The King's Speech

Last night I was fortunate enough to attend a screening in New York of the new film from the Weinstein Company, "The King's Speech" with lead actor Colin Firth. The film brings to light a little known part of British history with flair and humanity, depicting the reluctant King George VI in an era before internet and television having to speak publicly as the Second World War approaches - except for one small issue - a chronic speech impediment. Geoffrey Rush plays the Australian speech therapist who works with the King as he grapples with his personal demons against a backdrop of political and royal turmoil - Neville Chamberlain's resignation and the abdication of Edward (for Mrs. Simpson).

I personally see Harvey Weinstein as the cinematic equivalent of an Irish race-horse trainer or boxing promoter, possessing a keen eye for what the Academy voters will choose early in 2011. One of his more recent films, the reader garnered Kate Winslet an Oscar - and I am sure the performance of Colin Firth will result in further trophies for the cabinet, unless the voters adopt an overwhelming feeling of xenophobia.

I personally see a deep irony in the timing of the film against the domestic backdrop of US mid-term elections. Barack Obama may have been the choice of the people in 2008 and a massively gifted orator, however he is facing the test of all politicians - that of learning to cope with no longer being adored.

King George VI was born into his position, could not string a sentence together - though succeeded with help from an unconventional source to articulate the strongest of arguments at a historic moment. Perhaps the recent departures from the White House roster of the 'great & the good' may lead to the discovery of help from a similar, unconventional source ahead of the 2012 General Election.

"It's all about the economy" redux - US Mid-Term elections outcome 2010

The US Congress has been lost by the Democrats affecting dramatically the ability of the Obama Presidency to continue its agenda of change. Congress is now split 185 (D) to 239 (R) seats. The US Senate 51 (D) to 45 (R).

It seems strange to consider it barely two years ago that the Democrats under their new President seemed able to fundamentally shift American politics and the distribution of wealth by the state.

Fears concerning the state of the economy impacted on suburban young professionals who flocked to the Obama banner in 2008. The elderly concerned about potential harm to their health-care entitlement or their pensions drove them to the ballot box. The first time youth vote which Obama captured in 2008 gave the Democrats cause to lay claim to a 'multi-million email address list' which could be mobilised at grass-roots level to continue the change agenda. Last night, as one CNN political talking-head put it, "that mailing list is out of work and probably changed address".

The Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were not crucial to this election - the armed forces seem removed from the fray and national security is not playing as an issue this time around.

The tea-party influence on certain candidate selection for Senate seats cost the Republican Party dear - they could almost of reached parity with the Democrats were that not the case. 'celebrity' candidates in California were also swept away.

Personally, this is not a fatal wound to the re-election chances of President Obama. Replacements for departed members of his administration need to come out fighting - though with a modicum of common-sense - to get a compromise health care bill. This, coupled with further deterioration in Afghanistan/Pakistan could put him in the 2012 position of fighting an unsuccessful war abroad and failing to make change at home.

The Republican Party need to understand how to harness the Tea-Party and deliver on their promises without losing the center-ground for 2012.

Just the kind of criticisms leveled at the previous incumbent on completing two terms of office...