Mr Obama wins again


               President Obama has won sufficient Electoral College votes to remain as President. He now presides over a very divided country, with some bitterly disappointed Republicans. As expected, the popular vote was close, with Mr Obama just edging ahead in crucial swing states. His  healthcare system remains widely loathed in Republican areas. Many Republicans remain concerned about the high levels of state spending and borrowing he has fostered. They are braced for higher taxes as the President eventually gets round to tackling the fiscal cliff. They want tax cuts, not tax rises, and spending cuts, not spending increases.

                In the Uk there will be rejoicing. Mr Obama won the UK polls by a landslide, revealing the lack of understanding  of the US and its self reliant strand of thought on this side of the Atlantic.  There is a European feeling that Mr Obama is more caring, more friendly to the rest of the world than Mr Romney would be. UK liberal thinking forgives Mr Obama for things they would condemn in a Republican President.

                Some have found the Obama Presidency deeply disappointing so far. The failure to  close Guantanamo Bay was a let down after the clear and striking 2008 pledge. The decision to increase the troops in Afghanistan instead of withdrawing earlier has been a bad mistake. The continuation of the drone campaigns poses moral and political issues I wish to explore soon. Mr Obama flirted with European green policies to the joy of many this side of the Atlantic, only to move to shale gas and a drive for energy self sufficiency as the election drew nearer. Even this did not undermine European faith in him, though I thought it was one of his wiser calls.

                Now what matters is how he tries to heal the raw feeelings of disagreement in his country, and how he starts to tackle the debt mountain  and deficit he has created.

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


  1. Nina Andreeva
    Posted November 7, 2012 at 6:04 am | Permalink

    You could also mention the failure to prosecute any significant Wall St racketeer. While for all the climate change deniers the (word left out) connections of many leading Democrats to the Solyndra solar company’s collapse (need investigating-ed)

    • APL
      Posted November 7, 2012 at 8:27 am | Permalink

      Nina: “You could also mention the failure to prosecute any significant Wall St racketeer.”

      He could have done, but ….

    • Disaffected
      Posted November 7, 2012 at 8:52 am | Permalink

      You could also say he did nothing in the first two years when he had a clear majority in both houses to do so. A bit like Cameron and Clegg, the momentum has gone and they have achieved diddly squat to date.

      Top of their hit list: borrow and give away to EU and overseas aid, mass immigration to make things worse, gay marriage, AV voting reform, House of Lords change all of which to help the Lib Dems political party nothing to do with national interest which they claimed they went into coalition for. When the Uk is broke and the light goes out in three years time I hope everyone will remember Clegg’s economic and energy policies, I’m sure everyone else will remember Cameron as going along with the Lib Dem tide.

      • Nicol Sinclair
        Posted November 8, 2012 at 12:09 pm | Permalink

        @Disaffected. “You could also say he did nothing in the first two years when he had a clear majority in both houses to do so.”

        I do not believe so. I think the he had a majority in the Senate but a Minority in the ‘House of Representatives’. So, he was effectively ‘stuffed’ by the House.

        Please correct me if I’m wrong…

        • Nicol Sinclair
          Posted November 8, 2012 at 12:11 pm | Permalink

          Nevertheless, he has achieved ‘diddly squat’ IMHO in the years that he has been ‘in power’.

    • forthurst
      Posted November 7, 2012 at 1:51 pm | Permalink

      “You could also mention the failure to prosecute any significant Wall St racketeer.”

      This has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that his main financial backing came from Wall St (etc ). Don’t worry, there are plenty of British banks that can be fined into oblivion in order to make an example of banksters and show that the SEC is not asleep at the wheel.

    • martyn
      Posted November 7, 2012 at 2:40 pm | Permalink


  2. Alte Fritz
    Posted November 7, 2012 at 6:55 am | Permalink

    Are we not now in a period in which the outcome of these elections is a matter of indifference to the UK? Obama’s behaviour to BP was cheap. US policy is invariably to punish the foreign company, especially British, to turn attention away from their own bad boys, for example, the HSBC issue.

    They are our friends, sort of, but let’s have no illusions.

    • Disaffected
      Posted November 7, 2012 at 9:08 am | Permalink

      Obama is no friend of the UK, even though Dave and George prefer to ride on his big gas guzzling plane than sort out the UK budget/economy. At least the US has a true electoral choice, we have people who enact the will of the EU. Time for this once colonial nation to be freed by its EU master. Vote UKIP.

      • Nina Andreeva
        Posted November 7, 2012 at 7:08 pm | Permalink

        What is UKIPs view on throwing off American thraldom with regard to security issues? Its not if we have the money to buy the drones and the Trident upgrade off them . Let alone be dragged into wars which have no strategic significance for the UK. Remember, despite being told to the contrary, Saddam did not have any links to al Qaeda or any WMDs and bin Laden was found in Pakistan not Afghanistan.

        • Disaffected
          Posted November 8, 2012 at 12:42 pm | Permalink

          Possibly the Bilderberg Group unilaterally decided it was time for him to go. Uk is A bit of a joke on security issues. (Insufficiently -ed?)checked immigration from parts of Pakistan when it is claimed the is area is/was the hot spot for terrorism. The UK had to plead with the US to allow a ship to tag along with the US fleet to show strength against Iran. Not sure why the UK is treated seriously at the Security Council meetings when we do not have the means to back up our position.

      • zorro
        Posted November 7, 2012 at 9:31 pm | Permalink

        The troubles in Northern Ireland and US foreign policy being one point to mention along with their inability to clamp down on terrorist funding…..


        • Disaffected
          Posted November 8, 2012 at 12:44 pm | Permalink

          And this was despite pleas from successive UK PMs to stop US help for the IRA. Clinton had total disregard for Major’s request not to allow Adams a visa to the US etc etc.

    • Muddyman
      Posted November 7, 2012 at 1:46 pm | Permalink

      Hold no illusions, the US is no friend of Britain. We have been, and are, quite useful to stroke down from time to time in order to obtain support for some of their odd policies, but friends? – not since ’76 . (1776 of course).

    • forthurst
      Posted November 7, 2012 at 2:06 pm | Permalink

      “They are our friends, sort of, but let’s have no illusions.”

      That has always been a delusion. That we even finish up on the same side in conflicts does not necessarily indicate a common interest. Often it purely indicates that our politicians are idiots. The ‘special relationship’ is a one way street unless it is being pursued by a dominant politician like Mrs Thatcher.

  3. lifelogic
    Posted November 7, 2012 at 7:04 am | Permalink

    All for want of a half decent republican candidate. Still as you say Obama seems to be finally growing up and coming to his senses on some issues, such as shale gas and the quack green BBC think science exaggerations. Perhaps in this term he will finally wake up to the need for a leaner state sector, a lower deficit and lower taxes. We can but hope, he is not stupid after all just wrong on many issues.

