On Liberty Now

on profit, bonuses and the banks

noreply@blogger.com (thechristophe) — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 16:11:00 +0000

You know what I think? This whole 'greedy bankers yerrr lets nab em!' Is getting a tad tedious and somewhat symbolic of the speed at which the public sector solves problems.

Sure the bankers f'd up and we poured tons of cash their way to sort them out, but any Dragon from the Den will tell you, you don't invest in a business if you're not going to make a good return on your investment.

So now we want a High Pay Commission, I’m sorry what? One week the political elite speak about a bonfire of quango's the next they want to set one up, and I'm sorry Dr. Cable as much as I respect you and what you have to say, one thing worse than a developing country is a Soviet era one.

Rather than comment on a case by case basis, here is what I believe should happen:

Those banks where the government is a majority shareholder should be run like the government is a majority shareholder (usual inefficiencies and public sector malaise aside). This means the government sets pay and bonus policies, returns the bank to profit, makes a nice sum on its investment, regulate properly and get the hell out.

Those banks where the government is not a majority shareholder should be run like the government is not a majority shareholder. This means they get regulated well to ensure their capital ratio remains at a sensible level (and I mean a sensible level) and if we want to remove 'high street' from 'investment' banking as Nick Clegg and Vince Cable have suggested, then so be it, let's have that debate. Once these two are separated, in my view, excessive risk taking (I have come to love that phrase) will then become an issue for investment banks and as a result any losses, an issue for those who invested.

This might come as a shock to some out there, but investing is all about the risk, you are being compensated for the risk you are taking, the higher the risk the higher the return, that is Economics 101. Conversely the lower the risk, the lower the return, so I’ll open my current account with this lovely boring bank over here. If you want to invest go for it, but don’t come complaining when the bubble bursts, investing is just a polite way of saying “let’s hit the slots”.

Let's not institute a 21st Century Committee of Public Safety and try not pandering to the News of the World. There may be a reason France and Germany are out of recession and it could be something to do with their apathy to a bonus culture, they don't love it, but nor do they hate it.

on a single list for Europe: 2009 results based on one constituency

noreply@blogger.com (thechristophe) — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 21:28:00 +0000

Elections to the European Parliament are done by Proportional Representation (either STV or party list) as stipulated by the rules for all elections to the European Parliament across Europe. In countries such as Italy, Germany and Spain, parties (or party groupings) present a list to the electorate across the entire country and on the basis of this, seats are allocated to each party.

The rules do allow for subdivision of voters and here in the UK we have opted to subdivide by English regions and the principalities of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. What would the outcome of the 2009 European Parliament elections in the UK, had we adopted one list for the entire country?

Taking the results of the national vote from the BBC and using icon's Election calculus simulator the following results would be achieved:

As you can see (or not, sorry for the rubbish image quality) the Conservatives would be most disadvantaged by a countrywide list losing 4 MEP's based on their actual results last night, the Greens would gain by picking up an extra 4 MEP's taking them up to 6 with the BNP going up to 4 from 2. Interestingly, if a threshold were applied, a tool usually used to keep out extremist parties, the BNP would have gone up to 5.

Plaid Cymru would not have gained any seats, but the SNP would.

Things to note:

Germany uses a 5% threshold for EU elections

The figures do not include Northern Ireland which elects their MEP's using the Single Transferable Vote system

Had the Lisbon Treaty been ratified the UK would have 73 instead of 72 MEP's, which means excluding Northern Ireland an increase from 69 to 70 MEPs, if this were the case the Greens would gain one more seat without a threshold and UKIP with a threshold

on releasing exit polls early

noreply@blogger.com (thechristophe) — Sun, 07 Jun 2009 18:57:00 +0000

Under the rules of the European Parliament elections, exit polls are not to be reported until polls across all of the European Union have closed.

This seems to have been lost on the Dutch who once again have released their results early. However according to EUobserver Bulgarian media outlets have released theirs early through the use of the weather, music charts and other clever 'codes'.

