Linkage for Saturday, 29th December 2012

Don't expect graphene to perform miracles | Philip Ball | Comment is free | The Guardian

Senator Wyden Proposes Bill That Would Protect Users From Bogus Data Caps | Techdirt

When will we able to have a mature conversation about the health service? » Spectator Blogs

So you think the wealth gap is growing? Wrong - Comment - Voices - The Independent

2012: the year the political and media classes turned on internet users – Telegraph Blogs

Dental nurse sacked for being irresistible – all perfectly legal in Iowa | Richard Seymour | Comment is free |…

May the prior art be with you?

Secret Courts: Nick Clegg’s refusal to meet campaigners is not helping

10 Stubborn Body Myths That Just Won't Die, Debunked by Science

Britain's police must reform or lose respect and trust | Nick Herbert | Comment is free | The Observer

The fiscal cliff: How can Republicans change their minds? | The Economist

New motion for Spring Conference – Jo’s post today on Lib Dem Voice | Liberal Democrats against Secret Courts

Bank rate-fixing scandals reveal the rotten heart of capitalism | Will Hutton | Comment is free | The Observer

Series 44 of Have I Got News For You is over | What You Can Get Away With - Nick Barlow's blog

The scapegoating of Nancy Lanza | Lionel Shriver | Comment is free | The Guardian

"The truth is that we’ve suffered from outrage inflation for many years."

Party Identity in a Gun Cabinet - http://t.co/mM5T3JQt

Clegg skating on thin ice: serious threat to party leadership over secret courts | Stephen Tall via @stephentall - THIS

Rather strange logic. The worth of a comedy show is being evaluated with reference to how famous the star guests are:

Does anyone want to be a Tory MP any more? | Mail Online

Linkage for Saturday, 22nd December 2012

"Elements of the conservative base are driving the conservative agenda into a political wasteland." - Spot on about the insanity of the NRA

NRA want 20% of all US police officers to be stationed at schools. What about, you know, crime solving and that?!

Pi Pie

The Pessimistic Style in British Politics | Hopi Sen

'Not enough God, not enough guns, too many video games': are any of the Sandy Hook blame claims true? – Telegraph Blogs

Andrew Mitchell and trusting the police » Spectator Blogs

Government to spy on the computers of the jobless?! FFS. I hope this is merely flag-flying: (h/t @ScarletStand)

"Perhaps now it will be a little bit more acceptable to stop automatically taking every police officer at their word"

The risks of homeopathy? | Edzard Ernst

On Software Startup Culture | A Megahbite of Feminism

David Cameron deserves better than this ghastly backbench B-team - Telegraph

Stumbling and Mumbling: The ownership question

Love how in this article fact Ms Perry "went to comprehensive school" is spelled out as if that's reason for vulgarity!

Linkage for Thursday, 20th December 2012

This piece by Cory Doctorow is one of the best arguments for the entertainment industry needing to respond to its customers I have seen. He uses an excellent analogy to illustrate his point about externalisation of the costs of doing business.

Wonga are blinding critics with science - Payday lender in bullshit shocker

Golden Eagle Snatches Kid story turns out to be a computer generated student project - Snopes wins the day yet again

I try to give the police the benefit of the doubt, but it's becoming harder and harder – Telegraph Blogs - When even people like Dan Hannan start to lose the faith you know the institution is in real trouble

Yet More Evidence Shows No Link Between Video Games And Actual Violence | Techdirt - Particularly salient at the moment. The GOP/NRA will do anything to distract from the need to do something about the automatic weapons being used to murder children.

Is plebgate a product of the push for police reform? | Martin Kettle | Comment is free | The Guardian

Want to download all your tweets right from the start? Here's how.

Labour should probably take this "Who do you believe, the Police or Mitchell" page down now. The answer is Mitchell.

Suspect this lengthy interview with Jimmy Savile by Andrew Neil from 1995 recently uploaded to YouTube will get lots of views. The bit when he whips out a banana and starts to eat it mid-interview is particularly weird.

Tony Blair on UKIP: “Never far from being nasty and never close to being sensible.” He's still got it.

Stumbling and Mumbling: Support the undeserving poor - Usual excellence from Mr Dillow

Will 2013 bring an end to unpaid internships? » Spectator Blogs - I hope yes. I suspect no.

Jesus. Thank Christ Mike Huckabee got nowhere near being POTUS.

There's more to diversity than statistics. We need change at the top | Comment is free | The Guardian

Could David Cameron be a bit frit about facing Ed Miliband in TV debates? | Andrew Rawnsley | Comment is free | The…

This article is a very moving (and also terrifying) call for more help for the mentally ill: "I am Adam Lanza's Mother" - Should be required reading for anyone interested in the problems of mental health and the lack of available help for families

Secular Britain is ruled by religious bureaucrats | Nick Cohen | Comment is free | The Observer

The party machines might not know it yet but political parties are dying « Labour Uncut

Won't follow Apple Store rules? How 'bout an iTASER TREAT! • The Register

Newtown shootings: if not now, when is the time to talk about gun control? | Gary Younge | Comment is free |…

Who do you trust, The Police or Andrew Mitchell? Er, Mitchell!

At the time of writing, the Labour Party still have this campaign page up calling on Andrew Mitchell to "come clean" about Plebgate.

Given that even The Police don't believe The Police on this subject now, isn't it time Labour took this misconceived page down?

David Cameron is simply responding to the electoral incentives regarding older people

My debut piece for Independent Voices has just gone up in which I argue that David Cameron is only responding to the electoral incentives that older people provide given that they vote in much higher numbers than younger people.

You can read it here.

House of Comments - Episode 41 - Why must you record my VOIP calls?

Episode 41 of the House of Comments podcast "Why must you record my VOIP calls?" was recorded yesterday evening and is out today. This week myself and Emma Burnell are joined by the technical editor of PC Pro Magazine Darien Graham-Smith to discuss the recent joint committee report on the draft communications bill, gay marriage, gun control in the US and Maria Miller's expenses.

You can subscribe to the podcast on iTunes here (note - this is a new feed so if you used to subscribe to the old feed a couple of years ago you'll need to do so again).

Other podcasting software e.g. for Android can be pointed here to subscribe.

You can download the mp3 for the latest episode directly from here.

Or you can listen to the embedded episode below here:

listen to ‘Episode 41 - Why must you record my VOIP calls?’ on Audioboo

If you are a political blogger and wish to be considered as a future guest please drop me an e-mail at markreckons@live.co.uk.

Any feedback welcomed in the comments below.

We are having a break for Christmas and the New Year now so will be back recording a new episode on Sunday 6th January.

NOTE: There was a slight technical problem during the recording which meant my voice is slightly out of sync with Emma and Darien. So in a few places where it sounds like they are talking over me a bit, they weren't, it's just the way the recording makes it sound!


PS: A big thanks to Audioboo for hosting the podcast for us and especially to Audioboo's James O'Malley who has helped us out getting relaunched. James is also editor of The Pod Delusion podcast which is about "interesting things" and is well worth a listen too! We would also like to thank Kevin MacLeod from Incompetech.com for our theme music.

There can never be a "right time" to debate gun control

The terrible shootings in Connecticut on Friday where 26 people were killed, 20 of whom were young children have inevitably reopened the debate about gun control in the US.

Jay Carney, the President's spokesperson was quick to claim that it was not the right time to be debating gun control and that there would be "another day" for that. I can understand the wish to tread carefully when the news is still coming in and not to appear to be making political points over such a tragedy. But the "other day" that Mr Carney is so keen on never seems to come. Each time there is a shooting, once those who have been murdered are buried and the news media moves on nothing more is said. Until the next time. When someone then claims it is the "wrong time" to be talking about this subject.

There is another, practical barrier to there ever being a right time either. There have been 16 mass shootings in the US this year. That's more than one per month on average. So we are almost always in the recent aftermath of another shooting incident and we never know when the next one is coming. The "wrong time" claim can pretty much be made at any time.

