Apparently John McCain was furious that Gordon Brown endorsed an Obama proposal supporting struggling homeowners. The press has been making much of how McCain sarcastically dubbed it the "Coveted Gordon Brown Endorsement".
Some people are comparing it to John Major angering the Clinton administration. But circumstances are different. Clinton was president of the world's sole hyperpower. McCain if he becomes president, will take over a USA reduced to being one of many poles in a multi-polar world, with the Chinese closing their grip on the American throat through their ownership of American assets. Only last week the US taxpayer took on the liabilties of Fannie and Freddie Mac to pay Chinese bondholders.
I for one am pleased with what Gordon Brown has inadvertently achieved. Consider - McCain believes in a 100 years war in Iraq, plus starting a war with Iran, plus attacking Russia on behalf of Georgia. But given how he now disdains our Gord, and disdains his "endorsements", we can take it as read that a McCain presidency wouldn't even consider asking Gordon to "endorse" any of his dubious foreign policies, let alone ask Britain to send troops for his foreign adventures.
After all, now that he's dissed the UK PM, he can't then turn around and go begging for our support. This means that for the first time in an age, Britain can sit watching sardonically from the sidelines, and allow the French or whoever to commit troops for McCain's hundred year wars. Or McCain can reintroduce the draft on American men.
Yay for Gord! He has done exactly what those of us who despaired of Blair's "follow the US at any costs" policy, have wanted out of his premiership. It also means that it no longer matters who becomes president of the USA. If it's Obama, we get someone we can relate to and do business with. If it's McCain, he'll ignore us and leave us out of his mad policies, so that they don't affect us in any case.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Monday, September 08, 2008
The US Treasury Nationalises Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae
The US government has effectively nationalised Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, the two mortgage groups with a combined $5.4 trillion in liabilities (about equal to the entire federal debt).
What's more they "seized control" - no pfaffing about trying to appease shareholders and having to deal with malicious hedge-funds-on-the-make as we did with Northern Rock. They're proper socialists in America.
For those gob-smacked by the American action because they thought that the USA was the acme of free-market liberalism, don't be. The superpower era of America has always been underpinned by the taxpayer and the willingness of government to intervene - whether it is the Fed slashing interest rates to rock-bottom or the military-industrial complex where tax money keeps vast defence industries going, or the pork-barrel system where tax money is used for all sorts of dubious things or the way the US taxpayer takes on the job that should be done by insurers and compensates people who deliberately build in hurricane zones, so that some folk have their house rebuilt over and over courtesy of that indulgent Uncle Sam. Americans have never actually practised pure free-market liberalism, they've merely preached it to countries like Russia in the 90's and hence destabalised and killed the fragile democracy there. In proper democracies (and the USA is a proper democracy), the free-market is always modified, controlled and underpinned by the representatives of the people.
The nationalisation of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae is actually a good move, it reduces the uncertainty that kills economies. But it's also interesting in that, as I said previously, we are in an era of where government intervention is deemed to be good and markets are deemed to be foolish and wicked (in direct contrast to the early 90's when government was deemed bad and the markets were the heroes who rescued us from govt, especially as regards the ERM).
The recent Populus poll showed massive support for government intervention, including for one-off fuel-payments, windfall taxes to pay for it, and public spending on housing. Voters seem to be leaning left, which is at odds with the voting intention polls. But then the Conservatives have no policies other than increasing the inheritance tax threshold to £2 million, and the public are projecting on them a view that they would be more left than Labour. What will happen when the Conservatives have to unveil a manifesto at last?
What's more they "seized control" - no pfaffing about trying to appease shareholders and having to deal with malicious hedge-funds-on-the-make as we did with Northern Rock. They're proper socialists in America.
For those gob-smacked by the American action because they thought that the USA was the acme of free-market liberalism, don't be. The superpower era of America has always been underpinned by the taxpayer and the willingness of government to intervene - whether it is the Fed slashing interest rates to rock-bottom or the military-industrial complex where tax money keeps vast defence industries going, or the pork-barrel system where tax money is used for all sorts of dubious things or the way the US taxpayer takes on the job that should be done by insurers and compensates people who deliberately build in hurricane zones, so that some folk have their house rebuilt over and over courtesy of that indulgent Uncle Sam. Americans have never actually practised pure free-market liberalism, they've merely preached it to countries like Russia in the 90's and hence destabalised and killed the fragile democracy there. In proper democracies (and the USA is a proper democracy), the free-market is always modified, controlled and underpinned by the representatives of the people.
