#PHPness - the real issue

I can't wait until the PHP world starts talking about PHP again.

— Jarrod Nettles (@hayvok) February 26, 2013

So says those that are comfortable in the status quo, and don't need to see their environment, their industry, change. Perhaps I'm being unfair, perhaps it is just that those (and there are plenty more), like Jarrod here, feel that PHP developers are above such pervasive parasitic behaviours that culminate in cultural divide.

It seems that this last couple of days a bit of a hoo-ha has been stirred up by the "75% women" staffed Web & PHP magazine, and their choice at drumming up views for their publication (congratulations on a job well done, I imagine). Sorry if I do "name names" here, by the way, it just makes it a whole lot easier for people to follow what's happened than making them do all the searching for themselves. I'm only aware of this now because perennial sexism-sniffer-outer, Aral Balkan, was making a bit of a fuss of it all this evening (see the earlier link).

Unfortunately the responses since have focused largely on the largely irrelevant and anecdotal .

Some may see the defense by Web & PHP magazine's staffers as its own form of feminism, others as Uncle Tom syndrome. Either way, it was off the mark as it took one criticism ("Your schtick is too male orientated") and decided to argue against it, as others so defensively did on Twitter it would seem, as some form of censorship alone. I don't doubt that some were thinking that, that perhaps it shouldn't have gone ahead, but is that really the only answer? Of course not. It's also highly curious to me to see the response to "we shouldn't pretend women are wallflowers" is to say "women should get used to 21st century male orientated sexual banter". Aren't they essentially the same limiting action, but in different directions?

Similarly the article makes the logical misstep of assuming because people involved are perfectly non-sexist and decent human beings, that this somehow makes it the problem of those that may feel barriers to their involvement if they don't feel comfortable. Yet the authors had the audacity, or perhaps just lack of an irony detector, to go on a diatribe about "slut shaming".

If there is one thing that happens every time this subject comes up it is the belittlement of the views of the minority of people that don't feel that their own industry (or the industry they would professionally like to be a part of) isn't a "safe space" for them. Perhaps it's not intentional, but clumsily these irrelevancies of how nice, decent, female or well meaning people are while they are creating divisive atmosphere, only say one thing... if you're too far from what we consider normal, we don't really care if you want to join the party or not. It's so very cliquey. Given the tone of the humour, it's 6th-form common-room standards of behaviour.

This last month has seen a landmark victory for civil rights in the UK, with same sex couples getting a vital step closer to being legally recognised as spouses if they go through a legal union of marriage. Yet there were many that claimed that they didn't need marriage, that they had something *like* marriage, surely that's enough? The attitude was very "learn to live with it". Internationally the issue has even seen some homosexual people themselves standing up shoulder to shoulder with the type of people that tried to deny them the right to an equal age of consent.

Another example of the kind of issue we're facing is university sports initiations. You may have seen some stuff on the news in the past, there have been incidents where people have died because of them. Yet despite this those who rely on them to weed out the weak of stomach and of resolve, would very passionately demand that no-one take away their right to run initiations as they wish. The result? People who cared about the sport, wanted to take it on from college, but didn't want to drink a pint of urine then be humiliated around town for a night, lost out.

The people who ran the initiations didn't lose out, those who joined in didn't lose out, only those that decided that their own sense of self-worth meant this avenue was closed to them. It was a pleasure to work with those during my time at UWESU who worked tirelessly to engage with the sport clubs to run initiations in a manner befitting of a safe-space organisation, not removing all elements of "risque"-ness or hierarchies and power structures...but to make it so that no-one who was of a "team sport is awesome" mentality would feel reasonably put off by the initiations.

This industry, and I mean our broad industry, not just in PHP, not just front-end developers, nor designers...but web and technology workers all over, needs to get past its own "same sex marriage" moment and embrace what the world needs it to be. Conferences, especially, are our "initiations" for those who want to enter the community as well as the profession, and everyone has the right to feel comfortable entering that arena.

Sending your kids to private school

So the Tory candidate for the By-Election at Eastleigh, Maria Hutchings, has gone and said state schools aren't good enough for her children. Queue people who are clearly a little too 2d on issues of liberalism rushing to her defense.

"Free choice!" they cry! "Don't judge people wanting the best for their children" they implore.

Bullshit. Let's not get in to some stupid, hypocritical liberalism. If these people have free choice to choose what is best for their family, we also have a free choice to criticise.

Taking it at it's core level when MPs and ministers choose to put their kids in to a private school they are admitting the failure of their own institution. If the state cannot provide enough of a standard that willingly spending thousands and thousands of pounds on education in a private sphere is a more acceptable option, then the state must not be performing well. By proxy, the state education system becomes one that is good enough for the poor, but not for the rich.

And this is the core problem, it's not *actually* about education levels, it's about class and it's about perceptions of quality (rather than actual quality) of being educated.

I put a metaphor forward... if I was building one brand of car, but chose to buy a different brand, doesn't that send the wrong message out about my car? We see this over and over, celebrities that endorse one type of product while using another (Alicia Keys, Blackberry vs Apple, for example). We see through this behaviour easily, we know the difference between being paid to give lip service to one idea while personally believing something different. Quite rightly we question the integrity of these people in the task or job they've been paid for.

A friend said, quite rightly, that you might make (as CEO of a company perhaps) that brand (say, Vauxhall) but want to buy a "better" one (like a Jaguar). Now, is that because the Jag is truly a better car? Arguably there are better quality components, subjectively better design....the reality is that it is better more through status than it is through more relevant measurables such as reliability and efficiency.

Yet the feeling is I should buy the Jag, this is because I want to fit in with my peers, and act appropriately to my job title and income. Is this not what it happening with private education? People that have got themselves significant incomes, wealth too perhaps, that think that they must put their kids in to private education for the right outcome, yet not necessarily anything to do with the outcome of real learning...that if they don't spend the thousands that they are failing as a parent? Maybe it's more active a decision...they want their kids to get the best job, and they know (through rubbing shoulders) that an Eton education is going to grease the wheels a whole lot more.

Yet this greasing of the wheels only happens because of an inflated credibility given to the private schools through association along side their results. "Who you know, not what you know" is not referring to your going to a private school because that school is good...but because it proves that you are "the right people", my kind of people, my class.

This is why politicians, when facing this choice, should make the choice to go for a state education rather than private. By doing so they are making active steps to destroy the structures of nepotism that suck the life out of aspirations of those from "lower" backgrounds than those that don't have to think twice about throwing extra money at an education institution. By doing so they are resisting the greedy urge to give their kids an unfair leg up the ladder and the passing along that this kind of selfish attitude is ok in a civilised society.

And you know...if they have an issue with the provision of their local school, especially in the environment we find ourselves in now with how schooling priorities and strategies are formed, and don't feel that from their position as a national politician (with a significant and better than many financial situation) that they can influence that individual school for their individual kids at an individual level...I wonder what exactly is the point of them having a job as an advocate and representive of the people in the first place.

"Responsive design"

I have just been asked for my view on responsive design, and whether it's the appropriate term to be using in discussions with clients. We are, amusingly yet unsurprisingly, a profession that spends a lot of time on definitions, perhaps too long...but the reality is that there are people with little technical knowledge but a lot of wallet, and they need to know if their boxes are being ticked. Encompassing definitions both help and hinder this.

Take "Responsive Design". Like "HTML5" which actually refers to modern web technologies, encompassing (but not limited to) javascript and CSS3 techniques, "Responsive Design" is not something we talk about in it's literal meaning, but its grouping of a set of techniques and ideals to deliver the right content in the right environment at the right time. Essentially, we usually use the term when talking about a service we are offering as part of a build, not as a technique. You can argue until the cows go home about whether someone's work involves "responsive design" or if it's just adaptive, or neither(!), and maybe you'll feel clever for a little while at nailing the specifics, but it is ultimately a futile exercise.

The problems with these definitions come when we're trying to sell this "service" to others, what they expect from it, and what we think they want when they ask for it. The customer doesn't care about what set of work practices you've used, and what you choose to call them, they only care that their product/system works.

Getting confused

Maybe you have heard this recently...

I want our new site to be responsive, can you use responsive design?

Or perhaps the client is taking your lead instead...

We are going to create a new site for you, and use the latest responsive design techniques

Leaving it like this is fraught with danger. How much do they really know about the techniques involved? Are they aware that "responsive design" as a service we are selling could be more than just making the text size go bigger, and the width go smaller, when you view the page on a mobile? When they ask for "responsive design" as a service, are we going to be quick to assume that they only want this and not a wider strategy for delivering their content on multiple devices in the best way for the customer?

The key to avoiding this is, obviously, to not simply rest on perceived definitions. Even if you think your definition is right, it doesn't mean others have the same views.

What does a "responsive design" service encompass?

