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
Google's "Wiping data 'hits flu prediction'" excuse
According to
this BBC article Google is claiming that if they are forced to delete user data after 6 months as the EU desires then they will not be able to predict pandemics.
I don't know about you, but that is the single lamest justification for keeping data / infringing privacy I have ever heard. They could easily have said that the data enables them to offer improved services and had a degree of credibility.
Instead they've spun a tall tale which makes me worried. When a company or government tries to cover up its data retention and usage practices then it suggests we wouldn't like what they are doing with our data.
In regard to spotting pandemics, just because people are searching for swine flu or indeed flu symptoms, this does not necessarily mean that people are infected with it. They could have regular flu or simply have heard something on the media and decided to do some research (as I do all the time). Also if Google is going to rely on data older than 6 months to tell people that a pandemic might be near then its probably a little late.
Moreover I am pretty sure health officials around the world can spot and measure pandemics far more
accurately than Google could.
I'm not convinced. Are you?
Labels: Politics, Privacy, Web tools
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
Tfl to trial speed control devices in cars
According to this
bbc video Transport for London is going to fit 20 cars/buses with machines that know the speed limit of all roads within the M25 and display a green smiley face when a driver is under the limit, an orange straight face when the driver is slightly over and a red sad face when the driver is over by more than a few miles per hour.
There is also a "voluntary" mode in which drivers can have the device restrict the maximum speed of the car to the limit.
What do you think about these devices? Another authoritarian measure to enforce unnecessarily slow limits/raise revenue or a legitimate attempt to improve safety?
My opinion is this: when the speed limit is reasonable then it should be respected. However I know of not one speed limit anywhere which has been raised. They are only going down - meaning that there is no reward for safety, only punishment for danger.
Based on this philosophy the end point is that we all get out and walk.
Labels: Politics, Technology
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
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
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
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
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
My post was intercepted... what should I do?
Today I received a letter from my bank which had been opened. I know this because there was a small tear in the envelop and two identical claw-like tears on the edge of the balance sheet. Now as you might imagine, being a student, I'm not amongst the wealthiest of people, but I do know that my financial information should be confidential, and even more than that, I think there should be common courtesy in not opening other people's mail. It's called respect.
Labels: My philosophy, Politics, Privacy
Few would disagree that child pornography is unacceptable - it may encourage further paedophilia, scar a child mentally, involve unpleasant acts and exploitation to obtain such material and if shared/posted online expose the child to a global audience - hardly the kind of start they need. I also believe there should be greater online accountability regarding adult material posted without consent as well.
Anyway the point I am making is that blocking access to child pornography can be justified - certainly it threatens free expression, however it hurts vulnerable people.
Most nations have stopped with blocking this material. France however has tacked on "terror" and "racial hatred sites". Here I believe they may have overstepped the boundaries.
In regard to racial hate sites, the site owners are simply expressing an opinion - it may not be one the vast majority of people agree with - however to block access is censorship. The language is also quite ambiguous. Racial hate to some might mean the
BNP. Also what about other types of hate - religious, gender, homophobia and so on. Are these going to be blocked as well? What other criteria will be added later?
More worrying however is the block of terror sites. Any political page could be labelled to be terrorist in nature by the incumbent leaders/party. For example should Iran's media or government site be blocked from western view? My view is no it shouldn't. Bush might disagree.
Additionally there should not be a distinction between "academic" and "non-academic" sites/ opinions. A working class mother is just as much entitled to express her opinion about immigration as a right wing academic who qualifies his views. When does a view become racist or extremist?
Clearly it is entirely subjective. The difference between France and, for example, China however is that France claims to be democratic, and this entails permitting minorities and dissenters from speaking, even if wrong.
Labels: My philosophy, Politics
Cameron Direct
I was impressed to learn David Cameron launched a new
"Cameron Direct" idea in which he travels around the country to town halls answering questions anyone sets him with open access. However I will be looking to see how long he maintains it and also where he actually chooses to visit - if he only goes to marginal seats then he may well come in for criticism and who can forget the trialled and ended "Ask David" and "Webcameron forums"? Still at least the sentiment is right and certainly Cameron's effort appears to be trumping Brown's
Downing Street questions to be answered later this month.
Labels: Politics
Original news in blogs and the dilemmas
When trawling across the "blogosphere" the majority of blogs that go beyond providing a daily diary of personal trivia tend to get their information from the mainstream news media such as the BBC. They then add a comment, spin or other fact, repost it and the world comes and reads it. Sites such as Digg and Slashdot have basically grown around this model.
The problem however seems to be that the end result is a concentration of power in few hands. When blogging began it was a revolution and a few eminent bloggers such as Iain Dale grew very popular this way. Increasingly now however blogs are simply just serving as link sites to media groups with the resources to research news.
How can this process be challenged? Should bloggers all try and find their own news? Perhaps the real role for bloggers is helping the world determine what is important rather than it all being controlled by the mass media?
One thing is clear though - it is still very hard for bloggers to be heard.
Labels: Politics
The Hunger Site benefits Americans first.
As regular readers will know, I think
The Hunger Site is an excellent website. It enables people to click on a link, view some adverts and the revenue generated goes towards charitable causes. It's a brilliant idea. However one of the problems I have with it (and the other charity causes the site operates) is that a large proportion of the donations go towards US poverty - US charities get the money, US children get the books, US animal welfare centres get the financing, US women get breast cancer mammograms. Now obviously poverty anywhere can be a very devastating force, however when I click I want my money to go to those most in need - people starving in Africa and Asia, books to go to schools where there are no resources available, medical help for those who otherwise wouldn't have access.
This is not because I am against Americans getting aid - of course not - I just believe that when a website makes money from people all over the world - the money should be spent on the most pressing global causes first and foremost. Otherwise why shouldn't a percentage go towards British poverty and British charities or our children getting new books? Otherwise surely it is unfair and not charitable after all?
What do you think? Should The Hunger Site be forced to give its money to the most deserving? Is it fair the US gets a proportion of all donations when it is the world's largest economy?
Labels: My philosophy, Politics
