Superin-joke-tion

After a Twitter account revealed the (potential) details of a superinjunction, an injunction with the added clause against revealing any details, with a footballer and a Big Brother contestant a frenzy has erupted that I think is dangerous.

Twitter went crazy with people tweeting about the names of the parties involved, and eventually the press joined in as soon as their lawyers thought they could get away with it.

These injunctions exist as a way of enforcing the right to privacy under the Human Rights Act. The concept of the ‘superinjunction’ itself is being made a scapegoat here, with the media salivating at the lucrative details waiting to be published. The issue I take is that is that newspapers are a business – they exist first and foremost for profit. They know what sells, and what sells en masse. Daily Mail hysteria, tits in the Sun – these are what get the punters in. Where a famous person is sticking his dick is of paramount importance – to them.

I feel as if the public has been used. By repeating the details of the injunction, could there be a case for the injunction to come down, as it is potentially not enforceable anymore? MPs looking for political gain by abusing parliamentary privilege to embrace this name-and-shame creates a frenzy, and brings further into question the validity of such an injunction existing in our legal frameworks.

At a time when the News International phone hacking scandal is once again picking up steam, as even more allegations against corruption are being raised, questioning just what interests the media serves (itself) and what the standard of ethics they possess (very poor); there is now the perfect distraction, as Alastair Campbell pointed out.

Superinjunctions have been previously used in the past, notably by Trafigura to cover up environmental abuses. These laws are designed to protect the vulnerable from real danger – not for the rich and powerful to maintain a public image. By breaking the law and revealing the details of these injunctions, I fear we are playing right into their hands by bringing down the tone of the debate. This can’t end well.

Rapture

Ooh, look, another guy screaming “the end of the world is nigh!” and gaining worldwide media attention. Well, as I write this it is currently half-ten in the pm in the UK. So that means Australia and Japan are already well into May 22nd and guess what? No Rapture.

I personally think the concept of The Rapture is entirely disgusting and in fact unchristian. How can floating into the sky and watching everyone who doesn’t follow the same religion burn fit with love thy neighbour? It demonstrates how some are compelled to think terrible things about others; just because of what they believe in.

This end of the world stunt will be laughed off in the media for the next few days. It’s already started:

Doomsday-declarers will simply move on to the next prophesised judgement day, and never speak of this again. But if we look beyond the surface of this stunt, it gets truly depressing. Like always, these come with a human cost.

I don’t blame people for believing this stuff. That’s what faith is about, isn’t it? Why not be on winning side of Pascal’s Wager, just in case? It doesn’t make any sense, but we have stupid monkey brains whose prime instinct is for survival. People who believe this aren’t dumb – they’re misled.

Religion means something very personal to people, for whatever reason that may be. This belief is used and abused by people around the world to push their own self-interests into the public eye. The true meaning of what a religion stands for is distorted beyond belief, even so that it is contradictory to the fundamental pillars of that religion. But at what cost? There’s always a human cost. People go broke, people get ill, family connections are shattered beyond repair. People die. We’ll do good to remember that.

A is for Apathy

The noes have it, the noes have it. I don't think anyone expected otherwise.

We've put voting reform on the backburner now, possibly for another generation. All because the disgraceful multi-millionaire-funded No to AV campaign spread nothing but lies and disinformation on a massive scale.

AV is not one person one vote! AV means dead soldiers and babies! Losers win under AV! It's not fair! It's too confusing! No-one likes it! Nick Clegg!

The Yes campaign barely addressed these claims, and instead went on a mindless emotional plea, based on more exaggerations.

Referendums are supposed to be times for debate, where we can actually make progress on a subject, and even improve something. But we're going to get our first impressions on the subject from the official camps, because we're the public, we're not electoral reform experts. This is why I can't blame people for repeating the misleading claims.

To preserve a status quo when faced with a genuinely positive reform - you don't educate (that will detract from your cause) - you lie. This puts the reformers on uneven footing. If they lie, the public perceive the reform as a con. So they have to counter the lies and also educate. In these situations the public becomes overwhelmed and will infer the status quo is a simpler option. That's where their vote will go.

