PMQs - Leaders desperate to link to Obama

PMQs today was understandably overshadowed by all the coverage of the US Presidential Election. It also came as no surprise that all three party leaders sought to cash in on Senator Obama’s victory – all trying to associate themselves with the popular President Elect.

Cameron used Obama’s victory to throw Gordon Brown's conference slogan that "it's no time for a novice" back at him. He asked the prime minister whether his congratulatory message to the President Elect included the phrase "this is no time for a novice?" Brown grinned at this as he had expected Cameron to deploy the line. Accordingly the PM was prepared and hit back with another of his conference lines that "serious times need serious people." Brown has been spinning ever since the Labour Conference that this is no time for a novice and that his experience is what the country needs. But Obama's victory has given Cameron the greatest retort given the President-elects popularity. Cameron can now point across the Atlantic – and he did - and say Obama does not have any executive experience but that does not rule him out of the job of being the “world’s most powerful man.” Moreover, Obama's time for a change message and decision to blame Bush (and by implication McCain) for the economic problems are themes that Cameron has, and will continue to run with. If Americans thought it was time to throw out the old and in with the new, why not the British. David Cameron and the Conservative Party clearly think that Obama's victory is good news for them. Not so, says the Prime Minister and Labour Party. They have interpreted Obama’s victory as great news for them. His victory does not mean it is time for a change or that the electorate should embrace the untried and untested, it means instead that the progressive politics of the centre left have just been endorsed by the American electorate and Labour offers just this type of politics, such as a Keynesian spending splurge, the Prime Minister pointed out. This provided the perfect opening for the Lib Dem Leader Nick Clegg, who has been calling for tax cuts for low and middle income earners. If, Clegg asked, the progressive policies of Gordon Brown and Barack Obama were so similar then why was the Prime Minister not calling for similar tax cuts? This was Clegg’s way of linking the Lib Dems to Obama’s victory. Brown responded that the big difference was that the President Elect was not calling for £20 billion worth of spending cuts like the Lib Dems. (This is actually not true – it is a misrepresentation of Lib Dem policy - but the Prime Minister does not let truth get in the way of his answers).

Other than the leaders giving their own interpretations of the significance of Obama’s victory on British politics, the leaders did discuss other issues. David Cameron and Gordon Brown clashed over the level of Britain's personal and public debt whereas Nick Clegg and Gordon Brown clashed on tax and spend policy.

David Cameron accused the government of leading the UK into a longer recession than other major economies because of the extent of borrowing. Cameron opened the rowdy exchange by noting that: "This week the European Commission said that Britain is facing a deeper recession next year than the United States, than Japan or than any major EU economy. The Prime Minister kept telling us that Britain was better prepared to face the recession, in fact we are the worst prepared. Why was he wrong?" he asked. The Prime Minister noted this was the only time Cameron had quoted the European Commission! He insisted that combined debt was lower than in comparable countries and government borrowing smaller as a share of GDP than in 1997. Brown told him that: "The reasons why we are better prepared than other countries is that for years we have had low interest rates, we are now getting inflation down and it will come down in the next year, we have high levels of employment, higher than almost every other major industrial country, and we can come through this. At the same time, corporate balance sheets are strong, outside the financial sector," he added.

But Cameron came back saying the PM cannot hide from this. He asked: "If we are better prepared, why is our recession forecast to be deeper?” Cameron said for years Brown had read out lists of countries we were safer than. Now Britain was safer than just two countries - Estonia and Latvia. They escaped grip of Stalin, we're still in it, Cameron quipped. The Prime Minister replied that it was because the economy had benefited from "10 years of economic growth, 10 years of stability, [and] 10 years where three million jobs have been created." He added that several EU economies had been in negative growth in the second quarter of this year, whereas Britain was not.

The Tory leader then asked whether: "One of the reasons why our recession is predicted to be deeper is that we have got such high levels of personal debt?" Cameron claimed the UK has the "highest level of household debt of any major economy." Cameron told Brown that he could not build a new Jerusalem on a mountain of debt. The PM said France’s debt was 55.5 percent while Germany’s was 56.1 percent. He said Cameron had to look at personal and public debt together and that was what he would do.

