Vote yes to AV... or else

No I'm not issuing a thinly veiled threat to leave a horse's head in your bed if you don't, rather merely warning that if you don't vote yes, the complaints of the average voter will continue to hold validity and the 'democracy' of the UK will remain unjust.

Not that I think AV is the answer... far from it. The Alternative Vote has its own raft of problems. It's not truly a proportionally representative voting system (PR, where the proportion of MPs in the Commons accurately represent the proportion of people who vote for each party), and it can sometimes provide anomalous results (yet far less often than FPTP) but it's the best offer a Lib Dem leader with little bargaining power could achieve. It is, however, a giant step in the right direction. First AV, then true PR.

How many times have you thought, or heard said, "what's the point in voting? My vote is wasted anyway. That bloody awful Tory/Labour* candidate will win" (*delete as appropriate). The so-called 'first past the post' system is a huge misnomer, in fact, as so eloquently put at this post (http://gowers.wordpress.com/2011/04/20/is-av-better-than-fptp/ ... Blogger Android app, you need a proper linking tool), it's akin to stopping a race early and declaring the leading candidate the winner, regardless that the candidate in 2nd place is rapidly gaining ground and looking like reaching the finish line first. In fact, read that entire blog, it explains the unjust FPTP system far more comprehensively than I can from a mobile phone in Bangkok.

What? Yes. I stupidly missed the postal voting deadline of 11 working days, what with all the bank holidays and holiday prep, yet so strongly do I feel about AV that I'm blogging from my hotel reception, missing all varieties of ladyboy ping-pong-ball type shows, in order to make up for my missed vote by encouraging you to vote yes.

Other posts and blogs say it all already, but briefly I shall say this. Don't believe what the politicians say about AV. They have a massively vested self-interest in your vote. They should always act in our best interests, but put it this way... would you trust a car salesman, who'll be sacked if he doesn't make this next sale, on whether the car he's selling is better than the offer down the road? The Tories rely on the FPTP system to keep them in a job, even though they recognise that it's unfair (their own leadership elections are decided on a slightly modified, more tactical version of AV). This is why they invent scandalous lies about it. No, it won't cost £250m more, nor will it help bigots get their way, nor will it give people more than one vote, nor will it cost a fortune to educate people about it (how can we hold a fair referendum if the public doesn't already know how AV works?). Yes AV is not widely used around the world, but neither is FPTP. We're the only country in Western Europe that doesn't use a PR voting system. No new democracies worldwide have chosen it as their preferred system due to its unfairness.

Simply put, the Tories need the FPTP system to keep their popularity. They need their MPs to gain their seats with only 30% backing from the electorate (or often less) to keep their almost-majority in Parliament.

Also, don't vote no just to spite Nick Clegg. Yes it's his baby, but he'll be around for a few years, whereas we'll be stuck with the unfair FPTP for decades if the yes vote fails. Regardless of how you feel about him, AV is the right choice, politically and morally.

Imagine this... you live in a constituency where 26% of people vote BNP, even though the other 74% of people are vehemently opposed to the party. This is potentially enough to get that BNP candidate into Parliament via FPTP, representing you, even though the vast majority of the people in his constituency hate him and didn't vote for him. This would not happen under AV.

Vote yes if you believe in fairness. It's not perfect but it's a vast improvement and a step in the right direction. Let's not stay in the dark ages.

And, please forgive my typos and mobile phone auto-corrections!

The misadventures of an idiot's phone

Did I leave my phone on the roof of the car before driving away? Yes.

Did I hear it slide off the roof mid-turn, and think "Hmm, where's my phone? Oh shhhhh....."? Yes.

Did I have to run around in the middle of a busy roundabout in the dark, collecting the various pieces of the phone after it hit the road and split open? Yes.

Am I an idiot? Yes.

Luckily, for fools like me, the solution isn't too problematic when it comes to touchscreen phones. The glass touchscreen is quite robust, even after being shattered by such traumatic and violent treatment, and protects the delicate LCD screen underneath very effectively. Ebay is littered with sellers peddling replacement touchscreens, or "digitizers", for a few pounds. Anyone with an eBay account, some very small screwdrivers, and the patience of an anal-retentive, can turn the above formerly-beautiful device into this...

And, after an hour or so (mostly spent checking that every single speck of dust has been removed from the screens before reassembly), this....

Thus, my pride remains almost intact, and I no longer need to revert to  the crappy 5 year old Nokia that was once relegated to the bottom drawer.

So, the moral of the story is this... try not to be an idiot in the first place, and save yourself hassle and cash. But if you are taken in by the dark side, all is not lost. Before considering whether to pay a £50 insurance excess, and whether to live without your beloved phone for weeks while it goes away for repair, have a little browse of the auctions. Thanks to the popularity of touchscreen phones amongst clumsy kids (and 30-somethings), replacement touchscreens are in such large demand (and thus, supply) that they can be bought for as little as £7, particularly if you own a rather popular Apple product. The screens can also be bought together with the teeny screwdrivers required to get the device apart. It's a lot easier than it looks.

The ECHR rant; paedophilia-loving supporters of murderous rapists? Not quite.

Whilst catching up on current affairs during one of the infrequent breaks in last-minute law revision, the unmistakable whiff of bigotry hits me hard. The disapprobation of recent ECHR decisions features heavily amongst the opinions of journalists, the general public, and politicians.

