It Came From Within

While all the Hacks are analysing the strength of David Cameron’s new revitalised Tories, they miss one big point.

Sure, DC and chums are doing very well right now, and that will no doubt continue. And like the Hacks, I am sure that the Conservatives, if they carry on as they are, going to be the driving force behind Gordon Browns downfall. But there’s more to the demise of GB’s power. And that lies in the Labour Party itself.

So many of Blair’s allies are turned off by Brown. He just doesn’t have the same special touch. And while Blair had the ability to reach out and touch those disillusioned Tory voters, Brown only seems to appeal to the old-school Labour faithful.

Remember Charles Clarke? Gordon’s tried to bring him back to the fold with no avail. The trouble is, GB wants to give these people jobs to appease them, but not actually give them any power. Clarke was offered the role of personal envoy for deportations. Sounded great. Clarke would have a solid mandate to actually do some good. However, upon looking into the small print, it appeared that Grumpy Gordon didn’t want to give Clarke any specifics about the jobs responsibilities and its powers. Clarke pushed the issue to hard, (i.e. he asked too many of the right questions), and the offer disappeared.

And the peers? Don’t go there. The former ambassador to Washington, Lord Renwick, has resigned the government whip. His reasons have been spelled out clearly by one of his friends: “He {Renwick} was comfortable with Tony Blair, but he doesn’t like Gordon Brown”. You don’t get much clearer than that do you? And many others have done the same. A picture is being painted here.

Gordon Brown wanted to push his competence on the economy as the main thing to win him an election. However, those who work in the city and get to hear Gordon Brown’s musings, are seeing just how bad he is on this subject too. They are fleeing in droves. The top cheese of the CBI has been very vocal on this. Gordon Brown just doesn’t get economics. That is a huge behemoth of a damning indictment.

Even the civil servants are frustrated by his lack of ability to delegate. He wants to be in control of everything, which when you think of the sheer scale of government, means that he is in control of nothing. It’s even harder for him to control, because of the awful way he has overcomplicated things. Things under this government have not really gotten that much better. They’ve just gotten more complicated, so it’s hard to see the mistakes made. In a period of public desire for transparency, Gordon Brown is initiating all the smoke-and-mirrors acts he can.

So while the Tories will be at the forefront of bringing this government down, don't forget, as the Hacks seem to, that Gordon will do a lot of the work for them. Remember where you heard it first!

Where Was That Comeback, Gordy?

You’ve got to feel sorry for the Hacks sometimes. All around Fleet Street, and across the vast regions of the broadcast media, they were all prepared for one exciting thing that they felt was all but guaranteed; Gordon Brown’s comeback.

Apparently, it’s already happened. What, you missed it too? So did the Hacks. And they’re not happy. They wanted more than that.

I’m not entirely sure what the big ideas were? I don’t think it was the mandatory organ-donation stuff. Nah. Could it be the compulsory cookery classes that Ed Balls has been waffling about? Hmm. You know, I think it might have been all of these ‘minor’ points.

The trouble is, Gordon Brown is currently rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic. The economy is in crisis, and his cabinet are talking about Delia Smith.

During yesterdays Prime Ministers Questions, Gordon continued his ‘I will just shout at David Cameron and not answer any questions’ strategy. When Ken Clark (one of the most intelligent MPs in Westminster, as well as one of the most articulate, and well-liked in all parties), mentioned how poor old Mr. Darling had inherited such a mess from Gordon Brown, the Great Leader responded with force. He told Ken what a mess he had left the economy in, and insinuated that he, the great Gordon Brown, was the one who had to bring stability and growth back to the economy.

Every single Tory MP in the house roared with laughter. So did most of the Lib Dems. The majority of Labour MPs shrunk into their seats. The tide is turning.

When New Labour came to power, it had such a strong majority, that they could have said anything. And they did. Gordon Brown even publicly declared the ‘unusually healthy state’ of the economy and government accounts that he inherited. Ken Clarke had done a sterling job. In fact, the entire supply-side economic system implemented over the course of the last Tory government worked.

New Labour have boosted taxes and made some more money for the government to invest, but the Tories cut taxes, stimulated economic growth and were overwhelmed by the money that came in. Through tax increases, Labour’s first ten years in power have doubled investment in the NHS. Through tax cuts and the economic growth that brought, the Conservatives tripled investment in their first ten years. And they invested it properly too.

