Piranha Maths

From  Stephen Colbert's Twitter stream: "100 people were bitten by piranhas last weekend in a lake in Brazil. Proving what I always suspected, piranhas love round numbers."  Well, made me chuckle.

More educated people voted Yes in the AV referendum

Although I'm disappointed with the result of the referendum on the alternative vote system (AV), the outcome threw up some interesting results.  Of all the constituencies, only 10 voted in favour of reform.  Among these 10 are Oxford, Cambridge, Edinburgh Central and Glasgow Kelvin.  It struck me that the great university districts of the UK might voting for reform, while everyone else was not.  Even in those areas where it was a close call, it seems that major university districts are prevalent.  Some of the constituencies with high yes votes included Brighton Pavilion (49.8%), Manchester (44.5%), Cardiff Central (45.7%), Bristol (44.7%) and several others.  There's quite a spread of areas here, and there doesn't seem to be a specific north/south divide on the issue.  At the other end of the scale, some examples of low Yes votes include South Holland and The Deepings (21.4%), Broxbourne (20.46) and South Staffordshire (20.9%).  No great university presence in these regions.  

So, is it the case that those areas where people were better educated were more likely to vote yes to AV? Well, the geek that I am, I correlated the electoral results for each constituency (% of yes votes) against a number of different socio-economic indicators including general socio-economic status, economic activity, level of industry and lastly level of educational qualifications.  These data can be gotten from the parliament.uk site.  It turns out that level of education is the most closely correlated with the tendency to vote yes to AV (r = .52), while level of industry (r = .37) and socio-economic status (r = .12) showed weaker relationships.  Level of economic activity was not related at all.  

Now, these are pretty rough calculations as the two sets of data do not overlap completely in terms of constituency boundaries (and so there are a few approximations in the calculations), but there is enough power to highlight some indicative relationships. While it would be wrong to say that "smarter" people were more likely to vote yes, it does look like "more educated people" were more likely to vote yes.  

I've always thought that increasing educational attainment was a way of dealing with many of the issues that face society today, and here is another piece of evidence to support that!  

Why would you NOT vote yes to the alternative vote?

Picture yourself in a restaurant.  You decide to treat yourself and go for dessert, opting for your all-time favourite: the chocolate ice-cream. Or, if that's not available: the strawberry ice-cream, a close second favourite on your ice-cream wish list.  The one thing you don't want is the banana flavour ice-cream. You've never quite understood it, and it leaves a bad taste in your mouth.  To your dismay, the waiter says, "I'm sorry Sir, the chocolate ice-cream is all out, you'll have to have the banana ice-cream"…"but you have strawberry left?", you inquire.  "We do Sir, but I'm sorry Sir, your first choice isn't here so you're stuck with the banana.  That's the way the system works.  It's always been that way and we see no reason to change it now". 

We don't always get what we want in life, but if we can't get our first choice, then it's probably preferable to get our second choice rather than something we really, really do not want. 

This is basically what the alternative vote (AV) tries to do.  We all get a first choice vote (as we do under the current first-past-the-post system - FPTP), but we can also list our second, third, fourth choices…and so on.  

Now the question is, what sort of person would NOT want to have their second choice if they couldn't have their first?  It's slightly bewildering I think.  However, when you take a look at the list of politicians supporting the "No to AV" campaign, it's liberally peppered with old-school political dinosaurs from the left and the right (Margaret Beckett, Lord Falconer, Dr. John Reid, Ken Clarke, Baroness Warsi...and many more).  And let's not forget that the ruling government is split on this issue.  While the Lib Dems have long-campaigned for electoral reform, the tories are dead against it.  

The conservative party; long-time supporters of giving people "more choice" - "We think  people should have choice when it comes to their NHS treatment" or "we think people should be able to choose to which academy school they send their children", but for whatever reason, choice on the ballot paper is just plain wrong!  The Tories  have failed to articulate why choice is so good in some areas, but so bad in others.  Of course, it is a beautiful gift of the Tories (and right-wing politics in general) to simultaneously hold contradictory beliefs in mind.  And we'll have more on this in due course.  

But in the mean time, wouldn't rather have the strawberry ice-cream than the banana?  Who wouldn't?

Ha Ha!

