(Anti-)Social Activity

How thin is the veneer of civilisation.  Although ‘Public disorder’ may be the technical term in the UK, this is not the public being disorderly … it’s disaffected and opportunistic young people who have poor education, no jobs, poor prospects, and decreasing support services.  This is not sympathy – I hope the police have the army behind them tonight with water cannon and tear gas – I’m just observing the facts.  What we want to see now tactically is the Duggan family disavowing the looting and criminal damage, news that CCTV has identified 100s of people causing damage, and a firm and highly visible hand from government to co-ordinate the police, army and emergency services.  We also want the media on the ground (not just in helicopters) finding out what the ‘rioters’ are trying to achieve – my guess is that they have no idea beyond living out some of their computer games and stealing things. 

The strategy should include Twitter & Facebook implementing a filter or trace for messages inciting disorder, and blocking and reporting them – just because it’s difficult doesn’t mean they shouldn’t try (and even over-report their success).  The strategy also crucially needs to defuse and isolate the drivers for this disorder; public opinion doesn’t need managing, that’s already firmly against what is happening.  There has to be a way of channelling the energy of these people into a force for good; for themselves, their communities and the country.  This is a huge social change task, and the government should start it today with a top priority, and fund it by extracting money from the financial institutions, and their high-bonus employees, who played a large part in causing the problems we have today where economic disruption causes austerity measures that exacerbate social problems.

Investors’ (small) change strategy

All news reports and commentary are using the generic term ‘investors’ when referring to those who buy and sell, and by their actions raise or lower the price of financial instruments.  Whilst I appreciate the need for brevity and readability, it would be helpful to break out what is meant by ‘investors’ in terms of their ability to influence the markets.  If you take the view that society (democratic or otherwise) needs to resolve the economic crisis in the short term, and surely that is hard to argue against, then it would be helpful for society to have a clearer understanding of the political and economic pressures and power-plays at work.

So, WHAT I’D LIKE TO KNOW from the knowledgeable likes of Robert Peston are two things:  1.  what are the comparative market-moving powers of the following sub-divisions under the general heading of ‘investors’:  pension funds;  hedge funds;  other financial institutional funds;  institutions’ own money (proprietary trading);  the modest private investor (like me) who might adjust their portfolio (I’m not, I’m diversified, I sit tight) … and  2.  what are the comparative market-moving powers of the different types of financial instruments:  fixed interest (gilts & bonds);  forex;  commodities;  shares;  derivatives;  synthetics.

When those in (some semblance of) control of the politics and the economics, and those who commentate, show us they truly understand the forces in play, then perhaps we can all contribute to a consistent and transparent set of tactics and strategies to change the current self-destructive cycle of artificial growth and profit.  (You might want to look at the ‘Prosperity Without Growth’ book by Tim Jackson.  The way we, the private investor and general public, can contribute is both through the democratic process of election (a somewhat flawed and long-term change strategy, but in the absence of benevolent dictatorship it’s our least-worst model for now), and through a barrage of informed and constructive commentary of our own (more on this change strategy later).

For instance, I have a scenario in my mind, that the investment banks are driving the pressure on government debt in the Euro-zone to force the ECB to in effect print money so that they can cream off some of that money into their institutional pockets.  Paranoid? Perhaps.  Possible?  Definitely.

Sports earnings - are they sporting?

Salaries of footballers is an obscenity when compared with the survival levels of many of our top athletes.  It’s all about physical competition, which comes down to the unpleasant basics of human nature or the human condition.  It’s so difficult to unpick this once it is established – the same is true for Grand Prix drivers.  A significant factor is sponsorship, which of course is directly connected to the extent of media coverage.  It’s also a question of how much money the fans are prepared to pay.

Numerous Grand Prix drivers have been heard to say that they don’t do it for the money, they do it to compete, to win.  Well, fine – to be at the top of their sport they must be highly driven people  (yes, I know, they always do the driving), prepared to take considerable risks when they already have more money than they need.  Yet I don’t hear any of them saying “it’s ok, spend my salary on the car so we can go faster for longer”.  Being a driven person usually goes hand in hand with a large ego, and one of the many factors that feeds an ego is how much money you earn.

