British Election Tomorrow, May 7th

CNN

Parliamentary elections in the U.K. will be held tomorrow, May 7th.

Below are the names of the different parties and leaders. The most likely candidate for Prime Minister would be David Cameron of the Conservative Party or Ed Miliband of Labour.

The Telegraph has The Conservatives and Labour polling neck-and-neck at 35%.

Leader, Party
David Cameron – Conservative Party (Tories)
Ed Miliband – Labour Party
Nick Clegg – Liberal Democrats
Peter Robinson – Democratic Unionist Party
Nicola Sturgeon – Scottish National Party
Leanne Wood – Plaid Cymru
Margaret Ritchie – Social Democratic and Labour Party
Natalie Bennett – Green Party of England and Wales
Nigel Farage – U.K. Independence Party (UKIP)
David Ford – Alliance Party of Northern Ireland

There may be a “hung Parliament,” where no party has an absolute majority. In that case, a bigger party such as Labour or The Conservatives will have to join together with a smaller party (and form a “coalition”) in order to govern.

CNN takes a look at some of the highlights of this year’s election.

John Kasich Makes New Hampshire Appearance

Capitol Square

John Kasich is the Governor of Ohio, who has been in office since 2011. He is a member of the Republican Party, and he previously served as an Ohio member of the United States House of Representatives from 1983 to 2001.

Recently, Kasich made his first political appearance in New Hampshire in more than a decade.

The New Hampshire primary, of course, is the first primary election held in the United States and the second step following the Iowa Caucuses in choosing the Democratic and Republican nominees for the presidency, states 2016newhampshireprimary.com.

Kasich said that real leaders shouldn’t worry about polls, states the-review.com.

“If you don’t like it, I guess that’s your problem and not mine, because I’m going to do it,” the 62-year-old former congressman told New Hampshire voters and political dignitaries gathered at St. Anselm College on Tuesday.

The comment was regarding programs that set aside state contracts for minority entrepreneurs.

Kasich’s blunt style showed his two-day swing through New Hampshire, reportedly designed to assess his political strength as he considers a 2016 Republican presidential bid.

While he is largely unknown in N.H., his unique approach to politics could be attractive to New Hampshire voters, who value candidates with an independent streak.

Will Kasich run for President?

“I’m taking no options off the table in terms of my future,” Kasich, 62, declared earlier in South Carolina.

Above is a a video of an interview of John Kasich from February 27, 2011, on unions and collective bargaining.

(Updated article)

France PM Valls Survives ‘No-Confidence’ Vote, Pledges To Pursue Economic Reforms

euronews

Wikipedia states that a vote of “no confidence” is a statement or vote which states that a person in a superior position is no longer deemed fit to hold that position.

This may be based on the person falling short in some respect or failing to carry out obligations, or making choices that other members feel are detrimental. As a parliamentary motion, it demonstrates to the head of state that the elected parliament no longer has confidence in (one or more members of) the appointed government.

“No Confidence” leads to compulsory resignation of the council of ministers whereas “Censure” is meant to show disapproval and does not result in the resignation of ministers.

The censure motion can be against an individual minister or a group of ministers or a prime minister, but the “no-confidence” motion is directed against the entire council of ministers.

Censure motions need to state the reasons for the motion while “no-confidence” motions do not require reasons to be specified.

The French government has survived a no-confidence motion in the lower house of parliament, triggered by its use of decree to bypass opposition to an economic reform bill. Those for the no confidence vote did not get a majority.

Is It Wise To Vote For People Based On Personality?

Secular Talk

Former NBA all-star Charles Barkley was interviewed by Sports Illustrated’s Richard Deitsch, who asked Barkley for his thoughts about the 2016 presidential election.

Barkley gave some interesting and surprising answers.

Tom Cole, Republican of Oklahoma: “There Has Not Been A Unified Republican Position” On How To Replace Obamacare

The House of Representatives passed a bill on Tuesday to repeal the Affordable Care Act for the first time in the new Congress, according to the New York Times.

Democrats said it was the 56th time since 2011 that the House had voted to repeal or undermine some or all of the law, which was passed in 2010 without any Republican votes.

However, it was the first time any Republican in Congress has ever voted against the total repeal of Obamacare. Three Republicans Tuesday voted against the GOP’s latest effort to fully repeal the law.

The measure passed 239-186, a margin that largely followed the outcome of House Republicans’ three previous bills. This time, however, the party hopes to offer a replacement within the next six months.

Representative Tom Cole, Republican of Oklahoma, acknowledged that “there has not been a unified Republican position” on how to replace the law.

Yet according to Politico, it was the three dissenters who attracted the most attention late Tuesday afternoon. They were: John Katko of New York, Bruce Poliquin of Maine and Robert Dold of Illinois. All are in seats held last-term by Democrats and likely to be contested hard in 2016.

Both Katko and Poliquin said in statements Tuesday that while they did not support the Affordable Care Act, they couldn’t support its repeal without something immediately ready to replace it.

No Democrat crossed party lines to support the legislation.

In the end, the latest vote will remain largely symbolic.

Republicans in the Senate are expected to address Obamacare within the next several months, but a full-scale repeal bill has little chance of clearing that chamber’s 60-vote threshold. President Barack Obama has also made it clear he will veto any repeal or significant roll-back of his signature health legislation.

“In addition to taking away Americans’ health care security, the bill would increase the deficit, [and] remove policies that have helped slow health care cost growth and improve the quality of care patients receive,” the administration said in a statement. “The last thing the Congress should do is re-fight old political battles and take a massive step backward by repealing basic protections that provide security for the middle class.”

The question still remains, if the bill increases healthcare security and reduces the deficit, why would any Congresspeople be against it?

