Fake news - don't believe the experts

The Pope backs a Trump presidency. Even for those who don’t pay close attention to what Pope Francis says, either on Twitter or elsewhere, it’s unlikely given many of the statements the now President-elect Trump made during the campaign that the Pontiff would have expressed such an endorsement. However, this of course is what happened. Whether people saw it through Facebook or on other forms of social media, it is estimated around 30 million Americans saw this headline. Even when the Vatican was forced to deny the claim, the response was supposedly only seen by around 10 per cent of the original story. Facts have all of a sudden become blurred and it’s becoming exceptionally difficult to persuade people on the truth otherwise.

We’ve all become aware of the so-called ‘post-truth’ world where facts are subordinate to emotions. Michael Gove famously said during the EU referendum campaign that people were fed up of listening to experts. Even when the Bank of England, OECD and the Government were telling voters that they were better off than before the economic downturn of 2008, a lot of people simply assessed their own lives rather than the numbers to make their own judgement. Opinions often hold stronger political capital than the facts and arguably, since the economic crash, who can blame them.

People could argue that ‘fake news’ has always existed. If a football team loses, how often have we heard the losing manager blame the officials to set a different news agenda? In the real world, to what extent are companies, newspapers or politicians using spin, contriving their story to suit an agenda of their own? They all do, however, these examples are all accountable in some shape or form. Companies to their shareholders and customers, newspapers to their readers and the law and government ultimately to the electorate and Parliament.

There is nothing wrong with people seeking opinions on issues that matter to them most or suit their own political feelings. Just as someone with intentions to vote for the Conservative Party are more than likely to read the Daily Telegraph or read a blog such as Conservative Home, a Manchester United fan is unlikely to be regularly reading Leeds United fan forums. Opinions are underpinned by ideologies and healthy debate, but they aren’t immune to scrutiny and facts.   

The growth in social media and blogs has changed all that. Politicians and sportspeople share their news, observations and experiences online. When Sir Bradley Wiggins retired recently, he did it to his 100,000 Facebook followers. Given some of the accusations being thrown at him and Team Sky of late, surely you’re better telling fans who have followed your career online than to the BBC Sports Editor who may be more interested in newsworthy events. Certainly, there’ll be a handful who are likely to throw a few strong words at you, but they’re a small minority. They’re ultimately in control.

The real concern is that with more people now getting their news from social media, to what extent does this withstand the scrutiny of more traditional forms of media? Naturally people tend to migrate to environments where people share their own views. The so-called echo-chambers mean that people often become immune to criticism or the opposing view. Supporters of Jeremy Corbyn spring to mind, why should they listen to the likes of the mainstream media if they’re bias and puppets of capitalism. Nor do they appear to listen to some of the facts or responses from opinion polls and focus groups.

However, as Gove and Trump suggest. Why should you listen to these facts that suit your own argument? Ever since the Brexit vote, every time a new piece of economic data has been released showing increasing business and consumer confidence and economic growth, the media outlets that championed a Leave vote have been quick to highlight how wrong the Remain camp were. It may just be a case that it’s not that people are fed up of listening to experts, it’s that the experts haven’t always been right in the first place so I’ll take their view with a  pinch of salt.

Fake news is part of this broader narrative. People have a distrust of traditional forms of media and they’re no longer willing to sit and watch evening news bulletins or simply turn the obvious places for their news. They’re looking at Facebook and sharing links from organisations where the rigours and scrutiny of a newsroom are certainly not as strong. They’ll share videos of political speeches that neglect to provide the other side of the argument or simply push the most alarming of facts that are likely to lead more people to share this. For those creating the content, why wouldn’t you? In a matter of days, you have the potential of getting millions of people through to your website. Think of all the advertising revenue you could make. Additionally, if I’m Donald Trump and I tweet something, it’s going to be seen by millions of people online. It’s also going to be reported by traditional news outlets, another opportunity to ignore some the facts.

There is no simple way to change this overnight. Part of the problem in America may be that public sector broadcasting is not as strong as say the BBC. A real look needs to be taken by the looks of Facebook over editorial being shared. The solution will be among the traditional news organisations working with social media. This isn’t and shouldn’t be a way of inhibiting free speech, but it should be a way of highlighting overtly when facts are disputed. 

United, Van Gaal, Guardiola and me.

While SkySports' coverage of the transfer deadline day may have now become an insipid affair to what was once considered to be genuinely interesting and entertaining, undoubtedly the story emerging out of Manchester City today is probably the most significant football news event this year. The appointment of Pep Guardiola as manager is an enormous statement for the club. Not only does it represent a profound declaration of intent among other clubs in England and across the rest of Europe, but it also highlights the relative decline in footballing means of their city rivals Manchester United.

There are plenty of column inches already highlighting why Louis van Gaal should not remain as United's manager. His poor relationship and handling of the media, his tactical intransigence and oddities, the turgid and boring football, his poor grasp and understanding of English.

Van Gaal is not entirely culpable, in fact, it is fair to say that while the current prevailing winds are far from conducive and will likely lead to his dismissal or otherwise early departure, he brought in a degree of stability to a side unnerved following David Moyes' short stint as manager. Additionally, while United's style is far removed from the teams Old Trafford was used to watching, van Gaal has strengthened United's defensive base, overseen the emergence of Chris Smalling as a international defender and brought back Champions League football (albeit with an early group stage exit to the Europe League).

United old boys have been quick to put the boot in where possible. Most notably, Paul Scholes in his punditry for BT Sport did not hide his conceit towards the style and attitude of the manager. Rio Ferdinand and former Liverpool player, manager and now pundit Graeme Souness have questioned whether United have lost their edge and leaders within the dressing room. Gary Neville pointed out that United fans should recognise that the United of old was just that, in the past. Former CEO David Gill also publicly stated that the quality of football was not what Old Trafford expect.

I think many fans recognise this and understand that 'pragmatic' football is essential for picking up points. I think United fans also recognise that the huge investment, sale of squad players and the exodus of senior players in recent years was necessary. By all means, the loss of the likes of Darren Fletcher, Jonny Evans, Rio Ferdinand, Patrice Evra may not be ideal in terms of the match and trophy winning experience, but nonetheless, underinvestment over the medium term only allows rivals to catch up with you.

What United fans will not understand or like is why has it come to this. Why is supposedly the world's third richest club and England's most successful team slipping away from Europe and England's elite? Was Guardiola's decision a reflection of the current state of affairs? City have a better squad, bigger transfer budget, better infrastructure, while United have withered. Was United a viable option for a coach like Pep?

Why didn't United try to sign the likes of Dele Ali when he emerged last season? Would the likes of Harry Kane prefer to remain at Tottenham rather than move to Manchester? After the failed signing of Angel Di Maria, would the world's best snub United for the lights of London or other European capitals?

There are fundamental issues that need to be addressed and while the inexorable commercial success only shows what canny a investment the Glazer Family made they should also be aware that the success of the business is driven by the long term achievements of the club. I don't believe United will dissipate and fail to challenge in future, but I do worry that bad decisions and failure to acknowledge and address them is undermining the club's footballing future.

Van Gaal's tenure as manager at times was amusing, but is ultimately flawed. United will not only need a new manager come next season, but a reflection of what it wants to be.

