Where do the Lib Dems go?

We are roughly one year away from the machine starting to creak into motion for another General Election, the first time we can be so sure in advance of when we'll be going to the polls. Just over 4 years ago I hoped that we would be heading into this time with a stronger democracy, more accountability at regional levels thanks to a better voting system. I hoped that we would have seen 4 years of principled coalition involvement by the Lib Dems that would have proved to the country, as well as to myself as a life-long voter, that the amount of support and effort that went into getting the party into that position of power would be rewarded.

It's easy to hope.

Is it "human nature" to live in groups of people "like you"?

@DanSilverSARF talking abt human nature. Humans like living around people similar to them. Of course, socialists resent this. They know best

— Ryan Bourne (@MrRBourne) February 5, 2014

@Niaccurshi @DanSilverSARF This is what debate is all about: should govt build a load of houses and tell people where to live? I say "no".

— Ryan Bourne (@MrRBourne) February 5, 2014

It seems strange to me that anyone would seem to think that the reason that we "choose" where we live is down to anything other than simple economics, rather than human nature. If there is a human nature in anything about where we choose to live, it's that we always want the best we can afford. Capitalism is built on the fact people want to maximise what they get from the money they have to spend it on, we see this human nature all too regularly.

But when it comes to housing, do we choose anything? If we are lucky maybe we have plenty of different options to look at, but the reality is that you'll have a budget, and this will give you a radius around your desired area to buy from. We go for the best we can afford, and this generally means we live with people who have similar earning potential to us...though there are still a legacy of 1980-1990's home buyers that live in areas that are no longer within their pay grade due to the crazy rise of the housing market over the last several decades.

Are these people like us? I guess there is a chance they are, more so the further up the scale of expense you go when owning your home. But is this your active choice, or just a coincidence? Do you vet your neighbours for their views on free markets? the EU? Their religion? hobbies and activities they enjoy? Of course not.

We make some assumptions, if we're moving in to a city center location then we assume our neighbours will be professionals with a penchant for some evening partying. The 'burbs? Family folk. A house in a village? Friendly retirees and those trying to enjoy the slower life. But we don't *know* do we?

In fact let's look at that list again. City center living? You're moving there because YOU want to be in the nightlife, and a quick roll out of bed to your work's doorstop. Does it matter that everyone else may be like that too? Not at all. In the 'burbs? You're probably moving there because you can't quite afford the out-of-center life, because you have an eye on that school near by. Does it matter to you that other people might be doing the same? No, you're moving there because of what YOU need. And moving to a village? YOU want the quiet life. YOU want to be away from the hustle and bustle.

This isn't about what other people are like, because unless you can visibly see that your neighbours are likely to trash your garden, or hold all night raves, or bug you to do some civic duty when you just want to sleep off a hangover, you choose a place because it suits your needs, within your budget. Location, Location, Location.

The problem right now in the housing market is that the choice for where you can live, affordably, is dwindling. School places are too few, and it's driving the price of housing nearest the best schools sky high, creating a defacto social rift that means over the next decade or so your parents' wealth is one of the key factors that will decide how well educated you are. Snapping up property in estates in new psuedo-towns and developments is an art-form in order to keep your commute down to around about the hour mark, if you're lucky, because it is the nearest place you can get to your work. There is no choice here, there is only inevitability.

Meanwhile housing benefit is reformed, those who are poor are being kicked out of homes in areas that allow them to be close to work and schools and forced into these non-choices to live much further away than they need to be, with the extra costs that entails, creating slightly more choice for those on middle incomes and above, but less choice for those below. Surely if this were all human nature, those poor people wouldn't want to live where they are being kicked out of anyway, those around them "aren't like them" after all, are they?

It's sad to see how humans compare themselves reduced to a single factor.. the repayments they can afford each month based on a lump sum of cash they've managed to save.

