Starting, perhaps predictably, with a caveat...I really enjoyed watching the Dark Knight Rises at the cinema, it's a great movie well executed. Not perfect, but very, very good. It's not on the other hand a great Batman movie, I feel. In fact the more I reflect the more I see it as disappointing, and a missed opportunity.
First, let me say, there were good things.
Anne Hathaway's portrayal of Catwoman felt perhaps like the most true to the modern comics than any other characterisation made so far.
The twist of Talia al Ghul was (for me) completely out of the blue. Perhaps because of the detractions from the world I know of Batman in the comics, I'd allowed myself to consider that Nolan would make Bane the son of Ra's al Ghul. I should have guessed it earlier (and no doubt many a bat fan would), but it was a well crafted twist...perhaps more so because of the way the pre-screening media was involved in selling the dummy.
Showing the intelligence of Bane; the path of the previous Batman movies did a great disservice to the only character to truly break the Batman. This Bane was almost everything that he needed to be.
Also, in general, the costume design, the soundtrack, the work that was done on the environment, the locational work...basically the actual filmmaking...was all fantastic. This is the main reason that it'll always be a great movie.
It's the story and the characters other than above that make it disappointing.
The film itself seems to take inspiration from two main stories...though it doesn't take more than a few of the elements that make those stories great. The stories are Knightfall and No Man's Land, arguably the two most defining stories of the 90s for Batman.
The trouble is that Knightfall is a character study in Batman losing all hope and being unable to reach out for help when the odds start to become insurmountable. It's a story of Batman believing that he can get through everything on his own. But in order to do this Batman is beaten down, kept too active and involved in crime fighting super-villains.
This is Bane's plan, to wear Batman down so that when he comes to fight him, it will be a Batman of broken wills and concentration. The film, by contrast, does the opposite and portrays Batman coming from the other direction...with plenty of spirit and a slowly improving (though not peak) physical condition.
The interaction between Bane and Batman, therefore, seems entirely consequential. That the plan is to have Bruce Wayne watch Gotham destroyed as Ra's would have intended seems almost tacked on.
Furthermore the interesting thing about Knightfall is what happens next. Bruce decides to retire as Batman under largely happy circumstances, but only because there is another Batman to take his place, that he has an understanding of, and trusts to do the job. Interestingly Alfred also leaves Bruce during this time as he doesn't want to see him damage his body any more.
Bruce would later come back to retake the cowl, when his replacement goes somewhat crazy and starts endangering the public and taking punishment to a new level.
The film cut this opportunity off, by 'killing' Bruce Wayne off (though it doesn't really explain how Bruce Wayne is perceived in the public eye after the ending) who would be there to come back?
Then there is No Man's Land, perhaps my favourite Bat story of all time, where an earthquake has left Gotham largely destroyed, with criminality running rife as Ra's al Ghul (Bane acting as his proxy in the film) has previously released everyone from the maximum security prison after trying to release a virus around Gotham (Batman Begins, essentially Batman Year One meets Contagion as story lines...I digress). As a result the federal government deciding it has to cut Gotham off from the rest of the country.
The story showcases perfectly Batman's abilities to act as a strategist. With several allies around the city in the form of police, other vigilantes and even former foes, Batman regains control of Gotham enough over time to allow the government to stop their blockade of Gotham.
Is any of this present in the film? Of course not. Batman miraculously recovers from his 'broken', or more likely dislocated, back and makes it back to Gotham (with no money) just in time to stop the city from being destroyed.
No strategy, no organisation, no intelligence.
And maybe this is what bothers me about the film as a bat film...Batman wasn't recognisable in it as the character we know. He pleads and bargains more than he growls and commands, he starts off severely injured and out of the game for 8 years, without any good reason
Batman started to stop criminals, not just super criminals...those like the man that killed his parents. The film already says that crime isn't abolished in Gotham, so why would Batman stop just because organised crime was curtailed?
The Batman I know and love would have, by the time he was 10 years in to life after donning the cape and cowl, become a master detective and be finding his prowess in being a 'war general' of sorts. This Batman is a damp squib, almost emo in personality. While Batman in the comics may use his personal loss and possible depressive outlook to drive him to clean the city up, the film's Batman doesn't use it at all.
In fact the greatest loss in Batman's life in the comics is that of his sidekick Jason Todd, the second Robin. We know from this that Batman's reaction to the loss of someone by the Joker is rage and determination, not depression as happened in the aftermath of Rachel's death. The key is that Batman shouldn't stop doing what he intended to do when he started.
It does make him less keen to trust people with his identity, and getting close to him though, which is what makes he film's portrayal even more confusing as he seems to readily hand over the mantle to 'John Blake' without really knowing much about him and his ability to not get killed the first time he faces danger.
But then Nolan is clearly trying to wrap up his Trilogy, and he does it in style (albeit of questionable physics). But from the initial niggles in Batman Begins of allowing Ra's al Ghul to die (as much as that character can, and having guns on his vehicles ) the concerns only grow. Dent/Two Face killed readily in the Dark Knight, then Talia and Bane killed in the Dark Knight Returns. The obsession with killing off villains seems to have grown and grown.
And then there is letting everyone know or find out his identity so easily; He talks about why he wears his mask in the film, yet does everything he can to ensure people know it is Bruce Wayne underneath it.
This might all sound like I'm being overly critical, and perhaps I am. As I said at the top of this post, I enjoyed the film a lot for what it was and it genuinely entertained me. I just also see from my previous knowledge of the stories a lot of missed opportunities, fundamental mistakes with the character that I'm surprised DC signed off, and avenues cut off for potentially keeping this particular universe going.
But then given how this character of Batman was left, not my Batman but someone else's that had the privilege to bring him to the big screen, I'm not sure that I would particularly want to see any more of 'The Dark Knight' Batman anyway.
Roll on the 'reboot', as long as it's not another origin story!
Monday, July 23, 2012
Friday, July 13, 2012
What's the fuss with the NHS cap on private income?
After a significant misinterpretation by the New Statesman, a lot of people got very concerned on Twitter about the potential for the rules on how much income NHS hospitals could make from private sources.
I feel this is a subject that is incredibly fraught with symbolism over substance, and wanted to just delve in to the realities of the cap, the law, current reality, and how it all ties together.
What is the cap?
There are rules over how NHS Foundation Trusts (FTs) operate. these FTs were created by Labour to enable a form of lessened state control, local staff and public were intended to drive the direction of their local NHS services. In return they get to keep any profits they make, can work with and are in essence in competition with other FTs.
It was privatisation of sorts, just without the (direct) commercial influence of a company running the board, and it started the whole ball rolling to where we are now.
To balance the extra freedoms they have to operate, a means of capping how much money these FTs can make from private patients was introduced. It's disparate and not necessarily "fair", in that it is whatever their income was in 2003. This means that some hospitals have much higher caps than others, but all under the currently proposed less than half of all income level (erroneously referred to as a 49% cap, but which I'll use as it's understood when talked about).
In fact the reality is that less than 1% of all money coming in to FTs this country is from private healthcare sources.
Side Note: NHS Trusts
The whole situation with the NHS is complex, FTs aren't the only providers of care, NHS Trusts that provide services in the more "traditional" structure are being essentially abolished with the new NHS reforms, the intent is to give patients more say and the only way the government (both the current and the last) sees that as being practical is by trusts becoming FTs.
Of course this is why you'll hear people claiming that the 49% cap is new, and that there was no cap for NHS Trusts before. Technically it's true, but it's a bit of a side point as they are being told to become the equivalent of foundation trusts, which means they would have been capped, albeit at an income level of lower than 49%...hence why this is still ultimately a rise on the potential income hospitals can make.
Reaching the cap?
It's no surprise, when looking at the FTs figures, that analysts and those in the sector aren't actually too bothered about this cap; in the short to medium term at least there is little chance of foundation trusts reaching the 49% cap anyway.
With only a handful of hospitals having significant income from private sources, it is inconceivable that all NHS hospitals will suddenly be putting NHS patients second to a vastly increased private constituent, in only as the rate of rise would be completely out of step with the amount of private money circulating (the amount FTs took from private patients DROPPED compared to 2010/11, presumably due to recessional forces).
The reality is that the law as set out isn't about capping anything, given there is no need for most FTs to have such a high cap anyway, it's about symbolically enshrining in law that hospitals are primarily there to provide services for NHS patients, not for private ones.
This doesn't mean less beds for those using the NHS
One way that opponents of the raising of the cap put their case is that they make grand claims about resources being requisitioned for private patients, meaning they won't be there for normal NHS patients. Some go as far as to claim (as Polly Toynbee tried) that it means that half the beds could be reserved for private patients.
The reality is that if we look at those FTs generating a lot of income from private sources, it's through infrastructural investment and partnerships that involve new technologies and better facilities being developed for the express purpose of bringing private patients in from outside the area, not only from within the UK but from around the world. Some people just want to have the opportunity to pay for what they see as the best specialist services in the country, even if they wouldn't usually be able to on the NHS (or at all, because they are international patients).
The result of this is money coming in from wealthy sources to provide profits for an FT that can be reinvested in NHS services, while at the same time having newer, better facilities on site that NHS patients can also be using to the improvement of their health. Indeed by allowing partnerships with private hospitals (and to , and therefore being able to provide a "better" experience for private patients (through finding them a space, and thus a shorter waiting time, with the partnered institution), the side effect is more capacity to deal with non-private patients at NHS facilities.
Of course this causes it's own issues, with it being clear that cashflow will largely pool in London and the South East, with little prospect for the North; indeed this is why the overall private patient income gained by FTs is so low despite those like Royal Marsden already commanding significant percentages of income from private sources.
The misplaced outrage over no cap
So if the 49% cap is symbolic, almost entirely unable to be reached, what is the problem with a removal of the cap? Opponents to the idea (and I must stress, I'm not in favour of a removal of the symbolism of the current law) claim that it would lead the the wholesale privatisation of the NHS, that normal patients would be put second.
I say this is rubbish.
For NHS FTs to generate 100% income from private sources it would have to also become a requirement in this country for everyone to take private insurance, and for hospitals to HAVE to generate it's income from private insurance. It would also require the current reform laws to change to allow hospitals to be selective over how they treat people, and what their duty is.
On the second point there, let me just reiterate what it says in the reform act...
The same is said of the Secretary of State for health, of the Clinical Commissioning Groups and the board that monitors those CCGs. It is a core principle in the law that the NHS is not to introduce policies or to integrate in such ways that those without private health insurance see a widening gap between the quality and effectiveness they receive versus a private patient.
Even if this was not the case, until the law is changed to require people to take private insurance, ala the US of A, and that the state will NOT provide funding for patient care it is fundementally impossible for a 100% private income situation to be reached, and can we honestly see this happening given how vociferously opposed to these rather tame (in comparison) reforms has been?
While people look at the removal of the cap as something that means privatisation, I just can't see it adding up to that. Those who complain about the idea of a FT making 50% of it's income from private sources completely ignore that this could be achieved without reducing the level of income from non-private care. In essence hospitals could DOUBLE their income from current levels, provide no worse care for NHS patients, and hit that 50% income level from their private patients.
Is this really a problem, assuming that all the various levels in the new structure of the NHS do their job and ensure that hospitals adhere to the principles of increasing quality and effectiveness of care for NHS patients, and a commitment to reduce inequality between patients on the issue of ability to pay? I'd say that in practice, it is not.
I feel this is a subject that is incredibly fraught with symbolism over substance, and wanted to just delve in to the realities of the cap, the law, current reality, and how it all ties together.
What is the cap?
There are rules over how NHS Foundation Trusts (FTs) operate. these FTs were created by Labour to enable a form of lessened state control, local staff and public were intended to drive the direction of their local NHS services. In return they get to keep any profits they make, can work with and are in essence in competition with other FTs.
It was privatisation of sorts, just without the (direct) commercial influence of a company running the board, and it started the whole ball rolling to where we are now.
To balance the extra freedoms they have to operate, a means of capping how much money these FTs can make from private patients was introduced. It's disparate and not necessarily "fair", in that it is whatever their income was in 2003. This means that some hospitals have much higher caps than others, but all under the currently proposed less than half of all income level (erroneously referred to as a 49% cap, but which I'll use as it's understood when talked about).
In fact the reality is that less than 1% of all money coming in to FTs this country is from private healthcare sources.
Side Note: NHS Trusts
The whole situation with the NHS is complex, FTs aren't the only providers of care, NHS Trusts that provide services in the more "traditional" structure are being essentially abolished with the new NHS reforms, the intent is to give patients more say and the only way the government (both the current and the last) sees that as being practical is by trusts becoming FTs.
Of course this is why you'll hear people claiming that the 49% cap is new, and that there was no cap for NHS Trusts before. Technically it's true, but it's a bit of a side point as they are being told to become the equivalent of foundation trusts, which means they would have been capped, albeit at an income level of lower than 49%...hence why this is still ultimately a rise on the potential income hospitals can make.
Reaching the cap?
It's no surprise, when looking at the FTs figures, that analysts and those in the sector aren't actually too bothered about this cap; in the short to medium term at least there is little chance of foundation trusts reaching the 49% cap anyway.
With only a handful of hospitals having significant income from private sources, it is inconceivable that all NHS hospitals will suddenly be putting NHS patients second to a vastly increased private constituent, in only as the rate of rise would be completely out of step with the amount of private money circulating (the amount FTs took from private patients DROPPED compared to 2010/11, presumably due to recessional forces).
The reality is that the law as set out isn't about capping anything, given there is no need for most FTs to have such a high cap anyway, it's about symbolically enshrining in law that hospitals are primarily there to provide services for NHS patients, not for private ones.
This doesn't mean less beds for those using the NHS
One way that opponents of the raising of the cap put their case is that they make grand claims about resources being requisitioned for private patients, meaning they won't be there for normal NHS patients. Some go as far as to claim (as Polly Toynbee tried) that it means that half the beds could be reserved for private patients.
The reality is that if we look at those FTs generating a lot of income from private sources, it's through infrastructural investment and partnerships that involve new technologies and better facilities being developed for the express purpose of bringing private patients in from outside the area, not only from within the UK but from around the world. Some people just want to have the opportunity to pay for what they see as the best specialist services in the country, even if they wouldn't usually be able to on the NHS (or at all, because they are international patients).
The result of this is money coming in from wealthy sources to provide profits for an FT that can be reinvested in NHS services, while at the same time having newer, better facilities on site that NHS patients can also be using to the improvement of their health. Indeed by allowing partnerships with private hospitals (and to , and therefore being able to provide a "better" experience for private patients (through finding them a space, and thus a shorter waiting time, with the partnered institution), the side effect is more capacity to deal with non-private patients at NHS facilities.
Of course this causes it's own issues, with it being clear that cashflow will largely pool in London and the South East, with little prospect for the North; indeed this is why the overall private patient income gained by FTs is so low despite those like Royal Marsden already commanding significant percentages of income from private sources.
