Political Insider have done the maths on delegates, and found that, after the Pennsylvania win for Hillary Clinton, she is actually less likely to win the Democratic nomination than before it:
...before the Pennsylvania, Sen. Hillary Clinton needed to get at least 63% of the vote in the remaining states to have a chance to win more delegates than Sen. Barack Obama. Clinton now needs 296 of the remaining 435 delegates up for grabs (or approximately 68% of the vote.) In contrast, Obama needs 140 of the remaining 435 to have the majority (or about 32% of the vote.) Therefore, despite her win in the Keystone State, the results have in fact made it less likely Clinton can win.
Friday, April 25, 2008
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Kelvin MacKenzie stands for his local council
I am not a fan of Mr MacKenzie, who puts the "loud" into "loudmouth".
But I have come across lots of people who have sounded off about the local council in their area. When you say: "Well, why don't you stand yourself?" they suddenly become all bashful and find a reason not to put their hat into the ring.
So full marks to Kelvin MacKenzie for having the gonads to stand.
Gavin Webb - ridiculous reason for suspension
Well done to Bob Shaw (though goodness knows what his blog is called this week) for nailing down the reason for the Gavin Webb suspension to the issue of hand guns where Gavin was advocating the opposite of party policy in his local press.
In one sense, I am utterly amazed that someone has been suspended for letting slip that they disagree with one element of party policy. I would be staggered if any movement to expel Gavin succeeded on this basis. In another sense, I am not surprised. It is frighteningly easy to suspend someone. You can do so under an emergency procedure - so you could do it with a green light from just three (overly nervous?) officers.
However, I am also rather amazed as to how Gavin has got into a local press scenario where they have cleared the pages to present him sounding off on a myriad of policy areas, none within his power to change as a local councillor. When I was a councillor I kept my head down and concentrated my comments on litter and planning applications etc. I kept schtum, for example, on my Republicanism, because it is not party policy, had nothing to do with my role as a councillor and would have frightened the horses. But I still discussed the subject in party circles and indeed in public forums other than the local press.
So, a LibDem councillor should not entirely open the kimono of their views on all subjects to the local press (certainly not without heavy caveats and disclaimers). Some discretion ought to be shown. But having said that, suspension for voicing one element of disagreement with party policy is just ridiculous.
But, as I say, it is frighteningly easy to suspend someone. There might just be a tactic here - suspend for the elections then everything is smoothed over and the man is reinstated quietly afterwards. If so, that is rather cynical and silly.
In one sense, I am utterly amazed that someone has been suspended for letting slip that they disagree with one element of party policy. I would be staggered if any movement to expel Gavin succeeded on this basis. In another sense, I am not surprised. It is frighteningly easy to suspend someone. You can do so under an emergency procedure - so you could do it with a green light from just three (overly nervous?) officers.
However, I am also rather amazed as to how Gavin has got into a local press scenario where they have cleared the pages to present him sounding off on a myriad of policy areas, none within his power to change as a local councillor. When I was a councillor I kept my head down and concentrated my comments on litter and planning applications etc. I kept schtum, for example, on my Republicanism, because it is not party policy, had nothing to do with my role as a councillor and would have frightened the horses. But I still discussed the subject in party circles and indeed in public forums other than the local press.
So, a LibDem councillor should not entirely open the kimono of their views on all subjects to the local press (certainly not without heavy caveats and disclaimers). Some discretion ought to be shown. But having said that, suspension for voicing one element of disagreement with party policy is just ridiculous.
But, as I say, it is frighteningly easy to suspend someone. There might just be a tactic here - suspend for the elections then everything is smoothed over and the man is reinstated quietly afterwards. If so, that is rather cynical and silly.
What David Cameron doesn't want us to focus on
I've got a feeling that the NUT strike today will stay as a grievance in the memories of many voters, long after they have forgotten about the chicanery of the 10p tax rate compensation, which was the talk of the Westminister Village, via PMQs, yesterday.
It is a sharp example of the contrast of the real world v the Westminster Bubble.
In the real world, parents have had to rush round to make sure their children are looked after today. Then there is the worry that 11 year olds are about to take SATs and older children are about to take they GCSEs and A levels.
In the Westminster bubble there was a load of hot air about something that didn't happen. I've just read Roy Jenkins' biography of Gladstone. In the 19th Century there were these sorts of parliamentary wrangles all the time on a much larger scale - the parties hardly ever voted as one, there were break-off groups all over the shop, legislation was brought in, then pulled back, modified and tried again - often with intervening dissolutions or government resignations, with Queen Victoria sometimes seeing potential Prime Ministers on a taxi rank basis until she found one who stuck.
