Romney’s question – heal the planet or help your family?


          I am not an American. Nor am I a Republican. I can come to US politics with the neutrality of the foreigner, knowing it’s not my personal business and knowing I do not have a vote. I also come to US politics knowing that what the US says and does still matters in the world. It falls to US citizens to hold the debate and make up their minds, but their actions will have an impact on us all.

          In the run up to the last Presidential election I commented here on the skill of Mr Obama’s campaigning, and the attractions of his messages of hope and change. I personally liked his promise to close Guantanamo Bay and to move away from the excesses of some Neo Con interventions in  other countries. I predicted he would win the nomination against Mrs Clinton, and predicted he would go on to win the Presidency.

         Since he took office there has been  disappointment. Many have felt their hopes dashed or dented by  his actions and inactions. It proved too difficult to close Guantanamo Bay. Interventions in the Middle East continued. The economy has not performed as well as Americans would like. Obamacare has proved deeply divisive with his fellow countrymen and women.

                   Mr Romney and his advisers understand this mood. Mr Romney’s campaign launch speech on Wednesday repeatedly talked of a sense of disappointment and let down with the President.  He summed it up by saying “You know there’s something wrong with the kind of job he’s done as President when the best feeling you had was the day you voted for him”

                    Crucial to the Romney offer is the ringing jibe which summarised his speech:

“President Obama promised to begin to slow the rise of the oceans and heal the planet. My promise is to help you and your family”

                       It will be interesting to see who now has the mood of the people. Mr Romney senses that high flown utopianism, whether green or otherwise, is no longer wanted. More people sense it does not work, or think it is not based on good science  or cannot be achieved, whilst many think it has meant a worse deal for them. He offers them lower taxes and more reward for working. He offers them more jobs and better business conditions. He offers them cheaper energy.

                          The election is too close to call. My guess is Mr Obama has to come up with something new and special to counter this homespun appeal to voters’ self interest. Their self interest has, after all, taken a battering from recession and credit crunch. Maybe they don’t mind the fact that Mr Romney has made a lot of money in the past. They might like him to help them make some too.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.


  1. Martin Cole
    Posted September 1, 2012 at 6:02 am | Permalink

    Too much Botox Cosmetic, I suspect, and tying his dog to the roof rack have already done for Romney, IMHO, although like yourself, I get no vote – but unlike you I also get no vote in England, land of my birth, where you and your colleagues (acting in concert with the EU,) have disenfranchised me from national elections!

    As I re-tweeted from @mises just now – “Let the citizens never know [said Plato] and let them never desire to learn what it is to act independently…”

    Plato’s authoritarianism rules unchecked across the West!

    Karl Popper’s tyranny is everywhere!

    • Bill
      Posted September 1, 2012 at 8:23 am | Permalink

      Hey, Popper was against tyranny with every fibre of his being. Or is that what you mean?

  2. lifelogic
    Posted September 1, 2012 at 6:54 am | Permalink

    Indeed low energy prices, better business conditions and a smaller state is what is needed desperately here too – something that clearly needs leaving the EU to achieve.

    I see in the Telegraph that Lady Warsi, has said she was always aware of the unpleasant suggestions that she was only appointed because of her gender and ethnicity.

    She then goes on later “If you look at the demographics, at where we need to be at the next election, we need more people in the North voting for us, more of what they call here ‘blue collar’ workers and I call the white working class. We need more people from urban areas voting for us, more people who are not white and more women.
    “I play that back and think: ‘I’m a woman, I’m not white, I’m from an urban area, I’m from the North, I’m working class – I kind of fit the bill. All the groups that we’re aiming for are groups that I’m familiar with.”

    Rather confirming the first unpleasant suggestion surely. She seems pleasant enough but is clearly totally out of her depth as Chairman of the party.

    Cameron can we please just have promotion just on merit regardless of colour, ethnic origin, disability or gender? That is clearly best both for business, government and everyone in the end. Then people will not have to put up with these unpleasant but surely true suggestions.

    I also see that Tim Yeo, previously a high-profile opponent of the third runway and “strongly supported” the Conservatives’ decision to rule it out in the 2010 election manifesto has now called on David Cameron to “find his sense of mission” and push ahead with the controversial project.

    Strange that he is suggesting something sensible for a change, I wonder why and what has happened to change his mind.

    • Bazman
      Posted September 1, 2012 at 2:16 pm | Permalink

      Can we have a promotion not based on class, wealth, schooling, parents position in society, ancestors favours to long dead Kings or their mistresses, military service, favours to business, donations to the Tory party, old boys network, being a social misfit, getting dead arms at school for being class creep, not living on an estate and especially for being self servingly ‘sensible’?

      • libertarian
        Posted September 1, 2012 at 7:05 pm | Permalink

        Name the person who you think this would leave

      • lifelogic
        Posted September 1, 2012 at 7:13 pm | Permalink

        No you cannot because everyone will, quite rightly, use their ability, contacts, beauty, distinctive looks, sexual appeal or lack of, stamina, wealth, lack of wealth, relatives etc. to gain the best advantage they can, with whatever advantages they have.

        So be it – life is as it is, it is not fair and never was or will be. What is fair about being born ugly or poor or in poor health or having no parents or drug addict parents. Everyone should use what advantages they have best for all that way.

        • Bazman
          Posted September 5, 2012 at 5:06 pm | Permalink

          If no other people other than white middle class public school educated men are able find their way into politics what does that tell you? The best people have risen to the top entirely on merit filtered by the political system and their views represent the best way forward for the country on any given subject? You really believe your own simplistic fantasies don’t you?

    • uanime5
      Posted September 1, 2012 at 3:53 pm | Permalink

      The problem with Baroness Warsi is that while she’s from several groups the Conservatives are trying to appeal to she hasn’t created any policies that will appeal to these people. She seems more of a token female, non-white, non-Christian, Northerner than someone trying to change the party.

      • Bazman
        Posted September 1, 2012 at 4:50 pm | Permalink

        What I want to see in the Tory party is more and fair representation purple faced colonels and their view on the injustice of modern Britain, not woman and other minority groups with their fringe views.

        • Lindsay McDougall
          Posted September 5, 2012 at 8:26 am | Permalink

          What makes you think that most modern Britons like modern Britain? After all, EU Treaties, mass immigration and the Good Friday agreement have been undemocratically imposed on us from above by the self satisfied, tired and smug British establishment. Young people too resent this. They also resent the ever growing cost of the retired elderly and see no effort being made by government to get these costs under control.