The misplaced outrage over no cap
So if the 49% cap is symbolic, almost entirely unable to be reached, what is the problem with a removal of the cap? Opponents to the idea (and I must stress, I'm not in favour of a removal of the symbolism of the current law) claim that it would lead the the wholesale privatisation of the NHS, that normal patients would be put second.
I say this is rubbish.
For NHS FTs to generate 100% income from private sources it would have to also become a requirement in this country for everyone to take private insurance, and for hospitals to HAVE to generate it's income from private insurance. It would also require the current reform laws to change to allow hospitals to be selective over how they treat people, and what their duty is.
On the second point there, let me just reiterate what it says in the reform act...
(4) Monitor must exercise its functions with a view to enabling health care services
provided for the purposes of the NHS to be provided in an integrated way
where it considers that this would—
(a) improve the quality of those services (including the outcomes that are
achieved from their provision) or the efficiency of their provision,
(b) reduce inequalities between persons with respect to their ability to
access those services, or
(c) reduce inequalities between persons with respect to the outcomes
achieved for them by the provision of those services.
The same is said of the Secretary of State for health, of the Clinical Commissioning Groups and the board that monitors those CCGs. It is a core principle in the law that the NHS is not to introduce policies or to integrate in such ways that those without private health insurance see a widening gap between the quality and effectiveness they receive versus a private patient.
Even if this was not the case, until the law is changed to require people to take private insurance, ala the US of A, and that the state will NOT provide funding for patient care it is fundementally impossible for a 100% private income situation to be reached, and can we honestly see this happening given how vociferously opposed to these rather tame (in comparison) reforms has been?
While people look at the removal of the cap as something that means privatisation, I just can't see it adding up to that. Those who complain about the idea of a FT making 50% of it's income from private sources completely ignore that this could be achieved without reducing the level of income from non-private care. In essence hospitals could DOUBLE their income from current levels, provide no worse care for NHS patients, and hit that 50% income level from their private patients.
Is this really a problem, assuming that all the various levels in the new structure of the NHS do their job and ensure that hospitals adhere to the principles of increasing quality and effectiveness of care for NHS patients, and a commitment to reduce inequality between patients on the issue of ability to pay? I'd say that in practice, it is not.
Tuesday, July 10, 2012
'Lib Dems did nothing about the NHS', and other nonsense.
Just for reference, I feel I may be sending a few people to this over the next few weeks...
Getting tired of idiots claiming things about Lib Dems/NHS/tuition fees that simply aren't true.
— Lee Griffin (@Niaccurshi) July 10, 2012
1) Lib Dems DID get on their high horse about the NHS, it resulted in a significant delay AND reworking
— Lee Griffin (@Niaccurshi) July 10, 2012
You may not like the end result, but do not pretend the Lib Dems "did nothing" on the NHS.
— Lee Griffin (@Niaccurshi) July 10, 2012
2) We will some time enter a time when people realise why the Lib Dems did not halt fee reform, because IT HELPS THE POOR.
— Lee Griffin (@Niaccurshi) July 10, 2012
Labour can bluster on all they want, especially on how they'd have raised it by less (and thus let the rich off early, ironically)
— Lee Griffin (@Niaccurshi) July 10, 2012
The reality is that the Lib Dems may not have stood against tuition fee rises, but that was actually a progressive thing to do.
— Lee Griffin (@Niaccurshi) July 10, 2012
3) If Lib Dems are the only ones getting "on their high horse" about Lords Reform, that is less negative on them than Tories and Labour
— Lee Griffin (@Niaccurshi) July 10, 2012
All 3 parties have been committed for the best part of a decade to reform. Tories + Labour not standing behind it are disingenuous to voters
— Lee Griffin (@Niaccurshi) July 10, 2012
Monday, July 9, 2012
Thinking about Lords Reform...
Lords reform is a tricky subject, one that isn't really about the Lords in isolation but the function of the wider political system of creating, scrutinising and implementing legislation. The current plans being put forward by the coalition are for a partly elected chamber to replace the currently appointed lords.
How it currently works:
Right now people sit in the Lords because the leaders of various parties ask them to be there. They have no obligation to attend (some Lords barely ever attend debates, vote or provide evidence on legislation, yet still claim tens of thousands of pounds in tax free tax payers' money), and due to more and more appointments they are become a partisan bunch of individuals that consist of more and more ex-MPs, MPs that the country has had enough of while they were in the commons yet now carry on taking a public wage for political work.
The problem:
The problem is that we currently have two halves of a bad system. On the one side we have people that are completely unaccountable, "unswayed*" by public opinion. This shouldn't be a problem because the Lords should be independent and expert in dissecting legislation. This is where the other half of the system comes in, with more and more Lords being aligned to a party of some kind, indeed being put in to their position by the leader of their party. Independence is a distant memory (if it was ever there before) and worse still expertise in relevant fields is being washed away in favour of a few reliable and loyal voters.
The options:
There are several options that are referred to with Lords reform, and it makes sense that while it would seem a simple and unifying issue when all three parties want reform of the Lords, the variation in what is possible offers the opportunity of disagreement and the usual political theatre.
The choices that I've seen put around, though not all are even remotely being considered, are:
Further complicating the above list is that when elections are talked about, some favour STV style proportional elections, some party list, some a fully proportional national party list vote, and so on.
My view:
As I said above, Lords reform isn't and shouldn't be about the Lords alone. While they make terrible decisions from position of vested interest in their medical insurance companies or telecommunication empires, and follow a party whip on key government votes, in other cases they come in to their own as defenders of subjects such as human rights and privacy.
My personal stance is to fully elect the Lords, every 5 years.
Of course there is a concern that with a partly or fully elected chamber of Lords that we will have a drain on expertise of those available to scrutinise. Certainly with only a 5 year term this is even more likely (read on...). There is also a claim that it is the wrong thing to do while we are trying to cut the cost of politics in the UK. Also with the elections comes natural partisanship and towing of the party line.
Party lines and the Lords:
I don't, perhaps surprisingly, see this as a problem. I dislike the party system but understand that it will always come to naturally exist. My main problem with the party system is that currently one party tends to hold disproportionate power and is able to force through threats of blockades in an MPs career or even deselection at local level to ensure people vote to maintain the power of that party.
With a second chamber elected proportionally, whether through STV or open-list (the system being proposed), the power of the party is diminished. I feel this is one reason why so many Tory MPs are rebelling against the idea of this reform, they know that one things is true:
Lib Dems will finally get the power that they proportionally deserve in the scrutiny of legislation, and they (with their ambition) will never have sole discretion to power through changes such as abolishing or reverting various aspects of healthcare, education or welfare.
While the commons, elected through FPTP, will continue to be disparate to the wishes of the country, the second chamber would be one of temperance. I believe this operates as the perfect "yin" and "yang" of politics. One chamber inflates public opinion to get an idea of what they desire to be direction of policy for the UK. The second chamber, in turn, ensures that the policy brought forward is in line with the real wishes of the public.
This would mean that while the Tories could get a majority (or any party) and decide to abolish the NHS, they would not get it through the second chamber due to the unlikelihood of the some 70% of the other "Lords" being unlikely to vote for such measures. This is a good thing, and anyone presenting this as "gridlock" is glossing over the fact that only bad legislation that the public has not actually voted for will be blocked.
The cost:
I dislike arguments about cost when it comes to politics. When you walk in to a garage and they quote you £50 to do your car repairs, while the rest quote £300, you deserve everything you get if you choose that cheaper garage, and all the problems that follow.
The answer to making politics more reasonable in the eyes of the public is not to reduce the cost, all this will do is reduce the numbers of politicians, reduce how long they have to balance meeting their electorate with reading up on the laws they're passing, and in turn make people more angry when bad legislation is passed.
Politicians need to be seen as more valuable. Their salaries may be high but people wouldn't complain about this if they actually understood the country better, instead of being so constantly and hopelessly out of touch.
A such this idea of trying to do things cheaper isn't one I entertain. If (and it's still only an if) the new proposals lead to more expense then so be it. If they perform their function better than the current Lords then we have got a good deal.
Besides, any such expense will still be a complete drop in the ocean compared to the public purse.
5 Year Terms:
I don't agree with the idea of a 15 year non-returnable "term" of standing for election in the second chamber. It is inflexible to changes of current opinion, and if you are using a proportional system of election then your intent must be to reflect the will of the nation. Restricting elections to only turn out one third of all politicians in the second chamber every 5 years, leaving everyone in post for 15 years each, means that proportionality will only exist in bubbles.
While I'm not against the idea of staggering the elections, much in the way council elections are done (which can actually help to maintain proportionality and avoid chaotic swings of power) every politican should be out of their post after 5 years. That is unless they are re-elected.
Yes, there is no reason to say after 15 years that someone is "done" and no longer able to be a politician. If they are good at their job, and the public/party agree with that, then they should be able to keep standing. MPs can, so there is no reason why someone in the second chamber couldn't.
There is a danger, I feel, if the system was introduced that parties would simply use the second chamber as a "training ground" for the commons, putting younger candidates through 15 years of legislative scrutiny before letting them finally stand in a seat if they've proved loyal enough to get a seat in the commons, and perhaps a governmental position. Such things would belittle the political system, not enhance them.
Expertise:
The trouble is that expertise isn't guaranteed with elections, especially not with 5 year terms (unless someone happens to stay elected for decades!). We can rely on the open-list system, and hope that parties will put forward experts in their field rather than pliable individuals with a loyal heart, but that would be foolish.
It is entirely natural that with these changes we will lose experts. It is probably for this reason that the consensus is to keep some Lords appointed, such as Bishops, so as to keep a buffer of "expertise" around, especially on the issue of religion.
However I believe that looking at this issue of a "brain drain" on the second chamber is missing the point.
Three "chambers"
Let's say that somehow political deals are made great enough for this legislation to pass, if any referendum is forced then the public vote yes because the main faces of each party all go out together and campaign shoulder to shoulder for greater democracy (Yeah, I know...)
What we're left with is two chambers, one that is responsible for the proposal of laws, ensuring it's "primacy" or power over any others, and that is used to create the executive, and the other that is purely legislative and only exists to scrutinise legislation, passing it through the filter of a proportionally elected set of politicians.
What we are missing is independent scrutiny that has power.
Right now we have independent experts turn up to provide evidence on legislation. Where law is involving human rights especially we will see organisations such as Liberty pitch up and suggest their amendments to legislation, while the Police may give counter-claims and a different perspective that supports the law as written.
None of it is binding though, these are people that are incredibly informed and knowledgable about their field and yet their word is only advice. How it is taken depends entirely on the integrity of the politicians listening to them.
A third "chamber" which operates on a much more fluid basis, with permanent individuals with solid constitutional and legal knowledge to deal with legislative concerns both domestic and European, and temporary experts drawn in to provide their experience and knowledge to the process of amending law, would serve to take from the responsibility of the commons and a second chamber (currently the Lords) the requirement of ensuring that the law is workable, in line with all other laws, and doesn't result in any unintended side effects.
A good case in point would be the ridiculous "Auto-block porn" law that has resurfaced. While the two chambers can argue as much as they like about the merits of requiring ISPs to block porn as default, an expert chamber would be able to write off pretty much all of the law in the bill due to it being simply impossible to put in to action or enforce. Even the current Lords, with all of their alleged expertise, are likely to fail to understand such nuances, and given the highly religious motivation behind the law there will be pressure to ignore actual knowledgable people that can currently only give their advice.
Of course this chamber will, unfortunately, never exist. It will always be criticised by both elected chambers as a "wrecking chamber" that doesn't act to the wishes of the public. Even though it is doing the most important work of all, in grounding the law's provided in reality, and protecting everyone's legal rights against existing laws and standards, it's hard to wrench the power away from politicians that want to write laws that can be ambiguous enough to be exploited later on.
Edit: To clarify, I would see this "chamber" or body as something that is formed for every bill BEFORE it is put to scrutiny. The biggest problem with legislation is that it's hugely flawed and there is only enough time to fix it slightly. This level of input at a "draft" stage would ensure that the truly insane side of some legislation would be filtered out before MPs had to waste their valuable time arguing against it too (if they catch it at all).
Conclusion:
Even though it may be imperfect, I still stand behind a fully elected second chamber. I don't believe that we will lose a great deal of expertise as long as the parties have a level of integrity over who they pick to run, but I also don't believe that the Lords is a universal board of knowledge that stops bad legislation all the time anyway.
In the balance of all things, my priority will always be for legislation that is forced to follow public wishes. Aside from a few examples this reform will by itself stop extreme legislation through the dilution of power in a second chamber.
But ultimately such a change will not change the world. It won't stop workfare, it won't create more jobs, it won't stop people with no technical knowledge of the internet continuing to erode freedoms. It may over time help though, and I firmly believe if we had a Lords that was formed as it is intended in the programme set out by government, the changes to the NHS, to the welfare system and to those on benefits would have been no-where near as severe as they have been.
Tories may shout this as an example of why it is such a bad idea, but I believe they are in the minority, and that the majority of us wish we had that protection of "gridlock" in the last couple of years.
----
*I say this in reference the the public being able to apply direct pressure. There is no question that the Lords, like anyone, understand the mood of the nation. However they aren't necessarily pressed to vote that way as there is no way to punish them for going the wrong way.
How it currently works:
Right now people sit in the Lords because the leaders of various parties ask them to be there. They have no obligation to attend (some Lords barely ever attend debates, vote or provide evidence on legislation, yet still claim tens of thousands of pounds in tax free tax payers' money), and due to more and more appointments they are become a partisan bunch of individuals that consist of more and more ex-MPs, MPs that the country has had enough of while they were in the commons yet now carry on taking a public wage for political work.
The problem:
The problem is that we currently have two halves of a bad system. On the one side we have people that are completely unaccountable, "unswayed*" by public opinion. This shouldn't be a problem because the Lords should be independent and expert in dissecting legislation. This is where the other half of the system comes in, with more and more Lords being aligned to a party of some kind, indeed being put in to their position by the leader of their party. Independence is a distant memory (if it was ever there before) and worse still expertise in relevant fields is being washed away in favour of a few reliable and loyal voters.
The options:
There are several options that are referred to with Lords reform, and it makes sense that while it would seem a simple and unifying issue when all three parties want reform of the Lords, the variation in what is possible offers the opportunity of disagreement and the usual political theatre.
The choices that I've seen put around, though not all are even remotely being considered, are:
- A partly elected house of Lords with some remaining appointed (the current preferred option)
- A fully elected house of Lords
- A fully appointed house of Lords (as per the current system)
- A fully appointed house of Lords, starting afresh with people that are experts first and foremost in several fields and in legislative scrutiny
- Abolish the lords completely and just function on the house of commons
- A "citizens jury" appointed for each piece of legislation (lol)
Further complicating the above list is that when elections are talked about, some favour STV style proportional elections, some party list, some a fully proportional national party list vote, and so on.
My view:
As I said above, Lords reform isn't and shouldn't be about the Lords alone. While they make terrible decisions from position of vested interest in their medical insurance companies or telecommunication empires, and follow a party whip on key government votes, in other cases they come in to their own as defenders of subjects such as human rights and privacy.
