Friday, May 31, 2019

Yet More Great PR For PR

This posting every day lark is taking its toll on me. Last night I was having dreams about the Tory leadership campaign. That's not good. So I'll try to keep it short today.

Yesterday I watched Nigel Farage on LBC and he was yet again discussing proportional representation. I've posted on here before regarding the problem I have with that - Will The Brexit Party Be The Harbinger Of PR?

I may as well use this image again.

(The unholy alliance)

I don't mind the alternative vote method. In fact, I voted in favour of it back in the 2011 referendum. (Come to think of it, I may have to read up on all that to refresh my thoughts on the topic. My views have changed on many things since then.) However, proportional representation is a system for losers and part-timers in my opinion. Breaking the bond between individual politician and the local area they represent.

What attracts people to PR is that it's easy. Under the current system it's hard to get a single seat, and it requires a hell of a lot of effort for smaller parties to do so. Often over a period of several election cycles. With PR you just turn up and get a slice of the action. If you do well then great, you may get 20 seats. If you do badly then no worries, you'll still probably get 5 or 10.

I'm hugely pleased that the Brexit Party are doing so well at the moment. However, you can't hide the fact that PR is appealing to Farage because it would offer a quick and easy route into parliament. I'm sorry, but as much as I support the Brexit Party you still have to do the leg work locally. At the recent EU elections we had the situation where we voted in the Brexit Party's Brian Monteith, who lives in the south of France, to represent the north-east of England. This is acceptable in the name of Brexit as a protest vote, but it's obviously not ideal in the name of democratic representation going forward.

The Brexit Party has some excellent candidates, but no doubt some are just chancers riding the Brexit wave. Only time will tell how much this is or isn't the case. Though I take issue with most of our current mainstream party MPs, it's still nevertheless true that most do put the hours in. One of the few upsides of career politicians I guess.

Providing a Brexit bulwark against EU incursions into our sovereignty is essential, but it's not great if it comes at the expense of obliterating all our local constituencies in the rush for PR. It's like putting up your arm to defend your face only to get punched in the stomach.

Sometimes it feels like British democracy and its values are under attack from all sides. The onward march of the EU. Scottish independence - which seems to define itself purely in opposition to Britain. The intractable issues in Northern Ireland. The intrusion of the courts into realms which should be the domain of the public, and now the push to PR.

I often wonder if all this will lead to the rise of some kind of English phoenix.

Thursday, May 30, 2019

Let the people judge...

I mentioned libel laws yesterday. What I didn't note was that Richard Tice, the chair of the Brexit Party, had issued a letter to SNP politician Alyn Smith, demanding that he retract a statement made suggesting the Brexit Party were involved in money laundering.

I actually watched Alyn Smith make these statements live on TV during the election coverage on Sunday night/Monday morning. I was quite taken aback by how blatant they were. It piqued me so much that I ended up leaving a comment on one of his Twitter posts. I didn't address any of the claims he made regarding the Brexit Party, but I did point out the senselessness of the SNP's position on Brexit.

I'm now crossing the border to make raids on the Scottish political landscape :)

The SNP position seems bizarre to me. I totally understand the will for Scottish independence, and though I personally believe we're better together, I'm happy to support Scotland in its efforts to achieve independence if that's what the majority of Scottish people want. What I don't understand is the desire to substitute one union for another. Substituting the Pound for the Euro is not gaining independence - you can't truly be independent if you don't control your own currency.

Also, the British Union is a union that is returning powers to its constituent parts, but the EU is a union that is taking more and more powers away. So I really don't get the enthusiasm the SNP have for the EU. Believing in Scottish independence, yet loathing British independence seems like a circle that can't be squared.

Anyway, returning to the libel issue I may as well state my case. For me the problem with having libel laws is that it puts the responsibility on the person making the claim, but removes any responsibility from the person buying into it. Or to put it better. It puts all responsibility on the writer, but none on the reader. If people reading newspapers used their own judgement and only believed what was written if a logical argument and good evidence was provided we wouldn't have a problem. Our collective ignorance and gullibility is the real problem that needs addressing.

If you've read something in a newspaper, automatically believed it, and are now angry that you've been lied to. The blame in part lies with you for being so willing to believe claims without being provided with sufficient evidence, or investigating things for yourself.

