Putin and Russia

Sadly I’ve not yet been able to comment on Putin’s win in the Russian Presidential election in March. For me it the way Putin shapes his Presidency will have long lasting effects:

1.   Democracy 1: The interaction between Putin when he was Prime Minister and his President Dmitri Medvedev had set a bad precedent. Whilst Medvedev clearly rebelled against Putin on some things, the whole arrangement was created to help Putin get round the ban on more than 1 consecutive term in the Russian Constitution. Medvedev has now been rewarded with the role of Prime Minister under Putin, which will now no doubt become a far less powerful role than it was with Putin. This kind of arrangement makes a mockery of democracy but also is free to be copied unless an amendment is made to the Russian Constitution to stop it, something that will not happen whilst the beneficiaries of the scam are in power. Burglars do not fix the windows they break in through

2.   Democracy 2: Putin’s election was clearly fixed. Thankfully I can say that and not fear for my freedom. In the election Putin faced opposition from other candidates but some were clearly write-ins to make it seem democratic. On top of that he received 59% of the vote in an election where one third of polling stations were reported for ‘irregularities’ and with over 3,000 reports of voter fraud on election night! Despite the old plea that Russian elections are hard to run perfectly because of the vast task involved (used in Soviet times), these kinds of abuses clearly show the election to be unfair

3.   Free speech: Linked to the above are concerns that Putin’s election brings to the enshrined right of free speech in Russia. Opposition leaders and their supporters have been imprisoned since Putin’s election. Stage managed events have taken place to portray Putin in certain ways (e.g. he was mobbed by youth at a military parade to show his popularity). All this leaves me to fear that the small opposition movement will not be heard/will be sidelined. All active democracies allow dissent and discussion so that leaders can be rebuked and policies can be investigated. If this is not allowed in Russia then its claims to be a democracy will not stand up. We in Britain do not realise how lucky we are

4.   Foreign Policy: Putin is now back in power and back on the world stage. World events which Russia can directly impact include Iran, energy supplies, Syria, Chechnya and the wider fight against Islamic terrorism and Eastern Europe, especially the Ukraine. Whilst Putin has acted in line with the Western powers in some ways, he still is a loose cannon when it comes to some areas. Russia’s stance on Syria has been especially worrying, seeing as their desire to hold on to their naval base (their only base on foreign soil) trumps their concerns for civilian casualties and persecution. This concern has only increased since his comments at a recent military parade, mentioning Russia’s ‘moral right’ to defend itself and its interests

5.   Opposition: In all this there are glimmers of hope, with people openly gathering in street parades in the lead up to the election (and its predictable outcome) to oppose Putin’s accession to the throne. Putin clearly has an appeal. His desire to make Russia a great country is clear and no doubt admirable for the voter. But he is not as popular as he appears to be and he is not as popular as he was. Moscow apparently no longer supports him and rural areas are turning against him as he fails to deliver what his rhetoric promises. If the opposition are able to gather a ground swell of support, they may prevent Putin seizing power again in 6 years time

Putin has been able to guide policy behind the scenes for 4 years and has now gained the Presidency back until potentially 2024. My hope and prayer is that he will guide Russia well and step down to a free and fairly elected successor. My fear is that his Presidency will lead to raised tensions over foreign and internal policy as the ex-KGB man seeks to force his hand on his people and on the world stage

French Presidential Election 2012

I make no claim to be an expert in French politics but have found the whole process from the start of the Socialist primaries interesting. Some thoughts are below:

1. Candidates: I won’t go through all the candidates but 4 got most of the press – Sarkozy, Le Pen, Hollande and Melenchon. Sarkozy was President and so was in the almost-always tough situation of an incumbent defending his decisions. The other three could make claims without fear of a backlash on their record. Le Pen ran a clever campaign having distanced the far-right FN from its more far-far-right elements and made the party far more acceptable since her Father’s success in 200. Melachon was, like Le Pen, never going to win but made an important contribution by mobilising the hard-left against the government cuts and economic conservatism. And Hollande won a bruising primary process(even winning the support of his long term partner Segolene Royale) with a clear mandate and an obvious aim – attack Sarkozy on the economy and win over the left wing.

