Wow. That's all I've got to say really. In case you're wondering what on earth I'm talking about, I refer you back to the results of Thursday's local elections and the stunning performance put in by UKIP. Never before in recent memory has a 4th party won so many seats or such a high percentage of the vote. But more than just psephologically, UKIP has had a huge impact psychologically as well. For years, decades even, we've been ignored, laughed at and down right insulted. The words "fruitcakes", "loonies", "cranks", closet racists" and "clowns" all spring to mind. Yet a whopping 24% of people who voted on Thursday put their faith in those "fruitcakes", "loonies", "cranks", closet racists" and "clowns".
But aside from UKIP the results were very interesting in other ways. There were some shocks and surprises for the Tories who managed to keep hold of Staffordshire despite only winning it in 2009. Yet they lost control of some of the most true-blue areas in the country: Norfolk, Oxfordshire, East Sussex and Lincolnshire for starters. Their vote share held up pretty well too, although it would have been much higher without UKIP.
Labour, on the other hand, should struggle to see these elections as a success. They only managed to regain the same number of councillors that they lost in 2009, so no progress there. And they came out with control of 3 of the 34 county councils that were contested. Wins in Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire and County Durham were assured, but to not take Lancashire, Cumbria or Staffordshire was very poor indeed. And I'm sure that they were hoping to become the largest party in Warwickshire, which they didn't.
As for Nick Clegg's happy band of so-called Liberal Democrats there wasn't much to say either way. They kept a good number of councillors although they were hoping to win control of Somerset which the Tories kept hold of. They were wiped out in some areas, but it is likely that the presence of UKIP actually helped them by taking a good number of votes away from the Blues and allowing the Yellows to slip in instead.
The Green Party on the other hand must be disappointed. Their leader Natalie Bennett had said before the election that her party would win more seats that UKIP. Lets just see how that worked out for her: Green Party - 22 (+5), UKIP - 147 (+139). The previous 4th party of local government has fallen spectacularly from that spot and now trails a very distant 5th.
Now I haven't had a lot of time for number-crunching, but here are a few snippets that I picked out or have been provided by people that I know:
-UKIP is now the official opposition in Buckinghamshire, Kent, Lincolnshire, Norfolk and West Sussex
-55% of UKIP candidates achieved 1st or 2nd place
-Labour is the largest party on 6 out of 34 councils (County Durham, Cumbria, Derbyshire, Lancashire, Northumberland and Nottinghamshire)
-The Conservatives lost control of 10 councils, 8 to overall control (Cambridgeshire, East Sussex, Gloucestershire, Lancashire, Lincolnshire, Norfolk, Oxfordshire and Warwickshire to NOC, Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire to Labour)
-Independent candidates won the most seats in Cornwall, overtaking the Lib Dems and the Conservatives
-UKIP won more votes then the Conservatives in Anglesey, though neither party won any seats
And one that I find particularly interesting because it's from my home county:
-Although the Green Party fielded 62 candidates in Warwickshire and UKIP only fielded 22, the Greens only won 0.4% more of the vote across the entire county
So what can be taken forward from this is a number of things. Firstly, the Tories aren't entirely dead electorally, although most of the seats contested were in the Shire Counties and not the big cities. Secondly, Labour still aren't reaching through to many voters, especially those in the South, despite continually harking on about being a One Nation party. Thirdly, the Liberal Democrats can do quite well in places where they have lots of activists and sitting MPs, although they seem to have abandoned the rest of the country as no-go territory. Fourthly, UKIP have made huge inroads and should be able to continue this into next year and maybe win their first MP, although a large number of their voters see them only as a protest party. And finally, the public have finally seen what a waste of time the Green Party are.
And whilst it is stupid to make predictions for General Elections based on local ones two years before, I think that Thursday showed that May 2015 is starting to look very interesting indeed.
