Democrats will Control the Senate

The Republicans seem determined to make sure the Democrats continue to control the Senate. At the moment Democrats have 51 seats, Republicans 47 seats and there are two independents who caucus with the Democrats. At the start of this year it looked like the Republicans were going to win back the Senate. Since then things have changed.

In North Dakota and Nebraska the Democratic senators decided to retire, many viewed this as an easy opportunity for the Republicans to flip both seats from blue to red. In Missouri, the incumbent Democrat Claire McCaskill was becoming increasingly unpopular. Scott Brown is the Republican senator for Massachusetts; it was believed that he had a strong chance to keep his seat considering his moderate credentials.  Republicans were also expected to put up strong performances in Wisconsin (where the current Senator is retiring) as well as Pennsylvania, Ohio, Montana and Connecticut, all these states currently have Democratic senators. Indiana was regarded as safely Republican due to the extremely popular Richard Lugar; in fact he is so popular in the state that in his last re-election in 2006, the Democrats didn’t even bother to run an opponent. The only disappointing news before the primary season began was the when Olympia Snowe announced her retirement, Snowe represents liberal Maine; her retirement gave Democrats a chance to flip her seat.

Despite all indicators pointing to a return to a Republican majority in the Senate, things have gone less well for the Republicans in 2012; much of this damage was self-inflicted. In Missouri they chose the weakest candidate available, Todd Akin, and in Indiana they chucked out the popular Richard Lugar and replaced him with a Tea Party radical. Although Nebraska is certainly going to the Republicans, North Dakota has been surprisingly competitive with the Republican, Rick Berg basically tying Democrat, Heidi Heitkamp in most polls. Republicans have also been disappointed with their candidates’ performances in Wisconsin, Connecticut, Ohio and Pennsylvania; all four states are likely to remain Democratic. There is bad news in Maine for the Republicans and Democrats, currently an independent candidate, Angus King, is leading both parties by up to 20 points. Although this may appear bad on the surface for both parties, it is a lot worse for the Republicans; the seat is currently held by a Republican and King is expected to caucus with the Democrats for Senate leadership.

There are a few states that need looked at specifically; Massachusetts, Missouri and Indiana. Of those three states, by far the most liberal is Massachusetts; in 2010 Scott Brown was elected senator in a special election to replace the recently deceased, Ted Kennedy. It was expected that he would experience a struggle to hold on to his seat, yet for most of the year he was ahead in the polls. He has attempted to portray himself as a moderate, he has distanced himself from much of the Republican leadership and was one of the first Republicans to condemn Todd Akin after his rape comments. In recent weeks his lead has completely evaporated and his Democratic challenger, Elizabeth Warren is leading by good margins.  Part of this can be placed on the perceived racism of his campaign, against Native Americans. Warren has Native American blood in her, yet Brown claims that this is not possible! Just look at her, she’s clearly white!  Since then a number of Brown staffers have been seen making fun of Native Americans, something that has not gone down well with Massachusetts voters.

In Missouri, the Republicans were expecting to beat the unpopular Democratic incumbent, Claire McCaskill. This was, of course, before Todd Akin got himself mired in scandal. Akin was leading in every poll, until he went on TV and said the following on the issue of women getting pregnant as a result of being raped and whether they should be allowed an abortion:

“If it’s a legitimate rape, then the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.”

Naturally this caused a major up-roar across the US, Republicans across the country called for him to quit the race. He did not, since then he has trailed McCaskill in the polls by 7%.

Todd Akin isn’t the only candidate to ruin his chances due to his stance on abortion, in Indiana Richard Mourdock said the following in a recent TV debate:

“Even if life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that is something God intended to happen.”

Shocking right? Implying that God intended a woman to be raped is never a good thing to say, regardless of what your views on abortion are. In an attempt to salvage his election chances, Mourdock later tried to clarify what he meant by that comment saying that God didn’t intend the rape to happen, but whilst you were being raped God decided to give you the ‘gift’ of life. That, naturally, just made things worse.

With the Presidential race as close as it is and the Republicans likely to keep the House, the Democrats can at least take comfort knowing they will likely keep the Senate. If you look at the poll averages over on the Huffington Post, you can clearly see that the Senate races are going the Democrats’ way.  If each state that is deemed lean or strong Democrat votes Democrat and every state that is deemed lean or strong Republican votes Republican, then the Democrats have 50 seats and the Republicans have 43. This leaves one independent and six seats that could still go either way. Since polling is sparser in Senate races, Indiana is still deemed tossup but we should expect Donnelly to win this seat with relative ease. The other tossup races are Nevada, North Dakota, Arizona, Virginia and Montana; even if all these states vote against the Democrats it would not be enough for the Republicans to control the house.  

Who Will Control Congress?

All the talk about who will be President has meant that much of the other races have been left unmentioned, particularly internationally. There are many different elections underway across America. The entire House of Representatives is up for election as well as 33 Senate seats, 11 governorships and numerous state legislators. As well as this many states will hold a range of referendums, four states (Maine, Maryland, Minnesota and Washington) are deciding the future of gay marriage.

The House of Representatives – All 435 members to be elected

In 2010 the Republicans took control of the House in a huge way. The Democrats lost 63 seats in the election, the most for any party in a mid-term since 1938! To re-gain a majority the Democrats would require a net gain of 28 seats. Although they are expected to make gains, they’re not expected to get this many! If Obama does get re-elected then this will cause major problems for his administration. The split control of congress (Democrats controlling the Senate and the Presidency whilst the Republicans can filibuster in the Senate and have control of the House) and the unwillingness of Republicans to compromise in a bi-partisan way have meant that the 112^th Congress has been grid-locked. Unfortunately for Obama (predicted to win narrowly) the polling for the House would indicate a repeat of this nightmare Congress.