What I feel deeply depressed about is how people still suck this stuff up. Don't get me wrong, this doesn't come as a surprise to me, having seen people truly believe that the evil atheist immigrants are causing monthly wheely bin collections.

I've been through university and always been of a scientific nature. I've always been someone who checks things out. If I'm proved wrong on something, I change my opinion to fit the facts. There's no shame in it.

The difference between voting systems is fact. First past the post falls apart when there are more than two candidates: the winner cannot necessarily say "more people voted for me than didn't." AV addresses this, but again it has it shortcomings, in that it reinforces two-party systems and isn't proportional.

Whether we should switch to AV is opinion. Whether you think we should switch to AV or not does not necessarily have a relation to the facts. So when people say that losers win under AV, it's just an opinion - and a wrong one at that.

This is my problem. Why, as a public, we haven't seen through this, is beyond me. We have an amazing resource in the Internet. It takes 5 minutes to verify claims. We haven't done that.

I'm positive that this referendum is designed to induce apathy in the Yes voters. They weren't funded by multi-millionaire Tories, and they now know that money has again prevailed.

I'm feeling pretty apathetic now. I'm not sure what happens next.

Referendum Mail

The AV Referendum is edging ever closer, and both the Yes and No campaigns are in full swing. While the Yes camp are making some logically-unsound conclusions, the No camp are spreading downright lies, with talk of a potential legal challenge over Conservatives repeating these misleading claims.

One of the methods used by both camps is to release promotional material. I thought in this post I’ll take a look at the claims made by both camps in these pamphlets.

The No Camp

“The cost of AV is £250 million.”

Blatant lie. The most dastardly part of this figure is the claim that £130 million will be spent on voting machines. As confirmed by the Electoral Commission, AV votes will be counted by hand.

“Instead, that money could provide…”

Yes, putting a price on democracy – always a good tactic. As the £250 million claim is a lie, so are these figures.

“The second or third best can win under AV.”

Not true. This claim is based upon differing definitions of “best”. Under FPTP, best is the one who gets the most votes. Under AV, best is defined as the candidate who gets more that 50%*. The second or third best cannot therefore win under AV, unless you want to compare apples to oranges in a deliberately-misleading manner.

The example the No camp use to try and blur the fact they are comparing apples and oranges is to show an election where in the first round, candidate A has the most votes, but due to further rounds of counting, candidate B wins. Of course, in round one, this picture shows that more than 50% oppose candidate A – which is exactly why people want electoral reform.

* Under AV it is possible for a candidate to win, as under AV you can still just tick one box. In the worst-case scenario, where everyone votes in a FPTP-manner under an AV system, AV performs no differently to FPTP.

“Under AV, the votes of the least popular candidate can decide who wins the election.”

A claim from the No camp is that AV is not “one person, one vote”. That’s also a lie, everyone has one vote – that vote being an ordered list of preferences. AV actually reinforces a two-party system as minor parties have little chance of reaching the 50% mark, and so are eliminated. Their votes are then transferred to, typically, major parties. Baroness Warsi claimed on TV that AV would lead to more extremist parties being elected, despite the fact that the BNP and UKIP oppose AV. As AV is still “one person, one vote”, any logical conclusions drawn from AV not being that are incorrect.

“Under our present system, the one who comes first is always the winner.”

This is also true under AV, but again, this is comparing apples to oranges. AV and FPTP have different definitions of ‘coming first’, as explained above. The illustration they use again shows that candidate A was elected with less than 50% of the vote.

“AV is not a fair system. That’s why only three countries in the world use it: Fiji, Australia and Papa New Guinea.”

Sorry to again talk about comparing apples and oranges, but guess what this is? The number of countries who support a system has no correlation with the fairness of a given system. Using this kind of logic implies we should drive on the right-hand side of the road, because most of the world does that.

“The winner should be the one that comes first.”

This is true under AV and FPTP, just they have different definitions of coming first.

The Yes Camp

“The system we use to elect or politicians means most MPs don’t have to.”