    • Disaffected
      Posted November 7, 2012 at 8:58 am | Permalink

      With a 16 trillion debt and climbing, I hardly think he is waking up. This result needs to be reflected upon as it will hurt the US as much as the rest of the world. The US is in a stale mate which will counter Obama’s ridiculous economics of big state, big borrow approach.

      As for Obama care, look at the NHS and how much it costs the UK taxpayer to provide free health care to the rest of the world- people even fly in, get treated and fly out!!! The UK is fast becoming a third world country by social engineering policies- possibly dreamt up by the Bilderberg Group for a one government world.

      • uanime5
        Posted November 8, 2012 at 8:03 pm | Permalink

        Yet no other developed country has the same problems with their free healthcare. I wonder why?

        Well at least Obamacare means that waiting lists in Canada will be shorter due to fewer Americans crossing the border for free healthcare.

    • Bob
      Posted November 7, 2012 at 9:10 am | Permalink

      I expect that the corridors at the BBC are “strewn with empty champagne bottles” today.

      No hint of impartiality during the election campaign.

      Will Lord Patten be holding an inquiry into this further breach of the Royal Charter? Don’t hold your breath.

      • Nicol Sinclair
        Posted November 8, 2012 at 12:40 pm | Permalink

        I have just expired whilst waiting…

      • lifelogic
        Posted November 8, 2012 at 3:41 pm | Permalink

        Indeed thought they were less excited than the first term win, when they were absurdly behind him.

    • Bazman
      Posted November 7, 2012 at 6:20 pm | Permalink

      You need to take a look at your own quack beliefs and fantasies that you cannot defend.

      • Richard
        Posted November 8, 2012 at 11:33 pm | Permalink

        Quack beliefs you are unale to defend,bazman
        Pot and kettle come to mind

    • zorro
      Posted November 7, 2012 at 9:36 pm | Permalink

      I think it was always going to be difficult to beat Obama. Demographics work too effectively for him in close won votes and things will get more difficult in the future for any future Republican candidate. Let’s face it Obama won even though the economy has struggled for the past four years, with the FED employing mega QE and the deficit ballooning. Prepare for more QE in the UK if Cameron thinks that approach will get him re-elected…..


      • zorro
        Posted November 7, 2012 at 9:37 pm | Permalink

        not to mention the US$16 Trillion debt…..


        • Nicol Sinclair
          Posted November 8, 2012 at 12:41 pm | Permalink

          Agreed. And we are the ones who will pay (eventually).

  4. Bill (Scotland)
    Posted November 7, 2012 at 7:21 am | Permalink

    I share to some extent your misgivings about a 2nd term for Obama, but I think you make yourself sound rather too much like Ed Balls (ouch!) when you write “… and how he starts to tackle the debt mountain and deficit he has created.” when, as we all know, Obama inherited a financial shambles from his predecessor Bush 43 in 2008 with a spiralling deficit and the disastrous QE already well under way, just as Cameron/Clegg had a similarly toxic inheritance from Brown. However, it is certainly true that the US does need to rein in its deficit as it is not clear just how long its international creditors will allow it to continue unreformed, even if it is equally unclear that those creditors would not themselves most likely collapse if they pulled the rug out precipitately.

    • APL
      Posted November 7, 2012 at 8:26 am | Permalink

      Bill: “when, as we all know, Obama inherited a financial shambles from his predecessor Bush”

      This is true, but Obama did nothing about it. What’s worse, he ladled more debt on top with his hair brained health care proposals.

      The fact is the US is now past the point where the politics are be important, it is the economics that will decide every issue.

      • Nicol Sinclair
        Posted November 8, 2012 at 12:42 pm | Permalink

        And, the US is BROKE…

        • APL
          Posted November 8, 2012 at 4:09 pm | Permalink

          Nicol Sinclair: “And, the US is BROKE…”

          Yes, as are we.

    • James Sutherland
      Posted November 7, 2012 at 11:21 am | Permalink

      He inherited a $400b deficit, attacked Bush as “unpatriotic” for it, promised to halve it in his first term – then turned it into a $1t deficit instead. Blaming his predecessor for the problem would be much more plausible had he not more than doubled the size of the problem himself…

      Yes, the US – and UK – need to rein in spending and borrowing; so far, both countries have benefited from other countries being even worse off. Like the old saying, if chased by a bear, you don’t need to outrun the bear – just the other people in your group. So far, those predators have been distracted by the Eurozone’s PIGIS charging towards them going “ooh, cuddly rug!” – but sooner or later, they’ll be fully chewed and attention will return to our own overspending.

      The Balls parallel is apt, but misdirected: both are devout believers in increasing spending beyond all reason. America’s exploding deficits under Obama give a chilling demonstration of how damaging the Obama-Balls “solution” would be if implemented here.

      • zorro
        Posted November 7, 2012 at 9:39 pm | Permalink

        They feel safe whilst the UK, Japan, and Eurozone will be engaging in the same tactics. The Chinese won’t pull the plug….yet.


        • Nicol Sinclair
          Posted November 8, 2012 at 12:45 pm | Permalink

          “The Chinese won’t pull the plug….yet.” But, they will eventually. And then we will all be in the soup.

          • APL
            Posted November 8, 2012 at 4:12 pm | Permalink

            Nicol Sinclair: “But, they[the Chineese] will eventually. And then we will all be in the soup.”

            They don’t have the option. Their markets (that is Europe and the US) are contracting, all they are left with are US treasuries, which they can’t sell.

    • StevenL
      Posted November 8, 2012 at 12:24 am | Permalink

      Try thinking about it the other way around. What would happen if the USA announced one Sunday evening that they were going to default on their debts? The USD is the world reserve currency, no one would be able to price anything. There would be complete chaos. All the US President would have to do to collapse the whole globe into the most horrible depression you can imagine is utter a few words – “The United States of America is not going to honour its’ debt obligation”.

      • APL
        Posted November 8, 2012 at 4:15 pm | Permalink

        StevenL: “The United States of America is not going to honour its’ debt obligation”.

        It is implicit in a 3% inflation rate maintained by the FED since it was instituted at the beginning of the last century.

        1910 US2c = 2012 US 1$

  5. Single Acts
    Posted November 7, 2012 at 7:38 am | Permalink

    The kill list is perhaps what bothers me most (of a long list).

    This is medieval ‘Star Chamber’ stuff where it is very possible the first you will know that you are accused of something by the USA is a ‘Hellfire’ missile coming your way.

    Not liberal, not free, just murder.

