Debunking the "Gambling away £100 every 20 seconds" myth

"At the moment, a punter can walk into a high street bookmakers and gamble away £100 every 20 seconds for 13 hours."

Tom Watson - HuffPostUK - Oct 2013

I'm highlighting this claim about Fixed Odds Betting Terminals in particular because it is so mathematically wrong-headed. Also because the "gambling away £100 every 20 seconds" and "gambling away £18,000 per hour" narratives are now forming a core part of the campaign against FOBTs. I may come back to the political and moral arguments on this subject in a later post. But for now I just want to focus on the maths.

FOBTs, which are most commonly roulette have a house edge of between 2.7% and around 5%. This is in line with the standard odds yielded by a roulette table. If a table has a single zero then the odds of winning on a red or black bet are just less than 50/50 (because if it comes up zero the house wins). So with 36 numbers plus zero the chances of winning in a single spin are 18/37 or 0.486. This yields a house edge of just over 2.7%. If the roulette table has two zeroes (a zero and a double zero) then the odds are titled more in the house's favour as it becomes 18/38 or 0.474 yielding a house edge of 5.26%.

So as probability theory tells us, over the long term we would expect a punter on the first type of table to be about 2.7% down and a punter on the second type of table to be 5.26% down. For the rest of this piece I am going to focus on the second type of table as I wanted to pick the worst case scenario for this to be generous.

If someone was foolhardy enough to bet £100 on a red or black bet every 20 seconds for an hour on this sort of table they would be incredibly unlikely to lose (or "gamble away" to use Watson's term) £18,000. In fact we can calculate just how unlikely this is. We simply take the chance of them losing each time and multiply this number by itself the number of times they are going to play. From this we can see that the chance of this happening is (1-(18/38))^180

Which is one in 149,847,041,024,310,787,847,729,246,045,620,000,000,000,000,000,000*

Or to put it another way roughly the same likelihood as picking two random molecules of water from all the oceans of the world and them being the same one. In other words pretty much as close to impossible as you can theoretically get.

In actual fact someone who gambled £100 every 20 seconds for an hour would not have "gambled away £18,000". They would, on average gamble away 5.26% of £18,000 or £946.80. Now I'm not trying to claim this is not a large amount of money, it of course is, but it's only around a twentieth of the amount that the headlines and distortions of the campaign would have you believe.

More importantly though it is the most extreme interpretation of the possibilities. How many people who gamble on these machines seriously wager the maximum amount every 20 seconds for an hour (or more) at a time? I suspect very few. Far more likely is that they would wager smaller amounts, perhaps £5 or £10 a spin. So if someone did bet £5 for 180 spins they'd be on average down about £48. Now whether £48 spent in this way for an hour is a wise use of money is a different question. But of course losing £48 in an hour is not as scary or headline grabby as £18,000 in an hour.

As I said the politics and morality is for another post and I am not covering that here. I'm simply saying that if people want to campaign on this they should at least get the basic maths right.


*After the 32nd figure my calculator ran out of accuracy (because the number is so massive) so the final 19 digits are all zeroes meaning that it is rounded down.

Political outrage template article

A [supporter/member/if you're lucky MP or Peer] of [political party you don't like] has made a [comment/speech/if you're lucky bad taste joke] that has offended a number of people.

Calls have been made for the [supporter/member/if you're lucky MP or Peer] to apologise for the [comment/speech/if you're lucky bad taste joke] that was made on [Tuesday/Question Time/if you're lucky Twitter].

The gaffe comes just [months/weeks/if you're lucky days] after [supporter/member/if you're doubly lucky MP or Peer] of [political party you don't like] also caused controversy with a [comment/speech/if you're on a real outrage winning streak bad taste joke] that also offended lots of people. [supporter/member/if you're doubly lucky MP or Peer] apologised for this at the time but these latest scandalous remarks show that they simply have not learned their lesson.

"They just don't get it" said a spokesperson for [pressure group/political party you do like/political party you dislike less than the political party you don't like]. "It's absolutely typical of people associated with that party and demonstrates why you should never vote for them."

House of Comments - Episode 89 - 2 Unlimited

Episode 89 of the House of Comments podcast "2 Unlimited" is out. Emma is back! Recovering well from her recent operation we discuss the recently floated "two child benefit and no more" policy from a close Cameron advisor, the gender pay gap rising and the BBC's policy on promotion and non-promotion of charities.

You can subscribe to the podcast on iTunes here.

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 89 - 2 Unlimited’ on Audioboo

Any feedback welcomed in the comments below.


PS: A big thanks to Audioboo for hosting the podcast for us. We would also like to thank Kevin MacLeod from Incompetech.com for our theme music.

Why the MP pay rise "scandal" matters - a lot

I wrote a piece last weekend arguing that MPs should have their pay rise. As a result of this I got a number of invites onto various TV and radio stations to explain my reasoning and argue for something that virtually no MPs (nor very few commentators) were willing to.

As a result of this I have engaged with a number of people and also listened to a fair few members of the public calling these shows to express their opinion. One thing that is abundantly clear is that there is a toxic atmosphere around the issue of MPs' pay. I had a fair bit of reaction to my stance on Twitter as well and the vast majority of it was also hostile. Incidentally the number of people who seemed to assume I had something personal to gain financially from taking the position I have was quite depressing; it seems the idea that someone might just believe something without directly benefitting from it themselves is somewhat outmoded.

The more I have been mulling this over the more concerned I am getting. Ever since the expenses scandal the subject of MPs and money has been a fraught one. But this goes further back. Much further back. The whole reason we had the dysfunctional expenses system which tacitly allowed MPs to claim in a way that substantially augmented their salaries is because Margaret Thatcher in the early 1980s turned down a report similar to the IPSA one today on MPs' pay and instead allowed the nod/wink system to flourish. Her reasoning was that the public would not stand for a large one-off pay rise for MPs. It was the wrong time. The idea it would ever be the right time for this is proven by history to be a falsehood.

So MPs' pay has been a difficult issue for a long time. But let's take a step back a minute. MPs are in a very special position. They are elected by close to 100,000 constituents. They are supposed to have gone through a process, both through initial selection and then later election that makes them the choice of those 100,000 people to represent them. They then are supposed to work very hard at representing those people and also holding the government to account (or if in government administering it in the interests of the entire country). It is an incredibly important job and it requires acute judgement and the ability to make very difficult choices well on behalf of constituents and more widely the whole country. They vote on whether we should go to war, how our health service works, how the poorest in society are treated by the state etc. etc. etc.

But if we cannot trust MPs to settle something very simple like their basic pay and working conditions for themselves then it does not take that much of a logical leap to start to question whether they will be able to take these other sorts of decisions well too. The pay issue is gone. That ship has sailed. We definitely do not trust them on it. There is almost unanimity on this, not least from MPs themselves who recognise the political reality. So what about other issues? Why would we trust them on anything else if we essentially think they are a bunch of shysters on the make and out only for themselves?