My personal stance is to fully elect the Lords, every 5 years.
Of course there is a concern that with a partly or fully elected chamber of Lords that we will have a drain on expertise of those available to scrutinise. Certainly with only a 5 year term this is even more likely (read on...). There is also a claim that it is the wrong thing to do while we are trying to cut the cost of politics in the UK. Also with the elections comes natural partisanship and towing of the party line.
Party lines and the Lords:
I don't, perhaps surprisingly, see this as a problem. I dislike the party system but understand that it will always come to naturally exist. My main problem with the party system is that currently one party tends to hold disproportionate power and is able to force through threats of blockades in an MPs career or even deselection at local level to ensure people vote to maintain the power of that party.
With a second chamber elected proportionally, whether through STV or open-list (the system being proposed), the power of the party is diminished. I feel this is one reason why so many Tory MPs are rebelling against the idea of this reform, they know that one things is true:
Lib Dems will finally get the power that they proportionally deserve in the scrutiny of legislation, and they (with their ambition) will never have sole discretion to power through changes such as abolishing or reverting various aspects of healthcare, education or welfare.
While the commons, elected through FPTP, will continue to be disparate to the wishes of the country, the second chamber would be one of temperance. I believe this operates as the perfect "yin" and "yang" of politics. One chamber inflates public opinion to get an idea of what they desire to be direction of policy for the UK. The second chamber, in turn, ensures that the policy brought forward is in line with the real wishes of the public.
This would mean that while the Tories could get a majority (or any party) and decide to abolish the NHS, they would not get it through the second chamber due to the unlikelihood of the some 70% of the other "Lords" being unlikely to vote for such measures. This is a good thing, and anyone presenting this as "gridlock" is glossing over the fact that only bad legislation that the public has not actually voted for will be blocked.
The cost:
I dislike arguments about cost when it comes to politics. When you walk in to a garage and they quote you £50 to do your car repairs, while the rest quote £300, you deserve everything you get if you choose that cheaper garage, and all the problems that follow.
The answer to making politics more reasonable in the eyes of the public is not to reduce the cost, all this will do is reduce the numbers of politicians, reduce how long they have to balance meeting their electorate with reading up on the laws they're passing, and in turn make people more angry when bad legislation is passed.
Politicians need to be seen as more valuable. Their salaries may be high but people wouldn't complain about this if they actually understood the country better, instead of being so constantly and hopelessly out of touch.
A such this idea of trying to do things cheaper isn't one I entertain. If (and it's still only an if) the new proposals lead to more expense then so be it. If they perform their function better than the current Lords then we have got a good deal.
Besides, any such expense will still be a complete drop in the ocean compared to the public purse.
5 Year Terms:
I don't agree with the idea of a 15 year non-returnable "term" of standing for election in the second chamber. It is inflexible to changes of current opinion, and if you are using a proportional system of election then your intent must be to reflect the will of the nation. Restricting elections to only turn out one third of all politicians in the second chamber every 5 years, leaving everyone in post for 15 years each, means that proportionality will only exist in bubbles.
While I'm not against the idea of staggering the elections, much in the way council elections are done (which can actually help to maintain proportionality and avoid chaotic swings of power) every politican should be out of their post after 5 years. That is unless they are re-elected.
Yes, there is no reason to say after 15 years that someone is "done" and no longer able to be a politician. If they are good at their job, and the public/party agree with that, then they should be able to keep standing. MPs can, so there is no reason why someone in the second chamber couldn't.
There is a danger, I feel, if the system was introduced that parties would simply use the second chamber as a "training ground" for the commons, putting younger candidates through 15 years of legislative scrutiny before letting them finally stand in a seat if they've proved loyal enough to get a seat in the commons, and perhaps a governmental position. Such things would belittle the political system, not enhance them.
Expertise:
The trouble is that expertise isn't guaranteed with elections, especially not with 5 year terms (unless someone happens to stay elected for decades!). We can rely on the open-list system, and hope that parties will put forward experts in their field rather than pliable individuals with a loyal heart, but that would be foolish.
It is entirely natural that with these changes we will lose experts. It is probably for this reason that the consensus is to keep some Lords appointed, such as Bishops, so as to keep a buffer of "expertise" around, especially on the issue of religion.
However I believe that looking at this issue of a "brain drain" on the second chamber is missing the point.
Three "chambers"
Let's say that somehow political deals are made great enough for this legislation to pass, if any referendum is forced then the public vote yes because the main faces of each party all go out together and campaign shoulder to shoulder for greater democracy (Yeah, I know...)
What we're left with is two chambers, one that is responsible for the proposal of laws, ensuring it's "primacy" or power over any others, and that is used to create the executive, and the other that is purely legislative and only exists to scrutinise legislation, passing it through the filter of a proportionally elected set of politicians.
What we are missing is independent scrutiny that has power.
Right now we have independent experts turn up to provide evidence on legislation. Where law is involving human rights especially we will see organisations such as Liberty pitch up and suggest their amendments to legislation, while the Police may give counter-claims and a different perspective that supports the law as written.
None of it is binding though, these are people that are incredibly informed and knowledgable about their field and yet their word is only advice. How it is taken depends entirely on the integrity of the politicians listening to them.
A third "chamber" which operates on a much more fluid basis, with permanent individuals with solid constitutional and legal knowledge to deal with legislative concerns both domestic and European, and temporary experts drawn in to provide their experience and knowledge to the process of amending law, would serve to take from the responsibility of the commons and a second chamber (currently the Lords) the requirement of ensuring that the law is workable, in line with all other laws, and doesn't result in any unintended side effects.
A good case in point would be the ridiculous "Auto-block porn" law that has resurfaced. While the two chambers can argue as much as they like about the merits of requiring ISPs to block porn as default, an expert chamber would be able to write off pretty much all of the law in the bill due to it being simply impossible to put in to action or enforce. Even the current Lords, with all of their alleged expertise, are likely to fail to understand such nuances, and given the highly religious motivation behind the law there will be pressure to ignore actual knowledgable people that can currently only give their advice.
Of course this chamber will, unfortunately, never exist. It will always be criticised by both elected chambers as a "wrecking chamber" that doesn't act to the wishes of the public. Even though it is doing the most important work of all, in grounding the law's provided in reality, and protecting everyone's legal rights against existing laws and standards, it's hard to wrench the power away from politicians that want to write laws that can be ambiguous enough to be exploited later on.
Edit: To clarify, I would see this "chamber" or body as something that is formed for every bill BEFORE it is put to scrutiny. The biggest problem with legislation is that it's hugely flawed and there is only enough time to fix it slightly. This level of input at a "draft" stage would ensure that the truly insane side of some legislation would be filtered out before MPs had to waste their valuable time arguing against it too (if they catch it at all).
Conclusion:
Even though it may be imperfect, I still stand behind a fully elected second chamber. I don't believe that we will lose a great deal of expertise as long as the parties have a level of integrity over who they pick to run, but I also don't believe that the Lords is a universal board of knowledge that stops bad legislation all the time anyway.
In the balance of all things, my priority will always be for legislation that is forced to follow public wishes. Aside from a few examples this reform will by itself stop extreme legislation through the dilution of power in a second chamber.
But ultimately such a change will not change the world. It won't stop workfare, it won't create more jobs, it won't stop people with no technical knowledge of the internet continuing to erode freedoms. It may over time help though, and I firmly believe if we had a Lords that was formed as it is intended in the programme set out by government, the changes to the NHS, to the welfare system and to those on benefits would have been no-where near as severe as they have been.
Tories may shout this as an example of why it is such a bad idea, but I believe they are in the minority, and that the majority of us wish we had that protection of "gridlock" in the last couple of years.
----
*I say this in reference the the public being able to apply direct pressure. There is no question that the Lords, like anyone, understand the mood of the nation. However they aren't necessarily pressed to vote that way as there is no way to punish them for going the wrong way.
Tuesday, June 26, 2012
"There are plenty of jobs for those who want it."
"There are plenty of jobs for those who want it. Just go out there find it and work hard"
The wise words of a Mr Thomas Hablin from Romford (25 years old, as if that matters). If wise, of course, means "lazy, unfounded and utterly ridiculous".
Thomas speaks in the way that the Conservatives of this country would like us to all think, that those not in work are only there by choice, that it is a workshy nature of the public that causes our current economic woes.
I call bullshit.
For a start, let's see how many people are unemployed in Romford.
According to the data compiled by the Guardian's data blog, in May of this year around 2100 people were unemployed, with men outnumbering women unemployed around 2:1.
This isn't a problem though as, according to Mr Hablin, who works for the council (and therefore should know better), there are PLENTY of jobs....
Heh.
Total Jobs lists, within a 5 mile radius of the center of Romford, a grand total of 368 jobs (at the time of writing, 26th June 2012). Some of these will be duplicates, but at best we can say that there are more than 5 people for every job going in the area.
EXCEPT...the area also covers Dagenham and Rainham (3,500 unemployed), Erith and Thamesmead (3,500 unemployed), Hornchurch and Upminster (2,200 unemployed), Illford (6,200 unemployed), Barking (4,700 unemployed) as well as part of Brentwood (1,200 unemployed) and Bexleyheath (1,800 unemployed).
So, in fact there are around 25,200 people going for those 368 jobs, over 68 people for every job going. Before anyone gets all "pointy fact nazi" on me, I do know that those 25 thousand people could well also look for jobs in their own area which doesn't overlap with my search. However if I do extend my search further to 20 miles from Romford, I still only manage to find some 10,000 jobs while simultaneously pushing the job search area over the center of London in to West London, and south past Croydon...so let's not split hairs over just how few jobs there are directly accessible to individuals near to where they live, let alone further afield.
Anyway, I'm glad we now know the new definition of "Plenty" in Tory britain.
Now that we know there are 'plenty' of jobs, and people just need to find it (well duh, job sites and the jobcenters, of course) and then work hard! Simple, right guys? I mean, isn't everyone 'F Gas 2079 certified' these days? Who doesn't have 'A working knowledge of JavaScript, CSS, XHTML, SQL and ASP'?
Let's stop pretending we've got an attitude problem in this country instead of a jobs problem. There are fundamentally not enough jobs for people to apply for, and even if they can find the vacancies, the chance of them being correctly qualified, with the right experience, is slim.
The reality is that our jobs market is serving a few elite people, and that the jobs are probably around only because of a skills shortage in this country (that the Government is trying it's hardest to retain through discouraging immigration) for the specific jobs in hand. Meanwhile thousands upon thousands of people in every area of the country are fighting it out over jobs that they can be fired from without fair reason, on a wage that makes it hard to afford your rent, facing the prospect of having the housing benefit that might give them room to breathe stripped away from them.
But it's ok because as jobs dwindle, they will, like a phoenix, rise again in the form of unpaid "work placements" that those unemployed souls can be forced on to. Let's look on the bright side, everyone will find there way in to work soon enough, they just probably won't be paid for it.
The wise words of a Mr Thomas Hablin from Romford (25 years old, as if that matters). If wise, of course, means "lazy, unfounded and utterly ridiculous".
Thomas speaks in the way that the Conservatives of this country would like us to all think, that those not in work are only there by choice, that it is a workshy nature of the public that causes our current economic woes.
I call bullshit.
For a start, let's see how many people are unemployed in Romford.
According to the data compiled by the Guardian's data blog, in May of this year around 2100 people were unemployed, with men outnumbering women unemployed around 2:1.
This isn't a problem though as, according to Mr Hablin, who works for the council (and therefore should know better), there are PLENTY of jobs....
Heh.
Total Jobs lists, within a 5 mile radius of the center of Romford, a grand total of 368 jobs (at the time of writing, 26th June 2012). Some of these will be duplicates, but at best we can say that there are more than 5 people for every job going in the area.
EXCEPT...the area also covers Dagenham and Rainham (3,500 unemployed), Erith and Thamesmead (3,500 unemployed), Hornchurch and Upminster (2,200 unemployed), Illford (6,200 unemployed), Barking (4,700 unemployed) as well as part of Brentwood (1,200 unemployed) and Bexleyheath (1,800 unemployed).
So, in fact there are around 25,200 people going for those 368 jobs, over 68 people for every job going. Before anyone gets all "pointy fact nazi" on me, I do know that those 25 thousand people could well also look for jobs in their own area which doesn't overlap with my search. However if I do extend my search further to 20 miles from Romford, I still only manage to find some 10,000 jobs while simultaneously pushing the job search area over the center of London in to West London, and south past Croydon...so let's not split hairs over just how few jobs there are directly accessible to individuals near to where they live, let alone further afield.
Anyway, I'm glad we now know the new definition of "Plenty" in Tory britain.
Now that we know there are 'plenty' of jobs, and people just need to find it (well duh, job sites and the jobcenters, of course) and then work hard! Simple, right guys? I mean, isn't everyone 'F Gas 2079 certified' these days? Who doesn't have 'A working knowledge of JavaScript, CSS, XHTML, SQL and ASP'?
Let's stop pretending we've got an attitude problem in this country instead of a jobs problem. There are fundamentally not enough jobs for people to apply for, and even if they can find the vacancies, the chance of them being correctly qualified, with the right experience, is slim.
The reality is that our jobs market is serving a few elite people, and that the jobs are probably around only because of a skills shortage in this country (that the Government is trying it's hardest to retain through discouraging immigration) for the specific jobs in hand. Meanwhile thousands upon thousands of people in every area of the country are fighting it out over jobs that they can be fired from without fair reason, on a wage that makes it hard to afford your rent, facing the prospect of having the housing benefit that might give them room to breathe stripped away from them.
But it's ok because as jobs dwindle, they will, like a phoenix, rise again in the form of unpaid "work placements" that those unemployed souls can be forced on to. Let's look on the bright side, everyone will find there way in to work soon enough, they just probably won't be paid for it.
Monday, June 25, 2012
Benefits
We seem caught in an ideological war of hatred that is not all that different from that of the waves of racism that were pervasive in British society decades ago. While the "haven't-quite-got's" may have lashed out at those who were a different skin colour to themselves in the past, now it has somehow become simply "Benefit scroungers".
Scroungers. It's not even cheats any more, the narrative has moved on from the idea that the bad people in society are the ones conning us in to a meagre allowance from the state, now it's just about those that no doubt need the benefits as it stands, but are "undeserving".
On the whole the right wing press, rallying around David Cameron most recently with his talk of a blanket ban on under 25s getting housing benefit, will talk about "these people" like a drain on society, hurting us all through the tax we have to pay, the children they bring up to be wasters too. En masse these people group together as an indistinguishable mass of lazy, probably fat, certainly over-burdened with children, 50" HD screen buying wasters.
Yet, much like the "I'm not racist, I know [X] and he's a sound guy...it's just the rest of 'em" excuse making for prejudice, we all know people that are having real and true struggles with benefits and finding work.
