Diary

Mumbai

27 November, 2008

This article has been reproduced at www.westminsterjournal.com. This site is popular with MPs and others in the Westminster establishment.

As the horror of the Mumbai bombings sinks in, we witness once more the lethal effects of Islamist terror. More than 100 people slain, dozens horribly injured and traumatized, buildings in flames and a nation bewildered by this unspeakable carnage. This latest atrocity carried out by vicious ideologues in the name of Islam had all the hallmarks of an Al Qaeda inspired attack – murderous co-ordinated strikes at Western innocents using maximum violence to publicize a cause. One of the buildings seized was the Mumbai headquarters of Chabad, the orthodox Jewish outreach group. Once again we are reminded that the jihad against the Jews plays such a prominent role in radical Islam’s war with the West.

The central target appears to have been the iconic Taj Mahal hotel, built at the height of British imperial rule in 1903. It was here that gunmen opened fire on wealthy Indians and foreigners and held others hostage. The hotel is a splendid symbol of Indian opulence and grandeur, a glamourous testament to the ultimate benefits of Western prosperity. It has been frequented, for that very reason, by members of our own Royal family as well as Presidents and businessmen. It is a famous landmark in a city noted for being the economic and entertainment capital of the Indian subcontinent.

Now think about New York’s World Trade Centre, a potent symbol of American economic power that was iconic for its architectural modernity and cosmopolitan image. The building was consumed by fire, just as the flames of hatred flicker through the floors of the Taj Mahal Hotel. These jihadis wanted to destroy life and inflict as much suffering as possible. But they also wanted to drive home their warped utopian vision that an Islamist India, ruled by Sharia law, would never tolerate Western values, interference or influence. The singling out of Western foreigners was part of that hateful message.

top

The Mayor is wrong to offer an amnesty to illegal workers

26 November, 2008

It’s hard not to like Boris Johnson. He is a colourful, vigourous and unpredictable maverick, the sort of freethinking politician who stands out from the grey suits at Westminster. Read his columns in the Daily Telegraph and you hear the voice of someone profoundly in love with freedom and individuality; a hardened campaigner against the bureaucracy and political correctness disfiguring our nation. But his recent proposal to offer an amnesty to London’s illegal immigrants is both misguided and naïve.

It is wrong in principle because it directly contravenes the rule of law, the bedrock of any civilized society. This principle is just too important to be discarded for the sake of convenience. It is one of the things that make us different from Zimbabwe, North Korea and all those other despotisms that repress their people for fun. The law is the law, as they say.

The mayor claims that an amnesty makes sound financial sense as we would gain £1 billion in extra taxes. But what he fails to point out is that the British taxpayer would be coughing up a vast sum in extra welfare payments, including working tax credits, child benefit and council tax subsidies for many of the new low skilled workers. When these workers then bring in their extended families from abroad, as many will, that welfare bill will just rocket. Good financial sense? More like Alice in Wonderland economics.

But an amnesty is also unworkable because it would encourage more illegal workers to enter the UK where they would then be vulnerable to exploitation. Here the Mayor should learn from the experience of other European countries. Spain offered an amnesty to illegal workers in 1991 but has since had to offer 4 further amnesties to more than a million illegal workers. Amnesties also failed to depress illegal migration in France, Italy, Holland and a host of other countries. If implemented, Boris’ proposal would offer a field day to people traffickers everywhere.

So how do we deal with this problem? One answer is deportation but as this is both time consuming and expensive, it can only be done selectively. A more effective remedy would be to prosecute any firm that was willing to employ illegal workers. With jobs cut, the incentive to remain would vanish and people would start to leave. More to the point, it would surely discourage other foreign nationals from entering the UK illegally.

The immigration of skilled people, when sensibly managed, can be an immense boon to this country. To that end, the Mayor should discard his amnesty proposal with immediate effect.

top

Will this be enough?

24 November, 2008

In the end, just as predicted, Mr Darling offered a symbolic tax gesture that ended up being outweighed by egregious tax rises. The VAT measure, which will last for no more than a year, will effectively reduce the cost of goods by a trifling 2%, and as not all goods are subject to this tax in any case, the fiscal stimulus may be extremely limited.

