Nick Clegg's big error of judgement
I was disappointed to see Nick Clegg reject David Cameron's offer of, if not friendship, at least a working relationship.
If my analysis is correct, Cameron realised that with Labour's declining strength, there was (and perhaps still is) an opportunity for the two main parties in contention to become the Conservatives and Lib Dems. I would support this outcome because I think the Labour leaders clearly did not represent the working class during their last 12 years in power, but acted selfishly, dramatically eroded civil liberties and ultimately bankrupted the country (not for the first time).
The fact that Nick Clegg threw Cameron's offer back at him shows he is not leading properly.
Clegg should have said something like: "The Lib Dems have much to offer and many unique points, though we welcome the Tory party support in working with us in fields where our objectives/policies correlate to see Britain improved."
The Lib Dems must up their game for the good of the country and prepare themselves for the possibility of having a real chance of winning two-four elections down the line. If they cannot break out of the "protest only" mindset, then this opportunity will be lost.
Labels: My philosophy, Politics
University clearing is unnecessarily tough.
Back in January this year I posted that I thought the government had made a mistake by
reducing/capping the number of university places. My argument back then was that by increasing places you can encourage more students to go to university and develop their skills and take young people out of the job market. I made it explicitly clear that it was a much better investment than a lot of what the government was spending its money on.
Consider how tough clearing is right now:
a) More applications from existing students for MAs/PHDs
b) More undergraduate applications to universities
c) Grade inflation and more people achieving high marks
d) Restricted growth of places enforced by the government
This is unfair and I really feel for anyone hunting for a place. If I were searching for a course, I would contact the universities I had applied to and see if they can offer me anything and if not, get a league table of the universities and phone up each one until I'd got a place. Also I would consider being flexible about what I wanted to study.
The
UCAS website and hotline can help.
TIP:
Always phone a university you are interested in (you can normally find their telephone numbers on their websites) and
don't just rely on listings in newspapers and such. There may be unadvertised places available.
Good luck.
Labels: Miscellaneous, My philosophy, Politics
BBC clip on the ANPR database
The BBC has an interesting video on
ANPR here which eloquently summarises the pros and cons of the system.
As you might expect, whilst I can acknowledge the benefits of the system in all manner of crime fighting, I fear the scheme is the precursor to things like road charging, extended congestion/emission charging and additional driving laws/restrictions with far tougher enforcement.
Moreover it enables the government to comprehensively track innocent people travelling - whether to go on holiday or on a business trip or simply to meet with friends. Add this to the extensive public transport surveillance infrastructure, air and port surveillance and additional general monitoring cameras and suddenly it has become extremely difficult to travel without being recorded.
This is not necessarily a bad thing if we can trust the people working in the government to
behave responsibly and not
lose data.
However if we were to get people in the government willing to abuse their positions and compromise national security and individual liberty, then the flood gates open for stalkers. All it would take is a few well positioned people and suddenly people in government protection would become vulnerable (as they frequently travel by car). Violent partners with connections could conceivably track down their relocated Exs and their children. Debt collectors could hunt for evaders and company activities could be extensively scrutinised, perhaps by competitors.
Sometimes it is important to be anonymous and have privacy for legitimate reasons, not simply to cover up your expenses, for example. So a message to the Labour party, not that I expect it to be heeded at this late hour: if you want to protect yourself, protect others.
Labels: My philosophy, Politics, Privacy, Technology
A response to Labour's: "Cameron's Conservatives" smear campaign
I am less than impressed with Labour's new smear campaign against David Cameron. Granted Cameron is a spin merchant and he does game the media, but name me one politician elected today who doesn't?
So why is Labour's campaign poor? Take a look at this
Labour election broadcast which apparently features real people.
1) It is entirely negative. By contrast
Cameron's Party Election Broadcast is fairly positive. It is true that Cameron HQ has created some negative videos, specifically in regard to
Gordon Brown and debt however Cameron has not resorted to the personal slurs Labour has - for example when Labour created a
billboard ad featuring Hague with Thatcher's hair,
Dave the Chameleon or this..
improved version or
the whole McBride scandal2) Comments/ratings are censored/disabled on the YouTube version of Labour's election broadcast, however
this site contains some comments, most of which are critical of the video.
