Without a doubt the second worst game I’ve ever played

Posted on August 5, 2011 by James Clayton

Dragon’s Lair is one of those games that has legendary status. Originally a 1983 laserdisc arcade machine, it’s been ported to just about every format ever. Curious about a part of gaming history, I bought the iPhone version from the app store a while back.

It’s without doubt the second worst game I’ve ever played. To my knowledge, only once have boredom, frustration and outright offensiveness been combined to greater effect. While Don Bluth’s animation does look beautiful on the iPhone screen, that’s all the game is. Originally shipping on a laserdisc meant that all the game could do was play pre-recorded video clips in response to timed inputs. You have no control here. It’s singlehandedly responsible for the deluge of so-called “Interactive Movies” that blighted the mid-90s, when we all finally got the smaller silver platters in our own homes. Today it would be known as nothing but a succession of quick time events, and the iPhone version handily takes a lesson from more modern games and displays the correct button to press on the screen. Previous versions relied on guess work and memory. You die a lot in Dragon’s Lair.

The fact that arcade audiences not only paid to play this, but came back and paid to play it again and again literally boggles the mind. Avoid.

Posted in Gaming | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The phone hacking scandal, and the BSkyB takeover

Posted on July 7, 2011 by James Clayton

Dear Marsha Singh MP,

Like me, I’m sure you’ve seen this week’s coverage of the scandalous behaviour of the News of the World.

While the continuing revelations have been shocking, I am concerned that the phone hacking incidents are merely symptomatic of a deeper rot that has been allowed to permeate the British media. Watching Tom Watson’s excellent speech to House last night, I was reminded of the influence the Murdoch empire has over the British people and our politics.

Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation already owns 40% of British newspapers and 40% of BSkyB, the UK’s largest commercial broadcaster. In the US, Australia and elsewhere this degree of media dominance would not be allowed. There’s no one else who controls the share of the UK media Murdoch does, and I believe the phone hacking case (and the alleged bribes paid to police to cover it up) demonstrate the degree to which News International have come to consider themselves above the law.

It’s clear that the executives of News Corporation are no longer fit and proper media owners, either morally or economically. Morally, this case has demonstrated that they do not respect either the interests or law of Great Britain. Economically, their growing monopoly is an impediment to the fair operation of the media market. The concentration of influence into the hands of such people is deeply damaging to our democracy.

Please do all you can to stop the the News International takeover of BSkyB, and to make sure an inquiry starts as soon as possible. Please also make the case in parliament for a tightening of the regulation of media monopolies, so that we can prevent further scenarios like this one arising.

I look forward to hearing your thoughts on the matter.

Posted in Media | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

#No2AV Lie of the Week: Part 6

Posted on February 19, 2011 by James Clayton

It’s been an eventful week in referendumland. We got royal assent, and No to AV started on their most scandalous programme of deception yet.

Their lie of the week this week is Our country can’t afford the Alternative Vote. Now, personally I find it deeply worrying that cost would even be a factor when considering democracy, but we’ll ignore that for a moment and examine the figures they’re presenting.

No to AV are claiming the move to AV would cost the taxpayer £250 million. Their figures break down as follows:

  • £82 million for the cost of the referendum itself
  • £9 million on voter education
  • £130 million on electronic counting machines
  • £26 million on further voter education should the referendum pass

Ignoring for a moment (again) how that doesn’t actually add up to £250 million, hopefully you’ve spotted by now that the first £91 million of that won’t actually be saved by voting no. No campaign spokesman Dan Hodges admitted as much to Next Left. It also doesn’t take account of the £17 million the government says will be saved by holding the referendum on the same day as other elections.

So what about the remaining £156 million No to AV claim actually could be saved? Maybe we should consider that. Oh no, wait. We already did. If you ever meet any No advocates, and they tell you that AV requires costly counting machines, you might like to ask them how the Australians managed in 1918! The Electoral Commission have said that they are looking at modernising the voting system, but the result of the AV referendum has not been a factor in their considerations. In fact, the notorious problems with voting machines in the US relate to first past the post elections.

So the only cost remaining is the somewhat mysterious figure of £26 million on voter education. The £9 million figure from before the referendum seems to be derived from that quoted in parliament as Electoral Commission expenses. The Electoral Commission provides material explaining the electoral process before every election, so it’s unclear why No 2 AV think it would be an additional charge.

In short, No to AV’s claims are a flat out lie. Even the rabidly traditionalist Daily Telegraph admits it. I sincerely hope the electorate will see through the attempts to confuse, and instead vote on the issue: whether or not AV is an improvement on FPTP. Of course, it might be that No to AV would rather just not bother with elections at all. It would, after all, be cheaper.

