Audience of One is the weblog of Matthew Weston, a UK student, Christian, technophile and musician.

It's sucked me in

About twenty years after the rest of the Western world got hooked, I’ve become addicted to Tetris.

I thought I was doing really well, having beaten my brother’s highscores to become third on the table before he told me that on his logon he’d got far higher scores and I wouldn’t come close. Oh, and he normally starts on level nine, not level four like me.

Still, however rubbish I am, I’m addicted, and generally the worse I am at such a game the more addicted I am. Let’s hope I improve, for the sake of my A levels.

Matthew @ 19:17, May 31, 2005 to Geek | Permalink | Comments (2)

My schooldays are over

In the frentic rush of the end of term, I almost forgot – I’ve left school for ever.

It feels weird, I can tell you that much. I’ll post more about the final assembly at some point (it was… amusing). It’s very scary though, as I suddenly thought today that I don’t actually know much about what’s coming up in my music technology film music exam – or rather, I don’t know what I need to know. Last year there was a question on how the music for Robin Hood was influenced by its composer’s rock musician roots. What fun. At least I know what films I’m studying.

Matthew @ 21:43, May 30, 2005 to Diary | Permalink | Comments (2)

H is for Hacker

Some people think hacking is all about breaking into others’ computers, and while that is something I have done (just the once, and the lesson has been learnt) this is not what I mean when I call myself a hacker. A hacker is someone who hacks, and hacking can mean many different things.

I am a hacker because I have an interest in the workings of my computer, and enjoy fiddling around to get things working just right. (This is one reason why I’ve switched to Linux from Windows – you just can’t customise Windows enough.) I also like deconstructing other people’s computer code to see how they’ve done things, and have taught myself all of the programming needed to create this site by doing just that. Circumventing limitations in software is another aspect of hacking that I’m interested in, though never to the extent of it becoming illegal.

I am not, however, a very good hacker. I just don’t have the time to commit to learning non-web programming, for example – or indeed the patience. Even when it comes to something I understand, I often struggle to figure out what’s going on (when it comes to deconstructing PHP scripts for example). I know next to nothing about networking or networking protocols, and probably have an incredibly unsecure system if it wasn’t for the fact we’re behind a secure router with a dynamic IP address. I’d like to become a better hacker, but as I don’t have the patience to learn programming I probably never will.

Becoming a better hacker is often dangerous as well. For example, I recently got talking to people at school who knew their way in networking to an incredible degree – and could teach me how. It was in being taught how that I broke into my first (and only) computer system, something I now regret having done. I did it, though, because the opportunity was there and I didn’t know enough about exactly what I was doing. Who is to say that in experimenting with other forms of hacking I won’t do something similar? I’ve already had to reinstall Linux on two occasions because I’ve messed something up. It gets more scary when you’re dealing with other peoples’ computers though – and there’s only a limited amount you can do on your own.

So I am a hacker, not in the criminal sense (though I have gone down that road briefly, only to run far away from it afterwards) but in the other sense: that of being interested by technology, wanting to mess around with it and being reasonably successful at doing so. The mere fact that I’m writing this from Gentoo Linux shows that to some degree I am a hacker – though, and I am the first to admit it, not to a great degree.

Matthew @ 19:44, May 28, 2005 to ABC | Permalink | Comments (5)

My first (real) A level

Trembling with trepidation, I traversed the turbulent turmoiled terrifying (bear with me while I think of a noun beginning with T…) troubled teeming turbulent (nuts) terrestrial plane (yes!) towards my techniques test. (Composition Techniques, 3 hours, worth 7.5% of my A level.) You can possibly tell that I dropped English.

Anyhoo (and again…) I was reasonably nervous about this exam. It got off to a good start by starting quarter of an hour late (a period we whiled away by sitting on the exam desks talking about anything but music), so I was slightly more relaxed once exam conditions began, but still couldn’t quite believe I was actually sitting an A level exam.

In this exam I’d chosen to complete a chorale (think German hymn with complicated different parts) in the style of J.S.Bach (genius composer who knew his own rules of harmony so well he broke them all the time, making it very very difficult to really write in his style). I was desperately hoping they wouldn’t give us something in a minor key (I’d only practised major ones).

