Good grief. Via The Medium is Not Enough, here’s Fox News’s take on the News International hacking scandal. In short: “They’ve done the right thing! Why do people keep banging away at this story?” Well, maybe that’s because News International was so powerful it had an entire government scared stiff and also practically decided who was elected. And, frankly, that Fox News piece pretty much showcases what happens when a media organisation has too much power. Impartiality? Facts? Fuck that—much more fun to pander to your parent company’s CEO’s wishes!

I’m not sure what’s more sad about Steve Silberman’s An Eye-Opening Adventure in Socialized Medicine, the fact that someone from a wealthy, democratic country—the USA—was totally shocked about being treated, essentially for free, in London when he came down with a bad case of conjunctivitis, or that the NHS as we know it is still under threat from aggressive Conservative-led policy.

Silberman’s story highlights a poor aspect of US healthcare and the best of British. Having spent a large number of dollars battling with his US provider (“The Kaiser rep simply repeated her question in a more brittle tone of voice and added, ‘Just answer yes or no.'”), he finally got ‘permission’ to phone a London number for emergency care.

Amazingly, a human being picked up the phone right away — an affable guy with a disarmingly chummy accent and an empathic manner. Yes, yes, of course I should see a doctor right away. Where should they send him?

What? This guy was offering to dispatch someone to examine my eyes immediately in my apartment in the middle of the night?

He then ends up discovering, having heard about the evils of British healthcare, that there weren’t in fact thousands of people fighting for attention in the waiting room, that the staff were generally courteous and efficient, and, eventually, that the entire event cost him under a tenner for the prescription. The consultation was, of course, free.

In the comments, there are notes from people that Silberman only didn’t get charged because it’s too much hassle for the NHS to bother for such a small incident and consultation, but this nonetheless highlights two important things. First, the NHS was willing to spend some resources on a tourist, without any questions over insurance; secondly, that this is the default level of service you can enjoy with the evils of ‘socialised’ healthcare—and it costs a fraction of US healthcare insurance, along with being available to all.

There’s also a second point made, in that the NHS isn’t ‘free’ but ‘free at the point of entry’. But this is still a safety net that surely beats the US model, where you often aren’t even covered if you travel out of state. (Imagine telling a Londoner they’re not covered in Wales… they’d just look at you as though you were bonkers.) It’s strange that in a country that has ‘socialised’ aspects (police forces, benefits, various industries), health is such a sticking point. Why would it be a terrible thing for the USA to set up its own NHS? It’s not like you’d be forced to use it—after all, the UK has additional paid-for tiers—but at least then everyone would be covered and not petrified about losing their healthcare if they should lose their job. And the argument against—Why should I have to subsidise someone else’s healthcare?—makes no sense, given that this is precisely what you’re doing with insurance-based systems anyway. Insurance costs are always based in part around the people who are not insured, which drives premiums up.

The NHS isn’t perfect and I’m sure there are plenty of things that could be done to tighten things up. Yes, waiting lists are sometimes long and there are inconsistencies throughout the service. But the day the NHS is morphed into any kind of privatised service will be very sad indeed.

Desperately sad news from the BBC today as it announced the first phase in the sale of Television Centre, White City, London. The BBC’s putting a brave face on this, claiming it’s all about making a smaller, fitter BBC, but the building is where many famous shows were born. More importantly, it’s a central hub for the BBC, which will now be fired in all directions across the UK, into cheaper real estate.

The real reason, of course, for the sale has nothing to do with efficiency and everything to do with successive governments trying to kill the BBC by removing chunks of its funding, causing a massive shortfall. It’s depressing to note that regardless of whether you back the Tories or Labour, both of them want the BBC dead. Rupert Murdoch must be laughing his arse off right about now.

I was at a restaurant last night, when everyone within heard a loud bang. A guy had abruptly passed out and smacked his head really hard on the door. He was unconscious, and his wife said he’d felt sick and was trying to get some air.

We called an ambulance. We didn’t think about this, didn’t ask the wife if her husband was insured—we just called. The ambulance arrived in 15 minutes and the guy—now conscious, if not entirely with it—was taken to hospital. He will be treated, regardless of what is wrong, and he will never be asked to part with huge sums of money.

Interestingly, we were dining with two people who’d been living on the USA (one Brit, one American), noting, sadly, that many Americans would think twice about the “hundreds of bucks” an ambulance call-out would cost, and that the idea of global healthcare remains largely demonised in the USA, most often by the people it’s designed to help (the non-rich).

From recent events, it’s clear for all David Cameron’s arguments to the contrary, he and the Tories don’t care about the NHS one bit. Mark Britnell, one of Cameron’s senior health advisors, according to Political Scrapbook, recently said:

In future, the NHS will be a state insurance provider not a state deliverer.

Talking to his corporate private health sector chums, he added:

The NHS will be shown no mercy and the best time to take advantage of this will be in the next couple of years.

This, of course, coincides with the government’s supposed ‘listening exercise’ regarding health reform.