There were problems, and with every boom comes a bust, (Black Wednesday), as Tony Blair kept saying. But what he (and Gordon Brown), fail to realise, is that if the boom is good enough, we can weather the bust. There were troubles with Black Wednesday, sure. Many people lost their homes, etc. But the economy was in such strong, rude health, that we survived. And under John Major and Ken Clark, we came out with a steady, prudent, strong economic growth.

It was right to continue this for several years, as Gordon Brown did. That’s why he was so honest about it. He should, of course, have implemented a supply-side strategy in around 2000-ish, which would have saved us from trouble now. But he didn’t.

The irony that Labour campaigned (and have done for years) on a basis that the Tories were not to be trusted on the economy, while being so open about what good health the government bank balance they inherited was in, seemed to escape the Hacks, politicians, and the public at large.

Time however, heals all wounds. And the public are beginning to remember what John Major meant when he talked about the ‘feel good factor’. They also now recognise the ‘feel bad factor’ we currently have.

Gordon Brown presided over an inefficient government spending spree. All the money that the Tories had saved up, was wasted, with no value for the people in return. The slight global economic downturn that the healthy governments around the world will step over unscathed, is going to hurt us badly. And that is entirely current Prime Ministers fault. The PM, who when he was chancellor, inherited a ‘dream’ economic situation. It was his to screw up. And screw up he did.

That’s why Gordon Brown was laughed at and PMQs. And that signals the end of his great comeback. It lasted minutes.

Why Obama Works

Well, there’s finally a lull over here in the UK with regards to the race to the US Presidency, so I finally have a moment to step back from the excitement and see how things look.

The UK Hacks are currently in a divisive mood with regard to the US Primaries. Mostly, the general impression they’re out to give, is that it’s in the bag or whoever the Democrats vote for, and the Republicans have no chance. Furthermore, there is no real difference between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

Neither of these is exactly right. The first may be slightly off, circumstances pending, and the second is so far from accurate that it’s almost funny. But if you don’t look and really listen to what the two Democratic frontrunners are saying, it’s an easy mistake to make.

I won’t deal with the first point yet, because it relates to the second.

So secondly(!), Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Two identical peas in different packaging? Not quite.

I have to say, I actually supported the war in Iraq, and still do. However, I also agree with both Clinton and Obama. How on earth does any of that make sense? Well, when the case for war was made, I felt that removing a genocide-happy dictator from Iraq was a good thing. The evidence for WMDs seemed sound, (and was despite both the hyperbole from our governments and the antiwar movement, but that’s another story for another time), and that was good enough for me.

France, Russia and China all had veto powers and were using them at the UN. The fact that all three were all making money out of their oil dealings with Saddam didn’t seem to faze either the media or the anti-war movement that was building at the time. It still doesn’t seem to faze them now. So France, Russia and China’s votes were bought and paid for by Saddam. They didn’t want the US to go in and soil that little racket. So the US and the UK had to go ahead, regardless of the UNs support.

Now when I said I supported that, I actually supported it with a qualifier: that is, that the strategy for dealing with the aftermath was in place and judged to be effective. Despite the ease that we feel obliged to totally blame Bush/Blair for this, they can’t really be held totally accountable (I wonder how many of you I have lost now!). There was a chap that Rumsfield appointed to deal with the aftermath on the US side. It’s been well documented that this individual was a moron. He didn’t do his job right, if at all. In the UK, the department for dealing with financial aid, etc. was run by Claire Short, well know left-wing antiwar MP. It’s been said by a number of independent civil servants in the department at the time, that Claire Short’s group was essentially on strike during the build-up for war, because of their views. So both those individuals deserve some blame.

If most of us knew about this before the fact (and only a handful did), then there would have been a demand to get this aspect of the war right before the invasion.

So how on earth does this link continued supporters of the war like me, with initial supporters like Clinton, and ‘no-voters’ like Obama?

When I first predicted Clinton for the Whitehouse in 2002/2003, I said “she out-flanked Bush on the right”. By this, I meant she said “I support removing Saddam from power, only as long as the whole thing has been thought through properly.” Judging his remarks on the war (pre-electioneering), Obama, it seems, would have supported the war if he was more comfortable about everything being planned properly. The only difference is, unlike me and Hillary, he didn’t trust George W Bush’s administration on this issue. He was only right to do so after the fact, as the evidence at the time suggests that Clinton was right to put in that “as long as” qualifier. But Obama is also not afraid to take unilateral action where necessary.

