The American Election of 2012

So through this primary process, Mitt Romney emerged as the winning Republican candidate.  Not a popular candidate with many, including in his own party, but he managed to outspend and outgun his opponents.

I have my reservations about him and some of his prior policy activity but  his inspired choice of running mate, Paul Ryan, gives America a really great opportunity to elect a real no-nonsense conservative.  The key will be how the partnership between Romney and Ryan will function.

If Romney is foolish enough to restrict Ryan to the largely ceremonial role normally reserved for VPs, then he will miss a great opportunity to exploit a great mind and a person recognised for his integrity and common sense approach and for his 'right-thinking' ways as regards taxes and the US deficit and debt.

I wonder if there is any restriction on Ryan serving in a dual capacity - VP and Treasury Secretary?  Starting off with a cost saving measure - two jobs for the price of one - wouldn't hurt!

So what about Obama? Will he ditch Biden (or will Joe stand down) and then pick Hillary as a running mate?

Reading the partisan and widely pro-Obama press, one gets the idea that the Romney-Ryan ticket has got the Obama campaign rattled.  Romney was pushing Obama but now that Ryan is on-board, I think that the Republican ticket will start to pull marginally ahead.

Obama can't look to the economy for help.  While US Federal spending remains high and, if Obama has his way, goes higher still, the only solution is to raise taxes - and we are not talking about on rich people, we are talking about on the huge swathe of middle class Americans  - that's the only place where the revenues raised can start to make any kind of impact on the deficit numbers.

Then there's Obama's failed foreign policy initiatives and promises - what did he say about troop levels in Afghanistan?  They are higher now, than when Bush left the White House.  Dialogue with Iran? How did that work out? I still don't get how this 'leading from behind' is supposed to work.  Don't recall seeing Obama being feted in Tripoli!  Can see him (and America) being castigated for inaction over Syria, where the Assad regime and their Iranian backers pursue a 'slaughter of the innocents' policy.  Meanwhile China is flexing its muscles in the South China Sea and angering neighbours in Vietnam, Japan and the Philippines and where is America?  And all the time, Chavez and the 'loco lefties' in Latin America nip and pinch at American interests, with impunity.

To go back to the start of this post, it is perhaps a measure of Romney's previously shaky support, that the Republicans are not 'streets ahead' in the polls, given the idealistic incompetence of Obama and his team.  Let's hope for Romney's sake and especially for the sake of America (and right thinking folks, everywhere) that the addition of Ryan, to the ticket, brings political and economic competency to the White House to allow the world to see that fine words and speeches a la Obama don't amount to much if they are not backed-up with action.

Here though is a question for Democrat party supporters.  Okay so Obama got his health care bill through and he continues to suck-up to Public Service unions but in your heart of hearts, in the dark of night, when you are alone and quietly thinking, do you not see that the last 4 years have been a wasted opportunity?  Be honest now!   

Note to Nick Clegg

Dear Nick,
here's an idea.  Instead of suggesting, in some kind of ill-thought out way, that the UK should 'tax the rich more' why not do now, what we are going to have to do eventually, anyway?

That is, why not cut expenditure.  From a Treasury point of view it has the same effect on the deficit!  However, there is so much more open to cut than there is to tax.

Abolish the Environment and Climate Change ministry - massive savings and lower fuel bills - gets my vote!

Of course, I know that won't build your 'street cred' at your party conference but it has a better chance of actually doing something constructive!

Incidentally, isn't the Chancellor supposed to be the one formulating economic policy?

The ideal Cabinet re-shuffle

OK, so some of what follows is decidedly wishful thinking but without dreams ................

David Cameron is apparently contemplating a re-shuffle of the portfolio's of his ministers and so I offer the following:

There is an agreement to have 5 Lib Dems in the Cabinet.  Currently these are, Clegg, Davey, Cable, Alexander and Moore. 

