P.R.

I am not generally in favour of proportional representation (see post of 16/4/08), but the concept has suddenly come to the fore again as part of the general discussion on reform of Parliament, so I thought I ought to mug up on just how it works - and I have to tell you, my head hurts! Let's start with the simplest idea - ATV or the Alternative Transferable Vote. The idea here is to ensure that the elected candidate is the choice (not necessarily the first choice) of at least 50% of those who voted. The way it works is - when you go into the booth to vote, instead of putting a cross by the candidate of your choice, you rank the candidates in order of preference - putting a "1" by your first choice candidate, a "2" by your second choice candidate, and so on. You don't have to rank all the candidates - only those you are prepared to let your vote go to. When the votes are counted, if any candidate has more than 50% of the votes cast, he or she is elected. If not, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated, and the votes cast for that candidate are redistributed on the basis of the voters' second choices. So if you voted for candidate A as your first choice, and candidate B as your second choice, and candidate A is eliminated, your vote now goes to candidate B. If this produces a candidate with more than 50% of the votes cast, then they are elected, if not the process is repeated and so on until somebody does get more than 50%. Obviously if you get down to just two candidates then, unless there is a tie, one of them must have more than the necessary 50%. And this, as I said, is the simplest method!! Of course, it doesn't really produce proportional representation, and we'll come back to that later - if indeed I can get my head round it!

Hang on a minute...

Now that the pound is rallying against the euro, will all those ex-pats who were thinking of leaving their Mediterranean homes and coming back to the UK be unpacking their suitcases and cancelling their flights?

We're all Spanish now.

I suppose rebranding Bradford & Bingley as Santander is doing no more than reflecting reality, but I can't help feeling that somehow something will have been lost - and for what? It would be interesting to know their thinking - after all, it must be an expensive exercise, so presumably they must think it's worth it. Can't see it myself.

Ha ha

I don't know why the poor Irishman is always the butt of those Englishman, Scotsman and Irishman jokes, but that's the way it has always been. Here's one -

An Englishman, an Irishman and a Scotsman were due to be executed by firing squad. The Englishman who was to go first said to the others "I've got an idea. Watch what I do" and when he was brought forward and the Captain of the Guard called out "Ready, aim..." the Englishman shouted out "Earthquake!" This caused complete panic, and in the confusion the Englishman escaped.
The Scotsman said to the Irishman "Oh, I see" and when it was his turn and the Captain of the Guard called out "Ready, aim..." the Scotsman shouted out "Tornado!" and again caused panic which enabled him to escape in the confusion.
The Irishman thought to himself "Oh, Oi get it, so Oi do" and when it was his turn and the Captain of the Guard called out "Ready, aim..." the Irishman confidently shouted out "Fire!".

Err...what goes here?

One of the more interesting facts - for me - to have arisen out of the welter of data on MPs expenses being published daily at the moment is that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, among others, feels the need to have an accountant to oversee his tax return and make sure it is done properly. Doesn't this say more about the opaque complexity of the tax return than it does about the Chancellor? And in as much as he is in charge of it, shouldn't he be looking to making it more simple and transparent, and then maybe he wouldn't need an accountant.

Out of the mouths...

Overheard in a supermarket the other day - "Grandad, you know my birthday is in October, right? Well, we learnt today in school that an octopus is called that because it has eight tentacles, and "octo" means eight. Then why is October called that when it's the tenth month?". Good question, and the same could of course be asked of September, November and December (sept = seven, nov = nine and dec = ten). And the answer is that in the old roman calendar (pre-Julius Caesar) the year started on March 1st and there were only ten months. So September really was the seventh month, October the eighth and so on. This calendar was a right mess, and Julius Caesar took it upon himself to sort it all out by, among other things, introducing two new months - January and February, and making the year start on January 1st. But although this new calendar of his had twelve months, he kept the old names - so there you are!

Whichever way you look at it.

Apparently, according to Usain Bolt, Ronaldo doesn't dive, he simply runs too fast. Well, all I can say is, he seems to run too fast an awful lot!

Cheerleaders 'n all.

