The Whitehall Village

Jobsworth award contender 2011: Malcolm Dubois of Carleton Parking Management, Ottawa

2011-11-01T19:42:00.001Z

After a nine hour journey from New York City to visit my 81 year old mother-in-law and arriving late at night I parked in a clearly marked and signed 'visitors bay' close to her home.

This was clearly not enough for the patrol of Carleton Parking Management who decided at 04:12am the following morning to issue a parking violation no less before I woke up with day-break and put an additional notice in the vehicle indicating we were visiting a home there.

A call early the following week with the office manager provided me with a lady who was adamant, based on her computer notes, that there was adequate signage and they were determined to enforce my 'infringement' of the rules - with no potential leniency.

The owner of the business Malcolm Dubois clearly is seeking to run a shoot-first ask questions later policy - if I wished to dispute the issue they informed me I could pay $50 or else pay $75 at small claims court (and therefore either travel back to Ottawa in person or have my 81 year old mother in law attend).

A pathetic entry for the 2011 jobs worth award.

According to the website http://www.wikidomo.com you can reach Malcolm at his home address;

2660 Southvale Cres #217,
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada,
K1B-4W5

The Cellular War of the Worlds

2011-10-04T14:38:00.001Z

The Cellular War of the Worlds

Forget the Cold War, conflict between competing ideologies in the Mobile communications world is the one in people's minds. Communism versus Democracy - blackberry versus Apple versus Android, it is the latter holding sway. The world before smartphones seems like the neolithic period awaiting invention of the wheel. Before camera phones, the Dark Ages.

On planet Apple people are anxiously awaiting the release of the latest incarnation of the iPhone on October 4th. Also the Apple iPad, a keyboard-less 'tablet' computer, has caused such fervor that already the third incarnation is on the hyperbole horizon.

Against this background you could almost be forgiven for forgetting the pioneer of mobile email - Blackberry. Blackberry world, it is fair to say, is currently optimistic though probably suffering with acute anxiety. After a long period of dominating corporate communications devices, Apple is making inroads. The latest blackberry devices - the Bold and Torch (in all-touch or touch screen plus slide-out keyboard) especially have touch screens and a revamped, faster Blackberry 7 Operating System. Blackberry's tablet, iPad challenger - the Playbook is currently being heavily discounted amid stagnating sales.

Meanwhile occupying the middle ground between the trendy Apple devotees and wealthy, small 'c' conservative Blackberry users is the Android sphere. Providing George "(c)" Lucas with yet more royalties (as if the record-breaking sales of the Blu-Ray Star Wars Saga were not enough achieving $84m in one week) for use of the word 'Droid'.

Everyone has an application or 'app' store so you can fill your phone with life-saving to life improving to mind-rotting apps. In case you thought 'apps' were uninteresting just look at the download statistics - by summer 2011 Apple's users have clicked to install some 15 billion applications, Android's "App Market" had some 4.5 billion downloads and although raising the largest revenue per app the Blackberry "App World" lagged in third place with 1.0 billion installations. That's not the end though, just think - some apps are paid for, others free, though all draw on monthly data packages supplied by the phone networks where a free wifi connection is unavailable - adding $$$ to their bottom line.

So what about the future ? If the resort to court action for infringement of patents has any correlation with maturity of a market then the smartphone market is definitely mature. Apple's legal battles with Samsung and the billions paid by Google to acquire patents from Motorola against a, wait-for-it, coalition of Microsoft and Apple speaks volumes.

That said, Do you remember a time when a cell phone was just for calls ? a time when a camera was carried in another pocket or purse ? Perhaps the next evolutions for smart phones will be in terms of ease-of-use. For example voice-activation which really works, even in a concert or sports arena. Though of course, what we are really waiting for is the invention of a means to handle the calls you do not want to without the recipient knowing they are getting the brush-off...

The Hacking scandal and News Corporation International: What are the real implications ?

2011-07-20T19:13:00.002Z

The Hacking scandal and News Corporation International: What are the real implications ?

Yesterday in the United Kingdom the British Government held a public session to investigate the mobile phone hacking scandal which has engulfed British politics. Questioned were Rupert Murdoch, Chairman of News Corporation International and his son James along with former CEO of the British print process Rebekah Brooks.

Leaving aside the obvious theatre as Members of Parliament relished the chance to 'have a go' before heading off for the Summer recess had a touch of English public school (USA: Private schooling) about it, "let's have old boy Murdurs in for a damn good thrashing!" you could imagine one of the Committee members yelling. Shaving foam pies aside what significance do these events have for the Murdoch's, the Company and for UK and US politics ? A British committee hearing is not a court of law and whilst interesting and at times insightful those desperate for more blood will have to await the Courts, where no doubt the Murdoch's have a phalanx of lawyers in preparation.

In the meantime, here are a few suggestions and implications as to possible outcomes;

1. This scandal severely reduces the likelihood of Rupert Murdoch establishing a dynasty at News Corporation International. Assuming the Murdoch's survive the UK legal process unscathed the name will become tarnished and may become regarded as synonymous with heavy-handed, no holds barred journalism and a monopolistic hold on media. The only way to even begin to diffuse this timebomb is to appoint trusted internal and external senior management. Consequence: Investors and politicians will likely not stand for a Murdoch succession.

2. The current situation does also bring into sharp relief the future for News Corporation International when Rupert Murdoch moves on. It is clear that he has been the driving force behind the business, though unlike say a Steve Jobs at Apple, helming a 'must have' product business like an iPad or iPhone. The print newspaper business is going through tumultuous times akin to the record labels and this scandal does raise the question of whether News Corporation and other media conglomerates are wise to retain a print newspaper business in their business model ?

3. The UK legal investigations could be dangerous for senior management at News Corporation in terms of cash payments (i.e. non-taxed) made "from a safe in the senior editor's office" to sources, police and otherwise. There are obviously tax implications and, like in the USA, the Inland Revenue (IRS) is a formidable adversary.

4. UK Politics: The scandal has given the opposition Labour Party a platform to act cohesively about and support their new leader. For the ruling Conservative : Liberal Democrat coalition this situation is far from pleasant. On the one hand the Liberal Democrat body-politic will regard News Corp with anathema and blame their Conservative partners at the subliminal level, at the very least, for 'dragging' them into it.

For Prime Minister David Cameron, run though he might, it will be difficult to escape the perception of him as a 'Murdoch Man' - not helped by having hired a former News Corp employee from the paper at the center of the scandal. Time will tell, though a General Election to capitalise on any feel-good factor (such as the Olympics ?) must seem attractive this morning.

5. US politics: Perhaps even more interestingly is the impact of this scandal on US politics. Reaction in the US has been muted on the whole, however Fox News is regarded as being one of the strongest supporters of Republican views and prospective Presidential candidates, such as Sarah Palin. The question for the likes of Sarah Palin is should they distance themselves now from the Murdoch empire before getting serious about the 2012 Presidential election ? For the Obama Administration their hatred of the Fox Network is pretty well known - If they can use this situation well, that coupled with the rapidly accumulating cash mountain in the re-election bank account should secure Barack Obama a second term.

6. The X-Factor - What about Wendy ? About the only positive for the Murdoch's is how Rupert's wife, Wendy sought to protect her husband from the shaving foam pie has gone viral world-wide. Perhaps centering a PR campaign on her values and credentials may make her the ultimate winner as the public face of a new News Corporation International.

Is anyone ready for the first Chinese, Female Executive of a global multi-media news organisation ? You read the forecast here first...

The King's Speech

2010-11-09T19:34:00.002Z

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

2010-11-03T16:04:00.001Z

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...

Restoration Hardware: Needs to shelve its IPO & stock option realisation ambitions to focus on actual 'Hardware'

2010-10-28T03:30:00.001Z

Recently an article in Reuters indicated the desire of furniture company, Restoration Hardware to seek a stock market listing (IPO) in 2011.

Restoration Hardware seems to have a small problem - namely a lack of inventory of the hardware which it seeks to sell an eager customer base. A second time around customer of Restoration Hardware, I ordered furniture which I was led to believe could expect to have delivered in a couple of weeks back in September 2010, which is now drifting into mid-December 2010 - leaving me decidedly unfulfilled.

The disconnect between the sales & marketing operation and 'customer fulfillment' becomes even more clear when engaging with the curse of the early Twenty-First Century, known as "customer service". Customer service in this instance will not actually inform customers of delivery dates unless you question them like an attorney - and on a repeat basis. Either they are part of a scam to misinform customers or else they are left carrying the can without adequate management information to inform. Bad position.

I think the senior management, who obviously stand to gain from an IPO personally, need to get their operations right. Prospective stock analysts need to think seriously about the inventory disconnect - it may make for a good graph regarding forward orders to sell potential investors in the stock. However, the reality is that the thick glossy catalogue of furniture is not matched by an ability to buy.

Perhaps Restoration Hardware intend to stick it to institutional and smaller investors by creating a fake demand curve, fulfilling it and then cashing out without having concern for the long-term viability of their company ? Another implication of having the corporate headquarters in California could be to inculcate a laid-back culture - precisely when the management needs to be hard-hitting and engaged. Not time for trips to the wine country...

Recently I overheard a restauranteur complaining he had bought and paid for a display piece of furniture for a hot new restaurant and has been left waiting for delivery. Frustrated, he threatened to send his team into the local branch to remove the sample whilst brandishing the paid for receipt. The staff indicated they would call the police - and who would be at fault ?

Whilst the Restoration Hardware idea, product and design is hot, the execution is not. Try harder.

Editorial: Commentary on the unveiling of SDSR Resource outcomes

2010-10-19T16:17:00.001Z

Editorial: Commentary on the unveiling of SDSR Resource outcomes
October 19th, 2010

Prime Minister David Cameron unveiled the outcome of the Spending Review for the Ministry of Defence in the United Kingdom earlier today.

A scorecard approach to the key points covered by the BBC News website runs as follows;

* "8% cut in real terms" - Does this exclude the MoD running over budget by approximately 10% ? If not, then the cuts are approximately 20% and this exercise represents political theatre.

* "RAF and RN numbers to be reduced" - For the RAF closing bases reduces headcount and is desirable - in the end aircraft availability is the only criteria for size. For the RN it is a little more problematic (as outlined below).

* "HMS Ark Royal will be decommissioned four years early" - The issue for the RN is how will they staff properly the new carrier(s) when they finally come down the slipway ? As usual there is more 'lust' in terms of wanting the capability than there is through-life management.

* "Surface fleet cut from 24 to 19" - A graph drawn for me a few years ago during a meeting a main building showed the trend in the fall of the Fleet since the 1960s - the logical outcome was a surface fleet of 16 - you read it here first ! The key question is how do you protect the carriers and replenishment vessels - with a couple of ships (best case) in dry-dock at a time seventeen ships covering 70% of the Earth's surface is challenging.

* Astute untouched - VERY good news as they will be key for special operations, surveillance and producing effect.

* "Trident delay" - Tolerable as long as the Astute drumbeat can be synchronised to ensure minimal loss of manufacturing skills (and pressure from the supply chain to maximise profit). The reduction in warheads is interesting and suggests cutting the numbers to fit a stretched Astute SSBN design. Vanguard has 16 missile tubes, each capable of carrying 8 warheads (under the START Treaty) implying each missile has 3 warheads. 40 warheads implies 10 tubes each with four warheads and associated shrinkage of the vessel's length (plus some simplification in terms of engineering and obviously, cost). That said Personally this Editor would favour stretching Astute acquisition using nuclear tipped Tomahawk TLAM missiles.

* Closure of RAF Kinloss and Nimrod to be retired - Sad news for the Scottish community - and no doubt the lack of Conservative support was an issue. Nimrod is technologically being outpaced by the likes of the Global Hawk UAV, and time needs to move on. Political pain around the tragic loss of a Nimrod in Afghanistan likely contributed to the decision to retire.

* Harrier retirement and Tornado part retirement - RAF should shed themselves of Tornado at a faster rate than Harrier. This move smacks of a play by the Air Marshals given Harrier is a joint force. Losing Harrier substantially ahead of JSF introduction will kill the skill level of the Fleet Air Arm operating from the new CVF. Very shortsighted from a joint perspective, good play by the perfidious Royal Air Force.

* Extra Chinook helicopters - Simply excellent news - bringing these to bear quickly is essential.

* reshaping the Army - the loss of 7,000 troops is obviously headline grabbing though difficulties with recruitment made the 100,000 target unobtainable. Rethinking the balance between 'ordinary' soldier and SF generation is crucial to ensuring UK usefulness to its Allies given numbers are simply not happening.

* The fall from six deployable brigades to five leaves only two brigades deployable (on the basis of a third in training, third on deployment, third preparing for Ops) - unless defence planners are treating the three Royal Marine Commandos as a sixth brigade - retaining their own independence in return for playing ball with the Army's deployment schedule ?

* MBT Tank and Heavy Artillery reductions - UK needs to retain skills for high intensity warfare even if it is not on the immediate horizon. A sensible move given the FRES programme was superceded by incremental acquisitions. Replacing Challenger is a big issue and how.

* Reductions in MOD civil servants - challenging insofar as the defence community is increasingly concentrated in areas which have little alternative employment - internal political manoeuvring is going to water this down unless the Government moves fast or keeps its eye on the ball.

UK SDSR Defence Review outcomes - a matter of arithmetic - 18% or 8% ?

2010-10-19T01:13:00.001Z

UK SDSR Defence Review outcomes - a matter of arithmetic - 18% or 8% ?
Monday 18th October, 2010

There is much being trailed as to the release today by Prime Minister David Cameron as to the outcome of the review of resources devoted to the Ministry of Defence. Traditionally the Conservative Party are keen to be seen as strong and safe on defence and foreign policy. In an environment where substantial cuts are being made across government showing a grip on the issues, especially for a new administration is key.

Which probably explains why the Departmental minister has been sidelined by No.10 which has taken strong control (through the Cabinet Office) of the defence review process. press sources are already trailing the following adjustments to UK force structure;

* Retirement of the VSTOL Harrier (known as the AV-8B by the US) jump jet (CityAM)
* Retirement of HMS Ark Royal (Aircraft carrier and flagship of the Royal Navy) (BBC)
* Reductions to the strength of the British Army of the order of two brigades (7,000 troops) (CityAM)

The consensus which appears to have been trailed to the UK media and which seems uncontested by the Opposition is that cuts to the budget will amount to some 7-8% versus some 20% in other Government Departments (excluding health).

Given that insiders acknowledge off-the-record that the MOD budget has been running some 10% beyond its resource level this would imply a 10.0 + 8.0% = 18.0% reduction.

Hence the need for the PM to lead this announcement. What this means for UK 'Grand Strategy' remains to be seen as the National Security Strategy (NSS) seems to be headlining on the threat to UK global interests from cyber attack.

UK Releases NSS review document: A Strong Britain in an Age of Uncertainty: The National Security Strategy (Cm7953)

2010-10-19T01:00:00.000Z

UK Releases NSS review document: A Strong Britain in an Age of Uncertainty: The National Security Strategy
October 18th, 2010

Ahead of the release by the Prime Minister of the outcome of the SDSR Defence Review in the House of Commons at 1530hrs GMT (0930 EST) came the release of the foreign policy-led component known as The National Security Strategy (Command Paper Cm7953). A few comments jump off the page at first pass;

The foreword at the outset refers to Britain being both more secure and more vulnerable then ever before which seems to automatically question the logic of cutting resources to security needs. If national security assets are an insurance policy then Britain seems to be going down the "third party, fire & theft" route.

Page four sees The United States of America listed atop that of the international network of alliances, followed by the EU and NATO.

Page five refers to equipment acquisition rooted in the mindset of the Cold War.

KEY POINT: Page nine, a definition of the National Security Strategy of the United Kingdom, "to use all our national capabilities to build Britain's prosperity, extend our nation's influence in the world and strengthen our security. The networks we use to build our prosperity we will also use to build our security".

Page eleven identifies the top four threats in the next five years to UK security; terrorism (including CBRN (i.e. WMD) usage) and interesting flags Northern Ireland as a flashpoint, cyberattack, military crises and major accident or natural hazard.