It would have been better to provide a more radical stimulus: a 10% reduction in fuel duty, halving VAT for a shorter period of time, taking twopence off income tax or reducing National Insurance contributions. Consumer demand is unlikely to be affected by paying only 1/50th less on 'some' retail goods. After all, if you are (understandably) cautious about shelling out for that £500 television, are you going to suddenly change your mind when it costs £490? What if retailers get banking syndrome and fail to pass on this ultra modest cut in any case?

Worse, this tax relief is outweighed by hefty future tax rises. Top rate earners will pay a new 45% tax rate on £150,000 income (with no personal allowance) while we will all be subject to a 0.5% increase in national insurance. The top rate increase is an act of class spite, a populist gesture designed to tap into the nation's new found dislike of corporate fat cats. It is the first time that the government has actually increased a rate of income tax, though of course they have increased taxes by stealth for the last 11 years.

The 45% rate is more likely to persuade top earners to quit Britain altogether, at a moment when their entrepreneurial skills are desperately needed to provide economic growth. Do we really want to see such a damaging flight of capital and skills and one that fatally denudes the Treasury of revenue?

As I argued in my earlier blog, the Tory line of attack is clear. They must support the 'principle' of tax reduction (and this government's one is a short term 'offer' that will be nullified soon in any case) but also argue for significant, long term cuts in public spending and a reduction in the size of the state. Nothing else will do.

top

Short term tax cuts are never enough in a recession

24 November, 2008

So it’s official. After 11 years of taking more and more of our money to fund their bloated public sector state, New Labour has had its epiphany. In a fit of fiscal ‘responsibility’, some taxes are to be temporarily reduced in order to ramp up demand in the consumer economy. Temporary cuts in VAT will give us a modest reduction in prices while businesses will get a short term fillip. ‘Get the people to spend more’ is the motto, even though spending beyond our means and building up unsustainable levels of personal debt helped get us into this mess in the first place.

Still, the case for urgently increasing demand is incontrovertible given the threat of runaway deflation. Were prices to fall, we might all start to delay spending in the expectation that prices would fall even further, reducing demand in an already faltering economy. With falling output and sales, there would put pressure on employers to cut wages, and later jobs. Rising unemployment and falling wages would naturally further erode demand and sap confidence in a fatal downward spiral, while all the time levels of personal debt remained static. I'd happily have inflation rather than runaway deflation any day of the week.

Tax cuts and lower interest rates are both essential instruments for providing a short term economic stimulus. But short term is what they are. New Labour has made no commitment to reducing the size and remit of state spending, cutting quangos, freezing the (often bloated) salaries of public sector managers or reneging on expensive and unnecessary state projects. The result - runaway government borrowing and a soaring budget deficit. Wonderful, Darling! More to the point, everyone knows that VAT will soon return to 17.5% and that very high earners will be hit in the pocket to pay for this sudden largesse. These are taxes ‘for Christmas and not for life’ as the Tories have pointed out.

The Tories may well oppose today’s pre budget report on the basis that it is inadequately ‘funded’. They would be wrong to do so. Hugely imperfect though the government's measures will be, there is a need for some temporary fiscal stimulus to avoid the runaway deflation mentioned above. It is unlikely that New Labour's measures will be a panacaea and the Tories would be right to say why. But to continue to oppose tax cuts per se would send the wrong message. Labour and the Liberal Democrats will project themselves as the tax cutting do-gooders, while the Conservatives will be the tax averse believers in ‘fiscal prudence.’ It would be a disastrous tactical manoeuvre.

Still, the Tories can use this economic crisis to their advantage. They can insist on an audit of government expenditure, highlighting how much of our money is wasted on highly paid managers, IT projects, bureaucracy and the unending quangocracy. They can tell us how much disposable income per household goes on all this waste and, by implication, how much we could save if it were cut.

