The election that people have forgotten about…

There’s a significant event happening on Tuesday (4th November) which people (including me for a while) have forgotten about in the UK. No doubt it’s frequently on the airwaves in America, but with the Scottish independence referendum taking political centre stage in the UK amongst other world events, the US midterm elections haven’t been given much of a look in. They still may not be considered significant on election day, but the elections could have serious ramifications for President Obama and his presumptive successor, Hillary Clinton.

I remember quite a significant build up over here to the 2010 midterms, where the Republican Party seized control of the House of Representatives and eroded the ‘supermajority’ in the Senate. Barack Obama’s healthcare reforms had been controversial for many, and the experience led to the use of the term “shellacking” from Obama. Although the Democrats kept the Senate, it has meant that the Republicans have been frustrating in their obstructionist methods (remember the fiscal cliff?). Obama did extremely well to win the 2012 Presidential election in these circumstances, but he has still been hampered at many turns.

Worryingly (if you’re of a centrist or left-leaning disposition), forecasts predict that the GOP will not only retain the House, but also gain the Senate (http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/oct/30/republicans-confident-midterm-success-america). The last two years of a Presidential cycle (in a second term) are often seen as the ‘lame duck’ years, but more so if an incumbent President’s party does not control either House of Congress. It seems crazy that a Republican Party so torn apart by in-fighting and soul searching (sound like the Tories at all?) could triumph on Tuesday, especially if you go by these economic figures during Obama’s reign:






Those figures were posted by a website entitled “The American Conservative”, no less. I admit that I’ve not kept as close an eye on US matters since 2012, but I still do rate Obama as a President. He’s not delivered in all areas, but he’s done remarkably well under electoral restraints. It seems the cynics are coming out in force now, just as they did in 2012, chiding Obama for not delivering the “change” and “yes we can” attitudes that were promised. The problem is, whilst these slogans served as good rhetoric, how can you possible measure them? Obama has ended “don’t ask, don’t tell”, drastically improved the economy (an unemployment rate of 5.9% presently versus a rate of 9.7% in January 2010) and achieved landmark healthcare reform. Without the Senate, Obama will be curtailed in efforts to go further on gun control.


Furthermore, should Hillary Clinton win the Presidency in 2016 for the Democrats (she’ll have the Democratic nomination in the bag if she chooses to run), her programme will also be curtailed. However well she does against the Republican nominee, how can she enact her plans if both the House and the Senate are Republican-run? They’ve already shown over the last 6 years that they are not capable of consensual politics, let alone giving consideration to the democratic mandate that a President possesses (mostly; think of the 2000 election!).

I very much hope that the Democrats do better than expected, but sadly the last two years of Obama’s presidency look set to be another lame-duck session. I would love the first black President to be followed by the first female President, and not for the sake of it; I think Hillary would make a great leader. The question is, what sort of plan for America will she put forward over the next two years, and will she be able to deliver it?

A good message, but will people listen to it?

For me, the Liberal Democrat Conference in Glasgow ticked all the right boxes. We shouted about our achievements, laid out what we wanted to achieve in the next parliament, highlighted what a Tory or Labour majority government would do, and highlighted our differences from the Tories (that’s putting it mildy). The message from the conference was a good one, but will people listen to it?

As I’ve said many times before, tribalism frustrates me intensely. Can’t we objectively agree that raising the income tax threshold to £12,500 is a good idea, and that raising it to £10,500 in this parliament (£500 above our initial 2010 goal) is a solid achievement? Such calls are immediately met with “you can’t trust Nick Clegg/the Lib Dems on anything. Remember tuition fees?” Even a pledge to set waiting times for patients with mental health, a topic I’d hope would bring consensus and a measured debate, was met with an attack by Andy Burnam: “For over four years Nick Clegg has let mental health services slip backwards. Waiting times for talking therapies have got longer and people are struggling to get the support they need.”

Tweeting political stuff inevitably attracts argument and debate; it’s whether that debate has credence or not. Take an argument I had recently (go to @LibDemBen on Twitter if you want to see it for yourself), which began when I simply tweeted:

 

You may well argue that this was a tribal tweet in itself, but that’s nothing compared to the reply I got from a randomer:



We had a long debate, which to be fair was relatively sensible at times. However, I attempted to round up the argument by stating that it could drag on forever, so I finished with “let’s agree to disagree”. Here was the reply:



What does that add to the debate? Nothing. Another tribalist argument with only one goal in mind; to express disgust at the Lib Dems and to refuse to acknowledge any credit. This was just one Twitter argument, but I feel it highlights quite well the endemic tribalism that is present in many areas.

Furthermore, if we are to return to the tuition fee argument, how are tuition fees relevant to the topic of income tax thresholds? Answer; they’re not, but they are frequently referred to whenever a positive Lib Dem announcement is made. If the implication is that you can’t trust the policy due to the tuition fee record, then look at the front page of our 2010 manifesto:




1) Fair taxes: raising the income tax threshold to £10,500 (£500 above the 2010 limit)-delivered

2) A fair chance for every child: £2.5 billion a year pupil premium for the most disadvantaged primary school students-delivered

3) A fair future for making Britain greener: doubling the electricity generated from offshore wind and creating the world’s first Green Investment Bank-delivered

4)A fair deal by cleaning up politics-fixed term parliaments, so a Prime Minister can’t call an election on a whim-delivered


Don’t trust us on fees? Fine. But on income tax, alongside our key priorities on the front page of our manifesto, we have delivered.

No doubt we have been tribal at times, every party goes through that process. However, I’d like to think that our decision to enter a coalition with another party in 2010 was proof that we can put tribalism aside (and you can see on separate occasions in my blog that I have given due praise to both Ed Miliband and David Cameron), but that then leads to accusations of collusion with ‘the enemy’! I’m not sure what people were expecting of the Liberal Democrats at the autumn conference. They’re frequently slated for going into coalition with the Tories, so they made their distinct feelings on their partners pretty clear:

-Nick Clegg accused Theresa May of "playing party politics with national security. Stop playing on people's fears simply to try and get your own way. Your Communications Data Bill was disproportionate, disempowering - we blocked it once and we'd do it again."

-Clegg also said David Cameron's plans to renegotiate Britain's relationship with Europe would turn out to be "largely synthetic".

- Lib Dem president Tim Farron accused the Conservatives of being "borderline immoral" for trying to "balance the books on the back of the poor".

The inevitable retort to this is that the Lib Dems are hypocrites for attacking their own partners, but Clegg got it bang on when he said "we worked with the Tories because voters chose them as the largest party - not because we liked them, or because we are like them." The tribal attack in this context is a paradox; you can’t accuse the Lib Dems of being Tory clones, and then in the same breath accuse them of cynical politics when they differentiate themselves from the Tories in no uncertain terms.

So then, a summary of the policy announcements from the conference:

-Mr Clegg said the Lib Dems would cut income tax for 29 million people if they were in government after the election

-People with depression should begin "talking therapy" treatments within 18 weeks, from April.
-Business Secretary Vince Cable called for a "rebalance" of tax and spending cuts in order to eliminate the deficit

-Scottish Secretary Alistair Carmichael said further devolution of powers to Scotland would "unlock the progress to federalism across the whole of the United Kingdom”.

-Young people with psychosis for the first time will be seen within 14 days - the same target as cancer patients.

Once again, there’s nothing objectively wrong with these policies, and it’s a good message. It’s just whether people will listen to them, or want to listen. It’s our task as a party to get that message delivered.

*N.B. Certain quotes are taken from the BBC website; they have the relevant rights etc.