A bit breezy in East Coast USA.- Hurricane Sandy gatecrashes the election circuses.

Reports from our eastern seaboard Twiga a little south of where Hurricane Sandy is forecast to do its worst indicate that it's getting a bit breezy.

It is, he says, "pretty foxy of the Democrats to rustle up a megastorm to convince voters that eliminating all government spending and letting everyone fend for themselves is not a good idea. This will be particularly so if the storm produces a predicted $3.2 million catastrophe.

One more humorous effect may be that if there are widespread power losses, the Presidential campaigns will be hard pressed to spend the hundreds of millions of dollars they have amassed for the last week's advertising. They seem to brush aside the notion that the electors may have seen enough already and are unlikely to be swayed by more TV commercials at this stage. Up to now it has been spend, spend, spend, a policy which should at least have taken advertising agencies out of the financial downturn. This incontinent fruit machine  behaviour may though be less attractive to those who want to see budget defecits reduced.

Meanwhile both Presidential hopefuls will be in front of their mirrors rehearsing expressions of relief, joy, anguish or despair, one or more of which to be wheeled out depending on what Sandy actually does. They might be a useful rehearsal for when the election results are announced too. There's an efficient use of time for you.

Once the storm and the election are over ,life in the US may seem rather flat and dull . After all the excitement that may be something to add to the things for which to give thanks at the forthcoming national turkeyfest.  

The clocks go back- and winter (democratic) gloom sets in.

Afraid to upset the few inhabitants of the far north of Scotland lest they vote for "Uhuru" or "Independence" in the same way as restive folk in the more distant colonies in the 1950s and 60s, the ever courageous UK government has quietly shelved any talk of retaining year-round BST, British Summer Time. The cost is estimated to be high, but what the hell, why modernise when you can stay still or even move backwards?

As result, from this evening , or rather afternoon, the British nation faces gathering gloom from not long after lunch to dampen its already not very high spirits. "Mustn't grumble" is the old favourite response . This of course means we will do exactly that in spades. (That's linguistic guidance for mystified foreigners,.-especially those who say what they mean.). UK plc needs every ounce of productivity and good cheer that it can muster but is the country up for it? The answer looks rather like a big fat, even obeise, "No".  Most are agreed that manpower intensive infrastructure projects building things to meet current and future needs are an excellent way out of recession. The only thing is that the hint of a new bypass to prevent locals from choking to death raises an immediate "Say No To...." campaign. This weekend there is a whole nationwide conference to educate people in how to oppose and obstruct any road project, however large or small. To be successful, competitive , open for business or just to get people where they want to go we need more runways for London, more and improved roads and an additional railway line to the north. Much of the response takes us back to the 1880s (Say No To the Great Western/Central/Northern/Eastern Railway) and all those jolly demos and scowling aristocrats defending the boundaries of their estates. Localised and parochial democracy is all very well, but.........Anyway, we will eventually get some good things done although at huge extra  cost and after delays which will leave us trailing behind our competitors. Never mind. In the meantime we can spend our Sunday evenings watching Downton Abbey and then exporting it to the USA. That should bring in a few dollars. Our democracy's OK then.

Meanwhile across the Atlantic those who haven't followed Obama's lead and voted early are into the final run in to the Presidential Election. To most foreigners the whole American democratic process is difficult to believe. The contestants spend the year- and now over $100 billion between them- in the warm up. The mud that used to be slung manually and the promises that used to be made verbally are now largely conveyed electronically and on billboards. Mass gatherings, huge auditoriums complete with leaping cheerleaders and slick haired orators (well, OK , Obama's hair isnt so slick though it is greying as befits a President) gather pace leading up to the big day while the normal functioning of government and decision making is suspended for a good six months before and at least another one ot two after the event. The winner then has just 2 years until the mid term elections. Campaigning for those starts a little later, -maybe only six or nine months ahead. That means that the time for fulfilling all those pre-election dreams and promises can be as short as 15 months and certainly no more than 18. Once the mid-terms are over it is possible that the President then no longer has a majority in the Senate or Congress or both. In those events he or one day she (Hillary? You may have left it a bit late though Regan made it despite a one year older start) is either seriously impeded or totally stopped dead in their tracks. Then comes the bid for the second term in office,- by now just 2 years away. The serious bow wave for this starts 9 or even 12 months out, so not much time for changing the world in the meantime.  Come the new Presidential Election and the result, the whole process and fund raising for it starts all over again. If the incumbent has won a second term but still hasn't a majority in the Senate and /or Congress he/she is faced with another four years of misery and a feeling of being bound head and foot. In the worst case (the loss of majority in the first mid term elections ) and assuming the President gets two terms that means that he/she has just those first 15-18 months out of the whole 4 years to do anything. It's and amazing process and reality.  That's where their democracy is.