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/3-republicans-say-no-as-house-again-votes-obamacare-repeal-114882.html#ixzz3Qo9jZpgY

Is Cruz To Blame For Senate Confirmations?

According to the AP, Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas has given President Barack Obama the gift of the confirmation of 12 judicial appointments not long after the voters had delivered the Democrats a lump of coal in midterm elections.

Cruz, a Republican, disputed the claim through his spokesman on Monday.

But there was no disagreement that Democrats, who must relinquish their power to Republicans in January, were in position to confirm not only the judges, but 11 other appointees before the Senate wraps up work for the year.

Among them are nominees that Republicans have sought to block for two relatively high-profile posts – Vivek Murthy as surgeon general, and Sarah Saldana as head of Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

(Immigration and Customs Enforcement is the agency that will oversee the new administration policy on immigration that Cruz wants to defund.)

At the root of the dispute is a combination of the Senate’s all-but-indecipherable rules, Cruz’s attempt to use their them to his advantage, and a bipartisan desire of many lawmakers to finish work for the year and return home for the holidays.

“My concern about the strategy he employed is that it has a result he didn’t intend,” Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, said of Cruz’ maneuverings on Friday night.

Some officials said Cruz was personally informed by GOP aides that Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid was primed to take advantage if he went ahead.

Under the Senate’s rules, Cruz’s maneuver allowed Reid to begin the process of confirming nominations on Saturday at noon — when lawmakers had been scheduled to be home for the weekend.

According to officials in both parties, had Cruz not made his move when he did, Reid would have had to wait until Monday night — over 48 hours later. Republicans said they felt that Reid’s rank and file would not have been willing to remain in Washington in that case, and only four or five nominees would be confirmed instead of 23.

MSNBC Up With Kornacki video.

Gridlock ‘Professional’: Cruz Attempts To Force Vote On President’s Executive Actions

According to the AP, Texas freshman Senator Ted Cruz upset several GOP colleagues with an attempt to force a vote on President Obama’s executive actions on immigration.

The move changed lawmakers’ weekend plans and gave Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) an opening to move forward on long-stalled Obama nominees.

One of Cruz’ Republican colleagues called the tactics a painful echo of last year’s 16-day partial government shutdown. Another senator said it was a strategy without an end game.

Saturday, when Cruz got his vote on Obama’s immigration executive actions, he lost 74-22, because even Republicans who agree with him on immigration repudiated his effort. Soon afterwards, Congress cleared the spending bill.

“You should have an end goal in sight if you’re going to do these types of things and I don’t see an end goal other than irritating a lot of people,” said Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah.

Sen. Johnny Isakson, R-Ga. – referring to last year’s shutdown showdown over Obama’s health care law by Cruz and Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah – said it was a movie he had seen before and “wouldn’t have paid money to see it again.”

Added Sen. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz.: “I fail to see what conservative ends were achieved.”

Democrats opted not to criticize Cruz publicly, in an indication they thought that he was only hurting Republicans.

Cruz was unapologetic and said the sole purpose of his efforts was to secure a Senate vote to “stop President Obama’s amnesty” — his description of the president’s plan for work visas for an estimated 5 million immigrants living in the United States illegally.

“Both Democrats and Republicans will have the opportunity to show America whether they stand with a president who is defying the will of the voters or with the millions of Americans who want a safe and legal immigration system,” Cruz said in a speech to a crowded Senate chamber moments before the vote.

In a Facebook post, Cruz had blamed outgoing Majority Leader Harry Reid, arguing that Saturday’s round-the-clock votes on nominations was to prevent the vote he sought.

Republicans said Cruz’s move had the reverse effect of his campaign on immigration, ensuring a vote on the nominee for Customs and Immigration Enforcement who would carry out Obama’s executive actions.

Cruz, a Canadian-born Cuban-American with an Ivy League resume, created headlines in his first few months in the Senate with a fierce challenge to Chuck Hagel’s nomination to be defense secretary.

Last fall, it was Cruz and Lee who roiled the GOP and Washington with their push to starve Obama’s health overhaul of money, a drive that led to the partial shutdown.

Democrats weren’t surprised that the conservative duo struck again.

“They’re all about headlines. They’re trying to get attention for themselves. They’ve succeeded in doing that,” said Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn.

Some claim that Cruz sent a shot across the bow at incoming Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, suggesting the two should not be entirely trusted to keep their promise to challenge Obama’s immigration policy when the all-Republican Congress takes over in January.

“We will learn soon enough if those statements are genuine and sincere,” Cruz said Friday night.

Corruption: Keystone YES Votes Received 6X More Money Than NO Votes

According to OpenSecrets.org, those who voted in favor of the Keystone XL pipeline received six times more money from donors than those who voted against it.

The 59 senators who voted for the pipeline have received, on average, significantly more money from the oil and gas industry than those who voted against construction.

Over the course of their careers, those 59 took in over $33 million in campaign donations from the industry, compared to the approximately $4.2 million received by the 41 who successfully blocked the bill’s approval. On average, those voting for Keystone have received $572,000 from oil and gas interests, compared with just $103,900 for those voting against it.

Among Democrats, the 39 “nay” votes received $4.2 million from oil and gas, while the 14 who voted with the Republicans received just under $4 million. On average, those voting no received about $108,000, while the Democratic supporters — who disproportionately represent states with strong oil and gas industry presence – received more than twice as much, about $284,000.

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2014/11/senate-keystone-yea-votes-took-in-six-times-more-oil-gas-money-than-opponents/

http://other98.com/senators-voted-yes-keystone-got-6-times-oil-gas-money-opponents/

David Pakman video.