The Senate – 33 of the 100 members to be elected

At the beginning of this year pollsters had predicted that Republicans would have the better chance of controlling the Senate, causing further problems for the Democrats if Obama was re-elected. They were certainly expected to make at least some gains; neither of these predictions are likely to come true. Current polling in individual states would indicate the Democrats increasing their majority in the Senate! This is due to highly-publicised and serious gaffes by the Republican candidates, most notoriously Todd Akin of Missouri and Richard Mourdock of Indiana. I will write about the Senate in more detail later.

Governorships – 11 of 50 governors to be elected

Considering this year’s Republican nominee is a one-term governor from Massachusetts, any one of these people could have presidential aspirations! Currently Democrats have 20 governorships to the Republicans 29; it is very likely that the Republicans will make some gain over the Democrats. North Carolina currently has a Democratic governor, but that is likely to change. Montana, New Hampshire and Washington both have Democratic governors right now; current polling would indicate all three races to be complete tossups.  North Dakota and Utah are both Republican and are certain to stay that way along with Indiana. Delaware and Vermont will certainly retain their Democratic governors; likely so will Missouri and West Virginia.

Although the Presidential race is the centre of attention, for obvious reasons, we should not forget some of the smaller races. It’s no good having a Democratic president if Congress is completely red, or vice versa.  With the Republicans likely to hold the House and the Democrats likely to have the Senate, we should expect a repeat of the second-half of Obama’s term. America will be the victim here.

Obama Vs. Romney Round III

Last night Romney and Obama sparred for the last time in Boca Raton, Florida attempting to put on their best show to woo the nation. Although I do believe that the debate was very close, with Obama having the edge, a CBS instant poll put it much more pro-Obama. These are the results: Obama 53%, Romney 23% or a tie: 24%. This is far larger than I would have thought, but it may not have much of a lasting effect. Most Americans care about the economy more than anything else; Bill Clinton didn’t say “It’s the economy stupid” for nothing!

Although the debate was built to be about foreign policy, it was basically a discussion on the Middle East. America’s close allies in Europe never got a mention, the special relationship never came up, the BRIC countries (bar China) didn’t get discussed. Latin America was largely ignored, the drug wars in Mexico didn’t even get mentioned despite the escalating violence and instability. Sub-saharan Africa was not even mentioned as well as America’s alliances in the South-East Asia and Pacific region. Another big miss was the economic crisis in Europe, considering its potential to send the world economy into freefall, its absence was notable. So basically the whole 90 minutes was spent on the Middle East, in particular Iran and Israel. Iran was mentioned 47 times, Israel 35 and America’s (supposed) closest ally, the UK was only mentioned twice.

The issue of Iran last night was an interesting topic, Romney accused Obama of going soft on Iran. He said that Iran saw America as being weak. What an absolutely ridiculous statement to make, Obama easily took this fabrication apart. The fact that Iran is the most isolated and the weakest it’s ever been is a testament to Obama’s leadership on the international stage. Iran’s currency has lost 80% of its value since the new sanctions came in place and its oil exports have plummeted to record lows. The main discussion around Iran centred on its nuclear programme and how to stop it. Neither candidate fully  told us quite how they’d stop Iran getting nuclear weapons. All we know is just how bad it would be if they did get WMDs. Obama said that the current sanctions were working very well, having caused the Iranian economy to collapse.

On the topic of Israel, Romney was very critical of Obama, when Obama took his first foreign trip as president he went to the Middle East without visiting Israel. Romney said that had emboldened Israel’s enemies and made America look weak. For some historical context no Republican president has ever visited Israel during their first term, not even Ronald Reagan. Obama’s main reply to the claims are the fact that America and Israel are sharing an unprecedented amount of military technology and information.

Beyond Israel and Iran, other Middle Eastern topics included Libya, Egypt and Syria. If you were watching last week’s debate you will remember the Benghazi question, the one Romney totally botched. This week the focus on Libya was not on Benghazi, rather the revolution that had taken place in 2011 that overthrew Gaddafi. Both candidates, last night, agreed that the administration had done the right thing in Libya. Yet Obama to time to remind Romney of how, during the Libyan intervention, he had accused Obama of ‘mission creep’, suggesting America should pull out. In regards to Libya’s neighbour, Egypt, Romney criticised Obama for not reacting to the revolution faster. This is despite Obama being one of the first world leaders to call for the dictator, President Mubarak, to resign. When they spoke on Syria Romney seemed to have the same position as Obama! They both support the rebels, they both would consider arming rebels (but they both worry about arms falling into extremists’ hands) and they both ruled out the prospect of an intervention which involved a land invasion. Although Romney declared it a disgrace that Assad was still in power and that Obama should do more, he failed to articulate what Obama should be doing. The discussion on Syria turned downright stupid when Romney said the following:

“Syria is Iran’s only ally in the Arab World. It’s their route to the sea.”

If you have a basic understanding of the geography of the Middle East you’ll know that this is an extremely bizarre statement. Firstly Iran has no border with Syria at all; Iran would need to go through Turkey or Iraq if they wished to take that route to the sea. Yet more importantly is the fact that Iran has 2,440km of coastline (according to the CIA World Factbook). Just take a look at the following map!

 

Just let that sink in, Romney doesn’t even remotely know the geography of the Middle East. This is something every Congressman and Senator should know, never mind the President.

Somewhat surprisingly, an important part of all three presidential debates is the issue of what to do about China! For Obama this would be a relatively easy area to score some points, Obama has doubled exports to China, as well as this he has brought twice as many cases to the WTO of Chinese trade malpractice as Bush did in eight years. More importantly, he has won every case that has been decided. When Obama brought one particular case to try and save 1,000 jobs, Romney called him “protectionist”. Yet despite these facts Romney continues to try and attack Obama on the issue.

Overall I feel that Obama probably did slightly better, but it will not be foreign policy that decides this election.