    • Disaffected
      Posted November 7, 2012 at 9:16 am | Permalink

      I agree, where was the rule of law? People far worse than Hussein, Gaddafi and Bin Laden committed atrocities in the second world war, but they still had proper trials.

      Cameron pulled the wool over the eyes of the Chinese and Russians over Libya, he should not be surprise that they do not trust him with Syria. We should all be ashamed how he acted on our behalf to act outside the UN mandate to commit regime change. Every country has a right to self determination, Maggie made the point some years ago, it is not for the west to impose its views, culture or beliefs on the rest of the world. Our societies are not perfect by any stretch of the imagination.

      • Disaffected
        Posted November 7, 2012 at 9:19 am | Permalink

        I would still like to know what role the UK played in the death of Gaddafi and whether it was legal? Again, where was the trial when we have all the ECHR rot rammed down out throats? Hypocrisy if ever there was.

    • James Sutherland
      Posted November 7, 2012 at 4:33 pm | Permalink

      I am less bothered by having a target list – I’m sure we would have had similar things in World War II had we been suitably equipped, we certainly did in later conflicts. Right at the start of the second Gulf War, one of the earliest air strikes was aimed specifically at Saddam himself; my only issue there is that, of course, it didn’t get him.

      If they were aimed at “criminals” it might be different, but targeting enemy troops? Nothing wrong with that – even if they are committing the war crime of masquerading as civilian/non-combatants.

    • zorro
      Posted November 7, 2012 at 9:42 pm | Permalink

      Notwithstanding its legality under International War. Is the USA at war with Pakistan?


      • Nicol Sinclair
        Posted November 8, 2012 at 12:48 pm | Permalink

        Probably. But not officially…

  6. Pete the Bike
    Posted November 7, 2012 at 7:39 am | Permalink

    It really doesn’t matter who has won. They take their orders from the same people so the difference is in the presentation, much like Dave and Ed. In Americas case big business calls the shots not the president. The other factors in the US economy are China who own a large proportion of Americas gigantic debt and the Federal Reserve who are intent on inflating that debt away.

    • Mike Stallard
      Posted November 7, 2012 at 9:57 am | Permalink

      Just wait for the confrontation over China’s overseas brethren. Japan, Taiwan, Singapore…….all liable for a dispute which can lead to a Suez for UncleSam. Ironic really.

      • Nicol Sinclair
        Posted November 8, 2012 at 12:49 pm | Permalink

        If it’s a bit like Suez, I hope that we stuff the US like they did with us…

    • A different Simon
      Posted November 7, 2012 at 11:00 am | Permalink

      The US , UK and Europes debts are so huge that the only way out is to hard default or soft default by inflation isn’t it ?

      Surely this is why all parties in all countries are pursuing the same course of action .

      About all that can be done is try to understand how it happened so it can be avoided the next time . So long as people think increasing house prices and correspondingly increasing private debt are good there is no hope . Seems people don’t want to learn .

      • zorro
        Posted November 7, 2012 at 9:47 pm | Permalink

        Exactly, this has been the covert UK policy enacted as a result of the 2007 crisis…..soft inflationary default (protecting asset values of course until the rich can swap it for more tangible forms of wealth. To survive/make money requires acknowledgement of this fact. Whilst everyone was screaming about deflationary dangers, in reality we have faced growing inflation. When the stock market was supposed to tank, QE has caused asset values to rise and the stock market to recover/jump in value….



  7. alan jutson
    Posted November 7, 2012 at 7:48 am | Permalink

    So I guess its more of the same.

    Mr Obama has a track record as President, and clearly the US population preffered that to a new boy, thus I guess it will be business as usual.

    Similar or same polices, similar or same expenditure, similar or same result.

    The Republicans should perhaps choose a rather more rounded candidate next time, who has rather more appeal to the masses, but who still retains the traditional core values of their Party supporters.

    It was there for the taking !

    • David Price
      Posted November 7, 2012 at 10:23 am | Permalink

      Like Ron Paul perhaps?

      • A different Simon
        Posted November 7, 2012 at 11:19 am | Permalink

        Not sure Ron Paul retained enough of Republicans core values .

        His foreign policy scared me a bit but he was the only leadership candidate in the US or the UK saying anything remotely different or new .

        I think the establishment would have (made life difficult for him-ed) soon after he took office .

      • forthurst
        Posted November 7, 2012 at 1:30 pm | Permalink

        “Like Ron Paul perhaps?”

        No, he is a conservative, therfore was excluded from view by the MSM for obvious reasons. Ron Paul had an appeal across Party lines both for his policies and his personal qualities which also made him deeply unappealing to the neocon (people-ed) that bankroll the Republican Party.

      • zorro
        Posted November 7, 2012 at 9:49 pm | Permalink

        He had some good support, but as Romney identified, those who rely on the state/food stamps are growing too quickly and will never vote for him. It’s like Gordon was trying to do with the tax credits – make people dependent on your handouts and they are far more likely to vote for you!


        • uanime5
          Posted November 8, 2012 at 8:10 pm | Permalink

          Well if companies paid a living wage then people wouldn’t be dependent on handouts. If only there was a political party that had the support of big companies.

    • A different Simon
      Posted November 7, 2012 at 11:11 am | Permalink

      Alan , were you born in America ?

      I too thought the Americans would return Obama but then again I thought France would return Sarkozy and then they went for the devil they didn’t know .

      Nevertheless I thought Hollande would be OK but that alliance with the greens is having too much influence and he has promised a load of stuff he can’t deliver .

      Can only see unemployment and cost of borrowing going up for France and it ending in tears .

      For what it’s worth I don’t think Romney would have been as decisive as is made out and likely would have turned out to be a ditherer like Dave .

      • alan jutson
        Posted November 7, 2012 at 8:11 pm | Permalink

        A different Simon

        “Was I born in America”

        No, West London !

        Been to the US a few times though, and most of them thought I came from Australia !

        Not a lot else to say really.

        • Nicol Sinclair
          Posted November 8, 2012 at 12:52 pm | Permalink

          Oi! Bruce. That’s enough…

  8. Horatio McSherry
    Posted November 7, 2012 at 8:20 am | Permalink

    John, I think it’s a bit disingenuous to say, “Mr Obama won the UK polls by a landslide, revealing the lack of understanding of the US and its self reliant strand of thought on this side of the Atlantic.”

    Domestically I think Romney would have been the better candidate by far – especially with Paul Ryan – but for world politics I think it would have been catastrophic for Romney to win. I just imagine George W. Bush with a functioning brain and it freezes my blood. Obama is a wet, beige, tax and spend socialist, which is terrible domestically. But it also means he’s not been charging round the middle east and the far east starting new wars.