So how to re-balance and provide funding for the less physically competitive, less glamorous, less televisual sports?  I suggest a levy on racing car drivers and footballers who earn more than a certain amount, the money going to their country’s national sporting body to be added to the current meagre central funds.

Random Greenwich

I don't mean Greenwich is random ... it's me!  I'm just so pleased that I got down to the river (all of 150 yds from the house) at the right time to see The World (liner of liners) leaving on the next leg of its round-the-world journey ...

... and if you fancy the trip, check out the mind-blowing itinerary here
http://www.aboardtheworld.com/sites/default/files/itinerary2011.pdf

They will be going through pirate territory, but I'm guessing they are not worried!


Now although I love the sea and the coast, I'm not sure I could spend a year on board The World, with only 199 other people.  That's a very small village with no history - wierd!

Not AV - conspiracy or ...

So the AV vote was a damp squib, everyone knew it would be a 'No' from days before the vote.  It just didn't feel like a real, informed debate in the country.  Both Campaigns were an insult to most people's intelligence.

I find it hard to understand how inept the Yes Campaign was ... unless they were somehow nobbled (subverted, threatened) and weren't even trying to win.  Yet depressingly cock-up is 99 times more likely than conspiracy.

To me the argument was simple: with an increasingly educated populace and increasingly pervasive media communication, there are bound to be more shades of opinion, more diversity in views, and more serious candidates.  Under FPTP this means the winning candidate will increasingly be elected by a minority.  Under AV the winning candidate will have been the preference, at some level, of more than 50% of the voters, and this is surely closer to democracy.

So that's it on politics from me for a while, I'll be moving on to science, sailing, music and whatever else floats my boat.

AV or not AV - it's all in the Boundaries

This is an interesting section on p8 of the Electoral Commission leaflet that arrived yesterday:
---
If more people vote ‘yes’ than ‘no’, when will we start using the ‘alternative vote’ system? 
The ‘alternative vote’ system will be used after a review of the boundaries of the area that each MP represents (known as their constituency) is completed. This is due to happen between 2011 and 2013. The review will happen regardless of the outcome of this referendum. 
At the end of the review, the UK Parliament will vote on implementing the new boundaries. If the new boundaries are implemented, the ‘alternative vote’ system will be used for all future elections to the House of Commons.
---
The underlining is mine ... it seems that an electors' vote in favour of AV can be ignored if the House of Commons decides they do not want to change the rules for setting constituency boundaries ... and from my limited understanding they might well not.  I have yet to find an explanation for this linkage, though political manoeuvring comes to my skeptical mind.  O, what a blunt instrument is democracy. 

Universal energy - going down or up?

Ben Miller on TV back in Jan laboriously (re-)discovered his physics basics about temperature meaning & measurement:

• tea cools and heats surroundings, you don’t get the reverse spontaneously i.e. without applying energy
• the universe gradually all becomes the same temp
• you never lose energy, it just changes
• so Big Bang energy will eventually be evenly spread throughout universe
• this is entropy

However now we're told that the expansion of the universe is still speeding up ... hmm, so the universe as a cup of tea is getting hotter, in which case energy must be being applied  from outside ... now would that be:

• a rather large life-form with a blow-torch
• God's breath
• or a much bigger, hotter universe cooling down

I know this doesn't help with today's wars & famines, it's just occasionally interesting to let the mind wander.  Any thoughts 'on a postcard' always welcome.

Starter for 10

Finally, on this auspicious Friday, 1st April (no fooling), I have created a place to air my occasional observations and suggestions to the world at large.


No doubt for some time I will be speaking with no-one listening ... if you are 'listening', do let me know.


At least the writing of my eclectic thoughts and sometimes stupid questions (the best sort),  will have a calming, even cathartic, effect on me.


The thought of someone responding is hugely exciting, however I bate not my breath and instead wait in patience.


It starts here ...