2. Sarkozy: Monsieur le President failed in the late part of his service to make up for his earlier part – having appeared aloof and arrogant and made the role more about power and less about ceremony, he tried as hard as possible to back track. His attempts were various – Carla Bruni, his ex-model wife who has caused controversy in the past, kept out of most campaigning and he tried to appeal to the common man, doing walkabouts in towns and ‘connecting’ with the electorate. Despite losing the first round to Hollande he was positive in his campaigning and didn’t give up, always convinced that he could keep his position. Campaigning on immigration, he hoped to win over FN supporters in the second round, whilst he hoped that presenting himself as the only one able to deal with the economy would win over swing voters. It was all to no avail.

3. Hollande: Hollande’s campaign focused on this last issue – Sarkozy had been in charge and failed to sort out the economy. Clearly change was needed and he was the obvious choice. He proposed several policies that seemed outlandish to many (apparently his 75% tax for the very rich surprised even some members of his inner circle) but clearly connected with the electorate. Having never served in office at a national level but been an MP since 1988 he appeared involved in politics without being to blame for issues. His long service in the Socialist party also endeared him to many voters who saw a safe and sure pair of hands. These three elements – determination, perceived trustworthiness and extravagant policy – have served him well

4. The vote margins: One thing I’ve not heard mentioned by many news outlets is the margin Hollande secured over Sarkozy in the run-off. Hollande won by 3.24%. That’s actually a lot closer than it should have been. Melachon (12% in first round) explicitly called on those who voted for him to back Hollande in the second round whilst Le Pen (25% in first round) stated she would but a blank sheet in the ballot box, an implicit guide to the members of FN who Sarkozy was trying to win over with policy moves on immigration. Now a lot of FN members no doubt voted for Sarkozy but it is still remarkable that the vote was that close. Sarkozy was mocked for thinking that he could win re-election (the ‘he’ll be the first President since Giscard d’Estaing in 1982 to not win re-election’ stat was said so many times I wanted to scream!) and of course he was proven wrong. But I think many people didn’t expect him to do as well as he did, hence why the vote gap hasn’t been commented on much. Black helicopter conspiracy time........or not. No. Move on.

5. The future: Perhaps the most exciting thing to come out of this is that President-Elect of France was opposed by the Chancellor of Germany and snubbed by the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. Any future discussions on Europe, G10, NATO will inevitably involve them. Could get awkward!

Along with that however, Hollande approaches issues very differently than either Merkel or Cameron. It’s the classic right-wing v. left-wing dialogue issue. They will disagree. And opposition from both the UK and Germany towards a French leader will not go down well in France, either because their leader has to back down and appear cowardly or because they will think other countries (and old enemies) are telling them what to do. Hollande has already been told by Merkel that the ‘fiscal compact’ (the treaty where European members promised to behave themselves economically) cannot be changed, a statement in direct opposition to Hollande who wants to end austerity, create jobs and lower the pension age. How this develops will be very interesting to watch over the next few weeks as that will then shape the next few years

Mr Hollande is in power for 5 years starting from mid-May. I make no judgement on the French people for picking him and totally respect his right to be President through his election in a free and fair vote. We shall see if he is able to implement the economic plan which won him power without interference from other countries or organisations

So, another great election with, I’m sure, many interesting repercussions. I won’t blog regularly on French politics, but I hope you’ve found it interesting

Debate warmly encouraged

Why Newt Gingrich’s campaign was good for the US, the GOP and Newt Gingrich

Heading is controversial I know but please keep reading! I want to state straight away that I didn’t support Newt’s campaign, but I also wasn’t actively hostile (like I was to Rick Perry, or am to Ron Paul). I just thought it was kooky and weird (remember the moon base!). However three points to make:


1.       The US:  America got to see Newt again

Newt Gingrich was previously most famous for his role as Speaker of the House of Representatives during the Clinton years, for his ‘Contract with America’ and for having an affair whilst pursuing President Clinton for having an affair. These things haven’t helped him today. But he has been able to get his profile out and help present a political viewpoint that needs to be heard, even if not agreed with

2.       The GOP had a strong candidate

Newt is a good politician and a great debater. The GOP needed that as it helped make the campaign more serious. Before his rise the debate was over which Tea Party candidate would be picked. Since then the Tea Party movement has lost its teeth and the campaign has got more serious. The search for an ‘anyone but Mitt’ candidate rested on Newt (until it moved to Santorum) and that allowed him to get air time and promote his policies.

