It continually amazes me what various campaigners consider "Minimum" as in 'minimum wage," and "minimum" benefit levels. While attempting to write something completely separate about the potential benefits to abolishing business rates I came across an article about how much benefits are worth, and how (to quote the website) little this actually is. After a cursory glance, and a second, slightly longer one, it seems I should be claiming I'm a member of the downtrodden poor living below the poverty line. This is something of news to me.
..
The offending statistic was this: "The Minimum Income Standard of living in the UK is estimated to be around £161 per week, excluding rent and council tax, for a single person." A little digging suggests that the Minimum Income Standard is the level required for an 'acceptable' standard of living, as determined by a policy unit at York University (who in turn are funded by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation). Although I didn't do much investigation into the Foundation itself, it wasn't immediately obvious from the website whether they have a political bias.
So.. if we work backward we find that:
£161 a week net is £8,372 a year. Not much? Well yes and no...
Rent is usually the largest component of most people's expenditure, so simply excluding it gives a very biased statistic. Average rents in my region for a flat are £523. If we add this in we get:
£523 x 12 = £6,276 + £8,372 = £14,648
Now add in Council Tax (also not included above), assuming a rough average of Band B for my area;
£1,400 + £14,648 = £16,048.
£16,000 a year doesn't sound too extraordinary surely? Well again that isn't the whole story. If you want to earn a take home pay of £16,048 you need to account for income tax, national insurance, and for my demographic, student loans.
Add all this in and you get:
£16,048 + £2,097 income tax + £321 student loan + £1,461 NI = £19,927 Gross Salary
(This isn't accurate to the penny, but it is to pound).
A salary at this level would mean you were pretty much in the middle of the income bracket (i.e. on median salary). (Retrospectively I have a sneaking suspicion this is where the figure of 161 ultimately came from).
I accept that there is probably a standard below which we shouldn't let people fall, even if they make some seriously poor choices. I object to this being the same standard of living I manage to obtain by working a 35 hour week in a supposedly graduate level job, and while paying nearly £4,000 in tax!
Just to try and end on this on a slightly more macro-economic point. You can extend the logic of this type of statistic fairly easily. Let's say that the Rowntree Foundations own 'Minimum Income' level of £200/week is adopted as government policy. Widespread applause from lefties, the unemployable, and so on. That £200 a week (using the same figures as above) is about the same as a gross salary of £23,450. So, if you earn this amount or less (which is true for about 60% of the workforce), you might as well not work. What happens now? The cost of supporting the 20 million people no longer working is in the hundreds of billions; okay the tax take doesn't drop anything like as sharply as you'd expect because most of the tax comes from the top few %, but even so, no government could hope to borrow enough to cover the difference. Not to mention the number of industries and business which would just collapse because they had no workforce.
For anyone looking for a genuine minimum wage I suggest reading my previous article on this subject (working to live I believe),
Happy Trials,
/Z
Tuesday, 16 July 2013
Sunday, 14 July 2013
Out of Time
So, in usual style I've struggled to find anything to write about recently. While various ideas have come and gone (a Defense of Politicians, Walking in Test Match Cricket, Education Education Education), I'm going to revert back to more or less where this blog started - reviews. I just finished watching the movie "In Time", and, as expected, it wasn't that good. However, it is a prime example of a film which 'could' have done some very interesting things...
--
A good sci-fi film needs a good premise. This is where we (the audience) buy into the rules of the internal universe. The Premise needs to set out what, in this world, the characters can, and can't do, and what their motivations and cultural norms are.
"In Time's" Premise is that Money = Time has actually been made true. You buy things with time, you get paid in Time, and, barring violent intervention, you die when you run out of time.
Herein is our first problem. Where does the Time come from in the first place? In the modern world money comes from two sources, firstly the banks conjure it out of thin air by fractional reserve banking, and secondly governments (or central banks) print it. As long as the amount of actual money roughly matches up with the value people place on the goods and services in the economy everything is fine (and if its out of sync slightly you get inflation or deflation). However... if Time = Money how does this work? Unfortunately the film doesn't ever give us an answer to this question, and even less so about how the super rich have accumulated their millions of stored years.
(A second point here - because everyone's personal Time is ticking down all the (pardon the word) time the economy is constantly losing value. This is comparable to you only being able to use money once before it lost value - pretty soon you'd run out of money).
In-universe the time=money premise also generates problems. It costs 2 hours to buy bus ride that covers a 2 hour walk. Why would I pay for the bus?? If the bus ride lasts 20 minutes then taking the bus costs me 2 hours 20 minutes, and walking costs me 20 minutes less. In a very real way (in this setting) taking the bus brings me 20 minutes nearer to death then walking does.
Next problem in the premise is how you transfer time (apparently you just hold hands with people and 'will'?? it to happen) - this is just way to easy to exploit. Probably a useful plot mechanic, but would seem to make sleeping borderline suicide unless your in a triple locked room with someone you really trust pointing a shotgun at the door.
Character-wise we also have some problems. The central character is a factory worker who also happens to be a pro-wrestling champion, pro-poker player, crack-shot with a gun, special agent level evasive driver and Olympic long distance runner. He also managed to acquire all of these skills while working 2 shifts a day in a factory to earn 4 hours to keep his mother alive. Again the question how arises... There are few things more annoying in films then central characters who acquire miracle level skill-sets with no real explanation.
I'm not even going to mention the scene where the limo survives four vans worth of guys open up on it with machine guns, suffering nothing more than some scratched windows.
Ideas
What then, could have been done better? What scenes flirted with brilliance and then damp squipped?
Where Time comes from - this should have been answered, or at least hinted at.How about a nice dystopian view that the government really can just create Time? But since not everyone can live for ever (population, resources etc) then the world is broken down into tiers. The inner tier of Immortals really are just that, and can create Time out of nowhere. The tiers then filter down - the 'party' magnates, and super-officials who deal in millions of years, the national leaders, and so on all the way down to the plebs. You get your 25 years, plus whatever the next tier up decide to pass on in exchange for goods and services and then you die. And the whole thing kind of works as long as the people at the top don't splash the cash so to speak (or let anyone know you can just conjure it out of thin air). Hence; Timekeepers.
