#think what you could do by mobilising for the next election

[oneawkwardcookie]

The amount of seats with a less than 1% margin in winning that seat - Hendon with only 15 votes making a difference - a reminder that every vote counts!

[berniesrevolution]

TRIBUNE MAGAZINE

Once written off as an electoral liability, today Jeremy Corbyn could be the next prime minister. After his breakthrough performance in the 2017 election and the subsequent meltdown of Theresa May’s premiership, Labour stands a real chance of government.

Yet, as disputes over Brexit dominate the political arena, Labour’s plans for remodelling the economy rarely find a place in media narratives. If Corbyn is to bring about paradigm shift like Clement Attlee in 1945 or Margaret Thatcher in 1979, his party needs to mobilise emphatic public support for its transformative agenda — and also be prepared to face down opposition from powerful interests in the City of London and beyond.

Christine Berry is co-author (together with Joe Guinan) of People Get Ready! Preparing for a Corbyn Government. She spoke to Alex Doherty of the Politics Theory Otherpodcast about Labour’s program for democratising the economy, how it can turn “taking office” into “taking power,” and what Corbyn’s team can learn from the strategies Thatcher’s government used to push through their own neoliberal revolution.

Alex Doherty:

Over the last few months I’ve felt fairly confident Labour will form the next government — my anxiety is more focused on what things will be like if and when Labour do win. There’s a whole range of troubling issues, from the coherence of Labour’s program to media hostility and the opposition to Corbyn’s leadership within the Parliamentary Labour Party. What do you think are the key issues in making a Labour government a success?

Christine Berry:

The book comes from exactly the kind of sentiment you’ve just outlined. A lot of the debate is focused on whether Labour can win an election or form a government, and on how to mobilise to make that happen. But our anxiety is similar to yours — the real danger is not that we can’t win, but that we’re not ready for it.

If Labour takes power before it’s ready, and for whatever reason can’t implement its program, that’d be more of a setback to the hopes of the Left, possibly for the next generation, than us not winning the next general election. That isn’t to underestimate the urgency of forming such a government, particularly given challenges such as the climate crisis or the rise of the far right. But that’s only the beginning of the job that needs doing.

In the book, the first issue we raise is the platform — do we know what a radical Labour government wants to achieve. There hasn’t necessarily been a deep conversation about Labour’s positive agenda, beyond reversing austerity, but we argue that there’s been a lot more progress on that than a lot of people even within the movement realise.

The second is having hard-headed battle plans for how to implement that platform in practice, given that it involves a major rebalancing of power relations and taking on vested interests. We look at how Margaret Thatcher and neoliberals elsewhere prepared those kinds of strategies.

The third is facing down reaction by the vested interests threatened by that program and dealing with the kind of economic warfare that might result, including capital flight and currency crises.

Last is transforming the state — facing down the possibility of noncooperation from the institutional machine itself. That means repurposing Whitehall (i.e. the civil service) to make it capable of implementing that program. And the wider movement also has to give that government a sufficiently powerful social base to understand that program, to push it forward and to hold the government to account when it comes under pressure to water down its radicalism.

Alex Doherty:

Looking at Labour’s platform, it seems the core of what you see as its radicalism is its plan to democratise the economy in various ways. Yet it seems that this hasn’t cut through very much — not only among the wider electorate, but even for instance in Labour Party forums on social media, where the program is almost solely seen in terms of anti-austerity and a kind of revivalism of the 1945 Labour government. So, if you’re right that this agenda is better thought-out than a lot of people expect, it doesn’t feel like it’s been particularly well articulated.

Christine Berry:

That’s definitely true. Even within quite politically-informed circles there isn’t a deep conversation about Labour’s new economic thinking. There’s a kind of irony if the talk of democratising the economy — which means participation — is being developed from the top down by quite a small circle of policy wonks and people around shadow chancellor John McDonnell’s office. We need much more political education and effort to cultivate movement debate and discussion around these issues, so it can be an agenda driven from the grassroots.

Economic democracy is about going beyond a return to the spirit of ’45. The accusation often levelled at Labour when it talks about nationalisation is that it just wants to go back to the past. But that isn’t the program — Corbyn and McDonnell have been clear that they’re not about replacing distant, unaccountable private elites with distant, unaccountable public elites. They have a solid critique of that model of nationalisation — what they’re really interested in is exploring new models of public and common ownership that are more localised, decentralised, and participatory.

So, you have Corbyn talking about passenger-run railways and an energy policy that involves an element of national, public ownership but also has a big role for municipal energy companies and community renewables cooperatives. There’s also a lot of thinking about how to scale cooperatives and employee ownership in the private sector. This means taking seriously the value of democratic participation and control by workers and citizens. The nationalisations of 1945 were much more about the idea that this would make industries more efficient — something easy to forget after thirty years of neoliberalism hammered home the message that public ownership means inefficiency.

(Continue Reading)

[southeastasianists]

It’s a long drive to the city of Tanjung Balai in North Sumatra, Indonesia—almost five hours from the provincial capital of Medan, on winding roads past emerald green paddy fields and through palm oil and rubber plantations. The city is one of the main ports in North Sumatra, and connects both Malaysia and Singapore with Indonesia. Like many port cities, a large proportion of residents in Tanjung Balai make their living from the sea.

Meiliana, a Chinese-Indonesian and a Buddhist, was no exception. Having lived on Jalan Karya in Tanjung Balai for eight years, she owned a simple store selling salted fish with her husband, Atui. But in July 2016, Meiliana’s life was thrown into disarray, and in August 2018 she was sentenced to one and a half years in prison for blasphemy by the Medan District Court.

How it all began

It started out almost as a throwaway comment.

In July 2016, Meiliana walked across the road from her small house on the sleepy street of Jalan Karya to buy breakfast buns from Kasini, a 51-year-old Javanese Muslim who owns a small shop selling sundries. It was something she did almost every morning.

Kasini and Meiliana weren’t exactly friends, but they had a cordial relationship. At Eid-ul-Fitr, the end of the Muslim fasting month, Meiliana would bake cakes and take them to Kasini’s house.

On that fateful morning, as Meiliana paid for her buns, she had a request for Kasini. “Can you tell Wak [grandfather] to turn down the volume of the mosque speakers? It’s so loud it hurts my ears.”

Kasini’s father, 75-year-old Kasidik, has worked at the Al Ma’shum Mosque since 2007 as one of its caretakers. Five times a day, he walks the few feet to the mosque from the home he shares with Kasini and her children and puts a cassette in an old-fashioned tape player. The azan (prayer call) then rings out across Jalan Karya, reminding Muslims that it’s time to pray.

Karsini didn’t think much of Meiliana’s comment, other than wondering why, having lived just ten paces away from the mosque for the last eight years, she was suddenly bothered by the sound of the azan.

“I did think, why is she saying this to me?” she tells New Naratif. But the mood was calm, and Kasini passed the request on to her father. He, in turn, told another caretaker, who then told the imam (the spiritual leader of the mosque).

That comment, first made over a breakfast bun, then started to take on a life of its own.  

Just a few days later, Kasini and Kasidik noticed that the street outside Meiliana’s home was suddenly clogged with cars and motorbikes. People started showing up at all times of the day and night, and they could hear shouting. At one point Kasini says she thought she heard Meiliana’s eldest son exclaim, “We’re all adults here! What’s wrong with you?”

Word of Meiliana’s comment about the mosque speakers had spread from a neighbour to her father, from a father to his co-workers, from the co-workers to more neighbours, and from the neighbours to social media. The message got distorted as it passed from one to another, and eventually people were saying that Meiliana had tried to stop the Islamic call to prayer and insulted Islam, violating Indonesia’s infamous blasphemy law (Pasal 156A KUHP), which carries a maximum five-year prison sentence.

A few days later, Meiliana’s husband Atui went to the mosque to publicly apologise for his wife’s comments. Meiliana was either too scared or too stubborn to go with him. In the end, it hardly mattered; her husband’s apology failed to insulate her against what happened next.

Prominent Islamic organisations, such as Front Umat Islam (FUI), successfully pressured the police to file an official report (link in Bahasa Indonesia). In 2017, the North Sumatra chapter of the Majelis Ulama Indonesia (MUI), one of the largest Muslim organisations in Indonesia, issued a fatwa (a non-legally binding but official pronouncement on Islamic law) against Meiliana. A mob proceeded to riot, pelting Meiliana’s home with rocks and bottles. They then set fire to Buddhist temples in Tanjung Balai.

Kasini claims that Meiliana was originally taken into custody for “her own protection”, as the authorities were worried she’d be lynched if she stayed at home. But instead of protecting her, they charged her with blasphemy.

According to one of Meiliana’s lawyers, Ranto Sibarani, the court proceedings were chequered at best.

The prosecutors presented the fatwa and a written statement from a witness at the riot outside Meiliana’s home as evidence. Sibarani claims it was mostly based on hearsay; no recordings of the original comment were provided. “They brought the mosque amplifiers as an item of evidence,” Sibarani tells New Naratif. “The officials welcomed the rioters with open arms. The case was heavily influenced by an intervention from the masses.”

A sense of disbelief over the legitimacy of Meiliana’s case continues to loom large. “She did not commit blasphemy. What she did was offer a neighbourly complaint, and that is not an insult to Islam,” Ismail Hasani, the research director at the rights advocacy group Setara Institute, told The Washington Post. “More generally, we believe that the blasphemy law itself does more than anything else to limit freedom of religion in Indonesia.”

Particular to Meiliana’s case, there’s also been a debate about the volume of the call to prayer, and whether a request to lower it qualifies as blasphemy. In 1978, Indonesia’s Religious Affairs Ministry released (link in Bahasa Indonesia) instructions on how to properly manage the volume made by a mosque amplifier, prioritising melody over loudness; Indonesia’s current vice president, Jusuf Kalla, has also advised mosques in Indonesia to be mindful of the volume of their speakers, and dispatched technicians to help fix faulty amplifiers.

Kasini says she feels “exhausted” by the case. She had to go to the police station countless times to give her testimony about Meiliana’s comment, and once attended court in Medan to give evidence. She says that when she made her statement to the judge, Meiliana was not there to hear the testimony against her, so the former neighbours didn’t have to face each other.

When asked if she believes Meiliana committed blasphemy, Kasini shrugs her shoulders and looks confused. “I don’t know anything about the blasphemy law, so I just leave it up to the judge. He must have known what he was doing,” is all she will say.

Kasini isn’t the only one who’s exhausted.

Meiliana’s story is one of fatigue for anyone who has tried to follow the trajectory of Indonesia’s nebulous and opaque blasphemy law, and the myriad cases that have unfolded over the years, always following a similar pattern.

Here, the cycle continues: frivolous litigation favouring the offended and mobilised mob; a president’s inability “to intervene in the legal process”; an outpouring of signatures in an online petition (link in Bahasa Indonesia); political convenience.

The blasphemy law in Indonesia is built upon all of these things—this is the story of how it’s wielded, how it unfolds, and how it (still) stands.

Indonesia’s problem with blasphemy

The blasphemy law has its roots in the administration of Indonesia’s first president, Sukarno. Signed into force by Sukarno in 1965, the law was originally meant (link in Bahasa Indonesia) to “accommodate requests from Islamic organisations who wanted to stem the recognition of indigenous beliefs.” It was later used as a way for President Suharto, the authoritarian second president of Indonesia, to prosecute anyone who dared to criticise his government.

Attempts to revoke the law have failed on more than one occasion. Indonesia’s fourth president, Abdurrahman “Gus Dur” Wahid—who wrote an article in 1982 for Tempo magazine entitled “Tuhan Tidak Perlu Dibela (God Does Not Need to be Defended)”—was once involved in an unsuccessful petition to revoke the blasphemy law. In July 2018, a petition launched by the Ahmadiyya Muslim community in Indonesia, who claimed that the law inhibits their religious freedom, was also rejected.

Anyone who stands accused of blasphemy in Indonesia also faces a tough legal battle with little chance of acquittal.

“Since 2004, there hasn’t been an appeal [in blasphemy cases] that has been granted by the court,” Andreas Harsono, a researcher at Human Rights Watch, tells New Naratif. “Out of 89 cases [in Indonesia’s sixth President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono’s administration], 125 [individuals] were convicted. And out of 20 cases, 22 [individuals] were convicted in President Joko Widodo’s current administration.”

One of the more recent blasphemy cases involved the erstwhile Jakarta governor, Basuki “Ahok” Tjahaja Purnama, who was sentenced to two years in prison under the blasphemy law. Accused of insulting Islam for having quoted the Quran while on the campaign trail during the 2017 Jakarta gubernatorial election, thousands of demonstrators took to the streets, calling for Ahok to be imprisoned.

Although the scale of Ahok’s case was far greater, the patterns in Meiliana’s case mirrored his.

A continuing streak of religious intolerance

At the very heart of Meiliana’s case—and all of the other cases preceding it—is Indonesia’s continuing streak of religious intolerance.

Tanjung Balai is known for having a sizeable Chinese-Indonesian population; Chinese traders, arriving by sea, started to pour into the area in the 1800s. According to official records, the city has just over 185,000 residents, 157,000 of whom are Muslim and 11,000 of whom are Buddhist. At times in the city’s history, tensions between the different communities have flared.

In 2009, Tanjung Balai bore witness to the removal of a Mahayana Buddha statue. “The appearance of the Buddhist statue elicited a violent reaction from Islamic leaders. Wahhabi leaders under the United Islam Movement (GIB) organised rallies and protests in May and June last year, calling for the statue to be taken down. They argued that it tarnished the image of Tanjung Balai as a Muslim town,” wrote Human Rights Watch in a report.

Following Meiliana’s comments in 2016, a mob tore through the city and targeted several of its 16 Buddhist temples.

This outbreak of violence is now considered to be one of the worst examples of racially motivated mob “justice” that Indonesia has seen since 1998, when rioters attacked primarily Chinese-Indonesian communities in Medan, looting from shops and attacking local residents. The riots then swept across the country, leaving 1,000 people dead.

Atu is the 68-year-old caretaker of the Tiau Hau Biao Buddhist Temple, which sits on the estuary of the Asahan River in Tanjung Balai. The air is heavy with the scent of  drying fish, and fishermen sit in front of the temple and cast their nets in the shadow of its crimson roof.

Atu has worked as a caretaker of the temple for 10 years, since it was first built, and works from 5am to 8pm, seven days a week. His main duties include sweeping the floors and replenishing the incense. Back in 2016, he was at home when the temple was attacked in the middle of the night. When he arrived in the early hours of the morning, the building was still aflame.

“I don’t know how much gasoline they brought with them, but they sure used up every single drop,” he tells New Naratif. Atu, and local residents who had come to help, set up a crude pump system to funnel water from the river to quench the flames.

It took over an hour to put the fire out.

Once the flames subsided, Atu saw that the roof of the temple has been destroyed. The statues had been burned. The floor tiles smashed.

The restoration of the temple to its former glory took several months. According to Atu, the money promised by the government to help pay for it never materialised. Instead the refurbishment was made possible by donations from the local community.

19 perpetrators were eventually caught. According to news reports, “Eight were charged with looting, nine with malicious destruction of property and two with inciting violence”. All were given sentences ranging from one to four months in jail. Despite having ransacked official houses of worship, none of the rioters were charged with blasphemy, because no one filed an official complaint against them—one of the stipulations for someone to be tried under the law.

Atu laughs dryly and shakes his head when asked about this. “Not fair, of course it’s not fair. They should have got longer sentences.”

He also says that the case appears to show a trend towards rising religious intolerance in Tanjung Balai. “We used to be more united, but now the different religious groups have started to split,” he explains. “For years I went to sea as a fisherman and left my family at home. I never worried about them.”

Now he can’t forget the sight of his beloved temple burning in the morning light.

The attacks on temples in Tanjung Balai certainly appear to show worrying echoes of the race riots that traumatised the Chinese-Indonesian community in 1998.

Sirojuddin Abbas, a researcher at Saiful Mujani Research and Consulting (SMRC), says that Meiliana’s case shows how the blasphemy law is being deployed to punish members from minority groups. “The target is always a member of the minority groups,” he says. “That still is the thing that has not healed from our majority groups: their distrust. In a pluralistic town, for example, even if there’s only a person who is not a Muslim, not having to hear excessive noise from a mosque speaker is still a human right.”

