On Tactical Voting

In just over a week, we have a General Election. Once again, tactical voting is high on the agenda for the media - and therefore for voters. There are a number of good reasons to avoid tactical voting, which I'll set out below. But first, the advantages:

The Advantages of Tactical Voting

1. You can pretend that it's all about stopping a truly evil candidate from gaining power.

 
Right, we've got that out of the way. So:

Reasons to Avoid Tactical Voting Like the Plague

1. It's a vote for the current electoral system.

You probably don't think our current, first-past-the-post (FPTP), system is very good. It is widely criticised, and many developed countries have more sophisticated arrangements that can be helpfully gathered under the banner, 'Proportional Representation' (PR). The only people that I can find sticking up for FPTP are those who benefit from it - which is unfortunately most MPs, who are the ones with the power change it.

A big problem with FPTP is that it pushes out smaller parties and makes it very hard for them to grow. This is because people see a vote for them as wasted, since they are definitely not going to win. The Green Party have suffered from this problem for as long as I've known them.

If you vote tactically, you are endorsing the first-past-the-post system. The system demands that you only champion candidates from the major parties, and how could you emphasise your support for that system better than by doing that? You are saying, "I am happy to play under your rules", and by denying smaller parties your vote you accept that they will wither and die off.

2. It conceals your true beliefs.

You're a fully-rounded human being, aren't you? You know what you believe in, the kind of society you want to live in? How you'd like your life to be?

Well, you get once chance every four or five years to tell the people running the country how you feel. To make some input into the machine. FOUR OR FIVE YEARS. Surely it behoves you to actually take this seriously? To examine the candidates' statements and their parties' manifestos? To find out which of them most closely represents your views?

Yes, there are knock-on problems. What if none of the candidates are satisfactorily aligned with you? Ooh, it's time for an Aside:

How the ballot paper should change

The current ballot paper gives you a box against each candidate. You then put a cross against your chosen candidate (or candidates, when multiple posts are being elected).

I would add two further boxes at the bottom of the ballot:

I think that covers everybody. Now it can be compulsory to vote :)

That's sorted out the ballot paper. But we're still stuck with you not registering your views! Your vote for Candidate X, who is The Only Hope of preventing Candidate Y from gaining power, may well be tactical; but from the point of view of the candidates, the electoral officers, and everybody else in the World, you voted for Candidate X - so you support the policies of Candidate X and their party. Your true intentions and beliefs are hidden and unknowable.

What a waste. Do you value your own beliefs and opinions so little that you would conceal them when you're eventually asked for them?

3. You voted for THEM?

This is the killer problem with tactical voting: you're voting for the lesser of two evils. For a candidate that you wouldn't normally vote for, and whose actions - and party policies - you presumably do not agree with. But you're being told it's to avoid a greater evil.

Does that sound familiar, at all?

The idea of scaring people into backing something they wouldn't normally support is well-known and so embedded in our society and media that we take it for granted: sweeping new powers for the security services are justified under the Prevention of Terrorism. The Iraq War - er, the most recent one - was justified with ludicrous claims about Saddam having WMDs that could hit Western targets in 45 minutes. The media dutifully whacked up the rhetoric, but even then millions of people didn't believe it: it stretched credulity too far. Of course, we still invaded, we secured the oil fields. But the principle that was used was the same one that's used to gain your tactical vote: "It's a hard choice, but you know what you have to do."

So you vote for a candidate you don't like, who represents a party you don't like, in order to stop another candidate and party that you like even less. An entirely negative approach, and you end up with a party you don't like and no pressure for that to ever change.


Frankly, bollocks to that. I'm going to vote for the candidate I believe in, for the party I believe in.

I know they won't win. Not this time. But every time, their share of the vote goes up, even under this terrible system. Because millions of people, up and down the country, refuse to vote in fear. And if we carry on voting for people, for policies - rather than against them - then we will see change. Those small parties will gain traction, get airtime and media attention, and maturity. Then at some point the current system will become obviously farcical, and some form of PR will have to be installed.

Or we can carry on with the current system, and the same three increasingly-similar parties can continue to play musical chairs in our Parliament while we look on, our true beliefs sidelined and forgotten.

It's your choice, and your vote.

The perfect end to a perfect weekend

We joke frequently about the state of Britain's transport infrastructure. But it really can be very, very poor.

We just had a great couple of days in Amsterdam. We take the train/ferry/train option and get cabins on the ferries. It's a bit more expensive but a much better (and quieter) experience.