The Timekeepers should have been done better. Cillian Murphy did a heroic job at playing that most feared of alignments; Lawful Neutral, but you can't help feeling that with 50 years of training, experience, marksmanship practice and so on, that the Timekeepers should have little trouble running people to ground and or just shooting them dead. The ending in particular was a joke. Yay I ran down the fugitives... damn I ran out of time and died. Seriously? If your that forgetful how do you reach 70 years old?? The premise that he came from the ghetto so kept his clock low is completely undercut by the assumption that when one lives in hours and minutes one has an extremely good sense of remaining time. Or one is dead.
The twist I was really hoping for here is that the Timekeepers didn't actually need Time at all. (Hey I've got a leather trench coat and a glock - hence I must be immune to SOME rules). If they're the agents of the immortals running the whole system, and their job is to make sure no one realises just how short the stick they got given was, then it would make sense that they are de facto outside the rat race. They can't be bribed, bought, slowed down or in any other way deflected (apart from death - being shot didn't seem to stop Leon for long). In this world the final scene plays out as it did, apart from Raymond Leon (somehow) loses his gun. They have the discussion about Time. They all watch his clock. It ticks down to 0. They continue to stare, and then both get shot because you've missed that while watching the clock you've stopped watching what else he's doing. Aside from the irony of Mr "I'm a pro arm-wrestler" losing to his own trick, this would also do a much nicer job of tying in the "resistance is futile" line. You really can't win, because they aren't playing by the same rules.
On that note after Timberlake and girlfriend have met their end to Leon the closing scenes should have been consequence to a society when the workers stop working. The rich continue as normal, oh they import food from different regions and some of them fly off while the interruptions are resolved, but all the people in the ghetto suddenly find out that having a month rather than a day is great, but not having food because the guy who runs the shop, or drives the transport lorries, or workings in the process plant, have all bummed off because they got given freebies.
So that's my suggestion - Murphy kills Timberlake and arrests his plus one if killing faux-teenage girl bank-robbers isn't done in cinema these days (she didn't have blue or even red hair so no plot immunity from me). The proles riot, loot and die because the system has been screwed with. The rich survive, and the end? The bureaucrats who run the world note down some loss of Time in Region 21 due to disturbances, and just adjust the numbers to bring everything back into alignment.
If I were immortal, and had an immortal secret police/special forces unit to keep things running, I would not be derailed by a factory worker with a stub nose stuck in his socks.
Happy trails,
/Z
--
A good sci-fi film needs a good premise. This is where we (the audience) buy into the rules of the internal universe. The Premise needs to set out what, in this world, the characters can, and can't do, and what their motivations and cultural norms are.
"In Time's" Premise is that Money = Time has actually been made true. You buy things with time, you get paid in Time, and, barring violent intervention, you die when you run out of time.
Herein is our first problem. Where does the Time come from in the first place? In the modern world money comes from two sources, firstly the banks conjure it out of thin air by fractional reserve banking, and secondly governments (or central banks) print it. As long as the amount of actual money roughly matches up with the value people place on the goods and services in the economy everything is fine (and if its out of sync slightly you get inflation or deflation). However... if Time = Money how does this work? Unfortunately the film doesn't ever give us an answer to this question, and even less so about how the super rich have accumulated their millions of stored years.
(A second point here - because everyone's personal Time is ticking down all the (pardon the word) time the economy is constantly losing value. This is comparable to you only being able to use money once before it lost value - pretty soon you'd run out of money).
In-universe the time=money premise also generates problems. It costs 2 hours to buy bus ride that covers a 2 hour walk. Why would I pay for the bus?? If the bus ride lasts 20 minutes then taking the bus costs me 2 hours 20 minutes, and walking costs me 20 minutes less. In a very real way (in this setting) taking the bus brings me 20 minutes nearer to death then walking does.
Next problem in the premise is how you transfer time (apparently you just hold hands with people and 'will'?? it to happen) - this is just way to easy to exploit. Probably a useful plot mechanic, but would seem to make sleeping borderline suicide unless your in a triple locked room with someone you really trust pointing a shotgun at the door.
Character-wise we also have some problems. The central character is a factory worker who also happens to be a pro-wrestling champion, pro-poker player, crack-shot with a gun, special agent level evasive driver and Olympic long distance runner. He also managed to acquire all of these skills while working 2 shifts a day in a factory to earn 4 hours to keep his mother alive. Again the question how arises... There are few things more annoying in films then central characters who acquire miracle level skill-sets with no real explanation.
I'm not even going to mention the scene where the limo survives four vans worth of guys open up on it with machine guns, suffering nothing more than some scratched windows.
Ideas
What then, could have been done better? What scenes flirted with brilliance and then damp squipped?
Where Time comes from - this should have been answered, or at least hinted at.How about a nice dystopian view that the government really can just create Time? But since not everyone can live for ever (population, resources etc) then the world is broken down into tiers. The inner tier of Immortals really are just that, and can create Time out of nowhere. The tiers then filter down - the 'party' magnates, and super-officials who deal in millions of years, the national leaders, and so on all the way down to the plebs. You get your 25 years, plus whatever the next tier up decide to pass on in exchange for goods and services and then you die. And the whole thing kind of works as long as the people at the top don't splash the cash so to speak (or let anyone know you can just conjure it out of thin air). Hence; Timekeepers.
The Timekeepers should have been done better. Cillian Murphy did a heroic job at playing that most feared of alignments; Lawful Neutral, but you can't help feeling that with 50 years of training, experience, marksmanship practice and so on, that the Timekeepers should have little trouble running people to ground and or just shooting them dead. The ending in particular was a joke. Yay I ran down the fugitives... damn I ran out of time and died. Seriously? If your that forgetful how do you reach 70 years old?? The premise that he came from the ghetto so kept his clock low is completely undercut by the assumption that when one lives in hours and minutes one has an extremely good sense of remaining time. Or one is dead.
The twist I was really hoping for here is that the Timekeepers didn't actually need Time at all. (Hey I've got a leather trench coat and a glock - hence I must be immune to SOME rules). If they're the agents of the immortals running the whole system, and their job is to make sure no one realises just how short the stick they got given was, then it would make sense that they are de facto outside the rat race. They can't be bribed, bought, slowed down or in any other way deflected (apart from death - being shot didn't seem to stop Leon for long). In this world the final scene plays out as it did, apart from Raymond Leon (somehow) loses his gun. They have the discussion about Time. They all watch his clock. It ticks down to 0. They continue to stare, and then both get shot because you've missed that while watching the clock you've stopped watching what else he's doing. Aside from the irony of Mr "I'm a pro arm-wrestler" losing to his own trick, this would also do a much nicer job of tying in the "resistance is futile" line. You really can't win, because they aren't playing by the same rules.