We know that guy or woman who wants to work, who wants to move out of their parents house, who is applying for everything going. We know that they are being screwed about by the system, being made to jump through hoops, living in fear that if it goes on too long they'll be made to jump through even bigger hoops, making the choice between losing their benefits and still having time to look for work, or being forced to work for free stacking shelves for a major corporation.
We all know someone like this, yet for some they are the exception...everyone else of course is just resigning themselves to picking up the benefit check. Somehow these people don't have to jump through the same hoops, they don't have to show willingness to work, and they have jobs that they could take but are just too workshy to do so.
Unlike our dear friend who we know who has it completely the other way around.
But if we all know people like this...doesn't it show that actually there are thousands upon thousands of people on benefits only just staying afloat while they do everything they can to re-enter a level of normality in society? Isn't this exactly why the welfare system exists, to keep these people afloat?
The Conservatives don't see these benefits, they see only numbers on a machine, further debt that is all too easy to take away, justified by public support that is too blinkered to realise it is once again going through a population wide cultural campaign of discrimination. The stick is the approach, but like the horse getting whipped with it you have to question what the point is.
Forcing people in to voluntary work isn't finding them work, the vast majority don't have jobs waiting for them at the end of their "placement", some even being forced out of voluntary jobs that they're actually being productive in, vindictively, to instead service large corporations on threat of losing benefits.
Forcing people to simply not have housing benefits won't make living costs cheaper, whereas maybe tackling the rental market that has spiraled so out of control that in some areas of the UK it's as impossible to rent as it is to afford a mortgage would, as would dealing with wage disparity that sees executive pay rocket during a recession, while the real wages of low paid workers tumble ever downward, putting pressure on the welfare system as people NEED to find some way to plug the gap in their income vs outgoings equation.
While there may be a minority of people that choose, subconsciously or otherwise, to remain in the shadow of benefits, I believe the majority do not, as it is those who are trying to claw their way out of the shadow that we all see in the faces of our friends and our family, and rarely the other kind. The problem is not that they are on benefits, but that the trench they're in is too deep to get back out of without a ladder.
Cameron and his Conservatives want to put a hole in the trench, so that people fall straight through and in to hell, and hope that this is incentive enough for them to climb a bit harder, if that were even possible. What we should be doing is putting down ladders. Without more jobs being created, without better wages, without lower rents...people will always find themselves sliding back down in to this sorrowful pit where their life is not in their own hands.
We seem to be at a crossroads, one that unfortunately looks like it's becoming a one way street every day we carry on. It's time to work out if we're ethically and morally happy with abandoning people completely to homelessness, absolute poverty, starvation, in an effort to punish the few who may abuse a system or choose to remain in it at least...or we can recognise that with any socially liberal system you have a certain level of "gaming" of the system that is cost-prohibitive to enforce against, but this is a price you pay to ensure that everyone has the opportunity to keep up with the rest of us.
Scroungers. It's not even cheats any more, the narrative has moved on from the idea that the bad people in society are the ones conning us in to a meagre allowance from the state, now it's just about those that no doubt need the benefits as it stands, but are "undeserving".
On the whole the right wing press, rallying around David Cameron most recently with his talk of a blanket ban on under 25s getting housing benefit, will talk about "these people" like a drain on society, hurting us all through the tax we have to pay, the children they bring up to be wasters too. En masse these people group together as an indistinguishable mass of lazy, probably fat, certainly over-burdened with children, 50" HD screen buying wasters.
Yet, much like the "I'm not racist, I know [X] and he's a sound guy...it's just the rest of 'em" excuse making for prejudice, we all know people that are having real and true struggles with benefits and finding work.
We know that guy or woman who wants to work, who wants to move out of their parents house, who is applying for everything going. We know that they are being screwed about by the system, being made to jump through hoops, living in fear that if it goes on too long they'll be made to jump through even bigger hoops, making the choice between losing their benefits and still having time to look for work, or being forced to work for free stacking shelves for a major corporation.
We all know someone like this, yet for some they are the exception...everyone else of course is just resigning themselves to picking up the benefit check. Somehow these people don't have to jump through the same hoops, they don't have to show willingness to work, and they have jobs that they could take but are just too workshy to do so.
Unlike our dear friend who we know who has it completely the other way around.
But if we all know people like this...doesn't it show that actually there are thousands upon thousands of people on benefits only just staying afloat while they do everything they can to re-enter a level of normality in society? Isn't this exactly why the welfare system exists, to keep these people afloat?
The Conservatives don't see these benefits, they see only numbers on a machine, further debt that is all too easy to take away, justified by public support that is too blinkered to realise it is once again going through a population wide cultural campaign of discrimination. The stick is the approach, but like the horse getting whipped with it you have to question what the point is.
Forcing people in to voluntary work isn't finding them work, the vast majority don't have jobs waiting for them at the end of their "placement", some even being forced out of voluntary jobs that they're actually being productive in, vindictively, to instead service large corporations on threat of losing benefits.
Forcing people to simply not have housing benefits won't make living costs cheaper, whereas maybe tackling the rental market that has spiraled so out of control that in some areas of the UK it's as impossible to rent as it is to afford a mortgage would, as would dealing with wage disparity that sees executive pay rocket during a recession, while the real wages of low paid workers tumble ever downward, putting pressure on the welfare system as people NEED to find some way to plug the gap in their income vs outgoings equation.
While there may be a minority of people that choose, subconsciously or otherwise, to remain in the shadow of benefits, I believe the majority do not, as it is those who are trying to claw their way out of the shadow that we all see in the faces of our friends and our family, and rarely the other kind. The problem is not that they are on benefits, but that the trench they're in is too deep to get back out of without a ladder.
Cameron and his Conservatives want to put a hole in the trench, so that people fall straight through and in to hell, and hope that this is incentive enough for them to climb a bit harder, if that were even possible. What we should be doing is putting down ladders. Without more jobs being created, without better wages, without lower rents...people will always find themselves sliding back down in to this sorrowful pit where their life is not in their own hands.
We seem to be at a crossroads, one that unfortunately looks like it's becoming a one way street every day we carry on. It's time to work out if we're ethically and morally happy with abandoning people completely to homelessness, absolute poverty, starvation, in an effort to punish the few who may abuse a system or choose to remain in it at least...or we can recognise that with any socially liberal system you have a certain level of "gaming" of the system that is cost-prohibitive to enforce against, but this is a price you pay to ensure that everyone has the opportunity to keep up with the rest of us.
Thursday, June 21, 2012
Render twitter embedded tweet (web intents style) dynamically
Just a quick one, a note about the Twitter oEmbed API. If you use Javascript to load in this content and insert it in to the page,instead of doing as they ask and caching it, though you could still insert a newly found web intents widget and cache it at the same time, the tweet will be the basic HTML that is returned via the API call to Twitter's oEmbed service.
In your callback, where you're adding the HTML to the page that has been returned by the oEmbed API, make sure you put the following in to "kick start" your code's styling, ensuring the embedded tweet is styled up as a web intents widget and not just a blockquote:
Simple!
In your callback, where you're adding the HTML to the page that has been returned by the oEmbed API, make sure you put the following in to "kick start" your code's styling, ensuring the embedded tweet is styled up as a web intents widget and not just a blockquote:
twttr.widgets.load();Simple!
Friday, June 15, 2012
Argyll and Bute censoring a 9 year old, why?
Argyll and Bute council have today released a statement as to why they have taken the measure to force a school, a school that had no problem with the following occurrences, to stop a 9 year old from photographing her school meals and posting them on her blog.
Let me critique a few of their reasonings for carrying out what, ultimately, amounts to censorship of the press*:
Unwarranted attacks? For a start it is not for Argyll and Bute to decide what is unwarranted or not. If this girl was attacking the council (which she was not) then she obviously feels it's warranted. Assuming that no actual lies or misrepresentations were made, hard to do with a real picture taken of real food, then it's not for the council to make any claims as to the legitimacy of any "attacks".
Not that they were attacks anyway, let's take a sample of the latest posts...
I'm not going to pretend that this is necessarily scientifically reflective of the entire blog...except that someone already has done the work to see just how much the Never Seconds blog attacks the food on offer...
A 75% score rate, how very scathing, Argyll and Bute council!
Onwards...
So why is this the problem of VEG, her dad, and their blog? If they fear for their jobs it is because the school or council are doing nothing to manage their expectations and to give them the right assurances. If the staff can get afraid that they'll lose their jobs off the back of a 75% enjoyment rate by a single child, doesn't that say a lot more about the probably terrifying circumstances these staff work under with clearly victorian working practices being employed by their employers?
Politically they recognised that it is impossible to tarnish the image of a 9 year old girl writing thoughtful posts on her lunches, yes...
Now, does the blog purport to be a complete review of the food standards and choices at school? No, check the first post and you'll see it's clearly a fun take on reviewing what she's eating.
If Argyll and Bute had a problem with this website being taken "out of context" to any degree by the press, then they had other options here. Would VEG or her father have had any problem with including a link on the side of her blog to a full menu provided by the school/council to show the full range of options? How about empowering OTHER students to take up this kind of journalism to get a wider range of views?
No, Argyll and Bute went for the nuclear option, hence why the Streisand Effect is in full force.
Which is his absolute damn right. I'm sorry Argyll and Bute, but does OTHER PEOPLE making comments you don't like based on information they gain from a 3rd party mean the third party needs shutting down?
The council here essentially admit that VEG and her dad have done *nothing* wrong, but they don't like the media response...and since the dad was unwilling to stop supplying information publicly (instead of trying to sell a story about crappy school meals in private, for example), they are now punished?
This is actually outrageous.
The media report on all kinds of things about political life, most of it negative. There is a DIRECT comparison here between what the Never Seconds blog is doing, and freedom of information requests. I'm sure Argyll and Bute would love to not give information about it's inner workings via FOI, to help stop those evil media people from doing there job of scrutinising and reporting on our power-wielding leaders, but they can't, because of the law.
So on that note, why exactly is it legal to stop someone from photographing what they're eating and talking about it?
"The council has had no complaints for the last two years about the quality of school meals other than one from the Payne family received on 6 June and there have been no changes to the service on offer since the introduction of the blog."
So despite all of this terrible media coverage purely intended to unfairly tarnish the council's good name...no-one has actually made an official complaint.
All in all I think this is a very important case, the council have played their big gun cards with this statement, insinuating all kinds of evils that have come as a result of this...but they've simply skimmed over the fact that all this Never Seconds blog has done is carry out journalism. If any of these claims were made about a press agency, a paper, or official processes like the FOI process, there would be huge questions about what is going on at Argyll and Bute if they think that they can trample over basic human rights in order to keep 'bad news' from surfacing.
Watch this space...
*OK, so a girl in school isn't the press...but if she was writing this column for her local newspaper, would the council get away with such censorship?
Let me critique a few of their reasonings for carrying out what, ultimately, amounts to censorship of the press*:
Argyll and Bute Council wholly refutes the unwarranted attacks on its schools catering service which culminated in national press
Unwarranted attacks? For a start it is not for Argyll and Bute to decide what is unwarranted or not. If this girl was attacking the council (which she was not) then she obviously feels it's warranted. Assuming that no actual lies or misrepresentations were made, hard to do with a real picture taken of real food, then it's not for the council to make any claims as to the legitimacy of any "attacks".
Not that they were attacks anyway, let's take a sample of the latest posts...
Lunch was really nice today and it helped cheer me up. Macaroni Cheese at school is so creamy and it's nice to have it with the crunchy radishes and peppers. You don't have to have mash with the macaroni but they offered me some and I took it as I always have mash if it's offered. We don't get jelly often, maybe about twice in every 4 weeks, and I like to put it on my spoon and suck it through my teeth. It's so slippy it doesn't really make a noise so I don't upset my friends!
There is always spag bol the day after mince pasta which I think are the same meal really. The fajita was lovely because there was no fat on the chicken and it was covered in salsa. I cut it up rather than pick it up in case I dropped bits which isn't popular. It is quite hard to eat peas and sweetcorn without dropping them but I was very careful. The dessert is called Australian Crunch but I don't know why. The only reason I can think of is it has coconut in it unless its a traditional Australian recipe. I didn't finish my dessert so no fruit.
I asked if I could have a dessert and soup and they said yes, maybe because there was a lot of soup left. The soup was carrot and I ate half of it but then stopped because it was too hot! I finished my soup after I ate my pasta and before my yoghurt. I didn't quite finish my pasta because it had a lot of onions in it.
I'm not going to pretend that this is necessarily scientifically reflective of the entire blog...except that someone already has done the work to see just how much the Never Seconds blog attacks the food on offer...
Just done an average of the scores on #neverseconds blog. Why do @argyllandbute say staff feared for jobs on average of 7.59/10?
— Caron Lindsay (@caronmlindsay) June 15, 2012
A 75% score rate, how very scathing, Argyll and Bute council!
Onwards...
headlines which have led catering staff to fear for their jobs.
So why is this the problem of VEG, her dad, and their blog? If they fear for their jobs it is because the school or council are doing nothing to manage their expectations and to give them the right assurances. If the staff can get afraid that they'll lose their jobs off the back of a 75% enjoyment rate by a single child, doesn't that say a lot more about the probably terrifying circumstances these staff work under with clearly victorian working practices being employed by their employers?
The Council has directly avoided any criticism of anyone involved in the ‘never seconds’ blog for obvious reasons
Politically they recognised that it is impossible to tarnish the image of a 9 year old girl writing thoughtful posts on her lunches, yes...
In particular, the photographic images uploaded appear to only represent a fraction of the choices available to pupils, so a decision has been made by the council to stop photos being taken in the school canteen.
Now, does the blog purport to be a complete review of the food standards and choices at school? No, check the first post and you'll see it's clearly a fun take on reviewing what she's eating.
If Argyll and Bute had a problem with this website being taken "out of context" to any degree by the press, then they had other options here. Would VEG or her father have had any problem with including a link on the side of her blog to a full menu provided by the school/council to show the full range of options? How about empowering OTHER students to take up this kind of journalism to get a wider range of views?
No, Argyll and Bute went for the nuclear option, hence why the Streisand Effect is in full force.
There have been discussions between senior council staff and Martha’s father however, despite an acknowledgement that the media coverage has produced these unwarranted attacks, he intimated that he would continue with the blog.
Which is his absolute damn right. I'm sorry Argyll and Bute, but does OTHER PEOPLE making comments you don't like based on information they gain from a 3rd party mean the third party needs shutting down?
The council here essentially admit that VEG and her dad have done *nothing* wrong, but they don't like the media response...and since the dad was unwilling to stop supplying information publicly (instead of trying to sell a story about crappy school meals in private, for example), they are now punished?
This is actually outrageous.
The media report on all kinds of things about political life, most of it negative. There is a DIRECT comparison here between what the Never Seconds blog is doing, and freedom of information requests. I'm sure Argyll and Bute would love to not give information about it's inner workings via FOI, to help stop those evil media people from doing there job of scrutinising and reporting on our power-wielding leaders, but they can't, because of the law.
