Parliament goes back to work tomorrow. There is a second reading for voting and parliamentary reform bill better known as the referendum bill.
I wanted to blog so you didn't think i was dead. I have a few blog ideas, i'm going to post about in coming days. First there is Blair's memoirs, why i'm a Liberal Democrat and a review of a Lib Dem members ebook entitled "Make Democracy Work" published on scribd. http://www.scribd.com/doc/34419223/A-MDW-July-2010
I have just read Michael Gove's new plans for an English Baccalaureate of a minimum 5 GCSE subjects so that English students have a broad knowledge. The problem isn't what subjects the English are taking, it is the exams and the teachers themselves. In England, there is a parliament that thinks the best way to educate students is to test, test, test. That is not the way you get the best results with kids, you need to inspire the kids to learn and you don't do that with a test every few weeks.
In Scotland, we take 7 or 8 Standard Grades or Intermediate 1 or 2s and then progress to take 5 Highers, we do have to take English, Maths, a language and a social science at Standard Grade and we had to take English at Higher, yet, we do not have tests every few weeks.
The problem with education in the whole of the UK is our teachers, teachers need to inspire kids, whilst i may not be seen as the best person to talk about the problem with state school education as i had the fortune or unfortunate ability to go to private school but even at private school, there were an awful lot of awful teachers.
My second year Maths teacher was awful but my 3rd/4th year teacher was brilliant. My 1st year history teacher was again awful, i could see that the subject was interesting but it was being taught by someone with a monotone subject and who was obviously bored with the content after having taught it for 20+ years. We need a good standard of teachers in place as well as a good testing and examinations of the students themselves.
Sunday, September 05, 2010
Friday, August 20, 2010
Labour and Devolution!
Now most people would tout the devolution of powers to Scotland, Wales and NI as one of Labour's biggest achievements in government.
As much as i think it is progressive to give powers back to people, it is also regressive as it splits the country up.
Even more importantly was how foolish it was to try and build a stronger United Kingdom without addressing the strength of the laws that made it.
To me the Act of Union 1707 and the Laws in Wales Acts 1535-1542 because of the lack of democracy back then aren't democratically strong. As they are the biggest constitutional changes in our history (they are the laws that make up the foundation of our United Kingdom) they need also to be the strongest.
Yet they are the weakest, a definition in law as to what is democratically valid with regards to constitutional change and to make sure that it applies to the whole constitution because we want everything to be democratically valid is enough to invalidate the Act of Union 1707 and Laws in Wales Acts 1535-1542. That would make Scotland, England and Wales independent as if the union never happened.
We actually (thanks to Labour) might have a government willing to put this into the constitution making sure that a Prime Minister cannot hand powers over to Europe or make any other constitutional change without the blessing of the people.
Now you don't build your house on weak foundations, so why would you try and build your country on weak foundations?
Looking around the country, i see the Scottish parliament wanting more powers, the Welsh Assembly wanting more powers, England wants its own parliament, there is growing want for English independence, Cornwall wants its own parliament. This doesn't sound like a strong UK.
I strongly believe we need to re-negiotiate the union and how we actually shape our country with a written constitution written by the people not the politicians.
As much as i think it is progressive to give powers back to people, it is also regressive as it splits the country up.
Even more importantly was how foolish it was to try and build a stronger United Kingdom without addressing the strength of the laws that made it.
To me the Act of Union 1707 and the Laws in Wales Acts 1535-1542 because of the lack of democracy back then aren't democratically strong. As they are the biggest constitutional changes in our history (they are the laws that make up the foundation of our United Kingdom) they need also to be the strongest.
Yet they are the weakest, a definition in law as to what is democratically valid with regards to constitutional change and to make sure that it applies to the whole constitution because we want everything to be democratically valid is enough to invalidate the Act of Union 1707 and Laws in Wales Acts 1535-1542. That would make Scotland, England and Wales independent as if the union never happened.
We actually (thanks to Labour) might have a government willing to put this into the constitution making sure that a Prime Minister cannot hand powers over to Europe or make any other constitutional change without the blessing of the people.
Now you don't build your house on weak foundations, so why would you try and build your country on weak foundations?
Looking around the country, i see the Scottish parliament wanting more powers, the Welsh Assembly wanting more powers, England wants its own parliament, there is growing want for English independence, Cornwall wants its own parliament. This doesn't sound like a strong UK.
I strongly believe we need to re-negiotiate the union and how we actually shape our country with a written constitution written by the people not the politicians.
Ed Miliband Q&A!
Just saw Labour leader contender Ed Miliband in Glasgow doing a Q&A session.
He did well on most things like housing and jobs, the NHS and women in top level of politics - not sure if they were what i would do. I have to say i'm still not convinced by Labour's argument on cuts - cuts are necessary but we also need to tax the banks and tax the rich a little bit more.
Ed kept emphasising we need to build a more equal and just society and this is something he has said throughout this campaign. I agree 100% with that as well as helping the less well off but none of that matters if our democratic system is riddled with inequality. Labour aren't interested in doing anything about it.
The inequality in our democracy is the most important issue in our country today because our democracy is how we shape our country. The health of our democracy is always going to be the most important issue because it shapes our economy, our jobs, our health care, our education.
No matter where you live in the UK, your vote must count. The trouble is it doesn't and not just because we have unequal sized constituencies, but because even within constituencies, votes count more.
In my constituency of Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock, if you live in Carrick and Cumnock your vote counts more. Ayr is far more Conservative and Carrick and Cumnock more Labour. There is even a statue of Keir Hardie in Cumnock as he lived there for a while so of course they are going to vote Labour even if the Labour candidate is absolutely rubbish, which means if you vote in Ayr your vote doesn't actually count. Where is Labour when it comes to fighting that inequality? No where.
Now Labour are opposing the AV referendum bill because its linked with a boundary review and they are shrieking that the Tories are "gerrymandering" the constituencies in their favour. The "gerrymandering" i.e. making the constituencies more equal is gerrymandering them back so they are actually a little fairer just because it doesn't favour them they are opposing it. This is old politics where parties do what is best for the party and not for the country and i'm sick and tired of it. Charles Kennedy's constituency was mentioned and the fact they the coalition have put a geographical limit on the size of what the largest constituency can be which is the size of Charles Kennedy's seat. To be honest it is a perfectly reasonable argument because otherwise MPs will be asking for helicopters to get around their constituency. Can Labour really not remember the expenses scandal that was only last year?
AV is still undemocratic because it leaves 49.9999% of voters disenfranchised. it doesn't retain the MP-constituency link because there is no link. I'd have a link with my MP if i actually elected them or if i even liked them. I hate my MP and she'd still get in under AV. I would still hate her. I would still think she is a useless constituency MP. I don't have the ability to vote for another Labour candidate or get anyone else elected. That is what is wrong with AV and FPTP. Open List STV actually means parties put up more candidates than they need to and so the electorate have a wider range of choice between candidates of parties and still make parties accountable and you can actually contribute to at least one person getting elected restoring an MP constituency link. I'll still vote for AV in the referendum because i don't trust Labour or the Tories to actually realise we are rejecting AV and not rejecting electoral reform. Labour and Tories will use a "No" vote in the referendum to say the public don't want reform when that is not the question being asked. We are being asked do you want this undemocratic system or this potentially worse undemocratic system. Lets not forget that (according to simulation) under AV in 2005, that Labour would have gotten a bigger majority in parliament with the same 35.5% of the vote and 21.6% of the electorate behind them. That is 1 in 5 people voting for Labour, to me that is not democracy, that is not an equal or just society. To me that is oppression of views and opinions, that is dictatorship.