On that note after Timberlake and girlfriend have met their end to Leon the closing scenes should have been consequence to a society when the workers stop working. The rich continue as normal, oh they import food from different regions and some of them fly off while the interruptions are resolved, but all the people in the ghetto suddenly find out that having a month rather than a day is great, but not having food because the guy who runs the shop, or drives the transport lorries, or workings in the process plant, have all bummed off because they got given freebies.
So that's my suggestion - Murphy kills Timberlake and arrests his plus one if killing faux-teenage girl bank-robbers isn't done in cinema these days (she didn't have blue or even red hair so no plot immunity from me). The proles riot, loot and die because the system has been screwed with. The rich survive, and the end? The bureaucrats who run the world note down some loss of Time in Region 21 due to disturbances, and just adjust the numbers to bring everything back into alignment.
If I were immortal, and had an immortal secret police/special forces unit to keep things running, I would not be derailed by a factory worker with a stub nose stuck in his socks.
Happy trails,
/Z
Wednesday, 8 May 2013
Writ In Water
Today's headlines are all remarkably uninteresting. Hence, in vague acknowledgement that I am not living up to the various mantles I make liberty of, here is something a little different.
In memory of an article in Blackwood's Magazine, 1818.
How wrong you were.
**
In memory of an article in Blackwood's Magazine, 1818.
How wrong you were.
**
Given without hope,
For hope implies expectation,
Given in memory,
Of a thought never
told.
Rose that never fades,
Petal that never
opens,
Thorn that never softened,
Stem that never broke.
Given freely,
In a world of indebted
gifts,
Given in honour,
Of a code never known.
Seeded in a yellow river,
Dreamed in a silver
bar,
Budded in red vines,
Flowered in white
rain.
Given without hope,
For hope requires
acceptance,
Given in memory,
A thought never told.
May 08, 2013
/Z
Tuesday, 7 May 2013
First In, Last Out
Its been a while since I managed to marshal a sufficiently coherent and in-depth response to a political, cultural, economic or other event to justify committing thought to virtual paper. However, with the recent local elections shoving UKIP into the spotlight as the current boat-rocking-phenomena, now seemed a reasonable time to poke holes in our electoral system.
**
Britain operators on a 'first past the post' (FPTP) system for the majority of its elections. This is a relatively simple system, you break the country down into districts, everyone votes, and the person with the most votes in each district wins. There are various alternatives, the most commonly touted of which is some form of Proportional Representation (PR). In a simple PR system everyone would vote, and then parliamentary seats are divided up on the basis of what percentage of the vote each group achieved. Before diving in to the advantages and disadvantages of each system, I want to take a step back and suggest the potential lineage and intentions of the two systems.
First Past the Post is clearly all about local representation. It is designed for a Parliamentary system where Members (MPs) are there to represent the interests and views of specific geographic locations. Although Party-Politics has wrapped its tendrils around our elections, the local nature of British elections still allows for Independents, 'single issue' local candidates and exceptional local representatives to cross party and ideological boundaries to secure electoral victories. Anecdotal evidence wise I quite happily voted for a local Labour MP who spent a considerable amount of time in and around the constituency on the strength of his local commitment, despite loathing the direction the central New Labour government was heading in.
On the other hand PR systems are designed with national party politics in mind. It aims to ensure that communities and groups that are not geographically concentrated are not marginalized or ignored. In a Parliament such as Britain (650 seats) a party would need only around 0.154% of the national vote to get a seat, more than enough to ensure that all manner of 'minor' parties can make their views and ideas known. Possibly as an intentional side-effect PR systems are also much less likely to deliver overall majorities, leading to coalition governments. Ultimately this limits the power of party leaders and mandarins (by forcing compromise) but also limits the dynamism and purpose with which a government can pursue its policies.
I'm going to take a slight detour now, and bring in my current pet-dislike; Political Parties.
Over the decades and centuries of British political life the flow of opinions, convictions and ideas has reversed, at some point it may have looked something like this;
Local franchised community > Member of Parliament > Political Party
The MPs took their cues (and got elected) on their empathy with, and ability to defend or promote, the ideas and interests of their constituency. MPs with similar agendas then banded together to form proto-political parties, with the support of various interest groups and noted individuals who shared similar ideas. The important thing here is that the Party itself is a function of people sharing the same ideas - not the origin of those ideas.
In today's world we have the exact opposite:
Party ""Think-tank/Policy Committee"" > Political Party Whip > Members of Parliament > Public
In effect the role of MP has changed, they are no longer there to take our opinions and run with them, they are there to sell the views of the party intelligentsia to the public. These think-tanks are in turn tiny, isolated, ideologically motivated groups, largely populated with upper class graduates, who have very little in common with a representative cross section of society.
This, combined with the nearly unassailable position our FPTP system has allowed the established political parties to form, means that one of the most horrendous cliches of our time really does seem to be true - the political class has hijacked our political system. For all intents and purposes democracy in western states with strong political party structures is dead.
To illustrate this point I'm going to introduce a bit of basic electoral maths.
At the local elections UKIP gained around 23% of the vote. Lets say they build on that, and at the next election they get 25% of the total vote. Let's also assume, for the sake of ease, that the Lib Dems continue to implode as a political force. UKIP isn't a geographically concentrated movement though, its pretty spread out across England (not so much in Wales and Scotland). So, let's say they get 25% of the vote in every single constituency.
In any given area either Labour or the Conservatives will be the dominant force, or, at worst, they will be closely tied (Safe and Marginal seats respectively). So each seat will play out something like this:
Randoms, independents, Lib Dems and Monster Raving Loonies: 10%
UKIP: 25%
Labour: 30%
Conservatives: 35%
The conservative and Labour votes will bounce around (50% or more in very safe seats at the expense of the other) but the stronger of the two will always come out ahead of UKIPs 25%. That means, at the end of the day, that UKIP will fail to get a single MP elected, despite 25% of people voting for them. In a worst case scenario you can actually get this number up to 49% of people voting for them, and still no representatives (every single seat is split 49/51 with the 51s shared out between Labour and Conservatives). [On reflection this is actually even worse than it looks on the surface of it, the national vote would be 25.5% each to Conservative and Labour, vs 49% for UKIP - who still get no seats!]