A Teenage View of the World of Politics
Latest Opinion Polls
Monday, 6 May 2013
Tuesday, 9 April 2013
Goodbye Maggie
For somebody like me, yesterday was a terrible day. In fact I am even willing to admit that I shed a tear or two. Because the devastating news of the passing of Baroness Thatcher at the age of 87 signals not only the death of, in my view, the greatest politician this country has ever witnessed, but also the death of a breed of politician that Mrs T embodied. One that has integrity, morals and values and most of all is willing to defend those at whatever cost and against whatever opposition because they know that they are right and that they are doing what is best for the country. When you compare this to the politics of today I can't help but feel a sense of despair. Politicians seem to be on one long PR campaign, trying to please everybody and upset nobody. And as Margaret Thatcher showed, that simply isn't possible. There will always be people who criticise, who say that you are doing it wrong and they know how to do it right. But the chances are these people are simply deluded and blinded by an over-arching belief in their own self-importance. The best thing to do is simply ignore them because at the end of the day, history will show who was right.
I know that a large proportion of those who read this will disagree with the policies that Thatcher pursued. You will say that she crushed the working class, destroyed British industry and emasculated the common man. Well let me tell you just how wrong you are. If it wasn't for Thatcherism you would be nowhere near as well off as you are now. You would not be able to afford the computer that you're using to read this, the chair you're sat on, the house you live in. And your chances of having a job would be about the same as the Dalai Lama has of being the next Archbishop of Canterbury. Margaret Thatcher rescued this country from the deathly grips of socialism and pulled it back from the edge of collapse. When she came to power inflation was running at 20%, the Winter of Discontent had blighted people's lives, we were having four-hour long power cuts every day and the working week had been cut to three days. Grossly over-powerful Trades Unions were crippling industry and we had even had to be bailed out by the International Monetary Fund. To say that Britain was on its knees would be an huge understatement. Last legs would be much more accurate. Yet through a program of radical, strong policies that were at times difficult to swallow, Margaret Thatcher restored this country to a level of greatness not seen since before World War 2. She reinvigorated the economy and allowed us to become one of the most dynamic and prosperous countries in Europe, if not the world. And for that we must all be eternally grateful.
However the most extraordinary thing about her achievements was the fact that at the time it was almost inconceivable for a woman to have the power to attain them. Politics was run by middle-class men, for middle-class men. Yet this ordinary woman from Lincolnshire had challenged the very basis of political norms and risen through the ranks through talent, determination and bloody hard work to hold the most senior office in the land. After that anything became possible!
So as we think back on what Margaret Thatcher did during her time on this Earth I know that each of us will have a very different view. I see her as an inspiration, a hero even. Someone who's life I look at for guidance in my own. The Lady may have gone, but I and many others will ensure that all she stood for shall forever have a place at the heart of politics and society in this country.
Rest in Peace, Maggie.
Wednesday, 27 March 2013
The Great Higher Education Problem
As somebody who is currently studying for their A-Levels and hoping to go to University, I take a great interest in the higher education system in this country. We have one of the finest reputations across the world for first-class education; in fact it is one of our biggest exports. But what concerns me is that the university market place is becoming so flooded with supply that the value of the product is decreasing in value.
When most people are asked to name some universities they will probably come out with places such as Oxford, Cambridge, Bristol, Manchester, Exeter, Imperial College London or the LSE. There are in fact 132 institutions that have received Royal Charters from the Privy Council and are therefore entitled to call themselves universities and award their own degrees. Many of these are almost completely unknown by the general public and, no snobbery intended, do not give the automatic impression of offering high-level academic tuition. I highly doubt that a degree from, for example, the London South Bank University, Bishop Grosseteste University, Harper Adams University or The Arts University Bournemouth come with a particularly high reputation either with employers or oversees. If we are going to make our universities more successful, we need to make them more exclusive.
Now please don't get me wrong. I don't want to deprive anybody who isn't one of the most 100 academically gifted people in the country the opportunity of higher education. What I do want is to have a system whereby people can study what they are best at, make the most of their talents and come out with a decent qualification that will stand them in good stead for later life. But this can not be achieved, in my view, by awarding a degree, which recognises academic achievement and capability, to anybody who has spent three years studying how to make a television program or plant geraniums in a pretty pattern. That is why I think we need to go back to a system of universities based around academic study and separate institutions that specialise in more practical, vocational courses.
University status would be limited to those institutions that can prove that they are worthy of such a prestigious title through a commitment to academia, research and high standards of teaching. In a rough list that I compiled this would include 42 of the leading existing universities who are already valued worldwide for the quality of their graduates. Other existing universities would then be split, merged or retained and be re-designated as Institutes of Higher Education (IHEs). Whereas universities would continue to award Bachelor's, Master's and Doctor's degrees, IHEs would award Certificates of Higher Education (CHE) and Certificates of Advanced Higher Education (CAHE) for those who study at a higher level. These would of course be recognised and respected qualifications in their own right, but would no longer detract some of the value of the degree.