On a day where the temperatures have in reality reached above 35 degrees, the temperature at the city hall – home to the mayor and leader of the centre-right Gerb party, Boyko Borisov - has oddly dropped to 25.5 degrees, the Bgnes news agency reports.

Meanwhile, near the governing Socialists' headquarters the temperature is an even chillier 20 degrees, it says.

The number of degrees Celsius are a none-too-subtle code for the percentage the parties are supposed to have obtained.

Wind speed, code for voter turnout, was 26 metres per second at around 5:30 p.m., it also reported.

Other news agencies have used books to report on the results, stating:

38 percent of people had gone to buy books by 6.00 p.m. on Sunday.

Read the article, hilarious stuff.

on Alan Johnson as Home Secretary

noreply@blogger.com (thechristophe) — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 19:34:00 +0000

Is Alan Johnson simply naive? Does he not realise the Home Office will eat his career, dead or alive? Or will he do a Roy Jenkins and be a liberal Home Secretary? He seems like a 'nice' guy, when you consider those who will surround him at the Cabinet table.

If Alan Johnson wants to make a name for himself, he should consider backing proposals from the Liberal Democrat Freedom Bill. If Labour has a chance of winning the next election the win would be as a result of the Home Office or Number 11, with Alastair Darling content with being quiet and keeping out of Ed Balls' way the logical conclusion is for a change in Home Office policy.

A few things Alan Johnson should do (or maybe Jack Straw?) to make a positive name for himself and which would propel him into Number 10 in the next few months:

Scrap ID's cards and dismiss them as not fit for purpose, then apologise and point out how much you have saved by not going ahead with it
Allow protests in Parliament Square and protests of the right to assemble in groups larger than 2 - lord knows they are going to increase, but so what? People need to let off steam
Remove innocent people from the DNA database - accusations can damage a persons life, non more so than the feeling of violation, knowing that somewhere out there someone can see all your details. Even more shocking when you consider the police are targeting problem children and harvesting their DNA for future use.

on the new English Democrat mayor

noreply@blogger.com (thechristophe) — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 18:43:00 +0000

The English Democrats have their first elected Mayor.

The party which was born out of the Campaign for an English Parliament has won the Mayoral election in Doncaster, their candidate Peter Davies winning with 25,344. In recent times the party has come under criticism for being racist.

Among his planned policies:

a cut in councillor numbers from 63 to 21
scrapping the authority’s newspaper
capping of the mayor’s salary at a maximum £30,000 a year
referendum on the future governance of the borough
end to council literature being translated into other languages

Hmm

on Labour winning this Thursday anyway

noreply@blogger.com (thechristophe) — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 07:31:00 +0000

Gordon Brown may lose this Thursday, but Labour will still win regardless of the outcome. This is thanks to David Cameron.

If elections were truly European, this Thursday you would be voting for either the Party of European Socialists, the Movement for European Reform, the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe or one of the other party groups in the European Parliament. Even though we aren't, secretly, we are.

As I mentioned in my previous blog post, the European Parliament is keen to make its presence felt, as a result an interesting state of affairs could develop this Thursday. Should the Predict 09.EU current prediction for the 2009 European Parliament elections hold true, the Party of European Socialists (of which Labour is a member) will become the largest party in the European Parliament.

This is significant as it is brought about solely by David Cameron's decision to leave the main EPP-ED party grouping and form his own party grouping with right wing parties from Poland and the Czech Republic.

The balance of power in Parliament, according to Predict09 would still be split 42% centre right and 40% centre left with the liberals in the middle on 12%. Below is the predicted makeup of the party groupings following the election:

Party Grouping	UK Party	Predicted MEP's	Percentage in Parliament
ID	UKIP	19	3%
non	two former Conservative MEPs	26	4%
Greens	Greens	42	6%
EUL		44	6%
UEN		62	8%
MER	Conservatives	64	9%
ALDE	Lib Dems	88	12%
EPP		184	25%
PES	Labour	207	28%

A second term Barroso presidency could not be guaranteed and one cannot rule out a PES member becoming President of the European Commission, if a compromise candidate between the centre-left and the liberals could be found. In addition, the composition is important as in the European Parliament Rules of Procedure (Rule 177 which isn't expected to be changed substantially in 2009):

Members of committees and committees of inquiry shall be elected after nominations have been submitted by the political groups and the non-attached Members. The Conference of Presidents shall submit proposals to Parliament. The composition of the committees shall, as far as possible, reflect the composition of Parliament.

