All entries for February 2009
February 18, 2009
If you don't care do not bother reading.
My killer question is what is your stance on No Platform, a candidate supporting it will not be on the list of people I am voting for (I might even R.O.N them if I am in a bad mood).
A candidate who says he wants to leave the NUS will be viewed in a positive way.
Other positive things in a candidate:
- not being politically correct
- being libertarian
- believing in the right to property (at least as far as the fruits of one's labour)
So here is my provisional list (nor particular order). If you are not the list, don't be offended, I still love you (unless I did not love you in the first place).
President: Sam or Andrew or Asen
Education: R.O.N if I I am in a bad mood
Communications: Andrew Horder or Issac Newton (depends of their stance on NP)
GFO: Andy Perkins
Welfare: Fran or Sami
Sports: I honestly don't know and I can't be asked to ask each of the candidates for their stance on NP. So it will be Laura or Nicola (because they are girls, yes I know it is a bad reason for voting for someone)
Societies: OJ or James.
Now for the part-time people
Student sport: Sonny Kombo
Democracy Committee: don't know
Executive Committee chair: Chris
Societies Comm: Giles
Anti racism: Sam
If any of the candidates I listed is pro NP please let me know.
February 16, 2009
I really should be doing some work but I am not.
If we assume that facebook is everything (not an unreasonable assumption) then it can accurately predict the election results.
So here are the number of people in the fb groups of the candidates for President (and the number of people invited) at around 16:15 on Monday week 7 (day 1).
- Mitchell Fung: 215, 1614
- Andrew Bradley: 147, 859
- Sam Shirley: 106, 876
- Asen Geshakov: 70, 206
- Andy Glyde: 58, 441
By far Mitchell is the big winner.
I can't be asked to do it for the other positions.
UPDATE: previously I did not find Bradley's group. This has now been corrected.
February 11, 2009
I just had an idea for the British Constitution. We should do the following:
- HM should preside over cabinet meetings
- Each government departement should be presided by a permanent secretary who will sit in the cabinet (there will be no politicians in the cabinet).
- Permanent secretaries should be career civil servants appointed on merit.
- The right of all hereditary peers to sit in the House of Lords should be restored.
- "Working peers" should be abolished.
- All the new peerages should be life peerages appointed based on merit.
- The House of Commons should not change (although something should be done to weaken the power of the whips)
- HM may in some circumstances refuse to give assent to some bils (especially if the Parliament Act was used).
- The senior judiciary should have the power to strike down legislations repugnant to fundamental common law principles.
I am not going to give detailed reasons now but there are a few brief explanations.
The idea is that elections create populist politicians who do things to impress the respectable readers of respectable newspapers like the Sun or the Daily Mail. Ideally the House of Commons should be scrapped (so no more elections) but if the masses think that it is a democracy and they are in control they will be more likely to accept things.
TB was advised by the security services that if he went to Iraq this would cause an increase in the threat to the UK. He did not listen. The security servies, the DPP and several Chief Constables said 42 days was not necessary, GB did not listen. Same for ID cards (I think). In many case civil servants know better and take better decisions than elected politicians (who just want to appear favourably in the eyes of the tabloids).
What does everybody think?
PS: Ideally the State should be abolished or should just be a sort of Night watchman state.