Atu dismisses the idea that the people who attacked the temple were hired thugs, brought in to stir up racial unrest. In 1998, it was thought that members of the Indonesian military deliberately did just that to spark widespread riots and deflect attention away from the failings of the government, which led to the fall of President Suharto after 32 years in power. But, despite the fact that these attacks in Tanjung Balai seem to have been less tightly organised and politically motivated, it doesn’t reassure Atu.

“I heard the rioters were mixed,” he says. “Some outsiders. But they must have had someone on the inside. Someone from Tanjung Balai.”

After news of the fire at the temple spread, Atu says local residents started visiting in droves to check out the damage. Buddhist festivals are held at the temple every January and October, and are popular events with the local community. Muslims also come to watch the colourful festivities.

Atu says he hopes for a bigger crowd than usual this coming October, due to the publicity that the blasphemy case has sparked, which has actually raised the temple’s profile. He feels that a large, mixed crowd of spectators will be a good thing, and that local Muslims getting a taste of Buddhist culture which will help bolster relations between the different communities once more.

“But this year, the police will be guarding us,” he adds.

The politics of blasphemy

Rising religious intolerance is one way of looking at Meiliana’s case. But there are other lenses through which to examine this issue. One of them has to do with the question of whether religious intolerance is a mere manifestation of political expediency.

In April 2019, Indonesian voters will go to the polls to elect a president. As both candidates, current President Joko Widodo and former Major General Prabowo Subianto, look to curry favour with Muslim voters in a country where 87% of the population is Muslim, changing the blasphemy law could be a risky move that could cause a backlash from more conservative sections of the Islamic community.

As Savic Ali, an activist with the Jaringan Gusdurian network of progressive Muslims, says, “I think [Prabowo and Jokowi] won’t make concessions with regards to the blasphemy law. Jokowi wants a safe position, as to not anger his Muslim voting base, and I think Prabowo does, too.”

And it goes beyond just individual voters.

Ali continues to say that two of Indonesia’s largest Muslim organisations, Nahdlatul Ulama (NU) and Muhammadiyah, won’t allow for the possibility of the blasphemy law being completely revoked anytime soon, as both believe it to be an important tenet of Islamic law. Fast forward to the presidential elections in 2019, and it’s likely that both Jokowi and Prabowo will be wary of alienating voters affiliated with either organisation—or indeed the organisations themselves, who hold significant political power in Indonesia.

Another warning sign that the blasphemy law is unlikely to be overturned or discarded anytime soon is the appointment Ma’ruf Amin as Jokowi’s running mate in the race for the presidency. Amin, who is the chairman of the MUI and known for his conservative views on Islamic law, initially said that he deplored the violent riots in Tanjung Balai following Meiliana’s comment. But, this did not stop the North Sumatra chapter of the organisation issuing a fatwa against her in early 2017.

Amin has also thrown his support behind other high-profile blasphemy cases in the past, and wields significant political and judicial influence. “He plays the most important role in sending people to jail, like Ahok,” says Harsono, in a reference to Amin’s statement against the former governor of Jakarta, widely thought to have been one of the driving forces behind his conviction.

Another example of the way politics and the blasphemy law are entwined is evident in Meiliana’s case when you consider the collateral damage: her family. Sibarani tells New Naratif that Meiliana’s son is still “afraid of the sight of a crowd” after the riots outside his home. Jokowi has said that he can’t intervene in legal cases or in Meiliana’s appeal, but there are those who think that he could show goodwill in other ways.

“He needs to say something about the need for Meiliana’s family to be, say, socially and psychologically rehabilitated,” says Abbas.

A few words from the president could perhaps go a long way in helping Meiliana’s four children to heal—still, he has remained silent, presumably so as not to offend any members of his conservative fanbase.

Yet again it seems, politics has turned the blasphemy law into a matter of convenience for those jostling for power. This refusal of politicians in Indonesia to engage in discussions about the blasphemy law has serious implications, and muddies the waters about its essential premise.

While outright revocation may not be on the cards, in its current form the law is porous and easily abused. Not everything can or should fall under the umbrella term “blasphemy”, and one of the main criticisms of the current version of the law is that it’s overly broad, encompassing a range of other issues like hate speech.

Ali says that, for serious situations that could be construed as blasphemous in nature,  like urinating on a Bible, for example, there needs to be a revision to the law instead of an outright repeal. But for other cases, such as a complaint about the volume of a mosque speaker, the law needs to be clear about what the term “blasphemy” actually means. “Several points of the law need to be amended so that it can’t be a catch-all law,” he says.

As it currently stands, the only thing that’s clear is that the core meaning of “blasphemy”—and what it should encompass—is something that’s confused and confusing in Indonesia. And the lack of political will to even discuss potential changes to the law means that the absurdity of the very concept of blasphemy still remains in the shadows.

After all, were there people rightly convicted according to the blasphemy law in Indonesia?

For people like Harsono, this question goes right to the heart of the issue. “Of course there weren’t. How do you interview God?”, he says.

Hope for a change to the law?

Politicians might not want to rock the boat, but there might be a glimmer of hope on the horizon.

Since her sentencing, Meiliana has had some support from surprising allies.

As well as a Change.org petition with over 202,000 signatures, members of both Muhammadiyah and NU have criticised Meiliana’s sentencing—although not the blasphemy law itself, other than to say that it was incorrectly implemented in this case. Still, “both of these statements are unprecedented,” says Harsono. On Twitter, Indonesia’s religious affairs minister, Lukman Hakim Saifuddin, offered(link in Bahasa Indonesia) his services as Meiliana’s key witness if needed.

Though conceding that the situation is “bleak” and that electoral prospects are likely to get in the way of either presidential hopeful wanting to fully embrace reform, Abbas says that public support for Meiliana gives him cause for optimism.

Sibarani tells New Naratif that Meiliana’s counsel plan to file an appeal. This will add yet another chapter to her story, and could have repercussions across Indonesia if it’s successful. “If it goes through, we hope that it can be a legal breakthrough,” he says.

Until then, Meiliana’s former home remains shuttered.

A neighbour tells New Naratif that Meiliana’s husband was forced to move. Several members of the Chinese community from Jalan Karya asked him to relocate, as they were scared that they too would be the victims of reprisals and violence—tarred with the same brush of being “anti-Islam”. The neighbour also says that the couple had to give up their salted fish business on Jalan Asahan as they lost their permit to operate in the building as a result of the outcry surrounding the case. It’s unclear who gave the order for this to happen.

Atui has now moved to the city of Medan to be closer to Meiliana in prison, and is trying to build a new life.

When asked how she feels about this, Kasini looks pained. She wasn’t the one who made the original comment about the mosque speakers, but if she hadn’t passed on Meiliana’s request to her father, then perhaps none of this would ever have happened.

Does she think that Meiliana truly committed blasphemy and got the punishment she deserved?

Kasini looks lost for words. “Well… why did she buy a house so close to a mosque?” she says. “And why did she live here for eight years without any problems? Even if we had turned down the volume, she would still have heard the sound of the azan.”

Pressed again, and asked if this was fair and if she feels responsible for Meiliana’s fate, Kasini’s chin starts to tremble and her eyes fill with tears. She looks completely overwhelmed by the firestorm this case has caused—and which has consumed her life for over two years.

She insists she was just the messenger, when she passed on the words that ended with a woman in jail and a family torn apart.

Finally she looks up from the floor.

“If I’d known this was going to happen…” she says, her voice breaking, “then maybe I wouldn’t have said anything at all.”

[classyfoxdestiny]

Has the first-past-the-post system polarised Indian politics?

Has the first-past-the-post system polarised Indian politics?

Politicising social divides and failings of the parliamentary system have led to this situation

India’s parliamentary democracy is going through a phase of intense confrontation between the dominant ruling party and a weakened but belligerent Opposition. Is this situation a consequence of the first-past-the-post (FPTP) system, where a party with the the highest votes gets the seat even if it doesn’t win a majority? Suhas Palshikar and E. Sridharan address this question in a discussion moderated by Srinivasan Ramani. Edited excerpts:

Prof. Palshikar, you had written recently about the emergence of a second dominant party system with the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) becoming the central pole of Indian politics ever since it came to power at the Centre in 2014. Even if the BJP has now lost ground, with its vote share reducing in various State elections, it did retain its highest average cumulative vote share for election cycles. That said, what similarities and dissimilarities do you see with the hegemonic period of the Congress of the 1950s and ’60s?

Suhas Palshikar: The similarity is in the vote share numbers garnered by the dominant party and in its capacity to fragment the Opposition. In terms of numbers, a dominant party gets a disproportionately larger share in seats in legislatures compared to its vote share. The other similarity is in its ability to remain dominant by fragmenting the Opposition and so we see the recent discussions on Opposition unity.

  The dissimilarities are evident in the roots of the dominance and the journeys towards it. The Congress emerged as a dominant party as a result of its contribution to the freedom struggle; the roles that Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru and others played then. It converted that legitimacy into electoral dominance. The BJP emerged in 2014 as electorally dominant and has since been trying to establish its hegemony. That is why I have argued that its hegemony is still in the making while it has become dominant electorally.

Dr. Sridharan, the hegemony enjoyed by the Congress in the 1950s and ’60s gave way to trends in Indian politics such as federalisation and regionalisation. So, even if we had the FPTP system, there was a certain degree of diversification that allowed for newer forces to emerge organically. Since 2019, the fact that the BJP has garnered a disproportionate seat share relative to its vote share has revived the critique of the FPTP. Your view?

E. Sridharan: The BJP’s dominance in both 2014 and 2019 was based on a plurality of votes (31% and 37%) converting into a majority of seats and is similar to the Congress’s dominance from 1952 to 1984 which was also based on vote share pluralities converting to seat majorities (sometimes two-thirds to three-fourths majority). The FPTP system tends to magnify the seat share of the party with the largest vote share, while parties receiving a lower vote share tend to get a much lower seat share. There are exceptions such as the Karnataka Assembly elections of 2008 and the Madhya Pradesh elections of 2018 where the party which got a slightly higher vote share got a lower seat share.

The BJP is today not as hegemonic as the Congress of the past. Forty-two of the 303 seats that it won in 2019 were in three States — Maharashtra, Punjab and Bihar — and were at least partially due to vote transfer from allies; seat shares have not reached two-thirds majority; and the party’s spread across States is less than the Congress’s in its heyday.

Also read | What is Proportional Representation?

As for the FPTP system, I would like to introduce Duverger’s law to your readers. [Maurice] Duverger, a French political scientist, argued that the FPTP system tends to bring about a two-party system at the constituency level. In countries like India, this translated into the establishment of a two-party system at the State level which happened between 1967 and 1989. Post-1990, this produced three kinds of bipolarity: Congress versus BJP in a number of States, Congress versus the Left in three States, and Congress versus regional parties in other States. This was an outcome of Duverger’s law operating at the State level.

At the national level, 2014 marked the end of a 25-year period of a coalition/minority government. And post-2014, there was the emergence of a second dominant party system. I don’t think that FPTP necessarily produces polarisation. If you look at the proportional representation (PR) system in Europe and elsewhere, where seats are allocated roughly in accordance with the vote share, that also produces distinct polarisations. Look at the 1978 Sri Lankan Constitution which instituted the PR system. Since then, there has been ethnic polarisation despite the small parties getting seat shares higher than what they would have received in a FPTP system. Similarly in Israel, which also enjoys a thoroughgoing PR system, there is severe polarisation in ethnic, religious and political terms.

  The FPTP system can’t be blamed for polarisation. Polarisation is linked to the politicisation of certain social cleavages. These cleavages are sometimes dormant in society and can become active or can be activated through mobilisations. When certain social cleavages are activated, that is when they get magnified by the electoral system.

Prof. Palshikar, today there is little dialogue between the ruling party and the Opposition. What explains this stasis?

Suhas Palshikar: I agree with Dr. Sridharan that it is not FPTP that is creating polarisation. One of the general reasons for the adversarial relations between the ruling party and the Opposition is the failure in institutionalising the parliamentary system, which presupposes a certain negotiation, a spirit of give and take and continuous deliberation between the ruling party and the Opposition.

We have failed in generating an institutional pattern for this tendency. I would locate the beginning of this as the time around the Emergency period when the spirit of dialogue dissipated. Since then, the dialogue process has been up and down. If you come to the current moment, I think it is the distrust between the ruling party and the Opposition that has produced this stasis. The problem is not about the institutional mechanisms that we adopt; it is in the processes that we implement those mechanisms. Those process-related issues can be located in social and other cleavages and how they play out in competitive politics. It is the extreme competitive nature of our polity and the frustrations that come with the presence of a dominant party in the system besides the arrogance that stems from electoral dominance that leads to an inability to engage with the Opposition.

  E. Sridharan: The confrontational situation in Parliament and other legislatures has heightened in the last couple of years. This is due to the sharpening of the ideological level in politics, which reflects the cleavages in the society, and to the suspicion that the fundamentals of the system are being sought to be changed.

The ruling BJP is not a similar hegemonic force as the Congress in the sense that it had in its manifesto issues such as the Citizenship Amendment Bill and the abrogation of the special status of Jammu and Kashmir. In a way, the BJP has an agenda that is beyond the constitutional consensus that guides the policies of most political parties in India. Is this a reason for the current state of affairs too?

Suhas Palshikar: Just to supplement what Prof. Sridharan said, we witness today a new phase that is marked by a confrontation that is not merely one of political contestation in the ordinary sense of the term. Here is a party that wants to change the entire system fundamentally and other parties are still not sure how to respond to that. They instinctively oppose it but at the same time they understand that the difference is in the approach of the dominant party, that they have to adapt/adjust to that stance so that they garner enough votes in the next election. This confusion among the non-BJP parties produces not just distrust but lack of clarity on what ideological positions they must take during the ideological onslaught or the offensive of the BJP. The BJP has now changed the terms of how the political contestation will be held ideologically, and the inability of the non-BJP parties to appreciate and respond to this and to produce an alternative narrative has led to a frustration that is reflected in their various responses to the BJP.

E. Sridharan: There is a perception that the ruling party is pushing against the constitutional consensus, which is fairly strong in our system. There are about three and a half layers of protection to the basic structure of our Constitution. The government needs a two-thirds majority in both Houses subject to the presence of at least 50% of the House in attendance. The government has a clear but not a two-thirds majority in the Lok Sabha. It doesn’t have a majority in the Rajya Sabha. In order to make constitutional amendments, it must get the support of smaller parties, which it has been able to get so far.

  Then, it has to go through judicial review — the courts have so far not pronounced on some of the controversial issues that have come up in the last few years.

Finally, for some articles on Centre-State relations, it has to pass them through half the State Assemblies.

There are ideological shifts going on and new social cleavages that have been activated that have changed the political landscape.

Can it be said that federal issues are emerging as the area of contestation with the BJP on the one side and regional parties on the other?

Suhas Palshikar: In principle, the flashpoint in the next five years or so could be the federal relations between the Centre and the States on fiscal or other administrative and political matters. The various State parties are still not sufficiently aware of this possibility and therefore they are busy buying peace with the ruling party at the Centre, rather than confronting it. I don’t see any direct flashpoint emerging politically between the State parties and the BJP immediately, though.

  Also, the ability of the BJP or any Central government in the last three decades to directly transfer resources to local bodies in the States bypassing the State government besides controlling the administrations of the States has weakened the State parties’ ability to take on the Central government. Objectively, they are not in a position to do so and subjectively, they are not sure how to pitch the fight. Therefore, we have a fascinating period where there is all the making of a federal flashpoint, but at the same time, the actual flashpoints may be somewhere else in reality.

Do you see a mixture of postures — negotiation, confrontation and adjustment by various regional parties vis-à-vis the Centre? The Biju Janata Dal (BJD), YSR Congress Party (YSRCP), Telangana Rashtra Samithi (TRS) using one ploy, the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) and the Trinamool Congress (TMC) using another, and so on?

Suhas Palshikar: I would use the word ‘acquiescence’ to describe how the BJD, YSRCP and the TRS’s relations are with the Centre.

To bring the discussion back to the electoral system, is a FPTP system with a preference rule system to go along with it a better form of voting than the FPTP system?