Cameron said the IMF had warned Brown about debt levels before. He started to read a quote from Brown taken from the 1995 Brown Labour conference but was cut off by Labour jeers. The Speaker hilariously intervened getting in on the fun by telling Labour MPs: “I want to hear what was said at Labour party conference as I'm not allowed to be there!” Cameron continued with his Brown quote saying the PM had said in 1995: "because I care we will not build a new Jerusalem on a mountain of debt." Cameron then asked when will there be an enquiry into the failure of our regulatory system as the new Treasury minister, Lord (Paul) Myners, had called for? The Prime Minister said Myners had said no such thing. He said Cameron was showing himself to be a novice in procedure.

Cameron quoted Lord Myners agreeing with a fellow peer in the House of Lords that such an enquiry was necessary. Cameron finished by saying that the PM was demonstrating that he cannot provide the change people want. He said today the US had voted for change and asked how much longer do we have to put up with more of the same? Brown said the reason people voted for change is that they wanted progressive politics - all policies opposed by the Conservatives. Tory party policies were rejected in the US & UK. The PM finished by saying it was a truly historic occasion in the US but this was met by chants of ‘change’ from the Conservative benches.

Nick Clegg congratulated Obama and wished him luck as he said the hopes and expectations to change the world were immense. He said the central policy of Obama was to cut low and middle-income taxes. Why would the PM not follow suit? Brown said the American electorate had not voted for Lib Dem policies as Clegg claimed.

Clegg accused Brown of copying the Tories by offering to give more money to millionaires. He called on the Prime Minister to put more money into the pockets of low income right now. The Prime Minister said tax and spending policy must add up. He said that if Clegg was going to oppose then he was out of touch with British people.

PMQs Ratings

Verdict: Score Draw

Gordon Brown - 7/10
David Cameron - 7/10
Nick Clegg - 7/10

More thoughts on US Presidential election

Labour is spinning that Obama's victory is good for them because of their progressive politics.

Lib Dems are spinning that his victory is good for them because he has promised tax cuts for the 'poor'.

I think these are pretty thin reasons to celebrate.

In terms of which party Obama's victory helps most, it has to be the Conservatives. Brown has been spinning ever since the Labour Conference that this is no time for a novice and that his experience is what the country needs. But Obama's victory gives Cameron the greatest retort given the President-elects popularity. Cameron can now point across the pond and say Obama doesn't have any executive experience but that didn't rule him out of the job. Moreover, Obama's time for a change message and decision to blame Bush (and by implication McCain) for the economic problems are themes that Cameron has, and will continue to run with. If Americans thought it was time to throw out the old and in with the new, why not the British. Obama's victory is good news for David Cameron and the Conservatives.

Other thoughts... This is a good day for pro-Americans. No longer will the anti-American Europeans, those snobbish liberals, be able to sneer at America calling it a backward, racist country. The election of a (half) Black African American has put paid to that. How enlightened are Europeans? How many black Prime Ministers, Presidents, and leaders do you see in Europe? For that matter, how many Colin Powell's and Condi Rice's are there in Europe? The American Dream is alive and well!

Last point... Turnout for the US elections was only 64 percent which is surprisingly low. I had expected turnout to be in the 70s given all the excitement about the election.

Why did John McCain lose the election?

For me it came down to three primary reasons:

1) The Economy - You can clearly see in the polls that as soon as the financial crisis hit, Obama's poll ratings went steadily up, while McCain's went down. The Republican's had had the White House for 8 years and this had happened on their watch. Events went against McCain. His strong suit was not the economy but foreign policy and national security. These issues were pushed to the back ground. Obama is no king on the economy but his message of change resonated and the economic downturn helped him. It's ironic that the effect the economy has had on this election. A) It seems to be helping Gordon Brown (why i don't know) but it hurt McCain and the Republicans; and B) had the Democrats and GOP known that the economy would play centre stage surely the Presidential battle would have been between Hilary Clinton and Mitt Romney? It would have been interesting to see how that played out.

2) George Bush - Obama did a good job of linking McCain to Bush despite the fact that the two men often bitterly disagreed with one another. McCain didn't do a good enough job of distancing himself. Despite being a maverick and having a deserved reputation for reaching across the floor working with the likes of Ted Kennedy, McCain struggled to de-tar himself from the unpopular Bush-Republican brush. This hurt him bad.