I should stress that despite the fact that I do think our politics is somewhat broken, I do not think MPs cannot be trusted to decide important issues. But it is clear that the majority of electors do think this if the response to this story in the last week is anything to go by. Indeed the fact the story lasted almost a week (and is still unresolved - incidentally I expect a deal will be stitched up to "reject" the pay rise) shows how strongly people feel about the issue.

I very much fear where this will ultimately lead. It is an obvious next step once MPs cannot be trusted on pay for them not to be trusted on all sorts of other things.

We elect them through the ballot box to represent us. If they mess up we can kick them out a few years later. If we need to strengthen this democratic link through e.g. some sort of parliamentary recall mechanism (and I think we should) then fine. Various other reforms are needed too as I have written about endlessly in the last 5 years. But there needs to come a point where we trust them to get on with it.

This is not all one way traffic. MPs themselves need to earn the trust and after the expenses scandal it is understandable that the public is wary. But if we cannot regain some sort of trust for politicians then our democratic system will eventually break. I cannot predict on what issue(s) it will eventually founder but when it does we will have a constitutional crisis the like of which we have not seen for several hundred years.

The MPs' pay "scandal" of 2013 is a harbinger of much worse things to come if we are not careful.

House of Comments - Episode 88 - Forever Autumn

Episode 88 of the House of Comments podcast "Forever Autumn" is out. I am joined by LabourList's Mark Ferguson and freelance journalist and Lib Dem activist Charlotte Henry to discuss Nelson Mandela's legacy, the aftermath of the Autumn Statement and whether MPs deserve an 11% pay rise.

You can subscribe to the podcast on iTunes here.

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 88 - Forever Autumn’ on Audioboo

Any feedback welcomed in the comments below.


PS: A big thanks to Audioboo for hosting the podcast for us. We would also like to thank Kevin MacLeod from Incompetech.com for our theme music.

MPs should have their pay-rise - Oh, and it's 2.2% not 11%

Having seen the almost uniformly negative coverage of this "11% MP pay rise" (even from MPs themselves) I feel that somebody has to stick up for them.

All the commentary I have seen has been along the lines of the rest of the country is suffering from austerity and public sector wage rises have been kept to 1% so WHY ON EARTH SHOULD MPs HAVE AN 11% PAY RISE??!!!

Well firstly the rise would not be 11%. At least not if you measure it fairly and in the same way that pay-rises are measured for everybody else, i.e. annually. The salary is currently £66,396 (since Apr this year). The proposal is to raise it to £74,000 in 2015. So this would be a rise of just under 5.6% per year from that baseline. But that isn't really fair either because between Apr 2009 and Apr 2013 MPs' salaries rose by 0.6% annually (when the historic average of the last decade has been more like 2.2%). And this current rise is at least partly designed to address this. So when you compare the Apr 2009 figure with the proposed 2015 one you get an average pay-rise of 2.2% across the 6 years. Which doesn't even keep pace with inflation.

"AH!" I hear you cry "BUT WHAT ABOUT THE 1%?". But there's more dear irate capitalised fictional reader. IPSA are actually proposing quite radical changes to the structure of MPs' (historically very generous) pensions and also ironing out some expenses anomalies. So the cost to the taxpayer of this latest rise would actually be cost neutral. That's right, it won't cost us anything more. Not that you'd particularly have been aware of that judging by much of the coverage.

It's also worth noting that IPSA is an entirely independent body. Many MPs hate IPSA although most are reluctant to criticise them publicly. This is not a case of MPs with their snouts in the trough trying to diddle the taxpayer. It is an independent group who have scrutinised the current settlement and proposed some changes that will be entirely cost-neutral whilst addressing the fact that MPs' pay has been slipping back in the last few years. It sort of makes me wonder how we are ever going to get to a position where the politics can be taken out of this issue.

Perhaps the proposal to have rises linked to average wage increases is the answer although there are bound to be some sectors that suffer in the future even though the average is much better and hence relatively MPs will appear to be living high on the hog. There is probably no answer to this.

And I have to say that I am not really interested in what cabinet ministers like Phillip Hammond, David Cameron and Danny Alexander have to say on the subject as they all earn well over £100K anyway and in many cases are already very independently wealthy anyway. Just because they can afford to refuse a pay increase does not mean all other MPs should be pressured to do so too. We need to be very careful about this. If this sort of thing carries on and MPs are continually forced through political pressure to refuse successive pay rises we will eventually end up with even higher numbers of MPs from wealthy backgrounds which is not good for politics. We have seen a similar dynamic recently with the whole "expenses saints" phenomenon where MPs who do not claim any expenses at all are lauded. Of course they are all independently wealthy and can afford to pay the expenses themselves. This should not afford them better career prospects but sadly it does seem to be doing so.

In the meantime, can we please stop comparing apples with oranges? Putting the 11% MP figure alongside the 1% public sector figure is completely distorting and unfair. It would be much fairer to compare it to the 2.2% figure for the average rise over the last few years. And it would also only be just to acknowledge that it is cost neutral.

Anything else is simply bullying our MPs and I really do fear where that will ultimately lead.

House of Comments - Episode 87 - Reforming Sir Humphrey

Episode 87 of the House of Comments podcast "Reforming Sir Humphrey" is out. Myself and Emma discuss potential reform of the Civil Service, the Government's ideas on reducing energy bills and the increase in food banks.

You can subscribe to the podcast on iTunes here.

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 87 - Reforming Sir Humphrey’ on Audioboo

Any feedback welcomed in the comments below.


PS: A big thanks to Audioboo for hosting the podcast for us. We would also like to thank Kevin MacLeod from Incompetech.com for our theme music.

House of Comments - Episode 86 - The Day of the Reverend

Episode 86 of the House of Comments podcast "The Day of the Reverend" is out. Myself and Emma are joined by Conservative activist Nick Denys to discuss the fallout from the Co-op Bank and Paul Flowers scandal, Dominic Grieve's comments about a "favour culture" within some ethnic minority communities and should there be a new National Liberal party? Oh and we also discuss Doctor Who's 50th anniversary. Well two of us do.

You can subscribe to the podcast on iTunes here.

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 86 - The Day of the Reverend’ on Audioboo

Any feedback welcomed in the comments below.


PS: A big thanks to Audioboo for hosting the podcast for us. We would also like to thank Kevin MacLeod from Incompetech.com for our theme music.

House of Comments - Episode 85 - Leaving the Lib Dems

Episode 85 of the House of Comments podcast "Leaving the Lib Dems" is out. Myself and Emma are joined by co-editor of Lib Dem Voice Caron Lindsay to discuss how politics works with respect to my decision to leave the Lib Dems, Tory web history deletion shenanigans and the Ed Balls "Nightmare" e-mail.

You can subscribe to the podcast on iTunes here.

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 85 - Leaving the Lib Dems’ on Audioboo

Any feedback welcomed in the comments below.


PS: A big thanks to Audioboo for hosting the podcast for us. We would also like to thank Kevin MacLeod from Incompetech.com for our theme music.

Why I am leaving the Lib Dems - AKA This is not a Flounce

I have decided to leave the Lib Dems.