We're all too familiar with the Daily Mail/Express style of hackery to find these type of articles surprising, even less so the comments uploaded by their devoted readership of ignorant bigots middle-class, white Britons. However, the political commentary is of more concern; when David Cameron starts talking about pulling out of the European Convention on Human Rights, I start to twitch uncontrollably. I hope and believe (but sadly, hoping with more vigour than believing) that this sort of political polemic is nought but a vain and conceited attempt to regain favour with a public which is rapidly and increasingly becoming disillusioned with the coalition government; a public which is also largely anti-EU. And so we have the PM wholeheartedly agreeing with derisory comments that recent ECHR and Supreme Court decisions "fly completely in the face of common sense", and a Home Secretary who says that "it is time to assert that it is Parliament that makes our laws, not the courts" (perhaps Theresa has forgotten about that rather significant piece of Parliament-enacted legislation, the Human Rights Act).

So, murderers and rapists should have the right to vote? Dirty old paedophiles should be removed from the sex offenders register? Of course I don't agree with either of these notions, but, despite what the press and politicians say, neither does the ECHR, nor the Supreme Court. Forgive my hubris while I explicate the Courts' decisions so that you, dear reader, can break through the veil of dung (assuming you haven't already).

Firstly, the Supreme Court decision: unanimously concurring with the previous decisions of the High Court and the Court of Appeal, that it is incompatible with the Human Rights Convention to require sex offenders to indefinitely notify the police of their place of abode, travel arrangements, and trips abroad, without any means for appeal or review of said notification requirements. These obligations are not served as punishment for the crime; that is the purpose of the prison sentence. The requirements exist solely for the protection of the public. So, if a former offender can prove that they are no longer a threat to society, then there is no reason to continue subjecting them to this never-ending ordeal; one which allows the police to restrict their movements, and subjects the individual to a risk of public ostracism, thus interfering with their right to family life under Article 8 of the Convention.

Of course, for many former sex offenders, it will be right and proper to subject them to this obligation for life, in which case, their appeals to be freed from the requirements will be denied. Read the judgment and you will find that the Lord and Lady Justices have great sympathy with and utmost regard for the protection of the public. But let us take, as an example, one of the actual respondents in the Supreme Court case; a boy who, at the time of his conviction for raping a child of under 13, was only 11 years of age himself. We know almost nothing of this boy. Maybe he was suffering terrible abuse himself; maybe he was under the influence of drink and drugs at the time; maybe a combination of the two, and more besides. Can we safely assume that this child will remain a sexual predator, throughout adulthood and old age, regardless of what becomes of him? Not only to be punished by imprisonment as he has been, but also subject to the rigours of the 'sex offenders register' for the long remainder of his life? Who knows, maybe he is inherently evil and will continue to be a threat, in which case his appeal will be refused, as indeed, we can assume, will the majority of other sex offenders. But not to even have a method for a child (or an adult for that matter) to appeal for release from this distress, no matter the circumstances? How can this possibly be just?

So, onto the ECHR decision, that denying all prisoners the right to vote is also incompatible with the Human Rights Convention. Again, it is not suggested that every prisoner, regardless of severity of crime or length of remaining sentence, should have this right; indeed, many countries across the EU take away the vote from serious offenders. However, Britain is one of the very few countries (Russia, Armenia, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Luxembourg and Romania being the others) that has a blanket ban on all prisoners. I feel the need to proffer the question again: how can this possibly be just? Taking away the right (and it is a right, in a democratic society, rather than a privilege) to vote, from every single prisoner, regardless of severity of crime or remaining custodial sentence, goes far beyond that which is necessary to protect the public interest.

We are told that David Cameron was "absolutely horrified" by the idea of changing the law. What a fantastically absurd reaction; as if democracy itself will come crashing instantly and violently down once such a change is made. Perhaps the PM can explain the dangers of allowing those incarcerated to vote. Does imprisonment instantly revoke one's ability to make sound political judgments? Does a man, sentenced to custody for dangerous driving, consequently decide to bring down the government with the power of his single vote? Even if there was a shred of truth to such preposterous and fanciful notions, those imprisoned in England and Wales amount to a little more than 0.1% of the entire population. There are many, many more able voters who choose to abstain, and still more who do vote but with a sense of futility, thanks to our undemocratic, first-past-the-post system. The only thing horrific about this entire state of affairs is the fact that the ECHR decision was made 6 years ago, and no government in power since then has enacted legislation to adopt it, thus denying the right to thousands and possibly creating a liability worth millions of pounds in compensation claims.

Mr Cameron now wishes to introduce a Bill of Rights into UK legislation to do away with the 'interferences' of the ECHR, and yet, we are also told that this will not require withdrawal from the Convention on Human Rights, thus the ECHR will retain the utmost jurisdiction on Convention matters anyway! I personally do not want to be subject to any such Bill which does not afford me the rights relied upon in the Courts' decisions above. Anyone who has studied the Convention on Human Rights will appreciate that it is a document of supreme significance to the people it serves, protecting the utmost moral values, ethics and rights of the individual from interference by others, particularly the State. Any proposal by the State itself to fetter this protection should be vehemently opposed.

No amount of sensationalist, right-wing journalism should persuade you that the aforementioned decisions by the Courts were wrong. Indeed, there are other examples of anti-Europe propaganda, too numerous to mention, which these rags are prone to publishing, that very rarely stand up to scrutiny.  Don't allow the government to hide behind feigned outrage and exaggerated scaremongering in order to push through legislation, especially if that legislation purports to reduce our civil rights and liberties. Instead, be wary of the sudden urgent 'need' for such legislation, despite the fact that the above decisions were respectively reached 6 years and 1 year ago, and do not allow said legislation to be enacted without opposition.

Rant over, back to the studying.... tomorrow. If only credit were given for procrastination.