It's actually made up of 4 distinct areas of practice which I would simply call good system design.

1. Content strategy design
2. Contextual design
3. Accessibile design
4. Responsive design

Content Strategy Design

For me the first thing that allows your system to be responsive is your content strategy. When you're putting something on your system, are you aware of it's limitations in different environments and different devices? Can it easily be taken to be used in a text message if appropriate as it can be to be put on a website for large desktop users?

Take the humble image. Most people will just upload a single image to put on a page. However is this image ready for use in high resolution devices? What about on pages where there is an abundance of space due to large window sizes? How is the meta data for that image stored so that it can be used in a text message if needs be?

Then there is the (text/html) content itself. While I would advocate simply having short and sweet content for each area of the system you're populating, there may be additional supplementary content that can enhance the current view. Without the right information architecture, and the right mentality behind adding content in a reusable manner, you may well find that any of your attempts at layout alteration, or alternate designs for alternate devices, will just be impossible.

For example: your standard Wordpress site allows users to dump their content in one big text box. It tends to do rather well in compartmentalizing some other content...you can upload a "thumbnail" or featured image, and you can associate custom content in a "key = value" way, but the default and prominent way of adding information is to use the big area for it all. This leads to pages that are unresponsive to changes in the size of the browser. Wordpress is a blunt instrument in the world of content management, though it is a model followed and preceded by many, but it highlights that sometimes we constrain our ability to be "responsive" the moment we choose our delivery system.

If we're being responsive we need to have the practices in place to use our content, and link our content together, in dynamic ways.

Contextual Design

You may have hit a website that looks very different on your phone, with a big link saying "view our main site" underneath. When this is done properly, it is contextual design in action, at it's simplest. While the methods of getting there are a subject of debate (browser sniffing, OMG!), the idea that what you will want to see in one context is different from another is important in your system being "responsive".

Look at an app like TripAdvisor, versus their website. The system is tailored around finding and making reviews, and at first glance the app isn't too different. However look a bit closer and you'll see that on the desktop website tripadvisor has a feeling of a system ready to help you plan a trip. It has prominent options to book flights, hotels, etc. It also lists everything in order of just how well others have rated it.

The app takes a different approach, still you look for reviews but the trip planning takes a back seat. Your current location is the default search choice, and everything is ranked by how far away it is from you now. Go in to details about a specific place and a prominent call to action is a tool to literally point you in the direction of the location and tell you how far you are away.

TripAdvisor have recognised that while everything is driven off of the same content, what content is relevant, and how you interact with the content depends on your situation, or context. Part of being "responsive" is understanding when simply amending the layout isn't enough, and that a different experience has to be offered. This doesn't mean abandoning the same functionality, just realigning priorities.

If we're being responsive, then we have to react to the environment that we know, or can reasonably assume, people reside in at the time they access the system.

Accessibile Design

Sometimes overlooked, but accessibility design may be one of the most important and ethical aspects of our design that we have to consider when thinking "responsively". Of course this means ensuring your system is navigable by those with sight issues, but it also means catering for those that have problem with their motor skills, or have cognitive disabilities.

There is, however, another area of accessibility...and that is catering for the disability of technological stagnation. Perhaps it could be described as legacy design, it is the practice of "progressive enhancement" that ensures that even those stuck on old computers, with old browsers, are able to get to the core experience or understanding of your system.

If we're being responsive, then we have to be responsive to the physical, mental and technological situation people are faced with.

Responsive Design

Finally there is the aspect that most will be familiar with, the actual layout on the page. Don't fight about whether it's "adaptive" or "responsive", these are just words. The only thing that matters is that your page works, regardless of what the size of the browser is, regardless of the resolution of the screen. If someone wants to do this by designing "steps" of layouts then that is ok, if someone wants to do it all be being fluid, that's also ok. The main thing is that the experience is going to be nice for the customer to use.

If this means hiding content that is useful on a desktop sized site, do it, the experience is key...just remember that load times and resource usage are just as important factors in someone's experience of your system as how it looks.

If we're being responsive, then the way the system looks has to be great in a way that never suggests "I should be viewing this on a different device/in a different browser size".

Edit: I've been asked a few times on Twitter about this, I would generally tend towards a fluid design thanks to the sheer number of resolutions and screen widths that can create a disjointed experience, or present wasted space. However within this fluid design you invariably need to use adaptive techniques to move elements around, hide elements, remove your grid structure, etc. This is why I say they are both part of the same parcel.

The caveats

Development is time and money, at the end of the day, and it's down to you to work out what is worth that time and money, and what isn't. If you know that you're only designing an iPhone app then considering the technological limitations of IE7 doesn't really factor. If you know that your site is one that doesn't have any IE6 users then feel free to severely limit the time you spend making it look perfect.

It's this reason why you need to be so careful with understanding what your client means when they bring the subject up, or that they understand what you mean when you bring it up. The difference in the length of time it can take to complete a project between the activity of simply adding some media queries in to a website template, and fully considering the design using all the elements above, is huge.

Stay flexible

I would suggest you work as close as possible to fulfill the above practices, whatever you want to call them yourself, the result will be a system that is responsive to future demands too. You may think that right now your system is constrained by certain facts, but facts can change...and boy can they change fast! Your iPhone only app can suddenly turn in to a web app as the client gets new information from their marketing teams, your user base can change away from the demographics that you tested your UX plans against (you did do some UX design too, right?)

If your system is inflexible to future change, if it isn't scalable, then you are creating a world of hurt for either yourself or your client at some point in the future. Follow good responsive design practices and you'll find that revisions to your system will be a breeze; making changes will become an act of bolting on new functionality, or simple tweaks to a template, instead of having to gut the system and start again!

This is what your client needs to understand when you start talking about responsive design, that you want to make a system that is responsive to variety in the marketplace now, to diversity of customers, and responsive to changes therein in the (near) future too.

On IDS's Sun outburst...

Iain Duncan Smith has lashed out at those that helped strike a blow against the government workfare systems yesterday, in the Sun

LET me be very clear — our back to work schemes are successful

No they're not, at least not the ones that people have a problem with. This is the problem with our government talking about "back to work schemes", no one has a problem with paid for training, on the job training, apprenticeships. It is the compulsory and pseudo-compulsory act of "mandatory work activity" and it's siblings that are the problem, and they aren't working.

In fact the very existence of these schemes that purely provide us, the "hard working tax payer" (see below), the means to pay for someone to work for a multi-million pound national or international company without that organisation having to pay even a fraction of what they would otherwise, may well be entrenching a cycle of poverty in to our society that is impossible to get out from.

And a gentle reminder that if everything is so successful, we need to know why unemployment isn't even going down, really.

and are not slave labour.

Legally, no they're also not. There is, however, a perfect quote for this...

"There is always a choice."
"You mean I could choose certain death?"
"A choice nevertheless, or perhaps an alternative. You see I believe in freedom. Not many people do, although they will of course protest otherwise. And no practical definition of freedom would be complete without the freedom to take the consequences. Indeed, it is the freedom upon which all the other are based."

Lord Vetinari and Moist, in "Going Postal" by Terry Pratchett

The only technicality by which compulsory (or perceived compulsory, as was the case in court) work has to be undertaken, in order to retain benefit payments, doesn't classify as "Slavery" is that no-one is actually bound to legally or otherwise to that duty. They do, if they so wish, have the choice to simply have no money.

This is a choice that means they lose their home almost certainly, won't be able to buy food, or pay bills...not unless they have some friend, relative or local foodbank willing to give them hand outs.

So, are people being forced to do this work? No. Do they really have any other choice? No.

Nobody works for free on these placements because the Government continues to pay their benefits. So nobody is working for nothing, are they?

Dangerous words here from IDS. Why? If he deems that these people are working (and there is a contract there, so note this is very close to the line) then there is a bit of legislation that should apply to them. You cannot act like these people are workers in one breath, but then deny them the rights that we are calling for...a fair wage for a day's work.

I believe IDS has let his guard slip here, this comment/attitude may be useful for those campaigning against workfare going forward.

I disagree with the part of the ruling that found against our regulations and we will appeal against that

That is his right, to spend our money on feckless legal challenges rather than just get on with the job, of course.

but crucially the court did not find that anyone’s human rights have been breached because we asked them to do a work placement in return for Jobseeker’s Allowance.

See above.

The court said our technical regulations should be clearer and we have rectified that.

So...you're not appealing them then? Or you're appealing them even though you have found a way that you can comply with the ruling, which kind of proves the ruling's point? Oh IDS...

People who are fit to work should no longer expect to receive benefits if they do not do everything they can to get a job.

Which is weird, because there are people "doing everything they can" to get a job, like those that were in court fighting their sanctions, but the system doesn't recognise that they are doing this. It also doesn't recognise that regardless of how much those people are trying to get a job, but not finding one because there are not enough jobs to go around they will be forced in to less-than-minmum-wage labour after a set period of time.