E. Sridharan: The Australian electoral system is fairly similar to what you talk about, where the first choice party with the plurality vote share will receive second/third choices of the voter in a process of elimination from the bottom, till it reaches the 50% threshold to be declared the winner. I think such an alternative system should be assessed in terms of the ease of its use for the voters. It would not be easy to operate in India. Second, as regards the provision that a party must get 50% of the votes through preference voting, this would actually make it easier for the leading candidate to bridge the gap between, say, 40% to 50% as compared to someone else who gets 25% and could possibly contribute to the same kind of magnified majoritarianism that FPTP does in its own institutional way. So, it may not be that different.

Suhas Palshikar: To put an extra burden on the voter in the act of voting is unfair and that is why this is not to my liking. Second, the 50% mark, as Prof. Sridharan pointed out, is artificially achieved.

  We need to go back to the drawing board on what is the real issue with FPTP, which is the disproportionate number of seats accrued by a party despite a lower vote share. However, if the political system is adequately competitive, that aspect of the FPTP system gets politically neutralised and parties tend to get a share of seats which is roughly commensurate to their vote share also.

The other issue with the FPTP is that the threshold is so high that newer parties cannot enter the fray. Therefore, I suggest that rather than the alternative you are talking about, one can talk about a system that will supplement FPTP — let’s say have 10% of the seats in the legislature which are included based on the parties’ vote shares. This will ensure an entry point for smaller/ newer parties and keep the political system more competitive.

The larger point is if we artificially try to make the political system fairer, the natural competitiveness gets distorted and that is why I would generally prefer FPTP, both on the grounds of voters’ convenience and a natural competitiveness being allowed in the system.

E. Sridharan: I think there is sufficient diversity at the societal level. There is the theory that in a socially diverse country, the party system will be diverse — it will not be limited to a two-party system. India seems to support the effective production of multiple parties at the national level even if the FPTP system limits the competition to a bipolar system in the States because these are a multiplicity of bipolarities (for example, BJP-Congress, BJP-regional party, etc.) and not the same bipolarity.

E. Sridharan is Academic Director and Chief Executive at the University of Pennsylvania Institute for the Advanced Study of India, and Editor-in-Chief of India Review; Suhas Palshikar taught political science at Savitribai Phule Pune University, Pune, and is chief editor of Studies in Indian Politics

. Source link

[thenewlittleprincess]

Little Guerrilla

"OK everybody!  Es'era 'Ay Bendito!' y su cancion 'Bembe!' , Numero Tres en las listas aqui en WSNY, 'S' por 'Espanol' en Nueva York, en el corazon de Brooklyn. Soy Marty Martinez aqui y bienvenido a ustedes que acaban de unirse a nosotros.  Ahora son las siete cuarenta y cinco dela manana del lunes, primero de diciembre, dos mil vientecinco. Y ahora alguien que acaba de unirse a nosotros aqui es La Princesita. Bienvenidos, nenita."

"Muchas gracias, Marty. Hola, Nueva Yorka! Vos quiero muchá!"  says the Princess.

"Has estando viajando por las estaciones de radio, hablando con gente y cantando nuevas canciones. Que clase de reaccion tu viste?" says Marty.

"First, can I speak in English?" the Princess asks.

"Yeah, sure. But I t‘ought you was fluent in Spanish," Marty says.

"Yeah, but our Spanish is not exactly the same as yours and I get confused and confuse everybody. Also, we decided I would sing in English and speak English so everyone can understand. ‘cos me Guatemalan people need all the help they can get!" the Princess says.

"OK, sure. I understand," Marty says.

"Bu' I'll answer your question now," the Princess says. "Yes, the reaction's been great. Talkin' directly to fans and other people. I never dreamed it! Sometimes you get the odd one out but me Uncle, the Barrister in London, told me to be in the business you have to get a rhino's hide. You cannot let anything hurt you."

"OK and do you have a new song for us today?" Marty says.

"Ciertamente!"  the Princess says.

"Ciertamente y cual es el nombre?" Marty says.

"It's name is 'Little Guerrilla' o en espanol 'Guerrillita','" says the Princess.

"OK, adelante!"  says Marty.

"Gracias!"  the Princess says.

The band strikes up a reggae beat, the Princess playing the electric piano in chords. The video below is one of the best examples of the genre.

Then the Princess sings, in Jamaican style.

She sittin' in de back

O' de cantina

Hidin' from gran de guerra maquina

Guerrillas gettin' useless on de quetzalteca

"Vamos! Vamos!"

Little Guerrilla sippin' quiet on de limonada

Not any money for a drop o' soda

When she hear de tanks de planes

And de guns she run

"Vamos! Vamos!"

Hey, hey little guerrilla

Maybe just 10

Your whole family gone to Heaven

And you're just waitin' to see dem again

Little guerrilla

Fight for what's left

It's fight or flight

You know what's right

'Cos in dis revolution

You de cuttin' edge

[Musical interlude - electric piano melodies around the bands' chords]

She doesn't like no gun

De knife is good enough

Just push and turn and turn and turn

But you gotta be tough

Don't be no powderpuff!

Dey never believe it

'Til after dey gone

De cute little one

Wid de knife in her pocket

Can kill you faster

Than any gun

Hey, hey little guerrilla

Maybe just 10

Your whole family gone to Heaven

And you're just waitin' to see dem again

Little guerrilla

Fight for what's left

It's fight or flight

You know what's right

'Cos in dis revolution

You de cuttin' edge

[Musical Interlude - electric piano solos with the band keeping the reggae beat]

Hey, little one

Don't you have no fun?

She say

Fun is for de rich kids

Not for dis one

Fun is wakin' up

And still seein' de sun

Dere be time for fun

When de battle's won!

We can celebrate when de war is done

[Spoken by Princess in low tone] Gotta take care of business

Little guerrilla

Fight for what's left

It's fight or flight

You know what's right

'Cos in dis revolution

You de cuttin' edge

Woh, woh!

And de struggle goes on

And de struggle goes on

No holidays, no weekends

Every day de same

Yeah, yeah, yeah de struggle goes on!

For we not givin' it up

We gettin' justice or death

If one happen we quit

If de other we gone

Yeah! Keep movin' on

Band: Keep movin' on, keep movin' on, keep movin' on

Little guerrilla

You are tomorrow

Ready to die to make our future bright

A prayer, a thought, a hope for you tonight

For you tonight ... (3 times)

Sleepin' in de jungle

In de shinin' moonlight

Oh, oh, oh  

Oh, oh, o de ho Oh oh, oh oh (3 times)

[Applause in the studio]

"Magnifico, Princesita, magnifico!" Marty says.

"Cheers, Marty! Muchas gracias," says the Princess.

"Y quien es la guerrillita? Tu?" Marty says.

"No! I thank Jesus, Mother Mary and all the saints that I can fight for Guatemala in air- conditioned studios!" the Princess says. "I doubt I could 'sleep in the jungle in the shinin' moonlight' for fear of the snakes!"

"Hay ninas asi en Guatemala, peleando en la selva?" Marty asks.

"Not many, I think," the Princess says. "But there are some. People from Guatemala come to Crummer Canyon and tell us what’s goin' on there. One bloke showed me a photo of a li'l girl in a red cap and really common clothes carryin' an armalite. He told me she was one. He called her "un' otra princesita".

The Princess giggles.

"Pero la nenita en la cancion, no le gustan las armas,"  says Marty.

"Yeah, that were my idea," says the Princess. "Li'l kids carryin' guns, that picture's off. People wouldn't like it and couldn't believe it. But this li'l one who can kill a man by surprise with a knife, just because he'd never dream that was what she would do. That's believable and sort o' more interesting, innit?"

"Eso es cierta. Y los hombres que te dicen lo que está pasando en Guatemala. Qué dicen ahora? " Marty asks.

"All the news out o' home is bad," the Princess says. "First, they showed us videos: airplanes droppin' firebombs on villages and burnin' up the houses and the kiddies. People marchin' in the city and soldiers mowin' 'em down rapid fire with machine guns and even planes. Then they tell us the shelves are empty in the shops. People were down to eatin' tortillas and frijoles but now the frijoles are too expensive and too hard to find. The Presidenta gave the campesinos land and the Army chased them away, killed half of 'em and gave the land back to the ladinos. It goes on and on. Then they attacked Belize and lost a whole lot of soldiers there. They were our neighbours now they're our enemies. On and on. But . . ."

"Qué ?" Marty says.

"I've go' a scoop . . . special for you lot," the Princess says. "Me bessie Antony always loves when I do this."

"Quién es Antony?" Marty asks.

"He's the top entertainment reporter for Topzine," the Princess says. "He loves when I give him a scoop!"

"Quieres decir una primicia?  Algunas noticias que nadie más conoce? " Marty says.

"Sí,"  the Princess says. " You're the first in America to know this I think. Well, I was, but you're next. You and all your listeners."

"Qué ?" Marty says.

"We've got a leader now," says the Princess. "It's what we've needed. He's the Presidenta's cousin. He was a General  but he's been hiding in the jungle with his bessies since the Presidenta was murdered. They've been trainin' and gettin' ready. Now they're ready and we're gonna use the Freedom Fund ta fill 'em full o' food, clothes, medicines, guns, bullets, rockets: anything they need. The leader is named Xihualtepec, like the Presidenta was: so they call him 'Comandante X'. I have a video of him saying that the junta are all traitors and he's going to put them against the wall for fusilamiento. And may God speed that day! First, they're goin' up to Belize to help the people there win their freedom and then the Belize people will help us win ours."

"Ahora te gustaría recivir algunas llamadas de los oyentes?"  Marty says.

"I'd love it!" says the Princess. "Let's hear from them."

"Primo de Bronx. Teodoro?"  Marty says.

"Sí,"  Teodoro says. "Princesita. Solo quiero decir que admiro tu coraje. A tu edad, lo que estas haciendo. Haciendo frente a una dictadura brutal. Rezo por ti y por los guatemaltecos."

"Muchas gracias, señor," the Princess replies. "Pisto es importante pero oraciones igalmente. No m'admira. Ayuda a los chapinos. Puedo hago tan poco. Vosotros, la fuerza, hagan todo. For the English people listening, I said money is important but we need prayers equally. Don't admire me, help the Guatemalan people. I can do so little. You, the power of the mobilised youth, do everything."

"Siguiente, Marcelina?"  Marty says.  

"Little Princess, aren't you scared?" Marcelina asks. "Wouldn't those soldiers try to do something to you?"

"No,"  the Princess says. "I thank God and Mother Mary that I am safe in America to do this work. If I had to do this in Guatemala, I'd last all of five minutes. I know nothing they can do to me is worse than what they're doin' to all people of all ages in Guatemala. So why do I deserve any better? If they cry, I can cry too."

"Y siguiente, Paul?" Marty says.

"Bue-nas di-as, prin-cessa. Co-mo es-tas?"  says Paul.

"Oh, there's a Spanish language student!" the Princess says. "We can see one comin' for kilos! It's OK. You can ask in English. It's me first language."

"What do you really want in Guatemala?" Paul asks. "What's the solution there?"

"Easy Manchester caviar that one!" the Princess says. "But yet someone needs to say it out clear like that, 'cos it's so obvious people can miss it. First, there's Comandante X's solution: stand the junta in front of a wall and shoot them down. They dunno' deserve to live. That will make the people free. Then we canno’ get the Presidenta back from Heaven, where I'm sure she is, but have another election. Maybe Comandante X can stand in place of his cousin. He - or somebody - can help the poor, the black people, the Mayans, the campesinos and the trabajadores like the Presidenta did. Give them land, food, enough money, medicine, schools, water, toilets, everything they really need. So they can live like we do. That would be a beautiful thing. Everyone would come back to Guatemala and live happily like we used to."

"Que hermoso sueño, princesita!" Marty says. What a beautiful dream!

“No esta un sueño, Marty. Esta un plan d’accion!” says the Princess. “Why dream it if ya can do it?”

[baoanhwin]

Trump 2024: the game’s changed and a third term is possible

Pic Gage Skidmore

The norms, expectations and opportunities of American politics are changing

Let’s get ahead of ourselves. I do not expect Donald Trump to win a second term and neither do punters betting hard cash. At the time of writing, he was just over 2.2 on Betfair to win November’s election and marginally odds against with traditional bookies. I think that’s still a bit short. Trump’s job approval figures have just dropped to a seven-month low (albeit within quite a small range), and Biden keeps pumping out solid leads in both national polls and those conducted in swing states.

In terms of the outlook for the next five months, it doesn’t look great for the president either. A majority of the public disapprove of his handling of the Covid-19 epidemic (the figures are against him by about 53/43), and that crisis is unlikely to go away given how high new infections remain across the country. Relatedly, while the unemployment figures dropped this week, the 13.3% rate remains considerably higher than the worst point in the recession of 2008-10.

Meanwhile, his response to the protests following the death of George Floyd has overtly played to his base as well as having been largely ineffective. Given all that, he has a tough task to win over enough swing voters, or to persuade enough current Biden-backers to stay at home, in order to gain victory. If either the unemployment rate stays in double figures or the Covid-19 cases fail to subside, we can reasonably expect more unrest into the summer and autumn as lives and livelihoods are lost.

But he might win – and that needs to be our starting point. So the first question we need to ask is ‘how?’, and we can best answer it by winding back the clock four years. Trump is not a subtle beast and in terms of strategy we can reasonably expect an updated version of 2016: assertions that he delivered on his promises, assertions of greater things to come under him, and vicious half-truth attacks on his opponent.

On that final point, Biden is a better candidate than Hillary Clinton was but he still has weak spots that Trump could exploit – and one of Trump’s two genuine political skills is in negative campaigning. We can probably expect a return to the Biden-Ukraine story that so nearly derailed his campaign in the primaries, alongside questions about his health, his behaviour and his legislative record. That Trump might also have weaknesses on these issues isn’t the point: Trump has never been bothered by consistency nor critical self-appraisal. His purpose in the attacks isn’t necessarily to win over voters; just to stop them backing his rival.

On top of the regular campaign, Trump also has one immeasurable advantage over 2016: his unchallenged status as head of a political movement which incorporates the Republican Party but in truth is founded outside it.

In the last four years, Trump has remodelled American politics: it norms and its methods. Anne Applebaum gives a magisterial account of how he’s done that and some of the consequences of his having done so in her Atlantic article this week but for our purposes, what we need to note is that Trump not only rejects the polite norms of politics but is willing to embrace any methods which advance his cause (and his cause is himself first, his family second and his friends third). That others might consider them unethical or even downright illegal doesn’t matter as long as they work. With a pet Attorney General and hence a tame Department of Justice, that gives him a lot of scope. For now (a point we’ll come back to).

Trump’s reforming of the psychology of American politics (and to no small extent, of America itself) has been his other great political accomplishment, and by some way the more significant. If he does win a second term, it will grant even more legitimacy to his methods, his mind-set and – to the extent which someone so self-centred and short-termist has them – his policies. Ugliness will become the default; the expectation; the standard to which those in DC and those anywhere Trump turns his attention have to operate. For where Trump goes, his army of followers, online and in person, go too.

If Trump does win in November then there’s a reasonable chance the Republicans may hold on to the Senate too, though it will be close. While not every Republican vote can be guaranteed, again, Trump’s mob can be mobilised to exert a lot of pressure on recalcitrant (and, for that matter, on Democrats who might be persuadable). There’s also a reasonable chance that it will have come through more outrageous lies and interference with the democratic process.

To those who say that Trump doesn’t have the power to intervene, that misses what power is. True, election are run by states but they’re also run by politicians in America and those politicians are susceptible to the same pressures Trump can unleash via his lip, his tweet and his fanbase. They’re also capable of working to the standards that Trump legitimises – and of course they have their own interest in doing what help the Republican Party. Expect procedural attempts to suppress or enhance the partisan vote on an even greater scale than usual.

These methods, however, come with a price. If he loses power, the investigations will be vigorous and there’s a good chance Trump could be fighting off legal actions for years. Hence his great incentive to win, at whatever cost and in whatever way.

Whether Trump accepts that he might be the legitimate target of such investigations is doubtful: he genuinely seems incapable of differentiating between his personal interests and his public role. He will, however, understand that his enemies might well try to ‘get’ him given the chance because that’s what he’d try to do in their place. Either way, retirement is off the table: he needs his hands on the levers of power and particularly the Department of Justice, as noted earlier.

Which brings us to 2024. “Hang on an minute”, you might say. “Trump can’t stand a third time: he’d be barred by the 22nd Amendment”. Well, technically he could stand but he couldn’t be elected and he’d struggle for ballot access anyway as an ineligible candidate. But that is not the end of the story.