The nationalisation of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae is actually a good move, it reduces the uncertainty that kills economies. But it's also interesting in that, as I said previously, we are in an era of where government intervention is deemed to be good and markets are deemed to be foolish and wicked (in direct contrast to the early 90's when government was deemed bad and the markets were the heroes who rescued us from govt, especially as regards the ERM).
The recent Populus poll showed massive support for government intervention, including for one-off fuel-payments, windfall taxes to pay for it, and public spending on housing. Voters seem to be leaning left, which is at odds with the voting intention polls. But then the Conservatives have no policies other than increasing the inheritance tax threshold to £2 million, and the public are projecting on them a view that they would be more left than Labour. What will happen when the Conservatives have to unveil a manifesto at last?
Thursday, September 04, 2008
Aspiration v Reality
The New York Times columnist, Maureen Dowd, has written a brilliant piece about Sarah Palin:
"reality, in all its messy, crazy, funky glory, has flooded the party, in the comely, crackling form of Sarah Palin.
Unable to stop the onslaught of wild soap opera storylines erupting from the Palin family and the Alaska wilderness, McCain campaign adviser Steve Schmidt offered caterwauling reporters a new mantra: “Life happens.”
Indeed, it does. Only four days into her reign as John McCain’s “soul mate,” or “Trophy Vice,” as some bloggers are calling her, on the ticket known as “Maverick Squared,” Palin, the governor of Alaska, has already accrued two gates (Troopergate and Broken-watergate), a lawyer (for Troopergate), a future son-in-law named Levi (a high school ice hockey player, described by New York magazine as “sex on skates”), and a National Enquirer headline about the “Teen Prego Crisis” with 17-year-old daughter Bristol."
Surely this is why the whole world is rivetted with Sarah Palin. Because she represents America as it really is as opposed to America as it aspires to be. Millions of Americans in the hinterland really do hunt for food (which is OK), as opposed to hunting for sport, and if they didn't they wouldn't have enough to eat. Some Americans experience poverty that would shock Polly Toynbee and make her appreciate the Labour party a bit more. Of course Ms Palin is a crack shot and knows how to cube, skin and cure a whole moose. That's how her family fed her when she was young. Millions of them have children who are quite out of their control, indulging in underage drinking and teen pregnancy. They feud scrapily with their inlaws, they get drink-driving tickets, they don't get much education (due to getting knocked up at 17).
The Obamas by contrast are pure aspiration. Black America in it's ghettos and Latino America with their 100-hour weeks look at them and think, I'd like my kids to end up like that. Cool, intelligent, sophisticated, educated and so mainstream normal. They've made it. Hillary, who toured America with her mother Dorothy Rodham and daughter Chelsea, also represented an aspiration, albeit a different one. They represented solidarity amongst women across generations where you aspired for your daughter to be educated and successful (Dorothy), and aspired to combine a career with being a good attentive mother (Hillary) and aspired to be a credit to your mother and grandmother (Chelsea, but also Hillary). What makes the Clinton story piquant is the messy reality of Bill thrown into the mix.
Which will win? Aspiration or Reality? Americans like to relate to their presidents, which is why Dubya, of the bluest American blood (way bluer than the Kennedys) adopted a Texan accent and style and played to certain stereotypes (how much was real and how much was calculation by a shrewd politician is up for debate). Bill Clinton was of course aspiration and reality all rolled into the one complex person (someone from real Arkansas hillbilly stock, as a child he witnessed his stepfather fire a gun at his mother, but he got himself to Oxford).
Nobody is looking at McCain anymore than they are looking at Biden. McCain is simply an old guy of 72 who has had cancer four times and is expected to pop his clogs soon. This election will turn on Obama versus Palin for president. Both young, both inexperienced, and representing two separate threads in the American story - the American dream versus the American reality.
Those of us in the aspiration wing of politics find Palin a little too ruthless and red-meat for our tastes. Women struggling to be a good mother and good daughter and good careerist at the same time will blanch at the way Palin tossed her daughter Bristol to the wolves by making an announcement about her pregnancy. Then again Bristol knew her mother was in the public eye and still got herself in trouble - no solidarity across generations from either of them.
Aspiration rules in the UK. We don't know if Brits would elect a chav simply out of identification with them, because no party here would select such a person as a candidate so they wouldn't even make it to Parliament. Reality looks like Nightmare to us, so we steer well clear. In the USA it's different, and it's difficult to tell from this far away how this will play out. But it's bloody good entertainment all the same. No fiction could compare to the US 2008 presidential race.