Under these circumstances and by that definition there can never be a right time. So that excuse needs to be retired. The subject needs to be debated urgently.

The right time is now.

George Osborne thinks he can win by appealing to mean-spiritedness - I think he's wrong

During his pre-budget statement last week, the Chancellor George Osborne set out his intent to ensure that many benefits only rise by 1% for the next 3 years.

This has been hailed by some on the right of politics as a fiscally responsible thing to do and a way of ensuring that benefits do not rise by more than many people's wages have in the last few years. There have been others who have claimed that it is regressive and unfair to heap such a burden of real-terms cuts on those in society least able to afford it.

But what many think, regardless of what they consider the rights and wrongs of the decision is that Osborne has set a clever trap for Eds Miliband and Balls to fall into. The theory goes that public opinion is on the side of those who want to "control" the benefits bill and that anyone arguing against this will essentially be putting themselves on the side of the "skivers" as opposed to the "strivers".

As it happens it is beginning to look like Osborne has actually got this calculation wrong with 69% of people in a recent poll saying they thought benefits should rise in line with inflation or higher. However even without polling evidence this move just feels wrong. The idea that the poorest in society should suffer a real terms cut in their income when many of those people are already close to the edge financially (witness the huge rise of payday lenders in recent years for example) sits very ill with me.

Part of the problem that was identified almost straight away by opponents of the measure is that 60% of those affected by the cuts are actually in work. But really, that shouldn't matter either. Trying to pitch those who are working against those who are not is the worst kind of politics. The vast majority of those out of work would love to have a job and although unemployment is falling it is still far too high. Many of those who Osborne seems to be painting as skivers currently have no choice.

He has made a serious political mistake here. Ten years ago Theresa May made a speech where she described how the Conservatives had the unwelcome mantle of "The Nasty Party". This resonated because it rang true. David Cameron has spent years trying to detoxify his party with trips to the Arctic, endless speeches on the NHS and all sorts of other measures to attempt to reassure voters that they have changed.

With measures like this 1% rise Osborne is retoxifying his party. He is punishing the poorest in society for an economic situation that they had nothing to do with creating and doing it in such a way as to try and pitch different sections of society against each other. He seems to be hoping that envy will win the day.

I hope and expect he is wrong about this. Not because opinion polls tell us so. But because I do not recognise the mean-spirited picture of Britain that he seems determined to paint. We're better than that.

The trap he thought he had set has sprung shut on the Chancellor as he tried to tip-toe away from it.

He and his party will ultimately pay a heavy price for this.


This post was originally published on The New Statesman online.

Volatile drug use stats

Needless to say I am delighted with Nick Clegg's clear and politically brave comments on drugs policy reported widely today.

But I just wanted to focus on one small aspect of the coverage and discussion today. David Cameron, Theresa May and others who have spoken out against any change in current policy have repeatedly pointed out that there is no need for a review because drug use is falling. That may well be true but drug use statistics have a habit of bouncing around all over the place not really correlated with any legal or other factors. If anything it's cultural trends that drive these figures.

So my point is, what happens when the "drug use is falling so there is no need for a review" excuse stops being true? I am almost certain that at some point in the near future, drug use figures will tick up again.

When that happens, how will those politicians who have used the falling rates as a reason not to have a review react? Because the logical conclusion drawn from their own words now is that when the rates rise there will be a reason for a review.

They have hitched themselves to a notoriously unreliable hostage to fortune.

Linkage for Wednesday, 12th December 2012

Great analysis of divergent reports on Portugal's drug decriminalisation. Concludes the evidence is "largely positive":

Maureen Johnson, HALLMARKGATE: Or, A Lesson On How The Internet Works

The cost of ‘shares for rights’ | What You Can Get Away With - Nick Barlow's blog

Factcheck: QandA: The facts behind the drugs debate | Full Fact

Ewan's liberal musings: Cannabis should be legal BECAUSE it is harmful

Unpaid Internships: A Rite of Passage? « The Vibe

Today's easy question: Why won't minorities support right-wing parties? - Spectator Blogs

Stumbling and Mumbling: "Strivers" vs "scroungers": a false dichotomy

On drugs, the law lags behind public opinion - Telegraph

Editorial: The time has come to decriminalise all drugs - Editorials - Voices - The Independent

Are you ready for the 40-zettabyte year? • The Register

The most fascinating thing about comments under this Mail article on drugs policy is how vast majority want them legal:

Why we are calling for an end to the war on drugs | Julian Huppert | Comment is free | The Guardian

What You Can Get Away With (Nick Barlow's blog) » Blast from the past: Alarm Clock Britain

Lennon « Sci-Ence! Justice Leak!

Pret fires longstanding employee who attempted to unionise, asked for the London Living Wage for all employees - Boing…

Why are the Tories laughing? Because they've got away with it yet again | Deborah Orr | Comment is free | The Guardian

"Paul Dacre’s fight for press freedom may turn out like Arthur Scargill’s fight to save the pits"

It’s not just this Government that’s unpopular: it’s the idea of Coalition. Here’s what Lib Dems need to do about that.

House of Comments - Episode 40 - Strivers vs Skivers

Episode 40 of the House of Comments podcast "Strivers vs Skivers" was recorded yesterday evening and is out today. This week myself and Emma Burnell discuss the Chancellor's Autumn statement and try to work out who the strivers and skivers are, whether Starbucks are a fair target for tax protests, pluralism with respect to the new "Labour for Democracy" movement and speculate on how the government will respond to the Home Affairs Select Committee report on drug policy.

You can subscribe to the podcast on iTunes here (note - this is a new feed so if you used to subscribe to the old feed a couple of years ago you'll need to do so again).

Other podcasting software e.g. for Android can be pointed here to subscribe.

You can download the mp3 for the latest episode directly from here.

Or you can listen to the embedded episode below here:

listen to ‘Episode 40 - Strivers vs Skivers’ on Audioboo

If you are a political blogger and wish to be considered as a future guest please drop me an e-mail at markreckons@live.co.uk.

Any feedback welcomed in the comments below.


PS: A big thanks to Audioboo for hosting the podcast for us and especially to Audioboo's James O'Malley who has helped us out getting relaunched. James is also editor of The Pod Delusion podcast which is about "interesting things" and is well worth a listen too! We would also like to thank Kevin MacLeod from Incompetech.com for our funky new theme music which we hope you appreciate!

It's time for Nick Clegg to make the liberal case on drugs policy

The Mail on Sunday yesterday reported that the Home Affairs Select Committee report into drugs policy, reporting this morning is going to recommend that the option of legalisation should be seriously considered and a Royal Commission should be set up to report on the issue prior to the 2015 general election.

As readers of this blog will know I am a long standing supporter of liberalisation of our drug laws. So this report is a breath of fresh air as far as I am concerned. A sensible pragmatic look at the problems with current policy and an attempt to suggest steps that could help.

Right on cue, the government has already given its initial response and completely unsurprisingly they are making it clear they do not intend to do what the report suggests, before it has even been published. A government spokesperson said:

"Drugs are illegal because they are harmful - they destroy lives and blight communities. Our current laws draw on the best available evidence and as such we have no intention of downgrading or declassifying cannabis. A Royal Commission on drugs is simply not necessary. Our cross-government approach is working."

This is the same line that is trotted out by current ministers every time anybody: former ministers, senior business leaders, scientific advisers etc. try to advance this debate beyond the heavily constricted terms imposed by the government of the day. No matter what evidence is put in front of them they respond instantly to shut down further discussion.