If Trump believed he needed to protect himself through a third term, could he do it? Very probably, yes.

How? There are two routes we should raise here simply in order to dismiss. One is that he could simply ignore the constitution and carry on, with or without an election. Trump has certainly wreaked great damage on America’s body politic and no doubt could corrupt it further still in a second term but it’s hard to see how he could simply render the constitution null. To do that, he’d need to subdue either the judiciary and law enforcement systems, or the military, to his personal will. He can’t – or not without provoking an outright revolution. Nor can he cancel the election be executive fiat. Again, these are constitutionally mandated and organised by the states (and many other politicians need them for their own careers and interest, unless they too wish to be complicit in a coup that would place their own position virtually entirely at Trump’s whim). Besides, as the likes of Putin have shown, it’s better PR and simpler legally to go through the motions of an election.

The other is that he could change the constitution and repeal the 22nd Amendment. While there are good arguments for that in principle (why shouldn’t people be able to elect a government of their choice?), now is not the time. Trump is not going to begin a battle he won’t win and where there’s no advantage in losing. To change the constitution requires the amendment to be ratified by three-quarters of the states, even if the two-thirds of Congress requirement could be circumvented (and it could) – and the Republicans don’t have and won’t have control of 38 states.

So where does he go? One option is simply to install a proxy. True, that wouldn’t actually mean a third term but there are several examples across history of national ‘paramount leaders’ holding no formal office, which they left to trusted lieutenants – Stalin did so until 1941. The problem with that though is that I’m not sure there’s anyone that Trump trusts who also has the brazen and shameless PR skills to do the front-of-house job. No-one else in his family does.

Instead, he could go for the Putin option and switch the ticket, serving as notional Vice-President to Mike Pence but dominating the campaign and the administration. Again, this would be a third term in fact but not in name.

Here, we need to get a bit technical with the US constitution. The 22nd Amendment’s relevant (and opening) clause states that “No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice”, while the 12th Amendment says that “no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President”. Note the subtle difference in wording. The later Amendment only prevents someone from being elected to a third (or subsequent) term; it does not explicitly prevent them from serving as president, should they inherit it from another position – including the Vice Presidency. And if they can inherit the presidency, then it follows that they are not barred from being elected Vice President by the 12th Amendment.

There are certainly those who disagree with that literal interpretation and assert that the intent of the 1951 Amendment was to prevent anyone serving more than ten years and that the 12th Amendment should be read in that context. This debate only matters here in as far as the Supreme Court might answer it: our own opinions are of little relevance (though for what it’s worth, I prefer to interpret according to the text as written rather than as imagined).

Which is where the Senate election in November comes in. Law should not be a matter of politics but on constitutional matters it inevitably carried an element of it, particularly in the US. I can’t honestly say how the Court would rule on the 12/22 question – the division characterised as liberal/conservative does not necessarily translate directly to pro-/anti-Trump – but if the GOP could gain another Justice (and two liberals on the Court are into their eighties), it couldn’t do any harm.

Assuming Trump could win that ruling – and it’s not one that’s stretching a point – it opens up an even more direct possibility: he could run for the Vice Presidency purely as a mechanism through which to transfer to the top job, with the actual nominee always intending to resign in Trump’s favour, before or after inauguration but certainly after the Electoral College votes are counted. But that might be playing the game too much.

The point is American politics has changed. The language and style has changed but so has its very nature. Codes of conduct have been stretched and unspoken assumptions no longer hold. If Trump wants three terms, they’re there to be had.

David Herdson

from politicalbetting.com https://www7.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2020/06/06/trump-2024-the-games-changed-and-a-third-term-is-possible/ https://dangky.ric.win/

[bigyack-com]

Karnataka Result Exposes Weakness Of A Ho-Hum Coalition

The news from Karnataka is in, and it will not be welcome for the state opposition, led by H D Kumaraswamy's JD(S) and Siddaramaiah's Congress. The bye-elections are a sweep for the ruling BJP, for whom B S Yediyurappa can now lead a majority, and, probably, a stable state government. Remember the context here: the BJP emerged as the single largest party in the last assembly elections, but the Congress - which was the incumbent - allied with the JD(S) after the polls and installed Kumaraswamy, whose party had in fact come third, as the Chief Minister. (This was hailed at the time as a strategic masterstroke, much like the current reaction to the motley alliance in Maharashtra).Some predicted the Congress-JD(S) alliance would last only as long as the general elections in 2019 - and, in the end, such expectations were not far off the mark. After one or two abortive attempts to topple Kumaraswamy, the BJP finally succeeded, thanks to the defection of 16 legislators from the ruling alliance. We need have no illusions about what happened. Nobody thinks they switched because of a change of heart or an ideological crisis of conscience. These legislators thought they could get away with it, saw the rewards would be richer on the other side, and shifted. The reaction of the constitutional authorities was, frankly, far from neutral. And for this combination of reasons, a minority BJP government was sworn in. The defectors were granted time to change parties and to go back to the people with their new affiliation, and the BJP's strategy was overwhelmingly successful in the by-polls. 

Karnataka's ruling BJP firmly established its majority in the assembly today, winning 10 of 15 seats for which by-polls were held last week (File photo)This sequence of events has been deeply cynical and reflects a mercenary and power-hungry attitude to power on all sides. Ideally, you would want voters to reject such behaviour. But that would be an unrealistic expectation. Both the opposition and the BJP want to draw moral conclusions from the results. The opposition wishes to berate the voters for "rewarding defectors". The BJP claims that voters were outraged at the original subversion of the people's will by the Congress-JD(S) coming together post poll. But the simple fact is that bye-elections are not referendums on morality. People tend to vote for stability. If a legislator they already voted for comes back to them, and is backed by the incumbent government, they see having him represent their constituency as being in their interest. And so they vote for him. In any case, state by-polls tend to go in favour of the incumbent government - MLAs are a crucial intermediary with the state capital, and the state government is the source of most of the services that people depend upon. They want legislators assured of an open door in the corridors of power in the state capital. This dynamic is doubly strong in circumstances like these, where the defecting MP in fact holds the balance of power and thus has extra clout. Drawing any other inferences from this result would be premature. That said, two or three things lessons need to be drawn from this misadventure, particularly by the Congress and regional parties. The first is on alliance governments. Regardless of what whiny op-eds from Delhi may demand, alliances must be formed around more solid ground than merely anti-BJPism. If there is not some ideological glue between the parties, then there must at least be a solid programme of action that is agreed upon by all parties in the coalition. Further, they must ensure that there is at least some modicum of peace between their workers and ground-level politicians. This is the hardest to pull off. But it is non-negotiable. 

Conceding defeat, Congress leader DK Shivakumar said voters had "accepted defectors" (File photo)Second, the government so formed to keep the BJP out must at least look active and cohesive. In today's India, alliance governments have a higher bar to clear in terms of effectiveness than one-party governments. The Kumaraswamy government impressed nobody. In fact, it dissipated with record speed any goodwill that it came into office with. Concerns that every man was simply in it for himself appeared borne out. Why, then, should voters worry that the alternative is B S Yediyurappa - not known for his record of probity in politics - or be concerned about the measures that the BJP takes to attain power? Thus the Maharashtra government, for example, must privilege swift movement on all those issues that the Devendra Fadnavis government kept on the back burner, or which had proved to be controversial and divisive. The onus will also be on the Shiv Sena to recreate an identity for itself, as the senior partner in the coalition, that indicates it can be both an active proponent of a local and inclusive identity, and an effective manager of state government services. Finally, the fact is that, for whatever reason, the BJP has been able to expand its geographical footprint into parts of south Karnataka where it was never the Number One contender. This has long been, of course, the BJP's strategy - to buy its way into contested geographies through defection and assimilation, and then use that foothold to expand the ideological and manpower reach of itself and its affiliates. The opposition - not just in Karnataka but further afield - must realise that it can only contest this strategy through a counter-mobilisation. It cannot compete on money, institutional influence, or in brute political power. It thus can only deploy a counter-narrative. In Karnataka's case, that would mean hammering home the subservience of the local elements of the ruling party to interests determined by the high command in New Delhi. With every victory, whether won at the polls or through subsequent backroom dealing, the BJP's advantage grows sharper. For the opposition, whether the Congress or regional parties, the threat is existential. The next battlefront, Jharkhand, might turn out similarly to Karnataka or Maharashtra - with the BJP as the single largest party and several local players forced to consider whether to ally against the BJP or with it. The lessons of Karnataka may have to be applied sooner than you think. (Mihir Swarup Sharma is a fellow at the Observer Research Foundation.)Disclaimer: The opinions expressed within this article are the personal opinions of the author. The facts and opinions appearing in the article do not reflect the views of NDTV and NDTV does not assume any responsibility or liability for the same. Read the full article

[kerahlekung]

Azmin Is bluffing ...

Azmin Is bluffing ....

 He Does Not Have The Number 

For Dr.M To Continue As PM...

Mahathir should not have had sent a boy to do a man’s job. Azmin Ali, his errand boy recruited to weaken the position of prime minister-in-waiting Anwar Ibrahim, has been caught not only engaging sexual activity with another man but was also sued by a travel agency over unpaid family holidays. That speaks volumes how bad Mahathir is at judging people. But knowing Mahathir, it had always been his intention to deliberately hire or appoint dumb and corrupt people so that they could be controlled. The names like “Black Shoe” Education Minister Masz­lee Malik, “Flip-Flop” Youth and Sports Minister Syed Saddiq and “Flying Car” Entrepreneur Development Minister Mohd Redzuan Md Yusof are the infamous “Three Stooges” of Mahathir’s party. Hence, it’s not surprising that a person like Economic Affairs Minister Azmin Ali is considered a rare gem to Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad. Actually, the job of Azmin was pretty simple – to act as a check and balance against Anwar. It screams treacherous that Azmin, deputy president of PKR, agrees to work for Mahathir to counter his own boss, PKR president Anwar. Mr. Azmin knows nuts about the country’s economy, the same way Maszlee is clueless about world class education system and Redzuan’s inability to differentiate about a drone and a flying car. After Mahathir suffered a humiliating defeat in the Tanjung Piai by-election, he is under tremendous pressure to resign and pass the leadership to Anwar. Suddenly, Azmin arranged a “secret dinner meeting” on Monday (Nov 17), just two days after his political master Mahathir was given a bloody nose by angry voters in Tanjung Piai. When confronted by journalists, the blue-eyed boy of the prime minister claimed there was nothing unusual about the meeting held at his official residence in Precinct 10, Putrajaya. Mr. Mahathir, as expected, pretended that while he “heard” about the meeting, he nevertheless insisted that he didn’t know what the participants talked about. Sure, his trusted spy was having a secret meeting with the enemies in the middle of the night without his knowledge but he wasn’t furious at all? He should stop insulting people’s intelligence.

Mahathir Mohamad - Sad and Upset 

Apparently, about 22 MPs (Member of Parliaments) – 17 from UMNO and 5 from PKR – braved the heavy rain to attend a dinner called by Azmin. Every Tom, Dick and Harry knows Mr. Azmin called for the meeting on behalf of Mahathir. Only by throwing the name of Mahathir that the sex maniac Azmin could mobilise opposition UMNO MPs to his home at such hour. If indeed the chief executive was kept in the dark about the meeting, he should reprimand Azmin’s action for jeopardizing the unity and integrity of the Pakatan Harapan coalition government. Does it make sense that the senior minister misused his name in plotting a grand plan with the opposition parties and yet the prime minister is cool about it? Basically the dinner gathering has cleared any doubts that Azmin is the traitor of PKR and Hishammuddin Hussein is the betrayer of UMNO. But the meeting was actually another boring session where the errand boy tries to convince the 17 opposition MPs to continue to support Mahathir as prime minister, despite the dwindling public support for the 94-year-old premier. However, the dinner drama has revealed a more damaging message – Mahathir does not have the number to stay as prime minister. The purpose of the meeting was to send a message to Anwar that Mahathir has sufficient MPs to support him. The burning question is this – why was the so-called “secret meeting” deliberately leaked so that journalists would camp near Azmin house and broadcast it? If Mahathir’s camp has the number, or was seeking to secure the number, such meeting should have been held in utmost secrecy to maintain the element of surprise. The only time when you scream your lung out to alert your enemies that you’re strong is when you’re actually weak, but you want the enemies to think otherwise. Yes, it appears that Azmin was trying to deploy the “Empty Fort Strategy” made popular in the Chinese ancient military strategy which involves using reverse psychology (and luck) to deceive the enemy into thinking that an empty location is full of traps and ambushes, and therefore induce the enemy to retreat.

Azmin Ali with Hishammuddin Hussein

More importantly, if Mahathir has the number and wanted to get rid of Anwar’s PKR faction and allies DAP and Amanah to form a new government consisting of only Malay parties (PPBM, UMNO, PAS and Azmin’s faction in PKR), they would have done so yesterday, and certainly not after the devastating Tanjung Piai election, which Mahathir admitted he had expected to lose. Let’s take a look at the numbers. Mahathir’s party, PPBM, won only 13 seats out of the 222 Parliamentary seats in the May 2018 General Election. The party managed to double the number to 26 seats through defections of UMNO MPs. After it lost the Tanjung Piai to the opposition over the weekend, its number is reduced to only 25 MPs. Hishammuddin only managed to bring 17 UMNO MPs with him to the secret dinner meeting. Last month, Azmin had arranged for all 18 PAS MPs and 6 UMNO MPs to express their support for Mahathir to remain prime minister for the full electoral term of 5 years. It’s unknown if the same 6 UMNO MPs had also gone to Azmin’s residence on Monday’s night. Assuming the 6 UMNO MPs didn’t attend the dinner party, Mahathir’s camp would have 25 PPBM MPs, 18 PAS MPs, and 23 UMNO MPs. Azmin was supposed to bring in at least 15 MPs from PKR. But there were only 5 PKR MPs at the dinner. That means only 71 MPs are willing to support Mahathir. Even if Azmin could eventually persuade 15 PKR MPs to defect, the number is still 81. To form a simple majority government, Mahathir needs support from at least 112 MPs. So he’s either short of 41 seats (if Azmin could only bring 5 frogs from PKR) or short of 31 seats (if Azmin could secure 15 PKR defectors). Even if the entire opposition Barisan Nasional (BN) coalition supports Mahathir, which is quite impossible, his camp has only maximum 99 seats. Yes, that’s the message which has been spreading in the social media – 41 MPs from BN, 18 MPs from PAS and 25 MPs from PPBM (Bersatu) together with 19 MPs from Sarawak’s Gabungan Parti Sarawak (GPS) and 9 MPs from Azmin’s faction would be strong enough to destroy Anwar’s dream of becoming the next 8th Prime Minister of Malaysia.

Azmin/Hishamuddin winning formula...

That’s a wishful thinking because the equation assumes UMNO crooks currently being charged by Mahathir like Najib Razak, Zahid Hamidi, Abdul Azeez Abdul Rahim, Tengku Adnan and other UMNO warlords like Nazri Aziz and Khairy Jamaluddin would blindly throw their support behind the prime minister, the same man who had destroyed their gravy train in the last year’s general election. Just because the 17 UMNO MPs agreed to attend Azmin’s secret dinner does not mean all of them support Mahathir’s premiership. Some of them might be spies sent by Najib and Zahid. That explains why neither former UMNO president Najib nor UMNO president Zahid was surprised or frustrated that almost half of the party’s MPs had gone to the enemy’s house for a dinner. If Najib and Zahid decide to support Mahathir, it could only mean that all their criminal breach of trust (CBT), money laundering and abuse of power charges would be dropped. For that to happen, Mahathir must be absolutely senile as it will be an admission that Najib didn’t steal a single penny from 1MDB sovereign fund and was wrongly accused by the old man. One has to remember that when all the 41 UMNO MPs (means Najib, Zahid and other crooks) declare their support for Mahathir, the line would have had been drawn and the Pakatan Harapan coalition would have already collapsed. At that time, Mahathir would be hugging and kissing with protégé-turn-nemesis Najib as they happily form a new Malay-only government. Besides, there’s no guarantee that all the 19 MPs from Sarawak’s Gabungan Parti Sarawak (GPS) would support Mahathir after his government broke its promise to pay 20% oil royalty to the Borneo state. It’s also not a guarantee that Azmin could swing 9 MPs to make up the 112 seats, let alone 15, to form a simple majority government. Heck, even Mahathir isn’t sure if his own party would support him 100% in the event he kicks Anwar’s faction out of the coalition. His deputy, PPBM president Muhyiddin Yassin, might switch sides and bring some PPBM MPs to join and support Anwar. As a Johorean, Muhyiddin’s loyalty is more with the state of Johor than PPBM, arguably a political party set up by Mahathir for his family.