The exam started, and I opened up the booklet. The chorale was not only in a major key, it was in C major – the easiest of all. The exam carried on at the same kind of level for the whole hour and a half I was there (C major being so easy I finished in half the time). So quite encouraging then.

Matthew @ 08:59, May 27, 2005 to Diary | Permalink | Comments (2)

My first meme

Sparticus made me do it.

Total volume of music files on my computer:
My music is split across two computers; some is on both; neither has even a quarter of the music on it that I had before we reinstalled Windows.
The last CD I bought:
Origin of Symmetry by Muse – not half as good as Absolution
Song playing right now:
The Day I Noticed You – John James
Five songs I’ve listened to a lot recently:
  • Speed of Sound – Coldplay
  • The Beautiful Letdown – Switchfoot
  • Butterflies and Hurricanes – Muse
  • Going to Your Funeral Parts 1 + 2 – Eels
  • The Commuter – Simple Kid
Five people who have to post in the comments with their results:
  • Rory T
  • Verity
  • Jonathan
  • Rory C
  • Julie B (if you’re still around :))

Matthew @ 11:25, May 26, 2005 to Miscellaneous | Permalink | Comments (8)

The gaps

For those of you who had noticed the lack of updates but hadn’t figured out why, let me fill you in: it’s my first exam tomorrow. Sort of (I’ve already done General Studies). It’s quite scary because there’s nothing more I can do to prepare for it – last minute revision doesn’t work when revision relies on getting practice compositions marked by a music teacher. It’s probably good this way. I end up relying on God more than revision. (Of course, God uses revision so he doesn’t become an excuse for not revising – it worked at GCSE but won’t at A level.)

So yeah, first exam tomorrow. Fun fun fun!

Matthew @ 18:06, May 25, 2005 to Diary | Permalink | Comments (1)

Well prepared

Joe expressed how we were all feeling in the middle of our final practice music exam:

I just spelt “cello” with an H.

Matthew @ 11:19, May 25, 2005 to Diary | Permalink | Comments (8)

Revenge of the Sith

Before seeing this film I predicted that it’d be worth seeing, that everyone would be acting a lot better and the script would, on the whole, sound natural. The first time I saw the film, that was pretty much the case. There were a few niggling things about it, but on the whole it was a much better film than the previous ones. I looked forward to going back and just enjoying it, not having to critically analyse it to see if George Lucas had wrecked it. He hadn’t. This is the film that Star Wars fans were hoping for, almost without flaw. (As I said before, the first films had flaws as well so that’s not a problem.)

If you haven’t seen the film yet, I’d advise you to stop reading now and go see it – firstly because it’s an excellent film, secondly because you won’t understand what I’m on about, and thirdly because I’ll give away the entire plot to you.

Christensen can act. Anakin Skywalker is excellent, and his fall will be used by Star Wars savvy youth leaders as a visual aid for decades to come. Critics weren’t sure that his “lean face forward and stare angrily over the top of your non-existant glasses” look was “Dark Side” enough – to me it showed that the fall to evil was all inside. (Hey, just like sin – you can see what I mean about a visual aid…) Portman as Padmé was also very good – it’s just unfortunate that she had to die of a broken heart (I mean, does any otherwise healthy twenty-something ever die of a broken heart?). The hair style hinting at Leia was quite interesting, if unexplainable (I’m pretty sure style isn’t genetic) and her clothes finally stopped changing as much (and became more sensible). R2D2 rocks, and C3PO has just enough lines to keep his fans happy and just few enough not to annoy me. Jar Jar Binks had one line that I noticed – he apologised after treading on someone’s foot. Luckily it happened so quickly I only just noticed it on the second viewing – not perfect, but it’ll do.

Dialogue which appeared cheesy the first time round seemed much less so on the second viewing – in fact, I didn’t feel the script was let down by that at all. In fact, having seen it a second time I find it hard to think of anything particularly bad about it. The lightsaber fights were incredible – no surprises there. I think it ranks up with the original trilogy, as Return of the Jedi, while good, was let down far more by the Ewoks than any of the tiny niggles from this film (what is the point of having a robot fly past in the middle of the final duel, just as if to distract you?). The Ewoks are like the Wookiees done wrong – cute, tiny and annoying. Fitting in Chewbacca to this film was good, as was the mention of Captain Antilles. I’m guessing it’s his son we meet in the original trilogy.