3) Sarah Palin - A criticism of the McCain campaign was that we did not see enough of the 'real John McCain'. He had denounced the Republican Fundamentalist Right and yet ended up turning to them during his campaign when he hired former Bush aides but none more so when he chose Sarah Palin as his running mate. I think this was a mistake but in defence of McCain, despite the fact that he was a maverick with bipartisan credentials, his message of change - in what undoubtedly was a change election whichever way it went - was never going to trump Obama's who had the advantage of being Democrat and physically embodied 'change'. I would argue that it was the failure of the 'real John McCain' that forced him to get in bed with 'devil'. One can still argue that he was wrong to do so, but he needed to change things and also needed to do something to get the Republican base excited about his candidacy. Hence the disaster of Sarah Palin. Yes, she did indeed invigorate the Republican base who had been distinctly lukewarm about McCain's candidacy but it came at a cost - he ended up alienating all the independents he used to attract. Furthermore, whoever thought that choosing a women would appeal to disaffected Hilary Clinton supporters was a moron. More charitably, she may have been chosen to indicate change (first female VP) and reinforce McCain's ant-establishment, anti-Washington message. Either way, i think it's fair to say the choice of Palin has to be seen as a mistake.

These are my top three reasons why McCain lost. There are other important reasons of course. One important reason was the huge support Obama had within the media which meant he got a soft ride, not just against McCain, but also against Hilary Clinton. Another reason was that Obama declined to accept Federal Funding, despite saying he would do so, which meant that he was able to vastly out-fundraise McCain which in turn meant that he could out-spend him. This meant that Obama could dominate McCain with his TV election ads; he could open far more campaign offices in each state than McCain; this far superior organisation was critically important in the ‘get the vote out’ drives; and finally, it meant Obama was able to inject funds into ‘safe’ Republican states, forcing McCain to use his limited finances to shore-up support in states he normally would not have needed to work too hard to keep.

In was always going to be a tough ask for McCain and so it proved.

Obama wins... let the disappointment begin!

As expected Senator Barrack Obama has won the US Presidential election.

But sorry to be a party pooper, but given the extraordinarily high expectations that have been built up during the campaign, a President Obama will surely only disappoint.

It was always likely to be a Democrat year (spare a thought for Hilary Clinton - she must be gutted as 2008 was supposed to be her year), but Obama's victory comes at a time of huge difficulties. He has already indicated that one term might not be enough. In his in tray will of course be the economy. Talk seems to have been on some kind of Franklin D Roosevelt/Keynesian plan, spending money on America's infrastructure and creating jobs. But FDR's public works programme intended to lift America out of the Great Depression financed by federal borrowing did not help. As Andrew Neil has noted, although it did wonders for America's morale (and helped get FDR re-elected three times!) it's effect on the economy and unemployment was marginal. US dole queues only started to plummet when Roosevelt went on to a war economy footing as Hitler's War raged in Europe and he knew America could not forever avoid engagement in it.

Other issues in the in-tray are Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. Despite all the talk of pulling troops out of Iraq at the beginning of his campaign, Obama is not going to immediately pull out troops. Withdrawal will not be immediate and will be dependent on the realities on the ground. As for Afghanistan and Pakistan he faces huge problems. The European love affair with Obama will be sorely tested by the new President's foreign policy aimed at these two countries. Obama will want the Europeans to commit more troops to the NATO effort in Afghanistan but he will soon find out that Europe is weak and despite all the platitudes they will once again fail to deliver. I can also see the Europeans (and the rest of the world) falling out with Obama as US foreign policy fails to take the radical departure from the second term of the Bush Presidency they expect. Joy will turn to disappointment.

Furthermore, Obama also has to deal with Congress. It looks unlikely that the Democrats will win the magic 60 Senators they need in the Senate to prevent Republicans using the filibuster to talk out legislation. This might bode ill for his plans to radically reform health care in the United States. Nevertheless, the Democrats will dominate Congress - both the Senate and the House of Reps. But this might not be the advantage it seems. He will have to balance the conflicting demands of the hard and soft Left. Furthermore, have a Democratic Congress might impede his efforts to win a second term - if disappointment doesn't do that first. American's do not traditionally like one party dominating the Presidency and Congress for too long, preferring balance. This could offer the Republicans a way back in 2012 (so long as they get their house in order and under no circumstances adopt Sarah Palin as their Presidential nominee!!!). Finally, despite all his best intentions, Obama could be derailed by the one thing that afflicts all leaders... events dear boy, events!

That said, Obama has a huge mandate and has the enormous power of executive privilege. It is imperative that he hits the ground running and uses the goodwill he obviously will have at home and abroad to achieve as much as he can within his first 100 days. A couple of things I'd expect him to do to help extend this goodwill will be to announce the closure of Guantanamo Bay and also repudiate the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive military strikes. (Talking of which, President Bush has only 3 months or so left of his own Presidency. Much work is left to be done. He had better get cracking if he's to launch those tactical nukes at Iran and North Korea before he has to retire to his Texas ranch! Joke!)

