Osama bin Laden’s Death

 Politics  No Responses »
May 022011
 

We have all heard today about the death of Osama bin Laden. This of course is good news – whilst Al-Queda will carry on, removing their founder is certainly a blow. And who needs terrorists? But I’ve had a few thoughts from the ongoing discussions :-

  1. The celebrations of Americans at the announcement was understandable, but a touch distasteful … it may well have been necessary to kill Osama rather than bring him to justice, but celebrating any death no matter how unpleasant the man himself, is less than dignified.
  2. It is unfortunate that he wasn’t brought to justice to face an international court for crimes against humanity. Killing him was almost certainly unavoidable given his declaration he would rather be killed than captured, but he wasn’t ‘brought to justice’ – that would involve a court and being sentenced to some form of punishment.
  3. It is worth pointing out that Osama got at least part of what he wanted. Given the choice of being killed immediately or being brought to face a court and a lengthy trial, Osama wanted to be killed. Of course he would prefer to be free to create more trouble than he has already.
  4. I rather hope that the US authorities obtained some sort of permission to go into Pakistan – whether it was a blanket permission to “extract Obama” at some point, or whether it was specific authorisation for this mission.
  5. There are those who are saying that as Osama was found “hiding in plain site” as it were, then it is certain that he was being helped out by the Pakistani authorities. This is ridiculous. First of all he was hiding in a walled compound out of plain site. He was probably never in a position to be observed except by those closest to him. Secondly, whilst he may have received assistance from some individuals within the authorities in the past, that is not the same as receiving assistance from the authorities themselves … and the fact he was caught this time is an indication that his support is disappearing.

David Cameron’s use of the “Calm Down Dear” Phrase

 Politics  No Responses »
Apr 282011
 

The funniest thing about David Cameron using the phrase “Calm down dear” in Prime Minister’s question time yesterday is that everyone seems to think there are just two possibilities – that he was being sexist, or he was trying to be funny. What everyone seems to have ignored was that he was being a complete idiot too.

Whether he was being sexist or being funny – and I’m on the side that thinks he was trying to be funny – he was being an idiot trying to use a phrase that could be interpreted as condescension to women (i.e. being sexist). Ok, perhaps everyone is allowed the occasional slip up – even the Prime Minister is human after all.

But if he keeps being idiotic, we need to worry – an idiotic Prime Minister is not a good thing!

AV System in the UK: Looking at the “No” Rubbish

 Politics  No Responses »
Apr 242011
 

I have commented on the Alternative Voting system propose for the UK before, but the “No” campaign stuck a leaflet through my door with some mind boggling rubbish on. So I’ll go through some of their rubbish here …

The very first thing the leaflet goes on about is just how much AV is going to cost – supposedly £250 million. I am not sure I trust their figures especially when they point out that the cost of the referendum itself is £91 million. Who is to say that this £91 million cost does not also include some of the cost of the local elections ? And they quote £130 million for the cost of electronic voting machines – who is to say that this expenditure was not planned anyway ? It may be required for AV, but it is also a way of getting the results much quicker and so would be useful under the existing system.

The “No” sayers go through a long list of things that £250 million could pay for if it was not spent on AV – 2,503 doctors, 6,297 teachers, etc. Really ? Is that per year or for all time ? And what does it matter anyway ? The other way at looking at it, is how much does this £250 million really cost us … £3.57 per person. Is that too much for a fairer voting system ?

Ok, some of you do not believe that AV is fairer, but ignore that for a moment … is it worth the cost of a slightly expensive pint of beer to make our current voting system fairer ? Of course it is.

The next thing the negative ones try to make a point out of is that “The winner should be the one that comes first”. Below this they show four men running a race. This is probably the most ridiculous comparison it is possible to make. First of all, an election is not about winning (except for the putrid politicians), but about choosing a representative to parliament (in the case we’re talking about anyway). The whole point of the electoral system is to select a candidate that best represents the interests of the people in the constituency.