Which means most committees would again have a larger PES representation, as it would be the largest party in the European Parliament. Coupled with this, the Polish sister party of the Conservatives in David Cameron's Movement for European Reform have stated that they will not be whipped, creating even more disorganisation in their structure.

David Cameron has unwittingly given Labour control of the European Parliament, he has done so by deciding to side with parties who believe global warming is a lie and that homosexuality is a disease. As the Guardian puts it:

If the EPP can claim to be an alliance of winners, Cameron's new caucus looks like a coalition of losers. In Poland, the Kaczy´nskis' party will lose the election this weekend, taking perhaps 15 of 50 seats. In government from 2005-2007, the Kaczy´nskis' PiS formed a coalition with extremists and ultra-nationalists, conducted witchhunts of opponents, pursued deeply illiberal policies and was turfed out of office as a national embarrassment.

[...]

In the Czech Republic, Topolánek has just been toppled as prime minister and his ODS will also probably lose the election. The party's founder and Topolánek's enemy, President Václav Klaus, is Europe's leading climate change denier and views the European Union as synonymous with the Soviet Union. Brussels is the new Moscow.

David Cameron having dodged the issue of the EPP since his election as Conservative Party leader, appears to have made a catastrophic decision. Expect U-turns come Monday, buried amongst Gordon Brown's reshuffle (or resignation).

on the President of the European Commission

noreply@blogger.com (thechristophe) — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 22:57:00 +0000

How Europe chooses its President:

The Council, meeting in the composition of Heads of State or Government and acting by a qualified majority, shall nominate the person it intends to appoints as President of the Commission; the nomination shall be approved by the European Parliament.

The Council, acting by a qualified majority and by common accord with the nominee for President, shall adopt the list of the other persons whom it intends to appoints as Members of the Commission, drawn up in accordance with the proposals made by each Member State.

The President and the other Members of the Commission thus nominated shall be subject as a body to a vote of approval by the European Parliament. After approval by the European Parliament, the President and the other Members of the Commission shall be appointed by the Council, acting by a qualified majority.

-Article 214 of The Treaty Establishing the European Community (as amended by Nice) Paragraph 2

What this means is Gordon Brown, Sarkozy, Merkel et al. (The Council) get together and after much discussion about fromage nominates a candidate for President of the European Commission (Monsieur le Président), the European Parliament elected by you and I then vote on if this is an acceptable candidate. If they say yes the candidate then puts forwards names of his Commissioners to The Council he would love to have in his College of Commissioners (his Cabinet, but try not to use that word), in effect these names are given to him by 'The Council' anyway as there needs to be one from each member state.

The full list is then voted on by The Council, and if this vote is passed the College and the President is presented to the European Parliament as a full body. If the European Parliament says 'we love 'em' then you would think that was the end of that, however, The Council has to again vote on the President and the Commission and his College as a full body, if this vote of The Council passes then we have an EU President and Commission.

The President is no ceremonial President. He or she directs the Commission politically (Article 217(1)), in effect ensuring that the College stays in check and doesn't mouth off outside, similar to the British cabinet. They allocate responsibilities no different to a British Prime Minister without outside approval (Paragraph 2), and can sack Commissioners without outside approval (Paragraph 4) although they do require the rest of the College of Commissioners to vote for this sacking. More importantly, the Commission has the sole right of legislative initiative not the Parliament.

Interestingly, should a Commissioner be sacked, the Council replaces them by a vote. Although the European Parliament may be consulted, their approval is not required. In 1999 however, due to pressure from the European Parliament over allegations of fraud, the entire Santer Commission resigned. Article 201 of the current Treaty gives Parliament the right to dismiss the entire Commission.

This shows that the European Parliament does have some power, which it is not afraid to use.

