Posts

It's the fees, stupid

Image
(Yes, that's my real signature ) Nick Clegg and the Lib Dems ran an admirable European election campaign. It is clear what they stood for in leaflets and in broadcasts: "the party of in", in their well-honed words. Clegg was even prepared to take Farage and UKIP on directly in two TV debates. For people who believe, the disaster of the Euro project notwithstanding, that the EU is a good idea, here was a party prepared to make that case bravely and forcefully. Labour, by contrast, had nothing to say on Europe. Literally nothing: their election leaflets were concerned only with domestic issues, and they bizarrely chose not to attack UKIP at all, despite the open goal that their "Thatcher on steroids" worldview presents, not least in areas in the North where they are now challenging Labour's traditional strongholds. I admire Ed Miliband in many ways, but it's hard to argue that their campaign this time round was anything other than dismal. And y

Get me to the tax office on time

Consider two married couples. In the first partner A goes out to work while B stays at home, with gross earnings of: A: 40,000 B: 0 In the second both partners go out to work, earning: C: 20,000 D: 20,000 Currently the first couple is taxed significantly more than the second couple because personal allowances are not transferable. Much as I hate to agree with David Cameron, it's hard to see how this is fair, particularly if the state is in the business of subsidising C+D's childcare costs. Cameron has however sold his quite reasonable baby step towards transferability in a bizarre way: by saying it is recognising marriage in general. It is certainly not doing that, as anyone living like C+D will not benefit financially at all from the change. What it does do is offer people the choice to arrange their lives either way without being penalised by the tax system. That feels like a win for equality to me. If Cameron wants to wrap it in right-wing bluster, so be it. In

Remember, remember

Just noticed the US presidential election is actually on my birthday this time round, the first time that's happened since 1984. I think I've got the Panini sticker album for that one somewhere. Back then the going exchange rate was 3 shiny Mondales to the Lineker. And yes, I will ask Birthday Santa (for it is he) to re-elect Obama. So stop worrying about the polls folks.

The Chinese Room

The Chinese Room is a thought experiment conceived by the American philosopher John Searle, in which you watch the infamous 2003 film The Room, then translate it into Chinese. Searle postulated that the act of translation could not make the dialogue any worse than it already is. It was on the sixth viewing of The Room that one of its deepest secrets became clear to me: every scene resembles the sort of highly contrived dialogue found only in language learning textbooks. I can only imagine that when Tommy Wiseau first studied humanity on his home planet, his textbook convinced him that all human interaction consisted of people meeting, greeting and leaving in quick succession, like talking billiard balls. As an example of Searle's thought experiment, I present the Flower Shop Scene translated into bad beginner's level Mandarin (from bad beginner's level English): 约翰尼: 你好. Yuēhànní: Nǐ hǎo. 售货员: 你要什么? Shòuhuòyuán: Nǐ yào shénme? 约翰尼: 十二朵红色的玫瑰. Yuēhànní: Shíèr duo

Coalition maths

According to Andrew Rawnsley , a hung parliament is quite a plausible outcome of the 2015 election. But how likely is it really compared to the 2010 election? In 2010, a number of factors made a hung parliament a very likely outcome. The Conservatives were in the ascendant, but due to the geographical spread of their voters they required a larger poll lead than Labour in order to secure a majority. Using the Electoral Calculus model we can estimate the leads Labour and the Conservatives would have required to get a majority: Labour Conservative Conservative lead Outcome 28 39 +11 Con majority 6 29 38 +9 Hung - Con short 11 30 37 +7 Hung - Con short 23 31 36 +5 Hung - Con short 40 32 35 +3 Hung - Lab short 37 33 34 +1 Hung - Lab short 24 34 33 -1 Hung - Lab short 15 35 32 -3 Lab majority 6 In the end, the Conservative lead was seven points and so they had to go into coalition with the Lib Dems. The Tories have since attempt

In which I solve all the UK's constitutional questions

While Lord Adonis's suggestion of moving the House of Lords up to Salford Quays is an admirable attempt to spread power away from the capital, it's unclear what crime Salford has committed to deserve having the Lords foisted upon it. It is also, sadly, a bit daft to move a revising chamber 200 miles away from the people it's supposed to be keeping an eye on, even if Adonis's beloved HS2 does get built. All the idea needs is a little tweaking though. The best way to cure Londonitis is by setting up a devolved English parliament, which also happens to solve the West Lothian question as well. "But what about regional assemblies!" you cry, eruditely. Well, as an innocent bystander in the North East regional assembly referendum of 2004, I can only suggest that the bludgeoning the idea received at the hands of the voters implies that it's perhaps not the most popular solution. As far as I am aware the only serious objections to an English parliament are

A Lib Dem logic question

Is not calling on peers to support a bill equivalent to calling on peers not to support a bill? Opinions don't appear not to not undiffer.