Dispassionate Conservatism

If your doctor's response to your medical complaint was tell you to just "pull yourself together" you would be likely to lose trust in their prowess as a physician.
And so it is also with Prime Minister David Cameron whose message to Britain at this year's Conservative Party conference was, "sink or swim".
It conjours up an unedifying image of us all up to our necks in icy water, watching the good ship Great Britain slip beneath the waves. Note to Cameron's speech writers - remember a PM should show leadership.
This lack of a credible plan, to rescue prosperity from austerity, was a theme which ran through the week. The mantra was simply cut, cut, cut and lower the budget deficit. The Chancellor, George Osborne's dreadfully bleak and tedious speech did not actually include the key word 'growth'.
The British Conservative Party has essentially the same presentational problem as the Republican's: they favour a laissez faire economic approach with tax cuts restricted to the wealthy. The image of self-interest and privilege has solidified around their respective shoulders.
Cameron in opposition had followed President George W. Bush's example of promoting a 'Compassionate Conservatism'. It is the kind of balanced political ticket which appeals strongly to the electorate - promoting competitive business while ensuring no-one gets left behind.
But Dave's old liberal policies, such as environment protection and extending gay rights, are now a distant memory. In office, Cameron has been forced to throw plenty of red meat at the rabid end of is party to quell the voices of rebellion. Hence lower tax rates for the top earners, a second round of huge welfare cuts, a possible vote on leaving the EU and mass deportation of foreign students.
His drift to the right will not help him electorally: his party is already about 10-15 points behind Labour who are determined to move into the recently vacated centre ground.
Cameron is an affable fellow, no doubt, as he showed on his Letterman performance. But unlike Margaret Thatcher he appears less of a Prime Minuster over time.
His economic plan, such as it is, has proved so severe that tax revenues have plummeted and the deficit has actually risen. It all looks ultimately self-defeating. Cameron's Government is in danger of saving the disease and killing the patient.

Hoping for the Best, Time and Time Again

I can't be the only one to notice the strong parallels between the posts of Deputy Prime Minister of Britain and Vice President of the US.
For most of the time, they are both considered a political joke whose daily attempt to restore some credibility ends in inevitable futility. When it is convenient to the boss, they perform their dutiful role as the leader's human shield. They are also expected to be the one who greets the Presidents of Botswana and Fiji when they come to visit.
Nick Clegg, as leader of the Liberal Democrat party and DPM, will always be, at best, the head of the third force of British politics. Given his catastrophic leadership since the 2010 election, he actually risks making his party less popular than the minor one issue party for UK Independence.
Clegg's speech this week to the party's annual yawnathon/conference was a pitiful display of a politician trying to carve out his relevance to the voting public. He continually shouted "be in no doubt!" referring to several dubious assertions on education and the environment where his party have been utterly dominated by their Tory overlords. He tried to portray himself as the linch-pin of the Coalition Government when his party just make up the numbers in Parliament, constantly voting against their longstanding Liberal principles and simultaneously embracing electoral oblivion.
The Liberal Democrats' unholy political pact with Cameron's Conservatives hardly helped him on the day and in two and a half years, has decimated his standing in the country. He has to simultaneously appear independent from and supportive of an administration which has made deeply painful cuts for the poorest while dropping tax for the top earners by 5p in the pound.
The policy decision he made which has damaged him most severely was to make a swift 180 on hiking tuition fees for students immediately after getting three quarters of them to vote for him on that singular promise. Clegg's acute and apparently growing political naivety was exposed cruelly when he decided to make a Youtube apology which was immediately lampooned in song.
It is a very long time since I heard such 'brass neck' statements in a speech - it was simply the most sensational nonsense. Apparently, only his party, "could be trusted on the economy and to deliver a fairer society." On the economy, UK is in its third quarter of a double-dip recession and the last two years have seem the most regressive policies on the poor since 1920s. To gauge how hard-hearted the Government is, it was only last week they showed their soft side by not removing benefits for those under going radio and chemotherapy for cancer.
Clegg's crowd were thoroughly polite in the face of this relentless barage of empty rhetoric, even making laughing sounds at Clegg's dismal attempts at humour. Clegg knows, we all know, that his party faces political wipeout at the 2015 election. His own leadership is utterly doomed - the speech sounded like he was reading his own obituary. Even one of his colleagues, Lord Smith, described Clegg as, "a cork bobbing in the waves."
Overall it must be better to be Veep than DPM. At least Joe Biden will get to keep his moniker of 'Mr Vice President' to allow him the semblance of respect after his days in office. Clegg will be no more than a footnote in one chapter of political handbook of how the desire for power destroys the weak.

