The Good
Firstly, I want to say well done to those Lib Dem MPs who stuck to their pledge and voted against the rise in tuition fees. This included Jenny Willott (Cardiff Central) who resigned as Chris Huhne's parliamentary aide, as well as the other two Welsh Lib Dems - Mark Williams (Ceredigion) and Roger Williams (Brecon & Radnorshire). Three of the MPs from the East voted against the rise - Bob Russell (Colchester), Julian Huppert (Cambridge) and Simon Wright (Norwich South) - though the later seemed to take a lot of persuading...
Three other brand new MPs opposed the fee rise - Ian Swales (Redcar), Mike Crockart (Edinburgh West) and Stephen Lloyd (Eastbourne). As did the Liberal Democrat Party President Tim Farron (Westmorland & Lonsdale) and former leaders Menzies Campbell (Fife North East) and Charles Kennedy (Ross, Skye & Lochaber).
The other 9 who kept their promise were Annette Brooke (Dorset Mid & Poole North), Andrew George (St Ives), Mike Hancock (Portsmouth South), John Leech (Manchester Withington), Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West), John Pugh (Southport), Alan Reid (Argyle & Bute), Dan Rogerson (Cornwall North) and Adrian Sanders (Torbay). Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) was also intending to vote against the government, but was at the climate change conference.
Those on the Fence
Excluding the two at the climate conference, there were 6 Lib Dems abstaining: Lorely Burt (Solihull), Simon Hughes(Bermondsey), Tessa Munt (Wells) - one of the new MPs, Robert Smith (Aberdeenshire West & Kircadine), John Thurso (Caithness, Sutherland & Easter Ross) and Stephen Williams (Bristol West). All six represent a pledge broken, and I can no longer support them.
The Betrayers
Then there are the 28 who voted to increase tuition fees to up to £9,000. If I'd have gone to university paying fees of £9,000 - as would be likely, because I'm studying a humanities degree - I would have left university with a debt of just under £40,000. That's almost double my predicted debt of £21,000! I can't see how it saves any money at all... I'm certain I will never pay off my £21k before it's written off, let alone double that (which would average out at £1,333 a year for 30 years). But this is about more than just tuition fees, this is about TRUST!
Here, I will detail those in the Liberal Democrats who have betrayed their voters, students, and their party.
The Cabinet
Nick Clegg - Deputy PM (Sheffield Hallam);
Vince Cable - Business Secretary, (Twickenham);
Danny Alexander - Chief Sec. to the Treasury (Inverness, Nairn, Badenock, Strathspey);
Chris Huhne (absent at Climate Conference, but intending to vote with govt.) - Energy & Climate Change Sec. (Eastleigh);
Michael Moore - Scottish Sec. (Berwickshire, Roxburgh & Selkirk).
The Ministers
Norman Lamb - Chief Parliamentary and Political Adviser to the Deputy PM (North Norfolk);
Nick Harvey - Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Devon North);
Jeremy Browne - Foreign Office Minister (Taunton Deane);
Lynne Featherstone - Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Equalities (Hornsey & Wood Green);
Ed Davey - Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment Relations, Consumer and Postal Affairs ( Kingston & Surbiton);
Sarah Teather - Minister of State for Children and Families (Brent Central);
Paul Burstow - Minister of State for Care Services (Sutton & Cheam);
Steve Webb - Minister of State for Pensions (Thornbury & Yate);
Andrew Stunell - Parliamentary Under-Secretaries of State for Community Cohesion (Hazel Grove);
Norman Baker - Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Regional and Local Transport (Lewes);
David Heath - Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Somerton & Frome);
Alistair Carmichael - Liberal Democrat Chief Whip (Orkney & Shetland);
Mark Hunter - Assistant Whip (Cheadle).
Worse than this, there were 11 Lib Dem MPs without paid ministerial positions who broke their pledge and voted to increase tuition fees - four of these were brand new MPs:
Gordon Birtwistle (Burnley);
Stephen Gilbert (St Austell & Newquay);
Duncan Hames (Chippenham);
David Ward (Bradford East).