This would be a direct attack on the interventionist, profligate policies that have always underpinned the New Labour project. While they are at it, they can again highlight their pledge to introduce radical welfare reform along the lines of the Wisconsin programme. This would get the low skilled into work or training, reduce the incentive for single motherhood and slash the welfare bill, bringing in increased revenue in the process.

But the basis of all this must be a firm commitment to decreasing taxes and reducing the reach of the state in the long term. Now that would really make for a political debate.

top

Article in today's 'London Paper'

21 November, 2008

We have become a columnist!

Well, I have a very short piece in today's 'London Paper' dealing with the BNP. You may recall that their membership list, some 10,000 strong, was put on the internet by (it seems) a disgruntled ex member. Some people have now called for a ban on public sector employees being members of the BNP.

I say that while we rightly abhor this party for its divisive and extremist agenda, it would also be wrong to bar people from working in the public sector just because they are BNP members. In effect, this would involve a MacCarthy-ite witch-hunt that would render public sector workers second class citizens because they would be forced to hide their beliefs, unlike those elsewhere. I also add that not everyone who joins the BNP is necessarily an incorrigible racist, even though a hard core of their supporters clearly are. Many will be tempted to sign up to a British nationalist party because they are sick of the sterile approach of mainstream parties to issues such as immigration, asylum, crime and EU membership. This ought to serve as a wake up call to politicians at Westminster.

If the article goes online, I will provide the link.

This is the link: http://www.thelondonpaper.com/cs/Satellite/london/talk

top

Don’t sack George Osborne – just yet

19 November, 2008

In recent days, there have been a number of calls for George Osborne to be sacked as Shadow Chancellor. The clamour has come mainly from right wing publications, including the Daily Telegraph, and signal an alarming vote of no confidence in the Tory no 2. I am not about to add to that list – at least not yet.

Firstly, the signs are worrying for Osborne. He has performed inadequately in the last few months and failed to produce a coherent fiscal alternative to New Labour. His mantra of ‘sharing the proceeds of growth’ and insistence on ‘funded’ tax cuts now seem a hopelessly inadequate response to the looming recession while his tax cutting proposals are somewhat half hearted. The country expects a bold opposition at a moment of unprecedented economic crisis.

That said Osborne is no intellectual slouch. He has the ability to turn things round and rejuvenate the party, as last year’s surprise announcement on inheritance tax showed so clearly. The Conservative U turn yesterday in refusing to match New Labour’s spending plans is another thoroughly welcome move.

Another important reason not to sack Osborne is that there is no viable alternative. Two candidates suggest themselves: John Redwood and Ken Clarke. Redwood can be ruled out quickly for though he is an undoubted intellectual heavyweight with experience to match, he is probably too divisive a figure for the party. Clarke is a more formidable prospect, a man who oozes executive experience and public appeal in equal measure. While his European views remain highly divisive, these could no doubt be put aside for the duration. But there is one big problem: It is highly unlikely that he wants the job - why would he?

Clarke has already been Chancellor of the Exchequer, as well as Home Secretary, and boasts a formidable record for economic competence. Were he to become Chancellor, questionable given his age, he would instantly preside over the worst financial crisis in recent history. Any failure to lift Britannia PLC from its current trough of despond would irreparably stain his reputation.

The shadow Chancellorship is a poisoned chalice and Clarke knows this better than anyone. In any case, the old stalwart has only really coveted one job, that of Prime Minister. To that end, he has stood three times for leadership of the Conservative party, only to see his efforts rebuffed on each occasion. He will certainly end his career on the backbenches.

It would be premature then to sack Osborne without an alternative candidate. But he also has to realise that the longer he fails to produce imaginative policies, the more the clamour will grow for his dismissal. The public deserve a credible opposition. It is only by embracing a radical agenda that the Tories can offer it.

top

Baby P - A tragedy on many levels

16 November, 2008

The more we read about the horrific case of Baby P, the more obscene it becomes. It is a tale so heartbreaking that we cannot read it without weeping; a case of unimaginable and depraved cruelty committed by the most vicious members of our underclass. It can hardly fail to have touched those who forced themselves to read this story.