3) I think there are some important policy considerations in the video, however the way they are presented prevents anyone from taking them seriously.
Labels: My philosophy, Politics
Protecting our rainforests
I was very pleased to discover that Prince Charles has taken an active step towards ensuring we do not loose the world's rainforests with the formation of
The Prince's Rainforests Project. Whilst readers may be aware of my scepticism for a lot of political climate change posturing, I think preserving the rainforest is a very worthwhile cause for the following reasons:
1) Natural beauty - I think rainforests are spectacular and often unspoilt parts of nature - in England for example, you'd be hard pressed to find any area of land that isn't being "managed" or otherwise mucked around with. The rainforests aren't national parks or anything like that. They are raw and untamed and we should value them immensely.
2) Scientific interest - rainforests have some of the highest biodiversity figures in the world and many of the plants and species already discovered have had extensive medical uses and other benefits.
3) Carbon storage - of course this area is contentious and the amount of carbon released during, for example, a bush fire is huge, however our rainforests do absorb a large amount of CO2.
Unfortunately because these wonderful natural assets gifted to us are so valuable - the soil is rich - at least for a short time after deforestation, the wood can be of excellent quality such as century old or longer mahogany trees and the land cleared can have any number of uses, deforestation is occuring at an extremely fast pace.
We therefore have to work around the world to halt the destruction of the rainforests and give them time to reestablish themselves and expand again.
As the Prince says in
this video, rainforest deforestation accounts for more than all the C02 caused by transport around the world. Of course if you ask an eco-warrior what the solution is, because they have been so heavily indoctrinated by the media, they are most likely to blame modern lifestyles.
My opinion however is that we can have a good quality of life and continue to grow if we practice sustainable policies. Google for example are attempting to run their search operation off
entirely renewable, non-polluting energy. I do not think we are overpopulated, simply that we need to manage ourselves better. My opinion is that the world could support, if required,
maybe 20 billion people or more if we manage ourselves and the world properly.
Do you agree?
Either way if you visit
therainforestsite.com you can give money to the preservation of the rainforest for free by viewing a page of adverts. Though don't get me started on all the questionable activities of the so called "do-gooders." For example I think tagging animals in many cases is cruel and traumatic. Do we really need "big brother for animals?" - it isn't as if nature can manage by herself.
Anyway I'm going to end this post here before I confuse you further. :)
Labels: My philosophy, Politics
Beating the recession blues part 1: Happy news
Around the world people are worrying about the economy and associated troubles, so over the next few posts I am going to cover what's great.
To get things started I want to recommend
Happy News. It is a brilliantly designed website that focusses exclusively on positive, good news and events. Whilst it is largely US centric, there's plenty of international coverage as well. It's perfect if you want to stay sane and remember that life is special. :)
Update: They also run the
Happy Living magazine.
Labels: Entertainment, My philosophy
As if child welfare matters anyway....
This story from Mark Eaton is extremely worrying. Whilst I don't necessarily support illegal immigration and people trafficking, there is no justification for treating young children in the degrading and humiliating conditions described in the story above.
I think Britain should always, without exception, treat people as people. The conduct of the immigration officers described above was completely unacceptable. It doesn't matter where a person is from - it does not give officials an excuse to treat them poorly. It's called racism and it is far worse than, for example,
Carol Thatcher's "golliwog" remark which I think was an innocent enough mistake. There was no mistake made by the immigration officials. In their minds they haven't done anything wrong, but I disagree. If they treated a Brit like that they would have been sacked for gross misconduct.
This is a common US trick when justifying torture and such - they claim that the constitution doesn't apply to aliens - It isn't as if the statement "all men are created equal" from the Declaration of Independence matters or anything.
Ultimately we are not barbarians. When people try and give themselves and their children a better life we should condemn the means they used to get here, but respect them immensely for trying and making it this far. If immigrants are willing to suffer such hardship just to reach our shores, one has to ask, what have they left behind and what are we going to do to ensure that everyone, no matter where they are born, can have a decent quality of life?