Following broadsheet's posting and Twenty Major's original posting

Canals to be used to transport the poor: New Tory Proposals

So the government spending review is imminent, and one of the chief Tory targets in this review are the quangos.  Quasi non-governmental organisations (as they are rarely referred to) look after everything from teaching school kids how to cycle bikes safely (Cycling England) to looking after Britain's canal system (British Waterways). The Tories hate quangos because they see them as big government interfering in the lives of people, although the "non-governmental" part of the title clearly escapes them.  

A spokesman for British Waterways was adamant that while British Waterways might be axed the canals and their management would be protected for all eternity for the british people to enjoy.  However, there are contradictory messages emanating from the Tory camp. 

In a statement, the Tory transport minister, Lord Tottermouth Fotheringill claimed that actually as well as British Waterways being abolished so too would the canals in their current form. Lord Fotheringill argues that full use is not being made of the canals with current usage statistics signifying massive waste in the system.  Instead he is proposing to drain and clean the canals to use them as a new, below-eye-level, dry-transport system.  Lord Fortheringill claimed that "Such a system will be an invaluable way of transporting poorer members of our society around the country.  It is an efficient, low-cost, and importantly low-visibility solution", adding that "If everyone was being honest they would admit that they do not want to have to look at or smell poor people as they move from place to place, regardless of whether they are making their way to work in the mines or if it is part of their annual migratory patterns".  Appealing to fairness, Lord Fotheringill pleaded "Isn't it right that poor people should be able to travel freely around the country in the same way as their betters? My goal is to remove the social barriers built into our current, arcane transport network".  

Downing Street later responded to these statements saying that these are only policies that are under consideration and it is wrong to read too much into the transport minister's statements. 

Progressive Smrogressive

Joe earns £200,000 per annum, while Derek earns £15,000.  If you think that everyone should "share the pain" in the current government's programme of cuts, you might think that knocking 10% from both Joe and Derek's salary would be the most equitable thing to do.  If you do, you are wrong.  And possibly a member of the conservative party.

To suggest that leaving Derek with £13,500 would not have a more deleterious effect on his life than leaving Joe with £180,000 is, quite frankly, ludicrous.  Over a certain amount of income, you need incrementally much larger sums of money to make substantive improvements in quality of life, life chances, health, well-being, and so on. In other words, taking £1,500 from Derek has a far greater negative impact on his life than taking £20,000 from Joe.  One means not being able to run a car this year, the other means not being able to buy the new Ferrari this year.

The government's current approach to making the tax system more equitable really tells the tale of a government with a split personality.  On the one hand, the Lib Dem backed tax plans will raise the amount at which people begin paying tax to £10,000 over the next 3 years. Obviously this will massively benefit low-wage workers, but it will also help everyone else who earns over this amount.  This is a relatively progressive tax.  On the other hand, there is the new Labour-proposed and Tory-backed 50% tax rate targeting the "middle classes".  Except that this will only apply to individuals earning over £150,000 per year.  If you think this is going to affect the middle classes you are either a) mad, b) a conservative party member, or c) both.  This £150,000 threshold will only affect the top 1% of earners - since when did this mean "middle class"?

Given the tax avoidance strategies routinely employed by the very wealthy ,which some estimates put at upwards of £40 billion every year (and yes, if you earn over £150,000 a year you ARE very wealthy), it remains to  be seen how much money this will even bring to the Treasury.  Realistically, this threshold needs to be considerably lower if it can be considered anything approaching this "progressive" word that Dave and Nick (or "Dick Clameron" if you prefer) have been bandying about. What are the chances? Progressively low, I'd say.

Would you give BT £1 million just for being a helluva nice company?

We're doing a bit of a Watchdog service today.  Let's talk about phone calls.  Because it's good to talk!

Let's say you make a call of 3 minutes and 20 seconds at a cost of 2.45 p per minute.  How much should it cost?  Well, that's a duration of 3.4 minutes x 2.45p = 8.1666585p (£0.081666585). Oh, and there's a call connection charge of 9.9p, and then we should add VAT to this (17.5%), which gives us 21.2283237p.  Ok, so on your bill it should read £0.2123 as the cost of this call. Right? Wrong!

For BT and many other companies, they do this instead.