"reality, in all its messy, crazy, funky glory, has flooded the party, in the comely, crackling form of Sarah Palin.
Unable to stop the onslaught of wild soap opera storylines erupting from the Palin family and the Alaska wilderness, McCain campaign adviser Steve Schmidt offered caterwauling reporters a new mantra: “Life happens.”
Indeed, it does. Only four days into her reign as John McCain’s “soul mate,” or “Trophy Vice,” as some bloggers are calling her, on the ticket known as “Maverick Squared,” Palin, the governor of Alaska, has already accrued two gates (Troopergate and Broken-watergate), a lawyer (for Troopergate), a future son-in-law named Levi (a high school ice hockey player, described by New York magazine as “sex on skates”), and a National Enquirer headline about the “Teen Prego Crisis” with 17-year-old daughter Bristol."
Surely this is why the whole world is rivetted with Sarah Palin. Because she represents America as it really is as opposed to America as it aspires to be. Millions of Americans in the hinterland really do hunt for food (which is OK), as opposed to hunting for sport, and if they didn't they wouldn't have enough to eat. Some Americans experience poverty that would shock Polly Toynbee and make her appreciate the Labour party a bit more. Of course Ms Palin is a crack shot and knows how to cube, skin and cure a whole moose. That's how her family fed her when she was young. Millions of them have children who are quite out of their control, indulging in underage drinking and teen pregnancy. They feud scrapily with their inlaws, they get drink-driving tickets, they don't get much education (due to getting knocked up at 17).
The Obamas by contrast are pure aspiration. Black America in it's ghettos and Latino America with their 100-hour weeks look at them and think, I'd like my kids to end up like that. Cool, intelligent, sophisticated, educated and so mainstream normal. They've made it. Hillary, who toured America with her mother Dorothy Rodham and daughter Chelsea, also represented an aspiration, albeit a different one. They represented solidarity amongst women across generations where you aspired for your daughter to be educated and successful (Dorothy), and aspired to combine a career with being a good attentive mother (Hillary) and aspired to be a credit to your mother and grandmother (Chelsea, but also Hillary). What makes the Clinton story piquant is the messy reality of Bill thrown into the mix.
Which will win? Aspiration or Reality? Americans like to relate to their presidents, which is why Dubya, of the bluest American blood (way bluer than the Kennedys) adopted a Texan accent and style and played to certain stereotypes (how much was real and how much was calculation by a shrewd politician is up for debate). Bill Clinton was of course aspiration and reality all rolled into the one complex person (someone from real Arkansas hillbilly stock, as a child he witnessed his stepfather fire a gun at his mother, but he got himself to Oxford).
Nobody is looking at McCain anymore than they are looking at Biden. McCain is simply an old guy of 72 who has had cancer four times and is expected to pop his clogs soon. This election will turn on Obama versus Palin for president. Both young, both inexperienced, and representing two separate threads in the American story - the American dream versus the American reality.
Those of us in the aspiration wing of politics find Palin a little too ruthless and red-meat for our tastes. Women struggling to be a good mother and good daughter and good careerist at the same time will blanch at the way Palin tossed her daughter Bristol to the wolves by making an announcement about her pregnancy. Then again Bristol knew her mother was in the public eye and still got herself in trouble - no solidarity across generations from either of them.
Aspiration rules in the UK. We don't know if Brits would elect a chav simply out of identification with them, because no party here would select such a person as a candidate so they wouldn't even make it to Parliament. Reality looks like Nightmare to us, so we steer well clear. In the USA it's different, and it's difficult to tell from this far away how this will play out. But it's bloody good entertainment all the same. No fiction could compare to the US 2008 presidential race.
Wednesday, September 03, 2008
Thoughts on moving house
People spend so much time and effort moaning about stamp duty, even though the money goes to government to pay for valuable public goods (such as health, defence, roads, infrastructure etc).
Meanwhile moving house involves other hefty costs, the worst one of which is paying the estate agent's fee when selling, which is usually 1% of the selling price (though some agents will negotiate a flat fee). In London this is as much as 2.5% of selling price. I have very little sympathy for estate agents saying that the government package "isn't enough". If they want sales, they should slash their fees.