Politics, bloody hell - General Election 2015

Politics, bloody hell. For those waking up this morning and seeing vast swathes of England stay blue and Scotland transformed from a sea of Labour red into SNP yellow, it was all a bit unbelievable. From the early exit polls last night suggesting a significant Conservative lead, to the defeats of Messrs Balls, Farage, Cable and both Danny and Douglas Alexander, no one would have thought it possible even yesterday afternoon.

As one Glaswegian pensioner will reap the rewards of his £30,000 bet on a Conservative majority at 7/1 odds, Liberal Democrats will be pondering what next following their party’s devastation in the polls and its remaining contingent within the Commons. Nick Clegg, who clung on to his seat in Sheffield Hallam, now finds himself among only 8 Lib Dem MPs on the green benches. Politics may be poorer without the expertise of now former MPs and ministers Steve Webb and Ed Davey, but perhaps more importantly, the depth in future leadership talent and diversity is diminished. The Lib Dems is now a motley crew of eight white men. Additionally, the belief that Lib Dem MPs were always the most effective and best at entrenching MPs into seats, now seems apocryphal as the South West and Northern Scotland seats voted the incumbents out. There will be many questions for the new leader, possibly Tim Farron or Norman Lamb, but perhaps first it will be establishing what the party represents and how does engage with voters again?

If history decides to remember Nick Clegg and coalition, then it may yet judge the administration, relationships and day-to-day workings kindly, yet the bloodbath inflicted on the junior partner may set a precedent for future coalitions and whether parties will be happy to put the national interest first in return for electoral annihilation.

And what of Labour? For Ed Miliband, who managed to confound critics and commentators up until polling day, there will naturally be questions to whether he decides to remain in Parliament, represent the people of Doncaster North from the backbenches or support the next Labour administration from within the Shadow Cabinet. Questions have already been asked of polling data, but it appears as The Times’s leader writer and former Tony Blair speech writer Philip Collins points out, the truths of being behind in the polls on economic credibility and leadership remain true. When undecided voters went to the polling stations, they thought hard and they voted against a leftist government led by Miliband. Labour may have been able to energise activists, but the strategy fell flat on the doorsteps. Scotland, once the home of Labour and the talent that served in Westminster is no more. The Independence referendum only highlighted the open wound that Labour ultimately relied upon, yet neglected. The insurgent SNP, who had an average 1500 activists in every seat, represented something different, had done their homework and had two ebullient leaders in Salmon and Sturgeon.

The next leader will now be decided, but who will be best in attempting to soothe voters north of the border, if possible. As well as the challenge from UKIP as traditional Labour voters in northern constituencies endorsed the anti-EU party instead of the party of their parents. Similar to the Lib Dems there are questions about how to engage voters as well as having policies and messages on immigration, the economy and the EU. Most importantly people will ask whether the party concludes that electoral defeat shifts the party further left or to the centre.

For UKIP, a party that in spite of taking 12 per cent of the vote, it comes away with one MP, the libertarian and non-stereotypical Ukipper Douglas Carswell. It’s greater cause remains around Britain’s membership in Europe, but it may be banging the drum for proportional representation, a system that could have seen it return more than 80 MPs if it had been in place yesterday. While the party may now point to the next General Election in 2020, what will the party look like if there is no Nigel Farage to lead? While more money and administration could potentially help it cross the line in many seats, do the likes of Suzanne Evans or Paul Nuttall have the personality and ability to speak to the electorate as Nigel did? An incredible return from the anti-EU party, but undoubtedly frustration as the share of the vote has no impact on its MP numbers.

The biggest constitutional question of a generation reopens and just as Parliament kicked out George Galloway, it welcomes another firebrand in former SNP leader Alex Salmond. One question is how the party will work when it comes to voting through legislation? Will it slow the process down and frustrate the Conservative government? What role will individual MPs play on select committees? Many of its returning MPs, one who is 20, have no prior political experience. How will they adapt to life in Parliament? How will the relationship work between Westminster MPs and SNP leader Nicola Sturgeon? The party’s transformation since arguably its nadir only eight months ago has changed how we think of politics, how it is conducted but also where power now lies and will lie in future. What can and will Scottish unionist voters do? Whether this Parliament sows the seeds or cements the end of the United Kingdom, the SNP will most certainly be playing on the day-to-day workings of Parliament.

For the Conservatives, David Cameron can remove the chip of his shoulder that his party had failed to win a majority since 1992. While some may point out that Cameron would prefer to rule as part of a coaltion, something the PM would of course deny, he will now find that many enemies to the right of his party will keep their mouths firmly shut for a few months or years. The win will allow him to fill all ministerial posts with colleagues who previously were passed over for Lib Dems MPS. This for many is an opportunity to build a Conservative alliance and demonstrate that the party remains a broad church. Other will wait for fractions as working with a tiny majority and the debate on Europe comes to a crux. In truth, it's a debate for another day and a nice problem to have.

This election was forecast to be boring and likely to be drawn out for months. Yet, today's news has shown nothing further than how fascinating yet brutal politics can be. A fantastic day, yet with so much to consider in the coming months, it will only get more interesting as the battles start again.

Politics 2015: understanding the outcome

“Hello young man, do you know we’ve soon got an election coming up?”

Ha, thought I, he obviously was unaware of the type of company of I worked for.

“I am.” I said.

“Well can I ask, will you be voting for UKIP? There are many young people like you now joining our party.”

Oh my goodness, I thought. I am being cajoled/ harassed into voting UKIP by a canvasser using nudge theory, on my own doorstep!

“I’m not.” I said, with my arms folded. “I’m really not quite sure why voting for UKIP would be in my interest, indeed for the rest of the country.”

I’ll be honest, I’ve normally got a lot of time for people who go knocking on doors to talk about politics. 

Yes, it’s quite self-serving i.e. they’re just looking for voter intention and data for their own records, but it is quite a task to knock on the majority of doors in a constituency and ask what people care about and dislike.

“Well...” said the man.

If I was guessing, he was in his late sixties. He wore a tweed jacket, had slightly unkempt grey hair, merrily rotund. Overall quite friendly.

“It’s in all our interest because we no longer have control of our borders, we no longer have control to make our own rules. It’s all in done in Brussels now you see.”

Wow, I thought, he’s gone straight for the nuclear argument. He didn’t even ask me how long I’d lived here, where I worked or if I had any particular concerns about the local area.

“So, what do you suggest?” I retorted. “We pull out entirely? I’m all for reforming the place, very much so, but I’ve yet to hear how the transition period would work.”

Then came the numbers. The costs. The statistics. The data.

In the end, it was a case of agreeing to disagree, but here was a UKIP man on our doorstep. That was pretty unheard of in Harrogate. I remember once upon a time seeing them drive around the town centre with a megaphone attached to their car, reeling off number after number. This was in the years after The Referendum Party, when UKIP weren’t even considered to be on the fringes, but quite extreme. Now we’re in a world where they have the UK’s biggest representation within the EU Parliament and are considered to be ‘mainstream’. Perhaps I shouldn’t be surprised by his appearance.

Yet, we’re still adjusting to it all. The left look on in glee as the right splinters and the Conservatives are dragged between their traditional base and the election winning centre ground, whereas the right are savouring the shambolic state of centre left politics led by Ed Miliband and his day-to-day issues. While the Lib Dems may have a place in Government after the next election, who’s not to say that power may lie from within the clutches of either Nigel Farage or the SNP’s Nicola Sturgeon, if not in this election, then perhaps 2020.