However, this time we know that there is someone very senior in government who does not agree with this knee-jerk dismissal response. It is the second most senior minister of them all, the Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg. We know this because back in September I interviewed him and one of the questions I asked him was on drugs policy. You can read the full interview here but the salient part of it is below:

"...there are an increasing number of bodies who are revisiting this debate in the round. So for instance the Home Affairs Select Committee has been looking at this now for a long time and I think is due to report in December. I will be reading that very, very closely indeed. If a cross-party select committee revisits some of these issues and urges us to open them up as a government, I think the onus is on us, not them to explain why we shouldn’t. Because every time people look at this issue on a cross-party basis in a considered fashion, it seems to me over several years now including in the committee that David Cameron once sat, actually the advice is for radical action towards a more evidence based approach. I will look out for what the HASC has with quite an open mind."

The onus is now on Nick Clegg to make the case for a liberal approach to drugs policy. It was clear from the interview that he is very open to discussion about alternative approaches. This report now gives him the political space to do this. It's not a loony fringe view from some political outsiders but a clear call for a sensible approach from a committee consisting of MPs from all parties who have taken the time to look at the evidence and speak to a broad cross-section of witnesses on this subject.

Mr Clegg also told me that he hadn't discussed this particular issue with the Prime Minister. I very much hope that will change today and he will make clear that the HASC report has the full backing of him and his party.


This piece has been cross-posted today on Liberal Democrat Voice.

Linkage for Wednesday, 5th December 2012

Why Osborne is wrong to reject property tax reform

AI boffins take on Angry Birds • The Register

Leveson and politics: the danger of backing the wrong horse | Media | The Guardian

Cicero's Songs: Making the same mistake twice

Stoned Again: Jacqui Smith on the decision to re-classify cannabis | Radio Times

"The press sound like a recalcitrant abusive alcoholic begging his wife in hospital not to press charges."

"PM was forced into creating Leveson because of his closeness to press + rejects its conclusions for very same reason"

Nick Clegg is changing the way the government works » Spectator Blogs

Google's Drive + Gmail: A 10GB Dropbox killer • The Register

The QandA: Samuel Arbesman: The half-life of facts | The Economist

UKIP is not a libertarian party - Spectator Blogs

Dear RIAA: Pirates Buy More. Full Stop. Deal With It. | Techdirt

Stumbling and Mumbling: On social change

Why Lynton Crosby's appointment spells trouble for Labour

It looks liberating, empowering. It is the siren lure of opposition.

Fascinating article 25 years on on the failure of OS/2

Liberal England: On the Buses explains the Jimmy Savile era

House of Comments - Episode 39 - Crossing the Rubicon

Episode 39 of the House of Comments podcast "Crossing the Rubicon" was recorded yesterday evening and is out today. This week myself and Emma Burnell were joined by libertarian blogger Mark Wallace to discuss the Leveson report and political reaction to it, the recent by-elections especially with respect to the UKIP surge and what we would like to see in the Chancellor's pre-budget statement this week.

You can subscribe to the podcast on iTunes here (note - this is a new feed so if you used to subscribe to the old feed a couple of years ago you'll need to do so again).

Other podcasting software e.g. for Android can be pointed here to subscribe.

You can download the mp3 for the latest episode directly from here.

Or you can listen to the embedded episode below here:

listen to ‘Episode 39 - Crossing the Rubicon’ on Audioboo

If you are a political blogger and wish to be considered as a future guest please drop me an e-mail at markreckons@live.co.uk.

Any feedback welcomed in the comments below.


PS: A big thanks to Audioboo for hosting the podcast for us and especially to Audioboo's James O'Malley who has helped us out getting relaunched. James is also editor of The Pod Delusion podcast which is about "interesting things" and is well worth a listen too!

David Cameron may just have made the biggest mistake of his career

The details almost don't matter. His plaintive cries of "Won't somebody please think of the independence of the press" will fall on deaf ears. David Cameron has made the wrong call on one of the main issues that he will be remembered for.

When the phone hacking scandal kicked off last year Cameron was a bit slow off the mark and allowed Ed Miliband to carve himself out a niche as doughty defender of those who had been wronged by a rapacious media. But as our PM has consistently demonstrated, right from when he first made that electrifying speech at Conservative conference in 2005 which probably won him the leadership when his back's against the wall he can come out fighting.

I was in the Strangers Gallery on that day last July when Cameron made his speech in response to the hacking crisis in the Commons. It was another top notch political performance. In exactly the same way as he has managed to find the right tone for responses to the Bloody Sunday Inquiry and the Hillsborough Inquiry, he managed it on that day too. I was heartened to see how much the Prime Minister "got it". He understood that the press was out of control and he set up the Leveson Inquiry to tackle this precise problem.

In a few minutes yesterday with his denial of implementing Leveson in full including the required statutory underpinning he pissed all of this away.

A couple of key vignettes from yesterday's coverage of this stick in my mind.

The first was Jane Winter one of the phone hacking victims during the "Hacked Off" press conference who was almost in tears as she explained how she felt "betrayed" by Cameron. In correspondence with Ms Winter, the PM had promised to implement the proposals "as long as they are not bonkers". A small amount of statute to ensure the press abide by the rules that they are allowed to set themselves is not bonkers. Everyone can see that it is not bonkers, even those who disagree with statute. Everyone can see that the PM has not adhered to either the spirit or even the letter of his promises on this issue.

The second was on BBC's This Week last night where Michael Portillo highlighted in 30 seconds just how pointless the whole exercise of Leveson has been now that Cameron has made it clear he will not be backing his key recommendation. His view is that we might as well not have bothered. The press now have nothing to fear and can basically go back to business as usual was his analysis. I'm not sure this is 100% right. There is still political pressure for the press to reform. But without a way of ensuring they stick to their promises I am sure it is only a matter of time before they revert to type. They always have done in the past after the many inquiries there have been in the last 70 years. Without statute there is absolutely no reason to suppose they will not do so again. Charlotte Church articulated this point particularly well on Question Time last night.

I suspect Cameron thinks that he will take some heat for this in the short term but that with the press on side it is worth it for the dividends he will reap in positive coverage come the next election. I think he is wrong. The public will not easily forget the avalanche of evidence that was presented to Leveson and reported on at the time in intricate detail. The families of Milly Dowler, Madeleine McCann and all the others who were wronged by the press will linger long in the memory.

We know there is a majority in parliament for statute. Labour, the Lib Dems and at least 50 Tory MPs want to see it. The only block to it happening is the man in No 10 because he has the power of initiation for legislation. The buck stops with him.

No politician would relish the idea of being aligned in any way with those who have damaged the lives of victims of crime. Unfortunately for Mr Cameron, whatever his motivations and arguments that is the impression people who pay little attention to politics (i.e. most people) will be left with.

He had the chance to do something to rein in the press and help prevent future abuses. He chose not to. That's all that will matter to many people.

He may just have made the biggest mistake of his political career.

What is a "lifestyle illness"?

My MP, Dr Philip Lee has been using the bully pulpit of his office to argue that those who suffer from "lifestyle illnesses" such as those that are correlated with drinking and diet like type 2 diabetes should have their right to free prescriptions removed. Said the good doctor:

‘If you want to have doughnuts for breakfast, lunch and dinner, fine, but there’s a cost.’

This is the sort of thing that to some might seem reasonable at first glance but quickly unravels as soon as you start to look at the detail.

Firstly, how on Earth do you prove that something is a lifestyle illness? Of course Dr Lee has picked out a ridiculously extreme example of someone who eats doughnuts for breakfast, lunch and dinner. I would expect there to be pretty much nobody who does that in this country. But even if they did, how would you prove it? If they were going to have to pay for their diabetes treatment they would surely deny that their diet was so poor and that they had caused it.

Secondly, how can you even define a lifestyle illness? As my parliamentary representative will surely know illnesses are often made up of different components and have multiple causes. In some cases a pre-existing or congenital problem can be exacerbated by environmental factors. There may be some people who are susceptible to certain illnesses who will end up being punished as a result of perceived "lifestyle" components that may have had little or nothing to do with their problems.