Labels: Human Rights, My philosophy, Politics
The London underground tube is too slow
I've been ranting a lot lately but I think today's topic is a good one.
In 2007 approximately
1.1 billion journeys were taken on the tube. The people on the tube are some of the most powerful and productive in Britain who contribute massive amounts to the economy.
However whilst Livingstone and Boris have promised upgrades to the tube, rarely do they address, what is for me, the biggest priority. Speed.
Certainly if you play with TFL's
journey planner you'll be forgiven for thinking all is well. But the journey planner significantly underestimates the time trips take and always assumes buses run to schedule and the tube "average journey times" are extremely optimistic and do not include the time it takes to get from the platform level to street level, which can add several minutes.
Lets take for example a trip from Notting Hill Gate at the western edge of zone one to Liverpool Street which is near the eastern edge using the central line. According to Transport for London's journey planner you can do the journey in just 18 minutes. It is 11 stops along. This means that the train can take no more than 1.6 minutes (or 1 min 36 secs) to travel between each station and offload and pick up all the passengers. Dream on.
So realistically lets say that the journey could be done in 25 minutes, allowing 2.2 minutes (or 2 mins 12 secs). The walking distance between the stations is around 5.4 miles according to Google Maps (if you want to repeat this experiment).
So if we take TFL's estimate of 18 minutes over a distance of 5.4 miles gives an average speed of 18mph (though you would need to factor in stopping times to be fair, in which case (allowing 30 seconds per station) the speed is 18 minutes minus 5.5 minutes equals 12.5 minutes. The distance is 5.4 miles. So distance divided by time gives us a speed of 25.9mph.)
Using the realistic times 25 minutes - 5.5 minutes = 19.5 minutes. This gives an average speed including stops of 20.9mph
Once you factor in the waiting times, train changes, walking down to the station level and up to street level, getting through the barriers, buying a ticket and any other inconveniences your average speed is going to be very low indeed. TFL hopes that we don't realise just how slow we are going. It is simply the short gap between each station that creates the illusion of speed.
If TFL increased the average tube speed they could have greater capacity and improve the London economy because if everybody saved 5 minutes on their commute (10 minutes daily), in a 310 day working year that's an extra 3100 minutes, or 51.666 hours, or to put it another way, an extra day at work and an extra day at home with friends and family, with a couple of hours left over to grab a drink and read the paper.
Multiply that by everybody using the tube and suddenly the arguments become very compelling indeed.
Labels: Miscellaneous, My philosophy, Politics, Technology
Cinema woes, BBC radio 1 adverts and "premier seating"
I like going to the cinema now and again. However increasingly the cinema companies seem to be trying to sabotage my happiness.
Firstly we have the adverts. 20-30 minutes of being annoyed, though in fairness I resent the forthcoming movie trailers much less then the generic car, government, orange and bbc adverts.
Speaking of the bbc, the last few times I've gone to the cinema, I've had to sit through what must of been a 2-3 minute ad for radio 1! DEAR BBC, DON'T WASTE LICENSE FEE PAYERS CASH ON EXCESSIVELY LONG, EXPENSIVE AND BORING CINEMA ADVERTISING. Basically the problem here is that the bbc won't admit the reason few people listen to radio 1 is because its mostly rubbish and completely out of touch with all the generations. It tries to appeal to teenagers, but fails. It tries to appeal to the highly sought after 18-35 group (which I'm in) but fails. So rather than accepting radio 1 is always going to have a small market share of delinquent social misfits, they are blowing huge amounts on expensive cinema campaigns, when they could, for example, spend the license fee on creating quality programming, employing new people and contributing to society as best they can to help everyone through the recession. Throwing money at cinemas (who have increased visitor numbers) helps nobody.
Anyway, back to the subject at hand. Carlton Screen Advertising thinks that it is earning itself some recognition by repeatedly blasting the screen with its trashy, outdated, unpleasant logo. I think it is a headache inducing waste of time. I have not once, ever, bought something I've seen advertised at a cinema which I wouldn't have purchased anyway as part of my normal life.
Then there are the adverts before the adverts. I've only seen this once thankfully (at an Odeon), but honestly how desperate to make money do you have to be to put adverts on the screen as people as sitting down?
