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.

New Scientist : Age of Denial

De Nile, not just a place in Egypt,sorry that is one of my favourite jokes, along with Dubai, no I was just window shopping. I can hear the groaning from here. Normal service resumes in 3...2...1...

This is commentary on a New Scientist Special Report, State of Denial, Volume 206 No 2760 15 May 2010 pp 35 - 45 by various writers including Michael Shermer, Michael Fitzpatrick, Jim Giles, Richard Littlemore, Debora MacKenzie.

Are you a denialist or a sceptic?

A sceptic should review all the available information and reserve judgement until they have reviewed the information. At that point they follow the evidence to its logical conclusion.

A denialist will make the judgement first and then bend the evidence to fit their case or even discard contradictory evidence to support an argument.

Of course not everything is so black and white there are many shades of grey, in all healthy debate people will choose evidence that supports their case but will generally not ignore evidence that is overwhelming against their argument.

This definition is very important to any discussion about the world being in a state of denial. Take any modern issue facing humanity like climate change / global warming. The information is so vast we cannot review and interpret it ourselves, scientists themselves are not public relations people so we have to rely on scientific commentators or journalists to interpret us for us. This relies on them to present the correct interpretation to us and even if they are presenting the correct interpretation they are often overshadowed by the opposing view who have a bigger marketing budget. In climate change oil companies have a bigger budget to present a view that supports their future business. This does not meed they are necessarily the evil empire but they have a lot to say and we are more likely to hear it first.

If I as an average man in the blogosphere wanted to completely investigate global warming then it would probably take at least a full year full time and about £50,000 and at the end of the year I would have just another book of the truth about global warming. Actually how much could I add to the debate? Only Science truly adds to the debate not commentary.

Of course being presented with all this commentary on global issues is it any wonder that some people are happy to deny the truth. I believe that denialists latch on to the most coherent or in your face argument and then accept supporting information denying any contradictory information. In a way we like to have a definitive opinion on an issue such as global warming. Having a view of "I just don't know" is uncomfortable if you are unable to do a complete review of the evidence or progress towards a definitive opinion.

The media although a force for good in reporting everything also confuses us because it constantly contradicts itself. Look at the basic media interview, whatever the person says the interviewer will ask the opposing question. This leads us to question everything and in a sense not to believe what is in front of us but look for the conspiracy or the hidden agenda. We are actually in a state of mistrust even to the point where we no longer trust ourselves.

To quote a song "All of these problems are in your head... you took something perfect and painted it red."

My Creative boost

One of my mini web projects which is very creative but very unpopular is my creative boost. Basically when you press the boost me! button it shows you a picture which inspires you or makes you think. Each picture is a little amuse bouche for the mind.

Here are some of the ones I have added recently:


Image 77 - What is your escape plan?

Image 76 - Naked

Image 75 - Reverse Pschology

Image 74 - Subliminal advertising

Image 73 - UK General Election Result

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.