I can kind of understand, though completely disagree still, with the idea that if you objectively find someone is simply not trying to find a job that you mandate them to take work experience... forcing people to take work after 9 months simply because they've been unemployed that long in an almost-triple-dip recession? That's not about expectations around benefits and all about a government that wishes to get people off of the unemployment statistics.

To compare work experience to “slave labour” is hugely insulting to people living in oppression around the world

A strange statement, because while no-one is truly equating the rather technical definition of being in slavery with the slave trade of the past, and horrific slavery that still exists, IDS seems to think it is ok to use these faceless victims as a reason to try to silence critics of the lack of ethics in his policies.

I honestly feel this is a subject that has so many parallels (though is of a completely different and less significant scale) to the perception of the slave trade in the past, what we are existing in now is a period where some people believe this exploitation of people's situation is ok, and others believe it is not. In the past those who believed in ethical behaviour won out and slavery was abolished and the right to be free from slavery is one of our core human rights.

It is that kind of belief in being above the lowest form of human behaviour that we need to rekindle now.

and sneers at hard-working taxpayers who pay for benefits.

Ah, the old "hard-working" line! Love this one. If you earn lots of money you are a "hard worker", if you can only get a job because someone cuts the hours of an existing employee...or worse still cuts jobs only to restaff them with those on welfare-to-work schemes, then you are a "shirker". How on earth do you try and quantify how "hard" someone sitting in an office waiting for calls to come in is working compared to someone that is about to lose their job as a cleaner only for it to be reinstated as a "mandatory work activity placement" months later?

IDS doesn't have anything of worth or factual value to add here, just rhetoric that aims to drive a wedge between those who have been fortunate and entrepreneurial, and those who are less fortunate. IDS, quite frankly, doesn't care enough about people to realise what utter horseshit he is spewing when he defends these kinds of schemes.

I hope we won't have to wait too long before compassion sets in and we understand what we are doing to people, all in the search to have a dubious statistical "win" to beat the opposition with at Prime Ministers Questions.

About Teather's "explanation" of voting against equality

I'm quite frankly annoyed by the duplicity of the argument that Sarah Teather, supposedly a liberal, has given for voting against the same-sex marriage bill tonight. It's not her alone that is using this lazy and factually incorrect argument to protect future generations of those that share her faith from having to deal with a changing world, but she's made a timely intervention that proves easy to fisk...

This evening I voted against the second reading of the same-sex marriage bill. It was one of the most difficult decisions I have ever taken. As a life-long liberal and a committed Catholic I spent many months reflecting on this issue in the lead up to the vote. I wanted to explain to people why I took this step.

Unfortunately, this will not be a very good explanation...

I have previously taken a very public stance in support of gay equality in a whole range of areas, including supporting civil partnerships legislation in 2004 (which I was very proud to do), voting for all stages of equality legislation passed in the last two parliaments, working with schools to address homophobia and lobbying the Home Office for fairer treatment of gay people seeking asylum from countries where they fear persecution. I feel strongly about these issues and have devoted considerable time to campaigning on such matters over the last ten years.

Some of by best friends are gay, hmm?

As will become apparent through this, Teather is the same kind of gay activist as most right wingers are charitable to the poor. They might give to organisations trying to save lives in war torn countries, but if any of those people try to claim asylum here then they can fuck right off. Teather sees a threat to her faith; she's happy to see gay people free from persecution...they just can't be allowed to join her club. That would be too much.

This is made all the more ridiculous by the fact that nothing about voting yes would change how much gay people are ostracised from her club anyway.

However, changing the definition of marriage for me raises other more complex issues.

I just want to say that the definition of marriage changes in no way to alter how marriage exists for those already married or wishing to get married. All it does is "extend the franchise", so how exactly this is a "complex" issue is beyond me. Complex if you are superimposing your own beliefs in to something that is actually nothing to do with your beliefs, perhaps.

I believe that the link between family life and marriage is important.

And so starts pretty much every "I'm trying to be liberal" argument, and each time basically points a gun at their own feet.

We know that permanent stable loving relationships between parents are very important for children.

Alright...I think we can all see where this is going...

Such relationships make it much easier to offer the kind of consistent loving parenting that enables children to grow into healthy happy adults able to play their part in society. I recognise that this kind of stability can exist outside of marriage, but the act of giving and receiving vows in front of others and making a commitment for life is an aid to stability.

This is, at best, complete nonsense. If marriage in itself was an aid to stability (though what Teather is talking about here is a wedding, not marriage, which does not in itself have to be religious...nor does it even have to be a marriage) then there wouldn't be an increase in the rate of divorce as time has gone on. As more people get married, less people should get divorced, not vice versa.

It is precisely the reason that marriage has formed the basis of family life for thousands of years, and is the reason that the state has historically tried to encourage it.

Bollocks. Marriage (in the way Teather talks about it) was first intervened in by the state in 1753, and this was not for "family" reasons. The main reason was to protect the revenue stream that marriages provided, and protect the underaged from being effectively traded in to marriage, by culling "clandestine marriages". It did nothing to promote the stability of families for Quakers or Jews because they weren't part of the act.

in 1836, over 80 years later, this was amended. To promote family life? No, to recognise diversity of religion...or more specifically to protect non-Anglicans from having no legal recourse against spouses that simply left them. Strengthening families? Only through strengthening the barriers to get out of them, it would seem. This is also when the arguments for equality started to get opposed by bigots that sought to put their own faith ahead of the rights of others.

"Not solemnized by the church of England, may be celebrated without entering into a consecrated building, may be contracted by anybody, and will be equally valid, whether it takes place in the house of God, or in the house of a registering clerk, one of the lowest functionaries of the state. The parties may take one another for better and for worse, without calling God to witness their plighted troth" - Henry Phillpotts, Bishop of Exeter.

Oh dear me, these philistines that believe their commitment to marriage, through other religious institutions or otherwise, is as great and good as the holy (Anglican) Catholic version!

Each episode in the way that the state "promotes" family life through marriage has simply been to either extend the franchise or remove the barriers, be it through allowing marriages that will be recognised by British Law in foreign countries, or increasing the type of premises that can be used, etc. etc.

Long (but not as long as 1000s of years) story short...the way the state has involved itself has not been to encourage family life, not in any explicit sense. To encourage marriages to take place under the legal framework of the UK rather than outside that framework...sure.

If we want to go back 1000s of years, as a "state", to the recognised beginning of a state run enterprise in marriage, then that would of course be Henry VIII and his various moves to provide himself the ability to get "divorced" without the religious baggage. Indeed at this stage he didn't take control out of any love of family. Sure, he wanted a son, but he had two girls before that. The state, the church and the king cared little for "family stability" with regards to his daughters, changing the fundamental constitution of the country to rid himself of his first child's mother, and eventually beheading the second.

I also recognise that not all couples who get married have children for a variety of reasons, and similarly that many children are now born outside of marriage.

But that clearly you think those children are receiving lesser "love" than their married-parent counterparts

My concern, however, is that by moving to a definition of marriage that no longer requires sexual difference, we will, over time, ultimately decouple the definition of marriage from family life altogether.

I want you to remember that she's said this, because it will be important later.

I doubt that this change will be immediate. It will be gradual, as perceptions of what marriage is and is for shift.

Like John Pugh before her, Sarah Teather here seeks to protect the future from us interfering lot. Thank god that people like Sarah here are there to ensure that as cultural changes happen, institutions are forced to remain the same so that future generations may not get an accurate idea of how culture has changed!

But we can already see the foundations for this shift in the debate about same-sex marriage. Those who argue for a change in the law do so by saying that surely marriage is just about love between two people and so is of nobody else's business.

That's because the definition of marriage is exactly that. The vows that people take in religious ceremonies are about partnership and love. Those championing same-sex marriages aren't taking anything away from what marriage is, they're just echoing it.

Once the concept of marriage has become established in social consciousness as an entirely private matter about love and commitment alone, without any link to family, I fear that it will accelerate changes already occurring that makes family life more unstable. (I should add, that I also suspect it will make marriage ultimately seem irrelevant. After all, how long before gay people begin to say, as many straight couples of my own generation have begun to say, "if marriage is just about love, why would I need a piece of paper to prove it?")

So, first... citation needed. If Sarah Teather has a definition stashed away somewhere that links the state involvement with marriage to the encouragement and promotion of family life, I'm sure we'd all love to see it.

Second: This is the WORST reason to try to stop legislation. I'm sorry, you're worried that people will subscribe to marriage in a way that differs from your view, so you wish to put road blocks in the way of that view taking hold?! How is that, in any world, a liberal stance to take? You don't want something to become irrelevant, so you intend to keep things legally irrelevant for a section of society instead?