Romney and Obama in the Midst of the debate

The Savile Scandal

The Jimmy ­­Savile scandal is getting bigger day by day, if you’re from the UK and haven’t heard of this – you must be living under a boulder. Literally. To anyone from outside the UK, Jimmy Savile was a very famous British celebrity who died last year. Until a few weeks ago he was still highly popular, but an ITV documentary revealed accusations that Savile had sexually abused teenage girls during his time as a celebrity. Since then there have been numerous twists and turns with more accusations flying and more institutions being called into question. The police across the UK are currently following 400 separate leads into the affair, they have also identified up to 200 victims! This number is likely to rise.

The accusations span half a century and have mired many institutions in controversy. Savile was a well-known philanthropist who had helped rise up to £40 million for charity. Most of his work involved charities for children and ‘helping’ those children at their most vulnerable. Many institutions, including ones run by the NHS such as Stoke Mandeville and Broadmoor Hospital, allowed him to go about alone and some even had rooms set aside for his personal use. It was in these places that most of the abuse appears to have happened. His primary employer, the BBC, has also faced criticism for its actions as some of the abused is alleged to have occurred on BBC property. As well as this, a couple of weeks before the ITV documentary was broadcast the editor of Newsnight pulled the plug on an investigation of the accusations.

The fallout from the scandal is far from over; the police have begun criminal investigations into actions taken by a ‘handful’ of living people. The investigations range from people helping Savile to escape justice and even taking part in the abusing of children themselves. 

Obama vs. Romney Round II

Democrats across American have breathed a collective sigh of relief today after Obama’s excellent performance in last night’s debate.

The debate was in a very different setting to the first one. The debate is supposed to be like a town hall meeting with the candidates answering questions from an audience of un-decided voters. The questions asked ranged from the economy to women’s rights as well as education and foreign policy.

It did not take long for Romney and Obama to have some serious clashes. The first was on the issue of energy, Romney claimed that Obama had cut permits in half for oil companies to drill on public land and that production was down across public land. This is simply not true, production has increased on public land during the Obama administration. When asked what Romney would do to stop the perpetual rise in oil prices he said he would drill anywhere and everywhere regardless of the consequences. This wouldn’t necessarily work, oil prices are very high at the moment but so are the production numbers. The main reason for the high price, despite the high production rates is because of global demand. Countries like China, India and Brazil are growing very fast and need more energy to fuel that growth. The result is that the rising supply is being out-paced by the sky-rocketing demand.

Immigration has been a hard fought issue for many years now, considering the fact that it’s never been resolved it had to come up at some point. Again Romney decided to sputter nonsense when he spoke about how self-deportation was the answer to the immigration crisis. Romney argued that green cards should be handed to graduates from other countries to get the educated to move to the United States. This was very bizarre considering earlier in the evening he had mentioned the fact that 50% of new graduates were unemployed. Obama was much stronger on this area, he spoke of his support for the Dream Act (which Romney said he would veto if President) as well as making sure that all criminals were deported. He criticised Romney’s support for the highly controversial Arizona ‘papers please’ law; Obama specifically referenced the time when Romney said it was a “model for the nation”. Later Romney replied to that accusation claiming that he was only referencing to the e-verify portion of the law, despite the tape clearly showing Obama to be correct.

By far the question I was most shocked about coming up was the gun laws question. I was genuinely in shock, gun laws are only really considered by the fringes of the Democratic Party and never get a mention on the national stage. Despite the exceedingly high rate of gun violence in the United States it is simply not an issue with voters! Obama’s answer was probably not popular with a majority of Americans, he said that he would support an assault weapons ban. He said he believed that guns that were designed for soldiers should not be on the streets. Obama also said that better education and a change in society would help bring down violence. Romney, on the other hand, rejected the idea of an assault weapons ban, which is a change from his position whilst governor of Massachusetts. Whilst governor he signed a state-wide assault weapons ban into law! Romney then went on to talk about how making sure every child has two parents will help reduce gun violence… Yes, he genuinely said that! He basically accused single parents of being the reason for gun violence in the United States!

The next post discusses the economy.

Their performance in the debates has been described in the
media and press as "two alpha males" who were
"attempting to circle each other and intimidate each other"!

Debate II - the Economy

Other questions were tackled just as ferociously. The issue over the economy is probably the most important one of the presidential debate. The questions asked during the debate focused on jobs, the deficit, taxes and outsourcing. Although he performed better this time than in the last debate, I do believe Obama could have been a lot stronger on the economy. Obama criticised Romney for his “Let Detroit go Bankrupt” opinion back in 2009 (which he has since maintained). Obama also tried to tie Romney to the deficit. Obama claimed that Romney’s tax cuts would add $5 trillion to the deficit, his extra military spending $2 trillion and the extension of the bush-era tax cuts would add $1 trillion giving a whopping grand total of $8 trillion! In the hope of trying to claw back, Romney spouted his six studies prove your wrong nonsense. Obama pointed out, correctly, that these studies are both highly dubious and far from non-partisan. More Romney lies came from his “Obama doubled the deficit” line of attack, it is simply not true. The budget deficit has gone down under Obama’s leadership by about $300 billion. Although the overall deficit is still very high, nobody could seriously argue that Obama could have gotten rid of it in four years.

The biggest issue for Obama is the jobs numbers; currently unemployment is at 7.8%. This is the same figure as January 2009, the month that he was inaugurated. Romney reminded Americans that for basically all of Obama’s presidency unemployment has been above 8% and no president has gotten re-elected with unemployment that high since FDR (Obama also had to deal with the worst crash since 1929, but Romney decided to ignore that part).  Romney said that after the “Reagan Recession” unemployment was back to a good rate by the end of his first term. The major flaw here is that Reagan didn’t have to deal with the severe recession Obama did, they’re not remotely comparable.

