My view of the Royal Wedding

I put this on Twitter this morning:

Unemployed woman marries 3rd generation immigrant whose family live off the taxpayer #royalwedding #rw2011less than a minute ago via TweetCaster Favorite Retweet ReplyGareth Winchester
dnotice

Tweet

MoD lose big freedom of information case on rendition documents

From the Panopticon blog:

The All Party Parliamentary Group on Extraordinary Rendition (APG) requested information from the [MoD] on

(i) memoranda of understanding between the UK ... Iraq, Afghanistan and the USA regarding the treatment of prisoners detained in the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan,

(ii) a copy of the Detentions Practices Review,

(iii) a copy of the UK’s policy on capture and joint transfer, and

(iv) statistics on detainees held in Iraq and Afghanistan. The MOD refused the requests, relying on a number of exemptions under FOIA.

For the most part, the [Information Commissioner (who initially deals with FoIA disputes)] agreed.

APG’s appeal[ed] to the Upper Tribunal... and [e]xcept as regards request (iii), its appeal has succeeded, to a limited but substantial extent. The Upper Tribunal has ordered disclosure or significantly more information than that ordered by the Commissioner.

MoD lost on the following grounds:

• that it wouldn't cost too much to obtain the documents, because it took too long to respond initially;
• that public interest over-rode claims of legal privilege;
• that it would adversely impact its dealings with other governments; and
• that the people and places named in the documents had been anonymised and so argument over personal data could not possibly apply.

The MoD won on its argument that certain documents were covered by national security. It also plans an appeal over the argument of costs of disclosing documents.

UPDATE: On a related note, is this artcile in PLoS Medicine about the complicity of medical staff in the torture of people held in Guantanamo Bay. Tweet

The Alternative Vote Referendum

I've finally decided to write a post on the up-coming referendum on whether we should change our current system of electing MPs from the "First-Past-the-Post" (FPTP) system to the "Alternative Vote" (AV) system.

I've decided to write one in an attempt to cut through the lies and bad arguments which have been raised by people over the past few weeks.

Background


At the moment, our MPs are currently elected by simply counting who has got the most votes. This is done by people sticking an "X" next to their choice. This may seem fair. However, it means that you can be elected on just over 30% of the overall vote. This mainly happens due to their being a number of candidates with relatively equal numbers of support.

Under AV in order to be elected an MP needs 50% of the votes from their constituents. This is done by ranking the candidates 1, 2 and 3. If no-one gets 50% first time round, the lowest ranking candidate is knocked out and their 2nd choice is transferred to the other candidates. If there is still no-one with 50%, the next lowest is eliminated and their 3rd choice votes are allocated to the remaining people. This flowchart shows how easy it is:

Simple isn't it? Also it's fairer as it ensures that MPs cannot be elected with the support of simply a minority of their constituents.

AV is currently used in the UK

In any event, "FPTP" is actually a misnomer - there is no "Post". If anything, AV is FPTP because you need 50% of the vote to be elected, which is a clear "Post" for someone to be the first past.

AV isn't a new system - we actually had a vote in Parliament to use it back in the 1930s, but it failed.  It is also used for the main political parties in their leadership elections: David Cameron only became Tory leader - and subsequently PM - due to it. If they hadn't; the PM would now be David Davies. However, Cameron opposes AV.

The obvious question arises: if it's good enough for them, why isn't it good enough for the rest of us?

Labour also use AV - Ed Miliband also won on AV otherwise his brother "Torture" would now be Labour leader.

Arguments against AV

I've seen a variety of arguments against AV; some of which are on the face of it valid; some are wrong; while others are - in my view - complete bollocks.

1. AV will lead to coalitions;
2. BNP support AV;
3. It leads to weak and divided governments;
4. It will "institutionalise mushy centrist politics... I’m an unapologetic left-winger who wants a left-wing government"
5. It's not Proportional Representation;
6. No to AV; Yes to PR;
7. We need to break the current coalition government;
8. It destroys the idea of "One Person; one Vote";
9. It costs £250 million/we've better things to spend the money on