The whole point of the AV system is to allow a greater chance that the representative of the people is supported by at least 50% of the constituents. Under the first past the post system, it is quite common for the elected candidate to gather so few votes that he or she is opposed by the majority of those who voted. How can such a candidate be a good representative ? To return to sport for a moment, there are plenty of sports where you have to achieve a significant margin of victory over your opponent – take tennis for example.

Even in simple races, it isn’t always the winner of a single race that wins in the end – a winner in a heat may be beaten in the final race. And even in that final race, it isn’t just the winner who is rewarded as second and third place also get a prize – admittedly this would mean three MPs for each constituency. Not such a bad idea and there’s even a historical precedence behind it as some constituencies before the 1832 Reform Act elected more than one representative.

Inside the leaflet those who prefer the status quo have compared the two voting systems with the intention of making the AV system seem as complex as possible, with the AV system explained in language that looks like it was written by a lawyer – which will result in a reflex “No thanks” reaction from most of us. But AV really is not that complex at all; it certainly is not as complex as the naysayers would have you believe.

They make a big song and dance about the fact that this AV system means an end to “one person, one vote”. And how the voters for minority parties get more votes than those who choose more popular parties. Well you could describe AV as being a system in which everyone has more than one chance to pick their choice of candidate. That is everyone – so everyone has just as many votes as anyone else.

And I would say that it is still one person, one vote, but the person has a chance to transfer their vote if the most popular candidate fails to get more than 50% of the votes cast.

Another sneaky thing they have done, is to imply that anyone voting for a minor party is going to be some kind of knuckle-dragging extremist – the leaflet specifically mentions the BNP. There are a large number of minor parties that under the current system, or even under AV are exceptionally unlikely to get a candidate elected. However it is deceitful in the extreme to claim that all supporters of minor parties are extremists – what about the Green Party, Respect Party (perhaps a little towards the extreme), Libertarian Party, Wessex Regionalist Party?

In fact a system that encourages voting for minority parties allows for more information on the policies that the people want – we can all vote for the Wessex Regionalist Party to get across the message that perhaps we want a Labour MP, but actually we would like people to consider the option to make Wessex independent.

Lastly, the leaflet plays to the anti-Nick Clegg feeling around in the country by claiming that the only party to benefit would be the Liberals under Nick Clegg and it would lead to “broken promises”. Frankly this all just too much for coherent criticism – they are campaigning on a serious issue by making pathetic political point scoring.

Muslims Against Crusades Threatening The Royal Wedding

 History, Politics, Religion  No Responses »
Apr 222011
 

There’s a bunch of moronic Muslims who call themselves the Muslims Against Crusades who have announced that they are going to be organising a demonstation during the royal wedding. The sad thing is that they are not the only morons out there – search for “Muslims Against Crusades” and you will find numerous links to intemperate responses that in my opinion count as hate speech against all Muslims.

Every community has its lunatic fringe – Muslims included. And the MAC crew definitely qualify for that tag. After all, what is the point of campaigning about the crusades ? They’re ancient history.

Whatever anybody thinks about the crusades or what the west is currently doing in the middle-east, the two really are not linked. If you’re really cynical you might believe that the west is enforcing its views on the middle-east to get hold of the oil. But that has nothing to do with the crusades which were about religion and reconquering land that had previously been conquered by Islamic invaders – yes the first “crusades” were the start of the reconquest of Spain by Christian kingdoms against Islamic invaders who had conquered Christian lands.

The lunatic fringe makes a big point about how nasty the crusaders were back in the (nearly) dark ages. What they are forgetting is that was just how barbaric Europeans made war back then – whether we were fighting Muslims, Christians, or pagans. Or just fighting each other. If you have a complaint about how the world is today, and make ridiculous comparisons to the distant past you will look like a fool.

Now we turn to the other side who seems to think every Muslim springs fully formed from the forehead of a rogue Imam with a copy of the Koran in one hand and an AK-47 in the other. They are just as moronic; whilst there are Muslims who have extremist views, they are in a minority compared with the majority. Forcing all Muslims in the UK out of the country because of the views of a small minority would be just as bad as hanging an entire village because one of the villagers show a deer belonging to the King.