3.       Newt has been strengthened and humbled

It is easy to forget that at one point in his campaign for this year’s nomination (June 2011 to be precise) most of Gingrich’s staff abandoned him. All this did was wake him up – he cut back on expenditure, he used more volunteers and he won – his recent win in Georgia hides his earlier win in South Carolina in January. All this helped him to grow in stature and as a person.

But with it all going well, it then went wrong. He failed to win in many states and yet kept going, the power of his self-will over coming any sense of reality. This meant that he raised less money and became more dependent on his main sponsor, a millionaire casino owner. It also meant that he failed to realise when he had lost. Although he scaled down his campaign in late March he didn’t pull out on May 2^nd. In the gap there were 8 primaries, all of which Romney won, most of them by embarrassing margins. Gingrich suspending his campaign was guaranteed once he committed himself to winning in Delaware and lost by 27%-57% to Romney. My hope is that this has humbled Newt as he needs it

Newt’s campaign was not all bad. What he needs to do now is clearly and explicitly support Romney then step out the race. Retirement and book deals beckon

Debate warmly encouraged

Reflections on US Republican Primary Season 2012

It has become more than obvious that Mitt Romney will become the Republican candidate for election in 2012. Even though Ron Paul remains in the race he has no hope. Obama v. Romney is on for November

It’s good to reflect on the primary process though and see its potential effects. I’d start by saying that I’m an avid fan of US politics (see previous blogs) and have tried to follow things closely. Here are a few thoughts:

1.       Candidates – it is well worth a moment’s reflection to look at those involved before we go any further.

Firstly, those who didn’t run – Sarah Palin, Chris Christie (Gov. NJ) and Mitch Daniels (Gov. IN) being three for me who really standout by not standing out. Palin had no chance beyond her Tea Party faction but either Governor could have really got a campaign together. Part of me sees them tactically waiting for their opportunity against a ‘new’ Democrat candidate in 2016

What about those who did run? Herman Cain pulled out due to a sex scandal. Jon Huntsman pulled out due to a poor result in New Hampshire (though was still on the ballot in Ohio later on). Michele Bachman received good early endorsements but couldn’t keep the pace. Rick Perry was destroyed by his famous ‘oops’ on TV during a GOP debate. Rick Santorum proved strong but his perceived strong focus on social issues to the expense of wider policy initiatives scuppered his chances with Northern states. Newt Gingrich kept himself going by the sheer force of his self-will but eventually had to pull out when the money ceased flowing down the creek has ego-dingy wanted to flow. Ron Paul stays in but has lost the race and has policies that alienate him from vast numbers of Republican supporters (e.g. pull out of all foreign wars, return to the gold standard). Finally we get to Romney, who has in essence secured the nomination and ridden storms of controversy over Super PACs (see point 3), wealth, religion, employment background and perceived ‘flip-flops’ on policy ideas.

They’re certainly a diverse group of people!

2.       Money  – no surprise, money stands out as a major part  of the campaign. Millions of dollars have been thrown into the race to be the GOP candidate and low and behold the richest candidate has (all-but) won the nomination.