So this seems to suggest that there’s no difference on certain issues. But the Hacks think therefore, it’s about who’s ‘fluff’ you believe. Whether or not you fell for Clinton’s tears, or get swept up in Obama’s performances. Again, I think this is quite wrong. And this is where the fundamental differences come in.

The tangible policy differences are not that different in the grand sense of the word, with most of the frontrunners on both sides. That’s why I feel very confident in a Clinton, Obama, Guliani, or McCain presidency. However, with the Democrat race, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are fighting in two different directions.

I feel that Hillary is actually quite centrist. And she’d probably be so in office. But it has been decided, it seems, that her campaign will be on the left of the party. Barack has gone to the small-l libertarian wing. That is the best strategy.

Clinton’s vision is for big government changes. Enforced movements to the left. Obama wants some of the same changes, but wants to it happen voluntarily, in the free market. By all means, put incentives out there, but rely on the spirit and talent of America. A brilliant message. David Cameron, take some notes. You believe this too, and you have the talent to say it like this too.

Also I have to say, one of the reasons I like Obama (as do many small-l libertarians), is that despite him getting some issues wrong, he seems to me a bit like a Kinglsey Amis-type. Amis went from a far-left communist to a “fairly noisy Tory”, (to quote his son, the talented writer Martin Amis). He saw more and more the wrongs of his part and beliefs, and moved slowly over to a system that felt right. (Right as in correct!) I believe Obama has made this slow move to freedom. He’s nearly there. He’s nearly one of us! And his message on bi-partisanship means this will continue.

Obama believes in the free-market, in capitalism. Expanding the freedom to choose, while encouraging (through incentives) businesses and people to solve problems of the common good. “And can we make the right choices? Well by and large we have, and we will continue to do so, because we’re Americans, and making the choices that favour freedom is what we do best.” That’s the gist of it, and that’s what makes him so appealing, regardless of the political divide. Hillary Clinton’s strategy is too polarising.

He’s a few steps away from a Reagan-character in that regard. The free market as a path to social justice and a source for good we can all believe in, rather than an obstacle against it. He certainly has the inspirational buzz and pro-American economic and social liberalism about him that Ronnie had.

And so to finally come to the first point (told you we’d get there); at a time when the Bush administration have been in the big-government-camp of the left, he could gain not just inspired democrats and independents, but the disillusioned Reagan-Republicans too.

While so many (like me) are happy with whoever gets in out of the main group, he certainly fills me with the most inspiration of that golden 80s time. Good luck to him, I say.

The REAL Punch & Judy Politician...

In between all the excitement of the New Hampshire Primaries, I took a glance at domestic issues and watched Prime Ministers Questions. The first one of the year. Hearing the Hacks summarising today’s PMQs, has been a rather odd experience. Apparently many of them are trying to say it was a good day for Gordon Brown, and not so good for David Cameron. The ‘have your say’ section of the BBC’s The Daily Politics show, seems to suggest the public disagreed with the Hacks.

The public I feel, are spot on.

DC asked Gordon Brown a simple question; does he personally believe in ID cards? Yes or no? Gordon Brown refused to answer and instead asked Cameron if he agreed with ID cards for immigrants. If I remember rightly, the point of Prime Ministers Questions is for the MPs to ask the Prime Minister questions, hence the title of Westminster’s lively Wednesday afternoon tradition.

However, despite the lack of objection that should have come from the Speaker (an old Labour boy, who’s supposed to be impartial), DC was happy to answer. Yes, he was in favour of biometric scans, etc. as most people in Britain were. Now was Gordon going to answer the question?

Gordon Brown didn’t. In fact, for a second I thought I was watching an Alan Ayckbourn farce. He put Cameron down for not answering his question! What?! So our Prime Minister, upon refusing to answer whether he is or isn’t personally in favour of ID cards, asked David Cameron a second time: “are you in favour of ID cards for immigrants?”

The entire Tory Party looked on in utter astonishment. Some of the Labour backbenchers shrunk in their seats. A slightly bemused David Cameron, reminded the PM that he’d just answered that question. He then asked Gordon Brown to answer his question, (otherwise, why were they bothering to be there for?), “Does the PM support ID cards in principle?”

Not only did he not get a reply, but Prime Minister Brown actually rebuked DC for not answering the question again! The leader of the opposition actually had to answer the question three times – and even then The Great Sulk accused him of dodging the question; when DC decided that he wasn’t going to get an answer, he moved onto a different topic (economy) and Gordon dodged that one by saying “look how quickly he had to move from the topic of ID cards” – as if David Cameron lost the argument!