“Vote no for more of the same – eg the expenses scandal.”

The Yes camp, rather than throwing a pile of shit, have thrown one single piece – and guess what, that’s wrong too. There is no correlation between safe seats and expense claims. There is no evidence that AV will end safe-seat culture (as I said above, it will reinforce a two-party system at Westminster).

Summary

The No camp leaflet is laughable – it is possible to find lies and misinformation in every sentence. They either seem unable to understand how the Alternative Vote system actually works; or they know fine well, and don’t want you to understand how it works. I’m going with the latter, given that the likes of Cameron, Osborne and Warsi are blindly repeating their claims on TV. The No camp is treating you like you are stupid, and are trying to frighten you with the prospect of change, and dead soldiers and babies.

The Yes camp have put all their eggs in one basket, and that’s wrong too. They are trying to appeal to the public outrage at the expenses scandal. They hope this will stir up a “stick it to your MP” attitude that will cause a yes result. I think it was a dangerous move for them to do – their claims are illogical, and it shows they can play dirty politics too.

I’m Still Voting Yes

I can only see one valid reason to vote no, whilst still wanting vote reform. This is that AV is not a proportional system. I think to vote no for this reason is a tactical mistake. If we wait for the perfect system, whilst opposing any changes which move the country a step closer to that perfect system, it is obvious that this perfect system will not arise.

The wording of the question on the referendum ballot paper is important. It is asking if you want to change the voting system to AV. It is not asking if you want voting reform at all. A no result will be incorrectly interpreted as support for First Past The Post, and justify the following argument whenever voting reform is brought back on the table:

“we tried it, and people said no.”

Now that is a misleading claim, but politicians always use misleading statistics to voice opinions. Why give them another piece of fuel?

I agree that AV is not the perfect system. I’d much prefer a proportional system rather than a system in which swing constituencies decide elections. But I also want this country to show that we are prepared to accept change, if it is change in the right direction.

In this referendum I think we should put aside the dirty politics of the Yes camp, and the even dirtier politics of the No camp. We should use a very rare opportunity to show the government just who’s in charge: us.

As an aside, take a look at the brilliant Fact-check website, who have been running a series of fact-checks on the claims made by both campaigns, the political parties and the media. They’ve went in far more detail than anyone else to my knowledge.

Discredited, on Dubious Grounds

Yesterday I blogged about the #march26 demonstration. In this world, things move quickly. 24 hours on, I feel a follow-up is necessary.

Front Pages

Sunday’s front pages were not all entirely about the demonstration – something you may find shocking until you realise the Z-list celebrity-obsessed Daily Star Sunday and News Of The World were writing about Jordan and her cohort. From the front pages, the narrative being pushed indicates the march is being discredited, overshadowed by the violence. Photographs of riot cops in full gear surrounded by an air full of flare smoke sells. It looks like hell. Today’s front pages show (aside from the Evening Standard scaremongering over the Royal Wedding) the issue was not salient. It’s old news.

The press doesn’t have much time to get their opinions out there. They are competing to get articles written which fit their pre-chosen narratives, squeezed through the editing process and out onto the printing presses in time for the morning rush hour. They don’t have the time for detailed analysis – if the issue is dropped by them, it will die quickly. Of course, this is why I like the blogging and tweeting platforms – the discussion can continue.

Boris Alert!

Boris Johnson wrote in the Telegraph (istyosty link) that:

"The sad thing is that in spite of their crocodile tears, Balls and Miliband will feel quietly satisfied by the disorder – a token, they will tell themselves, of the public feeling that is out there to exploit.”

This is nothing but flamebaiting party politics, the “us and them” logic that so often plagues discourse in the media. His views are warped. The event the Leader of the Opposition attended, like 99.996% of the 500,000 protestors, was entirely peaceful. It was a family event. Boris's comments are part of the discredit narrative – and they didn’t go down too well.

On the actual day of protests, when he didn’t have a Torygraph column to fill, this is all he had to say:

This is the same Boris, of course, who Political Scrapbook asserts is prone to violence himself. The well-publicised antics of the Bullingdon Club, an exclusive club of which Boris, Cameron and Osborne were members of, comes to mind.

