The moment I knew.

Gordon...international man of the hour.

First he gets invited to the Eurozone summit to pretty much tell Europe what to do, now we see the Nobel Prize winner for Economics declare Gordon Brown as the saviour in the financial crisis, the man leading the world. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/13/opinion/13krugman.html?_r=1&oref=slogin


While we pitied and sorrowed over GBs loss of support here at home, we neglect shouting about the praise and admiration the international community has for Gordon Brown. No other world leader currently has the expertise and experience as GB. Its a bit like Lost, everyone looks to Jack, at home he has his troubles, but in a crisis we all want the good doctor to show us the way. Don't be fooled by those Tories. Weeks overdue, their 'analysis' of the crisis has only led them to attack bonuses. Well done, clap clap. You've managed to find the most populist stance on something that pails in comparison to the day to day events of this crisis. The end of Thatcherism, eh? What do the Tories do.


In the US people are swinging to the Democrats. Obama's got a solid lead, despite the possibility of the McCain camp stirring up a race riot. Is it the natural reaction to go against the incumbent in an economic crisis? Bush has mishandled the economy certainly, while in the UK at least we enjoyed the years of economic growth by fixing our schools and hospitals, its as if a large proportion of Americans lost out completely.

But is it the natural anti-incumbent reaction, like Hoover losing in the Thirties or even Hitler's rise. Or is it a swing to the left. A desire for intervention and redistribution to help those hurting more than any other in the crisis. The consensus gripping the UK right now is certainly along those lines. People would rather see a big government right now, than a big hole left by the collapse of the financial industry.


Comparison with the US is of course difficult. I think it unjust to compare the legacy of the Bush years with those of Labour. From an entirely bias standpoint, Bush has done next to nothing of worth, while Labour has a decent sample of achievements. Bush's 'election' was built much more on divide and conquer, than big tent, centre ground consensus. The big issue of Iraq, is better divided by the two Parties, whereas here, both the main parties supported it.


Perhaps it has nothing to do with left or right, but simply who has the best ideas, who looks the most competent. Bush and Paulson look out of depth, Obama looks statesmanlike and more plausible in his analysis of the crisis.

In the short term, its all about Brown. The Tories look petty and [only in a global crisis is this apt,]too nationally focused. Every now and then Baronet Osbourne is wheeled on at the BBC for his side, he says nothing of impact or worth. Like a man complaining about the food on the Titanic . I mean, how weak was Cameron's speech now? Of all the times to declare your position, to announce your strategy, what does he decide to discuss? The most insignificant issues , more appropriate for a Daily Mail letters page. Nothing on how Britain's education system competes with the world, but a passage on how its so awful for 2 marks to be awarded for writing 'Fuck off,' is that what should be on a politicians priority list? How about the remodelling of the global financial system? Nah, lets just change 'Free Market' to 'Free enterprise' and pretend we care how much Bankers are paid. Its not the most convincing vision to say your reason for getting into politics was to cut taxes.

Voters weren't convinced by Kinnock in '92. The Tories haven't shown any reason to be convinced by them now. Another 5 years, sure. Not yet.

Is Obama actually going to win this thing?

Keeping an eye on the polls at fivethirtyeight.com. Obama's lead has been growing on the nationwide polls ever since Palin revealed her inner Bush. State by state he's looking even more solid. He's ahead in Florida and even red state Virginia. Current electoral projections give him over 340, only needs 270!! Please,please ,please keep this up.

I used to respect McCain, I thought if Obama lost it wouldn't be so bad. But this election campaign is revealing not just his errors of judgement but the really revolting side of US politics. I respect British politics so much more now. We may be getting a little caught up on the personality stuff, but really at heart, people are swayed by policy. The biggest issues that have lost a party votes here are Iraq, 10p tax, crime, public services. Elections aren't made into a culture battle, where one side can claim patriotism and god on their side, attack the opposition for not being patriotic or godly. Its so disgraceful, they've lost all dignity, all the moral high ground. They are not addressing peoples fears but stoking them beyond any rationality.
All the GOP has to do is suggest Obama's a muslim , a liberal who's grown up abroad and wants to talk to dictators and terrorists, someone who's unpatriotic and elitist. Convince half the country and they won't have to provide any answers beyond 'I love America, it's the best country in the world, and we need to fight the terrorists' How scared must people be of the alternative if they feel reassured by 'we're gonna fix America', 'we're gonna stop the terrorists' but with no answer to how. Its so pathetic. We criticise the Tories for not revealing their policies, but even in an election republicans try to deflect any scrutiny of their policies with petty smears and downright lies about the opposition. They've got that smear machine so well tuned that they can attack Obama for something thats more evident in McCain. They call him an elitist. A man from a single parent home being attacked for being elitist from a man with more houses than he can count, who married money, and comes from a line of Admirals.

