Say YES to AV on 6 May 2011

Politicians are running scared, in fear of losing the safety and security of their jobs. If ever the Alternative Voting system (AV) won the referendum on 6 May 2011, politicians would have to start working for the electorate instead of party ideals. It may not be the greatest voting system in the world but it is better for the electorate than the First Past the Post (FPP) that the UK has had for so long. We simply must vote YES to AV. It would be the best move that the electorate could make to prevent systemic sleaze, corruption and the eternal strangle hold of Labservative.

The argument put forward by the No to AV campaign is absurd. I received a leaflet through my door today offering me six reasons why I should vote No.

1. It will produce more coalitions under the Alternative Vote system...

Fantastic! Already the Vote No campaign admits that Labservative will be no more. This means that other, more electoral-friendly parties may come forward with better policies and better politics. So on point one I would vote YES to more coalitions.

2. It is used by only 3 other countries in the world...

Steve Baines (Fairer Votes Oxfordshire) has already done the homework and posted a letter on Newton News saying how widely the AV system is used, including India and the USA. Prime Minister David Cameron was elected as leader of the Conservative Party under the AV system. It is a gross distortion to say it is only used in three countries. And anyway, if it was only used in a single country, the questions would have to be asked: what did it replace? and why did they choose AV over FPP? Point 2 doesn't strike me as having any truth in it.

3. It allows the second or third place candidate to win.

Or to put it another way, it stops the first place candidate with only 30% of the vote going on to represent a constituency. Only a Proportional Representation System like the one I devised (Political Solutions) back in the year 2007 would truly reflect the Democratic wish of the electorate. In the meantime, why should any Government be formed with less than 50% of our vote? It is silly to support the FPP system as a fair system.

4. It will cost the country £250 million

The Spectator ran an article with the figures but it has to be pointed out that £90 million of this is the referendum. So it costs that much for EVERY referendum the country has and why should we not have a say at something so important. Take this figure away and the cost to the country is now £160 million, which admittedly is not such a round and headline grabbing figure. The cost of running the 2010 election probably hit about £100 million anyway so what are we arguing over... £60 million. Considering the billions of pounds the taxpayer handed over to the banks, only to see the banking industry award themselves millions of pounds in bonuses, this is hardly a startling increase. I would rather spend £60 million on a fairer voting system than billions on bankers any day.

5. It means that someones 5th preference is worth the same as your 1st preference.

This is true but until politicians have the guts to allow a proper Proportional Representation System to be used, where almost every voters first preference is worth the same, we have to start somewhere. Under the current FPP system there are many voters first preference that will never count. They will never be represented by their choice of political persuasion, either because it is an extreme minority or, as is much more usually the case, the voter votes for the wrong candidate in a 'safe' constituency. For example, no Conservative voter has ever been represented by a Conservative MP in Hull. This means that Conservative votes in Hull are always worth less than Labour votes. The AV system will not wipe out the safe seats of constituencies where the incumbent candidate already has over 50% of the vote. So even AV will not solve this current injustice and that is where a proper PR system is needed; but greedy politicians would not allow the electorate a real referendum on a range of voting systems. They only allowed us this one choice, which just goes to show how scared they are about giving the electorate real power to decide a voting system for themselves.

6. It will mean that supporter of the BNP and other fringe parties would decide who wins.

What rubbish! First we have to acknowledge that the BNP is represented in the European Parliament because of the PR system used for the European Elections. What politicians must address is why such extreme parties have become popular? If Labservative had done a better job there would most likely be fewer extremist supporters but if no one ever listens to people's concerns it is only natural to gravitate towards more extreme measures. It will be the voters who decide the winner, and yes this may include supporters of extreme parties but they have a democratic right to vote and who is to say that they do not already vote tactically within the current system? This is all just scare mongering.

Well that is the campaign for No to AV. It is hollow and misleading.