Better that they're forced to find it irrelevant as standard, than to come to that conclusion on their own, eh?

Third, CITATION NEEDED! "Changes already occurring that makes family life more unstable"? I would LOVE to see a link between people marrying purely for love and commitment and divorce levels instead of, say, people marrying through family pressure and religious fear combined with a change in attitudes to sexual intercourse.

Seriously, if you have something that shows that people entering in to a legal partnership for private reasons of love are more and more likely to have unstable family lives, put it out there.

If I felt that the current legal framework left gay couples unprotected, I would be much more inclined to support the proposed legislation.

"Look, you already have it pretty good, why do you need to even have equality?"

Basically, I think David Lammy slamdunked this type of bullshit argument that is, quite frankly, insulting...

"Let me speak frankly. “Separate but equal” is a fraud. Separate but equal is the language that tried to push Rosa Parks to the back of the bus. Separate but equal is the motif that determined that black and white could not possibly drink from the same water fountain, eat at the same table or use the same toilets. Separate but equal are the words that justified sending black children to different schools from their white peers" - David Lammy MP

If you cannot see when you write a statement like the one above about how you are promoting a two teir society, as a fucking liberal, you should be ashamed.

However, the civil partnerships legislation, which I voted for in my first parliament, equalised relationships between same-sex couples before the law, providing the same protections as offered to heterosexual married couples.

And so the goalposts shift. Remember the statement I asked you to remember above? Right. So initially Sarah wants marriage to be all about married life, the promotion of the family unit. So here Sarah is creating an interesting paradox for herself.

If marriage is required to have the most stable family life, then everyone should aspire to be married. If civil partnerships are as good as marriage, then we should help encourage the most stable family life by calling it what it is...a marriage. But Sarah doesn't want to do this, and so she...mustn't support the strength of family life.

I felt strongly that it was right to support civil partnerships to ensure that gay people in committed long term relationships are not discriminated against financially and legally and can take part in decisions about their partner's health care. Virtually no new protections are offered to same-sex couples on the basis of this legislation on marriage, and any that are could easily be dealt with by amending civil partnership legislation.

"If gay couples have a problem, let's sort it out, but not in a way that threatens my perception of my faith, mmkay?"

If the new legislation doesn't offer anything much different aside from a change to the legal definition of marriage (that may or may not technically exist in law), and offers new protections that Sarah would support, then what reason at all is there to stand against it?

The argument in favour of same-sex marriage has mostly centred on rights.

Sure, it's part of the strongest sounding arguments. Rights for gay couples to be legally recognised as exact equals to hetero-couples, rights for religious institutions to perform same sex marriages if they wish to do so. It doesn't appear you're going to touch on the other religious institution's rights that you've tried to trample on today, nor the other wider reasons about culture or society. I guess it's easier to pretend that the tally if one libertarian view versus one socially liberal one and to just write it off as a draw.

But this isn't the only liberal philosophical perspective on the legislation. The more I considered this bill the more I was unsure about the state's role.

You seemed pretty sure above, the state has to promote a stable family life as much as possible, right?

If an important reason for marriage is that it is a space for having and raising children, I can see the relevance for the state being involved in regulating it and encouraging stability for the good of society and for children's welfare.

Ok...there better be something pretty damn mindblowing to change this from supporting the extension of marriage to opposing it...

Similarly, if there is a need for protection of rights to property and rights to make decisions, there are good reasons for the state to provide regulation.

Yet this isn't what gay couples are fighting for...I guess we've finished building our strawman now?

But neither of these things is what this legislation is trying to do. In this case, the state is regulating love and commitment alone, between consenting adults, without purpose to anything else. That feels curious to me, as I would normally consider that very much a private matter.

Actually, with purpose also to religious institutions that wish to be able to legally and religiously marry same sex couples but are currently being denied that right, but hey let's not let small fry religions like the jewish religion get in the way of this Catholic Crusade.

But let's just reverse things a second. Is the state regulating love and commitment here? They are not, they are bringing in line the regulations for civil partnerships to be recognised as a defined marriage, so it is, like in 2004, about affording same sex couples the same rights as hetero-couples on the same level. It is not just about private love and commitment.

I have found this a difficult decision because of my work previously on gay rights issues, and my judgment is finely balanced.

"Every bone in my body tells me there is no reason to oppose this, but my faith tells me I must...argh...decisions decisions."

I recognise that others may reflect deeply on these issues and come to a different view, in good faith. But it is my view that where the extra protections offered to same-sex couples are marginal, and where the potential negatives to society over a period of time may be more considerable, I am unable to support the bill.

And here we are with the negatives, this supposed peril that by allowing people to continue not as civil partners, but married partners, who have chosen to do this because of love and commitment, will cause widespread family breakdown in the UK. Citation needed indeed.

What Sarah is saying here is that she couldn't give a flying fuck if a homosexual couple have a "marriage" breakdown if it's not called a marriage. This doesn't affect family stability enough it seems. Suddenly call it a marriage and it's completely different though. The same rights and responsibilities with a different name CHANGE THE WHOLE GAME. Society will suddenly be negatively affected in a way they weren't by identical actions under a separate moniker.

Bonkers.

Although the vote today was subject to a free, unwhipped vote, I understand that my views place me out of step with most of my liberal democrat colleagues and party members. I have not often found myself out of step with party members over the last twenty years. But one of the things that always impresses me about our party is that we are liberal enough to accept that others may hold different views. Our party members hold strong views, but recognise and cherish the space for difference. I am proud of that.

I hope that no Liberal Democrat recognises this difference. I hope that the Lib Dems tend to be tolerant of their other members and MPs views because they are, at least, considered views with some basis in logic and reason. I hope that no-one lets this kind of nonsense pass as an "acceptable" view in a liberal society. That's not to say that Sarah can't have it, she's free to think what she wishes, but she's not free to pretend that the view is one of merit or substance.

The above from Sarah is pure and unadulterated prejudice, sprinkled with as many references as possible to say "I love the gays really!" while at the same time underhandedly insulting them.

Let's make no mistake here, she has said that if the world operated in a parallel universe where todays vote was a no, and same sex marriage never made it in to law, society would not suffer the dreadful, elusively "negatives" that are to come over time. Now, however, we are to lock up our doors, for the gaypocalypse is coming. She wants people to enter in to loving relationships as they are better for families, but also holds the contradictory belief that those in loving relationships are becoming more and more unstable family units. She thinks the world is changing, but doesn't want to do anything that will facilitate that change for fear of how people might think differently then than she does now.

How very, utterly, liberal.

Worrying about tokenism?

Laura Kalbag has written a insightful piece on her blog about her views on women and conferences. This has perhaps been spurred in to being after some truly horrible stories that have been spoken out about by the likes of Sarah Parmenter, Relly Annett-Baker and Ashe Dryden (and, unfortunately more still than them). However something is sitting uneasily with me, and perhaps the best way to describe it is this idea of there being a perfect and non-disruptive solution to our industry (and sister-industry's) problem with diversity and latent discrimination.

Laura says:

Nobody wants to be the token speaker

I enjoy speaking occasionally, but I’m really more of a fan of attending conferences. I don’t want token women speakers to exist, let alone have people suggest that I am one, and that I was only asked to speak to fulfil a quota.

and

Quotas don’t help, because that just results in “token” speakers, but men pledging to not speak unless there’s a satisfactory representation of women is helpful, because it’s telling the organisers that diversity is important to them, and that you believe the current lineup isn’t representative of a fair speaker selection process.

I'd love to be an optimist and hope that this will pull the curtain up from in front of the eyes of conference organisers and goers, and even perhaps filter it's way down in the thinking and ethos of those that employ people in web design and development. But I don't think I can be.

While I don't agree with strict quotas, I do agree with targets. If conference creators were to sign up to a pledge, not just (or at all) the male speakers of this world, that promised to be open and transparent about their selection process, and to achieve some basic diversity targets...this would make a lot more difference than people sitting on the sidelines saying "no, I can't be a part of this".

This pledge might change attitudes, but it also might just give organisers a feeling of being snubbed. It doesn't mean that their prejudices won't continue to operate, that they won't just go to the next white guy on their list that they like. Any buy-in to increasing diversity has to come from a combination of getting these organisers to sign up to a transparency pledge, detailing to prospective conference goers what they're doing about diversity at their conference, and getting those outside pressuring through boycott or through persuasion that they want a better and more socially/culturally reflective conference.

And there is another issue with this pledge. I can't find the link, unfortunately, but there was a woman who said it best when she said that it's not realistic to expect all speakers to honour their pledge to only speak at diverse events. It's easy for those at the top, that are enough of a draw to the crowds that their action might make a difference. But a new speaker, trying to break in to the scene...there is no benefit to them or to diversity to do this.