This is something that has probably been creeping up for a while. There have been a number of things that the party has done in government that I have not been happy with, although it is not really any one of those things that has triggered this.

I should probably start by saying what this is not. It is not a flounce off where I have a massive go at the party. It has been and will continue to be extraordinarily difficult being in government for a minor party and this would be equally true if the coalition was with Labour. The Lib Dems get a huge amount of blame. Their poll ratings have dropped by two thirds. Much of the criticism they endure is of the tenor of “HOW COULD THEY DO THIS IT IS A BETRAYAL?!” which usually fails to even recognise that coalition is always a compromise. I very rarely however hear any criticism that focuses on how the person attacking them thinks they have made the wrong compromises, it is almost always the fact they have made any compromises at all. Such attacks seem to want things to go back to the “good old days” of Red vs Blue with the Yellows on the side lines being ignored and/or laughed at. I do not envy the task that the party has faced and I am far from sure I could have done any better were I in Clegg’s (or any other minister’s) shoes. Indeed I expect I would have done worse. There are political traps everywhere laid by those who want binary politics back.

And actually the above paragraph is really where my disillusionment has come from. Of course I wasn’t happy with secret courts, in fact I was furious. The removal of the spare room subsidy is just mean spirited and ultimately self-defeating. Tuition fees were an absolute mess. Cutting the 50p rate may have been economically sensible but was politically idiotic. I could probably come up with dozens more things that I have not supported. But it is not really any of these, as I said government is tough and there is plenty from the Lib Dem manifesto that has ended up in government.

The impetus for me to leave is really because politics is broken. The Westminster Village is obsessed with who managed to shout the best for 5 minutes and get their friends to jeer and point at the other side just after midday on a Wednesday. They genuinely seem to think it matters. I very rarely even bother watching PMQs any more. They insist on speaking in sound bites and clichés and point-blank refuse to answer questions thinking that their “clever” evasions can’t be seen for precisely what they are. The tribal nature of much of what goes on drives me nuts. Labour have been the worst for this in recent years castigating the current government for doing things that they would almost certainly have done themselves and in a number of cases were actively planning to. But none of the main parties are free from this sort of thing. It reduces politics to a bunch of silly games where tiny nuances are picked up on and there are a million hidden rules that only highly experienced practitioners of the “art” of politics are aware of. That’s one of the reason so many of them are now former SpAds. It is only by immersing yourself in this culture for decades that you can learn these rules. People who may have spent most of their lives doing something else much more worthwhile aren’t aware of them and thus struggle to become part of the inner circles of real power being seen as ingénues who have little to offer. Sarah Woolaston, a woman who spent most of her life as a doctor is an excellent example of this.

None of this is specifically the fault of the Lib Dems. But they are complicit in it. They have 57 MPs. They are part of the government. They have tried to change some of this but on the constitutional and political reform front they have utterly failed. Again I am not blaming them particularly. The forces of conservatism in Labour and the Tories closed ranks to ensure AV (what would have been a very minor, positive change) was a failure and they killed Lords reform too. Those who sneer that the Lib Dems are to blame themselves for all of this fail to recognise just how far the status quo will go to preserve itself.

I joined the Lib Dems over 5 years ago in the hope that I could be part of something that would advance electoral reform, move the government’s drugs policy in a positive direction and improve civil liberties. On the first two we are further away than we were when I joined*. The third one has been a case of two steps forward in some areas (e.g. ID cards) but two steps back in others (e.g. secret courts).

I have become convinced that real change needs to come from outside of the three main parties now. I’m not calling for a Brand-esque revolution or telling people they shouldn’t vote. That was totally irresponsible. I will certainly be voting at the next election and I may well vote for the Lib Dems. I have been interested in some of what the Green Party has to say although some of their more statist policies turn me off. I am also interested in the nascent Pirate Party philosophy. But the truth is I have had enough of being a member of a party for now. I only joined at the age of 34 having spent the previous two decades as a highly politically engaged lone wolf. Perhaps that is my natural state.

I think that love them or loathe them groups like 38 Degrees and the TPA have shown how much outside groups can influence things. The power of political parties is waning. The financial crisis has shown the limits of business as usual and yet nothing his really changed yet. We have a political system that was designed hundreds of years ago and it is utterly unfit for the world we now live in. But I see and hear very few people agitating for the sort of fundamental change we need. And I include myself in that criticism. I have on occasion bemoaned one or other aspect of it but being a member of one of the main parties, attending the conferences, speaking on the media as a member, posting leaflets, canvassing for them and generally doing all that a good party member should has made it difficult for me to say what I really think and has ultimately become untenable for me.

When the Occupy movement started a couple of years ago I was absolutely disgusted at the response of most people involved in politics at all levels. Although the movement was somewhat incoherent it was raising incredibly important questions. But all I seemed to hear was how they were disturbing people’s peace and USING IPHONES THE HYPOCRITCAL IDIOTS!!!!!11111 Occupy didn’t have all the answers but they were an example of just how disillusioned people have become.

I don’t know how politics will look in 30 or 50 years time but I feel sure that with technological change and the mistrust that we now see in almost all of our institutions it will ultimately be radically different. I desperately want to see a more responsive, representative, evidence based and tolerant politics. I have just reluctantly come to the conclusion that remaining a member of one of the main parties will not help us get there.

I will miss attending the conferences and being part of a strong movement with very deep roots. I have made some good friends in the party and I hope to keep in touch with them all. I expect some will be disappointed that I have not chosen to continue to fight the good fight from inside but I hope they will understand my reasons.

I intend to keep blogging on here, writing in other places (if they’ll still have me) and podcasting. I also intend to keep popping up on the media as and when I can although I expect I’ll be less of a draw now I’m not in one of the main camps.

But most of all I fully intend to try and help nudge us towards the better sort of politics that I fervently believe we as a country deserve.


*This is not to denigrate the excellent work done by Ewan Hoyle and others within Lib Dems for Drug Policy Reform. The party's policy on drugs is very good, it's just that almost none of it has ended up in a change to government policy.

House of Comments - Episode 84 - Universal Discredit

Episode 84 of the House of Comments podcast "Universal Discredit" is out. Myself and Emma joined by the editor of The New Statesman blog The Staggers George Eaton to discuss the latest Universal Credit debacle, the NHS A&E crisis, the latest on an EU referendum, the ending of shipbuilding in Portsmouth and whether there's a link to Scottish independence and finally oversight of spending on the monarchy. Warning - contains republican ranting.

You can subscribe to the podcast on iTunes here.

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 84 - Universal Discredit’ on Audioboo

Any feedback welcomed in the comments below.


PS: A big thanks to Audioboo for hosting the podcast for us. We would also like to thank Kevin MacLeod from Incompetech.com for our theme music.

House of Comments - Episode 83 - The Royal Charter of Doom

Episode 83 of the House of Comments podcast "The Royal Charter of Doom" is out. Myself and Emma discuss the press Royal Charter, the living wage, energy prices and also whether we should be paying for MPs fuel bills on their second homes.

You can subscribe to the podcast on iTunes here.