          • Bazman
            Posted September 5, 2012 at 8:38 pm | Permalink

            I absolutely love toast and British marmalade with bits. I hate the bits though. Jelly marmalade? You’re having a laugh.

      • lifelogic
        Posted September 1, 2012 at 7:01 pm | Permalink

        Indeed it is policy actually implemented that matters not what colour, religion, gender or upbringing they have.

  3. Simon
    Posted September 1, 2012 at 7:13 am | Permalink

    Like most political parties, the GOP is promising the earth (although not the Earth…), and like most, it’s basic message hasn’t changed in 30 years.

    If they gain power, I expect them to perform as they have in the past. They’ll cut taxes, and massively increase the US deficit. They’ll claim to support the individualist outlook of the tea party, while introducing authoritarian religious based laws. And I expect we’ll see yet another small war in the middle East.

  4. John McCutcheon
    Posted September 1, 2012 at 7:48 am | Permalink

    What Obama needs is a military crisis and he’s likely to provide one.

    • colliemum
      Posted September 1, 2012 at 9:19 am | Permalink

      I think you may well be right.
      And if it isn’t a crisis on foreign soil, it may well be one inside the USA.

  5. Stewart Knight
    Posted September 1, 2012 at 7:55 am | Permalink

    That’s all supposing most people accept that the earth needs healing, of which I am with the many Americans who don’t.

    Obama tried to be all things to all men, but without having the talent to do so. He has failed, pretty comprehensively, at everything he has done, or should that be attempted, yet we engage in navel gazing over Romney?

    What is wrong with politicians promising to do things that they were actually voted in to do by the voters anyway? WE could do with some of that here.

    The problem with the premise you put forward here John is that a Presidential race is not the same as a British election, and a vote against one is a vote for the other effectively.

    Romney is going to romp home, you just have to look at the margin of victory when Obama first hit the scene four years ago and his halo shone so bright.

  6. Alan Wheatley
    Posted September 1, 2012 at 8:01 am | Permalink

    Are there examples of leaders who in office have lived up to the rhetoric of their campaigns?

    Probably Churchill as War leader; he was not elected and did not promise much, but I would say he did deliver.

    Is it possible to win a democratic leadership election of the back of a realistic and balanced presentation of what will be delivered in office?

    Could it be that youth is a major handicap to being a successful national leader?

    • Single Acts
      Posted September 1, 2012 at 7:07 pm | Permalink

      “Could it be that youth is a major handicap to being a successful national leader?”

      Neither Caesar nor Alexander nor Napoleon thought so.

      • Alan Wheatley
        Posted September 2, 2012 at 10:25 am | Permalink

        I did not ask if youth is a bar to success but if it was a handicap. And the judgement is for that of history.

        In more recent times I am thinking that Churchill took on the role of war leader after, as it turned out, a lifetimes preparation, where as Blair, for instance, had to learn on the job.

  7. The PrangWizard
    Posted September 1, 2012 at 8:02 am | Permalink

    I haven’t been following the US campaign, just picking up bits and pieces here and there, although I should, since my elder daughter has married and lives there. I agree that Obama has been a disappointment to some but for me I hope Romney wins. On one of my visits one of Obama’s speeches, to a university audience, was broadcast, the tone I thought was clearly intended to be anti-British, referring to ‘the Redcoats’ as if they were some terror force. He didn’t need to say what he did to make his point and I thought it disgraceful.
    I also like Mitt Romney’s line on helping the family rather than the ‘saving the planet’ policies which are all around us. If he wins and is true to his statements on cheap energy and the rest, maybe our government will come to its senses. I’m sure ‘saving the planet’ will be proved to have been based on flawed analysis and be seen as a costly and disasterous diversion to nowhere.

  8. A.Sedgwick
    Posted September 1, 2012 at 8:05 am | Permalink

    Romney will win comfortably when Americans revert to their pysche of following the money. In comparison to the CVs of our last four PMs the man is a colossus.

    • lifelogic
      Posted September 2, 2012 at 7:20 am | Permalink

      “In comparison to the CVs of our last four PMs the man is a colossus” this is hardly a very high threshold.

      Most honest people would be a far better bet than Major, Blair, Brown and Cameron.

  9. English Pensioner
    Posted September 1, 2012 at 8:12 am | Permalink

    I preferred Clint Eastwood’s speech, part of which can be seen here

    • colliemum
      Posted September 1, 2012 at 9:17 am | Permalink

      Clint Eastwood’s performance was outstanding, and he took no prisoners.
      He told the audience that it is ‘we’ who employ the politicians – something which applies here in the UK as well.
      He told them that it is ok to let someone go who doesn’t do their job – something we also should keep in mind.

      Great performance!

      • lifelogic
        Posted September 1, 2012 at 12:40 pm | Permalink

        Unfortunately it is not the voters who employ politicians in practice they are largely employed by the politicians themselves who fix the system rules and remuneration, the parties who select the candidates and the lobby groups who pay them “consultancy” fees. The voter comes very low on the list.

        The very high pay and special benefits of MEPs are clearly designed to deter MEPs from rocking the boat and representing the voters real views. Democracy is not welcome. It was Democracy that kept the sensible Swiss out of the disaster.

      • lifelogic
        Posted September 1, 2012 at 2:07 pm | Permalink

        All the voters get is a chance, every five years, to replace their MP with someone, perhaps slightly less bad, but perhaps not and chosen by the other big party. But who will, probably, not do what they said they would anyway once elected. In any event as the EU grabs more and more power, with Cameron’s and Clegg’s assistance , Parliament will become totally redundant very soon indeed.

    • rose
      Posted September 1, 2012 at 5:54 pm | Permalink

      I suspected it might have beeen quite good because the BBC kept telling us it was rambling and embarrassing, like a drunk old uncle at a wedding. I can’t remember their ever saying that about a democrat celebrity – and they can go on quite a bit, and are given plenty of airtime too. Come to think of it we don’t hear about Clint Eastwood at all these days, whereas before he came out we always used to. It was the same with Seb Coe.

  10. merlin
    Posted September 1, 2012 at 8:14 am | Permalink

    Romney will win quite simply because of “it’s the economy stupid”, Obama has not produced enough growth and unemployment is high also 6 milllion americans are still living in poverty. The american people have shown that they are not racist by electing a black president but now they just want someone who can do the job with no frills, Romney is the man and I believe he will do a Ronald reagan and win by a landslide. If Romney does not win I truly fear for the world’s economy and safety, Obama is a tax and spend President and should be put out of his misery as Clint Eastwood stated. When Romney is elected the owrld will give a sigh of relief and the cogs of busliness will start moving again. Don’t forget Obama and Clinton were behind the scam of letting people get mortgages when they couldn’t afford them.