Now lets turn to the latest attempt of cinema companies to make life worse. Premier seating. Whenever I used to go the movies, I'd buy a ticket, get into the auditorium and hunt for the best seat still available. I've always felt there is a real atmosphere in a cinema when a film has recently been released, and the cinema is full up of people ready to see and enjoy a film they are keen on for the first time. With premier seating, the numer of seats available has fallen, the best locations have been reserved for those willing to pay more and it introduces a class system which was never needed before. Suddenly there is an "us and them" situation. Those who are willing to pay an extra couple of pounds to have a more comfortable chair and a bigger popcorn holder and a better view and people like me, who don't appreciate cinema profiteering and therefore get a seat on the front row next to a speaker.
My opinion is cinemas should be upgrading all their seats, not just a select few. Moreover if I want to enjoy a high quality cinema experience I'll either travel to one of the Leicester Square cinemas or go to a specialist cinema that might, for example offer 3D. When I go to my local cinema, I just want a comfortable, enjoyable experience. The real question is: why pay to go out and see a film if the cinemas are unpleasant places to be, when you could just as easily download it or view it online for free?
Labels: Miscellaneous, My philosophy
Hope for civil liberties yet
Today I was extremely impressed to see the
Modern Liberty convention website. It is proof to me that many people are united in their disliking of and resistance to excessive and disproportionate surveillance and the curtailment of civil liberties.
I found the "
Petty Britain" page to brilliantly highlight the problems of poorly designed and written legislation and the brandishing of essentially innocent people as criminals. For example one man got a criminal record because his wheelie bin's lid wasn't firmly closed (see the site for more information). This is absolutely ridiculous.
As I've been growing up, increasingly I've seen the British civil liberties campaign evolve. What was once just a few disparate individuals trying to raise awareness has now grown into something which now unites NGOs and has cross-party support in government. Since the ID card bill was passed, I firmly believe it is only the Labour party whip which is keeping things going. The surveillance state is more vulnerable than it might first appear. The people of Britain will reclaim their liberties yet, and when we do, we will be able to turn to the rest of the world and say once again, this is how a liberal democracy should be.
Labels: My philosophy, Politics, Privacy
Government travel database plans
Civil liberties in the past twelve years or so have faced an unprecedented attack. Technological advances coupled with the decline of liberalism and the rise of a form of we-know-best socialism have led to numerous schemes from road charging to ID cards to the children's database to ISPs storing records of all emails sent and sites visited and so on.
The latest nail in the coffin is an attempt to keep track of the
travel patterns of all British citizens for 10 years at the moment (though probably for life with an amendment near the end of the firt 10 year period).
It seems to me through all this that the government is right to want to help us, but wrong in its execution. There is no point in making people safe if they don't have any quality of life and live in fear of breaking one of the numerous new rules that have been passed and having to give up more personal information to the dna database.
Labels: My philosophy, Politics
Mozilla firefox nagging
I've been a long term fan of Mozilla, back when Mozilla was the name of its browser and I think it is still the best browser. However today I discovered several problems with firefox and the community websites which were frustrating.
I'd been playing around with a beta version of Firefox, and decided to uninstall it and revert back to the stable release. Firstly I ended up with a duplicate Firefox entry in my add/remove programs list. Then I opted to remove my preferences whilst uninstalling the beta version and lost my preferences for the stable version of firefox I also had installed. Doh!
So I went about setting up my browser again. I wanted to add some less common searches (such as youtube) to the dropdown list within firefox which are not available on the main addon site, so I had to hunt around for
mycroft.mozdev.org. Then I wanted to installed a "paste and go" addon, but discovered because it was "experimental" I would have to register. Normally I'd download it from another site, but it seems the alternative download locations are drying up.
Then I tried to re-install Adblock, and found that a hash key error meant I couldn't, even after I tried a manual installation. Then for some reason I wanted to connect to https://addons.update.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/10 and got a "Secure Connection Failed" warning. Eventually I found a second install location and got it working.
All in all, Firefox today was a pain. But I still love you.
