addicts while delivering considerable reductions in drug-related crime and prevalence of heroin use.

D. The contribution of the ACMD to the 2010 Drug Strategy consultation which states that“people found to be in possession of drugs (any) for personal use (and involved in no other criminal offences) should not be processed through the criminal justice system but instead be diverted into drug education/awareness courses or possibly other, more creative civil punishment”.

E. The report of the Global Commission on Drug Policy whose members include former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, former heads of state of Colombia, Mexico, Brazil and Switzerland, the current Prime Minister of Greece, a former US Secretary of State and many other eminent world figures, which encouraged governments to consider the legal regulation of drugs in order to, “undermine the power of organised crime and safeguard the health and security of their citizens”.

F. That the United Kingdom remains bound by various international conventions and that any re-negotiation or new agreements will require international co-ordination.

Conference believes:

i) That individuals, especially young people, can be damaged both by the imposition of criminal records and by a drug habit, and that the priority for those addicted to all substances must be health care, education and rehabilitation not punishment.

ii) Governments should reject policies if they are demonstrated to be ineffective in achieving their stated goals and should seek to learn from policies which have been successful.

iii) At a time when Home Office and Ministry of Justice spending is facing considerable contraction, thereis a powerful case for examining whether an evidence-based policy would produce savings allowing the quality of service provided by these departments to be maintained or to improve.

iv) That one of the key barriers to developing better drugs policy has been the previous Labour government’s persistent refusal to take on board scientific advice, and the absence of an overall evaluative framework of the UK’s drugs strategy.

v) That the Department of Health should take on a greater responsibility for dealing with drugs.

Conference calls for:

a) The Government to immediately establish an independent panel tasked with carrying out an Impact Assessment of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, to properly evaluate, economically and scientifically, the present legal framework for dealing with drugs in the United Kingdom.

b) The Panel should also consider reform of the law, based on the Portuguese model, such that i) possession of any controlled drug for personal use would not be a criminal offence;

ii) possession would be prohibited but should cause police officers to issue citations for individuals to appear before panels tasked with determining appropriate education, health or social interventions.

c) The panel should also consider as an alternative, potential frameworks for a strictly controlled and regulated cannabis market and the potential impacts of such regulation on organised crime, and the health and safety of the public, especially children.

d) The reinvestment of any resources released into effective education, treatment and rehabilitation programmes.

e) The widespread provision of the highest quality evidence-based medical, psychological and social services for those affected by drugs problems. These services should include widespread availability of heroin maintenance clinics for the most problematic and vulnerable heroin users.

Dark Days

2011-07-30T10:52:00.004+01:00

Well it's hard to be happy

in a world that's so cruel

where the weak just get weaker

where the powerful feud

where the children go hungry

while the soldiers stand by

lay down your weapons

take hold of your lives

and when will we learn

that it's hate that breeds hate

only love is the cure

don't leave it too late

get up, and feel it

the truth that won't wait

if we choose to do nothing

then we take all the blame.

HS2, WCML & FPTP

2011-07-27T14:30:00.000+01:00

First, a breakdown of those acronyms:

HS2 = High Speed 2, a proposed high speed rail link that will directly London Euston to Birmingham, then later to Manchester (and Leeds).

WCML = West Coast Main Line, an existing rail link connecting London Euston to Birmingham and Manchester (and than up to Scotland). It also has stations at many other places in between. It's the most important railway line in the UK.

FPTP = First Past The Post, the electoral system used for general elections. The UK is split up into 600 constituencies, and each elects a single MP with the most votes. Most constituencies are safe seats where the same party always wins, but a few are marginal seats where the constituency frequently changes hands. It's the marginal seats which pick who governs, so the views of the swing voters here count more than anywhere else.

There is a big dispute over whether or not HS2 should be built. Opponents point to its £30bn price tag and the damage it will do to the countryside. Proponents emphasise the prospects for

The WCML carries all sorts of trains. As well as some services stopping at the towns on its path, it is used for the current fastest services from the major cities to London. The diagram below shows a typical hour use of the line.

The key thing to note is how many trains full of intercity passengers zoom straight past places like Crewe, Rugby, Northampton, Milton Keynes and Watford. HS2 provides a better alternative for these trains, freeing up capacity for trains to serve large towns. It is in the self-interest of people in these towns to see HS2 built.

The people whose self-interest is not served by HS2 are the people who live in the small towns and rural areas that the line will speed through but not stop anywhere near. However I'm unaware of the proposed HS2 route going anywhere near a marginal seat. The route seems to be entirely through Tory safe seats.

Conversely, the WCML-served Crewe, Rugby, Northampton, Milton Keynes and Watford are all towns containing marginal seats. So in order to gain power, it is in the self-interest of politicians to prioritise the views of residents of these places at the expense of the residents in safe seats.

To the lobbyists campaigning for HS2's construction, I'd be making sure that the residents of the WCML towns are aware of the benefit HS2 will bring them. The politicians will respond accordingly.

How Tabloid Misinformation Makes Our Country Worse

2011-07-15T14:01:00.007+01:00

Our understanding of the world comes from the media. Yet opinion polls that ask about how things are show the public are highly misinformed.

Here is a clear example of this effect:

Asked to estimate the proportion of foreign-born people living in the UK, the average guess is 29.4%. The true figure according to OECD data is 10.8%, lower than Germany, Spain, the Netherlands, Canada and the USA.

How do the public become so misinformed about the scale of immigration?

Here is yesterday's Daily Mail frontpage:

Millions of people will have seen this frontpage headline. However, the numbers are simply untrue. The Office of National Statistics has started to explicitly tell reporters that it is incorrect to use their figures in this way, after countless instances of misreporting by the tabloid press. The Daily Mail deliberately ignored this warning.

This has been going on for many years, and a false perception is created. The government, keen to appease the negative feelings generated by this misinformation, therefore has to respond with promises to reduce net migration to below 100,000.

The consequences of their immigration clampdowns are numerous on both a human and economic level. The latest student visa restrictions will cost the economy around £2.4bn - money we can ill-afford to lose in these uncertain economic times. The family visa restrictions will mean the ability to live with a foreign partner with will depend on income - your wedding vows may have said "for richer or for poorer", but that will now legally not be the case for some.

I could have written a similar article on other issues, for instance law and order. The tabloids lie to us, the public demand action based on misinformation, and the government act on false perceptions rather than the reality.

Never mind the celebrity gossip - this is how the tabloids make our country worse. I welcome the demise of the News of the World, and hope the rest of the gutter press follows suit.

European Commission Considers Legally Regulated Supply of New Psychoactive Substances

2011-07-11T20:43:00.006+01:00

Here's a statement from a press release from the European Commission (emphasis mine):

The Commission is considering various ways to make the EU rules more effective, such as alternative options to criminal sanctions, new ways of monitoring substances that cause concern, and aligning drugs control measures with those for food and product safety. In the autumn, the Commission will present a series of options in this respect.

These words are music to this drug policy reformer's ears. What is being actively considered here is a legal framework for the supply of new recreational drugs that spring up.

The problem of 'legal highs' is growing, with 115 new substances being identified in the EU over the last 5 years. Our hopeless drug laws can't keep up with criminalising more and more chemical compounds at an ever increasing rate. The drugs are typically sold as 'not for human consumption', even though they are produced with human consumption in mind. Clearly the current legislation is farcical.

No one denies that drugs can be dangerous, and each drug brings its own unique set of challenges for the health of the user and the wider effect on society. When talking of 'food safety' regulations, I hope the EC mean tighter rules than those covering, say, tinned tomatoes. The regulations should be modelled on those covering alcohol and tobacco as a bare minimum, to reflect the dangers of a drug.

The EC report also fails to consider what is causing the big increase in new pschoactive substances entering the market. The demand for legal highs is created by the illegality of more 'traditional' recreational drugs such as cannabis, ecstasy and cocaine. The scientific understanding of traditional drugs is also stronger, at least when compared to a brand new legal high substance. We therefore could have a situation where there is a proper legal framework for supplying less well understood recreational drugs, whilst well-known drugs remain criminalised. It would be more successful if legislation were designed to fit around the best understood recreational drugs.

If the EC successfully produces legal high supply regulations, I would expect that some of the first drugs to make use of the regulations will see a reasonable number of users, which could steal the recreational drug market away from both criminal dealers and the unregulated legal high traders.

It is also interesting to note the language used by the EC in its press release. It promotes a non-criminal justice approach with the familiar rhetoric of populist drug policy: "tougher action", "protect our children", "rules must be strengthened", "make sure young people do not fall into the trap" etc. The communications staff at the EC may well have figured that the "tough" rhetoric will be needed to sell what is actually a pragmatic policy approach which faces up to the reality of a demand for recreational drugs. As long as the legislative outcomes are to be a success, I'm happy for the politicians to sell it to the press and public however they can.

Finally, it must be said that there's a long way to go with this yet. This is a highly emotive topic, and EC has many political hurdles to jump. I can imagine the Daily Mail having kittens over this - EU SECRET PLOT TO PEDAL KILLER DRUGS TO OUR CHILDREN seems an inevitability. Nevertheless, we are seeing pragmatic, non-dogmatic drug policy being actively considered by governments at all levels. Reformers are slowly winning the War on Drugs Policy.

P.S. This autumn's Lib Dem Conference will see a motion debated on the party's drug policy. Please urge your local party's conference representatives to attend the debate and vote for the motion, and if you're a conference rep, make sure you urge yourself!

In Praise of U-Turns

2011-06-14T13:50:00.005+01:00

Governments have three options:

Option 1: Be a radical, reforming government, and plough on with the reforms you feel are right for the country even in the face of criticism and unpopularity at your ideas.

Option 2: Avoid any reforms that might be controversial to avoid deep unpopularity.

Option 3: Be a radical, reforming government, but be willing to change course to avoid making unpopular and flawed reforms.

Option 1 was clearly favoured by Thatcher, as espoused by her famous quote - "the lady's not for turning". The problem is that such a belligerent attitude is deeply divisive, and while you may win some praise for 'strong leadership', your reforms could create negative consequences that could be avoided if you'd listened to criticism.

Option 2 will no doubt avoid lots of negative press. But what's the point in getting into power, something you've worked for your entire life, only to not do anything with it? You also miss the chance to make changes for the better, simply out of timidity at making a decision.

Option 3 involves changing your mind, and therefore provides an easy opportunity to be attacked as being 'not in control', prone to 'U-Turns', and of 'weak leadership'. However the benefits are numerous - your more popular and less criticised reforms will get through and have a real impact, and the policies that change will end up being better for the country. While you may be painted as 'weak' as you change course, it is clearly stronger than not trying make changes in the first place, and it takes courage to alter your plans in the face of insults thrown from the opposition.

A U-Turning government is a more pragmatic government, a more courageous government, a more democratic government, and if we're to have any faith in democratic process at all, it should prove to be a more successful government.

So here's to listening, engaging, responding, reforming, and yes, U-Turns.

Creating Opportunities In The Homelands Of Economic Migrants

2011-06-08T17:33:00.003+01:00

If ambitious people in underdeveloped countries have no opportunities in their native country, they'll migrate to developed countries. If developed countries want to reduce migration, erecting border controls is not enough. There will still be ambitious people are still driven to improve themselves, and they'll cross borders illegally if that's what it takes.

So developed countries need to work with underdeveloped countries to create the conditions that will remove the need for the ambitious to be economic migrants, and instead gives them a chance of self-improvement in their homeland.

Take a look at this TED talk which describes a model to create cities that could perform this very function:

Free movement without borders is an end in itself for me, but to achieve this as a long term goal, the large numbers who fear large-scale immigration need to have their concerns addressed. Meanwhile, the government will only reduce net migration if it engaging in schemes like this.

Facing Up To The Challenges Of The New Boundary Regime

2011-06-06T18:34:00.004+01:00

It's time to dust the cobwebs off the blog, this time merely to suggest that the Liberal Democrats need to significantly reform the way we operate if we are to survive the upcoming national political climate.

THE CHALLENGE

The Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011 could have introduced two major changes to the way general elections. The voting system was subject to a referendum and subsequently rejected by voters, so only the constituency changes are now to go ahead. In summary, the changes are:

• Reduce the number of constituencies from 650 to 600;
• The electorate in each constituency will vary by no more than 5% (with a few exceptions for islands and sparsely populated areas of Scotland);
• The new boundaries are to be in place for the next general election and will be reviewed every 5 years (and with fixed term parliaments, that means boundary changes between every general election).

This is a big shake-up, and changes a lot about what we currently understand about what a parliamentary constituency actually is. To fit within the strict 5% variation limit, the Boundary Commission will need to radically change the nature of the political map, and change it regularly. Constituencies in your area could well be in a state of complete flux from election to election.

OUR PROBLEM

Article 4.3 of The Constitution of the Federal Party sets out how Local Parties must organise themselves. Basically each Local Party can be either a single parliamentary constituency, or a combination of multiple constituencies. Given these boundaries are liable to change every 5 years, our grassroots will need to reorganise itself every 5 years to fit to the ever changing boundaries.

This organisational problem is then compounded by research by Democratic Audit, which shows that the Lib Dems are likely to see the biggest proportion loss of MPs to the boundary changes. Unlike the Labour and the Conservatives who win swathes of neighbouring seats in their core territories, our seats are more isolated, so bringing in parts of other seats will generally hurt us harder. This effect is further strengthened when the focus of our campaigning is in our target seats at the expense of neighbouring no-hope seats.

TOWARDS A SOLUTION

So we need a more stable set of boundaries for our Local Parties can build up without having to frequently reorganise, and we need to spread our campaigning beyond the existing rigid constituency boundaries, with an eye on neighbouring wards that could be part of the battlefield for the next general election.

Article 3.3 of The Constitution of the English Party gives us a way forward. It additionally allows Local Parties in London to organise themselves along Borough lines rather than solely constituency lines. This should be extended to all district-level government.

This has numerous advantages: Local authority boundaries are far less fluid, saving a lot of time and energy when boundaries change. They give a reasonably well-established outline of existing communities around which to organise and campaign locally, and naturally give the boundary of a specific council for the Local Party to target at all times. More broadly, tying Local Parties to Local Authorities generally fits better with the Lib Dem commitment to localism, and could cause a small shift in culture away from national politics and towards local issues (not that I feel this is really a problem as things are).

There is one big disadvantage that needs tackling: Whereas constituencies are reasonably constant in size, districts vary massively - from the tiny Isles of Scilly with just a couple of thousand people, to huge Birmingham with a population over a million. There would need to be flexibility in any new rules to allow small districts to merge and large districts to split, but this should be done on other tiers of local authority boundaries.

Another problem is with electing the parliamentary candidate, but this could be the time when Local Parties organise themselves for the general election on the forthcoming election's boundaries, so that the membership is worked out and a candidate elected.

Needless to say there are multiple other issues that would need addressing were this to happen. But the cost of not adapting to the new landscape may mean a lack of coordination and self-inflicted defeat. It's time for the party to start planning ahead and ensure that it is fit for purpose in the future.

I feel this may be the time to draft my first conference motion... Eek!

The 5,000 Labour Voters Who Secured This Tory - Lib Dem Coalition

2011-03-14T12:27:00.009Z

When the results came in after last year's general election, one thing became clear: the only stable coalition on the cards would be between the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties. Given the Tories and Labour are too belligerent to work with each other, the one remaining alternative would be between Labour and the Lib Dems. But the election result didn't allow for this: Labour seats + Lib Dem seats only comes to 315, but 322 MPs are needed for a working majority (accounting for Sinn Fein MPs not taking their seats).

With 7 more MPs, the Lib Dems would have been able to form a coalition with Labour. So if 7 of the Con/LD marginals were won by the Lib Dem instead of the Conservative, a Labour - Lib Dem coalition would have been a real option.

So in these 7 seats that where the Lib Dems came closest to beating the Conservative, Labour voters who didn't vote tactically for the Lib Dems actually voted to ensure that Labour weren't in power. The totals shown are the number of Labour to Lib Dem switches needed to defeat the Tory:

1. Camborne and Redruth: 67
2. Oxford West and Abingdon: 177
3. Truro and Falmouth: 436
4. Newton Abbot: 524
5. Harrogate and Knaresborough: 1040
6. Watford: 1426
7. Montgomeryshire: 1185

That's a total of 4,852 Labour voters who ensured Labour were out of power and helped the Tories in.

If you think this is stupid, I agree. Under AV, Labour voters would have been able to vote Labour as their 1st choice and Lib Dem as their second, making sure their vote didn't do the exact opposite of what they intended. This is yet another reason to ditch our broken political system and vote Yes in the AV referendum on May 5th.

Ternary Plots of the General Election in England

2011-03-10T10:00:00.001Z

Here are plots of the top 3 party vote share for most of the English seats from the general election plotted. Seats in the red zone were won by Labour, blue zone by Conservatives, and yellow zone by Lib Dems. The lighter triangle in the centre represents seats won with less than 50% of the vote, so shows the seats that will be affected by AV at a 3 party level.

I've shown English seats only, as results in Scotland and Wales distort the picture due to the additional presence of the Nationalist vote, which would require 3D to show properly. I've also filtered out constituencies where parties other than Labour, Conservatives and Lib Dems don't form the Top 3 parties to avoid a misleading picture.

The data comes from this incredibly useful spreadsheet which I come back to time and time again.

2010:

Not shown: Barking, Brighton Pavilion, Buckingham, Cornwall North, Dagenham and Rainham, Devon North, Devon West and Torridge, Thirsk and Malton.

Con: 185 over 50%, 110 under 50%.

Lab: 89 over 50%, 100 under 50%.

LD: 20 over 50%, 22 under 50%.

For comparison, here's the projected result from 2005:

Not shown: Barking, Bethnal Green and Bow, Boston and Skegness, Brighton Pavilion, Burnley, Dudley North, East Ham, Hornchurch and Upminster, Liverpool West Derby, Mansfield, Morley and Outwood, Poplar and Limehouse, Sedgefield, West Bromwich West, West Ham, Wyre Forest.

Con: 101 over 50%, 102 under 50%.

Lab: 146 over 50%, 119 under 50%.

LD: 15 over 50%, 33 under 50%.

In a future post, I'll identify zones on the 2010 chart which I see as having different dynamics at the next election.

Robin Hood Tax Propose Mythical Banker Taxation

2011-03-07T17:54:00.006Z

Here's a screenshot from a new widget from the Robin Hood Tax campaign:

So a 100% Tax on something worth £7.2 billion would raise £7.2 billion for public spending, would it?

Short answer: No.
Long answer: Noooooooooooooooooooooooooo.

Here's some content harvested from Wikipedia:

A 100% tax rate will also generate no revenue because at such a rate there is no longer any incentive for a rational taxpayer to earn any income, thus the revenue raised will be 100% of nothing.

How Representative is Parliament?