Saying YES to AV is not the end of the line for the voting system. Like the rest of the World at this time seeking reform, we need a better voting system. AV is not the end - it is the beginning. I don't particularly like the system but I like FPP even less and this is the limited choice we have been given. IF People vote for AV, the next step will be to encourage MPs to give us the right to campaign towards Proportional Representation, just as we have a type of PR in the European Elections (and that could be reformed even more). The old two party politics has to go if we are to make politics more transparent. Clearly we cannot rely on the present 'No to AV' campaigners to tell us the truth... and one has to ask why? Is it because, like the rest of us, they can no longer count on a job for life. And is because, unlike most of the rest of us, they fear losing the diamond encrusted pension that we could only dream of? Politicians have more to lose under AV than the electorate. Now you should look carefully at who does not support this important reform.

National No Smoking Day

National No Smoking Day in the UK is 9 March 2011 this year. I would advise anyone who hasn’t planned to quit on this day to sort out a plan before quitting. Why? Because just like New Year’s resolutions they rarely have a successful outcome.

If you really want to quit, the best thing you can do on National No Smoking Day is to plan how you are going to quit. If you know someone who wants to quit, they might find this article useful, so please pass on the link.

Planning is important but be careful what advice you accept. In my opinion, the only real advice you can accept is from someone who smoked and has quit successfully. Do not take the advice of companies selling quit smoking products or medical facilities where the people who have set it up have never smoked and – quite frankly – do not know what they are talking about. My book ‘Stop Smoking: Diary Of A Quitter’ would be a useful start to any would be quitter, especially for those people who have tried quitting many times but fail after a few weeks (For many people there is no ‘easy way’).
.

1. Your reason to quit has to be solid.
2. Look at what Nicotine Replacement Therapy is best for you and see if it is free via your GP or smoking cessation service.
3. DO NOT keep a diary of when you smoke; it won’t help you. When you first start to quit smoking the nature of your habit is the least of your worries. The first thing you have to do is break the addiction.
4. DO NOT ask your medical professional for advice on how to quit smoking unless they have had first hand experience of quitting smoking.
5. Join a support group, either online or locally. No one is better qualified to help you than someone who is going through the same experience as you.
6. Buy my book: ‘Stop Smoking: Diary Of A Quitter’ for some amazing advice, support and some humorous distractions while you suffer your nicotine withdrawal pangs.
   .

Even if you only decide that you want to quit on 9 March 2011 it is a step in the right direction. Right now cigarettes are only permitted to continue to exist because of the tax revenue they bring in. As soon as that revenue drops below a certain level, the death knell of the tobacco industry will be heard. Perhaps if you quit smoking now, you will still be alive to see the day it happens.

A Kick In The Pants From David Cameron

David Cameron is trying to get banks to lend more to businesses. Without the banks willingness to help private enterprise there will be nowhere to go for the thousands of public sector workers who are about to lose their jobs. Mr Cameron says that he is not interested in giving the banking sector a 'kick in the pants'.

Let us not forget that it was irresponsible lending by banks, encouraged by the banks, in their frantic attempt to claw as much profit as possible for themselves. It was the investment banks that sold toxic bundles across the world, holding debts that were doomed to go unpaid. Let us not forget that it was greed, greed perpetrated by the banks that promoted excessive risk taking for profit and ever increasing bonuses, that led to the crash and the cuts to jobs and services that this country (UK) is being told by David Cameron that we must endure today. And why should the tax payer endure that alone?

The banking industry has cost people their jobs; income starved individuals who had no culpability in the cause of that loss. There is no bonus for them. And it is now historical fact that a culture of excessive bonuses is the carrot that encourages the very risks that caused the crash in the first place. Allowing it to continue is a travesty.

People who lost their livelihoods after the Deep Water Horizon oil rig disaster were able to claim compensation from the company that caused the loss of their job. Had it been a country responsible for this much devastation there would be calls for reparation. The banking industry has cost this country more than just money. So why does David Cameron think that the banks should be treated any different?