Compounding this human tragedy is a terrible catalogue of incompetence and unprofessional behaviour from Haringey’s ‘Child Protection’ services. We now know that social workers made numerous visits to the boy and collected ample evidence of his injuries, yet made no decision to remove him from his mother. Social workers even failed to detect that there were 7 other people living in the house with Baby P, including the boy’s two male tormentors, one of them a neo Nazi sadist. Just 4 days before he died, a social worker saw the baby but found very little to concern her. Two days before he died, a paediatrician failed to detect that the boy had suffered several cracked ribs and a broken spine. However 7 months before the boy died, another pediatrician, Dr Heather Mackinnon, discovered non accidental injuries on the child and recommended that he should not be sent home to his mother. This advice was not followed.

To make matters worse, the whistleblower at the heart of this case, NevRes Kamal, wrote to Health Secretary Patricia Hewitt months before baby P died, asserting that there were serious problems with Haringay’s social services. She was then gagged by Haringey and found herself the target of child abuse allegations, which were subsequently dropped. That was how a child protection unit responded to someone publicizing their failure to protect children – to pursue her with obscene allegations and smear tactics. These are tactics worthy of the Stasi.

In the light of this staggering collective incompetence, it simply beggars belief that Sharon Shoemith, the director of Haringay’s children services, has found no reason to sack or retrain any of her staff; indeed no reason even to apologize for her department’s handling of this tragic case. Of course people should have been sacked and profuse apologies made. But in Brown’s bloated public sector state, there is an arrogant disregard for the public at the top echelons of power. Certainly, social workers work in difficult conditions and have to meet some truly intimidating families. But to argue that this local body deserves a clean bill of health, as Ms Shoesmith would have us believe, is beyond perverse.

But the responsibility for this tragedy, and so many other terrible cases of abuse, has deeper roots in the misguided judgments of our political class. Why? Because for nearly half a century our welfare addicted politicians encouraged the growth of family breakdown and fatherlessness through their socialized welfare system. While the state was busy lionizing the prevailing culture of ‘alternative lifestyles’ in the 1960s, single mothers found themselves the recipients of enormous largesse courtesy of taxpayers. Subsidized rent was followed by council tax and housing benefit while at the same time, hard working families with children struggled to make ends meet. As the benefits of having children out of wedlock increased, the number of single parent families rocketed while households were characterized by absent fathers and increasing worklessness. This was hardly the fault of the single mothers, for what incentive for work were they being given by the state?

Naturally the left, with their well established antipathy to traditional values, lionized these new lifestyle choices and refused to be judgemental. But as natural fathers became increasingly absent, the chances of children growing up with their mother’s latest live in boyfriend also increased, raising with it the likelihood that these (step)children would become the victims of abuse. One study from the United States found that it was nearly 100 times more likely that a child could be harmed by its stepfather than by its natural one. Leaving aside the question of abuse, we know that children of lone parents are more likely to leave school early, have under age sex, take drugs and become offenders. Again, not in every case but the statistical likelihood rises compared to children in two parent families.

Of course this is not to demonize stepfathers and single mothers any more than it is to suggest that child abuse suddenly kicked off in the 1960s. We know that most stepfathers make suitable parents and that child abuse has been with us for centuries. But welfarist policy has played a key role in breaking down the traditional family structure and creating an epidemic of fatherlessness with all the socially damaging consequences that have followed.

The forces of the ‘progressive’ left who saw this coming, who lauded the decline of traditional values, and who condemned (and still condemn) their critics as right wing, reactionary bigots – let them hang their heads in shame.

top

Where freedom dares to breathe its name

13 November, 2008

The Centre for Social Cohesion (socialcohesion.co.uk) has just produced a lengthy report (‘Victims of Intimidation’) outlining the ways in which critics of Islam have been harassed by Islamist extremists. Case after case is recounted in which prominent European journalists, politicians and academics have been attacked for their outspoken beliefs.

One example is Belgian senator, Mimount Bousakla, whose book ‘Couscous with fries’ dealt in part with women’s rights in Islam. She criticized forced marriages and opposed fundamentalist influences in Belgian mosques. As senator she has highlighted women’s rights issues within the country’s Muslim community. She subsequently received phone calls telling her she would be subject to ‘ritual killing’ and was forced to seek police protection.

