Josh

11May/101

Overpriced iPad

Asus EEE 1000HE: £350

10.1 inch screen

160Gb

Wifi

1.66 GHz Intel Atom

1Gb Ram

9.5 Hour battery life

Removable and Replaceable Battery

USB

1.3Mp camera / webcam

Built in Microphone

Browse the whole internet (Supports Flash)

SD card slot

USB ports

LAN

No proprietary connectors

No iTunes!

Run as many programs at a time as you like

Windows 7

Any software that you want

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

iPad:  £600

9.7 inch screen

64Gb

Wifi

1GHz Apple A4

256Mb RAM

10 Hour Battery Life

No Removable Battery

No USB

No SD

No Flash

No LAN

No Camera / Webcam

No Multitasking

Apple Proprietary Connectors

iTunes

iPad OS

App Store

So, why would I want to spend twice as much on something that is more awkward does half the stuff and just looks shiny.

Tagged as: , 1 Comment
9May/100

Something sensible from a Labour MP

Tom Harris is one of the few MPs with a decent blog, and while I do not agree with many of his views and do not particularly like his sense of humour all the time he seems like a pretty decent chap for the most part and is certainly interesting and usually very upfront about his views, which make a refreshing change from a politician.

So, go and read this:  http://www.tomharris.org.uk/2010/05/09/first-past-the-post-is-a-rubbish-electoral-system

It is a post about the electoral system and a refreshing change from everyone else clamouring to denounce FPTP.

He is worth adding to your feeds, and the comments are sometimes pretty decent too.

Filed under: Uncategorized No Comments
8May/103

Electoral Reform

This will be the thing that is discussed most in the next few days, so here are my views so that I do not have to keep repeating them.

Is some sort of reform needed, yes, probably.  A system where a party could come third in the popular vote and yet still have the most seats is not fair.  A system where a party can get 23% of the vote and only 8% of the seats while another get 29% of the vote and 47% of the seats is not really fair.

However it should not be rushed into.  It should be very carefully considered from all angles, every possible benefit of a new system weighed against every possible short coming.  And then there needs to be mass public awareness, not just for a choice between two options but between all of the many many options available.

I do not like straight PR.  I never want there to be party lists, where the seats are shared among the parties representatively and seats chosen from the top of the list working down.  This would lead to the system being taken advantage of, the top section of the list would always be safe regardless.  There would be no chance for local people to oust an unwanted representative.

I like that politicians are tied to an area, to a group of voters.  So that in theory if they do a crap job there can be a local movement to remove them.

If we had PR now, Portillo would still be an MP, as would Lembit Opik, and there would be absolutely no chance of unseating Ed Balls.

On the whole I do not like political parties too much, they are usually too self interested in keeping hold of power.  Politicians start to have loyalty to the party more than that to the public.  I would be a much much happier man if there were not such thing as 3 line whips.

So, I admit there is a problem with the current system, but have ruled out PR as a replacement.  View I would expect every sensible person to hold.  So then, what is the answer.

Well, in truth I do not know.  And that in itself should make other people all stop for a moment and think.  I am interested in politics and am interested in the process of politics.  And I have looked at other methods of choosing our representatives outside FPTP and PR and the obvious AV and I don't particularly like any of them.  They all have their problems.

To be fair, I have not looked in much detail and it has been a while since I read up on the subject, however from what I recall the best methods often ran up against the problem of voter apathy and the general ignorance and stupidity of the general public.  The best methods seemed to be much more involved and much more complicated, and really would not work for those reasons.

I am sure there will be many many discussions about this over the coming weeks and months.  However what I want most of all is for it to be months.  This should not be a rushed decision.  No matter what you think of the current system changing it without properly looking at the consequences and without mass public support and understanding could potential be disastrous.  We are playing with the fabric of our political system and it cannot be over stated how carefully we must do it.  It would be much better to do nothing that to rush into something that we do not fully understand the repercussions of (I include the public reaction in the list of repercussions).