2011-03-07T14:13:00.008Z

The whole point of representative democracy is that the MPs we elect to Parliament will represent the will of the people who elected them.

There are lots of ways to test this. One way is to see how many votes are represented by an MP. This is done by adding up all the votes that were cast for the candidates that got elected to Parliament. This can then be compared to the votes that didn't get represented - the sum of the votes that weren't for a candidate that got elected, and also the votes that didn't get used. Together, these make up the members of the public that aren't represented in Parliament.

From this spreadsheet (which only has seats in Britain, so these calculations don't include Northern Ireland), here are the totals for each group from last year's general election:

Represented votes: 13,695,495 (31%)
Unrepresented votes: 15,315,206 (34%)
Didn't vote: 15,435,593 (35%)

From these findings we can state the following:

• Over two-thirds of the public are not represented.
• Only a minority of voters are represented.

This isn't good enough. The decisions taken that affect all of us are being made by people who don't get close to representing the majority of us. There are many possible solutions, but there's one action you can take to improve this: Vote Yes in the AV referendum on May 5th.

How It Will Help

Here's why there are so many unrepresented votes (also called wasted votes) under the old First Past The Post system. These graphics are largely based on this handy Guardian animation.

Even though candidate A got more votes than the other candidates, most of the votes cast go to waste and aren't represented by the winner. This is what happens in two-thirds of constituencies across the country.

Here's how things will change under AV:

With AV, there is less waste, because it is guaranteed the winner will represent the majority of the final vote. That's because even though candidates C, D and E lost, that doesn't mean their voters' voices are silenced. This is why the MPs who win under AV will have to be more representative than under the old system.

Nobody's pretending AV will solve everything. There will still be people who choose not to vote under any system (although when the old system means there's little chance of your vote being represented, you can't blame them for not bothering). But when an opportunity comes to improve the representativeness of Parliament, we've got to take it.

Lies, Lies and More Lies from #No2AV

2011-03-01T18:54:00.005Z

Here's the first thing you'll see on No2AV's website today:

I've pointed out three unequivocal lies that they are peddling. I'll go through them:

LIE 1: The Electoral Commission (which runs elections) don't say we'd need buy expensive voting machines - Channel 4 News has looked into this and rated it as 'Fiction'. Even if we did, they wouldn't have to be bought from Electoral Reform Services Ltd (the commercial arm of the Electoral Reform Society, which has been campaigning for change to the voting system since 1884 and is helping to fund the Yes campaign). A quick Google found plenty of other providers.

LIE 2: First, Nick Clegg is not going to be Lib Dem leader forever. Second, the Lib Dem leader only gets to "choose the government" if there's a hung parliament, and as Prof John Curtice has pointed out, "only in 2010 – when first-past-the-post also failed to deliver a majority – would a hung parliament have occurred under AV" since 1983 when pollsters started asked about second preferences. Third, it will be you who decides whether or not there is a hung parliament. Fourth, the Lib Dems are only in a kingmaker position if Labour and the Conservatives refuse to work with each other.

LIE 3: No2AV have made up the figure of £250m. £130m of it is for those fictional voting machines. £90m is the cost of the referendum itself (and that doesn't magically get refunded if you vote No), and the rest is for "voter education", based on the education costs of STV, not the simpler AV.

I also take issue with the suggestion that AV is "unequal" and not "one person one vote". AV elections have multiple rounds until the winner with over 50% of the vote is found. In every round it is one person one vote. I won't call this a lie, as it's more spinning the truth.

No2AV have had all this pointed out them repeatedly. For instance, I left a comment a week ago on their 'blog' piece attacking Nick Clegg. (Why can't they play the man not the ball?) It was instantly "flagged for review" and still hasn't been published. I've contacted them repeatedly on Twitter to ask why not, to no reply.

Despite all this, No2AV say they act "the spirit of open and honest debate". There's little sign of it so far.

Alcohol Needs a Less Dangerous Competitor

2011-02-26T13:38:00.002Z

Millions of people in the UK (including myself) will get wasted on alcohol this evening. There's something inherent in humans (primates?) that makes being intoxicated an insatiable desire.

For many of us, it will be reasonably harmless fun, or at least nothing that a few ibuprofen, glasses of water and rashers of bacon in the morning won't sort out. In the process, many of us will make new friends, or improve the bond between existing friendships. Some of us will meet someone we end up falling in love with, and some of us will get laid.

But with all this, there are some serious downsides. A significant number of us will end up in hospital after an alcohol-fuelled attack, or spend the night in a police cell after being induced into violence. There will probably be a few deaths on the road caused by drunk driving. And in the long term, more and more of us are binging on alcohol too often, which is leading to higher rates of liver disease, as well as causing dependency and addiction.

Most of us know about these risks, but our instinctive enjoyment of inebriation makes the risks worth it. But that in turn means all these significant social costs won't go away unless there's a significant policy change that shifts society's relationship with alcohol.

The medical establishment's attempt to see minimum alcohol pricing didn't stand a chance up against the alcohol industry's powerful lobbying. Anything that could reduce our ability to get hold of our beloved alcohol is a hard sell politically, as our centreground-chasing politicians are terrified to do anything that will hit the wallets or lifestyles of swing voters in marginal constituencies. I admit experience shows that what I am about to suggest won't be any easier politically.

Those of us who seek inebriation tonight have little choice in the drug we take. Alcohol is the only legal means we have to artificially induce euphoria. The other options have been made illegal, which means tracking down a drug dealer and buying substances of unknown chemical composition, with the risk of getting caught and having the full weight of the law come down on you. Millions of (normally young) people every year take that extra risk, but a big majority of us don't.

However, given the huge problems alcohol will hand to the police and paramedics tonight, isn't there a better drug we could all be taking? I think there is.

Ecstasy is less toxic, less addictive and kills its users at a lower rate when compared to alcohol. The latest research (caution: only one trial) suggests that ecstasy may not have the negative effect on the brain that was once thought. Instead of making us violent towards each other, it would make us empathetic and 'loved up'.

This means there would lead to less violent crime and anti-social behaviour, and less pressure on health resources if users switched drugs.

However, it would mean users switching substances. Alcohol and ecstasy simply don't mix. Alcohol takes away from the stimulant effect of ecstasy, but both drugs place a great strain on the kidneys and can cause dehydration and overheating, so taken together compounds the immediate health risks. This in turn would mean the alcohol lobby would pile all its resources from stopping this from happening, because ecstasy would be a major rival to its substance-monopoly in the recreational drug market. The Daily Mail et al would also be morally outraged (for profit) at the mere thought of this.

I want to be clear:

• Whilst ecstasy remains illegal, I wouldn't suggest going near it. You don't know what's in it, and you don't want to give your money to criminals, or end up with a criminal record yourself. Sadly I doubt anyone who takes illegal drugs will ever bother heeding these sorts of warnings.

• I'm not advocating a switch of legal status of alcohol. That doesn't tend to work out too well.

• I'm also not suggesting that all alcohol users would be better using ecstasy. They are different drugs that induce different effects. Alcohol is primarily a depressant, whereas ecstasy is a stimulant. The issue is that alcohol at the moment is being used as a stimulant drug, which is having the negative consequences we see in our town centres at weekends. Frankly, many revellers would be better off taking ecstasy than alcohol.

In conclusion, my question is this:

When alcohol is a more dangerous and antisocial drug than ecstasy, why is ecstasy illegal?

I know which I'd rather be taking tonight.

William Hague: Reckless or Dishonest?

2011-02-18T12:54:00.004Z

William Hague, today:

[AV] is the worst of all worlds. Even if one was going to embark on changing the electoral system this would certainly not be the system to move to.

You can argue for the current system, as I do, on the grounds that it is decisive. In the vast majority of elections it produces a clear decisive result with the party getting the most votes in the country becoming the government. Or you can argue legitimately for a proportional system, as in Germany for instance, where the seats won by the parties in Parliament is in pretty strict accordance with the votes received in the country.

The trouble with the Alternative Vote system is it's neither of those. It could produce - it is likely to produce if enacted - election results which are more indecisive, or more disproportionate, or even both at the same time, and be more complex and expensive to operate into the bargain.

So it is the worst of every world.

Then why are we having a referendum on this "worst of all worlds"AV system?

William Hague, May 10th 2010:

In the interests of trying to create a stable, secure government we will go the extra mile and we will offer to the Liberal Democrats, in a coalition government, the holding of a referendum on the Alternative Vote system, so that the people of this country can decide what the best electoral system is for the future.

That's right, it's the Conservatives' negotiating team who chose the referendum to be on AV. Hague was one of the "top four" negotiators for the Conservatives.

So why did he pick a referendum on AV when he could have picked a more "legitimate" proportional system? The Lib Dems would undoubtedly grabbed at the chance of a referendum on PR.

There are two possibilities:

1. Hague deliberately risked our country being subjected to what he considers to be the worst possible electoral system. This is a profoundly reckless attitude to our democracy.

2. Hague actually prefers AV to PR, which is why the referendum is on AV. This makes his comments today deeply dishonest.

I think number 2 is far more likely to be the explanation. The truth is that the Tories would be content with AV, but will say anything to keep hold of their precious FPTP system that many others despise.

AV has Something for Everyone

2011-02-16T18:46:00.004Z

Another argument from No2AV is that the Alternative Vote is a 'voting system that nobody wants'.

This isn't true. Labour's manifesto [pdf] pledged a referendum on AV on the basis that the system will "ensure that every MP is supported by the majority of their constituents voting at each election".

Press a No2AV supporter on this and they'll explain that they meant to say is that it wasn't in either of the Coalition partners' manifestos.

This is true. The Conservatives have long advocated keeping the current First Past The Post system, whereas the Liberal Democrats have long campaigned for a move to the proportional Single Transferable Vote system.

These two systems have two key distinctions:

• FPTP takes place in single member constituencies, where one MP is elected to represent all the people in the area. STV would have multi-member constituencies, where multiple MPs would be elected that would represent a wider variety of views of people over a bigger area.

• FPTP requires the voter to mark their ballot for one candidate only, and the most votes wins. STV allows the voter to rank several candidates in order of preference so that the winners have a bigger consensus.

AV shares features of both FPTP and STV - it has the single winner feature of FPTP and the preferential ballots feature of STV. While AV is not seen as the perfect system for the Tories or the Lib Dems, it has features which both parties like.

Yes, this does make AV a ~~miserable little~~ compromise. But compromise is a good thing when it means everyone getting a bit of what they want. It is blatantly fairer than one side having it all their own way.

The Daily Mail's Reckless Association of Homosexuality and Paedophilia

2011-02-14T17:00:00.000Z

I'm not going to go into the rights and wrongs of Dr Hans-Christian Raabe's farcical appointment-then-sacking from the ACMD. For good summary of the background to this story, see Mark Easton. It suffices to say that it appears Dr Raabe was sacked for writing a paper that links homosexuality to paedophilia. As Tom Chivers explains, there is no link:

The University of California’s psychology department does a very good “facts about homosexuality and child molestation” section, and I’ve taken the following from there. First, the idea of “homosexual [or heterosexual] paedophiles” is not really an accepted one in psychological circles: “many child molesters cannot be meaningfully described as homosexuals, heterosexuals, or bisexuals (in the usual sense of those terms) because they are not really capable of a relationship with an adult man or woman. Instead of gender, their sexual attractions are based primarily on age. These individuals – who are often characterized as fixated – are attracted to children, not to men or women.”
Further, among those who are not solely attracted to children – those known as “regressed” child molesters – seem to be no more likely to be homosexual than the rest of the populace.

Sadly, it is still common to associate the two, despite the evidence. Paedophilia is clearly immoral behaviour, so it is up to those who value honest, factual reporting to counter the damaging myth that it is an any way linked to homosexuality.

Unfortunately the Daily Mail (and its Sunday sister paper) can't be relied on to provide such reporting. Their 'journalists' James Slack, Iain Drury, James Tozer, Stephen Glover, Peter Hitchens and Melanie Phillips have all written articles on Dr Raabe. All the articles mention his 'research', often uncritically pronouncing his work as 'academic' or 'scientific'. An unsceptical reader would be left with the clear impression that there is a clear evidence showing a link between homosexuality and paedophilia, when there is no such link. I consider this to be reckless.

In particular, Peter Hitchens and Melanie Phillips attempts to add more credence to this link by citing a government report. On Sunday, Hitchens wrote:

Who said these words? ‘Approximately 20 to 33 per cent of child sexual abuse is homosexual in nature.’ I will tell you.

It was the Home Office, on Page 14 of Sex Offending Against Children: Understanding The Risk, published by the Policing and Reducing Crime Unit in 1998. I have a copy.

You can have a copy too. The document is available on the Home Office website [pdf]. The specific words cited by Hitchens and Phillips are simply referencing a paper called ‘The heterogeneity/homogeneity of pedophilia’, a study from 1988. So what we have here is a single 23-year-old study. That's all Hitchens and Phillips are using, albeit with a drizzling of irony that the Home Office happens to have mentioned this paper (once, 13 years ago).

The aforementioned University of California's page on the subject has far more citations, including literature reviews that incorporate many more studies. The overall body of evidence shows there's no link. The science shows that sexual attraction to children is a different phenomenon to sexual attraction to adults (male or female).

That's why the same Home Office report cited by Hitchens and Phillips explicitly states in the very same paragraph:

Individual studies must be viewed cautiously before generalising from them.

The Daily Mail's inability to exercise such caution is likely to spread homophobic views amongst its readership.

Freedom Bill - Now and Then

2011-02-11T19:27:00.005Z

Two years ago, the Liberal Democrats launched a draft Freedom Bill.

Today, the Liberal Democrat Deputy Prime Minister announced a real-life Freedom Bill.

Let's go through the 2009 list of measures to see how progress is going:

• Scrap ID cards for everyone, including foreign nationals - Already scrapped by the Coalition, but for British nationals only.

• Ensure that there are no restrictions in the right to trial by jury for serious offences including fraud - In the Bill.

• Restore the right to protest in Parliament Square, at the heart of our democracy - Fail.

• Abolish the flawed control orders regime - Already replaced by 'Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures'.

• Renegotiate the unfair extradition treaty with the United States. - Fail.

• Restore the right to public assembly for more than two people. - Fail.

• Scrap the ContactPoint database of all children in Britain. - Already scrapped by the Coalition.

• Strengthen freedom of information by giving greater powers to the information commissioner and reducing exemptions. - In the Bill.

• Stop criminalising trespass. - In the Bill.

• Restore the public interest defence for whistleblowers. - Fail.

• Prevent allegations of "bad character" from being used in court. - Fail.

• Restore the right to silence when accused in court. - Fail.

• Prevent bailiffs from using force. - Fail.

• Restrict the use of surveillance powers to the investigation of serious crimes and stop councils snooping. - In the Bill.

• Restore the principle of double jeopardy in UK law. - Fail.

• Remove innocent people from the DNA database. - The Bill makes good progress, but suspects of serious crimes could still have their DNA retained for three years.

• Reduce the maximum period of pre-charge detention to 14 days. - Permanently fixed in the Bill.

• Scrap the ministerial veto that allowed the government to block the release of cabinet minutes relating to the Iraq war. - Fail.

• Require explicit parental consent for biometric information to be taken from children. - In the Bill.

• Regulate CCTV following a Royal Commission on cameras. - No specific mention of a Royal Commission, but further regulation is in the Bill.

So out of 20 items on the original Lib Dem draft Bill, 8 are happening, 3 are happening in a limited form, but 9 have yet to see any progress.

The situation basically looks like this:

There are also several bonus freedoms that are to be restored in this Bill:

• It will be illegal for a vehicle to be clamped or towed away by anyone but the police.

• Restrictions on stop and search powers.

• The Vetting and Barring scheme will be scrapped.

• Old convictions involving consensual gay sex will be stripped from criminal records.

• There will be no more restrictions on the times when a marriage or civil partnership can take place.

And that's still not all. In 2012 the Ministry of Justice plan to introduce a Defamation Bill to reform our suffocating libel laws and a Repeal Bill to remove unnecessary laws from the statute.

Given that the Lib Dems didn't have any of this as their Top 4 priorities in their manifesto (much to my disappointment), I'm delighted we've made significant progress in all these areas. My only concern is that the Your Freedom website had little to nothing to do with any of programme, but perhaps the Repeal Bill will take more inspiration from the public suggestions.

No2AV are Quoting Irrelavent Australian Polling

2011-02-11T15:45:00.004Z

The No2AV campaign are circulating the findings from an Australian opinion poll commissioned by the right-wing Insitute of Public Affairs. On the face of it, the findings are devastating for the Yes campaign:

More than half of Australians would support FPTP, according to a Newspoll. Only 37% favoured the current preferential system. #no2av

Bad news? Not exactly.

If you've been following the AV referendum polling done in the UK, you'll be aware that the wording used in the question can significantly alter the outcome.

This is the question [pdf] as asked by Newspoll. The emphasis in bold is theirs, not mine*:

Currently, elections for the Federal House of Representatives, or lower house, use a preferential voting system. This is where voters indicate an order of preferences for all candidates, and these preferences are taken into account when deciding which candidate wins. (PAUSE). An alternative system would be "first past the post", where voters only vote for one candidate and the candidate with the most votes wins. Would you personally prefer…?

1. A preferential system,
2. A first past the post system

The form of AV preferential system used in Australia forces voters to indicate a preference for every single voter. The form of AV that will could be used here in the UK won't have this feature. You will be able to indicate a preference for as many or as few candidates as you like.

Given that we won't "indicate an order of preferences for all candidates" if AV is adopted, it is wrong to suggest a poll that asks about an system where voters "indicate an order of preferences for all candidates" is relevant to our decision.

* I have quoted the question's text exactly as written and formatted in the poll's report. The poll was conducted over the telephone, so was read out by "fully trained and personally briefed interviewers". It is clear that the words emphasised in bold are intended to be emphasised when read out by the interviewer.

Unbelievable UKIP By Election Leaflet Squeezes BNP Vote

2011-01-13T01:36:00.005Z

Kudos to Michael Greenfield for uploading a bunch of Oldham East and Saddleworth by election leaflets. I want to highlight UKIP's effort.

As a Lib Dem member I'm obviously opposed to what UKIP stand for, but even leaving that aside, there are three things in particular I have an issue with:

1) Using the result of the national European Election result as indicative of what may happen in a local by election is misleading. The issues are different, the electoral system is different, and the electorate is different. But at least they have labelled the bar chart, so this is my smallest quibble.

2) Stating that "Every week, 5,000 new people come to the UK to live" without stating the number number of people who leave the UK, which reduces the number to 4,100. They then blame this on the fact that citizens of new EU countries (Poland and Latvia) can move here. But these A8 countries are only responsible for net migration of 12,000 per year, which is only 5% of total net migration. The biggest contributors of net migration are foreign students (whose fees keep our Universities running and contribute £8bn to the economy).