Once again I would like to repeat that I don't wish to cast doubt on the quality of the education offered at any institution without first-hand knowledge. I simply speak on a general principle and I sincerely hope you will see some logic in my argument. For a full list of my suggested Universities and Institutes of Higher Education, please see below.
Universities:
When most people are asked to name some universities they will probably come out with places such as Oxford, Cambridge, Bristol, Manchester, Exeter, Imperial College London or the LSE. There are in fact 132 institutions that have received Royal Charters from the Privy Council and are therefore entitled to call themselves universities and award their own degrees. Many of these are almost completely unknown by the general public and, no snobbery intended, do not give the automatic impression of offering high-level academic tuition. I highly doubt that a degree from, for example, the London South Bank University, Bishop Grosseteste University, Harper Adams University or The Arts University Bournemouth come with a particularly high reputation either with employers or oversees. If we are going to make our universities more successful, we need to make them more exclusive.
Now please don't get me wrong. I don't want to deprive anybody who isn't one of the most 100 academically gifted people in the country the opportunity of higher education. What I do want is to have a system whereby people can study what they are best at, make the most of their talents and come out with a decent qualification that will stand them in good stead for later life. But this can not be achieved, in my view, by awarding a degree, which recognises academic achievement and capability, to anybody who has spent three years studying how to make a television program or plant geraniums in a pretty pattern. That is why I think we need to go back to a system of universities based around academic study and separate institutions that specialise in more practical, vocational courses.
University status would be limited to those institutions that can prove that they are worthy of such a prestigious title through a commitment to academia, research and high standards of teaching. In a rough list that I compiled this would include 42 of the leading existing universities who are already valued worldwide for the quality of their graduates. Other existing universities would then be split, merged or retained and be re-designated as Institutes of Higher Education (IHEs). Whereas universities would continue to award Bachelor's, Master's and Doctor's degrees, IHEs would award Certificates of Higher Education (CHE) and Certificates of Advanced Higher Education (CAHE) for those who study at a higher level. These would of course be recognised and respected qualifications in their own right, but would no longer detract some of the value of the degree.
Once again I would like to repeat that I don't wish to cast doubt on the quality of the education offered at any institution without first-hand knowledge. I simply speak on a general principle and I sincerely hope you will see some logic in my argument. For a full list of my suggested Universities and Institutes of Higher Education, please see below.
Universities:
Imperial College London
King's College London
London School of Economics
Royal College of Arts and Music (merger of Royal Academy of Music, Royal College of Art and Royal College of Music)
University College London
University of Bath
University of Birmingham
University of Brighton
University of Bristol
University of Cambridge
University of Canterbury (renamed University of Kent)
University of Colchester (renamed University of Essex)
University of Derby
University of Durham
University of Exeter
University of Hull
University of Lancaster
University of Leeds
University of Leicester
University of Lincoln
University of Liverpool
University of London
University of Manchester
University of Newcastle
University of Norwich (renamed University of East Anglia)
University of Nottingham
University of Oxford
University of Reading
University of Sheffield
University of Southampton
University of Stoke-on-Trent (renamed Keele University)
University of Warwick
University of York
University of Aberdeen
University of Dundee
University of Edinburgh
University of Glasgow
University of St Andrews
University of Cardiff
University of Swansea
University of Wales (merger of Aberystwyth University, Bangor University and University of Wales, Trinity St David)
Queen's University Belfast
Institutes of Higher Education:
Aston Institute of Higher Education (renamed Aston University)
Barnsley Institute of Higher Education (split from University of Huddersfield)
Bath Institute of Higher Education (renamed Bath Spa University)
Bedfordshire Institute of Higher Education (merger of University of Bedfordshire and Cranfield University)
Birmingham Institute of Higher Education (merger of Birmingham City University, Newman University and University College Birmingham)
Bolton Institute of Higher Education (renamed University of Bolton)
Bournemouth Institute of Higher Education (merger of University of Bournemouth and
Bradford Institute of Higher Education (renamed University of Bradford)
Brighton Institute of Higher Education (renamed University of Brighton)
Bristol Institute of Higher Education (renamed University of the West of England)
Brunel Institute of Higher Education (renamed Brunel University)
Buckinghamshire Institute of Higher Education (merger of University of Buckingham and Buckinghamshire New University)
Canterbury Institute of Higher Education (renamed Canterbury Christ Church University)
Chester Institute of Higher Education (renamed University of Chester)