There should be reform, there should be a very public discussion of such reform over the next 6-9 months that includes a cross-party committee that induced experts in the subject  to examine the potential paths that could be followed and that should produce two reports.  One should be of the usual type, the other should be short and simple and should be sent to every registered voted, just a little booklet that contains the information on all possible systems that are being considered.  [I know there has been work done on this before, but it was quite a while ago and had little public attention.]

Then there should be a public ballot in about a years time.  That is not simply a choice between two systems but in which people should be allowed to vote for whichever system they wanted. (perhaps limited to 5 which cover just about all the bases)

Then if one clearly wins, 60%+ of the vote then it should be adopted.  If there is not clear winner then things should be rethought, because a new system should only be considered if it has overwhelming public support.  Perhaps there should be some sort of AV on the referendum.

Anyway, I hope one theme has been apparent and I hope that everyone regardless of political persuasion would agree with, that it much be public, it must be open, it must be understandable and it must be a careful and considered decision that has the public support to make it viable.  Because it is not just a choice between old and new, it is a decision between old and 11 different kinds of new.

6May/100

Election Prediction

I was going to write a long and detailed post about why you should not vote Lib Dem, but I got distracted by decorations and in the end I really can't be bothered.

So instead a prediction.  I have followed the polls quite closely, but there is only so much they can tell you.

UNS will be of no use this time round.  It is barely passable in a 2-party election, it is even worse in a 3-party election, it is completely rubbish when there is a transition between a two and a three party election.

For what it is worth the final poll results are: (with Conservative leads)  Con/Lab/Lib

Populus:  37/28/27       +9

ComRes: 37/28/28       +9

ICM: 36/28/26              +8

YouGov: 35/28/28         +7

Opinium: 35/27/26        +8

Angus Reid: 36/24/29    +7

Harris: 35/29/27             +6

TNS BMRB: 33/27/29     +4

I would ignore the last 3.  They seem close but they have not been consistent over the past month or have methodical faults, such as internet polling producing much higher Lib Dem numbers.

The YouGov poll was huge:  6483!  Populus was pretty large too:  2500.

I get most of my polling stuff from ukpollingreport.co.uk A fantastic resource for all things political data related.

But how this translates into seats is a completely different thing.  It all depends on the marginals and how things have been affected by the Lib Dem unexpected increase in popularity.  Lib Dems will probably take votes from Labour in Labour strongholds, making more places competitive for the Conservatives.  On the other hand Con/Lib marginals may not be as winnable.  It all depends.....

I think the Conservatives will come out of it well.  I think the increased number of seats they are going to be competitive in outweigh the number lost due to the Lib Dem increase.  Before the increase it was almost certainly going to be a Hung Parliament, however it is now up in the air.  Marginal Polling data supports this.

So, a prediction.

Conservatives 300-310 seats.   I would hope for more, but this is probably where it will land.

Lib Dems less than 100, probably in the 80 - 90 range (not a bad result for them). Maybe slightly higher.

Labour in the low 200s.  210 or there abouts.  Depends on how they do in Scotland and Wales and how many safe seats they loose by surprise.  They could do significantly better just based on the way the vote eventually lands in their safer seats.

I also expect an increased number of 'others' .  The greens are competitive in 3 seats, so may get one.  I do not expect the BNP to get a seat.  UKIP might do, hopefully the speakers.  Then there are the national parties that will probably make increases too.

I expect a working Conservative minority government, though a majority is still entirely possible.

I do not expect a Lab/Lib coalition.

I do expect a new Labour Leader within 3 months, probably a lot less.  However if it is a working Conservative minority Brown may well try and stay on, hoping for an economic collapse in a few months.

I expect David Milliband to be the next elected Labour leader.   (there will be a place-holder while party elections are held).  I expect this even if Ed Balls somehow does keep his seat, Mandelson is just too powerful.  For a fantastic article on how we all need Mandelson's help right not see here.

I would really like for Balls to loose his seat.

Whatever party wins, or forms the next government I expect the celebrations to be very short lived.  There will be hge cuts.  It will be noticeable.  It needs to be done and it will be done, there is no choice.  I expect the next government to be extremely unpopular.  The Lib Dems have the most to gain from this for next time around.