The call lasting 3.4 minutes is rounded up to the next minute, making the call duration 4 minutes.  Now, anyone who has completed primary school maths will tell you that you only round up then the number after the decimal is .5 or greater.  Ok, so they've rounded - it's not a big deal. Well, it might not be, if they just rounded once, but they don't. 

The cost for that call is now 4 x 2.45p = 9.8p.  Guess what? That's now rounded up to 10p.  Ok, so now the call-placement charge is added, which is 9.9p, except before this is added, guess what happens? That's right, it's rounded to 10p.  So lastly we add our VAT which gives us a grand total of 23.5p.  Phew, finally got there. Oh, except I forgot to round that one too.  Right, so the actual final cost is 24p for my call. This amounts to an additional 2.77p just from rounding at these various stages.  That's an extra 13% on your call cost.

Ok, so this is just a toy example, but it does illustrate the ridiculous nature of the phone companies' approach to maths.  You could do many examples where the cost of rounding would be greater (for even shorter calls with greater rounding discrepancies) or lesser (for longer calls that have lower rounding discrepancies). 

But how much would a company like BT actually make from this little mathematical sleight of hand? Well, it was recently announced that BT would be increasing call charges by 10%, which would affect about 12.5 million customers. How much could they make from these customers with their method of rounding?

If customers made say three calls per week, with similar rounding discrepancies to the example above, this would raise BT an additional £1 million per year (actually £1,038,750).  Does this seem fair to you?  Of course, this amounts to just pennies to individual customers, but I'm still not sure that justifies this particular billing formula.  BT made a profit of over £1 billion in 2009, surely they don't need to be multiplicatively  rounding customers' individual calls as well as increasing their call charges by 10%. 

I've mentioned BT here simply because they are the biggest telecoms company with the largest number of landline customers.  However, almost every other phone company operates a similar approach.  Is there any need for it?  Is there any justification for it? Absolutely not.  This is simply corporate greed creaming off as much as they can from people who can little afford in a time of deep recession.  These companies should feel shame, but of course that's the great thing about corporations; they have no heart.

For those who support PR we salute you!

The campaign for a proportional voting system has been trundling along for a LONG time in the UK.  It's always formed part of the liberal (or liberal/SDP alliance previously) platform and only now is there the tiniest glimmer of hope of some change to the existing system.  While a change to the Alternative Vote (AV) from first-past-the-post is a move in the right direction, it is so far from being fair and proportional it is laughable - check out my previous graphs on this matter! 

What is more amazing is that politicians are still shovelling out the same unfounded, misrepresented comments and, in some cases, downright lies regarding the nature and implementation of PR.  If you know of a politician who is anti-PR, ask yourself (or them) why would anyone be against a fairer system of representation?  Just to hammer this message home, I invite you to take a look at an ad done by Monty Python's very own John Cleese in 1987 highlighting the pros and cons of this new, scary and complex voting system.  Enjoy!

 

Is Citibank Seeking Dress-Code Advice from Iranian Clerics?

I recently posted a story about the Iranian cleric who was blaming the provocative dress of Iranian women on earthquakes in the region.  It seems that men telling women what to wear is not the sole preserve of deluded Iranian clerics; it also happens at Citibank in New York.

Here's an interesting case, being filed by Debrahlee Lorenzana who claims her male bosses found her business suits too alluring and distracting and could she please stop wearing them please.  Citibank reportedly argued that she was dressing "in a manner that was upsetting to her easily distracted male managers". Poor guys!  Maybe if they focussed more on their shoddy investment practices (Citibank received over $50 million in the bank bailout) they wouldn't be so easily flustered by what their female colleagues were wearing.

2010 Election Results Under Different Voting Systems

Thanks to some number crunching from the Electoral Reform Society, we can now see what the election might have looked like under different voting systems.  I've taken their figures and plotted them below in a couple of different formats.  In each graph you can compare results as they actually are (under First-past-the-post) and results under AV (Alternative Vote), STV (Single Transferrable Vote - the Liberal Democrats preferred system) and under a fully proportional allocation (based on share of the national vote).  I don't think it takes much to realise that pretty much any of the alternatives is going to be fairer than FPTP, but there's still quiet a discrepancy between the different systems.

How would PR have changed previous election results?