So, thank goodness for that. Lucas has redeemed himself. And hey! it’s study leave next week – we can watch the DVDs of the original trilogy! Sweet.

Matthew @ 15:13, May 22, 2005 to Reviews | Permalink | Comments (8)

A review precursor

So Revenge of the Sith was rather good. I’m seeing it again this evening and will be posting a review after that. For now though, know that my predictions were pretty much correct (for once. I’m amazed…)

Matthew @ 12:57, May 21, 2005 to Miscellaneous | Permalink | Comments (0)

A prediction

In keeping with my long tradition, I will attempt to predict something that hasn’t happened yet – or, as in this case, I haven’t seen yet. Revenge of the Sith is released tomorrow, and I will be seeing it in the evening. The first two prequels were disappointing (though the lightsaber fights did make up for both of them – especially on the DVD when you can skip the boring/badly scripted/badly acted parts) but general signs are much better for this third one.

So what are my predictions? Hayden Christensen (Anakin Skywalker) will stop acting like a petulant teenager (I’m allowed to say this, I have first hand experience of being one) and mature into the role. Natalie Portman (Padmé Amidala) will continue acting well and not let herself down with any one-off pieces of stupidity (remember Padmé gasping in pain, unable to get up until a Clone Trooper asks her if she’s okay? Suddenly her pain is gone…). The film will lack any of the random aliens (Dex the four-armed dart expert, Jar Jar Binks etc.) and unrealistic love scenes (who has time to think up “I’ve been dying a little bit each day since you came back into my life” on the spur of the moment?), and will have a very dark feel. Somehow, George Lucas will mess up another aspect I haven’t thought of, but seeing as he did that for pretty much all of the films (even Empire Strikes Back) I don’t think it’ll matter.

As for plot, there’s no way I can predict anything beyond what we know is going to happen anyway (and I won’t go into it in case there are people who haven’t seen the original trilogy yet). It should, however, be excellent.

I’ll post a review after I’ve seen it – but I can tell you now: it’s going to be worth going and seeing it! (But watch Episode 2 at least beforehand – and skip the love scenes if possible.)

Matthew @ 13:59, May 18, 2005 to Miscellaneous | Permalink | Comments (0)

When a sidetrack takes over

I was going to post an entry about what I did at the weekend (and still will, shortly) but then I discovered that Radiohead are back in the recording studio! This fantastic news of course had to be shared with everyone straight away, and as I don’t have a side blog it has to be here. Celebrate with me, people! A new Coldplay album only weeks away and a new Radiohead album early 2006!

Matthew @ 19:33, May 17, 2005 to Miscellaneous | Permalink | Comments (0)

Three days to go

I dreamt about lightsabers again last night.

Matthew @ 16:29, May 16, 2005 to Diary | Permalink | Comments (19)

Bus safety

While travelling back from London yesterday, the bus driver gave an announcement as we drove off:

Good evening and welcome to the Stagecoach bus service from London to Oxford. This bus is equipped with air conditioning (located above your seats) and mains electricity (located near the bottom of the wall) and extra-large windows (for you to marvel at the M40 through). Refreshments will be served at cafes near to all our bus stops, but are not included in the ticket price. Will you please fasten your seatbelts and store your luggage in the overhead lockers. Emergency exits would be shown by our stewardesses but due to staff cuts it’s just me, and I’m currently driving. The glass, however, breaks easily with the hammers provided – but don’t worry, those of you on the top floor, the air isn’t quite thin enough for this to be a risk. We’re not an aeroplane, you know. We hope you enjoy your trip, and our drive time will be just over an hour. Thankyou for listening, and have a pleasant flight – er, I mean journey.

Imagine what would have happened if we’d crashed before he’d advised us to fasten our seatbelts! That’s right – Stagecoach could have been sued. Or if he’d neglected to mention the emergency exits (the windows) and someone had been trapped. Are we going to have an airline-length safety spiel at the start of every bus journey now, just so they can cover their backs?