3) This is the one that triggered me writing this post: UKIP are explicitly squeezing the BNP vote! By writing "Wasted vote" over the BNP column on the bar chart, they are actively trying to get the thickos and fascists who vote BNP to switch to UKIP. And it's not even true! The BNP beat UKIP in this constituency in 2010 by 2,546 votes to 1,720. The tactical racist vote is for BNP, not UKIP.

So I guess my message to UKIP is this: When your main competition is the BNP, perhaps it is time to reassess what you stand for.

Fisking Chris Williamson on AV

2011-01-11T13:58:00.003Z

Chris Williamson, the Labour MP for Derby North, has laid out why he is against introducing AV. Here is my response to his points:

The central plank of the ‘Yes to AV’ campaign is disingenuous because its claims about AV being fairer than ‘First Past the Post’ are based on a false premise.

AV will make no difference to a large number of constituencies where candidates secure more than 50% of the votes cast. Even in the last general election - where popular support for the parties was closer than normal - more than a third of the candidates had over 50% of the vote.

No-one is suggesting it will make a difference in the safest seats where the winning party gets ~50% or more. But the big difference will come in all the other seats, where the winner will need to get the backing of a bigger number of voters to get elected. I don't see why MPs are afraid of this: why are you scared of trying to get more people to vote for you ahead of your opponents?

In the other constituencies, introducing AV could see second or even third placed candidates ultimately winning. That is the very antithesis of democracy. Our existing system is considerably more democratic by comparison and is well understood by the electorate at large.

AV will elect the candidate with the most overall support. Some MPs came first but with more than 2 in 3 electors voting against them*. Those 2 in 3 could between them prefer someone else. Why should 1-in-3 minority voters get their way ahead of 2-in-3 majority?

How can it be right for fringe party supporters to have their vote counted several times, while those backing mainstream candidates only have one vote counted? By any measure of fairness that is just plain wrong.

Every vote is counted the same amount. The last place candidate gets knocked out, their votes redistributed, then every vote for the remaining candidates is counted again.

Furthermore, at a time when the country is facing unprecedented cuts, this whole debate and referendum is a colossal waste of time and money, particularly when very few people actually want electoral reform. I have campaigned for the Labour Party in every local, European and general election since 1976 and I can honestly say nobody has ever raised this issue on the doorstep.

If it is a waste of time and money to have a referendum on AV, why did your manifesto call for a referendum on AV? Your constituents may not have specifically mentioned electoral reform, but I bet they've mentioned MPs' expenses and expressed apathy at politics and politicians. The two are deeply interlinked. The way we do democracy in this country needs root and branch reform, so that the public no longer feel taken for granted.

The Labour Party is Britain’s best vehicle to deliver progressive change and the outcome of the last general election offers an historic opportunity to rebuild Labour’s progressive credentials. That is why I am working for a majority Labour government at the next general election by appealing to those progressives who voted for other parties. By muddying the electoral waters through the introduction of AV, the guy ropes of Labour’s progressive big tent could be cut even before it is fully erected.

I don't care what effect AV will have on any specific party. I want a system that's fair to voters, not one that puts some parties above others. You care about the effect it could have on Labour. Fine, but don't pretend you are picking the electoral system out of fairness rather than self-interest.

The Liberal Democrats, who are responsible for installing this vicious right-wing administration, hope that AV would create continuous coalition government and give them the chance to be perpetual kingmakers.

No-one really knows what effect AV will have on creating majority vs. coalition governments, but assuming your guess is right, the only reason that the Lib Dems are kingmakers is because Labour and the Conservatives belligerently refuse to work with each other. Don't blame the Lib Dems for your own belligerence.

But Liberal Democrats are not a national party and their support in a few regional enclaves is inadequate to propel them into government without doing shabby little deals behind closed doors. Their shameful pact with the Conservatives will create untold hardship to millions of citizens and is damaging our economic recovery.

Absolute tosh. The reason the Lib Dems don't get many seats is because their support is too spread across the country, with too few regional enclaves. FPTP rewards divisive parties with strong regional enclaves. That's why Labour automatically win most seats in the urban North, and the Tories win most seats in the rural South. If Labour is your idea of a national party, remind me how many seats you won in South England last year?**

I'll tell you what is a shabby deal: a single party taking the reins of the country when most people don't want them. But that's what happened in 2005, when Labour got into power despite 65% of the country voting for against you. The same thing has been happening for decades. No wonder people feel so disillusioned by politics. At least with a coalition, the majority of people voted for the a party that's in power, even if that means the parties coming to a compromise. I agree that parties should be clear about their priorities during the election so that voters know what they can expect if their preferred party goes into a coalition. (By printing their top four priorities on the front cover of their manifesto, and getting all of them into the coalition agreement, that's exactly what the Lib Dems did.)

Do we really want to increase the prospects of Liberal Democrats having influence in future governments, when under our existing system they could and should be virtually wiped out? I think not. That's why I don’t want to see them being thrown the lifeline of electoral reform.

That's nicely partisan of you, but don't forget, if we go back to two party politics, for every majority Labour government there'll be a majority Tory government waiting in the wings to have it all their way. You may feel the Lib Dems aren't dampening the excesses of the Tories enough - well that's an argument to make sure the Lib Dems get more of their fair share of influence rather than less!

AV is bad news for democracy, bad news for progressive change and bad news for the millions of people who need the return of a Labour government at the earliest opportunity.

Well at least you're being honest in the last part of that sentence - your opposition to reform is based on what's good for Labour, not what's best for the country as a whole. The majority of the country has never ever voted for Labour.*** We have never wanted you in complete control of the country, and we never will.

* Chris Williamson is one of these MPs. He got just 33.0% of the vote at the general election. His seat, Derby North, is now a three-way marginal, with the Conservatives on 31.7% and the Lib Dems on 28.0%. So in the last election, FPTP may well have allowed him to cling on to his job. I'll leave you to judge what is motivating his resistance to reform now.

** The answer: In the South of England, Labour won just 8 seats out of 139 (5.8%), or 1,124,507 votes out of 7,067,683 (15.9%).

*** To be fair, in 1945 the country came very close: 49.7% voted Labour. That's still not a majority though!

Save the Sea Otter Pups from No2AV Flippancy

2011-01-04T19:00:00.008Z

The No2AV camp are already resorting to a whole host of desperate arguments in its attempt to retain the completely discredited First Past The Post system for general elections. But there's one argument I find misleading to the point of nausea.

I'll quote from an official No2AV leaflet, but you'll hear the argument used by many of their supporters:

Fiji have had enough of AV and are about to ditch it

They will always use this argument in isolation, without any explanation as to the reasons why Fiji is about to ditch AV. Why might that be?

What they have failed to mention is that Fiji was subjected to a military coup in 2006 and elections were suspended by the new Fijian ‘Prime Minister’, Commodore Voreqe “Frank” Bainimarama. They should have held elections last year, but the military authorities stopped them.

So when the NO campaign says that “Fiji” is looking to get rid of their AV system, what they actually mean is that the military dictatorship currently in control wants to get rid of their version of AV… but hasn’t in the four years they have been in control.

For No2AV to be this flippant about the situation in Fiji is appalling. So appalling in fact, they have angered God. Anyone who paid attention at Sunday School will know that angry God loves nothing more than a bit of vengeance, and so it is with this:

Every time a No2AV proponent uses the 'Fiji is abandoning AV' line, God will slowly and painfully kill a sea otter pup.

In response to God's furious threat, a spokes-otter released the following statement:

So please, No2AV folk, be considerate in your attacks on AV, and think of the cute baby sea otters whose lives are now in your hands (despite the alpha-males of the species being total arseholes).

Cage Against The Machine for Christmas Number 1

2010-12-13T22:39:00.006Z

Last year, Rage Against The Machine managed to steal the top spot of the Christmas chart from the X Factor winner, Joe MacThingy. Personally I wasn't bothered about that campaign. We swapped a song released on a major label for a song, ahem, released on the same major label. It didn't exactly feel like the machine had successfully been raged against.

Last year's success has prompted several copy-cat attempts to flashmob the Christmas number 1 using online social networks. One of these campaigns has come up with the perfect riposte to the bland muzak churned out by Simon Cowell's televised music factory: 4'33" of silence, courtesy of the late John Cage. Not so much Rage, but Cage against The Machine.

It is easy to sneer at deliberate silence and dismiss it as pretentious. But there really is no need. All you need to do to understand 4'33" is listen to it, and think about what you can hear. It is music that specifically encourages thought - the perfect antidote to the X Factor's intentionally thoughtless ditties.

An official version of the release has been recorded by a diverse bunch: the Kooks, Orbital, Enter Shikari, Dan Le Sac, Scroobius Pip, Suggs from Madness, Billy Bragg and Imogen Heap. I suspect this may be the only time these acts find music they can unite around!

The single has been released today on independent (yay) record label Wall Of Sound. Check the official website for the download links, including a remix package featuring interesting takes on silence by Fake Blood, Mr Scruff, Adam F, Herve, Aeroplane, Alex Metric and Japanese Popstars.

Oh and all profits will go to charity. How could I have not won your support?!?!!

Cage's biggest non-Cowell rival appears to be The Trashmen's Surfin' Bird, made famous by Family Guy. Don't get me wrong, I like Family Guy, but I really don't see how a song famous because of a TV programme would be a better number 1 than, err, a song famous because of a TV programme.

Now if you don't mind keeping it down, I've got some listening to do.

The Hilarious @krmcbe

2010-12-13T19:46:00.001Z

Oxfordshire Country Council's Conservative leader Keith Mitchell CBE has been attracting plenty of attention on Twitter of late. He has been less than impressed at the protests by students over tuition fees, and wasn't afraid to use all his wit in expressing this.

First came this tour de force...
...which got him coverage on the regional news.

Now today he comes up with...
Oh man, this guy should do stand-up! Sure, water cannons have in the past resulted in permanent blindness, but at least you get a good wash! LOL!

But Keith's side-splitting material doesn't just stop at mocking protest. Wait until you hear his jokes about former Oxford West and Abingdon MP Evan Harris. Prepare yourself; you may need an oxygen supply on hand in case all this hilarity gets too much!

After seeing Dr Harris on TV discussing the Coalition negotiations, Cllr Mitchell tweeted:
Hahahaha! See?! It's funny because he lost his job!

Now fair enough, Keith has every reason to gloat, and indeed I have every reason to be sore. Keith no doubt contributed to Nicola Blackwood's successful campaign that took the seat from Evan. A bit of banter like this is standard political knockabout. Conversely, my campaigning failed to get Evan re-elected.

After this initital triumph, Keith must have realised he'd hit a comedy gold mine! In came this follow-up:
Genius! Now that Evan is no longer an MP, he can go to Zimbabwe for some reason! Hahaha!

And then another one!
Zaire! Those 'Z' countries are sooooo funny! Get a job there, Evan! How does he come up with them?!?!

But wait, there's more!
Hahaha! A proper job! I love this guy. He should be the warm-up act for Michael McIntyre's next sell out show.

Hahahahahahahahaha *breathes* hahahahahahaha! He phrased "a proper job" as a question this time! Michael McIntyre should be Keith Mitchell's support!

Encore!
Boom! Take that, Harris! Time you got a proper job! Best one yet! Move over, David, there's a new Mitchell comedian in town.

More! More! More! More!
A proper job! Wooooooooooo! I love this guy! He should go far to some far away country, like you said before! Err, twice... Still funny though! Nick Thornsby is so lucky to get that joke personally sent to him!

So there we have it. All that remains to be said is...

...Oh no wait there's more!
Evan hasn't got a job! Hahahahaha! Whew! Where does it all come from?!

All that remains to be said is I hope I get to meet him one day so I can get the full Keith Mitchell Comedy Experience first hand. That would make my day.

The Conservatives are Content With AV

2010-11-29T09:52:00.003Z

Let's remember the events that led to the choice of a referendum on AV:

- Coalition negotiations opened between the Tories and the Lib Dems.

- The Lib Dems have longed for a change to a fairer PR voting system and were hesitant about doing a deal without a commitment to electoral reform.

- To try and secure cooperation with the Lib Dems, the Tories offered a referendum on AV.

- While it was not what the Lib Dems really wanted (AV is not PR), it was enough to win them round and enter the Coalition.

This is telling - given that it was the Conservatives who picked AV instead of a PR system, they have shown that they would be content with AV. If the Tories were against all electoral reform, they would have given a referendum on PR to guarantee the backing of the Lib Dems.

AV is not the ideal system for the Tories, and nor is it ideal for the Lib Dems. The No2AV campaign are arguing that AV is the system that nobody really wants, which is accurate. But AV is a system that people from both sides are more content with.

Similar splits of feeling exist across other parties. Labour has a faction who want to keep the existing system, and a faction who favour PR. They promised a referendum on AV in their manifesto as they recognised it as a compromise between these two factions. UKIP are similarly split.

So bear this in mind when you cast your ballot: do you want to give one faction exactly what they want, whilst giving the opposite faction exactly what they don't, or do you want to give both factions something that both sides are content with?

Tens of Thousands

2010-11-23T16:41:00.003Z

Theresa May just confirmed at the despatch box that the Coalition's policy was to reduce net migration to tens of thousands rather than hundreds of thousands.

This was not in the Coalition Agreement. The agreement accepts that the government will "reduce the number of non-EU immigrants". But it was never agreed that the reduction would need to be as drastic as the Tories campaigned for during the election.

This matters because this target will shape multiple pieces of forthcoming legislation. The immigration cap today would not need to be so economically damaging, the cuts to student numbers would not need to be as harmful to our colleges and universities, and the restrictions to family visas (also not mentioned in the Agreement) would not need to be as brutal to those it will hurt.

Hansard shows Theresa May had previously set out this target as government policy in a statement on the 28th June.

Lib Dem Ministers must not let their Conservative colleagues stray from the specific terms set out in the Agreement. There are enough concessions in there already; don't give them any more.

Help Rank the Secretaries

2010-11-12T17:45:00.005Z

I have a few ideas for blogposts that look at how high up the political pecking order certain politicians have got. But I need to come up with a robust description of the order of importance in the Cabinet and Shadow Cabinet structure currently used in our democracy. I could rank these myself, but any contentious conclusions I come to would be dismissed due to potential partiality of the ranking.

So I kindly request a few minutes of your time to rank the Secretarial roles in the Cabinet and Shadow Cabinet in the order you think best describes how important or prominent each position is. Don't think about it too much. Feel free to some positions as equally important, and if you feel there is any difference between the rankings of the government secretaries and their shadows let me know. Once a good number of replies have come in, I'll combine the rankings to come up with an overall pecking order. If you think this method of coming up with a ranking is flawed, again let me know (and ideally suggest a better method).

Below are the current secretarial positions, presented in alphabetical order. Please copy and paste the list into the comments box and place a number next to each, with 1 being the highest and 20 the lowest. I've switched comments to moderation so that your rankings aren't biased by those which have gone before. Many thanks in advance.

Business, Innovation and Skills
Chancellor of the Exchequer
Chief Secretary to the Treasury
Communities and Local Government
Culture, Media and Sport
Defence
Education
Energy and Climate Change
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Foreign
Health
Home
International Development
Justice
Northern Ireland
Prime Minister
Scotland
Transport
Wales
Work and Pension

We Owe Lib Dem Voters an Apology

2010-11-12T13:47:00.006Z

Let's face it. The Lib Dems have really screwed up on tuition fees. It's possibly our most public screw up ever. Our candidates made high profile personal pledges that they should have foreseen not being able to keep. The party is now in the position where breaking these pledges is the best option, for the following reasons:

Graph: IFS

1. The Browne Report's proposals are unexpectedly fair. They are progressive (which we didn't expect before the review was published), they are workable (unlike a graduate tax, as Labour are soon to realise) and they will improve the quality of teaching (unlike free tuition) and will deliver improved access for students from poor backgrounds.* Indeed the policy beats the Lib Dem manifesto pledge on all of these tests. When a better policy comes along, we should back it, even if it costs us popularity - otherwise we're doing the wrong thing simply out of self interest.

2. Further to the above point, if we keep up the pretence that our original policy was fairer, we will be fuelling the misconception that University is inaccessible to the poor. This misconception must be tackled, because if potential students incorrectly perceive they can't afford to go, they won't, and social mobility will be entrenched. It is our duty to promote at every opportunity how the Coalition's policy will improve access to Higher Education. If you back the wrong policy, you inadvertently back everything you've stood against.

3. Even if you disagree with the analysis above, we realistically can't stop tuition fees from going up. To do so would mean all our Ministers voting against the government, thus ending the Coalition, and bringing on a Tory minority government or a general election. We can't let a single issue jeopardise the 91 other Lib Dem policies that can be achieved as part of the Coalition.

Backing the Coalition's policy is the right thing to do, but means breaking a promise, and when you break a promise, you apologise. It will hurt, it may cost us support, but it's right.

* I encourage you to read Ewan Hoyle's excellent blogpost for more on this.

Cameron Gives Same Speech As Last Year

2010-10-06T17:47:00.004+01:00

David Cameron's 2009 conference speech as a Wordle:
David Cameron's 2010 conference speech as a Wordle:The same words stand out - 'people', 'country', 'government', 'just', 'big', 'society'.

Clumsily Progressive Child Benefit Cuts

2010-10-05T11:07:00.007+01:00

Remember this chart?

This was from an IFS report from six weeks ago on the distributional effect of the Treasury's deficit reduction programme. It shows that the Government's claim that the impact of the Budget is progressive. With the exception of the households with the 10% biggest incomes, it appears the less you have coming in, the more you will feel the pinch of the austerity measures.

However, take a look at the timescale that this chart: it includes measures announced in the April and June Budgets running all the way until 2014. Later on into this time frame, there will have been several more Budgets that will no doubt include measures that will alter the distributional impact. These are obviously completely unforeseeable - it is impossible to model this impact without a crystal ball.

Helpfully, the same IFS report also contained this graph that only goes up to 2012, a shorter timescale that has less potential to being altered:

To compare apples with apples, focus on the black line - the loss as a proportion of household income. It shows that until 2012, the defect reduction measures are largely proportional, apart from the richest 10% who take a big hit early on. This means that the big hit to poorer households is expected to kick in around 2013 and 2014.

How Child Benefit Fits In

Clearly the allegation that the austerity measures were hitting the poorest hardest has shaken the government. So yesterday we heard that there will be a clampdown on Child Benefit for higher earners. This will undoubtedly hit households at the top end of the household income spectrum, and will have the effect of dragging down the richer deciles on the top graph, giving a more progressive appearance.

That's not to say that the proposal isn't littered with problems. The government has no mandate to be doing this. It clumsily looks at individual rather than household incomes. It means families could be worse off if an earner gets a pay rise that tips them into the upper tax band. It means that money could force an abused partner and their children to remain in a violent household if there is no Child Benefit to survive with if they were to escape. I seriously hope the policy is thoroughly revised before 2013.