If you want to read more about my views on democracy, read my submission to the Political and Constitution Reform committee, Labour and Social Democracy, Political Reform or my views on Labour Leadership election, Labour leader contenders views on democracy
He did well on most things like housing and jobs, the NHS and women in top level of politics - not sure if they were what i would do. I have to say i'm still not convinced by Labour's argument on cuts - cuts are necessary but we also need to tax the banks and tax the rich a little bit more.
Ed kept emphasising we need to build a more equal and just society and this is something he has said throughout this campaign. I agree 100% with that as well as helping the less well off but none of that matters if our democratic system is riddled with inequality. Labour aren't interested in doing anything about it.
The inequality in our democracy is the most important issue in our country today because our democracy is how we shape our country. The health of our democracy is always going to be the most important issue because it shapes our economy, our jobs, our health care, our education.
No matter where you live in the UK, your vote must count. The trouble is it doesn't and not just because we have unequal sized constituencies, but because even within constituencies, votes count more.
In my constituency of Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock, if you live in Carrick and Cumnock your vote counts more. Ayr is far more Conservative and Carrick and Cumnock more Labour. There is even a statue of Keir Hardie in Cumnock as he lived there for a while so of course they are going to vote Labour even if the Labour candidate is absolutely rubbish, which means if you vote in Ayr your vote doesn't actually count. Where is Labour when it comes to fighting that inequality? No where.
Now Labour are opposing the AV referendum bill because its linked with a boundary review and they are shrieking that the Tories are "gerrymandering" the constituencies in their favour. The "gerrymandering" i.e. making the constituencies more equal is gerrymandering them back so they are actually a little fairer just because it doesn't favour them they are opposing it. This is old politics where parties do what is best for the party and not for the country and i'm sick and tired of it. Charles Kennedy's constituency was mentioned and the fact they the coalition have put a geographical limit on the size of what the largest constituency can be which is the size of Charles Kennedy's seat. To be honest it is a perfectly reasonable argument because otherwise MPs will be asking for helicopters to get around their constituency. Can Labour really not remember the expenses scandal that was only last year?
AV is still undemocratic because it leaves 49.9999% of voters disenfranchised. it doesn't retain the MP-constituency link because there is no link. I'd have a link with my MP if i actually elected them or if i even liked them. I hate my MP and she'd still get in under AV. I would still hate her. I would still think she is a useless constituency MP. I don't have the ability to vote for another Labour candidate or get anyone else elected. That is what is wrong with AV and FPTP. Open List STV actually means parties put up more candidates than they need to and so the electorate have a wider range of choice between candidates of parties and still make parties accountable and you can actually contribute to at least one person getting elected restoring an MP constituency link. I'll still vote for AV in the referendum because i don't trust Labour or the Tories to actually realise we are rejecting AV and not rejecting electoral reform. Labour and Tories will use a "No" vote in the referendum to say the public don't want reform when that is not the question being asked. We are being asked do you want this undemocratic system or this potentially worse undemocratic system. Lets not forget that (according to simulation) under AV in 2005, that Labour would have gotten a bigger majority in parliament with the same 35.5% of the vote and 21.6% of the electorate behind them. That is 1 in 5 people voting for Labour, to me that is not democracy, that is not an equal or just society. To me that is oppression of views and opinions, that is dictatorship.
If you want to read more about my views on democracy, read my submission to the Political and Constitution Reform committee, Labour and Social Democracy, Political Reform or my views on Labour Leadership election, Labour leader contenders views on democracy
Saturday, July 31, 2010
Political & Constitutional Reform Committee!
So i wrote to PCRC on Monday and they've agreed to publish my evidence which can be found here. Mine is the last bit of evidence on that page.
When the clerk for the committee e-mailed me saying the committee had agreed to publish my views on the matter, he also said that the committee chair, Graham Allen had specifically told him that he was impressed with what i had written.
Now Graham Allen is completely new to me as are most politicians but from what I've seen of him, i really like him as a person and I would trust him to make decisions on my behalf if he were my MP. I've seen his voting record and whilst i don't agree with all of them, i still respect him and would vote for him if he was a candidate in my constituency.
To me, this shows what i said in my evidence that voting for a candidate isn't party based as my MP, Sandra Osborne are from the same party but i would vote for one to be my MP but i wouldn't the other. The problem in our democracy, if you like a party, you have to take the candidate they offer which i think is wrong.
I'm interested in reading their report released on Monday, the 2nd of August.
When the clerk for the committee e-mailed me saying the committee had agreed to publish my views on the matter, he also said that the committee chair, Graham Allen had specifically told him that he was impressed with what i had written.
Now Graham Allen is completely new to me as are most politicians but from what I've seen of him, i really like him as a person and I would trust him to make decisions on my behalf if he were my MP. I've seen his voting record and whilst i don't agree with all of them, i still respect him and would vote for him if he was a candidate in my constituency.
To me, this shows what i said in my evidence that voting for a candidate isn't party based as my MP, Sandra Osborne are from the same party but i would vote for one to be my MP but i wouldn't the other. The problem in our democracy, if you like a party, you have to take the candidate they offer which i think is wrong.
I'm interested in reading their report released on Monday, the 2nd of August.
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
Spot the Difference!
Can any Labour MP or any Labour member or even any member of the public explain something to me about Labour and the Iraq War. What makes Labour and Blair/Brown any different from Saddam Hussein. As of 2003 when we went to war:
Hussein Labour
Socialist Social Democrats
20% support in Iraq 24.2% support in Britain
WMD WMD (Trident)
What is actually different between these two administrations?
Hussein Labour
Socialist Social Democrats
20% support in Iraq 24.2% support in Britain
WMD WMD (Trident)
What is actually different between these two administrations?
Sunday, July 25, 2010
Labour and Social Democracy.
I've been following the labour leadership contest and i read David Miliband's Keir Hardie Lecture and thought that that is a Labour party i could join, i could be part of.
My one problem with Labour and social democrats, socialists, and democratic socialists is that they say they believe in these movements and these views but they like First-Past-the-Post electoral system which is the most undemocratic, unfair system in the world.
Tony Blair defined the Labour party as "The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party. It believes that by the strength of our common endeavour we achieve more than we achieve alone, so as to create for each of us the means to realise our true potential and for all of us a community in which power, wealth and opportunity are in the hands of the many, not the few, where the rights we enjoy reflect the duties we owe, and where we live together, freely, in a spirit of solidarity, tolerance and respect."
If you believe that you should be one of the democratic socialists, social democrats and socialists that make up the Labour party.
Look at the 97, 01 and 05 election stats for the election of a labour government and think if they represent Labour values of democracy, of tolerance, of respect.