It's weird we've got into a situation where people think paying 1% in stamp duty which goes to govt to purchase valuable public goods = bad, but paying 1% of selling price to rip off estate agent = good. It should be the other way round, as you don't get similar value for money from the estate agent fee - all they do is take some people round your home (and nine times out of ten you have to do this yourself).
My advice to home movers - if you want to cut your costs, bargain mercilessly with the estate agent over their fees. You can also use the online DIY sites such as mypropertyforsale.co.uk, where you list your home for £99, and arrange your sale privately.
Meanwhile moving house involves other hefty costs, the worst one of which is paying the estate agent's fee when selling, which is usually 1% of the selling price (though some agents will negotiate a flat fee). In London this is as much as 2.5% of selling price. I have very little sympathy for estate agents saying that the government package "isn't enough". If they want sales, they should slash their fees.
It's weird we've got into a situation where people think paying 1% in stamp duty which goes to govt to purchase valuable public goods = bad, but paying 1% of selling price to rip off estate agent = good. It should be the other way round, as you don't get similar value for money from the estate agent fee - all they do is take some people round your home (and nine times out of ten you have to do this yourself).
My advice to home movers - if you want to cut your costs, bargain mercilessly with the estate agent over their fees. You can also use the online DIY sites such as mypropertyforsale.co.uk, where you list your home for £99, and arrange your sale privately.
Tuesday, September 02, 2008
Tories plan to extend inheritance tax threshold to £2 million
Hat-tip Labour Matters
Further to my post on 30th August about Tory millionaires, where I wrote "Look out for policies that will specifically help millionaires and ignore everyone else", the Telegraph reports that the Conservatives are planning to raise the inheritance tax threshold to £2 million.
Surely they've proposed this just so the likes of David Willets (worth £1.9 million), Caroline Spelman (worth £1.5 million) and Michael Gove (worth £1 million) are taken out of the tax altogether, and people like George Osborne (worth £4.3 million), David Cameron (worth £3.2 million) and William Hague (worth £2.2 million) have their liability cut sharply.
Indeed it's likely that the initial £1 million tax threshold they proposed last year was just a trial balloon to see if anyone objected. If no one objects to this, watch for them to try to raise it to £5 million. Nests, feathering, anyone?
Further to my post on 30th August about Tory millionaires, where I wrote "Look out for policies that will specifically help millionaires and ignore everyone else", the Telegraph reports that the Conservatives are planning to raise the inheritance tax threshold to £2 million.
Surely they've proposed this just so the likes of David Willets (worth £1.9 million), Caroline Spelman (worth £1.5 million) and Michael Gove (worth £1 million) are taken out of the tax altogether, and people like George Osborne (worth £4.3 million), David Cameron (worth £3.2 million) and William Hague (worth £2.2 million) have their liability cut sharply.
Indeed it's likely that the initial £1 million tax threshold they proposed last year was just a trial balloon to see if anyone objected. If no one objects to this, watch for them to try to raise it to £5 million. Nests, feathering, anyone?
Saturday, August 30, 2008
Alistair Darling's interview
Not sure what Alistair Darling was smoking when he told the Guardian that current economic times are "are arguably the worst they've been in 60 years".
60 years ago, we were labouring under national debt that was 250% of GDP, we still had rationing, top rate of tax was 99%, we had borrowed desperately from the USA (that loan was only paid off in 2006), the conditions of the loan required that the pound be made convertible, oil and gold priced in dollars not sterling and the commonwealth opened up to American trade. Not surprisingly our currency reserves drained away within weeks of making the pound convertible. This was really serious stuff.
I'm sure Darling was indulging in hyperbole when he suggested the current situation is as bad as 60 years ago. One quarter of zero growth does not turn things to how they were 60 years ago (or even to the early 90's, when we had seven consecutive quarters of negative growth - 21 months, or early 80's when we had six consecutive quarters of negative growth - 18 months).
Revised US growth figures came out on Thursday. According to the latest estimates, their growth has been as follows:
Q4 2007 -0.05% (annualised equivalent -0.2%)
Q1 2008 0.2% (annualised equivalent 0.9%)
Q" 2008 0.8% (annualised equivalent 3.3%)
So they appear to have come out of their troubles. Our cycle is lagging behind theirs, but their recovery is hopeful given their massive effect on the world economy. In September tax rebates go out to Brits, oil is lower, wheat and corn prices are lower, most householders do not need to borrow further money. There is no reason there shouldn't be a recovery. Of course disasters could still happen - the American mortgage companies, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac may go under, but it is certain that the US government will step in and take over the liability, and life will go on.