But despite all its flaws, the policy shows that the government is attempting to ensure that the relatively wealthy take their fair share of the austerity. I just wish they weren't being so sloppy in doing so. The country needs a government with its head in the right place, not just its heart.

Quantifying and Visualising the Lib Dem Effect in the Coalition

2010-09-29T15:17:00.013+01:00

If you're like me your head is spinning with spin. Labour are bellowing that this is a Tory government propped up by sell-out Lib Dems; the Lib Dems are insisting that this is a true coalition government with two parties coming together, comprimising and acting in the national interest. Which is true?

The most objective way of assessing the coalition at this early stage is the coalition agreement. An analysis of this text and the roots behind each policy would give the best description of how this government is formed.

Happily the Guardian have done exactly this analysis and provided it as a spreadsheet. It list each commitment and gives the party of origin behind it (as well as their view of whether it is on track to be delivered - something I have ignored for this post). I have taken this spreadsheet as Gospel, so any inaccuracies in it are down to the Guardian not me.

This spreadsheet gives the following results: of the 399 policies in the agreement, 174 are solely from the Conservatives, 91 are solely from the Lib Dems, 80 were policies of both parties, and 54 are of unknown origin.

So that's 44% Tory, 23% Lib Dem, 20% both and 14% unknown.

I know what you're thinking - what's that done to the pie chart?

And ignoring the policies of unknown origin, here's a little Venn diagram showing how much is Tory, how much is Lib Dem and how much was agreed by both parties:

Looking at those percentages and comparing them to the vote shares at the general election (36% Tory, 23% Lib Dem) you could argue that the Tories have got too many of their own policies through. Then again if you split the policies shared by both parties between them, the Lib Dems start to look like they have more influence then our vote deserves us.

But compare this to previous terms of government, like the previous five years where Labour got 100% power from just 35% of the vote. The coalition is emphatically a more democratic outcome than what Britain is used to.

UPDATE 19:45 - For those of you who prefer your Venn diagrams circular, have this bonus graphic:

Finally, here is a full list of lines from the coalition agreement that wouldn't be there without the Lib Dems in government (according to the Guardian):

We will bring forward detailed proposals for robust action to tackle unacceptable bonuses in the financial services sector; in developing these proposals, we will ensure they are effective in reducing risk.

We want the banking system to serve business, not the other way round. We will bring forward detailed proposals to foster diversity in financial services, promote mutuals and create a more competitive banking industry.

We will take steps to reduce systemic risk in the banking system and will establish an independent commission to investigate the complex issue of separating retail and investment banking in a sustainable way; while recognising that this will take time to get right, the commission will be given an initial time frame of one year to report.

We will cut red tape by introducing a ‘one-in, one-out’ rule whereby no new regulation is brought in without other regulation being cut by a greater amount.

We will impose ‘sunset clauses’ on regulations and regulators to ensure that the need for each regulation is regularly reviewed.

We will find a practical way to make small business rate relief automatic.

We will seek to ensure an injection of private capital into Royal Mail, including opportunities for employee ownership. We will retain Post Office Ltd in public ownership.

We will seek to ensure a level playing field between small and large retailers by enabling councils to take competition issues into account when drawing up their local plans to shape the direction and type of new retail development.

We will review the range of factors that can be considered by regulators when takeovers are proposed.

We will reinstate an Operating and Financial Review to ensure that directors’ social and environmental duties have to be covered in company reporting, and investigate further ways of improving corporate accountability and transparency.

We will ensure that Post Offices are allowed to offer a wide range of services in order to sustain the network, and we will look at the case for developing new sources of revenue, such as the creation of a Post Office Bank.

We will end the so-called ‘gold-plating’ of EU rules, so that British businesses are not disadvantaged relative to their European competitors.

We will introduce a Freedom Bill.

We will scrap the ID card scheme, the National Identity register and the ContactPoint database, and halt the next generation of biometric passports.

We will outlaw the finger-printing of children at school without parental permission.

We will extend the scope of the Freedom of Information Act to provide greater transparency.

We will protect historic freedoms through the defence of trial by jury.

We will restore rights to non-violent protest.

We will end the storage of internet and email records without good reason.

We will introduce a new mechanism to prevent the proliferation of unnecessary new criminal offences.

We will abolish the unelected Infrastructure Planning Commission and replace it with an efficient and democratically accountable system that provides a fast-track process for major infrastructure projects.

We will maintain the Green Belt, Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) and other environmental protections, and create a new designation – similar to SSSIs – to protect green areas of particular importance to local communities.

We will explore a range of measures to bring empty homes into use.

We will promote ‘Home on the Farm’ schemes that encourage farmers to convert existing buildings into affordable housing.

We will phase out the ring-fencing of grants to local government and review the unfair Housing Revenue Account.

We will require continuous improvements to the energy efficiency of new housing.

We will introduce stronger consumer protections, including measures to end unfair bank and financial transaction charges.

We will take forward measures to enhance customer service in the private and public sectors.

We will increase households’ control over their energy costs by ensuring that energy bills provide information on how to move to the cheapest tariff offered by their supplier, and how each household’s energy usage compares to similar households.

We will seek to extend protection and support to ‘off-grid’ energy consumers.

We will seek to spread information on which policing techniques and sentences are most effective at cutting crime across the Criminal Justice System.

We will have a full review of the terms and conditions for police officer employment.

We will make hospitals share non-confidential information with the police so they know where gun and knife crime is happening and can target stop-and-search in gun and knife crime hot spots.

We will promote better recording of hate crimes against disabled, homosexual and transgender people, which are frequently not centrally recorded.

We will review the operation of the Extradition Act – and the US/UK extradition treaty – to make sure it is even-handed.

We will maintain the independence of the BBC, and give the National Audit Office full access to the BBC’s accounts to ensure transparency.

We will maintain free entry to national museums and galleries, and give national museums greater freedoms.

We will examine the case for moving to a ‘gross profits tax’ system for the National Lottery, and reform the National Lottery so that more money goes into sport, the arts and heritage.

We will use cash in dormant betting accounts to improve local sports facilities and support sports clubs.

We will cut red tape to encourage the performance of more live music.

We will look at whether there is scope to refurbish Armed Forces’ accommodation from efficiencies within the Ministry of Defence.

We will support defence jobs through exports that are used for legitimate purposes, not internal repression, and will work for a full international ban on cluster munitions.

We will hold a full Spending Review reporting this autumn, following a fully consultative process involving all tiers of government and the private sector.

We will push for the EU to demonstrate leadership in tackling international climate change, including by supporting an increase in the EU emission reduction target to 30% by 2020.

We will introduce measures to promote a huge increase in energy from waste through anaerobic digestion.

We will refuse permission for additional runways at Gatwick and Stansted.

We will replace Air Passenger Duty with a per-flight duty.

We will work towards an ambitious global climate deal that will limit emissions and explore the creation of new international sources of funding for the purpose of climate change adaptation and mitigation.

We will work towards full compliance with European Air Quality standards.

We will investigate measures to help with fuel costs in remote rural areas, starting with pilot schemes.

We will extend the right to request flexible working to all employees, consulting with business on how best to do so.

We will undertake a fair pay review in the public sector to implement our proposed ‘20 times’ pay multiple.

We will press for the European Parliament to have only one seat, in Brussels.

We will maintain the goal of ending child poverty in the UK by 2020.

We will reform the administration of tax credits to reduce fraud and overpayments.

We will publish serious case reviews, with identifying details removed.

We will regulate lobbying through introducing a statutory register of lobbyists and ensuring greater transparency.

We will end the detention of children for immigration purposes.

We support E-borders and will reintroduce exit checks.

We will explore new ways to improve the current asylum system to speed up the processing of applications.

We will support efforts to establish an International Arms Trade Treaty to limit the sales of arms to dangerous regimes.

We will review what action can be taken against ‘vulture funds’.
We will support reform of global financial institutions such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund in order to increase the involvement of developing nations.

We will explore alternative forms of secure, treatment-based accommodation for mentally ill and drugs offenders.

We will urgently review Control Orders, as part of a wider review of counter-terrorist legislation, measures and programmes. We will seek to find a practical way to allow the use of intercept evidence in court.

We will ensure that there is a stronger voice for patients locally through directly elected individuals on the boards of their local primary care trust (PCT). The remainder of the PCT’s board will be appointed by the relevant local authority or authorities, and the Chief Executive and principal officers will be appointed by the Secretary of State on the advice of the new independent NHS board. This will ensure the right balance between locally accountable individuals and technical expertise.

We will give every patient the right to choose to register with the GP they want, without being restricted by where they live.

We will make the NHS work better by extending best practice on improving discharge from hospital, maximising the number of day care operations, reducing delays prior to operations, and where possible enabling community access to care and treatments.

We will prioritise dementia research within the health research and development budget.

We will seek to stop foreign healthcare professionals working in the NHS unless they have passed robust language and competence tests.

Doctors and nurses need to be able to use their professional judgement about what is right for patients and we will support this by giving front-line staff more control of their working environment.

We will encourage NHS organisations to work better with their local police forces to clamp down on anyone who is aggressive and abusive to staff.

We will restore the earnings link for the basic state pension from April 2011, with a ‘triple guarantee’ that pensions are raised by the higher of earnings, prices or 2.5%.

We will commit to establishing an independent commission to review the long-term affordability of public sector pensions, while protecting accrued rights.

We will explore the potential to give people greater flexibility in accessing part of their personal pension fund early.

We will establish five-year fixed-term Parliaments. We will put a binding motion before the House of Commons stating that the next general election will be held on the first Thursday of May 2015. Following this motion, we will legislate to make provision for fixed-term Parliaments of five years. This legislation will also provide for dissolution if 55% or more of the House votes in favour.

We will bring forward a Referendum Bill on electoral reform, which includes provision for the introduction of the Alternative Vote in the event of a positive result in the referendum, as well as for the creation of fewer and more equal sized constituencies. We will whip both Parliamentary parties in both Houses to support a simple majority referendum on the Alternative Vote, without prejudice to the positions parties will take during such a referendum.

We will review the control and use of accumulated and future revenues from the Fossil Fuel Levy in Scotland.

We will fund a significant premium for disadvantaged pupils from outside the schools budget by reductions in spending elsewhere.

We will help schools tackle bullying in schools, especially homophobic bullying.
We will simplify the regulation of standards in education and target inspection on areas of failure.

We will ensure that all new Academies follow an inclusive admissions policy. We will work with faith groups to enable more faith schools and facilitate inclusive admissions policies in as many of these schools as possible.

We will reform Access to Work, so disabled people can apply for jobs with funding already secured for any adaptations and equipment they will need.

We will increase the personal allowance for income tax to help lower and middle income earners. We will announce in the first Budget a substantial increase in the personal allowance from April 2011, with the benefits focused on those with lower and middle incomes.

We will further increase the personal allowance to £10,000, making real terms steps each year towards meeting this as a longer-term policy objective. We will prioritise this over other tax cuts, including cuts to Inheritance Tax.

We will reform the taxation of air travel by switching from a per-passenger to a per-plane duty, and will ensure that a proportion of any increased revenues over time will be used to help fund increases in the personal allowance.

We will seek ways of taxing non-business capital gains at rates similar or close to those applied to income, with generous exemptions for entrepreneurial business activities.

We will make every effort to tackle tax avoidance, including detailed development of Liberal Democrat proposals.

We will review the taxation of non-domiciled individuals.

We are committed to fair pricing for rail travel.

We will ensure that public funding mechanisms for university research safeguard its academic integrity.

Fifteen Albums

2010-09-29T11:43:00.004+01:00

I thought I'd play along with this meme. It is totally non-optimal; it's missing The Cinematic Orchestra for a start. I also think there are too many entries from too recently; ten of the albums were released in the last ten years. But I tried to ensure it covers the range of soulful/rhythmic/electronicky sounds that I love.

THE RULES: Don't take too long to think about it. Fifteen albums you've heard that will always stick with you. List the first fifteen you can recall in no more than fifteen minutes.

UPDATE 30/09/10: Yestereday I posted a link to a YouTube clip featuring one of the best tracks from each album on Twitter. I've now embedded each of these clips below the name of the album for your delectation.

The Avalanches - Since I Left You

Mr Scruff - Keep It Unreal

Quantic - Apricot Morning

Q-Tip - The Renaissance

James Brown - In The Jungle Groove

The Haggis Horns - Hot Damn!

Fat Freddy's Drop - Based On A True Story

Bonobo - Days To Come

Silkie - City Limits Vol 1

Guido - Anidea

London Elektricity - Power Ballads

Alix Perez - 1984

Orbital - Orbital 2

Daft Punk - Alive 2007

Hybrid - Wide Angle

UN Publicise How They're Boosting the Taliban

2010-09-27T18:28:00.004+01:00

The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime are one of the biggest global proponents of drug prohibition. They uphold the Conventions that insist that the War on Drugs must continue to be fought, that recreational drugs must continue to be illegal, and downplay all the terrible consequences this worldwide policy is inflicting.

UNODC use all the latest communication techniques to push this message. Their Twitter account provides continuing coverage of the impact they make on international media outlets.

However this tweet from today was a surprisingly frank admission:

UNODC in the news: UN's hard-line anti-drug czar may boost Taliban: http://bit.ly/aygizZ

It's great to see UNODC publicising how the policies they espouse are providing hundreds of millions of dollars of funding to our enemies in Afghanistan, and propagating the War on Terror.

Perhaps they might want to think about how to start reversing this situation - by taking opium production out of the black market and allowing national governments to provide strictly controlled supplies of heroin to addicts, thus stabilising dependent users whilst draining drug traffickers and the Taliban of money.

Do read the article linked to. It shows there are interesting diplomatic dynamics at play between the US/UK and Russia, who take an even harder line approach to opium crops than ourselves.

Changing the Culture of Disbelief at the UK Border Agency

2010-09-22T09:54:00.003+01:00

One of the most thought-provoking fringe events I attended at Lib Dem conference was on asylum policy. Hosted by my new favourite MP Julian Huppert, it featured passionate experts from the UNHCR and Refugee Council, along with Tom Brake, a prominent backbench Lib Dem MP on justice and equality issues.

A real problem arose from the discussion about the culture of mistrust at the UK Border Agency regarding asylum applications. At the moment, the UKBA staff assessing asylum claims have a habit of using any minor doubts over the validity of a claim to reject it and let the courts decide if the claimant wishes to appeal the decision.

This leads to a huge number of initial claims being made in error. A third of rejected cases are overturned on appeal. This is inefficient, expensive and creates huge anxiety for the asylum seeker, whose fate is left in legal limbo often for years.

The question floated at fringe was how do we change this culture? Here's my suggestion: Pay UKBA staff a bonus which they get to keep whilst they make correct initial decisions. But for every incorrect decision they make (when the courts overturn an initial decision), deductions are made from the bonus.

This would mean it is now in the financial interest of UKBA assessors to not waste court time and money by getting the decision right first time. It should also ensure that staff take a more sympathetic approach to dealing with asylum cases.

I managed to catch up with Tom Brake and his well-informed researcher later. I was informed UKBA staff are currently incentivised to get cases closed within six months, whatever the outcome. The coalition has come out against these kinds of arbitrary targets set by the Labour government, which do little to ensure the best quality services are provided for each individual's circumstances.

Changing these incentives to get more decisions right first time would be fairer to asylum seekers and save the taxpayer money. Win!

Extremist Muslims in Phil Woolas's Leaflets

2010-09-14T15:17:00.005+01:00

You are probably aware that Phil Woolas is currently in court over allegedly lying about his Lib Dem opponent Elwyn Watkins in election leaflets delivered in Oldham East and Saddleworth just before the general election. One of the dubious claims made by Woolas was that Watkins was "wooing" Muslim extremists.

Phil Woolas specifically names the Muslim Public Affairs Committee UK (MPACUK) as these extremists in the "Saddleworth and Oldham - The Examiner" leaflet which triggered the historic legal proceedings against him. Sure enough, MPACUK were openly campaigning for a vote for Watkins to defeat Woolas.

MPACUK have been praised for their work in getting British Muslims involved in mainstream politics and the promotion of women's rights within Islam. While MPACUK subscribe to jihad as a religious duty, they encourage this via democratic means rather than violence. The most extreme view that MPACUK promotes is anti-Zionism, which some argue has crossed the line into anti-Semitism. So it is arguable that MPACUK are extremists in this specific context.

This is the image from the Woolas "Saddleworth and Oldham - The Examiner" leaflet:

This image is not from an MPACUK demonstration. It is from the Danish cartoon demonstration organised by al Ghurabaa and The Saviour Sect in London on February 3rd, 2006. While MPACUK were against the publication of the cartoons, they equally condemned the militant protest, and called for those involved to be prosecuted.

So Woolas called MPACUK extremists, and illustrated Muslim extremists using an image from a extremist protest that MPACUK opposed. This is highly deceptive. It gives entirely the wrong impression of the Muslims who were campaigning against Woolas, or the Muslims that he asserted Watkins was wooing.

Bestival 2010

2010-09-14T11:45:00.007+01:00

I was at Bestival this weekend, and had one of the most incredible and intense weekends of my life.

The genre-defying sonics of Flying Lotus blew my mind, the heart-melting soulful reggae Fat Freddy's Drop left me in tears, and the bouncy blissful glitches of Four Tet had me captivated. And that's just the acts beginning with 'F'.

But my moment of the weekend was with Mary Anne Hobbs. Despite leaving her Radio 1 show last week, she is still the undisputed Queen of All Things Electronic and Experimental. She proved her acumen atop the most spellbinding stages I've seen - I can only describe it as an exploding dystopian tripod.

She finished her set with this old skool rave meets ground-shaking dubstep banger. Enjoy!

European Political Compass

2010-09-13T18:43:00.002+01:00

I promised this in my last blogpost, so here is my result from the EU Profiler test:

I feel this plot nicely shows how I generally fit in rather well with the Lib Dems. The big difference is immigration - where I would like to see all restrictions lifted, the party advocates relatively tough controls. There is also interestingly a significant difference in the law and order category. (By the way, this access is badly labelled - I'm certainly not for more disorder!)

Me on the Political Compass

2010-09-08T19:56:00.002+01:00

I did this quiz ages ago, but never posted my result.

Here you go:

I actually see myself as a fiscal centrist, but there I am leaning towards the Left (by the quiz writer's definition).

I also did one a while back which matched my views to those of the European political parties. I'll post that tomorrow.

Let's Have a Raffle

2010-09-01T09:59:00.004+01:00

There is a horrible way to have proportional representation in single member constituencies.

Instead of counting the votes cast, draw one at random. That candidate is elected. The more votes a candidate receives, the greater the probability of them being elected.