Filed under: Uncategorized No Comments
5May/100

The Sun on the Election

Not entirely safe for work / public PC viewing.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/election2010/2959490/Save-these-girls-brfrom-dole-queue.html

The Page 3 girls view on the election.

Lib Dem frontbencher Featherstone was cheered by women's rights activists when she declared she would "love to take on Page 3".

But our Poppy said: "The basis of Lockean thought is his theory of the Contract of Government, under which all political power is a trust for the benefit of the people.

"His thinking underpins our ideas of national identity and society. Please don't let those who seek to ban our beauty win. Vote to save Page 3!"

Filed under: Uncategorized No Comments
1May/101

Election Results

Things I want to happen in this election:

  • Conservatives to get an overall majority
  • For the Conservatives to get 250 - 349 seats
  • Antony Calvert to beat Ed Balls in Morely and Outwood
  • UKIP to win a seat
  • Greens to not win a seat
  • Lib-Dems to get less than 3 ministers, or more than none.

These are all the things I have money on.

Filed under: Uncategorized 1 Comment
1May/102

Immigration

A touchy subject with a lot of people.  I come from the Midlands (ish).  Where there is a large amount of unskilled migration from Eastern Europe.  A large amount of the work back home is seasonal or in the factories.  I have worked in both, and a large part of the workforce is now Eastern European.

Now, on principle I have no problem with that.  I like freedom of movement.  However a lot of people are very resentful.

Now, I am watching Gordon Browns Interview with Jeremy Paxman.  I am half way through at the moment.  But with the kerfuffle of the other day (more on that soon) , immigration was quickly mentioned.

Some relevant questions asked by Paxman, and exchanges between the two:

JP: "Since 1997 how many foreign people have come to live in this country"  - Quite a valid question in my mind, something that should be kept track of and monitored closely.

GB:  1 million from the EU coming here but 1 million British people going to live in Europe.

JP: 4,927,00 entering with 2,925,000 staying.

GB: We are party of the EU, and we have lower proportion of migrants than Autralia, the US or Canada.  This is a mobile world and we have to accept that.

JP:  "Where in your 1997, 2001 or 2005 manifestos  did you say this change was going to happen"

- Again very valid.  Regardless of if you agree with the policy a lot of people are extraordinarily angry that they were not even consulted.  It just happened.  Something that completely changes the country has been put in place and no one was consulted.  One of the main reasons there is such an anti EU feeling in this country.-

GB: We are part of the EU it is inevitable.

At another point:

GB mentions that the jobs of care assistants, chefs, teachers and a few other skilled workers that should not be allowed to work in the UK because there are plenty of them here already without work.

Paxman then produces the list of skilled workers that are allowed to enter the country under current rules, and care assistants, teachers and chefs are on that list.  Not making a judgement on the list either way, just the contradiction being made.

Brown then goes on to say that they are allowed in at the moment, but will not be under a Labour government.  Which then obviously leads Paxman to ask, if it is so important why have you not done it yet.  [Something I am surprised that has not come up all that often.  If you think something is important why has ti taken you 13 years to get around to it.]

I get fed up with politicians not answering questions.  And Brown is the worst at it.  People have legitimate concerns over immigration, and they feel that they have been ignored for the past 10+ years.  Why on earth do you think the BNP exists now?  If immigration were lower, more targeted, or people at least felt consulted and that they had a choice in what was happening to their country then radical parties would not be as prominent and all this resentment would be a lot lower.

All of this really is not helped by the current Prime Minister of this country insulting a little old lady, who reminds me a lot of my Mum, for raising genuine concerns that even I have, speaking as a person who is in favour of the EU.

I also dislike the discussion of the points system. It is basically irrelevant with membership of the EU.  And mentioning the Australians every time is trying to get people to link our border system in their minds to the very restrictive controls they have in Australia where they are no part of a union that has unrestricted access.