Alistair Darling needs to be careful how he speaks. Economies run on confidence and one of the main jobs of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is to provide reassurance and confidence. It's not a co-incidence that our poll rating really took a dive after the spring budget. Voters knew there was a global crisis and were looking for staunch reassurance from government. For the first time in eleven years Labour did not provide it. Not surprisingly his ratings are almost as bad as Gordon Brown's, but unlike Brown he hasn't been the recipient of sustained personal attacks, the ratings are a perception of how he is doing at the Treasury.
You would not catch a statement like the one Darling just made from the US treasury or the French and German finance ministries. Mr Darling needs to get to grips with the fact that his primary purpose is to inspire confidence and ignorance about economic history (the 60 years comparison), and related scaremongering certainly don't inspire that.
60 years ago, we were labouring under national debt that was 250% of GDP, we still had rationing, top rate of tax was 99%, we had borrowed desperately from the USA (that loan was only paid off in 2006), the conditions of the loan required that the pound be made convertible, oil and gold priced in dollars not sterling and the commonwealth opened up to American trade. Not surprisingly our currency reserves drained away within weeks of making the pound convertible. This was really serious stuff.
I'm sure Darling was indulging in hyperbole when he suggested the current situation is as bad as 60 years ago. One quarter of zero growth does not turn things to how they were 60 years ago (or even to the early 90's, when we had seven consecutive quarters of negative growth - 21 months, or early 80's when we had six consecutive quarters of negative growth - 18 months).
Revised US growth figures came out on Thursday. According to the latest estimates, their growth has been as follows:
Q4 2007 -0.05% (annualised equivalent -0.2%)
Q1 2008 0.2% (annualised equivalent 0.9%)
Q" 2008 0.8% (annualised equivalent 3.3%)
So they appear to have come out of their troubles. Our cycle is lagging behind theirs, but their recovery is hopeful given their massive effect on the world economy. In September tax rebates go out to Brits, oil is lower, wheat and corn prices are lower, most householders do not need to borrow further money. There is no reason there shouldn't be a recovery. Of course disasters could still happen - the American mortgage companies, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac may go under, but it is certain that the US government will step in and take over the liability, and life will go on.
Alistair Darling needs to be careful how he speaks. Economies run on confidence and one of the main jobs of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is to provide reassurance and confidence. It's not a co-incidence that our poll rating really took a dive after the spring budget. Voters knew there was a global crisis and were looking for staunch reassurance from government. For the first time in eleven years Labour did not provide it. Not surprisingly his ratings are almost as bad as Gordon Brown's, but unlike Brown he hasn't been the recipient of sustained personal attacks, the ratings are a perception of how he is doing at the Treasury.
You would not catch a statement like the one Darling just made from the US treasury or the French and German finance ministries. Mr Darling needs to get to grips with the fact that his primary purpose is to inspire confidence and ignorance about economic history (the 60 years comparison), and related scaremongering certainly don't inspire that.
Tory Millionaires
Reading Political Hack's piece about Caroline Spelman's misuse of taxpayers money, I fell to wondering why she felt she had to abuse her position. Because she's not poor. According to the News of the World, she's worth £1.5million. So why the desire to filch money from the public purse?
The NOTW article is interesting in other ways too. They point out that 19 of 29 of the Conservative shadow cabinet are millionaires - as they put it, if they get elected "Britain could be on the way to its wealthiest government since the mid-19th century—when the aristocracy relinquished power", 150 years ago. Wow - that's going way back to before the franchise was widened to male householders with a certain amount of savings.
For those interested, here's the list:
Lord Strathclyde, Leader of the Opposition in the House of Lords - £10 Million
Phillip Hammond, shadow chief secretary to the Treasury - £9 million
George Osborne, shadow chancellor - £4.3 million
Jeremy Hunt, Shadow Secretary for Culture, Media & Sport - £4.1 million
David Cameron, Conservative party leader - £3.2 Million
Dominic Grieve, shadow Home Secretary - £3.1 Million
Francis Maude, Shadow Chancellor of Duchy of Lancaster - £3 Million
William Hague, Shadow Foreign Secretary - £2.2 MIllion
Alan Duncan, Shadow Secretary for Business, Enterprise & Regulatory Reform - £2.1 Million
Andrew Mitchell, Shadow Secretary for International Development - £2 Million
David Willetts - £1.9 million
Theresa May - £1.7 million
Oliver Letwin - £1.5 million
Caroline Spelman - £1.5 million
Owen Paterson - £1.5 million
Cheryl Gillan - £1.4 million
Liam Fox - £1 million
Grant Shapps - £1 million
Michael Gove - £1 million
Not exactly "people like us" or "people in touch with ordinary folk", are they? No wonder one of the few concrete policies the Conservatives have is to cut inheritance tax.
