Posts in the Politics category

Before he gave his feted keynote address at the 2004 Democratic convention, few outside Chicago or Illinois politics knew who Barack Obama was. Just over four years later he was resoundingly elected President. I do not feel that our political system is conducive to producing our own version of Barack Obama. By this I do not mean having a Prime Minister of colour, but rather having a Prime Minister, or for that matter a leader of a major party, who has effectively come from no where. Would a Member of Parliament elected at the last general election have a good chance of being Prime Minister at the next election? They would have almost no chance. Not only that, it is extremely unlikely that a major party would elect as its leader someone who was unknown to party leadership four years prior.

We have become accustomed in this country to cookie cutter politicians. If you look at the leaders of the three main parties, they all are of a similar age, come from a similar background, and followed similar paths up the party ladder. Such a path involves going to a prestigious university, usually Oxford or Cambridge, immediately obtaining a job with a think tank, within the party or for a senior member of the party, and work your way up until pretty soon you are being placed in to a safe seat, which is usually no where near to where you are actually from or reside, the reason being you are guaranteed to become an MP. Why has this practice become so prevalent? Are the major parties unable to find sufficient political talent from local areas that they then have to ship candidates in? If those that are being placed in safe seats are in fact so politically blessed, surely they should be able to compete in any seat? Also, if potential future leaders have never had to compete in a tough election themselves, how does this bode for them being able to connect with a diverse electorate and build a broad coalition? And the way the parties choose leaders doesn’t help either, as their processes inevitably favour establishment candidates.

Of course, for every Barack Obama there is a Sarah Palin. Palin also came from nowhere and became a national phenomenon thanks to her shock pick as John McCain’s running mate n 2008. However she appeared to be far out of her depth at the time, and since the election she has shot for media attention and a pay packet, as opposed to building a political platform for future elections.

This is not to say that the American system is better than ours, both have major flaws. But ours still appears, in my opinion to convey the impression that it is somewhat of a closed shop, with the path to the top open only for the elite few. Having a completely unelected upper house, The House of Lords, as opposed to an elected chamber like the US Senate does not help this impression, nor does the fact that so much power rests in the hands of the government and its ministers. As a backbencher in the Houses of Parliament, how much power do you actually have over national policy? In contrast, a single member out of the 535 serving in Congress in Washington could author a piece of legislation that may change a nation. Not only that, this also allows for more politicians to gain media and public attention, which can of course come in handy if they have higher ambitions.

The example of Obama is I admit an extreme one. He was a unique candidate and electrified a nation at a time when they were calling out for change. Many may point to the likes of John Kerry, George W Bush and Al Gore as evidence that more often than not the establishment gets their guy in America as well. I would argue that the primary system that both parties in the US have for choosing their leaders at least presents the possibility of an outsider becoming their leader. The use of the Internet, both as a messaging tool and a fundraising one, far outweighs how we use new media in this country. Howard Dean showed how far this could take you, when in 2004 he came extremely close to capturing the Democratic Presidential nomination.

I’m not sure what could be done to remedy this part of our political system. Or perhaps my impression is just that, and in reality my concerns are unfounded. I am of course merely an outside observer. Be that as it may, I think that moving towards an elected upper chamber, somehow ending the practice of placing rising stars in safe seats, and increasing the power of backbenchers would not only change the impression many have about our political system, but in fact lead to positive substantive changes in the way our government functions. 

Well it’s the day after the night before. I certainly did not enjoy this election night as much as the last one. Funny that.

Let’s face it; the Democrats took a beating. It was not as bad as it could have been, but it was pretty bad. So how could the Democrats have gone from such success, not only in 2008 but also in 2006, to what happened last night? Surely something must have gone drastically wrong, and all this talk of a massive liberal overreach must have some merit, right? Not necessarily.

After every election, there is always much talk about it being a change election, that the result was a repudiation of one party’s policies and the embrace of the other party’s policies. That is often in fact not the case.

If you would believe the Republicans, and many in the media, this was a rejection of policies that massively increase the size of government, tax increases and anti-business policies.

Firstly, taxes have not gone up. In fact the Obama administration passed the largest middle class tax cut in American history. The problem is, only a small minority in fact realise that their taxes have gone down. Secondly, the size of government has not increased massively. Government spending as a size of the economy has gone from around 20% under Bush to just over 23% under Obama. And this is with the government stimulus accounted for.