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 83 - The Royal Charter of Doom’ on Audioboo

Any feedback welcomed in the comments below.


PS: A big thanks to Audioboo for hosting the podcast for us. We would also like to thank Kevin MacLeod from Incompetech.com for our theme music.

A SpAd state of affairs

Imagine you are are very interested in a particular field of business. Now imagine that after closely studying this type of business you realise that becoming a PA or advisor to someone senior within that field is a good way to get a solid grounding in it for your future career prospects as indeed it often can be. There's no substitute for close interaction with industry leaders.

So after all this how would you react if when having come to this conclusion, all the PA and advisor jobs in the field you are passionate about are all stitched up behind closed doors without adequate due process and in some cases even an interview. You'd be pretty miffed I'd expect.

Of course industry used to work almost exclusively like this with a nod and a wink and a "My nephew would be a good fit for you Sir Charles". It would be naive to think this does not still go on to some extent but over the years as a society we have started to recognise that you don't get the best people like this. This is why there are rules in place about open interview processes and laws against discrimination.

But there is one field where this sort of nodding, winking and "jobs for the boys" culture is rife. It is of course politics.

A fictional SpAd from off of the telly box

If you were passionate about politics at the previous election and were of a Tory or Lib Dem persuasion you may have been interested in becoming a Special Advisor to a government minister. Dozens of them were appointed in May 2010 and as various of them have left dozens more have been appointed since too. Maybe I'm not looking hard enough but I've struggled to find job adverts for any of them*. The process of appointment for these people is opaque at best, some may say deliberately so.

I understand it's a tricky situation because ministers are looking for people they can trust and who understand both aspects of their department and also the delicate politics of the party they represent and more widely the impact of policies. So it is natural for them to fall back on a largely self-selecting coterie of people, many of whom have studied PPE or similar at top universities and have spent much of their careers in politics or think-tankery (or of course the media). But the big problem with this approach is that it forms a self-perpetuating clique of like-minded (and often like-looking) individuals all of whom come from relatively similar backgrounds.

If SpAds simply remained SpAds this would be an irritating but somewhat hidden phenomenon. But they don't remain advisors. They increasingly try to get elected themselves and often succeed. David Cameron, George Osborne, Ed Miliband, Ed Balls and Nick Clegg were all special advisors either to cabinet ministers or in Clegg's case an EU Commissioner (Leon Brittan) before they got into politics. That's probably the 5 most senior people in politics today and all of them to a man (and that is also part of the problem - they're often male) came up the SpAd route. And you don't have to look much further down the food chain to find people like Yvette Cooper, Oliver Letwin, Andy Burnham, Stella Creasy and David Laws all of whom had roles as political advisors of one form or another before they got elected.

This is not good for our politics. Most people agree that we need our MPs and government to be drawn from as wide a spectrum of people as possible. So this sort of cliquey back-room approach to appointing people to these roles that are more influential in some cases than many MPs and even junior ministers (just read Damian McBride's book for copious evidence of this) is very bad.

Indeed those same politicians who lecture the rest of us and legislate in order to make sure we are open and transparent in how we hire people in our businesses are doing almost the exact opposite when it comes to their own advisors.

It's time for this to change. We need to see a much more open process for hiring these sort of advisors. It may well be that the think-tank wonk who drinks in all the Westminster bars and is personally known to the minister and their partner is the best person for the job. But it may be that someone they have never heard of who has been quietly beavering away understanding politics and the policy area in question would fit the role even better.

I'll be much happier when we start to see a fully transparent hiring process for every advisor role appointed in Westminster. That way we know anyone can apply and it will be much harder for them to stitch things up in favour of the usual suspects.


*I have not been able to find any adverts for SpAds at all although I am happy to be corrected if anyone wants to point any out to me.

House of Comments - Episode 82 - The Brand Revolution

Episode 82 of the House of Comments podcast "The Brand Revolution" is out. Myself and Emma are joined by Conservative activist Charlotte Vere to discuss Russell Brand's revolutionary ideas, the Roma children scandal and Grant Shapps vs the BBC.

You can subscribe to the podcast on iTunes here.

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 82 - The Brand Revolution’ on Audioboo

Any feedback welcomed in the comments below.


PS: A big thanks to Audioboo for hosting the podcast for us. We would also like to thank Kevin MacLeod from Incompetech.com for our theme music.

Is anyone apart from Guido making money from blogging?

Some money. Not pictured: My hand

In a somewhat below-the-belt post on The Speccie yesterday Douglas Murray highlighted how Sunny Hundal (who is quitting full time writing for Liberal Conspiracy) was not making a living from blogging.

This has led me to ponder whether any independent blogging sites* are actually making enough money to support full-time people and be self-sustaining. Liberal Conspiracy wasn't. Left Foot Forward, LabourList and ConservativeHome all have full time staff but also have external backers. Lib Dem Voice is run by volunteers, none of whom draw a salary from it.

The more I think about it, the more I think the answer is none. Apart from Order Order the Guido Fawkes site. That does appear to be profitable enough to support full time staff. Although even there they have straddled the mainstream media by publishing a column initially in the Sunday Star and latterly in the Sun on Sunday. Also, it is worth noting that Guido very much goes down the tabloid sensationalist route (albeit punctuated by occasional deep level economic posts to show what Paul Staines is really capable of).

I know that one of the reasons Iain Dale stepped down from such heavy blogging a few years ago was because even at its peak it was not bringing in enough to sustain a living.

I've already highlighted previously how I have never made any money from my online writing despite now having been at it for 5 years and winning awards and acclaim.

So have I got this wrong? Is anyone other than Guido making money from blogging?


*I am not including sites like CiF, Coffee House, or any other magazine or newspaper blogs as they are not independent and I suspect are cross-subsidised from the main papers although I'll be happy for anyone from them to set me straight on this.

Tristram Hunt rules himself out of ever being a minister in a coalition or minority government

New Shadow Schools Secretary Tristram Hunt has been sounding off today on LabourList.

Ostensibly it is an attack on Nick Clegg and his record on education policy. But specifically it is attacking the entire idea of compromising in government:

It begins:

“The doctrine of collective responsibility is not some old musty constitutional suit of armour. It is much more concerned with common sense, good faith and comradeship amongst those who must act together in Parliament if they are to give effective leadership… No alternative substitute for that good faith exists”.

So said Michael Foot, who knew a thing or two about the dangers of loose tongues around the table. But he never reckoned with our Deputy Prime Minister. 

Nick Clegg’s speech in Bethnal Green was supposed to set out his vision for education. 

But as he railed against the policy of unqualified teachers – which his Government has implemented – a rather simpler message began to emerge. It went something like this: 

“I may be the Deputy Prime Minister of Her Majesty’s Government. But please believe what I say, not what I do.” 

Is it any wonder that politicians struggle to gain public trust? 

Alas for the DPM, it is actions that speak louder than words, not the other way round. 

So he is attacking Clegg for having been part of a government that has implemented a particular policy whilst he and the Lib Dem party would ideally prefer to have done something else.