The others were:
Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed);
Tom Brake (Carshalton & Wallington);
Malcolm Bruce (Gordon);
Don Foster (Bath);
David Laws - former Chief Sec. to the Treasury (Yeovil);
Jo Swinson (Dunbartonshire East);
John Hemming (Birmingham Yardley).
These 28 people no longer speak for me, for the Liberal Democrats, or the UK's students.
I call for all those who broke their pledge to stand down at the next parliament.
As that seems unlikely, I call on local parties to deselect those who have betrayed the party and instead stand candidates who are honest and stick to their pledges unconditionally.
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
12 December, 2010
07 December, 2010
Ahead of the vote on tuition fees
So on Thursday 9th, we have the House of Commons vote on Higher Education, which is now focused more than anything else on whether to increase tuition fees or not.
I think it's unlikely that Greg Mulholland's attempt to have the vote on tuition fees delayed will be successful, and this will leave Lib Dems with a choice. They can support the rise in tuition fees, they can oppose rise, or they can abstain.
The numbers suggest that the motion need not be passed, if enough Lib Dems vote against. Contrary to what has been said by Paddy Ashdown and others in the media, tuition fees was flagged up as an issue by the Liberal Democrat special conference in May 2010 - which I attended - where conference passed this motion, submitted by Liberal Youth:
This issue is more than simply about tuition fees; it's about trust and about restoring trust in politics. All of the Lib Dem MPs, plus 92 Labour MPs and 3 Tory MPs signed the NUS pledge (see Matt King's blog for full details). These MPs went further than simply making a manifesto commitment, to personally pledge to vote against any rise in tuition fees. No ifs, no buts.
It seems pretty clear that those 92 Labour MPs will stick to their pledge, and media interest is - quite rightly - on whether the Liberal Democrats will stick to their individual promises; or whether they are just like any other party, saying one thing in opposition, and doing quite another in government.
I think it's unlikely that Greg Mulholland's attempt to have the vote on tuition fees delayed will be successful, and this will leave Lib Dems with a choice. They can support the rise in tuition fees, they can oppose rise, or they can abstain.
The numbers suggest that the motion need not be passed, if enough Lib Dems vote against. Contrary to what has been said by Paddy Ashdown and others in the media, tuition fees was flagged up as an issue by the Liberal Democrat special conference in May 2010 - which I attended - where conference passed this motion, submitted by Liberal Youth:
"Conference notes that many Liberal Democrat MPs signed the NUS ‘vote for students’ pledge against any real-terms rise in the tuition fee cap. Conference calls upon Liberal Democrat ministers and MPs to ensure that on any decision made on Lord Browne’s report on higher education funding, they above all else take into account the impact on student debt. Conference affirms the Liberal Democrat objective of scrapping tuition fees."
This issue is more than simply about tuition fees; it's about trust and about restoring trust in politics. All of the Lib Dem MPs, plus 92 Labour MPs and 3 Tory MPs signed the NUS pledge (see Matt King's blog for full details). These MPs went further than simply making a manifesto commitment, to personally pledge to vote against any rise in tuition fees. No ifs, no buts.
It seems pretty clear that those 92 Labour MPs will stick to their pledge, and media interest is - quite rightly - on whether the Liberal Democrats will stick to their individual promises; or whether they are just like any other party, saying one thing in opposition, and doing quite another in government.
As a Liberal Democrat activist, I can safely say - wait - pledge, that I will not support or campaign for any MP who does not vote against the rise in tuition fees. Further to this, I will push for the de-selection of Lib Dem MPs if they vote for the rise in tuition fees, and would consider campaigning against them if they chose to stand in future elections as Liberal Democrats.
We are a party that hold honesty and transparency in the highest regard, and when our MPs make a pledge, they should damn well stick to it. If they don't then they're certainly not sitting in parliament in my name.