While Americans may ponder that last question, things aren't looking too good for individual freedom, choice or leadership in the other 2 global powers either. The Russian top tier,- namely President Putin,- feels so threatened by the antics of a couple of young ladies entertainingly questioning the status quo that it has had them sentenced to two years in  two diabolically grim prison camps in the wastelands far to the east of Moscow well out of reach of their friends and families and any contact with the world. This evilly disproportionate reaction by the regime to an expression of dissent/disagreement is frightening. Any governmemt which actually doesn't like sections of its own citizens is disturbing and those which behaves like a thug is terrifying. Logic would say that Putin would not want to risk Russia's standing in the world by simple brutality to groups and individuals.  Unfortunately for the imprisoned ladies the only logic being employed here is the old sledghammer totalitarian one of making them a terrifying example to discourage others from expressing what many fellow Russians feel. The ability of the two to mentally and physically survive their terms in prison amongst both the prison authorities and some of their well chosen fellow prisoners is far from certain. Partly because of the US election and others reluctance to offend the Russian bear , the world has been deafening silent, -and totally neglectful,- on the whole affair. No cheer for democracy there.

Moving further east, -it's new chairs time in the other megapower,-China. They don't do elections but there is some kind of process by which rival contenders are selected or select themselves as the top dogs.  It can involve the sudden fall or disgrace of one or more who might be in the frame. Some self destruct . The killing of a British businessman by one powerful clique who thought themselves above the law was a major mistake . It has cost Mr Bo any chance of anything but incarceration and possibly execution . Once someone is down the instincts of any rival politician are to stand on their stomach or shoulders to ensure they stay there.( Yes, it happens here too,- you've noticed?). That little episode apart, although personal freedoms and choice in spheres other than politics have improved enormously  in China over the past 20 years,  political democracy is a long way off.

Interestingly all three of the world's major powers have one thing in common. In each of them the military is extremely powerful. Now that really is worrying.  It all makes our weekly Prime Ministers Questions look like a shining beacon for freedom in a world of democratic paralysis or repression.  Get worried when Dave asks Ed to step outside "for a little chat".

UK politics,- Why the ( actually quite successful) Tory Party isn't smiling.

Britain's Conservative Party should be riding high in the poll ratings just now. In the last fortnight it has booted out Abu Hamza, kept in Gary McKinnon who the US wanted to extradite, announced improvements in job creation (above US levels), falling hospital waiting list times, better crime figures while other figures indicate the end of double dip recession if it ever happened at all. September government borrowing was down on last year too. All good stuff which should be causing Tory smiles and further lengthening the habitually miserable faces of the opposition.

Why then have the Tories lost another few percentage points in the opinion polls and why is HerMajesty's opposition getting away with accusing the government of being incompetant, chaotic, out of touch and Prime Minister David Cameron weak?

First offender is the party's hopelessness at PR and presenting its case, especially when it has a good one.  Right from the beginning in May 2010 its programme of expenditure "cuts" mislabled as "austerity" was never explained simply and coherantly as part of an overall political philosophy of smaller, though still by no means small, government and the encouragement of a return to self reliance and self respect after decades of increasing ever deepening welfare and government spending dependency. There has never been an all-embracing wrapper in which to enfold all its policies as a coherent whole. Instead too much has appeared uncordinated, piecemeal and reactive rather than visionary. Indeed the word "vision" or notion of "This is where we are going" has been entirely absent . That fact does reflect a failure by the Prime Ministerial team to grasp the basics of winning in politics,- or business,-or more or less anything else.

