Brown announced a couple of weeks ago that withdrawal of military could start properly in 2009, though makes it clear he is not setting a timetable. No doubt this is more because Labour have made such a fuss about setting a timetable that they can't be seen to say they've now got one. But is this all just based on what his military chief's on the ground say, or is it perhaps lead by a similar announcement at the same time by Obama that 2010 would be the year for withdrawal of US troops if he gets the top job?

Yesterday the new Finance bill went through with a comfortable vote on all counts, the government and Labour party clearly rallied together enough not to enable the Tories to claim a victory here. The main crux of the debates yesterday surrounded car taxation and partly fuel duty for those in "remote rural" areas.

Without sugar coating it, the debate was awful. It was engaging in a way that usually only a minor car accident can be, and definitely showed the worst of our elected representatives.

Dissent is in the air, and who blames the Labour MPs looking to capitalise on the festering carcass of their own party, when the leader of the sinking ship seems ready to hand out all kinds of shady concessions to get a yes vote? A 9 vote majority on the illiberal 42 day legislation, saved only by the DUP, the hint of rebellion on the most recent planning bill and now concessions are being called for on the long coming plans to tax people more, and retrospectively, for their cars

Now is possibly the best time for fair policy construction and implementation, not ideal by a looong way, but the best we could hope for with a government and parliament structured the way it is

I am unashamedly pro-equality, many others will easily say the same thing. However for some reason many of those people will try to claim that some people need to be more equal than others. On one side of the fence it is the BNP with their "we're not racist but white kids should get first choice on schools" amongst other hypocritical rhetoric. On the other you have Harriet Harman with "I'm for equality, but will legalise employers 'positively' discriminating". I, as others, don't really agree with this term "positive" discrimination as one persons gain is another persons loss...ultimately we feel that everyone should be equal in their entirity, but equal not in statistics and targets, just equal in opportunity, value and thinking.

It's this reason why I have to ultimately ask why it is that Harriet Harman's new legislation would be necessary, and whether or not liberal minded people should really be putting their support so readily behind it.

First we banned smoking in pubs, and there was general gratitude. Liberals, in fighting this particular battle, had won the case for all around liberty, not only in that of the smokers rights but also the rights of those around them. So why is it then that the so-called "liberals" of the Lib Dems are now trying to ban something else in way that acts so contradictorily to that previous philosophy of liberalism, patio heaters?

It's about time people started realising that the aim of reducing emissions is not to become carbon neutral, the world has an ecosystem and the planet has survived even huge industrialisation by man kind. Putting some carbon dioxide in to the air does not matter, it is when those levels are too high and stay too high for too long. If you're going to start assuming that people are not taking responsibility then you are turning in to an authoritarian who can only be seen as attempting to micromanage millions of individuals lives on a mass level. People deserve the basic respect and trust of their governments to do the right thing and manage their own lives, while being influenced by duties and educational material. Painting all patio heater users as inconsiderate world killers is not necessarily the truth and it undermines the message that we should all be sending out about reducing our emissions.

It was a night where Obama should have had a "crushing" victory, but in the end Clinton won by a comfortable yet still close 3 points. The media is now playing it's fickle game and the weakest of the journalistic tendencies this side of the pond is showing through with vast exaggerations over the life of the Obama campaign. One woman last night reported quite heavily on the "feeling" that Obama is now just fighting a lost cause, the night before she would have no doubt have been talking about the feeling of Obama being in the White House this time next year. The polls were read all wrong, too many people jumped on the large lead Obama had on Clinton without really ever letting the public know that almost a third of the voters were as yet undecided. The hype machine had built up and, as invariably happens, mistakes in interpretation were made that potentially damaged a candidates campaign through building him up too high.

But what can we learn from a little more of a factual stage of the process? There are now two polls based on the people that actually voted in each of the two states that have held Democratic events, and the rest of this post is going to go someway in to seeing if we can see if there are any emerging trends in the voting mindset of the public of America, what area's each of the main two need to make more of an impact on in South Carolina and Nevada, and what is hurting them most.

A lot of the comments coming from the liberal and/or left of this country following David Cameron's announcement about benefit reform seem to be largely missing the point and opportunity to debate what is an issue that, if not existing in reality, does exist with great umbrance in the minds of the Great British public. Rather than discussing whether the Tories are rehashing old policies but rather whether or not they have a point this time and if they do is it workable?

Of course people considering themselves thoroughly left wing may well say that such plans to force people into community work and off of incapacity benefit is a very anti-welfare idea, and those considering themselves deeply liberal may say that the idea of forcing people to join in with community work is not a very positive approach to civil liberties, though I think they'd be stretching with that analysis more than just a little in both cases.

Me and my girlfriend are running late one day, we're due to go out with friends in town if I remember correctly, and when we got on our local First bus service we are charged £4.20 together for the privilege of being taken about 20 minutes (walk time) down the road. We look at each other with a little bit of shock, it would probably only cost us £6-8 to get a taxi from the luxury of our front door let alone after traipsing all the way up to the main road. We think, if we were a group of 3 or more, why would we get the bus?

In this post:

• The cost of public transport
• The environmental impact
• Politicians need to get involved more

Just a short one to muse about the Bali summit that is being tipped to be close to a deal of kinds involving all the key parties involved.

I think it's absolutely fantastic that we are close to an international consensus on the targets we should be aiming to achieve. That's right, the compromise deal is one reportedly where everyone absolutely understands and agrees to take into account a report that says reduction in emissions of 25-40% would be required to keep global warming within a 2 degree range by 2050. So what if it doesn't specifically mandate some targets on people?