Page thirteen identifies withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2015 - towards the end of the next US Presidency, and to the end of the first term of a Cameron Government, should the Government go the full five years before seeking re-election.

page fifteen (section 1.15) identifies the need to broaden out UK relationships beyond dependence on the USA and the world becomes more multi-polar.

page twenty-two (section 2.11) reaffirms the UK view of the Special Relationship - "Our strong defence relationship with the US... is exceptionally close and central to our national interest".

page twenty-seven - illustration of a 'risk register' of 15 major risks - which will be reviewed and updated biannually. The methodology (which is a two-by-two "impact:likelihood" matrix standard to any management consultant) is printed on page 37 for those unfamiliar.

Crystal ball gazing and the 2010 UK coalition government

2010-07-22T11:14:00.000Z

Westminster is rising for the summer after a year where the depth of the fiscal deficit has risen to the top of the political in-tray and a new coalition government of the Conservative Party under David Cameron and Liberal Democrats of Nick Clegg has gone away to make some very difficult decisions.

The Labour Party are clearly out of the picture at present, with a leadership campaign prior to the autumn party conference being the only item of business before any serious opposition to the coalition can be made.

Once the new Labour opposition team are in business obviously their attention will fall on spending cuts, social welfare services and exploiting any potential rifts in coalition ideology (Europe being the obvious one).

The Liberal Democrats are in the trickiest position. Wooed with Cabinet seats and committee chairs to keep them tied in they will face the pain of their council officials. Long the "party of local government" the Lib Dems are going to be backing major cuts to social services which will weaken their support at elections downstream. Europe, Defence and electoral reform will put the parliamentary party in the difficult position of either abandoning manifesto commitments to keep cozy ministerial jobs or be seen as Weak. Handled poorly, this coalition could haunt the Liberal Democrats for a generation.

The Conservatives are looking most comfortable though perhaps ironically individuals look somewhat more shaky, especially messers. Cameron and Osborne.

For George Osborne, the spending review this autumn will be the defining moment of his time as Chancellor of the Exchequer. Asking departments to prepare plans for cuts of 25% (20% ?) and for the order of 20% (10-20% ?) in Defence whilst leaving the massively inefficient Health Department unscathed is interesting.

The intruiging point is his political longevity in the job. Despite his closeness to Cameron, does he have the same relationship as Blair & Brown ? Will David sign off on George's spending plans or will he ask a friend to review ?? If so, who is the PM's "phone a friend ?"

For David Cameron he must know that getting the spending plans wrong coupled with any form of opposition resurgence put him in the position of facing rivals for the leadership. His cabinet contains two former leaders in opposition - William Hague (foreign secretary) and Iain Duncan Smith (social security). The former is part of the star chamber reviewing spending plans and the latter command one of the largest spending government departments after health and ahead of Defence.

Both these individuals know that how they are seen to support the spending cuts will one day come back to haunt them suggesting that they will be reading the fine print of spending cuts exceptionally closely.

For the Conservative Party however, the future is pretty rosy. If the Liberal Democrats weaken they will likely benefit. The odd defector, by-election win, council victory will move the Conservatives towards a position where I would be keen to bet of going for an election in 3 years to get an outright majority and dissolve their coalition.

The Labour leadership election is yet to reach it's crescendo though one would suspect they will have to work hard to make a challenge at the next election. However some positive changes and remember - only a coalition won the last election. A defeat for labour though not an outright win for the Tories.

Much to play for.

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone

Location:30,000ft.

The Great 'Ass-Kicking' BP Dividend debate

2010-06-11T16:06:00.001Z

The Great 'Ass-Kicking' BP Dividend debate
June 11, 2010

Doing the rounds of political cirles in London is the suggestion that 'Kick-Ass' President Obama could end up having one of the following options served to him by BP with regard to the dividend;

A) The easiest answer to the US demands of a British registered company not to pay any dividends to shareholders worldwide.

B) Send all the non-US resident shareholders the dividend.

C) Send a letter to the US shareholders asking if they'd prefer;
i. not to receive any dividend
ii. The dividend be sent to President Obama to spend on social welfare programs
iii. To donate the dividend to wildlife charities in the Gulf area
iv. US shareholders to just receive the dividend themselves.

Voting by our impromptu jury suggests the response will be (a) 0% (b) 0% (c) 0% (d) 100%.

That darned free market! Where was 'Kick-Ass' Obama when it came to the US Banks and Hedge Fund owners pocketing salaries in the $ billions such as John Paulson?

Or, perish the thought do they contribute more to mid-term election financing coffers than the oil majors ???

In 2009 opensecret reported that BP spent some $16m on Federal lobbying. and some $3.5m in direct campaign contributions.

Lets see what this weekend portends - England versus USA in the soccer world cup and a scheduled call between President 'kick-ass' in the red corner and 'nie guy' Dave Cameron in the blue...

Publication of Spending Review 2010 - the Government’s approach

2010-06-08T21:33:00.001Z

08 June 2010

Spending Review 2010 - the Government’s approach

The Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne and Chief Secretary to the Treasury Danny Alexander today announced details of how the next Spending Review (SR) will be conducted. The SR, due to conclude in the Autumn, will set spending limits for every Government department for the period 2011-12 to 2014-15.

The timetable for the review, the process and guiding principles that will underpin the Government’s approach to setting spending limits are set out in the Spending Review Framework presented to Parliament today.

The Spending Review Framework sets out how the SR will:

require departments to submit their initial plans to deliver their priorities before the Summer Recess and demonstrate that they meet a tough new set of criteria to deliver value for money. The criteria cover questions such as: is the activity being funded essential to the Government’s priorities, does the Government need to fund the activity, and can it be provided more efficiently?
start a period of external engagement between the Government and all parts of society including; the private sector, the general public, voluntary/charitable organisations and experts, in order to obtain the best ideas from those most involved in and affected by public services
establish a new Star Chamber chaired by the Chancellor and Chief Secretary and drawing on the expertise of other senior Cabinet Ministers to ensure that the Government challenges every department’s spending plans to ensure that they deliver more for less. Other Cabinet Ministers will be considered to join the group, once they have settled their department’s budget.
seek input from the brightest and best individuals in this SR by establishing a Spending Review Challenge Group of experts – both from within Government and outside – to act as independent challengers and champions for departments throughout the process. Their remit will be to think innovatively about the options for reducing public expenditure while balancing priorities.
require each Secretary of State to appoint a Minister with specific responsibility for driving value for money across their department, identifying savings opportunities and playing an important role in challenging spending in all areas, including on contracts and programmes.
comprehensively examine areas such as: social security, tax credits and public service pensions as part of the process
end the previous administration’s complex system of Public Service Agreements that relied too heavily on rigid targets and instead ask departments to publish business plans that show the resources they need to put in place in order to protect key frontline services and deliver on their objectives.
Tough decisions need to be taken in order to reduce the unprecedented deficit. The Government is committed to achieving the bulk of this through reductions in Government spending, rather than tax increases, while protecting the quality of key frontline services.

This SR is not just about cutting spending and setting budgets. It will be a complete re-evaluation of the Government’s role in providing public services. The SR will look at what services the Government should be providing and how to get more for less.

Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne:

“This is the great national challenge of our generation: after years of waste, debt and irresponsibility, to get Britain to live within its means. It is a time to rethink how government spends our money.

“We didn’t choose the terrible economic situation we inherited. But we can work to put it right, to deal with our debts, to set our country on a brighter economic course, and show that we are all in this together”.

Notes for editors

The Spending Review Framework can be found on the Spending Review section of the HM Treasury website.

Last year, Public Sector Net Borrowing was the largest in Britain's peacetime history. The March Budget forecast the UK deficit to be 11 percent of GDP this year. According to the IMF, the UK has the highest deficit in the G7 and G20.
The Government has made clear that the bulk of the reductions in the current structural deficit will be achieved through reductions in spending.
On 24 May the Chancellor set out how the Government will reduce spending this year by £6¼ billion by cutting waste. This was the first step on the road towards restoring good management of Britain’s public finances.
Even tougher decisions will be required at the Spending Review. The Spending Review will set out the Government’s spending plans for the next Parliament, setting departmental budgets for the years 2011-12 to 2014-15.
In the Budget, the Government will set out the overall path it will pursue for the public finances, against which the OBR will judge its fiscal policy. This will include setting the path for expenditure in the next SR period, which will give a clear sense of the scale of the challenge.
To ensure that the SR looks comprehensively across the whole of Government expenditure, it will also cover significant elements of Annually Managed Expenditure, where the risk is taken by the Exchequer as a whole, including social security, tax credits and public service pensions, setting out plans for savings and reform in these areas.
To ensure that resources are prioritised within tighter budgets, departments will be asked to prioritise their main programmes against a tough set of criteria to ensure value for money in public spending. The criteria:
Is the activity essential to meet Government priorities?
Does the Government need to fund this activity?
Does the activity provide substantial economic value?
Can the activity be targeted to those most in need?
How can the activity be provided at lower cost?
How can the activity be provided more effectively?
Can the activity be provided by a non-state provider or by citizens, wholly, or in partnership?
Can non-state providers be paid to carry out the activity according to the results they achieve?
Can local bodies, as opposed to central Government, provide the activity?
The Government is determined to take decisions in a way that is in line with its values of freedom, fairness and responsibility. Therefore the Government will:
Deliver its guarantee that health spending will increase in real terms in each year of the Parliament, and that 0.7 per cent of GNI with be spent on overseas aid by 2013;
Limit, as far as possible, the impact of reductions in spending on the poorest and most vulnerable in society, and on those regions heavily dependent on the public sector
Protect, as far as possible, the spending that generates high economic returns
Make further savings to fund the priorities set out in its programme
To lead collective decision-making in Government on spending, the Prime Minister has appointed a Committee of senior Cabinet Ministers - the Public Expenditure Committee (PEX/Star Chamber). Chaired by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and supported by the Chief Secretary, the PEX Committee will advise the Cabinet on the high-level decisions that will need to be taken in the Spending Review. The membership of the Committee will be:
Chancellor of the Exchequer (Chair) – The Rt Hon George Osborne MP
Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Deputy Chair) – The Rt Hon Danny Alexander MP
Foreign Secretary – The Rt Hon William Hague MP
Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General – The Rt Hon Francis Maude MP
Minister of State at the Cabinet Office – The Rt Hon Oliver Letwin MP
The Government will require the input of the brightest and best individuals to achieve the optimal outcome in this Spending Review. Therefore, it will form a Spending Review Challenge Group of experts – both from within Government and outside – to act as independent challengers and champions for departments throughout the process. Their remit will be to think innovatively about the options for reducing public expenditure and balancing priorities to minimise the impact on public services.
The Government is determined that this Spending Review process will be open, responsible and fair and conducted in a way that protects the poorest and most vulnerable in our society. Over the next few weeks, the Government will begin a process to engage and involve the whole country in the difficult decisions that will have to be taken.
The Government is committed to greater transparency to enable the public to hold politicians and public bodies to account, and will build on the actions it has already taken to publish raw public spending data from the Combined Online Information System (COINS). It will publish more user-friendly subsets of COINS data by August 2010, and has committed to publishing online all new items of central Government spending over £25,000 from November 2010.
The Government will also organise a series of events over the summer to discuss and debate various aspects of public spending. The line-up of events will incorporate many of the key areas that need to be considered as part of the overall SR process. A range of people will be invited to these events, to make sure that they represent a wide spectrum of expertise and viewpoints. Invitees will include members of think tanks and interested groups, academics, representatives of local government, business and trade unions, and public sector experts and watchdogs such as the Audit Commission.

The Obama Administration and the BP Gulf oil spill crisis - pause for thought

2010-06-07T14:57:00.001Z

The Obama Administration and the BP Gulf oil spill crisis - pause for thought
June 7, 2010

An ideal situation for the US administration - or is it ?

The terrible spill of oil in the Gulf and the struggle for BP to stop the spill, let alone contain its effects would on the surface offer an open goal for the Obama administration to demonstrate their environmental credentials, talk tough and use a whipping boy a foreign owned firm.

Announcements by the US Government of investigations would seem to back this up. However, much like the Defence Industry, Oil is of a global nature and punishing BP might well be punishing US jobs and industry. A quick glance at the 2009 Annual Report for BP;

* 35% of Global Revenues (some $84 billion)

* near 50% of Global expenditure on Capital Expenditure investments and acquisitions

* $650 million in taxes to the US Government

* 22,800 employees (near 30% of global workforce)

* over 90% of employees in high-value refining / production / Exploration

Meanwhile, whose responsibility was the damage to the oil well in the first place ? The NY Times reports (June 5) 'In Gulf, It Was Unclear Who Was in Charge of Rig' - BP ? the Well owner ?? oil services Halliburton ??? or the exploitation company Transocean ???? - Sounds like a job for Hong Kong Phooey...

HM Treasury announces UK government cut-backs - implications for defence ?

2010-05-24T17:33:00.001Z

HM Treasury announces UK government cut-backs - implications for defence ?
May 24, 2010

More years ago than I care to remember one of my University Professors issued an essay list from which I chose the subject of 'are defence reviews solely driven by financial concerns'. I remember making a spirited defence of the importance of coherence in defence and foreign policy.

As the years have progressed and my work in the defence industry evolved I see a somewhat different picture. Following the May 2010 General Election in the UK the new Chancellor of the Exchequer announced today ('Government announces £6.2bn of savings in 2010-11') immediate Government spending adjustments ahead of the June budget. In the statement available from the HM Treasury website the new Chancellor, George Osborne made the following comments,

"Today the Government has taken the decisive action necessary to start tackling the UK deficit and secure the recovery only 10 days after taking office.

Savings will be taken out of budgets, without affecting the quality of key frontline services, as set out in the coalition agreement. In addition to £6.2bn of savings in non-protected departments, savings in health, defence and international aid will be reinvested in front line services in those departments."

What can we infer from the statement for Defence - a touchy subject for a fresh government with major commitments overseas ?

Firstly, this financially driven imperative cuts across the SDSR started under the Labour government and halted during the election by the MOD. It would appear than a Departmental effort to re-run the 1997 process is being hi-jacked by a political and Treasury driven effort to re-run the mid 1990s 'Front Line First' review under the Conservatives and Malcolm Rifkind aimed at exactly what is being pitched now, transferring resources from the tail to the teeth of Britain's armed forces.

This instead of new resources.

What outcomes can we expect to see ? I think the most worried part of the MOD must be the Royal Navy. Given the directives to MOD officials to evaluate all recent contracts for get-out clauses, plus the lack of enthusiasm for the Conservative in Scotland leads to a lack of desire to award ship building contracts to Scottish, Labour and Union driven yards.

Plus the new Ministerial team is principally Army sympathetic - Junior Ministers representing Aldershot and having served with the Special Forces are unlikely to listen to the Admiralty - especially if there is a way out of naval shipbuilding projects.

This could be highly deleterious to the long term national interest. Having written a Doctoral thesis on the collapse of the CVA-01 aircraft carrier program in the mid 1960s one can see how vulnerable the program is. That said, the RN prevaricated for a few years over specification and industry configuration to deliver the program when resources were relatively plentiful.

In addition the challenge of maintaining a 'drumbeat' in construction of nuclear submarines has also been a constant pressure which the new ministerial team may be less sympathetic towards.

The Royal Air Force one could suspect will downsize their stations further and one could see a strong effort to redirect or else cancel Eurofighter Tranche 3. This would be a good move from the perspective of making back-bench Eurosceptic Conservative MP's happy IF the financial penalties can be in someway mitigated.

Iranian Nuclear program gathers pace - and divides its opponents

2010-05-18T20:25:00.001Z

Israel must Be today feeling somewhat reticent about the Iranian deal backed by temporary United Nations Security Council members Turkey and Brazil. Iran has agreed to deposit some half of its current stockpile of processed uranium with Turkey, though has given no assurances about freezing or dismantling its nuclear program. The United states is dismayed its foreign policy agenda is foundering over the one thing guaranteed to upset domestic popular opinion - being seen as weak on the issue of the spread of WMD's.

However, it is surprising the State Department did not see this coming - Iran is a master-class in playing foreign policy games to protect its national interests. Turkey felt sufficiently neglected by its NATO partners and the US in particular that it closed its borders to the use of force against Iraq in 2003 and additionally has had the US President acknowledging the Armenian massacres of the early 20th century which are still are a sore point for the Turks. These issues combined with EU dithering over admitting Turkey left the Iranian issue as a clear one for the Turks to become engaged with - especially as they are neighbours.