I have highlighted before what the logical consequence of this sort of argument is but I'll spell out the reality first. It's a bit complicated but hopefully I can explain it clearly:

We. Are. In. A. Coalition.

So by definition we are going to have to compromise. Tristram was educated at some of the best schools and universities in the country. It beggars belief that he does not understand this. If a party does not have enough seats to get a majority then it simply has to compromise, either as part of a coalition or as a minority government when bill by bill negotiations will have to take place in order to ensure legislation and budgets can get a majority.

Therefore the only conclusion I can draw from Tristram's comments are that he is an absolute purist. Ergo it is impossible for him ever to take up a ministerial role in anything other than a Labour majority government. Anything else would require compromise and the Hunt doctrine clearly does not allow that.

I look forward to him stepping down from the Labour front-bench if he is ever asked to serve in a minority or coalition administration.

House of Comments - Episode 81 - The Calculus of Differentiation

Episode 81 of the House of Comments podcast "The Calculus of Differentiation" is out. Myself and Emma are joined by Lib Dem blogger Jennie Rigg to discuss the Lib Dems on Free Schools and policy differentiation in general, Plebgategategate, rendition and Labour's pay day lender tax policy.

You can subscribe to the podcast on iTunes here.

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 81 - The Calculus of Differentiation’ on Audioboo

Any feedback welcomed in the comments below.


PS: A big thanks to Audioboo for hosting the podcast for us. We would also like to thank Kevin MacLeod from Incompetech.com for our theme music.

House of Comments - Episode 80 - Going Postal

Episode 80 of the House of Comments podcast "Going Postal" is out. Myself and Emma discuss the Royal Mail privatisation, drugs policy, Norman Baker and conspiracy theories, whether Jeremy Browne might defect to the Tories and Labour's schools and welfare policies.

You can subscribe to the podcast on iTunes here.

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 80 - Going Postal’ on Audioboo

Any feedback welcomed in the comments below.


PS: A big thanks to Audioboo for hosting the podcast for us. We would also like to thank Kevin MacLeod from Incompetech.com for our theme music.

Royal Mail Privatisation Opposition Flow Chart

House of Comments - Episode 79 - The Debt Ceiling Gambit

Episode 79 of the House of Comments podcast "The Debt Ceiling Gambit" is out. Myself and Emma discuss Ed vs The Daily Mail and the fallout from this with journalist and author Toby Young and the US shut down with Deputy General Secretary of The Fabian Society Marcus Roberts.

You can subscribe to the podcast on iTunes here.

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 79 - The Debt Ceiling Gambit’ on Audioboo

Any feedback welcomed in the comments below.


PS: A big thanks to Audioboo for hosting the podcast for us. We would also like to thank Kevin MacLeod from Incompetech.com for our theme music.

House of Comments - Episode 78 - 2013 Conservative Conference Special

Episode 78 of the House of Comments podcast "2013 Conservative Conference Special" is out. Myself and Emma are joined by Graeme Archer of The Telegraph and his fellow Conservative member Amy Gray to discuss Conservative conference including conference locations, married couple tax allowance and the extension to help to buy.

You can subscribe to the podcast on iTunes here.

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 78 - 2013 Conservative Conference Special’ on Audioboo

Any feedback welcomed in the comments below.


PS: A big thanks to Audioboo for hosting the podcast for us. We would also like to thank Kevin MacLeod from Incompetech.com for our theme music.

Power Trip by Damian McBride - Review

When Iain Dale first made public the fact that Damian McBride was going to publish a book about his experiences as Gordon Brown's spin doctor I instantly suspected it was going to be one of the most important political books of the decade.

Despite largely being out of favour since he was fired in April 2009 as a result of the leak of the "Red Rag" emails, in recent times he had begun something of a political rehabilitation due to his brilliantly written blog where he would occasionally comment on former and current political events. In this format he wrote with sincerity, self-criticism and with deep insight regarding the issues he was covering. In particular I recall his blog post* following the omnishambles budget last year where he revealed the secrets of the "score card" system that had been used during his time at the Treasury and how the fact that some of the measures that Osborne had tried to introduce would never had (and indeed didn't) made it through in his time thus demonstrating weaknesses in the current setup.

So it was clear that McBride is an excellent writer of long-form blog posts (my favourite kind) and he clearly had lots of experience at the heart of the Labour government. I was therefore greatly looking forward to the release of Power Trip: A Decade of Policy, Plots and Spin. I am happy to say that I have not been disappointed.

The first thing to say is that I think the book is structured very well. It is essentially in the form of 52 long-form blog posts. As this was clearly a format that worked well for him the decision to structure it in bite-sized chunks certainly seemed to work. I suspect there was more than a little of Dale's influence at work here, himself an experienced and successful political blogger. One result of this decision is that although the book does follow a sort of chronology there is a fair bit of jumping about in order to link things that had happened previously and that also happened in the future that were relevant in some way or that presaged later events. But I think it works as a device as it helps set the context and also shows like a flashing beacon as the book progresses the car crash that is inevitably coming.

When I saw McBride interviewed by Jeremy Paxman on Newsnight just before the book's publication Paxman rather sneeringly (as is his wont) asked him how we could believe anything in the book given that in various places in it he admits to having previously lied when a spin-doctor. I can't be 100% sure that everything in the book is 100% true but all I can say is it reads as if written from the perspective of someone who is deeply sorry about the worst of his actions and is still trying to come to terms with the person he became as he was sucked further and further into the mire of dirty politics.

I'm not going to single out any of the revelations in the book as they have been done to death in the mainstream media. I knew a few of them but there are plenty that were new to me. It is really however more interesting for the general picture it paints of life as close adviser to Gordon Brown.

Brown comes across as a kindly but irascible figure, prone to outbursts of temper whilst also capable of extraordinary acts of kindness such as his words to McBride on the death of his father about how proud he must have been of him and his brothers whilst he sat there in a pub with tears rolling down his face. Brown is also painted as an intellectual titan and voracious reader who never, ever stopped thinking about politics and what the next job was.

A laugh out loud moment is when he has to deliver bad news early on to Brown who predictably reacts badly, shouting with his fists balled moving towards him (although McBride makes clear Brown was never physically violent towards anyone in his experience) and he figures the best response is to get angry himself so he starts shouting, swearing and kicks over a chair. At which point Brown instantly stops and tells him to calm down! An interesting tactic I might have to remember myself one day.

The two Eds, Miliband and Balls regularly pop up and are treated sympathetically. They come across as highly intelligent both with economics and also politics and are key figures throughout the book. There are also some interesting insights from McBride as to what drives each man based upon his up close observations. The section where Ed Miliband eventually decides he can't trust our protagonist any more is chilling with respect to the sang-froid with which the final call where he repeatedly tells him he thinks he is a "liar" is delivered. Food for thought for anyone who thinks Miliband does not have the steel to be Prime Minister one day. He clearly does if this is anything to go by.