Also whenever I hear these sort of pronouncements it is always things like diet, drinking and smoking that are fingered as the culprits. But what about those who go skiing and break a limb? Should they pay for e.g. pain medication while their leg sets? After all they chose to go skiing. Nobody made them go hurtling down a mountain on a couple of twigs. In the same way as nobody forced our fictional diabetes sufferer to gorge on doughnuts for every meal. What about someone who went jogging regularly and had a heart-attack? Should they pay for their heart medication? Nobody forced them to put that extra strain on their vital organs.

Before long you just realise how unworkable suggestions like these are. It is almost impossible to even define what a lifestyle illness is and even if you could, there are many different causes. Trying to separate out the "deserving ill" from the "undeserving ill" would be a task of Sisyphean proportions.

I'm somewhat disconcerted to discover that the man who my fellow constituents elected to parliament, a qualified doctor no less seems to not be aware of this.

Disestablishment of the Church of England may be closer than we think

The British constitution is a curious beast. It can lie slumbering for many years, hardly changing at all and then suddenly change quite radically. We have seen this happen with events such as votes for women and the devolution of power to Scotland, Wales and London. What seemed fixed and permanent turned out not to be so after all.

We may be slowly moving towards such a turning point with the current situation in the Church of England. This week the church voted not to allow women bishops. There has been lots of sound and fury from members of the church themselves (64% of the electoral college actually wanted change but they needed a 2/3rds majority) and inevitably politicians of all sides even from those MPs who you would ordinarily expect to defend it.

The CofE is currently exempt from equality legislation and there is discussion that this should be addressed. There is also talk of not allowing the bishops to remain in the House of Lords whilst the gender anomaly remains (there is a petition asking for this here). On the other hand there are some who argue that parliament should keep its nose out of the affairs of other institutions.

The primary reason for all of this consternation from those outside of the church is because of the fact that it is established. It is intertwined within our constitution in a way that other institutions are not. So politicians feel a duty to make comments on its composition and potentially even legislate in order to address concerns.

At this point I think it is worth considering the wider problem of the fact of its establishment in the first place. Britain has changed quite dramatically in the last century. Our population is made up of people who practise a plethora of religions and increasingly no religion at all. A survey at the turn of the current century showed that almost half of our population claimed no religious affiliation at all with only around a quarter considering themselves members of the established church. Roughly 5% are Catholics, and 5% of the population are now Muslim for example.

With such a religiously diverse and increasingly non-religious demographic mix the establishment of the church is an huge anomaly in itself. At the moment politicians are restricting themselves to discussions about trying to make sure Anglicanism keeps itself up to date and relevant in terms of its internal processes. But I think this latest episode could be the first step along a process of eventual disestablishment.

The demographic trends are not in favour of the church. Across the world there is strong evidence that religion is in severe, perhaps terminal decline. The idea that there should be a special place within our constitution for one particular religious outlook is increasingly anachronistic.

Another factor that is worth considering here too is the view of the current heir to the throne. The Prince of Wales has made it clear that when he eventually becomes King he will not consider himself "Defender of the Faith" as his predecessors have but instead wants to be declared "Defender of Faith". This dropping of the definite article is highly significant and is a sign that our next monarch himself perhaps understands how the current settlement is unsustainable in the longer term.

I appreciate we are probably a fair way away from full disestablishment at the moment. But like with other large constitutional changes that we have seen in the past I would not be surprised if within my lifetime we see it happen.

The wafer-thin loss of the vote on women bishops has just made it that little bit more likely.


This post was originally published on The New Statesman online.

Why some prisoners should have the right to vote

There is some confusion about exactly what the government's draft bill on prisoner voting will contain on Thursday. What there is no confusion about, however, is that our MPs are strongly opposed to any move to extend the franchise to inmates. In February last year, they voted by a majority of 212 (with only 22 against) to retain the current ban.

There are some who say it is foolish for our politicians to behave in this way as it will result in a confrontation with the European Court of Human Rights. That argument does not cut much ice with me. I don't think we should legislate on this because Europe is telling us to. We should legislate on it because we are a liberal democracy.

When people are locked up for crimes in this country they already have lots of things taken away from them. Their liberty. Their right to see their family and friends whenever they please. Usually their job and their home. Their basic choices about what to eat, when to eat, where to eat and so on. It is right to deprive those who have committed crimes serious enough to warrant a jail sentence of these things. But why should they should automatically have their right to vote removed too?

I can see the argument for not allowing long-term prisoners and those with life sentences the vote. But the majority of prisoners are serving short sentences and, at the time of any general election, most of them will be released before any subsequent election and hence will be affected as a free citizen by the government elected. In the case of referenda, which tend to come around very infrequently, those results could affect the prisoner for the rest of their life. Someone only a few months away from release in May 2011 will be now out and yet may never get the chance to vote on the electoral system used for the House of Commons.

Perhaps even more importantly, one thing that almost everyone across the political spectrum agrees on is that we need to reduce reoffending rates, which in 2011 were running at an astonishing 90 per cent for serious crime.

Giving prisoners the vote will not change this overnight. But treating them with a little bit more respect and giving them a stake in how their society is governed is likely to be one of the things that helps. If we want to reduce recidivism, we need to be willing to think outside the constricted box our politicians have placed themselves in on this issue. A good start would be for the government to acknowledge on Thursday that there is a strong, principled case for some prisoners to have their democratic rights restored.

Not because Europe has told us to, but because it is right.


This post was originally published last week on The New Statesman online.

House of Comments is back baby!

We have relaunched the "House of Comments" podcast.

Some of you may recall that for about a year from 2009 to 2010 myself and Stuart Sharpe used to host a regular(ish) podcast where we discussed politics and other issues that were being debated in the blogosphere with one, two or three blogger guests each week.

Well it's back! With a slight change though. Stuart is no longer directly involved with the podcast having hung up his blogging boots some time ago. Instead I will be regularly joined by my new co-host and old friend Emma Burnell who blogs at Scarlet Standard.

I am a Lib Dem and Emma is a Labour member so we will have guests on from time to time, primarily from the right to try and balance things out a bit but sometimes it will just be me and Emma debating politics and current affairs.

We are maintaining the numbering from where the previous incarnation left off so Episode 38 "UKIP if you want to" was recorded yesterday evening and is out today. This week we cover the UKIP members Rotherham fostering case (and hypothesise about how it would have played out if they had been BNP members), sexism in politics following recent comments by Nadine Dorries and try to predict what the Leveson report on Thursday will recommend.


You can subscribe to the podcast on iTunes here (note - this is a new feed so if you used to subscribe you'll need to do so again).

Other podcasting software e.g. for Android can be pointed here to subscribe.

You can download the mp3 for the latest episode directly from here.

Or you can listen to the embedded episode below here:

listen to ‘Episode 38 - UKIP if you want to’ on Audioboo

If you are a political blogger and wish to be considered as a future guest please drop me an e-mail at markreckons@live.co.uk.

Any feedback welcomed in the comments below.


PS: A big thanks to Audioboo for hosting the podcast for us and especially to Audioboo's James O'Malley who has helped us out getting relaunched. James is also editor of The Pod Delusion podcast which is about "interesting things" and is well worth a listen too!

Linkage for Thursday, 22nd November 2012

Has Cameron realised that Tory government is not our default setting any more?

Why MPs are having a tantrum over votes for prisoners

Killer Arguments Against LVT, Not (254 thru' 281)

If I play my cards right: is poker a game of skill or luck? – Telegraph Blogs

What You Can Get Away With (Nick Barlow's blog) » Blog Archive » Fearing for the future

Opinion: Job share MPs – an idea whose time has come via @libdemvoice + @DintiBatstone - Now that's a liberal idea!

"we may have to accept that quite a lot of people are not voting because they simply don’t give a toss and never will"

The Very Fluffy Diary of Millennium Dome, Elephant: Day 4338: Don't Dumb Down Our BOTYs!