Second offender is the difficulty of being in a coalition, especially with an increasingly difficult and fractious partner, many of whose members would rather be in bed with the opposition. The LibDems are  often, despite their label, extraordinarily illiberal and intolerant, two things which make them much closer to Labour than Conservative ways of life. Cameron has tried hard to bend to give Clegg some much needed successes to show his party but this has not been greatly appreciated or reciprocated. Cameron has also been straightforward about what he can't deliver,-eg House of Lords reform. In response Clegg has been petulant and is set to derail much needed previously agreed and entirely democratic constituency boundary changes and size equalisation before the 2015 General Election.

Third offender and strategicaly the most potent is Labour's brilliance at picking and repeating ad nauseam over and over again at every opportunity and in all sorts of contexts key dog-whistle words which over time take root consciously and subliminally and become accepted as fact.  All of its team use the same key words in almost every statement they make. It's an old advertising trick which the Tories , especially the many with a background in PR , should have identified and dealt with but haven't. The tactic is ruthlessly and lethally deployed all the time every week. Brown tried it but failed because he picked strangulated phrases which achieved no resonance. Eds Miliband and Balls, Mrs Balls and the rest are politically cleverer and more succinct. "Out of touch" is a wonderful class loaded phrase with unspoken addon implications about competance, caring, and not sharing the national pain. "Incompetant" has all the subtlety and the menace of an Exocet missile, "For the few not the many" wraps in tax cuts for the better off and so on. Each MP acts as if they have a  laminated card with the word(s) of the year, month,week in big bold capitals. They are relentlessly deployed so that they appear to be part of a coherent, consistent platform of opposition. Once up and running they displace the need to do anything about expounding any policies .This enables that powder to be kept dry until close to the next election when emotions are up and running and it becomes too late to examinefor them to be thoroughly examined and for rational judgements to be made away from the immediate battlefield. The whole dog-whistle concept and well cordinated practice is a wonderful trap for the government and electorate alike.

Fourth offender is an example of the success of the third and the unashamed class warfare platform so beloved of  Labour Party's main financial sponsors the unreconstituted unions . It is willingly adopted by the ever scowling Ed Miliband. "We are not all in this together" feeds through to an unspoken subtext of "We are victims of the wicked rich and unfeeling upper classes" which in turn , aided by a media always on the hunt for blood and increased sales, fuels hysteria about anything from a Minister who foolishly swears at an unhelpful policeman to the Chancellor seen , shock , horror, travelling in a First Class seat on Standard Class ticket on which his aides have already set about paying the upgrade fee. George Osborne is number 2 in the government. We should be delighted that he is travelling in a comfortable seat. Whether you like him or not he deserves it for spending his life on the underpaid and thankless job he's doing . Sadly unless he's a footballer, lottery winner, or X-factor contestant he is deemed not to be worthy of this more comfortable ride. The politics of envy are close to those of hatred and very dangerous .Amongst other things , particularly to young and impressionable minds ,they plant the notion that real aspiration and success are somehow antisocial and undesirable and at very least attract approbrium. To the Left that may be good. They do well where there is lack of success and government/welfare dependency. They use the class ticket with corrosive and devastating effect to gain votes.  The fact that the whole philosophy may discourage able young people from striving to better themselves and reach their full potential and , horror of horrors, even become rich, is of no interest to them. That's what they are about. Their message not that we are all in it together but "bar the rich , we are all victims together". It is is,-for them, -brilliant . For the Tories who haven't got the heavy guns to cope with it, it's currently election-threatening.

The Conservatives'  recent successes aren't getting the acknowledgment they deserve. For them they should be on a high or at least the up but thanks to a mix of the four factors above they have been submerged beneath a string of class war nonsenses which have got out of proportion and out of hand.  The relentless street fighters opposite are highly successful in peddling theie corrosive messages. The Tories are poor at getting theirs across and giving as good as they get.  To win in 2015 the Tories must get much better at the real rough and tumble of strategic and tactical politics . They must become streetwise and develop much better antennae and depth of feeling for and understanding of what is really going on and being said throughout the country at all levels of society. They could also do everyone a favour by dopping the Yah- Boo stuff of the weekly Prime Ministers' Questions knockabout . Once quite amusing (when it was a cleverer battle of wits) ,it has descended into being tedious. The fact is that theTory party and particularly the rather cosy and too exclusive Number 10 inner circle are being seriously outplayed by the hardened bruisers sitting opposite. The polls are showing it.