I for one think that this doesn't tie us together at all. We can find great affinity with those who are running FTSE 100 businesses just as well as those who are struggling to raise 3 kids and are unable to find jobs...because our lives and our loves are not defined by what is in our wallet. And worse than this, we *know* that diversity in demographics is a positive when it comes to progressiveness and equality. We know, for example, that a lack of women in tech jobs is actually hampering the progress of creation of ideas...the extra diversity of a group helps drive the group to more and better solutions.

The same can be said for the rest of our life. Benefit hate, banker hate, immigrant hate... how much of this is because we just don't realise how similar we all are any more? If more of us had to live next to one another, regardless of our job, our status, our wage... would we perhaps spend more time focusing our frustration and anger on the real problems facing us, instead of the scapegoats of these various groups of people we never see because a faulty housing market has conditioned us to all be separate?

Our human nature is to fear the unknown, I think I'd welcome any move that helps us know each other better, and nurture that other bit of "human nature"... compassion.

The "lawful" killing of Mark Duggan

This is going to be an emotionally charged time, it seems the jury at the inquest into the shooting of Mark Duggan have decided that his killing was lawful, by 8 members to 2 (it's worth noting that the 2 others didn't believe it to necessarily be unlawful). Confusingly the jury also believed that Mr Duggan didn't have the gun in his possession at the time he was shot.

If the #duggan jury believe that he did not have a gun in his hand when he was shot, how can they find it was a lawful killing? #baffled

— Diane Abbott MP (@HackneyAbbott) January 8, 2014

Eight out of ten. Eight out of ten people decided that it is lawful to kill an unarmed man of colour if you're a cop.

— Zoltána (@funsponging) January 8, 2014

This verdict tells police all over Great Britain they will be safe if they shoot an unarmed black man

— Aniqah (@AniqahC) January 8, 2014

That jury must have a different definition of "lawful" from everyone else. #Duggan

— Nissemus (@Nissemus) January 8, 2014

So the police can lawfully kill anyone they think may have thrown a gun away before they even arrive?

— Alex Tomlinson (@alexillustrator) January 8, 2014

Unfortunately emotions are taking over here, and we need to remember that lawful doesn't mean "right".

The timeline as being reported from the inquest is this... intelligence found that Mark Duggan had gained ownership of a gun. Police moved to arrest, and Mark Duggan seemed to be aware this was happening. He is believed to have tossed the gun out of the cab he was in before contact with the police and was unfortunately shot dead.

It's important to understand that the police believed him to be armed, and so the question is not whether he had a gun in his possession, but whether the police believed he had and whether they believed him to be a threat enough to shoot.

It's always worth remembering that the police always shoot to kill, there is no "shoot to disarm" or "shoot to maim", because if they shoot on that basis and then kill a person they will have unlawfully killed them. The decision is centered around an immediate threat to the life of an officer or nearby person, and if that threat is determined in the heat of the moment to be credible and immediate, those police trained to operate firearms are lawfully able to take the shot.

It's clearly unfair that Mark Duggan was killed, it clearly isn't right...however that alone doesn't make it unlawful. For it to be unlawful the police would have had to have shot him despite knowing he was unarmed, that he wasn't an immediate threat to those in the area.

Did V53 (the police officer who shot Mr Duggan) honestly believe that the victim had a gun on him until the moment he was down? Without other witnesses, how can the operation be assessed?

Far from this sending a message out to police that it is ok to shoot an unarmed black man, as many a twitter comment like above will say, it shows that if you shoot someone there is every chance it will blow up local tensions, and have you as an officer scrutinised for years on the back of that momentary judgement. However it also does say that as long as you and your fellow officers stick together, and there are no witnesses, you may be able to come out of the end of that scrutiny without any kind of criminal conviction, even if there is a chance you could lose part of what your job is.

I don't think it's helpful at this time to descend into hyperbole, nor to assume the motives of the police any more than you believe police assume the motives of, in this case, young black men.