Now money hasn’t always been key in all the individual campaigns. For example, Rick Santorum won Iowa (after a recount) having campaigned from a pick-up truck and stopped in all 99 counties. Newt Gingrich preferred to get into debt (apparently $2m when he pulled out) than to let money get in the way of his ambition

But it still remains the case that the richest candidate won, and therefore that money is a massive influence on campaigning. In short, more money leads to more ads and billboards leads to more publicity and a higher likelihood of people supporting you. Obama won in 2008 and had campaign funding of over twice what his opponent Sen. John McCain had in the general election and was so well supported that he didn’t sign up for public funding for either the primaries or the general election, in contrast to McCain and serious contender for the nomination, John Edwards
A few figures for this primary cycle: Mitt Romney raised $56m in 2011, far above any other candidate. He has now raised $88m to run his campaign, again more than any other candidate for the nomination. His Super PAC has raised a further $43m. Massive figures, but it is a massive position to run for

3.       Super PACs – appearing out of Supreme Court decisions in the 1970s, Political Action Committees (and the recent birth of Super PACs) have radically changed election financing in the US. I won’t go into PACs (though you may remember their most famous appearance in the 2004 election with ‘Swift Boats and POWs for Truth’, itself not a PAC but supported by a PAC to attack John Kerry’s military service) but Super PACs now allow candidates to in essence raise extra funds for their campaigns and flout campaign finance law. No, stop Mark, that’s naughty. They allow supporters of a particular candidate to raise money separate from that candidates campaign to show their lack of support for another candidate. For example, ‘Romney’s Super PAC’ (in effect a misnomer) is called ‘Restore Our Future’ and has put remarkable amounts of money(see above) into attacking the other GOP primary candidates. Super PACs look to play a crucial role in the coming presidential election

4.       Religion – it being the USA, religion has played a role in the campaign and will continue to do so. Aside from the fact that many Americans still think Obama is a Muslim (the LA Times reported in March that half of Alabama voters still think this) God has and will continue to feature in the election.

There are two ways this has been made clear so far. Most prominent so far has been the attacks on Romney’s Mormon faith being a cult. It is worth saying that I think that this depiction is accurate, along with it being non-Christian, though I cannot see how in any way that affects his ability to run the country

The other major sign of the prominence of religion has been made most clearly in Rick Santorum’s campaign and his focus on social issues. He made his stance on abortion clear and attacked Obamacare using his religious faith. And, unlike in the UK, where religion is private and rarely talked about in the public square (something I don’t agree with), religion is prominent in the UK. Bush used it, Obama used it (until being tied to Jeremiah Wright proved uncomfortable) and will use it again, Romney will use it.

The US is a diverse country and rightly embraces all faiths and no faith. I would never want people to see my focus on Christianity and Mormonism as a denial of that, but simply write about those faiths because those are the faiths represented in the current election. Clearly, when it comes to America, God gets votes

5.       Sniping – SO many attack ads and campaigning! It seems that ruining your fellow candidates character was one of the major tactics in this campaigning. I know that that is part of politics but it seems to me like the Republicans have slightly shot themselves in the foot for two reasons (or is that 2 feet – not sure). Firstly, whichever candidate wins (i.e. Romney!), there is a tonne of stuff already dug up on the candidate by people on his own side for Obama and his team to go over and exploit. Their hard work has been done for them. Secondly, the depiction of being a candidate who runs negative ads to win votes will not help your appeal – it appears to show you have no good policies so just stab other people in the back. Negative ads may help you win votes, but they help the opposition as well

6.       Policies – my final reflection on the primary process has been how little has been said on policies. Every candidate has had their plan or idea to deal with the economy (Herman Cain dropped out just in time so that I didn’t have to destroy my eardrums over constantly hearing about his 9-9-9 policy) and every candidate constantly sniped at their fellow GOP (see above). But very few have given any thought to the wider ideas and policies they would bring in. Two examples – on the wider view, the Republican WILL go in with Congress in their favour. Currently there are 242 Republican House members (a majority) and 47 Senators (not a majority but enough to block laws), and that could easily change in the elections to come in November and the new congress to start in January 2013. With all this, there has been no clear outline of what a candidate will do from the GOP if they get to the White House. None of them have laid out clear policies they could bring in across the board (defence, agriculture, pensions, energy, foreign policy, the economy) as their way to change the country. The nearest to do it is Ron Paul, but his policies are unworkable idealism. Others have made comments and recommended ideas, but none of them have produced what we in the UK would see as a manifesto for election.  The GOP and Romney need to show what they will do with strong position in the legislature and with a wide view of policy.
On a narrow view the GOP opposes Obamacare but has never produced a clear policy they would bring in to replace it. No candidate has had a clear healthcare policy that they could immediately bring into bill form. Romney is in a particularly tough situation as he brought in a similar bill (though not Obamacare in miniature, as some seem to think) when he was Governor of Massachusetts. Many in his own party will not trust any policy he brings in because of fears it’s a similar bill to Obamacare (which is, of course, socialism). Again, a tough area where it is hard to rally a whole party/popular support around one particular position. As a side-note I would say that Obama has a similar problem with gay marriage as the majority of two of his support bases (blacks and 20-somethings) have directly opposite views on the matter