I think somebody at Setanta pushed the wrong button the other day - or failed to push the right one - with the result that, flicking around with the TV remote as I am wont to do, I was able to watch half an hour or so of an IPL 20-20 match. Ostensibly, this is cricket, although you would be hard pushed to see any meaningful relationship between this and a test match, or even the game which is played on village greens throughout the country. Indeed, it has more spiritually in common with baseball - how hard and how far you can hit the ball being the primary requisite. It's clearly designed to appeal to the "attention span of a gnat" generation, and to paraphrase Bones "it's cricket, Jim, but not as we know it".

Shhh...!!

Whatever happened to the idea that libraries were places of quiet? There's now a big table in the middle of my local library with about half a dozen computers on it, and invariably these are manned by kids loudly discussing with each other their latest exploits on whatever the game of the moment is. And then on my last visit there was a mother and toddler group being held in the children's section, and you can imagine the noise coming from that! Perhaps the old days, when you wouldn't dare speak in above a whisper for fear of being reprimanded by the librarian, were a bit draconian, but we now seem to have gone rather too far the other way.

Once you pop...

I'm a sucker for Pringles, but I don't think I shall ever be able to see them in quite the same way now that I know - thanks to a court case to decide whether they are subject to VAT or not - that they are mostly made from rice flour and fat, and that what potato there is in them comes from left-over McDonald's fries. Somehow the magic has gone.

So what?

Every now and again you get people bemoaning the fact that old skills are dying out. I can understand that, but what I think you need to ask is whether those skills are really necessary in today's world. Things move on, and stuff you really needed to know yesterday may not be so important today. This was brought to mind by the headline "Three In Four British Kids Can't Boil An Egg". Cooking was a necessary skill in my young day - otherwise you didn't eat. But today? With all the tinned, packaged, frozen and ready to eat meals on offer, you can get by without doing anything other than warming a saucepan or operating the microwave. That's not to say that you shouldn't bother to teach your kids to cook, but it's no longer the essential ability it once was.

Mr Speaker.

A man much in the news at present, but just where does the title come from? Because he takes no active part in debates, it has been said that the Speaker is the only member of the House of Commons who does not speak. But this misses the point - originally, he was the member chosen by the House to speak on their behalf when such occasions arose as demanded the opinion of the House to be expressed. The concept of the office can be traced back to the 13th century, but it was in 1376 that the post first became officially recognised. Back then it was a perilous position to hold, with a very good chance that you would end up in the Tower, or even being beheaded! There has only been one woman Speaker - Betty Boothroyd in the 90s, and the current Speaker is the first Roman Catholic to hold the post for the best part of 500 years - though not for much longer it would seem.

They who live by the sword...

This must be the ultimate irony - the Fire Service's National Training College in Gloucestershire has been badly damaged - by fire!

String 'em up?

There have been calls for MPs who have claimed for what are perceived as unreasonable expenses to be prosecuted for fraud. Would such a prosecution hold water? In general, I don't think so. Provided they have stayed within the letter of the rules, then in my view this would provide an absolute defence, whatever the ethical considerations. And the problem would be of course that the rules are so vague and open to interpretation that it would have to be accepted that most of these claims could be argued as falling within their scope. There might be rather more problems for those MPs who appear to have claimed for things like interest on non-existent mortgages, but even here the prosecution would have to show that this was done with deliberate intention rather than as a result of sloppy accounting or some such. No, I think the police and CPS would do well to stay clear of this mess.

I think therefore I arrest?

The Home Office has recently released statistics on arrests under anti-terrorism legislation between 2001 and 2008. This shows that there were 1,471 such arrests. with just over one-third of those arrested ending up being charged. This in itself would be a worrying statistic for me, but the real kick in the teeth is that the report says that this is "broadly similar to the rate for all indictable offences". So it would seem that around two out of every three people arrested by the police for the more serious offences are subsequently released without charge - am I the only one to think that this is nothing short of scandalous? The rules are (or certainly were when I studied the law) that the police have to base an arrest on "reasonable suspicion", and if two out of every three arrestees subsequently walk, that really calls into question just how reasonable - and the word means governed by reason or sound thinking - the police are being.

Video of the month (of the year?)

If you've not already seen it, do have a look at "J'aime la Tour" on YouTube (or just stick Blackpool into the search box). It's brilliant, it's hilarious, and it's done more to raise the profile of Blackpool in the few days it's been on than any amount of conventional advertising. Top marks to whoever thought it up.