The leaders' debate 2010.

There are no absolute truths in politics and the shape of the 2015 General election is becoming very interesting and completely unexplainable. A recent poll now puts the Conservatives ahead of the Labour Party by three points, but even in an economic recovery can we expect a Tory majority? Though some cruelly argue that a corpse could have done better against Gordon Brown in the 2010 election, is it likely that Conservatives will be able to maintain all their current seats, as well as gain the 40 or so more needed to gain a majority? The polls suggest it is unlikely.

The loyalty towards Labour’s Ed Miliband appears hollow and more importantly do voters have a real idea of what a Labour-led government would do with almost six months to go? Even the so-called 35% strategy may be pushing it at this rate.

Then there are the Lib Dems. Notoriously entrenched in the seats they hold and formidable grassroots campaigners, another ‘unknown unknown’ in this election is to whether they will be able to hold on to as many seats they forecast. Opinion polls before the 2010 election gave them a healthy 23%, yet they have slumped on average to this Parliament to a mere 7%. Will the public punish them for being part of the Government? Or will they claw on and fight?

The new SNP leader, Nicola Sturgeon

Politicians and commentators often hint at the suggestion that when a General Election comes round and things ultimately get serious, people always revert to the mainstream parties. There is an historic precedence to this and who can disagree with facts. Yet, we don’t have that certainty and politicians are hesitant to jump to a conclusion that there will be a regression to the mean. Call it an end to ‘three party politics’ or as the UKIP MP Douglas Carswell calls it ‘iDemocracy’, times are changing.

What is interesting to see is that the emergence of UKIP and SNP and their subsequent rise is not simply down to the state of affairs from the established parties or a mood of anti-Westminster. Both SNP and UKIP, have successfully used a mixture of old and new campaigning techniques, along with a charismatic and likeable leader, to not only to get themselves recognised, but have a voice at the table. The question for the long-term is whether their campaigning can bring in support, money, votes and ultimately policies.

I did not go away and vote UKIP in the European elections. Yet, I went away and told numerous people that I spoke to one of their campaigners. Politics works in funny ways and until May 7 and the counting thereafter, we may only really have an idea then to what new politics really is.

UKIP - A party without real policy?

UKIP leader Nigel Farage’s confirmation that he will be standing as a candidate in the Kent seat of Thanet South came as no surprise for those who follow the travails of the UK’s fourth party. In a week, where Mayor of London Boris Johnson confirmed that he too was looking for a seat ahead of the 2015 election, the House of Commons may become a more colourful place if the votes go the way of these two gents next year.

Yet, while the papers may cover firstly where Boris may stand and secondly, whether he will make a serious stand for the leadership post-2015, what of UKIP and has their bubble burst since the European elections? No doubt, much of the party’s success has come off the back of general antipathy towards the three main parties, but many commentators have said that May 2014 will be the party’s apex.

Will Farage finally be elected in Westminster? (Spectator picture)

Indeed, some point that the momentum was lost when the charismatic Farage decided not to stand in the seat of Newark, following the resignation of Conservative MP Patrick Mercer. In the following months, the UKIP leader has reshuffled his pack and arguably strengthened his frontbench with the appointments of Patrick O’Flynn and Steven Woolfe. Yet, the party remains relatively quiet in the press. After sustained attacks on party candidates in the run up to the EU vote, UKIP has dropped off the radar and most publicity has dissipated.

This is partly down to the fact that both Parliaments in Westminster and Brussels are in recess. Additionally, this UKIP are now regrouping and setting their strategy for 2015. Farage’s announcement is the first in this news cycle, but the second is the fact that the party is planning to host its party conference at Doncaster racecourse. Doncaster’s MP being the Labour leader Ed Miliband.

Polling from Conservative donor Lord Ashcroft continues to show that UKIP voters continue to affect the overall performance and possibility of a Conservative majority, but it is and should be alarming to Labour MPs too. While their policy agenda is by no means concrete and partly feeds off the uncertainties of voters, as well as the general backlash to incumbent parties, UKIP is able to tap into the concerns of what we may call traditional Labour voters. White working class voters, who feel politicians have ignored their concerns on immigration, welfare and jobs. UKIP is having an impact in Northern communities where Conservatives gave up the ghost a long time ago.

So with these announcements, should we expect much come May? There remain serious questions to whether UKIP has the concentration and funding to sustain support across 650 seats. Nigel Farage says the party will be putting candidates in every seat, but is this a sensible idea? Surely the leader would be best advised targeting particular seats and finally putting UKIP’s flag in the likes of Kent, Essex, Rotherham, Portsmouth or Boston? There remains a question also of follow through. Will those voters who ticked the UKIP box last May, make the same decision come the General Election? By no means can the three main parties sit back and take this attitude, the Conservatives must continue to knock-on doors and reiterate their own message and the holes in the UKIP message too. It would be foolish to simply think that voters will revert back accordingly.

Naturally the question about the UKIP is whether they are serious political force? Are they a party full of interesting ideas that could change the economic fortunes of Britons up and down the country? Or are they simply a group of basket cases, who will continue to give the Tories, Lib Dems and Labour Party a bloody nose at by-elections? The scrutiny will continue to grow and when the majority of voters come to decide a month before the polls, the question is whether UKIP’s lack of credibility shines through or if they really are a party they can trust. 

I’ve just got to get a message to UKIP: what is your communications strategy?

If you were to ask the British public who they think the most recognisable British politician was in this country, then I’d guess there would be an argument between Prime Minister David Cameron and Mayor of London Boris Johnson. You may agree or disagree, or indeed wonder where the inimitable, tweed wearing, lager-chugging UKIP leader Nigel Farage would place in such a poll.

Farage is known to like a cigarette and tipple

Beyond the YouTube videos of his performances in the European Parliament and appearances on Question Time, the UKIP leader has made a name for himself in recent years. From taking his party to a second place finish in the 2009 European elections and a near-victory in the Eastleigh by-election in 2013, Farage’s star continues to rise. Despite press criticism about holding an offshore account in the Isle of Man as well as an incident in an Edinburgh pub, Farage currently upholds the notion of being the Teflon politician. Beyond Boris, it’s hard to think of anyone as popular.

However; while the polls may position UKIP well ahead of this year’s European elections and next year’s General Election, there remain questions about UKIP’s party organisation, as well as its ability to create a coherent communications strategy.

Reports of former BNP members standing as UKIP candidates as well as MEP Godfrey Bloom getting into hot water over his ‘sluts’ comments have not only put the party on the front pages for entirely the wrong reasons, it has highlighted the weakness in its communications and legitimacy as a new player.

Farage remains an asset, yet at the same time, his dominance highlights the party’s weakness. When he stood down briefly as party leader in 2009 to be replaced by Lord Pearson, the party failed to generate a coherent message in the Westminster elections and win any seats. Since his re-election, the party has been quick to put forward the likes of Paul Nuttall, Gerrard Batten and Diane James as spokespeople, partly to cover the media demands for comment, but also to show the party is more than one person. At the start of the year, Daily Express lead writer Patrick O’Flynn confirmed that he would not only be standing as an MEP, but is to become its director of communications.

O’Flynn’s experience and pedigree may be welcomed by party members but does it really resolve anything in the long term? The Express may sympathise with many of the party’s ideas, but can it be transposed elsewhere? Will he be able to co-ordinate a clear structure and effective strategy beyond the EU elections and into 2015?