For Brazil the issue is one where as a BRIC the nation can show it has some clought in foreign policy with the beautiful benefit that Iran is literally on the other side of the world. Likely mutual trade interests abound between the two nations.

It is probably fair to say, on reflection that the USA and Israel probably share some of the responsibility for this outcome. Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction in the 1980s and 1990s should have provided the opportunity for Israel to declare its stockpiles - or even eliminate them or have them transferred to the US for safe-keeping. Then joining the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty would have left the nation with a superiority in conventional weapons and a strong moral position against anyone in the region developing them. There is a precedent by the way for unilateral nuclear disarmament and it was South Africa in the early 1990s - Israel's closest partner during the previous decade.

The position of the State Department under successive administrations resulted de facto in no substantial pressure on Israel to think through its possession of a nuclear deterrent which takes us to the situation we have no - any country seeking to become a regional player or hegemon knows that they have to develop the nuclear bomb. Lesson from Iraq: if you dither over development - or develop the capability above-ground, it is highly vulnerable to air strike.

These factors combine in a country which wishes to acquire a nuclear deterrent and possesses the 'will & skill' to simply get on with it. Israel defence planners has feared the development of an islamic bomb and now they seem close to having to realise this fear.
Choices are few, trying a re-run of the osirak reactor strike on Iraq in 1980 are not straight-forward, plus the aircraft have to fly across the middle east to reach the target.
The real way to catch the Iranian fox is to have had them spend billions on trying to acquire the weapons and then change the rules of the game;

One way is to develop an effective missile defence (though the cold war showed that MIRV'ing warheads and having lots of missiles could overcome a defence) or,

Second to declare or get rid of your own capability so as to paint Iran as the bad guy should they pursue development further. Not a pretty story.

And now for something completely different... Wall Street sequel Money Never Sleeps in Cannes

2010-05-15T13:36:00.001Z

The Cannes Film Festival 2010 is set against a backdrop of economic troubles, ash clouds affecting flight schedules and dull, overcast skies.

I keep imagining the film festival as a setting for a zombie movie given the pallid stares of film critics on their 20th film in a few days, Z list celebrities touting their wares and a raft of unwashed, unkept photographers jostling for snaps in a foreign land.

Last night I was able to watch a screening of the upcoming release Wall Street 2: Money never sleeps - one of the two big Hollywood movies here at Cannes alongside Robin Hood. Wall Street 2 stars Michael Douglas, reprising his role of Gordon Gecko from the 1980s original. Shia LeBoeuf plays the new kid on the block learning of the travails of high finance being used as a tool to recpaitalise Gordon as well as make money for 'the barracuda' who indirectly caused the suicide of LeBoeuf's mentor via the take out of the mentors brokerage firm.

The plot of the film draws on the backdrop of federal bail-outs of the investment banks like Citibank and the death of others such as Bear-Sterns. There are also a number of cameo appearances and insider type jokes such as Charlie Sheen turning up briefly to talk about taking over the Blue Star jet firm of the original film and turning into a world leading private jet brokerage firm (which, by the way actually exists in real life).

The film feels different to the original as it lacks the father-son relationship between Martin and Charlie Sheen, plus the film feels less like an introduction to how wall street really works which made the original an enduring film. On the plus side it is visually very well done capturing the stock market collapse of 2009. The film feels more emotionally driven tan the cold, hard film of the 1980s and I would have like to have seen more of the Gecko and the Barracuda going head-to-head the limit being one scene where Douglas's character makes one of the more memorable lines, "If you stop talking lies about me, I will stop telling the truth about you".

Brolin and Douglas are very strong actors in the film as is the brief role at the start of Frank Langella who I felt delivered the strongest performance of all having seen some of the shock first hand and fall-out in Wall Street over the past couple of years. I think there was some mis-casting though I hope the film does well as one of the best (and first) efforts to capture recent events by Oliver Stone (who of course appears in this film).

UK Machinery of Government: Establishment of a National Security Council

2010-05-15T11:53:00.001Z

Establishment of a National Security Council
May 12, 2010

One of the lesser-reported activities of the new Government in the United Kingdom this wednesday was the formation of a National Security Council (NSC).

This would seem to replace the DOPC or MISC Cabinet Committee on Defence and Overseas Policy which morphed in July 2009 into the NSID (OD) Committee (or Ministerial Committee on National Security, International Relations and Development, Sub-Committee on Overseas and Defence.)

NSID (OD) had the following composition (5);
* Prime Minister (Chair)
* Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (alternate Chair)
* Chancellor of the Exchequer
* Secretary of State for International Development
* Secretary of State for Defence

Other Ministers, the Chief of the Defence Staff, the Chairman of Joint Intelligence Committee and the Heads of the Intelligence Agencies may be invited to attend as required.

NSC has the following composition (8);
* Prime Minister (Chair)
* Deputy Prime Minister
* Chancellor of the Exchequer
* Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs
* Home Secretary
* Secretary of State for Defence
* Secretary of State for International Development
* Security Minister.

Other Cabinet Ministers, including the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, will attend as required. The Chief of the Defence Staff, Heads of Intelligence Agencies and other Senior Officials will also attend as required.

The NSC appears an effort to better integrate foreign policy and homeland security into a one-stop Cabinet Committee at the price of near doubling the standing representation - risking a slower reaction in a crisis situation.

Establishment of a National Security Council
May 12, 2010

The Prime Minister is to establish a National Security Council (NSC), which will oversee all aspects of Britain’s security.

The Prime Minister has appointed Sir Peter Ricketts (Permanent Undersecretary at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office) as his National Security Adviser, a new role based in the Cabinet Office. Sir Peter will establish the new National Security Council structures, and coordinate and deliver the Government’s international security agenda.

The Council will coordinate responses to the dangers we face, integrating at the highest level the work of the foreign, defence, home, energy and international development departments, and all other arms of government contributing to national security.

The Council will be chaired by the Prime Minister. Permanent members will be the Deputy Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the Home Secretary, the Secretary of State for Defence, the Secretary of State for International Development and the Security Minister.

Other Cabinet Ministers, including the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, will attend as required. The Chief of the Defence Staff, Heads of Intelligence Agencies and other Senior Officials will also attend as required.

The inaugural meeting of the NSC will be chaired by the Prime Minister this afternoon. The Council will discuss the situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and review the terrorist threat to the UK.

Daily Telegraph newspaper in early effort to court the Cameron's missing shady financing

2010-05-14T10:49:00.001Z

May 14, 2010

The Daily Telegraph newspaper wins the early award for seeking to ingratiate itself with the Prime Minister and his wife today. Journalist Becky Pugh writes as to "Which Smythson notebook would you give to which Cabinet minister ?" and seems to have a memory lapse as to informing readers that Samantha Cameron, "about to redefine the notion of having it all" was paid as Creative Director to Smythson over the past few years.

When you delve into the Smythson story it becomes somewhat more interesting - after all a salary of 400,000 pounds to design a diary collection which only changes colour season to season raises the 'cui bono' question ? Given Smythson's private ownership were people paying Samantha to buy access to opposition Leader David Cameron and keep his annual earnings declared to Parliament clean and sleaze-free ?

Kelso Place Asset Management and Venrex Investment Management became involved in 2005 and the Smythson business was sold to Greenwill SA (part of an Italian Group) last December - six months before the Election. Whilst Kelso Place is quite transparent online Venrex by contrast is rather opaque.

The really interesting fact is that Venrex Investment Management is led by Mark Esiri, like David an Old Etonian and as described by the Daily Telegraph October 12, 2007 as "an old Etonian, friend of the Cameron's and lives nearby in Notting Hill".

Time will tell as no doubt will David Cameron's first honours list. Will Any of the leadership team of Kelso and in particular Mark Esiri pick up an honour for funding Samantha and David during the opposition period ? Well done Becky.

No Blackberry's please, we're British...

2010-05-14T07:11:00.001Z

May 14, 2010

Big news in UK politics today - mobile and smartphones are banned from the Cabinet by the new Prime Minister (perhaps apeing the 2007 decision of the French Cabinet) and the new Foreign Secretary is off to Washington to try to educate America as to what a Coalition Government looks like whilst pledging undying loyalty to the Special Relationship. Clear evidence of change of which Sir Humphrey would be very proud, with the new Government sticking to what Appleby suggest as "masterly inactivity Prime Minister ?"

In any event the major posts seem settled between the Conservative Party and the Liberal Democrats with the junior positions and House of Commons Committees yet to be staffed.

One would expect Cameron to take a 'death by kindness' approach to the Lib Dems - employ them all in Committees over his own party in order to a) keep the Lib Dems busy and cozy avoiding a Lib Dem back-bench revolt and b) keep his own back-benchers hungry for office of any kind blaming the need to keep his partners on board.

The Conservatives seem to be busy acting akin to the alien race known as the Borg in Star Trek - absorbing the Liberal Democrats into the Tory Party and tying them in to a long-term coalition - minus any interest in Europe, the Euro and electoral reform.

On proposition making the rounds whilst UK PLC is fatigued following the election is to create fixed terms of Parliament and preventing votes of no-confidence forcing a General Election. A very sharp practice recognising the real threat that Labour can turn itself around over the next few years and come back strong seeking a fresh chance to govern. BBC quoted British expert Professor Peter Hennessy, of Queen Mary University of London University, who told the BBC it looked like "very very iffy politics indeed"

Whilst readers in the united States may see fixed terms as logical - akin to the US Presidential system just think of the weaknesses inherent in such a move. By clearly marking out the end of a term, the ability to make decisions becomes highly constrained as people adopt a 'wait-and-see' strategy.

One suspects an intriguing autumn political season with the key issues being how long before the Lib Dems start to want to see any kind of policy executed and the Labour Party's leadership reposte.

24 hours being a long time in politics...

2010-05-11T18:20:00.001Z

Unlike many pundits I believe one should acknowledge when the judgement call does not work out. The Labour-Liberal Democrat pact to win the General election appears to have come to nowt and following meetings tonight one suspects the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats will take over the task of running the UK political system.

This could be a big opportunity for Labour. The negotiations likely failed to overcome the enthusiam of many newly-minted MPs being prepared to share power versus having no power as a dominant opposition.

One of the interesting issues is how many ministerial and committee positions the new administration will share between the Parties.

For Labour one can only assume a flurry of calls into number 10 by those seeking to be placed on the outgoing Prime Ministers honours list. Sir Alistair Campbell anyone ???

Former PM's memoirs - Yes, Prime Minister - BBC comedy

2010-05-11T01:18:00.000Z

A classic piece of Yes Prime Minister and one for Gordon Brown's colleagues to think about...

Gordon Brown resigns as a precursor to Lab-Lib coalition government

2010-05-11T01:13:00.001Z

Gordon Brown resigns as a precursor to Lab-Lib coalition government
May 10, 2010

I wrote a week ago in this column that it was likely that Gordon Brown's departure would be a likely consequence or pre-cursor to a Labour-Liberal Democrat party link-up to govern Britain as a coalition following the indecisive 2010 General election.

I would forecast firstly, that the Labour leadership election will be fought between David milliband and Ed Balls with Peter Mandelson as kingmaker (Again). May Shakespeare in general and MacBeth in particular be assimilated by all candidates in the Party ahead of the summer campaigning. Perhaps Machiavelli would be best though one suspects Mandelson has bought up all the available copies at bookseller Waterstones.

In terms of Gordon Brown, I remember well his love of Cape Cod and summers in the East Coast of America. I think he will enjoy the anonymity of America where press interest in the UK election has been scant and more focused on what America dislikes or is rather confused with about Britain - "how can an election or a sport end in a draw ?"

With regard to him seeking a finance post abroad - the current head of the World Bank was appointed in July 1, 2007 for a 5-year term. If Gordon can position himself well he will have ample time to write his memoirs and campaign for the role (especially should Ed Balls win the leadership contest - giving GB help and support). Given that Robert McNamara was head I think there is a natural fit for Gordon Brown.

The International Monetary Fund Managing Director was appointed November 1, 2007 though the term of service has varied much and little is offered as to a guide to the length which is served. Suffice it to say the current head is a Frenchman who stood against Sarkozy, the current President and is a healthy socialist economist with a reputed appetite for engaging with young economists in an unconventional manner.

One could not imagine Gordon Brown as heading up the European Central Bank or the EBRD given his distinct lack of enthusiasm for Europe on a day-to-day basis. The ECB appoints for a non-renewal term of eight years, the current President was appointed in 2003 so could be up for renewal as early as next year, so who knows ?

I shall leave for another entry my vies on the likely impact of a Labour-Liberal coalition on the Conservative Party leadership but suffice it to say that we continue to live in interesting times....

Conservative quandry 2010

2010-05-10T15:51:00.001Z

David Cameron must have a headache today.

Over the weekend it became public news that the Liberal Democrats have been holding parallel discussions with the Labour Party following the indecisive outcome of the UK's 2010 General Election.

Strategy A: In David's mind must be to stand back from forming a coalition and alienating a section of his own Party (former leaders like Iain Duncan Smith who are bitterly opposed to Liberal Democrat support for the Euro). With the largest number of seats in the House of Commons the Conservatives could block any policy created by the coalition, ensuring a repeat of the early 1970s which translated into a near two decade run for the Conservatives.

However, if you pursue strategy A what chances are there of surviving as leader for upto 5 more years ? There must be a real temptation for someone to challenge him having done the ground work to become the next Tory Prime Minister.

Strategy B: Do a deal with the Liberal Democrats. Somewhat fraught, despite the record of cooperation at local council level given Lib Dem enthusiasm for Europe, the Euro and a referendum on the voting system. Lib Dems must be ultimately suspicious of Conservative support for electoral reform.

Strategy C: The high-risk one of declaring the Lib Dems and Labour as having no mandate to govern let them fail to agree and forcing a second election. Labour coffers are likely empty at this point to rally for a second round of campaigning and despite a number of new MPs not wanting to re-run for office this could deliver the outright majority and avoid a lot of poltical heartache downstream.

Given Mervyn Kings comment that the victor of this election will likely be out for a generation this does not seem to be the prize to win (unless you can feel the heat of the pack of prospective Conservative Leaders breathing down your neck).

President Obama in social media memory loss incident

2010-05-10T15:40:00.001Z

A weekend speech by the President to students talking of the evils of social media and information as entertainment was widely reported in the US press today (example).

Should it seem somewhat strange that it was the same social media leveraged by the 2008 campaign team seeking an edge in the election against John McCain and the Republican Party..?

On of the risks of electoral hubris is clearly believing that your platform now lies beyond anything which a conventional election strategy can deliver. Personally, I believe that access to information plus a style of education which enables young students to be focused in its use is one of the wonders of the modern age.

Stand by for 2012 apple users to campaign against the President's new found social media illiteracy...

Who reads the papers? - Yes, Prime Minister - BBC comedy

2010-05-05T22:02:00.000Z

Yes Minister: Gallup opinion polls

2010-05-05T21:58:00.000Z

Did IQ's drop Part II... Peter Cook in Whoops Apocalypse.

2010-05-05T21:56:00.001Z

UK Election: Latest polls before the real poll

2010-05-05T21:54:00.001Z

Courtesy of ParliamentWatch blog
May 5, 2010

There's been a glut of opinion polls tonight, as everyone attempts to have the last word. All the eight organisations who have been regularly polling have the Conservatives in the lead - but no-one is forecasting an overall majority. The Liberal Democrats and Labour could be neck and neck in the popular vote, but as we have previously reported, the Liberal Democrat seat count will be lagging well behind.

The averages of the 8 polls are : Conservative 35.5%; Liberal Democrats 27.5%; Labour 27.4%. Using our previous model, this would translate into Conservatives 287 (39 short of that elusive overall majority); Labour 243 and Liberal Democrats 88.

There are some big BUTS however. No-one is assessing turnout, and therefore the propensity of those sampled actually to put their crosses on ballot papers. Secondly, there is no information about the postal vote. Many of the ballot papers appeared in letter boxes when the Liberal Democrat tidal wave was at its greatest. Most of those papers are already sitting in town halls waiting to be counted.