Truly extraordinary. The Hacks felt that DC was being too aggressive. But when he’s had a weaker PMQs, they say he’s being too soft and not enough policy. I’ve noticed that recently, in the eyes of the Hacks, David Cameron is damned if he does, damned if he doesn’t. I totally understand their impulse. They want to make a contest out of it, and Cameron’s trouncing of Brown on both image and policy is hurting that game plan.

Gordon Brown has been getting it as wrong as one could possibly get recently. He’s actually been the aggressor in the PMQ arena. He refuses to answer questions, instead usually resorting to booming out a “this is the man who was responsible for X, Y and Z during the 18 years of Tory government, etc.”

And my personal favourite, when DC asks Gordon Brown a straight question, with a yes – or no answer, the PM responds with a “This is the man who wanted an end of Punch & Judy politics”, like it was an aggressive question. DC’s frustration at not getting a straight answer isn’t the same as “Punch & Judy politics”. It’s quite the opposite. And it’s Gordon Brown, the grumpy Prime Minister with his unelected and vague mandate, whose performances have been more like that particular brand of seaside promenade acts.

The Hacks might be forgetting it, but let’s try and make sure the rest of us don’t fall into that trap.

The National Healthcare Plan That Would Work – But Wouldn’t Win

The Hacks have been keenly observing the current debates during the US Primaries about Healthcare (amongst everything else). Frequently in the British press, the ‘awfulness’ of the US Healthcare model is mentioned, without any view from the other side.

So how bad is it in comparison to our beloved NHS? Michael Moore wants to tell us that the private model in America is nothing short of horrific in comparison to our socialised system. But believing Michael Moore on a topic like this, is like believing in the truth of a documentary called “Why The Nazis Weren’t So Bad” by a certain Mr. A. Hitler.

First of all, I’d like to point out that the US does have a health crisis. But that is not to do with its health care. It’s the health insurance that’s the problem over there. Not everybody can afford it, plain and simple.

Because of this, the American healthcare system is ranked at a rather embarrassing (and unfair) No.37, according to the World Health Organisation. Interestingly enough, to anyone who has watched Micheal Moore’s Sicko, the WHO also list Cuba at 39^th. Unlike the US, Cuba is ranked at 39^th because its actual healthcare is awful, rather than any issues with insurance, and that’s based on the figures the dictatorship releases. Expect the real figures to be much worse.

The average American who pays $2,700 for their health insurance, receives the sort of cover than Moore doesn’t want us to know about, i.e. fully comprehensive, with no means-testing on what you’d be covered for. And no requisite for pervious health issues. Basically, without paying crazy money, $2,700 single-person insurance is pretty much as good as you’d want. You’d be seen within 24-hours by a specialist. From diagnosis to initiation of treatment is approximately 10 days. However, $2,700 is what the average American family spend – on the whole family, rather than each person. But remember that figure, it’ll become important in a few paragraphs.

You see, if you can afford it, healthcare in America is truly the best in the world. They are also the most pioneering. Most of the medical advances in the world are made in the US. With a private system, comes more competition, which leads to better treatment, both now and in the future.

However, most people, (including the politicians in the US), feel that the system doesn’t quite work as it should. They feel, as do I, that everybody who is a citizen should be treated for whatever their medical problem could be, no questions asked. But socialised medicine is not the way.

Remember the $2,700 figure from above? What is that in sterling? About £1,350. Let’s say £1,400 to round things up – my argument still holds even with that increase. For the same level of private health insurance in the UK, you’d have to pay BUBA or the like about £3,000. Again, most families with private insurance pay that for insuring the whole family, so for one person, that’d be fantastically comprehensive insurance. It’s more expensive in this country because there’s less competition in the private sector to bring prices down.

Currently, there has been a bout of anger in the US after one private firm who promised one of their plans takes you “from diagnosis to initiation of treatment in 15 days”. They have now, with very little warning, increased that to “diagnosis to initiation of treatment in 18 days”. Their customers went mad. The insurance firm had to invest to bring it back to 15 days, just to keep the peace (and its clients). Over here in the UK, Gordon Brown has laid out ambitious plans for “diagnosis to initiation of treatment in 18 weeks.” So let there be no doubt, private is better, regardless of your particular ideology.