This election was about one thing – the economy. Even with the furore over health care (much of it unfounded) the Republicans would not have come close to the results they actually achieved if the economy was in a better shape. Unemployment is far too high, and this is the basis for much of the anger directed at government. If, for example, unemployment were 3 points lower, the deficit would hardly be an issue (for a start because it would naturally be much lower with a lower unemployment rate). Too many people feel not enough is being done to help the economy. Democrats also suffered because many of the younger people who were inspired and mobilised in 2008 stayed home.

In the House, most of the seats that Republicans won were in Republican districts. It was these seats that helped the Democrats win big in 2006 and 2008. Their achievement of breaking in to these conservative districts as Democrats was much more significant then Republicans simply taking them back.

The idea that it was the fault entirely of the Obama policies for the election result is also false. Many Democrats, for some bizarre reason, saw fit to run away from their votes. So if they supported health care reform or financial regulatory reform, they either did not talk about it or try to defend the votes, and in some cases even talked about regretting their votes. Many centrists lost, including Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas in the Senate, and half of the conservative Blue Dog coalition was wiped out in the House. This means that being a centrist was not necessarily a benefit in this election. 

With Republicans now in control of the House, and with the Democrats having a much smaller majority in the Senate, surely Obama must bow to the will of the Republicans, and pursue a much small legislative agenda? Definitely not. Firstly, Obama is still the President, and he is more popular nationally than any member of Congress. He is still the one who will set the agenda. Secondly, there is no evidence that the American public want gridlock, that they want their public servants to do less. In fact, there is much more evidence showing that they believe Congress is not doing enough to solve major problems. If Republicans spend the next two years doing nothing but sending out subpoenas and shouting how they are standing in the way of Obama the socialist, they will get their butts whooped in 2012, and Obama will coast to re-election. Of course things such as cap and trade are now dead. But on many big issues – energy, education, tax reform, infrastructure and immigration – there should be more than enough common ground for good legislation.

The Republicans have won without espousing any great vision or big ideas to solve the major problems that face America. Their answer to everything seems to be either cut taxes, cut spending, or stop socialism. Their bumper sticker approach will now have to dramatically change now that they are in power. Its time for ideas, debate, civility and solutions.

As much as it pains me to say it, it appears the Democrats are not going to have a good night on November 2^nd. It pains me even more due to the influx of anger and departure of logic from the Republican Party. As things stand, the GOP look set to regain the House of Representatives and make gains in the Senate, but fall short of taking a majority there. So from January of next year we will once again have divided government in Washington, with the Republicans in charge of the House and the Democrats in charge of the Senate, and of course Barack Obama in the White House. 

But this is not your father’s Republican Party. Make no mistake, the Republicans have moved considerably to the right, over the past two years especially.

There is nothing inherently bad about the GOP, or about being a Republican. This is the party that gave us Teddy Roosevelt and Abraham Lincoln, however it is extremely likely that neither of these two greats, nor the conservative icon Ronald Reagan, would be as successful in today’s Republican party – Reagan raised taxes as governor of California and President, which would essentially means he would fail the litmus test of today’s rank and file members. 

None of today’s big name Republicans are fit to shine the shoes of any of these three former Presidents. This is not the party of great statesmen or of big ideas, it is not the party of Lincoln or Roosevelt but of Palin and Gingrich. The intellectual power and eloquence of Bill Buckley and Irving Kristol has been replaced by the ignorance and fear mongering of Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity.

To be an intellectual in today’s Republican Party is a bad thing. Ignorance is now celebrated. 

Let us look at a few recent examples. During the health care ‘debate’, conservatives told us that Obama was in the process of creating ‘death panels’ that would decide which elderly people would live or die. This was a lie based upon the idea that the Government would reimburse families for any end of life counselling they may receive for one of their loved ones. Not only is this idea harmless and good, it was in fact a Republican idea, put forward by Sen. Isaakson of Georgia. 

Or when the certifiable Rep. Michelle Bachman said that, as part of a public service bill, that happened to have been co-authored by conservative Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch, President Obama would be setting up ‘camps’ similar to gulags or re-education facilities. 

Newt Gingrich, he who divorced his wife whilst she was in the hospital, who is supposed to be the intellectual ideas man of the right, has said, amongst other things, that placing an Islamic community centre, which was to be run by a man who had worked for the Bush state department and had given speeches oversees on the virtues of America, three blocks from the site of ground zero, was the same as the Nazi’s placing a memorial at Auschwitz. He has also recently said that the President is channelling the Kenyan anti-colonial worldview of his dead father.

