AUSTRALIAN ELECTIONS

Australian election

lol

A hung parliament for Britain

Britain is going to have a hung parliament. Here are the results:



Here's what could happen:

First Past the Post is more of a racing game than a democracy. As we can see the Liberal Democrats got 23%. However that's bairly a fifth of the seats that Labour's 29.0% have. First Past the Post is pretty archaic. It seems that Clegg is talking to differnet parties and pushing for electorial reform. The Tories wont have it, in my view. They have a long history of taking democracy from smaller parties and enjoying it for too long. Labour pretty much has to if they want to keep having power. BBC's political editor Nick Robinson had some thoughts on this: "While [Robinson] doubted the Lib Dems would take up the offer of a formal coalition, they might be prepared to let Mr Cameron govern by not voting down the Queen's Speech or Budget. Taking that option would allow them not to be tainted by decisions they did not like."

Right now there is a pull between Britains finances and getting a much better democracy. They can have both. There is concern that a hung parliament will not address the UK government's debt. The pound fell quite a bit as some stock brokers didn't like the prospect of a hung parliament. International ratings agencies Moody's and Standard & Poor's however say that the hung parliament verdict would not affect their top-level assessments. Moody's said the unclear outcome "does not directly threaten" Britain's coveted AAA rating. S&P said that the nation's AAA long-term sovereign rating with a negative outlook was unchanged. "The complexion of the new government is not, in itself, a factor for us," said S&P. "Instead, our focus is on whether the government's fiscal consolidation plan to be unveiled in due course is likely or not to put the UK government debt burden on a downward trajectory over the medium term."

However this opportunity for electorial reform does not come around once in a blue moon. It comes once in a blue eclipse. It's been over 35 years since Britain last had a hung parliament and it seems Labour will accept electorial reform if they get a coalition deal. The Conservatives have offered an "all party committee of inquiry on political and electoral reform", but no promise of reform. For Britain's sake I hope they can have the democratic freedom we have here.

The NZHistory website can share with us why New Zealand changed to MMP from FPP: "As critics pointed out, the FPP system tended to create Parliaments quite different in composition to those that the voters appeared to want. The answer, some people argued, was a system of proportional representation in which each party's share of the seats in Parliament would be close to its share of the overall vote." It's not rocket science. People want their vote to mean something and it usually hasn't in Britain for a long time, until today. As well as this:

"In the early 1990s Jim Bolger's National government found itself under increasing pressure to respond to public demands for electoral reform. It agreed to hold an indicative referendum (that is, one that was not binding on the government) on the issue on 19 September 1992. That date, incidentally, was the 99th anniversary of the signing into law of New Zealand's last great electoral reform – the women's suffrage legislation of 1893." New Zealand only got MMP after hard pressure in a small country with both parties still wanting to hold power. It was a power game and a hot issue. Labour or National in the next election could of used a binding referendum policy to win in the 1995 election. It was a political deadlock. For Britain's size, this reform opportunity is a chance they may not have again for many years.

As the UK's ex-prime minister Harold Wilson said, “A week is a long time in politics.” If we take that view, 35 years is nearly an eternity. That is why I doubt Nick Clegg will back down on reform. It would go against everything him, his party and other small parties fought for for years. If the Conservatives didn't sort out a electorial reform deal they would look irresponsible to the public and seem childish. They would be seen as not sucking up their pride and doing the deal. However for Cameron to promise reform it seems to me would seal his political death as the Tory leader. A Labour-Lib minority government maybe a possibility.

Here's a fancy chart from The Institute for Government (page 17) adapted for the UK elections:



The Institute for Government charity can give us some thought on how a minority Labour-Lib Coalition could work: "Our research suggests that minority governments can be successful if they do not seek to govern as if they were in a majority. In other words, it becomes necessary to develop good relationships with opposition parties, and to be prepared to debate, to negotiate and to compromise." Should a labour-liberal democrat minority coalition happen, they might spend the next six months trying to create electorial reform. Then they could hold another election based on a chosen system like Preferencial Vote or MMP. That'd be after this term however, Labour wanting to enjoying whatever amount of power they have now.

Happy to hear that Caroline, leader of the UK Green Party won in the Brighton Pavilion region.

Protest against mining one of the biggest in New Zealand's history

Backstory: Recently in New Zealand, there's been controversey surrounding mining of national park conservation land, or schedule 4 land. This is land put aside for conservation. Not land used for building or mining. The current government wants to change this so the conservation land can be used to mine coal or other minerals. The head of the reserve bank has stated this is a fruitless thing to do. There has been plans to mine several areas.

Today New Zealand had one of the biggest protests in its history. Around 50,000 people marched against the mining of conservation land. Congratulations everybody, I wish I could of been there to feel the energy and contribute. It sends a strong message that this land is precious to our enviornment and the ancestors of this country. The government has tried to give the impression that anyone protesting mining of schedule 4 land is against all mining. People aren't falling for it. Many recognise we need minerals for things like cars or computers. But mining for the sake of mining is pretty useless. These are overseas companies that want to take nearly the whole cake and leave us with some crumbs.