So, (I hear you cry) why don't we use proportional representation! All our woes will be cured! On that basis (and using my numbers above), we'd end up with something like 228 Conservative MPs, 195 Labour MPs, 162 UKIP MPs and 65 randoms. A coalition would need to reach 326 seats for a majority, suggesting the possibility of a UKIP/Conservative alliance, or even a minority government with UKIP agreeing to support on domestic policies. This is a very different position to the one we are likely to get given FPTP, and one which may seem to better represent the views and opinions of the voting community.
However... (no surprises here),
PR has one, fundamental, problem which I consider crippling; it puts even more power in to the hands of the political parties. In most forms of PR the various parties submit a list of candidates, and as the party gains votes it gets seats for the people on the list. Unfortunately the ordering of that list is then down to the party itself. So guess what? All the party apparatchiks and leaders are at the top of the list. At this point it becomes virtually impossible to shift the top echelons of the political parties. Even with only 1% of the vote (about 330,000) a party would still get 6-7 seats, and these would inevitably go to the party leadership. It also undermines the likelihood of a link between an elected representative and a given constituency or area. If elected officials are chosen on the basis of national proportions, there is no real link between a candidate and area of which they are eventually dubbed the 'representative'.
(I'm going to make a passing point here about Single Transferable Vote - this looks good on the face of it, but 'preference ranking' is often a disguised form of voting for a party.)
Just to make matters worse for the local representative, lets say you apply to be a local independent in a PR system. Your thinking goes - if I get a huge majority of people in my area to vote for me that should be enough right? Well.. not really assuming a 65% voter turn out, and a total voting population of 46 million, you would need 70,840 votes to each 0.154%, the threshold for 1 seat. Lets say your really... REALLY good. So good in fact that every single person in the geographical area which used to be your 'constituency' under FPTP votes for you (bucking the trend of a 65% turnout). Unfortunately that still may not be enough; because of the population imbalances throughout the country only 313 of the 650 constituencies have enough electors to get a local candidate up to the threshold for 1 seat. If the 65% turnout is assumed across all constituencies than no single area is big enough to get someone elected. (The largest bloc is the Isle of Wight with around 110,000 voters).
Solutions?
I'm going to present only one possible (and as usual fairly radical) solution to this mess in any detail; abolish the overlap between central government and local representation.
In the current system a MP is meant to be both local representative and through his party affiliations a salesman/supporter for the current ruling clique (also known as the Cabinet). Aside from the obvious conflicts of interest that are likely to arise from being responsible for both national policy and local interests, this focus on supporting and belonging to a party only reinforces the flow of ideas and control outlined above.
If, instead, MPs were elected to the House of Commons as local representatives, and Cabinet Ministers were elected entirely independently of this (i.e. you can't be both an MP and a Minister), then some of this tension would be dissolved. The electorate would then pick both its local representatives (as in the current system), and its ministers in presidential style elections. The Prime Minister would lose his ability to reshuffle Cabinet (and with it a hefty chunk of power), and cabinet would lose its ability to run rough-shod over the House of Commons (since MPs would stand a better chance of being elected on local issues).
There is even the chance this would lead to a more ideologically diverse Cabinet. For example the public could elect a "Conservative" Foreign secretary and Chancellor but a liberal or Labour Home Secretary and Pensions Secretary. With Ministers ensured a five year term in office they would be freer to pursue long-term (and potentially painful in the short term) policies, without the risk of being ditched for political reasons, and without the ability to simply be reshuffled into another role their survival as a politician would depend on being able to convince the country, at the end of five years, to put you back into the same role for another five years.
The back-up plan, if all else fails, is to demolish political parties altogether.
> Remove party logo's on ballot papers (you get your name, that's it).
> Ban the publication of party/candidate lists
> Ban the use of party logo's, symbols or slogans on candidate's election materials and websites.
> Ban the whip in any way shape or form.
In effect a candidate can say what policies they support, they can even (if they want) copy the manifesto of a political body like the Labour party. But an elector will actually have to engage with that candidate and their election materials to find out who, and what, they support. No more just ticking the box next to the right logo!
Happy Trails
/Z
**
Britain operators on a 'first past the post' (FPTP) system for the majority of its elections. This is a relatively simple system, you break the country down into districts, everyone votes, and the person with the most votes in each district wins. There are various alternatives, the most commonly touted of which is some form of Proportional Representation (PR). In a simple PR system everyone would vote, and then parliamentary seats are divided up on the basis of what percentage of the vote each group achieved. Before diving in to the advantages and disadvantages of each system, I want to take a step back and suggest the potential lineage and intentions of the two systems.
First Past the Post is clearly all about local representation. It is designed for a Parliamentary system where Members (MPs) are there to represent the interests and views of specific geographic locations. Although Party-Politics has wrapped its tendrils around our elections, the local nature of British elections still allows for Independents, 'single issue' local candidates and exceptional local representatives to cross party and ideological boundaries to secure electoral victories. Anecdotal evidence wise I quite happily voted for a local Labour MP who spent a considerable amount of time in and around the constituency on the strength of his local commitment, despite loathing the direction the central New Labour government was heading in.
On the other hand PR systems are designed with national party politics in mind. It aims to ensure that communities and groups that are not geographically concentrated are not marginalized or ignored. In a Parliament such as Britain (650 seats) a party would need only around 0.154% of the national vote to get a seat, more than enough to ensure that all manner of 'minor' parties can make their views and ideas known. Possibly as an intentional side-effect PR systems are also much less likely to deliver overall majorities, leading to coalition governments. Ultimately this limits the power of party leaders and mandarins (by forcing compromise) but also limits the dynamism and purpose with which a government can pursue its policies.
I'm going to take a slight detour now, and bring in my current pet-dislike; Political Parties.
Over the decades and centuries of British political life the flow of opinions, convictions and ideas has reversed, at some point it may have looked something like this;
Local franchised community > Member of Parliament > Political Party
The MPs took their cues (and got elected) on their empathy with, and ability to defend or promote, the ideas and interests of their constituency. MPs with similar agendas then banded together to form proto-political parties, with the support of various interest groups and noted individuals who shared similar ideas. The important thing here is that the Party itself is a function of people sharing the same ideas - not the origin of those ideas.