On the subject of dirty tricks which are covered extensively McBride goes into lots of detail as to how stories were leaked, political editors and reporters effectively bribed with "better" stories to head them away from things he and his boss would not have wanted splashed on the front pages and generally would seem to serve as a guide to spin-doctoring. I suspect many current and aspiring spinners will be scouring this book for tips and tricks from one of the best in the business. McBride even seems to implicitly point to his not being there as one of the main reasons for various media cock-ups such as the Gillian Duffy episode from the 2010 election where Brown was inadvertently recorded describing her as a "bigoted woman".

One criticism I would level at the book is that some of his behaviour towards the Blair camp is brushed off with a rather insouciant "they were as bad as we were" mentality. I have to say that from what I know of what happened on the Blair side of the camp, yes they were not great but any objective analysis would surely show that the Brown spin camp spearheaded by McBride were worse. Indeed McBride spells it out in painstaking detail throughout the book rather undermining his complacency in this area. A little bit more humility about this would have helped I feel.

Overall though it is an excellent read and for a political geek like me there was enough behind the scenes colour and filling in the gaps for episodes that I recall seeing unfold from the outside to keep me glued to it for the 2 days (on and off) it took me to read it. It does however lend itself to dipping in and out of due to the blog like nature of it as described earlier.

I would certainly recommend this book to anyone interested in politics and/or the processes that go on behind the scenes. I suspect that all the main movers and shakers of all parties will have it on their reading lists, and that's if they haven't already read it. In the world of Westminster there is almost no bigger compliment for political memoirs. It shows you once mattered and Damian McBride certainly did.


PS: We covered the fallout from Damian McBride's book in this week's House of Comments podcast recorded in Brighton at the Labour conference.

*Incidentally his entire blog now appears to have been taken off the internet, perhaps because of the publication of this book but his budget post can still be seen in this cross-posting on Liberal Conspiracy.

House of Comments - Episode 77 - 2013 Labour Conference Special

Episode 77 of the House of Comments podcast "2013 Labour Conference Special" is out. Recorded in a restaurant on Brighton seafront myself and Emma are joined by Rob Marchant, Andy Harrop and Christine Quigley to discuss all things Labour including party reform, immigration, the full employment target, housing and Damian McBride.

You can subscribe to the podcast on iTunes here.

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 77 - 2013 Labour Conference Special’ on Audioboo

Any feedback welcomed in the comments below.


PS: A big thanks to Audioboo for hosting the podcast for us. We would also like to thank Kevin MacLeod from Incompetech.com for our theme music.

HS2 vs my vision of the future

I have a vision of one aspect of the future. It's perhaps not particularly outlandish, certainly from a sci-fi perspective and yet whenever I have mentioned it to anyone either in the real world or online I have had a lot of scepticism.

OK, here it is. I think that within the next 20 years (perhaps sooner) many people will have an entire wall in their house as a display. It will be 3D and the technology will be such as to allow correct parallax so whatever you are watching will simply look like an extension of the room in which you are sitting. The quality and resolution of the screen will be so good that it will be virtually indistinguishable from things actually in the room. And broadband connectivity will be so fast that it will allow videoconferencing with anyone in the world with similar capabilities which will effectively allow their living room to appear as an extension of yours and vice-versa.

The consequences of what this means will be huge. Many of my longest standing friends live a long way away from me. Most of us went to University and ended up all over the place. I live in Berkshire and have friends and/or family in Exeter, Runcorn in Cheshire, Chester, North Devon, Bristol, London, Crewe, Derby and Bedfordshire amongst other places. In order to get to see any of them usually takes weeks of planning and generally requires a full day to be set aside once you factor in travelling etc. But imagine if you could click a couple of buttons on a computer and have their living room suddenly appear alongside yours. This would revolutionise how we communicate with each other.

I'm not saying it would be a complete replacement for face to face contact. Of course human beings are always going to want to be able to share the same physical space on occasion for all sorts of reasons. But if I just wanted to catch up with some friends for an hour or two I really do feel that this way of doing it would be an excellent substitute for travelling half way across the country at expense of both money and dead travelling time. Perhaps this seems a little soulless. But on the contrary I think this could very much help people maintain friendships and stay close with friends even when geographical barriers are in the way. And that's even before you start to think about how much this could improve the situation of people who have family and friends who have emigrated.

All of which brings me in a roundabout way to HS2. When I first heard of the plans for this I was in favour of it. Our railway infrastructure in the UK is creaking at the seams and something like a high speed line from the south to the north seemed like a no-brainer. The fact it is going to cost tens of billions was by-the-by for me as the benefits were surely going to outweigh the costs. But after long reflection I am not so sure.

If living rooms are going to be revolutionised by technology then business meetings will also be. Perhaps even more so as sharing the same physical space is not as much of an imperative for many business meetings. Sharing the same documents and screens, sure but technology can already help with that and in 20 years time I would expect that would also be streets ahead of where it is now.

So if we assume that maybe 50% of meetings that are currently conducted face to face would be able to be done remotely using this sort of high res 3D technology (and if anything I expect that will be an understatement) then straight away you can see that the case for more and faster railway capacity starts to diminish. If the same applied to friends meeting up (i.e. half the time they save themselves the expense and travel time and simply living room share) we start to see how, far from railway capacity filling up with passengers in the coming decades it may well go in the other direction*.

The technology to achieve this sort of thing is no longer science fiction. We already have massive HD screens. We already have fast broadband. We already have 3D and soon there will be 3D without the need for glasses. All the pieces of this particular technological jigsaw puzzle are in place. We just need time for them to improve and mature to the point where bringing them all together will make what I have described above a reality. In fact if you think about it, this is pretty much inevitable. The tech is moving in this direction and it is simply a matter of waiting.

Coincidentally 20 years is how long it is going to take for HS2 to be completed. It would be ironic indeed if by the time the extra high speed capacity was available, it was largely not needed due to other advances that were available for almost zero public expenditure rather than the many billions slated for HS2.


*I am aware that a decent chunk of the extra capacity is expected to be taken up by freight. Of course if my other predictions are correct and there are fewer passengers then this will free up more room for freight anyway. But perhaps even more importantly another technology, 3D printing is already ramping up and it is predicted by increasing numbers of those working in this field that many items will be able to be manufactured in homes**. I strongly suspect that this has not been factored into any of the future freight predictions.


**Yes, yes I know that anyone manufacturing things in their home is going to need the raw materials used for the production and that these will need to be freighted. Smartarse. But I would suggest that a large block of raw material that can be used to make almost anything will be much more efficient to be moved around than billions of mass produced and pre-packaged items in terms of volume alone.

The universality question

The announcement at Lib Dem conference that all infants in state primary schools will get free school meals is an interesting one.

Firstly the party leadership clearly thinks it will be popular and they are probably right. Secondly it's a distinctive policy that the party can point to to say "this would not have happened without us". It's almost certainly impossible to measure the benefits of such a policy in cost terms mainly because the benefits will likely be in ways that cannot be measured very easily or quickly such as improved concentration and long term health outcomes. That in itself feels rather liberal and open minded.

You knew it was coming though.

But.

