As promised, I’m now going to compare how I would’ve voted in what are considered to be the twenty-one key votes of the Labour government with how the Liberal Democrat Leader voted. For full explanations of why I would’ve voted the way I have stated, refer to the earlier post. Remember, Mr Blair matched my opinions on a pathetic three occasions, and Mr Howard on a poor ten. So that’s what Charlie has to beat.

Cutting Lone Parent Benefit (10th Dec 1997)
This motion was an attempt to block the government’s plans to cut lone parent benefit.
I would have voted FOR this motion.
Charles Kennedy voted FOR this motion.

Military Action against Iraq (17th March 1998)
This was a motion to allow military action to be taken against Iraq should peace attempts fail.
I would have voted FOR this motion.
Charles Kennedy voted FOR this motion.

Cuts in Student Funding (8th June 1998)
This was a motion to oppose the government’s plans to cut student funding.
I would have voted FOR this motion.
Charles Kennedy voted AGAINST this motion.

Age of Consent (22nd June 1998 and 10th Feb 2000)
This was a motion to lower the age of consent for homosexual sex to sixteen.
I would have voted FOR this motion.
Charles Kennedy voted FOR this motion.

Incapacity Benefits Means Test (10th May 1999)
This was a motion to oppose the government’s plans to introduce means testing for incapacity benefit.
I would have voted FOR this motion.
Charles Kennedy voted FOR this motion.

Freedom of Information Legislation (5th April 2000)
This was an ammendment to extend the scope of the Freedom of Information bill.
I would have voted FOR this motion.
Charles Kennedy voted FOR this motion.

Ban on Hunting with Dogs (17th Jan 2001)
This was a motion to ban hunting with dogs.
I would have voted AGAINST this motion.
Charles Kennedy voted FOR this motion.

Afghanistan Airstrikes (11th Nov 2001)
This was a motion against the government’s backing for airstrikes on Afghanistan.
I would have voted FOR this motion.
Charles Kennedy voted AGAINST this motion.

Anti-terrorism Legislation (21st Nov 2001)
This was a motion to give the government the right to detain foreign terrorists without trial.
I would have voted AGAINST this motion.
Charles Kennedy voted AGAINST this motion

Single Faith Schools (6th Feb 2002)
This was a motion to require faith schools to take 25% of pupils from other backgrounds.
I would have voted AGAINST this motion.
Charles Kennedy voted FOR this motion.

Hunting with Dogs (18th Mar 2002)
This was a motion to completely ban hunting wild animals with dogs.
I would have voted AGAINST this motion.
Charles Kennedy voted FOR this motion.

Licensing of Hunting (18th Mar 2002)
This was a compromise measure to allow foxhunting under licence.
I would have voted FOR this motion.
Charles Kennedy voted AGAINST this motion.

Adoption (4th Nov 2002)
This was a motion to allow unmarried and gay couples to adopt children.
I would have voted FOR this motion.
Charles Kennedy voted FOR this motion.

UN Resolution 1441 (25st Nov 2002)
This was a motion to limit the justification for war with Iraq without UN sancation.
I would have voted FOR this motion.
Charles Kennedy voted FOR this motion.

House of Lords (4th Feb 2003)
This was a motion to introduce a fully elected House of Lords.
I would have voted AGAINST this motion.
Charles Kennedy voted FOR this motion.

House of Lords (4th Feb 2003)
This was a motion to introduce a fully appointed House of Lords.
I would have voted AGAINST this motion.
Charles Kennedy voted AGAINST this motion.

Foundation Hospitals (7th May 2003)
This was a motion opposing the introduction of Foundation Hospitals.
I would have voted FOR this motion.
Charles Kennedy voted FOR this motion.

Hunting with Dogs (30th June 2003)
This was a motion to completely ban hunting with dogs.
I would have voted AGAINST this motion.
Charles Kennedy voted FOR this motion.

Top-up Fees (27th January 2004)
This was the bill which included plans for variable student tutition fees.
I would have voted AGAINST this motion.
Charles Kennedy voted AGAINST this motion.

Hunting with Dogs (15th Sep 2004)
This was a bill to bane foxhunting and hare coursing.
I would have voted AGAINST this motion.
Charles Kennedy voted FOR this motion.

ID Cards (20th Dec 2004)
This was the bill introducing ID cards.
I would have voted AGAINST this motion.
Charles Kennedy voted AGAINST this motion.