    • Steven_L
      Posted September 1, 2012 at 11:47 am | Permalink

      When Romney is elected the owrld will give a sigh of relief and the cogs of busliness will start moving again

      You sound like one of those starry-eyed college kids I met in London in 2008, that thought the election of Obama would cure all the worlds’ ills. Look what has actually happened to US debt, bit government and private, over the last 30 or so years, and under red and blue presidents. Then try factoring in all those promises of free healthcare red and blue presidents have made the now retiring baby boomers. Last, have a look at their deflationary population pyramid, old folk don’t take on debt, they repay it. At best they have gone into 1990’s Japan-style debt defaltion. At worst, who knows what a wounded beast with the might of the USA is capable of?

      • lifelogic
        Posted September 1, 2012 at 7:23 pm | Permalink

        It was mainly the idiotic BBC who thought the election of Obama would cure all the world’s ills was it not? They were almost orgasmic over Obama, even more so than when Blair won his first term against the appalling (and unelectable) John Major following his idiotic and predictable ERM fiasco and his abject failure to apologise.

      • Christopher Ekstrom
        Posted September 2, 2012 at 3:33 am | Permalink

        Lets just give up & become French! Nobama is a loser with a political tin ear. Jimmy Carter to speak via satlink? Brilliant

    • Bob
      Posted September 1, 2012 at 12:22 pm | Permalink

      They elected a mixed race man as president just to prove they weren’t what the left were implying they were? Surely not?

      “I commented here on the skill of Mr Obama’s campaigning, and the attractions of his messages of hope and change.”

      Yes, he did have a slick sales team.
      When will people learn not to be taken in by slick sales-people?

    • Simon
      Posted September 1, 2012 at 2:12 pm | Permalink

      “Don’t forget Obama and Clinton were behind the scam of letting people get mortgages when they couldn’t afford them.”

      You need to contact the republican candidate for vice president, I hear he’s looking for a new speech writer.

      The mortgages provided to people who couldn’t afford them were created by /private/ mortgage brokers cashing in on the housing bubble. The /private/ financiers whose money the brokers were selling, took their cut and then sold the debt on as fast as they could with “AAA” stamped on the box by their chums in the /private/ ratings agencies. Just to ice the cake, another set of /private/ firms took bets from yet more /private/ money men on whether or not the debt would be repaid.

      The whole /private/ house of cards was built and then came tumbling down under the ever watchful eye of George W Bush and his republican executive.

      Obama was elected after the housing bubble burst; it certainly wasn’t his fault.

      Clinton stopped being president before the sub-prime market took off, so there’s nothing he could have done about it either.

      • rose
        Posted September 1, 2012 at 7:16 pm | Permalink

        “Don’t forget Obama and Clinton were behind the scam of letting people get mortgages when they couldn’t afford them.”

        Not Obama and Clinton but Carter and Clinton. But Carter didn’t do much harm – it was just a small piece of idealism. Clinton was the one who turned it into big business.

  11. alan jutson
    Posted September 1, 2012 at 8:22 am | Permalink

    Just by chance I viewed some of the speeches at the Republican National Convention this week.

    How very refreshing.

    The truth about how much Debt the US is in.
    The truth about Welfare Lifers.
    Yes even some truth about Global Warming.
    The truth that growth relies upon Jobs, but not Government jobs.
    The truth about Government being too big, and spending too much.

    Also interesting in seeing the background to some of the keynote speakers, all Governors of States where deficits have been turned around to a surplus, but without any Tax rises..
    Yes some of them perhaps have a colourful past, but most had been in business before entering Politics, most had come from modest backgrounds, they all had the same message.

    WORK MUST PAY and People/families should aim to support themselves long term, as that is not a job for the State.

    Having been to the US a few times, I am fully aware that not everything in the garden is rosy, or indeed will it ever be, as they certainly have some problems, but then every Country does.

    Mitt Romney is not everyones cup of tea (coffee over there) but one thing is clear, he is sending out a very clear message.

    Something Cameron should learn from.

    Indeed it may well be the case that Romney, having seen the weak message sent out by the Conservatives at the last election, is determined not to make the same mistake and fall short.

    I have no idea who will win, but one thing is for sure, at least you know what the Republicans stand for.

    • Bob
      Posted September 1, 2012 at 12:29 pm | Permalink


      “WORK MUST PAY and People/families should aim to support themselves long term, as that is not a job for the State.”

      Agreed, and not working should be considerably less comfortable than it currently is.

      • A different Simon
        Posted September 1, 2012 at 8:03 pm | Permalink

        Bob ,

        Have you been out of work recently ?

        If not then what makes you so sure it’s such a comfortable existence ?

        What kind of person wishes ill on folk who are defenseless and down on their luck ?

    • Bazman
      Posted September 1, 2012 at 2:07 pm | Permalink

      Have you seen some of the right wing protesters outside. They have some strangely Taliban like beliefs on many things such as religion and woman dress. What a coincidence. I wonder If these beliefs extend to money lending and the like. Or maybe they are flexible like the Taliban are to drugs?

      • alan jutson
        Posted September 1, 2012 at 5:03 pm | Permalink


        You will always get those on the extreme edge of anything, far left or far right.
        Fortunately the chance of these type of people getting elected are very low indeed, because most people have some common sense.

    • uanime5
      Posted September 1, 2012 at 3:59 pm | Permalink

      Was he proposing that Welfare Lifers should work for free so that work doesn’t pay and companies have no incentives to create jobs? If not then maybe the Conservatives can learn something from him about how not to destroy jobs.

      • alan jutson
        Posted September 1, 2012 at 5:01 pm | Permalink


        No he did not say they should work for nothing, he just said they should work rather than sit on their bum doing nothing, all at someone elses expense, who does work and who pays taxes.

        • uanime5
          Posted September 2, 2012 at 6:28 pm | Permalink

          Did Romney explain how he was going to create enough jobs so everyone can work?

      • libertarian
        Posted September 1, 2012 at 7:08 pm | Permalink

        Since when did getting upto £26k pa of taxpayers money in welfare payments = working for “free”.

        • uanime5
          Posted September 2, 2012 at 6:27 pm | Permalink

          Since you don’t get any extra money if you work.

          Benefits are so people can support themselves while they’re looking for work, they’re not a salary that needs to be earned.