So on that note, why exactly is it legal to stop someone from photographing what they're eating and talking about it?
"The council has had no complaints for the last two years about the quality of school meals other than one from the Payne family received on 6 June and there have been no changes to the service on offer since the introduction of the blog."
So despite all of this terrible media coverage purely intended to unfairly tarnish the council's good name...no-one has actually made an official complaint.
All in all I think this is a very important case, the council have played their big gun cards with this statement, insinuating all kinds of evils that have come as a result of this...but they've simply skimmed over the fact that all this Never Seconds blog has done is carry out journalism. If any of these claims were made about a press agency, a paper, or official processes like the FOI process, there would be huge questions about what is going on at Argyll and Bute if they think that they can trample over basic human rights in order to keep 'bad news' from surfacing.
Watch this space...
*OK, so a girl in school isn't the press...but if she was writing this column for her local newspaper, would the council get away with such censorship?
Thursday, June 14, 2012
But I NEEEEED it: The police's childish attitude to web privacy
In news originally touted as "Stopping councils from snooping" as I'm sure the ministers involved would rather new laws on interception of our personal communications online are reported, the BBC has detailed today's developments on the law proposed to help the authorities spy on us online.
But, as Mark Pack says, there is also a good side to how things have progressed on this law, and that is that there are two strong, liberal and importantly technologically aware individuals, at least, that will be the voice of reason on the cross-party panel that will vet this bill. Finger's crossed what we see as the final product to be debated is severely gutted.
I shalln't go in to much depth on this, I have elsewhere in the past, but more importantly there is a good article on this I think you should read anyway.
What I want to focus on is the core and poisonous reason this bill is even in existence at all right now.
The police don't "need" anything of the sort, and that's what pisses me off. This law will actually do nothing to actually keep up with the types of criminals that they should be worried about, as those people will be operating in ways that render this law useless to use against them. It certainly won't allow people that were previously unknown to the police to be forced out in the open either.
What the police actually mean to say is they "want" to have this power, as it would be another tool in their box to use when it comes to helping to secure some conviction against someone already a suspect.
To say that they "need" this, to wage "total war", is to say that they need a lot of things. Like a total surveillance camera network to track where you go between leaving the house and coming home again, or even surveillance in your home that they can access records of without a warrant.
They don't need any of this, they are just asking, as they are always doing, for more authoritarian powers because it makes their job easier. It is not the government's job to just give in to this.
The real, and only, need in this whole scenario is for politicians to get educated on this issue and to protect the balance between security of the state and individuals, and the liberties of individuals.
As Julian Huppert is reported to have said today in the first briefing on this draft law, it is up to those who believe they need these powers to prove that need if that is how they wish to present it. They need to show what will happen if they don't have the powers, what the implications will be, and what the risks are.
If they can't do this then they are no better than the child in a toy shop shouting and screaming about how they need, and like any good parent would do, the government should treat it with the same disregard and learn not to spoil them so much.
But, as Mark Pack says, there is also a good side to how things have progressed on this law, and that is that there are two strong, liberal and importantly technologically aware individuals, at least, that will be the voice of reason on the cross-party panel that will vet this bill. Finger's crossed what we see as the final product to be debated is severely gutted.
I shalln't go in to much depth on this, I have elsewhere in the past, but more importantly there is a good article on this I think you should read anyway.
What I want to focus on is the core and poisonous reason this bill is even in existence at all right now.
Metropolitan Police Commissioner Bernard Hogan-Howe, writing in the Times, said having greater powers to access data was essential in waging a "total war on crime" - and he warned that police risked losing the fight against crime unless MPs passed a law enabling them to collect more communications data.
The Met police chief wrote: "Put simply, the police need access to this information to keep up with the criminals who bring so much harm to victims and our society."
The police don't "need" anything of the sort, and that's what pisses me off. This law will actually do nothing to actually keep up with the types of criminals that they should be worried about, as those people will be operating in ways that render this law useless to use against them. It certainly won't allow people that were previously unknown to the police to be forced out in the open either.
What the police actually mean to say is they "want" to have this power, as it would be another tool in their box to use when it comes to helping to secure some conviction against someone already a suspect.
To say that they "need" this, to wage "total war", is to say that they need a lot of things. Like a total surveillance camera network to track where you go between leaving the house and coming home again, or even surveillance in your home that they can access records of without a warrant.
They don't need any of this, they are just asking, as they are always doing, for more authoritarian powers because it makes their job easier. It is not the government's job to just give in to this.
The real, and only, need in this whole scenario is for politicians to get educated on this issue and to protect the balance between security of the state and individuals, and the liberties of individuals.
As Julian Huppert is reported to have said today in the first briefing on this draft law, it is up to those who believe they need these powers to prove that need if that is how they wish to present it. They need to show what will happen if they don't have the powers, what the implications will be, and what the risks are.
If they can't do this then they are no better than the child in a toy shop shouting and screaming about how they need
Monday, May 28, 2012
Cookie law implementation watch
Here's a quick listing of some sites, and how they have implemented the cookie law...the good, the bad and the ugly...
Last updated: 28th May 2012. Tweet your examples to me!
Why?
It gives clear information, clear routes to find out more and set preferences (a pain in the arse to implement for most small businesses, but actually very good for user-control), and an implied consent model that doesn't impact on their long term analytics and functionality (mainly due to the sheer number of page hits bbc.co.uk will receive).
Royal Bank of Scotland
Why?
Clear implied consent messaging, prominently placed. It's not amazing but it does the job, with settings easily accessible to disable cookies on site.
Barclays
Why?
Barclays actually takes this one step further. While their initial messaging could possibly be a little more prominent, the way of interacting to set your cookie options is very clear and user friendly.
Nectar
Why?
On the face of it, not a great implementation, opting for the less obvious "bottom toast" option for highlighting cookie options. However they save themselves well with what looks like a tool that others might be able to use that constantly stays on the page, showing the kind of cookies that are being used and quick access to turn them on or off
Labour
Conservatives
Lib Dems
Why?
Yes, they've made an effort, a tiny little toaster pop up in the bottom right hand corner. But is it enough? In the case of the Lib Dems they follow the implicit consent model to the letter. Zero cookies on site before you continue usage, but with no options other than to change your browser preferences users are left slightly in the dark. The Tories do next best, though in reality the only cookies they seem to use are third party ones...and they let them through regardless. The presumption here seems to be they don't have to worry about third party cookies. They're wrong.
Either way, as with Labour, this messaging feels far from prominent and certainly not aimed at giving users of the site a clear choice or information.
Then you have Labour taking it to another level, setting every cookie under the sun on the presence that simply being on the site gives them permission. This is about the worst kind of implicit consent I can see. Yes they inform, yes they give links to how to cut the cookies out...but allowing all cookies all the time regardless of any user interaction seem, to me, to be stretching the advice of ICO very, very far.
Telegraph
Why?
Blink and you'll miss it. Instantly one of the better toaster pop ups hidden at the bottom of the page...it is large and black and shiny looking after all...it disappears after about 30 seconds, if that. No chance to see what it says if you missed it without going and deleting your cookies again. Quite simply someone could open this site amongst a flurry of tab opening and never see this message. Terrible.
Asda
Why?
At first glance Asda doesn't seem to implement anything to adhere to the law. Scroll to the bottom, however, and you'll see they do! Well, it might be up for debate on whether or not they actually can count as having implemented a consent mechanism here, actually...
The Sun
Why?
Marginally better than Asda, this tiny message at the bottom of the page on half faded out black is at least always nestled just out of natural view on the bottom of the window, but you don't have to scroll to see it. It's still a crappy implementation.
ITV
Why?
Like Asda, an afterthought, but at least styled better. What can I say, I don't believe that this method would stand up to any kind of scrutiny if someone took it to the ICO.
London Stock Exchange
Why?
On first inspection this may look like a good implementation, it asks an opt in question...but the reality is that it sets cookies (it tells you it sets analytical ones, not so much letting you know about the advertising based ones) and continues to use them even if you never use the message. Sure, this might be implied consent...but why have the explicit opt in message?!
Why?
It adheres exactly to the law, it is the shining example of how to follow the law...yet it is an ugly looking implementation that has already proved to ruin accurate analytical tracking through user indifference. It might be the right thing to do legally, but from a "business case" view, it is just a bit nasty.
All About Cookies
Why?
First I thought: "Good on them, making a statement". The prominent pop up really forces the issue in to the open. But then they still let google ads operate in the background, even when the cookie option is set to be restricted. Confusing much? Maybe they're just sticking two fingers up at the legislators while appearing to comply. *shrugs*
The Guardian
Why?
It's simple messaging, devoid of a clear opt out, instead relying on telling people that they can change their settings in their browsers. The only reason this doesn't make it in to the "bad" section is it's very clear way of showing what cookies there are on site, and what they are used for.
Doner
Why?
OK, so Ugly might be the wrong word given how cute they've tried to be (and how little most other ad agencies are bothering!)...but it kind of doesn't do what it's meant to. Like many other examples, a lack of actually letting people know what they're opting in to with a bar that is essentially just an annoyance urging you to press yes just to get it out of the way. It would be a perfect solution before ICO changed it's advice...except that it still sets an advertising cookie (or so it appears) from a third party so the information about cookies on the site is not really accurate.
HSBC
Why?
Barclays and RBS really showed how you can be responsible on this front, on sites where people take their privacy and security a little more seriously as standard. This messaging by HSBC is ok, but it really feels slapped on.
Church of England
Why?
Some are preferring this option (see below), most that do so choose this route to make a statement about how ridiculous this law is. However the messaging here, to click a button that doesn't exist. The impression here is that by closing the window you're accepting the cookies, yet with such a window you'd also expect to be able to NOT accept....very poor and muddled design.
Why?
These sites may be the ones you interact with most on a daily basis. They aren't required to adhere to this law, since they are not "UK based" as far as I can tell. It makes a mockery of the law in itself that UK businesses are having to go out of their way to adhere while there isn't a more "global" agreement. Other top sites viewed in the UK also include Yahoo, MSN...again, all not covered by this law that is far too geographically based for a world wide web.
Number 10
Why? The website of the premier office in the land...and they're technically breaking the law. Sure, they have a link to cookies in a prominent place, but this is 2003 legislation, not 2011 that would require some form of consent!
Money Saving Expert
Why?
After a brief tweet earlier I came to understand that the Money Saving Expert team seem to believe that having a link to a page for Cookies on each page, at the bottom amongst other legal links, is enough to adhere to the law. I don't know if this is just oversight, or poor advice, but even under new ICO advice it'd be surprising if this stance would constitute the correct "context" within which it's reasonable to assume a user has given consent.
Just to reitterate how ICO put it, if you roll up someones sleeve in a doctor's surgery and they don't stop you, then you don't have to explicitly ask them if it's ok to take their blood pressure, you can take implied consent since it's clear (from the environment, reason for the visit, and the action) that they would know what you're doing and tell you if they weren't ok with it. Is simply being on a website enough knowledge of how they work to take implied consent? If the law makers believed that users were that clued up then they wouldn't have felt the need to make the law in the first place!
DMA/Assorted digital agencies
Why?
The DMA are just an example of really how hostile (or indifferent) those who actually directly interact with this law as part of their profession are to the Cookie law. Look, they have at least 2 or 3 mentions of the Cookie law on their site, yet no adherence! This is the same across many of the top digital agencies in the country. Telling.
Tesco/Sainsburys
Why?
Arguably the biggest businesses in the UK, certainly in retail terms...does this mean they care about giving people information about the cookies on their site? Not yet.
Independent/Daily Mail/Express, etc.
Why?
I'd expect it of the Daily Mail and Express, sticking it to those EU bastards that are probably only doing this to hit the mail's visitor stats and therefore ad revenue </conspiracy theories> but why can't the Independent get it's act in gear?
Confused
Why?
So there may be an implementation here on the way, but for now I thought I'd just highlight the above. Essential cookies? According to who? Certainly not the ICO who take the user's view that analytical tracking, A-B testing and CERTAINLY "allow us to reward some external websites for directing you to us", are not "essential" functions for your site!
Sky
Why?
Quite simply, if the BBC can do it, and the ITV can try and fail to do it, why can't Sky at least have a go at implementing a solution?
The Monarchy
Why?
One does not care about cookies, it seems.
Lloyds/Santander
Why?
I won't bother with screenshots, suffice to say that while other banking groups have pulled their finger out to varying degrees, these have not. You'd think that things like PPI and causing an economic global crisis might make them a little more keen to play ball.
The Law Society
Why?
They're the law society. The LAW....SOCIETY...OF LAW... and yet they don't yet follow the rules. Enough said?
Last updated: 28th May 2012. Tweet your examples to me!
The Good
The BBCWhy?
It gives clear information, clear routes to find out more and set preferences (a pain in the arse to implement for most small businesses, but actually very good for user-control), and an implied consent model that doesn't impact on their long term analytics and functionality (mainly due to the sheer number of page hits bbc.co.uk will receive).
Royal Bank of Scotland
Why?
Clear implied consent messaging, prominently placed. It's not amazing but it does the job, with settings easily accessible to disable cookies on site.
Barclays
Why?
Barclays actually takes this one step further. While their initial messaging could possibly be a little more prominent, the way of interacting to set your cookie options is very clear and user friendly.
Nectar
Why?
On the face of it, not a great implementation, opting for the less obvious "bottom toast" option for highlighting cookie options. However they save themselves well with what looks like a tool that others might be able to use that constantly stays on the page, showing the kind of cookies that are being used and quick access to turn them on or off
The Bad
Political party sitesLabour
Conservatives
Lib Dems
Why?
Yes, they've made an effort, a tiny little toaster pop up in the bottom right hand corner. But is it enough? In the case of the Lib Dems they follow the implicit consent model to the letter. Zero cookies on site before you continue usage, but with no options other than to change your browser preferences users are left slightly in the dark. The Tories do next best, though in reality the only cookies they seem to use are third party ones...and they let them through regardless. The presumption here seems to be they don't have to worry about third party cookies. They're wrong.
Either way, as with Labour, this messaging feels far from prominent and certainly not aimed at giving users of the site a clear choice or information.
Then you have Labour taking it to another level, setting every cookie under the sun on the presence that simply being on the site gives them permission. This is about the worst kind of implicit consent I can see. Yes they inform, yes they give links to how to cut the cookies out...but allowing all cookies all the time regardless of any user interaction seem, to me, to be stretching the advice of ICO very, very far.
Telegraph
Why?
Blink and you'll miss it. Instantly one of the better toaster pop ups hidden at the bottom of the page...it is large and black and shiny looking after all...it disappears after about 30 seconds, if that. No chance to see what it says if you missed it without going and deleting your cookies again. Quite simply someone could open this site amongst a flurry of tab opening and never see this message. Terrible.
Asda
Why?
At first glance Asda doesn't seem to implement anything to adhere to the law. Scroll to the bottom, however, and you'll see they do! Well, it might be up for debate on whether or not they actually can count as having implemented a consent mechanism here, actually...
