A respite from politics? The New York international Auto Show

This past week has seen the auto industry invade New York in an attempt to market to the US something other than Presidential Politics.  March is a strange month in the city, neither deep winter nor the promise of Spring, few holidays and much drudgery.

An ideal time to contemplate buying a new car ?

The show itself consists of a huge basement filled with large SUV's, hybrid designs of predominantly American manufacture and upstairs the Japanese offerings, some US cars and the luxury end of the market.  Lambourghini was the only show I noticed to include the willowy blonde and brunette models posing by the supercars and chatting about where to get deals on hair and nail care.  Less glamourous ladies (all ladies note) where charged with giving speeches from aerobics style headsets about the MPG and torque performance of the cars they were baby-sitting. bizarre.

A hall of shopping stalls had some bizarre offerings, lots of dinky cars, but nowhere could I see a stall for Satnav sellers such as TomTom and the dreaded Garmin (used by Avis car rental) which has sent me on many a wild goosechase.

In any event, there were three key takeaways from the experience;

1. New Yorkers seems to favour Japanese cars over their homegrown versions.  At one level I am told the US cars are not as efficient (petrol/gas has tripled in price in the past five years) and "designs have not moved on in Detroit, while American tastes have".  However, go for a drive in neighbouring states and SUV, pick-up trucks have a major role to play.  Drive in an ice storm in Vermont in February and you will appreciate what a couple of tons of Detroit bashed steel can do for your safety.

2. 2008 is not the breakthrough year for the Hybrid engine offerings which cost double in return for a quarter better fuel efficiency.  One example is an SUV which costs $52,000 versus some $25,000 in normal configuration for 20mpg versus 15mpg in the apocryphal "urban setting".

Personally, I think 2008 is the ideal time to buy a US SUV - exchange rates are dire, fuel prices must fall (this is America remember), interest rates are rock bottom and Detroit would be more profitable if it did not allow new cars to roll off the production line...

2008 US Election: Republican best case scenario unfolding

This evening sees Barack Obama win in Mississipi. The primary was seen as an Obama win due to the high Afro-American community in the State. Hilary Clinton meanwhile has done her best to psychologically nutralise in the public's mind the numerical advantage Obama enjoys in terms of delegates secured.

Whilst the nomination will likely be decided by the Super-Delegates at the Democrat convention this summer, her pronouncements on Obama's suitability - or not, to be Hilary's Vice President was a clever tactic at the time. However if voters memories remain good she will be punished.

Meanwhile, Republicans have been handed the best possible case. Democrat candidates are spending very heavily (Obama raised $55 million in February). Given the likely determination of the nomination in the summer, approximately half of Democrat supporters will be disappointed. Additionally the mud-slung by the Democrat candidates is no doubt being carefully analysed by Republican strategists with a view to building a campaign for their candidate who can focus on sharpening his message and holding back resources for the election - to paraphrase Cicero, "the sinews of political electioneering is infinite money".

New York Post annual review of Dictators served with a large measure of Irony

last month the parade magazine supplement carried an annual review of the world's worst dictators, written by David Wallechinsky. This article carried a top 10 of the worst characters and was then supplemented by an additional ten voted in by readers. Several aspects of this article were somewhat bizarre and seemed to betray a lack of appreciation of US foreign policy in favour of a 'noddy-dog' article to be hmmm'd at over the weekend breakfast table.

Firstly, Why would the writer place King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia as high as number four ? Saudi Arabia has for decades been the USA's key country in the region and most moderate, stable regime able to influence broader Arab opinion in the Arab-Israeli dispute. let's not leave aside the oil reserves and weight in organisations such as OPEC. Britain seems to have not forgotten Lord Palermston's dictum that "Britain has no permanent friends, only permanent interests". I am sure that US defense companies will not be carrying a copy of this review when roaming around the Middle East...

Second, Hu Jintao was received by the current President on a state visit 2 years ago. If it is now the case that China is, in the Post's eyes, part of the 'axis of evil' - what recommendations does the article have to pay back the $388 billion of debt the US Government owes ?

Thirdly, President Pervez Musharraf. Including him so high on this list displays real Chutzpah. Not long ago the US described Pakistan as a "key partner in the global coalition against terror," President Bush commended General Musharraf's "courage and vision" in opposing extremism in Pakistan and elsewhere.

On line, Hozni Mubarak of Egypt comes into the top twenty. Another surprise given US reliance on Egypt in recent decades. In January 2008 the New York Times cited the President's praise during his tour of the Middle East saying, “I appreciate very much the long and proud tradition that you’ve had for a vibrant civil society,” said Mr. Bush, who appeared with Mr. Mubarak.

This kind of article, when not thought through only serves to upset people around the globe. Ironically, a recent poll conducted by the Guardian newspaper on November 3rd 2006, “British believe Bush is more dangerous than Kim Jong-il”. In Britain, 69% of those questioned say they believe US policy has made the world less safe since 2001, with only 7% thinking action in Iraq and Afghanistan has increased global security. The finding is mirrored in America's immediate northern and southern neighbours, Canada and Mexico, with 62% of Canadians and 57% of Mexicans saying the world has become more dangerous because of US policy.