1. So what? Coalitions are not a bad thing - most countries of the world are governed by coalitions. Just look at other EU countries for a start.  This coalition should not be used as an argument against coalitions generally. Coalitions can be a good thing as it forces politicians to show why their polices should be enacted, instead of simply forcing them through on sheer numbers. In any event, if they don't have the support of the majority of the public, why should they have complete control of Parliament. For example, in 2005, Labour under Blair only had 35% of the vote, yet had 55% of the seats.
2. No, they don't. They - unlike most other minor parties - oppose it. Why? Because they think they'd be worse off! Other minor parties favour it as it means that they could be a first choice - so they could gauge the actual size of their support- even if they lost out overall in any particular seat.
3. I'm not quite sure what this means, but a "weak" or "divided" government is one which is unable to govern. Think John Major at the end of his term. These can occur under any electoral system.
4. Frankly, that's a terrible argument. It's barely even rises to the level of an excuse! What you're saying is that tribalism - my lot over anything else - outweighs a system which more accurately reflects how the public voted. If anything, AV will lead to more left-wing governments as votes won't be fragmented. In any event, party politics have no place in this sort of vote. You're not voting in an election; you're voting to determine how future elections would be dealt with. It will have a major effect for possibly decades to come.
5. You're right, it's not PR. However, it doesn't claim to be, yet it is more proportional than the current system
6. On the face of it, this is sensible argument and one which I kind of agree with: I accept that AV is a poor substitute for PR which I would prefer. However, PR is not on offer. Which is more likely: that a rejection of AV - thereby keeping FPTP - will lead to the government offering a referendum on some form of PR in the future, or that a rejection of AV will lead to the government turning around and saying "The People have spoken: FPTP today, FPTP tomorrow; FPTP for ever"? In my view, the latter.
7. This could simply be written off as nothing more then tribalism, but I'll go further. I don't think there's any real prospect of the coalition being "broke" by a "No" vote. All that will happen is that the Tories would not be any worse off - possibly strengthened due to FPTP remaining in place - while the Lib Dems are significantly weakened due to a major policy of theirs (electoral reform) being rejected. The reasons for it being rejected - even if you vote "No" because you don't think that AV goes far enough - would not matter; simply the fact that FPTP would have effectively been approved by a public vote would count.
8. No, it doesn't. A good analogy is ordering drinks from a bar: your first choice - e.g. a pint of Peroni - may not be available, but your second choice - a pint of bitter - is available. You have two choices but you still only end up with one drink.
9. Lies!

Arguments in favour of AV

1. Your vote is worth more under AV 
2. A vote for AV is - at the very worst - a step away from a crappy electoral system, and will possibly lead to a more representative one in the future.

The No2AV campaign

The anti-AV lot call themselves "No2AV".

As can be seen above, I do not agree with them.

However, instead of basing their campagin on facts they've decided to lie their way to a possible victory.

Their campaign is based on a leaflet full of lies and a TV ad, which, again is full of lies and misleading propaganda.

Someone has done an anntoated version of their campaign leaflet while someone else has done a critique of their TV ad. Click on both links and make your decision on whether to support them accordingly.

The Yes to Fairer Votes campaign

This is the lot in favour of electoral reform.

They've also done a TV ad and leaflets.  Again, click on both links and make your decision on whether to support them accordingly.

AV in simple terms

B3TA have photoshop competition which explains AV in laymans terms.

Summary

As I've said above, I'm in favour of AV and so would like it to win.

However, given the way the anti-AV people have acted they deserve to lose! Otherwise, it'd show that if you base your campaign on nothing more than outright lies and misleading propaganda you can still win. That's a terrible message.

Of course, the choice is yours.

However, bear in mind that not only are you deciding this, you're deciding a lot of eections in the future.

People complain that politicians do not listen to them - this would ensure that they have to because they would need 50% of your vote in order to get elected. If you don't vote; don't make this complaint in the future.

UPDATE: This post by Gowers goes over AV vs FPTP in greater detail. Tweet

Family Planning, Libertarian style...

From the Twitter account of the Rally Against Debt (a group who plan a rally in London next month to campaign for more cuts to government spending):

@TenPercent irresponsible breeding is another thing that needs to be cut.less than a minute ago via webRally Against Debt
RAD_London

Is this account run by the Chinese government?

UPDATE: I've had this response from RAD_London on Twitter:

@dnotice @tenpercent Apologies for the earlier tweet by someone else. They aren't part of the rally and will no longer be tweeting.less than a minute ago via webRally Against Debt
RAD_London

At least they've admitted they were wrong... Tweet

Govt lies about NHS legal costs

I saw this on Twitter a few days ago and thought it should get more coverage.

The government has said that it wants to reduce the amount of money the NHS pays out in legal costs. One of the ways is to limit the impact of "No-win, No-fee"-funded cases by ensuring that the "success fee" - the bonus which a Solicitor or Barrister can claim for winning a case taken on in this manner - cannot be recovered from the losing party, but from the winning lawyer's client, presumably from any damages payment they receive.

I feel that a better option would be simply to limit the amount of a success fee which can be claimed from the other side. This would ensure that instead of it being up to 100%, it would be fixed at an amount similar to that for a car-crash (12.5%) or employers' liability claim (25%). This is because I do not feel that a person should have to lose out by having to take out legal proceedings.

Anyway, in support of his proposals, Ken Clarke said on Radio 4

"In 2008-2009 the National Health Service did pay out £312 million worth of damages. It paid far more out to lawyer in fees - £456 million."

However, as FullFact point out, this is completely wrong:

Our attention was first drawn to the issue by comments made by Shadow Justice Minister Andrew Slaughter, recorded in The Guardian.

He told the paper: "£456 million is the cost for damages (£312m) plus defence legal costs (£40m) plus claimant legal costs (£104m)."

So Clarke's figure is in fact the total paid out by the NHS, including damages.

Thankfully, the governemnt have accepted that Clarke was wrong. However, he should know better because he's a QC and so should have some knowledge about legal costs, even if it's not his area of practice. Tweet