    For what it’s worth, contrary to popular media belief, he is without doubt one of the world’s worst orators.

    Reply: I think Obama at his best speaks well.He did double up the forces in Afghanistan.

  9. Epigenes
    Posted November 7, 2012 at 8:25 am | Permalink

    Obama cannot control the US deficit except by persuasion because it is Congress that decides budgets and allocates resources. For the past 100 years the Senate has been Democrat for about 80 and Republican presidents have been resisted at every turn when they have tried to rein in spending. Unlike state governors a president has no veto.

    Why can the GOP not find a creditable candidate? I thought Ryan was better than Romney. Last time it was McCain who was in his seventies but without the attributes and ability of President Reagan.

  10. ChrisXP
    Posted November 7, 2012 at 8:53 am | Permalink

    Considering the disgusting shambles of so many disenfranchised/de-registered/banned voters in the country, one wonders whether the election was actually legitimate. Voters in a poll on the Russia Today website showed more than half considered the election to be a fraud.

  11. Brian Tomkinson
    Posted November 7, 2012 at 8:59 am | Permalink

    Let us hope that his next four years are more productive than his first four years.

  12. Bob
    Posted November 7, 2012 at 9:14 am | Permalink

    Google “Obama Supporters Actually Hate Obama’s Policies”

    • uanime5
      Posted November 8, 2012 at 8:13 pm | Permalink

      So Obama’s supporters hate Romney’s policies more than they hate Obama’s policies?

  13. Acorn
    Posted November 7, 2012 at 9:40 am | Permalink

    I know it hurts JR but the hurt will pass. Private enterprise has not died, only Republican style bankster capitalism, red in tooth and claw, has suffered defeat, thankfully; and it deserved it. (etc)

    As the RAF are buying five more REAPER Drones for use in Afghanistan, I will be interested in your thoughts on that. Apparently, we now have the XBOX 360 set up to fly them from Lincolnshire instead of Nevada.

    Like the UK, mass immigration is great for suppressing domestic wages; but, the (migrants-ed)tend to vote to the left. The conservative Republicans forgot that. Still it’s over, we the British can get back to our fundamental obsessions of house prices and paedophiles. But at least we are moving on from being a nation governed by Quango to a nation governed by Inquiry.

    And stop worrying about the US Sovereign debt, it will not be repaid because there is no need for it to be repaid. The Chinese may have a bank account at the US Federal Reserve with two trillion US dollars in it, but they can’t be converted to anything other than more US dollars. The currency issuing FED, can create and destroy US dollars anytime it wants. So, who do you think is carrying the greater risk?

  14. Martin Ryder
    Posted November 7, 2012 at 9:42 am | Permalink

    It was probably also a case of: ‘it’s better to have the devil you know, rather than the devil you don’t’. That’s what worries me where an In/Out EU referendum is concerned.

  15. Bryan
    Posted November 7, 2012 at 9:44 am | Permalink

    Another 4 years of rhetoric rather than getting the job done is a dismal prospect. Since Tony Blair however, the ability to act and give a great speech seems to mean more to an electorate than ability.

    • ChrisXP
      Posted November 7, 2012 at 1:33 pm | Permalink

      I agree. People have become so mesmerised by “performance” that they don’t look at anything else. Blair was the classic example, and look how that worked out.

  16. Jemima Hopkins
    Posted November 7, 2012 at 9:52 am | Permalink

    I spent the last 4 years avoiding the news because of Mrs. Obama’s grating presence, hypocrisy, and significant lack of style. It’s difficult to go read stories where people are saying, “She’s so stylish and slim and fit,” when it’s clear that she’s (not-ed) (words left out-ed) Thanks you all for motivating me to not watch television or read the news. How can these people be my role models? .

    Reply: I have cut out your comments on Mrs Obama’s appearance as I try to avoid personal attacks on people on this site. You can only do so much about your looks, and personal style is a subjective matter.

  17. Mike Stallard
    Posted November 7, 2012 at 9:54 am | Permalink

    And when are our dozy mob going to wake up to shale gas then?

  18. Winston Smith
    Posted November 7, 2012 at 10:11 am | Permalink

    You misinterpret media (represented by a small body of left-leaning, middle-class people) propoganda for public feeling. 99% of the UK public have no knowledge of the intracies of US politics. They are indoctrinated by media presentation that Obama is good and anyone else is bad.

    Just look how Labour, the BBC and the left-leaning media have contrived to push back the Saville scandal and the developing revelations about (who was involved in paedophile rings in the 1970s-ed), in favour of smearing Thatcher (yet again) with unproven allegations against a so-called Tory grandee that nobody has heard of.

  19. Matthew
    Posted November 7, 2012 at 10:20 am | Permalink

    I’m disappointed that Romney didn’t make it. I think it would have been a “shot in the arm” for the US economy and hence good for the UK.

    Obama inherited a record deficit and made it worse, the US is edging the way of the European economies.

    As for the image of the President in the UK, if it’s at all important – I think the hero worship is misjudged.

    The UK has stood shoulder to shoulder with the US in Afghanistan. The result? When there was an oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, the president derided “Foreign oil companies” and “British Petroleum” the name being BP and they were drilling at the limits of technology in deep water.

    Mr Romney made a few reasonable remarks about the UK’s readiness for the Olympics in the wake of the G4S fallout – far less than the UK press made out of this – and the same press went to town on him.

    • zorro
      Posted November 7, 2012 at 9:58 pm | Permalink

      Good point – you will be glad to know that following the clear up in the Gulf that BP is now BP investing in the USA and no longer British Petroleum fouling the Florida coastline……


  20. stred
    Posted November 7, 2012 at 10:41 am | Permalink

    Interesting that his win depended, to a significant extent, on the demographic changes and flaws in the electoral system, as is the case in the UK.
    Unless constituency sizes are reformed and welfare recipients are persuaded to have smaller families, the high spending parties may be in power permanently.

  21. Gary
    Posted November 7, 2012 at 10:44 am | Permalink

    Article by article, my respect for you grows as what I see as your anti-neoconservative , anti warmongering and plain decent intentions become clear. In my reading of them, at least.

  22. Neil Craig
    Posted November 7, 2012 at 10:58 am | Permalink

    At the end of the Obama reign, with China growing at 10% and the USA either barely or not at all, the US economy will be half, or less, as big compared to China’s as it was at the start. China is now bound tio become the world’s leading economy.

    . Everything else, even the fact that Obama’s victory depended on blacks voting, with a soviet style almost 100% for him and hispanics by 73%, despite his abysmal record, it seems unlikely the Repyblicans can ever win, pales into insignificance.

