Apr 182010
 

There is a suspicion that the elections in the UK just might result in a hung parliament where no party has an overall majority. In other words no party has more MPs than all the other parties put together. In such a situation, a government formed from the largest party tends to be quite nervous as it can be thrown out by its enemies if they all manage to agree.

The preferred option is for a coalition to form out of two or more parties who can swing (if all their MPs obey the party whip) an overall majority.

However in either case, the government is not as stable as it would otherwise be. Hung parliaments usually have a poor reputation because they typically do not last very long and spend more time arguing amongst themselves rather than actually doing anything constructive.

At least in the UK. In Europe, hung parliaments are common enough that coalition government is the norm rather than the exception.

The Tories – after the first “presidential” TV debate where Nick Clegg was surprisingly effective – are suddenly banging on about how dangerous hung parliaments can be. Ignoring those scum-sucking lying politicians for the moment (at least as far as we can), are hung parliaments actually good or bad ?

Well the truth is that they do not happen enough in the UK for us to know. We do know that hung parliaments in Europe are quite common and that it does not appear to be a complete catastrophe there. Of course there will be those who point at countries like Italy and ask whether we want a government as unstable as they have. But I will also point at Italy’s economy and say that it doesn’t seem to have done much harm – Italy is the 7th largest country in the world in terms of GDP.

It is entirely possible that a hung parliament in the UK will cause a momentary loss of confidence by the financial markets, although those that panic are eventually going to be counter-balanced by those with cooler heads that realise that the UK is not going to go bust just because it has a potentially unstable government. It is likely that the economic effect of a certain cloud of volcanic ash will have a greater effect than a day or two of instability in the economic markets.

If we can avoid being distracted by the probably relatively minor economic problems of a hung parliament, we can look at more interesting aspects of one.

This will be an opportunity to get a government which does not let either of the old major parties (Labour and Tory) have everything their own way. Of course a coalition government will have one or other comprising the largest part, but another party – most likely the Liberals – will have a big say.

The likely result of such a hung parliament is significant electoral reform because the smaller parties are more interested in it than the old school parties who do quite well out of our archaic and undemocratic electoral system. Sure you hear of Tory and Labour plans for electoral reform, but what they plan is tinkering around the edges, and the Tory plans revolve around making the political system cheaper with the effect of making our current system even less democratic than it is at the moment.

If the thought of a hung parliament is currently making you consider one of the big two parties, perhaps you should reconsider – a hung parliament is not quite as bad as the politicians of the big two will have you believe, and the increased chance of genuine electoral reform is worth taking that risk.

Apr 152010
 

So this morning I wake up to find that UK flights are severely disrupted (apparently all domestic flights have been cancelled) due to volcanic ash being blown south-east from a volcano in Iceland. Nature is demonstrating again that it can severely disrupt the activities of people!

People may be wondering why something as apparently trivial as volcanic ash could disrupt something as large as an aircraft. Well this “ash” is not quite the same as the normal ash we are familiar with – volcanic ash is particularly nasty stuff being comprised of tiny amounts of rock and glass which can quite easily stop aircraft engines and cause damage to the aircraft. Nobody wants to be in an aircraft when all engines stop!

The ash is currently high-level so it is not apparent from the ground although there’s a chance of having some interesting sunsets.

(later on)

Now it appears the whole of the UK airspace has been closed to all air traffic until “at least” 7am tomorrow morning (Friday).

Apr 042010
 

Actually make that everyone’s rights is at risk under the Tories – once you start accepting that one segment of the population has less rights than others, it is a slippery slope to everyone losing their rights.

Apparently the Tory shadow Home Secretary Chris Grayling has declared that bed and breakfast owners should be allowed to refuse entry to gay couples for being gay. However he does not feel that hotels should be allowed to do likewise ? I believe his argument is that bed and breakfasts are more “private” than hotels in that the owner frequently shares the accommodation with the guests, and so the personal beliefs of the owners should be taken into consideration.

Rancid rhino dung. If you run a bed and breakfast, you have effectively accepted that your home is no longer a private domain, and that you have to accept that society has certain standards and beliefs that you have to abide by.

But what amazes me is that a shadow minister is foolish enough to say such things. It would not take a genius to realise that such remarks would be pounced upon as evidence that the Tories have not changed that much since they introduced Section 28 back in the 1980s. Personally I do not believe that the important Tories are that backwards, although I dare say a few relics can be found lurking at the back of the Tory cupboard.

