How should we read Obama’s Cabinet choices?
November 22nd, 2008
And what else might happen in this term?
I was a little surprised at the recent non-announcement that Hillary Clinton is to be offered the job of Secretary of State by President-Elect Obama. Unlike others, I see her as perfectly well qualified, and can understand that after having come so close to leading her party that her junior status in the Senate was not particularly appealing. I have no doubt that her network and reputation will allow her to do very well, leaving Obama to concentrate on domestic affairs, and without losing a Democratic Senate seat (NY state is fairly safe territory).
-
I am surprised that she pipped New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson (who has the perfect CV for State) to the post, and that she and President Clinton were prepared to submit to the Cheney-esque vetting procedure, including revealing the 208,000 donors to his Presidential Library (a useful list for Obama to have pending re-election). Richardson is apparently due to inherit the role of Secretary of Commerce, which I think is a little below his pay-grade, but he is a party man and term limited, so will probably accept.
Timothy Geithner at Treasury and Eric Holder as Attorney General overseeing the DoJ have both been welcomed as good solid choices, and Peter Orszag will no doubt revel in being Director of the OMB. The two other confirmed picks are intriguing, and have been carefully calculated. Tom Daschle, former Senate Majority Leader from South Dakota picks up Health & Human Services having seen Rahm Emanuel take the White House Chief of Staff job. Both these appointments imply that Obama is keen to wield influence within Congress, rather than to deny its remit in overseeing the Executive Branch. In both cases, no seat is lost to Republicans - Illinois 5th is safe Democratic, and Daschle lost his seat in 2004.
-
The most intriguing choice for me is to see Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano recommended for Secretary of Homeland Security. Whilst she is eminently qualified, and as a border-state Governor will bring expertise to the role, some Democrats have noted that she was the only candidate who could beat John McCain in the Senate race of 2010 that this week he announced he would compete. This appointment hands him re-election on a plate.
So why? The obvious reason is that she is the right person for the job, and that if (as I suspect) Biden retires to allow a next generation Democrat onto the re-election ticket, having promoted a strong female candidate into such a powerful role accords with good succession planning. What I couldn’t help but notice was that McCain’s revelation that he will run again (19th Nov), and the announcement of her appointment (20th Nov) came within days of Obama and McCain meeting for the first time since the election (18th Nov).
-
It would not surprise me if that meeting was genuinely cordial, and that McCain’s input helped Obama make some of those choices. Whilst partisan Democrats considered McCain’s Senate seat for the taking, I suspect that Obama would be quite grateful to have the Gang of Fourteen leader in the Senate as a moderating influence on his party, and that bringing Napolitano to Washington worked well for the agendae of both these former rivals.
The only major role still open is that of Secretary of Defense - some say Robert Gates will stay for the time being to provide continuity, others that Chuck Hagel (fmr Senator, R-NE) is the best bet, though I suspect he will be offered Sec. Veterans’ Affairs. Democrats are always nervous about the perception that they cannot handle national security, so I wonder if rumours of Colin Powell (who has not been an active General for over a decade and is now eligible) are disquieting to the partisans. Interestingly, no members of President-elect Obama’s family may be appointed to the Cabinet, unless Congress were to repeal the 1976 so-called Bobby Kennedy Law (RFK was his brother’s AG from 1961).
For those who need a little more fun in their political betting markets, Paddy Power are offering some political novelty bets. Obama is 33-1 to be impeached in his first term (not value), 28-1 to resign (not value), and 10-1 to become a father for the third time (no comment). They are also running a great market on the ‘first thing to happen in Obama’s first term’ - the value bets for me are seeing online gambling legalised (6-1), the discover of aliens on Mars (500-1), and in all seriousness a Federal ban on Capital Punishment (20-1). Obama does not believe in a complete ban, but the Democratic majorities might be large enough that he would sign it, and leave it up to the Supreme Court.
So for those of you still experiencing withdrawal symptoms since the election ended, there are a few novelty bets to tide you over. Happy punting!