There may be things to learn here, about the quality of training given to officers (did the training fail V53, or fail to determine their ability to make rational and objective decisions in the heat of the moment?), and perhaps about the transparency of these operations. Should armed police be required to wear functioning AV equipment to document what they do? Perhaps independent individuals should be part of a scrambled armed response team to be able to provide an unbiased account of the operation if it turns sour? (let's leave talk of cost and that person's safety aside for now)

The way firearms operations are carried out needs to change somehow so that we are not relying on the evidence of an individual's "belief", but as the law stands even if there was a camera pointed, as well as a gun, at Mark Duggan in 2011 that showed irrefutably that he was unarmed... if Mr Duggan had moved in a way that could give that instinctive response to an officer *expecting* to see a firearm, you would probably have seen the same verdict found. The question we should ask ourselves is if this is the fairest way to deal with whether the officer is charged with a manslaughter or murder charge, or not?

UUK and that segregation guideline...

...bit of a storm, wasn't it? Whether it was in a teacup or not is still to be seen.

However I've been trying to discuss the issues on Twitter, and naturally it's the worst kind of forum to do it in (though people are being very respectful about it, so cheers!). While I understand that the UUK guidance itself given in the now removed "Case Study 2" may have been too woolly, that it inferred things that weren't based in legal fact, I'm not sure those celebrating have won the victory they think that they have.

Statement re: Bristol Central Library and Cathedral Primary School

The following letter has been sent to the council for consideration alongside many others from those concerned about the legitimacy of both the plans and the process that agreeing on them has taken. The decision is set to be made tomorrow (5th December).

Dear Members,

I have been following the discussion that has been going on in some areas of the public regarding the Bristol Cathedral Primary School (Cathedral Primary) and the Bristol Central Library (the Library) with interest. Since first learning about the plans I wondered why we'd see such a situation come to pass; the near-certain reduction in services or service efficiency of a city-wide asset seems like strange to trade off against primary school places, instead of finding a solution that would see both the library remain functioning as fully as it is today and the primary school a home.

Since the plans have come to light there have been numerous calls by supporters of the Library for Cathedral Primary to find a more suitable location that doesn't require the requisition of space from a city asset. There has in public discourse been mentioned various empty spaces that could provide capacity for our city's growing child population, none more interesting than St Mary's Hospital on Brandon Hill which is situated only a short walk away from the current proposed space.

Russell Brand and 2011

In 2011 a lush green pasture of possibility lay before us. Alongside local elections we were given the opportunity to change the way that our lawmakers were elected, ensuring that once and for all a well supported but otherwise net-unpopular MP could no longer "represent" us in our constituency. A positive result would have given more weight and momentum to the second part of the revolutionary change to our politics that would ensure no small voice would be left unheard, no doubt allowing Labour to jump properly on the bandwagon instead of stalking it; the change from our Lords as an unelected body to one that is elected in proportion to our political views.

Fast forward past the unsuccesful result, one that in my opinion actually did more harm than if we had never had the referendum in the first place, to the modern day where one Russell Brand is touting a democratic and constrained revolution of our interaction with the state. I don't disagree with him in general terms, but then I also voted in 2011 to say "Yes" to a new voting system.

There are those out there championing Brand right now, probably not as the instigator of these ideas...he says himself that is too false and lofty an accolade for him to claim...but as a figure that is focusing the issue of disenfranchisement in the UK political system. I'm glad, we need people to be actively thinking about how the state and the people form their contract, and how they continue their interaction; but at the same time I'm frustrated. Where were all these voices in 2011?

Questions remaining of Bristol Cathedral Primary and Bristol Council

It's coming up to 2 whole months now since I learned about the plans for Bristol Cathedral Primary to replace book and resource storage in the Bristol Central Library, a month and a half since I asked questions about the reasoning behind it, and 2 weeks since I asked further questions based on their somewhat ambiguous Q&A, strangely jointly issued with the City Council that has supposedly not made a decision on the plans.

The school asserts that it will, at some undefined point, respond to at least the latter "by other means", feeling a little hurt that I deleted their comment to my blog after they attempted to misconstrue that when I talk of a threat to the library, that I was attempting to mislead you, reader, that they were shutting the library down to replace it with a school. Whether they will ever respond I do not know, they may instead choose to continue their apparent campaign of either ignoring their critics, or to belittle and insult those that are campaigning not actually against additional primary school provision, but against the impact on library services while other options may be available for the school.