% electorate % vote % seats
1997 30.8 43.2 63.4
2001 24.2 40.7 62.5
2005 21.6 35.3 55.2
I, as someone who wants a democracy, can't say that those numbers are fair. I see the complete unfairness in those numbers. The problem i have with Labour is that they think those numbers are fair. My Labour MP likes FPTP, she thinks it fair to take away 20% of people's vote, she thinks its fair to take away the voice and the vote of 20% of people who voted - for what power.
Andy Burnham loves these numbers, he wants to see those kind of numbers for the rest of the century, in fact i think he would love to see labour get 30% of the vote and 60% of the seats. My problem with Labour is every single leadership contender actually condones these and wants to see them again. If you're a Labour member/supporter and like those numbers then i'm sorry but you've just sold out your principles for power. Those numbers are not tolerating 20% of the views that you have ignored and you're not respecting those 20% of voters who voted for someone else.
Labour keep hounding Nick Clegg for selling out, he made a difficult decision. He had to compromise with someone. Labour sold out their social democratic principles and they didn't even need to compromise.
If you believe in Labour values, then you have to support proportional representation. AV maybe a step in providing that but it is still unfair and undemocratic.
My one problem with Labour and social democrats, socialists, and democratic socialists is that they say they believe in these movements and these views but they like First-Past-the-Post electoral system which is the most undemocratic, unfair system in the world.
Tony Blair defined the Labour party as "The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party. It believes that by the strength of our common endeavour we achieve more than we achieve alone, so as to create for each of us the means to realise our true potential and for all of us a community in which power, wealth and opportunity are in the hands of the many, not the few, where the rights we enjoy reflect the duties we owe, and where we live together, freely, in a spirit of solidarity, tolerance and respect."
If you believe that you should be one of the democratic socialists, social democrats and socialists that make up the Labour party.
Look at the 97, 01 and 05 election stats for the election of a labour government and think if they represent Labour values of democracy, of tolerance, of respect.
% electorate % vote % seats
1997 30.8 43.2 63.4
2001 24.2 40.7 62.5
2005 21.6 35.3 55.2
I, as someone who wants a democracy, can't say that those numbers are fair. I see the complete unfairness in those numbers. The problem i have with Labour is that they think those numbers are fair. My Labour MP likes FPTP, she thinks it fair to take away 20% of people's vote, she thinks its fair to take away the voice and the vote of 20% of people who voted - for what power.
Andy Burnham loves these numbers, he wants to see those kind of numbers for the rest of the century, in fact i think he would love to see labour get 30% of the vote and 60% of the seats. My problem with Labour is every single leadership contender actually condones these and wants to see them again. If you're a Labour member/supporter and like those numbers then i'm sorry but you've just sold out your principles for power. Those numbers are not tolerating 20% of the views that you have ignored and you're not respecting those 20% of voters who voted for someone else.
Labour keep hounding Nick Clegg for selling out, he made a difficult decision. He had to compromise with someone. Labour sold out their social democratic principles and they didn't even need to compromise.
If you believe in Labour values, then you have to support proportional representation. AV maybe a step in providing that but it is still unfair and undemocratic.
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
AV Campaign posters!
Just did a couple of AV campaign posters seeing as the "No" campaign is under way with posters. See here.
My posters for the "Yes" campaign. Very simple but powerful, i hope.
Let me know what you think by leaving a comment below.
UPDATE: I did a second version of the second poster, let me know which one you think is better.
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
Who wins?
The fundamental problem with democracy and elections is the idea that you "win" an election.
You don't "win" an election. Elections are not for winning. They are for getting your voice heard so that the community you want to see can be allowed to happen via legislation.
What's even more wrong about elections in the UK is that the majority of the population don't "win" either the candidate they want to represent or the government they want representing them. No one really wins on election day. The only way we can all win is by having a fair system where our voice is heard just as loudly as the person at the other end of the country, where the problems facing us in our community are heard just as loudly as the problems that face the bigger communities. Every person and every community matters.
Watching the election coverage and coverage of the labour leadership, i find it really hard to take that people talk about winning when the point isn't about winning and its not about losing. You can look at it that way if you like, but then you're the fool. The point is to be heard.
For too long now, we have had politicians trying to "win" an election, trying to "win" power, trying to "win" the keys to number 10. Its not about that.
I'm afraid, if we can't see that and if politicians can't see that then the country loses and if in every country in the world concentrate on "winning" an election well then the world loses. We can't tackle our problems, unless we realise this.
You don't "win" an election. Elections are not for winning. They are for getting your voice heard so that the community you want to see can be allowed to happen via legislation.
What's even more wrong about elections in the UK is that the majority of the population don't "win" either the candidate they want to represent or the government they want representing them. No one really wins on election day. The only way we can all win is by having a fair system where our voice is heard just as loudly as the person at the other end of the country, where the problems facing us in our community are heard just as loudly as the problems that face the bigger communities. Every person and every community matters.
Watching the election coverage and coverage of the labour leadership, i find it really hard to take that people talk about winning when the point isn't about winning and its not about losing. You can look at it that way if you like, but then you're the fool. The point is to be heard.
For too long now, we have had politicians trying to "win" an election, trying to "win" power, trying to "win" the keys to number 10. Its not about that.
I'm afraid, if we can't see that and if politicians can't see that then the country loses and if in every country in the world concentrate on "winning" an election well then the world loses. We can't tackle our problems, unless we realise this.
Monday, June 14, 2010
Andy, Andy, Andy!
NewStatesman has just put up part 11 of the Labour leadership hustings that they hosted.
In this part, the candidates are asked whether they would support AV in the coming referendum, would they actively try and campaign for a Yes vote in the referendum and whether they would support a more proportional electoral system.
Andy stated that the recent election highlighted the flaws in the system. Personally, i think every election shows the flaws, i mean c'mon on a party that gets a minority of the vote gets a majority of the representation, that makes a joke out of democracy. Andy then goes on to say that they should stop and think whether it is in the best interest of the Labour party. Of course he would say that he's trying to lead the party but it stinks of the same old politics that people are sick and tired of. We want the political parties to stop thinking in terms of party interest and start thinking in terms of the national interest. IMO, no party should ever have a majority unless the electorate want them to have a majority and in the majority of cases that isn't the case.
I don't want a government doing what is best for their party and their party alone, imo that is the quickest way to bring the country to a standstill. I want a party that can put aside party interests and do what is in the national interest and what is in the interest of democracy of this country and fighting for every single person in this country whether they voted for the party or not.
Diane made a good point about closed list systems that they put the power into party leaders hands to choose who goes into parliament and not the people who choose who they want to represent them. The thing is not all forms of PR are like this. STV allows a party to nominate several candidates for a seat so you can choose the candidate as well as the party. There is more power in the hands of the people in that system. She also made a case that keeps getting mentioned about PR in that she doesn't want to destroy the MP-constituency link but for me i would have more of a link with my MP if i knew i had helped to get them elected and if they shared my views about which direction the country should be heading in. I, personally don't like my MP, i would never vote for her regardless of party yet still i am stuck with her because 47% of my constituency vote for her. For me the MP-constituency link would be strengthened by having someone i actually voted for rather than becoming increasing disenfranchised with politics because my voice is never heard and will never be heard under the current system.