We are not 'all in this together' Mr Cameron. Allowing the banking industry to suffer nothing, while the electorate suffer greatly, demonstrates how you protect the haves at the expense of the have nots. The tax payer is experiencing more than just a kick in the pants. While the war on the tax payer continues, the war on the banking sector must continue also. Otherwise we become impotent in the shadow of the demon that demands we sacrifice with our jobs and our security whatever price is necessary to replenish its insatiable appetite.

Shane Ward: Data Protection? Don't make me laugh.

Shane Ward: Data Protection? Don't make me laugh.: "I received a third letter through my letterbox. Mr Mirwais Jabarkhyl was a complete stranger to me. I have never met him and yet, after 22 y..."

Data Protection? Don't make me laugh.

I received a third letter through my letterbox. Mr Mirwais Jabarkhyl was a complete stranger to me. I have never met him and yet, after 22 years of living blissfully in ignorance of him it appears he lived with us. I never noticed him day after day. He did not have a bed to sleep in. He didn't touch my food. He never used any of my resources. And yet someone somewhere decided he lived there. It reminds me of the following poem.

As I was walking up the stairs
I met a man who wasn't there
He wasn't there again today
I wish that man would go away.

When the first letter arrived, from Barclays Bank. The letter contained a bank statement. As this was the first of such missives I can only assume that Barclays Bank made a mistake and got addresses mixed up. I can't verify that, of course, because now that Experian has (another assumption) Mr Mirwais Jabarkhyl's details linked to my address, only Mr Mirwais Jabarkhyl can request to see it. Why is that? Data protection. So where was data protection when I recieved Mr Mirwais Jabarkhyl's bank statement then? Is this not breaking the law?

Barclays bank were less than civil on the phone. They said to my wife, 'Oh just send the letter back and we'll deal with it'.

My wife replied, 'Hang on a minute. I want to know if someone is trying to steal my identity or has access to my details. I want to know how this Mr Jabarkhyl's details got linked with my address'.

They said, 'don't worry, its probably just an error'.

My wife was not happy with this and asked to speak to the supervisor, who tried to take her down the same route without looking into the problem. My wife said, 'I'm not happy with this. I'd like the address to where I can send a complaint.

The supervisor said, 'What do you want to do that for? I've dealt with your complaint'.

(...!...)?

Taking into account the level of customer service delivered here, it sounds like my wife was asking the bank to walk the length of the country without good reason. In other words my wife was making a fuss over some piddly, infinitesimal minor error. It was a little mistake alright?

Ten days later we got a letter for Mr Mirwais Jabarkhyl from Barclaycard. This was not a good sign and the little mistake was beginning to look like it was going to have significant consequences. I wrote to Barclaycard to tell them in no uncertain terms to take my address and Mr Mirwais Jabarkhyl and put them in separate rooms. He does not live here. He has never lived here. He will never live here and if I catch him and find he gave my address on purpose, he may not live in the future.

Another ten days elapsed before the third letter, which at this point I am now making a big fuss. This time it was a letter for Mr Mirwais Jabarkhyl from a debt collecting agency called Red. It was precisely the sort of thing my wife wanted to avoid but it seemed that somewhere in the administration that linked Mr Jabarkhyl to our address, the credit rating agencies like Experian get the information that bailiffs and tracing agencies use.

I phoned Red in order to find out where they got this information from. They suggested phoning Experian. I phoned Experian. I told them I had no interest in my credit rating but I wanted to know if they were holding Mr Mirwais Jabarkhyl's address as my address and if so, where did they get that misinformation from. They told me that, because I was no Mr Mirwais Jabarkhyl they could not access the personal details because of data protection.

Data protection my foot! I now had details of Mr Mirwais Jabarkhyl's bank account, card account and knowledge that he owned a 3G mobile for which he had not paid £20.93. I can say this because Barclays Bank, Barclaycard and Red Debt Collection Services made Mr Jabarkhyl's personal details public domain the minute they sent the information to the wrong address. Sending his details to my house is a breach of data protection and it appears that the law does not support any rectification of such a breach.