That's why the Tory Party isn't smiling. Except for Boris of course. He is and he's winning.  As a parting thought, could there be a direct relationship between the two things? Smile=winner/win. Frown=loser/lose? That's a different debate though. We'll come back to that.

A view from America: Does it really matter who wins the Presidential Election?

American voters are almost unanimously critical of the negative campaign advertisements, the exaggerations and plain "untruths" put out by both parties.  In the critical "swing" states, such as Ohio, Florida and Virginia, regular commercial advertising on TV has almost given way to political ads, not only by the campaigns themselves, but also by the hugely funded and anonymous "superPACs" legitimized by the Supreme Court in January 2010.

But the voters should really look to themselves for the solution.  Much of the voters' vocal criticisms are directed only towards the candidate they oppose.  They legitimize their own candidate's retorts as a necessary response to the other side.  Only when the voters make it clear that they will express their dissatisfaction at the polls will the practice change.

In the first presidential debate, most viewers were surprised -- not only by the strong performance by Mitt Romney, but even more by the lacklustre performance by Obama.  Some suggest that it could prove to be a game changer unless Obama puts up a stellar showing in the next two debates.

But, as Romney denies having the $4.8 trillion tax plan that he has been touting for months, denies that he will eliminate key portion of Obamacare -- the bill he promised to repeal on Day One of his presidency, and confuses everyone as to his real stand on abortion, one has to wonder what sort of Trojan Horse a Romney presidency would really be.  Perhaps he would be better placed as Harvard's Chairman of the new Department of Voodoo Maths.

Never wanting to miss an opportunity to capitalize on the country's misfortunes, Romney is pouring relentless criticism on the Administration for the terrorist attack in Benghazi.  This, despite the fact that Republicans cut $280 million from the funds requested by the Obama Administration for the protection of overseas diplomatic missions.  Romney portrays Obama's reluctance to start another war or two as a sign of global US weakness. Perhaps the greatest sign of US weakness though is the inability for the two sides to reach agreement on almost anything -- including whether the US should even continue to pay its debts.

In spite of all of this, we can expect most voters to make their decision based on who they think will do most to improve their personal economic situation.  Romney promises tax cuts -- but backtracks to say that this is only to the extent that he can close loopholes and increase growth to pay for them.  Given that when it comes to growth, the US economy is a "supertanker" and not a "speed boat", and he has not yet mentioned any loopholes he will close, it is a sure bet that the tax cuts will either not happen or will add even more to the burgeoning US deficit.  Add his proposed additional $2 trillion in military spending (to support a war against Iran?), and it seems a sure bet that the US will be borrowing more from China -- if Xi Jinping or whoever takes the helm in China will let them.

The US national debt now stands at more than $16 trillion -- or over $50,000 per man, woman or child.  That's a scary thought to many, and is often used to bludgeon Obama's policies over the past four years.  But much of the increase is due to unfunded wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and to large tax cuts implemented by Bush and extended by Obama while Congress held other programs hostage.  But how worried should people really be?  Are we really depriving future generations?  After all, we can hardly consume what hasn't yet been produced.  And we are not going to populate the housing stock after death.  In reality, most of the debt is owned within the US and will only serve to create a further imbalance in the distribution of wealth, adding to the pressure on the US to implement measures to "level the playing field".  More harm will inure to future generations if the US allows its infrastructure to crumble than will be done by increasing the national debt.  Moreover, investing in infrastructure, education and technology will create jobs and provide some of the growth that both parties desperately seek.

Even so, some 35% of the national debt is owned by other countries, such as China.  That is caused, not so much by government policies, as by US consumers anxious to find the best bargains regardless of the source.  Romney would like to declare China a "currency manipulator", for all the good that will do.  He could impose extra tariffs on imports from China, but that would just lead to inflation and to the sourcing of more expensive products from other countries.  It would take many years for US manfacturers to replace a significant portion of imports from China, and that is even assuming that they would risk doing so when a future government might reverse the policies.  At some point, the US will have to find a trade balance and even turn the tide to start paying off some of the debt plus interest, but that can only be good for the US job market.  Otherwise the free markets that Romney embraces will fix the problem anyway -- as countries shun the US dollar because of US credit downgrades, its value will fall, imports will become more expensive and exports cheaper.