  12. John Ward
    Posted September 1, 2012 at 8:40 am | Permalink

    I suspect that the 2012 contest once again leaves the electorate with a choice between an economically illiterate Democrat, and an ethically bereft Republican. This is rather too Newscorp-like in its rendition of choice for me.
    Yes we can has turned into oh no you didn’t. I haven’t a clue what Obama is offering this time around, and I suspect his team don’t either.
    Dan Hannan started last week by saying Mrs Romney was the reason to vote for Mitt, and then changed tack to say Paul Ryan was the real reason. We still don’t know what Dan likes about Romney beyond the fact that he isn’t Barack Obama. There are times when I think Mr Hannan might be a Democrat Fifth Columnist. Either way, Paul Ryan’s roadmap doesn’t bear examination….

  13. Acorn
    Posted September 1, 2012 at 8:42 am | Permalink

    My in-laws have a a Mormon wing in the family. I did the Mormon tour in Utah decades back only to find that all my local parish files, births, deaths etc., were in their global database of people. The latter required to know who is who, when they complete their mission to take over the planet in the name of the latter day saints. Compulsory donation of 10% of income to the church is rule number one. So they done alright out of Mitt, and may get more.

    Anyway, don’t underestimate how far US main street, the 99%, has moved to the left since the eighties and nineties; it is noticeable when you talk or blog with them. The big worry with GOP is the neo-cons. The US has spent 800 – 900 billion dollars a year on bigger and better guns and bombs. Don’t expect that to reduce regardless of how big the deficit gets. You can expect pilot-less drones, armed to the teeth to take aim at your house because the computer says you are a terrorist for elimination, even though the guy that programmed it, didn’t know how to spell Arabic names. But, no voter consequence, if the drone gets downed, no body bags to show on TV news. Simples!

    • Christopher Ekstrom
      Posted September 2, 2012 at 3:37 am | Permalink

      Some truth to this; under Nobama a lot of rabble has come out into the open. Should Romney lose the separation of powers will allow a GOP senate to shut down Nobama. Sadly the US has moved to the left under this stealth socialist regime.

  14. stred
    Posted September 1, 2012 at 8:58 am | Permalink

    I have thought for a long time that you could put a chimpanzee in the Whitehouse and it would make little difference, The US government machine and the balance of the two houses makes politicians unable to act. Instead, the lobby machine ensures that money and economics wins. So they have cheap energy and we don’t. But they pay thousands for healthcare insurance but ours is free and rationed.

    Obama talks like a military officer addressing his men for a battle, but he has changed hardly anything and has as much authority as Bilko. Now they may elect a Mormon who straps his dog to a his roof rack and thinks any change to healthcare would be as bad as the British NHS. If any Americans are reading this, just have a look at the Swiss system.

    • A different Simon
      Posted September 1, 2012 at 9:58 am | Permalink

      America showed it could not have a proper grown up debate about healthcare . Big industry trumps the little guy again .

      Their politicians should be ashamed of the gross misrepresentations of our NHS and painting an Orwellian picture of healthcare based on clinical need rather than ability to pay or obtain insurance .

      I’ll defend the NHS , it’s far from perfect but access of all to healthcare is something to be proud of .

      Obama was clearly ordained and manouvred into place by some very powerful figures on the international stage ; just like Blair , Cameron , Clegg etc .

      They are the ones who will decide the published outcome of the election , not the people who actually visit the polling station .

      • Alison
        Posted September 1, 2012 at 11:54 am | Permalink

        “I’ll defend the NHS , it’s far from perfect but access of all to healthcare is something to be proud of .”

        I’m sure that France and Germany also have reason to be proud. What’s so special about the NHS – that it’s better than the US system? That’s setting the bar pretty low.

        • lifelogic
          Posted September 1, 2012 at 2:20 pm | Permalink

          People can have access to good health care without it being free at the point of use or rationing – just as they have access to water, food, clothing and haircuts.

          The NHS is far from the best system, it fails all the time to respond to patients needs. Indeed it has little interest in patients at all, as the BBC might say “due to the unique (and absurd) way it is funded”. Just as the BBC has little interest in licence payers and more in pushing its prescribed agenda.

          Funded back to front as you might say with predictable results.

          • Bazman
            Posted September 1, 2012 at 6:07 pm | Permalink

            How would you fund it in a non absurd way? Could be quite absurd if you had to come up with the cash or insurance first. So do tell us how you would fund healthcare lifelogic. If you think there should be no treatment without payment or payment should be restricted by individual financial status then just say this, and again stop hiding and fantasising.

          • A different Simon
            Posted September 1, 2012 at 8:20 pm | Permalink

            Everybody needs water , food and clothing all the time to survive .

            Healthcare is different . Some will need a lot of it at certain times in their life and others will need hardly any .

            Whilst pay as you go may be a better way of paying for routine treatment like dental work , insurance is the most appropriate method for paying for expensive treatment . My preference is for national insurance .

            Would you prefer it if sick people paid higher premiums and had to pay excesses before treatment starts ?

            Do you think that ability to pay should take precedence over clinical need ?

      • Christopher Ekstrom
        Posted September 2, 2012 at 3:40 am | Permalink

        The NHS is a scandel & suckers like you are stuck in blind loyalty. Thus super virus & much worse continues. WAKE UP!

        • Bazman
          Posted September 2, 2012 at 7:27 am | Permalink

          So do tell us how it should be funded Chris? Like the dental fiasco. Or should it not be funded and everyone should take their chances. DO TELL US AND STOP RANTING!!

          • Christopher Ekstrom
            Posted September 3, 2012 at 7:25 am | Permalink

            The NHS is a one star hotel charging five star rates. It is run for the convenience of staff; not your health. It must be de- funded & other insurance solutions deployed. England is the insurance innovater. The NHS is a rubbish system for losers (etc). Full stop.

          • stred
            Posted September 3, 2012 at 12:49 pm | Permalink

            The Swiss use the State buying power to keep the cost of private insurance to a reasonable minimum. They also keep medical treatment costs down and don’t allow the medical profession to milk the system. Professional indemnity insurance is less as lawyers are kept under control and the claims industry is non existent.

            Because patients have paid for insurance designated purely for health, they are treated as customers and can find the best treatment and are not rationed to suit the employees or government. The cost of insurance is not more than the cost of taxes used for the NHS.

            It works well, so why not copy it in the USA and UK?

          • Bazman
            Posted September 5, 2012 at 5:27 pm | Permalink

            Sorry for seeming like I’m trolling, but according to articles in the Telegraph, which means it is totally true, Swiss healthcare is very good, on par with the NHS even, but very expensive. Good if you are not paying in effect. Oh! Dear.