As the saying goes, the smaller the prize the more ferocious the fight, the European Parliament has proven itself effective in using every tool given to it by the Treaties, rejecting for example José Manuel Barroso's first list of Commissioners.

You can expect them to kick up even more of a fight when they reconvene in July.

on 45% satisfaction, the Lib Dems still in 2nd place and electoral reform

noreply@blogger.com (thechristophe) — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 17:55:00 +0000

Following on from the sensational Sunday Telegraph poll yesterday, today's Ipsos MORI poll has Labour down on 18% level with the Lib Dems who are also on 18%. This backs up the poll yesterday which had Labour in third place 3 points behind the Lib Dems. Perhaps more importantly as stated over on politicalbetting.com Ipsos MORI's results focus on those who are 100% certain to vote and disregards those might say they would vote one way (but then don't show up to vote).

In addition Ipsos has good news for Nick Clegg:

Nick Clegg is the only one of the three leaders to see improved satisfaction ratings this month. Nearing half (45%) are satisfied with the way he is doing his job as leader of the Liberal Democrats, and 23% are dissatisfied. This represents a real improvement for the Liberal Democrat leader, as last month 39% were satisfied and 25% dissatisfied with Clegg.

Over time people are getting used to his name and Nick Clegg has done a lot in the last few weeks to get the message out there, usually by implementing and pulling off high profile campaigns (Gurkha vote, speaker has to go, and by the end of this week sack Darling).

What is perhaps most striking is how these polls translate to seats. Over on Mark Reckons we have the rudimentary results based on the UK Polling Report Calculator. What the calculator shows is that even though Labour was on 3 points less than the Lib Dems on Sunday, as a result of the bias in our voting system, the final seat results in a General election would have Labour on around 178 and the Lib Dems on 74. Even more shocking is the level of seats the Tories would pick up, with 40% of the vote they would secure 369 seats, some 100 seats more than their level of support should achieve.

Surely this is even more reason why we need reform of the electoral system in this country, my views on why we need a change are highlighted in an earlier blog post on electoral reform, in which I call for AV+ to be the solution. Revolutions in Britain do not happen overnight and when they do history shows us, a reversion to pre-revolution ideals may occur.

It is now widely expected that Labour will do badly this Thursday, the key issue is how badly? I've been taught my lesson on pre-judging elections so I won't this time around, but I hope they do badly enough for a real reformer to take over the sinking ship and put electoral reform to the country at the next General election.

Will they do worse than the Greens?

on the Lib Dems, now the second party of Britain

noreply@blogger.com (thechristophe) — Sat, 30 May 2009 20:40:00 +0000

In the latest ICM poll for tomorrow's Sunday Telegraph, the Lib Dems have moved into second place pushing Labour into third with the Tories ahead on 40%

Only 22% of respondents said they would vote Labour in a general election, with the Liberal Democrats receiving 25% in the same poll.

Surely this spells the end of Gordon Brown just days before the country goes to the polls in European Parliament elections? With Parliament back from recess tomorrow, the daggers are tonight being sharpened.

According to the Telegraph the last time Labour was in third place in any poll was in 1987.

In the same poll respondents were asked who they planned to vote for in the European Parliament elections this Thursday: 29% Conservative, 20% Lib Dem, 17% Labour and UKIP 10% dispelling somewhat the myth that UKIP were going to be the main benefactor on Thursday.

While it would be easy to dismiss Labour as a 20th Century project that has come to an end, I think I will wait to see what happens on Thursday, when the electorate decides, but these results are good news for Nick Clegg who has been working hard to get his message of reform out. Visit TakeBackPower.org

on the 'modernisation' of the Conservative Party

noreply@blogger.com (thechristophe) — Sun, 24 May 2009 19:56:00 +0000

In my last post, I suggested that David Cameron and The Telegraph were in cahoots over the entire expenses debacle.

I didn't realise until today how deep it possibly runs. Has Cameron used the whole expenses issue to complete one of his long running aims for when he becomes Prime Minister, the modernisation or some might argue, neutering of the Conservative Party.