It all falls down when you reach Britain. Firstly, the mobile gangway is out of action ("Since January, and it probably won't be fixed for a year as they're arguing about insurance"). So foot passengers - who used to be the first out of the terminal building - now mooch around in the ferry lounge until the car drivers have all driven off, so that a bus can ferry them to the terminal.

For this, we all have to troop down from deck 9 to deck 3, and crowd into the little lobby by the lifts until the bus comes back for its second run (there's only one bus of course). It's a small and cold are and we're jammed cheek-to-jowl with trolley cases, bags and paraphernalia hardly helping. This is an area for people to pass through as quickly as possible. A uniformed attendant waits just outside the door in case someone makes a break for it on foot.

So, finally, to the terminal building. The ferry has been docked for half an hour by now, and most of the foot passengers are worried about train connections. No problem! A cheery chappie from Abelio Greater Anglia is intercepting us as we come out and directing us to trains and buses. Now, I'd already planned the whole journey, so I knew we needed to get a taxi to Ipswich to be in with a chance of getting to Norwich at a reasonable hour. But he says we'll be fine, and that if we catch the next train to Manningtree (in a few minutes' time), the Norwich train will be wait for us there as there's been engineering work.

I know, I know. We should have laughed hysterically in his face and carried on with our plan. But a few days in the Netherlands had lulled us into a false confidence in infrastructure, only dented by the fiasco with the shuttle bus. So we dutifully went over the bridge and caught the train to Manningtree.

When we got to Manningtree, a train was indeed waiting for us - but only going to Ipswich (ie, the next station). So we got on that. And waited. And waited. It obviously wasn't waiting for us at all! Eventually it set off, arriving in Ipswich just a few minutes after the Norwich train had left.

Naturally, we protested. But the staff - whilst superficially sympathetic, (and I do mean superficially, they obviously didn't give a toss, they were just being polite), could only repeat that the jolly chap in Harwich shouldn't have told us that the Norwich train would wait, as our journey isn't a planned route. And that they don't control train times, it's all very tight with available slots, etc, etc. Basically shut up and wait for the next one (in just under an hour). It's certainly nobody's fault.

So we did. It came in twenty minutes before it was due to leave, because it needs a window for the passengers on the Rail Replacement Bus Service to get there from London. THEY are on a planned route; on this line, everything revolves around journeys involving London.

We get home a little before 11pm, deflated. What if we were visitors from the Netherlands? Coming to stay in Norwich? I'm more embarrassed than anything else, though of course I'm angry too.

The word in this part of the country has always been that journeys to and from London are prioritised - the connections are protected, so trains will wait for other trains if they're delayed. If you're travelling between places - say, Norwich and Bury St Edmunds (hi Mum) then you frequently find that the timetabling is crazy - you miss connections by a few minutes! Because the planners simply don't care at all if your journey doesn't involve London.

Surely we can now compute optimal timetables? Where giving one set of passengers priority connections doesn't exclude other passengers from getting a half-decent service?

The problems with disembarkation from the ferry are rooted in the same attitude - make the majority happy, and ignore the minority. That has never been a sane approach.

Independence Day

Dear Scots, or Scotch, Scotlanders, People of Scotland.. let's not get bogged down in minutiae, eh?

Here comes the vote! Crikey, I'm nearly as excited as you all seem to be. I do love Scotland, and its people (well, nearly all of them). Then there's the countryside: grand, sweeping glens with mountains rearing in the background and salmon leaping from the glimmering loch into your net.. okay, I got carried away a bit there.

I'll cut to the chase: I really hope you vote YES on Thursday. The main reason for that is that I've always regarded Scotland as an independent country anyway. On our many visits (certainly not enough of those, but still a good number - including our honeymoon), the whole experience has been as far from England as you could hope to be without suffering culture shock. Friendly, engaging locals. Good beer (and I hear you're catching up now). And, back to the vistas: those lochs, mountains, valleys - all clad in green and red and gold. Or the drive North from Ullapool, in the rain, with granite glinting everywhere. Or trekking on Harris, seeing nobody for days as you just wander the vast spaces, pausing in awe as another fantastic view presents itself over a ridge.

It doesn't sound like England.

Okay, a lot of 'Yes' votes will be from those disaffected with the current Government in Westminster. And people will say, "You shouldn't make such a major decision on the basis of hating the current Government". But that's silly, because the previous Governments have been just as unlikeable, and have treated anyone outside the Home Counties with utter contempt anyway. Admittedly, even the Home Counties are out of the loop now, but still - being governed arrogantly from hundreds of miles away is never going to be an edifying experience, is it?