If you have a friend and an enemy, and your enemy tells your friend a made up story about you and the friend then automatically believes it. Then your friend shares a big part of the blame.

After all, they're not much of a friend if they believe the worst without at least asking for evidence, or for the other side of the story.

Another problem with libel law is that it gives all media the veneer of verified status. As people reading think "it must be true, otherwise they wouldn't be able to print it". Or "if it wasn't true the person would be suing the paper!" and so on and so forth. So getting rid of libel laws would remove that veneer.

The ability to sue also depends largely on money. Most people simply can't afford to challenge a larger organisation over a false statement. On top of this a very wealthy person or organisation can use libel law, or the threat of libel, to stop smaller publishers from making claims. Someone making a true claim or a fair comment may end up getting dragged through the courts simply because they've came up against people with the money and power to pressure their detractors.

There's also the time and effort factor. If someone made a horrible statement about me I think I'd probably just ignore it. I certainly wouldn't like to spend weeks and months in court just to get people to change their opinion of me. Yet many would then see my lack of legal action as an admission of guilt. So with libel law it's almost like the innocent have to prove their innocence in the court of public opinion. With the public dissolving themselves of any responsibility.

Returning to the Richard Tice/Alyn Smith case though, I must say that even though I don't believe in the use of libel law myself, this did bring a bit of a smile to my face. Putting my principles aside it was nice to see people on the Brexit side of the argument punching back in such a deliberate way. It was a nice tonic to the Boris Johnson Brexit bus court case.

None of these developments are good for democracy though in my opinion. Let the people be the judge of all these politicians and their statements.

Wednesday, May 29, 2019

The Crime ..of Wasting Time

[Just as I've finished writing this news has came in that Boris Johnson is going to have to appear in court over the £350 million NHS bus claim. Quite timely considering the topic. What a huge waste of court time (as well as a terrible development for democracy in this country). The word shame once again comes to mind.]

Anecdote time. I went to school in a fairly rough-ish area, and I remember when I was around eight years old or so there was a big hubbub about children from my school making prank phone calls. This was in the days long before mobile phones, when there was a payphone on every street corner. Children would go to the payphone, call 999, which was free to call, and then get the police, fire service or ambulance service to come out for completely made-up reasons. As back then it was difficult to discover who was making these calls it meant that you only needed one or two children to find these pranks hilariously funny to have a bit of a problem.

Being deemed a serious issue I remember my entire school being called into a serious assembly. We've all been in this situation. Sat in the school hall in deadly silence, listening to the headmaster very sternly explain a serious problem or incident. No songs or hymns in this assembly, just a very serious telling off. I distinctly remember my headmaster very purposefully explaining when you should and shouldn't phone the emergency services. What was and what wasn't a serious issue worthy of their time and attention ..and why it was so deeply immoral to waste their time with prank phone calls. Time that could be used helping people with serious problems or that are in life-threatening situations.

In fact, I remember him telling a story about a child, no different to ourselves, who had been out with his friends making prank phone calls. Thinking it was all very clever and funny. Only to return home to find a family member had died because an ambulance hadn't been able to reach their home in time. Specifically because it had been preoccupied with prank calls. Teachers probably wouldn't be able to tell children such a grim story now. It'd probably be a story about a dinosaur needing a sticking plaster or something. It made an impression though.

Looking back I now realise that the story was probably completely made up, but it worked, and it impressed upon me and all the other children that day the seriousness of wasting police or ambulance time. So much so that I still remember it now.


Anyway, fast forward to 2019 and we now have large parts of the media and the political class calling for police involvement in all manner of un-serious things. Things that I as an eight year old, in part thanks to my headteacher, understood were not serious enough to waste police time with. Yet here we are now with Twitter spats being the focus of police time and money. With people being investigated and losing their jobs for things said in conversation on social media. All time, money and effort that could be being spent on rape and murder and all manner of other serious issues. Where is the headmaster or adult in the room to spell this out these days? Where is the conscience that asks "Is this a worthy use of police time and public money?".

Fortunately as a child I was too much of a coward to ever get in trouble making prank calls, however, I'm sure the children at my school that were making the calls felt a deep sense of shame having sat through that assembly. I felt the seriousness of it and I hadn't even done anything wrong. So I would've hated to have been in their shoes. No one seems to feel that shame now though. Calling the police because of a Twitter spat. Fine. Getting someone fired from their job. Fine.