Labels: My philosophy, Technology, Web tools
A really bad government idea
In times of a recession, what is a smart move for a country to do? Perhaps encourage people to seek extra training and education at university whilst there is a shortage of jobs? It stimulates research, growth, culture and creates new opportunities for students whilst supporting local economies (because universities hire a lot of local people for support staff). However the government has announced that it is restricting growth on any increases of university intake numbers. Honestly. Just look at this
BBC article on the subject.
This is an absolute crime. Instead of obsessing about banks lending and people borrowing again and trying to return to the past, why not do something which really would help the economy?
It is my belief that this government has got itself in a complete mess, given handouts to all on a first come, first serve basis, gone broke, and now has reduced the support for the one group who could best aid the recovery of this country in the long term. Anybody who wants to learn at a higher level (and has a reasonable aptitude for it) should be allowed to, and not be held back by short-sighted blundering incompetence of a government that still won't halt the ID card project and put the £5 billon+ it would save to a good use, such as paying off some of the excessive debt it is responsible for.
Labels: My philosophy, Politics
New Year - New Challenges
There are many lists of things to do before you die - (see a search engine for many examples), but one of the best ones I have found is at
squidoo. Whilst new years resolutions might fail, progress is still progress no matter how small, and that's what I like most about the aforementioned compilation. It has many great suggestions for inspiration and improvement plus tips to help you follow through on your ideas.
Labels: Entertainment, Miscellaneous, My philosophy
Caesar's Christmas Message
As it is customary in Britain every year for the Queen to deliver a Christmas message to the people, I also have some words of wisdom to share with those who are willing to hear.
2008 has been a very exciting year in many fields including politics, science, astronomy, culture and much more. However as the year draws to an end it is recession fears that seem to be dominating the headlines. There are several causes such as reckless borrowing, lending and spending on the part of banks, governments and the public and of course the economic cycle. However do remember that recessions are not only a normal part of an economy, but useful for keeping the economy lean and trim, but I do understand they cause much pain for people relying on growth and if you are suffering economic hardship then I wish you luck and good fortune in the future.
More than ever however, I view Christmas 2008 and the year ahead to be a chance for healing, communication, new beginnings, kindness and opportunity. What many people forget is that change doesn't come from others, but from yourself. Now is the time to set your direction for the future, be confident and stay true to what really matters.
Happy Yule Ladies and Gentlemen.
Labels: My philosophy
Anonymous bank accounts - why not?
In today's society it is hard to imagine not having some of the bureacracy that has grown up in recent years. One area we could change however is bank accounts. Currently whenever I want to set up an account in Britain I have to provide extensive personal information as the operative transfers my life's history onto the bank's database. However with things like pre-paid phones and debit cards, I can't see why we don't have anonymous bank accounts.
Here is how it would work. You go to a bank with, for example, £100 and ask to set up a basic account. You are given a pin number/card and security password so only you can access your money. Simple.
Obviously the problem here is money laundering/benefit fraud/child support evasion and so on, however I'm sure with a suitably low limit to the amount you can have in the account and considering that most government means-testing is based on income, not the total money you have, it really should be possible. Indeed effectively with store money vouchers and mobile phone top-up this is exactly what we do already have, only without any interest. There seems to me no reason why the scheme couldn't be extended.
Labels: Miscellaneous, My philosophy
TFL passenger campaign is patronising and a waste of money
As someone who uses the tube often I can tell you it is becoming an increasingly unpleasant environment. From all the cameras staring at you to the excessive announcements reminding you that the cameras are there and the security warnings designed to make you not resent the presence of all the cameras coupled with the expensive shops, electronic adverts and the relentless drone of the grey ticket barriers slamming open and shut.
Once we get past all of those problems then I start to think about the other passengers because frankly on 90%+ of my journeys the other passengers are silent and completely immersed in their own plans.
Anyway sometime last year I started observing stupid posters saying things like "I won't play my music loud" and "I'll keep my temper down" and similar slogans. Of course I posted a rather
dainty response on the ever informative Spyblog site:
"I won't run around stations" "and I won't shoot you down".
You can imagine my bemusement when today I discovered that tfl had launched an
online version of the campaign.