David made the same MP-constituency link argument, he also made the point of having 50% of people voting for a candidate/party/pm under AV as a good thing. IMO, this is not great. What David M is assuming is that the 47% of people who vote Labour in my constituency support every single policy and that the other 3% that she would presumably easily get would support most of them. This is an entirely wrong assumption. Most people do not support all the policies of one party and the other 3% like even less of the policies of the labour party. The only way imo opinion to best represent the opinions of the people and to create a strong MP-constituency link is to allow more people to represent an area. I'm more likely to go to someone that represents my views or who i voted for than someone i didn't and i think the majority of the country would agree with me on that which means the current 1 MP per constituency is a very weak link.
Ed M made the point that there should be 50% of women in the shadow cabinet. I don't disagree with this but i don't think you should absolutely say there HAS to be 50% of women but it should be based on merit and not just whether they wear a skirt. There needs to be something to get more women into cabinet or shadow cabinet but i don't think discrimination is the best way to go about it.
Ed B made the point of giving small extremist parties power but the only reason they are voting for those parties is because they are so disenfranchised from politics that they almost may as well. Their vote doesn't count. They only vote for these extremist parties to try and get some change which the main parties seem allergic to.
I think all candidates failed massively on this topic but none more so than Andy Burnham who went back to old politics in saying he would put the party before the country but that is unacceptable in any leader not just of a party but as potential leader of the country that is certainly not on.
For my fuller thoughts on the labour leadership - click here.
In this part, the candidates are asked whether they would support AV in the coming referendum, would they actively try and campaign for a Yes vote in the referendum and whether they would support a more proportional electoral system.
Andy stated that the recent election highlighted the flaws in the system. Personally, i think every election shows the flaws, i mean c'mon on a party that gets a minority of the vote gets a majority of the representation, that makes a joke out of democracy. Andy then goes on to say that they should stop and think whether it is in the best interest of the Labour party. Of course he would say that he's trying to lead the party but it stinks of the same old politics that people are sick and tired of. We want the political parties to stop thinking in terms of party interest and start thinking in terms of the national interest. IMO, no party should ever have a majority unless the electorate want them to have a majority and in the majority of cases that isn't the case.
I don't want a government doing what is best for their party and their party alone, imo that is the quickest way to bring the country to a standstill. I want a party that can put aside party interests and do what is in the national interest and what is in the interest of democracy of this country and fighting for every single person in this country whether they voted for the party or not.
Diane made a good point about closed list systems that they put the power into party leaders hands to choose who goes into parliament and not the people who choose who they want to represent them. The thing is not all forms of PR are like this. STV allows a party to nominate several candidates for a seat so you can choose the candidate as well as the party. There is more power in the hands of the people in that system. She also made a case that keeps getting mentioned about PR in that she doesn't want to destroy the MP-constituency link but for me i would have more of a link with my MP if i knew i had helped to get them elected and if they shared my views about which direction the country should be heading in. I, personally don't like my MP, i would never vote for her regardless of party yet still i am stuck with her because 47% of my constituency vote for her. For me the MP-constituency link would be strengthened by having someone i actually voted for rather than becoming increasing disenfranchised with politics because my voice is never heard and will never be heard under the current system.
David made the same MP-constituency link argument, he also made the point of having 50% of people voting for a candidate/party/pm under AV as a good thing. IMO, this is not great. What David M is assuming is that the 47% of people who vote Labour in my constituency support every single policy and that the other 3% that she would presumably easily get would support most of them. This is an entirely wrong assumption. Most people do not support all the policies of one party and the other 3% like even less of the policies of the labour party. The only way imo opinion to best represent the opinions of the people and to create a strong MP-constituency link is to allow more people to represent an area. I'm more likely to go to someone that represents my views or who i voted for than someone i didn't and i think the majority of the country would agree with me on that which means the current 1 MP per constituency is a very weak link.
Ed M made the point that there should be 50% of women in the shadow cabinet. I don't disagree with this but i don't think you should absolutely say there HAS to be 50% of women but it should be based on merit and not just whether they wear a skirt. There needs to be something to get more women into cabinet or shadow cabinet but i don't think discrimination is the best way to go about it.
Ed B made the point of giving small extremist parties power but the only reason they are voting for those parties is because they are so disenfranchised from politics that they almost may as well. Their vote doesn't count. They only vote for these extremist parties to try and get some change which the main parties seem allergic to.
I think all candidates failed massively on this topic but none more so than Andy Burnham who went back to old politics in saying he would put the party before the country but that is unacceptable in any leader not just of a party but as potential leader of the country that is certainly not on.
For my fuller thoughts on the labour leadership - click here.
Political Reform
We finally have a government that is going to look at the current voting system and offer a referendum on how the public want to vote for their representatives. This will be the first time in UK history that we have collectively decided how we want to select our representatives. Previously it has been decided by the people governing us and not the people themselves.
I believe we need proportional representation because i think it is highly undemocratic for the majority of the population to be ignored. Under the current first-past-the-post system, a government can obtain over 50% of the seats that is 50% of the representation with 35.5% of the vote and 22% of the people eligible to vote. This allows a minority of the people to rule over the majority of the population. That is undemocratic. I think some form of proportional representation is needed in order to make sure the electorate's views are better represented. I personally don't mind what kind of PR it is, whether it is AMS, STV, straight PR or anything else. I don't believe AV is PR and should not be the end result of anyone wanting PR.
However, i think the UK's deep issues cannot be solved with straight PR. I believe in the past 303 years that we have had a united government for the entire United Kingdom that Westminster has proven that it cannot effectively govern all 4 nations of the UK. I actually believe that the problems go back even further even back to before the Scottish Wars of Independence. I believe the final resting point of any UK government must be what Scotland was fighting for in the days of William Wallace and Robert the Bruce.
I don't believe Scotland was fighting for independence back then but we were fighting for a way to govern ourselves without all the interferences from King Edward. We knew we had to trade and work with the people of England and even King Edward himself but we were not willing to be ruled by them.
This argument i believe still carries on today. Scotland knows it benefits from being in a union with England - its how that union is governed that is the issue.
Thanks to Tony Blair, Scotland now has its own parliament to decide on matters such as health, education, agriculture and justice, yet key things like economic policy and employment are decided still by Westminster.
This in my opinion wouldn't be a problem if there wasn't a deep socio-economic problem dividing the countries. Scotland historically and currently has always been a poorer nation than England. We have always had a great education system and that continues to this day but our problem is that once out of education there are no jobs to go into unless you move south to England and in particular the South of England. England also has a good education system and once out of it they are competing for jobs in England with not only other Englishmen but also Scotsmen. This i believe is unfair.
I believe we are inappropriately governed. I do not believe that the people of England or the majority of the country that decide the outcome of the election (they are from the part of the country where there is a significant private sector) can do what is right for not only themselves but for the whole country where there isn't the jobs or the private sector.
This divide in the country while it cannot be legislated out of existence, i think the government has some responsibility over it and they need to find a way to work with business leaders to get the poorer areas out of poverty and into some sort of economic stability. While government is decided by and for the majority in the south of the country, i do not believe this can happen, the minorities issues will always be overlooked even though it is the countries best interest to deal with this problem.