The most obvious candidate for removal is Vince Cable.  This, frankly speaking, socialist anti-business Lib Dem cannot be left in charge of the Business portfolio.  Replace him with David Laws.  Most commentators view him as very capable and he has served his punishment for his expenses mis-demeanour's.  Cable will make noise from the back-benches but the sound might actually be less and get less air-time than emanates from him, today, where he regularly strays into areas outside of his portfolio and spouts off on things in a non-Coalition way.  He is not a team player!

Next, move Ed Davey from Energy and Climate Change to Culture and Media.  Davey cannot be replaced with the obvious candidate, James Delingpole, unless Delingpole is elevated to the House of Lords.  What a picture, springs to mind!!  The key is to get this ministry away from the 'green zealots'.   Note to Dave.  There are big votes in this.  Scrap the lunatic 'green policies' and we will see reduced fuel bills, all to the credit of the Conservatives!!

Kenneth Clarke out of Justice and replaced by David Davis.  Clarke is far too detached and still stuck in a pro-EU time-warp.  We don't need baggage like that, going into an election.

Andrew Mitchell - out of International Development - pushes a NGO agenda at a time when we simply cannot afford it.

Justine Greening -  out of Transport - she has funked the Heathrow Third Runway question and is pushing the seemingly uneconomic H2S or, as it is known in the Tory heartlands - the 'political suicide express' .  Replace with David Willets - Two-Brains might actually get engaged on a coherent and integrated policy.

Keep
Lansley at Health - these reforms need to be bedded-in and he is the man for the job.
IDS at Work & Pensions - No comments needed for a minister on the top of his game
Gove at Education - Same as IDS - taking no prisoners as he pushes through much-needed reform

With Lords reform now abandoned, this Government should not waste the talents of the Deputy PM.  So, given his enthusiasm for reform make him responsible for consulting on and then developing a policy for the reform of the relationship between the UK and the EU. 

EU Politicians - How much is enough?

Greece's government is, not surprisingly, asking for more time to implement further budget cuts. 

It is in the balance if the real masters of Greece, the German dominated EU and the IMF, will allow for such time.  There is much speculation that contingency plans have now been put in place to allow for an 'orderly' exit of Greece, from the Euro. 

While this will cause additional pain for Greece, allowing their new currency the freedom to float (yes, it will sink initially but will then find a sustainable level), will get the Euro boot off of their throat.

And then what? 

Spain is still fragile and my expectation is that as we move into September, both Spain and Italy sovereign debt offerings will come under increasing pressure.  The current lull, is just that.  the storm is right around the corner.

Things is, I don't see how Spain can 'tighten its belt' any further.  They have initiated public spending cuts, how much more can they do, before they too throw in the towel? 

Think about those Spanish unemployment figures.  25% unemployment!  That's one in four people who are actively engaged in the workforce.  It doesn't include stay at home mums and dads, nor retirees, nor students.  No, just people who are eligible for employment.  I think the true number would be one in three Spanish persons.  Look around you!  Imagine every third person being unemployed (don't do this if you work in the UK Public Sector as even though you are under-employed, you are still, technically, employed (for now!)).   

Greece's numbers are no better.

We see TV shots of families living rough and scrounging around for food.  These aren't lazy people, they're not people from the less developed world who are suffering because the rains didn't come.  These are people living in the heart of a very rich continent who are being punished because their politicians have continuously lied to them and stolen from them and now try to tell them, it is their own fault!

The UK is outside of the Euro but is still feeling the pain of its never-ending misery and has its very own spending issues (more on that later) but maybe the time is coming for not just thinking about the break-up of the Euro but a complete re-assessment of the whole EU project, for all of the EU?

At what point does one stop squeezing a lemon - common sense says when all of the juice has been extracted but I get the sense that Frau Merkel just likes squeezing and her French poodle has to go along with her because maybe, just maybe, he senses that the markets just might see how fragile is France's economy and borrowings.

Assange - The solution?

Much as I hate to provide any further publicity 'oxygen' to the latest potential addition to Ecuador's population, I do think that I have a solution to the problem.