My point of view.  We were stupid to allow instantaneous freedom of movement within Europe.  Other countries within the EU had a gradual process of allowing it, why did we not?  This was a terrible mistake.  Then I am angry at politicians for attacking each other over immigration when all of them are far from telling the whole truth.

There should have been some sort of referendum on the whole thing.  Or something.  Some sort of public discussion.  Every part of EU membership has been forced through with widespread public resentment, with only the latest things being the Lisbon Treaty and the high EU officals recently.  (Whose election behind closed doors I absolutely despise.  I am represented by an EU president and foreign minister that I have never had any say in electing.)

This is not the way to go about getting people to like and accept Europe.  And it drives me insane that a good idea, something that is needed so desperately, and could be a wonderful thing to open up trade and stop wars, is being destroyed by the political class and nothing has changed about this in 20 years.

Filed under: Uncategorized 2 Comments
25Apr/100

Europe

I like the EU as a concept.  if you don't let me ask you this..... When was the last major war in Europe?  There have been problems here and there but for the first time in a long time there has not been a major war in Europe in over 60 years.  I think that is fantastic, and the EU should be there for that reason alone.

As for the political state of the EU, I am not too fond of it in it's current form.  The budget has never been balanced, there was a story a year or so ago than any MEP wanting to view the audit of the budget has to sign a non-disclosure document first.  Then it leaked, and you understood why they forced the non-disclosure on everyone.

Countries like France have too much power.  Huge amounts of the EU budget goes towards subsidising French farmers, everything done in Brussels has to be photocopied and sent to Strasbourg.  If there were to be an EU language determined does anyone have any doubt that the French would try and insist French should be in there somewhere.  Whereas it should probably be joint English and German.  German is the most popular first language, but 51% of the population of Europe speaks English.

I also blame UK politicians.  They either force through things on Europe with disregard for public opinion or pander to the public to score political points.  I think there should have been a referendum on the Lisbon treaty, simply because one was promised.  I would have voted for it, but I still wanted the political parties to live up to the expectations they have set themselves.

Then there was a very stupid speech made by Gordon Brown not too long after he became PM, in which he promised "British Jobs for British Workers".  Which is illegal.  Part of belonging to the EU is that you cannot discriminate against citizens of other member countries.  If someone German or French or Polish were denied a job because they were not British the employer would be breaking the law.

There have been 2.12 million 'New Jobs' created in the UK since 1997 and 81% of them have gone to non-UK employees.  Now, as a whole I do not have too much of a problem with this.  I think there should be more controls and I think it was a big mistake to allow instantaneous freedom of movement in the EU, but I think the bigger mistake is politicians promising things that cannot be delivered.

It makes people distrustful.  "I was told British Jobs for British Workers, but there are loads of Polish people round here, must be the fault of the EU" seems to be the general feeling back home (Lincolnshire).

This is still happening in the current election.  GB talks about a points system to decide to let people in or not being used to lower immigration, which cannot be applied to EU immigration and would have very little effect.    DC wants a cap on immigration and a points system, but again this cannot be applied to EU migrants.  NC wants to limit mobility within the UK (which is a nice idea but far too many problems and would create more problems than it would solve - More on problems with the Lib-Dems next week) but again cannot be applied to the EU.

And while 40 years ago most of the migration came from the Empire, nowdays it comes from Europe.

And while I like open borders, I like the fact that I could go get a job in Zurich or Rome and no one would be able to stop me, I loath the politicians who have created all of the problems associated by this mostly though trying to score cheap political points.  All parties are effected by this, no single person is responsible, for the last 30 years Europe has been one big cock up after another, and what could have been a fantastic union of old enemies working together to find a place in the world has turned into an untrusted, unliked, unwanted bureaucratic mess.

Filed under: Uncategorized No Comments
15Apr/100

Debate

So, the first ever prime ministerial televised debates are tonight, and I am expecting them to be quite exciting.  They should have been done long ago, and while I am not fond of the prime minister becoming more and more presidential this is one side effect that I am completely okay with.