We currently pour about just over £104 billion a year into the NHS, rounded down, (but my argument will still hold up even though rounding down isn’t in my favour), that works out at about £1,735 per person. Per man, woman and child. Every year.

Therefore my plan that would work but wouldn’t win, is to scrap the NHS, and use that money to fund an NHI – National Health Insurance. If you deduct about £100 per person’s allocation to fund the emergency service/number side, the point-of-service paramedics, etc. (though they could be privately funded too), that side of healthcare would receive unprecedented funding. But that would leave you with about £1,635, per person, per year.

Right now in the UK, £1,635 would buy fairly adequate private health insurance. But that’s in a UK with very little private insurance competition. If private is all there is, then the prices would fall to American standards very quickly. Especially if the government give tax-break incentives to some of the health insurance multinationals (many based in the US) to come here and pitch their product.

I know what you’re thinking; not everyone makes enough (or any) money to receive £1,635 back to buy their own health insurance. You’d be right, and I’d go further than that; many (as in the US) would spend their money on other things instead, and go without health coverage. In America, it is often said that 40 million Americans don’t have health insurance. If we look at this number, 20 million of them can afford it, but choose not to have it. This might be worrying, but actually most Americans are only without it for a maximum of 4 months, so usually this 20 million is to cover those who are in-between jobs, etc. Of the other 20 million, 13 million are covered by medicare or medicade, the two charity-run and government-subsidised healthcare services to those who cannot afford their own. The other 7 million can’t afford private insurance and don’t qualify for healthcare. These are the ones who need help. However, when you consider that this is 7 million out of 280 million, it’s not as “awful” as our Hacks in the news frequently make out.

My plan is not to give the public back the £1,635. It’s to have every regional government (say, each parliamentary constituency), BUY private health insurance for every citizen in its region, with that £1,635. If they can get a better price, then all the better. Because the MP (or whatever) would have to choose which private insurance firm to use, we can hold them accountable. And the big private health insurance firms would lick their lips at the prospect of all those customers. The economies of scale savings when a large business buys health insurance for all its employees is impressive. The savings for a whole constituency (and therefore the quality increase that can be bought for the money) would be staggering. And we re-evaluate what we’ve bought every year or two.

This would be a system that exploits the quality and low-cost of competition, while still providing healthcare to every citizen, regardless of their ability to pay. The best of both worlds.

I titled this essay “The National Healthcare Plan That Would Work – But Wouldn’t Win”. This is because while I have no doubt this system would work, and make us the envy of the world in a way we’ve never before been, it couldn’t win an election. Most of the British public are so dogmatically in favour of our National Health System, that they would never allow the politicians to dismantle the service for a series of private ones, no matter how better they would be.

Or at least for now. Both Labour and the Tories have produced public/private initiatives which have improved things, and both look set to increase this (the conservatives more, but that’s to be expect). So maybe the idea is slow but steady.

Until then, stay healthy.

Call-Me-Dave's Welfare War

The Tories are on the brink of announcing new welfare reform. It will be recorded by the Hacks as another momentum-gathering move by Cameron and left merely at that. But this reform is something much more important. Reform is a word frequently used and abused by Gordon Brown. However, reform in the true sense of the word (the sense I feel DC wants us to embrace) would terrify Gordon and his old-school socialist cronies.

Of course, Cuddly Cameron can’t call it a Welfare War as I have in the title. But his reforms will be strong, and they can take down the stagnated luddite-based attitude of the Labour government with a wrecking ball. Personally, I want to help him swing it.

Welfare is deeply important, when used correctly. As in every democracy, we have a duty to help those who cannot help themselves. But when so many people on welfare could help themselves, and instead are allowed not to, the whole processes languishes, and the people who really need our help, are all too often left wanting. If Cameron can gage this correctly, the tone of his message will be that we must reform welfare not just to give the scroungers a well-deserved kick up the backside, and not just to save honest hardworking types some money that could go into other more important public-funded areas. He should say that we must reform to help those who really need help.

Welfare increased and dished out to as many people as possible, through grants, credits, etc. (as is the current way), makes more of us servants of the government. So many of us are eligible for tax credits, working families’ credits, etc. All the red tape and cost involved makes me wonder why can’t we just keep the money that is being ‘given back to us’ in the first place? One of the tricks of changing things this way, means that less of us will actually bother finding out what we are entitled to. Thus, extra money left for the government to waste.