The Sun
Why?
Marginally better than Asda, this tiny message at the bottom of the page on half faded out black is at least always nestled just out of natural view on the bottom of the window, but you don't have to scroll to see it. It's still a crappy implementation.
ITV
Why?
Like Asda, an afterthought, but at least styled better. What can I say, I don't believe that this method would stand up to any kind of scrutiny if someone took it to the ICO.
London Stock Exchange
Why?
On first inspection this may look like a good implementation, it asks an opt in question...but the reality is that it sets cookies (it tells you it sets analytical ones, not so much letting you know about the advertising based ones) and continues to use them even if you never use the message. Sure, this might be implied consent...but why have the explicit opt in message?!
The Ugly
ICOWhy?
It adheres exactly to the law, it is the shining example of how to follow the law...yet it is an ugly looking implementation that has already proved to ruin accurate analytical tracking through user indifference. It might be the right thing to do legally, but from a "business case" view, it is just a bit nasty.
All About Cookies
Why?
First I thought: "Good on them, making a statement". The prominent pop up really forces the issue in to the open. But then they still let google ads operate in the background, even when the cookie option is set to be restricted. Confusing much? Maybe they're just sticking two fingers up at the legislators while appearing to comply. *shrugs*
The Guardian
Why?
It's simple messaging, devoid of a clear opt out, instead relying on telling people that they can change their settings in their browsers. The only reason this doesn't make it in to the "bad" section is it's very clear way of showing what cookies there are on site, and what they are used for.
Doner
Why?
OK, so Ugly might be the wrong word given how cute they've tried to be (and how little most other ad agencies are bothering!)...but it kind of doesn't do what it's meant to. Like many other examples, a lack of actually letting people know what they're opting in to with a bar that is essentially just an annoyance urging you to press yes just to get it out of the way. It would be a perfect solution before ICO changed it's advice...except that it still sets an advertising cookie (or so it appears) from a third party so the information about cookies on the site is not really accurate.
HSBC
Why?
Barclays and RBS really showed how you can be responsible on this front, on sites where people take their privacy and security a little more seriously as standard. This messaging by HSBC is ok, but it really feels slapped on.
Church of England
Why?
Some are preferring this option (see below), most that do so choose this route to make a statement about how ridiculous this law is. However the messaging here, to click a button that doesn't exist. The impression here is that by closing the window you're accepting the cookies, yet with such a window you'd also expect to be able to NOT accept....very poor and muddled design.
The... Absent?
Facebook/Twitter/Google etc.Why?
These sites may be the ones you interact with most on a daily basis. They aren't required to adhere to this law, since they are not "UK based" as far as I can tell. It makes a mockery of the law in itself that UK businesses are having to go out of their way to adhere while there isn't a more "global" agreement. Other top sites viewed in the UK also include Yahoo, MSN...again, all not covered by this law that is far too geographically based for a world wide web.
Number 10
Why? The website of the premier office in the land...and they're technically breaking the law. Sure, they have a link to cookies in a prominent place, but this is 2003 legislation, not 2011 that would require some form of consent!
Money Saving Expert
Why?
After a brief tweet earlier I came to understand that the Money Saving Expert team seem to believe that having a link to a page for Cookies on each page, at the bottom amongst other legal links, is enough to adhere to the law. I don't know if this is just oversight, or poor advice, but even under new ICO advice it'd be surprising if this stance would constitute the correct "context" within which it's reasonable to assume a user has given consent.
Just to reitterate how ICO put it, if you roll up someones sleeve in a doctor's surgery and they don't stop you, then you don't have to explicitly ask them if it's ok to take their blood pressure, you can take implied consent since it's clear (from the environment, reason for the visit, and the action) that they would know what you're doing and tell you if they weren't ok with it. Is simply being on a website enough knowledge of how they work to take implied consent? If the law makers believed that users were that clued up then they wouldn't have felt the need to make the law in the first place!
DMA/Assorted digital agencies
Why?
The DMA are just an example of really how hostile (or indifferent) those who actually directly interact with this law as part of their profession are to the Cookie law. Look, they have at least 2 or 3 mentions of the Cookie law on their site, yet no adherence! This is the same across many of the top digital agencies in the country. Telling.
Tesco/Sainsburys
Why?
Arguably the biggest businesses in the UK, certainly in retail terms...does this mean they care about giving people information about the cookies on their site? Not yet.
Independent/Daily Mail/Express, etc.
Why?
I'd expect it of the Daily Mail and Express, sticking it to those EU bastards that are probably only doing this to hit the mail's visitor stats and therefore ad revenue </conspiracy theories> but why can't the Independent get it's act in gear?
Confused
Why?
So there may be an implementation here on the way, but for now I thought I'd just highlight the above. Essential cookies? According to who? Certainly not the ICO who take the user's view that analytical tracking, A-B testing and CERTAINLY "allow us to reward some external websites for directing you to us", are not "essential" functions for your site!
Sky
Why?
Quite simply, if the BBC can do it, and the ITV can try and fail to do it, why can't Sky at least have a go at implementing a solution?
The Monarchy
Why?
One does not care about cookies, it seems.
Lloyds/Santander
Why?
I won't bother with screenshots, suffice to say that while other banking groups have pulled their finger out to varying degrees, these have not. You'd think that things like PPI and causing an economic global crisis might make them a little more keen to play ball.
The Law Society
Why?
They're the law society. The LAW....SOCIETY...OF LAW... and yet they don't yet follow the rules. Enough said?
Tuesday, May 22, 2012
Give prisoners the vote
Prisoners deserve a vote. I believe all of them deserve one, because it is something a civilised and democratic country should encourage. Prisoners that aren't able to vote are a dangerous thing to democracy, since the very existence of a means of stripping someone of their vote leaves the door open for politicians to abuse their position. While we may be a long way off Cameron being the sort of person to form a crack down on left-wing political activists to silence them and weaken their favoured parties, sharing that particular trait with much less democratic countries than our own is nothing to be proud of.
However I am also a realist, and I understand wholeheartedly that the public in their vengeful glory would rather punish a rapist or a murderer in any way possible, even if that includes the rather insignificant matter of them casting a vote. This is why I think it is absolutely right to support that any prisoner who's time of incarceration would be up within the life of the next parliament has the right to vote.
Think about it. If a person is in prison on the day of an election, yet then released the day after, as they have served their time and done their punishment...why is it correct for them to have not had a vote? They will spend every single day under a government, and under an MP, that they had no say over...how is this fair?
Arguably any prisoner who will, at some point, become a free person again...a clean slate to start from...deserves to have a say in how the country is run to help them, as any other member of the public, all the way in to the future...but it's much easier to make the case for the clear interaction that the next government will have on that soon-to-be ex-prisoner's life.
There's really so little to lose, and so much to gain, by doing this. We send a message that the powers that be are not able to silence us for short periods of time, if they ever wished to do so, we give people that are supposed to be rehabilitated and reintroduced in to society as productive members of society the franchise to feel a part of it, and yet we also placate those who simply can't reconcile that a single serious criminal voting for their favoured MP is not going to turn the tide of the country to a dystopian criminal nightmare.
It's time the government stopped digging their heels in here, and I hope the Lib Dems will help soften the ground over the next 6 months. A modern civilised society allows everyone to vote who has a stake in the country, and that includes prisoners...whether it makes you feel uneasy or not.
However I am also a realist, and I understand wholeheartedly that the public in their vengeful glory would rather punish a rapist or a murderer in any way possible, even if that includes the rather insignificant matter of them casting a vote. This is why I think it is absolutely right to support that any prisoner who's time of incarceration would be up within the life of the next parliament has the right to vote.
Think about it. If a person is in prison on the day of an election, yet then released the day after, as they have served their time and done their punishment...why is it correct for them to have not had a vote? They will spend every single day under a government, and under an MP, that they had no say over...how is this fair?
Arguably any prisoner who will, at some point, become a free person again...a clean slate to start from...deserves to have a say in how the country is run to help them, as any other member of the public, all the way in to the future...but it's much easier to make the case for the clear interaction that the next government will have on that soon-to-be ex-prisoner's life.
There's really so little to lose, and so much to gain, by doing this. We send a message that the powers that be are not able to silence us for short periods of time, if they ever wished to do so, we give people that are supposed to be rehabilitated and reintroduced in to society as productive members of society the franchise to feel a part of it, and yet we also placate those who simply can't reconcile that a single serious criminal voting for their favoured MP is not going to turn the tide of the country to a dystopian criminal nightmare.
It's time the government stopped digging their heels in here, and I hope the Lib Dems will help soften the ground over the next 6 months. A modern civilised society allows everyone to vote who has a stake in the country, and that includes prisoners...whether it makes you feel uneasy or not.
Monday, May 21, 2012
The Taxpayers' Alliance: Why the common person can't trust them
It should be fairly obvious to anyone that has had more than a passing understanding of The TaxPayers' Alliance that they are a "friendly" (not so friendly) front for right wing libertarian ideals.
What does this mean? Essentially they believe that the country would get on a whole lot better if the state did as little as possible, as simply as possible, and on this subject they center around taxation... i.e. people shouldn't really have to pay much of it at all.
They parade around making popular announcements about Petrol Tax and how it should be a lot lower, and it is enough to make some believe that they are interested in the common person on the street, fighting for the little guy against the big government.
They are not. They are greedy bastards headed by former Tories (that thought the Conservatives simply weren't friendly enough to the rich) and Tory sympathisers. They are supported at high levels by the kinds of people that want to see the rich in the country pay less. Their interests are in helping the wealthy get wealthier.
We can see this now fulling in their latest endeavor, the "2020 Tax Commission", named no doubt to fool people in to thinking this is a legitimate, unbiased, and measured set of proposals that are intended to be fair. They are not.
What are they proposing in their long report?
1) A single rate of tax at 30% for all incomes (essentially combining National Insurance and Income tax...while abolishing higher tax rates for higher earners).
2) A tax free allowance of 10k (as per current Lib Dem proposals).
3) A tiny cut in fuel tax of 5p (over 5 years)
4) Remove inheritance tax
5) Remove capital gains tax
6) Remove stamp duty tax
7) Remove stamp taxes on shares
8) Remove air passenger taxes
Well, how does that look for the common person? a 5p cut in fuel might be nice enough, in that it will stabilise prices over time (we certainly wouldn't feel it back in our wallets)...and a slight decrease on taxes for those under the 40 bracket might be favourable (though could be achieved less regressively through high tax allowance limits).
But inheritance tax? Capital gains? Stamp duty? Stamp on shares? Air passenger taxes? These are all taxes that fundamentally affect the rich more than they do the poor. By removing them we are encouraging those with wealth to pay less in to the pot...while at the same time lessening the amount of money everyone pays in* and encouraging more cuts!
If this got implemented, you know what, the TaxPayers' alliance might be right...it may just stimulate job creation, but only to replace the public sector jobs that have to be outsourced to privatised groups to make up the shortfall in funding. This isn't a proposal for a simpler tax system, it's a proposal for the outright destruction of public services in the UK!
*Now I say everyone pays in less, this isn't true. A household with a person earning £200k would be, on these plans, at least £25k better off, as their top tax rate is slashed by almost 50% from 45% plus National Insurance (after Tories cut the 50p tax rate despite public wishes) to just 30%. A two person pensioner household would, if earning enough to go above the personal allowance threshold, see their top tax rate increase by 50% by comparison. If you thought the "Granny Tax" outcries were loud when the balance of policies increased pensioner earnings, wait until anyone tries to pass this doozy through a budget!
The Taxpayers' Alliance, everyone, fighting for high flying businessmen, wealthy families, risky hedge fund market traders, high income earners and bonus receivers...and maybe those that would like fuel prices to steady on for a little while.
What does this mean? Essentially they believe that the country would get on a whole lot better if the state did as little as possible, as simply as possible, and on this subject they center around taxation... i.e. people shouldn't really have to pay much of it at all.
They parade around making popular announcements about Petrol Tax and how it should be a lot lower, and it is enough to make some believe that they are interested in the common person on the street, fighting for the little guy against the big government.
They are not. They are greedy bastards headed by former Tories (that thought the Conservatives simply weren't friendly enough to the rich) and Tory sympathisers. They are supported at high levels by the kinds of people that want to see the rich in the country pay less. Their interests are in helping the wealthy get wealthier.
We can see this now fulling in their latest endeavor, the "2020 Tax Commission", named no doubt to fool people in to thinking this is a legitimate, unbiased, and measured set of proposals that are intended to be fair. They are not.
What are they proposing in their long report?
1) A single rate of tax at 30% for all incomes (essentially combining National Insurance and Income tax...while abolishing higher tax rates for higher earners).
2) A tax free allowance of 10k (as per current Lib Dem proposals).
3) A tiny cut in fuel tax of 5p (over 5 years)
4) Remove inheritance tax
5) Remove capital gains tax
6) Remove stamp duty tax
7) Remove stamp taxes on shares
8) Remove air passenger taxes
Well, how does that look for the common person? a 5p cut in fuel might be nice enough, in that it will stabilise prices over time (we certainly wouldn't feel it back in our wallets)...and a slight decrease on taxes for those under the 40 bracket might be favourable (though could be achieved less regressively through high tax allowance limits).
But inheritance tax? Capital gains? Stamp duty? Stamp on shares? Air passenger taxes? These are all taxes that fundamentally affect the rich more than they do the poor. By removing them we are encouraging those with wealth to pay less in to the pot...while at the same time lessening the amount of money everyone pays in* and encouraging more cuts!
If this got implemented, you know what, the TaxPayers' alliance might be right...it may just stimulate job creation, but only to replace the public sector jobs that have to be outsourced to privatised groups to make up the shortfall in funding. This isn't a proposal for a simpler tax system, it's a proposal for the outright destruction of public services in the UK!
*Now I say everyone pays in less, this isn't true. A household with a person earning £200k would be, on these plans, at least £25k better off, as their top tax rate is slashed by almost 50% from 45% plus National Insurance (after Tories cut the 50p tax rate despite public wishes) to just 30%. A two person pensioner household would, if earning enough to go above the personal allowance threshold, see their top tax rate increase by 50% by comparison. If you thought the "Granny Tax" outcries were loud when the balance of policies increased pensioner earnings, wait until anyone tries to pass this doozy through a budget!
The Taxpayers' Alliance, everyone, fighting for high flying businessmen, wealthy families, risky hedge fund market traders, high income earners and bonus receivers...and maybe those that would like fuel prices to steady on for a little while.
Tuesday, May 15, 2012
Why minimum pricing of alcohol makes no difference to binge drinking bar goers...
Just a quick one here, for future reference.
First of all, as the proposals currently stand, minimum pricing is set to 50p per unit in Scotland, and maybe 45p in the rest of UK/England. This equates to between £1 and £1.50 for a normal pint in a pub, £1.50 for an "alcopop", 50p for a small glass of wine, and £1 for a double spirit mixer.
Those who have been out any time in the last decade will understand how these prices are "dream prices" for the wallet, and well below the real cost of buying a drink in the UK.