It took so long because someone was always going to come off worse.  However in this case it was a bit backwards.  Normally it is the person ahead in the polls that refuses to debate, this time it was the guy who is probably going to voted out anyway.    If you watch PMQs regularly you will know that Gordon Brown has regularly refused to take part in this sort of debate.  And while I do not hold that against him, I do find it a bit unusual.

In 1992 John Major refused a debate, because he was ahead and went on to win, then in 1997 he asked for one when he was behind and Tony Blair went on to win.  However this time it is backwards, David Cameron was ahead (much more so than he is at the moment) continually asked for them and Gordon Brown refused.  Even in January of this year, when everyone with a pulse knew the election was going to be May 6th, he still refuses when invited by SKY, because, among other reasons,  he did not know when the election was going to be.

I pass no judgement on this, I just find it a bit odd, and a pattern that seems to repeat itself (see the Ex-General Secretary of the Labour Party for more info).  And overall I am very surprised that they are actually happening.

Today ITV are hosting a debate on Domestic Affairs, then next week it is SKY on International Affairs, then finally the week after that it is the  BBC on Economic Affairs.

So, overall I expect them all to come out of it quite well.  There will have been huge amounts of preparation on all sides.  I expect Nick Clegg to come off the best, simply by being there.  If David Cameron does his job properly he will do fantastically, and as for Gordon Brown, despite most peoples opinion of him,  he is very clever, he is articulate, however his demeanour and style has never really been suited to TV.

I expect the debates to get very dirty, a lot of insults, a lot of references back to pre 1997 conditions by Gordon Brown and all in all I expect very little to be changed by the debate.  Maybe a small rise by the Lib Dems in the Sunday polls.

There is so much contempt from hard core Labour supporters to ever consider switching to the Conservatives, and the majority of Conservative supporters blame Gordon Brown personally for all the problems of the last 13 years.  So I would be very surprised if tonight ended up changing much.

Gordon Brown has the problem that he has been running things for the past decade, he is too closely linked to every single problem in that time.  David Cameron has the problem of his accent and his background.

Also he is not William Hague or Boris.

Filed under: Uncategorized No Comments
10Apr/100

DNA Database

Apologies if all my posts lately have started off with links, but I could not work out how to embed the videos from BBC News.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8611323.stm

If you can't be bothered to watch, it is Gordon Brown talking about how the DNA database was used to catch the killer of a child.  I don't remember the kid in question being in the news, but she probably was.

In this case the guy was arrested for some bar fight apparently, and not charged (Why he was not charged is a completely different question).

I don't like the DNA database.  I don't like any database really, but the DNA is one of my least favourite.  I don't like the idea that if I am mistakenly arrested my DNA remains forever on some big government database.  Now in this case it probably did some good, but that does not make it right for such a thing to exist.

If it is okay to keep the DNA of every person who have been arrested then surely it is okay to keep the DNA of every person in the country?  Our legal justice system is such that being arrested means absolutely nothing until you have been tried and convicted by a jury of your peers.   I am sure keeping the DNA of every person in the UK would solve many many more crimes, but how many mistakes would be made?  how many civil liberties would be destroyed?

You may say that if you have done nothing wrong you have nothing to worry about.

If you have done nothing wrong why object to putting your DNA on file, just to rule you out.

If you do nothing wrong why not have all of your conversations recorded and stored for future reference, just to rule you out of any investigation in future?

If you do nothing wrong why not have your movements constantly tracked and stores, just to rule you out of any future investigation?

Then there is the Future Government argument.  This government may be benevolent for the most part and believe in civil liberties and so on, but what about future governments.  What if the BNP gain power in a decade's time and decide that everyone who is not of UK heritage should be shot.  What if Hitler had such a database in 1940, or any other leader that developed a desire for racial purges.

It is a very dangerous precedent, and I really don't care how much good it does I still don't like it.  I want to be free.  there are already far to many ways of tracking you throughout your life and I don't think we should be adding another one to that list.

Freedoms are not free.  This one, just like any other, has a cost.  And that cost is sometimes murders are unsolved where they would have been if such a database existed.  I don't like the cost, but I feel the benefits outweigh it.