Morus
PS: The ever-excellent James Forsyth over at the Spectator’s Coffe House blog discusses why Caroline Kennedy being appointed to the Court of St James (as was once her grandfather) should perhaps be welcomed.
MessageSpace Advertising
First?
Obama needs to nominate some Supreme Court judges more liberal than Ted Kennedy’s fairtrade latte.
2 - In fairness, it’s conventional to wait until there’s a vacancy before trying to nominate people (unless you’re FDR…)
404 from last thread
“perhaps a few of us could band together now and bribe him to write an article luring Gordon Brown into a trap. An article that in a very logical, plausible way makes the case for an election at what would in fact be the worst possible moment for Labour. Trouble is, I’ve no idea what that moment would be.”
May I suggest the worst date would be any in 2010: the whole horrors of the currently oncoming recession will be evident with none of the benfits of the weak recovery in starting mid 2010 (if 1972-74 is a guide to the length of the recession).
So Hillary doesn’t need to give up her Senate seat to join the Cabinet? I thought the US had a strict split between Executive and Legislature?
Ah wait a minute, do you mean that there’s no chance NY would vote for a Republican senator so he won’t lose a Dem senator when she vacates her seat?
5/6 - Indeed!
Gov Patterson will choose the interim successor, and that person will have to be elected at the next possible election day (Nov 2010 - the same day as the NY Gubernatorial). They will then be up for re-election with the rest of Class 1 in Nov 2012.
This is the best overview of the candidates Patterson might appoint
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/11/18/121816/46/288/662790
Or it could be Bill Clinton keeping his wife’s seat warm!
How should we read Obama’s Cabinet choices? ROFL?
5/6 - I’ve edited that sentence so it becomes clearer - thanks!
“Obama does not believe in a complete ban, but the Democratic majorities might be large enough that he would sign it, and leave it up to the Supreme Court.”
I wish that was true but it’s not. A complete ban would never get through Congress even with the Democratic majorities, and Obama would never sign it even if it did. I think the most we can hope for is a gradualist approach that will eventually - probably several decades from now - lead to abolition.
By the way, I don’t understand how the system works - with all these appointments from the Senate (and with Obama and Biden having to resign their own seats) does that mean that the Republicans might take control of the Senate for a few weeks until the current session ends?
11 - No, I suspect they will only resign when they are Senate Confirmed. Their appointments will be already lined up by the respective Governors.
Also, the Dems have about 18 extra Senators - unless Obama takes half his Cabinet from the Senate, they’d still have a majority!
12. Yes, I meant before the new Senate takes over in January. I gather Obama has already resigned his seat, leaving the Democrats with only a 50-49 majority, so if they lost one more Dick Cheney would have the casting vote.
Wow! Great Haka - great stonewalling by Wales, and an early 3-point lead.
Thems my boys!
McCain-Clinton 2012!
15. Hmmm…I’m trying to work that one out…
2 - It’s perfectly possible that he will never get the opportunity to nominate Supreme Court judges.
17 - Justice Stevens apparently last March knew exactly how many days until the next inauguration. I suspect at 88 years old, he’s been waiting for a Democratic presidency.
Justice Ginsburg is 75 too.
If I were a betting man (!) I’d say Obama will nominate two Justices in his first term.
16. I wouldn’t bother Red Meteor, you’ll be here all night, probably with little reward.
18. The Obama presidency really is following the West Wing script…
What is Obama’s view on capital punishment? I always thought he was effectively against it, saying he is retentionist only in the most horrible crimes where there is no doubt whatsoever about the perpetrator – thus meaning that almost no executions would ever take place.
21 - Yes, child murderers and the like, but only when incontrovertable. If I were being cynical, I would suggest there is almost no case that he would say it should practicably apply, but he doesn’t want to be an absolutist about banning Capital Punishment.
I would be surprised if he commuted any Federal executions.