Pedantic Jumpers

Asked if the Prime Minister agrees that people can cut fuel bills by wrapping up warm, Mr Cameron's official spokesman said: 'He’s clearly not going to prescribe actions individuals should take but if people are giving that advice then that is something people may wish to consider.'

This statement has caused a gleeful flurry of action from Labour supporters to capitalise on this political faux-pas, and equally libertarian/conservative sympathisers to call people all kinds of names in retaliation for putting words in Cameron('s spokesman)'s mouth. Did Downing Street say stop complaining, just wrap up warm? No, of course not. Did it say that it's categorically not something they'd offer as advice to combat increasing fuel bills?

No.

Perhaps downing street thought they were being clever with this wet response to a challenging question. Once again they've only shown that they have the political nouse of your average Monster Raving Looney candidate.

Response to Cathedral Primary School's Central Library Q&A

The Council and Bristol's Cathedral Primary school have finally decided to answer some questions regarding their proposal to take over the lower two floors of the Central Library, only over a month after these questions and more started to get asked quite vocally and publicly!

Briefly, you can expect to see some figures for the associated costs of the plans, as well as some history to the development. Unfortunately you can also find some vague and cleverly worded non-answers in there too.

Let the anti-#Leveson propagana restart!

With the news out that it is likely that the Press' own version of the Royal Charter intended to implement the Leveson recommendations is being rejected, at least in the most part, the campaign by the "protectors of free speech" starts anew to misinform and mislead the public on what the proposals mean. Why they're trying to influence the public is entirely unclear to me, given both the conviction of those campaigning for a change in press regulation, and the wills of particular politicians involved in the process. Saying what they like, of course, is their right.

So, let's start looking again at this misinformation. Today, it's courtesy of the New Statesman...

Votes @ 16: If these are our experts...

... then boy are we screwed!

This article featuring a few 'democratic experts' lays out some responses to the positive words Ed Miliband has had towards the Votes @ 16 campaign. It makes for pretty sad reading from some of these talking heads, and I just wanted to pull out a few quotes here and respond to them.

First, young people are not generally passionate about their right to vote. Less than half of 18-24 year olds voted at the last three general elections. These figures are hardly surprising given that around 4 in 10 are not even registered.

So will giving people the vote at 16 encourage or discourage higher registration to vote, given that such registration would/could take place as part of the educational system?

Second, there is little evidence of widespread public support for votes at 16.

This guy has a weird concept of democracy, seemingly believing everything has to be about majorities rather than about actions being "right" or "justifiable". If the public supported, widely, the execution of all blue eyes people, would this expert be happy with that to occur?

Bristol Central Library needs you...

Sign the petition against the plans here

Bristol Central Library is under threat. Through the use of manipulative language and innuendo a local post-independent school has decided it would quite like the status of operating out of a grand old building like that the Central Library resides in. The Bristol Cathedral Primary School has significant investment that it can make, but instead of creating a satellite school with this money it has decided it wants a piece of Bristol's history instead.

Edit (clarified 29/09/13): At the request of the school I want to add this: The school is not *replacing* the Central Library. That is not the threat I talk about. The threat I talk about is to the functions of the library. As the first commentator says below this post, it's not enough to just say the public access part of the library is untouched, because the public part *needs* the private part to function at it's best, and because satellite libraries closer to communities that need them will also see their services suffer.

If we want to diminish the role the Central Library has in Bristol, then we should let this go ahead, and we need to hold our tongues if and when this means the library service becomes less relevant to people in Bristol.

And this, fellow Bristolians, is why you need to speak up.

81 Gromits...

After managing, somehow, to find a 15 minute queue gap to the exhibition after days of most needing to wait hours (peak of over 5 hours this weekend!) I got to whizz around and take photos during my lunch hour. 81 Gromits, three photos of each... I don't think I've ever averaged a photograph every 15 seconds for an hour before!