Matthew @ 16:52, May 15, 2005 to Miscellaneous | Permalink | Comments (3)

G is for Green

Green (n.): The hue of that portion of the visible spectrum lying between yellow and blue, evoked in the human observer by radiant energy with wavelengths of approximately 490 to 570 nanometers; any of a group of colors that may vary in lightness and saturation and whose hue is that of the emerald or somewhat less yellow than that of growing grass; one of the additive or light primaries; one of the psychological primary hues.

Okay, so obviously I’m talking about being environmentally green, not the colour green. So why am I green and what does it mean to me?

I consider myself to be green because I care about the environment. I care about the environment because God calls me to. The Bible teaches that humans are called to be stewards of creation; we are to look after it. I want to do the best job I can of looking after the amazing world God has created because he’s told me it’s my job to do so.

This has an impact on many different areas of my life. One of the primary reasons I first supported the Liberal Democrats was that they were the only big party that seemed to care about the environment (and look where that support has taken me). I have practically promised myself that I will never buy a car that runs purely off petrol (in other words, I’ll buy a hybrid or even a fuel cell powered one if the technology advances enough). My house has solar panels (not that that was my decision), and we recycle practically everything that can be recycled efficiently.

This isn’t me trying to show of my green credentials – I’m mentioning these things because I believe that we all need to have similar attitudes if the world is going to settle down. It’s on the individual level that progress needs to be made. Governments can legislate but until they legislate on how energy efficient citizens must be, or how much they have to recycle (think Germany’s waste laws – if only Britain would introduce something similar…) it’s down to individuals. The environment should be important to everyone, and the more green people there are out there the less of a negative effect we as humans will have on the environment.

Another thing I can say to convince you I’m not trying to show off is by admitting how much further I have to go. I forget to switch lights off; I leave CD players on all night by accident; I travel by car when I could easily cycle. Actually, I don’t do much – notice that all the things I mention two paragraphs above have been instigated by my parents or haven’t actually affected anything yet. It’s like my life as a Christian (in fact, it’s part of it): I have green values but I constantly betray them. I’m a Christian yet I constantly mess up. The environment is but a small part of that monumental mess-up. (It’s also a big part of our monumental mess-up as humans, but that’s something for another time.)

Again, like my life as a Christian, the fact that I mess up doesn’t make me any less a green. It’s still a big part of who I am – a subset of my life as a Christian. It’s a very important issue, and one that I hope you’ll all agree with me on.

Matthew @ 21:05, May 14, 2005 to ABC | Permalink | Comments (0)

Proportional Representation

In the 2005 United Kingdom parliamentary elections, the Labour party was re-elected with 55% of the seats, having won 35% of the vote. The Conservative party won 32% of the vote and now have 30% of the seats. The Liberal Democrats won 22% of the vote and now have 9% of the seats.

To put it another way: for every 1% of the votes won, Labour got 10 seats, the Conservatives got 6 seats, the Lib Dems got 3 seats and the Greens got no seats.

Draw your own conclusions on whether or not this is fair. There are alternatives to the first-past-the-post system currently in use, however. Proportional representation is the catch-all term for systems of voting that aim to produce a result based on the proportion of votes for each party. It would take too long to explain them all, so have a read of the Wikipedia article on proportional representation if you want. This entry is mainly written to discuss some of the objections to the PR systems.

Firstly, the argument goes that PR gives rise to unstable governments, made up of coalitions of parties. This may well be the case – a government that has a majority is going to have a lot less in-fighting, and will be able to get on with the job a lot more easily. However, stability isn’t necessarily what should be desired above all else. China and Cuba have stable governments, but not a stable democracy. What we should be looking for is a stable democracy as an ideal. Which is more important: democracy, or a stable government? You could argue either way, but it’s almost unnecessary as they’re not mutually exclusive. It is possible to have a stable democracy, but I think it’s more likely to happen under a system of proportional representation.

Another argument is that small parties may have the balance of power. If Labour and the Conservatives win 40% of the votes each, and the Lib Dems win 20%, the Lib Dems will have a lot of power. Which way they go decides the shape of the government. They have the power, yet with only half the number of votes as everyone else.