The UK (surely immediately followed by Sweden) should cut all diplomatic ties with Ecuador.  Close our embassy there and oblige them to close theirs in the UK.  At that point, all of their diplomats and anyone else inside their UK embassy will need to leave and Assange can be nabbed before he leaves the country.  He does not, as far as has been reported, have any diplomatic status or protection outside of the embassy.

There is the risk that the Ecuadoreans will try to smuggle him out in a box or some other kind of diplomatic bag.  Really, can you see this self-publicist being gagged and man-handled and not getting the chance to fulfill his martyr's destiny?  No, neither can I.

We can expect sabre rattling and faux outrage from the usual suspects in Latin America but do we really care?  If Mrs Kirchner makes another speech denouncing the colonialist UK, will we pay it any heed or will we just see it for the pandering that it is?  Mr Chavez will no doubt show 'solidarity' with his Ecuadorean cousins and if he (and Mrs Kirchner, come to that) decided they wanted to close their respective embassies in the UK, would we care? 

It would probably seem mischievous, to say nothing of downright over-optimistic, to suggest that our EU partners might follow suit and also close their embassies, wouldn't it?  The silence from European capitals and the EU Foreign Affairs High Priestess (Catherine Ashton, in case you have forgotten!) has been truly deafening!  I wonder if the lure of anti-Americanism is just to hard to resist?

So cut-off relations, show Ecuador that having the very dubious pleasure of Assange's company actually has a price and make them pay it.

On the upside, the UK Treasury will have been boosted by £250K from that forfeited bail money and it just might make the fools that paid it, think twice before they jump on the next band-wagon that comes along.

Lib Dems Opportunity to back democracy

Readers of prior posts will be aware that I am not a great fan of the Liberal Democrats.  If you weren't aware, I apologise if this opening offends you but do read on.

Recently we have heard much from the Lib Dems on the subject of Lib Dem ideas of democracy and particularly how reform of the House of Lords would be a much needed step in the direction of improving the state of democratic accountability, in the UK.

The House of Lords reform has been shelved because, while the Lib Dems, the very junior partner in the governing coalition, want it, the majority Conservatives, don't.

In a blatant act of petulance and hypocrisy the Lib Dems have now said that they won't support the government (of which they are members!) in its adoption of changes proposed by the independent Boundary Commission.  These changes would reduce the number of UK constituencies - so saving money for the beleaguered UK taxpayer and would make the number of voters, in a UK constituency,  broadly equal in number. 

I don't know about you but having all MPs representing an equal number of voters sounds reasonably democratic, to me.  Certainly more so than the current system, which favours the Lib Dems more natural allies on the Left, the Labour Party.

There is always the chance that common sense or decency will prevail and the Lib Dems will take a step back and realise that 'throwing your toys out of the pram' isn't really the best portrayal of a serious political party with any kind of aspirations to play at the top table.  Don't hold your breath though!

This past week does though, give  the Lib Dems a further opportunity to polish their democratic credentials (some providential being must really care for them!).

In two Manchester constituencies, represented by the Lib Dems at Westminster, unofficial plebiscites were held.  The simple question put to voters was around the subject of whether or not a national referendum should be held  on the subject of the UK's continued membership of the European Union. 

The results showed, in both constituencies, that more than 85% of those voting supported the idea of a referendum.  Bear in mind too, that this wasn't some small and possibly unrepresentative polling sample.  No, this was on a turnout of 35% of eligible voters.  More than voted in the recent local elections.

Think about that number again!  35% of voters were actually bothered to pull themselves away from the TV soaps and the Olympics coverage (well done Team GB, by the way) and whatever else they were doing and go out and register their views.

So here is the opportunity for the Lib Dems.  Heed the voice of the people.  Be the first major party (ignore for a moment, your opinion poll position versus that of UKIP) to come out in support of a referendum.  Think what it would do for your standing, among the people.  Your principled stand, to represent the people's wishes, in spite of all your previous blindly slavish following of the profoundly undemocratic EU project will truly demonstrate your democratic credentials.