I don’t even wish to begin on the complete cartoon that is Sarah Palin. If she wasn’t taken so seriously by so many members of the public and glorified by so many in the conservative media she would finish her career as nothing but an insignificant blip. I refuse to call her Governor; after all she quit two years in to her term running Alaska to sign a book deal and star in a TV show. She has now, scarily enough, become the queen of the Tea Party movement. For some bizarre reason, there are many who feel she would be a viable challenger to Obama in 2012. Although she would have a frighteningly good chance of being the nominee, Obama would, quite simply, wipe the floor with her. Mrs Palin now spends most of her time criticising Obama for his socialism and redistributive policies (in her opinion) yet her dominion of Alaska hands out residual cheques every year to its citizens – their share of the states oil revenue. There are few people in America who need to avail themselves of a dictionary faster than Mrs Palin.

On economic issues, the Republican distaste for facts continues. In American politics, there is a distinct case for amnesia, and the GOP has used this to their advantage. After all, it was the Bush Presidency, and Republican control of congress that led to a record surplus becoming a record deficit, with tax cuts for the wealthy, two wars, and a massive prescription drug benefit all being paid for with borrowed money. Yet now the deficit appears to be the most important issue for Republicans and is a central plank of the Tea Party platform. But the Republicans now want more tax cuts for the wealthy, and refuse to pay for them. By their own words, they don’t believe tax cuts should be paid for. They want to balance the budget, but do it by not dealing with defence spending or entitlements. 

Such practices by the Republicans might make for comic fodder, but it is nothing but bad for America. It has become impossible to have a debate on the issues based on reason, fact and logic. Much blame for this rests on the US media, but the behaviour of many Republican politicians is nothing short of selfish. The refusal to have such debates and unwillingness to actually solve problems, favouring instead short term political gain, will see the US continue to tread water whilst developing economies such as China, India and Brazil continue to boom. The US will be outdone in every area – including education, infrastructure, and energy.

The Republicans should have good ideas on how to solve all of the big problems that face America. Even though they despise government action, they are public servants, and at the very least need to do their jobs. The best solutions are only going to come about after debating opposing ideas. How are the Republicans preparing for power? Certainly not by espousing their own ideas to solve the big problems, instead their grand vision is simple: to stop Obama. Recently we have had leaders such as Mike Pence and John Boehner say there will be no compromise with the President and the Democrats. Mitch McMconnell has said the most important task for the Republicans will not be legislation, but making Obama a one term President. Encouraging. In a democracy, sometimes the other side wins. But problems need to be solved – this is the task of politicians. And America has an awful lot of problems right now. But for one political party to be intellectually barren and foster anger and hate instead of ideas and debate means only bad news. 

This past week, Apple announced a few new products. Every one of them got the fanboys into a highly excitable state, and rightly so. Apple's products are gorgeous, well built and most importantly, despite annual refreshes, they last.

One thing that reared it's ugly head again, as it has done at almost every one of Apple's Keynotes over the years was Apple Tax.

Apple Tax is what I like to call the undeniable difference in price between US and UK products. I'm sure all countries suffer from the same problem, but it doesn't make it any less fair. On a low cost product, like an iPod Shuffle, the AT doesn't matter so much. $49 equating to £39 isn't a bad reflection on the current exchange rate, but then you have to allow for the addition of VAT (I've used 20% as the VAT figure in this article, rather than the current 17.5%) in the UK. In fact, £39 is bang on what you'd expect to pay for an iPod Shuffle. This is all on the reasonable assumption that Apple's profit is surely built into the original $49.

AT becomes a bit of a nuisance when Apple’s pricing is applied to a device like the Apple TV. $99 is an amazing price for a decent set-top box that combines the luxuries of the vast iTunes catalogue along with an easy to use remote and small physical footprint.

This same device costs £99 in the UK. With the current exchange rate, that’s just £66. Add 20% VAT and $99 still doesn't translates into £99. When you've done the maths, you actually get £79.20. Almost £20 less than they're currently charging. Again, surely the profit is built in the dollar price? Maybe the price allows for the adjustment of the USD vs the GBP?

Continue reading »

What the hell is wrong with Democrats? For some reason, the party of FDR, JFK and LBJ seems to have lost the ability to govern. This has not only been apparent in the last 18 months, but was also apparent in the first two years of the Clinton administration, before the party went to get whooped in the 1994 midterms and allow the intellectual colossus that is Newt Gingrich to become Speaker of the House to usher in an era of revolutionary change (that last part was sarcastic by the way). This piece will be an introductory summary to the problems that face the Democratic Party in Washington, and their inability to govern as well as they should.