Chichester Institute of Higher Education (renamed University of Chichester)
City of London Institute of Higher Education (renamed City University London)
Cornwall Institute of Higher Education (merger of Falmouth University and parts of the University of Exeter and the University of Plymouth)
Coventry Institute of Higher Education (renamed Coventry University)
Cumbria Institute of Higher Education (renamed University of Cumbria)
Darlington Institute of Higher Education (split from University of Teesside)
East Anglia Institute of Higher Education (renamed Anglia Ruskin University)
East London Institute of Higher Education (renamed University of East London)
Gloucestershire Institute of Higher Education (renamed University of Gloucestershire)
Greenwich Institute of Higher Education (renamed University of Greenwich)
Hertfordshire Institute of Higher Education (renamed University of Hertfordshire)
Huddersfield Institute of Higher Education (renamed part of University of Huddersfield)
Kent Institute of Higher Education (merger of University for the Creative Arts and part of the University of Kent)
Kingston Institute of Higher Education (renamed Kingston University)
Leeds Institute of Higher Education (merger of Leeds Metropolitan University and Leeds Trinity University)
Leicester Institute of Higher Education (renamed De Montfort University)
Lincoln Institute of Higher Education (renamed
Loughborough Institute of Higher Education (renamed Loughborough University)
Manchester Institute of Higher Education (renamed Manchester Metropolitan University)
Metropolitan Institute of Higher Education (renamed London Metropolitan University)
Middlesbrough Institute of Higher Education (split from University of Teesside)
Middlesex Institute of Higher Education (renamed Middlesex University)
Newcastle Institute of Higher Education (renamed Northumbria University)
Northampton Institute of Higher Education (renamed Northampton University)
Norwich Institute of Higher Education (renamed Norwich University of the Arts)
Nottingham Institute of Higher Education (renamed Nottingham Trent University)
Oldham Institute of Higher Education (split from University of Huddersfield)
Oxford Institute of Higher Education (renamed Oxford Brookes University)
Plymouth Institute of Higher Education (renamed University College Plymouth St Mark & St John)
Portsmouth Institute of Higher Education (renamed University of Portsmouth)
Preston Institute of Higher Education (renamed University of Central Lancashire)
Roehampton Institute of Higher Education (renamed Roehampton University)
Royal Agricultural College
Salford Institute of Higher Education (renamed University of Salford)
Sheffield Institute of Higher Education (renamed Sheffield Hallam University)
Shropshire Institute of Higher Education (merger of
Southampton Institute of Higher Education (renamed Southampton Solent University)
Southwark Institute of Higher Education (renamed London South Bank University)
Staffordshire Institute of Higher Education (merger of Staffordshire University and part of
Sunderland Institute of Higher Education (renamed University of Sunderland)
Surrey Institute of Higher Education (renamed University of Surrey)
Sussex Institute of Higher Education (renamed University of Sussex)
Sussex Institute of Higher Education (renamed University of Sussex)
Twickenham Institute of Higher Education (renamed St Mary's University College, Twickenham)
West Lancashire Institute of Higher Education (renamed Edge Hill University)
West London Institute of Higher Education (renamed University of West London)
Westminster Institute of Higher Education (renamed University of Westminster)
Winchester Institute of Higher Education (renamed University of Winchester)
Wolverhampton Institute of Higher Education (renamed part of the University of Wolverhampton)
Worcester Institute of Higher Education (renamed University of Worcester)
York Institute of Higher Education (renamed York St John University)
Aberdeen Institute of Higher Education (renamed Robert Gordon University)
Dundee Institute of Higher Education (renamed University of Abertay Dundee)
East Lothain Institute of Higher Education (merger of Queen Margaret University and part of Heriot-Watt University)
Edinburgh Institute of Higher Education (merger of Edinburgh Napier University and
Glasgow Institute of Higher Education (renamed Glasgow Caledonian University)
Highlands and Islands Institute of Higher Education (renamed University of the Highlands and Islands)
Stirling Institute of Higher Education (renamed University of Stirling)
Strathclyde Institute of Higher Education (renamed University of Strathclyde)
West Scotland Institute of Higher Education (renamed University of the West of Scotland)
Cardiff Institute of Higher Education (renamed Cardiff Metropolitan University)
Glamorgan Institute of Higher Education (renamed University of Glamorgan)
Newport Institute of Higher Education (renamed University of Wales, Newport)
Swansea Institute of Higher Education (renamed Swansea Metropolitan University)
Wrexham Institute of Higher Education (renamed Glyndwr University)
Belfast Institute of Higher Education (merger of St Mary's University College, Belfast, Stanmillis University College and part of the University of Ulster)
Ulster Institute of Higher Education (renamed part of the University of Ulster)
Sunday, 10 February 2013
A B'Eastleigh Business
It's by-election time again, and once more I'm going to do that typical novice-poltico thing of making some completely ridiculous and spurious predictions that have about as much chance of being correct as Nick Clegg has of being the next Prime Minister. But it keeps me happy and relatively quiet so I'll do it anyway.
