Tim Aker's Blog

Trump Card

2011-02-15T18:36:00.002Z

Enter Donald Trump and we have the most eclectic mix of Republican presidential hopefuls in modern times. But Trump’s not just a celebrity candidate. There is a serious point to his candidature which you'll find in his CPAC speech.

It’s a message advocated by Pat Buchanan Republicans, then taken up by Ross Perot and still has a fair bit of resonance throughout a tranche of independent, blue collar voters in America. It’s that of protectionism as a response to the decline in manufacturing and the fight for fair trade as well as free trade.

To a point, Trump is right, the Chinese do manipulate their currency and we do not, sadly, live in a global free market. Labour intensive jobs are sent abroad where the workforce is significantly cheaper. So far, no candidate has addressed this and there are still those Perot voters who maintain the arguments against NAFTA that hark back to the 1990s. Clearly there’s a gap in the market that Trump is aiming to fill.

He has the experience, like Perot, to talk about the economy and whip up anger at job losses, especially if unemployment remains high. Money certainly won’t be a problem. By announcing his pro-life beliefs, it’s obvious that he wants to be considered by the Republican grassroots. