My thoughts on the upcoming EU referendum

For me there is a simple argument which can be easily understood by everyone. Larger groups of countries in this global economy are stronger than individual countries. Or alternatively to quote Aristotle "The whole is greater than the sum of its parts."

This is simply common sense and those in favour of brexit are simply deluding themselves that Britain will somehow be better off standing on the outside looking in. These are probably the same people that believe we still have a British Empire.

I would agree that Europe is not perfect but let us change it from within not leave in a hissy fit. We are stronger working together and we must work together for a better outcome for all. We must look outward beyond our island than inward and hope for the English channel to protect us.

Some 'pause for thought' comments from the first few days of campaigning:

"But in my view - for reasons of security, protection against crime and terrorism, trade with Europe, and access to markets around the world - it is in the national interest to remain a member of the European Union. " - Theresa May.

Although the brexit campaigners are arguing exactly the same about leaving.  Again if you use a modicum of common sense team work would triumph over going it alone. After all terrorist groups are generally global operating in a number of countries so surely it makes sense to work together.

Evening Standard - Anthony Hilton article

"I once asked Rupert Murdoch why he was so opposed to the European Union. “That’s easy,” he replied. “When I go into Downing Street they do what I say; when I go to Brussels they take no notice.”"

If that doesn't convince you to vote to stay in the EU then nothing will...

Thought Experiment: Driverless automated cars

In the linked article you can read about driver less pods at Heathrow airport that take passengers from the car park to the terminal. Driver less automated pods are certainly part of the future, one day they may even replace ordinary cars on ordinary roads.

However here is a thought, a driver less pod will always be programmed to stop for a pedestrian / obstruction as the whole point in driver less pods is to prevent accidents. This all sounds very sensible and logical but what happens when pedestrians know they can never be hit by a car. Simple, they will step out into the road without looking as they know any car will stop and they cannot be hurt.

Now extend this thought, which basically means that pedestrians now have priority. In towns and cities pedestrians would reclaim the streets, traffic would be brought to a stand still and the whole fabric of society would break down. Ok maybe not that last part.

So if cars are no longer dangerous pedestrians would no longer be wary of them. You could either

a) Trust pedestrians to do the right thing - make it socially unacceptable.
b) Allow cars to be slightly dangerous again.
c) Make it a serious criminal offence to cross the road when a driver less car is coming.
d) Or another option which I haven't yet thought of.

Its an interesting thought which may have to be solved before driver less cars go mainstream.

I thought fox hunting with hounds was banned...

The press hounds have been released and they are on their ten day hunt. The basic idea of a ten day hunt is to start with a slightly dubious story and then keep it going with an extra tit bit of dubiousness each day. If you don't change the story slightly each day the story will falter. The longer you can keep it going from news day to news day the more pressure you can put on the politician and the prime minister (or party leader). The goal is to get the politician to resign or be fired.

Now get the wrong story and you wont make it onto the second day of news. This is a game that the press like to play with the politicians, its very similar to gossiping and the theory that if you throw enough mud it will eventually stick. It is a sort of modern day witch hunt.

I would suggest that most members of the public get caught up in the gossip and the chase. There is something voyeuristic about it.

The politician's only fight back is to try to derail the ten days. They can deny all claims or provide evidence but they have to be careful it doesn't then look like a cover up. They can start an official enquiry which will take a while to report back, by which time the news cycle will have moved on.

It is quite a negative aspect of the press hounding people out of office. It borders on immoral and ungentlemanly conduct.

For the current story here is what I have filtered out to be the facts:

1. Adam Werrity is a friend of Liam Fox who has spoken to him about work related matters. 
2. Adam Werrity has been on government trips as some kind of self styled advisor.
3. Mr Fox had a male friend staying with him when he was burgled
4. There seems to have been some confusion when information of the burglary was given to the press
5. Mr Fox has had to deny he was in a relationship with Adam Werrity.

Or something along those lines.

Taking it point by point I don't care about points 1, 3, 4, 5 it is not relevant to his day job. I am satisfied that there is an official investigation regarding at least point 2 and I trust parliamentary procedure to investigate and take the right action.

Bottom line, let Mr Fox get on with the job, if the official investigation finds him to have acted improperly he can resign. I am now bored of this story so if the press could go and report on some actual news it would be much appreciated.

Keep running Mr Fox don't let the news hounds pull you down

Note - I am not the first to come up with the ten day hunt, according to the BBC article Alaister Campbell got their first.

I have questions Mr Clarke...

Ken Clarke, Justice Secretary has like any other justice / home secretary before him has been going on about how we have a "broken penal system". Ken, unfortunately there has been a broken penal system long before you were born and in all probability it will still be broken long after you are gone. Frankly, the only comfort is that it is almost certain you cant make it worse, although I do think you might give it a go.

At this point you might expect a typical blogger to go off on one about how Ken is a complete idiot, all the politicians are idiots, society is broke, its all the parents fault, just lock them up or some other stuff generally said from a soap box.

For me personally the riots are almost too big to have answers for, all I have is more questions. So what I thought I would do, if dear reader you will indulge me is make a big list of some of them. Feel free to add any more in comments.

74 questions to be precise Mr Clarke.

So here are some questions that have occurred so far:

1. At what point should a person be considered as un rehabilatable?
2. What is the "age of intervention", the key year in someone life where an intervention can make the difference between a life of crime and a life as an average citizen?
3. How do you convince someone that it is better to earn the money to buy a TV by working for a month rather than spend five minutes nicking one (Seriously on this one - what do you say to someone who has been arrested twenty times for burglary)?
4. Should the government force parents of wayward children to have parenting lessons?
5. How many times do you give someone one last chance?
6. Is it the education system's fault?
7. Is it societies fault?
8. Is it my fault?
9. Are more prisons the answer?
10. Are larger prisons the answer?
11. Are smaller prisons the answer?
12. Should more prisons be placed in areas like Dartmoor?
13. Should military service be an alternative instead of prison?
14. Does Ken Clarke know what he is talking about?
15. If we had given the three quarters of rioters over 18 with a previous conviction tougher sentences so that more of them were in jail at the time of the riots would we have still had the riots?
16. Should the private sector run rehabilitation schemes given their track record on job seekers?
17. Would the charity and non for profit sector be a better option?
18. Which problem do we solve first - Drugs?
19. Which problem do we solve first - Alcohol abuse?
20. Which problem do we solve first - Unemployment?
21. Which problem do we solve first - Apathy?
22. Which problem do we solve first - Respect for authority?
23. Which problem do we solve first - Job training?
24. Which problem do we solve first - General Education?
25. Which problem do we solve first - Literacy and Numeracy?
26. Were the police ham strung by human rights issues?
27. Did politicians hinder the police response?
28. Did Senior Police management hinder the on the ground response?
29. What responsibility lies with the media?
30. Does the media making stars out of everyone make it worse?
31. Should criminals / looters be interviewed?
32. Has society taught the youth of today to take what they want?
33. Is the internet causing us to break normal social boundaries?
34. Is this problem a new one or has it been the same in the past?
35. Do people understand the consequences of their actions anymore?
36. Is this related to the culture of "no winners and losers"?
37. Are we unrealistic with the youth of today, do we offer them the world but give them nothing?
38. Is this part of a materialistic culture?
39. Is this part of a selfish culture?
40. Should we have more positive role models?
41. How do we get more positive role models?
42. Does the person who burnt down the carpet store show remorse?
43. Are these criminals also victims?
44. Why do people re - offend?
45. Can we stop re - offending or is it all ready too late by the time of the first offence?
46. What do the criminals themselves say would stop them re - offending?
47. Do community sentences actually work?
48. What are other countries doing?
49. Is the justice system too slow, should justice be quicker - arrest and imprison same day?
50. Should first time offenders be treated differently and put in different prisons?
51. Should criminals be rewarded for not re - offending?
52. Should the police use tear gas to break up riots?
53. Should we have weekend prisons Friday night to Monday morning especially for town centre brawlers?
54. Where should we invest our money - youth crime?
55. Where should we invest our money - adult crime?
56. Where should we invest our money - Police?
57. Where should we invest our money - Criminal justice system?
58. Where should we invest our money - Social work?
59. Where should we invest our money - Drug crime?
60. Can we ever fix the penal system?
61. What is  a timeline for a typical career criminal?
62. What happens as each stage?
63. What were the contacts by any government body and what happens at each contact ?
64. Was there a tiping point?
65. How much does it cost to rehabilitate a career criminal?
66. Could we have seen the riots coming?
67. What should the police have done on the first night?
68. Why didn't they?
69. Is swift and harsh justice going to create another problem?
70. Should we create a body that continually reviews all aspects of society to suggest policies that stop or help prevent low level criminal activity?
71. Should this body be completely independent from the political system?
72. Is their already such a body?
73. How do I join?
74. Where do we, society go next?

Some news articles that caught my eye...

Facebook juror sentenced to eight months for contempt

When jurors go bad...

Yes, this is a story of a juror who thought they knew better than the judge and not only contacted a defendant via facebook but carried out her own internet research into the case.

The whole point in a jury is that you try the case on the information presented to you in court, to do anything else however tempting is just not fair justice for the defendant.

It may seem a bit harsh for this woman to spend up to four months in jail but I agree with the Solicitor General a message needs to go out to jurors that this is not acceptable. The whole foundation of our justice system can be contaminated by actions like this. Every defendant has the right in fairness to them to be tried only on the information presented to the court i.e. past history wont affect the burden of proof.

Banks must ring-fence retail operations, Osborne to say

This is about tighter regulation of the banking system to ensure the credit crunch doesn't happen again. Step1 is that Banks must hold more capital reserves, the international recommendation is 7% and in the UK the chancellor has gone for 10%, reminiscent of Gordon Brown's prudence. Step 2 is that the retail arm of a bank will be ring fenced from the investment arm. In practical terms this means that if a bank does fail the government could save the retail arm whilst letting the investment arm fail.

One criticism of this policy is that the banks will pass charges and costs on to the public. Well in my humble opinion you either make regular small payments or one big payment when we bail the banks out when they fail again. What we need to accept is that safe banking may actually cost us a bit more than it used to. The benefits are that we wont loose our money and we wont have to go through what has been an awful credit crunch again.

Another criticism is that the ring fencing doesn't go far enough, banks will still drain a retail arm to prop up an investment arm. Without all the technical details it may be difficult to work exactly if this might happen, but I look on this as more of a positive. A looser ring fencing policing will mean that the banks are not in a rigid straight jacket and can work within loosely defined boundaries to the benefits of the banks and the customers. For us, the customers, if we leave the banks with some flexibility then the costs for the retail banking side will be slightly lower.

To implement both of these policies seems a very sensible incremental policy change and not a knee jerk reaction that is unnecessary or costly.

UK rural broadband plans move on

Great idea, super fast broad band in UK rural areas.

However, what is slightly depressing is the lax approach to putting a photo against the story. Obviously a story needs a pointless picture for those people that cant manage a full page of text. So the BBC thought we need a picture that says rural, there is nothing that says rural like a tree line road. Good so far although again a picture for this story is just going to be window dressing, something to look at then you get bored of the story.

Unfortunately the picture of the BBC chose has nothing to do with the UK, I suspect it is a road in America. How have I come to this conclusion, well in the UK we don't paint double yellow lines down the middle of the road even in the most rural areas of the country. However the US do, see here for a google image search of double yellow lines in the US.

Come on BBC if you are going to put a pointless picture in at least make sure it is in the same country as the story.

AV Vote results in a resounding no from the public

Well we was robbed, to use a sporting quote.

In a 70/30 split the public voted NO to AV, only several London constituencies voted YES. I personally believe that the vote was lost because the public was mislead by the no campaigners, the Yes campaign wasn't strong enough and it was a protest vote against Nick Clegg and the liberal democrats.

The no campaign was about horrendous costs, the winner being the winner and no one uses AV so why should we.

In terms of the costs even David Blunkett from the No campaign admits they were made up. Sadly as with most lies once they are out there they are difficult to retract.

The Yes campaign needed to create a real need for change similar to Barack Obama in the presidential campaign. They should have got us all voting for AV because it was the right thing to do. Sadly the fact that it was fairer never seemed to be the one message. Although one good thing about the Yes campaign which cannot be said about the no campaign is that it was very clean and fair. They didn't tell lies they hoped the truth would speak for itself. Alas it was not to be.

Finally no one uses AV, again a message that got lost somewhere in the maelstrom is that actually the political parties uses AV to elect their leaders. David Cameron was actually elected by a type of AV election.

Time to leave it there and move on.

Vote Yes for fairer votes, 10 reasons to vote Yes to AV

First up, my political affiliation decleration. I am very firmly in the YES camp, having experienced the unfairness of first past the post elections as a lowly liberal democrat voter I want my second vote to count. In previous elections my vote was counted for the Liberal Democrats, they dont get first past the post and my vote is lost, no real democratic power in my hands. In any new AV vote my second vote would count for Labour which could change the vote and keep the Tories out, real democratic power returned to my hands.

To put it simply AV works for me.

Ten reasons to vote for AV:

1. It makes MPs work harder

Seriously are you actually considering voting against something that makes MP's work harder to earn your vote. Under AV they would have to appeal to the massess (over 50%) not just a minority to guarantee an election win.

2. Its simple

For the voter it is simple rather than one cross, you rank the candidates in order of preference i.e. 1,2,3,4. You can rank as many or as few as you like. So unlike first past the post you can actually say more than just I want them, you can say I like them second and I really hate them and they would be my last choice. Really who wouldnt want the opportunity to say that in a vote.

The counting side of things is slighty more complicated, but not by much. Everyone is capable of understanding it and that is why the no campaign dont want to focus on how it works. In therms of first past the post, the simplest solution is not always the best.

Dont take my word for it, take a poll for the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR)

As IPPR Director Nick Pierce says: “This poll appears to show that when people engage with AV and are given a chance to try out the system of voting preferences, their support for change grows. It also shows that people can readily understand how AV works and don’t find it too complex.”

3. One opportunity for political reform

This is probably the one opportunity in our lifetimes to make a stand and change the political landscape. Just because first past the post has been here for years doesnt mean we shouldnt change it. AV is inherently fairer so lets vote for fairness, change is good, ask Barack Obama.

We do not need to stick with a 19th century voting system that it is no longer fit for purpose in the 21st century. Time moves on and things change, the time for change is now!

4. The people against change

Just look at some of the people in the no campaign. The BNP are in the no camp, if they dont think its a good idea is that not something we should be voting for.

5. The people for change

Yes, Nick Clegg is for it and the No campaign would tell you that a vote against AV is a smack in the face of Nick Clegg. Nick Clegg may have done many things but on this he is just supporting a system which is fairer. Don't make a vote for change a vote for a personality. This is a vote for our democratic future not to a vote to settle a score.

Dont forget this is wider than just one party, the AV voting system has cross party support. Many politicians have put aside their differences in order to stand on the same platform and explain why changing to AV is more important than party political differences. This alone should make us, the electorate stand up and listen. If it is that important we need to vote for change.

6. AV is not a new system

It is already in use in other countries although not many and it is in daily use in other elections such as trade uninions, charities, businesses and other organisations.

Although AV isnt used by many countries this should not be a reason to vote against it. Remember politicians like the status quo and dont often give voters the chance to change the system. We, thanks to the Liberal Democrats have been given the opportunity, so lets not waste it. After all someone has to lead, so why not Britain?

7. The weak arguments of the No campaign

The NO campaign cant justify the first past the post system as the fairer system. They dont even try, they sling as much mud as they can and cause as much confusion as they can. One of their best arguments is that the "winner should be the winner" using a sporting analogy. Politics isnt sport and a winner should have more than 50% of the vote.

Vote for a system where the winner actually is the winner with the majority of the electorate's votes not a system where the winner is the winner due to "lies, damned lies and statistics". A winner should have majority support not minority support.

8. MP's use AV

So it cant be that unfair or unworkable if MPs already use AV or a similar system. If its good enough for them surely its good enough for us.

9. Vote AV, vote local

In any election you are voting for your local representive, under the AV system you will have more of a say on who that person is or isnt. Vote for a system where you can elect the person that you really want to represent you.

10. Vote for a fairer vote and fairer politics

The NO campaign has been a dirty campaign, lets tell the politicians that we see through their pathetic smear campaigns, that we are not as dumb as they think we are and vote for fairer, clearer less polarised voting campaigns. Under AV alienating voters by using smear campaigns would loose them more votes, AV would be more about appealing to all voters so even if they are not their first choice you become their second of third choice.

In summary, vote for change, vote for fairness, VOTE FOR AV on May 5, 2011.

References:

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/hardeep-singh-kohli-ignore-cricketers-listen-to-er-a-comedian-2268939.html

http://www.yestofairervotes.org/content/

http://www.ippr.org/pressreleases/?id=4435

http://www.yestofairervotes.org/pages/speaking-notes

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/apr/16/av-vote-ashdown-osborne-tactics

Libya No fly zone - some quick thoughts

I do think this is a positive move, a no fly zone is a step to protect civillians and is a proportionate response to the situation. I am slightly concerned about the wiggle room Resolution 1973 gives member states to protect the citizens of Libya short of putting an occupation force on the ground. There is a lot of room basically to wipe out Col Gaddaffi's forces wherever they congregate in any numbers under the Resolution as whilst he remains committed to wiping out the opposition any attack on his armed forces would reduce the risk to the civilian population.

However, just because a power is given under a resolution doesn't mean it has to be used. Sensible heads will hopefully prevail.

Of course David Cameron has been at the forefront of efforts to impose the no fly zone. If you were being cynical you would suggest that he has spotted an opportunity to save himself by being the international statesman. In history the Falkland Islands gave Margaret Thatcher the same opportunity. Of course even if he has spotted an opportunity it doesn't really matter as long as the civilian population are protected.

Another cynical comment is that what would be really handy to operate a no fly zone would be an aircraft carrier full of harrier jump jets. It is such a shame we mothballed one last month. Still Mr Cameron, probably not the time for a full u-turn.

Save our forests update

Well as usual I got stuck on the Tony Baldry specific issue mailing list. Tony stuck to his guns saying that privatisation of the forests was the right thing to do, even sending me an email debunking the 10 myths spread about by the press. One day later the Secretary of State cancelled the sell off.

Funny isn't it how someone can be so adamant that privatisation is so right and then have to flip there position because their leader do so. At least I assume Tony will now say that he is listening to the will of the people and joining with David Cameron to support the public in keeping the forest in public hands. He hasn't yet sent me an email telling me this but I am sure this is his new view.

One of the big issues I have with party politics is that it prevents individuals doing what they think is right or having independent thought. If Tony disagrees with David then fine, please come back to me and say that you still support privatisation of the forests. At the moment I suspect that you only follow the party line and I have no real evidence that you truly stand up for what you believe in,

As a voter I want to know you are voting with your head and heart on behalf of your constituents not just being a loyal supporter of David.

Anyway the next issue coming up is Alternative Voting (AV) - the transferable vote. Watch this space. I am leaning towards the "Yes" camp but I do want to explore the issues fully first.

Save our forests

Over 230,000 people have put their name to a petition calling on the government to save our national forest for future generations. If you haven't already signed the position, do so now, come back and read the rest of this article later.

The Tory government have as usual gone for the privatise everything that moves method of politics, the fact that they can do so under the guise of essential cuts is all the better. Basically they have already sold off 15% of the Forestry Commission land (the maximum they can do without new legislation) without asking or consulting with the public and now they want to sell of the other 85%. Unfortunately they do have to put it into legislation in order to get rid of the remaining woodland.

I like many others are absolutely disgusted that David Cameron can sell off the nations heritage. David will sell anything worth selling to greedy private investors who are not capable stewards working in the public interest. David and the investors just see cash instead of trees, they have no interest in nature, no thought of nurture, no interest in public access and no regard for a sustainable future. They want to steal our woodland and David Cameron is basically holding the gate open while they drive off with it.

As well as signing the petition you should write / email your MP, it is what they are there for, to represent the will of the people.

My MP already has my email, we shall see what he has to say.

Snow Watch Leg 2 update

Well the blizzards did not materialise, believe it or not I am in the small part of the country which has got away with only 1 / 2 cm of snow. Yet travel 50 miles east, south or north and you see feet and inches of the stuff.

The main roads are completely clear and even the estate back roads are only slightly icy. Its hard to reconcile the tv news saying the whole country has come to a complete halt when all of us in Oxfordshire are going about our normal hum drum lives.

Of course next week the situation could be completely reversed.

I am sure it is absolutely terrible in Scotland and in the north east but I cant help secretly liking the idea of 100cm of lying snow. A once in a life time experience, one you would perhaps rather reflect on by the pool in 32 degrees of sunshine but an experience none the less.

All we can expect round here over the next few days are a few night snow showers.

Train overcrowding: how to fight back.

Ever since this article on the BBC a couple of weeks ago thoughts have been running through my head about how the humble commuter, fed up with being treated worse than a sardine can fight back.

Of course we are only in this position because the companies themselves and the government refuse to do anything about it. Mind you, I am guessing if they were all faced with having to travel by train on a daily basis and not in first class they would quickly do something about it. Lord Young and others are probably at least privately thinking that commuters have never had it so good.

As far as I can work out there are only two ways we can attack the problem.

Breach of Contract (Small claims court)

This I envisage working similar to the banking charges saga. The BBC article linked gave me the signpost.

Under their franchise agreements train operators are required to use "reasonable endeavours" to give peak passengers "a reasonable expectation of a seat within 20 minutes of boarding"

Not exactly great legally crisp wording but there is something here we can work with. Essentially if the conditions are not met you could perhaps claim that the train operator has broken their contract with you which was made when you purchased the ticket based on all relevant legislation and contracts including the franchise agreement.

All we have to do is sort out the test of reasonableness to see if you can make a claim. First we need a reference period. The train operator would clearly be able to wriggle out of a claim if it was based on 1 or 2 journeys or the train was late, weather delays, other delays or delays outside of its control. So lets say 5 journeys on the same train or at around the same time would constitute a reasonable reference period. This is a week of commuting or five regular journeys over a different period.

Now the line states that you have a reasonable expectation of finding a seat within 20 minutes. So any journey under 30 minutes (must be scheduled journey time not actual journey time) is not going to be worth claiming for, again you would need to take into account any delays, which would not count towards the 30 minutes.

Next a reasonable expectation of finding a seat, in order to prove this you would have to walk up and down the carriages looking for a seat, so the best thing to do is only claim when you cannot walk up and down the carriages as clearly in this circumstance you do not have a reasonable chance of finding a seat.

Again if you wanted to be really clever and possibly evil you could find a railway employee and ask them if you have a reasonable expectation of finding a seat on the train (use that exact wording). This would be extra juicy evidence against the company as they are a representative of the company giving a professional opinion. You could also consider collecting witness statements from people on the same train. Don't worry too much about witness statements as the onus would be on the company to prove you wrong, plus as long as overcrowding is regular if they contested it you could take a video camera on the next journey. The company cant make the problem go away over night.

You would also need to submit evidence of tickets, at least the photocopies. If it is not a season ticket you may wish to consider submitting the originals or at the very least offering to surrender the ticket if your claim is subject to refund. Obviously with a season ticket you can submit a copy. Also note that any claim should only be for the contested journeys, you cant claim a refund of a season ticket based on five journeys. In this case you must work out the proportion of the ticket that relates to those journeys.

So in summary to make a claim you need to fulfil these pre-requisites:

• Scheduled journey time of over 30 minutes
• 5 journeys on the same train or 5 journeys at roughly the same time over a regular frequency
• a valid ticket
• details of the trains travelled on
• Unable to walk up and down to find a seat

If you have fulfilled all these requirements then you can start a similar two step process to the reclaim of bank charges.

Step 1 is write to the train company, perhaps something like this:

Dear Customer Services,

I am writing to complain about the state of overcrowding on your peak time trains. As a regular user it is clear to me that you are doing nothing to address overcrowding and are therefore in breach of the commitment in your franchise agreement:

"train operators are required to use reasonable endeavours to give peak passengers a reasonable expectation of a seat within 20 minutes of boarding

Here are the details of the trains I travelled on, the journey times and my comments on the availability of seats:

etc etc

I have also enclosed a copy of my ticket/s for your reference.

You have 28 days to reply to this letter detailing the steps you will take to solve the overcrowding issues on these trains. In addition, I am claiming a full refund for the price of the tickets attached as you have clearly and persistently failed to fulfil the terms of agreement under which they were bought.

If you do not provide satisfactory recompense within 28 days then you will leave me with no choice but to pursue the matter through the civil courts.

Yours sincerely etc.

Sit back and wait for a response, the options here are that you get ignored, fobbed off or offered some compensation.

If you get ignored, check their customer service agreement and write one more time quoting their customer service agreement and giving them a final 28 days to reply. You may wish to copy in the Managing Director, chances are the letter will just get forward on the customer services department and match up with your other letter, but you never know. If the ignore you a second time then you have now made every reasonable endeavour to resolve the matter with the company (this will be important in any legal claim) and you can now put in your claim with the courts for full compensation.

If they fob you off, reply re-iterating your position detailing the breach of agreement and detail any more subsequent experiences. Then as above head to the small claims court.

If you get offered some compensation my personal advice would be to take it, even if it is not the full amount. The fact that they have offered you compensation and you have refused to take it would count in the company's favour in any claim. So best to take what's offered and make a new claim in the future if they do not take "reasonable actions" to avoid overcrowding.

Of course the first few claims will be hard but if one ends up at court and the commuter wins then like the bank charges that is a legal precedent which will pave the way for everyone to claim and companies will start paying up at the letter stage. They will also quite quickly start addressing capacity issues as it now hurting their profits.

At the moment this is an idea, but you never know it just might work. If anyone does try the above approach can you keep us up-to-date with any responses etc. I am quite happy to post any rail company responses, good or bad.

Health and Safety

The other approach I have thought about is claiming a fundamental breach of your health and safety if you are required to stand. However, anecdotally there seems to be no research which shows you are at higher risk in an overcrowded train. So this seems to be a non starter unless anyone knows of any research or can commission some.

Finally, I should also mention that I am not a regular commuter on trains, but have on occasion had to commute into London where the train has been totally rammed with people. So despite a good idea I am unable to follow up on it myself.

The Spending Review: A Personal Response

I am a public sector worker, I am not on the coalface but I hire the people that work on the coalface. I agree that cuts had to be made and they had to be deep. I agree that they had to cut the Public Sector borrowing requirement down to size but not eradicate it.

However, I have no doubt that the coalition has gone farther than it needed to, due to the Conservative ideology of smaller government.

I do believe that we needed to make an across the board cut of at least 10%. I don't believe any area should have been ring-fenced including however unpalatable the NHS and education. It is time to live within our means. A significant amount can be saved in the public sector through efficiency saving and getting rid of "nice-to-have" services that have built up in the last ten years without affecting core services. 10% is I believe a fair line in the sand.

I think the public sector pay freeze is right even though in real terms it means many poorly paid workers will find it much harder. Again given the extreme circumstances we find ourselves in I feel a pay freeze is preferable to loosing more jobs.

I think any additional spending should be frozen, what we don't have now we no longer need. A lot of commentators have compared the deficit to your own debt, when you have a debt you need to reduce it. I would compare the budget requirements to a household budget, when money is tight you don't spend it on new things or reduce spending on food to move to a bigger house. You make do with what you have got and so it is time to make do with what we have got. When the good times come again then we can look for new opportunities.

I would not reduce corporation tax, big business got us into this mess they can help us out of it. The argument that this is to stimulate growth is valid but public sector spending and public sectors workers also contribute to the economy.

I would not increase International development, again referring to the household budget, I like to give to charity but I don't give more than I can afford. As a country we may have a responsibility to the rest of the world and that is why I would not make any reduction in the budget for international development but it would be frozen.

I would not give a rise to the cabinet office for their "big society" work. "Big society" is a good idea but it doesn't not need that much money. I would prime the pump but not to the extent of £1.8 bn perhaps £0.5 bn would be more appropriate. Government cannot order you to volunteer but they can encourage you.

I would bring forward the pension age increase, it makes economic sense.

I would increase pension contributions, although I acknowledge it will be painful the current system is no longer viable for individuals, the country or the economy.

I would not freeze the science budget but as per all other areas cut it by the required 10%. Sorry scientists everyone needs to do more with less and no one can be protected under these circumstances.

I would get rid of trident, we have no need for a nuclear deterrent that we would never use saving us £20 bn that could be better spent elsewhere.

With some significant regret I would not expand the funding for energy and climate change projects. Again we cannot afford the "nice to do" stuff, when things improve they can go back on the agenda. For now the £2.9bn could be better spent elsewhere. I would if the figures allowed allocate £200m for the wind power projects and £50m for solar power and energy efficiency projects. This would help continue the push to a green and sustainable economy. In this area alone I feel we must move forward not back.

I would not scrap the index linking for rail travel, those without cars would be the hardest hit.

The NHS is tricky but I would enforce my golden rule of 10% cuts with a stipulation that savings must be made from efficiency saving and cutting red tape and not closing wards or hospitals. That may be very painful but I would also commit that when the good times come back the NHS would be the first in the queue and I would aim for funding increases to a level equivalent of 5% per year for each year they received no increase. Over the long term there would be no reduction in funding.

There are other areas I could go into but I think you can understand extrapolate my thoughts.

On one final note the average savings across the board for the government have been 19%. I have said across the board saving will be 10% with some significant extra savings made which should allow us to head towards the 19% target. In addition, I do not believe we need to totally eradicate the deficit. Some deficit is acceptable as long as it continues to reduce and does not get out of hand.

I recommend my plan to the house.

To leak or not to leak: 5 types of leaker

Another day, another leak. Goes nicely with cheese don't you know.On a more serious note who is behind a leak and what are their motivations.

First, I suppose is the "knight leaker". They do it because the public should know about this travesty / abomination, they are people of honour and integrity, a shining example to us all. I imagine them to be people who have campaigned internally for the information to be released and get frustrated enough, realise it will never come to light unless they take a stand and do it themselves. I imagine these people have true moral dilemmas over loyalty and accepting what the right thing to do is. I imagine the decision to leak wins over loyalty on the basis it is for the good of mankind.

An example of this type of leak is that a government department has failed to keep track of 50,000 immigrants and has not put in place any policy to resolve the issue. Or Revenues and Customers have notice 50,000 tax errors but are only chasing those that have underpaid.

Then there must be the "profit leaker", they have information that someone wants and is willing to pay catch for it. Psychologically they think they can easily get away with it or the profit outweighs the risk. They have no moral dilemmas and are motivated by pure hard cash which might get them a new car or a house in the country. They also think there is no victim and it is perfectly harmless.

These people might be giving away confidential information such as who has quoted what for a government tender or giving away personal details such as bank details they might have access to.

Next will be the "thrill seeker leaker", this small group purely like being the centre of attention, they might be the secretary's and assistant's who are underpaid and over worked. Yet now they control the information and can leak something important. Again they think it is harmless, at least at first, then they might display addictive tendencies, aching for just one more leak. They probably carry on until they get caught or just get too greedy and leak something too big to go unnoticed.

Then there is the "revenge leaker" these have information which put someone in a bad light. They can also twist the information to be out of context, perhaps by lifting quotes which in isolation look bad. This is a very politically motivated leak and might be to discredit a rival. I imagine there are some labour supporters in government departments who pass things to Labour so the Tories look bad.

Finally, there is the "false leaker", these are the government sponsored leaks to test public opinion. I would imagine 50% of leaks at least, have semi official approval because if they leak the document they can canvas public opinion for free and if there is unanimous disapproval of a leak the party involved can always go on record and say it was a "blue sky" discussion document that was drafted and circulated at a low level. The document was never meant for public consumption and was discarded at an early stage. Most importantly the government or other party has plausible deniability.

As a way to canvas public opinion for free you cant really fault it.

I think today's announcement is of the false leak variety. The government can canvas opinion and see how much support some of these bodies or organisations have. If the hordes start to advance on Downing street they can always deny there was ever any intention to abolish the organisations. Plausible deniability and smoke and mirrors, now its policy now its not.

Audit Commission to be scrapped

The Government has announced that the audit commission will be scrapped. This is a public body that looks for savings and efficiencies in local government.

The functions that it provided will be replace by private sector organisations and consultants.

Well I don't know about you but I think it is the perfect time in this current economic climate for getting rid of the audit commission , after all its not as if we need to make savings and efficiencies. Plus what a good idea, lets pay consultants to do the work, but hang on doesn't the government always go on about how much consultants cost and waste money.

Some days you just dont know whether you live inside the insane asylum looking out or outside the insane asylum looking in. I am waiting for the announcement that white coats with straps are cheaper than suits because it wont be long before David Cameron and his cabinet are wearing them.

When will the madness stop, please don't let it go on for five years until the next election.

Some recent press releases from the audit commission to show what a complete waste of time and money they are:

Local government pensions in England
An information paper

29 July 2010

In our latest information paper, we examine the long-term affordability of the Local Government Pension Scheme, and look at steps that could be taken to put it on a better financial footing.

Sustaining value for money in the police service

20 July 2010

Together with Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and the Wales Audit Office, we have found that police in England and Wales could save up to £1 billion without reducing police availability.

Against the odds
Re-engaging young people in education, employment or training

7 July 2010

We reveal how councils need a new approach in getting to grips with the needs of their local teens, in order to make scarce resources work harder for those at greatest risk of long-term unemployment.

Making the most of frontline staff in the NHS

25 June 2010

Making better use of doctors and nurses in the NHS has the potential to make significant savings, provided that trusts understand the reasons for existing staffing variations on their wards.

I don't know about you but that is one organisation clearly not engaging with the state of the nation and looking for savings all over the place.

Please note - This is all sarcasm, of course we need the audit commission especially if like everything else the government is busy trying to get rid of they save more money than they cost.

The Government: three months on

I am sure I am not the only one who is thinking "same old Tories". Welcome to the wonderful world of slash and burn politics this year get over 25% off democracy. In my defence I only voted for the liberal democrats and although I have never voted tactically before, in the next election I am voting for whoever has the best chance of getting the Tories out. The only thing that the Tories have not yet mentioned is privatisation, but I am sure they are working on a plan somewhere.

Are you all looking forward to the double dip recession, no it is not a new flavour of coalition ice cream but its the roller coaster ahead for us on the economy.

According to David Cameron its all about the big society and communities joining together and they know best how to solve problems. Its beginning to feel like a more bullish American style of politics talking about big society and small government.

Lets take speed cameras which is a nice example of a slash and burn policy that is going to backfire. The government has cut funding for all the road safety partnerships who operate the speed cameras. The Road safety partnerships have basically folded as they cant generate money from tickets, wont get any more from the government and frankly the partners have better things to spend their very limited money on. So the cameras are switched off and that's that right?

Well no, first there is the road safety issue, at least some of these cameras were protecting junctions and schools making people slow down. Now they are gone the collisions will be at higher speeds and inevitably people will be seriously injured or in extreme cases will be killed. I hope anyone that has an accident at a junction/ or road previously covered by a speed camera sues the government for negligence. How ever much you hate speed cameras, speed kills and if people know they aren't going to be caught they will speed even more. Many already do even with speed cameras The outcome will be that accidents / deaths will increase and insurance premiums will go up.

The government in their infinite wisdom have cut funding for something that pays for itself and then some. All the money from speeding tickets goes back into government funds. So funds cut, cameras shut, income cut, more cuts needed. So rather than save money the government will now have to make up the shortfall from a falling speeding ticket income elsewhere, either cutting more services or raising taxes. Please can someone explain to me how this policy makes sense.

Plus if like me you keep to the speed limits you now have to pay for something which previously you could have avoided. Avoidance taxes are great because if you don't have the money or don't want to pay you can avoid it. If as a result of a drop in income from speeding tickets they have to raise income tax I can no longer avoid it.

Come back labour all is forgiven, Gordon Brown was kind of alright really...

I wont even go on about the bank profits...

swiftcover.com

Having recently asked a question about why my insurance has gone up and getting a patronising response I thought I would paste it up on the internet.

From Zephyrist to Swiftcover customer service:

Can someone please explain to me why my monthly insurance premium has risen by 34% this year.

I now have a years driving under my belt which must mean I am a safer driver and I haven't had any accidents this year. Yes, I did claim for a new windscreen which was damaged by the poor condition of the roads (pot holes) but that is not a fault of my driving and although I accept I wont get a no claims bonus this year I don't think I should be charged the equivalent of 3 new windscreens in higher premium charges.

Patronising answer from Swfitcover.com lack of customer service:

Dear Mr Caunt,

Thank you for your e-mail.

The reason for price increases is that the average cost of claims is increasing. This affects all UK car insurance companies.

These are some of the causes:

? Injury claims compensation is increasing.
? Increasing medical costs.
? Fewer cars are repairable.
? Parts are more expensive.

I hope this answers your query.

Commentary from Zephyrist

I haven't bothered replying, I don't see much point.

Conservative Liberals or Liberal Conservatives?

Is the new coalition government of the UK made up of Conservative Liberals or Liberal Conservatives. I personally think they are Liberal Conservatives. The question in my mind is if that judgement is based on what I believe to be their politics or the sometimes unnatural rules of the English Language.

In option 1 I think that the politics are generally Conservative yet tempered by liberalism hence Liberal Conservatives.

In option 2 the majority subject goes second and then the descriptive effector comes first hence Liberal Conservatives.

Of course with the power of the mighty google I can check out the most popular term.

Search term: Conservative liberals uk

About 8,430,000 results

Search term: Liberal Conservatives uk

About 8,390,000 results

Oh, a very narrow victory for Conservative liberals. Probably proves absolutely nothing but it was an interesting thought for the day.

The 2010 General Election: So many issues they have tissues.

First off, in my long standing campaign to make the media declare there potential for bias I should mention that I voted Liberal Democrat and I voted against the Tory party and although I can think of no particular reason to hate Gordon Brown I cant wait to see the back of him.

Gordon Brown

Perhaps I should explain, nearly everyone in the country wants Gordon Brown out. I want him out but cant help wondering why I want him out. Having spent some time thinking about it, the best I could come up with was that I perceive him to be an arrogant bully. Yet is that opinion based on fact or based on a tissue of lies woven by the media. I submit to the jury the fact that during the election campaign the media changed their portrayal of him from a frowning worn character to a beaming arrogant idiot. Compare photographs of a year ago to photographs of today.Did this portrayal change my perceptions.

So what evidence do I have that he should go. Well actually he handled the economy reasonably well, we survived and I don't think any other party could have done much better, no matter what the opposition parties say. Then he didn't handle the expense fiasco very well either, but then no party or leader was blameless. He was responsible for the continued mess in Afghanistan but again it will always be a mess even under the next government.

I think the best thing I can say about him is we could do a lot worse and maybe that is what lead to the mixed result we had last week.


The Election Result

In my humble opinion no major party won, in fact you could say the only party that could declare a complete victory is the Green Party who finally got their first MP and can finally be a force for good in parliament rather than outside on the protest line.

The Conservative party may have got the most votes and seats but they did not get the landslide victory they wanted and the public judged them as not convincing (or perhaps trustworthy) enough to be put in power.

The Labour party lost seats and were unable to convince the electorate that they were the only safe pair of hands for a secure economy.

The Liberal Democrats had Clegg mania but in the end lost seats, failing to convince anyone they should be given more . Although in their defence I think voters got scared off at the last minute by talk of a "Hung" parliament. Vote Conservative or we are doomed! Doomed I say! Sorry got carried away a bit there.

So no party convinced everyone and we all voted for either local issues or something different. The wind of change was coming but for most of us it felt like a sigh.

The Electorate spoke

So no overall winner and the only majority coalition would be a Conservative / Liberal Democrat pact. However, in their arrogance the Conservatives seem to be refusing to offer much compromise and virtually making the offer of your either with us in government or you can rot on the back benches for another 70 years. The Liberal Democrats appear to be sticking to their principles and holding out for the best deal for their voters especially over electoral reform.

The Labour party in desperation offer everything to the Liberal Democrats to cling on to power although if I were the Labour Party I would give in and come back on a change agenda in five years. OK so Gordon Brown is finished but the Labour Party could come back stronger than ever especially as the next five years probably isn't going to end well for whoever is in power.

So the Liberal Democrats have started to talk to the Labour party to see if they can get a better deal for the people that voted for them. Even though they wont have a majority a Lib / Labour pact would still represent 15 million votes which is more than the last Labour government represented of 9. 5 million votes.

Personally although some people are accusing the Liberal Democrats of being arrogant king makers I would suggest that the Conservative party are the arrogant ones. If they are seriously committed to a stable and secure government then they should be working hard to work out a fair deal with the Liberal Democrats. We the electorate have asked you the Conservative Party to work with another party to form the next government. So get on with it otherwise at the very next election (which may come round a lot sooner than you think) you may find that the electorate may remember that the reason it all went wrong was because the Conservative were more interested in what was best for the party and themselves than what was best for the country.

The world is going to end with proportional representation or a hung parliament

At least that is what the media would like you to believe, conveniently ignoring the fact that many countries around the world have some form of proportional representation or collaborative governments working together in the best interests of the country. New Zealand is one such example.

The whole point of government is to act in the best interests of the people. Look at it this way, a party with a strong majority could be considered to be a form of dictatorship who can put through any laws they want. Surely a weak majority or a collaborative government is better, as they hopefully work in the best interests of the country as without the electorate's support they will be out. This could be strengthened if we all get the right to vote MPs out if we disagree with them, if the majority is single digits the balance of power could change on a monthly basis as MPs are voted in and out. Maybe that is not such a good idea after all, we don't really want to change prime ministers like we change our socks. We would be the laughing stock of the civilised world and even the uncivilised world come to that.

I personally feel positive about a hung parliament, as I would not support the Conservative party on their own or the Labour party on their own but perhaps a government tempered by the Liberal Democrats will on this occasion provide the middle of the road government and steady pair of hands we desperately need.

A final word on electoral reform

How can it be fair that a party such as the Liberal Democrats get 79% of Labour's vote count but only get 22% of their number of seats.

That is just not cricket. If it were in a book it would be called a conspiracy theory.