The problem is that this policy is universal. All infants at public schools will get free meals. That includes children of multi-millionaires. It includes Frank Lampard's 5 year old daughter as Nick Ferrari pointed out to Nick Clegg on LBC this morning.

Now I think a good case can be made for a policy like this being qualitatively different from some other benefits that are applied universally. The fact it is children receiving it, who are generally too young to make informed decisions about what they eat is a big one. Also the fact that children eat together and the cultural separation that the current system of some children having free meals and others whose parents pay for them imposes at an age when difference is often pounced upon in peer groups is a very important factor.

But the Lib Dems need to be very careful. Because this level of nuance was sometimes lacking in some of the previous discussions about e.g. pensioner benefits. Those who argue for maintaining other universal benefits that the Lib Dems are seeking to abolish have just been handed a powerful argument that could if not handled correctly make the yellows look hypocritical.

All Lib Dems put up to talk about this need to be hyper-aware of this potential problem and be ready to deploy quick and convincing arguments why this case is different.

How First Past the Post could save the Lib Dems in 2015

We Lib Dems really dislike First Past the Post.

A post, yesterday

In fact I'd even go so far as to say that we hate it.

We hate the distorting effect it has on our politics. We hate the way its ossifying influence helps to keep the red/blue duopoly of our system. We hate the way it keeps smaller parties (not just ourselves but e.g. Greens and UKIP) out of power or even in some cases parliament altogether.

So I think it's fair to say we are generally not fans. And yet in 2015 the First Past the Post electoral system for Westminster could perversely be the thing that saves us. Let me explain how.

The Lib Dems got 23% of the vote in 2010 but only just over 8% of the seats (which meant 57 seats). As unfair as this is (and I regularly bang on about this as regular readers and listeners to my podcast will know) the reason is because the majority of that 23% of votes were wasted. When I say wasted I mean they were cast in seats where we didn't get an MP. In other words our vote was not very efficiently distributed given how seats are actually won.

But because of the way FPTP is structured we don't need to get 23% in order to return 57 MPs. In fact theoretically we could get way less than 23% and still hold all our existing seats. We could even get less than 8% of the vote and get 57 seats.

With 650 seats up for grabs the way to be certain of getting 57 seats is to make sure you get 50% of the vote in 57 of them. In reality you can often win seats on less (in some cases much less) than 50% but for illustrative purposes let's assume that's what we want to do. So if each seat has 1/650th of the voters we can see that the percentage of votes we theoretically need is actually

(100 x (57/650)) / 2

Or around 4.4% of the vote.

Of course this assumes an absolutely perfect distribution of our vote, i.e. getting exactly the votes we need (50% each) in the seats we are targeting and zero votes everywhere. In reality this would never happen. But what this demonstrates is that FPTP is almost infinitely elastic in the lack of correspondence between number of votes cast and number of seats.*

It doesn't take a massive leap from this to see that if the Lib Dems are very smart and target their resources with ruthless efficiency they have a reasonable chance of retaining most of their seats. When combined with the incumbency factor that many Lib Dems are expert at using to their advantage it becomes a potent scenario. The casualties of this of course would be all those candidates running in all the other non-target seats. If we follow this through to its logical conclusion then in order for this strategy to work they would get next to no or perhaps actually no help. We could see a large number of lost deposits. But I suspect the leadership would see this as a small price to pay if they get to retain a solid number of MPs.

Come 2015 I suspect the Lib Dems will get more than the 8% - 10% we are currently seeing in the polls. It will probably be into the teens perhaps around 15% in my view. But even if it isn't and it actually ends up being 10% or even lower, First Past the Post offers us plenty of scope for gaming the system to return us far more MPs than a simple "Universal Swing" analysis would suggest.

The only question really is whether the party leadership is ruthless enough to follow such a strategy and thus use the invidious and rightly despised First Past the Post system to its full advantage.


*As an aside here consider that UKIP could get 10% or even 15% of the votes and would still likely get zero seats because their vote is quite evenly distributed across the country which is an absolute killer for political parties under FPTP.

House of Comments - Episode 76 - 2013 Lib Dem Conference Special

Episode 76 of the House of Comments podcast "2013 Lib Dem Conference Special" is out. This week I was joined by Caron Lindsay and Nick Thornsby to discuss all things Lib Dem - live (well OK, recorded but you know) from the party's conference in Glasgow covering topics as diverse as fracking, Trident and porn filters.

You can subscribe to the podcast on iTunes here.

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 76 - 2013 Lib Dem Conference Special’ on Audioboo

Any feedback welcomed in the comments below.


PS: A big thanks to Audioboo for hosting the podcast for us. We would also like to thank Kevin MacLeod from Incompetech.com for our theme music.

House of Comments - Episode 75 - The End of her Teather

Episode 75 of the House of Comments podcast "The End of her Teather" is out. This week myself and Emma Burnell were joined by Nick Denys from Platform 10 to discuss the Lobbying Bill, the Universal Credit debacle, further Falkirk fallout and Sarah Teather's decision to stand down from parliament.

You can subscribe to the podcast on iTunes here.

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 75 - The End of her Teather’ on Audioboo

Any feedback welcomed in the comments below.


PS: A big thanks to Audioboo for hosting the podcast for us. We would also like to thank Kevin MacLeod from Incompetech.com for our theme music.

10 PRINT "Must use computer"; 20 GOTO 10

I've ranted before on here about my dislike for self checkout machines in shops. But when I went on holiday to Canada a few weeks ago I noticed another form of these sort of machines and there was a telling twist.

We flew from Terminal 5 at Heathrow which I guess is the most modern of them having been built only a few years back. We were checking in at the BA counters. Well I say counters but that is where the computer side of it kicked in. Because we were not allowed to check in at the actual desks, they were just for dropping your bags off. The check-in and generation of the boarding passes etc. was done at a booth just back from the desks before the cordoned off queueing bit.

They're coming for you...

As I was a bit unsure what to do and did not want to make a mistake on something as important as checking in for a flight I called over one of the assistants who helped us through the computer system and made sure we did it right. It went quite smoothly and I suspect the next time I will be able to do it myself. I still find the concept of this sort of irritating though as I do feel like ultimately people are being done out of a job and also that the passengers are having to do more of the cognitive work of checking in, saving the airline money but with this absolutely not reflected in the prices.

The telling part of this was when I talked to the lady who helped us through the process. I asked her whether we could just go to the desks to check-in and was told no, we had to use the computer. This ties in with what I said in my previous post about shop check-out machines. Although in shops there is (usually) still a choice to go with a normal till, increasingly they are moving to a position, particularly in "metro" type stores where queueing up to pay a human is the strange option. They have done this by only having one or two humans on tills but having maybe 8 or 10 (or more) machines, thus making the automated way the default. I did wonder how long it would be in some stores before they phased out ordinary tills altogether.

Well at the BA desks in Heathrow Terminal 5 I saw the next logical stage of this. Mandatory use of the computerised booths to check in.

Oh, but did I mention about First Class? That was the one exception apparently. If we'd have had First Class tickets we could have checked in at the First Class desk where there was, yes you've guessed it, a human being.