In today's world we have the exact opposite:
Party ""Think-tank/Policy Committee"" > Political Party Whip > Members of Parliament > Public
In effect the role of MP has changed, they are no longer there to take our opinions and run with them, they are there to sell the views of the party intelligentsia to the public. These think-tanks are in turn tiny, isolated, ideologically motivated groups, largely populated with upper class graduates, who have very little in common with a representative cross section of society.
This, combined with the nearly unassailable position our FPTP system has allowed the established political parties to form, means that one of the most horrendous cliches of our time really does seem to be true - the political class has hijacked our political system. For all intents and purposes democracy in western states with strong political party structures is dead.
To illustrate this point I'm going to introduce a bit of basic electoral maths.
At the local elections UKIP gained around 23% of the vote. Lets say they build on that, and at the next election they get 25% of the total vote. Let's also assume, for the sake of ease, that the Lib Dems continue to implode as a political force. UKIP isn't a geographically concentrated movement though, its pretty spread out across England (not so much in Wales and Scotland). So, let's say they get 25% of the vote in every single constituency.
In any given area either Labour or the Conservatives will be the dominant force, or, at worst, they will be closely tied (Safe and Marginal seats respectively). So each seat will play out something like this:
Randoms, independents, Lib Dems and Monster Raving Loonies: 10%
UKIP: 25%
Labour: 30%
Conservatives: 35%
The conservative and Labour votes will bounce around (50% or more in very safe seats at the expense of the other) but the stronger of the two will always come out ahead of UKIPs 25%. That means, at the end of the day, that UKIP will fail to get a single MP elected, despite 25% of people voting for them. In a worst case scenario you can actually get this number up to 49% of people voting for them, and still no representatives (every single seat is split 49/51 with the 51s shared out between Labour and Conservatives). [On reflection this is actually even worse than it looks on the surface of it, the national vote would be 25.5% each to Conservative and Labour, vs 49% for UKIP - who still get no seats!]
So, (I hear you cry) why don't we use proportional representation! All our woes will be cured! On that basis (and using my numbers above), we'd end up with something like 228 Conservative MPs, 195 Labour MPs, 162 UKIP MPs and 65 randoms. A coalition would need to reach 326 seats for a majority, suggesting the possibility of a UKIP/Conservative alliance, or even a minority government with UKIP agreeing to support on domestic policies. This is a very different position to the one we are likely to get given FPTP, and one which may seem to better represent the views and opinions of the voting community.
However... (no surprises here),
PR has one, fundamental, problem which I consider crippling; it puts even more power in to the hands of the political parties. In most forms of PR the various parties submit a list of candidates, and as the party gains votes it gets seats for the people on the list. Unfortunately the ordering of that list is then down to the party itself. So guess what? All the party apparatchiks and leaders are at the top of the list. At this point it becomes virtually impossible to shift the top echelons of the political parties. Even with only 1% of the vote (about 330,000) a party would still get 6-7 seats, and these would inevitably go to the party leadership. It also undermines the likelihood of a link between an elected representative and a given constituency or area. If elected officials are chosen on the basis of national proportions, there is no real link between a candidate and area of which they are eventually dubbed the 'representative'.
(I'm going to make a passing point here about Single Transferable Vote - this looks good on the face of it, but 'preference ranking' is often a disguised form of voting for a party.)
Just to make matters worse for the local representative, lets say you apply to be a local independent in a PR system. Your thinking goes - if I get a huge majority of people in my area to vote for me that should be enough right? Well.. not really assuming a 65% voter turn out, and a total voting population of 46 million, you would need 70,840 votes to each 0.154%, the threshold for 1 seat. Lets say your really... REALLY good. So good in fact that every single person in the geographical area which used to be your 'constituency' under FPTP votes for you (bucking the trend of a 65% turnout). Unfortunately that still may not be enough; because of the population imbalances throughout the country only 313 of the 650 constituencies have enough electors to get a local candidate up to the threshold for 1 seat. If the 65% turnout is assumed across all constituencies than no single area is big enough to get someone elected. (The largest bloc is the Isle of Wight with around 110,000 voters).
Solutions?
I'm going to present only one possible (and as usual fairly radical) solution to this mess in any detail; abolish the overlap between central government and local representation.
In the current system a MP is meant to be both local representative and through his party affiliations a salesman/supporter for the current ruling clique (also known as the Cabinet). Aside from the obvious conflicts of interest that are likely to arise from being responsible for both national policy and local interests, this focus on supporting and belonging to a party only reinforces the flow of ideas and control outlined above.
If, instead, MPs were elected to the House of Commons as local representatives, and Cabinet Ministers were elected entirely independently of this (i.e. you can't be both an MP and a Minister), then some of this tension would be dissolved. The electorate would then pick both its local representatives (as in the current system), and its ministers in presidential style elections. The Prime Minister would lose his ability to reshuffle Cabinet (and with it a hefty chunk of power), and cabinet would lose its ability to run rough-shod over the House of Commons (since MPs would stand a better chance of being elected on local issues).
There is even the chance this would lead to a more ideologically diverse Cabinet. For example the public could elect a "Conservative" Foreign secretary and Chancellor but a liberal or Labour Home Secretary and Pensions Secretary. With Ministers ensured a five year term in office they would be freer to pursue long-term (and potentially painful in the short term) policies, without the risk of being ditched for political reasons, and without the ability to simply be reshuffled into another role their survival as a politician would depend on being able to convince the country, at the end of five years, to put you back into the same role for another five years.
The back-up plan, if all else fails, is to demolish political parties altogether.
> Remove party logo's on ballot papers (you get your name, that's it).
> Ban the publication of party/candidate lists
> Ban the use of party logo's, symbols or slogans on candidate's election materials and websites.
> Ban the whip in any way shape or form.
In effect a candidate can say what policies they support, they can even (if they want) copy the manifesto of a political body like the Labour party. But an elector will actually have to engage with that candidate and their election materials to find out who, and what, they support. No more just ticking the box next to the right logo!
Happy Trails
/Z
Friday, 22 February 2013
Trial By The Peerless (Part 2)
In a shocking break from my normal routine of struggling to find something to write about, I actually had a response to something! Please see the comment appended to my previous post. Since it seems impossible to provide a cogent reply without running afoul of this sites draconian character limits, I have responded herewith.
..
..
Hi James,
Many thanks for your response, as you noted I’m still banging the drum
for a return to the 19th century, but aside from general failure on
that particular cause I’m otherwise well, I hope you are also.
I’ve had to split my response, since the original post was
too long!