And there may well be regional variations. One poll in the north east puts Liberal Democrats ahead of the overall trend. The latest poll in Scotland shows little change except an increase in Conservative support, but this would only result in two seats changing hands. The extra Liberal Democrat support may therefore be concentrated in England. Some seats are vulnerable to very small swings at this general level of support, so local campaigning and a tactical squeeze (including the last minute Labour plea for tactical voting) might have a greater impact on a handful of seats. There's little information about UKIP tactical voting, if any.

One interesting aside was in an ITV poll that said that 81% of people supported the proposition that the party getting the most votes (as
distinct from seats) should lead the new Government. Which means there may be an undercurrent of support for fairness (proportional representation) in the allocation of seats, an issue which will simmer through and beyond the savage economic measures that whoever wins is likely to introduce.

Like the Terminator, we will return with further comment when real results replace speculation.

UK Election 2010 Forecast: 654 Politicians will likely decide who forms the next Government of the United Kingdom

2010-05-05T13:58:00.001Z

The BBC website has made available a visual means of viewing how the various opinion polls will translate into seats in parliament and therefore the likely winners in tomorrows election.

The Three polls included are all from today -
Labour Conservative (Tory) Liberal Democrat
Poll of Polls: 272 270 79

ComRes: 258 289 75

YouGov: 288 261 72

The outcomes therefore would be a hung parliament in all three scenarios. The question becomes who will yield the most to the Liberal Democrats in terms of ministerial positions to form the next (coalition) government.

My own money is on the incumbent being most desperate to hold to power ie. Labour-Lib Dem (which does have a preceedent in the early 1970s). I suspect also the price of this coalition will be a Labour party leadership election within 12 months to end Gordon Browns Premiership.

Whilst obviously dissapointing for the Conservatives I think the election will, as Mervyn King as suggested be a poison chalice for the victors - the last coalition Lab-Lib pact led to near 20 years of Conservative rule under Margaret Thatcher then John Major. Perhaps this is the best outcome for the UK.

Possibly a style-over-substance issue however David Cameron and his Notting Hill public school set do not seem to have broken down the barriers to making the UK people feel entirely comfortable with them.

"Did IQ's drop whilst I was away ..?"

2010-05-05T13:47:00.001Z

I noticed the BBC running an item on a presentation concerning jobs and employment conducted by Conservative Party leader David Cameron recently.

Did nobody think about the political satire "Whoops Apocalypse" from the 1980s with Peter Cook as the Prime Minister having people jump off the white cliffs of Dover as a means of dealing with unemployment ?

Obviously 'Denzel's had a haircut"...

UK Political System implodes... Iron Man 2 released tomorrow !!!

2010-05-05T13:06:00.001Z

I received via email an invitation to a one-day conference entitled, "The implication of the UK General Election for the Obama Administration". Sad, but true.

The UK election has barely registered a blip in the United States and amongst the New York media. The story of the Labour candidate who played his likely crushing constituency loss into a "worst ever Prime Minister" comment appeared in a small piece on page 28 of the New York Post newspaper this morning.

For the average US citizen the UK seems a long way away and a sort of living historical theme park which provides a crop of good villians for the cinema as well as [positively] distorted views of British influence and power via James Bond.

The British military contribution in Iraq is not mentioned since the decision to withdraw and the effect in Afghanistan go basically unmentioned. Whilst our Armed Forces presence has some acknowledgment in Washington circles - outside of the appreciative Pentagon it goes largely unknown and one suspects unrewarded.

In the USA the British election is seen is much simpler terms as a Conservative victory bolstering spirits of Republicans for the mid-term elections this autumn and an eye on 2012. Unfortunately few across the Atlantic appreciate the nuance of British political ideologies and find confusion that Tony Blair is widely seen as the successor to Thatcher - not a Conservative !

Whilst the quality of oratory and debate in British politics is widely admired across the Atlantic few American politicians would wish to trade the raw power of the United States... Meanwhile the release of the sequel to Iron Man dominates the airwaves.

Goldman Sachs: No glory to be won...

2010-04-30T17:45:00.001Z

Who is the US Attorney's superhero ?
April 30, 2010

1970s children's cartoon show Hong-Kong Phooey starts out with the question, "Who is the Super-hero ?" emblazoned across the US media today is the initiation of criminal proceedings against Goldman Sachs investment bank (triggered perhaps by political dissatisfaction with the Senate hearings).

GS's share price has fallen 8.42% today in today's trading session thus far. More importantly the name is being dragged through the reputational mud. So much for the money spent on lobbying and maintaining the GS alumni network.

More interestingly are the references to the US Attorney's office in Manhattan - noone is mentioned by name as leading this prosecution. Does this mean it is a political game being played for which no aspiring attorney wants to be smeared. After all, how does one finance their election campaign after going after an investment bank with rather deep pockets ?

One would suspect, were there a robust case that an ambitious Attorney would go public into battle with an eye on being a future NY Mayoral candidate, Senator, President etc.

For Goldman Sachs clearly the bank's share price will recover though sadly the reputational blow even if reduced to the odd joke on bulletin boards will remain for a generation as will the general impression that "it was Goldman Sachs fault" - forget the other banks and institutions playing this game - however the US Government own stock in the others - so expect a willing conspiracy of silence amongst the rest of the industry.

It's never easy being Number one!

UK Election 2010: Quick Reference Guide

2010-04-30T02:28:00.001Z

The UK Parliament which started under the Premiership of Tony Blair and changed mid-term with the same Labour Party, though with Gordon Brown as PM, is now facing re-election on May 6, 2010. Since the 2005 Election all three main political parties have switched leaders.

The UK Political system centers on the House of Commons (equivalent to the US Congress) with some 650 members of parliament (MPs - Congressmen) each responsible for a geographic constituency (US - Congressional District). Unlike the US system of mid-term elections of their Congressmen and women the UK system involves all MPs being eligible for re-election at a General Election under a first-past-the-post (ie. most votes wins) system. The number of MPs each Party garners leads to the Party with the most being chosen to form the Government by Her Majesty, the Queen (the British Head of State).

2001 Election Statistics 2005 Election Statistics
Labour - 413 Labour - 356 (324 seats required for a political majority)
Conservative - 166 Conservative - 198
Liberal Democrat - 52 Liberal Democrat - 62

Total votes cast - 26.3m - 27.1m

Political surveys (polls) conducted throughout the election show a tight race with Labour trailing the opposition Conservative Party. However, the rise of the Liberal Democrats, in part through the Conservative blunder of allowing them fair and equal air-time in the first three televised Prime-Ministerial debates makes a coalition Labour-Liberal party more likely. The last precedent for this was during the early 1970s and the dark days of the OPEC oil crisis. Of course, the outcome of this was the election of a Conservative administration which held office for near two decades thereafter.

The election I think can be seen as a re-run of the 1992 election. Although the Conservative Government of John Major was seen as weak the electorate were just not ready to trust Labour. Whilst a coalition or lame-duck Labour win will preserve some careers the likelihood of a conservative government following the next Labour or coalition administration is 100% likely. Coalitions do not get re-elected.

However, for the Labour Party one could suspect a quick putsch to remove Gordon Brown within 12 months of a election victory. If the Conservatives will inherit the next part of the UK political story, a few Labour leaders-in-waiting will want to get their place in history secured - and fast.

A Conservative loss traditionally triggers the resignation of the leader and a change. One could suspect William Hague's moment has come to re-assert his mantel as the most likely next Conservative Prime Minister. I remember meeting him and his wife Ffion at Conservative Central Office in the early 2000's - she wore knee high leather boots.

Commentary on the final British Election Prime-Ministerial debate

2010-04-29T20:24:00.001Z

Commentary on the final British Election Prime-Ministerial debate
April 29, 2010

This evening the three party leaders Gordon Brown (Labour), David Cameron (Conservative Party), Nick Clegg (Liberal Democrat) held their third and final public debate together televised by the BBC which I was able to view from New York via internet.

Sartorially the opposition party leaders wore ties echoing the colour of their party (Cameron Blue & Clegg Orange) whilst Gordon opted for a purple tie (blue & red!).

Early in the debate the issue of efficiency savings came up - playing to Brown's knowledge of financial issues. Unfortunately Gordon continues the bullfrog-like gasping for breath mid-sentence though powerfully referring to the 1930s as the risk of budget cuts.

Also the leaders all indicate the Ministry of Defence (MoD) will not be spared the efficiency cuts - some 6 Billion pounds. Under Blair the Gershon efficiency savings have struggled to deliver after the initial push of the Office of Government Commerce in the late 1990s. The MOD was only mentioned in the context of Gordon Brown maybe or maybe not providing rises to the defence budget.

Nick Clegg appears to come across more as a moderator "here they go again" and less as a political party leader - which might translate into positive votes on May 6th, 2010.

David Cameron looks like he has been in a spa for several days - facials, sun tanning and botox ?! Gordon Brown looks exhausted though combatative.

The second discussion revolved around taxes - the incumbent government indicated the priorities for spending - policing, education and health care. Brown was combatative focusing on class differences (conservatives - inheritance tax) "unfair & moral".

The third question focused on remuneration in the financial sector. Interestingly, the Conservatives started out wanting to increase regulation and to tax banks (a variant of the windfall taxes of the late 1990s?) and to block banks from participating in certain activities. Liberal Democrats state no cash bonuses for board level bankers. Labour push the saving of voters deposits by nationalising banks and therefore their protectors.

Bizarre follow up by David Cameron that Labour hitched the economy to the City of London, despite the pivotal role of the Thatcher Government in privatisation during the 1980s and financial services liberalisation.

NIck Clegg articulated a good argument for simple methods to improve the state of the manufacturing base and hit out at the bailout of the Royal Bank of Scotland who were involved in the Kraft:Cadbury acquisition which led to job losses in the UK.

Dear Democrat strategists, the GOP already has a clearly defined critical path to Election 2012

2010-04-29T15:33:00.001Z

Dear Democrat strategists,

How long ago must the election of 2008 seem where none could stand between your candidate and the highest office in the land.

Whilst mired in a health care reform many are sceptical of, public prosecution of a leading investment bank with spurious evidence and a conflict in a place where no Great Power has claimed meaningful or lasting victory your political opponents nearer home have a clear route to making your Presidency but a single term in length.

1. MId term elections 2010: As the Washington Post reported, the GOP are targeting three key Senate seats; the seats of the President, Vice-President and Majority Leader which will be highly symbolic and take full advantage of the protest vote.

2. Keep your political support base on the boil: Sarah Palin's role in the next election might well be as a stalking horse seeking to itch to a future President's wagon or Cabinet however she is using her name recognition and charisma out on the lecture and speaking circuit. Expect some intruiging language (can she top Charlton Heston ?) in her headline address at the National Rifle Association's annual conference in North Carolina on May 14, 2010. Mitt Romney is meanwhile busy courting the traditional power-base of the Republican Party endorsing candidates for 2010 (and therefore himself for 2012?).

3. Celebrate Past Success and galvanise support: 100 years since the birth of former President and Republican icon Ronald Reagan is due in 2011. Expect events and positioning of the Party and prospective candidates plus the California celebrations will represent the close of Govenor Arnold Schwartznegger's period in office - if only the USA would relax their laws to let him run as a candidate in 2012...

4. Have a clear election platform: A 2012 GOP election platform will likely be based on the following themes;

- Taxes and roll-back of Government.
- End the commitment to Afghanistan and bring the troops home.
- Stop interfering in Wall Street - reform could be damaging for the Democrats and seen to errode American competitiveness in the global economy.
- Pick up the renewable energy baton from the Democrats and wrap together entrepreneurship and innovation messages.
- Over-turn health care reforms which are overly complex - and then leave well alone.

UK Election: Conservatives relying on US input for Prime-Ministerial Debates

2010-04-28T15:53:00.001Z

Catherine Mayer of Time Magazine wrote on April 26, 2010;

The American Connection

Referendums and recalls aren't the only things that Cameron has borrowed from the U.S. His rhetoric has a familiar ring to it. "Change vs. more of the same is the big clarion call," Cameron tells TIME. "The change we need, the change we believe in, change we can trust, change that happens — call it what you want." He has taken more than slogans from Barack Obama's 2008 campaign — the President's former White House communications director and campaign adviser Anita Dunn, for one. Dunn, together with Bill Knapp, her partner in the Washington-based consultancy Squier Knapp Dunn Communications, is helping with preparations for three potentially pivotal televised debates pitting Cameron against Brown and Nick Clegg, the Liberal Democrat leader. Cameron hopes these jousts will help him finally seal the deal with voters, many of whom are still suspicious that at heart the Tories don't really like the messy, multicultural, open and nondeferential society Britain has become since the Conservatives last held power. "People want to know two things," he says. "They want to know that things really will change, but also they want reassurance that the Conservative Party itself has changed."

And it has, to the extent that it is not surprising to see consultants associated with Obama helping the British cousins of the U.S. Republican Party. There's a huge gap now between American conservatism and the touchier-feelier variety promoted by Cameron's Conservatives. Thatcher, a hero to many on the U.S. right, laid the foundations of a long British boom that has only recently ended. But Thatcherite economic reforms came at a social cost that earned Conservatives a reputation — in the phrase of a party chairwoman — as "the nasty party." So Cameron has been at pains not to embrace Thatcher's legacy but to rid the party of it. Launching the Tory manifesto on April 13, he promised a return to an inclusive "one nation Conservatism" in place of the polarized and polarizing ideology of the Thatcher years.

Read more.

Goldman Sachs Senate testimony: Theatre - Washington style

2010-04-28T13:06:00.001Z

As I previously wrote not long after the crisis broke, the Goldman inditement by the SEC is setting the stage for a political push to reform some of the worst (2009 vintage) practices.

The more interesting question is the value of the alumni network of Goldman Sachs. The A-list of Goldman people in senior government positions is quite extensive and institutions such as the consulting firms McKinsey and Arthur D. Little would pride themselves on installing former employees into positions where future business can be leveraged plus provide intelligence as to what is going on.

This would imply that either the SEC move was known to a few people and Goldman had no substantive warning or that they had zero ability to head off the legal action. Additionally the money invested in lobbying seems to have been placed with people who were asleep at the wheel.

One would expect a few heads to roll once the dust has settled.

Second, what does this crisis portend for the lifeblood of American politics - campaign financing. The banks chose to bet on Obama and made very healthy contributions to Democrat coffers in the 2008 election. As they say in New York, one would suspect that they (wall street) "are over it".

UK Election: commentary on the second Prime Ministerial debate

2010-04-24T13:37:00.001Z

Five different polling organisations rushed out instant polls on the winner of last night's leaders' debate on Sky News. It's very noticeable that newspapers favouring the Conservatives before hand have trumpeted Cameron as the "winner". This does seem to be very selective reading of what passes as "facts" in this case. Three out of five polls had Clegg in the lead, and the average of the five was:

Nick Clegg (Liberal Democrat) 33.4%
David Cameron (Conservative) 32.8%
Gordon Brown (Labour) 27.6%

So Cameron, the man who would be Prime Minister and who was lauded to the heavens just a few weeks ago, has managed to haul himself up from last to second, on the basis of less than a third of those responding. Which isn't very impressive.

What is very interesting is the self-selecting poll on Facebook, which presumably is somewhat skewed towards younger people. At the time of writing, over 60,000 people had responded, with the totals:

Clegg 48%
Cameron 27%
Brown 25%

In effect, voting starts next week BEFORE the final debate on BBC, as postal votes are expected to start arriving on people's doormats. In my own constituency the Liberal Democrats seem to have been fighting for those postal votes (a legacy of a previous referendum, with a high degree of take up) by blitzing voters with literature. Very little is evident from the other Parties, implying no steam or they are waiting to go fro a late push. Which might be too late if many people have voted and the recent surge in support for the Liberal Democrats is cemented.

UK Election Polls 20 April, 2010

2010-04-20T12:04:00.001Z

UK Election Polls 20 April, 2010
April 20, 2010

Just as the Icelandic volcano unexpectedly changed the landscape of European travel, so the first ever debate on TV between the leaders of Britain’s main political parties had a game changing impact on the prospects for the General Election now under way.