This is harder to counter, as this has been shown to be the case in other countries. However, which is better: a majority government made up of one party that’s elected by a minority (our current system) or a majority government made up of two parties that are elected by a majority? The Liberal Democrats may hold more power than their votes represent, but that’s the situation Labour is in at the moment – and the Lib Dems would still have to compromise with Labour. Also, under the same system, smaller parties like the Greens might fight with larger parties like the Lib Dems to make a coalition, meaning that they’d compromise more to gain the attention of the bigger party. I honestly don’t know, but still think it’d be better than our current system.

The final argument I’ll look into is about extremist parties. Under PR, extremist parties such as the BNP could potentially get in. Well, yes, they could. However, it’s the current system that is also keeping out parties such as the Greens, who have much more important things to say. I personally feel that having one or two BNP MPs (or even 10 or so UKIP MPs) is a small price to pay for having a better democracy overall. After all, if people are voting for them it would be undemocratic to exclude them, even if they are a bunch of racists. (It’s not like they could do much; none of the major parties would deal with them in coalitions – even the Conservatives wouldn’t sink that low.)

There are problems with PR systems, but I would argue there are more problems with our current system. As for me, the 1976 proposals mentioned in the Wikipedia article on the Additional Member System seem to be entirely sensible. AMS is already used (though I’m not sure with the 1976 changes or not) in Wales, Scotland and for the London Assembly. I would personally introduce it nationwide. The major advantage of this system is that it maintains the MP/constituency link. The major disadvantage is that it is possible for more MPs to be elected than you have a percentage to account for. (For more detail, read the Wikipedia articles on overhung seats and the Additional Member System (also known as mixed-member proportional).

Roll on electoral reform. And I haven’t even started on the House of Lords yet.

Matthew @ 17:28, May 12, 2005 to Discussions, Politics | Permalink | Comments (8)

The Joy of A levels

A levels are really a fascinating collection of exams. They range in difficulty, content and style about as much as the UK parliament (in other words, a lot of them are remarkably similar for what’s supposed to be such a diverse selection), but until now I didn’t realise that some of them were actually easy. Until this morning, that is. Thinking they weren’t taxing us enough with all the hydrogen-drawing, we spent almost ten minutes in chemistry this morning colouring in some boxes. The A level chemistry department even owns a box full of coloured pens and pencils. And I thought my colouring-in days were over with my dropping of geography at GCSE…

Matthew @ 18:17, May 10, 2005 to Diary | Permalink | Comments (12)

Saving time

In the Googleblog entry that announced the evil Google Web Accelerator, a Google software engineer posted the rationale behind its creation: saving small amounts of time adds up. It got me thinking about other tiny things which, if we skipped, we’d end up with so much more time on our hands. Here’s my list of tiny things I could do without, or have already started skipping to keep up with my go-getting lifestyle1:

I’ve calculated that by saving time from all of these things, I’d be able to write exactly 0.2 more blog entries a week! So if you see a sudden surge in blog entry frequency, you’ll know I’m skipping milk in the mornings.

1. Actual lifestyle may differ.

Currently listening to Born Again – Badly Drawn Boy

Matthew @ 17:38, May 9, 2005 to Miscellaneous | Permalink | Comments (0)

Google Web Accelerator: a warning

Google have just announced their own Web Accelerator. I won’t go into detail (you can read these articles for that, but be warned that the first link occasionally has some unpleasant ads), but I’d advise everyone to steer clear of it – using it potentially allows others on the same service to access your private information (emails etc.), as well as increasing the traffic (and hence the costs) to this website. For all of 0.1 seconds increase per page-load (and that’s after you’ve visited a site) it’s not worth the potential security problems. (Also, if it starts to up traffic here for no good reason I’ll block Web Accelerator users from this site.)

Just so you are warned.

Matthew @ 11:45, May 7, 2005 to Geek | Permalink | Comments (0)

It's over!

Only two more seats need to be declared, and the General Election will be completely over. The local elections are completely over here (the Conservatives now have control of Oxforshire County Council!!!). Just another four years to wait.