Plebs...Morons... a Government Minister Said

When your job entails travelling all around Westminster or DC for that matter, then as a matter of necessity, you soon work out how to best handle the police and the security guards at every entrance and gate.

The one obvious lesson for lowly officials and Secretaries of State alike is, never try to hurry the police or challenge their authority. It is quite simple: let them do their job, be polite and respectful and everyone gets on fine.

So step forward, brand new Chief Whip to Her Majesty's Government, Andrew Mitchell who, given his lofty position, felt entitled to spit out various expletives and general abuse at the officers guarding the gates to Downing Street on Wednesday evening. The calls for his head are legion and has prompted his sudden disappearance from media scrutiny.

The circumstances of the case are depressingly ordinary. Mitchell sails around Whitehall on what appears to be his mum's bike. It was the police officers' refusal to let hm cycle merrily through the security gates which prompted Mitchell to bellow about them being, "f**king plebs" and "morons" who should "know their place". He also reportedly said, “Open this gate, I’m the Chief Whip. I’m telling you - I’m the Chief Whip and I’m coming through these gates.”
Mitchell's crude bullying tactics may work on his timid colleagues, MPs caught between satisfying their consciences or furthering their Parliamentary careers, but clearly should not be deployed so bluntly against public servants. His outburst also betrayed the snooty attitude of the higher echelons of the Conservative Party toward the 'lower classes', a politically toxic image which David Cameron has tried so hard to smother since he became leader in 2005. It gets considerably worse. Dave himself was forced to take a break from paying tribute to two WPCs in Manchester who had been killed in a gun and grenade attack this week, to publicly admonish his Chief Whip for disrespecting police officers. By any standard that's very bad politics.
Mitchell then compounded his guilt by denying the words reported in the Sun newspaper and so implied the officers were so unprofessional as to invent outright lies about a senior Government figure. His "half-hearted" apology implied he still expected subservience from the police and felt they should bow meekly to his version of the truth.
To their credit, both officers made written records of the incident at the time and are sticking to them. They may have been inspired to be so resolute following the savage cuts in policing introduced by the Coalition Government, resulting in considerably depleted pensions and contracting out of frontline work to questionable private companies such as G4S. John Tully, chairman of the Metropolitan Police Federation, said, “I know what the officers have told me, and what was reported … is absolutely what happened. I think Mr Mitchell needs to address his position and resign as soon as possible. "


The London Mayor, Boris Johnson, easily the most popular Conservative in the country, called last year for anyone caught swearing at a police officer to be arrested. That could still happen which would mean Cameron trawling for another Chief Whip next week. The Met police usually do not need much encouragment to make an arrest, for example they once banged up a student who inquired whether a policeman's horse was 'gay'.

If this wanton display of arrogance is sufficient to cost Mitchell his job then it will be one of the most careless ways ever to lose a senior Government position but given his boorish and reprehensible behaviour, it will be thoroughly deserved.

Margins of Error

“Opinion polls don’t tell the whole story…the only poll that counts is on election day….these polls certainly don’t reflect what the people have been saying to me up and down the land.”

These are all familiar lines used by losing candidates in the run up to their impending electoral defeat. I am not aware of Governor Romney using any of these phrases yet as his national numbers have stood up pretty well until recently. But the party conventions saw a slight widening of the President’s lead so confirming Romney’s lacklustre performance in Tampa and his inability to convince the American public he is worthy of their affection and trust.