I hope those that read this blog will forgive my throwing a lifeline to the Lib Dems but I am quite concerned at the unedifying sight of the Lib Dems twisting themselves into knots and contortions while trying to support their hypocritical stance on their version of 'democracy' 




 

Labour mud slinging

Labour MP Jim Sheridan has criticized the Culture Secretary, Jeremy Hunt, because he had a chance, passing encounter, with Rupert Murdoch at a London Olympics venue.

He went on to wonder 'what would Milly Dowler's family think of this'?

I seem to recall that Surrey Police were very clear that there was no evidence that anyone at Murdoch's News International's now defunct News of the World newspaper, ever hacked the phone of the abducted and subsequently murdered schoolgirl.

So why fling the mud? 

Apart from such being a familiar tactic regularly employed by the 'holier than thou' hypocrites from  Labour, this is yet another attempt to obscure and distance themselves from News International and particularly the exceedingly close relations that they enjoyed with that organization.  Indeed, much of the phone hacking that has been alleged to have taken place, occurred when those guardians of morality, AKA the Labour Party, were actually in power.  Maybe it just didn't suit their ends to question the media organs that were so supportive?

Labour Party doesn't sling mud?  Think Damian McBride, Think Dr David Kelly. 

Heavens, when Brown was fuming on the sidelines, as Chancellor (and in the process ruining the UK economy) his cohorts - Charlie Whelan and the afore-mentioned McBride were vigorously leaking and plotting against Blair and his team.  Blair and Co were no angels either - remember 'pyschologically flawed'?


Sometimes a chance meeting is just that.  The reports indicate that this was so, so why, other than for cheap political points, make a fuss about it.

It says more about Sheridan's flawed judgement than Hunt's. 

Gay Marriage - again

The BBC posed a question  recently ' Is Gay marriage an election issue'?

I think yes.

I suspect  that returning to this topic will unleash the ignorant comments I have seen in the past but this needs to be said.

Why do I think yes? 

Firstly, I believe that some voters, who otherwise are indifferent, will wonder just what is going on.  When Britain is in the depths of recession and economic gloom and, while there is a realisation that 'so called' austerity cuts need to be made, folks will wonder why the people, who they have elected, choose this moment to spend their time, not addressing the 'bread and butter' issues that affect the man in the street, but instead pander to a vocal minority.

Secondly, voters will ask, as I have done, why do homosexuals feel that they need to have their unions called marriage?  People know and, like me, reckon that the 2004 Civil Union act, which afforded homosexual partners equal rights on a whole range of issues.  So why the need for further legislation?  OK, right-on pandering might be a reason but really?

I believe voters will see through the government's meaningless promises that 'no religious organisation will be compelled to offer marriage to homosexuals on religious sites'.  Everyone knows that this is rubbish and that before the ink is dry on the legislation, the homosexual advocates, for whom no amount of progress is ever enough (until perhaps homosexuals are in the ascendancy and heterosexuals are a down-trodden minority), will be pushing for marriages to take place in churches and claiming all sorts of 'human rights abuses' when they are denied.  We have seen this all before.

Christians certainly need only look back to the Abortion Act of 1967.  When this was passed the impetus was to close down 'back-street' abortionists and care for the people who would receive abortions.  These women were to be rape victims, women with social or mental  issues etc.  We were assured that there would be no 'abortion free for all'.  We know the truth to the lies peddled by the politicians of that time (led by the bill's author Lord David Steele (of the Lib Dems parish) and can see these in the ever soaring number of abortions being performed in the UK

I actually think that this proposed legislation and the phony consultation that is being conducted ('we are consulting about the legislation but we will pay no attention to any comments that we receive!') may have a negative effect or backlash against homosexuals.  Instead of just saying 'enough is enough' people might just say ' this shows we have already gone too far' - something similar to what is happening in people's response to the EU

Please feel free to comment but please try to answer the question 'What do homosexuals achieve by calling their commitment to each other a marriage rather than a civil union?'