Now I'm not saying that nothing serious ever occurs on social media. There are of course circumstances where serious action, sometimes police involvement is necessary. I'm not downplaying everything, but most of what we see today is truly mad, and to be frank quite embarrassing. Now I'm sure there are people reading this right now saying "..but, but, but ..racism, harassment, etc". However, the point stands. Normally in decent society we only call the police for serious situations. We understand it's a big deal to pick up the phone and do this. Increasingly though the understanding of what is and what isn't serious seems to be getting lost. The understanding that something can be morally wrong, but not necessarily legally wrong seems absent in many people.

The police and the state are not there to police our morals. They are there to protect our rights.

Free Speech and Examples

The biggest question seems to be what does "free speech" allow for? Especially in regard the issues arising from the use of social media. Where is the line drawn?

Now personally I'm something of a free speech idealist. I think pretty much anything goes, including libel (I'll perhaps do a separate post about libel sometime in the future so as to not get too bogged down here). However, I'm happy to compromise when it comes to threats of violence. It's obviously reasonable that the police should investigate someone who appears to be making serious threats of physical harm.

We can normally judge the intention of speech from its context. So we have to apply common sense. I have family members that say they want to kill me all the time, but it doesn't mean they actually want to do it. Even if they come downstairs to discover I've been making pasta and have left a huge pile of washing up for someone else to do, and they then state they want to "strangle me" in a momentary fit of rage. It still doesn't make that statement a serious threat or intention. It's often similar on social media. People will see a newspaper article and react much like they react to finding a huge pile of washing up. Mild infuriation, accompanied by expletives. Now that doesn't mean that it's wise or sensible to say such things on social media. Or indeed morally acceptable. In fact, I think it's something that should be criticised. However, it does mean that 99.99% of such instances are completely benign and simply not worthy of serious action.

To get to the point, I would argue that many of our problems arise because people confuse the words spoken with the actions that accompany them.

For example, let's take harassment. Let's say we have one person who doesn't like another person. I'll choose someone I actually admire so it's not too controversial. Jacob Rees-Mogg perhaps. Now if I don't like JRM and I sit at home every night writing essays about how much of an idiot I think he is, then that's not harassment. It would be a bit weird maybe, but it would be perfectly fine. At least in a legal sense anyway. It would simply be someone expressing their own opinion, in their own home, and not purposely intruding upon someone else's personal space or rights.

However, if I wrote essays every night calling JRM an idiot and then kept repeatedly posting them through his letter box then that would be harassment. As I'd be repeatedly getting in his personal space against his wishes, and forcing him to deal with things and do things he doesn't want to do. Likewise if I repeatedly called his phone number or badgered him on his social media page.

So, it's not the speech itself, it's the physical action of phoning someone, or posting something through their letter box, or stopping them in the street, etc, that's the issue. In fact, often it may be the case that harassment comes from people saying very nice things. For instance, an unrequited lover who repeatedly harasses the object of their desire. The fact that they're saying things like "you're beautiful, you're amazing, I love you" doesn't stop it from being harassment if the person receiving it objects to the constant intrusion.

People fail to see this distinction though, and erroneously deem the speech itself to be the problem. They then want to ban all similar speech. Someone harasses someone calling them an "idiot". They then want to ban everyone from ever calling anyone an idiot. Likewise if a man harasses a woman in a way that comments upon how attractive her appearance is, then people want to ban every man from ever stating a woman is attractive. It completely misses the point.

It's the same with social media. If you want to express an opinion about someone on your YouTube channel, even a negative opinion, that's fine. You're not forcing anyone to watch it. You're not intruding into another person's domain. In fact, if they come to your YouTube channel to watch the video they're making the physical effort to come to you. You're not going to them. Unless the video is purposely directed towards that person it's not a problem.

Again, it's similar with controversial opinions. For example, you're perfectly entitled to think that women are less intelligent than men, and you're perfectly entitled to publicly express that belief if you so want. Even if you want to go so far as stating that all women are idiots. It might not be a very nice opinion, and others may disagree or judge you for it, but it is just an opinion. It's not an infringement of someone else's rights ..and if someone stopped you from expressing it they would then be infringing upon your rights.