Posted in Politics | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Just because Nick Clegg said it doesn’t mean it’s true

Posted on February 11, 2011 by James Clayton

Part five in my #No2AV lie of the week series, and it’s an easy one. I thought this was something we’d all learnt by now anyway?

I’ve covered the myth of the miserable little compromise in detail before but, in short, they’re saying we shouldn’t vote for it because Nick Clegg doesn’t like it? Have they forgotten who Nick Clegg is?

No to AV seem to be getting a little less bold in their lies. I guess they ran out of imagination.

Posted in Politics | Tagged , , , , , , , | 8 Comments

#No2AV Lie of the Week: Part 4

Posted on February 6, 2011 by James Clayton

I’ve left it a bit late this week. If I’m not quick they’ll have the next one up…

Another week, another bizarre lie from No to AV. This week, they’re further exposing their incoherent and inconsistent message. After last week’s near-truth, this week’s is highly subjective. It almost feels as though they’re doing this specifically to challenge me. AV, they claim, is the wrong referendum at the wrong time.

OK, so, starting with the blindingly obvious, that doesn’t tell us anything at all about which way we should vote. It might not be the referendum some had hoped for, but it’s the one we’ve got. If you need to make your mind up, you’re probably looking for facts, not for the former head of the Taxpayer’s Alliance and the defeated Conservative candidate for Brighton Pavilion dismissing your right to have a say. Nor is it the fault of those looking to make MPs more accountable that David Cameron failed to deliver on his cast iron guarantee of a referendum on Europe. If broken promises are what you care about, a Yes vote will make it easier to kick the liars out in future.

Secondly, as I explained before, those looking for PR need two changes: one to the voting system, and a second to the composition of the House. It is only reasonable that those things should be debated separately. AV is a small change to the existing system that, by raising the threshold MPs need to pass to get elected, takes power from them and returns it to the people. STV was never going to be on the table in a Tory led coalition. Some had hoped for a compromise involving other forms of proportionality, like AV+ or AMS. They were misguided, and I’m greatly relieved they didn’t get their way. Any system based on party lists would have been the exact reverse of the benefits of AV. Rather than taking power from MPs and giving it to the people, it would have taken power from MPs and given it to spin doctors and party whips with no democratic mandate from the public. And worse, because of their proportionality, they would have been seen as end points by the parties, rather than steps to further reform. Once they were in place, we would be stuck with the least democratic of all options. AV is a natural progression from where we are now, and leaves us well positioned for further reform, without having abdicated our democratic responsibility if we later decide to keep it for good.

As for the timing; well, you couldn’t hope for a better time for democratic reform. These are the kind of discussions that only get on to the table in hung parliaments. Parties with large majorities start to think the system that put them there must have been good for them, and they consider their own perceived self-interest above the interest of the electorate. Labour promised reform in 1997 and never delivered. Only now, when they are out of government, have they started talking about it again. In opposition, what’s good for the public is good for you. The expenses scandal, still fresh in the memory, reminded people that we are supposed to be the bosses, and it’s time MPs answered to us again. Unless we seize the opportunity now, it’ll be at least another generation before they do.

Posted in Politics | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

28 Days Later

Posted on February 5, 2011 by James Clayton

On 8th January, along with many other people, I wrote to my MP asking where he stood on the issue of electoral reform. That was 28 days ago.

Dear Marsha Singh,

As you may have seen from my letter in Thursday’s Telegraph and Argus, I am very disappointed that the first of Bradford’s MPs to announce his stance in May’s referendum on improving the voting system came down against the Alternative Vote.

The Alternative Vote would be the first major improvement to British Democracy since the franchise was extended to 18 year olds 42 years ago. The requirement that MPs be elected on an actual majority would give you the right to claim a true mandate for your position. I’m sure you can see, as I can, the benefits of such a system.

As one of your constituents, I’d like to know which side of the debate you are on. Could you please go to http://yestofairervotes.org/ and tell us where you stand.

Many thanks in advance.

The requirement for MPs to be elected with 50% of the vote, introduced as part of the proposed change to AV, would make it easier for the electorate to unseat MPs who don’t listen to them.

Posted in Politics | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

#No2AV Lie of the Week: Part 3

Posted on January 24, 2011 by James Clayton

Wow. No to AV came so close to stating an actual true fact this week. It only would have taken a few more words. Sadly for them, lies are what result when you run a campaign based on soundbites over substance. So on with the series!