I believe we need proportional representation because i think it is highly undemocratic for the majority of the population to be ignored. Under the current first-past-the-post system, a government can obtain over 50% of the seats that is 50% of the representation with 35.5% of the vote and 22% of the people eligible to vote. This allows a minority of the people to rule over the majority of the population. That is undemocratic. I think some form of proportional representation is needed in order to make sure the electorate's views are better represented. I personally don't mind what kind of PR it is, whether it is AMS, STV, straight PR or anything else. I don't believe AV is PR and should not be the end result of anyone wanting PR.
However, i think the UK's deep issues cannot be solved with straight PR. I believe in the past 303 years that we have had a united government for the entire United Kingdom that Westminster has proven that it cannot effectively govern all 4 nations of the UK. I actually believe that the problems go back even further even back to before the Scottish Wars of Independence. I believe the final resting point of any UK government must be what Scotland was fighting for in the days of William Wallace and Robert the Bruce.
I don't believe Scotland was fighting for independence back then but we were fighting for a way to govern ourselves without all the interferences from King Edward. We knew we had to trade and work with the people of England and even King Edward himself but we were not willing to be ruled by them.
This argument i believe still carries on today. Scotland knows it benefits from being in a union with England - its how that union is governed that is the issue.
Thanks to Tony Blair, Scotland now has its own parliament to decide on matters such as health, education, agriculture and justice, yet key things like economic policy and employment are decided still by Westminster.
This in my opinion wouldn't be a problem if there wasn't a deep socio-economic problem dividing the countries. Scotland historically and currently has always been a poorer nation than England. We have always had a great education system and that continues to this day but our problem is that once out of education there are no jobs to go into unless you move south to England and in particular the South of England. England also has a good education system and once out of it they are competing for jobs in England with not only other Englishmen but also Scotsmen. This i believe is unfair.
I believe we are inappropriately governed. I do not believe that the people of England or the majority of the country that decide the outcome of the election (they are from the part of the country where there is a significant private sector) can do what is right for not only themselves but for the whole country where there isn't the jobs or the private sector.
This divide in the country while it cannot be legislated out of existence, i think the government has some responsibility over it and they need to find a way to work with business leaders to get the poorer areas out of poverty and into some sort of economic stability. While government is decided by and for the majority in the south of the country, i do not believe this can happen, the minorities issues will always be overlooked even though it is the countries best interest to deal with this problem.
Saturday, June 12, 2010
Labour Leadership
I have got into politics since the previous election and at the moment I'm following the Labour Leadership race as well as the spending cuts that are to come.
The spending cuts deserve a blog post to themselves so I'll leave that for today.
The candidates for Labour leader are: Diane Abbott, Andy Burnham, Ed Balls, David Milliband and Ed Milliband.
Diane is only in the race thanks to David lending her his nomination to help her get across the 33MP nomination threshold. I'm glad she is on the ballot for i think she will help to widen the debate. I've been watching the New Statesman debate and I want to share my opinion on the candidates.
Diane Abbott as some very good ideas but i have heard that she is not very good at working with people or engaging with members of the parliamentary party. This is probably why she struggled to get on to the ballot paper. I think she has some good ideas but is not leadership material and i think Labour would struggle to survive under her leadership.
Andy Burnham is trying to put himself in the position as leader of the common people, the leader of the working class. Like Diane, i think he has some good ideas but is not leadership material and will not be able to stand up to Cameron or even Clegg. I think Labour would struggle under him.
Ed Balls is probably a bit too like Gordon. He has this likeable persona about him but it is very much an act. I think he is a bully, he would do well in the Prime Minister question exchanges but he couldn't lead this country or make this country better.
David Milliband is probably the only candidate with the best leader qualities but i feel he is too remote from the people. He is, for me, too difficult to connect with. Whilst he maybe the best candidate, whether he could win the role of PM, i don't know. Perhaps i think he is the best candidate because of that ability to seem disengaged from the world around him.
Ed Milliband is probably the next best candidate for leader of the Labour party. My one problem i have with Ed M is that i just can't see him leading anything whether that is the Labour party or even the country. I just can't see Ed as the next PM.
The only candidate that I can see as Prime Minister of the UK is David Milliband, my one problem is I just can't connect with him. He is, in my opinion too remote from the people.
The spending cuts deserve a blog post to themselves so I'll leave that for today.
The candidates for Labour leader are: Diane Abbott, Andy Burnham, Ed Balls, David Milliband and Ed Milliband.
Diane is only in the race thanks to David lending her his nomination to help her get across the 33MP nomination threshold. I'm glad she is on the ballot for i think she will help to widen the debate. I've been watching the New Statesman debate and I want to share my opinion on the candidates.
Diane Abbott as some very good ideas but i have heard that she is not very good at working with people or engaging with members of the parliamentary party. This is probably why she struggled to get on to the ballot paper. I think she has some good ideas but is not leadership material and i think Labour would struggle to survive under her leadership.
Andy Burnham is trying to put himself in the position as leader of the common people, the leader of the working class. Like Diane, i think he has some good ideas but is not leadership material and will not be able to stand up to Cameron or even Clegg. I think Labour would struggle under him.
Ed Balls is probably a bit too like Gordon. He has this likeable persona about him but it is very much an act. I think he is a bully, he would do well in the Prime Minister question exchanges but he couldn't lead this country or make this country better.
David Milliband is probably the only candidate with the best leader qualities but i feel he is too remote from the people. He is, for me, too difficult to connect with. Whilst he maybe the best candidate, whether he could win the role of PM, i don't know. Perhaps i think he is the best candidate because of that ability to seem disengaged from the world around him.
Ed Milliband is probably the next best candidate for leader of the Labour party. My one problem i have with Ed M is that i just can't see him leading anything whether that is the Labour party or even the country. I just can't see Ed as the next PM.
The only candidate that I can see as Prime Minister of the UK is David Milliband, my one problem is I just can't connect with him. He is, in my opinion too remote from the people.
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Democracy, what democracy?
2nd post in as many days, this is what the election has done to me.
I think the current state of British politics is dismal. I have my own thoughts about where the country should go. Who should be PM and thoughts on the dissolved UK state?
The SNP member Angus Robinson made an interesting point today. He stated that LibDems should side with Labour due to the fact that Scotland and Wales voted for Labour and that Scotland won't be able to accept a coalition who became 3rd and 4th in Scotland. All 3 main party leaders have said that they should be doing what is best in the national interest. I have a question as to which nation they are talking to. The SNP are talking more about Scotland than UK but do Nick and Dave mean England rather than UK. I assume Gordon would be talking about UK as he is Scottish.
Scotland will not accept a Conservative government in any sense. It will provide the SNP and the Scots greater ammo to make Scotland independant which will be reflected in the Scottish elections next year. Scotland will not accept Conservatives making decisions on the economy and the issues that concern Scotland that are still held by the UK parliament. Scotland will not accept a minority of English people deciding on the Scottish economy, foreign issues and some home issues etc. This reminds me of Edward VIII manipulating John Balliol into the Scottish Monarchy. That didn't end well for the English.
I can't speak for Wales, i'm not Welsh and i don't know the Welsh feelings.
Whoever comes into a power - there should be a referendum on the state of the UK dissolved state. I would expect a referendum to ask the people of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland on whether:
- things stay the same.