I really detest how they politicise patriotism as if you're only patriotic if you believe in small government. As if diplomacy is selling America short. It seems they don't want to learn from the mistakes of the past 50 years. Diplpmacy and talking to foes isnt't giving in to terrorism, its not a sign of weakness, its the greatest sign of strength. McCain of all people, hasn't learnt the lesson of Vietnam. Their attitude to Iran is full of hypocrisy and misinformation. Its so unbareable to see Palin talking in such concrete terms, 'we know the difference between good and evil', the fact that she believes that is scary enough, the fact that McCain allows her and his campaign to talk down to the public is even worse. Why is it so hard for them to gain some perspective, to try and imagine the view from the other side. Its not hard. Every time the US mourns a soldier dead in Iraq, take that feeling and transfer it to the mothers, fathers, children and siblings of the 100,000s of civilians who've died in Iraq. If we anger at the illegality of the war, and the senselessness of when our soldiers die, what would be the perspective of those relatives? How would they become to view the US? As liberators? The whole point of grief is that it can turn the most rational being into irrational. They will look for someone to blame and see events out of their control as caused by them. The US wanted to win hearts and minds in Vietnam, to persuade them of the merits of capitalism and democracy. But how were they trying to persuade them? By misunderstanding their culture, by bombing their land, by supporting corrupt and undemocratic regimes. Who in their right mind would be convinced. So now in the middle east, they want people to support democracy, to stop hating America and the west, to stop blowing us up. How are they doing that? By invading sovereign territory, by rejecting the electorate in Gaza's decision to vote for Hamas, by threat of war. These would be the same people you sold and/or smuggled weapons to in the 1980's, and the similar regimes that you happily to business with. I saw a video this week, where a McCain cheerleader attacked Obama for his speech in Berlin, for wanting to rebuild the bridges with Europe, admitting where America had made things worse. She made it out that it was unamerican, that because the US was such a great 'force for good' that they shouldn't have to. Why is it that wanting to correct Americas faults is unamerican, but to let them to persist is patirotic? Are they really convinced that unilateralism will be effective in any of the world problems. Its beyond naivity.

But they don't really believe it do they? They're just stirring it up. Of course its better for the US to work effectively with Europe, in their heart of hearts they'd probably support what O's said, if it was a republican saying it. If McCain said we should talk to Iran, they'd say a wise decision. But the dems said it first, so we'll just demonise it as weak and a danger to America. If McCain wins this thing, then they'll probably keep trying to distract the public, while doing whatever the want with limited scrutiny. McCains so deep into the Rove-style politics and Bush's old puppetmasters now, you can see him dying inside when he he's pushed to make those talking points.

Thank god we aren't like that. Thank god elections aren't won on guns, abortion or patriotism. Will Obama change things in US politics. Maybe, he'll be a sign that the culture war's waiving. The left has its role too. Its not just the right stirring it. The left and the dreaded 'liberal media' can demonise the right and act as a further polarisation, not quite as shit-stirring, but their unwillingness to listen to the concerns of those on the right prevents change too. That is something that we need to do in Britain too. The left shouldnt address the concerns of the BNP, but we should address the concerns of those working classes who are being attracted to it. They aren't racists, they're vulnerable and disillusioned. The BNP are only too happy to fill the vacuum.

Cameron, old bean.

Judgements based on poor experience, character based on Boden catalogues.

This is the first time in a few years, where I'm not going to bother watching Camerons speech. Just check the headlines and what the news' take of it is. View it not as a nerd of politics, but just a normal person. Haven't done that since I started sneaking home from school to watch PMQs every wednesday.
Just heard a focus group on Radio 4s PM. They hated it, tedious apparently. But I'd hazard a guess, that most people would find a 65 min speech to the party faithful boring. It sounds like a real Conservative speech, with a big ol' C.