Out of a possible twenty-one, Charles Kennedy scores twelve – easily the best score out of the three major political party leaders. Not only that, he also managed to vote on every single one of my top issues, and where we disagreed it tended to be on issues of conscience (such as hunting) rather than those of policy.

So, if I judged purely on history, I would clearly be voting for the Liberal Democrats at the next General Election. But there’s a long way to go yet (I expect), and there’s plenty of opportunity for me to change my mind…

How can you not love this picture of him?

In other news, he’s apparently touring the country speaking to gypsies for a Channel 4 documentary this week. And he’s refusing to speak to the media. This seems slightly strange to me: A ‘politician’ who left UKIP because they suddenly ‘went quiet’ has set up his own party and, erm, gone quiet.

And what is this doing on the website of a ‘straight-talking party’:

The Daily Mail are running a poll in which the question is:

‘Would you vote for Robert Kilroy-Silk’s Veritas party?’

Currently the findings are that 32 % say that they would vote for Veritas.

The latest yougov Poll on voting intentions is as follows:

Labour 42%
Conservative 30%
Lib. Dems. 21%
Others 7%

Assuming that Veritas were to take it’s votes equally from all parties then Veritas would top the polls!

The revised figures would be:

Veritas 32%
Labour 28.56%
Conervatives 20.4%
Lib. Dems. 14.28%
Others 4.76%

“Assuming that Veritas were to take it’s votes equally from all parties”?!? Because, of course, that’s likely. 🙄

As promised, I’m now going to compare how I would’ve voted in what are considered to be the twenty-one key votes of the Labour government with how the Conservative Leader voted. For full explanations of why I would’ve voted the way I have stated, refer to the earlier post.

Cutting Lone Parent Benefit (10th Dec 1997)
This motion was an attempt to block the government’s plans to cut lone parent benefit.
I would have voted FOR this motion.
Michael Howard voted AGAINST this motion.

Military Action against Iraq (17th March 1998)
This was a motion to allow military action to be taken against Iraq should peace attempts fail.
I would have voted FOR this motion.
Michael Howard voted FOR this motion.

Cuts in Student Funding (8th June 1998)
This was a motion to oppose the government’s plans to cut student funding.
I would have voted FOR this motion.
Michael Howard voted FOR this motion.

Age of Consent (22nd June 1998 and 10th Feb 2000)
This was a motion to lower the age of consent for homosexual sex to sixteen.
I would have voted FOR this motion.
Michael Howard DID NOT VOTE on this motion.

Incapacity Benefits Means Test (10th May 1999)
This was a motion to oppose the government’s plans to introduce means testing for incapacity benefit.
I would have voted FOR this motion.
Michael Howard voted FOR this motion.

Freedom of Information Legislation (5th April 2000)
This was an ammendment to extend the scope of the Freedom of Information bill.
I would have voted FOR this motion.
Michael Howard voted FOR this motion.

Ban on Hunting with Dogs (17th Jan 2001)
This was a motion to ban hunting with dogs.
I would have voted AGAINST this motion.
Michael Howard voted AGAINST this motion.

Afghanistan Airstrikes (11th Nov 2001)
This was a motion against the government’s backing for airstrikes on Afghanistan.
I would have voted FOR this motion.
Michael Howard DID NOT VOTE on this motion.

Anti-terrorism Legislation (21st Nov 2001)
This was a motion to give the government the right to detain foreign terrorists without trial.
I would have voted AGAINST this motion.
Michael Howard DID NOT VOTE on this motion

Single Faith Schools (6th Feb 2002)
This was a motion to require faith schools to take 25% of pupils from other backgrounds.
I would have voted AGAINST this motion.
Michael Howard DID NOT VOTE on this motion.

Hunting with Dogs (18th Mar 2002)
This was a motion to completely ban hunting wild animals with dogs.
I would have voted AGAINST this motion.
Michael Howard voted AGAINST this motion.

Licensing of Hunting (18th Mar 2002)
This was a compromise measure to allow foxhunting under licence.
I would have voted FOR this motion.
Michael Howard DID NOT VOTE on this motion.

Adoption (4th Nov 2002)
This was a motion to allow unmarried and gay couples to adopt children.
I would have voted FOR this motion.
Michael Howard DID NOT VOTE on this motion.

UN Resolution 1441 (25st Nov 2002)
This was a motion to limit the justification for war with Iraq without UN sancation.
I would have voted FOR this motion.
Michael Howard voted AGAINST this motion.

House of Lords (4th Feb 2003)
This was a motion to introduce a fully elected House of Lords.
I would have voted AGAINST this motion.
Michael Howard voted FOR this motion.