Mahathir Mohamad with Muhyiddin Yassin

Unlike Mahathir’s open cold war with the Sultanate of Johor, Anwar has a closer relationship with the monarch, when he gladly kissed the hand of Johor Sultan Ibrahim last year. That’s one of the advantages of not having a dominant party too strong that it could bully, suppress, oppress and corrupt the system. Mahathir and Anwar have entered what is known as a Mexican standoff. Azmin obviously screws up when he hastily scheduled for another meeting on Tuesday after his Monday’s secret dinner had invited criticisms. It was an afterthought that the second meeting was made, under the pretext of meeting with his fellow party MPs. If Azmin was absolutely sure he has the number, he didn’t have to arrange so many unnecessary meetings. The simple fact that Mahathir hasn’t gone for the kill proves that he does not have the numbers, if indeed he was the hidden hand behind Azmin’s multiple meetings with opposition parties. Like it or not, the embarrassing loss of Tanjung Piai parliamentary seat has effectively made it more difficult for Azmin to convince and swing more MPs to stand behind Mahathir. In order not to rock the boat, the Pakatan Harapan coalition might just allow Mahathir to rule for the time being while a serious transition process is discussed. He might be given a third and final chance to do the right things after wasted 18 months of silly politicking and engaging in racial and religious extremism. Anwar does not have to force Mahathir to quit. Azmin desperately wants Anwar to sack him so that he could cry being victimised. Instead, the smarter Anwar is giving enough ropes for Azmin to hang himself by refusing to fire him. The PM-in-waiting also realises that Mahathir must be allowed to resign with dignity and respect. After all, it was Mahathir, who had successfully secured rural Malay votes to topple crooked Najib Razak. If Anwar makes his move now, it may backfire as he would be accused of being rude and ungrateful, even seen as bullying an old man – something which is unacceptable in the Malay culture. It would bring back the memory where the people were disgusted at Najib regime’s childish stunt of cutting Mahathir’s posters during the 2018 election campaign. - FT

Formula Azmin - Jalan ke Putrajaya...

Saya tak kata saya percaya formula ini akan berlaku, tapi kalau nak berlaku juga kita nak kata apa...? Saya tak kata saya setuju kalau sifir ini berlaku, tapi walau kita bantah sekuat mana pun, kalau berlaku juga, kita boleh buat apa...? Segala-galanya tidak mustahil dalam politik, sebab politik kita amat dinamis sifatnya.... Berpada-padalah kalau mengutuk pihak yang kita tak suka dan berpada-padalah memuji pihak yang kita suka.... Jangan terlalu taksub dan jangan bersikap melampau. Saya selalu ulang, kemenangan PH dalam PRU-14 amat tipis... Sekadar cukup untuk menumbangkan BN saja, cukup-cukup makan untuk menjatuhkan Najib dan mengangkat Tun Mahathir saja.... Kita selalu lupa bahawa ikatan antara parti dalam PH sangat longgar, sejak dibentuk sebelum PRU-14 lagi.... Kerajaan PH yang ditubuhkan amat rapuh bentengnya, bila-bila masa saja boleh dirobohkan oleh musuh dari luar atau pengkhianat dari dalam. Sebab itu saya tak pernah sebut suruh Tun Mahathir berhenti cepat, jauh sekali untuk mengutuknya, bahkan tak pernah desak Tun Mahathir suruh rombak kabinet pecat menteri itu dan ini.... Kita lupa bahawa kerajaan Tun sangat rapuh dan longgar... Kita bercakap seolah-olah kerajaan terlalu teguh dan mampu buat apa saja untuk memuaskan nafsu politik kita. Saya percaya ini hanya satu formula dari beberapa formula lain yang semuanya akan boleh meruntuhkan kerajaan PH sekarang.... Ingat status saya kelmarin, bila ditanya kalau berlaku perubahan dalan lanskap politik negara saya nak sokong blok mana...? Saya nak jawab apa, sebab blok yang akan timbul kita tak tahu dari formula mana.... Sebab itu saya jawab saya akan sokong blok yang tidak ada PAS di dalamnya.... Kerana saya tidak taksub dalam menyokong sesiapa atau membenci sesiapa... Ini hanya pendirian politik saja, bukannya kita nak beriman kepada mana-mana pemimpin. - f/bk

Kekai tenang yang  tak bertenang - sapa dia?

Padah bersikap kurang ajar dengan orang yang angkat dia. Jiwa sudah tidak tenteram sehinggakan setahun tidak hadir mesyuarat parti kerana tidak mampu berdepan dan bertentang mata dengan insan yang mendidik dan mengangkat dirinya hingga ke tahap ini. Mesyuarat dengan parti tiada masa, retreat bersama parti pun tidak berkesempatan. Tetapi banyak masa untuk bertemu dengan pemimpin2 Umno, tidak cukup siang, bertemu malam di rumahnya sehinggakan diberi jamu makan. Alasannya bincang pasal projek. Eh, projek untuk wakil rakyat Umno ke? Bagaimana dengan kos sara hidup rakyat yang lain? Sampai bila mahu menipu? Dia kata, saya bertemu dengan semua orang tidak kira siapa. Sesiapa yang mahu bertemu dengan saya, saya sebagai menteri kerajaan sentiasa terbuka, katanya. Ewaah....betul ke mereka mahu bertemu kamu untuk mengadu masalah atau kamu yang memanggil mereka untuk mengadu masalah semburit? Kalau kebetulan mereka yang mahu bertemu kamu untuk bincang masalah rakyat, kenapa tidak bertemu di pejabat? Mengapa di rumah kamu waktu malam siap disediakan catering untuk makan besar? Cukup2lah menipu. Khabarnya, kes semburit dah semakin ke episod akhir. Polis kata mungkin hujung tahun ini akan diketahui siapa pasangan Haziq. Oleh kerana gelabah puyuh, terpaksalah buat kerja gila berpakat dengan musuh untuk menghancurkan PH. Hatinya busuk sekali. Padanya, kalau dia tak boleh jadi PM, dia akan tentukan Anwar tidak akan jadi PM. Siapa dia itu? - wfauzdin ns

Azmin. Kami tak kisah, samada hang nk mengaku, atau menafikan yg hang memang terlibat dlm video semburit kat Hotel Sandakan. Itu hal yg kini dlm siasatan Polis. Tapi, si Haziq, yg gambarnya tertera dlm video tu dah berkali2 mengaku, atas katil tu dia dgn hang. Dia dgn confidentnya membuat pengakuan, atas katil yg berpeluk2an tu dia dgn hang... Come on la Min... Kalau dah tak mengaku, kami setuju. Tapi, hantarlah surat saman kat Haziq. Bawak lah dia ke mahkamah. Bersihkan nama hang. Hang tu Timb Presiden parti dan menteri ...bukan ketua Cabang... Dah la takut nk saman, hang berlindung pulak di belakang Tun... Dah diberikan perlindungan, tak diminta bercuti atau letak jwtn... Hang buat honaq pulak dlm Pakatan Harapan. Konon nk bincang dgn pembangkang, nk tubuh kerajaan lain ikut pintu belakang... Hang ni Min....jenih 'belakang'2 ni memang hang suka ekkk..- f/bk

Menteri beli insuran nyawa dulu...

Maaf ya kereta terbang tak jadi terbang pasai  pihak berkuasa Penerbangan Awam Malaysia (CAAM) tidak meluluskan ujian penerbangan UAS E-Hang 216 (EH216) atau ‘kereta terbang’ yang dijadualkan esok. CAAM dalam kenyataan hari ini menegaskan, lokasi percubaan penerbangan di Hangar UNIKL MIAT Subang adalah kurang 200 meter dari laluan trafik pesawat dan helikopter komersial. “Lokasi itu jelas terletak di dalam Zon Kawalan Terminal Lapangan Terbang Subang di bawah penyeliaan yang ketat oleh Pusat Kawalan Trafik Udara.

PROJEK kereta terbang yang diilhamkan seorang menteri kabinet disifatkan sebagai "idea sampah".

Ketua Biro Polisi dan Strategi Parti Pribumi Bersatu Malaysia (PPBM) berkata cita-cita menteri itu sebagai membuang masa dan perhatian sewajarnya diberikan kepada isu dihadapai rakyat.

"Saya setuju perhatian patut diberikan kepada manifesto. "Namun, ingin saya tekankan di sini, saya masih pertahankan manifesto yang ditawarkan.

Ni baru betoi kereta terbang...

"Saya percaya Pakatan Harapan juga sama. Kita berusaha sehabis baik untuk mencapai apa yang tertera dalam manifesto." katanya dalam program Consider This yang disiarkan di Astro AWANI. Sementara itu tambah Rais, Perdana menteri sendiri sebelum ini memberi penekanan kepada pencapaian kerajaan Pakatan Harapan (HARAPAN) dari segi manifesto. "Harus diingat, HARAPAN terpaksa berdepan dengan masalah yang diwarisi. Kita masih mencari jalan untuk menyelesaikan semua. "Manifesto kami adalah work in progress' (sedang dalam proses untuk dicapai)," kata Rais lagi. - Kartel

Pak Lebai Brahim pendek ni nak Menteri Kewangan curi duit rakyat macam Najib kot?!!

Masa Najib control kewangan semua peruntukan dipersetujui dan pemantau Menteri Kewangan pun Najib.

Sehinggakan program Permata Rosmah pun boleh dapat berbillion tapi duit tu entah kemana..mengapa tak menyalahkan Najib?!!

Ulasan Pak lebai Brahim pendek ni nampak sangat tak ikhlas..yang nampak kebencian dan sakit hatinya pada DAP.

Lebai cadangkan gugur LGE.Aku suka LGE terus jadi Menteri Kewangan supaya dia terus bongkarkan segala bentuk jenayah yang ada.Lebai2 tak boleh pakai,hati busuk cam tahi...- f/bk

when the bill reach meee... ya..

so I.. so I.. passed the bill to him..

to prepare the chairman.. er err the payment..

thru my personal account..

but... he or she made a mistake..

by by.. err.. using yayasan err cheq..

Penyangak Jawo Yayasan Bunian Tiada Akalbudi...

Tok Lebai kena ayaq ketum...

cheers.

Sumber asal: Azmin Is bluffing ... Baca selebihnya di Azmin Is bluffing ...

[helenmaybewriting]

Apparent global ‘rise’ of young political leaders: some further thoughts

On Friday I was asked to briefly appear on Australia’s national news channel ABC News 24 to comment on the apparent rise of young leaders globally, prompted by 37-year-old Jacinda Ardern’s win in New Zealand last week. 

I had never done television before so live evening news was being thrown into the deep end, but it was a great experience to have. You can watch the full 5-minute clip just below (or link here , but as it was only 5 minutes there was (of course) much more I could say. So I wanted to include just a few quick additional thoughts here.

[Video of brief segment on ABC News 24, Friday 19 October 2017]

Attention has been drawn to younger leaders as elections around the world in the last year have lifted many ‘young’ people to leadership not only of political parties, but as leaders of their nations. There are now eight elected leaders under 40 globally, including, in addition to Ardern: in France Emmanuel Macron is 39, in Ireland Leo Varadkar is 38, while Austria’s new Chancellor, Sebastian Kurz is only 31 (there are 12 leaders under 40, but some are hereditary positions). Canada’s Justin Trudeau often gets mentioned in these conversations about young leaders, at 44 he is the second youngest prime minister in Canada’s history.

What is noticeable about this list is what is being described as ‘young’. In the global political arena, forty is youthful. This is in part due to a dominance of what gets referred to as gerontocratic rule – rule by the old: for example in Africa the average age of rulers is almost three time that of the population, while in the USA requirements to be 25 for the House and 30 for the Senate mean political representatives are inescapably older than a chunk of the population.

I think, as I noted in passing in the interview, that the election of these younger people is only one piece of the puzzle. We are in fact seeing even younger people than those currently touted as ‘young leaders’ run for, and get successfully elected to, political office. Here in Australia Wyatt Roy became the youngest person ever to be elected to an Australian parliament in 2010 at age 20. He was the youngest ministerial appointment at 25 also. In the UK Mhairi Black has not been holding back since her maiden speech until now about her views on how the government has abandoned young people; with a politics degree, she was elected at age 20 and recently re-elected. I wrote last year about youth running of office in the context of the federal election here, and in recent research (yet to be published) conducted last year in Guatemala and Colombia young people were claiming their space both as activists but also as aspiring politicians, arguing their absence exacerbated the corruption they saw in the system, corruption brought about by well established, old career politicians who had lost sight of the purpose of office. In many different places we are seeing young people actively engaged with and campaigning for political office.

[MP Mhairi Black’s maiden speech]

So why should we care about whether younger people are leading countries, or running for office? I believe it matters for two reasons, one principled and one pragmatic. The principled reason it that democracy is designed for plurality, it needs multiple positions to be heard to ensure it is best representing [pdf link] everybody; if young people are missing from the room they are missing from the democratic process. In pragmatic terms, young people have particular interests and agendas (just like everyone), and if they aren’t participating in the debates and arguing for their interests to be heard they won’t end up on the policy agenda. Research by Youth Action and the Australian Research Alliance for Children and Youth noted in the last election campaign younger voters prioritised issues including climate change, marriage equality, and more humane asylum-seeker policy; topics that weren’t receiving much air-time from many politicians on the campaign trail.

This isn’t to say that young people have a unified agenda. While research shows there are topics and issues that have a larger base of support in particular demographics, young people are not homogenous. In many places youth involvement in politics, whether by running, by agitating, or by turning out to vote, has pushed a more ‘progressive’ agenda. There are however young leaders working for more conservative agendas, such as Austria’s new Chancellor, Sebastian Kurz, who is fiercely anti immigration, and right-wing in his politics and has tapped into a fear in Austrian society to propel him to victory. In a different vein, Wyatt Roy was keen to be seen not as a young politician with a youth agenda, but as a serious political contender, despite ongoing media coverage about his age.

Whether younger people need to be occupying these leadership positions, or whether it is sufficient to have older politicians who argue for youth issues as important is an important consideration. For example, Barack Obama’s first campaign was fueled by tapping in to the youth vote, he styled himself as young and valuing the issues of concern to younger voters.  Both Bernie Sanders in the US and Jeremy Corbyn in the UK have positioned themselves as advocates for, simultaneously and connectedly, youth and progressive politics. Can Sanders, who is 76, or Corbyn, who is 68, meaningfully represent younger people? I would argue that its always good when parts of the electorate that are often marginalised are given serious attention by politicians of any age. But I believe that younger people themselves also need to be present in these positions as they bring unique perspectives and a different investment in the issues.

[Jeremy Corbyn’s effort to appeal to youth had an impact at the ballot box]

As to claims of inexperience, often levelled at these politicians – from Mhairi Black to Wyatt Roy - if their constituents believed they could do the job, and then re-elected them, they are doing their job well, and in a democracy you have to trust the voters.

Finally, its important to recognise that leaders in their 30s is not the only indicator of youth engagement. Young people are often criticised for being apathetic or uninvolved in politics. The election of some of these leaders in different parts of the world has happened because younger demographics were mobilised, were enthused, to vote. But young people have long been participating in politics, both in formal and informal ways. If we are measuring political wisdom by time spent in politics (as an opinion piece in The Australian did yesterday, with a headshake-worthy front page), or by their membership of formal political parties, then we are not capturing the full range of way young people are participating. They are on the street protesting, they are talking and organising digitally, they are advocating for causes that matter to them, and as the current Australian Youth UN Ambassador Paige Burton discovered from talking to school students around the country, even before they can vote they hold articulate and critical views of Australian politics and society. 

[Paige Burton, Australia’s 2017 UN Youth Rep has been meeting with young people for a comprehensive survey of young people’s opinions. See the project at her facebook page, linked above]

And while some research notes that young people are enthused but confused by the political process, their presence and engagement is evident over and over again. Yet the major parties here in Australia and elsewhere are not always listening to their concerns.

We should be excited that young people are being elected to political office, to lead parties, and to lead countries. They are not a homogenous group, they bring diverse insights and new opinions to the table. And they should be measured by what they do with the job, not the number of candles on their next birthday cake. That’s how to judge young leaders, by how well they lead.  