            Why not just come out with the truth you believe. If you are sick then you pay. No money no treatment. Charity from others is the right and just way. This is the principal even if this is bad for the country and should prevail. Accept when you or you family are sick goes without saying and you do not have enough money which most do not, so you take out some church insurance for your funeral and maybe a bit more. Cough! Hack! Thank you Guv It’s not me it’s me kids God ‘elp them sir! You are so generous. If only I ad a job I’d do my bit.

      • Iain Gill
        Posted September 2, 2012 at 6:06 pm | Permalink

        I dont have access to nhs healthcare! I have to pay private to see a GP cos its impossible to see my supposed NHS one. I have had to pay several times to see consultants because I would be dead if I had let the multi month NHS wait take its course. My Dad after a lifetime of paying in got cancer, nice early diagnosis and got no treatment at all other than morphine just left to die. Thats the NHS. Anyone who defends this needs their heads looking at.

        The NHS is not treatment according to need as the exceptional care many VIPs have had demonstrates, heart surgery for Dennis Skinner, heart treatment for the Duke of Edinburgh (bypassed completely his local A & E and went to a specialist unit), consultants raced across London on the back of motorbikes to treat Blair, MP’s given two GP’s one in London and another elsewhere completely different to the rest of us.

        You only have to see what happens in this country if you have a child with severe ear ache in the middle of a bank holiday and compare and contrast to the entire rest of the developed world.

        The NHS is a national disgrace, anyone who thinks otherwise has not been around it enough.

        • Christopher Ekstrom
          Posted September 3, 2012 at 7:31 am | Permalink

          You are rightly angry. Morphine for cancer. Indifference to the suffering of a child. Stafff needs above all else. Currently many decent folks have only the NHS to rely on. My suggestion is to compel staff to treat those in need by extreme prejudice; it works as they are cowardly parasites sucking the blood of the middle class.

          • Bazman
            Posted September 4, 2012 at 5:51 pm | Permalink

            A large proportion of them are the middle classes and the idea that insurance companies somehow put the patient first and not their managers and shareholders is laughable.

    • Muddyman
      Posted September 1, 2012 at 3:01 pm | Permalink

      We could and do put (chumps-ed)in office,merely look over most of the past leaders.
      Never run a business,produced or manufactured anything and have NEVER managed to improve the GDP by their efforts.
      They speak of subjects they know nothing of and pontificate the mantras of the ‘Civil’ service from whom they have just read over a briefing paper.
      We vote for these !?
      Those whom the gods wish to destroy they first make mad!.

    • uanime5
      Posted September 1, 2012 at 4:05 pm | Permalink

      Well it’s like Will Rogers said:

      Congress is so strange, A man gets up, says nothing, nobody listens, and then everyone disagrees on what was said.

      Sadly when economics is the main driving force for legislation you end up with a very complicated tax system because every company wants tax exceptions that benefit themselves.

      • A different Simon
        Posted September 1, 2012 at 8:26 pm | Permalink

        Uanime5 ,

        Will Rodgers could certainly cut to the truth of the matter .

        My favourite saying of his is :-
        “I would rather be the person that bought the Brooklyn Bridge than the person who sold it” .

  15. Chris
    Posted September 1, 2012 at 9:08 am | Permalink

    I think your penultimate para says it all (high flown utopianism losing appeal, need for sound science, focusing on what people need to help them in their lives) and politicians in the UK would do well to grasp the implications. Voters’ concerns in the UK are really quite simple/clear, and yet we feel the leadership is not listening, but concentrating on marginal issues and some high flown utopianism, while at the same time trying to “convince” us with unsound science/arguments.
    The message coming from the US (and from recent events in the UK) is for UK Conservative politicians to listen to the grassroots electorate, however unpalatable or simple/basic the message may be, and to act, even if that means that the revised policy conflicts with the new vision for the Conservative Party. It is imperative also that the leadership treats the electorate as intelligent, rather than with apparent contempt (there still seems inadequate recognition by the leadership of the power of the internet to provide the means to verify claims made by/data given by politicians).

  16. colliemum
    Posted September 1, 2012 at 9:11 am | Permalink

    This: “The economy has not performed as well as Americans would like.” has got to be the most understated description of the current status of america of all time!

    I keep on being amazed at the way our journalists, their employers from BBC to DT, and our politicians (with a very few honourable exceptions, like Dan Hannan) are so ignorant about what is going on in the USA.
    There is simply no excuse for this at the present time. Why is it that intelligent people, who are questioning the news reports presented by our own MSM, take on faith what these selfsame MSM produce about the USA? Do they not have internet access? Have they never heard of ‘New Media’?

    I’m not going to litter this blog with links to the great and serious sites, but use your browser of choice and find ‘Big Government’, or ‘PJ Media’ for starters.
    If that is too ‘new’ for you, then try National Review Online, or the American ‘Spectator’.

    Any uninformed citizen, in any of the democracies, is bound to be taken in by glib and polished ‘hope and change’ merchants. That’s why it is our duty to keep ourselves informed.

    Reply: The US economy has done better at growing oputput and generating jobs since the Credit Crunch than European economies have done.

  17. Neil Craig
    Posted September 1, 2012 at 10:25 am | Permalink

    I hope Romney is elected and I think he will be. John I think you are being unfair in saying that Romney in particular is appealing to self interest. Obama is appealing to self interest too – promising to despoil the wealth creators to fund his supporters is as self interested as you get (though foolish in anything but the very short term) t is just that Obama’s call for self interest is limited to a section of society.

    If Romney wins and succeeds in getting America out of recession, through free market reforms, ending “catastrophic warming” paraqsitism, not banning electricity generation through everything but windmillery & by cutting the size of government rather than raising taxes it will make it obvious to every thinking voter here that this works.

    It may even make it difficult for the state broadcaster to continue censoring any discusiion of UKIP’s economic policies – UKIP alone actually supporting such policies here.

    • Christopher Ekstrom
      Posted September 3, 2012 at 7:34 am | Permalink

      JR is a guilt ridden example of why the Tory party ended up “nasty”. Wet, weak sisters. Heseltine is his man!

      Reply Lord Heseltine and I disagree fundamentally about the EU. I am not guilt ridden – I was elected as a Conservative Eurosceptic and I am behaving as a Conservative Eurosceptic. I voted against continued membership of the EEC in the referendum and voted for a referendum recently in the Commons. What have you done to help the cause?