At a constituency level, this is very unfair to the individual politicians, particularly those who don't get elected despite being the most popular. However on a national scale across all the different constituencies, the law of large numbers means the net result will tend towards one that closely represents the will of the people.

There are no wasted votes and no motivation for tactical votes. Every vote has just as much chance as any other, no matter where you live. At the moment, how much your vote matters is a postcode lottery, because First Past The Post creates safe seats where voters have no chance of determining the outcome of the election. Switching to a raffle system would move the unfair lottery element away from the electorate and onto the politicians themselves.

Of course politicians would hate this system, as it would be unfair to them, so it will never happen. However the FPTP-supporting politician should question why they are happy to make the system a postcode lottery for the electorate, but not a lottery for themselves.

The only way of running elections which is fair to both politicians and the electorate is multi-member constituencies.

Government Acknowledges a Key Anti-Prohibitionist Argument

2010-08-31T16:24:00.005+01:00

A Home Office press release from 19th August (don't say that this blog isn't at the cutting edge of political comment! *ahem*) gives a bit more detail on the legislation that will enact a temporary ban on legal highs (my emphasis):

The government will introduce new legislation which will enable police to confiscate suspected substances and the UK Border Agency will seize shipments entering the country. The penalty for supply will be a maximum of 14 years in prison and an unlimited fine. Possession of a temporarily banned substance for personal use would not be a criminal offence to prevent the unnecessary criminalisation of young people.

This is significant: the government has acknowledged that a drug offence has a negative impact on (young) people's lives and is taking steps to avoid unnecessary criminalisation. This is accepting that there is credence in one of the anti-prohibitionist arguments.

In a way, this raises more questions than it answers: Why is it OK to criminalise suppliers to "send a clear message", but not possessors? And why is prosecuting drug possession necessary criminalisation for some substances, but unnecessary for others?

Anyway, regardless of the answers to these questions, the temporary ban on legal highs remains a deeply illiberal authoritarian measure: it will persecute those who import and sell potentially safe substances. Chemicals will be found guilty until proven innocent at the whim of the Home Secretary of the day. It goes against the Lib Dem manifesto commitment for an evidence-based drugs policy.

But at least this bad law's cloud has a silver lining.

IFS Study Shows What Won't Happen

2010-08-25T09:33:00.005+01:00

What matters most in politics - How the decisions made will affect people? Or which parties happen to have announced which policies? If you're the IFS, it seems you think the latter matters more.
The IFS have taken the government's Emergency Budget from June in isolation and shown that the policies announced in it will have a regressive effect on their own.

However, the public won't simply be affected by the June Budget. The previous government also held a Budget just a few months earlier in March. This has two implications:

1. The policy decisions from June weren't made in a vacuum - they were adding upon policies that had just been announced in March. The June Budget did not reverse any of the March Budget, with the one exception of cancelling Cider Duty rises.

2. The impact on people's livelihoods will be total effect of both March's and June's Budgets. The IFS have ignored the impact of March's Budget and only reported on the impact of June's. This is not what is going actually happen to people.

So while this is of little economic relevance, it is more arguably of political relevance. It may tell us about the values of the new coalition government (albeit in a very limited way - see point 1 above). I hope the IFS realises it is engaging in a primarily political debate rather than an economic one.

Worse, by choosing to present the statistics in this way, it is providing ammunition for Labour to use against the Tories and Lib Dems. Given the IFS prides itself on its neutrality, this is a rather surprising decision.

UPDATE 11am: The IFS's report does contain the correct graph that includes the effect of all tax and benefit changes. This is the one that we should be focussed on.

Let me be clear - this is still a regressive picture, and it is not a graph I can take any joy from. It still shows that some of the poorest households will be among the hardest hit. Sadly that is just the nature of benefit cuts - cuts that would have been made whoever was in power. However it does appear that some of the more wealthy, particularly in deciles 7, 8 and 9, will not be feeling their fair share of the pain.

I have redacted my last criticism of the IFS. The full report is far more balanced than I gave the IFS credit for. It is End Child Poverty who have chosen to highlight the misleading graph.

AV Ballot Marking Must Be More Flexible

2010-08-19T14:27:00.004+01:00

Thanks to a prompt from Liam Rhodes, I've had a quick look at the bill that will introduce the AV referendum (because I rock).

Here is what it says about how an elector should mark his/her ballot paper:

(1) In Schedule 1 to the 1983 Act (parliamentary elections rules), after rule 37 there is inserted—

“How votes are to be given

37A (1) A voter votes by marking the ballot paper with—

(a) the number 1 opposite the name of the candidate who is the voter’s first preference (or, as the case may be, the only candidate for whom the voter wishes to vote),

(b) if the voter wishes, the number 2 opposite the name of the candidate who is the voter’s second preference, and so on.

(2) The voter may mark as many preferences (up to the number of candidates) as the voter wishes.”

This isn't good enough. There will be some voters who choose not to use their lower preferences and will continue to mark their ballot using the traditional 'X'. Their vote should be valid, and be considered to be the same as a number 1 with no other preferences.

Some voters may accidentally miss out a number, e.g. mark their preferences with the numbers 1, 2 and 4. Mistakes like this should not invalidate the ballot, and the preferences should be reallocated as if the 4 was a 3. The bill doesn't make this clear.

Some voters may even do unexpected things like mark their ballot papers with fractions, or roman numerals. It needs to be made clear that these ballots, when a clear numerical preference has been shown, should be considered valid.

I fear that the rules laid out in the bill as it stands are too prescriptive, and will lead to ballot papers being wrongly rejected.

A Question for Majority Government Supporters

2010-08-19T13:17:00.007+01:00

The supporters of retaining First Past The Post all seem to be supporters of majority government - where only one party is in control of the government and makes all the decisions that face the country. One of their main arguments against changing away from FPTP is that it would increase the chance of coalition governments - where several parties work together, compromise and moderate each other in the national interest.

I have a question for the Conservative and Labour politicians, members, activists and supporters who wish to retain majority government. Why do you want to guarantee that your main political rivals - whose values you oppose - are guaranteed to have periods of unfettered power over the country?

Because this is what supporting majority government guarantees. The option of (a small fraction of) the electorate to kick out unpopular majority governments and replace them with another will inevitably mean at times kicking out your party and installing your rival.

The effect of this means that Labour FPTP supporters are saying that it was right that Thatcher got unmoderated control of the UK in 1979, and Tory FPTP supporters are saying it was right that Blair got unrestrained power in 1997.

And if you don't support that, yet still support majority government? That must mean you want your party to have power over the country forever. That's not democracy, that's dictatorship.

Your Freedom - Why Did They Do It?

2010-08-17T22:46:00.007+01:00

The government's Your Freedom site is an embarrassing mess. It is full of suggestions that are wither well-rehearsed opinions on the issues of the day, nothing to do with restoring liberty, or repeat suggestions. The whole project has basically become an online stress ball for people who believe what they read in the papers.

So what's the point? Practically none of the 'ideas' there are even slightly inspired. I really hope that the government didn't set the site up as a cynical gesture to give the false impression of fake interest in the views of the great unwashed. The public's response if nothing of substance comes of the site will be equally cynical, and the government is pretty brain-dead if it didn't realise this.
But Cameron, Clegg and their spads aren't stupid.

So allow me to indulge in a little fantasy: isn't it possible that they need the public to suggest things that the government itself doesn't want to be seen suggesting itself? If there was a can of worms the coalition feel needs opening, but doesn't want to be the ones to first tug the ring-pull, this website would be the ideal cover.

Now what can of worms could the coalition have in mind? Allow me to delve deeper into my happy fantasyland: what if that issue was drug policy reform? It's not totally crazy - both the Prime Minister and his Deputy have a history on this. David Cameron went on record before he became his party's leader talking about the decades of failure of drugs policy and the need to consider alternatives, as did Nick Clegg in his MEP days. The problem is those pesky tabloid journalists who would tear them and all their distant relatives a new one if they dared suggest any course other than prohibition. However if a consultation took place triggered by overwhelming public demands from the Your Freedom website (which was always bound to attract suggestions that prohibition should be repealed), this would be politically more manageable.

OK, back to reality - I think this is all unlikely! It's both too Machiavellian and would be too good to be true. But if it does happen, I reserve the right to shout 'I TOLD YOU SO' whilst grinning wildly (and possibly drooling slightly).

Anyway, stay tuned for my next blogpost on how the moon landings were faked ;)

Germany to Allow Medical Cannabis

2010-08-17T19:26:00.004+01:00

Germany's Centre-Right/Liberal coalition government is to introduce laws that will permit the supply and use of cannabis for medicinal purposes.

Doctors could write prescriptions for cannabis, and pharmacies would be authorised to sell the plant once the law had been adjusted, a member of the junior coalition party, the pro-business Free Democrats (FDP), said Monday.

Marijuana would also be permitted for use as a pain reliever for the terminally ill in hospices and other care facilities, making it a legal part of their emergency pain-relief stocks.

This is yet another European country relaxing their drug laws (a little).

Can you think of any other Centre-Right/Liberal coalition governments that could choose to take similar drug liberalising steps? Hmmmmm...

My New Favourite Derivative Work

2010-08-17T18:00:00.006+01:00

Take this bland pop crap from Justin Bieber...

...and time stretch it to make it 800% slower. The result is this 35 minute ambient masterpiece:

J. BIEBZ - U SMILE 800% SLOWER by Shamantis

So simple, but so effective. It reminds me a bit of the Brian Eno track used in the Lib Dem's "28 Days Later"-esque election broadcast. Try playing them together; it works rather nicely.

One of the many cultural revolutions the Internet has sparked is the explosion in derivative works. From mash-ups to remakes to photoshops to remixes, the creativity of some people knows no bounds. I hope this gets considered as the Lib Dems develop their policies on IT and IP over the coming 12 months.

I can't put the wider case as well as this video - 20 minutes well spent, I promise:

Prohibition Doesn't Add Up

2010-08-17T06:59:00.005+01:00

~~Alex~~ Angus* MacQueen's excellent Channel 4 series "Our Drugs War" concluded last night. The last episode was the most interesting, which demonstrated how the illegal drug trade has created government corruption in Afghanistan on an unimaginable scale.

However I'd like to return to a statistic from the first episode, which is that a paltry 1% of heroin is successfully seized by UK authorities. The UN estimate that to have a significant impact on the drug trade this needs to be raised to at least 60%.

Lets combine this with the current annual £1.5 billion budget the UK government spends on drug law enforcement.

So to get to 60% heroin seizure, the budget for drug law enforcement needs to be raised to £90 billion. This would make drug enforcement about the same size as the NHS, and would mean an extra £1,500 in tax per head every year.

But wait! The £1.5 billion is for enforcing all drugs, not just heroin. So the budget would need to be increased to significantly more than £90 billion.

But wait! This ignores the law of diminishing returns. The 1% currently being seized will be some of the easiest heroin to find. So the budget would need to be increased to significantly more than significantly more than £90 billion.

But wait! 60% was the bottom end of the UN's estimate. It may need to be up to 70% seizure rate to have a significant estimate. So the budget may need to be increased to significantly more than significantly more than significantly more than £90 billion.

Frankly, the exact number is irrelevant. The government has a deficit to reduce, and is trying to cut departmental budgets, not give them a 6000% increase.

Trying to solve the problem of heroin abuse by law enforcement is futile. We desperately need to start trying alternatives.

*UPDATE 11am - oops, thanks Ewan!

John Denham - A Fisking

2010-08-04T14:59:00.010+01:00

After an excellent analysis by Martin Kettle on Labour's cynical political games over the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill, it was inevitable that Labour would send a Welterweight spokesperson into the ring to respond.

John Denham strapped on his boxing gloves, and produced this effort. Sadly his argument has more holes in it than machine-gunned Emmental.

Off we go:

I've been an electoral reformer all my political life. Chairing the Labour Campaign for Electoral Reform, I'm hardly likely to "play fast and loose" on this issue, as Martin Kettle alleges

Martin didn't criticise you personally in his article, John. (By the way, check out that link - their website hasn't been updated for 5 years. Rather telling...)

Our support for a simple AV referendum bill is unconditional. But there is no philosophical, legal, practical or parliamentary reason for combining the referendum with boundary changes: it's simply that the changes favour the Tories, who won't support the Lib Dems' referendum without them.

What? First there's no "practical or parliamentary reason", but then John concedes that the Bill needs to stay in its current form to get the Tories to support the referendum - that's an excellent practical reason to have a single Bill. By the way, the suggestion that the changes will favour the Tories is highly contestable.

But he's right to say that the case for reducing the number of MPs and equalising constituencies should be considered on its merits, not from party advantage.

Fine...

It does take more Tory votes to elect a Tory MP.

True. There are 33,000 votes per Labour MP, and 35,000 per Tory MP. Oh yeah, and 120,000 votes per Lib Dem MP. It is that third number (and the equivalent numbers for the other minor parties) which is the outrageous discrepancy that needs be removed from Britain's electoral process.

The real answer is the more proportional system that the Tories won't countenance.

Sorry, are you saying Labour will? Ha! Why did Labour do nothing about it for 13 years, despite promise after promise in your manifestos? Why did Labour vote against the proportional STV system earlier this year?

Most electoral reformers have concluded that AV for the Commons and an elected House of Lords is the best attainable constitutional reform at the moment,

You'd best vote for it then, John.

but this pragmatic response doesn't allow the Tories to use "fairness" as the basis for rigging the boundaries.

I repeat: the suggestion that altering the boundaries will favour the Tories is highly contestable.

Kettle (and Nick Clegg) seem to argue that if Labour tried and failed (as we did) to register these voters, no other party need even bother.

Blatantly untrue. The coalition will be introducing individual voter registration in an attempt to tackle this problem left by Labour.

Voters want their MP to represent an identifiable community: current constituencies are mostly centred on real places.

This is a minority concern at best. Most voters don't know who there MP is, never mind which constituency they live in or where the boundary is drawn. I know of no empirical evidence that backs up John's claim, so it is just as valid for me to argue this: what voters really want is to ensure the electoral map is drawn up in a way that ensures a fair level of representation, no matter where you live.

But here is the most outrageous claim:

And the coalition parties will instruct the Boundary Commissions to respect the boundaries which favour them.

This is a smear, pure and simple. There is no reason to believe this to be true. No-one has any idea of what boundaries the Commission will come up with, so it is ridiculous to assume dishonour of this kind before the process has even begun. The only time any political party has engaged in gerrymandering of this scale was the Labour Party in the late 60's.

It is to John Denham's discredit that he has sunk so low.

Please Help Precious and Florence

2010-07-19T12:16:00.007+01:00

Allow me to take your mind to three different places:

Think back to when you were 3 years of age. I suspect your memories are hazy at best - mine certainly are. Our lives only properly begin from the age of 4. From this age we begin to form our own autonomy, our own social networks, our own self identity.

Now jump forward to being 10 years old. It is incredible how much we develop in those 7 years. We now have a good understanding of our surroundings, our friends, our place in the world.

Lastly, I'm asking you to take yourself to somewhere much more difficult. Imagine, as a normal, 10 year old child, that this understanding of the world around you is suddenly removed. Your family, friends, teachers gone. Your home, your street, your community gone. Suddenly, you find yourself living in another world, in an alien environment, under the custody of strangers, unable to speak the same language as anyone else.

For me, this is too horrible to be imagined. But the government is acting to inflict this exact situation on a 10 year old girl.

Precious Mhango fled from Malawi 7 years ago came to the UK from Malawi with her parents after her father was granted asylum. Sadly, the father was abusive towards his wife, Florence, so she fled with her daughter to Glasgow, and settled there. Precious speaks English (with a Glaswegian accent), attends primary school and is an ordinary young girl.

However, since Florence andPrecious came to the UK as the family of a refugee, their legal status was tied to an abusive man. If they are deported, the family of the husband are highly likely to take custody of Precious. It is just plain wrong that a mother and her young girl's life can be shattered by the government because of the actions of her abusive husband/father.

Our asylum laws weren't designed to cope with situations like this, but instead of showing some compassionate common sense, the government is insisting on following the letter of the law - even when it clearly produces unjust outcomes. The Home Secretary has discretionary powers to grant leave to remain to Florence and Precious, and I urge you to take action and insist that this injustice is not allowed to happen.

What you can do:

Join the Facebook group.

If you live near Glasgow, attend the vigil being held at 5:30 this afternoon at the top of the Buchanan Street, near the Donald Dewar statue, at the bottom of the stairs outside the Buchanan Galleries.

Or simply blog about it, tweet about it, mention it to people you know, and tell them to mention it.

But please, just don't do nothing.

See also: Caron's Musings

Widening the Scope

2010-07-13T17:13:00.008+01:00

All the focus of electoral reform has been on the voting system used for the general elections that send MPs to the House of Commons. This is understandable - the outcome of a general election gives us our national government, so the importance of this election is (rightly or wrongly) much higher than other elections. However, I fear the Lib Dems may be missing other electoral reform opportunities. The systems used for European and local elections are in need of reform just as much, and they may be a politically easier reform to make.

Elections to the European Parliament in the UK use closed list proportional representation, with the exception of Northern Ireland, which uses the Lib Dem holy grail of Single Transferable Vote. While this gives a highly proportional outcome, the system has the big drawback that the electorate can't choose the specific MEP they wish to be represented by. The European Parliament feels like a distant, opaque, unaccountable organisation (the only time the media gives any coverage is when the right-wing press choose sensationalise the legislation that is being debated). Getting the names of the candidates on the ballot would be a small step on the way to providing some transparency. The rules of the European Parliament means that there is only one other option instead of party lists: STV. David Cameron doesn't like party lists either:

PR comes in many forms but more often than not you find yourself voting for a party rather than just one person. Under our current system, when you put your pencil to the ballot paper you're putting your cross against someone's name — one person to represent your interests, to go to if you have a problem: one person whom you feel a direct link to. A move to faceless politics would sever this local link and damage voter engagement.

So maybe the Tories be open to the idea of moving the whole of the UK from lists to STV for European elections.

For local elections we currently use first-past-the-post in multi-member wards (I know, more than one representative, madness!). However, if the result of the referendum is people choosing to reject FPTP for AV, why should the election of our local councillors still use the rejected system? The referendum should be on the electoral system used for both national and local elections. If that was the case, and the referendum was successful, local elections would use AV with multi-member wards... sounding similar to something? All that would need to happen would be to align the electoral cycle so that both councillors in a ward are elected at the same time (saving money and increasing turnout), and kaboom, STV! Wards tend to have just two councillors; it would be nice to merge some boundaries to double this and get a more representative system.

Last but by absolutely no means least, the House of Lords' replacement (lets call it the Senate). There is no historical precedent of having a constituency link to a Lord/Senator, so there is no need to have this idea of a extra-strong one-to-many know-them-like-the-back-of-my-stalkee's-head relationship. Nick Clegg has guaranteed us Lords reform. He must push for STV in the new Senate.