    • REPay
      Posted November 7, 2012 at 1:47 pm | Permalink

      Yes, when you can increase the numbers of state dependent people – employees and benefits recipients to around 50% of voters you can be guarenteed eternal power, as long as banks will fund you deficit for you! I am applying to be an American citizen…I have been doing so since April. I am a 1 percenter…I have paid hundreds of thousands in tax in the last 4 years. i did not make the deadline. Illegal immigrants were fast-tracked to vote;)

      To be honest I was not unhappy with the result. The Republican party is a party of big spending and bellicose sounding foreign policy, though US FP does not change much. My wife, a registered Republican, voted Democrat for the third time…

      • zorro
        Posted November 7, 2012 at 10:04 pm | Permalink

        He will legalise many more illegals in his next term….? He will be sure to try and get that through if nothing else even though the Republicans have control of the HoR….The USA is a very, very divided country.


      • uanime5
        Posted November 8, 2012 at 8:17 pm | Permalink

        Companies can easily reduce the number of “state dependent people” by paying a living wage. It’s ironic that many right wing parties that reduced wages in real terms are now suffering from a reduced number of votes because they impoverished the people who voted for them.

        • Neil Craig
          Posted November 10, 2012 at 2:52 pm | Permalink

          Uani can personally easily end all poverty in Britain by paying everybody under the average income enough to ensure nobody is above average. All it would cost him is as many billions as he wants businesses to pay and since he believes that can “easily be done” by them it must obviously be possible for him to do it too.

    • uanime5
      Posted November 7, 2012 at 5:24 pm | Permalink

      In 2011 the USA’s GDP was $14.4 trillion while China’s was $5.7 trillion.

      In order for China’s economy to grow to double the size of the US economy ($28.8 trillion or an increase of over 505%) in 4 years it will have to grow at nearly 50% per year. So your fantasy about China suddenly becoming a major power won’t happen.

      Given that whites make up 79% of America it is entirely possible for Republicans to win even if they don’t appeal to minorities.

      • Richard
        Posted November 7, 2012 at 7:41 pm | Permalink

        unamanie5, I don’t know where you get your figures from, ‘cos a quick google search brings up loads of sites calculating when China will overtake the USA in terms of GDP
        Most say USA’s GDP is approx$15 trillion and China approx half that amount, but with a growth rate in China of approx 9% and in the USA approx 2% it is generally thought on variuos sites to be around 2016 to 2018 when China will take the lead.
        And dont forget China has a huge currency surplus whereas the USA has an enormous debt and money is power.

        • uanime5
          Posted November 8, 2012 at 8:19 pm | Permalink

          Neil Craig said that China will have double the USA’s current GDP in 4 years. I used maths to show how unlikely this was.

          • Neil Craig
            Posted November 9, 2012 at 5:36 pm | Permalink

            The OECD have just said they expect the same as what I actually said. Perhaps Uni has a greater grasp of maths (well arithmetic) than both I and the OECD . Perhaps not.

      • zorro
        Posted November 7, 2012 at 10:14 pm | Permalink

        I think that it will be almost impossible for the Republicans to win…..but I agree with your comment about China. It will grow but the internal contradictions are growing, and the cheap labour is getting dearer.

        The US Navy has more than 430 ships in active service, on reserve, or under construction. The U.S. Navy is the largest in the world; its battle fleet tonnage is greater than that of the next 13 largest navies combined. The US Navy has 11 active carriers and 3 under construction, and China will be getting a second hand one soon…..

        It spends huge amounts on military spending (not defence) and is and will be the only superpower for years to come.


      • Neil Craig
        Posted November 8, 2012 at 12:25 pm | Permalink

        1 United States $15,075,675 million

        2 China 11,299,987 million

        According to wikipedia. I am, as usual, sceprical about Uni’s claims.

        I don’t know if he is misreading what I said deliberately or through carelessness but I did not say that the USA would be twice China’s econnomy but that the ratio of GNP between them would be twice as high 4 years from now as it was 4 years ago.

        Zorro I think you are wrong about military capabilities. Pure numbers of ships, planes ot men are less important than technological capacity, particularly in new fields.A few years ago a Chuinese sub “accidentally” surgacrs in the middle of a US carrier group where it could certainly have sunk the carrier. The sub was so advanced that it had been undetected by the best the US navy could produce. Though umentioned by almost all the western media it scared the s— out of the navy.

        China’s military capacity is rising in line with its budget. It is even likely that, having less obselete equipment to maintain, it is rising faster than that.

        • uanime5
          Posted November 8, 2012 at 8:34 pm | Permalink

          You’re using the GDP (PPP), which accounts for the country’s cost of living:

          I’m using GDP (nominal), which reflects international trade:

          What you wrote was so poorly phrased if was difficult to determine the meaning. Also as China’s GNP increases the ratio between it’s GNP and the USA’s GNP will initially decrease, not increase, because the two amount are becoming more equal. You really need to study more maths.

          China has a long way to go before it’s militarily superior to the USA. Also numbers are a major advantage in any war, especially if you can force your numerically inferior opponent into a battle of attrition.

        • zorro
          Posted November 8, 2012 at 11:35 pm | Permalink

          The Chinese ‘Song’ class submarine was a modern diesel powered submarine which are far less noisy than nuclear powered subs. Chinese submarine production has not increased as was feared at the time in 2006 when it was thought that they would seriously update their fleet. China is a regional power, not a world power. They are also good at copying but not so good at innovating….


          • Neil Craig
            Posted November 9, 2012 at 12:50 pm | Permalink

            They used to say the Japanese were no good at innovating too. It would have been un wise to assume we knew all their military innovations even before the the submarine incident.

            It is true that China is, sensibly, spending a smaller proportion of its GNP on the military than the US or UK and thus a larger proportion on GDP creation. But their POTENTIAL depends on GDP.

            Uni – PPP is generaslly acknowledged as the more reliable even in normal circumstances. Since the US says, probably correctly, that the Chinses are artificially keeping their currency undervalued for you to claim that it is a better measure is, of course, risible.

  23. Roy Grainger
    Posted November 7, 2012 at 11:45 am | Permalink

    It is interesting that the only country in the world where Obama did not win local polls by a landslide (over 80% preferred him in the UK) was China. They hold a vast amount of US debt of course.

    Romney was scuppered by the fact he seemed to be a uniquely unlikeable individual, he even mangaged to alienate Conservatives in UK who should have been natural supporters with his ham-fisted comments on the Olympic arrangements.

    I imagine Obama will now enter a Blair-last-term phase where his approval rating will plummet setting the scene for a Rubio landslide in 2016.

    For the moment more QE is good for my US stock investments so what do I care ?