In my usual jubilant spirit I posted a comment which criticised the environment of the stations as described above, yet somehow it seems to have been filtered.
Now whilst I understand the spirit of the campaign is to encourage the public to be passive on the tube, I think the messages are patronising, derogatory and avoid tackling some of the other essential reasons that the tube isn't always a great place to be. The fact I was censored says it all. Authoritarians.
Labels: My philosophy, Politics
Searching Direct.gov
As a joke more than anything, I thought I would compare the results you get when you type different things into the http://www.direct.gov.uk search engine. I started off with terms like "Authoritarianism" - 0 results, "Totalitarian" - 0 Results, "Coercion" - 0 Results, "Deceptive" - 0 Results, "Honesty" - 3 Results, "Data loss" & "Apology" - 238 results and finally I tried "new powers" - 500 results. Bingo.
Labels: My philosophy, Politics
As I perused the newspaper online, I was saddened to learn that GCHQ wants a database of all mobile phone owners. I have two words to say to this: "Low Battery".
Here is a list of reasons why it might be a good idea:
1) When your calls are intercepted and your location identified, GCHQ will also be able to determine who you are and who the person you are talking to is. So if you are a criminal/terrorist then beware... unless you got your mobile second hand... or swapped with a friend... or found a way to unlock the phone... yeah...nevermind then.
Here is a list of reasons why it might be a bad idea:
1) If you are innocent the state will be able to track your movements. Wherever you carry your phone, it sends out a signal, even when switched off. With the authorities now able to track a mobile phone's location very accurately (
within 100 yards), if you're travelling, you can wave goodbye to privacy.
2) If you are innocent it will now be possible for the state to have a complete record of all your phone calls and identify it to a person, much in the same way as they do for land lines.
3) If you are innocent, it's another nail in the coffin for your privacy. When coupled with all the other surveillance legislation and proposals, such as the database of all communications, it makes it harder to live life without being spied upon constantly. Whereas government departments previously have had to ask for your mobile phone number, now it won't make the slightest difference.
Alas how now can one travel without being continually monitored? Trains/stations have CCTV and ticket tracking, buses have CCTV and, if using Oyster, ticket tracking as well. Car number plates are recorded by the vast
ANPR surveillance network cameras, all airports already have very sophisticated surveillance systems.
This measure is further authoritarianism in an age when liberty should be flourishing. Why is the government so happy and willing to throw away the freedom of its
innocent citizens? Specifically show me where I consented to this severe breach of trust. We wouldn't tolerate it if a business was this intrusive, so why can the state get away with it?
Labels: My philosophy, Politics, Privacy
Outlining a vision
Today I want to explore what it means to have a vision.
To explain this, I am going to talk about what makes people successful. In the majority of cases they start creating a new mental realm - it might be a new business idea or a book or an interest and then either alone or with others begin pursuing the growth of the project, investing energy, time and resources.
This applies across history, whether a business leader like Bill Gates, a military leader like Napoleon, numerous inventors and artists and so on.
So what determines the success and realisation of a vision?
Firstly is its viability. If it is a good idea then it has a good start, but also do you have the means necessary to get it moving - can you spare the time, do you have sufficient finances and so on.
Secondly do you have support for your vision? Other people helping make it much easier and more likely to go forward. This is not to say that other people are always right - Harry Potter may never have got published were it not for J.K. Rowling's persistence (her book was rejected many times over before Bloomsbury accepted it), though they can sometimes be making a valid point. Many ideas presented on "Dragon's Den" are clearly not viable and the people should try something different.
Thirdly, how does it fit into the world? A new supermarket chain might be an excellent idea, but given the level of saturation of such shops and the dominance of a big few, is it viable and/or will it be viable at some later date? Will your insta-toasta be welcomed? More importantly does it add something new and of value to people. If your vision is a negative one, it is possible that the smaller positive elements and resources you invest may sustain it in the short term, but long-term it isn't going to get very far unless you make modifications. The best visions should create win,win scenarios.
Having a vision means knowing precisely what your end position will be, the time it will take to reach that state and an idea of what it will take to accomplish such a goal along with a commitment to get there.
Labels: Miscellaneous, My philosophy