But there’s something more important here. Welfare excess isn’t just bad because it costs too much, or because it leaves people in the servitude of the government. It’s bad because it’s fundamentally at odds with the way that human beings are able to live happy lives. Being able to stand up on your own two feet and earn money that supports yourself and your family, makes you a happier person. And a more fulfilled person. You are the master of your own destiny, and nothing feels more exciting than that.

One of the key elements of the Tory plan is to give incentives to the private sector (which Gordon Brown will hate), that makes it more beneficial for businesses to employ more people. This could get a significant number of the 3.1 million currently listed as “long-term unemployed” in this country back into work. Happier, more productive, better citizens, and it’ll save the rest of us a great deal of money. Perfect.

Single parents frequently have a very hard time of things. The money they make working part-time means they lose all their benefits, and the actual amount of benefits are way too low to support their kids. They end up suffering from a lack of social interaction by their peers and the pressure on their heads can be modestly described as far too taxing. DC and his crew want to give huge incentives for single parents, insisting that they get back to work by the time that their youngest child is in primary school. Does that sound harsh? Well, if a single parent were to work in an unskilled job (i.e. a job where training was provided, like an office administrator or something), based on the average wages that are given for these sort of things, if they worked 4 hours a day, 4 days a week, they’d earn more than sitting at home on welfare.

That means that they can work say, between 10am-2pm, while their kids are at school. They would still have plenty of time to shop, clean, etc. while the kids are at school, and they’d only have to work Monday-Thursday. And they’d be making friends and socialising with other workers, many of which will be in the same situation. As well as making more money that way, I feel most single parents would get an added benefit, one not measured in money times, but very, very valuable: pride. With the policy of making it more tempting to employ more people in private businesses, there’d be even more of these jobs available. And the best bit? It costs us very little. Actually, no; the best bit is that it would actually work.

Does David Cameron have what it takes to make the case for this reform, and all the other reforms Britain needs? With Gordon Brown and his cronies on the ropes, now is the best time. And to build up a momentum to that time in “a year and a half”, (to quote Ed Balls’ recent slip), when the Tories may well regain No. 10 again.

A government, with an elected mandate, totally committed to the betterment and liberty of the UK? Sounds like a plan to me...

What Does Iowa Mean?

I think every other blog has asked this question, or variations of it. So far the Hacks have been pushing the ‘definitiveness’ of the Iowa result. They are making it seem as much as possible, that Hilary Clinton, for example, is in trouble.

And it goes further for than that. Many agencies are giving the impression that this is practically a result: it’s going to be an Obama/Huckabee race to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. What nonsense.

The American press aren’t doing this of course. It’s the British agencies that I’m referring to. The US press know all-too-well that their reader/view/listenership are too knowledgeable of how caucus-politics work for the wool to be pulled over their eyes. Here in Blighty, we don’t really get what this is or what it means, so we can be lead up a more sensationalist garden path.

What does the result mean? Well, not a lot really. A number of Hacks have already described this as “devastating” to the Guliani campaign. It’s not even remotely. The truth is that Rudi didn’t even spend any time down in Iowa. He has a risky strategy for getting maximum support by missing out less significant states, and instead spending more time on important areas (so he can press more flesh for so-called Super Duper Tuesday, for example). A risky strategy yes, but one that could work. He’s far from worried today, no matter what the Hacks might be saying.

Hilary Clinton is a different beast, but one who also has no need to worry. In 2003, I wrote an article that many disagreed with, bluntly entitled “Forget 2004, 2008 is what matters”, or something like that. Certain Hacks thought my view was utterly wrong. I basically said that Hilary Clinton should not run in 2004. She should wait until 2008 when she has a much better chance.

I predicted that the Democrats would vote for a weak nobody candidate who couldn’t galvanise the party, and George W Bush would retain the presidency with a stronger majority than before. Most who apposed this view felt that the Democrats would usher in a strong Bush-antidote character, and win the 2004 election.

What actually happened is that the Democrats voted for a weak flip-flopping nobody (Whatshisname, the guy who kept telling us he won 3 purple hearts in a war he didn’t agree with, and that vague “I would have got the job done right” speech he made about Iraq), and George W Bush retained the White House. Go figure.

Actually, of most of the front-runners, I personally don’t mind who wins the required amount of Electoral College votes. As I mentioned before (and for reasons that I will go into in a moment), I’d be happy with a Clinton win as I predicted. I think that Obama is centrist enough that he could do well with a strong executive team. On the other side, Fred Thompson would be an acceptable choice for me (kinda like a bland, not too significant version of Ronald Regan; a man who I believe was the greatest President during the last 100 years at least). John McCain is okay by me I guess. I’m not as ecstatic about Huckabee, but I’m quite a strong believer in a separation between the church and state, and I’ve got a feeling he thinks that part of the constitution is overrated.