To take your points in turn;
The ability to
distinguish justice from injustice is largely separate from IQ.
On the whole I would largely agree with this, as a standalone
principle, and I am certainly not advocating the kind of testing that would
screen out any save legal graduates. However, the anecdotal evidence I was
indirectly responding to with this suggestion was of jurors for whom spoken
and written English presented a significant challenge, for whatever reason. In
the same way I would be completely unable to make a reasoned judgement on a
trial presented to me entirely in Spanish, it seems unreasonable we are
appointing juries without the necessary level of English to understand the
topics placed before them. Likewise a systemic lack of knowledge into the roles
played by the various components of a modern court system (for example the
knowledge that a jury is responsible for coming to a ‘reasonable’ decision
based on the evidence presented too it, or the presumption of innocence), seems
to increase the likelihood of a decision based on considerations other than
those laid down in our legal system.
The fraudster
(alleged) being tested for his ability to commit fraud
While fully acknowledging the intentions behind this
example, I would conjecture that we do in fact allow exactly this, should the
defense choose to present it as evidence. A defendant who could prove that for medical,
physical or practical reasons he was incapable of committing the alleged crime
would seem to have a significant defense.
People are people
I think this particular point may well be susceptible to
various open ended arguments about how one defines “society” “community” and in
particular “peer.” The particular point I was trying to convey here (quite
possibly rather poorly) was that juries are largely selected on a geographical
basis, which made sense historically because people in a particular
geographical location would share many of the things which are usually used to
define a community (language, history, social institutions etc). However, in
today’s world of mass population movement, the spread of information technology
and a near unprecedented level of information exchange, it is no longer
reasonable (in my opinion) to automatically equate geographical location with
common values and opinions.
Just to further this point I would suggest that as someone
who spends a lot of time online (whether it’s writing a blog, reading articles,
or gaming), and most of the rest of my time at work, the community I “live” in
is in many ways made up of people all over the world. A significant portion of
the colleagues I interact with on a daily basis live in India, China and
Malaysia, yet for all my ‘global’ community, a trial by my peers would be drawn
purely from the geographical district in which my internet connection happens
to reside.
My other consideration would be that given the vast diversity of cultures
throughout the globe and the vast array of topics on which those systems
fundamentally disagree, it seems that even if ‘people are people’ those people
come to fundamentally different conclusions on a wide range of topics based on
their education, social, spiritual and economic upbringing. Whether it’s the death
penalty, the role of women in society, the age at which an individual is
considered ‘adult’, or even what rights are ascribed to an individual, people
in communities all over the world have different norms. My request is to be
tried by a community of people who share, where possible, a set of
circumstances that in some way mirrors my own. I should also point out that I make no attempt
throughout this to ascribe any superiority to my views or moral opinions over anyone
else’s. As I noted in the article, while I may disagree with others calling themselves
my peers, I would not attempt to empathise (however much I may sympathise) with
people from radically different backgrounds and cultures.
Precedent,
Communities, and who qualifies
I acknowledge from a practical point this is a tricky one.
At heart I feel one of the key problems here is a changing over time in the
role of a jury (which I believe I mentioned). Once a jury had only the most
basic guidance from legal codes, and was largely left to come up with what they
felt was a “just” and “reasonable” decision. In the modern world the emphasis
is often to decide on another’s state of mind, or to draw inferences as to
motivations and actions for which there is no direct evidence. (In Ms Pryce’s
trial the sole issue that should have been concerning the jury is whether she
was placed in a situation such that she had no alternative but to accept what
Chris Huhne wanted, this has very little to do with “justice” and is more pop –psychology).
We already allow judges to rule on the basis of ‘common
sense’ and strict application of the law, in cases which do not carry jail
sentences. Perhaps a solution may be to change the jury’s duty from deciding
innocence or guilt to deciding sentencing? In this way it may be possible to
return a jury’s role to that of “reasonable justice” based on shared community
standards.
With regards to the issues of “who decides who your peers
are” and “how long before you become British” I’m going to split this out into
two responses.
Becoming British
The issue of immigration and the contribution of those not
born in this country is one I’ve deliberately tried to avoid because it tends
to rapidly descend into name calling and bigotry. That caveat given, I would
argue that the institutions and traditions are more important than ancestry or
geographical location. Becoming part of a community (in this case the
particular brand of romanticised nationalism I ascribed too) is not a function
of generations or family descendants, or even too which particular nation you
belong. The fundamental commonality is belief in a national community. I would
far sooner call the men and women I’ve had the honour of knowing from Spain,
Sweden, Poland, Russia and elsewhere who still believe in the idea of a
national identity part of my ‘community’ than a two hundredth generation native
of the British Isles who is contemptuous of any ideal beyond personal fame and
wealth.
Picking Peers
On this particular issue I am forced to acknowledge a
practical difficulty. In part because any argument presented could immediately
be twisted round to argue that habitual criminals should be tried by juries of
other habitual criminals. This seems to therefore be self-defeating.
The professional jury may, in some way, counter this. Create
a group of people who genuinely uphold the community standards against which
you must choose to be judged if you wish to be part of the British community.
Regardless of your race, religion, gender, age or anything else, if you are
willing to have your actions judged by an independent jury who still give value
to the notions of justice, duty, loyalty, dignity and genuine liberty then I
would be willing to stand alongside you.
Is it a problem?
This is a difficult one also, since, by law, jury deliberations
are secret. However, the Ministry of Justice (I cringe every-time I write that…
its only one step away from MiniPax), did commission a study into how juries deliberate. The full paper can be found here;
Without regurgitating large sections of this, it does have
some interesting conclusions. The main
thing I took away from it was that most juries struggle with legal direction
(only 30% of jurors understand the legal directions given to them), but on the
whole juries give relatively fair results (they don’t discriminate based on
ethnicity, age or gender). One thing
that is touted as a strength in this paper, but which concerns me personally, is
that juries are noticeably more effective where there is significant physical
evidence (for example drug possession). If juries can only reliably rule on
cases where there is overwhelming physical evidence they don’t seem to bring
much to the table. Cases involving ‘state of mind’ or what a ‘reasonable’
person would do have conviction rates between 30-40%, compared with 53% on
average, and 80% for the “strong evidence” crimes.
Purely from the anecdotal side of things, here a few examples;
R v Stephen Young on 2 counts of murder; a conviction was
overturned when it was discovered four jurors had tried to summon the ghost of
one of the victims using an Ouija board, and had been directed to vote guilty by
the spirits of the victims.