We all know that one of Obama’s main attacks on Romney is that he will raise taxes on the middle class whilst lowering taxes for the wealthy. It’s is because this is what Romney has been running on for the past year and it’s what he did as governor of Massachusetts in the mid-2000s. Now Romney says that the tax rates for the wealthy remain the same and he will cut taxes for the middle class. It’s very difficult to know what he will actually do in office.

One of the more surprising questions to come up was the issue of outsourcing. This is naturally good ground for Obama as Romney’s company; Bain Capital has investments in companies that are “pioneers of outsourcing”. Obama said that loopholes should be closed and that there should be no tax incentives for companies to shift jobs overseas. When attacked by Romney on how weak he was in regards to China’s currency manipulation and unfair trading practices Obama claimed that he had put extraordinary pressure on China. He told the audience of how he helped to save 1,000 American jobs by refusing to allow faulty Chinese tyres on the market whereas Mitt Romney said he should do nothing, that Obama was being protectionist. 

The final post will discuss the Benghazi question.

Debate II - Benghazi

The most memorable moment of the debate came in the form of a question on Benghazi. After a series of questions that Obama had an advantage on, this should have been one in which Romney steamed ahead! It’s been a major talking point for the right when the issue of foreign policy comes up; they speak of the anger at how slow Obama was to react and they were furious when he apologised for the American video whilst American embassies were being attacked (the last point is a complete fallacy). This can no longer be a right-wing talking point. This is how the exchange took place:

Romney – I… I think it’s interesting the president just said something which is that on the day after the attack, he went to the Rose Garden and said that this was an act of terror. [looks at Obama] You said in the Rose Garden the day after the attack it was an act of terror. [Looks at Obama for an answer, Obama nods]. It was not a spontaneous demonstration.

Obama: Please proceed.

Romney: Is that what you’re saying?

Obama: Please proceed governor.

Romney: I… I… I want to make sure we get that for the record, because it took the president 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror.

Obama: Get the transcript.

Crowley: It… He did in fact, sir… call it an act of terrorism.

Obama: Can you say that a little louder Candy? [Laughter and applause]

Crowley: He did call it an act of terror. It did as well take… it did as well take two weeks or so for the whole idea of there being a riot out there about this tape to come out. You are correct about that.

Romney: This… the administration… the administration… indicated that this was a… reaction to a… to a video and was a spontaneous reaction.

Crowley: They did.

Romney: It took them a long time to say this was a terrorist act by a terrorist group and… and to suggest… am I correct in that regard? On Sunday your… your secretary or…

As you can see Romney royally messed this talking point up, in completely botching the question on live, national TV Romney has turned a very successful Republican talking point into a Democratic one. Even those on the right have admitted that Romney messed that question up.

In polls of uncommitted voters, most believed that Obama won the debate, which is exactly what the Democrats needed to lift their spirits. Although Romney’s defeat in this debate was not as sizeable as Obama’s defeat in the last one it certainly puts a stop to the momentum of Romney. So currently Obama and Romney have both taken one debate, whoever wins the third debate may will win the presidency. Good news for Obama: the third debate is on foreign policy.

The Real Deficit Hawk

After his bruising defeat in the first presidential debate, Obama has to try and land as many punches as he can in tonight’s debate. Watching Biden’s performance will give Obama the proof he needs that being “too polite” is not the way to go, he must be forceful and call out Romney when he lies.

Obama does come into debates with a slight advantage amongst voters. According to a poll of registered voters by ABC News and the Washington Post, Obama leads Mitt Romney in practically every area of policy that they asked about. Here are the numbers:

Who would do a better job on…?:

The Economy                     Obama +4

Taxes                                    Obama +5
Health Care                        Obama +6

International Affairs       Obama +10

Unexpected crisis            Obama +12

Medicare                             Obama +15

The only area on which Obama falls behind Mitt Romney is that of reducing the deficit; Romney leads Obama by three points in this field. What I don’t understand is how Romney can possibly be ahead on this area. If we look at Obama’s record and the record of Republicans and Democrats over the last 40 years, then you begin to wonder why the Republicans have a reputation for being deficit hawks. Of the three Republicans to be president in that period, all of them have added to the budget deficit by significant amounts. George W. Bush has the worst record of any modern president, followed by George H. W. Bush and then Ronald Reagan. Of the three Democratic presidents in that same period, only Jimmy Carter added to the budget deficit, even so he added less than any of the Republicans. Bill Clinton and Barack Obama are the only presidents of the past 40 years to actually reduce the deficit! For some more historical context, the last Republican to balance a budget was Dwight D. Eisenhower who was president from 1953 – 1961.

So you would think, with the weight of historical context favouring Democrats, and with Obama’s own record on reducing the deficit, that Mitt Romney must have some fantastic plan to reduce the deficit. You would imagine that he is very precise about what he is going to do and that even Democrats could not touch his plan because it was so fantastic.

You’d think so wouldn’t you, but that could not be further from the truth.

Romney has promised a sky-rocketing in defence spending, unseen since the Korean War, a $5 trillion tax cut for the wealthy and all at the same time as balancing the deficit. If you were watching the first presidential debate you may remember when Obama accused Romney of the $5 trillion tax cut (figures sighted to the non-partisan CBO), Romney said that six studies have trashed the CBO study. That’s basically a lie as none of the six are actual studies, three are blog posts, two by a Conservative think tank and one by a Romney advisor, one is a report by a Conservative think tank (reports are no-where near as in depth as a study) another is an op-ed by the same Romney advisor as before and the final is a paper by a George W. Bush advisor. We all remember what he did to the deficit.  So Mitt Romney is obviously going to have to cut lots of programs or he will send the deficit through the roof, but the only cut he has actually admitted to is that of PBS.