Take the real cost of a pint, easily over £3 in the city, or a spirit and mixer, usually around £2.50. With drinks promotions frowned upon when it comes to licensing arrangements, choosing to go out is one that means you know that you're going to spend a certain amount of money.
And this is why minimum alcohol pricing doesn't matter. A bottle of vodka, even with minimum pricing, will cost around £14 if you're going for a bargain. This will, if you are intending to get absolutely drunk of a night out, provide you with the equivalent of 28 vodka mixers for around 23% of the price of doing it out in the bars.
If you have a budget of £10 for drinks, you might say you'll spend £5 out (two drinks) and spend enough time inside to share the bottle with 2 other people. 11 drinks of a night for £10.
What if minimum pricing went up? To maybe 60p? That bottle of Vodka would go up to ~£17. You still have £10 to spend individually, so what's the answer? Simple really, you know a drink will be £2.50 out, so you can get one before you dance, which means you can have more of that bottle of vodka (you'd buy more than one bottle this time, which in itself is a problem) and your total night drinks would be 11-12 drinks before you go out, and then another when you're at the bar/club.
you spend the same, you drink *more*, you still end up going out, the only difference is you go out for less time to mitigate the issue of expense. You know you have to spend more on pre-drinking, but it's still significantly cheaper than the bars, so you just spend more time on the pre-drinks in your home.
Of course as the minimum price goes up, the situation changes. 75p per unit pricing would mean that you would probably, if you wanted to go out and buy a drink out, only get 10 drinks in total... at £1 per unit you're really eating in to that margin, the Vodka would be £28 per bottle, you'd maybe only manage 8 drinks for your £10 that evening...and so on.
As it stands, if anything, the law is potentially going to fuel worse binge drinking...I believe the economics of current levels just stack up to creating enough of a squeeze on how expensive it all is to push people to drink the cheaper booze at home more.
First of all, as the proposals currently stand, minimum pricing is set to 50p per unit in Scotland, and maybe 45p in the rest of UK/England. This equates to between £1 and £1.50 for a normal pint in a pub, £1.50 for an "alcopop", 50p for a small glass of wine, and £1 for a double spirit mixer.
Those who have been out any time in the last decade will understand how these prices are "dream prices" for the wallet, and well below the real cost of buying a drink in the UK.
Take the real cost of a pint, easily over £3 in the city, or a spirit and mixer, usually around £2.50. With drinks promotions frowned upon when it comes to licensing arrangements, choosing to go out is one that means you know that you're going to spend a certain amount of money.
And this is why minimum alcohol pricing doesn't matter. A bottle of vodka, even with minimum pricing, will cost around £14 if you're going for a bargain. This will, if you are intending to get absolutely drunk of a night out, provide you with the equivalent of 28 vodka mixers for around 23% of the price of doing it out in the bars.
If you have a budget of £10 for drinks, you might say you'll spend £5 out (two drinks) and spend enough time inside to share the bottle with 2 other people. 11 drinks of a night for £10.
What if minimum pricing went up? To maybe 60p? That bottle of Vodka would go up to ~£17. You still have £10 to spend individually, so what's the answer? Simple really, you know a drink will be £2.50 out, so you can get one before you dance, which means you can have more of that bottle of vodka (you'd buy more than one bottle this time, which in itself is a problem) and your total night drinks would be 11-12 drinks before you go out, and then another when you're at the bar/club.
you spend the same, you drink *more*, you still end up going out, the only difference is you go out for less time to mitigate the issue of expense. You know you have to spend more on pre-drinking, but it's still significantly cheaper than the bars, so you just spend more time on the pre-drinks in your home.
Of course as the minimum price goes up, the situation changes. 75p per unit pricing would mean that you would probably, if you wanted to go out and buy a drink out, only get 10 drinks in total... at £1 per unit you're really eating in to that margin, the Vodka would be £28 per bottle, you'd maybe only manage 8 drinks for your £10 that evening...and so on.
As it stands, if anything, the law is potentially going to fuel worse binge drinking...I believe the economics of current levels just stack up to creating enough of a squeeze on how expensive it all is to push people to drink the cheaper booze at home more.
Monday, May 14, 2012
The problem with minimum alcohol pricing
Scotland is set to introduce a 50p minimum price per unit cost on alcohol, it has been reported. It's also a move that some in England are using to suggest that our government should be follow suit sooner than later.
This is a policy that penalises being poor, without targeting the real problem groups when it comes to alcohol abuse.
Key Facts!
These points are important in stressing how much this is a policy that is only targeting the poor. Point 1 shows that those who are more able to buy "nicer" alcohol, branded spirits, more premium blends of cider or ales, are not going to be affected. At a push it will make 16 pint bottles of Magners unable to be sold under £21, an increase of £3 in total on some recent supermarket deals, and making the individual bottle price at around £1.31 a pint, under half the price you would spend on the same drink in a pub or bar.
On that point, relating to point 2, it's clear that pubs and bars already charge so much that there is no chance of them being affected by such a law. Any rhetoric about this policy stopping binge drinking is complete nonsense. Buy one, get one free, double vodka and cokes will still be perfectly legal to sell at no less than £2.
Which leaves us at point 3, that those who can afford to go out bingeing won't have their alcohol drinking lives changed, those who drink "better quality" alcohol won't have their lives changed...so the only people that will see a change are those that don't have the funds to do either of those things but still wish to enjoy alcohol, however responsibly that may be.
So that's the "penalises the poor" aspect explained...but what about not targeting the real problem? Does it, as some suggest, strike the right balance between infringing on people's liberties and providing a good barrier to stop the main problem of alcohol abuse?
You may investigate these stats for yourselves, check out the history of Scottish Health Surveys, and English statistics
Let me illustrate the general trends with the 2010 figures from Scotland, which mimic previous years'.
The largest grouping of men that have tried alcohol, are those in a household in the top 20% of incomes in Scotland. The group of men that have most given up alcohol are those in households in the BOTTOM 20% of incomes in Scotland. Those who usually drink either more than the recommended number of units, or binge heavily on one day's drinking, come from households that are (you guessed it) in the top 20% of incomes.
This pattern is slightly different for women, with more women having tried alcohol from households with incomes in the second highest 20%, but otherwise mimics the men's statistics entirely.
In fact let me just put a couple of numbers here...less than half of men that reside in the bottom 60% of households in income terms will usually exceed the recommended advice on alcohol consumption. Men from the households in the top 20% of income? 60% of them usually exceed that advice.
Women are generally better as a whole, but while less than a third of women in the bottom 20% of household income will usually exceed government guidelines, almost half will usually exceed alcohol consumption guidelines from the top 20%.
To be even clearer, just so you see it's not just about household income. Male managers/professional workers that abuse alcohol... 52%. Male small business/routine workers? 46 or 45% And for women, 45% of managerial or professional workers abuse their booze, while only 33-36% of small business/routine workers do.
It's a statistic that has been prevalent in many studies. Before my last blog got destroyed by terrible web hosts (sob), I did a review of health statistics on young people (12-18yo) that showed the same trend you can see in Scotland and England... poor people drink less than rich people, not entirely unexpected given they have less money. More than that, poor people tend to abuse alcohol less than rich people, and where there is a subset of poor people that do abuse particularly excessively, they are a very small minority.
This minimum pricing law may be about raising revenues, it may be about increased tax takings from the increased revenues, it may even be a super cunning way of making sure cheap alcohol becomes less strong (as if the government would have that level of intelligence!). It has also been said that it's a way of encouraging people to go to the pubs...though how adding a relatively small price to cheap vodka will make people go out and more than double their spend in a bar or pub instead, is beyond any logic I can comprehend.
What it is not, even if it is intended, is a way of dealing fairly with the issue of alcohol abuse. When most alcohol abusers are rich or live in affluent households, and your policy does absolutely zero to affect, and therefore dissuade, them from creating a strain on our health services...you're not protecting the NHS, or people's health, you're just discriminating against those in society that have actually been on balance the most responsible, whether enforced through relative poverty or not.
This is illiberalism, and worse it's not even illiberalism that can be argued is going to go any way to dealing with the problem it was created to solve. It's control for the sake of looking in control, to prove popular with a set of busy-body voters that are actually the main cause of the problem themselves.
Edit, November 2012: So now the UK is going to put a consultation forward that includes plans for minimum pricing in the UK. Much, if not all, of what I have said above also applies to England.
Check the stats on alcohol use (pdf), in particular page 40-41. You'll see that as income levels fall frequency of alcohol consumption, and the quantity of alcohol consumption in one "session", falls...the one exception is men, where the economically inactive (retired, students?, carers, incapacitated) have an unusually high occurrence of drinking most days a week. This still isn't large, just larger than those who are similarly unemployed, and compared to the trends in other alcohol consumption stats.
We walk in to these kinds of policies because people believe it's necessary to fix prices so that the poor unemployed around the country are protected from themselves from drinking the devil's juice. The reality is that it's social discrimination without basis. This is the most hurtful kind of "compassion", where we tell the poor that alcohol consumption is only something they can do if they join the ranks of "normal" society and get a job and a wage. Then, of course, you can drink to your heart's (mal)content.
This is a policy that penalises being poor, without targeting the real problem groups when it comes to alcohol abuse.
Key Facts!
- Minimum pricing will not affect the price of "premium" or "above standard" brands in the supermarket.
- Minimum pricing will not have even a remote effect on the cost of alcohol in pubs and bars.
- Minimum pricing will make cheap alcohol more expensive, creating a higher financial threshold for ability to consume alcohol, however responsibly.
These points are important in stressing how much this is a policy that is only targeting the poor. Point 1 shows that those who are more able to buy "nicer" alcohol, branded spirits, more premium blends of cider or ales, are not going to be affected. At a push it will make 16 pint bottles of Magners unable to be sold under £21, an increase of £3 in total on some recent supermarket deals, and making the individual bottle price at around £1.31 a pint, under half the price you would spend on the same drink in a pub or bar.
On that point, relating to point 2, it's clear that pubs and bars already charge so much that there is no chance of them being affected by such a law. Any rhetoric about this policy stopping binge drinking is complete nonsense. Buy one, get one free, double vodka and cokes will still be perfectly legal to sell at no less than £2.
Which leaves us at point 3, that those who can afford to go out bingeing won't have their alcohol drinking lives changed, those who drink "better quality" alcohol won't have their lives changed...so the only people that will see a change are those that don't have the funds to do either of those things but still wish to enjoy alcohol, however responsibly that may be.
So that's the "penalises the poor" aspect explained...but what about not targeting the real problem? Does it, as some suggest, strike the right balance between infringing on people's liberties and providing a good barrier to stop the main problem of alcohol abuse?
You may investigate these stats for yourselves, check out the history of Scottish Health Surveys, and English statistics
Let me illustrate the general trends with the 2010 figures from Scotland, which mimic previous years'.
The largest grouping of men that have tried alcohol, are those in a household in the top 20% of incomes in Scotland. The group of men that have most given up alcohol are those in households in the BOTTOM 20% of incomes in Scotland. Those who usually drink either more than the recommended number of units, or binge heavily on one day's drinking, come from households that are (you guessed it) in the top 20% of incomes.
This pattern is slightly different for women, with more women having tried alcohol from households with incomes in the second highest 20%, but otherwise mimics the men's statistics entirely.
In fact let me just put a couple of numbers here...less than half of men that reside in the bottom 60% of households in income terms will usually exceed the recommended advice on alcohol consumption. Men from the households in the top 20% of income? 60% of them usually exceed that advice.
Women are generally better as a whole, but while less than a third of women in the bottom 20% of household income will usually exceed government guidelines, almost half will usually exceed alcohol consumption guidelines from the top 20%.
To be even clearer, just so you see it's not just about household income. Male managers/professional workers that abuse alcohol... 52%. Male small business/routine workers? 46 or 45% And for women, 45% of managerial or professional workers abuse their booze, while only 33-36% of small business/routine workers do.
It's a statistic that has been prevalent in many studies. Before my last blog got destroyed by terrible web hosts (sob), I did a review of health statistics on young people (12-18yo) that showed the same trend you can see in Scotland and England... poor people drink less than rich people, not entirely unexpected given they have less money. More than that, poor people tend to abuse alcohol less than rich people, and where there is a subset of poor people that do abuse particularly excessively, they are a very small minority.
This minimum pricing law may be about raising revenues, it may be about increased tax takings from the increased revenues, it may even be a super cunning way of making sure cheap alcohol becomes less strong (as if the government would have that level of intelligence!). It has also been said that it's a way of encouraging people to go to the pubs...though how adding a relatively small price to cheap vodka will make people go out and more than double their spend in a bar or pub instead, is beyond any logic I can comprehend.
What it is not, even if it is intended, is a way of dealing fairly with the issue of alcohol abuse. When most alcohol abusers are rich or live in affluent households, and your policy does absolutely zero to affect, and therefore dissuade, them from creating a strain on our health services...you're not protecting the NHS, or people's health, you're just discriminating against those in society that have actually been on balance the most responsible, whether enforced through relative poverty or not.
This is illiberalism, and worse it's not even illiberalism that can be argued is going to go any way to dealing with the problem it was created to solve. It's control for the sake of looking in control, to prove popular with a set of busy-body voters that are actually the main cause of the problem themselves.
Edit, November 2012: So now the UK is going to put a consultation forward that includes plans for minimum pricing in the UK. Much, if not all, of what I have said above also applies to England.
Check the stats on alcohol use (pdf), in particular page 40-41. You'll see that as income levels fall frequency of alcohol consumption, and the quantity of alcohol consumption in one "session", falls...the one exception is men, where the economically inactive (retired, students?, carers, incapacitated) have an unusually high occurrence of drinking most days a week. This still isn't large, just larger than those who are similarly unemployed, and compared to the trends in other alcohol consumption stats.
We walk in to these kinds of policies because people believe it's necessary to fix prices so that the poor unemployed around the country are protected from themselves from drinking the devil's juice. The reality is that it's social discrimination without basis. This is the most hurtful kind of "compassion", where we tell the poor that alcohol consumption is only something they can do if they join the ranks of "normal" society and get a job and a wage. Then, of course, you can drink to your heart's (mal)content.
Friday, May 11, 2012
Online Safety Bill (1st draft) Review
There is a new bill out there, ready to be discussed and debated by Parliament, called the Online Safety Bill. This is the bill, that has received a lot of pre-release attention with news reports in the past few weeks, that Tory MP Clare Perry has been pushing for to change how ISPs operate...to "filter" out adult material as standard unless requested by the bill-payer.
There are a few things I want to make sure are absolutely clear before I go in to the detail of the Bill.
1) This bill is fundamentally flawed before it even begins as it presumes that by ISPs "filtering" out adult material, such as pornography, that it won't be able to be viewed by children. This is dangerously wrong, if it leads parents to believe that their kids are suddenly safe to roam the net without guidance then it is making the internet less, not more, safe. This is without even going in to the easy to find ways to circumnavigate ISP blocks on adult material.