  24. Lindsay McDougall
    Posted November 7, 2012 at 12:22 pm | Permalink

    The Obama administration and the American legal profession haven’t been too kind to BP and Barclays, have they? There is increasing eveidence that a desperate US government will use regulation and litigation to plunder foreign business.

    Assuming that it is willing to tackle the US deficit at all, the Obama administration will table a budget that includes tax increases and defence cuts. The Republican majority in the House of Representatives would be wise to outline an alternative deficit reduction strategy but to abstain in the vote on the administration’s budget. That way, constitutional conflict would be avoided and all of the blame for an unpopular budget would be placed on the President and the Democrats – as indeed it should be.

  25. Conrad Jones (Cheam)
    Posted November 7, 2012 at 12:26 pm | Permalink


    u forgot to mention that President Obama took America to War in Libya without congress approving the move as it was disguised as purely a “Humanitarian Intervention”?

    You forgot to mention that – after intervention; (led by the Americans) Libya is now a more dangerous place and there is little Rule of Law or sign of improvement.

    Bharain also has a (government that does not meet western standards of human rights-ed), but Obama did nothing to help.

  26. Glenn Vaughan
    Posted November 7, 2012 at 12:26 pm | Permalink

    The re-election of Mr Obama will delight the Iranian high command who can now carry on enriching uranium to develop their nuclear arsenal. Israel will feel dismayed.

    The Obama presidency has been characterised by dither as was the case in the Carter years. Sadly for the Republican Party, the USA and the free world, no Reagan equivalent could be found to dismiss Obama from the White House.

    • StevenL
      Posted November 8, 2012 at 12:38 am | Permalink

      They started enriching it under dubya Bush. He started putting ‘son of star wars’ in central europe. Then Putin tore up his pledge not to arm Iran and put them on a nuclear program. Dubya Bush never did anything decisive to stop Iran enriching uranium in the wake of 9/11, so what makes you think Romney would with a war weary electorate?

  27. The PrangWizard
    Posted November 7, 2012 at 12:41 pm | Permalink

    What stuck me when watching Sky News first thing this morning was that 93% of the black people who voted went for Obama and similar large but lower percentages among the Latino/Hispanic and Asian voters went for him. I didn’t see the figures for white people.
    I don’t know what it was last time but this must be a worry. It can do no good to divide people like this and must bode badly for the future.

    • zorro
      Posted November 7, 2012 at 10:56 pm | Permalink

      72% of votes cast were from white people which is down from 74% in 2008…..Racial minorities made up 45% of Obama’s votes…….Obama got 71% of the Hispanic vote compared to Romney’s 27%…….Romney had a 20% lead in votes cast by white people comapared to Obama….Romney won the most votes from the majority ethnic vote but still lost……It is minorities which decide elections……


      • uanime5
        Posted November 8, 2012 at 8:37 pm | Permalink

        Also Romney got nearly as many votes from men as Obama but Obama got a lot more votes from women. I guess not calling for abortion to be made illegal / more difficult is what discouraged women from voting Republican.

  28. peter davies
    Posted November 7, 2012 at 1:11 pm | Permalink

    Obama is a very good speaker and presenter, just like Tony Blair was. I’m often wary of good presenters who make things sound too good to be true, you really need to look under the hood – the UK fell hook line and sinker for Blair in 97 and look where we ended up – the only surprise was it took labour 10 years to crash the economy – they normally do it much quicker than that.

    A lot of what he inherited came from Clinton loosening the credit strings then Bush spending it all and leaving a mess behind, though despite all this I don’t think a left leaning president building up huge mountains of debt is the person to solve it so does not bode well for them or the rest of us.

    The biggest thing that concerned me about Romney was that although he has a track record of being a good problem solver which is what they need right now, he does have many of the same faces behind him in the Republican Party that likes to start the odd war – it would be nice to pull out of Afghan and not have anything else like it for a while, you could just see the republicans starting on Iran next and sucking us into another costly and unwanted conflict dividing the world yet again – if it wasn’t for this factor – my inclination would have been towards Romney – or is it true that it doesn’t really matter who is president? the big decisions are taken at some other level?

    Not too dissimilar to the fact that any national govt in the EU has a very limited means of manouver as they are boxed in by hoards of EU rules and regulations so the difference is more often than not tone and style as the policies tend to follow the same pattern (energy, climate change, QE, deficit reduction, defence – to name but a few, all the same give or take under tory or lab)

  29. Conrad Jones (Cheam)
    Posted November 7, 2012 at 1:28 pm | Permalink

    The Results of the US Election:
    Candidate (Party) Popular vote Pct.
    Obama (Democratic) 58,537,310 50.20%
    Romney (Republican) 56,363,885 48.34%
    Johnson (Libertarian) 1,087,503 0.93%
    Stein (Green) 368,324 0.32%
    Barr (Peace&Freedom)43,329 0.04%
    Anderson (Justice) 32,663 0.03%
    Goode (Constitution) 3,300 0.003%
    Others 169,885 0.15%
    Total 116,606,199 100.00%

    From the News Media coverage, one could be mistaken for believing that their is ONLY two Partys in the United States.

    It is no wonder that the two main partys – with their Billion Dollars of Campaign Funds, have an enormous advatage over their rival “Third Partys” as coverage is biased towrds these two.

    Te Partys who would best serve the American Public are silenced to such an extent that few people know of there existence or importance, so people are influenced away from voting for them. Even Mainstream Conservative Ron Paul was portrayed as a Crank by the News Media, despite having common sense policies regarding America’s “Roman Empire” style Foreign Policy.

    Both Obama and Romney would have continued and expanded on this insanely expensive portfolio of World US Military Bases, spending more on “Defense” than the rest of the World put together.

    Old IKE was right back in 1961.
    “In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. ”

    Virtually any of the other “Third Party” candidates would have Represented the Ameircan Public better than Democrats or Republicans, seeing as only the “Right” Democrats or Republicans get Corporate Sponsorship.

    Obama & Romney should have been made to wear Corporate Symbol patches on their Suits to show where the majority of their Campaign Funds came from, indicating who their real electorate really is.

    New Boss – same as the Old Boss.

  30. Martin
    Posted November 7, 2012 at 1:37 pm | Permalink

    “The deficit he created” – who is ‘he’? Bush Junior or Obama?

  31. David John Wilson
    Posted November 7, 2012 at 1:39 pm | Permalink

    The British people appreciate that while the US debt problem needs solving they have much bigger problems with health care and those living below the poverty line.

    From my own experience even in states like California one doesn’t have to look very far to find people living in conditions that one would only find with great difficulty in the UK.