12 January, 2008
Nuclear Power - A Step in the Right Direction
We all know how nuclear power has many disadvantages. We've all heard about the devastation of Chernobyl, seen the Greenpeace scenario video of a terrorist attack on Sizewell, and worried about the methods of disposing of nuclear waste; but the fact is we NEED to make the most of nuclear energy if we want to have the slightest chance of preventing a complete and utter global disaster.
The way I see it, no one who cares about the environment wants nuclear power, but we have to utilize it in order to get away from the more damaging means of creating power that we rely on so much - too much - nowadays.
Nuclear power is clearly a step in the right direction towards a world where we are not constantly attempting to evade climate change.
Lets look at what would happen in the UK if we weren't to replace the aging nuclear stations with new ones. The government would probably build new green energy plants (wind farms, solar farms and wave turbines), but they are building them anyway. These couldn't be built on current nuclear power plant sites. Instead, during the sites' decommissioning, they would probably have new coal/gas/oil powered stations built on the sites. Is this what we want?
In my opinion the current status of the future of power supplies in Britain stand with two options, which all hang on the nuclear verdict.
Firstly, Renewables+Nuclear+Fossil fuels > Renewables+Fossil fuels > Renewables. This means we first work on closing nuclear plants, but means we do nothing to combat climate change until later.
Secondly, Renewables+Nuclear+Fossil fuels > Renewables+Nuclear > Renewables. This means we deal with the problem of climate change now. We use nuclear as an interim solution, before we move to power ourselves entirely from renewable sources.
I have to say that I am glad that the Government have taken this stance on nuclear power, and I am upset that the my Party and the Green Party seem to think that suddenly we are going to be able to find the space and money for an extremely high number of wind farms, solar farms and tidal plants.
That is why I believe nuclear power IS a step in the right direction.
The way I see it, no one who cares about the environment wants nuclear power, but we have to utilize it in order to get away from the more damaging means of creating power that we rely on so much - too much - nowadays.
Nuclear power is clearly a step in the right direction towards a world where we are not constantly attempting to evade climate change.
Lets look at what would happen in the UK if we weren't to replace the aging nuclear stations with new ones. The government would probably build new green energy plants (wind farms, solar farms and wave turbines), but they are building them anyway. These couldn't be built on current nuclear power plant sites. Instead, during the sites' decommissioning, they would probably have new coal/gas/oil powered stations built on the sites. Is this what we want?
In my opinion the current status of the future of power supplies in Britain stand with two options, which all hang on the nuclear verdict.
Firstly, Renewables+Nuclear+Fossil fuels > Renewables+Fossil fuels > Renewables. This means we first work on closing nuclear plants, but means we do nothing to combat climate change until later.
Secondly, Renewables+Nuclear+Fossil fuels > Renewables+Nuclear > Renewables. This means we deal with the problem of climate change now. We use nuclear as an interim solution, before we move to power ourselves entirely from renewable sources.
I have to say that I am glad that the Government have taken this stance on nuclear power, and I am upset that the my Party and the Green Party seem to think that suddenly we are going to be able to find the space and money for an extremely high number of wind farms, solar farms and tidal plants.
That is why I believe nuclear power IS a step in the right direction.
06 January, 2008
Political Compass
This is the Political Compass for all my Facebook friends who have taken the test.
It is separated by colour into LibDems, School Friends and members of the game Eshraval.
Looks like I have some very libertarian friends!
Click on the image to make it clearer - blogger doesn't really understand showing images full-size.
09 October, 2007
Belguim: The Split
Yesterday Belgium reached its 120th day being ungoverned. It is unclear (to me) what is to happen... a coalition reaching an agreement governing Belgium or some other solution would seem most likely.
What I like the idea of is the possible split. Just to have a country so close to us called Wallonia, where people speak Walloon (+French).
This would reshape Europe: the four Europhile low countries (Netherlands, Flanders, Wallonia, Luxembourg) squashed in between the big three of Germany, France and the UK.
And then what about Brussels? This predominantly French speaking city is the capital of Europe located within Flanders. With current EU border travel getting easier and easier by the year, this should not cause a problem for the city whoever were to control it but there are issues.