But this does, of course, lead to this idea that "tokens" would exist in the speaking panel, where the conference has signed up to try to meet some "targets" and have thus got some women on the panel...

...I say that this is a short term problem, and largely an internal, self-reflective one we have to battle through. The idea in attendee's heads that people are tokens on stage will only last as long as they don't realise those "tokens" are good speakers. No-one (that is not inherently and deeply rooted in their bigotry) will remain sitting there thinking "regardless of how useful this talk is, I will always view it less because this person is a 'token' speaker"

To put it in to context, there are sponsors that get spots at conferences, perhaps indirectly. These are people that work for Apple or Microsoft or Adobe, for example. The initial thought may well be that they're only on stage because they're advertising something. So how does this go?

Well, if they are advertising...just pushing a soft-sell...people's prejudices against this kind of speaker placement are reinforced. Yet regardless of the state of the "sell", no-one comes out of the room complaining about the fact that it was a corporate pitch if the talk was useful and of good quality. Those that do are usually just fervent fanboys, the company brand version of racism.

Yet women and other minorities in this industry don't need to pitch anything, they aren't competing on that stage for market share in any practical sense...all that they need to do is offer a useful and well presented talk and no-one of reasonable mind will even think they were a token placement. Part of the problem right now with some seems to be that they honestly think, while completely oblivious to the misogyny of it all, that there just aren't as many good women speakers and men. The problem with leaving it to male speakers to "drop out" is that this unreasonable feeling is reinforced by such an action, not challenged.

We have to accept the reality that, as much as we may wish it away, this sexism and racism is not going to disappear for a LONG time, if it ever does. There will always be these arseholes, but there won't always be a culture that what these arseholes say is tolerable. Just like we now grimace at racial stereotypes of 1960s "chinese" in the cinema of the time (also, watch that link for bonus "friendzone" style bullshit), we are already starting to realign our culture and find it uncomfortable that we have to hear some of the utter drivel that some bigots come out with.

What we can't do is be afraid of the self-doubt that might come with that, that the path to embedding diversity as a standard, not an ideal, will be opposed by those who have prejudice to bring forward. Fear like this leaves the power of change outside of our own control.

To put an analogy to that of a kid...a kid that really doesn't like carrots. Are we going to wait until all the other food, the chips, the bread, the jam, is no longer available before we say "look, you HAVE to eat carrot now, you have no choice!"...or are we just going to be good parents and say "Try that carrot, look, let's mash it in with some potato...now wasn't that actually really nice?". Only one of those routes is going to lead to your kid overcoming their prejudices against orange vegetables.

The male speaker pledge? Fine, it's a nice idea and at a high level it raises awareness...this is good. But without conference organisers promising to be open, to explain that actually the reason their line-up is all male is because they literally couldn't find a single woman to come and speak (and here are the steps we took to try!), and ultimately without women accepting that positive cultural change doesn't come without a bumpy ride that they must weigh up against not being on the ride at all, change won't happen at the rate we want it.

Against targets for women speakers in tech conferences?

Just a quick and dirty flowchart on targets in tech conferences for speakers (it talks about women, it could be a lot of different groups)

Employment is falling, unemployment is rising

Just wanted to make a quick post about how our government, and the media, is absolutely misleading us on the "success" of our economic fight back in terms of the new jobs being created. You will hear each month how many more tens of thousands of people are in work, and that less people are unemployed...yet it never tallies with our country's economic growth. Indeed the reality is that while we can be cautiously, very cautiously, optimistic on employment, our unemployment levels have been rising for a decade, and aren't slowing.

Here is the data, all taken from the Labour Force Survey (the vertical axis is percentage of population age 16-64 that year, horizontal is the year), with 2012 compiled from average data from 2012 we have so far...

Trends for Employment, Unemployment and Economic Inactivity since 1971 for all aged 16-64


From this you should be able to see that employment has generally slightly increased since 1971, but so has unemployment. The economically inactive have moved in to those two "definitions". However that's just the trend, which may not be entirely appropriate for this range of dates, since it is completely clear that we are facing our biggest employment crisis since the last time the Tories were in power. However we are clearly not suffering to the level we were in the 80s.

This picture is a little too long, the best we can say is that we aren't doing well right now on employment, and out unemployment has been an ongoing problem for over a decade...

Trends for Employment, Unemployment and Economic Inactivity since 1997 for all aged 16-64


...as this graph shows. Starting with when Labour took power. Employment is obvious, it was rising under Labour, then the recession hit, and it's barely recovering now. This does not mean that employment trends are not now on the rise.

But the interesting thing is unemployment. That too is still on the rise, and has been since sometime in Labour's second term. The recession boosted unemployment levels, but they're still growing. Recent unemployment tallies mostly with the recession effect, but there is also a clear correlation between a drop in economic inactivity and unemployment.

Is this because Labour and the coalition have made it harder to exist outside of the working/not working dichotomy? Is it an effect of an aging population? Is it just more political tinkering with who is defined as what in an age where higher education and other programs have grown?

Trends for Employment, Unemployment and Economic Inactivity since 1997 for MALES aged 16-64


Looking at men, the general shape of rates of employment match closely to the data for both genders with two key differences. First, the drops and rises are much more pronounced. The recession hit men harder, but they are also recovering jobs and getting out of unemployment better than women (graph below).

Second, more and more men are moving in to economic inactivity. This is showing cautious signs of change in 2012, but it is interesting to see that men since Labour have taken power have moved generally out of unemployment and in to economic inactivity.

Trends for Employment, Unemployment and Economic Inactivity since 1997 for FEMALES aged 16-64


The effects of the recession had a more limited effect on women, and since Labour took power, and through the coalition, there has been a drop in economic activity levels. But when you hear that the coalition is hurting women the most it is this data that proves it. Unlike the men unemployment is still on the rise for women, consistently so. Meanwhile employment opportunities seem to be fairly stagnant.

Overall:

The fact is that our employment rates are nothing to be celebrating. We should be happy they aren't dropping but there are only slight signs of consistent recovery right now. Women are suffering under unemployment and we don't necessarily know how many people have moved from a relatively "good" position in economic inactivity to a bad one of unemployment. In general for every cheer you give for our unemployment, you should give a groan for unemployment rising too.

As for "records" that are talked of being broken, our employment rate now compared to 1971 is not favourable, and isn't anywhere near as good as it was under Labour. Unemployment, on the other hand, is growing dangerously close to being comparable to the early 90s, which should be concerning the coalition a whole lot more than it is as it cuts budgets and locks people in to cycles of poverty with their social security cutting policy, and draconian benefit workfare schemes.

*caveats apply, the way that these terms are defined will have been tweaked as time has gone on, for example people that are currently being forced to work for no pay, just to keep their meager benefits are not counted as unemployed, they will at worst be counted as economically inactive.

Conferences and quotas, pt2.

I feel that when it comes to "discussing" the issue of the representation of minorities in our profession of web creators, people get themselves in to paradoxical positions all too easily. After a little spat today it's clear that, once again, there are a group of people that don't realise they should either be supporting those of us that are saying diversity quotas are a good idea, or should accept that they are being discriminatory in their opinion.

"How are they being discriminatory?" you might ask, or as someone on twitter has lamented (paraphrasing) "Don't disagree with quotas, even if you agree with equality, you'll be labeled a misogynist!"

Well, yes, you might...and perhaps the fact you don't quite see the obvious link that makes that label apply to you is part of your problem.

You see people calling for quotas aren't saying that people who are bad speakers should be on the roster, they're saying that there are talented people of all colours and creeds and in order to help nurture future talent in a diverse way we should showcase our diversity.

Now, if you agree with this you shouldn't disagree with quotas. The implementation of a quota doesn't reduce the amount of quality on offer, it only changes the person that is standing on stage in front of you. Your experience doesn't change, no-one that doesn't deserve the spotlight has been given a platform. It's essentially exactly the same situation as if the conference organiser had willingly chosen to create a diverse line-up rather than being (for the want of a better term) "forced" to.

But if you view that those, especially women, are pushing quotas because they want "token" women for diversity reasons you are NOT accepting that women have just as much talent and ability to stand on that stage. You are, perhaps implicitly, letting your prejudices on show. Your first instinct is that women don't deserve to be there in the first place, and it shows in your language.

So if you are disagreeing with quotas have a long, hard think and ask yourself why you really oppose them, and don't complain that you're getting called on your prejudices while you do.

When is a Royal veto, not one's?

Alright, so a load of republicans have their arses in their hands right now in frustration about the "outrage" of the royal family members having a "veto" on laws of the land.

How terrible is this! The Queen and her offspring telling us what laws are adequate for one's country while a general conspiracy is afoot to subvert the population's awareness of this horrid and nefarious scheme!

Or, it's still as ceremonial as all functions have always been perhaps?