This by-election is particularly interesting for a number of reasons. Firstly the circumstances behind it are somewhat unusual in that, as I'm sure you already know, Chris Huhne has been forced to resign due to criminal activity that took place 10 years ago. Now I'm not going to rant about how terrible it is and how we can't trust our politicians any more because I know that I'd be preaching to the converted. But what I will say is isn't it a shame that it was Nick Clegg won the Lib Dem leadership race and not Mr Huhne, because that would have been a very tricky situation indeed.
Secondly, we may be about to witness the creation of what could be the UK's first four-way marginal seat. What that means is the any one of four parties are in with a chance of winning it. Obviously at the last election it was a normal Lib Dem-Tory two-way marginal, but with a relatively resurgent Labour Party and UKIP rise continuing it is very possible that the winner could get no more than say, 25% of the vote. The lowest winning share since 1918 was 30% in the Combined English Universities by-election of 1946, and the lowest share in the last decade was 35% in the Leicester South by-election of 2004. Two recent polls for this by-election have the Tories and the Lib Dems winning on just 34% and 36% respectively so it's certainly going to be a close one.
As for my full vote-share prediction, based on the aforementioned polls, a brief study of recent by-election results and a bit a guesswork, I'm going to go for Lib Dems 29%, Tories 27%, UKIP 18%, Labour 17% and Others 9%. But the final result could very easily see the first two parties swapped around and the third and fourth parties swapped around. It all depends on the quality of the candidate and the quality of the campaign.Supposedly, anyway.
This by-election is particularly interesting for a number of reasons. Firstly the circumstances behind it are somewhat unusual in that, as I'm sure you already know, Chris Huhne has been forced to resign due to criminal activity that took place 10 years ago. Now I'm not going to rant about how terrible it is and how we can't trust our politicians any more because I know that I'd be preaching to the converted. But what I will say is isn't it a shame that it was Nick Clegg won the Lib Dem leadership race and not Mr Huhne, because that would have been a very tricky situation indeed.
Secondly, we may be about to witness the creation of what could be the UK's first four-way marginal seat. What that means is the any one of four parties are in with a chance of winning it. Obviously at the last election it was a normal Lib Dem-Tory two-way marginal, but with a relatively resurgent Labour Party and UKIP rise continuing it is very possible that the winner could get no more than say, 25% of the vote. The lowest winning share since 1918 was 30% in the Combined English Universities by-election of 1946, and the lowest share in the last decade was 35% in the Leicester South by-election of 2004. Two recent polls for this by-election have the Tories and the Lib Dems winning on just 34% and 36% respectively so it's certainly going to be a close one.
As for my full vote-share prediction, based on the aforementioned polls, a brief study of recent by-election results and a bit a guesswork, I'm going to go for Lib Dems 29%, Tories 27%, UKIP 18%, Labour 17% and Others 9%. But the final result could very easily see the first two parties swapped around and the third and fourth parties swapped around. It all depends on the quality of the candidate and the quality of the campaign.Supposedly, anyway.
Tuesday, 5 February 2013
What is a Marriage?
Firstly, I would just like to apologise for my lack of posting over the past few months. A-Level work and exams have taken over my life, as it has taken over the lives of many before me and will do the same to many to come. However, I hope to improve my attendance record, and I shall begin with today's hot topic; one that I feel a very strong need to share my views on.