For Tory MPs, the anti-NHS stance is logical for all kinds of reasons, not least the fact most Tories would happily do away with all socialist aspects of government. It’s unlikely many of them use the NHS, preferring to pay for private care; therefore, they neither have the experience of the NHS nor the ability to empathise with those who cannot afford to pay for an insurance-based system. As someone who’s self-employed and therefore wouldn’t be covered by an employer system, I also dread the thought of ‘NHS USA’, and suspect it would wreck UK entrepreneurialism.

But mostly, I think about random guy last night. We could not have gotten him medical care any more swiftly, and as the ambulance left the signs were good. But with a system where you do think and you do hesitate, that could cost vital minutes and lead to a very different result—all to make Conservatives happy about tearing down one of the finest socialist components the UK will ever see.

I love the NHS, despite its faults. It’s not perfect, but it’s there when we need it, universally. If you agree and your MP is Liberal Democrat, write to them and make it extraordinarily clear they won’t get your support in 2015 (or sooner, if the coalition doesn’t last its full term) unless they block this bill. If your MP is Conservative, argue the same (for all the good it will do). And if your MP is from any other party, ask them what they, specifically, are doing to save the NHS, while a spiteful, class-obsessed Tory-led government is doing its level best to tear it down.

Today is the UK referendum on electoral reform. Brits get to choose between FPTP and AV, and the vast majority of my political posts on this blog have been about it, including the much-read AV versus FPTP—just the facts, man. And an interview with someone a bit right-wing who doesn’t exist. (Note to non-Brits and the politically agnostic—don’t worry, I’ll be back to mostly banging on about tech and gaming next week.)

A bunch of people have asked me to explain in a little more depth about how the voting systems work, and so here’s a brief overview.

Briefly, FPTP (our existing system) works as follows:

• Vote for one candidate
• The candidate with the most votes wins the seat

The main strength of FPTP is that it’s dead simple; it’s also largely fair in head-to-head(ish) seats that are mostly a contest between two candidates.

The main problems with FPTP are that its winner-takes-all approach leads to tactical voting in more complex seats, and it also enables someone to take a seat with a minority vote share. There’s also the spoiler effect, which the Tories have used well in recent years—the ‘left’/moderate vote splits, enabling the Tories to win seats that Labour or Lib Dem supporters would have been happy(ish) going to the other candidate.

AV works as follows:

1. Vote for as many candidates as you wish, ranking them in order
2. If a candidate has 50% of the vote, they win the seat, otherwise:
3. Second-choice preferences for the lowest-placed candidates are redistributed.

2 and 3 loop until a candidate has over 50% of the vote. The end result is a winner with the direct backing of core supporters and indirect backing of people who think they are at least ‘better than the other guy’. This kills the spoiler effect.

How could this work in practice? Well, in a seat where a candidate already has a really strong showing, winning over 50% of votes, AV makes no difference at all. This makes sense, since the candidate clearly has majority backing from their constituents. But let’s travel back to a made-up 2010 and a fairly tight contest in a UK seat, with three candidates: Left Lib, Lefty Lab and Righty Con. Righty Con’s a lazy fucker, but he wins elections because the Lefty votes are split and because he has enough core support to squeak through each time. But in the expenses scandal, it was shown that he’s expensed a £25,000 hat and a decade’s worth of Smarties, and so polling suggests things will be tight.

Under FPTP, this is what happened in Made-Up On Thames in 2010:

Lefty Lib: 29%
Lefty Lab: 35%
Righty Con: 36%

As you can see, Righty Con only had a slim majority over Lefty Lab, but the majority of the voters didn’t want him. In fact, all the Lefty lot are now hugely pissed off and confused, and they’re banging on about tactical voting next time and how they should have voted for someone who wasn’t their first choice last time. But that might not have made any odds because not everyone would have done this and OH IT’S TOO CONFUSING.

In a magical world where AV actually wins the referendum today, here’s what happens in 2015, with the exact same turnout:

Lefty Lib: 29%
Lefty Lab: 35%
Righty Con: 36%

Man, those guys don’t learn, do they? The exact same result. Hurrah for Righty Con!

BUT WAIT! We have AV now, and so the votes don’t work in the same way. Lefty Lib is last, and so he is eliminated (possibly by firing squad) and his second-choice votes are redistributed. The vast majority of Lefty Lib supporters thought Lefty Lab was a better bet than Righty Con, and so this is what subsequently happened:

Lefty Lab: 58%
Righty Con: 42%

Lefty Lab now wins, backed directly by 35% and indirectly by the majority of the remainder. In 2020, Righty Con will have to work harder to appeal to a broader range of people, rather than being a lazy git.

And that, ultimately, is your choice today. I’m voting yes to AV. The system is imperfect and not what I’d choose if we had a larger selection of tasty reform-oriented treats, but I think AV betters FPTP in important areas. However, even if you disagree, go and vote. The UK rarely gets chances like this, so make the most of it and make your voice heard.