The problem so far has been that greater success has led to greater scrutiny. Voters may like the alternative approach of the party and see them as a vehicle to protest against the traditional big three, but what will happen when they see their abysmal voting records in Brussels and Strasbourg. Or ask what their policies are beyond Europe and immigration?

Questions will have to be asked whether politically UKIP’s poll ratings can be sustained and whether ultimately it can put up a decent challenge in Westminster. It does not mean that the London-elite should brush UKIP off. It would be stupid and frankly naïve. Politicians should focus on their own policies before they make sweeping statements about UKIP.

If O’Flynn and Farage have one target to make real noise, it won’t just be winning the European elections in May, it will be placing Farage in the leaders’ debates before 2015. If they can do that, then my word, how it could reshape the political landscape. 

Prism: A Catcher in the Spy

The headlines over the past few months have demonstrated to politicians and the public alike that the world of spying has very much evolved. Gone are the days of Harry Lime of The Third Man or a Cold War Le Carré thriller. We now know that whilst spying remains as secret as ever, it is done on an enormous and technologically driven scale.

The exposé in The Guardian over the summer, through the leaking of data by the now exiled American contractor Edward Snowden, demonstrated the amount of secret information absorbed by the National Security Agency (NSA) and Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ), the US and UK’s respective intelligence agencies. The newspaper revealed how both governments have the capacity and indeed routinely monitored the emails, social messaging and top secret correspondence of foreign governments and individuals.

The ‘Prism’ as it is now known, facilitated these agencies to mine and monitor every single email or online message between any two individuals on the planet. In mainland Europe, governments have been up in arms. The Belgian Government has demanded answers to both the US and UK to whether they spied on its national telecoms company. It is the same with Germany, who also learned that the NSA was snooping on its citizens’ emails and online messaging. France is now pushing for consumer protection regulation in Europe that would alert any individual to potential NSA surveillance. Yet, in Britain, it has been brushed under the carpet. There was indeed coverage of Edward Snowden’s subsequent asylum claims and minimal coverage about the Guardian destroying hard drives demanded back by GCHQ, but beyond that very little more.

Edward Snowden: public enemy number one?

Indeed, this week there were allegations from Westminster questioning whether The Guardian had been irresponsible in exposing national secrets. Conservative MPs, Dr Liam Fox and Julian Smith asked for an investigation into the newspaper’s behaviour, which indeed was subsequently granted by the Prime Minister and will be led by the Home Affairs Select Committee.

So the question is why? Why is there such little outcry? What makes Britain a different case and is The Guardian irresponsible?

The nature of terrorism and evolution of cyber-warfare nowadays, means that government agencies are no longer monitoring huge movements, but a handful of targeted suspects. In their eyes, for the protection of innocent civilians, they need to monitor all their email traffic and other communication channels of those individuals. The question for Britons to answer is whether they feel safer in the knowledge that the Government is tracking potential terrorists who may be looking to repeat similar Nairobi-style attacks on the streets of London or Leeds? Most would no doubt say yes and would find it difficult not to endorse. But if they were asked simply, do you find it acceptable that Government can monitor everything you do and say online? Then they are more than likely say no.

The question is ultimately philosophical, but also cultural. For those in the UK, there are memories of Russian spies, Irish Nationalists and of late Islamic terrorists. The dichotomy between spying and citizen safety is less obvious for Brits because of this past. Yet for the likes of Germany, who lived with a cruel and omniscient secret police, the Gestapo and latterly the Stasi, the liberty of individual is primacy. Indeed, in America, libertarians are just as suspicious of the role of Government. Snowden was by no means of the same mould as Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, a man with a huge distrust of Governments on the left. Snowden is very much libertarian and believed that it was not in the government’s mandate to spy on its citizens. His motives were seen to be in the defence of the individual.

Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger: Hero or villain?

Yet there appears to be no such vocal libertarian political thinking in the UK. More questions are being asked of The Guardian because politicians now feel that their actions have jeopardised the nature of how spy agencies conduct their work. The Guardian has indeed argued otherwise, but as other newspapers have argued the actions of Guardian journalists may have threatened ongoing operations. Have potential threats now disappeared under the radar?

The question in the grand scheme of things, which is difficult to answer, is whether in the loss of liberty we become safer or indeed, the loss of liberty itself is not a price worth paying. There is no right answer, but whilst we may now have an idea of what government can do. Will it make us safer?

Fight Night: will we see a 2015 live political debate?

For any political anorak, General Election night is one of the few occasions when staying up all night is a must. The exit polls, the swing-o-meter and the live interviews from the count all make for an entertaining night and early morning’s viewing. 2010 was no different and the campaign stands out for two particularly moments. Firstly, Gordon Brown’s cringing faux pas where he labelled off-camera and what he thought was off-mic, a life-long Labour supporter called Gillian Duffy ‘a bigoted woman’. Moments like this occur on every campaign trail, but what was most memorable this time around and completely untested was the live electoral debates.

On three separate occasions, Brown, Cameron and Clegg all duelled in live debates about matters that would sway how the British public would vote. Other Western democracies are used such set-ups, most notably in America, and despite frequent appearances on the likes of the Today programme or The Marr Show, such an event had never been held on British screens. In the context of UK politics, it was a chance for all three parties to gain. Gordon Brown felt that despite Labour’s lacklustre poll rating and the economic backdrop, he had nothing to lose, as well as his utterance that this was ‘no time for a novice’. David Cameron, his closest rival, buoyed by his polling had an opportunity to demonstrate the rebranding of his Conservatism. The dynamics of Britain’s three party system also gave a chance to a widely unknown Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg.

The 2010 debate

And it was Clegg who stole the show. The entire nation ‘agreed with Nick’ and as a consequence, Britain’s third party took 56 seats, down from the 2005 count, but substantial enough to see Britain’s first ‘hung’ Parliament since 1974. For most electoral strategists, there are many reasons to question why the Conservatives did not win an outright majority, but the ‘Clegg-factor’ was substantial enough to sway the ballot towards no overall control. The following five days in May saw the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats to join together to form today’s Coalition Government.

To this date, and a General Election less than two years away, there is no agreement in place to whether we will see similar debates in 2015. And even despite Clegg’s performance last time, the question will be whether all three parties would want it to take place. The viewing figures from 2010 were around 10 million. That’s unheard of for political programming and simply cranks up the pressure on all party leaders, but if it has been done before and worked, why would the broadcasters not want to do it again?

And for the leaders, would they really want it to go ahead?

For the Lib Dems and Nick Clegg, history may well hold them hostage. The party remains bullish about its record in government and its ability to hang onto its seats. The Eastleigh by-election demonstrated their ability to win whilst in Government and the party grassroots will be as combative as ever. Yet Mr Clegg is no longer the outsider to the British public and they may well remember his paper promises come the vote next time, even if he puts in a strong broadcast performance. A debate may simply be part of a long drawn out annihilation.

For the Tories, David Cameron has yet to say on-record that he is willing to take part in similar debates, but it is more than likely that political pressure would force him to do so. Many would argue that Cameron remains the party’s biggest asset and that on all occasions when he has been put on the spot, most notably over Europe; he has triumphed and shown his statesman-like qualities. Yet others are quick to blame his 2010 performance for the party’s inability to win the previous vote outright. The continuing rebellion among backbenchers and the irresistable rise of Boris Johnson may put the pressure on Cameron on further. History shows that most leaders do not go onto better their previous vote, for many within the party; it may be another reason why they see it fit to unseat Mr Cameron’s leadership.