House of Lords (4th Feb 2003)
This was a motion to introduce a fully appointed House of Lords.
I would have voted AGAINST this motion.
Michael Howard voted AGAINST this motion.

Foundation Hospitals (7th May 2003)
This was a motion opposing the introduction of Foundation Hospitals.
I would have voted FOR this motion.
Michael Howard DID NOT VOTE on this motion.

Hunting with Dogs (30th June 2003)
This was a motion to completely ban hunting with dogs.
I would have voted AGAINST this motion.
Michael Howard voted AGAINST this motion.

Top-up Fees (27th January 2004)
This was the bill which included plans for variable student tutition fees.
I would have voted AGAINST this motion.
Michael Howard voted AGAINST this motion.

Hunting with Dogs (15th Sep 2004)
This was a bill to bane foxhunting and hare coursing.
I would have voted AGAINST this motion.
Michael Howard voted AGAINST this motion.

ID Cards (20th Dec 2004)
This was the bill introducing ID cards.
I would have voted AGAINST this motion.
Michael Howard voted FOR this motion.

So, out of a possible score of 21, Michael Howard gets 10. This is considerably better than Tony Blair’s score of 3, but it still means that he disagreed with my course of action more than he agreed. There’s also the worry that he didn’t bother to vote on seven of what I consider to be very important occasions.

This puts the Conservative Party in the lead by a mile, but there’s plenty of scope for the Lib Dems to pull ahead when I review how Charles Kennedy voted. Keep watching for that.

In the past week, I’ve spent almost fifty hours working. You might be thinking that it’s not much different to working a 9-5 office job, but you have to remember that 9-5, when lunch is removed, is only seven hours, and that legally includes a number of breaks, and I’ve taken all breaks out of my ‘working’ time. And I’m still above the European Working Time Directive level.

But let’s just imagine that I do a similar amount of work to a typical office job. You have to remember that when I’m working, I have to be concentrating constantly, so that I can recall any fact that’s spouted to me at any point several months later. It’s the equivalent of me coming up to you today and asking what phone number you dialled at 14.30 on 29th July 2004. It requires an enormous amount of concentration for an extraordinarily long period of time. Much longer than you probably spend in your office. Oh, and I don’t get paid. In fact, I pay for the priveledge.

I think it’s also fair to say that, on top of a fifty hour working week, it would be very difficult to get a part-time job and stay sane. I also need a faintly ridiculous number of books, specialist equipment, and printer paper and ink. I’ve printed well over 1000 pages in the three weeks alone.

Don’t you think, therefore, that’s it’s slightly bizarre that medical students receive exactly the same level of student support as those doing International Human Rights Law at the Univeristy of Ulster, who study for just three – yes, 3 – hours per week? Where is the sense in giving the same support to someone working 50 hours as someone working for three? I don’t see it.

I’ve been to see this film this evening. My main comment: It was long. The first hour was pretty terrible, with some less-than-brilliant acting, dodgy editing (why is this film up for an editing Oscar?), and bizarre special effects. After that, though, it really picked up and became a very enjoyable film.

Leonardo diCaprio was never very convincing as Howard Hughes, but all of his little twitches and things were absolutely excellent. I believed he had an obsessive compulsive disorder, but it still seemed to be Leonardo diCaprio who was ill, not Howard Hughes. He definitely doesn’t deserve an Oscar. By contrast, Cate Blanchett was amazing, and does deserve an award. The costumes and backdrops were incredible, and with a better leading actor, and the kinks in the editing and special effects worked out, this could have been fantastic.

Having said that, it still wasn’t a very deep film, very much a case of ‘sit down, and watch the story’. There was an awful lot more that could have been explored in terms of the condition and Hughes’s feelings, and I would’ve liked a more definitive ending to the film.

Overall, it’s worth going to watch, but it’s not worth eleven Oscar nominations.

These are bizarre election pledges. Not least because of the lack of verbs that makes them read like something a five-year-old would’ve written. Let’s take each one in turn…

Your family better off
This is clearly not English, but I’m assuming it means something along the lines of my family having more money under a Labour government. I’m not entirely sure how this can come true. If I’d qualified in 1997, when Labour came to power, I’d have had debts of £7,697. As things stand, it looks like I’ll have debts of £19,248 when I qualify and want to set up home. Mr Blair’s plans to introduce top-up fees will make this nearer £64,000 for new medical students. So how, exactly, does he plan to make my family, as that of a young doctor, better off?