[labourpress]

Carwyn Jones speech to Labour Party Conference

Carwyn Jones AM, Leader of Welsh Labour, First Minister of Wales, speaking at the Labour Party Conference in Brighton today, said:

 ***CHECK AGAINST DELIVERY***

 I want to begin by extending my thanks to Christina Rees, our Shadow Secretary of State for Wales. Sadly she can’t be with us this week as she’s nursing a broken foot.

 I don’t think there’s any truth in the rumour that she broke it kicking Alun Cairns around Parliament in the first week back, but we’ll ask her when we see her.

 We all wish you a speedy recovery, Chris.

 Secondly, let me say thank you to Jeremy for his continuing friendship and leadership.

Thank you, Jeremy for the dignity you showed in a tough general election campaign.

The Tories came after you in a personal and offensive manner, and you stood up to that onslaught and led the party with great determination and defied the odds.

 This time last year, the Tories thought they were marching to a 100-seat majority. Right now, they’re scared of their own shadows, let alone another general election. What a turn around that is.

 Conference, when I heard Theresa May was giving a speech in Florence, I thought how apt. Not so much in relation to the Renaissance, but more with a thought to the works of that great medieval poet, Dante. It has been clear to me for some time that the Department for Exiting the European Union regard the “Divine Comedy” as some sort of instruction manual. That masterpiece imagines in glorious detail the dark and terrifying journey through the nine circles of hell.

 Well, we’ve been going on our own journey for 15 months and still remain in the first circle of hell – limbo – a remarkable achievement. But, then Dante did have Virgil as his spiritual guide.

 David Davis has got Nigel Farage. The book really is worth a read as Brexit re-interpreted.  At one point, at the close of chapter XXI, Dante witnesses a demon mobilising his troops by using “an ass as a trumpet.”  Which goes to show that every century has its own Boris.

 Conference, this week in Wales we marked the 20th anniversary of the vote to establish devolution in our country.  It was a turning point for Wales, and a turning point for our Party. The list of achievements is one of which we can be proud – and it belongs not just to Welsh Labour, but to the whole Party and movement who made devolution possible.

 ·         Unemployment in Wales - routinely lower than the UK average. More jobs, better jobs – Welsh Labour delivering in Government.

·         Wales, the first country to move to a deemed consent model for organ donation in the UK. People owe their lives to that change in the law. Better laws, saving lives, Welsh Labour delivering in Government.

·         Free school breakfasts in primary schools. Giving children the best start to the day, giving parents a helping hand, giving teachers the attention they deserve in the classroom. Welsh Labour delivering in Government.

·         The attainment gap between better off and poorer pupils in England and Scotland continues to grow – in Wales it continues to shrink. A fair start to everyone in Wales, no matter where you’re born – that is Welsh Labour delivering in Government.

·         Our university students in Wales getting the best deal anywhere in the UK.

·         And who gets the best deal of all? Those students who can least afford university – that is Welsh Labour delivering in Government.

 But, it isn’t just about policy. It’s also about having a voice and someone to fight your corner. This week I gave a cautious welcome to the news that Tata Steel and ThyssenKrupp entered the first stage of a merger deal.  A deal that should safeguard sites and thousands of jobs in Wales.

 Does anyone honestly think that without devolution, without a Welsh Labour Government determined to take measures to save that industry, putting money on the table when others looked away, that those steel jobs would still be in Wales today?

Would the Tories have knocked down walls for the people of Port Talbot, Shotton, Newport or Llanelli? We all know the answer to that.

 With our colleagues in the trades unions, our MPs, our AMs and local councillors, Welsh Labour stood up for the steel industry – and we did what those banners and badges asked us to do – we saved our steel.

 Conference, we are proud to work with our trades union colleagues in Government.

Together we have built a genuine social partnership and together we are making Wales a Fair Work Nation.

 And Conference, earlier this month our Trades Union Act received Royal Assent.

That means that the pernicious attempts of the Tory Government to attack workers’ rights in Wales have been dis-applied, and, once again, workers in Wales have the protections we fought so hard to achieve. Protections everyone deserves.

That’s Welsh Labour delivering in Government.

 Devolution has given Wales a voice. And with Welsh Labour that voice speaks the language of social justice, fairness, good work, decent pay and thriving communities.

 Devolution has given us something else. A new-found confidence. It is something I see every day in young people in work, and in our schools and colleges. So where has that confidence come from? If you could personalise it, you’d have to give credit to my predecessor, Rhodri Morgan. As you know, Rhodri passed away earlier this year, leaving behind a fantastic roller coaster of a political career, a wonderful family and an ocean of anecdotes.  In May the Welsh Parliament held the closest thing Wales will ever have to a state funeral, and we gave Rhodri the perfect send off.

 It started late. It finished even later. In between there was a fantastic mix of poetry, politics, sport, laughter and tears. And at the end, no-one really thought about Rhodri the politician, but Rhodri as a big-hearted, intelligent and inquisitive man who loved his family above all else. A fine role model, who we all miss.

 Rhodri always said that Labour did best when it managed to mix together the mushy peas of old Labour with the guacamole of New Labour. Now, I’ve been in Rhodri’s kitchen and I can tell you that when it came to culinary combinations, Rhodri was not always the person you would go to – but on the politics, he, as so often, was absolutely right.  He was absolutely right about the need for our Party to reflect all sections of our membership, and all parts of this country.

 That was the key to our success in Wales in the last three elections.

 When the Party at UK level was under serious pressure, our unique and united Welsh Labour identity meant we remained relevant and competitive in the Assembly and local elections, when sadly others struggled. It was the unity that gave us success against the odds. And when in the last days of the general election the whole party surged, it meant we, in Wales, were starting from a higher base-line and, as a result, achieved 50% of the vote for the first time in 16 years.

 Our identity as a Party is robust, authentic and complementary to the UK Party as a whole. And, just as a country we will not countenance a roll-back of our devolution settlement; there can be no question of Welsh Labour’s long fought for, and hard won voice being diluted as we look to the future of our Party. I know that both Jeremy and Tom understand this, and I welcome their unwavering support for Wales. Thank you, both.

 Because Conference, we know Labour works best when we work together. Together, we fought a hugely successful general election campaign – not just holding on to what we had, but winning back seats for Labour.

 Vale of Clwyd – according to the bookmakers, Tories were 1/5 on to win. Result? Labour Gain. Gower – according to the bookies, Tories were 1/9 on to win. Result? Labour Gain. Cardiff North – Tories were 1/9 on. Result? Labour Gain.

 Working together we have exposed the Tories on broken promise after broken promise. On rail electrification in the north and the south – and we know what’s coming next – they’ll axe Swansea’s Tidal Lagoon.

 But, because Welsh Labour is in Government – there are things we can do. We are already delivering on our manifesto promises.

 ·         100,000 new good quality, all-age apprenticeships.

 ·         The most generous childcare offer for working parents anywhere in the UK.

 ·         And 20,000 more affordable homes.

 We can also deliver on priorities for the future of our NHS.

 There is no privatisation of the NHS in Wales – and whilst we have a Welsh Labour Government there will be no privatisation of the NHS in Wales. Only in Wales are ambulance crews hitting their targets – because we’ve worked with the service and designed a better way of working. And next week, the Welsh Government will publish new guidance for our pioneering legislation on safe nurse staffing levels in Wales.  

 Conference, Wales is the first country in Europe to legislate on nurse staffing levels. I am proud that Wales has taken the lead in this area, empowering nurses and ensuring the resources are there to care sensitively for patients. Legislation that the Party promised in the UK manifesto in May, already being delivered by a Labour Government in Wales.

 And working together we are making our communities better, fairer places to live.

When Carolyn Harris MP began her brave and dignified campaign to end child burial charges in the UK, we in Wales did not wait for the Tory Government to act. We said, yes, that is the right thing to do, and, as a result, the Welsh Labour Government has announced the abolition of all child burial charges in our country. That is what we can do when we work together.

 And the country needs us to work together more than ever before, as we fight the fundamentalists pursuing a hard Brexit. We are fighting tooth and nail against the Tory power grab, dressed up as the EU Withdrawal Bill. It shows up their Government as simply incapable of listening to other people’s views, or respecting their legitimate interests – in other words, as lacking the basic skills needed to negotiate successfully.

And looking at the way in which they are failing the country in their negotiations with the EU, I guess we shouldn’t be surprised.

 I’m delighted at the support we are receiving from Labour colleagues in Parliament at fighting this real threat to devolution as we have known it for the past 20 years.

I’m also incredibly proud of the work we have done together already – our team in Cardiff Bay has worked hand in glove with Keir Starmer and the front bench in developing our Brexit policies. As a result of that work, in Labour we now have a sensible, evidence-based, economically sound set of principles and ideas that can see this country through Brexit in an orderly manner.  

 Contrast that with the spectacle of the Tory approach. Sorry, correction – the various Tory approaches. Does anyone really know who speaks for them on Brexit anymore?

Where has the Prime Minister of this country gone? If,  before the general election, the country felt as though it had a robot for Prime Minister, we’d now be forgiven for thinking we have a hologram.

 She went to the country and asked for the support of our communities for a hard Brexit, the country said no. The country said no to some other things as well – our older people said no to being taken for granted. Wales said no to being short-changed. Scotland said no to independence. And crucially, our young people said no to being ignored. They said, through their votes, what we all feel - Britain deserves better than this. This country deserves a Labour Government in Westminster.

A Government that actually cares about the future.

 I know that the people of Wales need that more than ever. Under the Tories, we have had to take £1billion out of our public services in Wales. That’s the annual budget of the entire North Wales health board. Our communities are resilient, but they’re being unfairly punished. And with Theresa May and the Tories they will be asked to give yet more. To give up. To give up their livelihoods, their libraries, their leisure centres, and their right to a fair deal. To give up hope. Enough is enough. It is time for hope.  

 It is time for Labour, in Wales and in Westminster.  Standing up for Wales. Working for fairness. Working, together. Winning, together. That’s a future the country hopes for and that’s the country we can deliver. Together for Wales.  Together for Britain.

[upshotre]

2023: El-Rufai under fire over call to end zoning

KADUNA State Governor Nasir El-Rufai came under fire on Monday over his suggestion that zoning of political offices should be de-emphasised. Senior lawyers and rights activists believe that El-Rufai is flying a kite so that the North will retain power after the expiration of President Muhamamdu Buhari’s two-term tenure in 2023. Senator Shehu Sani, who took on those mulling the idea of the North retaining power in the post-2023 era, said it would amount to ingratitude not to allow power to return to the South. He spoke during a Sallah visit to elder statesman and Second Republic Governor of Old Kaduna State, Alhaji Balarabe Musa. El-Rufai stirred controversy last week when he said Nigeria could not continue on the same path of zoning political positions based on regions. The governor made his position known in a prologue titled: “Defeating a determined incumbent – The Nigerian experience”, which he contributed to a book – “Power of Possibilities and Politics of Change in Nigeria” – written by the Director-General of the Progressives Governors’ Forum (PGF) Salihu Lukman. He writes: “Even with our success in the 2015 elections, there is room for improvement. Barriers to political equality, such as our seemingly entrenched though informal rule for zoning candidacies according to regions of origin, need to be de-emphasised and ultimately abandoned in favour of an emphasis on qualification, competence and character.” Those who spoke on the issue in separate interviews include former Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) President Dr Olisa Agbakoba (SAN), Chief Emeka Ngige (SAN), a constitutional lawyer Ike Ofuokwu, and a group of Igbo lawyers, the Otu Oka Iwu (Law Society). Sani recalled how the support of southerners, particularly the Southwest facilitated President Buhari’s victory in 2015. Sani said: “My view on that is very simple; it is an act of ingratitude for any northerner to think that by 2023, he or she should aspire for office in the view of the fact that, Southerners, particularly the southwest did everything possible to support the northern candidate to emerge as the president in 2015. “It will amount to changing the rules of the game at half time, when you are leading two zero. It can also be likened to removing the ladder after you have plucked the fruit. “The North should appreciate the support of progressive-minded nationalists from the southwest or the southern part of Nigeria who worked tirelessly to remove the PDP from power in 2015. “We have not forgotten that President Buhari had contested three times without becoming President and on the fourth time, with the support of people from the South, he emerged the President of the country. “It would be unfair after eight years, for us to think of continuing to hold the grip and levers of power in Nigeria. “Another point is that, in an ideal society where ethnicity, religion and other interests play no role, we can think of that in the farther future, but where all these issues continue, in a political scheme of Nigeria, we can’t shy aware from them. “What we need to put into perspective is the fact that it will be a serious threat to unity and peace of our country if one part of the country will continue to dominate the political sphere of the country due to its demographic majority and land size. “I’m a socialist and I believe that the one who should preside over the affairs of the country should be competent, but is it competence that brought the ruling party to power in 2015? “I think we should be very frank to ourselves and it will also be good for the President that he should rein in people in his party, to caution them against dropping such kind of discourse while at its infant stage now, before it overheat the polity. “After President Buhari, power needs to rotate to some of these major geopolitical zones; you cannot close the door after you have gone inside. SouthWest has helped us to be where we are today. “You can’t talk of competency when you have not produced an Igbo president. Are they not Nigerians? You cannot continue to punish them for the offence which they are not architect of? That is my view. “And for the North, it is important for the President to set a policy agenda in the next four years to address the socio economic and security problems facing the northern part of Nigeria. “The president must invest in the North in agriculture, education, infrastructure for us to prepare for a restructured Nigeria. Northern governors must complement that.” Elder statesman Tanko Yakassai, said: “It is up to the APC, because neither Nasir El-Rufai nor Shehu Sani can speak for the APC and the North. “They are expressing their individual opinions, because they do not have the locus standi to speak for the North on the issue of zoning. But one thing I can say is that they are members of the APC, which has embraced the zoning arrangement since President Buhari came to power. So, it is up to the party whether to retain the zoning arrangement in 2023 or abandon it. “I doubt if the APC as a party would subscribe to El-Rufai’s view. In fact, the position of El-Rufai would not auger well for the APC as a party in 2023, because it would undermine the party’s standing in the South. It would be counter-productive for the party to adopt such a position, given the interest of its members from the South who supported the North to grab power in 2015 and retain it in the last general elections. “Though it is not backed by the constitution, zoning is a reality of the Nigerian situation, so sooner or later it has to be adopted as part of our laws, because it provides for the stability of the country.” He noted that El-Rufai’s statement had sent a wrong signal, because APC members in the South would think twice on whether to continue supporting the party or not. “This is because APC members in the South will not see it as a statement by an individual; they would regard it as those of a clique in the North determined to hold on to power. Therefore, it would be a danger signal for the South to continue supporting the APC”, he said. The National Chairman of the United Progressive Party (UPP), Chief Chekwas Okorie, said the idea of a northern president in 2023 will not fly. He said: “I have always had the position that Nigeria does not have constitution that has provided for rotation of power. But, at the same time, the rotational arrangement has become conventional. It is that rotational convention that made it easier for President Buhari to defeat a sitting president in 2015, because 2015 was widely perceived as the turn of a northerner to become president. Since President Buhari towered above every other person from the North, he won. He added: “In the build up to 2019, the UPP as a party – the party I lead – we knew that any person running for president from the South would be swimming against the tide. So, we decided to allow the North to complete its eight years, by not fielding a candidate for the presidential election, and that was what happened. “It is that same convention that Nigeria would observe by 2023. Nevertheless, that doesn’t stop any person from the North wishing to run, but the person will never be able to win the presidential election. Such persons will be like those southerners who ran in 2019 and never stood any chance of winning. “Owing to the fact that it is not a law, anybody can run. The likes of El-Rufai can run, if they wish to do so. But, if El-Rufai is able to win Kaduna State, he should thank his stars. Buhari with all his qualities and following in the “North was not able to win on three previous occasions. But when Nigerians said it is the turn of the North, forces came together to mobilise support for him. In the South, the Southwest especially played a key role in making sure that he won. “If for anything, the contest for leadership in 2023 will be between the Southwest and the Southeast. But, if equity has anything to do with politics, it should be the turn of the Southeast, considering the fact that the region has not produced any elected leader since independence. “Anybody who believes that the next president would come from the North, based on what El-Rufai is insinuating, is indulging in wishful thinking. I can tell you categorically that the idea of a northern president in 2023 will not fly.” Lagos APC chieftain Lanre Razaq dismissed El-Rufai’s comment as divisive and undermining Nigeria’s unity. He said nobody should toy with the unity the country was enjoying through the political arrangement put in place. Razaq said: He said: “Some people don’t know the value of Nigeria being together. A situation where you consider some segment of the country not entitled to the presidency is the most vicious act that can befall the country.” Agbakoba is of the view that zoning does not matter in ideal societies, adding that it will take time for Nigeria to attain such democratic maturity. He said: “In a truly organised state, the ideal is to place competence and character at the heart of the minimum standards for public service. “Unfortunately, we are far from an ideal Nigeria and we will have to struggle to get the balance right as this policy is entrenched in the Constitution and designated federal character.” Ngige said while El-Rufai is entitled to his opinion, he should have canvassed such position in 1999. The senior advocate said: “Ordinarily, his view is supportable where all things are equal, but in the peculiar circumstances of our political evolution, the three or four major ethnic groups should be allowed to have a feel of that office before abolishing the concept of zoning. “To do so now will be most unfair. For now, rotation of the presidency is still vital for our national unity, cohesion and equity. “In so doing, the zone or section whose turn it is to produce a President must ensure that their first eleven are presented as candidates for the office, thereby giving Nigerian voters multiple choice of capable candidates to pick from.” Ngige noted that since the return to civil rule in 1999, no Nigerian has been precluded from contesting for the highest office in Nigeria on account of where he comes from. He said: “In 1999, Olusegun Obasanjo secured the ticket of the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) and Dr. Ogbonnaya Onu secured the ticket of All Progressives Party (APP). Strangely, overnight the ticket was surrendered to Alhaji Umaru Shinkafi, who ran a joint ticket of AD/APP with Chief Olu Falae of AD. “In 2003, more political parties were registered, enabling candidates like Chief Emeka Odumegwu Ojukwu, Jim Nwobodo, Arthur Nwankwo, Chris Okotie, Tunji Braithwaite, Gani Fawehinmi, Balarabe Musac Olopade Agoro, Pere Ajuwa and others to contest without let or hindrance. Obasanjo of PDP won that election, though in controversial circumstances. “In 2007, more parties were registered and these same candidates also contested freely. In 2011, 2015 and 2019 candidates for the presidency also emerged from different parts of the country and Nigerian voters made their choice. “So, in effect, realistically speaking, rotation is just in the minds of the electorate as nobody has been precluded from contesting for President on account of where he comes from. “It is just one or two of the major political parties that promote the concept of zoning and has succeeded in doing so because they fielded popular candidates. “If the other parties had fielded candidates more popular than the victorious candidates, they could have won thereby rendering El-Rufai’s views academic,” Ngige said. Mike Ozekhome (SAN) believed the Kaduna governor was “flying a kite”, adding that El-Rufai was fronting for the “northern elite” which understand power better than “the southern establishment.” According to him, northern power brokers would not be willing to give up power after President Buhari’s tenure ends in 2023. Ozekhome said: “Southern politicians will have a shocker coming to them, because the north will not let go of power.” Another SAN, Chief Emeka Okpoko (SAN) said the timing of El-Rufai’s call was suspicious. He wondered if “there wasn’t a selfish motive” behind the governor’s suggestion. Okpoko said: “If it was said because they (the North) have exhausted their term, it becomes something else entirely. Politicians should be elected based on competence, no doubt about it. “But is the call genuine? Is it bona fide? Is there anything behind it? Is there any intention that is unclear to us behind it? I don’t see him (El-Rufai) as a straight shooter. There could be something behind it.” Okpoko suggested that if the call for abolishment of zoning of the Presidency is implemented at this time “without letting the Presidency rotate, without allowing it to go round” it would not make sense….” He noted, for instance, that the Southeast had not tasted the Presidency. “For me, he (El-Rufai) didn’t say it bona fide, he may have a selfish purpose.” Ofuokwu, an Anioma leader of thought in Delta State, believes El-Rufai’s views were selfish. He said: “Mallam El-Rufai is only laying foundation for his selfish desire to contest for president in 2023. “I concede to the fact that qualification, competence and character should be the emphasis. However, due regards and consideration must be given to the other sections of the country. “We the Anioma people are irrevocably committed to zoning of the presidency. To suggest otherwise as El-Rufai just did, is hopelessly quixotic.” The Otu Oka Iwu (Law Society), in a statement by its President Chief Chuks Ikokwu, said the tussle for President will not be so fierce if power is devolved to the regions. The group said it was instructive that El-Rufai chaired the All Progressives Congress (APC) committee that recommended restructuring as the best governance model for Nigeria. “It is very disappointing that Governor El-Rufai has abandoned his committee’s report so soon after the national elections. This would seem opportunistic. His current preoccupation with the zoning formula is clearly a needless distraction. “We urge Governor El-Rufai to focus on encouraging the Federal Government to revisit the restructuring agenda which was on the front-burner during the national elections, and which has virtually been endorsed by all zones of the country as the only way forward. “A restructured Nigeria with devolution of power to the federating units will practically make the current fierce tussle for the centre needless. “Nigeria needs a re-engineering of its foundation; otherwise any structure put on it will not stand. It is futile to talk of zoning of political offices or otherwise when the structure of the federation is faulty. “It behoves on Governor El-Rufai to channel his efforts towards delivering the noble and all-important restructuring agenda,” the Otu Oka Iwu said. Read the full article