And what about Ed Miliband? The leader that to some extent remains an unknown quantity to the British public.  Would a ‘one-nation’ Labour transcend in a live leadership debate? Would voters warm to a Mr Miliband whose performances have become stronger since his rise to party leader in 2010? Or would they be turned off by his personality? His awkwardness and most notably, his political legacy in the Brown Government? Neither he nor Ed Balls have said that Labour overspent in the time in Government, despite Britain having the biggest deficit in the G8. Could a strong message and performance from Cameron and Clegg simply vanquish all rebranding attempts made by Labour?

Is it democratically unfair to ignore the likes of Farage and Salmond?

And what of UKIP or the SNP? Nigel Farage could well see his party storm to success in the 2014 the European elections. Despite no representation in the Commons, would it be unfair to exclude him from some or all of the debates? Or would exclusion only benefit him further and his party’s message? The same could be said of Alex Salmond. Why should the Conservatives, who only have one MP in Scotland, be given such preferential treatment on national broadcast? Who is not to say that the Independence debate in September 2014 could enhance the voice of the SNP in Westminster? Would it be unfair then?

There are many legal and broadcasting caveats to take into consideration, as well as the overriding political risks, but it seems implausible to go into 2015, without the prospect of a live leadership debate. As I outlined above, there are extra considerations to be had, but in what will develop into a crucial vote, the question is, who will we agree with this time?

The Arab Spring is dead. Long live Assad?

Freedom was their cry and freedom is what they demanded. Nation upon nation saw regimes fall across the Arab world as dynastic dictators left following a surging rally for democracy. Sweeping across North Africa and the Middle East, tyrants fell both peacefully and bloodily. Hosni Mubarak’s thirty-year reign fell following a long stand-off with young and old Egyptians, whilst Colonel Gadaffi’s 42-year-old rule ended bloodily after an intervention by NATO in Libya’s short, yet bitter civil war. The tide of democracy appeared to emerging across nations that for so long had suffered hardship and poverty. Young and educated Arabs wanted to be part of fledgling democracies with real futures. Not trapped in nations where human rights, basic amenities and jobs are hard to come by. Surely the next to fall would be the House of Assad?

Two years have passed since the Syrian uprising began and what has fast developed into the region’s bloodiest civil war. The death toll is estimated to be around 70,000. More than half a million refugees have escaped into neighbouring Jordan. More worryingly, following the alleged use of chemical weapons by the Syrian regime, President Assad appears to show no intent in relenting. The West appears hapless in deciding whether intervention would not only work, but whether it is desirable.

The city of Homs.

The problem for the West remains political, moral and straightforward realism. Politically, the inability for likely intervening nations like the US and UK have been blocked in the UN by Syria’s long term allies China and most notably Russia. The Chinese feel uncomfortable condoning any external upheaval when they have their own dissidents within Tibet and Xinjiang province, any support may simply lead to calls for greater autonomy within its own borders. Russia, on the other hand, has felt the full force of international criticism and indignation of supporting a murderous regime. Yet for Russia, it is far more complicated. Not only, like China, have they had difficulties with its own ethnic groups, most noticeably in the Caucuses, but more fundamentally, Syria has been one of the staunchest and longest serving allies in the region. As a client of Russian military hardware, as well as providing a Mediterranean port for the Russian fleet, why would President Putin feel obliged to cave into Western demands when it would seriously lose out?

Morally, the problem remains more painful. When I last wrote about Syria, the estimation of deaths was around 25,000 mark. Humanitarian reports remain bleak. Women and children are destitute. President Assad remains intent on powering through what he believes to be external forces intruding in Syria’s internal affairs. Two years into the war and it now appears that Assad is not looking for an escape route. If half a million or more die, it is cost he is willing to face. There the problem lies for the West. Within eight months, the death toll has almost quadrupled. It has already dithered since the fighting began and now it finds itself with a growing casualty list and a more radical Islamic opponent. With evidence of chemical weapons now emerging – the so-called red line before intervention, ordinary Syrians killed in the crossfire and the possibility of a less amenable successor to Bashar Al-Assad. They have seen that post-Gadaffi; Libya is dealing with external enemies both within and outside its borders in Mali and Algeria, most notably Al-Qaeda. An intervention in Syria may simply lead to a full-scale war across the whole Middle East.

Bashar al-Assad: Defiant

Finally, the straightforward realism is thus: if the rebels cannot be trusted and America has no real appetite to intervene then what is likely to happen to Syria? The two most important questions are whether Russia is willing to commit its support both diplomatically and militarily. If an intervention appears unlikely then, Vladimir Putin will simply continue with its support. Secondly, how far is Israel willing to sit on the sidelines? Only this weekend there were reports of attacks by the Israeli Defence Force within Syria following suggestions that Hezbollah had obtained chemical weapons. With the conflict on its doorstep and Al Qaeda operating freely within some of its towns and cities, it is hard to foresee the Israeli military standing down.

Politicians and diplomats are fully aware of the risks of non-intervention. The memory of Srebrenica and Rwanda remain particularly vivid within the UN and NATO. Yet, perhaps the time has passed for intervention. The Arab Spring is dead. As it stands, who knows what will happen.

Michael Owen: Good, but never great

Michael Owen, perhaps one of England’s greatest ever strikers announced his retirement this week. The Stoke City striker decided that at the age of 33, it was time for him to ‘hang up his boots’ at the end of this season. Owen, whose record will show 40 goals in 89 caps, as well as numerous titles including an FA Cup, two league cup trophies, a Premier League winner’s medal, a UEFA Cup winner’s medal as well as winning the 2001 Ballon D’Or; the last Englishman to do so.

Yet, whilst the trophy cabinet and his goals count may lie favourably, it is unlikely and perhaps unfairly to some, that history will suggest Owen was a great.

As a precocious teenager at Liverpool, he made his name with his stunning speed and his ability to simply pull away from the side of the last defender. Liverpool, a club that has welcomed and glorified many fine strikers including Ian St John, John Aldridge, Ian Rush and Robbie Fowler, saw Owen as another player of that same quality. His record of 158 goals in 297 appearances demonstrated his ruthlessness and the terror that opposition teams felt when dealing with the young Englishman.

For his country, Owen will be remembered for many moments, his goal in the 2002 quarter-final against Brazil, his hat-trick against Germany in Munich and of course; his wonderful goal against Argentina in 1998 that announced his arrival to a global audience.

Dancing past Argentinians in the 1998 World Cup in St Etienne.

Owen had everything, yet he just never lived up to what we believed he would end up being.

It is true that injury curtailed what once destroyed Premiership and international defences. Owen’s speed was debilitated by serious hamstring injuries, so much so that Owen once said on record that he effectively played with two in his right leg. Later on in his career, he snapped his cruciate ligament during the 2006 World Cup, as well as persistent ankle injuries in the latter stages.

To some extent Owen never recovered, his goal scoring record was still relatively strong, but the player that he evolved into simply never adapted to the changing game.

Pure and simple, Owen’s talent as a youngster was running onto through balls and being able to ease past defenders. His ability to finish in front of goal, never declined; alas his ability to get to that stage was a vestige of the past. It was injuries that forced Owen to adapt his game and the stockier player was not in the bracket of player that won the European footballer of the year award at the beginning of the millennium.