This has less to do with who is in the White House, than it has with leadership in Congress, and the make up of the party itself.

The Democratic Party is ideologically diverse, unlike today’s Republican Party. The problem for the Democrats is that the liberals and the moderates don’t seem to get along enough to form an efficient governing regime. The moderates have shown the ability to outright defeat major legislation that the leadership supports (such as cap and trade), and considerably water down legislation that does pass (witness health care, financial regulation).

The problem is that the moderates are not the pragmatic wannabe problem solvers that they wish to be seen as. Many have differences with the leadership based on principle, and many want to just pick fights with what is perceived as the liberal leadership to make themselves look good in their home states or districts, however almost all of the moderates seem to be afraid of big change. They are conservative in the sense they are incrementalist at best.

During the recent economic crisis when a large stimulus was needed, these moderates were wrongly too concerned with the deficit and favoured tax cuts over things such as infrastructure spending.

You have a President faced with massive challenges in almost all areas of policy. Yet he is almost powerless unless congress acts, and congress is completely dysfunctional, and despite their massive majorities, the Democrats don’t govern as a single party, but more as a coalition. And too many in this coalition are for the status quo and too willing to vote based on short-term politics.

The grassroots of the party, particularly those known as the netroots must also take a massive amount of responsibility. These bloggers and internet activists are crucial to the party, and have been vital in the Congressional victories in 2006 and 2008, as well as Obama’s election. But if the Democrats loose next month, it will not be because the ‘Tea Party’ has caused so many voters to shift to the GOP, it will be because too many Democrats are ridiculously staying at home and not voting. Unfortunately, they do not see the massive achievements made by the Democrats and Obama since January 2009. They only see what has not been done. The Republicans insistence on ideological purity makes it easier for them to stay on message at all levels. The Democratic internet base has too often taken aim at Obama and Congressional leaders. This has caused many in the party to become disillusioned, despite the fact that this Congress has been more active then any other for decades, and achieved major policy aims. The health care bill alone is the biggest piece of domestic social legislation since the 1960’s – this by itself should be enough for Democrats to vote in droves in November.

The Democrats have done a lot in the past 18 months, but they could have done much more. In next months midterms they will almost certainly lose control of the House, however retain control of the Senate. There is the potential for gridlock, which many, especially on Wall Street, seem to favour, but which would be disastrous given the problems America faces in education, infrastructure, the tax code, energy, entitlements and the housing sector. All of these require reform and major policy actions. Gridlock will simply leave America continuing to tread water whilst the likes of China, India and Brazil continue to storm ahead.

The Democrats have been faced with a nightmare scenario. They inherited an economic catastrophe unlike nothing seen since the Great Depression, as well as major structural problems that had gone unsolved for decades. They also faced an opposition Party intent on not supporting anything, and which is moving to the extreme right. They also faced a lobbying effort by corporations of a size never before seen, as well as a media which behave like children on a football pitch, they all run after the ball at the same time, focusing on an elitist mentality of political point scoring versus serious debate based on fact. However the Democrats in congress have once again shown the inability to govern and blown a massive opportunity. And the grassroots members as well as the politicians have no one else to blame but themselves.

After the mini psychodrama that was the Labour leadership election, the slightly surprising choice of Ed over Dave left many thinking if Labour was already doomed, four and a half years before the next General Election.

The younger brother is however not the ‘Red Ed’ some in the press and other parties say he is.

My personal preference would have been for David Miliband. I like Ed. I like his ability to communicate and his call for change. However it is clear that he was elected leader only because of the support of the unions. For this group to regain significant influence within the Labour party would be a near disaster.

His election has also spelled the end of David Miliband in front line Labour politics, at least for now. This is a major disappointment. Clearly a return to the factionalism that gripped the Blair – Brown years and so often crippled the government needed to be avoided. And there would have been constant scrutiny on the brothers’ relationship and an attempt to attach every statement from a Labour politician to one camp or the other. However these are brothers, and it is unlikely that their relationship would have descended into the freak show that the Blair-Brown relationship was. But the media spotlight would have been on the brothers, causing difficulty for the party as a whole, and Ed Miliband as leader. Despite this, Labour has lost arguably their biggest political talent. There is a possibility that he would be bought in to the shadow cabinet before the next election (for some reason Labour has this bizarre rule that the shadow cabinet must be elected by the members, not chosen by the leader) but this seems unlikely at this stage. A good move for David would be in to the international arena, perhaps as head of the IMF if Dominique Strauss-Kahn steps down, as expected, to run against Nicolas Sarkozy for the French Presidency in 2012.