I was frustrated and angry. The guy at Experian was very nice and supportive. He said that he had personal experience of this too and so had thousands of others. In other words it is a significant enough problem that something has to change. In this case it is the law itself that needs amending.

I should be able to approach Experian the letters I should not have received and with a written statement that declares legally that Mr Mirwais Jabarkhyl did not and does not live in my house. Experian will then have the authorisation to access Mr Jabarkhyl's database details, make the necessary amendments with a note to say why it was changed, what evidence was seen, who requested the change and who was responsible for providing the erroneous information in the first place.

Experian can then go to the business that provided the incorrect information and charge them the administration costs for having to go through all that fuss and also to compensate the victim proportionately to the inconvenience and suffering. Right now I am annoyed and have spent an afternoon setting up a campaign to get the law changed. My compensation would be a token payment, lets say about £25 in today's money. However, as soon as I get bailiffs on my doorstep I would expect the payment to be proportionate to the bill the bailiff are seeking plus their charge. Because by the time they add £100 in service charges the demand wrongly placed on my address should now be reflected in the compensation.

I have spoken to a number of people tied up in this whole affair. The debt collection service representative, I believe, summed up the attitude of many businesses that 'it just happens'. Well I'm sorry if I do not subscribe to that sense of apathy but I think it needs to stop just happening.

Consequently I have started a campaign that I hope you will all join to show your support. I have written to my local MP and, for those of you who are already experiencing this little nightmare you are welcome to follow my template on Facebook group 'Change The Data Protection Act' and please don't forget to sign up in support, as I will be able to demonstrate to MPs the strength of feeling we all have when these awful letters just turn up on our doorstep.

So when you attempt to find out who has sent someone else's bill to your address and they say they can't help because of data protection. Maybe we should all just use my group page to publish the letter we received, who it was for, who it was from and how much they owe and then alert the police to the list and who they should prosecute for breach of data protection. Data protection? Don't make me laugh.

Quit Smoking Myths

Quit Smoking Myths

The Soft & Smelly: We're In It Together.

Anyone listening to the Conservative manifesto for the 2010 election should have every reason to feel afraid. They claim that Labour will give you 5 more years of the same old rubbish, which is true. On the other hand the Conservatives will give you 5 years not unlike the 17 years that pushed people towards Labour in the first place.

...and this is the problem, which is so succinctly put together by the Labservative site on youtube, acknowledges that we have been trapped into voting for different versions of the same old rubbish for the last 65 years. This has to stop and, as the Tory party put it in their manifesto, you have to 'do your bit' to get us all off this nonsensical merry-go-round.

What we need is a longer term politics. We need policies that have a broad cross-party consensus that will not only stand the test of time but will also be effective. Short term politics, where one party can abolish the work of another at the next election, is not only damaging but costs money belonging to 'we the people'.

The Liberal Democrats have long been the party who claim that there is an alternative to the other two. The problem they have often had is funding; big business and the rich support Tory and unions support labour. Voters have long supported them in local elections but not in national government. Why? because they do not believe that the Lib Dems are strong enough to govern. Well, maybe they are and maybe they are not but they were, historically, the original opposition to the Tory Whigs. So at the very least, if you want to oust Labour and the Tories in a marginal seat, you could do worse than vote the Lib Dems in.

My preference would be to vote for none of the above, which is where my moral standing remains but some of the smaller parties, like the English National Party, have colluded with UKIP and other fringe parties to form a rather unholy alliance. On the other hand, the more smaller parties that gain seats in government, the more likely we may be able to achieve that long term political policy making I mentioned earlier.

There are just a few weeks to go before we vote in the 2010 general election. The Tory party has said it is time for change and there, at least, they are right. Let's not vote for yet another 5 years of Labservative. It really is time for a change.

...oh, and please do not think that your vote is a wasted one. Your vote is one of the most powerful and cherished weapons that any free society can possess. While I would like to influence how you vote, it is more important that you do vote.