Consider this, what is a party if it has no candidates who have a history of following that party's ideology? New Labour, a semi-vacuous grouping of people who serve at the pleasure of the person who got them there.

But that is obviously what Cameron wants, unquestioned power, almost Presidential? Well President's aren't usually that powerful, unless you throw in control of the legislature, which is what Cameron will have.

This is something quite popular in France, where a Presidential candidate may sometimes create a party for National Assembly elections to create a mandate for the President in the Assembly. This is illustrated by the "Union for the Presidential Majority" created to give Chirac a majority. Even the French were not so brazen and the party's title was quickly changed to Union for a Popular Movement, thus maintaining the same acronym.

Now while I am in no way suggesting David Cameron is Jacques Chirac (nor could he ever be as charismatic) he certainly seems to be quite keen to use this expenses issue to get rid of his old guard. Note how the main Tory MP's to be in the spotlight are all backbenchers, yet Jonathan Djanogly, Chris Grayling, Oliver Letwin, Michael Gove and Francis Maude et al. all still have their jobs and are all standing at the next election.

There is an interesting post over at Mark Reckons on the correlation of safe seats to being implicated in the 'scandal'. I'd be interested to see how many safe seats are Conservative over Labour, and how many of these safe Conservative seats will be given the boot by David Cameron.

Maybe it's just my cynical nature, but be prepared for a mass exodus of the Thatcher old guard over the next few months as Conservative HQ 'instructs' local activists who to choose.

Also while we are on the subject of expenses, and I know I ranted in my last post about the whole thing being politicised, but hey-ho call me a hypocrite.

If Parliament is to avoid being turned from the mother of all parliaments into the eunuch of all parliaments, we need a proper overhaul of Westminster. That means a change in how we do business – family-friendly hours, a review of MPs' expenses, and reform to our over- generous pensions, for starters.

- Nick Clegg, November 2007

on David Cameron - leading on expenses

noreply@blogger.com (thechristophe) — Wed, 13 May 2009 11:29:00 +0000

So David Cameron has finally found a policy position to lead on. Unfortunately it is only on expenses, something important to the public only in an outraged sense rather than a "oh my this caused the credit crunch" sense.

Is this what we should expect from the next Conservative government? An elbow jerk Daily Mail-esque reaction? An outragegasm whenever something goes wrong?

Why wont the Conservatives back the Independent Commission on MP's expenses? Theresa May refused to state that they would seeming to suggest they would take the results on a case by case basis.

Me thinks they have something to hide, the whole thing is so contrived, maybe the Telegraph briefed Cameron on the leaks, he got everyone to pay some money back, he took 'action' and then the following day the Torygraph runs a story on 'a courageous David Cameron' showing how to lead.

He can show us how to lead by stop playing politics with what is essentially a non-political issue.

Stephen Fry said it best.

on reform of MP's expenses

noreply@blogger.com (thechristophe) — Tue, 12 May 2009 17:39:00 +0000

I'm sure the whole house will join with me, in endorsing the changes to the members allowances and expenses policy outlined below.

The Houses of Parliament will buy sufficient housing for all MP's outside greater London, in the central London area.

At the start of each Parliament following a general election, all MP's who wish to do so may apply for a Houses of Parliament property.

Properties will then be assigned on a need by need basis and will continue to be owned by the Houses of Parliament.

No rent will be paid by the MP.

Any maintenance and upkeep costs will be paid for by the Houses of Parliament and any contracts entered into by the MP with other companies will be paid for by the MP (telephone, internet, gas, electricity etc.)

At the end of a Parliament or if the occupant of a property is no longer an MP that person will have one month to vacate the property.

Expenses may only be claimed for out of pocket costs incurred by an MP. These include subsistence, travel and hotel costs where the MP is undertaking business related to his or her position and in the case of hotels, where no ordinary means of travel is available to return to either a constituency or London home.

No expenses will be payable for any costs incurred to a constituency home.

