“Maybe we couldn’t”: Are Americans about to elect Mitt Romney as their President?

Four years is a long time in politics. It must feel like a lifetime for Barack Obama. In 2008, he was the young, charismatic Senator from Illinois who wowed not only America, but the world. His powerful and emotive rhetoric, his convincing and reassuring tone, made him one of the most popular political figures in the world. Today, he is but a shadow of his former self. The message of hope as exemplified by those iconic posters and the slogan “Yes we can,” has been replaced by a sense of disappointment. Last week, in the first Presidential debate of the 2012 campaign, Obama was soundly beaten. In a political landscape where personality often takes precedence over policy, Obama has somehow let slip from his grasp the affections of the American electorate. What was at one stage unthinkable might, on 6 November, become a reality. Barack Obama might fail to be elected for a second term as President of the United States of America.

Fortunately for Obama, the 2012 crop of Republican candidates for the presidency left a lot to be desired. There was Newt Gingrich, whose policies included a vow to build a moon base. There was Rick Perry, the Texan governor whose hilarious inability to remember the third agency of government he intended to cut destroyed his chances. There was Herman Cain, former chairman of a pizza company (no joke), who stumbled on a question about Libya as though he had never heard of the country, and then ended his campaign after accusations of sexual harassment. There was Rick Santorum, who held rather antiquated views on same-sex marriage, abortion and contraception. Even more fortunate for Obama, some of the more charismatic Republican figures, such as former Alaskan governor Sarah Palin and New Jersey governor Christ Christie, chose not to run on this occasion, as did the businessman and television star Donald Trump.

So Barack Obama will compete with Mitt Romney for the chance to serve as President of the USA for the next four years. Romney is an enigmatic character. The platform for which he stood to become the Republican candidate was incredibly far removed from the platform he once used to be elected as Governor of the liberal state of Massachusetts. Even now, weeks before the election, it is difficult to get Romney to commit, one way or the other, on most issues. Romney is the archetypal “baddie”. He wouldn’t be out of place in Jim Henson’s Muppet Show, as a character intending to knock down the Muppets’ theatre to drill for oil. His announcement in last week’s debate that he would cut funding to PBS, home of another of Henson’s creations, Sesame Street, might just make that a reality.

The election campaign has been gaff-central. The advantage Obama has had, however, is the scale of his gaffs. The President has been found wanting on numerous occasions, but he hasn’t committed the cringeworthy offences of his opponent. A recently surfaced video, in which Romney writes off 47% of the population of the USA who will never vote for him, is remarkable. It is true that Romney is terminally unable to win over African American and Hispanic voters. But surely it is his job to try, rather than castigate them (or, as has been the case in some Republican governed states, change the voting regulations to try and make them ineligible). Obama has not yet faced such a disastrous gaff. Trust me, if he had, Fox News would be all over it and we would all know about it.

Obama’s problem, though, is the disappointment of his first term. It is human nature that, when given a choice between “likely to fail” and “proven failure,” people would chose the former. I am not suggesting that Obama’s term has been totally disastrous. But his opponents have been able, with relative ease, to portray his economic, foreign and in particular healthcare policies as having missed the target. Obama brought much of this on himself through his undoubtedly feel-good but perhaps too ambitious campaign in 2008. Expectations were high, and despite some bright moments, there have been far too many disappointments. Suffice to say, any other year, with a strong Republican candidate, and Obama would be packing his suitcases and moving his papers out of the Oval Office.

The American electorate, then, finds itself between a rock and a hard place. Neither candidate has instilled confidence that they can bring positive change in the next four years. To be brutally honest, neither has yet said much at all about what they would do in the next term, instead resorting to the personal attacks on their opponent and vague statements which have made the aftermath of elections so hard to predict. The fact that Mitt Romney is anywhere near Obama in the polls shows just how dissatisfied the American people have become with their President. That Romney currently leads is a damning indictment. And come 6 November, if the American people chose to elect a man like Mitt Romney, then Barack Obama can only have himself to blame.

The Smoking Ban, Five Years On

Here's my latest article for The Student Journals, looking at the impact of the smoking ban on society, economy and your local pub, five years after it was first implemented across the whole of the UK.
http://www.studentjournals.co.uk/comment/britain/1541-the-smoking-ban-5-years-on

Government suffers policy and publicity failure on tuition fees

UCAS, the Universities and Colleges Admissions System, is an organisation familiar to all university students like myself, through which all applications for studying at university are made. Recently, UCAS has released statistics regarding the applications for study at university beginning in autumn 2012. The figures make damning reading, with a 7.7% drop in applications for 2012 compared to 2011. This is contrary to claims made by the Education Secretary, Michael Gove, that the fees would not put off students who would otherwise intend on applying to university. That this seems not to have been the case requires analysis. But criticism must also come for the way in which the government has handled publicity surrounding the fee rise.