Look out for other policies that will specifically help millionaires and ignore everyone else. The last time we had such a concentration of interests in the early 19th century, we got such horrors as the New Poor Act, which massively expanded brutal workhouses, and which the Times criticised at the time as a "disgrace [to] the statute-book."
The NOTW article is interesting in other ways too. They point out that 19 of 29 of the Conservative shadow cabinet are millionaires - as they put it, if they get elected "Britain could be on the way to its wealthiest government since the mid-19th century—when the aristocracy relinquished power", 150 years ago. Wow - that's going way back to before the franchise was widened to male householders with a certain amount of savings.
For those interested, here's the list:
Lord Strathclyde, Leader of the Opposition in the House of Lords - £10 Million
Phillip Hammond, shadow chief secretary to the Treasury - £9 million
George Osborne, shadow chancellor - £4.3 million
Jeremy Hunt, Shadow Secretary for Culture, Media & Sport - £4.1 million
David Cameron, Conservative party leader - £3.2 Million
Dominic Grieve, shadow Home Secretary - £3.1 Million
Francis Maude, Shadow Chancellor of Duchy of Lancaster - £3 Million
William Hague, Shadow Foreign Secretary - £2.2 MIllion
Alan Duncan, Shadow Secretary for Business, Enterprise & Regulatory Reform - £2.1 Million
Andrew Mitchell, Shadow Secretary for International Development - £2 Million
David Willetts - £1.9 million
Theresa May - £1.7 million
Oliver Letwin - £1.5 million
Caroline Spelman - £1.5 million
Owen Paterson - £1.5 million
Cheryl Gillan - £1.4 million
Liam Fox - £1 million
Grant Shapps - £1 million
Michael Gove - £1 million
Not exactly "people like us" or "people in touch with ordinary folk", are they? No wonder one of the few concrete policies the Conservatives have is to cut inheritance tax.
Look out for other policies that will specifically help millionaires and ignore everyone else. The last time we had such a concentration of interests in the early 19th century, we got such horrors as the New Poor Act, which massively expanded brutal workhouses, and which the Times criticised at the time as a "disgrace [to] the statute-book."
Friday, August 29, 2008
Some thoughts on McCain's VP pick - he's made a mistake
Today came the stunning news that McCain picked Alaska governor Sarah Palin as his vice presidential nominee.It was definitely a "Wow" piece of news. But once I got past the initial reaction of "hasn't he been bold" and "That was unexpected" and "she's young, she's a woman, this is an exciting pick (unlike Obama's)", my feeling is that McCain has made a mistake.
McCain is trying to win over Hillary Clinton supporters who are unenthused by Obama. If I was an American, I would definitely be in the Clinton camp. I thought she was improving as the campaign went on, I thought that she was the better candidate in terms of intellect and a demonstrable ability to go on a very fast learning curve (important for presidents as you have to be able to adapt to events) - by comparison, Obama was far more static. I thought that she was refreshingly upfront about how centrist her policies were, whereas Obama played left and then abandoned his positions - ironic in that the Clintons are supposed to be the devious ones, and Obama supposed to be above it all. She lost because of caucus results in no-hope Republican states and the crazy Dem election system.
So McCain's pick is supposed to be aimed at people like me. Only Sarah Palin is just wrong for those who care about women's rights (as all Hillary supporters do). Palin strongly supports capital punishment, is a creationist and is a fervent anti-abortionist (and is anti gay people too).
The vice president nominees in this election are unusually important in that there is a great likelihood that the elected president may die in office (Obama through assasination by KKK nutters and McCain from old age). Therefore if McCain got elected, Palin might end up as president. How would Hillary feminists feel about that? That their idol Hillary is denied the honour of becoming the first female president and this anti-abortionist with one tenth of Hillary's brains, who was a beauty-queen of all things, gets it instead? God forbid. I'd vote Obama just to deny Palin the chance. Sarah Palin just isn't in Hillary Clinton's league. It's actually an insult to women that McCain thinks we'd simply vote on gender regardless of whether the candidate is qualified to be president.