Changes to the expenses policy of the House can only be made following the endorsement of such changes by the electorate by way of a party manifesto

on cutting costs at the BBC

noreply@blogger.com (thechristophe) — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 11:24:00 +0000

The BBC and its accurate reporting strikes again.

This time they state that Chris Huhne is the leader of the Lib Dems.
When will they learn?

on opting out of the minimum wage

noreply@blogger.com (thechristophe) — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 08:27:00 +0000

Is the minimum wage redundant, in this era of redundancies?

Yesterday Christopher Chope MP, introduced a Private Members Bill, the Employment Opportunities Bill, to "introduce more freedom, flexibility and opportunity for those seeking employment".

It would enable those currently out of work, but would be willing to work for less than the minimum wage, to negotiate their wage.

Its an economically liberal proposal, giving the employee power to choose their wage. Of course the flipside is employees can drive down wages as they please (after all who is going to check that the business can’t afford the minimum wage), which is one of the practices the minimum wage came into being to stop.

Whats stopping an employer saying, “you can have the job but only if you negotiate your wage to below the minimum wage”

Of course being a Private Members Bill, especially one of this nature, it will never see the Statute book.

on Iain Dale and that gay comment

noreply@blogger.com (thechristophe) — Tue, 23 Dec 2008 03:28:00 +0000

I leave hibernation for this.

You are ALL acting a bit gay.

Gay is a term now bandied about even between gays. No one has copyright over the word and as far as I am concerned the word gay is in a lesser category of evil than say f**k etc. (so much so that I dont even write it as g*y nor have any of you).

Should Iain Dale have called a bunch of kids harassing him gay? Probably not, but himself being gay, does that preclude him from using the phrase?

No.

If a bunch of kids are harassing you, back in the good old days you would be able to grab them by the arms and drag them to their parents to complain. These days that's called harassment and so other methods have to be used.

If I was in that situation I probably wouldn't have used that phrase, but gay is not I term I worry about at all anymore - nor should you.

My advice? Stay out of Tunbridge Wells when the schools are out.

on Clinton becoming Secretary of State (Foreign Secretary)

noreply@blogger.com (thechristophe) — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 18:26:00 +0000

that's Mrs. Clinton.

Rumours are about that Clinton is to return to the White House as Obama's Secretary of State.

Which explains why she wasn't the VP candidate.

Watch this space.

on the BBC and selective reporting

noreply@blogger.com (thechristophe) — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 13:15:00 +0000

Can I implore you all to make a complaint on the latest Nick Robinson blog post.

Takes 2 minutes.

He makes no reference to the Liberal Democrat tax cut proposal put forward in September, the one we debated on, voted on and got criticised for approving from both the Tories AND Labour.

Yet the hand that feeds (his news stories) has perhaps asked Nick Robinson to make no reference of this.

Ridiculous, biased reporting.

on happy hour bans

noreply@blogger.com (thechristophe) — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 22:50:00 +0000

and the removal of cheap alcohol from shelves.

Today the Home Affairs select committee suggested that, in order to get rid of the unfortunate situation of MP's and Lords being slightly intoxicated in the Chamber, happy hours will be banned in all House of Parliament bars and that a minimum price would be placed on all alcohol.

Keith Vaz, chairman of the committee, said House bars must end a "tax high, subsidise, sell it cheap" culture around drink. Only then will Parliamentarians truly represent and feel the pain of their constituents.

The British Beer & Pub Association (BBPA) said the industry acted against "dodgy promotions" in the House but was prevented from going still further because of lack of competition.

House authorities were unavailable for comment.

on Labour winning Glenrothes

noreply@blogger.com (thechristophe) — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 10:19:00 +0000

Congratulations are in order.

Also, please ensure you have registered to vote if you have moved recently. Snap General Election could be called,

Queens speech: 3rd December
Number of days notice needed for a General election: 10th November

Of course the Queen's speech could always get pushed back a few days. Its only the Queen afterall.

on Obama winning

noreply@blogger.com (thechristophe) — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 10:11:00 +0000

Click for source
Congratulations to President-elect Obama

on both candidates

noreply@blogger.com (thechristophe) — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 13:33:00 +0000

I met a Republican a few months back. He said this is the most embarrassing election he has ever had to sit through. Not because of John McCain, but because both candidates are awful.