18. Morus.
According to Wikipedia, Ginsburg is part of the “liberal wing” in the current court and has a Segal-Cover score of 0.680 placing her as the most liberal (by that measure, which takes no account of judicial actions post-confirmation) of current justices. Replacing a couple of liberal SCJs with a couple of liberal SCJs doesn’t change much…
“the most we can hope for is a gradualist approach that will eventually - probably several decades from now - lead to abolition.”
The best we can hope for is government of the people, by the people, and for the people - even if we don’t always agree with the majority.
A concept almost forgotten in Europe, it’s called democracy.
If we agreed with majority, I guess we’d have the death penalty here. I read a social attitudes survey that said London was the only part of England where the majority is against capital punishment. I’m rather glad in this case that politicians are as a rule more enlightened on these issues that the public at large – and hence we have been abolitionist for many decades.
23 - Oh, of course. I think he’ll replace two, but it won’t mak a huge difference.
The only question is whether he gets to appoint Liberal Lions in his first two years, with a massive Senate majority, or whether a reversal in the Senate (or an eye to a tight reelection campaign) forces him to appoint a moderate like Justice Kennedy at the back end of his first term.
24 I think that, in this country, reinstating the death penalty (which was always pretty ritualistic, as the large majority of murderers weren’t executed) would be more trouble than it’s worth -with endless appeals, judicial reviews, cases brought to the ECHR etc.
But I certainly don’t have any moral objection to execution, and don’t regard the abolition of capital punishment as being an advance towards civilisation. It’s more to do with squeamishness, IMO. Aerial bombardment, which most politicians are willing to countenance, is far crueller than the execution of someone after due process.
24. Remember though, the USA has multiple autonomous democratic institutions. This is an issue for States, and their governmental organisations, not for the federal government.
If i remember correctly the death penalty for federal crimes was, until Bush the First, took charge, a rarely used power.
It is sometimes hard for us to understand here, how power flows in the USA, it flows up from the cities, counties, states federal, while here it flows down from the Crown through parliament to regional bodies and local government. The last two are *entirely* at the mercy of central government nad have about as much freedom as that offered to a six year old child.
If we cannot respect the traditions in the US, and that sovereignty retains with the people not the Government, we will always fail to understand it.
27, I would go so far to suggest that if any political party actively took up the case of restoration of the death penalty, we would find that the ECHR and the other EU member states, contrary to popular opinion would make its implementation easier.
Across the EU the populaces still have strong desires for capital punishment, no more so then eastern europe, watch those ‘liberal’ nations fall like dominoes in the face of public pressure.
If the UK brought back capital punishment, it wouldnt result in our membership of the EU being revoked, but a change in the rules of the EU that capital punishment takes part only following a proscribed judicial process.
28 - I agree - the bet states that it would have to be signed into law. That much I think is possible, and 20-1 is fair.
To be protected from being struck down by the SCOTUS as unconstitutional (Xth Amendment challenge), it would require a Constitutional amendment, and that would never happen in four years.
30 What proportion of Democrats in the House and Senate would wish to outlaw capital punishment, do you think?
29 I think if a country was really determined to do it, they would be accomodated. It’s not a big enough issue to actually expel someone from the EU or Council of Europe over.
27. Precisely. Anyone who approves of clusterbombing cities, where thousands of innocents may die, yet morally disapproves of capital punishment, is just spewing liberal cant.
Mrs Test is the prime example of this liberal confusion. She loathes Obama because he is pro-abortion (as a Catholic she is fiercely pro-life). She is also anti capital punishment, if I remember correctly, and got all shrill about how wrong it was to hang Saddam.
So you think her adamantly pro-life position might extend to innocent women and kids in a war.
But no. She vigorously favoured the invasion of Iraq, and famously justified our slaying of hundreds of innocent Iraqi women and children, because “we warn and leaflet before we bomb”.
The incoherence is risible.
33 Unless one is a pacifist, one would accept that war, does to an extent, allow for a suspension of normal rules. But I think it’s frivolous to agonise over the execution a murderer who’s been given a proper trial, while countenancing the deaths of thousands of innocent people.
33. I think incoherence is a state of man….
What was it about liberals being keen to support the murder of innocent unborn children, yet oppose the judicial killing of convicted murderers….