And why try to spoil the wedding day of what are probably a reasonably nice couple ? If you want to make a political point with a demonstration, there are plenty of other days when you can make your point known. Like the opening of parliament, the Queen’s birthday (the official one not the real one), etc. It is probably this that demonstrates beyond anything else that MAC are a bunch of losers with no real support in the Muslim community.

The Alternative Voting System In The UK: Yes Or No ?

 Politics  No Responses »
Feb 232011
 

The referendum on whether we should go for the proposed Alternative Voting system or for the traditional first past the post system is coming up in May, and we are now beginning to see politicians spout all sorts of half-truths on the subject. The key thing to remember during the debates amongst politicians is that their views are slanted by self-interest – they unconsciously (or perhaps consciously) want the political system that gives the best results for themselves, rather than the system that best suits the voters.

So we have to rely on our own minds to decide which voting system is best for us, and not trust the politicians.

The traditional system was first formally put in place nationally in The Representation of The People Act 1832, although the first past the post system had been used in various constituencies for centuries before that. Given the contraints of a medieval country, it is quite a good system – simple to administer, easy to understand, and not especially unrepresentative of the population making up the electorate when the number of electors for each MP was vastly less than today.

Today is quite a different matter. The first past the post system means that everyone who did not vote for the elected MP feels disenfranchised, and those who hold differing views to the majority in a safe constituency are very much excluded from the political process. And it can be a very high proportion of the electorate – in one constituency in last year’s election, the MP who was elected had the support of just 37% of the voters.

So how does the Alternative Voting system work ?

Well each voter lists their candidates in order of preference – 1 for their favourite candidate, 2 for their next favourite candidate, etc. You can even list just 1 preference if you are a first past the post fan, or list every possible candidate in order of preference if you want. If nobody wins 50% of the votes, the candidate with the least number of votes is excluded and the next preference from those who voted for him or her are distributed amongst the remaining candidates; this process is repeated until a candidate does get more than 50%. Or presumably there is just one candidate left!

There have even been politicians who claim that the Alternative Voting system is too complex for the voter to understand. Ok, the distribution of votes may be a little tricky for those simpler voters, but ordering your preferred candidates is the important part – and simple enough for the overwhelming majority to understand. Frankly politicians who go around insulting voters should be voted out in the next election!

Is the Alternative Voting system fairer than the first past the vote system ? Well, a bit fairer. Very safe constituencies are likely to carry on being safe constituencies, and minority views are still likely to be under represented (if represented at all!) in Parliament. It certainly is not proportional representation, and doesn’t even come close.

But it does hold several key advantages over the first past the post system :-

  • Firstly, it allows people to vote with the real belief of what candidate should be elected without regard to the likelihood of victory. Those who hold minority views (say perhaps Green party supporters) always have a difficult decision to make under a first past the post system – do they vote for the party they want even though it has no hope of victory ? Or do they vote tactically to vote for the candidate they would dislike the least ? With AV, they get to do both.
  • Secondly it ensures a fairer result in a three-horse race between three candidates. As an example, in a traditionally Tory constituency, it is possible for Labour to slip in, if the Tory vote gets split between the Conservatives and the Liberals. Given the choice a Tory may well wish the Liberal candidate to win if the Tory candidate cannot. Any election system that can return an MP with a minority of the support is flawed.

There are those who do not like the Alternative Voting system because it does not go far enough. It is only a relatively minor improvement to the first past the post system, and there is some inclination to vote against it for that reason. Whilst understandable (and I’m in favour of going further too), it is not the right way to look at it. Whilst we can criticse politicians for not going far enough, or for not giving us a wider choice to choose from, the question to answer here is which voting system do you prefer ? First past the post, or AV ?

Given the choice, I would say that AV is a step in the right direction. It doesn’t go far enough, but we have not been given the choice of saying “something better please”.

So I would say “Yes” – let’s vote for something a little better than the status quo. You are free to make up your own mind, but be wary of listening too closely to the politicians!

 Older Entries  Newer Entries