For Hillary's other constituency of working class voters, Palin brings nothing to the table. She hasn't any reputation of turning round economies or helping the poor (unlike the Clintons). Plus she's inexperienced.
So I think this is a stroke of luck for Obama, who has been struggling thus far. Yes, people like me would have preferred Mrs Clinton to have been the candidate. We think she'd have made a good VP too. We've been irritated at how much the Obama people dump on the Clintons (especially as Mrs Clinton has been the most helpful of all losing Dem nominee candidates in history). We're irritated at the whole Messiah stuff that surrounds Obama, and we're convinced that he will turn out conventional and not change-making in office.
But, elections are about choosing the least worst candidate. Obama is streets ahead of McCain on foreign policy, simply because he has no hang-ups and will view things with an objective eye (which is all you can ask of US presidents). McCain's hang-up is that he was part of the Vietnam war. America lost Vietnam. McCain lost personally too, as he ended up a POW who cracked under torture and repudiated his own country. In other words, he ended up a loser too. All his belligerence stems from this need to make up for being a loser. In a way, his psychological flaw is worse than Dubya's (which was to compete with his father by doing the opposite of everything Papa Bush did - Bush Sr hated Rumsfeld, so Dubya appoints him, Bush Sr didn't go to Baghdad, so Dubya decides to and so on). America has never elected a Vietnam veteran because of fears about their psychology.
On domestic policy, McCain has admitted that he knows nothing about economics, and there is no sign that his VP pick knows much either. Which negates Obama's inexperience. The best candidate on the economy was Mrs Clinton, but she's not on offer. You might as well roll the dice and go for Obama in these circumstances.
So despite the hammering that Obama is getting from the negative McCain ads, I think Obama will win, because the Clinton people will back him, and he has a good get-out-the-vote operation. The Labour party should watch closely, because the attacks on Obama arn't that dis-similar to the attacks on Brown (out of touch with people like you and so on). The Dems in the past have been as bad as Labour in getting out their vote. If Obama wins because he changes this aspect, then we should try it here.
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
A Look at Insolvencies
In most proper recessions, there are a large amount of insolvencies, as businesses fold due to lack of demand, or the banks withdrawing their credit lines. In 1992, a record 55,000 businesses went bust.
So given the hysteria, how do things look at present? The graph at the top shows the number of Company Liquidations in England and Wales. The Insolvency Service says that total for the second quarter of 2008 was 3560 (1324 compulsory liquidations, and 2236 voluntary liquidations). The other thing to notice from the graph is that liquidations are lower than in 2002, when the after-math of the global dot-com crash was felt. Current company liquidations are in line with the creative destruction that you find in any healthy capitalist economy. They are nowhere near the alarming rates that you find in a true recession.
What about individual insolvencies? The press has been going on and on about personal debt. Individual insolvencies were 24,553 in the second quarter of 2008 - a fall of 2.0% on the previous quarter and a decrease of 8.3% on the same period a year ago. UK bankruptcy law was changed effective 2004, and as you can see from the graph, loads of people who were labouring under debt for years took the opportunity to sort their situation out. However that backlog is cleared, and since the Northern Rock scare last year, it appears that members of the public are taking care not to accumulate too much debt and to be defensive about their finances. It's not surprising really - sites such as Moneysavingexpert sprung up two years ago precisely to help people get out of debt and financial difficulties. Perhaps the drop in personal insolvencies is because the press has been going on about the problem for so long - there can hardly be anyone in the country who hasn't taken some defensive action as a result. The population has never been better informed - which in turn makes them more resilient.
Monday, August 25, 2008
Musings on Identity
I watched "Who do you think You Are" last Wednesday - for those who didn't catch it, you can view it on the iPlayer.
The episode featured Boris Johnson, whom we all know is of mixed ancestry, Russian-Jewish on his mothers side, Turkish-English-French-German on his fathers.
But what was striking about the program was how anxious he was about this. He starts off the program assuring the viewers that he has "loads" of British ancestors. He's quite comfortable during the Turkish section of the story, he's clearly very proud of his Turkish great-grandfather. But when he learns that the de Pfeffels are German, not French, it's a bit too much for him. At one point he remarks to the camera "I hope the people of Henley will bear in mind that at least half my antecedents are actually English. I know it looks like I'm some kind of foreign toff here, which is not necessarily good PR, but at least half of my antecedents are English. English. Loads of them."