33 While I may be putting words in his/her mouth, I don’t think Test actually wants to kill large numbers of innocent people. He/she accepts that that may be the consequence of trying to prevent a greater evil (the rule of Saddam) but killing innocents wasn’t intended when Iraq was invaded.
Of course, Saddam’s continued rule may have been the *lesser* of two evils, in practice.
31 - The Gerrymandered districts mean that there are more clear progressives in the House - maybe as many as 75-80% of House Dems would support it.
The Senate is trickier - I’ll try and research the views of each, but as a guess, I’d say about 40-45 would be in support, and some might abstain.
If I were to build a scenario - it would be more likely to come as an amendment to a Senate Bill, to appease lefty-Dems with qualms (about NAFTA or something). The House would then match the Senate Bill in Conference, and put pressure on Obama to sign to get a centrist piece of legislation. Obama wouldn’t want the veto override in the House (opportunistic Republicans) or to junk the bill, so might sign in the knowledge it would probably struck down by the SCOTUS.
Off out briefly.
Rumours of BPIX in the Mail on Sunday, if people are wanting to keep a look-out. ICM Guardian tracker due Monday, but will probably wait until after PBR response - fieldwork Tues/Weds, compile Thursday, publish Friday?
34
I used to (in my youth) be very pro capital punishment, now I am 99% against it as its difficult to 100% sure you have the right person. That aside as SF says, I don’t think I would shed any tears if a terrorist bit the dust… Finally, I find it bizarre that the US allows capital punishment in some states but not others, and given their flawed justice system (IMHO) its something Obama should sort out. Its either one or tother.
35. As the unborn child is entirely parasitic on its mother, it should be her choice whether or not she keeps it. Being pro-choice is not the same as being pro-abortion, remember…
But this is all a bit heavy for a Saturday… back to the dancing where hot stuff Lisa has nailed it again.
36. Up to a point Sean - killing innocents was an inevitable consequence of the tactics used in Iraq, viz. large scale aerial bombardment of populated areas. And likewise in Serbia.
So if you favoured these interventions you were essentially accepting that killing of innocents was going to happen. In that case, it seems very odd to also claim to be ideologically opposed to the killing of the guilty.
38. Isn’t BPIX widely regarded as rubbish for some reason?
36. I never said Test (or any liberal) “wanted” to kill thousands of innocent women or children, of course she doesn’t, on an “individual” basis.
But if you bomb cities then widespread killing is, inevitably, what will happen. So in a sense, if you approve of bombing, you do “want” to kill people, because you want the bombing to happen, and you want it to have the desired effect, and an inevitable ramification of that desired effect is mass slaughter.
If the bombing were to take place outside of a war, anyone who did it would be convicted of murder. It would be no defence to say “I didn’t actually want to kill individual people” - the court would rightly say that you deliberately bombed cities, knowing that it would kill people.
Guilty, M’Lud.
42 bobajob are you getting your denial in first , just in case it doesnt give you the result you hope for? That said, it doesnt comply with the polling organisations conventions, and Mike Smithson doesn’t approve.
29. Gaz.
I think you mean “prescribed”!
43. It almost seems as if the anonymity of the many victims of bombing somehow excuses their suffering, while it is the personalisation of the suffering of death row inmates which is the real problem for many. Not a very Christian attitude, really…
42. Bobajob.
It’s widely regarded as “take with large pinch of salt” as they don’t publish their raw data or methodology.
44
The rules only apply for those polls registered with the BPC, BPIX is not!
Is that right Mike?
45. yes, thanks….
39. Every one of their fifty one judicial systems are flawed? Considering how close they match our own system (though, ours has been stripped of many of the traditional safe guards, in the pursuit of efficiency), thats quite an extraordinary suggestion to make.
Tories keep poll lead
The Tories are clinging on to their double-digit lead over Labour, according to a poll.
The ICM survey found the Conservatives still 11 points ahead of Labour on 42 points to 31 - suggesting talk of a 2009 General Election may be premature.