Whilst watching the Commons debate today on gay marriage I can't help but be reminded of a famous, and rather over-quoted passage from Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet in which the latter of the title characters uses these words:
So what I suggest is really quite simple. Firstly, we make marriage a purely religious state, recognised by law, whereby each religion is at liberty to decide whether it wants to carry out homosexual marriages. Secondly, we make secular civil partnerships available to both homosexual and heterosexual couples and give them the same legal rights as a marriage currently has, which isn't the case at the moment. This way the rights of the Church and other religions are protected, the right of homosexuals to have their relationships on an equal footing with those of heterosexuals is created and the right of people to choose whether they want a religious or secular wedding is secured.
Whilst watching the Commons debate today on gay marriage I can't help but be reminded of a famous, and rather over-quoted passage from Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet in which the latter of the title characters uses these words:
"What's in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet;
So Romeo would, were he not Romeo call'd,
Retain that dear perfection which he owes
Without that title."Touching stuff as I'm sure you'll agree, but if we substitute the words "Romeo" for "marriage" and "he" for "it", you'll find the crux of the argument that I hope to put forward, and ultimately convince you of, in this post.
"What's in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet;
So marriage would, were it not marriage call'd,
Retain that dear perfection which it owes
Without that title."So what I'm trying, and in many ways failing, to say, is that I believe we are making an awful lot of fuss over nothing. Nobody with any sense in their body is saying that homosexuals should not be allowed equal rights as heterosexuals, but we must look at it from the point of view that "marriage" is an ancient religious tradition that dates back many centuries, if not millennia. The idea of a man and a woman joining together before their respective God(s) is as old as religion itself and now is not the time to go around rewriting the definition of such an important institution. Instead, we should try and reach a compromise between the modern, tolerant world we live in and the religious values and traditions that have been part of our culture for so long.
So what I suggest is really quite simple. Firstly, we make marriage a purely religious state, recognised by law, whereby each religion is at liberty to decide whether it wants to carry out homosexual marriages. Secondly, we make secular civil partnerships available to both homosexual and heterosexual couples and give them the same legal rights as a marriage currently has, which isn't the case at the moment. This way the rights of the Church and other religions are protected, the right of homosexuals to have their relationships on an equal footing with those of heterosexuals is created and the right of people to choose whether they want a religious or secular wedding is secured.
Sunday, 11 November 2012
United States Presidential Election 2012 Analysis
Now that Florida has been officially called for a Obama and as such there are no states left undecided, I feel it is now appropriate for me to cast my entirely unprofessional and somewhat inexperienced eye over that phenomenon that we so casually call a US presidential election. As you will no doubt be aware incumbent President Obama was the overall victor in what can easily be called a very close contest, although he will no be officially elected President until late in the year. That's one of the many quirks of the system that America uses.
Firstly lets have a little look at the statistics and the results map and see what they tell us.
It is quite evident that the United States operates on what is often termed a two-party system. This means that whilst there are other parties that take part in election, the impact they have on the results is negligible and they stand almost no chance of winning. As we can see from the table (if you didn't know already), the two main parties in America are the Democratic Party and the Republic Party. Whilst these name give absolutely no impression of the party stands for, it might make it a bit easier if I call them the Conservative Party and the Very Conservative Party, respectively. President Obama and (former) Governor Romney together took more than a whopping 98% of the vote, leaving no doubt in anybody's mind that the two-party system is more than secure. The highest "third party" candidate achieved less than 1% which is actually quite high by American standards, although I'll come back to that point later. What we can also see from these figures is that the election was actually very close, Obama only won by 3 million votes out of a possible 122 million, or as we would say here he had a majority of around 2.5%.
The standard election map, numbers aside, also gives the impression of a very close race. Obama won 27 states (including Washington D.C. which isn't actually a state) and Romney won 24. Wheat really makes a difference is which states each candidate wins, how large they are and how many Electoral College votes they therefore have. The Electoral College is almost unique to America. It means that the average voter doesn't directly vote for the President, they vote for the people who will get together to elect the President. And because all the Electoral College votes from a state have to go to the same candidate, a victory of 1 vote in a state can award a candidate as many as 55 votes in the electoral college.We can get a better look at how close, or not, the Electoral College vote will be in December from the following map.