Up to that fateful 90 minutes podium to podium confrontation last week, the story of British politics had been: The people don’t want Labour and Gordon Brown again, but David Cameron’s Conservatives haven’t sealed the deal. Then Nick Clegg for the Liberal Democrats hit the screen for the first time as an equal – and the future was different.

Over the last six months, Cameron’s Conservatives had been flat lining under the 40% they need under the UK’s warped political system to make the breakthrough into an overall majority.

As the campaign started, the first 12 polls of April showed the Conservatives on 39% +/- 2%; Labour 30%+/- 2%; Liberal Democrats 19%+/- 2%, with 95% confidence. That would mean the Conservatives the biggest Party, about 10 seats short of a majority, but with everything to play for.

Then came the debate. Clegg was a palpable hit. He came over as the new man, the nice man, with policies people liked. He won the debate in a canter. His personal approval levels have soared to a net positive over negative of 78% - something not seen since Winston Churchill led the nation to victory in the Second World War.

His Party ratings have followed suit. In ten polls conducted since then, the averages have changed to Conservative 32% (down 7%); Labour 27% (down 3%) and Liberal Democrats 30% (up 11%) – all of course with the ranges and confidence of the early April poll of polls.

With these numbers, the Election outcome picture is entirely different. Not only would Cameron not be Prime Minister of right, he wouldn’t even be leading the biggest Party! The Liberal Democrats become king-makers or coalition partners, sitting on more than 100 seats. This is a level they haven’t seen since Lloyd George was the last Liberal Prime Minister after the First World War nearly a century ago.

And such is the skew in our constituencies, and the impact of the small parties like the Nationalists, Labour would have the most Members of Parliament even though it would have the smallest share of the vote of the “big three” parties. By combining with the Liberal Democrats, either the Conservatives or Labour could command an overall majority!

These are of course only opinion polls. It’s real votes in real ballot boxes that count at the end of the day 9that day being May 6th). But Clegg and his Liberal Democrats are suddenly more credible than ever nationally (despite running many of the major cities in England) and they’ve energised the Election, especially among younger voters.

There are two more debates, the next one on Thursday. Anything can happen. But at least for now, in the UK, politics is no longer boring!

Cui Bono: The strange case of the US regulator SEC and investment bank, Goldman Sachs

2010-04-19T14:15:00.001Z

The weekend saw a rather bizarre case reported in the US press of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) decision to prosecute the investment bank Goldman Sachs and one of its traders in the case of practises around packaging 'toxic assets' (sub-prime mortgages) and the transparency around their sale to the public.

The case is bizarre at first glance as firstly, Goldman Sachs lost $90m themselves and second that much of the case is around the involvement of John Paulson, the man who a) advised the fund on the composition of assets and b) the man who benefitted principally by shorting the fund he advised Goldman to create and c) who earned a personal paycheck of $3.5bn is not at all implicated in the scenario.

The fact that there are no images of federal agents making arrests or offices being stormed for documents implies that the case is a spurious fishing exercise at one level. Additionally the it was reported that Goldman Sachs had known for 9 months of the pending SEC action.

However by Monday morning the political strategy underpinning the choice has become far clearer. The Obama push for financial reform in an environment of blossoming financial markets creates a need to remind the body politic of the evils of unbridled capitalism (from a Democrat perspective) defining the timing of the SEC card being played by the Obama Administration, leading to five key questions;

1. Will Goldman Sachs make a stand on principal that it acted ethically or will they fold and settle quickly and quietly ?

2. Where was the influence of the Goldman alumni network with the Obama administration ? Is the influence of the network on the wane ??

3. Can Goldman Sachs win the case on behalf of itself and Wall Street ?

4. What will this case do for Democrat fundraisers going into the mid-term elections and the US elections in 2012 ? One would suspect a Republican platform along the lines of "enough punishment - lets get back to making money" will garner far more political interest and campaign funds not only from Goldman though additionally from other institutions fatigued, and fearful of another four year punishment beating.

5. Who will ultimately be the political whipping-boy for the financial crisis ? Clearly Bernie Maddoff is not a big enough fish - although he did immense damage he was not hauled in chains to Washington. One could suggest that looking backwards to the likes of Michael Milken (as a superficial level) that the person seem most to benefit from a situation becomes the real political target for action.

Witness round 1 in a multi-stage campaign.

Obama, 60 minutes and the "mystery Republican"

2008-11-17T20:32:00.001Z

Mr. Obama said in an interview broadcast Sunday on CBS’s “60 Minutes” that there would be at least one Republican in his cabinet; he would not say when he might announce his first cabinet nominations, except to say “soon.”

The above comment came today in the New York Times on the Day when Senator John McCain met with President-elect Obama in Chicago. Clearly there would be no job offer for the former competitor for the White House. However, who is the mystery Republican ?

It could be suggested that the two most obvious choices are either Colin Powell (Secretary for Defense ?) or Arnold Schwarzenegger (Governor of California).

The former (along with rumoured Secretary of State candidate Hilary Clinton) would transform the face of the US overseas overnight given their near universal name recognition.

More interestingly, what for Governor Schwarznegger ? He cannot run for President or Vice-President by virtue of being born abroad. His term of office in California is set to end on January 3rd, 2011.

Without US law being re-written (and why would the Democrats seek to aid a potential rival in the 2012 election ?) where can he go ? I would very much like to see a Senator Schwarzenegger or perhaps even Secretary for Homeland Security or Defense - his movie reputation alone must surely be worth a US Navy Carrier Battle Group...

Technorati Tags:
Obama, US Politics

The US election 2008: Final result

2008-11-05T04:42:00.003Z

Looking out of the window this morning I noticed in the bright autumnal sunlight of New York a queue emerging at the polling station over the road - a portend that the sheer level of interest in the election would lead to a long day.

By this evening the polls were gradually confirming the election of Democrat Senator Barack Obama to the post of president of the United States.

Reflecting on the past 18 months I suspect analysts would note that the economic crash in mid-September played a major role in unwinding the gradual catch-up in the polls made by Republican Senator John McCain.

Undoubtedly the incumbent party faced challenge, though issues such as Iraq played a lesser role in the campaign.

The challenge now, for whomever might have run, is to address the major economic and foreign policy challenges - something that would handicap either candidate.

That said, the campaign was very well plotted out on the ground and clearly the titanic battle with Hilary Clinton pushing the Obama fundraising machine to a level which enabled blanket media coverage in the final two months.

On a personal note, I felt that John McCain's story was one which really deserved to be rewarded by the Post. "Political life rarely in any country, a wry observer once noted, matches effort with reward".

US Election 2008: Key elements of the strategic battlefield

2008-10-30T18:58:00.002Z

There are three issues in thinking through the strategies being employed by Democrat and Republican Presidential candidates John McCain (R) and Barack Obama (D); State electoral college votes, demographics, and ethnicity.

A: Electoral College votes (Top 10 out of 538 total votes with 270 as the target for election victory represent nearly half (47%) or 256 votes).

1. California - 55
2. Texas - 34
3. New York - 31
4. Florida - 27
5. Illinois - 21
6. Pennsylvania - 21
7. Ohio - 20
8. Michigan - 17
9. Georgia - 15
10. North Carolina - 15

B: Voter Demographics (using US Government census report concerning the November 2004 Presidential election).

Age group numbers % voted % registered
18-24 47 58
55+ 72 79

74 percent of women and 71 percent of men entitled to vote were registered at the time of the 2004 election. In addition, of the 215 million registered voters some 24 million are veterans of the armed services.

C: Ethnicity (again, data derived from US Census of Nov 2004 election)
Ethic Group registered % Voted % number voters
White 73.6 65.4 162.9m
Black 68.7 60.0 23.3m
Asian 51.8 44.1 6.2m
Hispanic 57.9 47.2 16.0m

The final 2008 US Presidential debate: re-arranging deck-chairs on the Titanic ?

2008-10-16T15:36:00.002Z

I attended the final Presidential debate of the 2008 election in the United States last night, held on Long Island adjacent to New York City at Hofstra University.

The experience itself said much about American politics in the modern age. As an exercise in organisation it was quite amazing. Clearly security is the number one concern in the minds of the Secret Service - Hofstra University is relatively remote and driving in, one could not help but notice the concrete barracades, police cars on every street corner and probably most of the East Coast Secret Service contingent, whom I must say were courteous and helpful to the last man and woman.

The students were kept amused and, by and large, away from the debate hall with a lottery to which some 6,000 students signed up for a few tickets to attend in person.

The media were provided with an excellent filing centre in a vast sports hall from which to watch and comment on proceedings. Additionally a hospitality tent provided by Anheuser-Busch (thank you Cindy McCain!) provided a mix of food and drink and a chance to hob-nob with the spin doctors and news anchors - plus get commerative mugs and other merchandise.

The debate hall itself was the political equivalent of the Oscars or even the Superbowl. Mitt Romney, Hilary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Governor David Patterson were all present and correct to name a few.

The debate itself was interesting from the perspective of watching other peoples reactions. In the media centre journalists found the "Joe the Plumber" debate amusing and also seemed to enjoy watching McCain battle against a very cool, almost cold Senator Obama. It had the atmosphere of a title fight where people were egging McCain on to land more punches.

A very interesting point of contrast in campaign strategy was in evidence at the media centre. Hofstra students were present, helpfully distributing transcripts of segments of the debate to a hungry media croud.

Meanwhile a team of McCain*Palin students were delivering one page rebuttals of Obama policy synchronised to some seventeen (to my count) elements of the debate. No sooner had the Joe the Plumber story on tax been told than a blue sheet outlining the detail behind the flaws in the Democrat proposal landed next to me. Very interesting, as there was no riposte from the Obama camp other than SMS messages - which apparently students outside the debate enclosure found exciting.

Personally, shaping the media output to the nation seems to best SMS texts to those already likely to vote to you. One up strategically to the McCain team.

Getting out of the debate afterwards was sheer hell. No buses, no knowledge of how to get where led to some amusing discussions amongst the variety of people mingling with students hoping to see their idols. Of course, the security ensured that both candidates and their entourages were long gone into the night and the final few weeks of campaigning ahead of November 5th.

Notes from the edge of the financial volcano

2008-10-10T16:58:00.003Z

Standing on the precipice in New York City about one mile from Wall Street the changes in dynamics for both the US election 2008 and world economy can be felt.

Election 2008 has become a side-show. Whomever wins the Presidency, they will be faced with the nightmare of three months trying to build an administration whilst simultaneously trying to stem the negative tide of economic news and investor sentiment.

Warren Buffet will be appointed to a senior role by either Party - you heard it here first.

The economy is sliding fast as liquidity fears are being realised - and a'la Hobbes everyone is seeking to preserve their own position. An interesting question is what is happening to the Chinese economic miracle ? time to fasten seat-belts.

No limit [$700 bn] stakes poker - Washington style

2008-09-30T02:32:00.002Z

Global stockmarkets are about to spend a couple of days feeding off one another in an ever descending cycle of economic violence - 21st Century style.

The failure of the US political system to reach agreement today led immediately to a sell-off in US markets. The failure itself, whilst a leadership blunder tarnishing the reputations of all political parties represented distinct philosophical differences.

Democrats favour a maximalist approach to protecting savings of individual people and capping executive pay, whilst Republicans see minimal government involvement in markets as being crucial to American prosperity.

It is a difficult square to circle, not helped by the Presidential elections - a number of politicians are up for re-election and therefore focused on their own futures. Congress will reconvene on Thursday, and whilst a new plan could be brokered in the next 48 hours it cannot be brought into force until then.

The consequence is two days of economic turmoil with no political solution in sight. Time to raise, hold or call ?

Technorati Tags:
Election 2008, US Election 2008, US economy, World economy

A week is a long time in Presidential politics...

2008-09-27T03:56:00.002Z

A week of immense economic upheaval in the United States driven by a financial crisis has proved illuminating in terms of analysing political campaign strategy.

Taking a leaf from military strategy John McCain has kept Senator Barack Obama off-balance, guessing whether or not he would participate in the first of four televised political debates this evening. Further McCain beat Obama to the punch in terms of 'suspending' his political campaign and travelling to Washington to play his part in trying to resolve the Congressional deadlock.

Travelling to 'save' Washington appears to be a theme - attending the 2008 Clinton Global Initiative meeting in New York, the closing plenary session had former President Bill Clinton introducing Prime Minister Gordon Brown en rout to save Washington - and his own reputation in the UK. That said, if the Bretton Woods regime is about to be re-assessed it is better that Britain is there than not.

Turning to the first Presidential debate, in the aftermath the media, who are far from the partisan people we know abroad via Robert redford in "All the President's men" have leant towards a 'draw' or a win for Obama.

I personally see the outcome differently. Although the subject for the debate was foreign affairs - a strong suit for John McCain - and Obama acquitted himself well, I think the Democrat candidate failed to read enough military strategy. Obama's team failed to take the initiative or rather allowed the enemy (John McCain) to dictate the terms of the debate.

I am personally very surprised that Obama did not slant his answers towards the number one issue of concern, the economy. Instead he agreed frequently with John McCain (expect to see some web advert imminently) and appeared the junior, whilst JOhn McCain planted a succession of punches on him repeatedly "he does not understand..."

Senator Obama should, in my own opinion, have been more aggressive in turning answers back to the US economy - which people are really worried about right now.

Technorati Tags:
Democrats, Election 2008, McCain, Republican, Obama

Labour Party Leadership elections - what ?

2008-09-18T16:29:00.001Z

In lieu of a conflict abroad to distract a bored populace, a potential change of political leadership can offer a whiff of excitement.

However, the Labour Party are setting themselves up for an autumn PR debacle which might come back to haunt them.

Prime Minister Gordon Brown is suffering from the MacMillan dictum of "events, dear boy, events". The economy is 'tanking' people are nervous and so, who would provide better political leadership at all at present ? In any Party ?? Arguably no-one can hold back the tide of economic woe at this point in time.

So, argue the strategists throw up the idea of change in political leadership just before conference season, have everyone rally around the PM and create a temporary feel-good 'blitz' type feeling nationally. Failing that, maybe some economic indicator somewhere will show a positive blip to latch onto...

However, in the longer term (i.e. next 12 months) as election season draws near the Labour Party are offering their opponents ammunition by the bucket-full - the economy is going south and Labour are arguing over the deck chairs kind of messaging. Not good for anyone.

As to the Conservative Party - whilst they have made gains people are going to be sufficiently afraid that the next election in 2009/10 will be a '1992 moment' for Labour. They will be reelected, but with a slim majority.

The only chance of a Conservative win is in making inroads into Liberal Democrat seats, and I am certain they will not be accommodating, having a longer track record at managing local councils.

Technorati Tags:
UK Politics, Gordon Brown, Labour Party

The [electoral] road gets increasingly tougher for the Democrat Party...

2008-09-10T14:53:00.002Z

Democrat Party members must be wishing they could turn the clock back to the timeframe prior to the Convention season. Democrat Senator Barack Obama enjoyed a substantial lead over Republican John McCain. The media were squarely behind the Democrat effort and opinion polls showed a satisfying lead.

The decision of the Democrat party to forego public contributions to their campaign - because they believed that grass roots contributions would far outstrip the potential under a capped system - could have been a mirage. The McCain took public funding and have enjoyed additional funding courtesy of a more engaged Party. The cash burn by the Obama campaign needs getting under control - fast.

Three weeks on and Barack Obama is being reported as making gaffs regarding Christianity and Islam, attacking the popular Republican VP pick, Sarah Palin mixing up his pit-bulls and pigs.

The perceived poor treatment of former President Bill and Senator Hilary Clinton by the Democrat Party has done little to aid them. One can imagine Hilary doing the bare minimum to blunt the "Palin offensive" by the McCain in order to put the Democrat Party in its place post election with a "I told you so" and position herself as the heir for the 2012 Presidential election. This thought seems to be borne out by her press conference in Florida at the behest of Obama where she refused to attack Sarah Palin.

Obama, meanwhile is due to meet with President Clinton at the Clinton campaign headquarters in New York to seek advice on the election - does that not seem a little late in the day ?

Technorati Tags:
Democrats, Republican, US Election 2008

If only it was about Character...

2008-09-05T04:56:00.002Z

John McCain ended the Republican convention this evening having accepted his party's nomination to be the Presidential campaign candidate for the forthcoming November elections.