"It simply is time we dropped the idea that we can stop drug abuse with guns and jail time"

Parties look like bizarre cults, so no one joins them; no one joins them, so they look ever more like bizarre cults

Corby shows how a Lib Dem collapse will hurt the Tories

Ann Coulter Finds Herself Snubbed As Fordham College Republicans Rescind Invitation | Addicting Info

The BBC isn't 'balanced' in its reporting of climate change: but the facts aren't 'balanced' either – Telegraph Blogs

Pros and cons of switching from an iPhone to a Samsung Galaxy

Since January 2009 I had been an iPhone man. 3G - 3GS - 4S was my path. I had been reasonably happy at first. But there were things that niggled with me. Being a techy person I was frustrated at the limitations of the devices and the operating system.

So three weeks ago I purchased a Samsung Galaxy Note II (GT-N7100).

This post is a summary of my experiences switching from the iPhone/iOS world to the Samsung/Android world.

Some of my comments here will be the differences in the operating systems (iOS vs Android). Some will be differences between the devices themselves. Some will be the differences in the available software and what it can and can't do on each device. I have made no attempt to separate these out.

When it comes to screen size I am going to be fair and compare the Note II with the iPhone 5 seeing as that is the newly released equivalent (even though I only had up to the iPhone 4S personally).


Pros of switching from iPhone/iOS to Samsung Galaxy Note II/Android

1. Ability to add flash memory: This is one of the things that bugs me most about iPhones. You can get 16GB, 32GB or 64GB but at each memory increase point there is a hefty price premium. From Apple the price difference between 16GB and 64GB (sim free) is £170. So effectively they are charging about £3.54 per extra GB. On an iPhone there is no ability to add any external memory. On the Samsung I only opted for the 16GB model but there is a slot for a micro-SD card which can be up to 64GB. As soon as I bought the phone I ordered a 64GB card for just over £40. Which equates to around 63p per GB, or less than a fifth of the price that I would pay per GB on an iPhone. So for a small extra amount over the purchase price I now have close to 80GB of usable space which is more than enough for dozens of TV episodes and films, every digital photo and home video I have ever taken over the last 9 years and plenty of room left over for music, podcasts apps etc.
2. Massive screen: Probably the single biggest draw to the Note for me was the size of the screen. It is 5.5 inches diagonally across with a resolution of 1280x720. This is compared to the iPhone 5 screen size of 4 inches diagonally with a resolution of 1136x640. Of course the iPhone has a higher resolution screen as a result of this but I never notice the resolution difference. What I do notice is just how much more useful having a massive screen is. Web surfing, reading e-mails, typing on the software keyboard (more on this later), watching video, playing games. All of those experiences are hugely improved on a screen that area-wise is not far off twice the size of the iPhone. It does make the Samsung a bit more unwieldy but I can still hold it with one hand and the pluses hugely outweigh that slight compromise in ergonomics.
3. Widgets: Having been very used to the locked down way the home screens on the iPhone  work (icons only) moving to a system where you can have little mini-apps (widgets) running on the home screens has been a real joy. Weather, alarm, search bar, radio player, BBC News, Podcast shortcut, Twitter feed, video previews. They are just a few of the many widgets that are available. Perhaps the most useful one though (so useful I put it on my default home screen) is the "Assistive light" widget. This turns the camera flash on and off and makes it act like a torch. I had something similar on my iPhone but it took me running up an app, waiting a few seconds for it to start and then navigating through about 4 options to get to it. On the Samsung it's turn on and tap. 2 seconds maximum to a pretty powerful torch.
4. Configurability: I was a bit annoyed the other day after I had tried several times to get the Samsung lock screen and PIN to act like they do on the iPhone. What I wanted was when I turn the phone off for the "swipe" screen to appear straight away when I turn it back on. That helps me for example to avoid accidentally opening apps when turning it on say by accident in my pocket. However I want a PIN too but only if say the phone has been off for 30 minutes, otherwise if I'm turning it on to check stuff more frequently than that I have to enter a PIN every time. Annoyingly there is no way to do this natively on the phone. But then I realised what I was doing wrong. I was thinking like an iOS person. Just because there is no way to do this natively doesn't mean there isn't an app for it. And 10 seconds googling found there is indeed something called "Delayed lock" available from the Google Play store. It works a treat doing exactly what I want and is even more configurable than the iPhone was in this area. Now it did cost £1.59 which is not ideal (that feature came free on the iPhone) but my point is broader than just this one annoyance. Whenever I came across bugbears like this on an iPhone (and there were plenty of them) there was no way around it (well apart from jailbreaking the phone but that can cause other problems with updates etc. so I didn't want to do this). I just had to put up with the limitations. Whereas on the Samsung there is often a third party solution. It is a mindset I need to get into more having been hidebound by iOS for so long!
5. Swipe keyboard: This sort of fits into the previous point in that you can select different keyboards so it is configurable. However the swipe keyboard deserves a mention all of its own. I recall listening to the PC Pro podcast a couple of years ago when their technical editor Darien Graham-Smith was going on about how great this was. Just from the description I could tell I was going to like it but as I was on iOS I had no chance of using it. And lo and behold it is one of the best features about the Samsung. Instead of pecking away at the keyboard you simply swipe your finger around the keys you want to type almost drawing a shape between them. It is amazingly accurate. Not 100% but well over 95% in my experience and it does seem to learn too. Even when it gets it wrong there are several substitutes in a menu above the keyboard with a drop-down to access more if necessary. Makes text messages and knocking out e-mails on the phone so much easier. I would almost say switching has been worth it for this feature alone.
6. Notification screen: Soooo much better than the iOS one. Massive amounts of configurability on there and quick easy routes to the apps reporting as well as shortcuts across the top for all the most obvious toggles like WiFi, GPS, Sound, Screen rotation, mobile data etc. Also a very handy shortcut to the settings at the top right.
7. Settings: Again much more configurable than in iOS and also much more information available about every application from the app manager including permissions, breakdown of where the data associated with it is stored, cache, launch by default etc.
8. Back button: Such a simple thing but at the bottom right of the device is a hidden button that only becomes visible when you tap it. It is the functional equivalent of a browser "back button". So in an app if you've gone to a sub-menu and you tap it it will go back to the higher screen. If you've jumped from one app to another (e.g. tapping on a link in Twitter that has opened a browser session) tapping back will take you back to where you were in Twitter. I would say 90% of the time this button operates in exactly the intuitive way I would expect. Occasionally it does something a bit unexpected but I am still getting used to all the quirks and compared with the iPhone which has nothing like this (no the Home button does not count!) it is a huge leap forward.
9. Context button: In a similar fashion to the Back Button, on the left hand side of the phone is a context menu button. Depending on which app you are in this will behave differently usually bringing up various menu options but again very very useful and a big leap forward compared to the iPhone which again has nothing like this. Context options on an iPhone appear in all sorts of different places in apps. This is a known, set place for them an most apps take full advantage of it.
10. It looks at you!: Now this one may be a bit freaky to some people but it turns out to be a very useful feature. When reading on my iPhone in bed at night I used to have to lock the screen rotation to portrait if I was reading on my side with the phone tilted. But with the Samsung there is an option called "smart rotation" which uses the phone's front-facing camera to look at your face, determine where your eyes are and decide what rotation is best given the orientation of your face! And it works surprisingly well, especially in the dark which is when I tend to need it most.
11. File system access: As a techy it always used to irritate me that on the iPhone I had very little access to the file system. The only area directly accessible was the photo folder. Whereas on the Samsung I can access almost everything. This means I can plug it into my PC and treat it essentially like a USB drive copying files to and from it. It takes a bit of nous to know where things need to go but it is mostly intuitive e.g. a folder called "Music" for music etc. It's very fast copying too. Films can be copied onto there in less than a minute. Oh and there is a built in app (and also proprietary ones) that allow access to the file system directly on the device too so you don't need to be plugged into a PC to browse it.
12. Apps update in the background: RSS feed apps, podcast apps and anything else that needs to be regularly updated have the ability to update in the background. So for example I have my RSS feed application update every 30 minutes periodically. My podcast application (Beyond Pod) updates at 3am every morning and I have configured it to only download when there is a WiFi connection so I am not going to find when I am away for the night somewhere without WiFi that it burns through my mobile data allowance. It is a world away from how I used to update my podcasts using iTunes and having to sync all the time. Which brings me to...
13. No need to sync: In fact there is no sync application provided. I believe there is one available to download but the phone, applications and the entire ecosystem is designed never to need to. Three weeks in and I am not missing this at all, indeed it is a real bonus not to have to continually remember to sync my phone with my PC. I now plug it when I want to e.g. to copy video onto it.
14. Downloading files: On websites now when there is a file available to download I can click it, see it download in my notification screen and then when ready open it. If it's an MP3 it can be listened to, a PDF can be read and so on. iPhones are so locked down you cannot do this in this way.
15. Choice of apps for opening files and links: When clicking on links or files you are usually given a choice of which apps to use and the ability to say "Always" or "Just once". So much better than iOS which if it was able to open would simply use the default (usually its own application).
16. Pop-out video player: When playing videos you can tap a button and the video pops out into a small window that can be moved around and stays on top while you use another app. E.g. I can play Solitaire while watching a downloaded TV episode or film.
17. Split screen: Some apps (only a small subset at the moment) can be run split screen at the same time as another one. The split runs horizontally across the middle of the screen or vertically if you have the phone rotated. I believe this feature is only available on the Note because of the large screen size and to be honest at the moment it is of limited use until more apps are programmed to make use of it. Could be very useful eventually though.
18. Pen: Or as Jennie Rigg calls it "The poking stick". A bit like the PDAs of yore the Samsung has a built in stylus or "Pen" as it calls it. This allows you to scribble notes, draw pictures, annotate calendars and do all sorts of other stuff. There is also a fascinating feature within the Note application that allows you to go into "formula mode". There you can write out formulas (e.g. y=x²) which will then be recognised and with a tap on the "Search" button it will take you to Wolfram Alpha, look up the formula and provide you with information such as solutions, graphs and all manner of other useful stuff. I've even tried it with differential equations and it is surprisingly good at interpreting my scrawl. I've no idea how far this scope goes but it seems like it is very wide-ranging indeed. Now I have not done maths like this since university in the mid-90s so this is a curiosity for me rather than something I would use for anything practical but I suspect there will be students all over the world that will find this invaluable. I know I would have done when I needed to know this stuff!
19. Miscellaneous niceness: Animated backgrounds, built in FM radio (only when headphones are plugged in - they are the antennae!), when headphones are plugged in a bespoke menu with relevant apps appears, flash websites work.