With only the promise of an AV referendum squeezed out of the Tories in the coalition agreement, it is easy to feel a bit disheartened about ever getting to the STV that the Lib Dems have always desired. However nothing I've described feels anywhere near as difficult as general election reform. There are plenty of electoral reform wins available if the party plays its cards right.

A Mountain out of the AV Molehill

2010-07-06T15:05:00.004+01:00

I am trying ever so hard to be enthusiastic about the possible change to AV. But I'm struggling.

I can see some small advantages. The biggest is the end of tactical voting. The voters can truly vote for who they want to see elected, rather than need to second-guess the behaviour of others. Never again will a leaflet need to talk of two-horse races, or X can't win here.

I can also see how AV is Step 1 of getting to the holy grail of STV. Once the ballots are preferential, moving from single- to multi-member constituencies so that elections are proportional would implement STV. Yet Step 2 is so much bigger than Step 1.

Making such a fuss about climbing the molehill when there is still a huge mountain to climb feels like wasted energy. AV is such a minor tweak to the status quo that I fear that holding this referendum will put genuine electoral reform off the agenda for a generation, whatever the outcome. Hung parliaments are becoming increasingly likely. I can't help wonder if it would have been better to wait for the ideal moment to get full STV in one shot.

I simply don't buy the argument that gaining the favour of over 50% of their electorate gives genuine legitimency to an MP, as that 50% is made up of second, third and maybe even lower preferences. The whole point of multi-member constituencies is to acknowledge that one person can't adequately represent the views of tens of thousands of people. AV goes directly against this principle.

But we are where we are. I'll campaign for AV. But my soul won't be in it.

My Pulled Entry to "Your Freedom"

2010-07-02T13:59:00.005+01:00

I was making a serious point, albeit in a not so serious way... But the mods disapproved.

Keep drugs illegal, don’t regulate them

by duncanstott on July 01, 2010 at 05:44PM

Speaking as a criminal drug dealer who makes millions from the insatiable desire for my produce, it would be a personal disaster if I were to lose my ability to operate in the illegal drug market.

That’s why I support the government’s current stance on drugs. Ending prohibition and applying mountains of red tape around the supply drugs would put dealers like me out of business.

Why the contribution is important

I operate in an illegal drugs market worth £5bn in the UK. It is the perfect business: no tax, no bereaucracy, and a customer base that can’t get enough of my products. The drugs market is also tied up in many other valuable trades like prostitution and people trafficking, and where would the UK be without them?

Ending prohibition would ruin all this.

First of all, so-called "legal companies" would take virtually all of my customers. I might even have to consider operating legally myself, and start paying tax. This would obviously hurt my profit margins.

At the moment I can sell drugs to whoever I like, but if drugs weren’t prohibited, no doubt the government would start applying age restrictions, and restrict my customer base. Mr Clegg, you must keep drugs illegal so I can keep selling drugs to teenagers. Just look at how the government has hurt sales with its tobacco regulation. The health warnings on the packaging are causing less and less young people to take up smoking. Don’t let the cocaine market go the same way!

At the moment I maximise profits by cutting drugs with bulking agents. There’s no quality control, but there doesn’t need to be. Under a legal framework, the government would apply a load of red tape to make sure drugs were of a standard purity and quality. Again, this would severely hit my profits.

If the government cares one bit about drug barons like me, they’ll leave our drug laws well alone. Things are fine as they are.

Infinite thanks to Al Jahom for copying my entry in the first place :)

Urging Action on RMJ Administration

2010-06-17T13:29:00.010+01:00

Here's the first letter I've sent to my new MP, Nicola Blackwood, regarding the legal aid charity Refugee and Migrant Justice going into administration. Please read my letter about this case and consider sending a similar letter to your MP using the fab Write To Them website. It is unacceptable to allow destitute people who are being subjected to legal action to go without legal assistance.

Dear Nicola Blackwood,

I am deeply concerned to hear news about the charity Refugee and
Migrant Justice entering administration due to bureaucratic rules that
resulted in non-payment of Legal Aid by the Legal Services Commission.

Refugee and Migrant Justice provides invaluable legal services to
asylum seekers and other vulnerable migrants with the greatest needs.
This crucial service is now severely under threat.

If RMJ has to close, I understand this will lead to more than 10,000
people, including 900 children and victims of trafficking, torture and
armed conflict, being left without legal representation. This could
cause chaos in the asylum system. Lives will be put at risk and there
are likely to be many more miscarriages of justice, which are already
far too common.

With that in mind I am asking you to press the Department of Justice to
do all it can to rectify this situation and ensure that some of the
most destitute people in our country have access to legal assistance.

I hope you will take this matter seriously and I look forward to
hearing of your immediate actions.

Yours sincerely,
Duncan Stott

I'd like to apologise to Nicola for not mentioning that I intended on publishing the letter on my blog. With hindsight, it would have been polite to do this. I hope she will be happy for me to publish her response.

UPDATE: A demonstration is being organised against the likely closure of RMJ outside the Ministry of Justice at 4pm on Friday if you can make it.

UPDATE 2: Show your support by joining this Facebook group.

34th Softest Touch

2010-06-15T16:05:00.004+01:00

The United Kingdom is in 34th place in the league of refugees taken in by a country as a ratio of its population.

The latest UN statistics show that we have 438 refugees per 100,000 inhabitants. This puts us behind Jordan, Syria, Montenegro, Congo, Chad, Malta, Iran, Djibouti, Lebanon, Pakistan, Kenya, Sweden, Serbia, Ecuador, Mauritania, Norway, Yemen, Germany, Venezuela, Luxembourg, Central African Republic, Switzerland, Gabon, Gambia, Rwanda, Cameroon, Canada, Guinea-Bissau, Panama, Austria, Netherlands, Sudan and Zambia.

The names in bold in the above list are other developed countries with a UN Human Development Index score greater than 0.9. Many of the other countries in this list are much nearer to the major sources of human displacement, and are therefore always going to take more refugees than other countries. But there is no reason why the UK shouldn't be beating many of the names in bold. The new coalition government should be aiming to get the UK towards the top of this list. It should be a source of immense national pride to live in a country that shows genuine compassion towards its fellow man; way more than some hollow gold trophy earned by a few kickball players.

Beautiful Power

2010-06-14T12:56:00.003+01:00

Picture 1:
Ugh! What ugliness! A revolting blot on our British landscape. Tear them down immediately.

Picture 2:
Never before have I seen such elegance! From the proudly erect light water reactor to graceful curves of the cooling towers, the pleasure of such majestic architecture should be experienced throughout the land.

Uh huh.

Integrate You Bastards

2010-06-10T13:15:00.006+01:00

Here's a quick Home Office video explaining yet another layer of bureaucracy that is being added to visa applications:

The government is coercively insisting that people are an integrated member of society, and that English is the only language that will enable someone to integrate.

There are plenty of other societies that muddle along just fine with multiple languages. Britain still has a few itself. When will the government start coercing Welsh to start speaking English?

But why stop at language? There's lots more the government could do to promote integration. Religion for a start. Those bloody immigrants most likely hit by this rule are likely to be from the Indian subcontinent, and therefore unlikely to be Christian - the national faith. So enforce compulsory church attendance for all who wish to enter. We do it for our state schools, so why not for our borders too? It'll mean less of those unsightly minarets, and the end of terrorism, because Christians are never terrorists.

Or perhaps the state should insist on patriotic tattoos to emblazoned across the torso. A small cartoon British bulldog would suffice, but extra points for an enormous dewy-eyed Winston Churchill waving the Union Flag on top of an implanted speaker that plays a monophonic rendition of "Land Of Hope And Glory" when firmly pressed.

Only for immigrants though. If you fluked being born here, that's British enough. Otherwise that would start affecting me, and that's just not on.

You may have spotted a tiny bit of exaggeration above. But the crux of it is this: if someone can't speak English, that's not your problem. You might not like hearing a foreign language for the three seconds when you and an immigrant share the same bit of pavement, but that's just tough. Lump it or chill out.

I'll leave you with Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. I can't see how this new rule will fit with this:

Article 8 – Right to respect for private and family life
1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.

2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

Thick Skin Bias

2010-05-30T14:26:00.002+01:00

It's tough at the top. In national politics, you get all sorts flung at you. Whether it's Evan Harris smeared as Dr Death (a cheap nickname previously reserved for the likes of the serial killer Harold Shipman or Nazi concentration camp doctor Aribert Heim), Elwyn Watkins smeared as being in cahoots with Muslim extremists by the odious Phil Woolas (and he's rightly taking Woolas to court over it), or David Laws who was forced into revealing his sexuality because of an unfair expenses rule (and has felt forced to resign), you have to be prepared for this kind of personal rough and tumble if you want to participate at the top level of the UK's (pseudo-)democratic process.

I'm sure the perpetrators of these attacks feel fully justified in making these attacks. But all these kinds of incidents mean that the only people who will ever succeed in politics are those with thick skins. I'm not sure this is positive. I'm sure there are many potential politicians out there who would be dedicated, persuasive and highly intelligent contributors, but will never get seriously involved because of what they would personally have to put themselves through. Perhaps this will always be an inevitable consequence of having a competitive democracy, but I fear we are unnecessarily shrinking the political gene-pool by insisting our MPs have thick skins.

My Top 3 Acts for Repeal

2010-05-21T10:15:00.006+01:00

Nick Clegg wants our suggestions of liberty infringing laws we'd like to see reviewed. Here are my top 3, with bonus accompanying Facebook groups to show your support:

1. Misuse of Drugs Act, 1971. The Daddy of the UK's drug laws, which criminalises millions of people for engaging in activity that is only harmful to themselves. This criminalisation leads to a whole host of knock-on problems: profits for criminal gangs, dangerously inconsistent purity, addicts treated as criminals rather than patients, addicts turning to crime to fund their habit, billions spent on futile attempts to stop the trade, confused messages about the dangers of drugs. Our part in the global War on Drugs makes us complicit in civil war in central America, the funding of the Taliban in Afghanistan, and capital punishment for drug offenders across much of Asia. Facebook: Nick Clegg: Order an Impact Assessment of the Misuse of Drugs Act!

2. Digital Economy Act, 2010. With the Internet playing an increasingly central role in everyday life, the government has introduced powers that will allow entire households to be cut off based on allegations of copyright infringement. The Act has not yet come into force, so we don't yet have any idea what the practical consequences will be, but it will may well lead to increased Wi-Fi theft, the end of public Wi-Fi in cafés and libraries, and increased use of encryption that ends up encouraging illegal filesharing. Remember, from June 12th, if anyone in your home is accused of sharing music online, you could end up without Internet. Facebook: Against the Digital Economy Bill

3. Health Act 2006. The smoking ban in public places was introduced in this Act. I have to admit I was initially in favour of this ban. I find smoking disgusting. I used to hate having to sit around in smoky pubs in order to be sociable, and I hated the way my clothes smelled when leaving the pub. But on reflection the smoking ban has gone too far. Since the ban came in the number of pub closures has exploded, with all the resultant bankruptcies, job losses and damage to communities. A more sensible approach would allow smoking in separate, well ventilated rooms away from the main bar would allow smokers and non-smokers alike to have a social life without government interference. Facebook: Nick Clegg: Include an Amendment to the Smoking Ban in the Repeal Bill

Alan Johnson: Pathetic Hypocrite

2010-05-05T12:35:00.003+01:00

Alan Johnson, 4th May 2010:

"They would have an amnesty for illegal immigrants, they would allow asylum seekers to work, which is utter, utter madness."

[source]

Alan Johnson, 24th May 2007:

Mr Johnson was asked by the Mirror if he supported an amnesty and replied: "Yes. We need secure borders but also to be pragmatic about people already living here."

[source]

Lib Dem Facebook Attack Group Fisk

2010-04-23T16:01:00.004+01:00

I'd like to rebut the strange claims made about the Lib Dems on this Facebook group. The original text is black; My comments are green.

Tricky Nicky and his U-turns, flip flops and budget black holes is hardly something we can afford. Before now Nick Clegg and the Liberal Democrats have said whatever you want to hear, and been able to get away with too little scrutiny. We want scrutinising! We want people talking about us and our policies. We've been systematically ignored for too long. In 2010, nothing's changed. Huh? Did you see the newspapers on Thursday? They were full of "scrutiny" (if that's the right word for the smears and 'Nazi' slurs Nick Clegg was attacked with). They'll still say anything to get your vote in the hope they wont ever have to deliver. Erm, we hope to get in power. That's the whole point of a political party. Just take a look for yourself:

-Flip- flopping on the Euro: Before the recession, they wanted us to join the Euro. Now it appears they don't (Or at least aren't prepared to say if they want us to join or not). Is this confirmation that where before, they were blinded by an ideological commitment to further integration with Europe, they have now realized that surrendering control of our interest rates and our own independent exchange rate most appropriate for the UK economy would have been wrong? In a recent radio interview, he admitted that joining the Euro would have weakened the UK economy even further in the recession, yet he still hasn't ruled out future membership. Can we afford this kind of indecision? We think it is in Britain's long term interests to join the Euro. But given we've just had a recession, right now isn't the time to consider joining. But when things have settled down and the time is right, we will give the public a referendum on joining.

-Vague on defence: They stand for abolishing Trident, but refuse to say whether this means removing the nuclear deterrent. Presumably, they acknowledge a world where Iran is marching towards a nuclear arsenal (as well as North Korea) is not a world which is moving towards mutual disarmament. But what is their stance? Do they want a proper deterrent, or do they want to do it on the cheap? This will all be decided as part of the Strategic Defence Review that all the parties agree is needed. Why exclude our nuclear capabilities from this scrutiny? We should opt for a pragmatic, affordable nuclear deterrent that is suitable for the threats facing us is the future, not the past.

-Indecision on tuition fees: After admitting they cannot afford to enact their original plan to let students got to University for “free” (someone, somewhere, picks up the bill) after a month of dithering, Nick Clegg and the Lib Dem's eventually said they would plan to phase them out "over 6 years". Ignoring that this vague commitment sidesteps the fact a term in Parliament is 5 years, they are yet to say where the £7.5 billion cost of this would come from. Presumably, through increases in tax. The party of fairness? Pages 102-103 of the Lib Dem manifesto show the wide range of measures that will pay for the £7.5bn cost over the Parliament. The main source of revenue is a levy on bank profits, which in itself more than pays for this proposal. Your insinuation that we haven't said where the money will come from is untrue.

-Giving criminals the vote: Nick Clegg believes that people serving time in prison deserve the right to vote in an election. Do you? The European Court of Human Rights ruled in 2004 that we must give prisoners the vote. We can't just put our fingers in our ears and ignore them. If the government can ignore the law, that gives carte blanche to all of us breaking any laws we don't like.

-U-turns on the economy: This needs a few points in itself....

1) On September 19th 2009, Nick Clegg said we need bold and even "savage" cuts in government spending, which will be necessary to bring the public deficit (standing at £168 billion) under control. On April 11th, 2010, he warned of "Greek style" unrest and "serious social strife" if tax increases and cuts in spending were enacted. Indecision a fragile economy can afford? You've half-quoted him. His argument was about the need for a government with a strong mandate, not the need for a bold deficit reduction plan. He was saying that people would be outraged if a government with a small vote and a weak mandate started making fiscal decisions that affected people's lives, and that could cause unrest.

2) Clegg says the Tories are being naive taking the government’s projected savings on waste into account in their NI calculations, and then takes the same figures on for the benefit of his own deficit-reduction calculations. You haven't provided a source for these claims. My understanding is that no spending commitments have been made on the basis of vague efficiency savings.

3) Despite the fact we face a £168 billion budget deficit, Nick Clegg has only identified £10 billion in savings. And they say they're being honest with you? The £10bn identified is on top of the announcements made in the latest Budget. And we're being more honest than any other party. Do tell me how other parties will cut the deficit.

4) Promises to raise the income tax threshold are based on hypothetical calculations of revenue from tax increases elsewhere. According to the Institute for Fiscal studies, “Whether the revenue raising measures would yield what they expect is... uncertain” and that it is feasible they “Could raise less” than expected. More half-quotes. They also said they "could raise more". Society is constantly changing, and the amounts that various policies will raise fluctuates. All the numbers are estimates, some are optimistic, some are pessimistic. As the IFS said, "The only way to find out for sure would be to suck it and see." I'm tempted to spin this into the IFS suggesting people should give the Lib Dems a chance!

-Flip -flops on property tax: Before, the Liberal Democrats wanted to abolish property tax in favour of a "local income tax". We still want local income tax to replace council tax. See p90 of the manifesto. In 2009, they made a calculation that meant they now supported tax on property in the form of their "mansion tax". Within a month, they had already fallen into disarray on the policy, and doubled the threshold for property to be affected by the tax. The idea may not be wrong, but such indecision is hardly a ringing endorsement for a party to wield significant power in Westminster. To be fair, this is your strongest critique. We didn't handle the way we announced the policy to the media very well. After some internal discussion, the party fine-tuned the policy so that only the most expensive mansions would be taxed, and also changed the rate so that enough revenue could be raised to properly pay for the £700 income tax cut.

-Dodgy donors: They like to pretend they're whiter than white on this. Their 2005 campaign was supported with a £2.4 million donation (at a time they said no party should take donations of more than £50,000 ...What, we're meant to deliberately cripple ourselves with an unfair disadvantage to the other parties by refusing large donations? Totally unreasonable) from a man later convicted of fraud. Emphasis on *later*. We didn't know he was a fraudster, and obviously would never have taken the money if we did. The Electoral Commission have said we did all the reasonable steps to check if the donation was permissible. One of their other major donors, Sudhir Choudhrie, has been accused of taking kickbacks from foreign governments for arms deals. So it's guilt by association is it? Again, we were given the money before any allegations were made. We apologise for not being psychic. When they criticize the other parties, you should ask: Is this just a case of hypocrisy, or just a naive belief that they are free from scrutiny? We criticise the other parties not because we are angels ourselves, but because whenever we tried to clean up politics over the last Parliament, the two old parties blocked reform. We want to change politics; they are happy with how things are.

-Dubious expenses: In one four month period, Nick Clegg claimed a staggering £1,657.32 on groceries. When he was an MEP, he travelled economy class, but claimed for Business class, claiming the difference for "office expenses”. He was automatically paid business-class fares under the rules, just like every other MEP, but rather than pocket the difference, he chose to use the money on his office. Not to mention the four Lib Dem MPs that were ordered to repay £16,500 for over claiming on expensive rent for Dolphin Square apartments near Parliament. When those Lib Dem MPs realised there may have been an issue with their Dolphin Square rent agreements, they referred themselves to the Standards Commissioner. Dolphin Square is popular with lots of MPs, and Labour and Conservative MPs have also benefited from similar rent deals, but they've kept quiet and not referred themselves for scrutiny. We're trying to be open and honest, they're still obfuscating. Again, we aren't angels, but we have been better than the other parties. There are no Lib Dems MPs accused of flipping their second homes. There are no Lib Dems MPs accused of charging for phantom mortgages. There are no Lib Dems MPs accused of dodging capital gains tax. And there are no Lib Dems in the dock because of their expenses. The Labour and Conservative parties can't say that.