But there are some abysmal poll numbers which cannot be explained away with a string of rationalisations. Obama leads Romney on women by about 15 points and Latinos by about 40. The lead among African Americans for the Democratic candidate has strengthened from 2008 when Senator McCain took a measly four points. Obama’s lead is total: 94-0.

Now in Europe there has been some polling about how we would receive a Romney Presidency. First, we in Europe understand 99 percent of the US population ‘could not give a rat’s a**e’ what France, Germany and Britain think and no country would be significantly swayed by an outsider’s view of their own domestic election. Nevertheless, the poll does illustrate how poorly Romney’s public image is playing to a wider audience. The average number in those countries who thought the former Governor would make the US be received more favourably was just four percent.

Romney’s rather dismal effort at diplomacy in his summer tour of UK, Poland and Israel culminated in denigrating the Olympic organisation in London just prior to its huge success. His effort to portray himself as Master of the Olympics showed flaky advice and even worse judgement. His tactless condemnation of Obama following death of the US Ambassador in Libya, without emphasising condolence, may linger disastrously for him.

As the numbers slowly run away from him, he is getting plenty of advice from fellow Republicans. Fox News analyst, Sarah Palin’s suggestion that he get “severely aggressive” with the President seems tactically idiotic. Romney, for all his faults, has got those upper middle class and blue collar white votes solidly in his base. Shouting louder at an audience he has already won over will not win him any more states on 6 November.

Even stirring greater antipathy to the incumbent by another slew of negative campaigning does not mean support transferring to the challenger. Certainly not at this late stage. These would be desperate options for a candidate feeling the pressure. And he hasn’t even had to face the silky debating skills of President Obama in the debates yet.

That will be time to roll out the platitudes of the ‘soon to be defeated’.

Drugs: A Unique Perspective

Having a totally novel view of an age old issue, like drugs policy, must make you a fool or a genius.

Peter Hitchens's blast at the last 40 years of successive Governments' inability to eradicate the problems, which all western and many eastern counties have suffered, certainly begs the reader to make that choice.

Hitchins takes a very facile view of politicians, police and the drug users' motivations and concludes they all fail to attain the Hitchensian mark of morality. If he could turn the clock back, he would not spare his ire from alcohol and would, "drive it from our society."

His diatribe now fills an entire book:The War We Never Fought. However, his title is essentially correct:: we have never fought a war on drugs in Britain. It would contravene our longstanding tradition of tolerance for one thing.

Certainly we have drug problems. There are roughly 300,000 problematic drug users of a population of 63 million. But the UK's social and economic problems are piffling compared to frontline areas where the drugs war has actually been fought such as Columbia in 80s and 90s and Mexico today.

But enforcement is his answer. To Hitchens the mere threat of arrest and imprisonment is sufficient deterrent to stop drug use in its tracks. It isn't. But why does he think that? Perhaps when he were a lad he felt the stern word from a rather batey local sergeant was the absolute end. It is possible he has built his entire world view on these tiny convictions.

The text of his 'taster' article to the greater opus amounts to long tracts of personal assertion uninterupted by any supporting quotes from experts. It is just a litany of assumptions based on how the world doesn't work. At times he finds himself tweaking the truth. For example, he declares the drugs listed in Britain's Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 are there because there is "no safe dose." I have never read those words in any article or speech before. About specifc drugs, yes, but not all of them. The Act actually refers to drugs, "capable of having harmful effects sufficient to constitute a social problem."

But with that one bound Hitchens is able to describe cannabis as, "one of the most dangerous drugs in the world." Over two million people in Briatin have some cannabis each year but as common drug users he asserts this mass of people "often take to ruthless thieving."

As a journalist with the Daily Mail, he turns his own testimony full circle by presenting cannabis as a drug of violence because of numerous "newspaper accounts." His unilateralism is now complete.

Hitchens is right that it is possible to create a society where there is barely any trace of drug use. Unfortunately in these societies they also cut limbs from petty criminals and stone rape victims to death. Now that's what I call enforcement.

A Battle Royal

The British establishment has been through the wringer in recent years.

First, MPs and peers found their personal standings plummet as the expenses scandal revealed a great many had been bending, and in some cases serially breaking, the rules on their allowances. Huge settlement checks were written, careers fell and some were even imprisoned.