Cons of switching from iPhone/iOS to Samsung Galaxy Note II/Android

1. No mute button: This is irritating. I used to be able to mute my phone just by reaching into my pocket and flicking the very handy mute switch. Now I have to turn the phone on swipe down and tap. Might not sound like much but I do miss my mute button!
2. Crashes: My iPhones were not immune from crashing but the Samsung seems to do so more often. I also sometimes find when installing apps that they behave a bit oddly until I reboot. For example I noticed this with the "Delayed Lock" app mentioned earlier. I guess it's the downside of a more open system. Also the "TouchWiz" built in Samsung front end for Android seems to throw its toys out of its pram a couple of times a day. I am hoping that once I stop installing so much new stuff this will settle down but it is a (minor) annoyance.
3. Ergonomics: The iPhone because of its smaller and more compact form factor was easier to handle. There were some games (e.g. Drop7) that I could play on it single handed. That is not really possible on the Samsung. It generally requires two hands to do anything more simple than selecting a podcast or reading on it. This is a trade-off for all the benefits having the bigger screen brings.
4. The Pen is too sensitive: One of the "features" of the pen is that the phone senses it even when you are just hovering it above the screen. This makes it harder in my view to accurately write, draw and scribble stuff with erroneous etchings appearing in places I didn't intend them to. I cannot find a way to turn this sensitivity down/off either although I am willing to concede there may be a way that I have missed. I looked pretty hard though!
5. Noises: I can't find a way to turn the noises off when e-mail arrives. Minor annoyance and I am quite getting used to it now but it wasn't ideally what I wanted. Maybe there is a way to do this but I am buggered if I can find it. The obvious setting by the way before anyone comments does not work.
6. Tap to top: Supposedly you can double tap on the top of the phone and this will scroll to the top in e-mail, twitter etc. like tapping on the top of the screen does on an iPhone. Doesn't work. At least it doesn't on mine and looking on forums I am far from the only one. Maybe I've set something wrong but I don't think so. Living with it at the moment. A moderate niggle.

And that's about it.

You can probably tell from the sheer amount of pros vs cons that I am not regretting my shift out of the Apple ecosystem into the brave new world of Samsung and Android.

I would certainly recommend the move for anyone like me who is frustrated with the lack of openness that Apple products have built in. You do however need to get your hands a bit dirty with settings, configurations and manual file copying to get the most out of the Samsung so if you are frightened put off by that you might be better off sticking with iOS.

For everyone else, you should consider joining me when you're next ready to upgrade. I doubt you'll regret it!

Head of comedy attends internal BBC climate change meeting!!!111

Tom Chivers has a piece today in The Telegraph which argues that the BBC does not need to be balanced in the debate on climate change because the facts aren't balanced.

He makes reference to a meeting that the BBC held to review its editorial policy on this subject a few years ago.

In the comments below the piece, thefilthyengineer makes an excellent point regarding one of the attendees of this meeting:

Well they did include:
Jon Plowman, Head of Comedy.
And that's not a joke. I have the full list.

HEAD OF COMEDY!!!!!!??? What on EARTH was he doing at a meeting like this!!!???

YOU COULDN'T MAKE IT UP!!! I mean COME ON BBC, what the sweet Jesusing FUCK are you playing at!!? Having the head of a department so frivolous attend a meeting on something that is not directly related to comedy!??

What do you mean the BBC needs to have balance in comedy output too? What, programmes like "Have I Got News For You" and "The News Quiz" need to try and maintain balance in their guests and it would be a good idea for managers overseeing this process to be up to speed on and input into these policy decisions?

Ok, but LOOK AT THE COMEDY MAN ATTENDING THE CLIMATE CHANGE MEETING!!! I mean COME ON BBC! IT'S 'ELF 'N SAFETY GONE POLITICALLY MAD OR SOMETHING....

Etc.

Super soaraway hypocrisy

Today:

Two years ago:

Hattip @scolvey on Twitter

Linkage for Sunday, 11th November 2012

The big lesson from the US election is not a new one, but a very old one - Andrew Rawnsley

Debunking Two Nate Silver Myths | Good Math, Bad Math

So much the "liberal bias" in the US media. If anything the polls were biased in favour of the GOP:

Doing politics in plain sight | Shifting Grounds - Excellent piece on how politicians need to speak in plainer language from Emma Burnell

Excellent take down of The Daily Mail by Martin Robbins - From recent The Pod Delusion 3rd birthday party bash that I sadly couldn't attend in the end.

What You Can Get Away With (Nick Barlow's blog) » Blog Archive » Thoughts on internal elections

David Cameron, Phillip Schofield and mob justice in the age of the internet – Telegraph Blogs

Burn them! Burn the funny-looking, the strange, the loners! They might be paedos! All of them! – Telegraph Blogs - Dan Hodges is increasing in my estimations as a columnist. This piece is an example of how good he can be,

Heresy Corner: A prophetess named Janet - Heresiarch on Janet Daley's delusions

Phillip Schofield's List shows the danger of treating internet rumours as news

The way we look at women is worrying, even when it's women doing the looking - Deborah Orr

Is Tom Watson in danger of fuelling a new paedophile panic?