If you follow the Geographical logic, the Flemish (a dialect of dutch) Flanders would take control of the French Belgian capital, but surely Wallonia would loose out on the Belgium split if they were no longer the country in the focus of EU attention.
Alternatively, going by language, Brussels could stay united with the French speaking Wallonia, but a three kilometer stretch of Flanders would cut the capital off from it's country.
Then option three - I like this option ;) or maybe that's just me! - Belgium is split into three. Wallonia in the south, Flanders in the north, and the self governing capital of Europe, Brussels in the centre. The question that immediately springs to my mind is would each three of these states be able to hold their own in the big wide world? The answer is they wouldn't have to because this could actually strengthen their bonds with the rest of the EU in the creation of a Capital of Europe in the middle. The United States of Europe doesn't seem too far off.
However, at the moment we must remember that Belgium is still just one nation - despite what the Belgian news channel RTBF told their citizens last december!
(You can get the gist if you listen to the French and read the Dutch at the same time).
(Notice it reads "Ceci est une fiction" at the bottom several times throughout the report, but many people including some of the international ambassadors in Brussels, missed this.)
What I like the idea of is the possible split. Just to have a country so close to us called Wallonia, where people speak Walloon (+French).
This would reshape Europe: the four Europhile low countries (Netherlands, Flanders, Wallonia, Luxembourg) squashed in between the big three of Germany, France and the UK.
And then what about Brussels? This predominantly French speaking city is the capital of Europe located within Flanders. With current EU border travel getting easier and easier by the year, this should not cause a problem for the city whoever were to control it but there are issues.
If you follow the Geographical logic, the Flemish (a dialect of dutch) Flanders would take control of the French Belgian capital, but surely Wallonia would loose out on the Belgium split if they were no longer the country in the focus of EU attention.
Alternatively, going by language, Brussels could stay united with the French speaking Wallonia, but a three kilometer stretch of Flanders would cut the capital off from it's country.
Then option three - I like this option ;) or maybe that's just me! - Belgium is split into three. Wallonia in the south, Flanders in the north, and the self governing capital of Europe, Brussels in the centre. The question that immediately springs to my mind is would each three of these states be able to hold their own in the big wide world? The answer is they wouldn't have to because this could actually strengthen their bonds with the rest of the EU in the creation of a Capital of Europe in the middle. The United States of Europe doesn't seem too far off.
However, at the moment we must remember that Belgium is still just one nation - despite what the Belgian news channel RTBF told their citizens last december!
(You can get the gist if you listen to the French and read the Dutch at the same time).
(Notice it reads "Ceci est une fiction" at the bottom several times throughout the report, but many people including some of the international ambassadors in Brussels, missed this.)
04 May, 2007
Defeated
And this is where I should have a post saying how Labour have suffered badly! How not only the Torys, but also the LibDems have made great gains! How the LibDems have safely held South Norfolk!
But NO!
Labour have suffered moderately (in england at least), the Tory's have done well - too well, and often at the expense of the LibDems and NOT Labour!
The Conservatives gained 6 councils from the Liberal Democrats (including my own), and only 6 again from Labour; gaining 35 from NOC.
So now, for the first time in my life, I unfortunately live in an area with a Conservative council. What I want to know is how did the South Norfolk Liberal Democrats manage to loose 20 of their 27 seats to the conners? They go from a 8 seat majority to having 32 seats less than the Torys! Anyway, I am off to cry.
Congratulations to Mr Little who now has another friend on Norwich City Council after the Torys gained a seat. The Cons now make up 7.7% of the council, and are the forth party below Labour, Lib Dems and Greens (with only 3 seats).
Feel free to leave comments about the results in your area and your disappointment/happiness.
But NO!
Labour have suffered moderately (in england at least), the Tory's have done well - too well, and often at the expense of the LibDems and NOT Labour!
The Conservatives gained 6 councils from the Liberal Democrats (including my own), and only 6 again from Labour; gaining 35 from NOC.