2) This bill has not come about out of some altruistic and evidence based concern for the kids. It is a bill made by an MP who is presenting the findings of a report that is funded and pushed by Christian groups that aim to censor the web, not only from porn but from violence, bad language, and all the other nonsense that was present in the "video nasties" censorship culture of the 80s.
3) Absent from the debate so far, but hopefully will be interjected by those in the Lords and the Commons, is the issue of parental responsibility on this subject, with the assumption being that the state must intervene in order to "protect children". This is a terribly illiberal stance to take, and is the main reason I'm opposed to it.
So, on to the bill...
1 Duty to provide a service that excludes pornographic images
This section says that ISPs and Phone Networks will be legally mandated to ensure pornographic imagery is blocked, unless someone requests to be able to see pornographic images, and is verifiably aged 18+.
This is the meat of the bill. It doesn't tell ISPs how they should block content, only that they must legally provide a service that is 100% free of pornographic images outside of an age verified opt-in by the subscriber to the ISP.
From the get go this law is unworkable, as it is simply impossible for an ISP to be able to ensure that someone connected to the internet through their service won't be able to see porn without opting in. TOR networks, I2P...this is just scratching the surface on possible ways that people will be able to view porn through their ISP's connection without the ISP being able to do a thing about it.
As soon as the law comes in to effect, every ISP will be breaking the law simply by operating their service.
Taking the above issue aside, assuming that legislators will realise that it needs to create a caveat, what about the technical issues with such a law being adhered to in good faith by ISPs?
There is the issue of whether it is technologically possible to simply ban pornographic imagery. The bill only targets the images, yet images have no meta-data. Perhaps, if the ISP is lucky, the image may have content in it's name that is identifiable as pornographic in nature...but then this would block images that are not pornographic but have problem keywords in their name.
We have to, then, extrapolate this out. Since ISPs won't have the detail to be able to ban just the pronographic images, they'll be banning connections to domains that contain text and content that suggests imagery on the page is pornographic. It'll catch pornographic sites, sure, but it'll also catch Wikipedia, newspaper websites that report on pornography (such as this law), and other informational sites that don't actually contain pornographic imagery at all.
Sure, ISPs might in theory be able to be smarter with their filtering, excluding known sites like Wikipedia or the Daily Mail..however in practice they would not be able to, since to do so would open the possibility that a pornographic image is shown, even if it is for the purpose of commentary, debate or illustration.
The best ISPs will be able to hope for is page level detection of content on a case by case basis...as users browse sites the content of the page they visit will be intercepted, searched, and flagged as 'clean' or 'pornographic' on the basis of keywords in the page and the presence of images.
Yet even that last part, detecting presence of images within the code of the page, is unlikely to be a criteria since javascript insertion of images in to pages after their initial load would circumnavigate such checks.
Are we seriously going to ask ISPs to monitor our traffic usage in real time, to filter content (by blocking it's appearance) through this monitoring by running user-interaction scenarios to ensure that no content will be loaded in through secondary action? Does the government have any idea about how much this would cost to implement and run, and the effect it would have on the speed of our web browsing?
MPs and Lords may think that this is as simple as turning the Opt-Out system in to an Opt-In system, but they'd be wrong. My understanding is that right now an Opt-Out system is not required to filter all pornographic images, and is instead a filtering of known adult content on the web. Changing this to comply with a law that ensures web browsing "excludes pornographic images" is a whole different beast
2 Duty to provide a means of filtering online content
This section says that anything that can connect to the internet and receive data must have some kind of filtering element or software that can be used, at the point of purchase.
On we go to "ridiculous law" part 2, whereby MPs and Lords show how little they know about technology.
Thankfully not a law that also means the default for such filtering is "on", its still a ridiculous law. They talk about "electronic devices", defined by themselves as something that can connect to the internet and download something.
Modern TVs connects to the internet and downloads data...it will now need filtering software. Modern MP3 players, even without any graphical interface, can connect to the internet and download data...they will need "filtering software".
Right now you can buy internet connected coffee machines, fridges and garage doors. All of these "devices" would, by law, be required to have filtering technology built in to them.
Can you see how ridiculously vague this law is, and how many facets of modern manufacturing it will affect? The world is moving in to one where we have to increase the number of IP addresses (unique identifiers of a devices location on the internet) because of the sharp increase in internet connected devices that we will use in our homes, from TVs and Games Consoles, to lights and doors.
Once again there is little definition or structure here, while the implication is that the filtering would be for webpage traffic, the wording doesn't limit that. It would be easy to say that these devices would need filtering technology for any part that displays web-based content, sensible even since this part law isn't about stopping pornography from being able to be seen (section 1 does that), it's about limiting what individual devices can use that they download even if the ISP block is turned off (while on the move, for example, connecting to WiFi).
Yet this is why the section here shouldn't be here. If a parent is looking to view pornography, but set their kid's device to filter content, on a parental lock for example, then the reality is that the child will have every opportunity and ability to simply reset the phone to it's defaults and get around their parent's control.
But that's not all! The legislation talks about "point of purchase". This may well mean, for some, that manufacturers have to bundle in software to the box, if not in to the device, that allows for this filtering. But what of all the devices already out there? Does a firmware update that is up to the user to carry out constitute provision of a way to filter content?
What about devices that can't be updated in this way, via the internet (pre-filtered internet at that)? Does the manufacturer need to recall their devices so they can manually include the filtering provisions in the box or on the device? What about devices sold second hand? Should someone receive a 5 year old Nokia (for example) phone they bought of EBay, can they bring legal action against Nokia because the phone did not contain a way to filter the internet at that particular point of purchase?
It's insulting to the market that such an overarching and vague law would be placed here, with many manufacturers of devices and software doing everything that they can to provide parents with the tools to help, however futilely, to control what their children see on the web. If parents aren't happy with a company's products on an "online-safety" point of view, then there are other products out there that will make them happy.
Why we need legislation here is beyond me.
3 Duty to provide information about online safety
This section says that, despite already being legally mandated to block porn, ISPs must have some kind of online safety guidance that they can provide to customers.
ISPs will have to have a page on their website that says something, that hasn't been defined, about online safety. Whoop.
4 Reports
This section says that OFCOM will be responsible for reviewing how the law is being adhered to.
The government has been trying in various laws to make OFCOM responsible for regulation of the internet, and this bill is no different. OFCOM will have responsibility to assess how this law is going, the principle reason (given it's 3 year cycle of requirement to produce reports) likely to be to flag up changes in technology that need amendments making to this bill.
The final administrative bits of the bill states that the law would come in to effect 6 months after it's passing, a grace period for those affected to get their services and products compliant.
Conclusion:
Here we have a law that aims to make it damn hard for your kids to stumble upon a reference to porn on your internet-enabled toaster.
This bill is ridiculous, it puts unrealistic expectations on ISPs and product manufacturers, ignores the gaping holes in the ability for both to adhere to the law even if they do everything physically possible to try to comply. It is a placebo to the issue of child safety online, one that will only help lazy parents get even lazier about helping their kids understand how the web works.
As I said in point 2, this is the internet's "Video Nasties" moment, and so it's important that these first stages towards regulation of the web are opposed. This isn't the same issue as TV or video games, the internet is a virtual equivalent of walking out your front door and strolling around the city...it's time we treated it with the same realistic thinking and respect, and not as another medium for the state to filter and control.
There are a few things I want to make sure are absolutely clear before I go in to the detail of the Bill.
1) This bill is fundamentally flawed before it even begins as it presumes that by ISPs "filtering" out adult material, such as pornography, that it won't be able to be viewed by children. This is dangerously wrong, if it leads parents to believe that their kids are suddenly safe to roam the net without guidance then it is making the internet less, not more, safe. This is without even going in to the easy to find ways to circumnavigate ISP blocks on adult material.
2) This bill has not come about out of some altruistic and evidence based concern for the kids. It is a bill made by an MP who is presenting the findings of a report that is funded and pushed by Christian groups that aim to censor the web, not only from porn but from violence, bad language, and all the other nonsense that was present in the "video nasties" censorship culture of the 80s.
3) Absent from the debate so far, but hopefully will be interjected by those in the Lords and the Commons, is the issue of parental responsibility on this subject, with the assumption being that the state must intervene in order to "protect children". This is a terribly illiberal stance to take, and is the main reason I'm opposed to it.
So, on to the bill...
1 Duty to provide a service that excludes pornographic images
This section says that ISPs and Phone Networks will be legally mandated to ensure pornographic imagery is blocked, unless someone requests to be able to see pornographic images, and is verifiably aged 18+.
This is the meat of the bill. It doesn't tell ISPs how they should block content, only that they must legally provide a service that is 100% free of pornographic images outside of an age verified opt-in by the subscriber to the ISP.
From the get go this law is unworkable, as it is simply impossible for an ISP to be able to ensure that someone connected to the internet through their service won't be able to see porn without opting in. TOR networks, I2P...this is just scratching the surface on possible ways that people will be able to view porn through their ISP's connection without the ISP being able to do a thing about it.
As soon as the law comes in to effect, every ISP will be breaking the law simply by operating their service.
Taking the above issue aside, assuming that legislators will realise that it needs to create a caveat, what about the technical issues with such a law being adhered to in good faith by ISPs?
There is the issue of whether it is technologically possible to simply ban pornographic imagery. The bill only targets the images, yet images have no meta-data. Perhaps, if the ISP is lucky, the image may have content in it's name that is identifiable as pornographic in nature...but then this would block images that are not pornographic but have problem keywords in their name.
We have to, then, extrapolate this out. Since ISPs won't have the detail to be able to ban just the pronographic images, they'll be banning connections to domains that contain text and content that suggests imagery on the page is pornographic. It'll catch pornographic sites, sure, but it'll also catch Wikipedia, newspaper websites that report on pornography (such as this law), and other informational sites that don't actually contain pornographic imagery at all.
Sure, ISPs might in theory be able to be smarter with their filtering, excluding known sites like Wikipedia or the Daily Mail..however in practice they would not be able to, since to do so would open the possibility that a pornographic image is shown, even if it is for the purpose of commentary, debate or illustration.
The best ISPs will be able to hope for is page level detection of content on a case by case basis...as users browse sites the content of the page they visit will be intercepted, searched, and flagged as 'clean' or 'pornographic' on the basis of keywords in the page and the presence of images.
Yet even that last part, detecting presence of images within the code of the page, is unlikely to be a criteria since javascript insertion of images in to pages after their initial load would circumnavigate such checks.
Are we seriously going to ask ISPs to monitor our traffic usage in real time, to filter content (by blocking it's appearance) through this monitoring by running user-interaction scenarios to ensure that no content will be loaded in through secondary action? Does the government have any idea about how much this would cost to implement and run, and the effect it would have on the speed of our web browsing?
MPs and Lords may think that this is as simple as turning the Opt-Out system in to an Opt-In system, but they'd be wrong. My understanding is that right now an Opt-Out system is not required to filter all pornographic images, and is instead a filtering of known adult content on the web. Changing this to comply with a law that ensures web browsing "excludes pornographic images" is a whole different beast
2 Duty to provide a means of filtering online content
This section says that anything that can connect to the internet and receive data must have some kind of filtering element or software that can be used, at the point of purchase.
On we go to "ridiculous law" part 2, whereby MPs and Lords show how little they know about technology.
Thankfully not a law that also means the default for such filtering is "on", its still a ridiculous law. They talk about "electronic devices", defined by themselves as something that can connect to the internet and download something.
Modern TVs connects to the internet and downloads data...it will now need filtering software. Modern MP3 players, even without any graphical interface, can connect to the internet and download data...they will need "filtering software".
Right now you can buy internet connected coffee machines, fridges and garage doors. All of these "devices" would, by law, be required to have filtering technology built in to them.
Can you see how ridiculously vague this law is, and how many facets of modern manufacturing it will affect? The world is moving in to one where we have to increase the number of IP addresses (unique identifiers of a devices location on the internet) because of the sharp increase in internet connected devices that we will use in our homes, from TVs and Games Consoles, to lights and doors.
Once again there is little definition or structure here, while the implication is that the filtering would be for webpage traffic, the wording doesn't limit that. It would be easy to say that these devices would need filtering technology for any part that displays web-based content, sensible even since this part law isn't about stopping pornography from being able to be seen (section 1 does that), it's about limiting what individual devices can use that they download even if the ISP block is turned off (while on the move, for example, connecting to WiFi).
Yet this is why the section here shouldn't be here. If a parent is looking to view pornography, but set their kid's device to filter content, on a parental lock for example, then the reality is that the child will have every opportunity and ability to simply reset the phone to it's defaults and get around their parent's control.
But that's not all! The legislation talks about "point of purchase". This may well mean, for some, that manufacturers have to bundle in software to the box, if not in to the device, that allows for this filtering. But what of all the devices already out there? Does a firmware update that is up to the user to carry out constitute provision of a way to filter content?
What about devices that can't be updated in this way, via the internet (pre-filtered internet at that)? Does the manufacturer need to recall their devices so they can manually include the filtering provisions in the box or on the device? What about devices sold second hand? Should someone receive a 5 year old Nokia (for example) phone they bought of EBay, can they bring legal action against Nokia because the phone did not contain a way to filter the internet at that particular point of purchase?
It's insulting to the market that such an overarching and vague law would be placed here, with many manufacturers of devices and software doing everything that they can to provide parents with the tools to help, however futilely, to control what their children see on the web. If parents aren't happy with a company's products on an "online-safety" point of view, then there are other products out there that will make them happy.
Why we need legislation here is beyond me.
3 Duty to provide information about online safety
This section says that, despite already being legally mandated to block porn, ISPs must have some kind of online safety guidance that they can provide to customers.
ISPs will have to have a page on their website that says something, that hasn't been defined, about online safety. Whoop.
4 Reports
This section says that OFCOM will be responsible for reviewing how the law is being adhered to.
The government has been trying in various laws to make OFCOM responsible for regulation of the internet, and this bill is no different. OFCOM will have responsibility to assess how this law is going, the principle reason (given it's 3 year cycle of requirement to produce reports) likely to be to flag up changes in technology that need amendments making to this bill.
The final administrative bits of the bill states that the law would come in to effect 6 months after it's passing, a grace period for those affected to get their services and products compliant.
Conclusion:
Here we have a law that aims to make it damn hard for your kids to stumble upon a reference to porn on your internet-enabled toaster.
This bill is ridiculous, it puts unrealistic expectations on ISPs and product manufacturers, ignores the gaping holes in the ability for both to adhere to the law even if they do everything physically possible to try to comply. It is a placebo to the issue of child safety online, one that will only help lazy parents get even lazier about helping their kids understand how the web works.
As I said in point 2, this is the internet's "Video Nasties" moment, and so it's important that these first stages towards regulation of the web are opposed. This isn't the same issue as TV or video games, the internet is a virtual equivalent of walking out your front door and strolling around the city...it's time we treated it with the same realistic thinking and respect, and not as another medium for the state to filter and control.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)