Fair votes on Twitter

You've probably seen them - Tweets saying RT for A, Fav for B, or similar.

Unfortunately, this approach will always produce very skewed results as the people that follow the Tweeter are only going to see their RTs, not their Favs, so the RT option has a very strong advantage over the Fav option.

What we really want to do is retweet the question but collect the response a little differently.

The easiest way to do this is to ask folk to RT Only for A, but to RT & Fav for B - the total RTs minus Favs gives the A result & the number of Favs gives the B vote.

Because the question is retweeted each time there is no skew to one option or the other. To recap-

RT Only for A.

RT & Fav for B.

Total A = all RTs minus all Favs,

Total B = all Favs.

A Twitter vote done this way is both fair and easy, once you've tried it :-)

There's another example here.

Beefis, Neeps & Tatties

Made this by accident today using up some left-over ingredients - but it's surprisingly delicious. For those that don't like Haggis I'd like to suggest this as a modern alternative...

Mince - about a kilo of beef
Turnip - diced - about half a kilo
Carrots - diced - about half a kilo
Bell Peppers - diced - one or two
Spice Mix for Fajitas - Old El Paso
Cashew Nuts - I had a 65 gram bag of salted ones
Tomato Paste - about half a tube
Couple of Potatoes - thinly sliced

Boil & mash the Turnip & Carrots - can take a long while to soften enough. Season well with salt & pepper.

Fry the Mince & Peppers until browned off then add a little water and Tomato Paste.

Mix in the Spice Mix. Simmer and stir for a few minutes. Stir in the Cashew Nuts.

Transfer this "Beefis" mix to a large over dish and layer the mash on top using back of a spoon.

Brush the Sliced Potatoes with oil and layer on the top with a little more seasoning  for effect..

Bake in a medium over for about an hour and then enjoy with some of Burns poetry...

Edit - think I'll rename it Texas, Neeps & Tatties :-)

Why is UK housing so expensive?

Oxfam Scotland have previously identified housing as the top quality of life priority for most people.

In the seventies the average house cost about 3 times the average income. Today it's closer to 6 times. Why is this, and is this progress? In my opinion there are two main problems, a restricted supply and continued wealth accumulation.

Firstly, a free market should enable the supply of competitively priced units that should not increase in relative price over time. For housing there is a finite supply of land, and one could argue this restriction has driven prices up, but the population has only increased by around ten percent in forty years so it can actually only be a small part of the overall picture.

Secondly, each generation inherits more wealth, particularly that stored up in their parent's housing. This has a one-way ratchet effect, constantly pushing demand and driving up prices. Houses come to represent layers of fossilised wealth valued for their rarity rather than intrinsic utility.

Other questions remain:

• How much has the rise of dual incomes caused the current cost/income ratio?
• Are there secret suppliers cartels in operation and how can we ensure none exist?
• Are politicians doing enough to see that land is reused and enough social housing is built?
• Are enough voters in favour of a stabilisation, even reduction, over time, of relative house prices?
• What about the impact of Buy-to-Let? Does this help or hinder supply? via Twitter.

Ultimately, I think, we need to ask what real progress will look like, devise policies to take us in that direction, and secure mandates for change - ie that we need a full supply to meet the strong demand.

But what do you think? Feel free to leave a few thoughts below. The image is from an Economist article that's worth reading too.