Next came the phone-hacking scandal which saw the voluntary closing by the Murdochs of the 150 year old News of the World and many senior police at the Met swept out of their offices. Almost every week gangs of journalists appear in court for plea hearings before their trials. Some will being go down.

The MPs have had an election since and have put their calamity behind them. The media are still in the midst of the Leveson Inquiry so cannot display any relaxed mood. There have recently been some isolated protesting voices suggesting the Inquiry has had a “chilling effect” on news reporting.

Of course this is all a lot of nonsense. The tabloid editors who are moaning have simply found there is a lot more criticism of their salacious stories and the publics appetite for lurid tales, celebrity intimidation and entrapment appears to have waned somewhat.

The editors have been waiting for an issue where they can fight back. The good old days of humiliation, harassment and blatant false reporting may be gone for now but they cannot let go just yet.

This week they found their opportunity. It was not a tale of a vast environmental cover-up by a multinational. It was not exposing criminal gangs preying on vulnerable people. It concrned a dispute over the publication of a nude picture of Prince Harry.

It would seem this “story” encapsulates the cause the editors want to hold up as emblematic of their “rights” of papers to publish. Former News of the World executive editor, Neil Wallis, took to the TV studios to declare, laughably, “Leveson is… killing investigative journalism in this country.” I would argue paying £10k then printing pictures taken at a drunken party in Vegas does not make you Woodward, nor Bernstein.

Wallis went on. Some might say, too long. “"Newspaper editors, newspaper executives are terrified of controversy now. If they get a controversial story that causes a furore an editor could lose his job, advertisers could be panicked into not advertising in their newspapers, because the mood in the newspaper industry is now so febrile. Some people might say that the Prince Harry story is a classic example of where the newspaper should basically wave two fingers at Leveson … and just stick it in the paper.”

The Sun did that anyway.

Mr Wallis, besides trying to resurrect his PR career, has tried to fix our attention on the wrong target. The embargo on publication was sought by St. James’s Palace (aka Prince Charles) who argued, unconvincingly, it was an invasion of privacy. Those sort of pointless restrictions from the Royal family have been going on for decades and has nothing whatever to do with Leveson.

And to elevate the battle over publishing a pixilated naked Royal to the denying the basic freedoms of the press, shows the tabloid editors for what they are – compulsive recyclers of trivia, nonsense and nudity.

Still Beating Down

In US election vernacular 'beating down' means being on the defensive and as Republican candidate Mitt Romney's team said themselves, "if you are on the defensive you are losing."

But the polls show he is not losing by much at the moment. But these elections go at different paces. Unemployment rates are suppressing any bounce for Obama in the immediate term. But in the 'now to November' term, Romney is getting thrashed.

It began last month with a rare agressive move from the Democrats to raise the issue of his departure from Bain Capital and refusal to disclose any more than the minimum of tax returns. It means the issue is alive between now and election day. It fits in with the narrative of him being massive wealthy and with offshore trusts. It will become relevant all over again when he picks his VP choice and what returns they are willing show.

His selective tour of Europe and Middle East was in diplomatic terms "a car wreck." He failed to demonstrate elementary political insight and acted like a large-checked know all yank tourist. His first mistake was to upset the US's greatest ally, the UK and unite a divided nation against him, culminating in a scoffing public putdown from the PM. His panderng in Israel to the Florida Jewish vote was embarrassing and grossly insulting to the Palestinians whose poverty was attributed to a different "culture" without mentioning the economic blockade. His reference to the "hand of providence" to economic development also added to Romney's image as a religious nut.

The Republicans have been playing a long game too. In many swing states such as Ohio, Florida and Virginia they have changed voter registration rules to make it much harder to vote. For example discontinuing early voting which would mostly apply to working classes who will certainly favour Obama.

The critical episode will be the debates, where they meet one-on-one. Here the President will more easily expose, through his superior debating skills, Romney's "voodoo" economic plan which will coincidentally benefit millionaires like him.

Americans will want to re-elect Obama but whether they still can when they get to the voting booth is another matter.