So there we go, reflections on the primaries and some thoughts to the future

Debate warmly encouraged

The USA and its Political System

I have a confession - I'm a complete USA-ophile! I think it is a remarkable country. The political system is designed with good checks and balances, the Constituition is magnificent, the culture and the geography of the country is so diverse as to creat wonderful melting pot of opinion and idealism, debate and disagreement.
I will be the first to accept that it is not perfect. I think the Supreme Court can be politicised, that the political system can slow down good bills, that their attachment to 'freedom of speech' does not allow for the sidelining of hate speech and that there are many other things I could list.
However, the world of US politics will get all the more exciting as we approach the US presidential election in November. My hope is to blog regularly on what has happened so far and developments as they appear on the way. I make no claim to be objective!
Debate warmly encouraged

Debate Warmly Encouraged

One of my great interests is debating. No one is truly objective - everyone approaches issues in life with previously-held convictions and ideas. Everyone looks at facts, processes them, interprets them, creates their views from them and then argues their case. I do not hide from the fact that I do that, that my views are my views and that you may disagree. My one rule in debating is be honest. Please don't worry about treating me with kid-gloves. Be harsh, mean, passionate. I have a thick skin and will be able to take it! My only rules are that any post with swearing in (except to expand the narrative) will be immediately deleted, as will any rascist comments or any other form of hate speech. Passion can be expressed articulately without appealing to base language.Please post, argue and discuss. I will get involved as well when I can
I would like to think that a motto for this blog could be 'debate warmly encouraged'

American election predictions

Posted on my Facebook page on 7th March 2012

So, the time has come to make random assertions and see how wrong I am come the Conventions and the election in November! I'm a big fan of American politics and the whole political system (though I freely admit it is far from perfect!) so below are my thoughts, setting out a few different possibilities:

1. I think the November election will be Romney v. Obama

2 I think that Santorum and Gingrich will stay in the nomination race for as long as possible. Santorum does have a chance of winning the nomination, especially with lots of Southern states coming up. They are suspicious of Romey's Mormonism and big business background and of Gingrich's personal life. Gingrich definitely has a chance but I think Santorums chances are better. Gingrich loves the attention and only needs Santorum to slip up/fall in the polls to get a boost and stay in the race. He needs more money though as at the moment he's only got one biig money backer and that could soon become very clearly wasted money

3. If November is Mitt v Barack, Obama will win. The Republicans are not united in backing Romney and some will find it hard to vote for him.

4. My most controversial prediction and one I haven't heard anyone mention - there is a high chance that Ron Paul will run as a Libertarian. He feels he has popular support through the recent results and he will not support Romney (or Santorum if he does win it). If Paul runs as a third candidate in November, this will split the right-wing vote and hurt Romney's vote, only helping Barak back to the White House.

5. Just to flirt with the most fun option, if the RNC is spilt, Palin will still not have a hope of nomination. The Tea Party is not the force it was and is divided between candidates. The RNC could go to several votes but I suspect Romney will win.