- England get a dissolved parliament and a parliament for UK issues
- All countries become independent
- All countries become united. One parliament
I think with this referendum there needs to be a referendum on the voting system and not just FPTP and AV. That's like asking the country, do you want this undemocratic system or this potentially more undemocratic system. Let's face it in 2005 would have gained a higher majority in parliament with the same minority of votes(35.5%).
As for what should happen as a result of this election, i think David Cameron should be PM but only allowed a majority on English issues only but for a Labour-LibDem coalition on UK issues. That is I believe what is in the national interest both England's interest and UK's national interest.
I think the current state of British politics is dismal. I have my own thoughts about where the country should go. Who should be PM and thoughts on the dissolved UK state?
The SNP member Angus Robinson made an interesting point today. He stated that LibDems should side with Labour due to the fact that Scotland and Wales voted for Labour and that Scotland won't be able to accept a coalition who became 3rd and 4th in Scotland. All 3 main party leaders have said that they should be doing what is best in the national interest. I have a question as to which nation they are talking to. The SNP are talking more about Scotland than UK but do Nick and Dave mean England rather than UK. I assume Gordon would be talking about UK as he is Scottish.
Scotland will not accept a Conservative government in any sense. It will provide the SNP and the Scots greater ammo to make Scotland independant which will be reflected in the Scottish elections next year. Scotland will not accept Conservatives making decisions on the economy and the issues that concern Scotland that are still held by the UK parliament. Scotland will not accept a minority of English people deciding on the Scottish economy, foreign issues and some home issues etc. This reminds me of Edward VIII manipulating John Balliol into the Scottish Monarchy. That didn't end well for the English.
I can't speak for Wales, i'm not Welsh and i don't know the Welsh feelings.
Whoever comes into a power - there should be a referendum on the state of the UK dissolved state. I would expect a referendum to ask the people of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland on whether:
- things stay the same.
- England get a dissolved parliament and a parliament for UK issues
- All countries become independent
- All countries become united. One parliament
I think with this referendum there needs to be a referendum on the voting system and not just FPTP and AV. That's like asking the country, do you want this undemocratic system or this potentially more undemocratic system. Let's face it in 2005 would have gained a higher majority in parliament with the same minority of votes(35.5%).
As for what should happen as a result of this election, i think David Cameron should be PM but only allowed a majority on English issues only but for a Labour-LibDem coalition on UK issues. That is I believe what is in the national interest both England's interest and UK's national interest.
Monday, May 10, 2010
Brown Resigns
The general election was on Thursday and i've been following it avidly.
For the record, i'm a supporter of the liberal democrats.
The latest news is that Gordon Brown, Prime Minister and current leader of the Labour party has resigned as leader of the Labour party. Gordon Brown in his statement said that he wants a new leader in place by the party conference in September. Labour are going to enter into discussions with the Liberal Democrats.
The Liberal Democrats and Conservatives talks are going well. The Liberal Democrats have asked for clarification on some key points on which any agreement will be based upon such as economic stability, the pupil premium, taxes and voting reform. William Hague of the Conservatives have said that the Conservatives are willing to offer the Liberal Democrats a referendum on the Alternate Vote(AV) system.
The AV system can reproduce a more undemocratic parliament than the current First-past-the-post system. In fact if the AV system was applied to the 2005 election system, Labour would have had a larger majority in parliament than they did with the same 35.5% of the vote.
The AV system means that any candidate in a constituency would have to receive 50% of the votes and if no candidate reaches that then voters 2nd preferences will be taken into account.
As a Liberal Democrat supporter, i would prefer an agreement with Conservative but i don't mind a coalition with Labour - that would be legitimate as 52% of the electorate voted for Labour/LibDem but my concern with a Labour/LibDem coalition is that the Prime Minister of that coalition is unknown and that the LibDems do not know who they will be working with once a knew leader is chosen for the Labour party by the Labour party.
Yesterday, i became concerned when Former Home Secretary David Blunket said that he was "bewildered" by Clegg's fascination with electoral reform because then we would be in this situation after every election. From my point of view, Blunket said that he was bewildered by the fact that the Clegg wants a democracy. The First=past-the-post system in my opinion does not provide a democratic society. It provides a majority government the majority of the time voted for by a minority of the public and oppresses a number of political opinion. IMO, the current system returns a system that is almost a dictatorship masquerading as a democratic society.
The one thing that all the main parties are saying is that they want a stable government - we have never had a stable government. There is nothing stable about oscillating between Conservative and Labour every 5-10years. The only reasons the country oscillate between Conservative and Labour is because the majority of the country don't want Labour or Conservative in power so a sufficient proportion of the electorate will swing between Labour and Conservative don't want either of them in power but due to the voting system no other party is likely to gain enough support to overthrow Labour and Conservatives.
For the record, i'm a supporter of the liberal democrats.
The latest news is that Gordon Brown, Prime Minister and current leader of the Labour party has resigned as leader of the Labour party. Gordon Brown in his statement said that he wants a new leader in place by the party conference in September. Labour are going to enter into discussions with the Liberal Democrats.
The Liberal Democrats and Conservatives talks are going well. The Liberal Democrats have asked for clarification on some key points on which any agreement will be based upon such as economic stability, the pupil premium, taxes and voting reform. William Hague of the Conservatives have said that the Conservatives are willing to offer the Liberal Democrats a referendum on the Alternate Vote(AV) system.
The AV system can reproduce a more undemocratic parliament than the current First-past-the-post system. In fact if the AV system was applied to the 2005 election system, Labour would have had a larger majority in parliament than they did with the same 35.5% of the vote.
The AV system means that any candidate in a constituency would have to receive 50% of the votes and if no candidate reaches that then voters 2nd preferences will be taken into account.
As a Liberal Democrat supporter, i would prefer an agreement with Conservative but i don't mind a coalition with Labour - that would be legitimate as 52% of the electorate voted for Labour/LibDem but my concern with a Labour/LibDem coalition is that the Prime Minister of that coalition is unknown and that the LibDems do not know who they will be working with once a knew leader is chosen for the Labour party by the Labour party.
Yesterday, i became concerned when Former Home Secretary David Blunket said that he was "bewildered" by Clegg's fascination with electoral reform because then we would be in this situation after every election. From my point of view, Blunket said that he was bewildered by the fact that the Clegg wants a democracy. The First=past-the-post system in my opinion does not provide a democratic society. It provides a majority government the majority of the time voted for by a minority of the public and oppresses a number of political opinion. IMO, the current system returns a system that is almost a dictatorship masquerading as a democratic society.
The one thing that all the main parties are saying is that they want a stable government - we have never had a stable government. There is nothing stable about oscillating between Conservative and Labour every 5-10years. The only reasons the country oscillate between Conservative and Labour is because the majority of the country don't want Labour or Conservative in power so a sufficient proportion of the electorate will swing between Labour and Conservative don't want either of them in power but due to the voting system no other party is likely to gain enough support to overthrow Labour and Conservatives.
Sunday, April 18, 2010
Memristors!
A couple of weeks ago, i came across this and this article in New Scientist magazine. Of course it intrigued me.