John McCain, the maverick ex Vietnam vet who chose to stay in prison than be released early (the cynic in me wants to believe this is because he was embarrassed to be locked up and this way he could get some award, or, not have to work for a while).

The image he strikes is of a middle aged father trying to crack a joke with his University children "his friends".

Lame.

Obama, short stint Senator who has promised the Earth and will most likely deliver it, as a result of his protectionist policies and his return to isolationism.

Naive.

Both men, like most Americans, take a view of the world I don’t adhere to. The funny thing is, most Americans, taken in isolation are actually quite nice people, get them together in a room and you just want to avoid them.

America – it makes for good television.

on winning Kentish Town

noreply@blogger.com (thechristophe) — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 09:51:00 +0000

Nick Russell, the Liberal Democrat candidate for Barnet and Camden in this years London Assembly elections, yesterday won a crucial by-election in Kentish Town.

The seat was vacated following our previous councillor heading back to academia in Arizona.

Nick's win means that following our recent victory against the Conservatives in Hampstead (with a 10% swing!) the Camden team has grown since the last London local elections.

on the Senate races

noreply@blogger.com (thechristophe) — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 00:10:00 +0000

35 senates seats are up for election next week, alongside the entire House of Representatives. Both Chambers are currently held by the Democrats but in the Senate this majority is merely 51-49 which means that the Republicans can filibuster any Bill that would come from an Obama White House (unless of course the nuclear option is used).

The magic number to defeat a filibuster is 60 and with 23 of the 35 senate seats up for election being Republican ones, that number is looking more and more achievable, even more so when you realise that the only retiring Senators are Republican ones, 5 have decided to step down meaning that Republicans in those seats lose the incumbency factor.

Worse case scenario for the Republicans, they lose 23 seats and the Democrats end up with a filibuster proof 74 seats in the Senate.

But that would never happen.

The most conservative estimates shows the Democrats picking up 4 seats from the GOP and losing none (giving them 55), these estimates also have a further 6 seats, all Republican, as NOC which means that come election night the Senate race could be the most interesting, if as it appears is happening, Obama will walk it. Most pundits expect the Democrats to end up with 59.

But why? Just because you vote one way for President doesn't mean you'll vote the same way for Congress. In fact with a Democratic Congress this should be true. Straight ticket voting (the practice of voting for the same party in all races you can vote in) has increased in the last few elections. This is usually the case when someone is so irritated they end up voting the same way to give a good kicking (c.f. Boris Johnson winning in London and the Conservatives increasing their share on the Assembly even with a list system in place or the SNP going from zero to hero in Scotland even with a constituency and regional vote).

So what would happen to the separation of powers? Parliamentarians in any system need to worry about their seats, they will not vote for an unpopular Bill just because it came from their party leader, besides which, with only two major parties in the US, the ties of allegiance are not so strong. If you took all the different camps (moderate Republican, conservative Democrat etc.) you could end up with quite a few parties.

However, Senators elected now may see Obama as the one to thank for their seats, they would also have 6 years to shake off any unpopularity surrounding their voting record (by which time Obama could be gone as well). Expect to see a few of the more important Bills coming up first if the magic 60 is reached.

EDIT: Inching ever closer now, Ted Stevens, the longest serving Senator from Alaska has been found guilty of corruption. GOP Ted, is famous for the bridge to nowhere project.

on rebranding the Lib Dems

noreply@blogger.com (thechristophe) — Sat, 11 Oct 2008 17:58:00 +0000

Do we need a new logo? According to Chandila Fernando's manifesto:

Our logo and brand has not changed for nearly twenty years.[...] Establishing a modern, consistent and attractive brand is not an optional extra, it is vital in communicating our appeal to the widest possible audience.

Would it not be more consistent to stay with a brand identity that has quite a high public awareness? Thoughts?

on capitalism not working

noreply@blogger.com (thechristophe) — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 21:47:00 +0000

Posted with LifeCast