When you start hearing some of those involved talk about their perceived entitlement to the mobile phones and flat screen TVs it makes you wonder if 18 months of government austerity is really the trigger for these “riots”. Wikipedia defines a riot as a “form of civil disorder characterized often by disorganized groups lashing out in a sudden and intense rash of violence against authority, property or people”. That doesn’t quite gel with the image of looters renting vans so they can be more efficient in loading up their swag. They seem to have learnt from the anti-kettling tactics of legitimate protesters – co-ordinate when and where to meet, sweep in en-masses and leave before the Police can respond in force. Only instead of making a political point or staging a demo at some perceived enemy of the people it’s an excuse to loot shops of whatever they hold.

I find it tricky to keep my inner right-wing instincts under check. It’s disturbing when you find yourself starting to agree with the likes of the Mail and bemoaning the sorry state of the UK today. While social divisions and inequality I’m sure have played their parts in forming a generation of youths with the attitudes that can justify these actions to themselves I find myself wondering if it’s a problem that can be solved with a few pounds on benefits here and there. These people aren’t rioting because they are hungry. They obviously feel so disconnected from society as a whole they don’t see or care about the damage they are doing the communities that they love in.

You have to keep a sense of perspective about these things. It is a minority of people involved. Most of our fellow citizens would be more inclined to make a cup of tea for the overworked police officers or coordinate the clean-up with the real community. Social media is a tool which can be used for good as well as the more headline grabbing bad. This country isn’t really going to hell in a hand-basket despite the actions of a small number of disaffected youth. I hope the country remembers that over the next few days and weeks.

Like a large chunk of the country I have been watching the unfolding drama of the News of the Screws dirty demise. However things have been moving so fast anything I posted would probably be out of date by the time I hit publish. It’s a feeling the newspapers have been having for years.

It’s hard not to notice the glee that News Corps many and varied opponents attack this story. I’m not totally unhappy about it, indeed when I want a smile I just have to recall the how much money they burnt with MySpace. However predictions of the death of NI as a leading power behind the Fourth Estate are probably misplaced. The axing of NoW and withdrawal of undertakings with respect to Sky News may have been dramatic events but I suspect the story still has some to go. In fact Murdoch may well divest himself of more of his print empire if it serves his longer term aims. After all the papers are dieing slowly anyway, this could be just the excuse he needs to divest himself of the liabilities.

Still it gives the journalists something to talk about over the summer.

What didn’t get rolled out to Serwotka’s credit was the line that public sector workers are having their pensions slashed to pay for the bank bail outs although I’ve seen this argument being rolled out in many other places.

Pension reform is as inevitable as death and taxes simply because demographics change as our society moves on. People keep living longer and more are spending a greater proportion of their lifetime economically inactive. I’ll still claim the 2/60ths of my final salary pension from Marconi when I eventually retire but since then all my pension arrangements have been contribution based. This means my final pension will be dependant on how much money is in the pot and how long the annuity company thinks I’ll live once I finally retire. Although on the face of its not as generous as a final salary scheme it is a easier to calculate the bounds and therefor more sustainable in the long run. The alternative is for some other party to take on the liabilities for people living longer than the pension contributions made by/for them cover. In the case of private sector final salary schemes it was the companies and/or newer members of the schemes. In the public sector the liability eventually rests with the taxpayer. As a result the private sector has pretty much universally moved on from final salary pension schemes. Dealing with the long term sustainability of public sector pensions has been continually deferred until this government decided to finally grasp the political nettle.

Fundamentally each person has to be responsible for providing for their retirement. This is achieved by paying more money into the pot or getting your employer to do so. If your remuneration (salary+benefits) isn’t up to the task then you can always look for an employer who is more willing to pay a premium for your skills.

I’m not saying that the Union’s shouldn’t be doing their best to look after their members interests. This can even include striking, although currently it seems a little premature as negotiations are still ongoing. However I suspect public sympathy for the strikers will be somewhat diminished as even after all the disruption and forced holidays workers in the public sector will still have more generous pension arrangements than their private sector compatriots could ever dream of.

A lot of hysteria about has been spread about AV. Both sides have made rather exaggerated claims for what it can and can’t do. It makes sense to keep things in perspective. AV is certainly not a proportional system. If it were I might be taking a different position as although proportional representation is desirable I have issues with the systems that ensure it. In fact the results it generates won’t be too far different from what FPTP system generate now, although without polling on 2nd preferences it’s hard to model. The only real change is that candidates who win their constituency races will have to gather a broader range of support, even if they are not first choice of every voter that eventually lends them their vote. It’s a small change I think it makes for a better system. So I urge you if your eligible to vote in tomorrows referendum to vote Yes to AV.

Item one for the prosecution was the “No to AV” campaigns leaflet that arrived on my doorstep claiming that they believed in “One Person, One Vote”. The implication of which was the proposed AV system somehow gave some people more votes than others. This is of course completely distorting the mechanism which AV follows. Anyone voting under AV can only lend their vote to one candidate at a time, there is never a situation where their vote is counted for another candidate at the same time.

There have been many attempts in the media to explain the proposed system using various metaphors and graphic devices. I’m beginning to think this plurality of explanations is part of the reason the public are so confused about how the system works in practise. At the risk of increasing the confusion I’ve come up with my own preferred way of explaining the system.