So now, for the first time in my life, I unfortunately live in an area with a Conservative council. What I want to know is how did the South Norfolk Liberal Democrats manage to loose 20 of their 27 seats to the conners? They go from a 8 seat majority to having 32 seats less than the Torys! Anyway, I am off to cry.
Congratulations to Mr Little who now has another friend on Norwich City Council after the Torys gained a seat. The Cons now make up 7.7% of the council, and are the forth party below Labour, Lib Dems and Greens (with only 3 seats).
Feel free to leave comments about the results in your area and your disappointment/happiness.
24 February, 2007
Parliamentary Debating Club
Our politics class, plus a few more stragglers, are now part of a Parliamentary Debating Club organised by the one and only Mr. Little.
Mr. Little plans to use our debating skills to take over the world by entering us in a competition, for which we have to record a video of our own PMQ's and another of a Parliamentary Debate.
Yesterday, Mr. Little (who is still suffering from man flu, and apparently "only being kept alive by lemsips") decided who would be who in our first attempt at a PMQ's. We have 6 Labour MPs (led by PM Sophia), 5 Tory MPs, and 3 LibDems. Due to my excessively long hair last week, I was given the job of backbencher LibDem, which I have no problems with, and its possibly the position that best suits my beliefs.
By next Friday I need to have thought up some questions that I can ask the PM, as well as decide upon the name of my constituency (I've thought up some great options!)
More updates on this later - with any luck, Labour will ask some pointless questions praising the PM, the Cons will batter the PM like anything, and we will ask some sensible questions that no one really cares about, and it will have been a realistic PMQ's!
Mr. Little plans to use our debating skills to take over the world by entering us in a competition, for which we have to record a video of our own PMQ's and another of a Parliamentary Debate.
Yesterday, Mr. Little (who is still suffering from man flu, and apparently "only being kept alive by lemsips") decided who would be who in our first attempt at a PMQ's. We have 6 Labour MPs (led by PM Sophia), 5 Tory MPs, and 3 LibDems. Due to my excessively long hair last week, I was given the job of backbencher LibDem, which I have no problems with, and its possibly the position that best suits my beliefs.
By next Friday I need to have thought up some questions that I can ask the PM, as well as decide upon the name of my constituency (I've thought up some great options!)
More updates on this later - with any luck, Labour will ask some pointless questions praising the PM, the Cons will batter the PM like anything, and we will ask some sensible questions that no one really cares about, and it will have been a realistic PMQ's!
03 February, 2007
Political Compass Test
A few weeks ago, I answered questions for my placement on the 2D Political Spectrum (the best of which can be found at politicalcompass.org).
The outcome what almost exactly as I had expected, and I was 2 units Left and 8 units Libertarian.
After conducting the test again just now, I have moved to 6 units Left, but thats relatively unimportant. (See new graph below)
The only substantial party from the 2005 election who comes close to me are the Green Party, and seeing as I don't like their progress at the moment (and surely their narrow-mindedness doesn't make them as Libertarian as this?) I don't have a party to go by.
The closest contemporary leader to me is the Dalai Lama, which I don't mind.
So everybody go to the website and take the test to see what you get.
The outcome what almost exactly as I had expected, and I was 2 units Left and 8 units Libertarian.
After conducting the test again just now, I have moved to 6 units Left, but thats relatively unimportant. (See new graph below)
The only substantial party from the 2005 election who comes close to me are the Green Party, and seeing as I don't like their progress at the moment (and surely their narrow-mindedness doesn't make them as Libertarian as this?) I don't have a party to go by.
The closest contemporary leader to me is the Dalai Lama, which I don't mind.
So everybody go to the website and take the test to see what you get.
16 January, 2007
1 in 10 think Tory's have had it!
An ICM poll for the guardian in december found that 12% of people asked thought that the Conservatives may never be returned to power.
The question asked was "When do you think the Conservatives maybe returned to power?"