Owen, who had made his living from scoring in a certain way, and had Liverpool built around him to provide those goals, never had the tactical capacity to develop into something that would allow him to flourish. When Rafa Benitez joined Liverpool and asked him to make runs across the defenders, which Owen wasn’t capable of doing, a move to Madrid for Benitez allowed Liverpool to play a different way and freed up Steven Gerrard.

Owen scored goals at his time in Madrid and subsequently Newcastle. Yet, at United and currently, Stoke, goals have not been as forthcoming due to both opportunities and unfortunately injuries. However; even so, when one compares the strikers in the Premier League at the time then it shows how much his worth had diminished. The likes of Drogba, Rooney and Berbatov, though never had the finishing ability of Owen, were simply in a different technical and tactical league to Owen. When Rooney cruelly broke his metatarsal against Portugal in the quarter finals of Euro 2004, it was Frank Lampard and Steven Gerrard that England relied on, not Michael Owen.

As I conclude, it feels almost harsh to suggest that Owen was not the player his goal record proves. He scored goals and his was greatly admired, but never loved. Yes, he was clinical, but perhaps too corporate. He did not mean as much as Robbie Fowler to the Kop and left St James’ Park maligned. Manchester United fans will remember his injury time winner against City, but beyond that, no more.

The headlines this weekend suggest that Owen has not ruled out going into management or coaching. Whilst it would be irrational to turn down someone with his experience and leadership qualities, I find it difficult to believe that Owen’s tactical ability could prove successful at the highest level.

It is difficult because I feel that injury unfairly dealt Owen an ability to move on his career; however he was unable to adapt unlike a Giggs, a Ferdinand or even a Dwight Yorke. He was more than a precocious youngster and made many England fans happy as he sped away from Robert Ayala or put the ball past Oliver Kahn with ease, he unfortunately flourished for not long enough. Owen could’ve gone down as a great, but sadly he will never will do. 

Bankers' bonuses: Bad policy

Defend a banker anyone? Shall we forget the misdemeanours of the past few years and let them get on with it as they did previously? Was mis-selling, rate-fixing and wholesale impunity just a minor aberration?

Perhaps I am being flippant, but really is it time to move on with how we treat our financial services sector?

There is anger and deserved contempt for the profession, and to some extent, deservedly so. The actions of several banks, both retail and investment, brought the global economy to its knees in 2008. Many of the banks were over-leveraged with billions of pounds worth of sub-prime and toxic assets on their balance sheets. At the same time, whilst a huge bubble was growing in the US housing market, bright minds were being recruited by the world’s biggest financial institutions and being remunerated with six-figure salaries and generous bonuses. Yet, this was not a revolution in creating wealth. It was entirely artificial and five years later, we the aftermath is still affecting the economy.

Small and medium sized enterprises are suffocating from a lack of credit within the system. Banks are being asked to meet lending targets, yet at the same time having to slim-line their balance sheet and maintain a higher capital ratio too. In 2008, banks weren’t able to function as banks because they lacked liquidity, now they are unable to lend because they need to hold on to their money.

This is where the problem lies; mainly in culture and language. Banks are perceived to conduits of free-market capitalism, unregulated machines that stuff money into the pockets of the rich. This is a ridiculous argument, yet it is frequently echoed by lazy politicians and journalists. The financial services industry contributes more than ten percent of the UK’s national GDP and employs well over a million people. Even after the crash.

Whilst regulation may be required, it is important to stress that more regulation is not the answer, simply good regulation.

EU regulation is an attack on the UK

The EU’s decision to introduce a Financial Transaction Tax as well as a cap on bankers’ bonuses is exactly not that: it is bad regulation. Whilst the City of London, the UK’s financial heart, has remained staunchly pro-EU, it has remained silent over these proposals. Make no mistake, when these were put forward, EU politicians were simply testing the water to see how keen people were for such measures, more will follow. This is simply an attack on Britain’s financial heart and the fact that the UK was the only country to oppose the measure for capping bonuses demonstrate that we are simply on our own.

It is also another example of the undemocratic nature of the EU. 26 nations, unelected by the British people, are forcing regulations on us that we simply did not vote for. This is before we question whether it will work or not. A similar financial tax introduced in Sweden in the 1980s simply forced all Swedish bond traders to move to London overnight. Who is not to say that the same will happen again this time? People argue that people would be unwilling to move away from London and the huge markets it serves, but why would an industry want to remain somewhere when the regulation is simply punishing and burdensome?

Bankers’ bonuses will drive up salaries, which are far more difficult to claw back than bonuses. In the event of another crisis, it will simply entail banks firing more people than addressing remuneration. In effect, they will be more unstable. Let’s not forget that banks are simply too clever, if there is a way of getting around it, they will do. People always tend to forget that these costs ultimately will be passed on to consumers i.e. you and I.

This is simply a bad policy.

What is most important that a British politician recognises this. For too long there has been no political capital in defending bankers. If this does become UK law, then MPs should realise that this is bad politics and not only will it cost growth, but cost jobs too. If a referendum does eventually happen, then people may realise that unnecessary rules and regulations from Europe are having a detrimental effect on the UK economy. The only way to avoid it, may be leaving.

Mourning Zimbabwe: the black armband protest

Sport is not what it used to be. It still excites and incites the passion of the everyday fan, but it no longer represents the Corinthian spirit. Amateurism died a long time ago. And whilst athletes are becoming quicker, stronger and faster, they are also becoming far wealthier. Athletes have short careers and are more than entitled to make their money in this time; but the role of the corporation is changing the way athletes behave.

Long gone are the 1970s when athletes were given an extra few pounds to wear a pair of Adidas trainers. Athletes are now the stars and ambassadors for multinationals brands. What they do and how they do it makes us want to be like them, and of course, more importantly, what they wear only helps them further. However, the burden of corporate sponsorship does not allow for controversy. Multinationals are like any other company and do not like reputational issues. Nike no longer wants to be associated with Lance Armstrong or Oscar Pistorious; and for obvious reasons. Football club boardrooms seat directors of communications. Huge marketing and PR arms are in place to ensure nothing taints the brand. To some extent, boring is good.

Politics is reflected in this. At his peak in the early 1990s, Michael Jordan was seen to be a model for all Democrat voters. Yet, the canny Chicago Bulls guard simply replied to any questions about politics that “Republicans buy sneakers too.” Political statements, for the sake of corporate sponsorship, are now rarer and to some extent, not worth the trouble.

The most famous political statement of all was the ‘black power’ salute of Mexico 1968. In front of a global audience, Tommie Smith and John Carlos gave a fisted salute whilst accepting their Olympic medals. The protest was not a black power as initially perceived, but an attempt to highlight the struggle for equality for black Americans. Symbolic for sport both now and in 1968, the salute did nothing further than tarnish the two athletes’ careers from that day onward.

It is hard to believe, but it is now ten years ago, since the 2003 Cricket World Cup, where two brave Zimbabwean cricketers made a political gesture that would change their lives forever. Captain Andy Flower and Henry Olonga, the country’s first black international, both wore black armbands during the opening game of the competition to highlight what they saw as “mourning the death of democracy in Zimbabwe”.

Both men released a prepared press statement ahead of the side's first match.