As a current student, paying a little over £3,000 in tuition fees per year, I have an awareness of how the system works. Student Loans are designed to make money issues as little a factor as possible when students are deciding whether or not to apply for university. Tuition fees are paid in full, and this money does not even come through the student: it is paid directly to the university. This has not changed, in spite of the rise in fees. Students additionally receive a maintenance loan. This is assessed bearing in mind parental income amongst other things, but there is a minimum amount of money that every student is entitled to. Students from the lowest income households also receive a maintenance grant, which does not have to be paid back. As household income increases, the grant decreases, but the loan partially makes up the shortfall. Once the grant entitlement for a student reaches £0, the loan entitlement begins to decline, until it reaches the basement level. Importantly the amount of maintenance loan/grant that a student is entitled to, and the amount that a student would need, has not changed. Hence, if a student were to get into ‘real’ debt whilst at university, this would be no different than had they gone before the hike in tuition fees.

I use the term ‘real’ debt with care. For many students, particularly those who receive little or no parental support whilst at university, the maintenance loan/grant does not cover expenditure. The overdraft remains the most common form of loan utilised by students (and student accounts come with free overdrafts as standard). However students can find themselves in sticky situations due to credit or other loans and debt. This is a problem of funding, but it is not affected by tuition fees.

The money received by students as loans (i.e. tuition fee loan and maintenance loan, but not maintenance grants) are to be paid back when a student has graduated and has begun earning. When tuition fees were increased, the government increased the income level at which repayments must be made from £15,000 (the level at which I will be expected to pay) to £21,000. Additionally, it acts more like a tax, coming straight out of the loanee’s wages. Herein, therefore, lays the first of the government’s failures. Student loans do not act like a ‘real’ debt until they begin being paid back. Hypothetically, as they are paid back in proportion to the wage earned, they should not be cumbersome to the payer. And if a graduate does not begin paying within 30 years of graduation, then the loan vanishes.

The government would have done well to publicise these facts. In theory, the system is designed to make it possible for all to attend university. It is certain that the tuition fee rise itself should not have a direct effect on this. The point of the system is that repayments are only made when the graduate is in a position where they are financially able to do so. Instead, the government has cowered in the face of scaremongering. It would have been wiser to come out fighting using the tangible evidence of the Student Loans system. It is not perfect, but it is no worse for new students than it is for those who have already begun university study at lower tuition fee rates.

The tuition fee hike turned out to be a public relations debacle for the government. Had they calmly put across the arguments I have outlined above they may have gotten away with it. I am certainly not in favour of the tuition fee rise. But the government have allowed people to wrongly believe that it will have a significant adverse effect on their studies and post-graduate finances. The figures released by UCAS are merely the icing on the cake, confirming the ineptitude with which the change has been implemented. Arecent Guardian article correctly stated that the drop in applications cannot be definitively attributed to the tuition fee hike. Factors such as the recession may also be included, but I believe it is wrong to say that the drop is only down to the rise in students applying in previous years.

The legislation was only passed in November 2010, after students who made up the 11.6% rise in applications for 2010 had started their courses. This rise from 2009 was only marginally greater than the rise in applications from 2008 to 2009, at 9.7%. These applications came well before the General Election (in fact the majority of 2010 applicants would have applied before the election too). That there was a rise of only 1.4% from 2010 to 2011, despite it being the final year for lower fees, has not yet been explained. A significant rise would have been expected due to numbers of students turning down gap years to avoid paying the higher fees. Perhaps it was down to misinformation, with students unaware that applying in 2011 they would not pay the higher fees. This is merely speculation, as there is not definitive answer, but it would be in keeping with the government’s poor handling of the situation.

Clearly, then, the government’s policy has not worked. They intended to raise tuition fees, but did not expect it to have an adverse effect on applications. Though there cannot be definitive proof either way, it would be the most optimistic of observers who could find a more reasonable explanation for the significant application drop-off. This in turn was a significant publicity blunder. Had the government been able to get the message across that, in real terms, students applying from 2012 onwards would be on average no worse off than their predecessors, then maybe the figures would not be so damning. As it is, the government must look back on its errors and fix them for coming intakes of students. Otherwise, it must lament its failings, in particular the Liberal Democrats whose decision to turn back on their manifesto promises was responsible for the this debacle in the first place.