Tonight is a real opportunity for Obama to win support for him on the issue of the deficit. When Romney brings up the six reports, Obama must tell the American people that that is completely misleading. If Romney brings up the “doubled the deficit” line, remind him that he’s not debating George W. Bush. If he brings up the issue of jobs, Obama needs to remind Romney about the fact that there has been a net increase in jobs and unemployment is below 8%.

The facts are behind Obama on the issue of the deficit, he should not let any American forget this fact.

Scotland Takes Step Towards a Referendum

Scotland has taken a step forward to a referendum on independence that could break the United Kingdom into fragments.

The governments in Westminster and Edinburgh have come to an agreement on what will happen. It has been agreed that the timing, the wording of the question and the franchise will all be decided in the Scottish parliament. David Cameron will meet with Alex Salmond tomorrow to sign the deal that could end this country.

Although polling still shows Scots rejecting independence by around 2:1, a lot can happen in two years. With the UK economy still in recession, Salmond offers Scotland some hope. If the UK economy continues to drag on as it is, then many people may flock to the pro-independence side. If Scotland does reject independence it will cause problems for the SNP and could do irreparable damage. The base would be demotivated and in reality, it would become just another left wing party. Yet the margin of defeat is important, if it is defeated by a large margin then Scotland will remain safely in the UK for a long time. If it is only defeated by a small margin then there would be a legitimate argument for calling another referendum five years later!

The debate over the coming months in the Scottish parliament will be an intense one as the opposing sides clash; for once the Lib Dems, Conservatives and Labour will be arguing for the same thing. The SNP was already dealt a blow earlier this year when the Green Party withdrew from the Yes campaign, saying the SNP was excluding other parties from participation in the movement. What happens next is key to the survival of what was once, the world’s most powerful nation. 

Biden Destroys Ryan in Only VP Debate

Last night the Vice President, Joe Biden, squared up against Congressman Paul Ryan in the only VP debate. For Biden this was an opportunity to begin the Democratic fight back following last week’s presidential debate. The debate was moderated by Martha Raddatz and it focused on foreign policy and the economy.

From Biden’s first reply to Ryan I knew this debate was going to be very different to last week. Biden wasn’t going to let Ryan get away with lies and half-truths. This is how it went:

Biden: “With all due respect that’s a bunch of malarkey.”#

Raddatz: “And why is that so?”

Biden: “Because not a single thing he said is accurate.”

It was a very strong start for Biden, certainly a lot better than Ryan.

The general feel of the debate on Twitter

Foreign policy is, of course, a strong point for the Obama administration, so the debate focusing on that area was a natural advantage for Biden. The debate mostly covered the Middle East as Libya, Syria, Israel, Iran and Afghanistan were all discussed. For many the weakest moment of the debate for Ryan was when he discussed Afghanistan at the end. Ryan said that it was a disgrace that the Obama campaign had pulled 22,000 US troops out of the most dangerous provinces. This meant (according to him) fewer men doing the same job, endangering those left. Biden’s retort to Ryan was brilliant, as all US troops pulled out were replaced with Afghans. The following course saw Ryan flailing.

Ryan: We don’t want to send fewer people to the [east]…

Biden: That’s why we should send Americans in to do the job, instead of the – you’d rather Americans be going in doing the job instead of the trainees?

Ryan: No. We are already sending Americans to do the job, but fewer of them. That’s the whole problem.

Biden: That’s right. We’re sending in more Afghans to do the job, Afghans to do the job.

Ryan also got tied up over Syria and Iran. Although he blasted the current administration for how it’s dealing with both countries, he didn’t seem to have a remotely different policy when it came to Syria. On Iran all he called for as tougher sanctions without suggesting how much tighter they could be.

Biden also performed strongly on the economy, this is supposed to be Ryan’s strong point and he totally underperformed. One of Ryan’s biggest problems for Ryan is his inability to tell the truth or be specific. He says that the Romney-Ryan plan would help create 12 million jobs, yet he never specified how. He claims that six reports back up Romney’s tax plan. That is simply not true.

The issue of Medicare was brought up, much to Biden’s delight. Biden went on the offensive, claiming a Romney presidency would destroy the “guarantee of medicare” by turning it into a voucher scheme. This is an argument on which the Democrats really do have the advantage, even a majority of registered Republicans favour keeping medicare as it is, rather than privatising it. At one point Biden looked straight at the camera and said “Folks, follow your instincts.” in terms of who to trust with medicare.

The next debate will take place on Tuesday and will be between President Obama and Mitt Romney. Unfortunately this will make it difficult to measure the direct impact of the VP debate; it’s certainly far too early to tell but pay attention over the next few days. As the debate started Obama and Romney were basically neck-and-neck in the polls, according to HuffPost averages Obama’s lead was a mere 0.2%. Instant polls showed that the public felt that Biden won the debate, but more important are the undecided voters. By huge margins they believed that Biden put up the stronger performance. What affect it has will be difficult to measure, but it almost certainly will have a measurable impact. 

One of the more meme-worthy moments in the debate

Biden-Ryan Debate, What to Expect

Last week when Mitt Romney ‘won’ the Presidential Debate, everyone knew that the polls were going to shift, the question was: by how much? For the first time since May of this year, Mitt Romney has gone ahead of Obama according the Huffington Post’s poll averages. According to it Romney led Obama by a miniscule 0.1% for a few hours, although this lead is extremely small it has psychological significance. Before the debate began, the Romney campaign was viewed as possibly being dead in the water, that the debate was the last thing that could save Romney from collapse. It was predicted that even if Romney did slightly better than Obama, the campaign would be over. Fortunately for Mitt Romney, the public perceive that he won the debate by a huge 2:1 margin! Not only has Romney kept his campaign alive, his dreams of moving to the White House are now a real possibility!