We know, for example, that the Queen has to swear in a new government (and that it is for parliament to decide on that government). It's all pomp and ceremony really since the Queen has no power.

Let me just repeat this again. The Queen has no power, at least no more than any other significant land owner in this country, the same goes for Charles.

So then, what are all these instances of veto's about?

Well the one cited prominently in the daring expose by the Guardian is that of the Queen vetoing any kind of move to take power from her to declare wars. The fiend!

Except the reality is that the bill that sparked such a thing was a backbench bill by some MPs that really didn't like the idea of going to war without having a say. The Prime Minister? Tony Blair, a man who would then go on to press on with an attack 4 years later based on dodgy evidence and shrouded in spin and dirty politics.

The Queen was not responsible for the veto of this bill, Tony Blair was.

Not convinced? Well how about the Palace of Westminster (Removal of Crown Immunity) Bill. I mean, look at that, removal of Crown Immunity! I guess the Queen must have vetoed that because, well, who would give up immunity?

Take a look at the debate...

Mr Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North)
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I listened carefully to what my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms. Walley) said about the Bill. Are we to understand that the dilatory behaviour of the Palace is preventing the House from debating an important measure to protect the conditions of staff employed in this building and to give them the conditions that they would enjoy anywhere else?

Miss Betty Boothroyd (West Bromwich West)
Let me help the hon. Gentleman if I can. It is no reflection on the Palace, as the hon. Lady knows. An application is made to a Minister, and the hon. Lady is perfectly entitled and right to take the action that she now proposes to take.

Ah...so an administration error then, just one that happens to have "The Queen did not give consent" labelled on it as if she gave an active answer in such a (priority wise, lowly) private members bill.

Then there is the case of when she callously vetoed Lords Reform in 1990. I mean, if she isn't for giving up her own powers as the above examples so amply demonstrate, then why would she want loads of Lords to lose their jobs?

Oh, wait, no...just another administrative issue that was rectified later that year. The politicians on the other hand...well, just try and find a reference to Lords reform in 1990.

Of course it's not just the Queen, it's the Prince of Wales, Charles too. However there is no evidence of the Prince's consent ever having presented itself in a way to "veto" any bill.

Does this mean that bills haven't been altered in order to favour the royal family?

Well for a start this would have to happen before any bills even went to parliament, where they are recorded at every stage. For the bill to change there has to be approval by the person putting the bill forward, or a vote. The stage at which the Prince or Queen's consent is sought is almost always (as far as I can see) AFTER the bill has been published, it's just a matter of protocol.

Yet without fail the Queen and Prince give their consent on everything that they are asked. This is because, ultimately, this isn't a secretive consultation to get the approval from the most well known family in the country, but a simple administrative process that is only one of many quaint and out-dated...but ultimately harmless...rituals that tradition requires.

So, let's ask this question again. How exactly is what we have in front of us a case of the monarchy interfering in democracy, hmm?

What about the shadowy half-brother of "taking offence"?

It's been an interesting few days for those within certain circles on Twitter, and no doubt regular readers of either the New Statesman and Observer. Those who seem to dip in to professional trolling have had a big fight about being trolled...someone has "quit" Twitter because she was bullied only to have her friend bully without a hint of irony in one of the most vile ways I've ever read.

There are a couple of other blog postings that cover that particular issue and it's direct philosophical musings very well, I suggest you go read.

What I want to talk about is the rather overlooked issue of those who have taken justification. This shadowy half-brother of taking offence is overlooked, yet is actually the bigger problem that results from usually half-thought-out ramblings.

Take "James Delingpole". Charlie Brooker here is right, when you have professional trolls paid by the big publishers to get page views then what they are writing is not worth your time getting offended...or at least not pursuing after you've been offended.

But that doesn't solve the problem of those that have taken justification at his views. Those who will point to a prominent article written in a national paper (with it's own regulation!) and claim some kind of endorsement of their own prejudice.

Does James Delingpole or Jan Moir really hate as many people as they seem to? Maybe. Is that a problem? Only in so much as they normalise and legitimise what they're saying because of the (debatable) breadth of their reach and the reputation the brand they're writing under gives them.

To those sitting at the end of the Burchill Observer travesty and saying simply that people should not get offended so easily, or that they should just ignore it, are missing that, in this specific instance, that very charge against the victims of a heavily weighed attack on their way of life is an insult in itself. People that are forgotten about, or where they are not are ridiculed as somehow being "lesser", being told to just "live with it" is hardly a compassionate or reasonable thing to say.

But it is made even less reasonable because of that issue of those that take compliment. Those people that will look at the article and not see a horrible piece of hypocritical hate speech, but instead vindication of their own prejudices that they themselves cannot actually see as wrong.

We don't equally turn to these people and say they have no right to take someone's article and feel that sense of vindication, we for some reason only focus on those who get offended. Both sides are vocal, though admittedly those who are offended are usually more so, but those who decry (for example) twitter's downfall in to "twitterstorms" and "twittermobs" only focus on those people.

And of course the reason is that those who are offended are all too ready to say "I don't think this should be said" rather than their half-brothers and half-sisters who are massaging egos while shouting "No, I love hearing this, write more cheap trash!"

I'll never be happy in a world where those writing either their own blogs, or in the newspapers, feel that they need to self-censor hugely. If someone feels something they should feel free to write about that, as wrong or right as modern society believes that to be. There is a responsibility here, and not one that resides in writing up your piece and then deciding not to run with it, or with an editor saying "You're going to cause too much heat, let's not publish this one"...but with not engaging those you disagree with in such a manner that you provide ammunition against those that may not be too dissimilar to yourself to those who look for any bit of apologist rhetoric that they can use to justify their anti-equality agenda.

A little bit of compassion goes a long way, and by engaging with your detractors you not only help to stop the storms and mobs that you supposedly hate, but you also keep your views from becoming the property of those with agendas that you would rather not be aiding. If you say something stupid and can't stop yourself from saying it, fine...but please learn when you put your hands up and say "sorry" instead of shouting "shut up, troll"

Keeping things "fair"

A farmer has three fields, and keeps a set of horses in one, cows in another and pigs in the last one.

In the field with the horses there is a plentiful amount of grasses covering it's entirety, and is by some margin the largest field; there would have to be significant loses to the grass before the horses would be left wanting. The cows have the next largest field, though half of it's land is covered by hard standing and poor quality soil that yields little grass. The farmer supplements their natural grass growth with hay.

The pigs have the worse lot, they have a large shed and an outdoor area that is devoid of natural food. All the food they get is provided by the farmer in troughs.

One year the weather was particularly bad for the farm, and the horses found that a patch of their large field had not grown grass properly through a combination of early droughts and then late floods on the valley side.

Some of these horses were extremely frustrated, they were used to having any area of the field to graze from, and the complete freedom that afforded. However, when they looked over at the pigs they were incensed.

The pigs, you see, were still getting the same amount of food as before, the amount they needed, from the farmer while the horses had to suffer a reduced (though still surplus) supply of natural grass.

Naturally the horses complained. Worried that nothing would be able to pull the ploughs if the horses got too upset, the farmer scaled the amount of food he provided to the pig's troughs by a similar fraction as the horses had lost in their field.

Wanting to be fair, and avoid any further arguments, the farmer did the same with the hay supplied to the cows. The cows were too pre-occupied agreeing with the horses about the similar loss of the natural grass growth in their smaller field, and arguing about how much more valuable they are to the farmer than the pigs, to notice the implications straight away.

The horses were now happy, they had more food than they would need. The cows were happy for a while, until they realised that they barely had enough food between the natural grass and the hay to go around, and the pigs were miserable...unable to produce healthy young and were poor prospects for the farmer.

But at least everything was done "fairly", so who can complain?

How the Lib Dems have failed us.

Yesterday's vote on the benefit cap was, for me, the last straw. I've been more than supportive of various interactions that they have had in government, given their ideology and membership base. I still don't see the NHS changes as anything other than a win for the Lib Dems with the resulting compromise.

However the fact that the Lib Dems have consistently, at commons level, failed to protect the poor shows that they are simply not liberal enough for me. Waving through the scrapping of legal aid so that only the rich can afford to defend themselves was strike one. Strike two came with the "social cleansing" style rule to cap housing benefits and thus price poor families out of certain areas of the country regardless of their circumstance.

So yesterday, the active worsening of living conditions for all of the poorest people in society, standing shoulder to shoulder with the utter bullshit mantra that somehow the poorest don't deserve to get percentage terms higher rises in income than someone who doesn't receive benefits and probably, actually, is getting along just fine in the pay progression stakes, is my strike three.

Lib Dems will, and are, crowing about two things that further show how far they have fallen from what those like me hoped was a more pragmatic and principled party. The first is that Labour have some nerve, hypocrites that they are, in standing against this policy.