For students thinking about applying for university, or who have already applied for 2012 entry, Martin Lewis’ website MoneySavingExpert has a great 20 point guide to finances for students. Point 7 is of particular relevance for this article.

Delay for House of Lords reform shows why reform is imperative

It was commonly agreed at the last General Election in 2010 that Lords reform was necessary. All three of the major parties indicated that they supported Lords reform in their manifestos, though each advocated different types. Of course, as the coalition has demonstrated, manifesto promises are often not worth the paper on which they are written. The tuition fee rises, which will see students pay on average almost three times as much per year in fees, were supported by the Liberal Democrats in government, despite their manifesto pledge to fight to remove all fees. Therein lays the problem of coalitions, namely compromise. Tuition fees are an extreme case where one party has completely reversed their previous stance. With the Lords reform there should be no such controversy. The three major parties agree that it must go ahead.

But things are never that simple. The government has just announced that it will no longer hold a vote on a proposal which, if passed, would prevent the bill encountering cumbersome delays intended to prevent its passage into law. Instead, a time limit would be put in place to limit debate and ensure that the first vote for the majority-elected House of Lords could occur in 2015, the date of the next General Election. The Conservatives have put the blame for the debacle at the door of Labour. However Ed Miliband has supported the proposals, whilst maintaining that they should go to a referendum. This is not a position supported by the Government.

In a cruel irony, whilst wanting to give the people the opportunity to elect members of the House of Lords, the Liberal Democrats are reluctant to let those very same people vote on the proposals, in fear that they may be rejected. The Conservatives would surely not be too displeased to see that rejection occur. The current system naturally favours a party which traditionally has represented the better off in society; it is from these upper echelons that a majority of Lords come. Yet the Government cannot risk upsetting the Liberal Democrats, should it make the coalition unstable and result in the Government’s collapse. It is telling that, along with members of the Labour party, it is the Tory backbenchers, who have far less affection for the coalition and far more independent political thought, who have delayed the progress of the bill.

It is fair to say that the currently existing House of Lords is in need of change. It is a lasting remnant of former times when birth-rite gave political power. In our current society this should not be the case. Admittedly our head of state is still the Queen, but the monarchy is little more than ceremonial and is without independent political power. The Queen and the Royal family also have active ambassadorial roles, and the income they bring throughtourism is far greater than the money they cost us each year. The monarchy, therefore, has use but no political power. The Lords also have use; they act as experienced heads to guide and advise the Commons on legislation. But they also have political power. That the public has no say in who they are requires reform.

Looking at the Lords from different angles does not help matters. Only a small proportion of the Lords are ‘hereditary’ peers, with the majority being ‘life’ peers. While this takes away much of the inherited power associated with peerages, it is also difficult to take. The group of life peers represent an ‘Old Boys’ Club’ elected by the political parties and not by the people.  The House of Lords has become the playground of successful businessmen, former MPs and people with connections to the major parties. This can act as a contradiction to their usefulness in an advisory capacity. The trend amongst the Commons of having‘career politicians’ rather than MPs who have life experience before entering Parliament has been heavily criticised. But surely it is even more disgraceful that it can be through connections, rather than qualifications and election, that life peers are given their seat in the House of Lords.

There is no more damning indictment of the system than the continued seats reserved in the Lords for all serving bishops of the Church of England. These men, with their unique perspective on life, can serve a very useful advisory role. But it should not be one they receive as a matter of course, but one that they are given by the people, should they choose to stand for election. In an increasingly multi-cultural nation, the current system could even be seen as discriminatory to other religions.

Lords reform is therefore necessary. But what the process has shown is that the reforms should not stop there. Never better have the problems of the current system been shown than by the three major parties’ inability to agree in practice on something which they all agree on in principle. The coalition has uncovered the contradiction of our political system. Candidates will say anything to get elected, but once they become MPs much of that goes out the window. The Liberal Democrats have shown this already, but other parties (all parties, in fact) are acting awkwardly, as nuisances, designed to affect the coalition (whether it be to stabilise it or undermine it). Lords reform is only fair, but if it is passed then maybe it will concentrate our politicians’ minds on getting their own affairs in order. Only then will we possess a political system, and politicians, which we can finally trust to run the country.