A week after Browns speech and the 'no time for a novice' has caught on. What part of DCs speech will be remembered. 'I've got judgement' or 'I'll be Thatcher'?


Screw it, I'm reading the speech.

And what exactly is 'radical conservative reform'? An oxymoron if ever I saw one.

'Character and judgement are more important than experience'
But what experiences have led you to those judgements? What experience leads you to believe SureStart should be cut? I'm guessing his experiences in Eton and Bullingdon led him to call for less city regulation. And what part of his character finds it OK to use his children as political tools or makes him consistently dodge questions about his party's bankroller in chief, Lord Ashcroft?

As a friend put it: "The 'judgement better than experience' thing might have worked if he hadn't spent 3 years changing his mind on grammar schools, green taxes, spending plans, Northern Rock, B&B, regulation of the city, and the hypocrisy of still being bankrolled by people who don't pay UK tax and pretending to clean up politics."


Judgements based on poor experience, character based on Boden catalogues. Hohoho

It was the media all along.

After GB made his speech last week, a Mr Freedland [I believe] of the Guardian, suggested that media scrutiny of the Tories was likely to step up. A two horse race is more fun to report than a one horse race. Once its had its fill of battering GB over and over again, they've turned they beady eyes to to the other corner. Finally. Tonight's episode of Newsnight was a fine example.

One point first, the financial crisis clearly overshadowed anything Baronet Osborne had to say. So it was the third slot for the Tories. And a seemingly less than relavent discussion of the day at conference. Emily Maitliss did her best to make Ossy look rather petty, in the grand scheme of things. There they were, sat in a little box in Birmingham, while in the US, congress refused a $700bn bailout. While a bank both at home and in europe faced collapse and nationalisation, and all that he could come up with was one sound bite to another. No Golden parachutes, no to taxpayers bailing out, stability, tax cuts, protect the poorest, chase the bankers for the money blah blah. The Council tax thing doesnt seem to have been quite as headline grabbing as it would have last year. And a tad contradictory. 'The cupboard is bare, debt is too high, borrowing is too high...but we'll still cut taxes'

I've lambasted the traditional media in previous posts. But one should never underestimate their power to spin for themselves, and effectively, to change perception. The media scrutiny of Labour of the past few months has been fierce, so too has the public's perception grown fiercely hateful. I give up on reading anything on Cif nowadays, its become such a cauldron on hate, its beyond any rational basis, Labour are dirt, pure and simple, stained in the eyes of so many readers.
But you do get the sense of them wanting to even things out. Tories will remain on top, certainly. The crisis won't last, and the change agenda will return. But at least we'll be able to debate things a bit more rationally. I think, partly as a reaction to Broons speech, the left or at least some of the unions have sensed it'll be better trying to change Labour in power, than fight the Tories again. Though, can't take that support for granted. Heard in the news some unionists are planning to protest at Tory conference, during DCs speech. That'll be quite a turnout if it gets on the news.

Still think its vital Brown makes further steps to sure up the core vote. The speech got us listening, now we need solid statements and policy. Stuff we can take to the doorsteps. And some moves to a least calm the waters at the Guardian. We've been haemorrhaging votes there for years. First we lost the hard left in 1994 with clause 4, then we lost the Guardianistas and the liberal left with Iraq and cosying up to Bush, then Tony lost all support after Lebanon, then the ordinary member felt slapped in the face by 10p and all those things we've brushed aside in the past. All those times we've thought, 'well, benefits outweigh costs, at least its labour' they've all come back. PFIs, selling gold, soft-regulation, 28-42 days, pensions, cash for honours, etc etc. They're all there, in the back of our minds. On the doorstep, right when we need to be 100% certain over why people should vote Labour. Its there. And we can't answer. Mix that sense of fatalism with the leadership completely failing to provide strong arguments, and causes to boast about....Crewe and Nantwich. Demoralised members + directionless leadership = 'Tory Toff' campaign.
Anyway, theres where we've gone wrong. Don't do it again. Start afresh. Get those lines of attack focused and consistent, the lines of argument backed up with principles and proven policy, give the grassroots some meat. And we can win again.