6. If the RNC cannot reach a consensus, another compromise candidate will be prompted to run. I think this will either be Mitch Daniels or Chris Christie. Both are Governors, both are in the headlines, both should have run, both will be popular with Republican heartlands whilst not isolating them from swing voters. My personal choice is Governor Christie of NJ, who I wanted to run for the nomination from the very start

7. Of all the possible candidates, I would have supported Christie. Of all the candidates who ran, I would probably have supported Jon Huntsman (never heard of him? - a sign of how he did in the polls!) He supported gay marriage, which I oppose, but he is fluent in Mandarin which would have been a great help in dealing with the continued rise of China, particularly with the new leaders coming in in China over the next year. Of those still in the race, I would vote for....Santorum. Wait, hear me out. I can feel friends deleting me from FB! All the Republican candidates are terrible, and I would only vote for Santorum if there was a gun against my head AND the bullet was travelling down the barrel. But if I had to vote for one, he would get my vote. Romney is untrustworthy and detached from the electorate with bad policies. His failure to deliver the nomination already with his money and organisation will harm him, as will his negative campaigning (which of course only provides ammo to Obama, either becasue Mitt doesn't win the nomination and they can use his arguments against another, or because he does and they can say he had to stoop to slinging mud at people to get others to like him). Gingrich is two faced and has the charisma of a flat tyre. Ron Paul has policies that might work on paper but actually have no connection with reality. Also he is getting on and hasn't named a Vice Presidential running mate. I'd need to know who that would be before voting for him with confidence!

8. I can't vote, but if I could vote in November I would vote....I don't know. I don't like Obama. I said at the time and I stand by it that he got voted in in 2008 with an empty campaign slogan and by lying to the electorate about the legislation he would pass. Creating national healthcare, closing Guantanamo Bay and bringing in environmental caps were never going to be passed in one 4 year term. He knew that they would cause opposition and would affect the mid-term results so that any bill would struggle to pass in a hostile Congress. If he didn't, he doesn't know America, a disconnect that Romney suffers from as well but for vastly different reasons (opptimistic outlook, a lack of legislative understanding and experience v. wealthy lifestyle and upbringing). His possible moves on guns and the economy will only increase the tension with Republicans in Congress and around the country. All that said, he got many things right with his first term. His healthcare bill is a good thing if flawed and pork-barrelled to the max. His bail out of the Steel Belt was a good thing. His handling of foreign affairs has been ok, though he doesn't have fire in the belly to really stick it to troublesome states/enemies. I don't like Romney for the reasons I've already put down. Amazingly he'll come in (if he wins of course) after a negative campaign and with a Republican majority Congress and yet he has spent remarkably little time outlining what he'd do with that in his favour. To me that is what all the Republican candidates should be talking about, rather than going at each other

9. Only and idiot would guess vote margins in November at this stage. So here goes: If it's Romney v. Obama, 45% - 50% Obama victory. If it's Santorum v. Obama, 53%-44% Obama victory (and a higher percentage of the vote for Obama than in 2008). If its Romney v. Paul v. Obama, 41% - 8% - 49% (provided Paul runs and gets on enough state ballots to count for anything!). None of those figure add up to 100% because there are traditional looney candidates in some states plus people (quite rightly) spoil their ballots. Also it's worth saying that American elections aren't decided on percentage of the vote but on the brilliant electoral college voting system. All bets are off on that. Obama got 7% more of the vote in 2008 yet got 190 (35%) more electoral college votes than his rival Republican candidate John McCain. Crazy stuff!

10. For the record, and to get to 10 points, in 2008 I happily supported McCain....right up to when he picked Palin. After that it was a grudging disappointment with life.

So there we go. If you've made it this far then well done! Things will change over time and no doubt factors will be different by the time we get to November. It just gets more and more exciting!!!

Welcome!

Hello!
Welcome to my blog! I've long been convinced that I'm not interesting enough to blog but others have persuaded me to give it a try

About Me and My Blog
My name is Mark Summers and I live in Newcastle upon Tyne in the UK. My interests include politics (name a country, I'll read about it!) and, as a committed Christian, theology. I've got a whole load of other things I'd write on though so I've added 'Stuff' to the name. Hopefully that will cover things! I've been writing for many years and will hope to share some of my old pieces along with entries on current events and thought-trends. I'm also single.........