And with the possible exception of an entry on proportional representation, that’s your lot on politics from me. And what a relief it is – I’d got to the stage where I’d already started repeating myself and had run out of ways to say the same thing differently. Those of you in hiding from the election can now return.

Matthew @ 11:41, May 7, 2005 to Politics | Permalink | Comments (4)

Clever me

Well, Labour have a reduced majority, but so much for the Lib Dems making more gains than the Tories. I really despair about this country sometimes. I get thinking “surely there must be somewhere in the world where elections work?*”; think of Australia, where they have proportional representation and the Single Transferrable Vote; remember that I’d want John Howard in charge about as much as I’d want Michael Howard in charge; despair some more; remember my eternal hope and finally pray that God would do something next election because, as he knows, our country is quite messed up. Or perhaps with an eternal perspective these things don’t matter so much. Anyway, the Lib Dems have made moderate gains and my Lib Dem MP has been re-elected – so not all bad then.

* I count this one as a failure simply because less than 30% of eligible citizens voted for Labour, yet they have a majority.

Matthew @ 16:26, May 6, 2005 to Politics | Permalink | Comments (12)

Thank goodness

It’s Election Day, and soon it will all be over. Thank goodness. I’ve been thinking, writing and talking about politics so much I’ve almost been driven mad.

So what are my predictions? Well, I personally think that Labour will win with a reduced majority, the new seats going between Lib Dems and Conservatives pretty much equally, with slightly more Lib Dem seats.

What I’d like to see happen is Labour lose their majority, giving us a hung parliament. It’s possible, but unlikely. Even more unlikely is of course my real ideal situation, which is the Lib Dems becoming the official opposition. Why is my ideal situation not the Lib Dems in government? Well… I was going to say because I think they need to be the opposition first, but actually I’ll change my mind. I think the Lib Dems would make an excellent government because Kennedy would rely extensively on his cabinet, and the cabinet on parliament. But it’s not going to happen for a decade or two.

Anyway, we’ll see tomorrow morning. Sleep well, all. (I know I won’t. Stupidly but involuntarily I think I’m going to have a restless night…)

Matthew @ 17:25, May 5, 2005 to Politics | Permalink | Comments (5)

The Moral Vote

In America, the moral vote at the last election seemed to go to the Republican Party – and it gave the election to Bush. While I would take issue with the Republican Party being the moral party (sure, you don’t like abortion; what about Guantanamo Bay?), here it’s even less clear-cut. Traditionally the Conservatives have been morally conservative (in other words, the “moral” party). What’s the situation like today – and how should Christian voters go about deciding who to vote for if morals are important in their decisions? I’ve listed some of the major moral issues and written about the main three party’s stands on them.

Social Justice

By social justice I mean providing for those who aren’t as well off. Labour are traditionall the party of social justice, and over the past eight years have done a pretty good job of continuing that reputation. They’ve gone about it in a complicated way though, and while I believe they have done many good things in this area, I can’t name one that I understood at the time. They’ve managed to ignore the problems with pensions however. The Conservatives say they’ll do more about pensions, but as a party their reputation isn’t brilliant. Their plans to pay for private operations with NHS money are claimed to have the poorest at heart, but ideologically (and very probably practically as well) the idea is definitely not socially just. The Lib Dems say they can fund a greater state pension than both the Tories and Labour, and social justice is one of the major prongs of their party (the other being libertarianism to an extent). All in all, the Lib Dems come out on top if they can provide what they say they can. The Conservatives come last.

Economy/Wealth Redistribution

The Lib Dems believe in fair taxation – a Robin Hood style taking from the rich and giving to the poor, only legal. The Conservatives believe in lower taxes to improve the economy, with the wealth made at the top trickling down to those in need at the bottom. In practise, this only works when you have benevolent rich people and businesses, and they’re all too rare. (It used to work, but doesn’t now.) Labour are pretty good, but less extreme than the Lib Dems when it comes to higher taxation. Both Lib Dems and Labour score highly in this area, and it becomes a matter of opinion whether the higher rates of tax (50% income tax over £100,000 p.a. and higher local taxes for earners over £40,000 p.a.) seems fair to you.

