[Re: It was attitudes not demographics that determined the US campaign, yesterday]
Stephan Shakespeare’s insightful piece has interesting implications for UK politics. Firstly, David Cameron can be reassured that a leader presiding over a lacklustre economy won’t necessarily be voted out of office. But secondly, Cameron should be concerned that even attitudes in the capitalist US are turning against arguments for a smaller state. Yes, Barack Obama won only just over half the popular vote. But Mitt Romney’s well-articulated message that government solutions are not always the answer clearly didn’t gain him much ground. Of course, perhaps Britain and the US are now sufficiently different for this to be irrelevant.
Change of message
[Re: Ten observations on a historic election for the United States, yesterday]
I disagree with the idea that the Republicans don’t need to somehow change their message or tone. The party hasn’t won a truly decisive presidential victory since 1988, when George Bush carried 40 states. Even George W Bush only managed to cobble together a win by slim margins in Ohio. The Republicans do have a strong electoral base, which is variously excited or depressed depending on the circumstances. But many issues are turning against them. Support for gay marriage, for example, has risen widely in the US. And in contrast, the Republicans have in some ways became more narrow as a party. They’re less of a broad church.
Let’s hope that Mitt Romney’s gracious concession inspires Congress to be less obstructive as the fiscal cliff looms.
The Centre for Economics and Business Research says the UK will grow faster than the Eurozone in 2014. What will Labour say?
The world’s two greatest powers have gone through a leadership change. Only China held it entirely behind closed doors.
After the first round of quantitative easing, it not only became ineffective as a stimulus, it became toxic. I’m glad its been stopped.