++ SHOCK! HORROR! LIB DEM MP CAUGHT UP IN NEW EXPENSES ROW! via @libdemvoice - Stephen Tall exposes a non-story from the Manchester Evening News


Victory for Pot Means Beginning of the End of Our Crazy Drug War - The Daily Beast

The end of the Tea Party? - I reeeally hope so!

Interesting to see for all the fuss about "Joe The Plumber" in 2008, when he stood as a candidate in 2012 he got thrashed

And finally: Ladies and gentlemen. We've all been waiting for it. I give you the Mitt Romney Butt Plug:

"How STV resembles the Grand National" or "Why Prateek Buch deserves his FPC place"

I stood in an election recently.

It was for the Lib Dems Federal Policy Committee.

I lost.

The elections use Single Transferable Vote and I was in the bottom quarter of candidates in terms of first preferences. I was eliminated fairly early on during the count. I make no complaints. It was my first time in an internal election like this and I have learnt some useful stuff that will hopefully mean I have a better shot next time.

One person who did not lose in the FPC election however was Prateek Buch. He was elected from the 63 candidates who stood to one of the 15 places available. He is a good candidate and has done lots of high quality work, not least in the area of one of my particular hobby-horses, drugs policy.

However if you look at the election tables which show how the STV count progressed (available here) you would not have guessed at the end of round 1 of counting that Prateek would have been elected. At that stage, after only first preferences were counted he was in joint 27th place, way off the pace.

But this is one of the great things about STV. Of the just over 1,200 voting reps who make up the electorate 19 wanted him on the committee as their first choice. There were more voters who wanted other people on as their first choice. But as the count progressed, something interesting started to happen. As lower preferences from eliminated candidates began to be redistributed and surpluses were also factored in, Prateek started to inch up the pecking order. Slowly at first, but by the time we get to the latter stages of the count he is really piling the transfers on. In this phase he is regularly getting 2, 3 or 4 transfers and this pace keeps him in contention. In the end he just pokes his nose over the finishing line bagging 14th place with 64.05 votes. If he'd been 3 transfers shy of this he would not have got onto the committee.

Tracing this through it does show to me how a transferable electoral system can be a thing of beauty. It actually does take on the auspices of something like a horse race. You can see at each stage who is keeping up and who is falling behind. You can also see which horses have fallen at each stage (I fell at fence 12 for example). Perhaps it is because I am a psephological geek but it was rather exciting to go through the stages and observe how the fortunes of different candidates fared as it progressed.

It is invidious to try and say what would have happened if this election has been run using first past the post. Voters would have voted differently and it is never clear how the final result would have differed. What is clear is that Prateek may only have had the first preferences of 19 voters, but there were many more than that (more than 3 times as many) who preferred him to many of the other candidates. He may not have had as deep support as some of the much higher placed candidates such as Lord Rennard or Evan Harris. But he certainly had a decent breadth of support. Crucially his wider appeal as a candidate put him above most of the candidates who after the first round looked like they were better placed.

During the AV campaign last year, one of the criticisms used by the "No" camp was that transferable systems "allow losers to win". That was always based on a specious reading of how AV works and used an extremely narrow definition of "loser". It was essentially anyone who did not have a plurarlity of votes after round one. AV is effectively just a single member variant of STV but it does also allow a candidate with a breadth of support to win even if a plurality (although not a majority) of voters prefer another candidate as their first choice.

I have to say that I am much happier with a process that allows such sophistication in voting preferences and for all that information to feed into the result.

Prateek Buch very much deserves his place on the committee.

As for me, I clearly need many more first preferences next time I stand to have a chance. It's all very well having a breadth of support, but you have to stay in the race long enough for them to count!

Linkage for Thursday, 8th November 2012

Just because you’re winning around Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity doesn’t mean you’re winning around America excellent from @DPJHodges

If she's such a fan of CSI, how come she didn't seem to know the basics about forensics and investigation techniques?!

Why Nate Silver Won, And Why It Matters

Oh, Lovely: This Voting Machine in Pennsylvania Isn't Accepting Votes for Obama

The GOP thought that the rhetoric and positioning of 1980 and 1984 could win again in the America of 2012.

Hurrah for Colorado! 57% vote to legalise and regulate marijuana like alcohol.

Was this advert complaining how little money Lambeth council have been given by the govt paid out of council funds?

Not sure why Guido is defending the tabloids on Savile: (my comment here: http://t.co/EvCHVENO)

Labour's return to the right | John Kampfner | Comment is free | The Guardian

Google expects Apple to block its not crap iOS maps app • The Register

To promote the living wage, we need to reform the tax system

The living wage is fine as far as it goes, but the Lib Dems can be bolder via @libdemvoice

This latest Tory rebellion was not just cynical, it was completely bogus | Andrew Rawnsley | Comment is free | The…

Should Alice marry Bob? » The Spectator

Program Your Own Mind 2: Avon and Somerset PCCs - Variety and choice!

Mitt Romney's narrow paths to the White House » Spectator Blogs

We need the right to recall MPs more than ever - Spot on. The government needs to fulfill its commitment on this

I saw the police violence at Orgreave. It's time for the truth to come out | Ken Capstick | Comment is free |…

An open letter to Melanie Phillips

We’re All A Package Of Good And Not-So-Good Attributes - Chris Bowers - Dale and Co.

Howzat?! Charlotte Henry takes down one of her critics in forensic fashion

BMJ Group blogs: Journal of Medical Ethics blog » Blog Archive » All Right, Peter: I’ll Bite

10-questions-and-an-idiot

Even a superstorm is no excuse for journalists not to check Twitter trolling | Heidi Moore

"Is this math you do as a Republican to make yourself feel better?"

Is the number of jobs the right measure?

Jobs, jobs, jobs.

More jobs, fewer jobs.

Employment up, unemployment down.

Employment down, unemployment up.

Statistics on how many jobs there are and how many people are employed in them are thrown around like political confetti in our national discourse. It is axiomatic that "more jobs" is better and "fewer jobs" is worse.

I am not immune to this feeling. Of course I feel better if I see employment rising and unemployment falling. I run a small business and any signs that the economy is improving is good news as far as that is concerned.

But in the longer term, is the number of jobs the right measure?

I listened to a podcast recently from Freakonomics Radio entitled "We the Sheeple". I've been a fan of the Freakonomics guys for a good while now. I am aware that some of their claims do not always stand up to scrutiny but they often make me think about things in a different way to how I would ordinarily do so and from a different perspective.

In this podcast, Stephen Dubner interviewed Bryan Caplin, author of "The Myth of the Rational Voter: Why Democracies Choose Bad Policies". I think the title speaks for itself. He talked about a number of policies and positions that political candidates take because they have to in order to be elected but which is his view are economically irrational or in other ways make little sense.

The most resonant point he made for me was how the number of jobs in an economy is always, always seen as a vital measure and how if the number is not high and increasing politicians promise to fix this. But in Bryan's view this is irrational for the long term economy.

He gave the example of the industrial revolution. During that period, a lot of jobs were lost as farms and factories became mechanised. He then pointed out how if that was happening today, there would be a huge outcry from the voters about how they were losing their jobs and politicians would feel duty bound to promise to do something about it. But the only thing they could really do in the short to medium term would be to implement laws to slow or halt technological progress. If politicians had been successful at doing this 200 years ago then our advancement could have been severely hampered.

The people who lost their jobs and their descendants did find other work to do eventually. It's just that it wasn't obvious at the time what that work would be.

We are in a similar position now. There is a huge revolution taking place in terms of manufacturing moving away from our shores and service and computer related industries evolving at a rapid pace. Some of these changes involve the loss of jobs. It it inevitable. And it is far from clear what jobs will replace them. But without this evolution our advancement as a society will be held back.