No doubt his speech will be compared with Democrat Senator Barack Obama - not as flashy, longer, indoors not outdoors etc. etc.

What his speech did do was set out a platform to target small town American voters in middle America and the West. His Vice-President Sarah Palin will only add to the Senators appeal and appears to be a dangerous opponent should the Democrats lower their guard and possessing several layers of defence against any charges her enemies should employ.

The speech also was successful in laying out a number of hooks to trap policy makers on the Democrat side. In addition it enabled the candidate to layout his stall as a family man, away from the way he is normally viewed.

The only down sides were two protestors seeking to disrupt his speech and for some Republicans the lack of reference to George Bush - McCain has leap frogged them to compare himself with Ronald Reagan's viewpoint, a shrewd move.

McCain's gamble, if successful will be to paint the election as being driven by character. If this becomes the case he will win hands-down and cause one of the largest electoral upsets. Hilary Clinton will also be gnashing her teeth that he has to refer to another woman as "Mrs. Vice-President"

Technorati Tags:
Election 2008, McCain, Republican

What of the current President's legacy ?

2008-09-04T17:50:00.002Z

Whilst watching President George Bush's address to the Republican National Conference via satellite link, I wondered as to what in his own mind's eye would be the ultimate impression he would like to leave in the minds of the American public.

I then thought back to the reports circulating that the location of the leader of the Al-Quaeda terrorist network, Osama Bin Laden was within a relatively small area in Pakistan near the Afghan border.

Next I see the first cross-border raid by US forces without Pakistani approval was reported today. Is the President planning chlandestine activity with the aim of capturing Bin Laden before the clock runs out on his Presidency.

What a gift that would be to the American Public, his Presidential legacy and, not unimportantly, the odds for his successor Senator John McCain.

Sarah Palin hits a home run for the McCain team

2008-09-04T15:16:00.003Z

Last night in St. Paul, Minneapolis at the 2008 Republican National Convention, Vice-Presidential nominee Sarah Palin emerged onto the National stage and made an excellent speech. The presentation was flawless, the speech crafted beautifully and rehearsed thoroughly to present Sarah Palin in the best light and create maximum appeal.

I am also sure from her body language that she is a formidable politician, more than capable of damning her opposition with faint praise as they say in Britain. She rebuked the media attention on her family, introducing them in a brady-bunch, family next door kind of way - she took the fight to Democrats Obama and Biden, head on flagging their lack of experience in running an organisation - and made great capital by turning Obama's experience as a "community organiser" into a pejorative, echoing the pummeling given in the warm-up speech from former New York mayor, Rudi Gulliani.

At the level fo grand [political] strategy Sarah Palin has, in addition, served the military requirements of McCain's campaign to provide a diversion for the enemy - attracting both the fire and spotlight while McCain forges on - somewhat like the tortoise against the Obama Hare. Of course we all know what ultimately transpires in that marathon tale...

In addition for the Republican Party, they risk being out-spent by the Democrats in their record-making election fundraising efforts. Having the former CEO of eBay for advice on how to leverage the internet must be a plus, as having Sarah Palin's freshness attract media attention - at no financial cost to the campaign coffers.

A week[end] is a long time in politics...

2008-09-02T03:14:00.002Z

Labor Day weekend holiday, USA, 2008. In the Hamptons the summer sun and blue skies shine whilst visitors fire up their barbeques for the final time or else get early onto the I495 highway to head home.

Less than a week ago, Barack Obama had the country talking about his acceptance speech of the Democrat nomination in Denver, Colorado.

After a weekend where Republican Senator John McCain announced a female Vice-Presidential pick, Sarah Palin of Alaska - she and a Hurricane heading for New Orleans have dominated the news.

From the first comments regarding who she is through to concerns about her unmarried pregnant daughter Palin has taken eyes off the no-show by President Bush and Vice-Preident Cheney at the convention (accident or deisgn for McCain - deliberate snub by Bush ?)

The net outcome is that Obama has gone from someone to noone in under a week. Political discourse in the united States remains alive and well...

John McCain: More of the same, please....

2008-08-30T22:34:00.003Z

John McCain managed to put the US media in a tailspin for the Labour Day weekend holiday by the presentation of his Vice-Presidential nominee, Sarah Palin, Governor of the state of Alaska.

Impressive on many fronts, the presentation of her has undercut what would have been weekend dominance of the media by Senator Obama's Thursday speech at the Democrat National Convention in Denver, Colorado.

Obviously, there is still much to be done - the convention needs to be first rate, however the raw material is in place to pose a 'clear and present danger' to the Democrat hopes of a November election win.

How far ago January seems where the Democrats regarded the outcome of the election as a foregone conclusion.

Technorati Tags:
Republican, Election 2008, McCain, Sarah Palin

Democrat Convention Day Two: Reciprocity ?

2008-08-27T03:30:00.002Z

This evening Hilary Clinton gave the key speech at the Democrat convention in Denver. Hilary gave a real tour de force which even the most ardent anti-Democrat would have to concede. She achieved four key issues in her speech;

1. Putting personal support behind Senator Obama.
2. Pitching to women voters.
3. Thanking her supports and sponsors.
4. Reminding Democrats of the Clinton legacy and what they will be missing.

The telling issue was the lack of Barack Obama today. For a candidate able to dial in by satellite to say hello to his family it seemed odd that he would not give a personal tribute to Hilary Clinton. Secondly, the fact that critics are pitching Obama as being an elitist, his lack of appearance is no salve to the criticisms.

Democrat Convention 2008: Day One: The Clinton rift proves telling

2008-08-26T03:10:00.003Z

This evening's first evening of the Democrat convention saw Tributes to former President Carter and Senator Kennedy acting as a warm-up for Barack Obama's wife Michelle and a brief satellite input from the great man.

It proves telling that Bill Clinton's successful Presidency cannot be leveraged due to the destructive campaign between Hilary and Barack Obama.

The Democrat campaign team require some swift 'adjustments' after Michelle Obama's somewhat wooden performance. Her speech was not quite tailored enough for her and seemed to read like a laundry list of statements aimed at proving how normal they were.

So in summary, on day one the Republicans central theme is that Obama lacks substance and experience for the commander-in-chief role to which the Democrat response has been to wheel out one-term President (though wonderful humanitarian) Jimmy Carter from 3 decades ago.

Not the most auspicious of starts.

Obama's selection of Vice-President a fatal turning point ?

2008-08-26T03:02:00.002Z

Barack Obama selected Senator Joseph Biden as his Vice-Presidential running mate earlier in the week for the Democrat Party bid for the 2008 White House.

A telling choice in many ways and possibly a turning point for the worse for the campaign. It appears increasingly obvious that the Obama-Clinton ticket would have been highly conflictual in office, but devastating in winning the 2008 election.

Biden, by virtue of having been around for a long time has accumulated political baggage of obvious interest to the Republican rival, John McCain.

It is surprising that the choice was not for a younger governor or senator to reinforce the change message. "politics making for odd bedfellows" is still relevant obviously.

Whither defence ? Conservative Party spending priorities still unclear

2008-08-20T20:57:00.005Z

The Financial Times newspaper ran two items recently, "Boardrooms keep watch on political risks" and "Companies fear Tory axe on contracts". The thrust of these articles seems to be typical mid-term pieces where the opposition party, gaining confidence, is now seeking tentatively to build a platform of credibility in managing government better than the incumbents.

Whilst the Conservatives plan 'big changes' in procurement, sadly the Party remains silent on its intentions regarding appropriate funding of defence. The reforms of procurement in the 1990s have taken substantial time to become embedded in the civil service system - change of process only serves to a) complicate execution of procurement policies or b) divert attention away from particular decisions.

One of the challenges for the Conservatives is that spending on health and education have been ramped up so dramatically under the current Labour administration that there will be little choice other than to make cuts or else be committed to current plans in the manner of the Blair administration's first years.

For defence, which has certainly delivered on what the public has asked of it, there seems to be elements of an unfolding greek tragedy whereby the more defence achieves, the greater the propensity to ask more and resource less - no matter how it is spun politically.

The Conservative Party has the opportunity to declare clarity of policy on resourcing defence and defer review of military commitments until after an election - enabling the Party to focus on their managerial competence without risking a protracted debate over foreign policy.

Obama breakfast meeting circus show

2008-07-10T16:20:00.002Z

The Hilton hotel in New York hosted a ticketed breakfast this morning with appearances by Senators Hilary Clinton and likely Presidential nominee Barack Obama.

Arriving in decent time led to insane queues which lasted an hour before finally hitting the security barriers and uniformed secret service. See images.

Approximately 1,100 people attended and were fed a vague breakfast before the core of the show started.

Hilary Clinton provided the warm-up act and demonstrated by force of personality and oratory why she deserved to win the competition for the candidacy. I think she will require a significant role in the new administration though I can see why she will not be selected as Vice-President.

Compared to Hilary, Senator Obama's oratory and style is stilted, full of pauses. However, that said, the crowd lapped it up cheering on Obama's statements about equality for women's salaries, health care etc.

The sad truth is that in many elections, in many countries, promises to make meaningful change tend to be swept away by the difficulties of implementation causing Prime Ministers and many Presidents to favour focusing on international affairs.

I think for Senator Obama the role of Commander-in-Chief will impact dramatically on his agenda for social change, should he be elected.

Learning to drive in the USA: step-by-step

2008-07-10T16:13:00.001Z

1> Get a learner's permit by completing a 20 question multiple choice test (1 of a,b,c, or d) - focus on drink and drugs.

2> Get a course completion licence - by watching 4 hours of videos on drugs, drink driving and the odd informative film.

3> do lessons (?)

4> take test: turn right, left. stop. left. three-point turn. parallel park. right. left. stop.

Passed.

UK's Strategic Defence Review (SDR) at Nine: Many Happy Returns

2008-07-08T01:36:00.001Z

July 8th, 2008 represents the ninth anniversary since the publication of the British Government’s Strategic Defence Review (“SDR”). The review was significant as it was both commissioned shortly after the election of “New Labour” led by Prime Minister Tony Blair, and had as its focus the concept of being foreign policy led as opposed to resource led by then Secretary of State for Defence (and later NATO Secretary-General) George Robertson. Completed under the tenure of Robertson’s successor Geoff Hoon, the review was wide-ranging and encompassed the views of a wider audience. The review was well regarded at the time by the armed forces for its throughness, though nine years and several strenuous commitments later, how well have the decisions set in train by the review proved to be ? The need for strategic mobility was far-sighted and addressed at the time by the leasing of four C-17 Galaxy aircraft from Boeing in the United States. Two years later the deal was signed and during the time which has elapsed a further two C-17 aircraft were acquired by the Royal Air Force. The centre piece in terms of procurement requirements from SDR was the decision to focus on expeditionary warfare with two new, large aircraft carriers at the heart of the new capability. Very recently manufacturing contracts were awarded suggesting that this procurement will meet the approximate 15-20 time it takes from concept through to entry into service of defence equipment. In the meantime the major casualty of the past nine years has been the surface fleet of the Royal Navy. During the nine years which have elapsed, whilst in 1998 the plan was to reduce the surface fleet from 35 to 32 surface ships and 22 to 25 minehunters the figures today are 26 surface ships (Type 22, 23 and 42 vessels) and some 16 minehunters. Whilst a construction programme is underway for successor destroyers to replace the ageing Type 42 destroyers, albeit in smaller numbers, no such relief is on the horizon for the backbone of the surface fleet. Moving away from equipment procurement one of the major changes to occur as a result of the SDR was the combination of service logistics through the creation of a tri-service Defence Logistics Organisation. It was felt that the acquisition of equipment needed to be “faster, better, cheaper”. Over the nine years since its creation it sought to rationalise logistics provision and was ultimately combined with the Defence Procurement Agency into a large combine known collectively as Defence Equipment and Support (DE&S). What of “faster, better, cheaper”. The achievement of this goal has arguably been hampered by the failure identified in the 1960s to spend more money in the evaluation and development phases of a project, plus to make those responsible for determining the operational requirement for an equipment be as realistic as possible, to avoid the phenomena known as “gold-plating”. The acquisition of equipment urgently (via the UOR process) has continued to be successful though its lessons are proving highly difficult to apply to procurements which do not have battlefield necessity attached to them. Additionally, Treasury rulings on long term funding of UOR’s make them increasingly problematic. Meanwhile procurement policies focused purely on ‘value-for-money’ have created one of the most open defence commercial environments in the world, offering competitive deals to the Ministry at the increasing expense of the UK defence manufacturing base – something which the subsequent Defence Industrial Strategy (DIS) may, or may not, assist in redressing. Looking at the policy some nine years after its publication it is clear that priorities of government expenditure plus additional commitments have made full implementation of SDR increasingly difficult as attention on processual change will always come second to meeting operational requirements plus lack of funds will prioritise the battlefield over administrative reorganisation and the care and welfare of service personnel and their families. One senior official once suggested that the MoD in effect runs on 120% of the actual funds available thus suggesting that any increase in budget less than 20% will have no material improvement for the defence enterprise. The cuts in numbers of platforms acquired reflects the difficulty of doing more with increasingly less, whilst no effort is made to fundamentally choose which commitments to pursue and which to downplay. It is perhaps somewhat ironic that as government policy has moved increasingly through the 1990s to today focuses on demonstrable results in terms of meeting key performance indicators by government departments relating to their level of success in pitching for additional funding that the obvious outcomes won by the Ministry of Defence (MoD) have actually led to lower levels of funding (when taking defence inflation into account).

US Elections post-primaries: Emergence of the hired guns

2008-06-04T21:00:00.001Z

Senator Obama today appointed a three person Troika to evaluate Vice-Presidential candidates. An interesting mechanism for justifying the final choice.

It will be interesting to see if this prompts Senator Clinton to forfeit any interest in the VP role.

Technorati Tags:
Election 2008, Democrats, Barack Obama, Hilary Clinton

Election 2008: Game theoretic options favour the Republican nominee

2008-06-03T17:02:00.001Z

Today is the day of the final primaries. Senator John McCain has sewn up the Republican nomination for sometime and has wasted no time in building a war chest for the autumn.

The Democrats have struggled and appear to be on the cusp of having Senator Obama securing the nomination - unless Hilary Clinton has some skullduggery planned in terms of winning over the Superdelegates with husband Bill.

Whilst Obama is the undoubted winner of the primary process, coming from relative obscurity to international attention, the election is more murky. Vice-Presidential candidates historically are not the ultimate arbiter of victory, but may be more important than at first glance.

Obama is weak in security, McCain in the economy. Sidelining Hilary Clinton enables the Obama camp to avoid the menage-a-trois of Obama, Bill and Hill however risks alienating a swathe of Democrat voters.

Should Hilary overturn Obama's position it will be seen as highly contentious - akin to the Republicans in Florida (which was a while ago).

McCain stands to benefit in both scenarios despite the proximity of George Bush and a completely invisible Dick Cheney. The key question is which VP candidate for McCain neutralises best the advantage of his rivals ?

Mitt Romney has strong business credentials, but is Mormon (maybe good for the Religious right vote), but risky given recent scandals in Texas. Condaleeza Rice was a name thrown around a month or two ago, but has diminished.

So, to summarise;

Obama & X = McCain advantage (upset Hilary voters)

Hilary & X = McCain advantage (upset Obama voters)

Democrat advantage = McCain + ?

contribution to FT article "Al-Yamamah: the case for the defence"

2008-04-17T22:04:00.002Z

Al-Yamamah: the case for the defence was written by son of former Chief of the Defence Staff (CDS) Jonathan Guthrie concerning investigations into an armaments deal by Britain and Saudi Arabia in the early 1980s for Tornado IDS strike aircraft, spares, training and support.

by Jeffrey Bradford 17 Apr 2008 05:57 PM
Jonathan put his finger on the issue with regard to the Al-Yamamah deal being something which looks less good with the benefit of hindsight.

It seems so long ago that the 1980s were the depth of the cold war in Europe, proxy wars being fought in Africa and the Middle East and Saddam Hussain being our bulwark against radical Islam in Iran.

Defence companies were involved in various deals which as they unwound subsequently have resulted in 'issues' Lockheed of America in the 1970s and Thales of France in South Africa more recently.