      • Christopher Ekstrom
        Posted September 3, 2012 at 5:17 pm | Permalink

        When one allows himself to be back- footed by the “nasty” charge by elaborate apologetics designed to elucidate how decent one is: you have lost the battle! Your Tory party kow-towed & (by sins of omission) disavowed Baroness Thatcher. She was the only bloody Man amongst you lot. Chaps like Heseltine have a merry old time of it as media darlings & mods. Who stood for Mrs. Thatcher? You Tories are so utterly confused that a path to salvation for England (it’s too late for the UK) is beyound your grasp. I support UKIP, Mr. Redwood. So should you. The time for “scepticism” is long past: Anti-Euro UKIP for England!

    Posted September 1, 2012 at 10:44 am | Permalink

    Good article Mr Redwood and some high quality commenst below too. May I suggest you talk to your webdesigner/webmaster to get some social media Like/Recommend/Share buttons? You will find your “words” being much more widely read and debated, albeit out of your own personal sight. But your personal “brand” will grow even stronger.

    Reply: Thanks for the tip

    • stred
      Posted September 2, 2012 at 9:56 pm | Permalink

      You will also have all sorts of shite coming back.

  19. Credible
    Posted September 1, 2012 at 10:51 am | Permalink

    “The economy has not performed as well as Americans would like.”
    The American economy is actually growing and at a reasonable rate which is more than can be said for ours. Whatever Mr Obama is doing right or wrong he is a lot more successful than our clueless government.

    “or think it is not based on good science”
    I love it when non-scientists talk about science. I wonder how many in our government could solve even a basic equation or have the faintest idea what Newton’s laws are.

    While on the subject of science/maths, it is also worth asking a question about the level of basic statistics needed by Ofqual to do its job properly. They claim the sample size was too small for the January English tests to set the grades correctly and that is why they had to be re-adjusted for the June students. They should have known before January, after all it is a fundamental part of their job to understand that small samples are less reliable. They want the June students to re-sit, perhaps Glenys Stacey should take an exam in basic statistics instead. What is wrong with just admitting that something was done incorrectly, or is that simply not possible amongst the establishment of this country.

    Back on the Mitt Romney article. John, why didn’t you start your article with ‘I think Romney is better than Obama because ….’ ?

    Reply : Because it was not about what I think, as I am n ot an American voter. It was a commentary on the mood of the US and the campaign so far.

    • forthurst
      Posted September 1, 2012 at 3:45 pm | Permalink

      “I love it when non-scientists talk about science. I wonder how many in our government could solve even a basic equation or have the faintest idea what Newton’s laws are.”

      The views of non-scientists specifically on the science underlying climate change are usually not well argued even if they earned a Nobel Prize; how much more worthwhile then is it to read an article by a scientist with numerate degrees up to his elbow as well as an inside view of governmental climate science such as this article in the American Thinker by Dr. David Evans, of website Science Speak, entitled, “The Keys to the Climate Debate”.

  20. Mike Stallard
    Posted September 1, 2012 at 10:57 am | Permalink

    Is it possible to win an election by actually telling the electorate exactly how and when you are going to get rid of the deficit and the debt and explaining, very, very carefully, what the difference between debt and deficit actually are?

    Reply I think it could be. That is after all what I did in my personal election campaign in Wokingham

    • wab
      Posted September 1, 2012 at 1:57 pm | Permalink

      Romney has really not said at all what he is going to cut in order to reduce the deficit and debt. Why has he not said anything? Because he knows it would not be popular, and he doesn’t want to lose votes.

      And in fact, the recent Romney budget “proposal” (with hardly any detail in it at all) was analysed and would almost certainly make the deficit and debt worse (well, making assumptions about what some of the detail might be, since Romney refuses to say).

      • alan jutson
        Posted September 1, 2012 at 5:06 pm | Permalink


        I understand Ron Paul has written most of the budget ideas already, and they have been published, not seen them myself as I am not an American, so really not that interested in the absolute detail.

        • alan jutson
          Posted September 2, 2012 at 6:28 pm | Permalink

          OOps Paul Ryan.

    • forthurst
      Posted September 1, 2012 at 2:59 pm | Permalink

      “Is it possible to win an election by actually telling the electorate exactly how and when you are going to get rid of the deficit”

      That is precisely what Ron Paul has been doing for thirty years; he has had no difficulty in achieving re-election to Congress; however, his runs for the Presidency have been less successful. Most people outside the USA, whose source of ‘news’ is the MSM, will not have heard of Dr Paul or his recent attempt to obtain the GOP ticket. In fact, despite winning an overwhelming majority of delegates from six states, many delegates from other states, and that despite the continuous ballot-rigging he has faced, he failed to appear on the Convention platform and his delegates were undermined by dirty tricks including a last minute rule change whose outcome had previously been incorporated into the teleprompter script, order to give the world a false impression of solid support for Romney.

      Dr Paul is expected to appear on the Jan Reno show on September 4th to explain his future plans. He has a huge following amongst young educated Americans who dislike the direction the US has taken in recent years and dislike the fact that the establishment wish to deny them the possiblity of voting for an alternative. Dr Paul believes in Constitutional government which inevitably means a end to deficit spending, the Federal Reserve system, Neocon wars, the TSA etc, the interference of the Federal governnment in the affairs of the states etc.

      Dr Paul is a Republican in a party that is Republican only in name, in many ways like the Conservative party in this country.

      • Christopher Ekstrom
        Posted September 2, 2012 at 3:42 am | Permalink


      • David Price
        Posted September 2, 2012 at 7:59 am | Permalink

        Just started reading “Liberty Defined”, Ron Paul has a lot of interesting views and makes a good case on a wide range of tricky issues that the incumbent republicans seem not to want to address. The RNC treatment of him is quite illuminating showing just how much the Romney camp fear him.

        Having read some of his material and seen a couple of interviews I am struck by the gulf in maturity and depth he demonstrates compared to the set of people who lead our UK political parties today.

  21. Glenn Vaughan
    Posted September 1, 2012 at 11:29 am | Permalink


    If Guantanamo Bay had been closed, where do you suggest that its inmates be relocated?

    Yesterday I posed the question about who and where the equivalent of Paul Ryan is in the current Conservative Party. I believe that such a person is needed desperately. To answer my own question, I suspect he is presently occupied as the Mayor of London!

    • wab
      Posted September 1, 2012 at 1:53 pm | Permalink

      “If Guantanamo Bay had been closed, where do you suggest that its inmates be relocated?”

      A suitably secure federal penitentiary (there are some). This would have happened had the Republican Party not decided to be demagogues about this, in order to be as destructive as possible towards any (and all) Obama proposals (since their only goal the last four years has been to make the country as ungovernable as possible so that Obama would be a one-term president).