Yes. Labour are hypocrites. We know this. They are opportunistic, the sun also rises every day. This doesn't even remotely give you the right to play apologist for the worsening of living conditions of the poorest in our society, furthering inequality in this country rather than reducing it.

Second, the "fairer taxes" stuff. The only way that you bringing "million of people out of tax" all together is if you create an environment that allows their pay to rise, and that doesn't reduce their other income so that such a tax cut is irrelevant.

Since 2009 the tax allowance has risen by some £3k, and will save those on a full time minimum wage job £681 compared to that year. What does that matter when your changes to benefits mean that your income is rising below the cost of living? All that the tax changes have succeeded in doing now, thanks to the draconian standards of support that Lib Dems have been vital in supporting, is that middle income individuals are taking almost £700 extra into their pockets while the poor do not.

It's a shambles that the Lib Dems have turned what could have been a very progressive policy in to an utterly regressive system...rewarding those that happen to be in work on a comfortable wage while merely maintaining (at best) the situation for the poor.

The legacy of the Lib Dems in 2015 should have been that they stopped illiberal policy, rolled back the surveillance state, and protected the poor from even suffering equal (in percentage terms) losses in income compared to those much more well off. As time goes on it looks more and more like they're failing in all three, but it is the last one that is going to make it hard...no...impossible for me to support them at the ballot box.

Supporting IE7, that'll cost extra?

Netmag have highlighted some developer survey results that have a frankly shocking (to my eyes) statistic... 42% of devs surveyed charge extra to support IE7!

I have a real thing about this kind differentiation, I don't like it and don't think it's very professional. While I think it's a natural and practical step to say that it becomes cost-ineffective to support certain browsers, while they are still very much viable entities we should, as standard, support them.

Factoring how much work you will have to do in testing is naturally a good thing to do, as long as you're not charging money for your own lack of competence and the time that adds to the project. However charging a certain amount for a project and then up-scaling it by X% or by adding an amount of money on is...well...it's the kind of thing EasyJet do, and we all know how we feel about that kind of practice.

When we stand back and say things like "IE7 will cost extra" we sound more like dodgy plumbers (as opposed to the very nice and ethical ones) than professionals. What do we mean, IE7 will cost extra? Are we not in the customer satisfaction business? This doesn't mean our client, of course, it means their customer! By having bolt-ons for things like IE7 we are trying to dissect and modularise what should be the very standard level of service we provide.

When we cost work we have to be realistic; we deserve to be paid for our time but at the same time the client doesn't deserve to pay for you to learn your craft. They can happily go somewhere else where someone is already an expert and can do it better and quicker, if only they knew where to go. If it's going to cost a certain amount to deal with modern web complexities then be respectful to yourself and to the client. Explain the cost and why that cost is there.

The segmenting of our web has to stop, especially that driven by the partisan hatred of Internet Explorer. We are entering a world now where changes to what our web browsers are capable of are changing every month. In less than a year we are going to start seeing reports of website that are "not working" because someone has turned off their automatic updates and is only 12 months out of date on their browsers, but the tech being requested was only implemented in vendor-specific form after that.

What do we do then? Charge for testing in Chrome 23.0.1 or earlier? Anything over Firefox 17 is ok, but below has a surcharge?

In an ideal world the conversation about what the site will be capable of, and the difficulties that could present themselves, you should have around the planning stage of the project anyway. If the client starts to get horrified at the time or cost that a particular functionality will take to complete then that is the perfect time to refine the goals, and for you to be immediately on hand with all of your knowledge and skills to come up with a new, simpler, and more palatable solution for the them.

The reality is that we will have to accept our job will cost as much as the functional spec adds complexity, and regardless of the job we should be applying an architecture that allows the site to work (where it is possible) on the weakest browsers and enhancing itself as the customer's browser allows. Do this and you'll never have to worry about fiddling about with complex invoicing, and your work will stand the test of time too. Doesn't that sound more interesting, and a little less "douche" like?

Women, web developers, and conference quotas

As a pre-cursor to this post, it's probably a good idea to read This article on .net magazine's website about the issue of gender diversity in the web development profession.

Had a good read? I'll continue...

I don't subscribe to Andy Rutledge's view (as much as I can decipher it), that the industry will sort itself out regarding diversity. He seems to believe that if women want to get more involved with web development, that they will. It's clear he thinks that issues such as conferences being male dominated, perhaps even the actions at technology trade shows of severely objectifying women to sell tech, are non-issues.

If you are good at what you do, and want to do it, you'll get on board and ignore the culture. I can't really agree.

The trouble is that I do find slight common ground in the proposition that gerrymandering conference speaker quotas is the right answer, or even really an answer at all. I think if we're going to focus on breaking down barriers, conferences are so far past the barrier that trying to tinker with them is only internally symbolic.

Where there are party political conferences, or the public offerings of seats of parliament, it's very easy to send a message of diversity and equality by trying to implement quotas, and by fixing appearances so that your organisation can be reflective of society. The key thing here, though, is that they are public.

I would be interested to know how many budding web developers or designers know anything about web conferences. Maybe I'm wrong here but I don't think that conferences are something people get in to until they already get really in to web development. Once a person has gone past the "I can make this look pretty" and "I can create this cool thing", and they have gone past simply copy and pasting answers from Stack Exchange, it's only then that they say to themselves... "I want to really KNOW my profession".

From here they might get in to some articles, maybe some authors, and from there they might hear about a conference. It's here that perhaps I most closely, although hopefully fleetingly, align with Andy's view. By this point people that are keen to get involved are doing so because they want to see experts. By this point gender, race, dietary requirements all become secondary to skills and experience.

We can talk, if we like, about the image we portray...but the only image we're sending out (for now) is to those who want to go from simply being good web developers to being excellent ones. If we do things to represent better our diversity, although it would likely do us no harm at all, it would ultimately be to placate our own insular group.

Of course the key there is that it'll do us no harm at all. The idea from Andy that somehow it's a bad thing to get more women speaking in conferences because of some issue of stopping a "better" speaker from getting involved is inherently misogynistic, even if he can't see it. The web world is not like some kind of darts fraternity where there is always a world champion and a runners up in skill and capability. We have hundreds (more?!) of people that all reside in the same sphere, with maybe dozens that have been in that sphere for a bit longer and have a bit more experience on the circuit.

Replacing a good male developer with a good female one isn't going to make a shit of difference to the quality of the conference, it certainly isn't going to deprive the audience, and it may well help bring...albeit only slight...a different perspective.

But none of this, at this point in time, deals with the issue we're trying to actually help solve which is the involvement of women in the profession (and ethnic minorities, I know that is another strand of this same discussion). It might make us feel better about ourselves, and it may well make the experience for those that want to join the network of web developers that REALLY care about their profession feel more safe and wanted. For those reasons we should (and seemingly are given who is advocating such change) look at how these conferences are formed.

The primary focus we have to have though is much earlier, and we need to make it much clearer that this isn't a profession for white boys.

Andy Rutledge can sit there and pretend that socio-demographics don't matter, but to do so is entirely ignorant. Just as I wouldn't expect *anyone* to go and stand in the middle of a group of teenagers at a bus-stop, I wouldn't expect someone who doesn't fit the socio-demographics of the area they're interested in to feel comfortable trying to access it.

If we don't have prominent, celebrated and respected people from a wide range of diversities in our profession, then we have no hope of allowing those that have the skills and desires to become part of our group the freedom to do so.

We can nurture at a younger age, we can break down any initial barriers in people's minds that this is something only for the boys. Those running the Girl Geek Nights are an excellent example of this, a "safe space" initiative that allows people to naturally build it up, but it doesn't have to stop there. But let's also seek out and find those bedroom coders that are probably representative of the majority of people currently in our profession. We need to find a way to create avenues for these people in to our profession, and to give good advice on how to walk them. Schools and universities are only one small way.

That's a first step. But then we need to back it up with visible evidence that it's the case. This means a level of positive discrimination is necessary, unfortunately. If we have a woman and a man that both appear to be equally acceptable for the job, we should be choosing the woman to join ranks. This isn't, as Andy may cry, something about valuing tokenism over abilities, it's about improving our profession.

In my field where I've nurtured through three university sandwich-year students, everyone that got the role was because they not only fit the requirements, but exceeded them more or equally to the next best candidate. Yet at this level there is not a lot that is needed from a candidate, it is ultimately a work experience role, not even graduate level; the number of applicants each year is also extremely high, so it is extremely easy to positively discriminate like this. Except that it would be a lot easier if in each of the years I've run the placement...despite dozens of applicants...I've only ever had one female apply each year.

Ultimately it is important to realise that positive discrimination isn't about putting someone less able in to a role over someone more able...it's about picking the under-represented person out of two or more equally "good" developers, if they aren't already the better one.