Your family treated better and faster
How can you treat a patient “better”? I don’t know how Mr Blair plans to measure that, but it’ll probably involve more arbitrary and silly targets. The introduction of targets on waiting times now means that most GP practices will no longer accept appointments in advance. You have to beat the mad rush on the phone in a morning to get an appointment for the same day. Not only does this mean that many urgent cases get pushed to the back of the queue whilst everyday problems get quick appointments, it also discriminates against those without a phone line, which are likely to be those of a lower socioeconomic class who’s health should be a top priority for the government. Why is Mr Blair promising to treat patients faster, instead of in a more appropriate order?

Your child acheiving more
I certiainly wouldn’t want children of mine to be £64,000 in debt when they start their first job. So I’d probably steer them away from a medical career. And this government has decreed that teachers should have ten percent non-contact time – that’s ten percent of the time teachers are supposed to be teaching should be spent doing paperwork away from the children. How does that help children to achieve more?

Your country’s borders protected
From what? If he’s talking about asylum, then surely for a government in power for eight years, he should be defending the situation he’s created, not saying “Well, it’s a bit rubbish, but we’ll try and fix it up next time. Honest, guv’.”

Your community safer
This government has completely failed to get a handle on rising violent crime levels. Why should I believe that Mr Blair can get a grip on the problem when he’s failed to do so for eight years? Or has violent crime only just become a priority? After all, he has been a bit busy bombing Iraq, effectively commiting violent crime of his own.

Your children with the best start
This is one area on which I actually admire Labour’s record. They’ve done excellently in setting up schemes like SureStart and the Child Trust Fund that make a real difference in poorer areas of the country.

I’d also like to know why Labour are still going out of their way to attack the Tories. On the day the pledges are announced, still a large portion of their homepage is dedicated to ridiculing the Conservative leader – on this occasion, over a perfectly well considered view on ID cards. Do Labour not beleive in anything themselves? Are they only striving to be better than the Tories, and nothing more?

I promised a few weeks back that I’d do this, so I’m making good on that. I’m going to examine, as I did for my own MP, the differences in the way Mr Blair voted on the twenty-one most important issues under this Labour government, and how I would’ve voted given the chance. Over the coming weeks, I’ll also be doing the same for Michael Howard and Charlie Kennedy, to see who I’m most like (and presumably most liking)…

Cutting Lone Parent Benefit (10th Dec 1997)
This motion was an attempt to block the government’s plans to cut lone parent benefit.
To me, it would appear that lone parents have a tough time, particularly those with young children, since they are unable to work and therefore reliant on state income. In the vast majority of cases, these parents will not have chosen to be lone parents, and so they will almost certainly be suffering from a degree of emotional and psychological distress at being left in this very difficult situation, on top of everything else. So I would tend to suggest that we should be doing everything possible to support lone parents, and certainly not making things worse for them by cutting their benefits.
I would have voted FOR this motion.
Tony Blair voted AGAINST this motion.

Military Action against Iraq (17th March 1998)
This was a motion to allow military action to be taken against Iraq should peace attempts fail.
At this stage in the game, it would probably be sensible to vote for military action as a last resort, since it would be the obvious choice if all peaceful attempts to get Saddam to comply with his UN duties failed. I would expect all military action to be sanctioned by the United Nations of course.
I would have voted FOR this motion.
Tony Blair voted FOR this motion.

Cuts in Student Funding (8th June 1998)
This was a motion to oppose the government’s plans to cut student funding.
Students have a tough time in this country. We’ve had the cliché of the penniless student for many years, since the maintenace grants were not nearly enough to pay for someone to live for a year. Therefore it would seem much more logical to be increasing student funding, certainly not cutting it. If I had personally benefitted from this cash when going through university, then I would certainly feel strongly about supporting a motion to block plans to cut funding, and I couldn’t live with myself for making others’ situations worse than that in which I found myself. If I was forced to vote against my conscience on this issue, then I would at least make a reasonably big show of giving an amount equivalent to the maintenance grants I received to a relevant student charity.
I would have voted FOR this motion.
Tony Blair DID NOT VOTE on this motion.

Age of Consent (22nd June 1998 and 10th Feb 2000)
This was a motion to lower the age of consent for homosexual sex to sixteen.
Personally, I see no moral difference between two men having sex, two women having sex, or a man and a woman having sex, and so I don’t see any reason for the age of consent to be different.
I would have voted FOR this motion.
Tony Blair voted FOR this motion.