The decisions for the shadow cabinet posts are also interesting, most notably overlooking both Ed Balls and Yvette Cooper for shadow Chancellor. Both are educated in and have significant knowledge of economics, indeed Cooper would have been my preference over her husband, Balls. Cooper is one of, if not the best public speaker in the upper echelons of the Party, however she has bizarrely been given the post of shadow Foreign Secretary, which has a small public profile and in which she has previous little experience. The choice of Alan Johnston as shadow chancellor could be proven a shrewd one; the former postman is a humble and down to earth politician, who is also a good communicator with vast ministerial experience, and could prove a good foil for the elitist George Osborne.

Most of the Labour shadow cabinet has ministerial experience, that is, they are not ‘new’. But that’s how they must now behave. The must become a credible alternative to the coalition. The government’s one-line fits all excuse of ‘we inherited a fiscal crisis’ will soon wear off. Yes of course they did. But they will have to live with the consequences of their austerity measures, which have the potential to be disastrous. Labour need to come up with big ideas, which for some reasons our political leaders have forgotten how to do. In the last general election, the big issues were a measly one percent rise in national insurance and that Gordon Brown called an elderly woman a bigot. This was depressing. The Conservatives ideas on welfare reform is the biggest idea they have; their idea of a ‘Big Society’ is nothing revolutionary, it is in fact a simple re-hashing of the age old conservative cry for a smaller government and to shift more responsibilities on to the private sector and the general public.

Right now is the perfect time for a debate on real big ideas, revolutionary ones, like the ones that Barack Obama ran on in 2008. We need political reform - electoral reform and a scrapping of the appointed House of Lords in favour of an elected body. We need campaign finance reform. We need energy reform, so we get our fuels from natural gas, nuclear energy, algae, wind, biomass and other non-oil and coal based methods. There needs to be education reform, and reform of local governments, to simply make them better. We need massive investment in infrastructure – particularly rail. We need tax reform, and we need to continue to push for efficiencies in bloated areas of government – including the NHS.

Labour needs to be the party of big ideas. They need to hit the coalition when needed and support them when required. The government will become unpopular, but Labour can’t simply waltz back in to power by default. They need to be a real alternative, with big ideas, and ready to make big positive changes. 

In 2007, Liverpool Football Club became the property of Kop Holdings, a company headed by George Gillette and Tom Hicks, two ‘wealthy’ Americans that had a history of sports investments.

Although they were quite obviously here for the short time and for profit, they had money and were ready to help Liverpool move on up and to the next level. Literally straight after loosing the Champions League final in 2007, Rafa Benitez made a statement that signalled his intent and what he expected from the new owners. The club was clearly in need of investment, we had the basis of a good team, but it we'd been punching away without any real promise for too long. Our previous owners had invested when and as well as they could. The new owners, we hoped, would be able to take us that one step further.

Alas.

In reality, the club made one huge purchase, Fernando Torres, for £24million. That’s what, about two-thirds of what the three recent big spenders have spent over the past 5 years on a single player. One player will not win you a league title. No matter how good he is, and how close we got in 2009, a 1st place finish was never going to be a realistic target.

Continue reading »

A few months ago I was one of more than 6,000 people to sign a petition that asked the UK Government to encourage departments to upgrade from IE6 to better browsers.

Unfortunately, the response was as expected. Unlike other EU countries that have discouraged the use of IE6, the Government felt it necessary to fall in line with the infinite number of lazy IT departments around the company that feel that the time spending upgrading IE6 to be expensive and unnecessary.

Continue reading »

When it comes to the web, surely your location (language permitting) shouldn't exclude you from being able to access a site, app or service. It makes the world wide web a lot less world wide.

Off course, governments and organisations may wish to block you (for political reasons), but that's a slightly different story.

Why are those of us in the UK blocked from using services like Pandora and Hulu? Similarly, non-UK visitors not allowed to make use of the BBC's iPlayer? I really want to download the Pandora app but being outside the US makes this impossible to do, let alone actually make use of the app!

It looks like an excellent app and I really miss being able to use Pandora.

This isn't the only case of this either. In this day and age, anything served up as a digital download should really be released simultaneously across the globe, shouldn't it?! I don't think I'd be far off if I touted greed as the main reason, but how much money do record labels and film studios not make by not having a fixed and simultaneous international releases date for digital media? Would consistent availability help in their fight against piracy? Who knows?

DRM for music seems to have gone the way of the Dodo, but who's to say it won't be back?