The majority suggested it would be in one of the next two elections, but 12% of the sample of 1006 (thats 121 people!)
Perhaps it was because they surveyed lots of left wing "tory-haters", or perhaps it was because favour is still moving against the Conservatives?
Next election: 37%
Not until two elections time: 30%
Not until 3 elections time or later: 7%
Will never return to power: 12%
Don't know 15%
You can see this pole and other polls from December 06 Here. Including the voting intentions poll, which shows the conservatives with a majority (40% to Labour's 32%.) So it looks like the world is going crazy... or just the country... or just the Tories... no, they were always crazy... no, I'm just joking!
Side-note:
Accorting to politicalbetting.com, Hilary Clinton is odds on to be the 2008 president of the USA (and obviously she is odds on to be the Democrat Candidate, and the Democrats are odds on to win...) However betters seem to have lost hold of their hats, and the odds for a female president are lower than for a non-female president. Either the betters believe Hilary Clinton to be a man, or they are betting like idiots.... I shall leave my reader(s) to contemplate the intelligence of the American population...
The question asked was "When do you think the Conservatives maybe returned to power?"
The majority suggested it would be in one of the next two elections, but 12% of the sample of 1006 (thats 121 people!)
Perhaps it was because they surveyed lots of left wing "tory-haters", or perhaps it was because favour is still moving against the Conservatives?
Next election: 37%
Not until two elections time: 30%
Not until 3 elections time or later: 7%
Will never return to power: 12%
Don't know 15%
You can see this pole and other polls from December 06 Here. Including the voting intentions poll, which shows the conservatives with a majority (40% to Labour's 32%.) So it looks like the world is going crazy... or just the country... or just the Tories... no, they were always crazy... no, I'm just joking!
Side-note:
Accorting to politicalbetting.com, Hilary Clinton is odds on to be the 2008 president of the USA (and obviously she is odds on to be the Democrat Candidate, and the Democrats are odds on to win...) However betters seem to have lost hold of their hats, and the odds for a female president are lower than for a non-female president. Either the betters believe Hilary Clinton to be a man, or they are betting like idiots.... I shall leave my reader(s) to contemplate the intelligence of the American population...
11 January, 2007
Exams (Kerching)
So I've now added labels to all my posts (after working out how to update my blog to the latest thingy with wotsits and so on) and so I just thought I'd mention that at the start of the post.
So we begin with Maths C1 - a module in which I had previously had varying success across the term. Some of my homeworks have been as low as Ungraded, while my top pieces have been B's, as well as several A's! I was predicted an A before the test, and I would be happy enough with a B, but after sitting in the exam for an hour and a half, I came out smiling inside. I think I done really well, and am pretty sure I done well enough to get the A I wanted. Just hoping that I done as well as I think I did! =D
Then onto my other Exams - Government and Politics GOV1 & GOV2. I done my best, and answered definition questions on: mandate, party splits, campaign strategies, and potential members, and essay questions on referendums & giving electorate a chance to influence the government, geographical factors & voting behavior, party conferences & less policy, and pressure groups & the democratic process.
I think I made the right choices (maybe I thought I hadn't got a chance with some of the other questions!) but although everyone else thinks they done badly and failed, i think I done relatively well in both =D
Got to wait for the results in march, but I expect to be happy when they arrive - hoping for at least 2 Bs, but an A would be fantastic if I could get one.
So we begin with Maths C1 - a module in which I had previously had varying success across the term. Some of my homeworks have been as low as Ungraded, while my top pieces have been B's, as well as several A's! I was predicted an A before the test, and I would be happy enough with a B, but after sitting in the exam for an hour and a half, I came out smiling inside. I think I done really well, and am pretty sure I done well enough to get the A I wanted. Just hoping that I done as well as I think I did! =D
Then onto my other Exams - Government and Politics GOV1 & GOV2. I done my best, and answered definition questions on: mandate, party splits, campaign strategies, and potential members, and essay questions on referendums & giving electorate a chance to influence the government, geographical factors & voting behavior, party conferences & less policy, and pressure groups & the democratic process.