While it would be true to say that AV is only used to elect governments in Papua New Guinea, Fiji and Australia; it is not true to claim outright that those are the only places it’s used. In the British House of Commons AV is used to elect the speaker and the chairs of select committees. Every major British political party uses AV (or a system very similar to AV) to elect their leader. Local parties use AV to select candidates for election. In the US, as I mentioned last time, at least one city has chosen to adopt it every year since 2004.

Outside of government, AV is used all over the world by charities, unions and community organisations who want to ensure that every member has a say in their leadership elections. It’s used at the Oscars to decide who will get the award for best picture, because they recognise that it best allows the collective judgment of all voting members to be most accurately represented. My own passion for electoral reform developed when I was forced to learn different electoral systems as returning officer for elections at the University of Bradford Union.

In short, everywhere voters get a say in the system they use, they choose AV or something similar.

Posted in Politics | Tagged , , , , , , | 3 Comments

Electoral Commission Confirms: No to AV Lying

Posted on January 23, 2011 by James Clayton

Mark Nyack of the Electoral Commission responded to my letter about No to AV’s claim that adopting the Alternative Vote would require expensive electronic counting machines:

We are in favour of electoral modernisation and have recommended to government that new approaches such as electronic counting shout not be implemented until a thorough case has been made and implications considered.

That’s all well and good, but it didn’t quite rule out the possibility that I’d missed something. Maybe there was a reason I wasn’t aware of that the introductions of AV would change that recommendation?

I replied seeking confirmation that the above applied irrespective of the outcome of the referendum, to which Mark responded:

That is correct, irrespective of the outcome of the AV referendum.

So, AV can easily be counted without machines. The Electoral Commission are in favour of modernising the way we vote, but they’re not recommending any change to electronic counting at this time. The outcome of the AV referendum doesn’t change that.

Chalk it up as another No to AV lie then!

Posted in Politics | Tagged , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

#No2AV Lie of the Week: Part 2

Posted on January 22, 2011 by James Clayton

Given the campaign they’re running, it would be difficult for No to AV to come up with a more ironic slogan than this week’s we don’t want two votes, we want politicians who aren’t two faced.

There are actually two lies here: firstly, that AV gives anyone two votes. Secondly, that FPTP is the best way to keep politicians from lying. We’ll take them one at a time.

AV does not give people two votes

As I explained before, AV is derived from the Single Transferable Vote. The clue’s in the name. You have a single vote. It’s transferable. To claim that AV gives anyone more than one vote is to fundamentally misunderstand its intention. As its core, AV takes the simple preposition that for an MP to claim to represent a constituency, they should command the support of a majority of voters in that constituency. The only way to guarantee that one candidate will end up with more than half the votes is to only have two candidates standing. Of course, that would massively limit the choice of the electorate to express their views, so we allow more candidates to stand. By eliminating the last place candidates one at a time, we can narrow the field until only one remains, asking everyone to choose between those that remain each time, and eventually forcing a majority. Holding many elections would be expensive and time consuming though, so we simply ask everyone to write down who they would choose in the later rounds if they were still in the running. Thus, the AV gets its American name, Instant-Runoff Voting.

FPTP is the worst way to keep politicians from lying

As the current government and the expenses scandal have shown, FPTP does not provide fertile soil for honesty. When two thirds of MPs are under no threat of losing their seat, they have no accountability if they don’t work hard or fail to act with integrity. While no-one is claiming AV would eliminate safe seats, it would massively reduce the number of them. When MPs are in real danger of losing their seat, they will need to work harder to stay in power, and have more incentive to deliver on promises they made during the campaign. Evidence from the US (where AV has been slowly gaining ground, having been adopted by new cities in referendums every year since 2004) even shows that AV has given an advantage to hard working, community focused candidates, as opposed to those backed by big money.

No to AV updated on Sunday last week. I wonder what new lie they’ll have for us tomorrow?

Posted in Politics | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 17 Comments

Could the Electoral Commission clarify…?

Posted on January 21, 2011 by James Clayton

Dear Sir or Madam,

I notice that No to AV are claiming that, should the alternative vote be implemented following the forthcoming referendum, expensive counting machines would be required to count elections.

Having previously volunteered to count AV elections at my students’ union, I know it is patently false to say AV cannot be counted by hand. As such, I was wondering whether they are basing their claim on any evidence of a proposed move to electronic voting, and whether such a move would be planned only if there is a “yes” result at the referendum? Have you issued any guidance on how AV would be counted, should it be implemented?

Update 23/1/2011: The Electoral Commission replied to my letter

Posted in Politics | Tagged , , , , , , | 1 Comment