My personal favourite is Rudy Guliani. There had been some speculation that he’d run in 2012, so I didn’t figure him for this election. However, as a libertarian, I believe he’d lead from the centre, bring some of the divided elements of the US together, make incredible positive progress in the war on terrorism, and bring back that sense of classical liberalism, a supply-side economic boom, greater freedom and greater prosperity than we’ve had for some time. He has a problem though.

His problem is a slightly inverted one to Hilary Clintons. He is considered too liberal (i.e. in the socialist sense of the word, not in the classical or libertarian sense) by lots of the further-right Republicans. Now I think this is nonsense. He views on gun-control for example, are just about right to appeal to the widest audience; Leaving things at a state level of control, and keeping the 2^nd Amendment unimpeded (which seems to be working – all 47 states with right-to-carry laws continue to see an overall fall in gun-crime and contact crime. The worst place that crime and murder continues to flourish in the US is Washington D.C. where guns are pretty much banned to private citizens – a fact that Guliani mentioned himself), and his views on say, abortion, are just right for America. He basically believes that abortions should be allowed but there should be a strong emphasis on adoption, which in New York City led to less abortions and more adoptions.

There’s many more examples, which will probably be on another essay. But basically Rudi Guliani’s big problem is that he’s not right-wing enough for a lot of Republicans, so he has to try as best as he can to pander to them for now, in order to get the nomination. If the Republicans are smart, they’ll vote for him to be their candidate, or increase the chance of loosing the White House to the Democrats many fold.

If Rudi is elected as the Republican candidate, then he’s got a real shot as America at large will favour a centrist libertarian-style candidate.

Hilary Clinton has a different problem. Except it’s actually quite similar.

She has to pander to the left in her party right now, which may put America at large off her. But this was the lady who (rightly in my opinion), outflanked Bush on the right with regards to the Iraq war. She’s the one who said “Yes I support this war, but without a really big surge at the start and a very strong rebuilding plan, we’re heading for trouble.” If only more politicians had said that rather than “I support it”, or “I don’t”.

I think she’s quite centrist at heart, but can’t show that for now. Let’s hope that she manages to get through. If not, I think there’s a good few Democrat candidates who will lead from the centre, with balance and classical liberalism, (Obama the most obvious right now).

For me, whoever is sworn in on the Hill next year, one thing is for sure. Democracy will be the ultimate winner.

So what does Iowa mean? Nothing. Don’t believe the Hacks. All bets are still off. Exciting times are ahead.

Amid the Hacks - What & Why

There’s some pretty bizarre-named blogs around the world. I doubt ‘Amid The Hacks’ is the oddest, but I’m sure it’s certainly in the top 25% and as such, deserves some sort of explanation.

I’ve resisted the writing of a blog myself, purely out of snobbery; everyone’s doing one nowadays, aren’t they? How passé, I thought. But there’s been a niggling issue that’s been in the back of my mind for some time now, and I felt that it needed addressing. Whether a blog is the best place for it, is really up to you to decide.

Whenever I talk to people about anything in the news, (and I do mean anything), I’m fascinated by their perception of events. Most of it, of course, comes from our media. What you hear on the radio, magazines, TV, 24-hour newscasts, etc. A number of people are very interested when I tell them (having been a radio presenter and broadcaster for most of my working life), how the broadcast journalists, (or ‘Hacks’, as I refer to them with much affection), gather news. And most importantly, how the interpret it.

Now I’m not a Hack myself. I’m a radio presenter whose sole purpose is to entertain. Possibly a Hack of a different nature, I guess. But while my ratings continue to rise, and while the ad-revenue continues to come in, (it’s a commercial station), hopefully I’ll continue to keep paying my mortgage this way. Like the lady says, ‘nice work if you can get it’.

However, doing what I do means that I know a lot of Hacks. Many are my friends; many are on my Christmas card list. I have dated a number, (female Hacks tend to be very pretty - so they can get on TV - and very smart, with a great sense of humour). I work with many of them every week, (including the not so pretty male ones!), frequently six or seven days a week. I’m knee deep in Hacks.