I think I made the right choices (maybe I thought I hadn't got a chance with some of the other questions!) but although everyone else thinks they done badly and failed, i think I done relatively well in both =D
Got to wait for the results in march, but I expect to be happy when they arrive - hoping for at least 2 Bs, but an A would be fantastic if I could get one.
02 January, 2007
Sadam and the Capital Punishment Question
On the 30th of December, we heard that Sadam Hussein had been executed, however only a few days later we were presented with television pictures which showed the video of him directly before his execution. It doesn't take much to find the full YouTube version of the video, in which you can see him falling to his death, as well as footage looking down on him as he perished.Surely this absolutely gruesome footage asks again the question on human rights and capital punishment. Even when the victim is a man who I hate and I know deserves to die, I sit and know that the removal of life like that isn't right. Surely our government, especially with their "expressed opinion" on the matter, cannot just allow a newly created democracy to listen to America when they tell them that killing is the only way to make things better?
Anyway, in the meantime while international laws do not prevent such hangings, we might as well celebrate his death by accepting that he deserved everything he got.
28 November, 2006
US Midterms Update
And so it feels like weeks since the US Midterms - its been a whole 3 weeks actually <|:-O) - and the result? Bush and Roger (personified duck pictured in previous post) become closer than ever before! (See wikipedia article)
The Republicans have lost the House of Representatives to the Democratic Party by a spectacular 32 seats (with 3 seats still to be decided).
The Senate was a closer race, with the final results as 49 seats a-piece to Rep. and Dem. and two independents, who have agreed to "caucus" with the Democratic Party, so they technically hold a majority over the fascist Republicans! argh
Elsewhere, in a local election in South Dakota, Marie Steichen was elected to Jerauld County commissioner, despite the fact that she died two months before the election. Her name was never replaced on the ballot, and voters who chose her were aware of her death (See story on MSNBC).
Richmond, California, now has a Green Party Mayor.
And this was America, so you can't forget all of the idiotic sidetrack problems that occurred: A Kentucky poll worker was charged with choking a voter; in a small town in Oklahoma, a power outage in a polling station was caused by a squirrel gnawing on a power cable; and lots of "please don't vote or we will burn your house to the ground" threats in Virginia; there were also huge problems with the electronic voting system, mainly because 75% of Americans were unable to locate the "Enter" key on the voting pad.
Oh well, thats enough about America for the time being, or I shall become very angry and begin to plot a plan to displace Bush, again... and it will only end in pure tragedy.
Cheerio.
The Republicans have lost the House of Representatives to the Democratic Party by a spectacular 32 seats (with 3 seats still to be decided).
The Senate was a closer race, with the final results as 49 seats a-piece to Rep. and Dem. and two independents, who have agreed to "caucus" with the Democratic Party, so they technically hold a majority over the fascist Republicans! argh
Elsewhere, in a local election in South Dakota, Marie Steichen was elected to Jerauld County commissioner, despite the fact that she died two months before the election. Her name was never replaced on the ballot, and voters who chose her were aware of her death (See story on MSNBC).
Richmond, California, now has a Green Party Mayor.
And this was America, so you can't forget all of the idiotic sidetrack problems that occurred: A Kentucky poll worker was charged with choking a voter; in a small town in Oklahoma, a power outage in a polling station was caused by a squirrel gnawing on a power cable; and lots of "please don't vote or we will burn your house to the ground" threats in Virginia; there were also huge problems with the electronic voting system, mainly because 75% of Americans were unable to locate the "Enter" key on the voting pad.
Oh well, thats enough about America for the time being, or I shall become very angry and begin to plot a plan to displace Bush, again... and it will only end in pure tragedy.
Cheerio.
07 November, 2006
US Midterm Elections
Will Bush have to survive his last two years in office without the support of the House of Representative or the Senate?
Will he become a sitting duck, like Roger?
(News & Views coming up...)
16 October, 2006
North Korea - 1 nuclear weapon?