The US system of government all but guarantees gridlock these days so the choice of the next US president is not as important as it seems.  The race for the democrats to retain control of the Senate may be at least as important and, with icreasing use of filibusters, even that may not be so important.  The US economy is a giant supertanker and the appointment of the next captain won't make as much difference as many expect.  After November 6, all eyes will turn to China.

alw

Scotland to go or not to go?- Why Cameron will sleep easy tonight.

The joint Cameron/Salmond agreement on the Scottish independence referendum contains no surprises although at first glance it may seem that Cameron has been outplayed by Salmond . After all, the Scot has got all he demanded and only conceeded in agreeing that there should only be one question and no easy midway option. It will be a simple Yes/No vote in which the winner takes all.

On the face of it that looks like a big gamble by Cameron, maybe a reckless one. Was it ?

 The big deal today was winning the argument that there should be only one, yes/no question. This was vital  as it leaves the electorate with no easy option and the SNP nowhere to go if they lose the vote. It may look like an ill considered and desparate throw of a gambler , but is it and does it matter to Dave if the referendum does go Salmond's way and Scotland heads off over whichever horizon it chooses?
To reach a conclusion let's look at the other points coming out of the signed document  .Salmond seemed to win them all and he was certainly smiling.

-The date of Autumn 2014 could work in Salmond's favour. The vote may well immediately follow the Commonwealth Games in Glasgow. If those are anywhere near as succesful as the London Olympics and Scots rally behind them in a state of national positivism and feelings of unity there could be a wave of nationalistic "Go for it" euphoria. Plenty for Salmond to gain  here and Cameron can only lose.

- Giving the vote to 16 and 17 year olds is unprecedented in UK elections. You may be able to marry at 16 and repent at leisure but your brain isn't deemed to be adequately developed to make judgments on politics and your MP. The failure rate of mid-teenage marriages may well say the voting age of 18 is indeed correct and proves the point. However, particularly younger voters tend to be idealistic and  therefore more likely to vote for independence in Scotland and for left leaning candidates in other elections. Potential double loss to Cameron.

So assuming Cameron hasn't been totally rolled over, what could he be thinking?

- The Scots will vote against independence however Salmond loads the dice so the man may as well be given all he wants so that he has nowhere hide afterwards.

-Despite the posturing, it doesn't matter to the Conservatives if Scotland does become independent. There could actually be at least two bonuses for the party. Firstly, without its traditional Scottish rock solid Labour-voting constituencies, Labour may never again be able to obtain an overall majority at Westminster .Secondly, economically the rest of the UK would be without its heavily welfare and state spending dependent northern neighbour.

-Even if the voting age in all other elections were reduced to 16, the number of additional constituencies gained by Labour would nowhere near cover their losses of Scottish seats, so the Conservative position at Westminster would at least be substantialy enhanced.

This all gives the agreement a different complexion. Despite the unionist posturing the Conservative leadership and policymakers may not mind whether the electorate choose independence or not. Either way the party wins. Either the Tories will have taken the long running issue by the scruff of the neck, put everything on the line and won , thereby kicking the SNP into the wilderness (for which Labour would also be duly grateful)  and coming out of it heroically just a few months before the 2015 General Election. Alternatively if the outcome is independence there are big gains for the party in the new makeup of Westminster. That's called a win-win.

All clear now?  Whatever the outcome,the champagne will be cracked open at Number 10 when the referendum results are announced on that night or day in the autumn of 2014. So simple. Cameron will not be losing any sleep tonight.

The ( Party Conference) Carnival is over. Where are we all now?

The end of the Conservative Party Conference on Wednesday marked the end of this season , another parliamentary break between the brief return of most MPs from the summer hols and the start of the autumn term session proper. It all began with the shadow Labour Party, alias the TUC,meeting for their miserabalist few days of class warfare and boss-baiting and hating, moved through the LibDems self entramelling gathering in Brighton and then on to the launch of New Ed in rainswept Manchester and finally Dave's response to it all in Birmingham.