Imagine the candidates all stand in a playground with 100 voters. When the vote is called everyone forms a line behind their preferred candidate. Assuming that there are not more than 50 people stood behind one candidate the candidate with the least number of supporters is withdrawn from the race and their supporters go and choose who they wish to support now. Notice crucially that the number of voters (and hence votes) being counted has not changed. The process is repeated until more than 50 people are stood behind one of the candidates. So while it’s true that the final winning candidate might have not been in the lead in the first round notice how they now have the votes of more than 50% of the voters involved. Granted they may not be the first preference of everyone but more voters would prefer them to represent them than any other candidate, including the candidate that might have won under First past the Post with only 29.4% of the vote. While under the old system the views of 70% of voters are disregarded the proposed AV system would mean at least 50% of the electors have had a say in their representative.

As you may be able to guess I’ll be voting “Yes to AV” on May the 5th. I sincerely hope you will to but even if you won’t please do go to the polls on May the 5th. This is one vote that really will be decided by a majority.

EDIT TO ADD: John very correctly points out that the system I described is a run-off. The metaphor would be correct if the decisions about which candidate people move to were decided before the results were known. This does impact the way people vote (there is still scope to vote tactically in AV, though it’s fairly contrived). However the main intention of the description was to show that no-one exercises more than one vote.

This for me is the principle reason I favour the proposed Alternative Vote which will be the subject of a referendum on the 5th of May.

Political parties are not one size fits all stereotypes – all of the main parties have a fairly broad coalition of views. Knowing the preference voting order of the voters will give a much greater insight into the nature of the electorate which can only be a good thing. We will no longer assume that all Tory voters are Eurosceptic social conservatives or supporting the LibDems implies you are a Labour refugee or the Labour party draws all it support from militant union membership. And by raising the bar an MP has to reach they will have to broaden their base and not just rely on there being slightly more of one set of voters than the other platforms.

I have to say so far neither of the campaigning groups has particularly impressed me although the No to AV campaign do seem to be edging ahead in the negative campaigning. However the electoral commission does do a good neutral booklet that explains how AV works without any spin either way. It’s worth a read.

While I hope I’ve done my bit to convince you of the benefits of voting yes (feel free to comment if you want debate!) I do urge everyone who has the right to actually turn up and make their views known. These decisions are only made by those who turn up and if turnout is low it will be a long time before your views on the electoral system are canvassed again.

Watching events unfold in Egypt and the wider Arab world you would think the ability to organise and co-ordinate offered by modern communications mean the days of Middle Eastern dictatorships are numbered. However I’m not so sure. While it’s true that more people than ever have the ability to access the Internet and mobile communications they are networks that are controllable for the most part. There are always ways around these blocks but by denying it to the majority it severely hampers peoples ability to co-ordinate. They certainly don’t have anything near the facilities available to them that our Students did during the recent student fees protests. I hope I’m wrong and the darknets are in place and cobbled together networks are playing their part in helping people organise.

What is clear that the only people that can do anything about it are those inside the affected countries. Western governments can only offer warm words with the appropriate diplomatic hedging just in case the dictators manage to hang onto power for the time being. The rest of us just get to watch.

It seems that silly season exists over the winter months as well as the summer.

As far as I can see it there are a number of approaches to the problem of financing higher education. Which would you choose?

1. Reduce student numbers

No one seems to be arguing for this. The general consensus seems to be having a large percentage of undergraduates is good for the economy generally.

2. Increase general taxation

It would have to be by a fair bit to cover the costs. The current funding gap is £4.2bn, so that would around 4p in the pound on the basic rate of tax. You’ll also be asking the 50% of the population that don’t go to university to pay more taxes so the other 50% can. Personally if I had a spare £4.2bn to spend on education I’d be targeting it at primary and secondary education to ensure more kids come out of school able to read and write to a reasonable degree.

3. Introduce a graduate tax

This seems to be the (now) preferred option of Labour. I don’t like the idea of permanently penalising someone for being educated at Uni. Plus how does that affect areas which require a degree (nursing, teachers) but traditionally attracts lower pay? What happens if students en-mass then decide they would rather move to country which treats people on the same income the same for tax purposes?

4. The proposed increase in fees and adjustment to loan system.

I personally think this is the way forward. It doesn’t penalise the low paid as you have to reach a minimum level before paying back. The debt is a bounded so your not paying back for ever. The variable interest rates based on income adds a progressive edge to it, ensuring the better off shoulder more of the burden. Unlike a graduate tax it’s bounded so once you’ve paid it off your done. And despite all that’s been said it’s not the same as a mortgage, if your income drops bellow the qualifying level you can postpone payments.

A lot has been made of the opprobrium being heaped on the Lib-Dems for their volte-face. It’s totally justified but it’s the LD’s own fault for doing what they always do which is promising sunshine and roses while knowing they won’t have to make good on their promises. Having joined the coalition they have learnt the hard way, they can repent at leisure.

Still my main point stands, you can complain all you like but at some point you need to suggest what you would do to solve the problem.

I’m sure there will be a number of stories about individual line items that get queried, something ministers want to happen. I’m hoping people will in general take a more holistic view of what’s being provided. It won’t benefit anyone if we tie up banks of expensive civil servants answering FOI requests to justify and contextualise individual items in the data set. However I’m hoping there will be some serious analysis on the trends of spending as well as leaving people more informed of what government actually does.

Personally I’m looking forward to next year when all contracts over 25,000 will be published. That should really make for some interesting reading.