Obama to win but Republicans back in 2012

I've been sent news and a helpful report about a CentreForum event that took place at the Bloomberg's London office entitled: “America Votes: Implications for the US and the World.” The two speakers were Dr Stefan Halper, University of Cambridge, and Sir Robert Worcester, founder of MORI.

Both men said, unsurprisingly, they expected Senator Obama to become the next President of the United States.

They said it is too late for Senator McCain to change strategy and shift tact. There are no more debates left. However, they said if McCain is to have any hope of winning he will need to convince the one in five floating voters who are either white, young educated women or older white people to vote for him. He has no chance of winning round Black or Hispanic voters. However, his current attacks on Obama’s character are turning off the women voters he needs to attract.

They said if he fails to win round the floating voters the only hope for McCain would be a terrorist attack (unlikely, though not impossible) or a major Obama gaffe (again unlikely, given Obama’s cool, cautious character).

Some have suggested the so-called ‘Bradley Effect’ could come into play. They said they thought the Bradley effect would be unlikely to determine the outcome of this election. They said if it were to be prevalent it would be in the ‘red’ states (i.e. Republican states) and only affect the polling results by 2 percent nationwide at most. However, if the election was very close then it could of course have an impact if it did indeed materialise this election.

The choice of Sarah Palin by McCain as his running mate was strongly criticised as a strategic and tactical mistake. He had only met her once before and due to the lack of time left for him to choose his running mate, scrutiny of her suitability was minimal. She fitted the profile the Republicans were looking for: woman with kids, pro-life, pro-guns, and folksy charm to appeal to the Western states. However, she was all this for the first two weeks but then her credibility began to unravel in the television studios. In addition, she comes from Alaska which does not have many Electoral College votes and the state always votes Republican anyway. McCain would have been better choosing someone from a swing state. Furthermore, McCain was badly advised if he thought that pro-life Palin would be able to win over the disaffected but pro-choice Hilary Clinton female Democrats. McCain’s choice of Palin has damaged his credibility in terms of judgement.

Even though they thought Obama would become President, the panel said Obama is likely to disappoint the rest of the world, particularly Europeans. He will not be the radical departure from the Bush years they think he will be and the enormous expectations people have for Obama can only lead to disappointment. If he does have a single radical idea in his head, and the panel was hugely sceptical that he does, he ought to try and implement it immediately before Congress and the rest of the world ends his honeymoon period. For Obama’s part, he is likely to become very frustrated with the rest of the world, especially the Europeans. He has made Afghanistan (and Pakistan) key to his foreign policy but he is unlikely to find any joy in persuading European governments to put more troops on the ground and in conflict situations.

Predictions

Sir Robert Worcester – Obama will win; Gordon Brown will be the best friend of the new President, whoever he is; 2012 – expect a Republican recovery, expectations are far too high for Obama; and the Republican candidate for 2012 will be General Petraeus.

Dr Stefan Halper – Obama to win; and with a Democratic Congress very likely, Obama will find it really difficult to win a second term in office. Americans do not like one party in control of both Houses of Congress and the Presidency.

British Politics

The panel also briefly touched on UK politics. Sir Robert said Cameron had grown enormously in stature these past three years. However, he said Cameron’s biggest mistake has been ignoring the fact that all leaders should have a kitchen cabinet within their organisation which fully utilises all a party’s experience. He said people like John Gummer and Ken Clarke should be brought into Cameron’s inner circle and expected they would be closer to an election.

Recount and the hanging chads

I watched Recount with Kevin Spacey last night (I had taped it off More 4 the other night).

It was a pretty good HBO film/dramatisation about the 2000 Presidential Election which all hinged on the 25 Electoral College votes from the state of Florida. It was filmed mostly from the Democrats perspective and of course delt with their attempts to force a manual recount. You remember, all that stuff about hanging and dimple chads.

It made some good points about how the state had disenfranchised voters which is of course outrageous but on the issue of the 'chads' my views still haven't changed from 8 years ago. As the Republicans argued, the voting procedure clearly stated that a hole must be punched right through. The Democrats had argued that intent was more important than following the rules.

But i'm sorry, if you are such a moron that you can't follow the rules so get confused by the ballot paper, and can't punch a simple hole in a piece of card, you don't deserve your vote!!!