      Please do not insult Boris Johnson by comparing him with the charlatan Paul Ryan. Ryan cries about the budget deficit but his budget proposal would increase the deficit, mainly by vastly increasing spending on the military and decreasing taxes on those poor over-taxed millionaires such as Mitt Romney. As for being a “truth teller”, Ryan is going around the country with Romney giving out the pathetic line that Obama is “cutting” 716 billion dollars from Medicare when this very same proposal is in the Ryan budget proposal, and represents introducing efficiencies into the system, something which Republicans allegedly believe in. Not to mention that Ryan is extremely right wing on social issues (e.g. no abortion under any conditions, not even rape/incest) and it’s hard to see Johnson going down that road.

      • Glenn Vaughan
        Posted September 1, 2012 at 8:10 pm | Permalink

        I look forward to a resounding Romney/Ryan victory in November!

    • forthurst
      Posted September 1, 2012 at 2:27 pm | Permalink

      “If Guantanamo Bay had been closed, where do you suggest that its inmates be relocated?”

      If they are alleged to have committed criminal acts, then they should be put on public trial; if they are not alleged to have committed criminal acts or the case against them is based upon hearsay which is how many have been detained there, they should be released.

      In particular, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed should be brought to public trial as a matter of urgency in order for him to clear up many of the puzzling details about the 9/11 event, such as how he managed to bring down three massive skyscrapers at free fall speed by flying two commercial jets at them, and further how he managed to get another commercial jet to penetrate a fourteen feet thick reinforced concrete wall, reinforced for that purpose, at the Pentagon. This will help the world understand the true nature of the ‘War on Terror’.

    • Christopher Ekstrom
      Posted September 2, 2012 at 3:49 am | Permalink

      Congratulations on calling the Clinton/Nobama contest. Few had that one. Romney was wise to keep it simple. My impression is Americans are much more restive than Major Media wish to discover. But the democrats a ruining a brilliant dirty campaign. Not sure Steam Romney is up to the challenge. Ohio is the key. Nobama made a serious mistake curtailing Roman Catholic institutional freedom. That does not go in the USA. Your wrong, ever so wrong on Gitmo. Where else to deal effectively with criminal foreign national like KSM? The Hauge? You must be joking. This game is

      • Christopher Ekstrom
        Posted September 2, 2012 at 3:50 am | Permalink

        …is played for keeps!

  22. Martin
    Posted September 1, 2012 at 11:35 am | Permalink

    The real trouble with Romney’s question is the assumption that healing the planet and helping your family are incompatible.

  23. Mactheknife
    Posted September 1, 2012 at 12:46 pm | Permalink

    There are obvious parallels between Obama and Cameron dont you think ? Both seemed fixated on climate change and each government has persistantly ignored scientific malpractice, fraudulent claims and conflicts of interest (Tim Yeo anyone ?).

    Romney is going back to traditional ground and I think that is what British voters are looking for. As a nation we can not cure the world’s ills and sacrificing ourselves, our economy and our country will do no good whatsoever – even if you believe in AGW.

    One final point is the vitriol aimed at Romney and Ryan by the British media is scandalous. See Eddie Mair comment to a Newsnight guest ““Hold your nose for a minute would you, if you were trying to sell Mitt Romney to the American people what should he say…”. Also the Channel 4 reporter at the Republican convenstion who told his American guest ” its inconceivable to the British public that you would not vote for Obama”. Its it really ? They certainly do not speak for me.

    Speaking to one of my US friends in Texas I said that Obama was anti British he response was “Hell…he’s anti American ! “.

    • Christopher Ekstrom
      Posted September 2, 2012 at 4:54 pm | Permalink

      Exactly! Removing Churchill’s bust was not just Stupid & rude it was a message; this horrible regime hates America. I also believe Cast Iron hates England. How incredible that our downfalls come at the hands of bumptious affirmative action case & an upper- class spiv.

  24. Atlas
    Posted September 1, 2012 at 1:13 pm | Permalink

    “Help the family” anyday. No more hugging a huskie please!

  25. wab
    Posted September 1, 2012 at 2:24 pm | Permalink

    “Crucial to the Romney offer is the ringing jibe which summarised his speech: ‘President Obama promised to begin to slow the rise of the oceans and heal the planet. My promise is to help you and your family.'”

    Yes, that is a good summary of Romney’s speech. Completely content free but full of enough dog whistles to keep the rabid right wingers happy.

    Funnily enough, without a healthy planet there are no families. I hope Mr Redwood runs for office next time promising to trash the planet in the name of economic growth, and see how far that gets him (even in Wokingham). Mr Romney seems to be promising this (on behalf of the Koch brothers, who are bankrolling him to the tune of tens of millions of dollars) and Mr Redwood cheers him on as if it is a convincing soundbite.

    “He offers them lower taxes.” Umm, he offers millionaires and billionaires (like himself) lower taxes. He is offering the middle class (slightly) higher taxes. After all, someone has to pay for the massive tax cuts for those poor dears in the 0.1%.

    “The election is too close to call.” Well that at least that statement is correct. Romney is viewed extremely unfavourably (he has far worse ratings than Obama) but the millionaires and billionaires are spending 2 or 3 billion dollars on his behalf trying to trash Obama. Further, the Republicans are on the losing end of American demographic changes, and so their other ploy, which could actually seal (or, if you prefer, steal) the election for Romney, is to disenfranchise as many Democratic voters as possible. Pennsylvania is a good example of this, but similar tactics have happened in many states, including Florida and Ohio, two other battleground states.

    • alan jutson
      Posted September 1, 2012 at 5:10 pm | Permalink


      Interesting post on Dan Hannans blog site about Romney and Paul, can I suggest you read it for further information.

  26. uanime5
    Posted September 1, 2012 at 4:10 pm | Permalink

    Obamacare has been divisive because it’s a Democratic solution, making it unacceptable to Republicans. It became even more problematic when the Supreme Court declared it was a tax, making it identical to a policy implemented by Mitt Romney in the state he Governed. As a result the Republicans don’t know how to oppose it without opposing their own solutions.

    Given the Republicans policies on healthcare, welfare, and abortion don’t expect them to help very many families. If voters are going to vote in their self-interest it will be for the person who gives them better living conditions, better healthcare, and better education rather than for someone who will give the rich a tax cut.

    • Bazman
      Posted September 1, 2012 at 6:27 pm | Permalink

      He puts forward the idea that if you somehow give the rich more tax cuts they will create more jobs and drag the rest of the population up with them and Americans are sympathetic to this idea as they are more extreme than the British conservatives who view any extreme views with extreme suspicion. These are the same Americans that believe being armed means you are less likely to be shot and the Batman film massacre in a Colorado cinema and could have been prevented or lessened by the film goers being armed. Reality has little to do with it. It’s the principal, even if that principal is wrong.