On the other hand, if you approached an individual woman and called her an idiot then that would be an act of aggression, and potentially a legal wrong. Again, it's not the word idiot itself, or even the fact that you think she's an idiot. It would be the fact that you had physically walked up to this woman and shouted it in her face. The physical act. Or similarly, if you had perhaps repeatedly sent direct messages to her on her social media account, calling her an idiot, when she had already asked you not to contact her. Again it's the act of sending the direct message.

This is all pretty obvious stuff when you break it down, but in the complex web of what's socially acceptable and unacceptable these days it's always worth returning to basic examples.

Finally..

Finally, on a serious note. If you're reading this and you feel that you yourself are being threatened, harassed or bullied - online or offline - especially if you're a younger person, then do speak to someone about it. And don't hesitate to take action, including getting police involvement, if necessary. The above article is written primarily to critique all the online drama and political points scoring we see in the supposedly adult world of politics and social debate. It's not designed to deter genuine people from seeking help and support.

If you're worried about something it's always better to be on the safe side, and the fact that you're genuinely worried shows that you feel it's serious. Therefore you wouldn't be taking such action lightly if you did decide to take it. Which is my main criticism of people in the above examples :)

Tuesday, May 28, 2019

Picking The Bones Out

Okay, so first up. Let's get this out the way, let's look at the results and compare them to my poor predictions. I'll use the results as they're given on Wikipedia.

(2019 result, courtesy of Wiki
 - click to enlarge)

This is what I predicted;

The Brexit Party - 37%
Labour - 16%
Conservative - 12%
Lib Dems - 10%
Greens - 9%
Change UK - 3%
UKIP - 3%
SNP - 2%
Other (Various) - 8%

This was the reality;

The Brexit Party - 31%
Labour - 14%
Conservative - 9%
Lib Dems - 20%
Greens - 12%
Change UK - 3%
UKIP - 3%
SNP - 4%
Other (Various) - 4% (5.6% technically, but many of the numbers for the above parties were rounded up)

I think in hindsight the first numbers represented my hopes, the second set the grey reality :)

Moving on. In an earlier post I shared this image - 

(Brexit in the Scales)

Now since the vote this has been one of the big debates. Adding up the votes on each side to give a mock referendum result. It's a very crude method, and the spin has been heavy on both sides. It was the question I was asking before the vote though, so let's have a look. I'll use the Wikipedia figures again.

Leave. Brexit Party (30.5) + UKIP (3.2) + Eng. Democrats (0.2) = 33.9%

Remain. SNP (3.5) + Green (11.8) + CHUK (3.3) + Lib Dem (19.6) = 38.2%

I should really add Plaid Cymru (1.0) as they're remain also. Which would bump remain up to 39.2%.

So looking at it from that angle you'd have to call it as a victory for remain. Of course, there are a million ways you can spin all this. You could point out that the Conservative Party are technically a leave party. You could also argue that many Green and SNP voters were no doubt voting with other issues as their priority.

Plus, of course, the Brexit Party did win quite handsomely as a single party.

However, I'd be very cautious in calling it either way, and I think it would be foolish for either side to think they're somehow in a winning position. The reality is that there's a huge chunk of voters in the middle who either don't have a strong position on Brexit, don't consider the issue a priority, or simply aren't bothered enough to vote. So any future referendum or Brexit-focused election would be a total dogfight. With both sides having to battle for every half-hearted voter and fence-sitter.

As I've mentioned on here before. As a Brexit supporter I often wonder if we've missed the boat by not getting the May deal through. It wasn't what any Brexiteer wanted, but it was out. If someone had offered me that long before the referendum I'd have bitten their hand off. Technically out is at least a base for getting properly out. It would also be a bulwark against people trying to take us further in. The true blinding fear for anyone worried about the direction of travel the EU is taking us all in.

The spin on both sides of the argument is already starting to annoy me. No doubt normal, less politically invested people, will be even more tired of it all ..and when normal, average people stop caring the pro-Brexit side has a big problem.

Now it just has to be about winning. Winning the argument. Winning where you need to win. Conceding ground and compromising when it's expedient to do so. I feel it's all getting lost in the hyperbole though.