[gloss80]

General Election 2017 - Man Like Corbz done good!

I am certain when the Exit Poll dropped on Thursday night shortly after polling stations closed there was a collective amount of jaw dropping across the nation and I can imagine several near heart attacks across CCHQ! I know Labour HQ were quietly jubilant but wanted to wait to see how the night transpired. No one saw this coming…. It was seriously a “where were you when you heard..” moment!! I stared at my TV screen thinking “Please, please, please let this Exit Poll be correct!” Why? Because it predicted a Hung Parliament and showed a brilliant Labour surge in the vote against all the odds. Many political commentators were urging caution whilst some remained steadfast in their belief that May would win the majority she needed to carry forth her mandate into the Brexit negotiations. I could feel something brewing in the air. Big crowds would turn out to see Corbyn at events across the country. He even packed out a football stadium with the crowd shouting: “Oooooh Jeremy Corbyn!” People wherever I went were talking about Corbyn and Labour’s Manifesto. On Thursday afternoon I was walking out of Wembley Park Tube Station and a group of School girls ran up to me and stopped me. They said “please vote Labour!” I answered “already done!” They cheered “Team Jezza! Bun the Tories!” and we all high-fived! That really warmed my heart! Young people engaged in politics and realising how politics impacts on every single facet of their life. I honestly felt like their proud Aunty! Anyway I digress….back to election night…. I could not sleep…optimism in my heart had me glued to my TV screen for the entire night. Was this really happening??? The results started to roll in and it was becoming clearly evident that the Exit Poll was indeed correct! Yes, I punched the air a few times as Labour Gains across the country materialised including Scotland where we took seats from the SNP. Canterbury went red after being Conservative since 1918! The Tory MP Jane Ellison was ousted in Battersea by Labour’s Marsha de Cordova! It was a stunning 10% swing from the Tories to Labour. The Tories dreadful manifesto author Ben Gummer gone! Nick Clegg gone! Amber Rudd was onto her 5th recount and almost had people rummaging through the bins for votes when it became clear that this was shaping up to be an extraordinary night for Corbyn and Labour! Long standing Labour activist Eleanor Smith made history by becoming the West Midlands’ first African Caribbean MP in a seat that used to be held by the racist Tory MP Enoch Powell! He of “Rivers of Blood” infamy. Kensington and Chelsea where the average house prices are 1.4 million now has the red flag flying high! The same constituency where Dacre’s Daily Mail HQ aka The Daily Heil sits in now has a Labour MP! Oh the irony…. Labour’s success saw it almost completely wipe out the Tories in London and more than double majorities in seats that were previously considered marginal. Remember that Theresa Mayhem had promised again and again that if she lost six seats, Jeremy Corbyn would be walking into number 10! On election night the U-turn Queen lost more than that yet is still desperately clinging on to power! Blaming everyone but herself for taking a reckless and arrogant gamble in calling a General Election that no one wanted. She has also lost the mandate for a hard Brexit and solidified just how weak and unstable a leader she actually is. British politics has suffered a Youthquake! Corbyn offered a real vision and hope to a younger generation who had often felt marginalised by politics. He connected with their aspirations and they mobilised and came out in force! Big up the #Grime4Corbyn campaign and all the Grime artists and rappers who helped inspire young people to go out and vote. This is just the start! Let’s build on what we have achieved! I am so proud to see the young voices rise up and just want to send heartfelt thanks to all the young people up and down the land who came out to vote. I am an actor and a movie geek so here is what I think: Corbyn in many ways epitomises Obi-Wan’s classic line in Star Wars - A New Hope: “If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you can possibly imagine.” I’m serious. Why do I make this correlation? Well Corbyn has survived strike after strike! He has survived constant attacks and challenges from within the Labour Party as well as vicious, poisonous and relentless assaults from the Tories and their right wing media cheerleaders and he has always comes back stronger than before and with a bigger mandate than before to boot! It is clear in this election that the more people saw of Corbyn the more they liked what they saw. Calm, compassionate, dignified, principled and always on the right side of history. Also the Labour Manifesto with the vision “For the Many Not The Few” successfully resonated with so many across the country. Hope, a feeling last seen in British politics in 1997 is on the rise again. In contrast Maybot decided to base her election campaign around herself under the “Strong and Stable” robotic mantra. She ducked away from the TV debates like a coward, tried as much as she could to avoid the public and trotted out soundbite after soundbite to the point that she sounded like a Dalek. It was either “Strong and Stable” or “Nothing has changed.” Repeat!! She relied on the tabloid press to sing her praises and was in desperate need of reboot but it never happened. The more the public saw of Maybot the more they did not like what they saw and the more they realised how distant, insincere and indecisive she was. The Conservative Manifesto was a disaster and the U turns kept coming soon after. It was clear you could not trust a word uttered. So here we are. People will say “but the Tories won! They got the most seats.” The reality is Mayhem was humiliated! She called this election with a 24 point lead over Labour and was so arrogantly complacent that Tories would win a landslide and Labour would be demolished at the ballot box. Mayhem did not get the majority she needed so she went with her begging bowl to the hard-right, racist, sexist, homophobic, terrorist linked and thoroughly unpleasant DUP to ask them to prop up her tory government. This in itself reeks of desperation and is doomed to fail. It also highlights her blatant hypocrisy. Jeremy Corbyn is a ‘terrorist sympathiser’ we’ve heard the right wing tabloids and their sheep shriek. So what now do you call Theresa Mayhem getting into bed with the DUP??? This is a regressive alliance with potentially far reaching implications for Northern Ireland and progressive politics in general. Instead of clinging on for dear life it would be far better if she resigned with what little dignity she has left. I have my popcorn out watching this mess unfold! Recriminations, resignations and Tory civil war no doubt! No matter which way you look at it this is the beginning of the end for Mayhem. She is toast! Anyway I am very encouraged by Labour’s election result. My support for Corbyn has never wavered and for the first time in ages I feel optimistic about what politics can achieve. First phase for Labour was winning UKIP votes back, attacking Tory seats/votes and galvanising young people which has worked brilliantly for us as we out performed expectations at this Election. The next phase now is securing a Labour victory at the next General Election which may well be sooner than you think….. Time for unity within Labour, this is our time. We must continue to organise and be a strong opposition! We must be the powerful voice for the many that this country so desperately needs. @gloss80

[accal1a]

Answers I gave to a journalist on Friday 20th...

I’m particularly proud of my last answer.

What is your name, profession and age?

Hannah, Sales Assistant/Disabled, 32

Why are you attending the rally?

This is a complicated answer because it’s not just one thing. 

Yes, I am a woman; and yes, I am disabled; and yes, I am pansexual; and yes, I’ve been sexually assaulted numerous times; but it’s so much more than any of those things on their own. I’m marching for all those who can’t march. I march so that I can be one more person showing the world that something has to be changed. I know I would be marching if none of this applied to me. 

It is my hope that 1 million+ people (estimated numbers for the marches around the world tomorrow) shed light on the issues raised. It is not just about Donald Trump, it is about a systematic erasure of our gender and the basic human rights we should share; but don’t. It is about all those sexual assaults that aren’t believed/are swept under the carpet. It’s about domestic abuse and the women who feel unable to report it. It’s about violence towards those of a different faith or sexuality. It’s about bigotry in every form.

How does it make you feel that women all over the world are mobilising in connected protests?

Immensely proud. 

It feels like I’m part of something so much larger than just my own issues. It’s hard sometimes to remember that you’re not alone. Even if you support charities through words, action and donations it’s often hard to see how that translates into progress.

This is progress because it shines a light on the issues oft hidden, it forces the world to take notice. 

How do you hope the march changes society?

I hope that it brings into stark relief the fact that something is broken and needs changing; and that people have noticed and won’t let it lie. The fact that (at my time of writing at 0954 on 20th January) there are 616 sister marches to the one in Washington on 21st, shows that that ‘something’ is not just seen as a US issue but an issue that affects the whole world.

Planned parenthood is at risk, Trump doesn’t seem to know what constitutes treating women with respect and his rhetoric about women is inherently misogynistic… How will Trump’s presidency affect women’s rights do you think?

I think if we’re not careful he will cause lasting affects that will change women’s rights for years to come. It scares me that this was how he was acting before the election, before he had any power at all. This is why it is vitally important that lawmakers at every level be held accountable for their votes and their actions. 

This isn’t just about one day of marching, this is about putting a magnifying glass over everything that is done. Only through thorough scrutiny of our own elected officials (which we can affect) and of those in the US (which we can draw attention to) will we get through the next few years. I have, for the most part, always been pleased that the US is the UK’s ‘big brother’ but now I am scared that this dangerous rhetoric could have lasting effects here too unless we stand up for what is right.

Does the power of protest still hold strength in this world of post-truth, populist intolerance?

Absolutely. It is easy to forget that elected officials are just that - elected. They are not some mythic figure on too high a pedestal, they can be held accountable for their actions; and they should be.

[khalilhumam]

‘Lukashenka's time is over': a Belarusian writer urges solidarity from afar

New Post has been published on http://khalilhumam.com/lukashenkas-time-is-over-a-belarusian-writer-urges-solidarity-from-afar/

‘Lukashenka's time is over': a Belarusian writer urges solidarity from afar

Max Ščur leading the August 15 anti-Lukashenka demonstration which started from the Clementium in Prague. Photo (c): Filip Noubel, used with permission.

While one of the smallest minorities in the Czech Republic, they have played a major role advocating for domestic changes in their homeland. When protests broke out in Minsk against electoral fraud, prompted by an attempt by President Alyaksandr Lukashenka to stay in office for a sixth consecutive term, they organised demonstrations in solidarity, lobbying Czech politicians and raising awareness in the media. Belarus has a total population of nearly 10 million people, yet another two to three million people claiming Belarusian ancestry live outside of their home country. Throughout the maelstrom of history, Belarusians have left their country primarily for religious and economic reasons. Czechs and Belarusians are no strangers: in the 16th century the scholar and early book printer Francysk Skaryna lived and worked in Prague, where he laid the foundations of the literary Belarusian language. Later, Belarusian writers and artists moved to Czechoslovakia in the aftermath of the Russian Revolution in 1917. Today, new generations of Belarusians have migrated to the Czech Republic for economic and educational reasons. In July 2013, the Czech government added Belarusians to the official list of 14 ethnic minorities who are guaranteed political representation and special educational, cultural, and media rights.

Read more: Meet the artist embroidering Belarus’ protests

Max Ščur is one of these Belarusians. The poet, novelist, translator, literary and environmental activist has spent over two decades in the Czech Republic. He now writes in both Belarusian and Czech, and in 2016 won the Giedroyc Prize, a prestigious Belarusian literary award, for the best Belarusian novel of the year. He is also the founding editor of Litrazh, an online Belarusian-language literary magazine. Ščur has been particularly active in organising Prague's Belarusian community in the aftermath of the August 9 presidential elections. He has coordinated several demonstrations in the Czech capital, such as one on August 15 which began in the city's historical centre, next to Skaryna's memorial plaque on the walls of the Clementinium, a former Jesuit college which hosts a Slavonic library. I spoke to Ščur to learn more about Belarusian diaspora activism and his hopes for change. The interview has been edited for style and brevity.