-No commitment on the NHS: They are the only major party with no commitment to protect spending on the NHS. Their commitment to protect "key services" is based on "efficiency savings". All well and good, but why can't they say they'll keep the current levels of investment for the NHS? What's more, they refuse to commit to protecting A&E and Maternity services, saying it would be left to a "local health board". A convenient way of avoiding any accountability for cuts?

-An immigration policy for you?: They sure are different from the main parties on this one. As well as wanting to reward around 600,000 illegal immigrants with citizenship, they don't want any limit on inward migration. Instead, they simply want to move them around to different regions.

(These last two aren't criticisms. You either agree or you don't.)

Everything the Liberal Democrats say is shrouded by uncertainty, vague "commitments" and U-turns. Is this a party which can be trusted in times of uncertainty? Do you think a time of crisis and uncertainty needs serious leadership, or Nick Clegg with his flip- flops? I hope my comments have shown how these criticisms have little substance. We welcome scrutiny, and it's nice to know that people are paying attention to what we are saying.

Ain't No Stoppin Us Now

2010-04-19T16:24:00.001+01:00

Apt song for how I'm feeling about the Lib Dems at the moment...

Ain't No Stoppin Us Now
We're on the move
Ain't No Stoppin Us Now
We've got the groove

There's been so many things thats held us down.
But now it looks like things are finally comin' around.
I know we've got, a long long way to go,
and where we'll end up, I don't know.
But we won't let nothin' hold us back,
we're putting our selves together,
we're polishing up our act!
If you felt we've been held down before,
I know you'll refuse to be held down anymore!

Don't you let nothing, nothing,
Stand in your way
I want ya'll to listen, listen,
to every word I say, every word I say

Ain't No Stoppin Us Now
We're on the move
Ain't No Stoppin Us Now
We've got the groove

Ain't No Stoppin Us Now
We're on the move
Ain't No Stoppin Us Now
We've got the groove

I know you know someone that has a negative vow,
and if you're trying to make it they only push you aside.
They really don't have, no where to go.
Ask them where they're going, they don't know.
But we won't let nothin' hold us back,
we're gonna put ourselves together,
we're gonna polish up our act!
And if you've ever been held down before,
I know you'll refuse to be held down anymore!

Don't you let nothing, nothing,
Stand in your way
I want ya'll to listen, listen,
to every word I say, every word I say

Ain't No Stoppin Us Now
We're on the move
Ain't No Stoppin Us Now
We've got the groove

Ain't No Stoppin Us Now
We're on the move
Ain't No Stoppin Us Now
We've got the groove

How to Score the First Blow in the Leaders' Debate

2010-04-15T14:17:00.004+01:00

The "no applause" rule imposed on the studio audience for the three leaders' debates has been widely ridiculed. The only purpose it serves is to protect the leaders from audience scrutiny.

So here's how a leader could get tonight's historic first debate off the ground with an instant plus to them:

Spend the last 5 seconds of your opening remarks stating that this rule should be scrapped, and ask the other leaders if this is OK with them.

First, this would go down well with the public. It would show a willingness to shake things up.

Second, it would go down especially well with the audience, and would warm them to you for the rest of the debate.

Third, it would immediately put your opponents on the spot: either they agree with your request, and make it look like you've shown leadership, or they oppose it, appear defensive and in need of protection from the public's reaction.

I of course hope it is Nick Clegg who deploys this opening gambit. It would also seem that he is most likely to: Paul Waugh reports that it was Labour and the Tories who insisted on the clapping ban, despite opposition from the Lib Dems and broadcasters.

Deadlock Democracy

2010-04-09T11:48:00.005+01:00

I do like the 'Labservative' viral campaign. It is witty, intelligent and hits upon a the big problem in our democracy: the inevitability of Labour or Conservative government, and the lack of appetite for either.

The election campaign is now in full swing. The key soundbites are being wheeled out at every opportunity by the party representatives. It is becoming clear what the parties' core messages are to the electorate.

The core message from the Conservatives is "do you want 5 more years of Gordon Brown, or change with the Conservatives". The M&C Saatchi billboards are nothing but a straight attack. Basically, its 'vote for us because we're not Labour'.

The core message from Labour is "don't put the recovery at risk with the Conservatives". Today we've heard a variation on this theme from Lord Adonis, begging Lib Dem voters to vote Labour to avoid the Tories. Basically, its 'vote for us because we're not the Conservatives'.

So the electorate is quite explicitly being encouraged to vote negatively. They are being asked to sum up who they fear the most, and then vote against this. This is yet another reason that people are fed up with politics. The big two parties aren't providing a prominent positive reason to vote for them. I therefore gently encourage any passers-by not to.

But it is possible that all 45 million potential voters don't end up reading this headblurt (crazy), so presumably people will still tootle along to their polling station and vote for more of the same. What's for sure is there's no sign yet that this will be the election will see a breakthrough in support for the Lib Dems (even though we have the most popular leader, the most popular would-be chancellor, and tax policies that would see the vast majority of people hundreds of pounds better off. What more do people want?).

Jobs for Workers

2010-04-08T09:15:00.003+01:00

5 Live are reporting that 98% of new jobs in the private sector have gone to foreign-born workers since Labour came to power.

I find this an astonishing figure. I got my job after University in a new company, so it was certainly newly created. Am I really that exceptional?

But lets assume this figure is correct. Clearly the demand for employees are not being supplied by the British population. Immigration is crucial to business, and crucial for economic growth.

The Tories want to cap non-EU immigration. This would put our private sector in a straight jacket. An economy relies on people: people who want something, and people who can provide it. Restricting immigration - limiting people's ability to work - will always be detrimental to the economy, putting everyone's livelihoods at risk.

But opposition to immigration has never been about economics. It's about something much more sinister.

I'd Never Condone Vandalism, But...

2010-04-07T20:00:00.004+01:00

...sometimes it can be pretty funny :)

Spotted on my way into work on South Parade, Oxford.

I Just Read a BBC Immigration Article...

2010-03-31T14:39:00.009+01:00

(My thoughts are in green.)

Brown tells illegal migrants: "You are not welcome"

Prime Minister Gordon Brown has stepped up his pre-election rhetoric on immigration by telling would-be illegal migrants: "You are not welcome." No shit Sherlock. (Of course he's addressing the electorate, not would-be illegal immigrants.)

With Labour facing a challenge in some areas from the anti-immigration BNP, Mr Brown urged a "united front" among the main parties to combat "xenophobia". You expect me to unite around your nasty, populist, xenophobic rhetoric? Fuck off. Talking tough on immigration doesn't combat xenophobia, it creates it. It plays to the BNP's agenda.

But he said it was right for politicians to talk about immigration and address people's "needs and fears". People need immigration and shouldn't fear it. Sorted.

The Tories said Mr Brown had "failed on immigration" and had no new ideas. The Tories haven't changed from their ideas in 2005.

In his third major speech on immigration (I thought you couldn't talk about immigration these days?) since becoming prime minister in 2007 Mr Brown said Labour's points-based migration system for workers from outside the EU would reduce the UK economy's dependence on migrant labour as British workers were trained up to meet skills shortages. It doesn't work like that… skills requirements fluctuate, but training is slow and costs money. Immigration allows for skills shortages to be filled quickly and cheaply, which is good for the economy.

But he also stressed the importance of addressing voters' concerns about the impact of immigration on their communities. If you don't like your community, move. Don't stop others from moving.

He highlighted recent tightening up of restrictions on newcomers and changes to housing rules to allow councils to favour local people and a new fund to help high-migration areas cope with the added pressure on public services, paid for by migrants. Migrants already pay their taxes and put in more than they take out.

'Fears' Oh piss off, BBC.

And he delivered a stark message to illegal migrants: "To those migrants who think they can get away without making a contribution; without respecting our way of life; without honouring the values that make Britain what it is - I have only one message - you are not welcome."Illegal immigrants are forced into this position by the government. They don't choose to be illegal, the government has made their circumstances illegal. They can't make a contribution because of their status.

Giving his reaction to Mr Brown's speech, Conservative leader David Cameron said: "I'm delighted that the prime minister has converted to the cause of controlled migration, but people will wonder what he has been doing for the last few years." He's been blurting out the same nasty rhetoric as usual throughout his premiership, David. Why haven't you been paying attention?

The Conservatives would broadly continue with Labour's points-based system, which sets criteria immigrants from outside the EU must meet to work in Britain, but would also set an annual cap on the number of work permits issued. i.e. discriminating based on application order. Huge human cost + cripples business.

They say they want to cut net immigration - the difference between those coming into the UK and those leaving - from "about 200,000" people a year to the "tens of thousands a year we saw in the 80s and 90s".

The Conservatives say they would achieve this by stopping students transferring automatically from study to work (this will mean breaking up relationships formed at university) and by capping the number of skilled workers admitted from outside the EU, although they would encourage more high value migrants such as entrepreneurs, doctors and scientists. How about letting the market decide who is of value? Blummin' Marxist Tories!

They would also introduce a border force to combat illegal immigration and English language test for the spouses of legal migrants. More breaking up of relationships. I thought the Tories were meant to be pro-marriage?

Shadow immigration minister Chris Grayling said: "We want to continue to attract the brightest and the best people to the UK - but with control on the overall numbers coming here."

'Amnesty' Nice work BBC. Plant the opposition's spin into the reader's mind before they get to the explanation. Cocks.

In his speech, Gordon Brown called the Tory capping plan a "pre-determined quota" which he said was "misleading" as it will not apply to 80% of migrants, including EU nationals, family members and students. Wow, something true! I think I'm going to faint!

The Liberal Democrats favour a policy of earned citizenship for illegal immigrants - dubbed an "amnesty" by their opponents. Much better than Labservative policy, but I don't like "earned".

They also say they would channel skilled migrant workers to parts of the country where there are labour shortages, away from the overcrowded South-East of England. Immigrants would channel themselves there if it wasn't for government interference.

Lib Dem home affairs spokesman Chris Huhne said there was "more consensus than meets the eye" on immigration and that "after many years of chronic mismanagement Labour have now got their act together". Sigh. Could someone please remind Chris about the word Liberal in our party's name.

But he said a border force, with police powers, was needed and he called for the reintroduction of exit and entry checks.

The BNP (oh fuck here we go), which is seeking to win its first seats at Westminster at the general election, want an immediate end to all immigration to the UK, including from other EU countries, and a programme of "voluntary repatriation".

What? That's it? No criticism? Just regurgitate BNP immigration policy and move on? The BBC are dangerous imbeciles.

The UK Independence Party (I think I'm going to vomit) is also focusing on immigration in its election campaign. It is proposing a five year freeze on immigration for permanent settlement.

UKIP wants withdrawal from the EU, like the BNP, and would end the automatic right of EU citizens to live and work in the UK, replacing it with a work permit system.

Nigel Farage, leader of UKIP's MEPs, said Britain would have an "open door" to the rest of Europe "while we are a member of the European Union". (which has been universally positive for almost everyone)

"This is the great thing that the Labour and Conservative parties don't want the voters to know," he told the BBC News Channel.

...And once again, no criticism for UKIP. I despair.

Shortage

*Ahem* you covered the BNP and UKIP's immigration policy... so are they the only minor parties? Aren't you forgetting the Greens? Liberal BBC bias my arse.

In his speech, Mr Brown sought to differentiate between the position of parties such as the BNP and UKIP and "mainstream parties" who he said share a consensus that immigration is a positive force in British society and a necessary contributor to economic growth. So stop limiting it!

But he told the audience "how we conduct this debate is as important as the debate itself". Agreed. For instance, it is important that immigrants aren't blamed for things that aren't their fault...

And he called on mainstream parties to unite against "those who want to end immigration not because of the pressures it places on our communities (...like that! That's the government's fault, not immigrants') but simply because they don't like migrants".

Mr Brown announced changes to the points system, which will see two occupations - care workers and chefs - on the shortage list removed.

An aide said this would only reduce numbers entering the UK from outside the EU by about 2,500 and would not come fully into effect until 2014.

Mr Brown said he wanted to encourage young British people to take up social care and catering as careers to reduce the need to employ people from outside the EU. There's no way of doing this without it costing money.

Criminalising Mephedrone - What Might Happen

2010-03-29T16:43:00.006+01:00

Predicting the impact of criminalising mephedrone is difficult. Its use is a cultural phenomenon, and predicting how culture will progress in the future will always be speculative. But here's my best shot.

The existence of mephedrone is testament to the inherent desire of humans to want to get high. This trait can't be changed by the government. So four things are likely to happen:

Mephedrone users will continue to use mephedrone. They like the feeling that the drug provides, and will continue to seek (and may be addicted) to the high it provides. Instead of suppliers who were complying with the law, mephedrone will now be provided to them by criminal gangs, who will command an inflated, untaxed premium for the drug. Some addicts will turn to crime to fund their habit. The strength and purity of mephedrone will greatly vary, to the detriment of the health of users. Rivalry between the drug gangs will bring violence and weapons to inner-city streets.
Mephedrone users will switch to more familiar highs, such as cocaine or ecstasy, that mephedrone attempted to emulate. They will be supplied by criminal gangs, with all the above problems.
Previously legitimate businesses that supplied mephedrone will be forced to close, with subsequent job losses. This is at odds with Gordon Brown's statement that "every redundancy is a personal tragedy. Every lost job is an aspiration destroyed. Every business closure is someone’s dream in ruins."
Mephedrone users will switch to some of the many other legal highs on the market. Like mephedrone, the effects of these new drugs will not be known by science, and may be more dangerous than mephedrone, causing a new wave of deaths, and a new wave of calls for government action. This new market may temper some of the business closures and jobs lost from mephedrone's criminalisation.

Is this really progress?

This Weekend, Get Pissed Tax-Efficiently

2010-03-26T15:31:00.011Z

This graph shows how much money you gave to the government every time you bought an alcoholic beverage over the last 12 months.
From this graph you can see why Darling is keen on upping the duty on cider. Strong, still cider is currently one of the most tax-efficient ways of getting sloshed. It is beaten only by drinking fortified wine close up to 22% ABV. Alternatively you could drink heap-loads of excessively weak beer of less than 1.2% ABV tax free, such as this ingeniously-named stuff. Be warned though, this method may cause significant wear to the carpet leading to the toilet.

This is the last weekend to get your booze in at this rate, so make the most of it while it lasts.

I have a more general question: Why are the rates so complex? I don't see why all alcohol should be treated the same. As you can see, there are differing proportional rates for beer and spirits, and then fixed rates for varying strengths of wine and cider, varying even more dependent on whether beverage is still or sparkling. The government doesn't charge different rates of income tax depending on what job you do (although a Have Your Say forum nutter has suggested it); similarly it shouldn't be indulging in this social micro-management.

Axe all this complexity and the associated bureaucracy and replace it with a single, proportional rate.

Tasting notes:

Small brewers get a 50% discount.
'Tax-efficient' does not mean 'cheap', of course.
I'll do an updated graph with the incoming rates once the Treasury releases an updated version of this document.
You may be wondering why bother extending the 'beer' line all the way up to 40%. Well you can buy beer that's even stronger than that.
This post contains two links to BrewDog's website. Make that three. I'm sure this linkage will be generously rewarded :)

UPDATE: Here is a second graph showing the revenue raised by the government on some other popular recreational drugs:

MORE UPDATE: I've found the rates for the incoming alcohol duty. The graph below shows the new duties.

Legal Equals Safe

2010-03-18T01:19:00.007Z

Two teenagers have died after taking MEPHEDRONE!!1!

(oh and alcohol and methadone.)

The toxicology results won't be back for weeks. Until then, we don't know how these young men came to their sad end. But the press have decided: they died because of mephedrone.

What has alarmed me about today's moral panic is the prevalance of the attitude that 'legal' must mean 'safe'. I find this a terrifying attitude for individuals to take towards their own well-being.

This is yet another conseqeunce of prohibition. When the government's remit becomes to protect people from themselves, some people - perhaps inadverently - outsource their personal responsibility to the state. When the daudling machine of government is inevitably too slow to keep pace with social progress, the people who handed their personal well-being to the government are left without a safety net. This will always be a failure of an authority-led society, no matter how democratic and well meaning.

It's one fucker of a problem to solve. Moving away from a culture of state dependancy for our own safety after decades of the nanny state is an almighty effort. All we can do is keep pointing out how the prohibitionist solution fails us. Over and over and over.

Blog Theme Tune

2010-03-17T00:55:00.003Z

Yay! Blogs are getting their own theme tunes!

So here's the official Split Horizons theme tune:

Gordon Brown's 2007 Budget Analysis, Left Foot Forward Style

2010-03-15T16:04:00.004Z

In the Budget of 2007, the Chancellor Gordon Brown announced to much fanfare that the basic rate of tax would be cut by 2p from 22% to 20%. This policy was great news for taxpayers! Earners received a tax cut of up to £647.

This tax cut was largely paid for by scrapping the 10p tax rate, which hit the lowest earners. But this is immaterial - since the 2p tax cut is worth £8bn, the policy should be looked at on its own merits.

We can therefore conclude that the 2007 Budget was hugely beneficial for the majority of taxpayers, and if we ignore those who suffered, there were no regressive outcomes.

Ta da!

Where Are The Losers?

2010-03-15T13:33:00.005Z

Over the weekend, Left Foot Forward released a critique of the Lib Dem plan to give taxpayers a £700 income tax cut by raising the personal allowance to £10,000.

Here is the chart they used to demonstrate the allegedly regressive impact of the tax cut:

However, this chart can't be telling the full story. The Lib Dems have always made it clear that the policy is revenue neutral. This means that the policy won't cost the Treasury anything, because the tax cut has been paid for by tax rises in other areas: raising the tax on capital gains, and the new mansion tax on property worth over £2,000,000.

With any revenue-neutral tax change there will be winners and losers. However, the chart above shows everybody winning.

An honest bar chart would show negative bars representing the tax rises that pay for the tax cut. The total area of the negative bars would match the total area of the positive bars. Given the proposed tax rises will hit the wealthiest, these negative bars would be at the 'richest' end of the chart. This wouldn't fit with Left Foot Forward's narrative, so they have used statistical trickery to create a different result.

I suspect that the bars are showing the median of each decile, rather than the mean. This would hide the impact on the richest 5% of households. However since their report does not show how they calculated the impact, I can only guess.

Perhaps Left Foot Forward could come clean on how they have managed to hide the losers in the Lib Dem's tax plans.

The TV Debates - How Long?!