  27. merlin
    Posted September 1, 2012 at 5:17 pm | Permalink

    Romney is right that one’s family always comes before anything else and is the highest priority in an individuals life. Obama is wrong to suggest that the Green religion is more important, after all it is based on junk science. There has been no global warming since 1998 and, in fact, we are no in a period of global cooling for the next 30 years.

  28. Barbara Stevens
    Posted September 1, 2012 at 5:23 pm | Permalink

    I see many people quip at Obamacare, but with millions without medical cover and no jobs, any nation should provide something, and what was on offer was a disgrace to a nation so rich and large as the USA. We have the NHS, yes it has faults, none that can’t be altered and made better. Its the lifeline for thousands of people, and the collective health care scheme is better than nothing, or a life long debt to pay for medical care. I’ve used the NHS only this week with a broken foot in several places and been treated with care, dignaty and, professionalism. Its different governments interfering with the NHS that’s destroying it, and people using it who should be made to pay from abroad. Doctors should run the NHS free from political interferance. I’m a trained nurse so know only to well what it’s like to work in it, I trained in, worked in it, and saw with my own eyes it’s successes. We can all talk about its mistakes, they are few when you think of total capacity they deal with. The USA, is covered in greed, and selfish beings, to refuse to accept Obamacare is alright for those who can afford to pay, those with no jobs need something. Not that I like the Democrat offerings, but lets face it life without the NHS would be very hard indeed.

  29. Rebecca Hanson
    Posted September 1, 2012 at 8:11 pm | Permalink

    “My promise is to help you and your family”

    Is that in the standard Republican way by starting a few wars to generate employment in the arms industry and the military?

    • Bazman
      Posted September 2, 2012 at 2:34 pm | Permalink

      Or incentivising the population by cutting the their benefits?

      • Rebecca Hanson
        Posted September 3, 2012 at 6:05 pm | Permalink

        Incentivise them to what Bazman?

        Do the unemployed in the US have a cushy life which can be cut? I didn’t get the impression they did. In which case cutting their benefits is more likely to incentivise them to riot rather than get jobs.

        Is there any evidence to suggest that the further cutting of benefits will increase economic activity?

        But then that doesn’t matter in the Republican world does it – because it’s about what the media can convince people is true.

        • Bazman
          Posted September 4, 2012 at 5:55 am | Permalink

          In the conservative world supported by the middle class social security system, desperation produces work. Just look at India, China, and closer to home, Eastern Europe.

          • Rebecca Hanson
            Posted September 4, 2012 at 9:56 pm | Permalink

            Desperation also creates extreme poverty and disease Christopher, especially in urbanised society.

    • Christopher Ekstrom
      Posted September 2, 2012 at 4:59 pm | Permalink

      Merchants of death, eh dearie? Could you please update the rhetoric! That’s Edwardian rubbish! Move on to Chomskey at least. Or just exit through the gift shop into labour marxism.

      • Bazman
        Posted September 4, 2012 at 5:59 am | Permalink

        Merchants of death? You need to look at the workings of the American small arms industry the number of companies and the (alleged links of some-ed) to Mexican drug cartels, but that would be WRONG! would it not Chris?

  30. Glenn Vaughan
    Posted September 2, 2012 at 6:33 am | Permalink

    Clint Eastwood summarised President Obama and his administration’s policies perfectly. I predict a resounding Romney and Ryan victory in November.

    • Bazman
      Posted September 2, 2012 at 7:29 am | Permalink

      Was Clint Eastwood supposed to inspire fast food chain restaurant managers who arm themselves with the idea that they will then be able to defend themselves and the restaurant and the like?

  31. Electro-Kevin
    Posted September 2, 2012 at 10:00 am | Permalink

    “President Obama promised to begin to slow the rise of the oceans and heal the planet. My promise is to help you and your family”


  32. Lindsay McDougall
    Posted September 2, 2012 at 10:26 am | Permalink

    I think Mitt Romney will just squeak in but the feel good factor must await the second half of his term. He has to deal with the bloated federal expenditure first. Ending wars and not starting new ones would help. Sorry, that was Ron Paul’s agenda; it’s a pity he was too old.

  33. Conrad Jones (Cheam)
    Posted September 2, 2012 at 8:27 pm | Permalink

    American Democracy is a mirage – an illusion. It won’t make any difference whether Barack Obama get’s elected or Mitt Romney. Ron Paul was the best candidate but the News Media were heavily biased against him.

    Barack Obama failed to deliver change – Quantanimo is still open and Wall Street still comes first. Barack Obama didn’t even ask Congress about invading Libya using “Humanitarian Intervention” as a way of getting around the decalaration of War issue.

    America is in more debt and it’s increasing. Mitt Romney will continue the process and the amrican population (not all of them but most) will just sheepishly trudge down to the election booths and vote for whoever they are told to by the privately owned News Media channels in a haze of false patriotic exuberance.

    Ron Paul would have turned America back into a free Nation but nobody cared. They’ll get the Government they deserve. New boss, same as the old boss.

    • A different Simon
      Posted September 3, 2012 at 2:26 pm | Permalink

      Yep ,

      Ron Paul was the only one offering something different and a fresh look at things .

  34. See More
    Posted October 21, 2012 at 3:11 am | Permalink

    President Clinton explains Mitt Romney’s $5 trillion tax cut and how middle class families with children will get an average tax increase of $2,000 to pay for $250,000 in tax cuts for multi-millionaires.

    As President Clinton shares:
    “In the first debate, Governor Romney said that he wasn’t really going
    to cut taxes on upper income people—he only wanted to cut taxes for middle class people.
    That’s not true.”

  • About John Redwood

    John Redwood won a free place at Kent College, Canterbury, and graduated from Magdalen College Oxford. He is a Distinguished fellow of All Souls, Oxford. A businessman by background, he has set up an investment management business, was both executive and non executive chairman of a quoted industrial PLC, and chaired a manufacturing company with factories in Birmingham, Chicago, India and China. He is the MP for Wokingham, first elected in 1987.

  • John’s Books

  • Email Alerts

    You can sign up to receive John's blog posts by e-mail by entering your e-mail address in the box below.

    Enter your email address:

    Delivered by FeedBurner

    The e-mail service is powered by Google's FeedBurner service. Your information is not shared.

  • Map of Visitors

    Locations of visitors to this page