The slab faced TUC and the dancing in the daisies LibDems have already largely been forgotten, if they were ever remembered. They had some similarities, embracing as they did class war heavy (TUC) and class war lite (LibDems) . The LibDems come across as nicer but in reality are barely less intolerant of anything contrary to or questioning of their tangled and self-strangling roots in illiberalism curiously peddled as liberalism. Many of their delegates seemed to see a permanent role as a component of coalitions , preferably of the left. This capitalises on the possibility that most of the uncommitted electorate would rather vote "none of the above" if offered the option.

In Manchester Ed did well in establishing a sort of weird credibility that he could, just could, be a possible future Prime Minister . Of the three main party leaders he made the most upward and forward progress. A week ago it looked as if that might set Dave an almost unanswerable problem, but in fact he handled the situation well and in the only way he could. He doesn't do evangelical peppered with photo op  pictures of glistening eyes, outstretched arms and raised head. That's all for the better as the stomach soon begins to churn if faced with too many of those. He told it straight; "We are in the poo, more poo than we had dared imagine when we took over from the 2 Eds and their master, Gordon, and it's going to take a while longer to sort it, but sort it we will." Sub themes were that he wasn't into class warfare but would prefer things which may seem to be restricted to the "privileged" to be available to all. Thus the local sink comp should be as good as Eton. No shortage of aspiration then.

Now as the dust settles, what were the main takeways from these gatherings?

First of all they have become a series of pre-vetted and pre-scripted corporate style presentations and are the duller for that. As result much public interest in them has gone and most people see only the few highlight clips on the early evening and 10 o'clock national TV news programmes.

The big thing though was that none of the three party leaders came across as inhabitants of planet earth. None seem capable of normal conversation or empathy. All fail the simple test of "Could they really sit in a pub/cafe/train or bus (would they be there in the first place?) and have a real and comfortable, enquiring, non patronising or lecturing conversation with whoever they sat down next to?" or "Would you enjoy a relaxed hour or two with them anywhere at any time of the day just chatting about life, realities, ideas or would they even have any real interest in so doing?" The answers have to be "No". They are just not , despite their differences,the sort of people most would really enjoy spending time with. None of them has shown one iota of a "wow" factor , nor do any go anywhere near producing a "I'll follow that person" response. There was and is not one iota of charisma or sign of good old fashioned leadership ability between them.  At the conferences there was no big vision but a lot of divisive "Yah boo" stuff about wealth and class.  That gets boring. There was no willingness to accept social realities,-eg  that there are many who do milk the welfare system which in its present form is unaffordable anyway or that tax dodging isn't the preserve of the rich and wealth is not a sin. There are many well off people who do pay vast amounts of taxes, do good things and are worthy job-creating citizens. There are also millions of less well off people who do work hard for small rewards who resent carrying the freeloaders about which politicians, unions and councils tend to be in denial.

To cap it all, none of the Big Three display any credible warmth or humour. To most they just aren't likeable people. There's little trust either.

The danger of this disconnect between leading politicians and their electorate is a continuing lessening of general interest in politics. This in turn can only impact on the quality of parliamentary candidates, already unimpressive in some cases. That has serious implications for a robust British democracy.

That leaves the door wide open for someone to seize the moment ,walk confidently and cheerfully onto the stage, sweep all the rubbish, indecision and prevarication aside ,talk plain interesting and even entertaining English , ram home a few truths and run off with the ball.
Regardless of other possible perceived flaws, the chances are enough of the the voters would say "Yes,- lead us!"

Hello Boris? Never say never.

Health Warning: Mitt ventures into Foreign Policy.

Mr Romney, not well known for his knowledge,experience of or travels in the world outside the USA has broken cover and spoken on his foreign policy, something of little or zero interest to his domestic audience . Having said that, the general message that the country will "kick ass" (more or less any ass will do as world geography, politics or history is not a strong point in most American schools) is always a nice goodie to throw into any electioneering speech on how the nation will hold its head high in any given future.

His proposal is simple. "America will get more involved in the Middle East".

Head for the shelters everyone.