The gesture appears small, but its symbolism was enormous. Robert Mugabe, the man who had led the country to independence in 1980, had slowly and stealthily increased his grip on the running of the nation. Although people often portray Mugabe’s clampdown on opposition from the start of the millennium as to when he became paranoid, the wily old tyrant had been locking up and murdering political opponents since he rose to power. It was not until the country overwhelmingly defeated a referendum that would have enshrined Mugabe as Zimbabwe’s perpetual leader that he decided to turn on the country’s white and wealthy minority.

The expropriation of white farm land was certainly accepted as a hangover from Zimbabwe’s colonial past. The majority of white people were actually in favour of a redress, yet Mugabe’s henchmen set about the land grab vengeful and violently. Although seen by the Western media as a racist attack, it neglected to highlight the black opposition to Mugabe. White farmers, in most instances, had the means to move to other parts of the world. The black labourers simply did not.

For Flower and Olonga, this was not a protest drawn on racial lines. Flower saw that instances of political violence were being suppressed by the secret police. The tactics used by Mugabe were simply destroying the fabric of Zimbabwean society. The fact that only two men wore armbands, one black and one white, showed that Mugabe was dividing a nation, not just one race.

Both men then went out and played the match as if nothing happened. The only stark difference being a visible, yet indelible, piece of black tape around their arms that sent a simple, but clear message. It was a gesture, yet one that both men knew would have consequences.

As Zimbabwe exited the tournament, both men left the continent as death threats were issued, both heading for the UK. Flower joining Essex on the county cricket circuit, whereas Olonga was forced into hiding following a charge of treason by the Zimbabwean Government. Even ten years on, both men have yet to set foot into the country since.

Mugabe

Even despite the protest, worse was to come for Zimbabwe: manipulation of elections, political oppression and a destroyed economy. For millions of Zimbabweans, remaining in the country was a choice between life and death. Like the country’s economy, the national cricket team followed the same path, imploding as politics began to interfere with team selection. In 2004, the once proud and effective Zimbabwean cricket team withdrew from the ICC.

Since the decade has passed, both men have continued with their careers. Flower as the head coach of the English cricket team, whereas Olonga has become a public speaker and opera singer.

Flower and Olonga were not particularly close and to this day, they only speak on occasion. Yet at a time when they saw what was happening to their friends, family and fellow countrymen, they recognised that they had an opportunity to show what was happening from within the borders. It was not a publicity stunt, nor a cry for help; it was for them about the right thing. Only with hindsight did they understand that it would change their lives forever.

To this day, Mugabe may be creaking, but his grip on power remains strong. As elections approach in the months to come, it is too early to guess whether change may emerge. For Flower and Olonga, both exceptional cricketers, perhaps one day they will be able to return to a Zimbabwe they loved. Until then, their gesture will remain symbolic.

Leveson: The road to perdition

For those following the machinations on regulating the UK media, the story has moved beyond what we could have once called a saga. Almost three months since Lord Justice Brian Leveson delivered his report into the culture, practices and ethics of the press, the Conservative Party (note, not the Coalition Government), led by Culture Secretary Maria Miller, announced in Parliament its intended reforms of the industry.

Leveson’s report, backed by both the Labour and the Liberal Democrats, as well as the campaign group Hacked Off, called for a statutory body, regulated by Ofcom, to oversee the running of the UK newspaper industry. For them, the Press Complaints Commission (PCC), the existing self-regulating body has only demonstrated that it does not have the capability to govern Britain’s fourth estate. Not only did several notable titles including the Daily Express and Daily Star opt-out, but it oversaw some examples of extreme impunity and criminality by some of Britain’s leading tabloids, most notably the phone-hacking of the murdered teenager Milly Dowler.

Maria Miller

The Conservatives however; felt that a regulatory body was a step too far. In the Commons debate that ensued after Leveson’s deliverance, David Cameron echoed many of the feelings within the press industry that a regulated press in the UK, despite the instances of gross misconduct, is a step in the wrong direction. Their announcement this week proposing a Royal Charter, that would back a regulator; thus not directly affected by government policy was viewed differently from both sides. National editors such of Lionel Barber of the Financial Times argued against this legislation believing that organisations  governed by Royal Charters, such as the BBC are affected by party politics, whilst the Labour Party says it does not go far enough. To all extensive purposes, the Tories proposal could be defined as Leveson-lite, it adopts most of what the report put forward, minus a body that is underpinned by Parliament.

Whilst 75% of the public may agree that the press needs to be shackled, there are two things that I feel completely contravene the current debate. Firstly; that Leveson could be brought on to the statute via the backdoor through the defamation bill. Rather than a separate bill and debate going through Parliament, the reality is that Leveson’s idea of a media arbitration tribunal, underpinned by the statute, could simply added onto the defamation law. Whilst many in the press have argued about the encroaching privacy laws from Europe over the past decade, this decision would really undermine what the whole argument has been about.

Secondly, and what I feel to be more important is what the whole purpose of the legislation is there to demonstrate. Only this week, the London Evening Standard and Independent newspaper announced they would be merging sport and business desks in an attempt to save money. The Independent also announced that it would be become a seven-day operation. To some extent, this is not surprising; moving back of house operations together makes sense in this climate. It is already done by the Telegraph, both The Sun and The Mirror have become seven-day operations in recent years. Whilst continuing to be editorially independent both in content and style, newspapers are adapting to the financial climates of the digital world. Yet the argument is thus; why is the Government looking to regulate an industry that is dying?

The Daily Sketch closed in 1971, when will the next follow?

The Independent has made £80m of losses over the past four years. The Times is reported to make a loss of £40m a year, whilst the Guardian and Observer were around £44 million in the red last year. By 2020, it is conceivable in the current market that the Independent, Express, Mirror, Guardian, Financial Times and even The Sun may no longer exist. The UK has such a flourishing and even despite the recent political hostilities, a wide-ranging press and newspaper industry. Yes, something needs to be addressed, but regulation of this kind, is simply going to kill it.

Davos: A letter to America

For most onlookers the World Economic Forum in Davos appears to be nothing more than a get together for the financial elite at Europe’s most expensive ski resort. Every year, bankers and hedge fund managers to world leaders and economists all converge on this small Swiss outpost.

And whilst it may bring an opportunity for newspapers and sketch writers to poke fun at the size of the bar bills or British Prime Minister David Cameron making a speech on tax avoidance in Switzerland of all places, it does not detract from the important debate surrounding the global economy.

The past few years could not be described in any words other than disastrous, both for the growth and reputation, but what was noticeable from the commentary was the idea that we may now be beyond the worst.

This notion may be seen as intangible and outright outrageous to families living through year-on-year pay freezes and government cuts. Yet, even in the Euro zone, where unemployment remains high and economic growth for powerhouse Germany is negligible, delegates now believe that the structural reforms over the past 18 months have given greater stability to both the markets and the Euro as a currency. Critics may continue to point to the overhanging issues of bank recapitalisation, unsustainable level s of government debt and competitiveness, but even so, the financial milieu gave a cautious understanding that Europe is now showing slow signs of progress from where it was in 2011.

Perhaps, most significantly, however, was not talk of China’s economy slowing down but the growing optimism of the US economy.

The past few years have been one of uncertainty politically and economically. The onset of American decline or relative decline has been much spoken and written about. America’s retreat from certain areas of foreign policy, the rise of the BRIC countries and President Obama’s rhetoric of relativism towards the notion of American ‘exceptionalism’.