There has been a flurry of speculation that Gordon Brown could go to the country next year after a poll put the Tories only three points clear.
http://www.teletext.co.uk/news/national/85cac4683f8f2e3727e832ab3de87858/Tories+keep+poll+lead.aspx
51 - Same as ICM has been for months.
I think that 2009 as a GE bet is a waste of money frankly, I can’t see there being any movement towards it happening at all.
51. respect for getting the first post of the poll, i do like the strange reporting from teletext though… Its framed as ‘another bad poll for the tories’….
Changes since last ICM (I think)
CON: -1
LAB: +1
51
The Libdem figure is not quoted, (that’ll be the reason) ICM always give a higher Libdem figure.
Within the MOE of the previous ICM - Tories down 1, Labour up 1. Should steady Tory nerves ahead of the PBR. If there’s a BPIX, that should also be double digits - last two had the Tories 16 and 15% ahead.
55. It is beginning to look like 40 to 42 points for the Conservatives is pretty close to being cemented in. Brown has had a remarkable few weeks, some of it warranted, some of it not, but he has come through it stronger.
I think the general perception of brown, was of, to be frank, a bit of a Mong. While that hasnt really changed, the opinion of him has morphed into a Mong, who is the best person to see us through this really big screw up.
51. Excellent, some good news after the dismal rugby displays from British teams. An excellent poll lead for Cameron. V disappointing for Labour. Heh.
46. The Iraqi example is particularly egregious, in fact, because we couldn’t even justify our bombing in terms of self defence. Shock and Awe was an aggressive war of unprovoked intervention.
When we bombed Dresden we could justify our actions by saying 1. Hitler bombed London first, 2. Nazi Germany remained a clear and present danger to the UK, and 3. Given the chance, Hitler would have happily murdered us all, if that was the only way to win the war.
Iraq was no threat to us, had never attacked us, and had no apparent desire to attack us. Yet we bombed and killed thousands of Iraqi citizens.
And the same people who applauded that bombing, effetely complained about the hanging of Saddam Hussein.
Liberals are ridiculous. Discuss.
OK, am off out for a bracing walk, cheered by the nice guys at ICM.
can’t say I’m surprised at the ICM figures. The 3 point lead on Mori was obviously a flawed sample.
Brown can try to alter the narrative as much as he likes but the only narrative next year is going to be the economy going down the Kazi.
29- If you want to keep (or bring back) capital punishment in principle but never have to actually use it, you can have laws like New York State’s. Here, you are basically only statutorily subject to capital punishment if you kill a nun, a monarch, and an astronaut with the same bullet on Leap Day. That’s why it hasn’t been applied in decades.
25 - bobajob - “politicians are as a rule more enlightened on these issues that the public at large”. This is the type of breath taking arrogance usually reserved for politicians. What on earth makes you believe that politicians - especially some of the unprintables who pontificate here - are more enlightened than the man on the Clapham omnibus. I would have thought all the evidence points to precisely the opposite conclusion.
Morus, the Arizona governor choice shows how silly all the talk was a few months ago about whether Obama would really choose Kaine or Warner as his VP given the risk of turning over a governorship or a Senate seat. Obviously he wouldn’t have hesitated to take either of those individuals had he wanted to do so.
100-(42+31)=27
Assume others on 9-10
That means Lib Dems are on 17-18%.
This is an astoundingly good poll for the Liberals; a good poll for the tories and a really poor show for Labour.
Hurrah for Rachel Stevens:D
Alas I’m not as green on her as I am on Snowdon, whose odds are perversely long (15/1, when she’s joint 3rd with Healey).
Stevens should be at least second favourite now. 39 last week, 40 this time. Healey and Chambers have dropped about six points each over the fortnight.
Hope Bleakley goes now. Not sure she will though, I suspectly Kidd may be, a shade unfairly, back in the dance off.
I think I need help, I just let out a little cry of joy at that 11 point Conservative lead. I really need something other than politics in my life.