Personal.

I "did" Tennyson for English Lit "O" level more years ago than I care to remember. But it has taken until now, and hearing Sheila Hancock on an advert for the BBC's poetry season to realise that his poetry was hiding the perfect quote all the time -

But O for the touch of a vanish'd hand,
And the sound of a voice that is still!

Says it all.

MPs pay.

One way of approaching the question of how much you should pay people for doing a job is the "recruit and retain" principle. This says that provided you get a fair number of applicants when you advertise a post, and that people are not leaving you in droves, then you've got it about right (or maybe even are paying too much!) When discussing MPs pay, it has been pointed out that there is no shortage of applicants whenever an election is held, and that very few MPs resign before their term is out. So on that basis, it would seem that MPs are being paid enough, or maybe even more than enough. But I think this misses an important point - there may be plenty of applicants, but are we getting the right sort of applicants? This could be me and my rose-coloured spectacles again, but to my mind the standard of MPs - in terms of experience out in the real world, in terms of general intellect and in terms of their dedication to the concept of public service is not what it was, and I wonder to what extent this is because the sort of candidates we should be attracting can do better - financially - elsewhere.

Music Man - plug.

Can I add my voice to those praising the new (well recent) web site Spotify. It's yet another music streaming program, but it stands out from others in the enormous spread of music it offers, and in that it's free, provided you don't mind the occasional advert. For those of that mind, it also has a social networking aspect whereby you can share the music you enjoy with others. Long may it continue!

The road to hell is paved....

The new Equality Bill seems to me to be trying to make the world something that it isn't. We are not all equal - the level playing field just doesn't exist. Consider this - I don't know who will win the 100 metres at the 2012 Olympics, but I can tell you this - it will be a black man. If you're a white sprinter you have to accept that you have no chance of the gold medal. Men in general are physically stronger than women and therefore some tasks are more suited to them - fact. Blind people cannot see and therefore cannot do certain things - fact. Some people have more money than others and therefore can afford things that the others can't - fact. The idea that you can somehow alter these facts by legislation just doesn't hold water. The Bill is being introduced with the best of intentions, but is seeking to do the impossible.

Respect?

Following the shenanigans at the end of the Chelsea/Barcelona match last week, the question of respect for referees is once again much in the news. I think we're looking at the wrong thing - it's not respect for referees that's in issue here - it's respect for the laws of the game. And these laws say that the referee can't get it wrong - he is the sole judge of fact. The question of whether we agree with his decision or not is therefore meaningless - it's his decision and that's an end of it. Until players - and managers - accept this we will not progress. What's the alternative? Decisions by consensus? Have a free-for-all punch-up and the last man standing wins the day? Flip a coin? Phone a friend? The present situation where players and managers constantly attempt to influence the referee's decisions stem from an unwillingness to accept the basic fact that this is not like cricket where you appeal to an umpire for a decision - the referee says what's what and that's it. Criticise him by all means, but respect the laws by which the game is played.

Do as you would be done by.

Can't help feeling that there's more than a whiff of hypocrisy in the press and public's somewhat hysterical reaction to the current revelations about MPs expenses. As a fairly minor civil servant I had little scope for claiming expenses, but I certainly made sure that where I could claim, I did. My view was that my employer (the Government) was paying me the minimum they thought they could get away with for my services, and so I was determined to claim every penny to which I was entitled. I would imagine most of you take the same view. The parliamentary system may be flawed and wide open to being taken advantage of, but isn't this a case of - let he who is without sin cast the first stone?

Wheels within wheels.

You don't realise how interconnected everything is until something upsets the applecart and things start falling apart. The present credit crunch has understandably led to an increase in business for charity shops as people look to get things on the cheap, but now we learn that it has also led to a decrease in items being donated to these shops, as people are not buying new stuff and therefore have less unwanted old stuff to give away. It's all interconnected you see.

Spooky!

I hope I'm not getting delusions of grandeur, but I've noticed on one or two occasions recently that I've posted about something, only to see the same idea appear in the press a few days or weeks later. The latest example is my continual moan about the way football is dominated by a handful of rich clubs with nobody else getting a look-in, or even having any chance of getting a look-in. And now the Culture Secretary has taken up the baton by pressing the big clubs to share their wealth more. Mind you, I'm not holding my breath. And what's that saying about a prophet being not without honor, save in his own country?