In addition Al-Yamamah was a major boost to the British engineering sector and it is questionable whether participation in Eurofighter could have been so robust had Al-Yamamah failed.

The tragedy today is a number of short-sighted decisions being made amongst nervousness regarding international scrutiny of the project - the Defence Export Service Organisation (DESO) has been abolished, Lord Drayson procurement champion has chosen to race automobiles and BAE Chief Executive Mike Turner has curtailed his career leading BAE at a crucial time in its international development.

Something is rotten in the state of Denmark and with hindsight it is not this deal.

The Vice-Presidential nomination game

2008-04-13T16:42:00.001Z

Sunday morning and the US media in New York deployed multiple pundits to consider the Vice-Presidential candidates who will emerge for the eventual Democrat and Republican candidates for the 2008 Presidential election.

For Republican John McCain the names of Bush Secretary of State, Condoleeza Rice, former soldier and diplomat Colin Powell and others have been bandied about.

For Barack Obama, the interesting idea floated today was that of him selecting a military man, such as Wes Clark as VP to help offset McCain's credentials.

Hilary Clinton faces the dilemma of already having a 'Vice-President' in Bill Clinton, for whom a VP would likely be a nuisance three-some. Obama would be the obvious choice to avoid splitting the party, though the question is, would he want to be seen as kowtowing to the Clinton family, with an eye to his political longevity.

Personally, with an eye to restoring the view of America in the world I think each candidate needs someone capable of carrying domestic interests and helping shield the President from some of the thornier issues he will have to undo.

One thing is certain, Vice-President Cheney changed the nature of the office forever, and I am looking forward to the accounts as to how it came to be.

McCain shows his colours

2008-04-08T21:22:00.003Z

A small postscript to an important article in last weekends New York Times newspaper concerning John McCain. Whilst Hilary Clinton has been caught out, talking up her experience under fire, John McCain has remained silent in public concerning his son, who is several months into his tour with the US Marine Corps in Iraq.

I feel that his character coupled with familiarity with the outside world will position him increasingly well with middle America in the forthcoming US Presidential elections.

A respite from politics? The New York international Auto Show

2008-03-31T14:35:00.002Z

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

2008-03-12T00:57:00.002Z

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

2008-03-12T00:38:00.002Z

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.

The McCain plan for Powell and Schwarznegger ?

2008-02-13T20:41:00.004Z

Whitehall village ponders the role of two key players on the political scene who have instant name recognition, respect and generally are still in the game.

California governor and former Hollywood star, Arnold Schwarznegger has done an admirable job of running the state since taking office amid electricity cuts galore. He cannot run there forever, and cannot be President or Vice-President due to being of non-American birth. Yet he gave a key state's backing to McCain early on.

Governor Schwarznegger for Secretary of Defense or Homeland Security - you heard it here first - he would be good, and the bad guys abroad will remember the Terminator movies...

Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and Secretary of State Colin Powell is more enigmatic. One of the most impressive individuals I have seen in my own lifetime, he was very vague in his memoirs about his political ambitions, and some would see as being finished after the Iraq intelligence debacle providing a rationale for the invasion in 2003.

When interviewed at the weekend he ranked the candidates (after sustained probing on the issue) as "McCain (R), Obama (D) and Clinton (D)". Thinking about the arithmetic would Powell be a good foil against Obama ? Clinton he probably has no love lost with after enduring battles with the Clinton I White House over homosexuality in the military.

For the Obama camp, Powell would be a great asset - uniquely versed in foreign and defense policy, African-American and with global recognition - would he be back at State or Defense under an Obama Presidency ?

I would watch both of these Gentlemen with interest. You heard it here first.

US election 2008: A strategic pause for thought

2008-02-13T20:24:00.003Z

Today is one of the key dates in the US election, not for it being a particular state primary, but rather for the state of the contest and the key choices which campaign strategists, and the candidates themselves need to address.

Candidate Barack Obama's triple victory last night puts him ahead of rival Hilary Clinton for the first time. Republican John McCain was meeting in Washington with Republicans to build support for him as the ideal Party candidate. Critical issues. This post seeks to identify the key questions for each of the players, not to mention the two parties - Republican and Democrat.

Democrats

For the candidates, the voting system used in the Primaries, that of proportional representation will guarantee a nip-and-tuck race through until the convention - unless one candidate stumbles fundamentally or runs out of campaign finance.

The Clinton camp are trying to dictate the ground on which this stage of the Primaries will be fought - that of televised one-on-one debates, where she comes across well. The Obama team favour rallies to get their man's personality and message across, as they lack name recognition vis-a-viz their opponent.

Hilary took a loan to finance her campaign in the past week of $5 million and has lost her campaign manager and Deputy. Obama's team, it feels, have the momentum raising $7 million in the past few days alone.

This all suggests a battle which could end nastily for the Party - any deal done at the Convention would weaken the Party, a prolonged Primary battle will exhaust treasure chests ahead of the real test - the fight against the Republicans. Will either candidate back down, or accept the Vice President role - right now, no. I doubt personally that Obama would take Hilary as VP, given that he would get "2 for 1" with former President Bill Clinton. Hilary would find it challenging to accept Obama - though no candidate has commented on the VP slot as yet.

Republicans

John McCain seems to have a more straight forward run through the Party convention. Mike Huckabee comes across well on Television, though his religious roots will prevent making significant inroads - CNN forecast recently that if Huckabee won every remaining Primary he would still come short of the McCain vote - and McCain won three more Primaries last night.

The four big issues for the McCain camp are as follows;

1. Rallying the Republican Party to his banner.

2. Becoming more articulate on key election issues beyond national security - health care, economy, immigration etc.

3. Raising funds fast to fight the Democrat money machine.

4. Choosing the right running mate.

No easy answers, however for the moment at least McCain has freedom of thought to work through them.

Republican Romney retires from campaign

2008-02-08T10:57:00.001Z

Management consultants this morning, and Bain & Company's office in Washington in particular, must be ruing the announcement yesterday lunchtime saw by Mitt Romney of his intention to suspend his effort to be selected as the Republican nominee in the forthcoming 2008 US Presidential election.

Suspension is a technical term, in effect retirement, whereby Romney does not lose the electoral college votes achieved so far should he wish to reenter the campaign.

Pundits suggested reasons for Romney's withdrawal as including - an obsession with PowerPoint slides and data, not wanting to be seen as "beating up the old Guy" (John McCain) who would likely win anyway, and Romney's religion. Aides also dropped the usual rumours about wanting to position himself for the future.

Whitehall Village sees it slightly differently. McCain has been reliant on splitting the opposition vote between Romney and Huckabee to beat them both and we suspect two issues to underpin Romney's withdrawal;

1. Huckabee won more states on Super Tuesday than Romney anticipated - splitting the religious vote and thereby denying him the chance to be a serious contender for the nomination.

2. The data will have shown a poor Return On Investment (ROI) in terms of expenditure per vote on the campaign (Any "Bainies" on the campaign team will be keeping a low profile I am certain). See our earlier posting for further details. The Bain website today leads by informing prospective Clients that Bain enables them to outperform the market by 4 to 1. Not in political electioneering obviously...

Mike Huckabee's comment immediately after Super Tuesday seems eerily prescient that, "It's now a two man race - and I am one of them".

Cicero: "The sinews of elections... are infinite money"

2008-02-07T14:06:00.000Z

Apologies to the Roman thinker for misquoting him in the title. However substituting "war" for "elections" is highly appropriate in terms of thinking about where the lead candidates for the US 2008 election are at financially. This is shortly after news that Hilary Clinton is adding $5 million of her own money to her campaign and her staff are going without money this month.

The Federal Election Commission records campaign fundraising data, namely amounts raised and spent. The latest data as at 31 December 2007 is as follows:

Democrats

Hilary Clinton Raised: $118.3m Spent: $80.3m Retained: $38m

Barack Obama Raised: $103.8m Spent: $85.2m Retained: $18.6m

Comment: Obama, lacking the national name recognition of Clinton early in the campaign has had to invest more to put his name about.

Republicans

John McCain Raised: $42.0m Spent: $39.1m Retained: $2.9m

Mitt Romney Raised: $90.1m Spent: $87.6m Retained: $2.5m

Mike Huckabee Raised: $8.9m Spent: $7.1m Retained: $1.8m

Comment: Romney did an amazing fundraising job in a time when the Republicans are down-at-heel. However when looking at current standings in terms of electoral votes has achieved a very poor "bang-for-the-buck".

The aftermath of Super Tuesday

2008-02-06T16:58:00.000Z

I woke up this morning to discover the outcome of one of the key days in the US 2008 election primary season, known as "Super Tuesday" where some 24 states vote for their ideal Democrat or Republican candidate.

Due to nuances of the Party voting systems (Democrats use a form of proportional representation whereas the Republicans use first-past-the-post) a direct comparison of votes and voting trends is inappropriate.

The key outcomes of the evening are that for the Democrats, Hilary Clinton remains ahead but failed to extend her lead - Barack Obama's campaign on the day resulted in a near-tie in winning electoral college votes.

For the Republicans Huckabee did better than may assumed, Mitt Romney worse and McCain - although the star performer does not yet have the point required to take it easy and start preparing for battle with the "real enemy" - the opposition Party.

Senator McCain's Super Tuesday ?

2008-02-05T22:07:00.000Z

I started the morning at the Rockerfeller Center in New York to see Senator John McCain's early morning rally to start off his "Super Tuesday" campaign. I may have surprised Channel 4 news anchor Jon Snow by cheerily yelling "Good morning Jon Snow" in a British accent in the middle of NY before 7am.

McCain was joined on the rostrum by former NY mayor and recent competitor for the Republican nomination, Rudy Guliani. Other supporters included Democrat Senator Joe Lieberman (who was Vice President in Al Gore's unsuccessful campaign in 2000) and former Governor Tom Ridge, who was the first head of the Department for Homeland Security (DHS). family were in attendance also namely McCain's wife and sprightly mother. Lastly a cluster of Nixon-offspring were present involved in various ways in the campaign.

The speech was principally about security and Iraq - maybe a necessary play to the voters of New York who endured 9/11. However I could not help feeling that McCain felt happier marching to that drumbeat over the economy and I feel he could struggle as the campaign agenda moves into less familiar waters.

Music included the theme to the "Rocky" movies on McCain's enterance and then on departure the old hit Johnny B. Goode by Chuck Berry "go, Johnny, go go go". Lets hope the nomination translates into a budget for music closer to the key voting demographic...

The ghost at the party - running mates

2008-02-05T04:07:00.000Z

There has been, perhaps appropriately at this stage, no substantive talk of the issue of Vice-Presidential running mates for the lead candidates in the US election. Much was made of the Democrat debate where Clinton and Obama were posed the question of working together and their diplomatic dance which ensued.

Yet, with John Edwards departing the race it does raise the question - who would the front runners take as running mates ? It is curious that Edwards has not declared in favour of Clinton or Obama having departed the race before the key test tomorrow.

California is a key state and Governor Schwartznegger has declared for John McCain - yet as he was not born in the USA cannot run with the Senator. Perhaps a role as Head of Homeland Security or Secretary of Defense would be appropriate (one can but dream of the ensuing headlines...).

"Super Tuesday" - what's at stake for those unfamiliar with US electoral processes

2008-02-05T03:42:00.001Z

Tomorrow, twenty-four states go to the polls. At stake are votes which determine who will be the nominated Democrat and Republican candidate to fight the 2008 election, and hopefully become President early in 2009.

The four main candidates so far have won some points towards the total required to win the nomination. For the Democrats, 2,025 votes are needed to secure the nomination of which Hilary Clinton has 232 and Obama 158. For the Republicans, 1,191 votes are required of which John McCain has 97 and Mitt Romney 92. See below for the votes up for grabs tomorrow and the polls for the lead candidates:

NY Post published polls (Feb 4th, 2008)

State D votes R votes Clinton Obama McCain Romney

Alabama 60 48 +6% -- +23% --

Alaska 18 29 -- -- -- --

Arkansas 47 34 +40% -- -- --

Arizona 67 53 +2% -- +9% --

California 441 173 +2% -- +8% --

Colorado 71 46 -- +2% -- +19%

Conneticut 60 30 -- +4% +19% --

Delaware 23 18 +2% -- +6% --

Georgia 103 72 -- +6% +6% --

Idaho 23 -- -- -- -- --

Illinois 185 70 -- +21% +23% --

Kansas 41 -- +5% -- -- --

Mass. 121 43 +24% -- -- +23%

Minnesota 88 41 +7% -- +24% --

Missouri 88 58 +6% -- +14% --

Montana -- 25 -- -- -- --

New Jersey 127 52 +1% -- +31% --

New Mexico n/a n/a -- -- -- --

New York 281 101 +16% -- +26% --

N. Dakota 21 26 -- -- -- --

Oklahoma 47 41 +24% -- +23% --

Tenn. 85 55 +14% -- +9% --

Utah 29 36 +24% -- -- --

W. Virginia -- 30 -- -- -- --

LA Democrat debate: experience is a two-edged sword...

2008-02-01T12:06:00.000Z

Last night saw the last Democrat public debate between Senators Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama, competing for the Party nomination in the 2008 US election.

It was a more civilised affair than pundits had imagined, after a fortnight of sniping between Hilary, Barack and Hilary's husband, former President Bill Clinton. Little surprise really, as the audience for this debate was less the general public, and more the Party grandees who will be key in supporting the candidates with votes, prestige and money - lots of money in the coming months.

My key observations from the debate are as follows;

1. Hilary gave a very good opening speech - though it was clear she spent an immense amount of time memorising it.

2. Obama seemed a little daunted in the early stages of the debate - the dynamic was very different from the early "beauty parades" with several participants. He bounced back as the debate proceeded and made a number of quick comments and made the audience laugh.

3. The candidates see Iraq as an issue between them, with Obama coming off better as having been against the 2003 conflict, officially, since Day 1 a'la McCain.

4. It is Clear that Hilary is positioning herself as the most experienced candidate "ready on Day one" (though no direct mention of Bill), versus Obama "looking forward, not past", "change", "yes we can" etc.

5. Health care is a major issue - and the differences are largely technical and though important - I suspect the electorate will not have the patience to understand. Obama's idea to televise all negotiations on C-Span is noble, though unlikely to succeed in a nation with hundreds of TV channels and a 30 second attention span.

6. Immigration will be an important issue, as inevitably when economic times are perceived to be difficult people start looking for scapegoats. The campaign is about the thorny issue of how corporate America turns a blind eye to "illegals" to deliver ever cheaper goods and services, whilst not being 'invaded' - a problem not uncommon in other countries.

One thing about the obvious experience former First Lady and Senator Clinton is that it is hard learnt, and like a child - you have to have the opportunity to make mistakes to be able to learn, adapt and succeed. I suspect, should she succeed in winning the nomination, that the Republicans will remind the American voting public of Somalia, Hilary's lead on health care reform, the failed attacks on al-Quaeda, failure to intervene Bosnia and Rwanda, and of course the WhiteWater scandal.

On a final note, the bulk of the audience at the Kodak theatre (location of the Oscar awards ceremony) were from the Hollywood media set - is it withdrawal symptoms from the cancellation of this year's Golden Globes - or like the Germans with their beach towels - bagging a seat early ?

US election: Gunfight ahead of Super Tuesday Corral

2008-01-31T12:32:00.001Z

In the past 24 hours both Rudy Gulliani, former Mayor of New York and Senator John Edwards have pulled out of the 2008 race for the White House. It is somewhat surprising given the imminent 5th February vote by 21 states simultaneously, though likely waiting would have not changed the outcome and would have harmed subsequent manoeuvering for position with the successful candidate downstream.

The question this morning is, "where will the Edwards vote go ?" Both the Barack Obama and Hilary Clinton camps are laying claim verbally to Edward's supporters, though I suspect after defending Obama in the New Hampshire Primary debate that he will come out in support of Edwards.

A further move in recent days has been the Democrat aristocracy (The Kennedy's) backing Obama. This move is a real snub for the Clinton's ahead of the 5th February which may reflect the fact that the Clinton's know where the skeleton's are - versus Obama with whom new deals for interest groups can be cut. Bottom line is that there is trouble ahead.