2010-03-12T18:05:00.003Z

A week and a half after the full announcement, my brain comes charging in with this:

Each debate will be 90 minutes. So that'll be four and a half hours of debate; no ad breaks. I'm wincing at the thought. It will be astonishing if non-politicos (aka normal people) be motivated enough to watch.

Particularly daunting is the prospect of 90 minutes focused on "foreign affairs". The current mainstream issues are basically the UK's involvement in Afghanistan and the European Union. Are they going to stretch these topics over the full hour and a half? Eeek.

Banonkers

2010-02-23T14:26:00.004Z

On the Today programme, Phil Woolas described right-wing opposition to Labour's oppressive immigration controls as "banonkers". It most certainly is both bananas and bonkers to want to impose even harsher controls on immigrants, but the portmanteau did make me smile.

This latest attack on Labour is ridiculous. The charge is that immigration policy was chosen to deliberately encourage an influx of immigration to manipulate Britain into a multicultural society.

An open-borders encourages nothing. People are free to choose whether they are coming or going. If an immigrant wants to come here then that's up to them, not the government. Perhaps a multicultural society is inevitable with an open-borders policy. But that is society finding its own form without government sticking its beak in. Indeed, it is the people who wish to restrict immigration who expect the government to deliberately manipulate society for their own ends.

Anyway, in tribute to this awesome new word to describe the nationalists, xenophobes, bigots and racists who want to persecute people for their own convenience, I've done a little mash-up. Enjoy!

Your Mom's a Scum-Sucking Pig

2010-02-16T17:42:00.001Z

...yeah you heard me David Wright.

And Eric Pickles is fat and likes to eat pies like a fat man.

I does politics me.

Missed Off The Shopping List?

2010-02-15T17:45:00.003Z

Apparently the Lib Dems will not go into a coalition, but would support a minority government who makes concessions in four key areas - the Lib Dem 'shopping list':

• Investing extra funds in education through a pupil premium for disadvantaged children.

• Tax reform, taking 4 million out of tax and raising taxes on the rich by requiring capital gains and income to be taxed at the same rate.

• Rebalancing of the economy to put less emphasis on centralised banking and more on a new greener economy.

• Political reforms, including changes to the voting system and a democratically elected Lords, that go further than proposed by Labour.

These sound like the same four objectives outlined by Nick Clegg last month.

I support all four, but to my mind there's one glaring omission: the restoration of civil liberties.

Throughout this parliament, the party has spent a lot of time talking up a Freedom Bill that would reverse the countless erosions of civil liberty by consecutive Conlabourtive governments. The party created an in-depth website that goes into the history of civil liberty, the detail of the 20 freedoms we'd restore, along with a petition and quiz. During the leadership contest, here's what Nick Clegg said would be his first bill as Prime Minister:

...and here's what Chris Huhne said:

So it always seemed like a top-level priority to me. And so it should be. Civil liberty is a crucial element of liberalism. It is central to our values, and is fundamentally what unites the social- and classical-liberal wings of the party.

As mainstream British politics comes to a broad consensus around economics, the dividing lines are becoming increasingly about the amount of government intervention necessary for society. By not giving the proposals set out in The Freedom Bill their deserved place in this shopping list, it seems that all this good work in setting out our stall for the general election may fall at the last.

Racism within the UK Border Agency

2010-02-03T00:53:00.005Z

It's not racist to impose limits on immigration. Shame then that it appears there is a culture of racism within the body which imposes limits on immigration.

I of course don't use the term 'racist' lightly.

A whistleblower has revealed to the Guardian her experience of working at the UK Border Agency in Cardiff.

The whistleblower claims:

UKBA staff kept a toy gorilla that was placed as a badge of shame on the desk of any officer who approved an asylum application
An official tested the claims of boys from African countries who said they had been forcibly conscripted as child soldiers by making them lie down on the floor and demonstrate how they shot at people in the bush.
The authenticity of an asylum seeker claiming to be from North Korea was determined by the UKBA asking whether they chop suey
If an asylum case was difficult, the UKBA's advice was simply to refuse it and "let a tribunal sort it out".
A UKBA manager is quoted as saying "If it was up to me I'd take them all outside and shoot them" regarding their asylum seeker clients.
When asked about the case of a Congolese woman, a member of the UKBA legal department said "Umbongo, umbongo, they kill them in the Congo."

Like I said, racist.

The chairman home affairs select committee, Keith Vaz, acknowledges the "culture of disbelief and discrimination" within the UK Border Agency. Vaz also said that "a number of ex-UKBA workers who have spoken out", so this whistleblower is not alone.

Whilst searching for comments regarding this report, I came across Twitterererer @benjimmin who works for the UKBA - I presume in Manchester, as listed in his Twitter profile. He kindly replied to me asking for his reaction to the claims made by the whistleblower: "I've never seen behaviour like that. I think I'd leave on the spot if I did." I sincerely hope this reportedly racist culture is limited to this one branch in Cardiff.

Safe Seats Disenfranchise Voters

2010-01-16T17:22:00.006Z

One of the outcomes of a first-past-the-post electoral system is that it creates safe seats. These are seats where one party has such a large lead over their opponents in their constituency that the chances of being overturned is slim.

It seems obvious that people in these seats will be less minded to go out and use their vote. The statistics back this up.

This graph compares the size of the majority (the scale of the win) in the 2001 general election to the size of the turnout in 2005 in each constituency.
(Excludes Northern Ireland)

There is a significant trend (PMCC -0.71). As the majority at the last election gets bigger, the turnout tends to goes down.

If we are to get people voting again, there needs to be an end to the first-past-the-post electoral system that gives MPs unassailable majorities.

UPDATE 26/01/2010: Timothy asked if the scatter plot could be colour-coded by party. Happy to oblige. Each dot is colour-coded by the winning party in 2001.
So it does seem that the seats with the big Labour majorities 2001 subsequently had low turnouts in 2005. I'm not sure this shows much, since the Tories had no heavily safe seat in 2001. I'll definitely remake this plot after the next general election to see if the same pattern occurs.

Nadine Dorries on Expenses

2010-01-16T02:22:00.006Z

Every blogger's favourite MP is being formally investigated over her expenses claims for her second home.

Dorries famously called the expenses scandal a “McCarthyite witch hunt”, but I would also like to draw your attention to what Nadine said about her expenses on Radio 4's Any Questions, 23rd October 2009:

You know can I just say before I begin cos I feel I need to say this always now. My name's Nadine Dorries. I'm an MP. I've never claimed for mortgage on my expenses. Therefore I have never flipped. I have never benefited in any way. I've never claimed for a cleaner or a gardener, a duck house, a moat or anything. I don't own a company that I pay funds into. I've never claimed for petty cash or for food ... And I feel I need to say that now to every person that I meet. And my expenses were poured over by the scrutiny and I do not have to pay a penny back in misclaimed expenses. [APPLAUSE]

Irony overload.

Because He's Worth It

2010-01-14T18:52:00.001Z

On The Horizon 12/01/2010

2010-01-13T00:29:00.002Z

Jack Pickard: Alibhai-Brown: A Dangerous Moderate? shows how seemingly moderate proposals are damaging to civil liberty.

David Keen: UK Border Agency: Invasion of the Baby-Snatchers on another terrifying case of sinister, inhumane behaviour by the UKBA.

End Child Detention Now: Persecution Begins at Home shows how the UK now has a more authoritarian regime towards immigration than Silvio Berlusconi's Italy.

Mark Wadworth: Trees points out how local councils can act against the interests of residents.

...and finally Robert Popper has found evidence that white people can play reggae:

What Nick Clegg Actually Said About Tuition Fees

2010-01-11T18:45:00.003Z

Lots of spinning going on over the Lib Dems commitment to phase out tuition fees. Labourite tweets from the likes of @2pallas tried to suggest that the Lib Dems had scrapped the tuition fees pledge. Conservative blogger Declan Lyons suggested that the policy was all over the place:

the policy was dropped as they couldn't afford it. Then they picked it up again. Now, it has just been extended to be done over more time.

All not true.

The policy was never dropped at Conference. What Clegg said was

Ending tuition fees would cost billions of pounds every year - we need to be certain we can afford it before we make any promises.

So he said that given the state of the country's finances, the policy's affordability needed to be checked.

Then, the new policy of phasing out tuition fees over 6 years was announced last month. This made the long standing commitment affordable.

Today, Clegg has simply restated this pledge as part of a wider message about only promising what could be afforded. On the Today programme, he said:

We will not be able to deliver our pledge on scrapping tuition fees - something we are determined to do - on the timetable we have once envisaged.

So the same policy as announced earlier this month.

Nick Clegg has been totally consistent over tuition fees. Any suggestion otherwise is desperate spin from the opposition.

Tories Would Recognise Crutons in the Tax System to Fight Obesity

2010-01-06T01:25:00.004Z

The Conservatives will today announce a new tax policy to tackle the growing waistlines of British plebs.

The plan, put forward by Iain Smith MP, would give cruton munchers £20 a week off their cumbersome taxable income.

Findings by the Justice for Social Centres policy group, which Smith chairs, showed that eating crutons promote healthy lifestyles by 11 to 87 per cent.

Speaking via his mouth, Smith said "so I put two graphs next to each other, and the lines seemed to sort of follow each other a bit, so then I thought 'Hey, this conforms to my pre-existing personal prejudice, I'll present this as evidence', and here we are today, on the brink of my idea becoming policy.

"I thought I'd had it politically, you know", he added.

Conversely, using the same technique, Smith also showed that gherkins encouraged obesity, despite the fruit's low cholestorol and high vitamin content.

Critics who had stopped and thought about it for a few seconds said, "correlation does not imply causation, you stupid fucking imbecile".

Findings that the new Tory diet tax break would benefit the richest 13 times more than the poorest were universally ignored by the press.

Lib Dems are the Most Effective Spenders

2010-01-05T17:31:00.002Z

The graphic should explain all. I showed my working and everything :)

Why Did Iain Dale Single Out Kerry McCarthy?

2010-01-04T01:08:00.005Z

On December 18th 2009, Iain Dale wrote a blogpost promoting the removal of Kerry McCarthy MP at the next general election. To achieve this he encouraged his billions of readers to donate to her Tory rival in Bristol East, Adeela Shafi. The campaign took off moderately well, particularly on Twitter with the #KerryOut hashtag, and has raised £1,300 for the Tory PPC.

Sadly, there does seem to be a distinct nastiness towards this campaign. I am no fan of Kerry McCarthy, but she seems to me to be just another insignificant Labour backbencher. Other than her prolific Twitter use, I can't see why she deserves to be singled out more than any other Labour drone. I asked this question directly to Iain Dale on Twitter. His reply was that this is not a singling out campaign; each week for the next 12 weeks he will be picking a Labour MP that in his eyes ought to be kicked out.

Well, more than 2 weeks have now passed, and none of Iain's subsequent 89 blogposts are anything to do with ousting any other Labour MPs.

So it turns out Iain Dale did single out Kerry McCarthy. So I repeat my question: why her?

There may be a good explanation, but I am yet to hear it, and he seems coy about providing it. Conspiracy theories welcomed in the comments.

2009's New Year's Resolution

2010-01-04T00:28:00.002Z

I haven't made a New Year's Resolution this year, but I did last year. I vowed to buy and listen to an album for every week of the year. Here's what I bought:

Boxcutter - Glyphic
Trentemoller - The Last Resort
Justice - Cross
Flying Lotus - Los Angeles
De La Soul - Buhloone Mindstate
Benga - Diary of an Afro Warrior
Azaxx - The Exotic Delight Bay
Royksopp - Junior
Mistabishi - Drop
DJ Hidden - The Later After
Mutt - Treading Water
Various - Balmer Loosies vol 3
Stonephace - Stonephace
Hint - Driven From Distraction
Natural Self - The Art of Vibration
Various - Shapes 09:01
Domu - One Offs, Remixes and B-Sides
Fat Freddy's Drop - Dr Boondigga & The Big Bw
Bop - Clear Your Mind
Various - Sick Music
Mulatu Astatke and the Heliocentrics - Inspiration Information, Vol. 3
Orbital - In Sides
Q-Tip - Kamaal the Abstract
Q-Tip - Amplified
Karl Hector & The Malcouns - Sahara Swing
Various - Tru Thoughts 10 Year Anniversary
D'Angelo - Voodoo
Alix Perez - 1984
Burial - Burial
Four Tet - Ringer EP
Various - Electro Swing
Pablo - Turntable Technology
Various - Black Feeling
Various - Modern Funk
The Apples - Buzzin' About
Breakestra - Duck til Dawn
Coldcut - Let Us Replay
Coldcut - Journeys by DJ: 70 Minutes of Madness
Mr Scruff - Bonus Bait
Echaskech - Shatterproof
Boys Noize - Power
The Field - Yesterday and Today
The Prodigy - Invaders Must Die

TOTAL: 43

CONCLUSION: FAIL

(I have a niggling suspicion that I've missed a purchase from an HMV store, but I can't think what.)

Superb YouTube Documentary

2009-12-23T15:57:00.005Z

Please take a look at this video about an unfinished branch of the London Underground's Northern Line. Yeah, the topic sounded boring to me too, but it is so well made it deserves your attention:

Forget kittens and illegally uploaded music videos, this is YouTube at its best.

The makers have created a documentary about a potentially boring subject into an engaging, entertaining and informative story. I don't agree with his opinions, but the presentation style and the execution is very impressive for an amateur production. Clearly they have spent a lot of time making this film, and I feel it deserves a greater exposure, so get tweeting, embedding and linking, dear reader.

I also think there is potential here to engage a wider audience for more nuanced political issues and campaigns. Proportional representation springs to mind. I could spend a couple of hours making a 2 minute video about STV, but I doubt it would get much attention. However, with more effort, a witty, engaging video could get tens, maybe hundreds of thousands of hits, potentially from an audience that hadn't even heard of electoral reform before.

Hmmmmm...

What Guido Didn't Show

2009-12-21T13:44:00.001Z

Last week, Guido recently uploaded a video apparently showing Gordon Brown being snubbed when stretching his hand. But he cut it before the handshaking.

I have no love for Brown, and would love to see the back of him as PM. The reason I upload this is because I want blogging to have some integrity. Cheap spin by the likes of Guido undermine us all.

The Best of the Noughties

2009-12-20T17:04:00.004Z

Here are my highlights of the decade:

TUNE OF THE DECADE: Outkast - Hey Ya!

Unbelievably catchy, impossibly upbeat, and able to transform even the grumpiest of moods to one of unparalleled joy, Hey Ya! seemed to be universally popular across the entire human race, and even persuaded this two-left-footed blogger to shake it like a polaroid picture on several occassions.

Runners up:
Together - So Much Love To Give
Royksopp - What Else Is There? (Thin White Duke Remix)
London Elektricity - Out Of This World

ALBUM OF THE DECADE: The Avalanches - Since I Left You

Constructed from over 3,000 samples, Australian punk-rockers turned their hands to electronic music and created a masterpiece. It is a truly unique work, and somehow manages to be exciting, groovy, silly, sentimental and cheery all at the same time. Their follow-up has been in development hell for 9 years now, but the band's Myspace page status, "Clearing samples", suggests we will be treated to more soon.

Runners up:
London Elektricity - Power Ballads
Quantic - Apricot Morning
Q-Tip - The Renaissance

FILM OF THE DECADE: Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
Michel Gondry beautifully combined the real and the surreal to create this tale of heartbreak that I imagine we can all relate to. Brilliantly written and superbly executed with perfect performances from Jim Carrey and Kate Winslet. It truly is must-see.

...and Kirsten Dunst dances around in her pants :)

Runners up:
Anchorman
Borat
Slumdog Millionaire

TV SHOW OF THE DECADE: Look Around You
Utterly silly comedy from Peter Serafinowicz and Robert Popper. Their recreations of early science television is done with real attention to detail, but I wouldn't rely on any of the results of their experiments!

Runners up:
The Office
Peep Show
Charlie Brooker's Newswipe

GAME OF THE DECADE: Super Mario Galaxy
At first glance it appears to be just another Mario platformer. But the addition of upside-down physics added a whole new dimension to the game's possibilities, and made every level a joy to play. So good I bought it twice (well, my first copy did get nicked).

Runners up:
The Sims
Guitar Hero
Burnout

ART OF THE DECADE: Janet Cardiff and George Bures Miller - The Killing Machine
I don't know quite what to call it, but I'll go with animated multimedia sculpture. Two mechanical arms dance over a dental chair to melancholy music, before needles pierce the imaginary victim. It is obviously a deeply political work, with themes of torture and modern society's lack of respect for human life clearly played out. Truly chilling.

Runners up:
Doris Salcedo - Shibboleth
Kristin Baker - The Unfair Advantage
Cang Xin - Communication

INVENTION OF THE DECADE: Facebook
It has been an essential part of my life. I moved to Oxford after getting my job after graduating in 2006. I knew no-one, and making friends via housemates wasn't working out. So I set up a Facebook group to meet new people, and I haven't looked back. It is a campaigning tool, a debating forum, a photo compilation, a diary, and who knows what else. My favourite waste of time.

Runners up:
Toyota Prius
YouTube
Nintendo Wii Remote

How the 'Irrelevant' Meme will be Neutered

2009-12-20T15:08:00.006Z

Mark Reckons has rightly taken issue with a post from Tom Harris, which takes the line of the Lib Dems being irrelevant. It is the main line of Lib Dem attack by the two big parties: instead of engaging with the issues we raise, call them meaningless and move on. It breaks just about every logical fallacy going, but the Conlabourtives have never been big on logic.

Of course the honest answer is that the Lib Dems won't be the next government. There's an outside chance the party goes into coalition with the Tories or Labour, but we won't be running the country on our own terms. That makes the 'irrelevant' line of attack a hard one to snappily defend. But looking forwards, I think it will soon become hard for our opponents to use this line, because the Lib Dems have a great opportunity to make a major breakthrough: in local government.

Here's my reasoning.

First, lets assume that the Tories win the forthcoming General Election; a reasonable assumption given the state of the opinion polls.

The tendency for local elections has always been that a beleaguered party of national government performs badly at a local level. At the local elections this year, the Tories won with 38% of the BBC's projected national vote, and Labour slumped to just 23%. Back in 1995, it was the Conservatives in a mess on 25%, and Labour on a whopping 46%.

So after a possible blip of optimism for the fresh new Tories, their vote will slump. Who will that vote go to, Labour or Lib Dems? Well, the Lib Dems have always performed better on the local rather than national stage, and we are starting with an advantage with our 28% local vote share beating Labour's by some 5%. Are Labour going to win from an irrelevant (tee hee) third place, or are the Lib Dems going to win from second?

Winning the local elections would of course give the Lib Dems a huge boost, particularly in terms of credibility. And of course it would immediately neuter the irrelevant meme.

So be careful next time you mock the Lib Dems, because you could soon be making yourself look rather silly.