My brain bits move in mysterious ways

I'm writing a novel. Number seven as it happens, and it'll probably join the others on that great unpublished shelf in the sky. But I've also been reading, and listening to podcasts, about the way the brain works, and my writing "technique" seems to offer persuasive evidence for the idea that various parts of the brain work almost independently of each other. Each one goes its own sweet way, occasionally coming up with an idea, a decision, a bodily movement... Many of these are actioned, some of them actually come to the notice of the conscious part that we tend to think is the "real" me, and some come as complete surprises.

You'll hear authors (if you have any interest in listening) saying things like "I don't write the story:  it writes itself" or "then this character did something I wasn't expecting". I've used those lines too, and recently came out with "my main character hasn't told me what the story is about yet". Some of this is affectation, but it is surely a gloss on the feeling we have that the mental wheels keep on churning whether we are aware of it or not.

An idea comes to the fore - half-formed, fully-formed - and you find yourself typing it in. Sometimes it's a second or two before you realise what is coming out. Sometimes it's as if that idea "has always been there". It's because you have more than one pair of mental hands at work all the time. You're not on your own in there.

Electoral geeks are among the worst, but...

Why will I vote Yes to the Alternative Vote system?  For my own reasons.

1. We should establish the principle that things like this can change.  It would be good for us.
2. AV is a bit better than first-past-the-post at reflecting voter intentions.

But it's only a bit better. Some people, including me, would prefer a more proportional system, but my main objection is that both AV and the common forms of proportional representation depend on the idea that the least popular candidates are eliminated one by one until someone crosses a numerical threshold and gets elected.

That means that the second choices of the people who vote for the least popular candidates are taken into account when most people's other choices are ignored. That is the only logical justification I can think of for the No campaign's assertion that AV helps extremists - the BNP will be eliminated, but its supporters may have their votes counted again and again.

So my own geekish proposal is that every choice expressed by every voter should be taken into account right from the start:

• a first choice vote counts as 1
• a second choice vote counts as 1/2
• a third choice vote counts as 1/3
• etc

If there are four candidates, and you use all your choices, ranking them 1, 2, 3, 4, then you have 1 + 1/2 + 1/3 + 1/4 votes. Candidates get whole votes, half votes, etc and they are all added up, and the person with the highest total wins. It doesn't have to cross a notional 50% mark, just come top when everybody's choices have been taken into account.

Have I woken the sleeping geek within you?

You lot out there frighten me

Pollsters announce (or rather they occasionally let slip) that a large proportion of the adult population of the UK don't know that a referendum is to be held to decide on voting systems  for general elections.  Of those who do know, a large proportion don't intend to vote and another large proportion (not necessarily the same people) don't know how the Alternative Vote system works.

Rather than go off in a middle-class strop about the stupidity of the masses and "if they can't be bothered to understand they shouldn't even have the vote"...

I have some idea of how stupid I am, and who among us has never voted on something we don't fully understand?

...I will simply make a few observations.

• Some people somehow contrive to be unaware of even the headlines of current news.
• To some people, politics is somewhere between a criminal racket and a game which is of no interest to them.

Put like that, it's easy to understand.  I have no idea what's going on in the world of reality television and I consider investment banking to be somewhere between a criminal racket and a game which is of no interest to me.  My interests are obviously the right ones and other people's are simply depressing, but I have no right to criticise.

"I'm an American too"

I used to work with a man who was profoundly deaf.  When it came to meetings he needed a signing translator, and his usual helper was a Canadian (who must have had amazing stamina to do things like full-day conferences on his own).

On several occasions the translator objected to people's use of the word 'America' to mean 'USA'.  "I'm an American too,"  he protested.  To some extent, this was just an assertion of Canadian separateness, but to some extent also it was still a real point.

That was thirty years ago, and US ubiquity and hegemony is even more fully established today, to the point at which I can hear on a BBC news programme a reference to 'south and central America' meaning Alabama, Louisiana etc, rather than Mexico to Chile.

Bank report published: bank shares rise

Many commentators are saying that the independent banking commission's analysis may be good but its prescriptions weak.  Some kind of firewall/Chinese wall/ring fence between retail banking and investment banking is required, the big brains declare, but we're not saying exactly what kind and, provided the capitalisation of the retail bank is up to scratch, any surplus can be thrown over the wall/fence for dubious use by the denizens of the worldwide casino.

And you can tell how frightening this prospect is to the bankers by their organisations' share prices, which rose in the wake of yesterday's announcements.  Even Lloyds Banking Group was steady, though Vickers recommended that it should be forced to sell a further (also unspecified) number of branches.  The suspension of competition rules at the height of the crisis, which allowed Lloyds to swallow HBOS, was a "bad thing".

In passing I would suggest that Brown and Darling were not stupid or corrupt when they adopted this wheeze:  more likely it was a matter of desperation.  Without Lloyds' help, the government would have been left with a crippled HBOS on its hands and on its books as well as all the other financial flotsam and jetsam.

Regulating any kind of wall, fence or even last ditch would be horribly complicated, so why not "let the market do it"?

Announce that from - say - April 2013 there will be no government support for bank deposits in any organisation which is not properly independent of investment bank encumbrances.  Depositors would vote with their feet, walking away from any "institution" which looked less than enthusiastic to cut itself off.  I haven't worked out what to do for borrowers yet, but there must be a way.

Bring back secondary moderns!

Yet again I hear a vox pop with a parent saying that if there's no good local school for their child then they'll have to move to an area with grammar schools.  As if that will guarantee the child a place in a grammar school (and as if you can actually depend on the grammar school giving a good education)!

It certainly seems to be true that the non-grammar schools in selective areas are better than the old secondary moderns, but people should remember the entrance exams.  If you support the "grammar-school system" your proposal for the majority is a "secondary modern system".

Health select committee report

On the face of it, the recommendations of the Commons health select committee seem to be a good contribution to the argument. But Andrew Lansley surely can't accept the presence of hospital doctors on the boards of the commissioning authorities (PCTs 2.0?). It would be hard to manage competing interests if a "local" and "public" supplier had a representative on the commissioner. The purchasing of non-NHS services would still be possible, of course, but it would be embedded in a public service and therefore protected from the rawest competition. As I said, a useful contribution.

Tediously inconsistent

When it suits them, coalition spokespeople can reel off great lists of cuts planned by Labour before last May's election.  Then, almost in the next breath, they yell and scream that the new opposition has not let anybody into the secrets of "what they would cut".  It's about as edifying as the Ed Balls show.