65, I can recommend Theodore Ayrault Dodge’s history of the Second Punic War (entitled: Hannibal).
It’s some good news, certainly.
Stevens at 5/1 with Betfred, layable at under that on Betfair, according to http://politicalbetting.bestbetting.com/specials/tv-and-films/strictly-come-dancing/winner
51 - “clinging on” LOl
Conservatives at 40-43% AGAIN.
63. Yes. This poll gives an overall Tory majority of 40-50, presuming the Libs are around 17-18%.
I think this will seriously worry Labour. We must be approaching the moment when Brown has extracted all the possible juice from his image of “good crisis management” - yet the Tories are still well ahead.
At some point Gordon is gonna cease being the “World Chancellor” and just become the guy in charge of the economy during a grinding and tedious recession, a recession he arguably worsened.
Then the Labour polling will slip.
However, Labour have two bullets left in the revolver. They can hope that the recession actually deepens into some horrible global crisis, like a Depression, so Gordon can continue to grin his way around the chancelleries of the world.
And they have the PBR.
But after that, the cupboard is bare.
Now I really am off for my walk. Ta-ra.
See i kept my promise from earlier today! I was amused to see in the daily mail today Peter Mandelson saying he can do a 1997 electoral victory! The only problem for Mandelson is it looks like the Tories would be in the ascendant on circa 400 seats!
Labour are Doomed- doomed!
Gloat Gloat!
Auntie Dale reporting Libs at 19 in ICM poll
43 But I think that, from a Catholic point of view, it is legitimate to go to war (provided the cause is just), so long as you are not intending to kill innocents, even if the death of innocents is the likely consequence of the war.
58. “dismal rugby displays from British teams”
What exactly is dismal about 41-0 ??
58 SeanT - the horror of Iraq wasn’t in the Shock & Awe stage, which was pretty well targeted and didn’t devastate huge civilian population areas, CNN reporters standing on top of hotels as military sites and Government buildings went up.
It was in the aftermath, in the complete and utter failure of the Occupation to protect civilians, to police, to defend, to govern. That was when the emptiness of the Bush/Cheney approach was revealed, when Rumsfelds inadequacy was demonstrated. In the ransacking and pillage, in the complete vacuuum where there should have been order. That’s where the civilians, majority and minorities sufffered, as innocents dies in their thousands month after month.
An occupation where huge US & foreign corporations received billions of dollars and delivered nothing.
At some point someone will notice that the polls aren’t changing, only the way that the different pollsters allocate the non-Conservative share.
72. If correct that means LD +1.
70, PBR may not be a positive for Labour.
Why?
Well, we already have large tax cuts pencilled in. If they’re generic (like VAT or income tax) and apply to everyone that’ll be seen as expected. If they’re targeted at the poor and those with kids, it’ll annoy everyone else.
Then they have to be paid back. Advertising a VAT increase in the near future (say 2010-11 or the year after) will make a lot of people save the cash to pay the extra taxes later on, and will vindicate the Tory position.
Lastly, if the tax giveaway is under £10bn it’ll be seen as puny. We’ve become too used to figures like £37bn, and £500bn.
74, versus Canada. That’s like a sumo wrestler bragging about beating a 7 year old girl in a boxing match.
73. That sounds like typical Catholic doublethink, for sure.
76. I’m sure Labour know that but, seeing as the media apparently cannot read opinion polls, with each Labour rating that is on the high side the media will allow the early election speculation to ramble on.
78. Indeed, but a dismal display would have been the girl kicking him in the nuts first…
61. Well yes, it did come across as a fairly high-handed remark, I’ll accept. But yes, as a rule, I do believe that in general most politicians go into politics for the best reasons and tend to be better informed than the public at large. An unfashionable view I know, but that is, nevertheless, my view.
Hard to make sense of all these polling shifts and a lot of them must be sample error.
Still I think the Conservatives have had a good week, starting with Osborne last Sunday and Cameron’s announcement was both pretty well received and got a lot of coverage.