    There is very little chance of the republicans doing anything about these problems on a national scale. Obama is currently their only chance and he is right to regard these issues as of higher priority than getting a budget deficit sorted.

  32. Antisthenes
    Posted November 7, 2012 at 2:03 pm | Permalink

    Obama first term can only be described as a complete failure. The left of course would never admit to that and will applaud him being returned to serve a second term. We on the right will watch with some considerable trepidation what happens to the US in the next four years as we also watch France under Hollande. Of course the UK in 2015 or sooner will also have a left wing government. The US is said to be balanced on a fiscal cliff as is most of Europe. There are many regions on the planet that are precariously close to conflict. Is this not somewhat similar to events that happened 100 years ago at the beginning the 20th century when the storm clouds were gather that brought on the WWI only this time it will be a world wide economic disaster that will engulf billions . Then as now national leaders were making disastrous decisions and not in control of events. The crises are there or brewing which are so complex that even today’s more advanced understanding of matters political, social and economic will not be able to cope with let alone control. Coupled with which turkeys are voting for Christmas as they mistaken believe that they are voting for free Christmas presents so are voting for leaders who are exacerbating the problems and do not have a clue how to deal with them.

  33. Barbara Stevens
    Posted November 7, 2012 at 2:34 pm | Permalink

    Well in Obama’s winning speech he declares no more wars for the USA, sounds good but they are now the worlds policemen not us, thank God. What does that mean for the world? Cameron is out in Jordan, making noises about Syria and the people’s suffering, I sincerely hope he’s not engaging this country into more conflict and expense. Having high morals about Syria is OK, but we as a country don’t wish for any more conflicts. If the USA are making sounds of no more war, so should we. We’ve had enough, done enough, let some of our so called alies have a go for a change.
    As for the USA’s situation, I cannot see them clearing anything without cuts of some sort, and that means job losses, as we well know from our cuts. As for the Obama care plan, it cannot be right that 30 million people have no medical cover at all, its rich country so the Republicans could have done more, but they chose not to. As for Obama himself, let us not be confused, he dislikes the British from how we treated his father in Kenya, he’s not forgot. Old wounds have a bad habit of surfacing, so we too should be on our guard, the relationship won’t be secure under him at all.

  34. John Doran
    Posted November 7, 2012 at 2:35 pm | Permalink

    may I ask your opinions of UN Agenda 21, & Global Warming (AGW)?

  35. Magnolia
    Posted November 7, 2012 at 3:26 pm | Permalink

    I think Mr Obama won because he hasn’t yet run out of money.
    I thought his victory speech was very syrupy and short on practical detail.
    Radio4 cut in to Mr Romney’s concession speech with prayer for the day!
    I suppose the next phase for our world will be currency problems.
    Politicians who let their countries go bust usually lose elections no matter what they promise.
    Until then, people will always vote for more free stuff rather then freedom.

  36. oldtimer
    Posted November 7, 2012 at 4:54 pm | Permalink

    The US move to shale gas was the result of entrepreneurial risk taking coupled with technological development of drilling techniques. Furthermore, there were gas pipelines in place to enable effective distribution and an absence of government regulation (because it eas new).

    It had nothing to do with Obama. He and/or some of his acolytes have tried to throttle shale gas development thugh regulation and legislation. Interestingly, in his acceptance speech, he said he wanted to reduce dependence on foreign oil. Perhaps this is a belated recognition that the USA is rich in energy reserves – enough to last 200 years or so – and is well placed to grow its economy provided its government does not get in the way too much. No doubt the US energy bonanza is agame changer for the country. Such a pity that our own government has its head firmly planted in the sands.

  37. uanime5
    Posted November 7, 2012 at 5:25 pm | Permalink

    His healthcare system remains widely loathed in Republican areas.
    Which is ironic because it’s the same healthcare system the Republican Mitt Romney introduced in Massachusetts when he was the Governor.

    • Roy Grainger
      Posted November 8, 2012 at 10:06 am | Permalink

      It is not “ironic” at all but a simple statement of fact. Massachusetts is not a Republican area, for a Republican to get elected there he needs to embrace some liberal policies.

      • uanime5
        Posted November 8, 2012 at 8:50 pm | Permalink

        It’s ironic that Mitt Romney was criticising something that he himself introduced in the state he governed.

  38. Rebecca Hanson
    Posted November 7, 2012 at 6:35 pm | Permalink

    “revealing the lack of understanding of the US and its self reliant strand of thought on this side of the Atlantic”

    I don’t think it does. There’s been a great deal of discussion on Facebook and so on. In general people are worried that the ‘self reliant strand of thought’ of too many Republicans leads the to conclude that it’s good to have wars to boost jobs in armaments and who cares if a load of Arabs get killed- we’re self reliant and our god is better than theirs. People are more and more aware of the money flows associated with armaments, banking, land settlement, the US, the Middle East and the media and the Republican party.

    In the forums I’ve been watching Ron Paul has been much more popular than Romney & Co because he is seen to have coherent principles.

    So in my observations your comment is seriously naive John.

    • Roy Grainger
      Posted November 8, 2012 at 10:14 am | Permalink

      John’s comment is naive based on something you have seen written on Facebook ?
      I see. I have lived in USA actually, I can confirm he is 100% right.

      The self-reliant strand of thought to which he refers is nothing at all to do with the proposition that “it is good to have wars”, in fact in the foreign policy area it is the exact opposite, that USA should tend to be more isolationist and withdraw from being the world’s policeman. The main source of the self-reliant strand is the fact that the USA was a country founded and fuelled by immigration, that people could arrive with nothing and entirely through their own hard work and effort achieve success. This is a hard concept to understand in Europe where so many people are dependent on the success of others through their dependency on the state for their income. People like you, I would guess.

      • Rebecca Hanson
        Posted November 8, 2012 at 6:52 pm | Permalink

        Wow – you don’t half make assumptions don’t you Roy.

        I suggest you select my name on this post and have a look at my cyberrhetoric blog. Look in particular at the post of 22 Dec 2011 to gain some insight into what you consider to be ‘looking at something on Facebook’.

        I suggest you try doing some of the kinds of things I have done in discussion forums so that you become capable of understanding what I’m talking about.

        If you want to make a point about your own experiences it’s best just to make it rather than to try to discredit a poster who has different experiences. If you do want to question the experience of a poster just ask them – Please can you tell me about the kind of experiences you have on which your posts are based? This help you appear credible.

      • uanime5
        Posted November 8, 2012 at 8:52 pm | Permalink

        Given that those who arrived with nothing in the USA lived in ghettos and most of them stayed there it seems that hard work didn’t help most Americans.