Here's a quick link to a BBC article that shows how 2005's election outcome would change under various voting systems.  One of the issues for the UK to consider is how difficult it is to implement these different systems.  For example, moving to Alternative Vote (AV) where you simply rank candidates could be done very easily - no changes in constituency boundaries or in the number of MPs per constituency.  However, if we moved to Single Transferable Vote (STV), we would need to design larger, multi-member constituencies which would take quite some time to sort out I imagine!  Of course, the ones take a little longer to implement also seem to be the ones that are more proportional.  More on this later!

The Lie Laid Bare

So, after weeks of arguing why first-past-the-post is the one true electoral system because it always delivers clear-cut results, David Cameron's lies about electoral reform have once again been laid bare.  We are now in hung parliament territory for certain.  Of course, it may be a bit harsh to suggest that Cameron has lied consistently throughout the campaign when discussing electoral reform.  There is another option; perhaps he doesn't quite have the mental capacity to understand what an equitable, proportional electoral system could look like!  So, which is it Dave - are you being stupid or deceptive on the issue of electoral reform?

And now we watch with interest as the Tories try to circumvent constitutional rules (which say that Labour, being the incumbents, have first dibs on forming a government) and get into bad so quickly with the Lib Dems that their own mothers would be ashamed of them!

Is the lying over yet?

Jeremy Paxman has oft been quoted as having the mantra "Why is this lying bastard lying to me?" to guide his interviewing technique - he denies the attribution of course. After just a few weeks of listening to the politicians bark their messages at us, I can only imagine how he must feel dealing with these lying liars day in and day out. How they manage to have debate after debate, argument after argument and yet avoid saying anything of real substance is pretty astounding.

To summarise my memory of the Leaders' debates...

Chair: Leader A, what is your party doing about issue X?

Leader A: What haven't we done about issue X! The real issue is how parties B and C have totally avoided this issue and their complete lack of transparency over issue X means the public simply cannot trust them. 

Leader B: I find it completely disengenuous that Leader A would suggest that Party B had been ducking the issue. The public are not fools. They realise that Party B really has no long-term strategy for solving issue X and that we really are the only party of the future.

Chair: And Leader C? What are your thoughts on issue X?

Leader C: Well, I agree with Leader B...

and so it went ad nauseum. 

Still, despite the media and much of the public baying for substance, it never really emerged.  Even the most transparent of the parties (the Lib Dems) have about £30-40 billion in uncosted savings; in their deficit plans and this is by far the best of the three main parties.  Furthermore, the economic policies were probably the most aspects of the party manifestos that had most meat to their bones; nevermind issues like the environment and education, which hardly got a look in.  So, regardless of which parties form the next government, we really don't know exactly what we're going to get.  One thing we can predict with safety though is that it is going to be tough.  Very tough. 

So, barring a prophecy of long-term misery can we venture any more short-term projections regarding the election outcome?  What will May 7th bring?

First up, I predict that it will be close; very close.  My fear is that the Tories will be very close to a n overall majority and so will end up in bed with a combination of the Ulster unionist parties (DUP and UUP).  Heaven help us!

Secondly, I think that at an individual constituency level there will be many, many recounts.  I suspect some may even resort to legal battles, especially given there have been noises about postal vote tampering. 

Lastly, despite the Lib Dem's surge and talk of over 100 seats, I just don't see it happening. Like many commentators, I think Lib Dem support has already started to wain.  So, I think we will see an increase in Lib Dem representation, but it will be more like 72-75 seats rather than the 100-105 they are dreaming about. 

I hope I'm proved wrong on this last point.  I believe a coalition involving the Lib Dems really does offer a once-in-a-generation opportunity to change this rotten system for the better.  Let's hope us voters don't just go and f%$k it up!

Oh, and one last thing...GET OUT AND VOTE!!!

Talking to policemen in car parks?

I'm really not sure if this the title of this post is to be read metaphorically or literally.  Take a look at this interview with UKIP leader Lord Pearson and decide for yourself.  Daniel Finkelstein asks the question whether this is the worst campaign interview ever.  I'm not sure that it is, but I'll bet there are many members of UKIP wishing Nigel Farage (pronounced Niggle Fah-rag) was still at the helm! This is a re-posting from Left Foot Forward.

Thank god these idiots aren't going to provide a plausible option in the event of a hung parliament!