Naser Khader, a Danish MP, came to attention in 1996 when he drew attention to negative aspects of traditional Arab and Islamic culture. He later spoke out in favour of Jyllands-Posten, the newspaper which published satirical cartoons about the prophet Muhammad. In the wake of the subsequent protests, he set up a group called ‘Democratic Muslims’ in order to sow the world that not all Muslims were intolerant fanatics bent on overthrowing democracy. But as a result of establishing this group he began to receive death threats and had to receive 24hour police protection.

And the cases can be multiplied. What is even more disturbing than the blatant attempt by Muslim fanatics to condemn extremism is the spineless response of European governments. The report concludes:

‘Indeed, when many of these individuals began to receive threats from members of their own communities and their co-religionists, many governments began to treat them not as full citizens who deserved the full support of the law but as a people apart; as people who are not expected to enjoy the same rights and freedoms as native Europeans, who should not aspire to the same goals of self-expression and self-determination; who should not expect the same freedom to criticise and satirise their own religions and traditions.’

And why is this? In a word: appeasement. The classic symptom of this was the lily livered reaction to the publication of the Danish cartoons in 2005 which involved a torrent hand wringing and apologies – to Europe’s offended Muslims. The refusal by mainstream politicians to stand up for Jyllands-Posten and the beleaguered cartoonists sent a clear signal to the Islamists that intimidation and violence would pay. And these were Western European governments that were committed to upholding the sacrosanct values of freedom of speech and expression.

Every democratic government has the responsibility to uphold its citizens’ freedom of expression, provided that this does not involve harm to others. As it is stated in the preamble to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

‘A world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people.’

top

In Memoriam

11 November, 2008

In Flanders fields the poppies blow Between the crosses, row on row, That mark our place; and in the sky The larks, still bravely singing, fly Scarce heard amid the guns below.

We are the Dead. Short days ago We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow, Loved and were loved, and now we lie In Flanders fields.

Take up our quarrel with the foe: To you from failing hands we throw The torch; be yours to hold it high. If ye break faith with us who die We shall not sleep, though poppies grow In Flanders fields.

top

Tax cutting doesn’t have to be taxing

11 November, 2008

Hallelujah! At long last we have a bidding war from all the major parties over taxation. The leaders of the 3 main parties are falling over themselves to tell us how much less of our money they will grab every year and the results could be quite exciting. The Liberal Democrats propose tax cuts for hard working individuals earning less than £30,000.

By contrast, the Conservatives have announced a series of measures, which include a 3% cut in corporation tax, a National Insurance ‘break’ for firms employing the medium term unemployed, an overhaul of inheritance tax and other measures. Now Labour is in the position of having to match these radical tax cutting proposals or appear to be an isolated Westminster Scrooge.

Long gone are the days when people felt guilty about demanding back more of their own hard earnt money. With a recession biting and with inflation having eroded disposable income, people no long assume that government knows best when it comes to spending their money.

The problem with all these proposals, however, is that they are not tax redistributive but tax reductive. The key word uttered by these parties’ financial spokesmen is ‘funded.’ The Lib Dem offer is ‘funded’ by green taxes and the closure of loopholes for higher earners. For the Conservatives, the tax rebate is ‘funded’ because it saves money elsewhere (i.e. reducing welfare payments).

No one seems to be saying the unthinkable, namely that there has been an atrocious spending splurge over the last decade which has to be seriously cut back for the good of the nation. The point is not just to make the tax system fairer but that the overall tax take is too high. Tax cuts will boost economic growth but they need to be accompanied by a ruthless purge of the more unproductive public sector which will also reduce public liabilities.