Here's a little teaser of the 81 Gromits on the Gromit Unleashed trail, I have something else coming up to help make sure Bristolians and non-Bristolians alike don't miss out completely on the spectacle!


(Follow this link for an animated gif of all 81! - 6 megabytes)

Please consider donating a few pounds to the Wallace and Gromit foundation.

Questions about Bristol's Cathedral Primary School...

A number of questions have arisen since I started to look into the problems with an assertion by the Mayor of Bristol that the Cathedral Primary School move in to the office and storage space of the Central Library was "needed" in the center of the city.

The following are things that I feel that the school, the Mayor and councillors, should be addressing to you in order to prove that this is indeed something that must happen.

Primary School Admissions: A school in a library?

I'm strong supporter of #library service, but not of campaign that puts book storage before #Bristol kids' education: http://t.co/9nXe9HJugy

— George Ferguson (@GeorgeFergusonx) September 9, 2013

This is the tweet yesterday from the Bristol Mayor that alerted me to a little storm brewing over the future of Primary School provision.

The plan in Bristol is to take one of our oldest public amenities, the Central Library, and gut two floors to allow a Secondary School to create a Primary School in the center of the city. But don't worry, all we're talking about here is losing office space and centuries of history in order to accommodate a school that was up until 5 years ago a private, fee-paying, school!

Evolution of a conference

If someone who has never been to a "tech" conference asked me why it is that they should consider going themselves, I'd say that the reasons have to be personal. You can only learn for yourself, and you will have a hard time infecting others with the same enthusiasm you gain from such events.

But specifically, people should consider going to a conference to really start to understand themselves in the world (there are loads, they differ in value, but there are plenty of a good quality out there). Before my first conference, @Media in 2009, I had received an average degree and entered a field of work based on skills that were largely self-taught up to that point. The prospect of having to work out how to do all of the things that I might have been expected to do, the thoughts of just how good or not I may be at my job...these were issues that the attendance to such a conference helped to alleviate.

Free speech tennis

I'm a liberal. I think people should be able to say what is on their mind, in person and online

I'm a liberal. I think that people deserve realistic opportunity to be able to easily avoid hearing things that will harm them, in a self-defining sense

Zimmerman vs Martin, prejudice and inequality

The Zimmerman verdict is in. Acquitted, or not guilty, however you look at it the man is walking free after he stalked his neighbourhood like a paranoid vigilante, and then against the advice of the police went to confront a 17 year old young man before shooting him dead.

Like all the worst cases, there's little that the case would ever have hinged off of other than the reliability and credibility of Zimmerman's own statements. In Florida you can kill someone as long as you can make a jury believe you felt you were in serious danger, you see?

This case was always going to be hard for the prosecution, especially one that took weeks before it even started action to find justice for a young man murdered on the street. But with a law that legalises murder "in self defense" perhaps those hoping for justice should have faced up to reality months ago. This was never going to be the ending we wanted.

MPs, salaries and the "right" people for the job

MP salaries are in the news, and perhaps a little unfairly the MPs themselves are getting flack over an idea that has been made by an independent body set up in the wake of the expenses scandal to stop MPs from being able to keep inflating their own pay and expenses. However the result of this is the idea that MPs should be paid £75k, up from the current £66k. Being around three times the amount of the average salary in the UK already, at a time when the public sector (tax payer funded, like MPs) is facing a freeze year after year, at a time when those on benefits are having their benefits cut even at the most essential level by allowing the cost of food to increase over the basic benefits given, it's understandable why there are those that would be angry at MPs that accepted such a rise at this time.

Badger Cull: Which Lib Dems voted for sanity?

As far as I can tell, at this stage, the Lib Dem MPs that voted for vaccination rather than cull...

Gordon Birtwistle,
Paul Burstow,
John Hemming,
Martin Horwood,
Stephen Lloyd,
John Pugh,
Bob Russell,
Adrian Sanders,
Stephen Williams