Music Man

I was flicking through YouTube the other day. It's amazing what you can find on there, and I came across a video of someone playing a theremin. Never heard of it? I'm not surprised, although if you're of an age to remember "The Day the Earth Stood Still" (the original that is) you will have heard one. It was used in the soundtrack to that film to produce eerie other-worldly sounds. It is unique among musical instruments in that the player makes no physical contact with the instrument. Sound is produced by the player moving his hand in the magnetic field surrounding a radio antenna thus controlling the frequency of the signal which is then fed to an amplifier - or something like that - I don't claim to be an expert. It is a fearsomely difficult instrument to master, but when played well produces a clear ethereal sound somewhat like a cross between a violin and a flute. Stick "theremin" in the search box on YouTube and listen for yourself.

Yo juego para Inglaterra!

I don't know how seriously Capello is taking the idea of picking Almunia as England's goalkeeper, but it does highlight the intricacies (one might say, absurdities) of the current rules relating to eligibility to play for a country - particularly here in Great Britain which somewhat bizarrely for most sporting purposes is treated as three separate countries - England, Scotland and Wales, each with their own borders, despite it being one nation with a common nationality, passport and so on. So just what are the rules? As far as I have been able to find out, you are eligible to play for a country (1) if you were born there (2) if any of your parents or grandparents were born there (3) if you are married to someone born there, or (4) if you have lived there for five years or more and become a naturalised citizen. All this is subject to you not having ever played for any other country. Almunia potentially comes (or will shortly) under the five year rule. Of course, the question is, if he becomes naturalised (which would be as a Brit, not an Englishman) and therefore eligible to play for England, would the Scots, Welsh or even perhaps the Northern Irish also have any claim on him? All a bit daft, isn't it?

We're going up!

So somehow Wolves and Birmingham have managed to come first and second in the Championship, and will now play in the Premiership next season. A rousing hooray for the fact that this means the Midlands will have two more teams in the top flight (or in reality just one more as West Brom look fated to come back down), but I am forced to say that on what I have seen watching on TV, the standard in the Championship this year has been pretty poor, and unless they bring in some real quality players I cannot see either side surviving in the Premiership. But here's hoping - as far as the Wolves are concerned, anyway.

Unbelievable.

A survey from Holland has found that men who drink half a glass of red wine a day live on average five years longer than those who don't drink. Now come on - are we really supposed to believe that there are people out there who drink half a glass of wine a day?

Ha ha.

Joe rang in to work one morning. "Boss" he said "I won't be in today. I feel really rough - my head aches, my stomach aches and my legs feel like rubber". "Oh dear" said the boss "I really need you in today Joe - we've got a big rush job on. Tell you what - when I wake up feeling grotty and don't fancy coming in to work, what I do is make mad passionate love to my wife, and then I always feel better and ready for work. Why don't you try that?" A couple of hours later, the 'phone rang again. "That was great advice boss" said Joe "I did what you said, and I feel much better. I'll be with you in half an hour or so. Oh, and by the way - you've got a really nice house!".

Not seeing the wood for the trees?

It is an uncomfortable fact that the majority of married women who are murdered are killed by their husbands. When a married woman is killed therefore, it is inevitable that the husband will initially become the police's main suspect. They would be failing in their duty if they did not take account of, and act on that statistical evidence. Nobody would seriously suggest that this means that the police have somehow got it in for husbands generally and were discriminating against them. The present hand-wringing about the fact that stop and search is being used proportionately more against young coloureds has to be seen in this context. If statistics show that a certain type of crime is predominantly committed by six foot redheads who drive a Skoda, and you were seeking to prevent such crimes, you would be more likely to pull over and question a six foot redhead driving a Skoda, than a five foot blond driving a Ford - it's that simple.

Close but....

As stated by the Prime Minister and widely reported on the news, one of the latest people to come down with the so-called "swine 'flu" was a 41-year-old man from Birmingham. Turned out it was a 41-year-old woman from Redditch (which for those of you not from round here, is in a different county). Just can't get the staff these days!