  39. davidb
    Posted November 7, 2012 at 6:46 pm | Permalink

    International cooperation is urgently required on the corporate tax issue. It seems a little unfair that Companies from the two giant trading blocks – USA and EU – can be highly regulated in so much of what they do, but are able to escape Corporate taxes in either jurisdiction.

    I am no fan of taxes at all, but since all the little guys have to pay them the field is not level. The EU should urgently seek to agree with the US so that the Googles and Amazons, the Starbucks and the Guardian Media’s of this world get to pay into the pot too.

  40. Jon
    Posted November 7, 2012 at 7:40 pm | Permalink

    America takes a very small proportion of its GDP as tax (an enviable rate), it would seem he has got room to play there but its all relative to the people. Their total debt is also enviable compared to ours and Europe’s. That said its a huge deficit to close just with tax rises.

  41. wab
    Posted November 7, 2012 at 9:59 pm | Permalink

    “His healthcare system remains widely loathed in Republican areas.”

    This is because the Republicans were determined to automatically oppose everything that Obama proposed, no matter that they had proposed something very similar in the past (and in particular Romney had passed into law almost the same thing in Massachusetts). It is also because Fox News determines what a large number of Republicans think, and Fox News is, shall we say, not “fair and balanced”. Since Fox News pundits loathed the healthcare proposals, dittoheads everywhere thought the same.

    “They want tax cuts, not tax rises, and spending cuts, not spending increases.”

    Well Romney claimed he would cut income taxes by 20% and increase (not decrease) military spending even more than Obama, and yet somehow balance the books, for example by cutting off funding for FEMA. Oops, by not cut off funding for FEMA, now that Sandy made that politically inconvenient. (Romney flip-flopped on that three times in one day so I’m not sure what his final view was.) In fact Romney and the Republicans refused to say exactly what they would cut, because (surprise) spending cuts are not popular and he knew it would lose him votes (a profile in courage Mr Romney was not). So your claim that they want spending cuts is just Republican propaganda until they put something substantive on the table. And taxes do need to rise, not fall, in America, especially for millionaires. Even getting them back to their Clinton era levels would help. Yeah, that Clinton era, you know, that terrible decade when the marxist US government ruined free enterprise and millionaires were paraded in chains through the streets of Washington DC.

    “The failure to close Guantanamo Bay was a let down after the clear and striking 2008 pledge.”

    That is because the Republicans in Congress demagogued this and insisted the world would end if the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay were incarcerated in US jails. Obama decided not to pick a fight on this because, frankly, he had more important things to worry about and most Americans do not care about Guantanamo Bay (even if they should).

    Mr Romney was easily the best candidate the Republicans could field, because the Republican base are crazy extremists, especially on social issues, and so would never pick someone normal (like Christie). (Nobody would have thought the Democrats would actually increase their Senate majority by 2 this election, and that is thanks to the rape-dumb candidates the Republican base selected in Missouri and Indiana.)

    Having said that, Romney was a terrible candidate. A couple of leading Republican pundits in the week or two before the election said that the main reason to vote for Romney was that if Obama won the crazy Republicans running the House would purposefully sink the American economy rather than work with Obama. This tells you everything you need to know about Romney and the Republicans.

    • Lindsay McDougall
      Posted November 8, 2012 at 11:24 am | Permalink

      “……. crazy extremists ………….” You fail to distinguish between the religious right, the neo-cons and the libertarians. The religious right, with their fundamentalism and outright opposition to abortion under any circumstances, are vote losers. The neo-cons and the representatives of the military industrial complex, think that they have a right to invade any country and fight wars of liberation. They are vote losers (the biggest cheer that Obama got in his victory speech was when he promised to end ten years of war). The libertarians are epitomised by Ron Paul, who disliked both welfare and defence expenditure. I believe that they are popular and that a younger man with Ron Paul’s beliefs would have captured the Republican nomination and maybe the White House.

      One problem that the Republicans have is that the Tea Party, a party within a party, believe that they are keepers of a covenant, not just the beneficiaries of a mid-term protest vote. They will not easily be persuaded to vote for tax rises.

      Finally, the Republicans (and America) have a huge decision to make over the hispanic vote. Do they condone past illegal immigration by granting an amnesty? Do they have a method of stopping future illegal immigration? Hispanics contain many enterprising people who could easily become Republican voters.

  42. Lindsay McDougall
    Posted November 7, 2012 at 10:33 pm | Permalink


    The second verse is the same as the first. American federal public sector debt is now 115% of GDP; add another 30% for state and local debt.

    The annual interest on the federal public sector debt is now DOUBLE the annual spend on education.

    Ron Paul had the right idea – slash welfare expenditure AND defence spending.

    Look back at the recent presidential election polls. 60% thought that the economy was the most important issue and only 15% thought that the deficit/debt was the most important issue. And the two candidates talked much about the economy and little about deficit reduction.

    As ye sew, so shall ye reap.

  43. Daniel M
    Posted November 8, 2012 at 12:21 pm | Permalink

    It seems to me that Obama’s administration so far has neither been a triumph nor a disaster. Given the dreadful situation he inherited, coupled with his own lack of experience and vision, it was never going to be a triumph. However, his supporters have argued that he saved the automobile industry with his Keynesian bailouts – what are Mr Redwood’s views on this? It seems that the auto industry is doing pretty well, despite the huge increase in US debt. The next four years will be very important historically – particularly in the Keynesian vs ‘austerity’ debate. Without meaning to sound like I favour economical experiments on the American people, I think this is one good thing about Obama’s victory. It should also force the Republicans to produce better candidates – as a Conservative defeat in 2015 would if it happens.

    For all the talk of tax cuts and tax increases, people on the right and left should remember that even if Obama raises tax rates on the rich, the rates will still be by comparison to most countries, including Britain, very low.

    Reply: There could also have been a private sector led refinancing and recovery of the auto industry.

  44. James Reade
    Posted November 8, 2012 at 2:18 pm | Permalink

    “Mr Obama won the UK polls by a landslide, revealing the lack of understanding of the US and its self reliant strand of thought on this side of the Atlantic”

    I’m not at all convinced about this reasoning for why Obama won the polls over here.

    It’s generally regarded we don’t lean as far to the right here as they do in the US, which more likely explains the difference. You can of course then assert that this more rightward lean is their “self-reliant strand of thought” – but I think it reflects not our misunderstanding of Americans, more just our plain and simple differences with them.

    Added to personalities. Obama didn’t come over here and question whether we were ready for the Olympics, he didn’t have a party making rather unseemly statements about rape, he didn’t talk about the 47% of the population who scrounge off the state, etc. Romney just never came across well.

    • Rebecca Hanson
      Posted November 9, 2012 at 6:53 pm | Permalink

      See my post above on the same point James.

  • 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