This means that there is a huge amount of pressure on Joe Biden for his debate tonight; it will take place eight days after Obama’s defeat. Although it will not be as widely watched as the presidential debate, it is an opportunity for the Democrats to begin fighting back. The type of attacks that Biden will receive will likely be similar to the ones that Romney used against Obama. Biden should learn from how Obama handled his opponent’s attacks and craft a better response. Biden also has one big advantage over Obama; he can use last week’s excellent job report to back him up. For many Democrats, Obama was too polite (a point made by Obama himself in an interview with ABC) and he let Romney get away with blatant lies. If Ryan repeats Romney’s “Obama doubled the deficit”, Biden should come down on him like a ton of bricks! It is simply not true, by any way shape or form.

One point that Ryan will likely attempt to make is that the Obama campaign is trying to distract the American people from the economy. One example he may give is the attention the Democrats have paid to Romney’s promise the cut the subsidy to PBS during the last debate. Biden can easily retaliate to this point as it is the only cut to the budget that Romney has specified, other than repealing Obamacare which, according to the independent CBO, would actually add $109 billion to the deficit. 

Another point that Biden can use to attack Ryan is Romney’s promise to sky-rocket spending on the military, giving the Pentagon more money than they’ve asked for. Foreign policy is certainly an area on which the Democrats should be campaigning on, a recent Gallup poll showed the public trusting the Democrats more with foreign policy matters than the GOP. It is also the only area in which Obama’s approval rating has always been higher than his disapproval rating (according to HuffPost averages). Biden should also point out the Republican ticket’s warmongering, Romney has sometimes mentioned how he would support Israel if it bombed Iran. The Republicans as a whole, including Ryan, have often criticised Obama for “destroying America’s reputation abroad”, this is not founded on fact; America’s closest allies have  a far higher approval of the US now that Obama is in charge over George W. Bush.

Joe Biden

Something Biden should really attack Ryan for is his budget. The extreme budget which cuts help for the poor, privatises the highly popular medicare and cuts taxes for the wealthy. Best of all it doesn’t even reduce the deficit, although Ryan claims that it will. When Ryan made the budget proposal he said his budget would slash the deficit, to prove this he had the numbers run by The Heritage Foundation.  This is the same organisation that said that George W. Bush’s budgets would slash the deficit, the reality was that the budgets turned a $200 billion budget surplus into a $1.2 trillion budget deficit. Yeah I don’t think the American people will trust anything that comes out of their mouths, as long as they are well informed.

Paul Ryan

A lot of the media speculation in recent weeks was that Ryan would be the better debater than Biden, after all Ryan is a member of congress and has to frequently take part in debates or debate like events. What people seem to forget is Biden’s ability to connect with the ordinary person, when he speaks people feel that he is sincere. This is quite the opposite for Ryan, one of the only things people remember from the RNC is just how shockingly dishonest Ryan was in his acceptance speech, even FOX accused him of lying! Biden is also one of Congress’ longest serving Senators, he was Senator for Delaware from 1973 until he was sworn in as Vice-President in 2009.

This debate is vital for both campaigns, if Ryan wins then the White House is truly within reach. If Biden wins, then the Obama campaign will have a new spurt of life. Whatever the outcome, this could prove the most important vice-presidential debate in a long time. 

Cameron delivers Speech at CPC

In delivering his speech on the final day of the Conservative Party Conference, David Cameron attempted to re-define what his government is about.

Although not as good as Ed Miliband’s speech last week, it has generally got positive reviews from pundits. Unfortunately I fell some of his speech was dishonest; firstly was his comment that the damage from the initial recession was “worse than we thought,” in fact the very opposite is true. Quite recently in fact, the figures for the collapse have been revised upwards, not downwards. Cameron also spoke about how Labour was the party of “borrow, borrow, borrow” despite the fact that borrowing is higher now than it ever was under New Labour.

It’s interesting to note that there was not a single mention of coalition, Nick Clegg or the Liberal Democrats. His willingness to ignore half of the coalition will not have gone down well with Clegg or his party. The reason many give for this is that this was a Conservative speech for a Conservative audience. He went down the typical Conservative route of talking about fiscal responsibility (which is fallacy reputation that the Conservatives have), welfare reform and austerity. Another line he decided to go down was education where he spoke of how he felt students needed more exams! What a ridiculous statement! Firstly, it is widely agreed that students are taking far too many exams, secondly his party is advocating reducing the number of exams! His section on education turned bizarre when he made the following claim:

“And to all those who say: he wants children to have the kind of education he had at his posh school, I say you’re absolutely right.”

I find this so bizarre because nobody would argue against everyone having the kind of fantastic education that David Cameron got, we simply recognise that that type of education costs £30,000 pa and isn’t a feasible option. No matter how much you want everyone to have that education, it’s simply unachievable.

It wasn’t the only time in the speech when he referenced his privileged up-bringing; it seemed to be a common theme throughout the speech. I think it was a really bad mistake on his part, he came across as pompous and a fool. He said that he wants everyone to be privileged, but that it is a confusing and impossible concept. Only a few people can have privilege, if everyone has privilege then no-one does. If this was a reply to Ed Miliband’s “I am an ordinary man” and his theme of One Nation, then it was incredibly miss guided. The country has a view of this government as posh and out-of-touch, you’re not supposed to highlight this in your most watched speech of the year!

Syria, the Never-ending Problem

There has been one major area of policy that Romney has largely ignored in the current presidential election and that is foreign policy. Anytime he does attempt to draw a position, it turns into a major gaffe; during his overseas trip in July he managed to insult the British, Arabs and Polish. More recently he politicised the death of US ambassador to Libya, Chris Stevens, before he even knew the facts and he failed to mention the war in Afghanistan during his acceptance speech at the RNC last month. Now Romney is attempting to weigh in on the Syrian crisis as the battle is getting increasingly bloody. It is also important to note that Romney views Syria as a way to get at Iran, Syria is one of Iran's closest allies; he believes depriving Iran of another ally would be extremely bad for President Ahmadinejad. In extracts from a speech he will make later today Romney says:

“Iran is sending arms to Assad because they know his downfall would be a strategic defeat for them. We should be working no less vigorously with our international partners to support the many Syrians who would deliver that defeat to Iran – rather than sitting on the sidelines.”