The War in Iraq

It has to be mentioned for two reasons. I believe the war to be immoral, and both the Conservatives and Labour supported it (as a whole). People differ on this issue though. The other issue here is Tony Blair and others around him. Did they deceive the country or didn’t they? If they did, they lose marks on morality. Another memo was leaked today, saying that long before the decision was made to go to war, Jack Straw and others were trying to engineer a situation where war would be more politically favourable (with no regard for the legality).

Immigration and Asylum

I’m biased here, but I think the Tory policies in this area are thinly masked racism. Still, having a limit on asylum seekers still seems immoral (they are asylum seekers after all). Labour may have mismanaged the whole system and it may need reform, but that’s not a moral issue. The moral issue is the cap being proposed by the Tories. More marks lost for them, then.

Campaign Styles

Following on from that, the Tories seem to be playing on people’s fears about immigration to get votes under the guise of “not being hindered by political correctness” and “talking about issues that matter to voters”. Politicians always slag one another off though, so we could possibly give Lib Dem positive marks for their “positive campaigning”, but apart from that there’s not much difference. (The Greens get bonus marks for not travelling by helicopter though.)

Abortion

The Conservatives want the age of viability reduced (good for morals) but only after an investigation into it. The Lib Dems offer MPs a free vote, and I’m not sure about Labour. Pretty much equal though.

Homosexuality

Is it immoral to stop homosexuals from marrying, or is it immoral to let them? It doesn’t matter because all the parties want gay marriage anyway.

The Environment

Labour talk the talk but so far haven’t done much about carbon emissions (and want to renew the nuclear deterrent, as well as possibly build new nuclear plants). Lib Dems are very green, much more so than the Tories and have more progressive targets than Labour (who are still on track to meet them, just about). Tories lose again, with Lib Dems quite a long way ahead because Tony Blair doesn’t seem to care any more.

Overall

Well, it’s completely subjective of course, but on the traditional moral issues (abortion, homosexuality) the parties don’t have much to chose between them. On less traditional moral issues (the environment, war and social justice) the Lib Dems come out on top, with Labour doing pretty well in most areas with a few exceptions. Still, it seems to set to rest the idea that the Conservatives are the moral vote – in fact, I’d argue that voting Conservative would be immoral (see immigration and wealth distribution for examples of why).

I was talking to my former youth leader, Rob, about this on Sunday, and he was quite surprised to hear what I said about the Lib Dems’ moral issues (especially as our local Lib Dem MP has a reputation for being pro everything Christians aren’t). A lot of people also don’t realise that less obvious policies have moral implications (for example, taxes). I hope this has been helpful to people in thinking about these issues. Of course, with tactical voting the moral vote might be Conservative (to keep out UKIP) or Labour (because the candidate was anti-war) or Lib Dem (because they’d vote to lower the viability age) or Green (because you live in the centre of Brighton) or UKIP (because it’s them or the BNP) – you never know. That’s one reason I’m voting Lib Dem – proportional representation means that votes outside a few marginal constituancies actually mean something, giving us a better democracy – and a better democracy, I’d argue, is morally prefereable.

Matthew @ 19:14, May 3, 2005 to Politics | Permalink | Comments (23)

And with the skill that comes of a complete lack of effort...

I’ve managed to go overdrawn on an account with no overdraft facility; and not just once, but twice. Not just since I’ve been eighteen (and legally allowed credit) but when I was seventeen as well.

I’d find it quite amusing if they weren’t charging me this time. Luckily, it’s not my fault. Generally, if you write a cheque but then pay in cash instead and ask them to rip up the cheque you’d given them, you don’t expect them to then cash the cheque. Also, if you order something online that the retailer doesn’t actually have in stock and doesn’t even know where to get one from, you don’t expect them to claim to have one and debit your account (meaning that, seeing as you’ve found it for sale elsewhere you end up buying it twice).

I called up my bank on Friday to ask them to waive the charges as it wasn’t my fault. Not only did they refuse, they offered me a credit card. Look, guys, I know it wasn’t my fault but you’ve just had a call from someone who is accidentally overdrawn, and the only thing you can think of doing is offer them a credit card? No wonder we have so many people in debt in this country!

Matthew @ 09:59, May 1, 2005 to Diary | Permalink | Comments (2)