I realise I am dangerously close to saying that "unemployment is a price worth paying". But actually it is more fundamental than that. We essentially have no choice in the matter if we want to advance, just as those industrial pioneers in the 18th and 19th centuries did not.

Bryan is of course right about the political ramifications of this. No politician is going to stand on a platform of "Fewer jobs for now, uncertainty for the future!".

There is not really an answer to this. Politicians have to win elections and society needs to advance. What is fascinating is to watch how these tensions are resolved when they rub up against each other. The best politicians are the ones who can walk this tightrope and not hamper our long term future with short term measures whilst reassuring people we are moving in the right direction.

Hasn't David Gauke got a point?

The New Statesman is highlighting a "Quote of the Day" from Treasury minister David Gauke today regarding the child benefit cuts (taken from an interview by Paul Waugh and Sam Maccrory on Politics Home):

"I think there’s a lot of people who are in favour of reducing the deficit but then when it’s something that affects them there can be a degree of fiscal nimbyism."

Well hasn't Gauke got a point? This will affect the top 15% of families. You can't get a much more progressive attempt to cut the benefits bill.

Of course people are going to complain when their benefits are cut but I'd rather it was this than further cuts elsewhere in the benefits system. If I had my way "universal benefits" like the winter fuel allowance and free bus passes would also be means tested.

I'm not claiming the way in which this policy is being implemented is good by the way. It's very messy but the principle that cuts should fall where possible on those with the most income is surely one the New Statesman should be applauding?

Leveson is linked to Savile but not in the way Paul Dacre thinks

A couple of weeks ago, Mail editor Paul Dacre called for the Leveson inquiry to reopen in order to examine the BBC's role in the Jimmy Savile allegations of child abuse.

This is a rather bizarre request given that it would mean Leveson stepping well outside his original remit. But to be fair to Mr Dacre, he is, in his own way trying to ensure that that aspect of the Savile scandal is investigated thoroughly. It is highly unlikely that Leveson will be reopened though and there are already separate inquiries into what happened at the BBC in terms of both Savile and the Newsnight report that was spiked.

I do think however that the long serving editor has unwittingly highlighted the link that there is between the Savile scandal and the Leveson inquiry.

For months on end we have heard witness after witness testify as to how their lives have been damaged by the use of tabloid dark arts such as phone hacking. The extent of the use of these techniques is truly mind-blowing. From the voice-mail messages of a missing (and as we now know murdered) schoolgirl right through to finding out details of film stars, nobody was safe from having their most intimate details pored over by the hacks and then used in "exposes" or other stories.

Well, I say nobody. Actually there was one person who seems to have been safe from the tabloids' nefarious reach. Jimmy Savile.

Despite the fact that pretty much everyone in the media seems to have been aware of the rumours. Despite the fact that it is now coming to light that numerous of Savile's victims and others who witnessed incidents did try to speak out but were either not believed or laughed at. I doubt there is a single Fleet Street journalist throughout the 1970s and 1980s who had not heard on the grapevine about his alleged activities.

I keep reading and hearing that they couldn't stand the stories up and/or there was nobody to corroborate them. But as we have seen, all it has taken is for a few of his victims to be given the chance to speak out and in the words of Esther Rantzen, an expert on child abuse "they all corroborate each other". And many more have now been given the confidence to speak out as they realise they will likely be believed. If any newspaper had executed a proper investigation into Savile's activities 30 or 40 years ago perhaps his crimes would have been revealed sooner and some of his later victims would have been spared their ordeals.

We of course know that this did not happen. He was free to abuse right up until his death last year and was given a showbiz funeral with the obligatory hagiographic obituary pieces.

So the next time you hear Dacre and others from the tabloid world banging on about how Leveson needs to look into the BBC, just remember that Leveson came about because of the phone hacking scandal and the dark arts the newspapers used to get private information on people for their splashes.   Those same techniques that on occasion are defended in the name of "public interest".

You have to ask why on earth celebrity tittle-tattle was considered a legitimate target for their use and a suspected serial sexual predator like Savile was not.


This post was first published on Liberal Conspiracy.

What's good for the goose....

Initial GDP figures for Q3 2012 suggest that we are now out of recession and that the economy grew by 1%.

Good news! Or so you would think.

There are plenty lining up though to claim that the "exceptional circumstances" of the Olympics are largely to credit for this and that hence the picture is still quite bleak.

They may well have a point, but I would take them more seriously if these criticisms were not largely coming from the same quarters that reacted with derision when George Osborne tried to claim last year that one off factors such as the extra bank holiday for the Royal Wedding had suppressed growth.

So it would appear that exceptional circumstances should be taken into account, but only when they contribute positively. If they have an adverse effect we're not allowed to hear them mentioned under threat of vilification for any who dare.

Can we have a bit of consistency please? Either they count or they don't.

Personally I would rather just see the figures reported and leave any exceptional stuff to one side no matter which direction. There will often be one off things going on and it seems a bit silly to constantly have these sort of arguments.

For now I'm just pleased we have some good positive growth figures. Hopefully this will help boost confidence and contribute to a virtuous circle that becomes self fulfilling.

Linkage for Thursday, 25th October 2012

A VIEW FROM HAM COMMON: Nick Clegg truly doesn't have a reverse gear

The National Health Action Party must be strangled at birth - This is a terrible post by the normally more sensible Paul Richards. His argument is essentially "vote Labour" because the electoral system is dreadful. You know, that same electoral system that half his party frantically campaigned to keep last year. If AV had come in the "problem" Paul highlights (LETTING TEH TORRIEEZ IN!!!11) would no longer exist.

The Savile scandal is about children, not overpaid TV executives | Suzanne Moore

Shove your $5m, Donald Trump - I love the description of Trump here as an "implausibly coiffured buffoon" - from @TomChivers

4 Things Movies Always Get Wrong About Computer Hackers

Damian McBride, Why Dave needs Artie, Paula and Beverly

How Microsoft Lost Its Mojo: Steve Ballmer and Corporate America’s Most Spectacular Decline | Vanity Fair - This article is a must read for anyone involved in software development or running any company large or small. In fact just anyone! Object lessons in how bureaucracy and internal company politics can become utterly stifling. long read but very much worth it.

David Miliband and the Labour art of speaking in code - They really do need to speak intelligible English

Outlawed by Amazon DRM - This is very worrying. it's the equivalent of Waterstones coming round and taking all your books off your shelf

The BBC regains its honour - another excellent piece from @nickcohen4

Transform Drug Policy Foundation Blog: The US votes for change (to its drug laws)

Deccan Aitkenhead takes apart Peter Hitchen's arguments on drugs one by one in this fascinating interview

MPs Expenses and safe seats - is it happening again?

When I did my blogposts back in 2009 that found an apparent link between the safety of an MPs seat and the likelihood of them having been involved in the expenses scandal of that year it caused a bit of a stir. It got a fair bit of coverage and there were some who thought (hoped?) it might make a difference to the campaign for electoral reform.

There were however numerous people who dismissed what I had found claiming it was not statistically significant and/or there were problems with the methodology I used.

I never claimed to be a statistician (although my work was reviewed by someone who is better qualified on that score than me and he certainly thought there was something in it) but I did think it was striking when split into quartiles how the safer an MP's seat, the higher their apparent chances of being involved in the scandal.

Obviously the fuss from the original research has long since died down and I hope I have proved in the intervening years that I am not some sort of safe seat correlation obsessed one trick pony but when the latest expenses scandal broke I couldn't help but wonder if I was to apply my original analysis to it whether we would see anything different. I actually expected that we would not see the same sort of thing, after all this is a quite significantly changed parliament and as various people were queueing up to tell me before, my original findings apparently were just coincidental.

So surely this time around we would find no link? Certainly not a similar shaped graph to last time anyway?

Well I only have 14 names out of the 27 supposed transgressors so far but....

Er....