Romney believes that America should arm the rebels, not just with small arms, but with heavy weapons that could take out tanks and helicopters. Do you remember when America armed rebels in Afghanistan? Do you also remember when some of those rebels used their American training to carry out 9/11? This is an extremely risky strategy, although I do believe that the vast majority of the Syrian rebels are genuinely trying to overthrow a dictatorial regime, islamists from across the Arab world are seeing Syria as a possible training site for a future generation of jihadists.

There are also fears that the Syrian conflict could spill over into some of its more unstable neighbours; Iraq and Lebanon and maybe destabilise Jordan as well. The chances of a Turkish invasion of Syria are looking increasingly likely; Syria has already shot down Turkish fighter jets and launched missiles into Turkish villages killing hundreds. Syria has abandoned the Kurdish area of its country; Turkey fears that in doing so it will become a training ground for Kurdish rebels who will attack Turkey. Just a few days ago the Turkish parliament voted to allow moving Turkish forces into Syria if it was provoked, sending a clear message to Damascus that it must stop attacking Turks.

With the international community totally paralysed thanks to the actions of Russia and China it is difficult to see what the West should do next. Maybe Mitt Romney’s idea is the right thing to do, although history suggests that we may get more than we wish for. 

Abu Hamza Finally Extradited

Abu Hamza has finally been extradited from the UK to the USA along with four others. His extradition will come as a relief to Britons and Americans alike as the process has taken a shockingly long, eight years to complete. Hamza has long been a controversial person, calling for the death of Westerners and refusing to criticise Al-Qaeda when it killed 200 people during attacks on US embassies in Africa. Originally arrested in 2004 with 15 counts of terrorism, he was not convicted until 2006. In 2004 the Americans requested his extradition to face charges of setting up a terrorist training camp in Oregon and of kidnapping in Yemen. In May of 2007 attempts to extradite him were re-started but were once again placed on hold when his lawyers brought the case to the European Court of Human Rights. The court, facing a backlog of 80,000 – 90,000 cases, did not begin hearing the case until 2010. It was in April of this year that the court finally decided to allow his extradition, and two weeks ago his appeal failed. Today he is in the USA awaiting trial.

For many this case indicates that there is something severely wrong with the system of extradition in the UK, and in Europe as a whole. Many believe that the UK should simply ignore what the European courts say and go along with what British courts say alone. I think things could be improved if there were more staff in the European Court, the backlog is absolutely gargantuan and is only set to increase; this is not a sustainable situation. Whatever the decision is regarding the broken system, we can all be happy that Hamza is finally facing American justice.

The radical cleric, Abu Hamza speaking to the press,

Round 1: Romney vs Obama

Last night Obama and Romney faced each other in Denver, Colorado in the first of three presidential debates. The debate was supposed to take 90 minutes, it was split into six segments, three concentrated on the economy and one on each of the topics; healthcare, role of government and governing. Romney knew he needed to out-perform Obama to keep his campaign alive, in recent weeks Obama’s lead has been widening both nationally and in the swing states, especially in Ohio and Wisconsin. Pundits from across the political spectrum were predicting if Obama were to win or simply “tie” with Romney, then the Republicans would certainly lose the White House. Going into the debates polls showed, 2:1, that Obama would perform better. They were wrong. I was wrong. Although I do not believe that Romney completely trashed the president, he definitely performed better. Obama was on the defence the whole night, with few exceptions, he rarely made any attacks on Romney and paused a lot more in speaking.  As the debate only took place last night the polls have yet to come in with the new results, but needless to say that things will be looking up for the Romney campaign. This is the first piece of good news they’ve had since Obama said “you didn’t build that”.

Yet all is not lost for Obama, throughout the debate Romney left himself open to many attacks. Especially on the issue of healthcare, within seconds of vilifying Obamacare, he was praising his work on healthcare reform in Massachusetts as governor, bearing in mind that Obamacare is a less extreme version of Romneycare, it is shocking Obama didn’t go on the offense. Romney was creating quite a buzz on Twitter when fact checkers consistently struck down many of Romney’s key points and backed Obama. Here’s a selection of Romney’s lies from last night.

1.       I will not cut education

2.       I will not raise taxes on the middle class

3.       Obama will raise taxes on the middle class

4.       I will not add to the deficit (if he genuinely believes this he needs to re-take some Maths exams)

5.       I will not cut taxes for the rich

6.       Obama has raised taxes on the middle class during his time in office

7.       Obamacare will increase the cost of premiums

8.       Obama will destroy medicare

9.       Obama’s medicare cuts directly affect seniors.

I’ve saved the most audacious for last.

10.    Obama has doubled the deficit.

This last point is simply shocking. There are two types of government deficit, a budget deficit is the gap between revenue and spending each year, and the overall deficit, which is how much the government owes in total. Let me break this down into on very simple table.

	What Obama inherited	What he increased it by	What it currently is
Budget deficit	$1.2 trillion	X 1.167	$1.4 trillion
Overall deficit	$12 trillion	X 1.167	$14 trillion

  

The fact is that overall debt is increasing at its slowest rate since before Ronald Reagan became president in 1980. And let’s not forget that Bush actually inherited a budget surplus of $230 billion, is it really time to trust a Republican on the economy again? Especially when that Republican is pursuing the same policies as the old one!

The fact of the matter is that if Obama had been on his toes and been more aggressive, he would have easily won the debate. I feel bad as Obama is usually a very good public speaker, he just seemed to stumble on the worst of all possible nights.  He must learn from this debate, or he could actually lose the White House in November.  