So we can see that aside from Texas (TX, 38), Romney won no states with large numbers of Electoral College votes whereas Obama won quite a lot such as California, Florida, New York, Illinois and Pennsylvania (CA, 55; FL, 29; NY, 29; IL, 20; PA, 20). These combined gave him a large majority in the Electoral College, finishing up beating Romney 332 to 206.
Personally, I think that both sides ran effective campaigns on the ground, but the election was always stacked in Obama's favour. The Republicans failed to find a candidate that, to use that horrible americanism, "spoke to the people" and what's more, they failed to unite behind him. The GOP is split into what can broadly be described as a Libertarian wing and a Hard Conservative wing, and if they couldn't find a candidate that suited all parts of the party they were never going to succeed in finding one that suited all parts of the country. As for Obama, I'm not a particularly huge fan but you have got to admit that when the time comes he can deliver the goods; albeit only in elections. He worked hard, despite his slow start, and exposed Romney to some very difficult situations and embarrassing questions.
But one thing that may very easily be overlooked in this election is just how well the Libertarian Party candidate did. Gary Johnson had a very successful career in the Republican Party, but after failing to win their nomination he upped sticks and moved to the largest of America's "third parties". It is the highest vote for a minor candidate since 2000, when the Green Party's Ralph Nader won 2.74% of the popular vote (but still failed to get any Electoral College votes). It is by no means the end of the two-party system, but it is a good idea to keep an eye out for the Libertarians as they could start to work their way up into politics at a state level and that would be very worrying for many in the major parties, especially the Republicans.
So what about my personal views? Come on, I had to fit them in somewhere. I was faced with a major problem when it came to choosing someone to support in that I like neither candidate to any great degree. Obama has, in my opinion, failed in his previous four years and been a thorough let-down now that the novelty has worn off. But Romney is arrogant, disconnected from normal life and appealing to a vote that a lot of the time isn't really there. I realised that I wanted Obama to lose, but I didn't want Romney to win. The tricky part was working out which I wanted less! I can't say that I'm particularly happy with the result, and Obama has a lot of challenges to face over the coming years and not having control of the House of Representatives won't help. But what annoys me the most is that as the US President can serve no more than two terms, Obama is almost entirely unaccountable for his actions and essentially has free-run to do whatever he wants as the most powerful man in the world. So help us God.
Firstly lets have a little look at the statistics and the results map and see what they tell us.
| Candidate (Party) | Electoral votes | States carried | Popular vote | Pct. | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Obama (Democratic) | 332 | 26+DC | 61,910,594 | 50.54% | |
| Romney (Republican) | 206 | 24 | 58,654,765 | 47.88% | |
| Johnson (Libertarian) | 0 | 0 | 1,190,496 | 0.97% | |
| Stein (Green) | 0 | 0 | 420,064 | 0.34% | |
| Goode (Constitution) | 0 | 0 | 117,656 | 0.10% | |
| Barr (Peace and Freedom) | 0 | 0 | 51,714 | 0.04% | |
| Anderson (Justice) | 0 | 0 | 38,232 | 0.03% | |
| Others | 0 | 0 | 108,973 | 0.10% | |
| Total | 538 | 50+DC | 122,492,494 | 100.00% | |
The standard election map, numbers aside, also gives the impression of a very close race. Obama won 27 states (including Washington D.C. which isn't actually a state) and Romney won 24. Wheat really makes a difference is which states each candidate wins, how large they are and how many Electoral College votes they therefore have. The Electoral College is almost unique to America. It means that the average voter doesn't directly vote for the President, they vote for the people who will get together to elect the President. And because all the Electoral College votes from a state have to go to the same candidate, a victory of 1 vote in a state can award a candidate as many as 55 votes in the electoral college.We can get a better look at how close, or not, the Electoral College vote will be in December from the following map.
So we can see that aside from Texas (TX, 38), Romney won no states with large numbers of Electoral College votes whereas Obama won quite a lot such as California, Florida, New York, Illinois and Pennsylvania (CA, 55; FL, 29; NY, 29; IL, 20; PA, 20). These combined gave him a large majority in the Electoral College, finishing up beating Romney 332 to 206.