What is more worrying is that someone who may be part of a future government could be stupid enough to say such things – whether in public or private.

Mar 072010
 

We have learned over the last week that one of the killers of James Bulger, Jon Venables has had his license revoked, and is now back in prison. Of course there has been frantic speculation in the media about the reason for this, varying from drunkenness to a fight at work. It is of course worth pointing out that someone released on license from prison most commonly from a life sentence, is not free in the ordinary sense of the word as they can be re-imprisoned at the drop of a hat.

However this weekend, the real reason has slowly slipped out thanks to the circulation wars between newspapers. First he was accused of a “serious sexual crime” and now he has apparently been accused of some kind of child pornography offence. Of course we do not actually know that he is accused of this; we merely have a newspaper claiming it is so.

And a very irresponsible claim it is too – the newspaper editors involved obviously think that the popularity of their newspapers is more important than the safety of Jon Venables or the safety of anybody accused of child pornography offences. Plus of course it risks prejudicing those who might be called to act as a jury in their trial.

But who cares if Jon Venables gets a fair trial ? Or some child pornographer gets knifed in prison awaiting trial ?

Well in the later case, you could find yourself in prison awaiting trial on child pornography charges merely for letting your Windows machine get infected with a virus! The technical details of this are not of much interest here, but rest assured that if you let your machine get infected, those who control the virus can use your computer for whatever they want, which does include storing a stash of child porn. As certain unfortunate individuals have found to their cost.

Does Jon Venables deserve to be lynched for what he has done ? Well before we answer that, which crime are we talking about ? His childhood killing of James Bulger ? Or for his alleged crime of looking at child porn ? Well there are plenty who say he deserves it for his earlier crime, but he has been punished for that – perhaps you do not agree that the punishment is sufficient, but he has been punished and the punishment is probably more severe than most people realise.

He isn’t free. Don’t forget that.

He may be able to walk the streets and work for his living, but he isn’t free.

Being released on license means that he can be snatched back into prison on the flimsiest of pretexts – getting a little too involved in alcohol, perhaps getting into a fight, or even his parole officer doesn’t like his state of mind.

So he doesn’t deserve any additional punishment for his killing of James Bulger. Don’t forget that killing him would simply end his punishment; letting him live lets the punishment go on and on.

As for the alleged child pornography charge, he’s innocent of that and he will be until such time as a jury finds him guilty. And if he is found guilty ? If that happens he should be punished according to the law with no harsher or more lenient sentence than anyone else in the same circumstances. Which doesn’t include lynching.

Perhaps you do not agree, but you could well agree that the media is responsible for releasing enough details about Jon Venables to make it a little easier for those who want to kill him. It may also be enough to make it difficult for any trial of Jon Venables to be fair – every jury looking at a child pornography case may well wonder if the accused is Jon; in fact there could be any number of possibly unfair trials due to come up.

Is this right ? Does the public right to know or the public interest include possibly putting someone’s life at risk ? Or indeed risking an innocent person (and not necessarily Jon Venables) from being convicted of possessing child pornography ?

Under US law, there is the concept of ‘reckless endangerment’ whereby anyone who puts another at risk of harm is subject to possible prosecution. To me that sounds an awful lot like what the British media is currently doing to Jon Venables. I certainly believe that what they are doing is potentially dangerous not only to Jon Venables, but to others too – who can forget the Portsmouth residents trying to lynch an innocent person because he had the same name as a paedophile?

For nothing more than increased circulation, the newspapers are cynically willing to put someone’s life at risk. Perhaps we need an equivalent of “reckless endangerment” and stick a few editors behind bars to put across the point that someone’s life is worth more than any amount of money.

Mar 062010
 

I have just seen a news item on TV about what the pundits think the effect of social media (Twitter, Facebook and the like) will have on the upcoming UK election. The general consensus was that it probably will not make much difference, and I’m not going to disagree.

What was amusing though was that they seemed to have concentrated in what the politicians might say in their tweets or on their Facebook pages – missing the point of social networking entirely. Most of us do not pay much attention to what politicians say online on various social media sites; we stick to what our usual contacts say. It is what they say that may influence how we vote in elections.

Of course just like “water cooler debates”, it will not have a great influence over how we vote – it is just one more piece of information.