In an urgent question session, the Home Secretary Theresa May refused three times to comment on Boris’s article, whilst blaming Yvette Cooper (whom raised the question) for her partisan questioning. Of course, more party politics. She also praised the demonstrations of the Countryside Alliance back in 2004. Of course, those didn’t involve a House of Commons invasion, or riot cops attacking protestors. I’ll come back to this question session in a moment. We need a bit of context first.

UK Uncut

The simultaneous protests caused the media a bit of a headache – trying to establish an accurate version of events in real-time is extremely difficult. Whether deliberately or accidentally, the portrayal of the violence with the peaceful occupation of UK Uncut has gifted them with negative attention from both sides. They are also (incorrectly) being attributed as the violent ones. Anthony Painter on Labour List had the following to say:

“How dare they unilaterally decide to conduct their own protest and divert attention from the main event.”

This view, whilst acknowledging UK Uncut were not responsible for the violence, questions why everybody shouldn’t just shuffle around in a queue. People have a right to protest, and this can be expressed in many ways. UK Uncut’s action was targeted not as a diversionary headline-grabber, but as part of a wider-scale response to the government’s claim that there is no alternative to their ideological cuts.

Likewise, Charlie Beckett condemns the timing of UK Uncut’s actions, which may be valid, although the BBC did possess leaflets regarding the situation hours before it happened. They had a chance to get their story straight. Joe Cox argues that UK Uncut partake in frequent occupations – to cherry-pick a particular event without the context of the others is misleading.

The police announced that 201 arrests were made. 145 of these arrests were on non-violent UK Uncut occupiers – 138 of which were charged with aggravated trespass. Shocking footage released by the Guardian shows that UK Uncut’s claim that occupiers were tricked into leaving with promises of not being arrested stand up to what happened in reality. The police have some serious questions to answer.

Eyewitness Reports

Eyewitness reports have been pouring in since the demonstration began. Laurie Penny’s New Statesman post was one of the more popular ones, however has been the source of both valid and unnecessary criticism (check out the comments on her article). Adam Ramsay described his arrest, and Dominic Campbell’s account goes into detail about the events at Trafalgar Square, where Black Bloc protestors became intermingled with other ongoing protests; mentioning the disproportionate police behaviour.

Eyewitness accounts, and I don’t mean to discredit them here, can be subject to hyperbole. They can even claim to see things that didn’t happen, or not see things that did. However, they are useful to get an on-the-ground view of things, and provide some more context for what I want to actually talk about.

More Powers

In the urgent question session, Theresa May said that she is prepared to look at granting more powers to the police. These powers seem to indicate the pre-emptive banning of people from protests, and the power to remove face masks. It will be interesting to see what Fitwatch makes of these powers. It will be additionally interesting to see how these powers stand up to the presumption of innocence and the right to protest. Comparing these powers to laws regarding football hooligans is like comparing apples to oranges: there’s a difference between banning people from football matches and removing their right to protest. In my mind this is reminiscent of sweeping legislation introduced by the Blair Government, such as the Serious And Organised Crime And Police Act 2005, which helped further erode our civil liberties and restricted the conditions upon which we exercise our right to protest. This coming from a Tory-led government who campaigned against Labour’s legacy of civil liberty abuse, and who have already taken positive steps into removing controversial databases (the ID card database). This is an intriguing test for the government.

Conclusion

It’s been a difficult three days to try and consume and analyse the amount of information that’s been streaming onto the internet, in a very fast moving story. I am hoping that a full debate is heard within the House of Commons with a full, independent report relating to the police tactics being on the table. The Met have questions to answer, which, when combined with their seemingly-dubious involvement News of the World phone hacking scandal, brings their credibility into question.

Whilst the violence on the day has been largely condemned and in the short term may allow the Tories breathing space to go on the offensive again, I believe that the anti-cuts message will percolate through once the cuts start to really kick in. Only time will tell – it’s just a shame we have a government willing to gamble with the lives of millions to find out whether they have the right medicine.