We have already had a bold and much needed monetarist stimulus from the Bank of England. A bold fiscal policy must follow.

top

Yes, let’s not judge Obama by the colour of his skin

7 November, 2008

Judging by the tide of hysteria engulfing last night’s Question Time audience, it seems that the ‘American messiah’ has excited the masses on this side of the pond as much as he has in his native country. The audience and panel offered a unanimous paean: Mr Obama was going to change the world; he was going to heal wounds, get people talking to their neighbours; teach people to live in peace and harmony and achieve their full potential. In short, he was going to remake the globe in his own image. I was waiting for someone to predict he would soon walk on water, though maybe that will just be a matter of time.

In the midst of their frenzied hyperbole, these Obamaniacs lacked any sense of rational proportion; any consideration of his policy, experience and character. No, all that was swept aside by an unrelenting tidal wave of political correctness in which the main consideration was that a black (or mixed race) man had now entered the White House. Many openly confessed that they knew little about Obama or what he stood for, yet quoted Martin Luther King’s dictum about the importance of judging people ‘by the content of their character’ and not ‘the colour of their skin.’ Yet there lies the contradiction.

Like it or not, Obama has been judged by the colour of his skin, albeit in an immensely favourably way. Lauding ethnic candidates for their achievement, regardless of their actual suitability for a post, is the very antithesis of how a civilised society should judge people. It is fundamentally anti meritocratic. Those who predicted that Obama’s ethnicity would prove a political disadvantage got it badly wrong. Far from being his Achilles heel, it proved an advantage, given the extent to which the liberal media (and intelligentsia) indulged him on little other basis.

Of course it is hard to escape the symbolic triumph in a man of African descent winning the Presidency. America is indeed scarred by a terrible legacy of slavery, racial segregation and prejudice, a legacy which blighted the lives of so many of its citizens for decades. It is genuinely warming to see that in the land of opportunity, a man of ethnicity can achieve the pinnacle of success and live out the American dream.

But the election is not a sudden transformation of the USA from rabid racism to progressive values. America was already progressive and enlightened, the very reason that so many people have admired it for so long. Years before the Obamaocracy, Condoleeza Rice was elected Secretary of State, making her perhaps the most powerful African-American in the world. Who elected her? That notorious Great Satan, George W Bush, the opponent of progressives everywhere.

Yes, Obama has some truly special qualities, foremost among them that he is an orator of genius whose personality and charisma have transformed the American political scene. As I stated in my earlier post, for Obama to beat the Clinton machine and get millions more black voters to the polling booths was no mean feat. It does demonstrate that, at the very least, he has great reserves of resilience which will be tested to the full in the coming years.

None of what I have said is meant to detract from the scale of Obama's win or to suggest that it was not deserved. But character and charisma take you only so far. He will shortly be confronted with a series of challenges, both at home and abroad, that will require a great deal more than the mantra of ‘change we can believe in.’ Given the immense scale of the ‘change’ he has promised, he is likely to disappoint an awful lot of voters. The walk on water will have to wait just a little longer.

top

The Obama victory

05 November, 2008

In the end, Obama’s (wholly expected) victory was both emphatic, decisive and historic. His share of Electoral College votes was in the order of 2:1 to McCain, a true landslide, though his share of the popular vote was much closer. This morning though, no one can doubt that America’s president elect deserves his victory after a gruelling and vigourous contest. Obama has galvanized his own supporters with soaring oratory and brought millions to the polling booths in a terrific vindication of American democracy. That is no mean feat.

The hopes of millions now rest on Obama’s slender shoulders. He will inherit an economy in crisis, beset by rising unemployment, falling housing prices and declining confidence. He will also face the challenge of radical Islamism in Afghanistan and Pakistan as well as the looming menace of Iran. He will have to deal with the aggressive designs of imperial Russia and oversee the evacuation of Iraq.

Above all he will have to prove that he is the harbinger of change, that iconic word he has done so much to promote. If he can rescue his country from the trough of economic despondency and provide a clear approach in foreign affairs, he may well be a 'transformative president'. But if progress stalls and he fails to rise to these challenges, his supporters will become rapidly disillusioned. Thus far Obama has been short on ideas and long on slogans – it is time he proved his critics wrong.