Our Prime Minister, John Key has said: "National will be on the lookout for new and innovative solutions to environmental challenges." Mining our conservation land is not a innovate solution to our enviornmental challenges. He's also said: "Our environment isn’t just a bonus. It’s part of being a Kiwi. It underpins our enviable quality of life. It gives us an in-built edge over many of our economic rivals. I’m thinking, for example, of what Australia would do for our abundant water resources. And, increasingly, New Zealand’s environmental credentials will underpin our prosperity and our trade profile." Now this inbuilt edge is under threat for the sake of a few cents, in the bigger picture.

Many New Zealanders are disappointed with John Key's stance on the enviornment. General Manager of Forest and Bird explains this: "In the past six months, environmentalists have observed with increasing disquiet a range of announcements from the Government that threaten damaging consequences for the environment. For example, Mr Key's pre-election promises on climate change have not been followed through by his actions in Government."


Thank you to everyone who showed up or supports it. Mining for the sake of mining is not what this country needs. If you're wanting to get involved or more involved, check Forest and Bird for ideas.

Peak Oil VS Peak Water

I hear about Peak Oil. There is growing concerns that the world will not meet its energy supply needs. It seems to me that we have a much bigger problem on our hands. Humanity's water supply is limited right now. But let's compare Oil and Water first.

Let's look at Oil first.



Oil

How much do we have?

According to the US Government's Energy Information Administration, at least 1184.208 to 1238.892 billion barrels of oil. Infact according to the International Energy Agency: "The world’s energy resources are adequate to meet the projected demand increasethrough to 2030 and well beyond." In 2006 we were consuming 30 billion barrels a year. Of course I'm not saying we own the earth(Private property is theft rar rar. Just kidding.). I'm talking about the oil we have available.

So why the fuss?

Well, according Kjell Aleklett(Professor of Physics at Uppsala University, Sweden, and President of the Association for the Study of Peak Oil & Gas): "The oil industry and IEA accept the fact that the total production from existing oil fields is declining."(World Watch 2006, p. 10) As well as this, the US military says our surplus oil production capacity could disappear as early as 2015. This means while we have lots of oil, we aren't able to get to it enough to meet our needs.

The use of oil also contributes to the widely academically accepted fact of man-influenced climate change. As well as this the oil we mostly have is in countries with a track record of corrupt government.

























Now I think we need to eventually switch to an alternative. But right now there's just not anything like oil to help us. We need it for our ships, our planes, cars and buses.

So what can be done?

Well I think we can do quite a bit. We could invest more money into energy research instead of war. We can make use of economical vehicles. Yeah this is pretty basic.

So here's something complicated: "[Government] Policy[s] should impose a large Btu or carbon tax on energy that is phased in over a long period, perhaps 20 years. This would signal entrepreneurs that there will be a market for alternative energies. Furthermore, increases in the energy tax should be offset by reducing other taxes, such as payroll or corporate taxes. Economic studies show that such an approach can generate a win-win solution—reduce energy use (and the environmental damages not paid by users), stimulate research and development on alternative energies, and speed economic growth."

So what is Rober Kaufmann(World Watch 2006, p. 20-21)(Professor in the center for Energy & Enviornment studies at Boston University) saying? Make a oil tax that slowly increases over a 20 year period. At the same time, personal and business taxes would slowly be reduced. Entrepreneurs will try to make alternative economical fuels or very economical engines, hoping to get rich. It'll be win win for both of us. Personally, I'd prefer for governments to do the research. If there's an alternative energy business monopoly it could screw everybody over. It could be more expensive than oil, though more enviornmentally friendly. However this is something we could do.

Now let's look at water.



Water

How much do we have?

They say if aliens discovered earth, they wouldn't call it earth. They'd call it water. That's because at least 70% of the earths surface is covered in water.

So what's the fuss?

Canada's Enviornment Department says our drinkable rivers, aquifer and lakes are limited. They are 2.5% of the water in the world. It's scattered and not everybody has access to it. Over 1 in 6 people don't have access to safe drinking water. Nearly 5/12 people have no water sanitation (UN 2005). As well as this, 2/3 people could face water scarcity in the next 20 years due to political and climate issues. (UN 2009)

So what can be done?

The World Health Organisation states that a clean water supply and sanitation is one of the greatest things we can do to reduce poverty. Infact they state for every dollar put into drinkable water and sanitation, we would achieve a return of 3 to 34 dollars. That's a 1:3-34 cost to benefit ratio. The cost of drinkable water and sanitation is $11.3 billion a year. Considering the world has around 2.5 billion people without proper sanitation, that would be $4.52 per person. $4.52 a year to give someone a basic necessity of human life (WHO 2005, p. 32). United Nations Deputy Secretary-General Asha-Rose Migiro has also warned we need to insure we have integral ecosystems. This "means promoting peaceful collaboration in the sharing of water resources, particularly in the case of boundary and transboundary water resources.” (UN 2009)

Now let's draw a conclusion.


I think we could live in a country where oil is strictly regulated if we end up with not much oil. It would annoy us at first but we could adjust. I doubt we'll be doing that however. It's too authoritarian for peoples tastes. But the fact is oils likely to get more expensive. I don't think we could live without water. One of my biggest fears is that we will neglect the issue of accessible drinkable water in favour of looking for alternative energy. Political corruption and terrorism is affecting humanitys supply of water. Lack of water is affecting humanity far more right now than a lack of oil.

"Human ingenuity is one resource that won’t peak—but whether it can be mobilized quickly enough to surmount these challenges is not yet clear." - Christopher Flavin, President of the Worldwatch Institute.