So that demonstrates that we are slowly moving towards a situation where interaction with a human being when paying for goods, checking in for flights etc. is increasingly being seen as a luxury.

But if you're a pleb, get in the queue for the computer.

House of Comments - Episode 74 - Syria

Episode 74 of the House of Comments podcast "Syria" is out. This week myself and Emma Burnell were joined by James Hallwood of the Constitution Society to discuss the political and constitutional implications of the recent government defeat on potential action in Syria.

You can subscribe to the podcast on iTunes here.

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 74 - Syria’ on Audioboo

Any feedback welcomed in the comments below.


PS: A big thanks to Audioboo for hosting the podcast for us. We would also like to thank Kevin MacLeod from Incompetech.com for our theme music.

Cameron's loss is parliament's gain

To listen to much of the coverage of politics in the UK these days you would often think that the opinion of only three people really matters. David Cameron, Ed Miliband and Nick Clegg.

So much of the debate is conducted around what these three men think and want that the commentariat are largely at a loss to know what to do when suddenly the true nature of our democratic system asserts itself as happened on Thursday with the Commons voting to decline military support for an attack on Syria.

So the prism that this story has been filtered through has been a "defeat" for Cameron. Or a "victory" for Miliband (even though his position shifted several times in the run-up to the vote). Or in some cases also a "defeat" for Clegg who is pretty much in the same position as Cameron albeit less exposed.

This sort of reporting though seems to follow the unwritten rule that we live in some sort of presidential system whereby a usually all-powerful man (Cameron) has somehow been inexplicably thwarted. That is not the system we live in. We live in a parliamentary democracy. 650 constituencies return members to this parliament and they vote on our behalf on issues. If a majority of them are in favour of an action or change, it happens. If they're not, it doesn't. There's nothing strange or ahistorical in that sense about Thursday's vote. There simply were not enough MPs willing to vote for military action. Or more accurately the principle of military action (the actual vote on action would have come later and now almost certainly won't).

After some soul searching I personally found myself by Thursday reluctantly in favour of military action. But it was a finely balanced thing and I completely understand others, including a majority of parliamentarians coming to a different conclusion.

There is no doubt that the Prime Minister lost the vote on Thursday. He wanted support for a plan to intervene and now that is not going to happen. But we are in a hung parliament with a fragile economy and many other problems. It is hardly surprising that on a vote to start launching missiles at a rogue regime within a highly unstable region our representatives in Westminster decided no. If they were unpersuaded then so be it.

My initial reaction on Thursday was to think that Cameron was severely damaged by this episode but I have since checked myself. I was reacting like a typical Westminster Bubble-ite filtering everything through a presidential "politics of personality" filter. There is no reason why the PM cannot emerge from this episode with his head held high. He tried to garner support for action that even the most gung-ho would surely concede the consequences of which are highly unpredictable and lost by only a couple of handfuls of votes. Parliament were accurately reflecting the will of the country if polling is to be believed. So Cameron now goes back to Obama and says he cannot follow through with what he would like to do due to his hands being tied. Obama of all people knows what this feels like having had many bruising battles with politicians in his own political system with its separation of powers and staggered electoral timetables. If anything I expect the President has much sympathy with his UK colleague and respects the position he is in.

If anything Cameron might actually end up in a stronger position than he would have done. If the military action that the US and France are still very likely to pursue goes badly now he will not be politically damaged by the fallout from it. But if it goes well he can rightly point out that he was in favour of it. It's sort of a win-win for him.

And all this talk of his "loss of Prime Ministerial authority" is rather overblown. What is the point of having a parliament at all if the Prime Minister of the day can simply push his or her will through it? What we have seen is parliament doing its job.

We should not complain about that but rejoice that the system is working correctly.

House of Comments - Episode 73 - Miranda Rights and Wrongs

Episode 73 of the House of Comments podcast "Miranda Rights and Wrongs" is out. This week myself and Emma Burnell freshly back from a few weeks off cover Will-gate and party funding, the arrest of David Miranda, the lobbying bill, the "bedroom tax" and votes at 16.

You can subscribe to the podcast on iTunes here.

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 73 - Miranda Rights and Wrongs’ on Audioboo

Any feedback welcomed in the comments below.


PS: A big thanks to Audioboo for hosting the podcast for us. We would also like to thank Kevin MacLeod from Incompetech.com for our theme music.

If Cameron is a "loser" we're going to see a lot more of them

If this is losing, I'll have a bit of that please...

One thing I find difficult to get my head around is how so many people consider Cameron to have been a loser in 2010.

The argument goes that Gordon Brown was a terrible Prime Minister, that a solid majority was ripe for the picking for the Tories and Cameron totally screwed it up.

I'm afraid I don't really buy it.

Yes, Brown was dreadful but for all kinds of complicated reasons it was always a big ask for Cameron to get a majority. In 2005 they were still way behind. The way Labour's vote is distributed across the country makes it hard for the Tories to get enough seats even in a bad year for Labour (indeed 2010 was the red team's second worst vote share since WWI). UKIP shaved some of the Tory vote away, enough to perhaps cost them a dozen or more seats by some calculations. The Lib Dems were surgent in a way not seen in previous elections. Etc. etc. etc.

I'm not trying to make excuses for Cameron. I am not a huge fan of his. It's just that the narrative that it was there for the taking and he bollocksed it up does not stand up to serious scrutiny. He actually got a larger share of the vote than Blair did in 2005 (which delivered Labour a solid majority) but it wasn't enough for him to get over the line.

Many across the political spectrum and within his own party really do consider the Prime Minister a loser though because of this lack of a majority. His own side mutter darkly about how if he does not win a majority next time then he will have twice failed the electoral test and will be forced out as leader, even if the Tories are still the largest party and can form a government. They cite Thatcher and Blair with their thumping majorities and highlight how by comparison Cameron came up woefully short, but that wilfully ignores how the political landscape has shifted over the decades.

Other countries where their Prime Ministers and Chancellors regularly have to share power and often go on to win successive election victories (i.e. remaining in power, not having a majority!) must look upon our hung parliament discourse with bemusement. For them, the dynamics of compromise and coalition are completely normal.

Many psephologists now think that hung parliaments in the UK will become the norm despite us retaining First Past the Post for the foreseeable future. The vote share of the two main parties combined has gone from around 97% in the 1950s to around 65% in 2010. The trend is clear, people want to vote for alternatives to red and blue. Whether it is Lib Dem, UKIP, Green, SNP, Plaid Cymru, Mebyon Kernow and a multitude of other smaller parties, in the consumer and internet age we like to be able to exercise a much wider choice. This is not Cameron's fault and the idea he can somehow reverse all of these trends is completely unrealistic.

I think the analysts are right and we will see more coalitions/minority governments. Politics is now much more volatile and unpredictable than it once was. If I had to put money on it I would wager that in the next 20 years we will see at least half of the governments being led by someone who was unable to muster a majority at the ballot box.

If Cameron is a "loser", I suspect we're going to see many more such losers walking into 10 Downing Street in the not too distant future.