Monday, May 27, 2019

EU Election - Initial reflection

I'm going to try to keep it short today, I'm super tired after staying up until the early hours watching all the results come in. As for my predictions my main takeaway is that I'm right about what's going on in my realm (the north of England), but wrong about everywhere else.

I think I've extrapolated my biases to the rest of the country. Both my experiential bias, which comes from my everyday experience of life, and also my Brexit bias. So I massively underestimated both the Lib Dems and the SNP vote. There's a big lesson for me here. When the results are completely in and the dust has settled I'll look at where my predictions went right and wrong in more detail.

As for how it all affects the Brexit debate in general I think it's difficult to tell. Both sides are now in spin mode. Though all I could see all night was the big chunk in the middle (the core Labour and Tory vote, perhaps the core SNP and Green vote too) that don't seem to see Brexit as the most important issue for them. Plus of course the numerous people who didn't come out to vote. Ultimately it's now a battle for those people I guess.

I'm still a little amazed that the Lib Dems got 20% of the vote. Bollocks to Brexit seemed a little bit cringe to me, but I guess it worked.

Also it looks like this vote will now push Labour to adopt a remain stance. Which means that Labour are dead in the north ..unless Brexit gets solved sometime soon that is.

I'll pick the bones in future posts.

Sunday, May 26, 2019

Eurovisions of the Future

So it's Eurovision tonight, well the European election results anyway. Though both feel a little similar. There's something mesmerising about watching that scoreboard update. Seeing what so many people, from so many different nations, think about something is fascinating. Even if it's just about not-so-great music. I'm sure tonight will be similar. Passing judgement on equally unoriginal performances.

As I noted yesterday, I'm starting to feel a little apprehensive as a Brexiteer. I'm not changing any of my predictions (which I'll share below). That would be a bit cheeky. I'll have to live with them. I think what's unnerving me is that the latest polls tend to be similar to what I stated. Which can't be a good sign surely. It seems they're nearly always badly wrong these days.

Also, this morning I was thinking about the UKIP vote. Everyone, including myself, has slashed it right down in favour of the Brexit Party. Which seems sensible. However, given that polling has tended to underestimate the right-leaning vote in recent times I'm now beginning to wonder if the polling surveys are reaching the UKIP folk. Plus, the Yaxley-Lennon media enterprise does have a hell of a wide reach on social media. So, the size of the UKIP vote could be underappreciated, which would end up playing a part in the overall seat allocation.

I'll also be really interested to see how Scotland goes. I'm predicting that the SNP will have a bit of a dip. Which is the one prediction I'm making that still seems something of a straying from the herd.

So, this is what I went with;

The Brexit Party - 37%
Labour - 16%
Conservative - 12%
Lib Dems - 10%
Greens - 9%
Change UK - 3%
UKIP - 3%
SNP - 2%
Other (Various) - 8%

Looking at it again, it does seem a little bold compared to the polling. 40% for UKIP and the Brexit Party combined. Maybe that was wishful thinking on my part. Many of the polls seem to have the Lid Dems a lot higher as well. So I'm perhaps doing them a big disservice. One in ten voters seems like a decent chunk for them though. Of course, the fact that I'm giving up 8% to account for the various other parties in the United Kingdom skews things a little too in comparison to the standard polls. So I'll have to look at the overall vote share to see how well or badly I've done following the results.

Finally, I'm also really looking forward to seeing the results from across Europe. I've been following European politics much more than I normally would in the last few weeks or so and I feel like I'm finally getting a feel for things. In many ways the pro and anti-EU votes in Europe will be just as important for Britain as the pro and anti ones here.

Saturday, May 25, 2019

A Europe of Nations..

Okay, so the second post today. Really I just want to make a note of the Europe of nations idea that's touted by the anti-EU or right leaning parties in Europe. Arguing for a Europe where individual countries retain their national sovereignty.

The debate between a federal Europe and a Europe of nations is a natural debate to have regarding the future of Europe, and it's legitimate to make the argument for either case. Then to let voters decide.

However, this labelling of everything on the Europe of nations side of the argument as racist, populist, illegitimate, etc, is ruining any chance of having genuine democratic debates. It's creating a situation where it becomes impossible for people to reform the EU from within. Therefore meaning that the only way for critics of the EU to succeed is to either leave the union, or completely destroy it.