Another good reason to vote 'Yes' is the general ineptitude of the 'No' - sorry, 'Better Together', keep it positive - campaign. From wheeling out ex-Scottish celebrities to shoving David Cameron himself in your faces, they can't seem to find an angle that isn't instantly dismissable. When Tony Blair at last threw his hat into the ring - presumably after the Treasury agreed his fee - and exhorted you to not vote for independence, the deal was sealed: nobody's going to do what Tony asks, are they? These people must be on another planet.

The campaigns themselves have been interesting, because nobody has a bloody clue what will actually happen if you vote for independence on Thursday. So the 'No' camp have been able to threaten anything they can think up: economic paralysis, stagnation of the jobs market, and (just recently) an increased risk of terrorism. Um, isn't that statement itself terrorism, technically? By contrast, the 'Yes' camp have to keep their promises realistic to avoid ridicule. But I think that many voters have seen through this, and now every new doom-laden prophecy (delivered in a strictly-neutral way by the BBC, *cough*) just puts another nail in the 'No' camp's coffin.

Finally, the 'No' campaign have such a negative message. They may have hastily rebranded to 'Better Together', but most of the posters I've seen for the movement have had 'NO' in big letters. It's not exactly a rallying cry that people can write songs around, is it?

So, best of luck on Thursday. Many of us England-types are rooting for you. And I'm only slightly nervous: because for decades, I've said that if Scotland ever gained independence, I'd move there. And my Mum won't be happy about that..

Hangers and other monopurposed products

Over the years, I've developed a strong mistrust - perhaps even a dislike - of clothes hangers. It took me a while to recognise this, seeing as it wasn't affecting my social discourse, my work, or my sleeping patterns. But slowly, I began to anaylse how I felt, and why - realising that I felt the same way about certain other things as well.

The term I will use for these items is monopurposed. What I mean to imply is that these products have been designed to perform a specific function, which they usually do well. It doesn't sound too bad so far, does it?

The problems arise when a designer not only prioritises, but also obsesses about, the stated purpose, to the exclusion of all other considerations. Because most products - perhaps all products - will have 'down time'. Times when their particular purpose is not realised or needed.

Empty hangers.

They are a nightmare. They are noisy, they jangle and tangle and clatter and fall. And have you ever tried to pack up a pile of hangers to, for instance, move house? Aha-ha-ha-ha-ha. That doesn't go well.

Of course, like most families we've accumulated hangers over the years. They arrive with new clothes, and in packs of five or so from stores. So, many variants jostle for position on the rails. Simple moulded plastic arms (no trouser bar) are probably the best - the lack of a closed loop minimises tangles (unless the hook is in play). But we, like many people, have hangers of different configurations, sizes, and even top hook sizes. They will jump over each other even on the hanging rails.

When I creep to bed, trying not to disturb my already-sleeping companion, I can guarantee noisy hangers.

Of course, it's not just hangers. We have a rucksac, passed on by a friend. It's a very good quality rucksac, and the perfect size for a solo trek of a few days. It has a back system that curves inwards, so you don't get a sweaty spine, and is in general a pleasure to use.

Then, you take it off, and realise it is monopurposed. It won't stand up. It won't even agree which side to lay on. It won't stay propped against a wall or tree. It trips you up, snags you. The designers gave no thought at all to how it would be once you took it off.

Then there are useful items that suffer from not having a simple hanging loop or hole. Tea towels, saucepans, even some coats.

I now look for such features when shopping. And I spend a little part of each day trying to re-imagine clothes hangers. You never know.

Inaugural post purporting to be an introduction

This cannot be happening. Who begins a blog in 2014?

Years and years and years ago, I created a blog ('Naval Gazing', I think I called it). I never posted to it, forgot about it, and now I can't find any mention of it in any email. There is a blog of that name on Blogger, but it ain't mine. So I've started a new one.

This blog will be a brain dump. A better title might have been, 'Big Things and Small Things', but that was taken. As were the many others I tried, before striking gold with the current name.

It is, after all, research. 'It' being everything. Data acquisition, assimilation, production. Reading a book, watching the telly, arguing in the pub. Your brain is an eager researcher, even if it only publishes gibberish when you try and get information back out of it.

I'm going to post whenever I feel the urge. It may be about good things, or bad things. Small things or big things. Probably including hangers and fracking.

I promised to make tea at 10pm, so I'd better pop downstairs and get the kettle on. Be seeing you.