I think we have become too sensitive to political debate, and the adjustment of proposals.
To hear David Cameron bleating on about poverty is pathetic.
The truth is that Gordon Brown, in his last budget, dealt a major blow to the Conservatives. He lowered the basic rate of income tax to 20 pence. This is a sort of Holy Grail for the Tories, which they have been trying to get to for years. Gordon Brown has "shot their fox" by introducing the 20 pence rate himself, leaving the Tories with very little else to offer on the tax front. Brown has left the Tories a bit flat footed. No wonder David Cameron is trying to divert attention from this by blowing up the 10p tax rate compensation debate out of complete proportion.
It is a sharp example of the contrast of the real world v the Westminster Bubble.
In the real world, parents have had to rush round to make sure their children are looked after today. Then there is the worry that 11 year olds are about to take SATs and older children are about to take they GCSEs and A levels.
In the Westminster bubble there was a load of hot air about something that didn't happen. I've just read Roy Jenkins' biography of Gladstone. In the 19th Century there were these sorts of parliamentary wrangles all the time on a much larger scale - the parties hardly ever voted as one, there were break-off groups all over the shop, legislation was brought in, then pulled back, modified and tried again - often with intervening dissolutions or government resignations, with Queen Victoria sometimes seeing potential Prime Ministers on a taxi rank basis until she found one who stuck.
I think we have become too sensitive to political debate, and the adjustment of proposals.
To hear David Cameron bleating on about poverty is pathetic.
The truth is that Gordon Brown, in his last budget, dealt a major blow to the Conservatives. He lowered the basic rate of income tax to 20 pence. This is a sort of Holy Grail for the Tories, which they have been trying to get to for years. Gordon Brown has "shot their fox" by introducing the 20 pence rate himself, leaving the Tories with very little else to offer on the tax front. Brown has left the Tories a bit flat footed. No wonder David Cameron is trying to divert attention from this by blowing up the 10p tax rate compensation debate out of complete proportion.
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
David Cameron's ridiculous speaking habits
I think it was ITV's Headcases which first highlighted to me David Cameron's overuse of alliteration and repetition. It is now getting to the point where Cameron is sounding ridiculous.
Take this section of his remarks from today's PMQs:
It is always about politics, not policy. It is always about calculation, not conviction. It is always about his self-interest, not the national interest.
It's pathetic. He's forcing his speech to be alliterative and, in the case of the last sentence, repetitive.
Along with his annoyingly strained, posh, clever dick sixth form prefect voice he sounds ludicrous and is losing, if he ever had, any seriousness due to his light-weight smarmy delivery.
If he actually just lowered his voice, calmed down a bit and used a couple of reasonably sensible sentences, without trying to find a soundbite, he would do himself a lot more good.
Take this section of his remarks from today's PMQs:
It is always about politics, not policy. It is always about calculation, not conviction. It is always about his self-interest, not the national interest.
It's pathetic. He's forcing his speech to be alliterative and, in the case of the last sentence, repetitive.
Along with his annoyingly strained, posh, clever dick sixth form prefect voice he sounds ludicrous and is losing, if he ever had, any seriousness due to his light-weight smarmy delivery.
If he actually just lowered his voice, calmed down a bit and used a couple of reasonably sensible sentences, without trying to find a soundbite, he would do himself a lot more good.
Clinton "coup" would 'lose the Black American vote for the Democrats'
Thanks to the Free Think blog for an excellent assessment of The aftermath of Pennsylvania. In particular, Mark Bell links to a really excellent article by Dylan Loewe on the Guardian's Comment is Free entitled Hillary's new inevitability.
Loewe outlines why Clinton cannot win without an anti-democratic act by the super-delegates which would destroy, at a stroke, her "electability" anyway. He points out that a super-delegate coup for Clinton, reversing the popular vote and the delegate vote in the party's primaries/caucases, would be a historic betrayal of the Black American vote, on which the Democrats rely, which would lead to a probable permanent schism in the Democrat coalition:
Since Franklin Roosevelt, no Democrat has won the White House without the loyal support of the African-American community. But having watched the potential first black president denied his rightful chance to compete by party insiders may sever that loyalty permanently. The activist base of the Democratic party, which has been at the core of the remaking of the political landscape, will likely also be rocked by a Clinton coup. If the superdelegates nominate her, it will rip the base of the party in half and destroy the extraordinary progress that the Obama movement - and the Dean movement before it - has produced. Even if she is more electable before their decision, she will be unelectable after.