For the Republicans, this was a wretched night. They will have to regroup as the Tories did in 1997 and rethink their strategy and ideological direction. But it would be overly defeatist to write off the Republicans for the next generation. If Obama fails to deliver by 2012 or by the end of his second term, there is every chance that Americans will support a party promising aspiration, small government and low taxes. Historically that has always been the Republican Party.

For now Obama should savour his victory and look forward to becoming America’s 44th President. Much sterner tests lie ahead.

top

The free world at the crossroads

4 November, 2008

As Americans go to the polls to elect the 44th leader of the free world, it is widely assumed that only a miracle can save John McCain. Seasoned pundits seem united in thinking that the Arizona senator will receive a pasting at the hands of ‘l’homme du destine’, the modern messiah who will sweep all before him. It seems more likely that Obama will achieve a narrow victory tomorrow (in terms of the popular vote), rather than the FDR style landslide some are predicting.

The liberal media have already written the McCain epitaph: 'He was simply too old to stand against a more youthful, telegenic rival; he lacked credibility and charisma whereas Obama had it in droves; his campaign was too negative and, above all, his choice of Sarah Palin was a liability'.

There may be some truth in all these propositions. Obama is indeed a galvanising figure, an orator of consummate ability with rhetorical skill to match. His popular image is a fusion of Martin Luther King and the youthful idealism of JFK making him, for many, the most exciting young politician of his generation. Above all, Obama represents a break from the sins of the Bush era, sullied as it is by Iraq, torture and Guantanamo Bay.

The visceral contempt for Bush has made the Republican Party a toxic brand, hence the desperate and unfair attempts by Obama to portray a McCain Presidency as Bush Mark II. And it explains why so many Americans are prepared to embrace the mantra of ‘change’ despite having little idea what it is that Obama wants to change ‘to.’

Nonetheless an analysis that centres around Obama’s messianic fervour misses a central point. This election has been all about the economy and jobs, and it is not so much McCain himself as his campaign that has been flawed. To illustrate the latter point one need only point to the polls some 3 months ago which showed a decisive lead for the Republicans. These coincided with Russia's imperialist campaign in Georgia, a dramatic manifestation of just how unsettling a foreign crisis can be.

McCain was the reliable politician with a muscular and uncompromising approach to national security. Unlike Obama, he had a firm grasp of how to deal with an international crisis based on years of public policy experience. By contrast, Obama came across as a foreign policy lightweight, with his response to the South Ossetian crisis particularly uncertain.

Then on 7th September, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the pillars of the US mortgage market, were taken into ‘conservatorship.’ A week later, Lehman Brothers collapsed, triggering huge financial instability and a catastrophic loss of confidence on the world markets. From the moment that Treasury Secretary, Hank Paulson announced his $700 billion bailout, Obama surged ahead in the polls, aided by the vast sums of cash his campaign was receiving.

This now brings me to the first point, McCain’s flawed campaign. All along, McCain has stuck rigidly to the line that the Great Crash of 2008 was a purely corporate affair caused by the excesses of bankers. Had he looked at the history of the last decade, he would have noted that it was the disastrous Clinton Presidency that coerced banks to lend recklessly to poorer people from minorities and pressed Fannie and Freddie to expand mortgage loans to low income households. They also made changes to the Community Reinvestment Act which had the same effect. The Democrats directly laid the seeds of the disaster that would engulf America later on. Perhaps McCain refused to attack the Democrats in the belief that Americans would prefer a more consensual approach. Toeing the fashionable line seems to have done him no favours. McCain's statement at the time of the Lehman Brothers collapse, namely that 'the fundamentals of the economy were sound,' made him look out of touch at a time of economic crisis.

The result of all this is that an untested and inexperienced figure is about to become the most powerful politician on earth, and at a time of unprecedented domestic and international turbulence. Obama's stated policy of negotiating with dictators (such as Ahmadinejad) appears increasingly hollow while his connections with Jeremiah Wright (which he took a long time to sever) raise disturbing questions about his character. Perhaps the polls are all wrong; perhaps the undecided voters will turn out for McCain; perhaps the Bradley effect will wipe out Obama’s commanding poll leads and prove the pundits wrong. Perhaps – but unlikely.

top