In the end this will result in the situation Andy wants, we'll have an environment where everyone is free to enter or exit the profession without prejudice and without reservation...but it's naive to think we can get there through conference meddling alone, or by just letting nature take it's course.

Feeling you're in the "Friend Zone" isn't about entitlement...

Feeling you're in the "Friend Zone" isn't about entitlement, it's about personal despair. At least, that's my feelings on the matter. There are, no doubt, those that hold views that if they act the "right way" that any girl/guy (Object Of Desire, or OOD, from now on) they want that they will naturally succumb to their charms.

However my experience of people that feel to be in this "limbo" isn't that they feel entitled in any way, shape or form to an outcome from those that they desire, only that they wish things would work in their favour...that they are ultimately jealous of the person that has what they want.

Now, big caveat here...shouldn't need to be said but you always have to be ultra-clear on these things...WANT DOESN'T MEAN YOU SHOULD GET, nor should it. You are free to desire what you want, and your OOD is free to not reciprocate that. You are free to express (in a legal and non-predatory manner) that horrible situation, but they are also free to do whatever they want and can to avoid that expression.

I find the parallels to be that with those who work, in the UK, believing that the government cares more about those who aren't working by "giving them stuff for free" and thus delivering a "better lifestyle for being lazy than someone gets by working hard".

I ask myself, do these people feel entitled to the money that the government is handing out? In some cases, sure, but in most cases they just feel jealous about what they perceive someone else's life situation is. And just like with that relationship between your OOD and their new partner, you probably don't really know as much about that relationship, and certainly not your OOD's partner, as you think.

I don't think it is at all helpful to paint those who complain about being "Friend Zoned" as misogynistic or patriarchal. The immature outbursts by those that feel that they have done everything they "need" to do, or "can" do, and haven't got what they want aren't necessarily linked at all to any innate feeling of entitlement or belief of superiority. As much as it may manifest itself to look this way, a person getting depressed and angry about not finding reciprocation is doing it because they know, deep down, that they are the ones that are not good enough...but their only emotional response is to try and create excuses for why it may appear that way.

It's sometimes too bitter a pill to swallow that you are simply not what your OOD wants.

So we can call this person a dick for being, well... a dick about it. Sure. But how does it help our culture if our answer to this is to label these people as some kind of sex fiend, prowling around assuming they have the formula to get instant sex and are angry it doesn't seem to work?

For a start it seems to me like this just exacerbates the situation. They already feel that they've not been understood properly, because they have either caught from popular culture, or a stark self-assessment of their own positive traits, a belief that "being nice" alone is something that gives you special points that should open your OOD's eyes to what a great life partner you'll be. Barking at them that they shouldn't just expect sex because they're acting nice doesn't do anything to those that actually need support and help with their emotions and relationships other than create a negative reinforcement that society doesn't "get" them.

I reject that guys who complain about being "friend zoned" feel entitled. But they do feel desire, desire that can persist long after rejection, and that in itself comes from the irrational. To try to pin the label entitlement to that irrational desire is lazy, to ignore the psychology of built-up hope that manifests in a reaction that can appear to be drawn from a sense of entitlement is lazy. To abandon these people to an emotional world that can actually make or break how much they respect women in the future...it's just lazy.

The outcome whether they still feel jilted desire, or indeed feel entitled to a "result", may be the same and shouldn't be accepted. Making anyone feel like shit simply for following their own hearts and desires isn't at all acceptable.

But if we want guys to be respectful to their other OOD's in the future, perhaps we shouldn't make step 1 the exile stage, to be marked and noted as an evil misogynist; instead help them to understand how to avoid the build up of emotion that causes such outbursts, and the ultimate negative atmosphere that causes it hard for even the "friend zone", that they would actually be very happy to reside in at any other time, to sustain itself.

If you know a guy that's complaining about being "friend zoned", by all means wake the idiot up, definitely do what you can to re-educate and stop them if they've fallen down the spiteful path of trying to humiliate their OOD. If they were happy enough to desire someone they know deep down that they're happy to be their friend also. If they are complaining without even having talked through their feelings with their OOD, then help to facilitate that process.

But then be sympathetic, not to calls that they did everything they could...the sooner they realise that relationships are built on the feelings of two parties and that feelings aren't readily manipulated the better...but to the reality that they aren't in an emotionally secure place if their happiness rides on acceptance by an OOD, that they need to find that security and to better understand what they really do have to offer in a relationship, and how that will be discovered organically, not by campaigning.

Labour's (not a) Job Guarantee

Labour have announced some policy! Unfortunately it is an all too familiar one, once again trying to be Tories with a twist, in this case it's forced labour if you have been on benefits too long.

Now, I want to get one thing out of the way... if the choice was between this "Job Guarantee" and the current system of "Workfare", where people are being forced to perform mostly menial jobs for short periods of time without getting a wage, just to retain their benefits, then I'll take the former over the latter. If the "Job Guarantee" was of a job that then did, actually, guarantee a job after it, I'd be even more supportive.

Unfortunately the whole thing smells rotten.

You see, I have an intrinsic problem with using threats in order to get people in to work. While I will happily accept there is a minority that will prefer to reside on benefits regardless of how profitable or readily available jobs may be, the research done by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation simply doesn't tally with this view being the main one. To sit here and constantly make these "threats" just demoralises those that are already the most vulnerable while perpetuating a myth that those out of work are only doing so because they're lazy and are there by choice.

Frankly, coming from Labour, this is unacceptable. Not surprising, since it's been their stall for years now, but unacceptable still.

Then there is the job. We have no idea what kind of jobs are going to be made...except that it makes sense it'll be an extension of the current workfare scheme. Similar time scales, similar lack of guarantee of a job going forward. The only difference is that you will be afforded the dignity of being paid a "wage", which is no doubt a notional "ethical" sum from the employer that they currently don't pay except in cases of expenses, the benefits they already receive, and a top up from the government to reach the minimum wage.

This is a fairly pathetic excuse for a job guarantee, and one that doesn't work. If these are the same jobs as we're currently forcing people to undertake (and let's remember that Labour aren't exactly saying that they'll be abolishing the current practice of workfare for those unemployed for less than 2 years), then the reality is that this style of trying to find people work is worse than doing nothing. The stats show that the amount of people finding further employment after taking part in these forced work schemes is LESS than if they had just been left on benefits.

Why is this? Well, aside from the further demoralisation that may lead them to be less enthusiastic to subject themselves to the same perceived lack of worth, a common sense view might be that their time is removed from the act of actually finding work and in to doing what is, in most cases, a pathetic excuse for building "skills" and "experience"

So, a temporary job, with minimum wage pay, with no guarantee of one going forward. What happens next to that person unemployed for over 2 years? Perhaps they go back to being unemployed for less than 2 years, reset to zero. This would certainly help keep the figures for long term unemployment at an all time low as we cycle year after year through everyone to bring them back to "1 month unemployed" and so on.

But with no jobs for people to actually do, what's the point? Isn't this just a cruel joke of a scheme. In a world where most people that are claiming benefits are doing so because there isn't the right job for them to go in to, what kind of games is Labour really playing by saying "We can create jobs, but only for a little bit". Isn't this just increasing a cycle of dependency on the state, rather than breaking it?

Now, if this was voluntary temporary work created for those that find themselves genuinely between jobs, the types of families where having to go down to benefits for months rather than have a low paid job to "tick-along" in while they try to get back on their feet quickly, I'd be celebrating it. As it is, there is no guarantee this work is going to be beneficial for those taking part because it is not in any form targeted.

Think about that possibility... a government that tries to keep people's dignity, to make active attempts to slow the kind of rapid descent in to poverty that can ruin families, and to make the road less bumpy, all without coercion! I know, a pipe dream at best!

If the government can create jobs, they should be using them more wisely. However, as with workfare, we have to be careful what we are "creating". One major criticism of current forced work schemes is that people are doing work that someone else could be employed to do, and there is evidence that people have lost out on over-time and holiday pay that they would usually rely on as companies have been able to spend no money on forcing benefit claimants to cover those most unsociable hours instead!

If the act of creating jobs is just depriving others of jobs, then we are not creating a solution, we are just massaging unemployment figures.

And if these jobs are only temporary, then the whole situation isn't sustainable. The very fact that we can't simply get jobs for those who are in long term unemployment who want to work (which is most of them, remember) shows exactly WHY THERE IS LONG TERM UNEMPLOYMENT! It's perverse that we should degrade those that are long term unemployed with a situation that simultaneously proves that they are justified in claiming benefits while vilifying them for being in that situation. Yet this is what Labour is going to choose to continue to do if they win power.

This is why, while I can support the idea of being at least civil in giving people a wage for doing work, I can support this "(not a) Job Guarantee" no more than I can Workfare.