Ed Miliband's Q&A

After his historic speech yesterday Ed Miliband took time to answer questions from members of the party. The questions ranged from police to Northern Ireland, tax to the Liberal Democrats. Asked on what his position on the living wage Miliband said he was certainly open to the idea, reminding us that 12 Labour councils are already using the living wage. He was asked by one woman what his vision for the next 20 years would be, he said that he set out what he would do yesterday but he took most of the time to talk about the environment. He spoke of how George Osborne didn’t understand the crisis we’re facing and that he did.

Asked on the issue of domestic violence and women, Miliband reminded us that this government’s tax rises and benefit cuts hit women disproportionately and that there were no women in the treasury. He also said that the government cuts to policing were dangerous for the women who rely on them.

Education of course came up, when asked about tuition fees, Miliband said he’d cut them to £6000 it wasn’t good enough for some people though as one woman screamed “It’s not enough!”

The economy was the most common issue for people to express their opinions on; the public sector pay freeze (which Labour supports) has angered some within the Labour Party, particularly on the union side.  Miliband’s response was as expected (this question is constantly coming up), he says that some cuts need to be made and when the choice is between pay or jobs, jobs take priority. When asked whether he supports the Robin Hood Tax, Miliband said he did but only if every other financial centre did so; as going alone would damage the city. The problem with this tactic is that no country or financial centre is prepared to be the first one to do so; it’s basically a giant, international, game of chicken.

The final three points were a bit less pressing; the first is the question over Northern Ireland. A woman representing Northern Ireland CLP asked whether the Labour Party would begin to field candidates for election in the country. Miliband disappointed the Northern Irish in the hall when he said he would not stand candidates in NI as he believes it would damage the party’s reputation as a honest broker. Secondly was the whether or not he supported lowering the age of voting to 16, he said he did but at the same time people should be given a proper citizenship education. I do understand where he is coming from, although we had citizenship classes at school, they were entirely pointless and we never learnt anything. I still have no idea how to register to vote, which should be the most important thing they teach students in Social Education (SE as it’s actually called). The final was on the issue of nuclear weapons and whether Britain should disarm, or at least stop the £100 billion Trident upgrade. Miliband took the typical Labour route saying he did not support unilateral disarmament, but that Britain’s nuclear deterrent should be at the minimum required and nothing more.

Overall I was once again impressed with Ed’s performance, as in his speech he was confident and looked to enjoy the experience. He cracked a few, genuinely funny, jokes and got much rapturous applause from the audience. 

One Nation Britain

 Ed Miliband performed one heck of a speech yesterday at the Labour Party Conference. Speaking without the aid of a teleprompter or cards, Ed has received almost universal praise for his performance. He appeared to be very confident and actually enjoying the experience, many in the media had underestimated Ed’s speech and were shocked by just how well he delivered it. Although there was some criticism over the lack of policy, it is important to note that it is still two and a half years until the next election and a lot can change in that time. If Ed starts to make promises now, it may be impossible to keep them in 2015.

If the theme was to be summed up in one phrase, it would be “One Nation”, Ed repeated it numerous times throughout the speech. I would draw parallels with the Tory’s “We’re all in this together” slogan.

One of the main aims of the speech was to represent Ed as an ordinary person, certainly a lot more normal than David Cameron. He started off by talking about his family heritage, how his family were immigrants from Eastern Europe who fled the horrors of WWII. He said that “my family has not stayed under the one oak tree for 500 years” hinting to Cameron’s posh heritage. He spoke of how he attended a comprehensive school and why he believed that was the best form of education, saying “I wouldn’t be standing here now without my comprehensive education.”

The speech was mainly about equality, although lacking in much detail he did serve a warning to the banks, they either had to sort themselves out or Labour would break them up in 2015 (assuming a Labour victory of course).

Back in March I published a blog post titled “What to do About Ed”, I no longer believe what I wrote there. I honestly do believe that Ed Miliband will make a good Prime Minister and this speech could be a turning point for his favourablitity ratings. Although the general public will not have watched it, he has now proven himself capable to the party faithful, previously many in the Labour camp felt lacklustre about his performance. He has now converted many people to supporting him, which will hopefully allow him to turn his attention to the public and try to convert them to supporting him over David Cameron.

Labour Party Conference Focuses on the Economy

The Labour Party Conference in Manchester is well under way, with speeches from the American philosopher Michael Sandel, Yvette Cooper and Ed Balls trying to excite the party faithful. Labour hopes that the conference will send out a message to the British public that they can be trusted with the economy, the main topic of conversation at the moment. Due to Labour policies being part of why the economy crashed in the first place, it will not be an easy task to undertake. Persuading the country that Labour can once again be trusted will take more time, unless the coalition has its way. As you probably know we are in the midst of a double dip recession, growth is contracting and unemployment is rising, this is making the government look very bad. It is even worse considering that only one other nation in the G20 is in a similar position. The fact that other countries have managed at least some recovery would indicate that there is something that the government can do to change things. Labour will be arguing throughout the rest of the conference on the need for a new economic policy, one built around construction and manufacturing.

In Ed Balls’ speech yesterday he outlined a plan in which the government could build 250,000 new affordable homes without borrowing a single penny. He says the money raised from selling 4G mobile internet licenses would cover the cost, thus boosting the economy without increasing the deficit. Yet other than that, there were not many clear plans from Ed Balls. This has led to accusations that he does not know what to do to get the economy moving. His rebuttal is that a lot could change in the two and a half years until the next election, he does not wish to make promises that he cannot keep.

Today is the most important day of the conference as Ed Miliband will be speaking to the party faithful. Although we don’t know the details of what will be in his speech, I think we can safely assume that he will focus on the economy and the banking sector. I will be tweeting throughout the afternoon session of the conference, including during Miliband’s speech. (@michaeljspence).