An Australian drugs trial was abandoned after 3 months after
it was found out that a number of the jurors where spending their time in court
doing Sudoku because the evidence being given bored them.
A juror on a grievous bodily harm trial was discharged after
asking for the defendant’s star sign and date of birth so he could use
astrology to determine guilt.
On a personal note (this was a friend of a friend, but its
someone I know by name if not an actual acquaintance), I know of at least one
juror who had his family threatened if he didn’t return a not guilty vote, and
another acquaintance served on a jury, and reported that they spend at significant
period of time between each case having to explain the concepts of innocence
and that the jury can’t deliver sentencing.
While I accept there is not a raft of evidence pointing to
juries being incompetent, it also seems very little research has been done into
this area. Maybe if more digging is done on this it would reveal that juries do
not, on the whole, convict or acquit on the basis of laws, and if
that is the case, and decisions are based on social norms and personal
perception, my concerns about peer-groups becoming all the more pressing.
Thanks again for your post, it’s stimulating to actually
have to formulate a response, and I hope you’re doing well!
Thanks
/Z
Thursday, 21 February 2013
Trial of the Peerless
Trial by jury is a cornerstone of the British judicial system, and one
which heralds back (like a surprising number of traditions) to ancient Greece.
In the Greek play Eumenides it is Athena herself who appoints a jury of 12 and
declares that in the event of a split, the decision must be acquittal. It is
not hard to see how this has, over centuries, factored into our own views on
innocence-before-guilt, and perhaps even the composition of a jury
itself.
..
But today we are confronted with a Jury which has fallen so far from the proverbial tree that they were required to ask a judge what a 'reasonable' doubt was, and more concerning, if a decision could be reached based on a reason that was not presented in court, and for which there is no factual basis. While I accept that the most likely explanation for the difficulties in the Vicky Pryce trail lie with a minority of jurors failing to grasp their role (an intractable 3 out of 12 would result in an inability to rule), the situation does neatly provide an opportunity to consider the role and nature of our juries.
Admittedly I am not the most unbiased of observers when it comes to the legal system of the United Kingdom, I learnt the basics of criminal proceedings at school age, pursued Law at A-levels, and briefly flirted with the idea of taking a degree in the subject. I am therefore, perhaps, not a sensible yardstick for an 'average' individual, and herein lies the core deficiency in the modern legal system.
As laws have become increasingly comprehensive and institutional the role of jury has changed from acquiring information and reaching a 'sensible' conclusion, to mapping an abstract and specifically defined legal concept into a real world situation. Legal knowledge, a strong grasp of the English language (and the extent to which it can be both bent and clarified), and a degree of abstract conceptualisation are now key requirements in a juror. With no selection process, and no minimum requirements, it is becoming increasingly likely that juror's lack the knowledge and ability to execute their roles appropriately.
Since presenting a problem without a solution would make me a democrat (in the words of Denny Crane), I will offer two such solutions.
Firstly; having been selected at random for jury service, each potential juror could be required to take a standardised test to ensure a level of English (spoken and written), and a core understanding of fundamental legal principles (such as the presumption of innocence) sufficient to undertake the role. While a counter-argument may be made that this would potentially exclude under-educated or non-English speaking segments of the population from the jury process, the only alternative seems to be to accept jurors knowing that they are unable to return a fair and reasoned verdict. Of the two evils, it seems that limiting the field is more in the defendant's favour - using the example of Ms Pryce's trial it seemed at least some of the jurors failed to grasp the concept that an individual is not required to defend themselves - they are innocent until their guilt is proven beyond all reasonable doubt. As such I would argue that restricting possibly jurors to only those who know and understand the rights ascribed to a defendant can only benefit them, whereas introducing jurors who assume guilt (or apply a balancing test as in civil cases), would be prejudicial. Since a fundamental principle in our legal system is the primacy of the defendant, then minimum requirements for jurors is a (relatively) cheap and hopefully effective tool to reinforce our judicial system.
The second, more radical, option (and where would one of my posts be without radicalism), is to remove 'random' jury service, and make a professional jury service. Historically jurors were hereditary (it went hand in hand with certain other obligations of local nobles), and it can expected that they therefore received some form of training and initiation on how to conduct investigations and discussions. Likewise the experience built up over hundreds of trials is retained within the system. A professional jury service would provide an opportunity for jurors to gain a significant level of legal expertise (to enable them to better understand the interpret legal documents and evidence), and allow for 'specialisations'. One of the problems facing both defense and prosecution in complex fraud or other 'white collar crime' trials is the inability of the average jury to understand what the accused fraudster has actually done, or why its illegal, specialised "financial crimes" jurors would be able to build up the expertise needed to understand these cases, and make informed rulings.
The downside would be the potential monopoly on juries of certain segments of the population. It is easy to see how "juror" could simply become another middle-Britain profession along with accountants, architects, solicitors and engineers. This may lead to bias towards (or against) certain groups or crimes. While no system is perfect, it would seem some system of psychometric (or even MRI) testing to try and screen out the exceptionally biased would help combat this issue. Likewise, it is not immediately obvious that the bias would be towards guilt - after all plenty of legal graduates every year choose to pursue careers in defense to 'save the innocent' rather than prosecution. (I'm sure the larger salaries have nothing to do with it!).
Leaving aside the issue of how to acquire more qualified juries there is another point to consider here. The principle behind jury is "trail by your peers." In essence, you are judged by the community in which you are a part. This made sense in ancient Greece, where trials included potentially hundreds of jurors from the city in which you lived, it made sense in medieval and renaissance Europe where your 'jury' was made up of local free-man and nobles who probably knew you, your family, and were intimately acquainted with the local area. But is it still comparable to today's metropolitan world? Wiki estimates that 12% of the British population is not born in Britain. This figure quite possibly doubles if you include the children of non-British immigrants who have grown up in ethnically and culturally diverse communities. That could easily mean that the people who determine whether you spend the rest of your natural life in an 8 by 8 cell share neither your language, culture, religion nor history. Are these people truly a reflection of your "peers?". Likewise the medieval peasant or tradesman, tried by a group of other craftsmen and farmers, leads a broadly comparable life. Are the jet-set investment banker, the brain surgeon, the unemployed arts graduate and the median 'administration' worker truly 'peers' for one another?