It's believed that North Korea tested its Nuclear Weapons last week - which could turn them into a powerful country in the worldwide community. Looks like we'd better all jump inside our Fall Out shelters and say goodbye to the world we know doesn't it? Well first you have to look at the facts and guesses about other countries worldwide.
Recognised nuclear powers (who have signed Non-Proliferation Treaty):
Russia 8'232
USA have 7'068
China 402
France 348
UK 185
Iran (unsure)
Countries outside NPT suspected of weapons:
Israel +-200?
Pakistan +-40?
India +-35?
North Korea +-1?
And a bucket-full of other countries are capable of creating nuclear weapons using existing nuclear reactors (Canada, Mexico, Colombia, Peru, Brazil, Chile, Argentina, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, Poland, Ukraine, Switzerland, Austria, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Italy, Spain, Turkey, Algeria, Egypt, Dem. Rep. of Congo, South Africa, Bangladesh, South Korea, Japan, Vietnam, Indonesia, and Australia).
So we might not need to question the fact that North Korea has tested Nuclear weapons this month (according to US intelligence - i didn't know there was any) but when you look at the stats, is it hard to see that other countries world wide seem to pose a bigger threat?
If the US are behaving as they usually do, then they probably have all of their "battleships" sitting in some bay in South Korea, so if North Korea fire their Nuclear Weapon (singular) on the very important Alaska, then they won't exist for more than two seconds, before the other coutries in the world with nuclear weapons (USA, Russia, UK, France, Israel, China and India) respond. Iran is the only dangerous country, but only appears dangerous due to forceful American opinion.
So, in the wake of WW3, I shouldn't worry too much... the only real threat is George Bush.
Recognised nuclear powers (who have signed Non-Proliferation Treaty):
Russia 8'232
USA have 7'068
China 402
France 348
UK 185
Iran (unsure)
Countries outside NPT suspected of weapons:
Israel +-200?
Pakistan +-40?
India +-35?
North Korea +-1?
And a bucket-full of other countries are capable of creating nuclear weapons using existing nuclear reactors (Canada, Mexico, Colombia, Peru, Brazil, Chile, Argentina, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, Poland, Ukraine, Switzerland, Austria, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Italy, Spain, Turkey, Algeria, Egypt, Dem. Rep. of Congo, South Africa, Bangladesh, South Korea, Japan, Vietnam, Indonesia, and Australia).
So we might not need to question the fact that North Korea has tested Nuclear weapons this month (according to US intelligence - i didn't know there was any) but when you look at the stats, is it hard to see that other countries world wide seem to pose a bigger threat?
If the US are behaving as they usually do, then they probably have all of their "battleships" sitting in some bay in South Korea, so if North Korea fire their Nuclear Weapon (singular) on the very important Alaska, then they won't exist for more than two seconds, before the other coutries in the world with nuclear weapons (USA, Russia, UK, France, Israel, China and India) respond. Iran is the only dangerous country, but only appears dangerous due to forceful American opinion.
So, in the wake of WW3, I shouldn't worry too much... the only real threat is George Bush.
04 October, 2006
Cameron's Speech
Hmmm, how peculiar. I have to say that I enjoyed the Tory leader's speech today, but for a change it isn't because I was severely disagreeing with it.For once David Cameron's speech seemed to make sense; he spoke about the NHS, stopping crime at its source and same sex ceremonies, while at the same time standing in front of his "Tree".
I haven't seen what anyone else thought about this yet (except Channel 4) however I think he's shown that he can be the Blair of the Tory party. Depending on who becomes Prime Minister over the next year, the Tory's are in with a tradgicly fantastic chance of winning the '09 election - especially if Labour field Gordon Brown or John Reid as their leader.
I would however have to advise him that if he doesn't change his hair style to something less waxed then the swing voters will all go for the bald guy. Did you hear that Sir Campbell? I Said did you hear that Sir Campbell?!? I do apologuise - I believe our friend has fallen asleep. Oh well... at least he isn't drunk.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)