Personally, I think that both sides ran effective campaigns on the ground, but the election was always stacked in Obama's favour. The Republicans failed to find a candidate that, to use that horrible americanism, "spoke to the people" and what's more, they failed to unite behind him. The GOP is split into what can broadly be described as a Libertarian wing and a Hard Conservative wing, and if they couldn't find a candidate that suited all parts of the party they were never going to succeed in finding one that suited all parts of the country. As for Obama, I'm not a particularly huge fan but you have got to admit that when the time comes he can deliver the goods; albeit only in elections. He worked hard, despite his slow start, and exposed Romney to some very difficult situations and embarrassing questions.
But one thing that may very easily be overlooked in this election is just how well the Libertarian Party candidate did. Gary Johnson had a very successful career in the Republican Party, but after failing to win their nomination he upped sticks and moved to the largest of America's "third parties". It is the highest vote for a minor candidate since 2000, when the Green Party's Ralph Nader won 2.74% of the popular vote (but still failed to get any Electoral College votes). It is by no means the end of the two-party system, but it is a good idea to keep an eye out for the Libertarians as they could start to work their way up into politics at a state level and that would be very worrying for many in the major parties, especially the Republicans.
So what about my personal views? Come on, I had to fit them in somewhere. I was faced with a major problem when it came to choosing someone to support in that I like neither candidate to any great degree. Obama has, in my opinion, failed in his previous four years and been a thorough let-down now that the novelty has worn off. But Romney is arrogant, disconnected from normal life and appealing to a vote that a lot of the time isn't really there. I realised that I wanted Obama to lose, but I didn't want Romney to win. The tricky part was working out which I wanted less! I can't say that I'm particularly happy with the result, and Obama has a lot of challenges to face over the coming years and not having control of the House of Representatives won't help. But what annoys me the most is that as the US President can serve no more than two terms, Obama is almost entirely unaccountable for his actions and essentially has free-run to do whatever he wants as the most powerful man in the world. So help us God.
Tuesday, 6 November 2012
Dorries Down Under
So Nadine Dorries, that figurehead of rebellion in the Tory Party, has decided to abandon her constituents and parliamentary duties to make a fool of herself on national television. And no, I don't mean she's appearing on Newsnight. In what can only be described as a moment of complete selfishness and lacking the ability to process thoughts coherently, the Honourable Member of Parliament for Mid Buckinghamshire agreed to appear on I'm a Celebrity...Get Me Out of Here. And in return her boss (the Government Chief Whip) has suspended her from the Parliamentary Conservative Party, meaning that she keeps her seat and her membership of the party, she just doesn't represent them in parliament any more.
In the "real world", if anybody in any occupation decided not to go to work for a month whilst being paid to do another job they would be fired instantly, and rightly so. But what makes it so much worse in this case is that Ms Dorries neglected to inform her constituents, her colleagues, the Government Chief Whip or the members of her Constituency Association, without whom she would not be in the incredibly privileged position she is in today.
When the public puts their trust in somebody to represent them in the most important decision-making institution in the country they should be able to do so safe in the knowledge that that person will not simply walk out half way through to pursue a bit of self-advancement. Ms Dorries has let herself down, her party down (not that I hold much respect for that party) and worst of all she has let the public down. If the Conservative Party do decide to have her back then they are fools. If they don't and she joins another party (most likely UKIP) then anyone else who accepts her is just as bad. She is a fool who has sacrificed her constituents in what can best be described as a PR stunt and for that she should resign and allow a proper MP to work for the people of Mid Buckinghamshire in a manner fitting of an Honourable Member.
In the "real world", if anybody in any occupation decided not to go to work for a month whilst being paid to do another job they would be fired instantly, and rightly so. But what makes it so much worse in this case is that Ms Dorries neglected to inform her constituents, her colleagues, the Government Chief Whip or the members of her Constituency Association, without whom she would not be in the incredibly privileged position she is in today.
When the public puts their trust in somebody to represent them in the most important decision-making institution in the country they should be able to do so safe in the knowledge that that person will not simply walk out half way through to pursue a bit of self-advancement. Ms Dorries has let herself down, her party down (not that I hold much respect for that party) and worst of all she has let the public down. If the Conservative Party do decide to have her back then they are fools. If they don't and she joins another party (most likely UKIP) then anyone else who accepts her is just as bad. She is a fool who has sacrificed her constituents in what can best be described as a PR stunt and for that she should resign and allow a proper MP to work for the people of Mid Buckinghamshire in a manner fitting of an Honourable Member.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)