This incredible circuit element, the memristor has been around theoretically since 1971. I say theoretically because the guy who proposed the idea, Leon Chua presented a paper to the IEEE Transactions on Circuit theory and the idea lay dormant until Stan Williams of Hewlett-Packard Labs in California created a memristor quite by accident in 2008, when they drew up their equations they found the circuit element that Chua had predicted over 30 years earlier.
The memristor is a resistor with a memory i.e. it can remember the last voltage you sent through it. When you switch the circuit off, the resistors state stays the same so when you switch the circuit back on you return to where you just left off. The amount of resistance is dependant on the last voltage that was sent through it.
The most intriguing thing for me about this missing circuit element is that it can "learn". A team sent three voltage pulses through a memristor and even without a fourth pulse, the memristor had "learnt" a pattern and produced an electrical current without a voltage stimulus. This happens within our own electrical circuits, the neurons that send the analog sound coming in to our brain will fire an electrical current even without a stimulus present.
This circuit element behaves like a synapse in the brain. I mean finally we could possibly model the brain, we could actually figure out the way we process sound, images. We could even get as far as figuring out what conscious thought is.
I play tennis quite a bit when I'm at home. I occasionally go into "The Zone" - i would love to know what that "Zone" actually is. I know I'm not consciously thinking and my body is essentially on auto-pilot although i sometimes i get a random conscious thought when i'm in this heightened state which will tell me what shot to hit. I hit it well who am I to argue with the Zone? The majority of the time these are shots that i have no business making yet everytime I'm in the Zone, i make them.
Finally we may be able to figure out the answer, finally we may be able to build a brain-like computer. But in order to be able to build a brain we'll have to model it in software first using a computer that isn't quite up to scratch.
Now, i think the race is on to find a practical memcapacitor and meminductor for these theoretical devices can actually store energy. These could be the way the brain stores our memories.
This incredible circuit element, the memristor has been around theoretically since 1971. I say theoretically because the guy who proposed the idea, Leon Chua presented a paper to the IEEE Transactions on Circuit theory and the idea lay dormant until Stan Williams of Hewlett-Packard Labs in California created a memristor quite by accident in 2008, when they drew up their equations they found the circuit element that Chua had predicted over 30 years earlier.
The memristor is a resistor with a memory i.e. it can remember the last voltage you sent through it. When you switch the circuit off, the resistors state stays the same so when you switch the circuit back on you return to where you just left off. The amount of resistance is dependant on the last voltage that was sent through it.
The most intriguing thing for me about this missing circuit element is that it can "learn". A team sent three voltage pulses through a memristor and even without a fourth pulse, the memristor had "learnt" a pattern and produced an electrical current without a voltage stimulus. This happens within our own electrical circuits, the neurons that send the analog sound coming in to our brain will fire an electrical current even without a stimulus present.
This circuit element behaves like a synapse in the brain. I mean finally we could possibly model the brain, we could actually figure out the way we process sound, images. We could even get as far as figuring out what conscious thought is.
I play tennis quite a bit when I'm at home. I occasionally go into "The Zone" - i would love to know what that "Zone" actually is. I know I'm not consciously thinking and my body is essentially on auto-pilot although i sometimes i get a random conscious thought when i'm in this heightened state which will tell me what shot to hit. I hit it well who am I to argue with the Zone? The majority of the time these are shots that i have no business making yet everytime I'm in the Zone, i make them.
Finally we may be able to figure out the answer, finally we may be able to build a brain-like computer. But in order to be able to build a brain we'll have to model it in software first using a computer that isn't quite up to scratch.
Now, i think the race is on to find a practical memcapacitor and meminductor for these theoretical devices can actually store energy. These could be the way the brain stores our memories.
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Space, Time, Gravity and the Universe
So I've been meaning to write a blog post for ages. I'm going to try and post more often.
Today's topic is inspired by one of my mate's blogs. Have a read here.
I've been reading about time and space quite a bit recently because it is one of those fascinating subjects that if i see a blog post, a TED video or a tweet about it, i can't resist opening the link and finding out a little bit more about how the Universe goes a long.
One such TED video is by Sean Carroll on the arrow of time. Part 1 of the video can be seen here.
By the way Sean Carroll has a book out called "Eternity to Here" which I am itching to read but as I'm changing country in a couple of months, i'm trying to resist the itch.
The most popular scientific theory is that the Universe is expanding and that expansion is accelerating. Now that means not only does the Universe have an edge which is almost hard to perceive as when we look out into the heavens all i see is the Universe going on forever yet i would also perceive like the early astronomers that the Earth is the centre of the Universe when its a mere speck in a picture of our galaxy the milky way. That's just the milky way not even the Universe. I understand why astronomers come back and say we are insignificant yet we are here in a seemingly lifeless Universe and we are striding out amongst the stars. That can't be insignificant. The achievements of the men and women before me have been astounding. I hope i can live up to them and seem just as amazing to future generations.
Of course there are many other theories, Sean Carroll goes into some of them in his video. he talks about the universe being one of many, which is possibly what i believe in. Its an enchanting idea isn't it? That somewhere out there there are not just other worlds but other universes. Now that would be amazing if it could be proven. Who will be clever enough to do that is the question?
Did time exist outside of the Universe, my mate thinks not, coz how can you have time without matter but then again there is this dark matter which makes up 90% of the Universe which we know nothing about, perhaps that is there before the big bang or whatever happened to create the Universe. Something had to create the universe after all. I mean you can't create something out of nothing so something had to exist before this Universe.
The reason why i called this blog Space, Time and Gravity is because of my own little pet theory. Einstein made Space Time a continuum in his theory of General Relativity but in his description of space and time being curved and shaped he mentions that gravity is a property of space time and not a force like we all believe. My theory goes beyond that and says that space, time and gravity are linked in a 3Dimensional shape. Due to space being 3Dimensional, i believe that time and gravity are also 3 dimensional. What these extra dimensions are, i'm not quite sure. Whether the extra dimensions in time are past, present and future perhaps the key to this is in Einstein's General and Special Relativity. He says that space is shaped which suggests time is also shaped and due to time being relative that would suggest that again time is shaped. This hints at the 3 dimensions of time being the past, present and future but then again this is confusing because time seems to travel in one direction but then again if you were an ant on a tightrope - there is no up, down, left or right. The other thing that is confusing about those dimensions of time is how can you travel along the past, how can you travel along the present or travel along the future?
Because of this i believe time travel is possible. I believe that space, time and gravity can represent the body, mind and soul or the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. I also believe that there is a 3rd dimension to mathematics. For those who don't know, we have the set of real numbers which are the numbers we use in everyday life and we have the set of complex numbers that are so complex we call them imaginary numbers. These complex numbers fall on the y axis of a 2 dimensional graph so we have the ability to rotate numbers into 2 dimensions but i believe there to be a 3rd set of numbers which would allow us to rotate numbers into a 3rd dimension.
Sorry for the long, rambling post with nothing particularly clear.
Today's topic is inspired by one of my mate's blogs. Have a read here.
I've been reading about time and space quite a bit recently because it is one of those fascinating subjects that if i see a blog post, a TED video or a tweet about it, i can't resist opening the link and finding out a little bit more about how the Universe goes a long.
One such TED video is by Sean Carroll on the arrow of time. Part 1 of the video can be seen here.