Incapacity Benefits Means Test (10th May 1999)
This was a motion to oppose the government’s plans to introduce means testing for incapacity benefit.
I’m generally opposed to means testing of any kind. I don’t see why people should be made to undergo a complex form-filling exercise to claim money to which they are entitled. It doesn’t stop people who shouldn’t get the benefits getting it, because there is a culture of exaggerating circumstances on these forms to ‘get the money’. So why subject genuine claimants to this kind of nonsense?
I would have voted FOR this motion.
Tony Blair voted AGAINST this motion.

Freedom of Information Legislation (5th April 2000)
This was an ammendment to extend the scope of the Freedom of Information bill.
I think that it is crucial that we are allowed to see as many documents as possible that the government produce, since they are producing them on our behalf and with our money. I can’t think of many situations where we would pay someone to do work for us, and then allow them to keep the details of that work a secret. I think that Freedom of Information is a foundation of a good democracy – how can we know whether our representatives are acting well on our behalf if we can’t get hold of the details of what they’re doing?
I would have voted FOR this motion.
Tony Blair DID NOT VOTE on this motion.

Ban on Hunting with Dogs (17th Jan 2001)
This was a motion to ban hunting with dogs.
I am opposed to banning most things, since any ban is a distinct limit on the freedom of a country’s citizens. This is no exception: I see no logical, non-emotive reason for banning hunting with dogs, but I can see many reasons for not banning it.
I would have voted AGAINST this motion.
Tony Blair DID NOT VOTE on motion.

Afghanistan Airstrikes (11th Nov 2001)
This was a motion against the government’s backing for airstrikes on Afghanistan.
I saw no reason for airstrikes on Afghanistan. In fact, I saw little reason for attacking Afghanistan in the first place. Airstrikes in particular are a ‘bad thing’ as they inevitably lead to a great number of civilian casualties, and so I see no good reason for them being used in Afghanistan.
I would have voted FOR this motion.
Tony Blair DID NOT VOTE on this motion.

Anti-terrorism Legislation (21st Nov 2001)
This was a motion to give the government the right to detain foreign terrorists without trial.
I find the very idea of detaining anyone without trial is repulsive. These may be desperate times, but measures like this are simply going too far. How are we any better than our enemies if we allow this sort of breach of civil liberties, and discriminate those breaches on grounds of nationality?
I would have voted AGAINST this motion.
Tony Blair DID NOT VOTE on this motion

Single Faith Schools (6th Feb 2002)
This was a motion to require faith schools to take 25% of pupils from other backgrounds.
I do not understand the logic behind this idea, and if schools are producing results (as smaller faith-based schools tend to) then let them get on with it.
I would have voted AGAINST this motion.
Tony Blair DID NOT VOTE on this motion.

Hunting with Dogs (18th Mar 2002)
This was a motion to completely ban hunting wild animals with dogs.
I would have voted AGAINST this motion.
Tony Blair voted FOR this motion.

Licensing of Hunting (18th Mar 2002)
This was a compromise measure to allow foxhunting under licence.
I would probably have supported this motion, as it would help to regulate the hunting industry and keep animal cruelty in check, whilst allowing the hunting to continue to the benefit of those who wish to undertake this activity.
I would have voted FOR this motion.
Tony Blair DID NOT VOTE on this motion.

Adoption (4th Nov 2002)
This was a motion to allow unmarried and gay couples to adopt children.
I fail to see the difference in the relationship between heterosexual and homosexual couples, and so see absolutely no reason that unmarried and gay couples should not be allowed to adopt children. I accept that this could be seen as a contentious issue, because gay couples can clearly not naturally have chilren of their own, but I don’t think that this makes them any less suitable parents for an adopted child.
I would have voted FOR this motion.
Tony Blair voted FOR this motion.

UN Resolution 1441 (25st Nov 2002)
This was a motion to limit the justification for war with Iraq without UN sancation.
I think that it would only be sensible and right to go to war in these circumstances with UN backing, particularly when one of the reasons given for going to war is that Saddam Houssein is not complying with UN resolutions. This is something that the UN should sort out, not two members acting alone.
I would have voted FOR this motion.
Tony Blair voted AGAINST this motion.

House of Lords (4th Feb 2003)
This was a motion to introduce a fully elected House of Lords.
I like the fact that the House of Lords is not elected, since it adds a level of ‘randomness’ and therefore a level of protection against a rogue government and rigged elections. To remove this level of protection is a dangerous step for future generations.
I would have voted AGAINST this motion.
Tony Blair DID NOT VOTE on this motion.