I believe the answer to this is a firm "no". From a philosophical and ethical stand point I consider my entire worth is bound up in my knowledge, my experiences, the codes by which I lead my life, and by which I judge myself and others, and the decisions I freely make. Those codes and decisions are likewise bound up in my heritage, my culture and my shared history. Just as I would not insult those who lived through the struggles and triumphs of Russia's Great Patriotic War, or China's rebirth as the world's new super-power, or the war-swept ruins of Syria's collapse, by claiming to be their 'peers' I likewise take exception when those who claim to be mine without any understanding of the price and reward of unravelling reflexive thoughts, the emotional pride in nation which once defined an Empire, or the glory in a crystal cold winter night. Ultimately our motivations and actions are known only to ourselves, and if we judged ourselves more harshly, perhaps we would have less need of the traditional juries causing so many problems.
/Z
..
But today we are confronted with a Jury which has fallen so far from the proverbial tree that they were required to ask a judge what a 'reasonable' doubt was, and more concerning, if a decision could be reached based on a reason that was not presented in court, and for which there is no factual basis. While I accept that the most likely explanation for the difficulties in the Vicky Pryce trail lie with a minority of jurors failing to grasp their role (an intractable 3 out of 12 would result in an inability to rule), the situation does neatly provide an opportunity to consider the role and nature of our juries.
Admittedly I am not the most unbiased of observers when it comes to the legal system of the United Kingdom, I learnt the basics of criminal proceedings at school age, pursued Law at A-levels, and briefly flirted with the idea of taking a degree in the subject. I am therefore, perhaps, not a sensible yardstick for an 'average' individual, and herein lies the core deficiency in the modern legal system.
As laws have become increasingly comprehensive and institutional the role of jury has changed from acquiring information and reaching a 'sensible' conclusion, to mapping an abstract and specifically defined legal concept into a real world situation. Legal knowledge, a strong grasp of the English language (and the extent to which it can be both bent and clarified), and a degree of abstract conceptualisation are now key requirements in a juror. With no selection process, and no minimum requirements, it is becoming increasingly likely that juror's lack the knowledge and ability to execute their roles appropriately.
Since presenting a problem without a solution would make me a democrat (in the words of Denny Crane), I will offer two such solutions.
Firstly; having been selected at random for jury service, each potential juror could be required to take a standardised test to ensure a level of English (spoken and written), and a core understanding of fundamental legal principles (such as the presumption of innocence) sufficient to undertake the role. While a counter-argument may be made that this would potentially exclude under-educated or non-English speaking segments of the population from the jury process, the only alternative seems to be to accept jurors knowing that they are unable to return a fair and reasoned verdict. Of the two evils, it seems that limiting the field is more in the defendant's favour - using the example of Ms Pryce's trial it seemed at least some of the jurors failed to grasp the concept that an individual is not required to defend themselves - they are innocent until their guilt is proven beyond all reasonable doubt. As such I would argue that restricting possibly jurors to only those who know and understand the rights ascribed to a defendant can only benefit them, whereas introducing jurors who assume guilt (or apply a balancing test as in civil cases), would be prejudicial. Since a fundamental principle in our legal system is the primacy of the defendant, then minimum requirements for jurors is a (relatively) cheap and hopefully effective tool to reinforce our judicial system.
The second, more radical, option (and where would one of my posts be without radicalism), is to remove 'random' jury service, and make a professional jury service. Historically jurors were hereditary (it went hand in hand with certain other obligations of local nobles), and it can expected that they therefore received some form of training and initiation on how to conduct investigations and discussions. Likewise the experience built up over hundreds of trials is retained within the system. A professional jury service would provide an opportunity for jurors to gain a significant level of legal expertise (to enable them to better understand the interpret legal documents and evidence), and allow for 'specialisations'. One of the problems facing both defense and prosecution in complex fraud or other 'white collar crime' trials is the inability of the average jury to understand what the accused fraudster has actually done, or why its illegal, specialised "financial crimes" jurors would be able to build up the expertise needed to understand these cases, and make informed rulings.
The downside would be the potential monopoly on juries of certain segments of the population. It is easy to see how "juror" could simply become another middle-Britain profession along with accountants, architects, solicitors and engineers. This may lead to bias towards (or against) certain groups or crimes. While no system is perfect, it would seem some system of psychometric (or even MRI) testing to try and screen out the exceptionally biased would help combat this issue. Likewise, it is not immediately obvious that the bias would be towards guilt - after all plenty of legal graduates every year choose to pursue careers in defense to 'save the innocent' rather than prosecution. (I'm sure the larger salaries have nothing to do with it!).
Leaving aside the issue of how to acquire more qualified juries there is another point to consider here. The principle behind jury is "trail by your peers." In essence, you are judged by the community in which you are a part. This made sense in ancient Greece, where trials included potentially hundreds of jurors from the city in which you lived, it made sense in medieval and renaissance Europe where your 'jury' was made up of local free-man and nobles who probably knew you, your family, and were intimately acquainted with the local area. But is it still comparable to today's metropolitan world? Wiki estimates that 12% of the British population is not born in Britain. This figure quite possibly doubles if you include the children of non-British immigrants who have grown up in ethnically and culturally diverse communities. That could easily mean that the people who determine whether you spend the rest of your natural life in an 8 by 8 cell share neither your language, culture, religion nor history. Are these people truly a reflection of your "peers?". Likewise the medieval peasant or tradesman, tried by a group of other craftsmen and farmers, leads a broadly comparable life. Are the jet-set investment banker, the brain surgeon, the unemployed arts graduate and the median 'administration' worker truly 'peers' for one another?
I believe the answer to this is a firm "no". From a philosophical and ethical stand point I consider my entire worth is bound up in my knowledge, my experiences, the codes by which I lead my life, and by which I judge myself and others, and the decisions I freely make. Those codes and decisions are likewise bound up in my heritage, my culture and my shared history. Just as I would not insult those who lived through the struggles and triumphs of Russia's Great Patriotic War, or China's rebirth as the world's new super-power, or the war-swept ruins of Syria's collapse, by claiming to be their 'peers' I likewise take exception when those who claim to be mine without any understanding of the price and reward of unravelling reflexive thoughts, the emotional pride in nation which once defined an Empire, or the glory in a crystal cold winter night. Ultimately our motivations and actions are known only to ourselves, and if we judged ourselves more harshly, perhaps we would have less need of the traditional juries causing so many problems.
/Z
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)