But hey, it's OK, because dear old Bill Clinton has worked out a way that Hillary is in fact well ahead in the nomination race:
"If we were under the Republican system, which is more like the Electoral College, she'd have a 300-delegate lead here."
Dream on Billy Boy.
Loewe outlines why Clinton cannot win without an anti-democratic act by the super-delegates which would destroy, at a stroke, her "electability" anyway. He points out that a super-delegate coup for Clinton, reversing the popular vote and the delegate vote in the party's primaries/caucases, would be a historic betrayal of the Black American vote, on which the Democrats rely, which would lead to a probable permanent schism in the Democrat coalition:
Since Franklin Roosevelt, no Democrat has won the White House without the loyal support of the African-American community. But having watched the potential first black president denied his rightful chance to compete by party insiders may sever that loyalty permanently. The activist base of the Democratic party, which has been at the core of the remaking of the political landscape, will likely also be rocked by a Clinton coup. If the superdelegates nominate her, it will rip the base of the party in half and destroy the extraordinary progress that the Obama movement - and the Dean movement before it - has produced. Even if she is more electable before their decision, she will be unelectable after.
But hey, it's OK, because dear old Bill Clinton has worked out a way that Hillary is in fact well ahead in the nomination race:
"If we were under the Republican system, which is more like the Electoral College, she'd have a 300-delegate lead here."
Dream on Billy Boy.
The disgrace of "Davros" Clinton
From ABC News:
(Hillary) Clinton further displayed tough talk in an interview airing on "Good Morning America" Tuesday. ABC News' Chris Cuomo asked Clinton what she would do if Iran attacked Israel with nuclear weapons.
"I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran," Clinton said. "In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them."
And this is the nuanced, subtle, informed and conscientious view of what we are told is an 'experienced foreign affairs hand'.
It’s taking Bill Clinton’s maxim ("When people are insecure, they'd rather have somebody who is strong and wrong than someone who's weak and right,") to a remarkable extreme.
What I hate about Hillary’s statement is….oh well hang on...there’s so many things I hate about it.
1. “Obliterate them” – who is "them"? Millions of innocent Iranians struggling to lead their lives while President “I’m a Dinner Jam” cowers safely in a bunker ?
2. Isn’t Israel a nuclear power anyway ? They refuse to confirm or deny this, but one wonders whether (a) Iran would attack them knowing they probably have their own nuclear weapons and (b) the US needs to rush to the defence of another nuclear power.
3. It is disgusting that Clinton is using such phrases. It is patronizing to the American people to cynically assume these sorts of statements will bring her extra votes.
Whatever happened to the subtlety of Theodore Roosevelt and his quotation of the West African proverb “Speak softly and carry a big stick” ?
Did JFK use such language during the Cuban Missile crisis ? Of course not.
Hillary Clinton has shown that she is the last person who ought to answer that legendary 3am red phone. If she is going to play to the gallery and go round throwing her weight about, this is not what anybody needs. Where's the intellectual rigour of her approach ? She's got all the sublety of Davros and the Daleks: "OBLITERATE"
(Hillary) Clinton further displayed tough talk in an interview airing on "Good Morning America" Tuesday. ABC News' Chris Cuomo asked Clinton what she would do if Iran attacked Israel with nuclear weapons.
"I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran," Clinton said. "In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them."
And this is the nuanced, subtle, informed and conscientious view of what we are told is an 'experienced foreign affairs hand'.
It’s taking Bill Clinton’s maxim ("When people are insecure, they'd rather have somebody who is strong and wrong than someone who's weak and right,") to a remarkable extreme.
What I hate about Hillary’s statement is….oh well hang on...there’s so many things I hate about it.
1. “Obliterate them” – who is "them"? Millions of innocent Iranians struggling to lead their lives while President “I’m a Dinner Jam” cowers safely in a bunker ?
2. Isn’t Israel a nuclear power anyway ? They refuse to confirm or deny this, but one wonders whether (a) Iran would attack them knowing they probably have their own nuclear weapons and (b) the US needs to rush to the defence of another nuclear power.
3. It is disgusting that Clinton is using such phrases. It is patronizing to the American people to cynically assume these sorts of statements will bring her extra votes.
Whatever happened to the subtlety of Theodore Roosevelt and his quotation of the West African proverb “Speak softly and carry a big stick” ?
Did JFK use such language during the Cuban Missile crisis ? Of course not.
Hillary Clinton has shown that she is the last person who ought to answer that legendary 3am red phone. If she is going to play to the gallery and go round throwing her weight about, this is not what anybody needs. Where's the intellectual rigour of her approach ? She's got all the sublety of Davros and the Daleks: "OBLITERATE"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