Iranian Cleric Uses Scientific Logic To Prove He's An Idiot

In a startling piece of logic, Hojatoleslam Kazem Sedighi (yes, you read that correctly), an Iranian Islamic cleric discovered how earthquakes are caused.  Through rigorous research he found that they are caused not by the natural movements of giant plates of the earth's crust, but instead by Iran's women-folk dressing immodestly.  In a quote on the BBC's site, Sedighi explains that "women who do not dress modestly lead young men astray and spread adultery in society which increases earthquakes".  Can't see any gaps in his chain of reasoning there.

Sedighi likes to stroke each of the microphones in turn in order to CENSORED.

In his sermon, he went on to plead with young Iranians not to disappoint God and to wear looser fitting clothes.  Amen to that. 

I agree with Nick! No, I agree with Nick!

Well, as the Tory and Labour leaders attempted to knock seven shades out of each other last night, they found themselves in agreement on one topic that may have a more profound effect on this election than they would have hoped.  In between spats and ripostes about immigration and economic recovery both Cameron and Brown were competing to align themselves with the Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg.  Is this going to be a case of Brown and Cameron keeping their eye on each other while the long-shot Clegg surprises them on the outside? 

What the leaders all fail to realise is that the colour scheme means they are actually competing to become president of Columbia and not prime minister of the UK. Let's watch the expressions on their faces when they find out!

I had high hopes for Clegg before the "debate" (I'm sorry, but the level of staging and preparedness prevents this from being a true and open debate), and he presented himself very well.  I'm glad that none of the three leaders made monumental gaffes as this will allow people to focus on the content of what they're actually saying.  As Chris Huhne of the Lib Dems suggested, this debate format may be pretty shallow, but it's the least shallow thing we've had in national elections in years!  The interesting thing now will be whether Clegg's win in the debate can translate into votes on May 6th.

Tax Plans: Labour Vs UKIP

On Sunday's Andrew Marr show the UKIP leader, Lord Pearson, outlined how his party would like to introduce a flat rate of tax at 31% for everyone earning above £11,000.  Wow, that sounds fair you might think.  And it means we would have a much less complex tax system.  But how would it pan out?  For your convenience I've graphed the tax take for various income levels directly contrasting income tax to be paid under the current Labour system and the proposed UKIP system.  

Basically, this would be great news for anyone on minimum wage; with this system you would save about £705 a year (assuming UKIP used the same Tax Free Allowance levels as currently exist).  Not bad at all.  But as soon as you cross that magical £11K barrier things turn ugly.  Sure, everyone would like to see high earners pay a bit more tax.  But do we want a society where someone earning £12K goes from paying £1105 in tax to paying a £1712.75?  That's a massive 55% increase on the tax that individual is paying.  The picture is exactly the same for many middle-income earners.  This is a classic right-wing approach to politics, appealing to the low-paid, disenfranchised voter in order to pedal more extremist nonsense.  I'll leave you to make your own mind up on whether you'd like to see such a tax system in place!  

I can only imagine that given UKIP's policies on the EU (leave) and their model for a fair and equitable society (Switzerland) it would please a lot of Tory backbenchers to have them as coalition partners in the event of a hung parliament.  God help us all!

Need to rise above the election?

If you happen to be in the south of England and are already feeling the need to escape electoral campaign antics, one possibility might be to head on down to the Hovercraft Museum in Lee-on-Solent (between Portsmouth and Southampton).  Apparently it has the world's only collection of historic hovercraft, with over 60 vessels for you to feast your eyes upon.  It's probably not the kind of thing I'd be into myself, but you know, whatever floats your boat!

Dave's Son Tells It Like It Is

In what may be a contender for quote of the election campaign, David Cameron's 4-year old son Elwen came out with "Stop making boring speeches Daddy!".  It's the most insightful piece of political punditry  I've heard yet.   If you're interested, the Irish Times manage to stretch this nugget into a full article here.

Cambridgeshire will have the 'most boring' election

Following from yesterday's post on the failings of the first-past-the-post voting system, the Electoral Reform Society have calculated that Cambridgeshire's constituencies will have the most boring election this time round.   The Tories hold six seats, while the Lib Dems hold one (in Cambridge itself) and according to the society's calculations none of this likely to change.  If you're a voter who is craving change in the system, Cambridgshire is not the place to be!  The BBC has more here.