The exhaustive Presidential campaign and an inability in Congress to negotiate a debt deal have seen many people foretell a bleak future. America’s huge federal and state debts, the complicated tax system and ability to collect revenue, plus a sliding education system have only pointed to regression.

However; the delegates of Davos all have looked beyond that and have pointed to the energy revolution that may well transform the American economy. The shale gas revolution could lead America to become energy independent by 2035 as well as creating 1.5 million jobs by 2015. Last week’s figures of growing unemployment and a slip in the economy may have been troubling for some analysts; however these were inevitable following the aftermath of the fiscal cliff negotiations.

Could his re-election leave Obama undeterred for reform? (Guardian)

In fact, America, despite the first economic contraction in three and a half years, is well placed to see new growth. As well as its energy revolution, geographically it sits between energy rich Canada and economically dynamic and investor friendly Mexico. Consumer spending is recovering after the past few years, house prices are rising and perhaps most significantly, a point echoed by investor Warren Buffett, is that US banks are in good health. Since the 2008 crisis, they have managed to rebuild their capital, payback bailouts and reduce their risks. This is in stark contrast to many of Europe’s banks which remain dangerously unstable.

Not forgetting the buoyant stock market and America’s cash rich companies. If confidence can be sustained, then who’s not to say they will start spending too and investing in more jobs and projects.

There are medium term issues that Washington will urgently need to look at, particularly the provision of healthcare and the enormous strain it places on both the federal and state budgets. As well as unreported issues like student debt. Washington can no longer seriously continue to proverbially kick the can down the road. America is well placed, but investors and bond holders will continue to remain cautious until America finally starts to deal with its debt.

The most encouraging aspect is that both President Obama and crucially, members of the Republican Party are willing to thrash something out, and not just for the short term.

A second term for Obama and the unburdening of electoral politics may finally allow the President to place some substantive reforms on the table and see America move the world economy. For Davos, it was the first time in several years that the perils of the Euro zone and the fiscal cliff could tentatively be put to one side. Tentatively being the important clause.

They’ll be hoping that next year the only bubbles are from the champagne.

George Osborne: a time to shine like no other.

2012 will be a memorable year for most of the UK, but for George Osborne it may be one he won’t forget too soon.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer cuts an acerbic taste with both Opposition politicians and much of the wider public. After the disaster of the spring budget that brought on headlines on pasty, caravan and church taxes, not to mention the entire ‘omnishambles’, Osborne knew  that this budget was not only important to this government, but also his reputation as a politician.

We are now beyond the half-way mark of the Coalition Government and within the next two years, the general public will start to be make decisions on whether this Government is the right choice to lead the country into the next Parliament.

Osborne, no longer the Conservative’s chief electoral strategist but still a key player within Tory HQ, will know this more than anybody.

For too long, the Tories have relied on a cheap shot of blaming the Labour Government for frivolity and economic mismanagement, yet in recent months have been undermined by some of their own and wider economic indicators. Today, extending from David Cameron’s speech at the Conservative Party Conference marks a side step away.

The Conservatives will go into this election pushing the line that ‘things have been tough, much tougher than we anticipated, but we’re moving in the right direction’. A triple-dip-recession may be inevitable, particularly with the UK’s biggest export market, the Euro zone, expected to contract further. Yet, you can hear the calls are starting to get louder on how things wouldn’t be much different under a Labour Government. 

Increasing the tax-allowance, cutting welfare spending as well new infrastructure projects will go down well with the public. Especially the decision to cut the planned 3p rise in fuel duty, something backed by The Sun newspaper. As well as the more macro initiatives to help businesses, big and small.

It’s more than likely we will see further politicking over the next couple years, maybe an initiative to claw back powers from the EU (a referendum?) and new measures to tackle youth unemployment. Both of which are serious vote winners and of concern to the current government.

Ed Balls may have been flustered as he delivered an awkward response, but no doubt he will get his teeth into the detail over the next day or so. As Osborne learnt on his last budgetary outing, the little things tend to matter and he will be more than cautious.

Osborne over the past week has introduced two new and highly proven advisors into his team and no doubt will feel a little sharper in the long run, but he knows that if he gets it right he could be looking at a majority government, get it wrong and his reputation will be tarnished forever.

Lest We Forget

Remember me, forget my fate.

Mitt Romney: Why the Republicans lost and may continue to lose

The fanfare is officially over. After hundreds of thousands of phone calls, tens of millions of tweets and billions of dollars spent on campaigning. America decided to stick with President Barack Obama.

In the hours after his victory speech, many both domestically and internationally are making huge sighs of relief to see the 44^th President re-elected, despite a clear victory in the all-important Electoral College.

Yet, for a long time, many Democrats feared the worse. Many influential commentators believed that Obama was on the verge of becoming the first Democratic President to serve one-term since Jimmy Carter. Perhaps he should’ve been.

Obama has already highlighted his desire to finish what he originally set out to do. It is true this is made easier by the fact that he no longer needs to be concerned about his re-election prospects and can ‘get on’ with the so-called job. However, for many ordinary Americans, the idea of getting the job done may appear vacuous and non-evident. For all the rhetoric Obama promised in 2008, much of his ideals and promises lie dormant. The audacity of hope became the absence of anything.

The economic legacy inherited by the Obama administration was far from healthy. Increasing unemployment, a chaotic financial system as well as dealing with two long-term wars and an ever increasing public debt. For any President arriving into White House, any sort of political legacy would need to be put to one-side whilst dealing with the bigger issues. Yet Obama chose to deal with healthcare.

There are arguments to be had about healthcare in general in America. Whether you agreed with George W. Bush extending Medicare or the universal cover provided by Obamacare. But why was this his focus? Why did Obama fail to create the jobs he said he would create? Why was the stimulus seen as the only answer to solving America’s crisis?

Some complain that the Republican majority in the House of Representatives made things impossible, but other Presidents had managed to deal with this before (Clinton springs to mind).

No incumbent President had ever gone into the polls with such poor unemployment figures and approval ratings. So the question is how did the Republicans lose it?

The wrong message

There’s no doubt that Mitt Romney was the best out of a bad bunch, but it shouldn’t deflect from the point that he is a more than competent candidate to become President. A successful businessman, family man, and politician with an excellent record as Governor, Romney was a capable of winning.

Yet, perhaps the Republicans forget the most important thing about politics. Elections are about winning. For too long the candidates slung mud and created an unhealthy portrait of each other. Commentators point at the fact that this allowed Obama to spend his campaign money during the election, but money fundraising wasn’t an issue during the election for either side.

The problem was that we saw the Republicans for what they really were and it was a right-wing party that did not reflect the rest of the electorate. Politics is tribal, but surrendering the centre-ground can be ill-afforded in any election. The GOP may have targeted the blue collar and the religious vote, but its policy towards immigration, the economy and women saw it ostracise a huge proportion and increasingly important section of the electorate: Hispanics and women. Suicidal when one looks at the make-up of the swing states.

For now, the debate will quickly move on as Obama tries to deal with the impending issue of America’s fiscal cliff but the question for the Republicans really remains where do they go next? Was Romney a failure because he wasn’t conservative enough or was it that the party is too right-wing?

2016 will see two new candidates from each side fight again. Even if the Republicans decide to lead with a woman (not Palin) or even a Hispanic, what’s more important is that they sort out their politics, otherwise they won’t be elected any time soon.