Participants to the August 15 anti-Lukashenka demonstration in Prague. Photo (c): Filip Noubel, used with permission.

Filip Noubel (FN): How would you describe what is happening in Belarus today? This is not the first time there have been anti-Lukashenka demonstrations, but what's different this time? 

Max Ščur (MŠ): This time, it is a people’s uprising. The protest is peaceful, but it is so unanimous that you could use the revolutionary term “levée en masse”, in other words, a total mobilisation.

FN: Fear and hope are two words often used to describe Belarusian society. How do you explain this sudden resistance after so many years of political apathy? Would you say that society is divided over Lukashenka or does one camp dominate? 

MŠ: I think that Belarusian people, without even knowing it, act according to what the Chinese call the “wu wei” (無為) principle of non-action. According to Taoist philosophy, an action should be in harmony with the spirit of the time. When the spirit of the time changes, everybody knows it. In the same way, anyone knows when summer eventually becomes autumn: people just feel it, they know time for harvest has come. Trying to do something before the right time comes would be unfortunate. This was my case some 20 years ago, when I was young and wanted things to be different for everybody, while in fact caring but mostly about myself. In the end, I had to leave Belarus. Now everybody wants things to be different for everyone, and that makes a big difference. Belarusian society is not divided, because the issue is not about politics, but rights and the humane way of doing things.

FN: You are a writer in Belarusian and Czech, a publisher and translator, and a Belarusian literary activist. What is the social role of Belarusian writers today?

MŠ: There are so many different characters… Writers in general do their best to be “intellectuals”, this is why they trust their intellect too much. Sometimes it misleads them and makes them choose wrong answers to simple questions. Which in turn often leads to disagreements. We all have different tastes and preferences, we all want to be “interesting”. But right now, all the Belarusian intellectuals are united and one with the Belarusian people. This may sound like an empty phrase from the Communist times, but it’s true. Only ideological fundamentalists, by which I mean nationalists, keep their distance from what’s going on, because they can’t recognise that they were wrong about their own people for all these years under Lukashenka's regime. All the others, where liberals, anarchists, avant-gardists or traditionalists, stay united. The role of writers in the times to come will be that of peacemakers and interpreters; those who can understand and reconcile different parts of society: workers and businessmen, Belarusian and Russian speakers, and so on. I’m afraid that not many of them will be able to fulfil this role. I expect that their egoistic ambitions will prevail over the common needs of the people, because such is the nature of an “author” in the West. So, there will still be lots of disagreement and discussions in the future.

FN: Many Belarusians, such as yourself, live abroad for political or economic reasons. Can the diaspora play a role? And what do you make of Czech public opinion? Do you see support from Czech public opinion, even though the Czech president has kept silent on the use of violence against protesters in Belarus? Especially considering that riot police in Minsk have used Czech-made weapons?

MŠ: The diaspora does its best to help the people of Belarus. Some of us, myself included, feel quite ashamed that we can't be there in person. That makes us all the more committed to trying to help from abroad by appealing to the international community. Lukashenka has said that Belarusians living abroad are controlled by “puppet-masters”. But it is actually the other way round: in the last weeks and months, all of us, emigrants, have entirely changed our lives in response to what is going on in Belarus. It is the Belarusians in Belarus who are the masters of the situation, and we, the diaspora, are just their puppets. And I’m happy to be such a puppet. I was waiting for 20 years for this to happen, and I did everything I could, including through my literary work, to make it possible. So, I am a very happy puppet right now. Yes, it is a pity, that some people abroad don’t understand the situation and even support Mr. Lukashenka. For me, this Mr. stands for “murderer,” not “mister”. But what can we do about it? There are few important players in the world today, and I’m glad that the European Union is one of them. It may not be the strongest player, but it is strong enough to make its voice heard. There’s no time to pay attention to the voices of “useful idiots” such as xenophobes, supporters of Russian President Vladimir Putin, conspiracy theorists and so on. Their time was Lukashenka’s time, and it will be over sooner than they think.

Find out more about the turmoil in Belarus here

< p class='gv-rss-footer'>Written by Filip Noubel · comments (0) Donate · Share this: twitter facebook reddit

[gyrlversion]

MP jailed for lying helped pass Bill to stop No Deal by ONE VOTE

Disgraced MP Fiona Onasanya, pictured at a Tribunal yesterday, cast the deciding Commons vote that ‘rammed through’ a Bill on stopping No Deal and delaying Brexit

A Bill to delay Brexit and take No Deal off the table was ‘rammed through’ the Commons by one vote – and only passed after it was backed by disgraced MP Fiona Onasanya, it was revealed today.

The 35-year-old former Labour MP still represents Peterborough despite being sentenced to three months’ jail in January for perverting the course of justice after repeatedly lying to police about a speeding offence. 

She was released early from HMP Bronzefield in Surrey, having served just 28 days and agreed to a curfew and an electronic tag, which allowed her to pass the crucial Brexit vote last night.

Onasanya faces a by-election if at least 10 per cent of registered voters in the solicitor’s Peterborough constituency – about 7,000 – sign the petition by May 1.

Hours before last night’s Commons vote she appeared at an employment tribunal where she is accused of discriminating against a disabled employee who was told to use the male toilet because she couldn’t climb the stairs.

Last night in Parliament, in an unusual step, Speaker John Bercow allowed Sir Oliver Letwin and Yvette Cooper to fast-track legislation through the Commons in only one day.

Their Bill, which is expected to be debated in the Lords today, compels Theresa May to ask Brussels for an extension to negotiations, in effect blocking No Deal. 

It was approved by 313 to 312.

14 Tory MPs backed the Bill, all Remainers, including former Chancellor Ken Clarke, and Dominic Grieve QC. Six Tories abstained. Of the 20 rebels 17 were former ministers. 

14 Tories voted for the Bill to pass through the Commons last night

These six Tories abstained. If they had voted against the Bill would have failed

Usually legislation takes weeks or months to go through the Commons but MPs tore up the rules to ensure it passed ahead of next week’s Brexit deadline.

If no delay is secured, the UK will leave without a deal next Thursday night. The Bill now goes to the Lords today where it will face further obstacles – including attempts by Eurosceptic Peers to delay its progress.

European Research Group vice chairman Mark Francois said it was a ‘constitutional outrage’ that the Bill had been ‘rammed through’ in just four hours. He yelled:‘The public won’t be impressed by this. Forgive them Father for they know not what they do’.

Eurosceptic Tory MP Peter Bone called on the Speaker to end the ‘farce’ of passing a Bill in such a short period.

Tory MP Charles Walker, the chairman of the Procedure Committee, also complained the Bill had been fast tracked.

If the government tried to push through legislation in such a way the House would be ‘rightly, deeply irritated’, he argued.

Labour MP Yvette Cooper, who drew up the Bill, said the vote showed the House opposed a ‘chaotic and damaging no deal’.

She said the House would support the Prime Minister to ‘ensure we don’t end up with no deal on April 12’.

But Speaker Bercow said there was ‘nothing disorderly’ about the procedure.

Eurosceptic Tory MP Steve Baker suggested the Bill could be held up in the House of Lords. He said he was sure Peers would be examined for ‘as long as they think necessary’.

A cross-party manoeuvre hatched by Tory Sir Oliver Letwin and Labour’s Yvette Cooper to force a new law through the Commons succeeded after it was approved by 313 to 312 (pictured)

DUP Emma Little-Pengelly of Speaker John Bercow as he cast his deciding vote when MPs delivered a first tie in a Commons vote since 1993 as a proposal to allow a third round of indicative votes on Brexit alternatives was rejected 

The rebels insisted on changing the law even though the Prime Minister had already pledged to delay the country’s departure from the EU beyond next Friday – the day Britain is currently due to leave.

Opponents warned last night that a dangerous precedent would be set by rushing the Bill through all its Commons stages in one day. The backbenchers tabled the legislation after wresting control of the parliamentary timetable from ministers.

Sir Bill Cash, Tory chairman of the European scrutiny committee, said the move to pass the Bill in a day was ‘reprehensible’.

‘It is a constitutional revolution and I also believe that it is a very, very undesirable precedent,’ he added. ‘It is almost an unbelievable shambles this Bill and the reality is there is no excuse for it.’

Charles Walker, Tory chairman of the procedure committee, said: ‘I think we will regret what we are doing today – it does worry me. I fear that one day soon – I hope it will not be the case – we will be debating an expropriation of assets Bill in six hours. We would regret that bitterly.’

Former Tory leader Iain Duncan Smith said: ‘If we legislate in haste, we will repent at leisure, and we do nothing in this place but repent at leisure again and again.

‘We talk about sweeping away precedents because they are archaic and were around for 200 years or whatever, and that everything modern must be brilliant. I do not agree with that.

‘Sometimes history teaches endless lessons. This place is at its best when it is arguing and debating, and taking its time to do so.’ Conservative MP Nadine Dorries said Parliament would ‘rue the day’ if it backed the legislation.

MPs passed the Bill at its second reading yesterday by 315 votes to 310. They were expected to give their final backing in a further set of votes late last night.

Earlier, there were extraordinary scenes as one of the Brexit votes resulted in a tie – the first time that has happened in almost 40 years. MPs voted 310 in favour and 310 against a plan put forward by Labour MP Hilary Benn to hold a third round of indicative votes next week on alternatives to the Prime Minister’s deal, meaning Mr Bercow was given the deciding vote.

The Speaker said his casting vote, in line with precedent, was with the Noes, so the amendment was defeated by 311 to 310. This means MPs will no longer have control of the Commons order paper.

The last time there was thought to have been a tied vote was in July 1993 when MPs voted 317 for and 317 against an amendment relating to the Maastricht Treaty. The Speaker at the time, Betty Boothroyd, was given a casting vote, but the next day it was found there had been a counting error and the result had not actually been a tie.

Before that, in January 1980, MPs were split 201 in favour and 201 against a motion on bringing TV cameras into the Commons.

n MPs, campaigners and activists must tone down their rhetoric on Brexit or they could incite disorder, the leader of the National Police Chiefs Council suggested yesterday.

Martin Hewitt spoke out as it was revealed that police are preparing to mobilise more than 10,000 officers in the event of riots and looting after Brexit.

Mr Hewitt, a Metropolitan Police Assistant Commissioner, said: ‘We are in an incredibly febrile atmosphere. There is a lot of angry talk… across social media.’

He used his first speech as chairman of the NPCC to caution all groups, including MPs and public figures, to ‘use moderation’.

‘If you are in a position where you know you are going to be listened to, you need to think very carefully about the language you are using so that it does not end up with consequences that were not intended.’

The post MP jailed for lying helped pass Bill to stop No Deal by ONE VOTE appeared first on Gyrlversion.

from WordPress https://www.gyrlversion.net/mp-jailed-for-lying-helped-pass-bill-to-stop-no-deal-by-one-vote/

[nervoustimemachinegladiator-blog]

Hate And also Various other Lousy Things (Living.my.life For life).

If there is one characteristic that notes you out as a rotter, it is predicting the air that your demands are more vital than any person else's. Not only do you need space for the rod leg, tower, as well as bench expansion, as well as the room the rods require when they bend while you're utilizing it. You most definitely need the room for this maker, but if you can reserve a room or area of the basement, you're going to get a workout with the Bowflex Sport residence fitness center that matches exactly what you'll get at any kind of fitness center. You intend to really feel that you have the power to bring your full, spirited self to the circumstance, removed of the fears and also restraints that might commonly hold you back. With that, the image of Zordon, along with the pillars, disappeared, leaving the six Terran Rangers standing morphed among the ruins of the Command Facility. Joe moved the gym in Santa Monica over to Venice in another substantial building that he made by hand and it was tri-level. In situations such as this one, we usually declare that we are preparing or investigating the most effective technique, but these rationalizations enable us to seem like we are moving forward when we are simply spinning our wheels. If, at http://perubahandiete.info of the year, the greater power does not desire me to be champion with whatever I have provided to it, I will certainly have to approve that. The EU has massive financial impact over Israel, and also it thinks the clog should be lifted. From what I could tell, the Lakers began tracking stats of specific gamers during that time, but the CBE program as it is described in this short article wased initially made use of throughout the 1986-87 NBA season. Great!! Now just what power words or expressions do I should make use of in order to bring in, get interest and persuade the potential company that I am right for the job. If you satisfy your own goals for every lift at an occasion with accurate implementation, you will have obtained the most from the event despite where you put in the last positions. However, the arm and shoulder only account for around 10pc of the power behind a strike. The federal government stated recently that solar power could generate power more cheaply than the cost concurred for a brand-new nuclear power terminal at Hinkley Point, yet officials suggested solar would have added expenses for the National Grid. UNITED STATE Poet Laureate Kay Ryan ends the Library of Congress 2008-2009 literary season with a verse reading in the historic Coolidge Amphitheater, where previous consultants/laureates - such as Robert Frost, Elizabeth Bishop and also Robert Hayden - have actually checked out. So when my adult little girl offered me a publication that can obtain me lover without devices (hint, tip, Papa), I jumped into it. Skimming the preliminaries, I'm into the workouts and also deep into pain. A 165-pound male needs to clean up 180 extra pounds at an intermediate level and also 290 extra pounds at advanced. Normal tools upkeep is necessary for the durability of your gym tools If you happen to be seeking a Health club Tools, I all the best advise Health and fitness World as one of the absolute best vendors of top quality equipment and also service. Movie critic Agreement: It plays like an extended episode, but The Powerpuff Girls Flick is still great deals of enjoyable. Health-conscious as well as critical customers are demanding extra flexible ways of improving their fitness, study has actually located, as they make the most of new innovation such as applications and wearable tools - successfully digital personal instructors - alongside standard health club facilities. The challengers have lately developed a concept that Congress wished to safeguard power plants as well as other sources from supposed dual law" under two components of the Clean Air Act. The president, who has (several of) the American people at his feet, has the media electrical outlets directly in the direction of exactly what he will state next, probably regulates the most power in this nation under this interpretation. Bernie offered up work to care for him as well as, after amazing the physios with his incredible progress, Behan went back to the health club. Sanctions are lifted from individuals that were defined as lawbreakers by the European Union due to the fact that they were guilty of misstating elections, or harassing and persecuting resistance, of tormenting opposition. Amazing predictions that fitness centers would die out, UK spending on membership has actually enhanced by greater than 40% in the last year as individuals have actually required to spending plan health clubs, which also consist of easyGym as well as At any time Health and fitness. Very, superb, effective, quick, time and time again, fast, energise, mobilise, and accomplish a specific goalI hope you could now successfully utilize power words and also expressions successfully and successfully. When deadlifting, you must lift bench from a dead-stop on the ground to waistline elevation in one smooth activity. The Leeds-based company was founded in 2008 and following a period of quick expansion is now the UK's largest fitness center driver, with 163 gyms and virtually 790,000 members across the UK. While I'm doing that, I'll shut my eyes, inhale deeply for a matter of 3, hold for 1, and after that breathe out totally for a matter of 5. By doing this, I incorporate taking a breath exercises, reflection, and power poses for a relaxing as well as confidence-boosting begin to the day. Allow younger youngsters put a sticker label on the graph for finished abilities as well as hang the skill chart prominently in the fitness center. The tops of trucks can be seen belching smoke and also fluctuating behind the perspective. Irfan Naseer initially satisfied his two co-defendants at facilities known as the 24/7 Gym in 2007 as well as 2008 and then switched obligation to the Darul Ihsaan Area of Quality which was gone to by four young men he sent out to Pakistan for terrorist training in 2011. Along with fitness center subscription, some health clubs use programs and courses especially for teens so teens can do yoga, hip hop aerobics, or play dodgeball with their peers. A lot of us might learn to push the barrier farther off, as well as to reside in best convenience on much greater degrees of power. Thinking recipients needed to count exclusively on this non-Social Protection income, over 22 million of them would certainly have revenues listed below the government poverty line. Whether you need to lift lighter weights while finishing a greater variety of reps or utilize much heavier weights and also finishing less repeatings depends upon your health and fitness objectives. This mobility device lift has an optional remote which offers the customers extremely simple operation and simplicity particularly when this patio lift is being utilized by more than one person in the house. this content comes with a clip that is supposed to enable the tool to be affixed to a bra strap, but it's very fiddly and does not function extremely well. In social scientific research, power is the capacity to influence one more person's behavior.