Now with that in mind, I will now write something that my journalist friends will dislike and very much disagree with: Hacks don’t report the news. They interpret the news. I keep hearing a phrase around the office, “how do I make this news?” It would be far too easy to berate this method. But I won’t. How can I? Hacks need to ‘sell’ the news, just as I need to ‘sell’ the content of my show. Just as the ads we play need to ‘sell’ their products and services to listeners. Besides, nothing can ever be totally objective. For example, the choice of words we use when describing something, whether consciously or not, will always reveal a natural bias of opinion. But Hacks seem to always use language that gives off a sensationalist message, as well as their own bias.

So if it bleeds it leads. And it’ll always be somewhat subjective.

But before it gets to what I call the Hacks Filter, the news can frequently arrive in a less divisive state. I’m in a position as a regular bloke, (as appose to a Hack), to see that news first-hand. Or at the very least, translate it from ‘Hackspeak’ into something closer to truth. But what the heck is truth? Whatever is in the eye of the beholder, I guess. So by truth here, I mean a greater level of objectification, to the best of my ability.

But I issue a very important point. From there, it enters an AJ-Filter. I dare suggest that this will be a considerably different bias than the Hacks. But a bias none the less. However, my bias will be based on what the objective story appears to be really saying, and not on how I can “sell” it. When what I write is an opinion, (which will be frequently), I promise that you’ll know it.

Finally, so you can spot the bias when you see it, here are a few bits about me that might help you spot my point-of-view as and when it appears in these essays: I’m a lower-case ‘l’ libertarian. I’m an atheist. I live in the ‘burbs of South-East of England, a 20-minute train-ride to London. When I’m not on-air, I run a film production company, specialising in corporate/promotional films for websites, etc. So I’m a business owner. I’m white, no kids and own my own home.

There’s a million other things of course, and I hope these become apparent during the course of this blogs evolution.

Your friend, amid the Hacks,

Andy Jones.

Competition and Accountability can Save Pakistan

So you’re 19 years old, your mother has just been assassinated, and you’ve been thrown into a potential position of power.

Poor old Bilawal Bhutto. It seems that while the Hacks were quite excited by the terrible death of his mother, it’s the aftermath and raging violence currently gripping a great deal of Pakistan, which they are concentrating on the most.

When Benazir Bhutto arrived back to the country she was formerly the Prime Minister of, I didn’t know what to think. It was clear that Pervez Musharraf had expended all his capital and goodwill with both the West and most of his people. I, and indeed many of my British-born 2^nd-generation Pakistani friends were cautiously optimistic and Benazir’s return. It appeared that ‘anything other than Musharraf’ was the consensus.

I’ve always had a problem with that logic. While I understand it, and while I had no doubt that Benazir Bhutto was a million times better than the current administration, I had a slight worry. My worry was democratic accountability. Yes, it’s great that the dictatorship can be removed, but even if it’s replaced by a democratic administration – who would be holding them to account? Where was the serious (but equally democratic) opposition to Benazir Bhutto?

Even a very well-meaning government can be a dangerous thing without competition. The Labour Party has made a serious bout of mistakes over the last 10 years in power, but there’s a very good reason why we’re only hearing about some of the most recent ones in the strong terms our Hacks are using; the Tories are a strong party again. When they hold Gordon Brown into account, we are more inclined to listen. It’s good for us, it’s good for democracy, and it’s even good (long term) for Labour.

The same will be true in the US this year. While the shrill voices on both the left and the right in America will complain if “their man”, (or woman), does not end up holding office. At least the Democrats will hold the Repulicans to account, and vice-versa. It’s amazing how this basic function is all-too easily taken for granted by us.

So while I (cautiously) wish Bilawal Bhutto the best of luck, and hope that his mother’s advisors will lead him down the same policy and path, I also wish great achievement (if not necessarily victory) to other parties in Pakistan, who oppose the dictatorship of the current administration, and oppose the particular policies of Bhutto’s campaign.

Even if Bhutto’s party are victorious (and I’m pretty sure they will be), let’s hope that these other democratic parties stick around, and keep the new government to account. That’s the only way democracy can flourish.

So rest in peace Benazir Bhutto. And good luck to Pakistan. Let’s give the hacks less to talk about in 2008. May peace, stability and freedom await you.

Amid The Hacks is Born...

Welcome!

I’ll keep this one brief. Welcome to Amid The Hacks. I’m AJ.

What this blog is about, and what on earth the title ‘Amid The Hacks’ can possibly mean – stay tuned.

Andy.