House of Lords (4th Feb 2003)
This was a motion to introduce a fully appointed House of Lords.
Again, I’m happy with the way the Lords has always been, including hereditary peers and so-forth. Just as an all-elected House of Lords removes a vital piece of Constitutional protection, and all-appointed House of Lords has exactly the same result.
I would have voted AGAINST this motion.
Tony Blair voted FOR this motion.

Foundation Hospitals (7th May 2003)
This was a motion opposing the introduction of Foundation Hospitals.
I think that reform in the NHS needs to spread rather wider than to a few hospitals, and I’m not keen on private involvement in the NHS.
I would have voted FOR this motion.
Tony Blair voted AGAINST this motion.

Hunting with Dogs (30th June 2003)
This was a motion to completely ban hunting with dogs.
I would have voted AGAINST this motion.
Tony Blair DID NOT VOTE on this motion.

Top-up Fees (27th January 2004)
This was the bill which included plans for variable student tutition fees.
I think that top-up fees are a distinctly bad idea. Students already pay much more than the House of Commons graduates, and I was positively enraged by Tony Blair trying to sell us this as a ‘better deal’. What other possible deal is there where the cost of something more than doubles, and somebody has the gall to tell us that it’s a ‘better deal’?
I would have voted AGAINST this motion.
Tony Blair voted FOR this motion.

Hunting with Dogs (15th Sep 2004)
This was a bill to bane foxhunting and hare coursing.
I still haven’t changed my position on this issue. I’m not sure what Tony Blair’s position was this time round though, because he didn’t bother to turn up.
I would have voted AGAINST this motion.
Tony Blair DID NOT VOTE on this motion.

ID Cards (20th Dec 2004)
This was the bill introducing ID cards.
As I have outlined in detail previously, I do not see any reason to spend vast amounts of money on the introduction of ID cards, but I can see a number of potentially major problems with the system, and I have great privacy fears over the introduction of this system.
I would have voted AGAINST this motion.
Tony Blair DID NOT VOTE on this motion.

Out of the most important twenty-one votes to me, Mr Blair agreed with my position a measly three times. That’s not great. And it certainly rules out any chance there ever was of me voting for him.

But in this case, what’s worse is that Mr Blair failed to vote at all in eleven out of twenty-one cases. That’s more than half the time. He even failed to vote on the invasion of Afghanistan. Are these the actions of a worthy leader? I don’t think so, personally.

So now I’ve ruled out voting Labour. Just Conservatives and Lib Dems to go, then, when I get round to it.

Roses are #FF0000
Violets are #0000FF
All of my base
Are belong to you

I don’t know what’s worse: the fact that someone has been geeky enough to make a t-shirt with this on it, or that I actually understood it. I worry for my personal health and sanity. Thanks to this blog for pointing me in the direction of the t-shirt link, so that I could prove this is (unfortunately) for real.

The last day of the exercise! Seven-and-a-half hours sleeping, seven hours working, three hours of TV, and one-and-a-half hours surfing. I’ll be looking back over the week and totaling up all the headline figures. Which, I guess, you could do now, and then you wouldn’t have to look here tomorrow. But can you really be bothered to do that? The details for Thursday…

0.00 Sleeping
1.00 Sleeping
2.00 Sleeping
3.00 Sleeping
4.00 Sleeping
5.00 Sleeping
6.00 Sleeping
7.00 Sleeping (~20 mins), Showering and Dressing (~25 mins), Breakfasting (~15 mins)
8.00 Printing Notes (~15 mins), Packing things (~15 mins), Walking to College (~20 mins), Chatting (~10 mins)
9.00 Case Presentation Lecture (~50 mins), Break (~10 mins)
10.00 Anatomy of the Back Practical
11.00 Anatomy of the Back Practical
12.00 Anatomy of the Back Practical
13.00 Walking back from college (~20 mins), Watching News 24 (~40 mins)
14.00 Eating Lunch (~20 mins), Web Surfing (~10 mins), Driving to college (~20 mins), Chatting (~10 mins)
15.00 Disability Lecture
16.00 Disability Lecture
17.00 Driving to Tesco (~30 mins), Shopping (~30 mins)
18.00 Shopping (~30 mins), Driving back from Tesco (~30 mins)
19.00 Watching Channel 4 News
20.00 Filing and Revising Notes
21.00 Web Surfing
22.00 Web Surfing (~30 mins), Watching Question Time (~30 mins)
23.00 Watching Question Time and This Week

Good for them. I hope they are happy together.

On a more prosaic note, it will be interesting to watch the ironing out of the Constitutional nightmares this causes, too.