As far as Brown is concerned his “saviour of the World” stuff has started to fade into the past and the general day to day reporting has become much more focussed on the recsssion.
No doubt there will be another series of Brown endlessly saying he’s “helping people” around the PBR but after that it should be back to the drip drip drip of bad recssion news for the next few months. And indeed it’s possible the PBR headlines could be about the tax rises to come.
So after a bit of a wobble things are starting to look better for the Conservatives again.
44. As it’s in that well known Labour cheerleader the Daily Mail, I fully expect them to arrange their hidden raw data in such a way as to produce a result confirming Brown’s “recession bounce”.
New thread on ICM
Re: the ICM poll. After just about every poll for the past few months when the Tory lead has occasionally slipped I have posted that there is no need for panic, re-think, change of leader or any of all the Mandrax spin nonsense which has pervaded the MSM as well as some on here who ought to know better. Cameron has the right strategy; he instinctively understands the political climate of the moment. Read & remember!!
73 - Has Catholic thinking on war been updated significantly in the light of the invention of the aerial bomb.
Of course innocents have always been killed in war, although generally not through the modern concept of “collateral damage”. Historically innocents dying was not so much a consequence of war, so much as a consequence of those who fought it.
ICM/Sunday Mirror Poll
CON 341
LAB 239
LIB 39
Conservative Majority of 32
Source: Baxter
Anthony Wells on ICM Poll:
“The trend continues to be against the Conservatives - albeit, the one point shifts in each party’s share are not in themselves significant. This poll is, however, likely to be seem as a great relief for the Conservatives simply because the 3 point lead from MORI earlier in the week received so much publicity. This poll doesn’t reflect a shift back to the Tories, it reflects ICM’s different methodology…”
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/
The swingometer gives a tory majority of 30 seats.
74, versus Canada. That’s like a sumo wrestler bragging about beating a 7 year old girl in a boxing match.
Labour Labour Labour - Out Out Out!
Brown needs to be punished for what he has done to this country, it is worse placed in the western world to deal with the recession. Indeed Brown has created a slump within a recession here with the Financial services industry teatoring on total collapse. Building, construction and real estate all collapsing.
The US has not had the same problem that the UK has with all it’s financial institutions bar a coupke of big banks and some well financed building societies.
Now Brown is suggesting irresponsible tax cuts for partisan purposes. The Tories need to hammer Brown’s defeered taxation as it will ruin the next 5years or so recovery prospects.
78
Removal of scheduled tax increases (VED and petrol and next April income tax) - are NOT reductions.
I think great disappointment.
Interested to see GDP growth assumptions for 2009
The media leapt on the Mori result like desert travellers finding a chilled bottle of Evian. It came up in Today interviews, BBC1 & BBC2 political programmes, Sky News and in reports on ITV.
They dismissed previous ICM,and last weekends YouGov and Comres as out of date. Even the more sceptical Rentoul and Glover thought that perhaps Comres was an outlier and the real result was closer to Mori or perhaps YouGov.
Commentators don’t look at shares, they don’t see the detail, they note the lead and only the extremes register. They talk still of 20% Tory leads as if every poll from June - September showed that.
Perhaps though because Mori was so startling in showing Labour share closing on the Tory one that as a result if polls continue to show Tories 10% ahead or so the narrative will change?
Perhaps its to be “public not impressed by Brown’s borrowing”?
83 - Bobajob - in my young days (late 40’s, 50’s) I would have accepted that most politicians went into politics (usually after a useful life elsewhere, e.g. in business or on the shop floor) for the best of reasons. It was this type of politician who enabled me - a working class lad - to gain an LCC funded scholarship to a public school.
Unfortunately, today most politicians go into politics straight from kindergarten - more often than not because it is a career which requires no qualifications at all. Pity. We are all the poorer.
92 - Martin sure the UK is not in a good position, but you really don’t need to try and claim that the US is doing any better. “A couple of big banks” - how about several of the biggest and most famous banks in the world, the world’s largest insurance company and their biggest mortgage lender?
Sorry slightly misread your post, but the point stands.