He turns out to be descended from minor German kings, and from the Hanovarians, through George II. Boris is thrilled to bits. "I have British royal ancestry" he declares. "I've always felt I was the product of newcomers to Britain, so it's totally bizarre to be told my great times eight grandfather is George II of England". In his mind this makes him legitimately British. Of course George II, being only the second Hanovarian king, is ethnically entirely German and he was born in Germany too - in other words another newcomer.
All of which throws up interesting questions of identity and highlights the differences between the Labour and Conservative parties.
There is no way a Labour politician would have been as anxious about being foreign as Boris was (and a Labour politician would have been embarassed to be descended from a king rather than thrilled). Labour has always accepted that Britain is a mixed place, not just as regards the recent immigrants from the Commonwealth and Eastern europe, or the early mix of Angles, Saxons, Jutes, celts and Vikings, but also due to the great movement of people that took place from the Renaissance up until WW1 (when passports were first introduced), during which time people literally went back and forth across Europe as they wished, and all sorts of people settled in Britain and were absorbed, including imported kings.
Conservatives however have quite a narrow view about identity. I can't help wondering whether Boris and his father adopted their caricature Englishness (cripes and piffle and all the rest of it) because they felt that as incomers they must be more British than thou.
You see this in other Conservative politicians too. Michael Portillo used to never talk about his Spanish father, and felt he had to display fierce hatred towards the EU to compensate for having a European parent (and part of the reason he lost out on becoming Tory leader was due to this foreign-ness, the other part being that Tories were suspicious of anyone with a gay past). Michael Howard adopted such a hardline attitude to immigrants in the 2005 campaign, even his own grandfather would have been sent back to the Nazis had his would-be policies been in place in the 1930's.
But perhaps Boris, Portillo and Howard felt that to get anywhere in the Conservative party while being slightly foreign requires you to deny your father three times before the cock crows.
The episode featured Boris Johnson, whom we all know is of mixed ancestry, Russian-Jewish on his mothers side, Turkish-English-French-German on his fathers.
But what was striking about the program was how anxious he was about this. He starts off the program assuring the viewers that he has "loads" of British ancestors. He's quite comfortable during the Turkish section of the story, he's clearly very proud of his Turkish great-grandfather. But when he learns that the de Pfeffels are German, not French, it's a bit too much for him. At one point he remarks to the camera "I hope the people of Henley will bear in mind that at least half my antecedents are actually English. I know it looks like I'm some kind of foreign toff here, which is not necessarily good PR, but at least half of my antecedents are English. English. Loads of them."
He turns out to be descended from minor German kings, and from the Hanovarians, through George II. Boris is thrilled to bits. "I have British royal ancestry" he declares. "I've always felt I was the product of newcomers to Britain, so it's totally bizarre to be told my great times eight grandfather is George II of England". In his mind this makes him legitimately British. Of course George II, being only the second Hanovarian king, is ethnically entirely German and he was born in Germany too - in other words another newcomer.
All of which throws up interesting questions of identity and highlights the differences between the Labour and Conservative parties.
There is no way a Labour politician would have been as anxious about being foreign as Boris was (and a Labour politician would have been embarassed to be descended from a king rather than thrilled). Labour has always accepted that Britain is a mixed place, not just as regards the recent immigrants from the Commonwealth and Eastern europe, or the early mix of Angles, Saxons, Jutes, celts and Vikings, but also due to the great movement of people that took place from the Renaissance up until WW1 (when passports were first introduced), during which time people literally went back and forth across Europe as they wished, and all sorts of people settled in Britain and were absorbed, including imported kings.
Conservatives however have quite a narrow view about identity. I can't help wondering whether Boris and his father adopted their caricature Englishness (cripes and piffle and all the rest of it) because they felt that as incomers they must be more British than thou.
You see this in other Conservative politicians too. Michael Portillo used to never talk about his Spanish father, and felt he had to display fierce hatred towards the EU to compensate for having a European parent (and part of the reason he lost out on becoming Tory leader was due to this foreign-ness, the other part being that Tories were suspicious of anyone with a gay past). Michael Howard adopted such a hardline attitude to immigrants in the 2005 campaign, even his own grandfather would have been sent back to the Nazis had his would-be policies been in place in the 1930's.
But perhaps Boris, Portillo and Howard felt that to get anywhere in the Conservative party while being slightly foreign requires you to deny your father three times before the cock crows.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