Looking forward I think it is fair to say that once Huckabee withdraws it will be a straight fight for the Party nominations - McCain versus Romney, Clinton versus Obama.

Given the ominous silence of the Republican attack machine I suspect that the Democrat winner will climb out of his trench only to be bayoneted by the Republicans. Stand by for four more years of Republican rule, America.

US election 2008: "people get the Government they deserve ?"

2008-01-26T11:11:00.001Z

The impending US election sees the potential for a second Clinton Presidency, bringing a former President back to the White House in the role of First Man / Mate / Partner / whatever.

Looking back at recent Presidencies, the United States has, in effect, been ruled by two families since 1988, or even earlier if George Bush's time as Vice President to Ronald Reagan is counted. The Bush and Clinton families have held sway since a time when the film Rain man starring Dustin Hoffman and Tom Cruise won awards and Clint Eastwood released his fourth and final Dirty Harry movie, the eight year Iraq-Iran war ended, the USS Carl Vincennes shot down an Iranian passenger aircraft and the Olympics was held in Seoul, South Korea.

This all seems a long-time ago, pre-internet that two families have held sway running the most powerful, by many metrics, nation on the planet. The US probably deserves a fundamental change and maybe more of the same is not the way to go. However, as one wag put it, "Democracy is the political system by which the people get the Government they deserve" - rather than need.

Gordon Brown in India: Palmerston would have approved

2008-01-21T19:28:00.000Z

Gordon Brown's visit to india is, regardless of Party affiliation, a good piece of classic British foreign policy - if only these glimpses of far-sightedness were more regular from the New Labour administration.

British calls for Indian representation as a permanent member of the UN Security Council is no bad thing. firstly, China is the only Asian regional power currently represented (and Sino-British relations are filled with less happier events such as the Hong Kong lease and the Opium Wars of the mid-nineteenth century). Second, it is politically a single-party state.

India offers Britain the chance to develop a more relevant "special relationship" for the 21st century - even if the 21st is not the "Asian century" beloved of pundits, it will be important to be present and have a few favours banked - Why not do so with the largest, English speaking democracy in the World which also has a beuraucracy based on the British civil service - Sir Humphrey, Clive of India and Palmerston will no doubt be smiling today - "well done, Prime Minister"

As a lover of Indian versus Chinese cuisine I see this as a doubly astute move.

The 'R' word

2008-01-18T17:51:00.000Z

There is an old, oft quotes phrase in economic circles, 'when America sneezes the world catches a cold'. This author having woken up with a poor head as a result of a cold and flu bug making the rounds found this particularly relevant when perusing the financial pages.

Like national security, aside from tangible indicators such as soldiers, ships and aircraft much of whether a nation feels secure or not is down to state of mind. The Swiss worry little, Americans rather more - despite the disparity in spending and scale of military effort. The economy is likewise afflicted, and reading the financial press the R word - recession is, at a cursory glance, occupying about one article in two.

Three articles which particularly drew my attention in the US edition of the Financial Times were that California and Florida are in recession as a result of the sub-prime mortgage credit debacle, Airbus forecasts a 50% drop in sales (less travel for business and tourism) and an analysis of which stock exchanges are formally in a bear market phase, and which are teetering near the edge.

All in all, unpleasant reading - though unexpected when put in the context of a bull run from the early 1990s with only a blip related to the 9/11 tragedy in New York and dot.com bubble bursting. As friends say, in a Presidential election year the US economy goes onto hold.

I feel that this coupled with credit woes suggest a recession running into Q1/2 2009. Hardly the most encouraging economist forecast to start the year with. That said on hedge fund made billions of dollars during the sub-prime crisis, so where there is chaos, there is profit...

The Michigan Primary and lessons for the next British election thus far...

2008-01-16T13:24:00.000Z

The Michigan primary last night was won by Mitt Romney (Republican) by a comfortable margin over his nearest rival, Senator John McCain who won in New Hampshire. The primary system this election, with 21 states voting on February 5th makes strategy quite fascinating. Given the scale of the country it is impossible to be everywhere, so candidates have to focus their efforts (and rely on TV ads to make up the rest - leading to a hideously expensive, largely remote campaign bubble the candidates have to operate in).

Rudy Gulliani (R) for example has focused on Miami, Clinton (D) and Obama (D) on New York and its surround versus the Afro-American and youth votes. Also there are a number of party officials who would be important in the event of a dead heat between candidates going into the Party conferences in the summer where the candidate would be selected. Interesting dynamics.

For the next British election, I have several lessons, themes and predictions gleaned thus far from the US process;

1. Economy, health care reform and immigration far outweigh security as dominant campaign themes. Closure of the Midlands car plant for rover has echoes in the Michigan campaign of the past week for example. Whilst the US debate is more on payment, the UK will likely focus on performance versus taxes (a word which only Gulliani is pushing at present in the US).

2. The Democrat use of the word 'change' needs to combine with a classic political campaign to unseat Labour. The amount of time in office will begin to weigh against Labour, helped only by the jettisoning of Tony Blair - Labour will seek to remind the electorate he is gone, the opposition will seek to keep his name alive (and thus Iraq etc.). George W Bush is in the intriguing position of being completely unwanted by Republican candidates, plus Dick Cheney, the Vice President has literally disappeared prompting the Washington Post to run a column entitled "where's the Veep ?" consolidating sightings of him.

3. Iraq is nowhere to be found in this election - New Hampshire saw the bulk of candidates commit to getting out, and then that was it. Dealt with in the initial rounds.

Tale of two cities: Richardson & Gulliani

2008-01-12T22:12:00.000Z

US news coverage yesterday was concerned with the retirement of Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico from the race for the Democrat nomination for the 2008 election. Richardson came fourth amongst Democrat contenders in both Ohio and New Hampshire prompting his resignation.

Watching Richardson in the final televised New Hampshire (NH) debates yielded some clues as to whether or not his mind was already made up as to his intentions should he fail. It was noticeable that he kept swaying from side to side in his chair, his answers demonstrated his frustration as he tried to move the question away from a glib answer about the need for change to the complex issues underpinning the question posed to him. Lastly, you could hear a tap, tap, tap noise when he was addressing the interviewer which must have been his hand tapping on the table to make his point - a clear sign of frustration. One answer saw Richardson talking about his experience, both in the Clinton Cabinet and negotiating with north Korea. frustration that the electorate at this stage are concerned more with style than substance.

Meanwhile, fourth of six for the Republicans was former New York mayor, Rudy Gulliani who was famous for his response to the challenge of the 9/11 attacks and destruction of the World Trade Center. A Brit I was talking to the other night who was visiting New York expressed surprise at Gulliani's poor showing. Akin to American surprise at British attitudes towards Tony Blair, Gulliani has suffered the drip, drip, drip of family and marital strife, questions about the activities of his consulting operation and associates and most importantly the perceived lack of response to the New Orleans disaster in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.

The 2008 US election process continues to provide interest.

US Election 2008: Smelling the coffee the morning after the New Hampshire primary debates

2008-01-09T15:13:00.001Z

Well, Senators Clinton and McCain beat Obama and Romney last night in an exciting vote for the Democrat and Republican parties respectively. The votes on the Democrat side were close until around 1030pm EST when Associated Press called New Hampshire (NH) as a Clinton win. CNN prevaricated, due to returns not being filed by a number of college towns (seen as Pro-Obama territory) until around 1115. Shortly after this Obama made a televised address conceding the state.

The US media were caught out, seeing NH as providing further pain for Hilary Clinton and predicting a double digit lead for Obama. Several factors may well have mitigated this error. Firstly, the weather was exceptionally mild (mid 60's F) boosting participation at the polls. Second, the Obama campaign has captured the imaginations of many of those polled, but not translated into actual votes in the polling booths.

Analysing the candidates themselves, The Clintons ran a traditional campaign, using the Unions, elderly votes etc. whereas Obama continued a higher risk strategy of appealing to floating voters and the young - which helped tremendously in Ohio, but not here. For the Republicans, McCain won NH previously and obviously had the right approach. Former New York mayor, Rudi Gulliani came in fourth with 9% of the vote and whilst some pundits regard him as having a strong chance later in the campaign, right now he seems an exceptionally problematic candidate - with numerous worries about family and business connections.

Looking forward, next week sees the Michigan primary (Republican stomping ground), South Carolina (50% of voters are of African-American origin posing a big test for Clinton and Obama though Edwards has won here before - big risk of the anti-Clinton vote being fractured to her benefit), then super Tuesday, February 5th, where 21 states vote - one for your diaries.

You Dirty Rat ! Observations in New York

2008-01-07T18:23:00.000Z

Whilst walking the streets of New York I have noticed regularly a 30 foot high inflatable rat outside the odd building or hotel. On closer examination it becomes apparent that there are a group of union members engaged in protest regarding an employer or contractor who has broken the rules, aided by a 30 foot inflatable rat.

Sightings of the rat pose the question for me as to whether each Union has its own rat ? or is the rat on loan from someone who has warehouse filled with them. Given it is the only one I have seen anywhere on my travels this could be exceptionally valuable. Of course, the pivotal question is does the rat help the Union achieved their desired settlement or is it just a lot of compressed air ?

US Election 2008: Observations of the New Hampshire primary debates

2008-01-07T17:32:00.001Z

Last night saw the last broadcast of Republican and Democrat debates prior to the New Hampshire primary tomorrow. Democrat candidates were put on the spot with regard to US prepardness for attack by terrorists without involving or informing the state in which they were operating. The candidates responses were across the board in favour of unilateral action leading to the commentator jibing that they were clearly in favour of the "Bush Doctrine".

In terms of political manoeuvring by the four Democrat candidates, New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson is clearly in last place, struggling to cover the range of issues with confidence. Obama and Edwards are tacitly supportive of one another - painting Hilary Clinton as representing the "status quo". A short spat between Clinton and Obama, regarding Obama's changing opinions, saw Hilary come off worse. I suspect that Hilary needs to tone down the testosterone and drop insider language which the bulk of the electorate do not understand (such as using the term 'Predator RPV's' in a discussion of how to handle Afghanistan).

The Republican debate was more wide open with six candidates vying for the attention of the New Hampshire constituency. Of the six the two most cogent were arguably Senator McCain and Mitt Romney. However, McCain's focus on National Security feels at the intuitive level as being out of touch with voter concerns - health care, economy and immigration being at the top of the list. Whilst former New York Mayor Gulliani had moments of inspration, overall he seemed somewhat lackluster.

Whilst it is a long road to the final nominations this author suspects, based on current data, the 'big 4' vying for Republican and Democrat nominations will be McCain versus Romney for the Republicans and Obama versus Edwards for the Democrats. Sticking my neck out further, based on what I have observed so far, a Romney versus Edwards election with Romney prevailing is not the popular view in the big cities, but could play well at the grass-roots bulk of American voters.

Bravehearted budget from Mr. Brown

2007-03-22T17:00:00.000Z

Yesterday afternoon the Chancellor Gordon Brown outlined his 11th successive budget in Parliament.

Delving into the details it is noteworthy to think about the planned public sector expenditure – given that the public sector activity accounts for nearly half of UK economic activity.

Looking beyond the usual suspects of health and education, where the Government continue to pour our tax pounds in without having built in safeguards to ensure effective spending to achieve the desired effect, of particular interest are defence and transport – this is clearly unsustainable.

The annex in the budget outlines spending by ministry in terms of resources (day-to-day spend on salaries, operations etc.) and capital (investment in new equipment and infrastructure).

In both the defence and transport cases, although investment (or capital budgets) will increase a little, the resource budget is set to fall in the next year.

The effect for those in the North East who use the roads is that they may fail to be maintained as effectively – with new schemes favoured over support to existing ones.

For families serving in the armed services from the region, there will be investment in new ships aircraft and tanks, but the training, welfare, accommodation and salaries of service personnel and their families will take a firm second place.

Given today’s tax rises as the Chancellor’s first act as Prime Minister in waiting I would like to be first to forecast his successor’s budget to be the first to reign in an unsustainable public sector spending spree in 2008.

Making an astute decision: renewing the British deterrent

2006-12-15T08:21:00.001Z

I read about the Populous survey of gender and voter attitudes to Britain's nuclear deterrent renewal in the December 13th editon of The Times newspaper.

The PM's statement seems to suggest it's a done deal, and offers the bone to parliament of arguing over buying three or four deterrent submarines to carry the future weapons.

However, from the point of view of deterrence theory and the industrial and obvious financial implications there must be a better way of tackling the challenge.

After all, for the UK the submarine deterrent is the closest national prestige engineering challenge to the space programme of the USA. The implications for the industrial supply chain of abandoning it woule be deleterious to our engineering skills base as a whole.

Returning to the key issues of purpose and capability a few observations:

Why not have nuclear armed cruise missiles which can be fired from any submarine. Although slower and shorter in range than missiles, most of the world's cities are close to water.

Industrial implication: The same class of submarine could be built in greater numbers - some carrying nuclear weapons and some not. This would keep prospective adversaries guessing (surely a good thing in deterrence thinking), and would enable a longer production run of submarines which could do other useful things most of the time.

A longer production run offers industrial certainty and permits investment to build skills and reduce product costs; Completing the virtuous circle for the military whole life costs fall as economies of scale increase.

Lastly, cold war thinking at its frostiness favoured a strategic 'triad' of different delivery systems for nuclear weapons, which would cause a potential rival to think carefully knowing it would be impossible to prevent nuclear retaliation. A British nuclear cruise missile could be carried by aircrcaft - perhaps a Nimrod MRA2, giving strategic flexibility should international relations take a turn for the worse at some unforseen point in time:

I suppose the difficulty for the Labour party is to drop Trident (a source of angst in the 1980s) in favour of Cruise (which was a source of angst in the 1980s).

Mobile post office services: a loss of nerve ?

2006-12-15T08:20:00.001Z

Today's Daily Telegraph takes as it front page headline concern with the closure of village post offices and replacement with mobile services.

The article under the caption "Stop. Jim" goes on to say that the Secretary of State, Alistair Darling will likely water down proposals.

However, to think a little more carefully this does not make sense. Whilst there may be a minority of post offices which are [popular but economically unprofitable there is probably a tranche which are. Others will liekly to have been rendered ineffective due to changing demographics and consumer needs.

The idea of mobile post offices has massive merit akin to putting the village bobby in a car. I am currently engaged in a project located in West Cumbria. There is at least one village with no pub, corner shop or post office. In this situation and others I have seen first hand whilst acting as an adviser to the Welsh Development Agency some five years ago a mobile service would make a major difference.

Sadly the Government has panicked and we get a partial cut in service without the innovation which people in remote rural communities would value.

The 2006/07 pre-budget statement

2006-12-09T19:17:00.000Z

Thursday December 7th, 2006

Reading the reports in today's edition of the Times dissecting the Chancellor, Gordon Brown's pre-budget statement to thé House. Two/three issues struck me - the first of which concerns the next round of 'Gershon' efficiency savings due to start in April 2007 "Whitehall targetted for £26 billion more cuts".

Whilst efficiency savings are most definitely desirable simply saving "I want 5% per year" is not entirely helpful, though undoubtedly a good start.

However, under Gershon numbers of civil sérvants have been relocated to areas, which in many cases are dependent on the bureaucracy for employment - take for example the Inland Revenue centre in Scotland. Without applying some 'joined-up' government the consequence is to allow Sir Humprhey to hold future generations of politicians to ransom knowing that the bureaucracy cannot be pruned as there is simply no economic alternative available.

Surely a better approach would have been to locate a series of civil service hubs in areas which could facilitate better access for civil servants made redundant as part of the pruning of government to have the opportunity to enter the labour market, pay taxes and contribute to the economy ?

The Chancellor's approach to tax relief for new zero-carbon homes is a good headline grabber ("stamp duty relief to underline need for zero-carbon houses" - but what of tax incentives for existing homeowners to become more efficient ? Given that every weekend newspaper property section is filled with details of house price rises by the month due to the lack of new housing stock this seems to have been a policy aimed for banner headlines and nice graphics a'la Times rather than a meaningful effort to engage with the issues - and let's not get started on the doubling of fuel duties on airline passengers. This could be construed as a tax on one of the pleasures accorded to hard working, tax payers in the UK. Seems an old fashioned for the Fabians to get their kicks at the expense of society.