By the way Sean Carroll has a book out called "Eternity to Here" which I am itching to read but as I'm changing country in a couple of months, i'm trying to resist the itch.
The most popular scientific theory is that the Universe is expanding and that expansion is accelerating. Now that means not only does the Universe have an edge which is almost hard to perceive as when we look out into the heavens all i see is the Universe going on forever yet i would also perceive like the early astronomers that the Earth is the centre of the Universe when its a mere speck in a picture of our galaxy the milky way. That's just the milky way not even the Universe. I understand why astronomers come back and say we are insignificant yet we are here in a seemingly lifeless Universe and we are striding out amongst the stars. That can't be insignificant. The achievements of the men and women before me have been astounding. I hope i can live up to them and seem just as amazing to future generations.
Of course there are many other theories, Sean Carroll goes into some of them in his video. he talks about the universe being one of many, which is possibly what i believe in. Its an enchanting idea isn't it? That somewhere out there there are not just other worlds but other universes. Now that would be amazing if it could be proven. Who will be clever enough to do that is the question?
Did time exist outside of the Universe, my mate thinks not, coz how can you have time without matter but then again there is this dark matter which makes up 90% of the Universe which we know nothing about, perhaps that is there before the big bang or whatever happened to create the Universe. Something had to create the universe after all. I mean you can't create something out of nothing so something had to exist before this Universe.
The reason why i called this blog Space, Time and Gravity is because of my own little pet theory. Einstein made Space Time a continuum in his theory of General Relativity but in his description of space and time being curved and shaped he mentions that gravity is a property of space time and not a force like we all believe. My theory goes beyond that and says that space, time and gravity are linked in a 3Dimensional shape. Due to space being 3Dimensional, i believe that time and gravity are also 3 dimensional. What these extra dimensions are, i'm not quite sure. Whether the extra dimensions in time are past, present and future perhaps the key to this is in Einstein's General and Special Relativity. He says that space is shaped which suggests time is also shaped and due to time being relative that would suggest that again time is shaped. This hints at the 3 dimensions of time being the past, present and future but then again this is confusing because time seems to travel in one direction but then again if you were an ant on a tightrope - there is no up, down, left or right. The other thing that is confusing about those dimensions of time is how can you travel along the past, how can you travel along the present or travel along the future?
Because of this i believe time travel is possible. I believe that space, time and gravity can represent the body, mind and soul or the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. I also believe that there is a 3rd dimension to mathematics. For those who don't know, we have the set of real numbers which are the numbers we use in everyday life and we have the set of complex numbers that are so complex we call them imaginary numbers. These complex numbers fall on the y axis of a 2 dimensional graph so we have the ability to rotate numbers into 2 dimensions but i believe there to be a 3rd set of numbers which would allow us to rotate numbers into a 3rd dimension.
Sorry for the long, rambling post with nothing particularly clear.
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Ideas?
I've recently had the idea to create/make a robot similar to Andrew Martin in The Bicentennial Man and Sonny in I, Robot.
Now there are walking, learning, ping ponging robots out there. Whether the robots can do all three is probably debatable. I'm talking about the ASIMO's of Honda and TOPIO of Tosy.
Well, i plan my robot to be able to play tennis, cook, learn, clean. Ok, so that is a daunting task - seeing the only thing i've programmed are little programs for the computer - not making things move. I guess, i shall just have to learn then, won't I?
I'll let you know, how i get on. If you know anything about robotics, mechanics or programming please get in touch.
Now there are walking, learning, ping ponging robots out there. Whether the robots can do all three is probably debatable. I'm talking about the ASIMO's of Honda and TOPIO of Tosy.
Well, i plan my robot to be able to play tennis, cook, learn, clean. Ok, so that is a daunting task - seeing the only thing i've programmed are little programs for the computer - not making things move. I guess, i shall just have to learn then, won't I?
I'll let you know, how i get on. If you know anything about robotics, mechanics or programming please get in touch.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
The iPad - Why?
Unless you've been living under a rock or somewhere that doesn't have internet then you would have heard that Apple have just announced their latest product the iPad - www.apple.com/ipad
The iPad is supposed to deliver everything people love about the iPhone/iPod touch to a bigger screen and thats exactly what it is. A less portable, iPod touch. Now, i have an iPhone 3GS, a MacBook 13-inch and a Time Capsule. I'm an apple nerd but when i saw the iPad, i was like "Is that it?" the answer is yes. While it may be better for watching movies due to the bigger screen and with the new iBooks, possibly good for reading books but these are the only things that it has going for it.
There are several e-readers out there and whilst they can't surf the web, play movies, music and games on them or even have colour pictures, most of the e-readers today are paper like i.e. they are not back-lit so they don't strain the eyes and you can read them in bright sunlight. They are just easier to read.
As for the video player, well its as good as the iPhone and iPod touch and can play almost HD movies/tv shows. I don't tend to watch movies on my iPhone and i'm wondering where i might watch it, at a friends house, on the train/tube/bus/plane. The one drawback for the video player is that the iPad doesn't have an HDMI outlet for hooking it up to the TV, usb or firewire for watching or storing videos from an external drive. I have an external hard drive with loads of videos on and to be able to watch them on the move i'll have to hook the hard drive up to my MacBook, import to iTunes and if they are not mp4 i'll have to convert them and then download them onto my iPad. Yeah, thats real user-friendly. Even my videos on my time capsule even though they both have wifi i'm guessing that the iPad won't like anything other than mp4 just like the iPhone and iPod touch because its the same OS. Again, i'll have to do it the long way round.
I have no idea what apple thinks the market for the iPad is, presumably the same as the iPod touch/iPhone market but to anyone considering an iPad, i'd either suggest the iPod touch/iPhone for the portability or a MacBook but if you want a 10-inch screen go for a netbook, its more powerful than the iPad. If you want an e-reader i'd go for kindle or the Sony. Kindle 2 is half the price of the iPad.
Another thing the iPad is lacking is a camera, even the iPod Nano's have camera's. So you can't do a video conference call or for all the vloggers out there - you can't do a vlog on the fly. If you love your home movies you can't make a movie on the go but you have to remember your camera whether it be on any one of the other portable Apple devices or one of those small camera's like the flip.
The iPad is sitting in the middle of digital nowhere land. Its not quite as good as a computer, not quite as easy to read as the kindle/sony e-readers, not quite as portable as the iPhone/iPod touch where you can have the internet in your pocket. Not quite as user-friendly as Apple likes to think it is.
Will i be getting an iPad? No, thanks. I'll stick to my MacBook, iPhone & Books thanks.
I just wonder how this got passed Apple's cooldar.
Wednesday, January 06, 2010
Andy Murray following Henman being sponsored by adidas?
Andy Murray has been playing tennis this week in the Hopman Cup. He is playing in team Britain with the young Brit Laura Robson. I have seen thanks to BBC that Murray seems to have a new clothing sponsorship with Adidas. It looks like he has left Fred Perry, the last British male to win Wimbledon clothing line and follow Tim henman and being sponsored by Adidas.
All images courtesy of the BBC. The adidas logo can clearly be seen on the above pictures. Andy Murray's website www.andymurray.com is still saying he is sponsored by Fred Perry. Is this a one off? i guess only time will tell for now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
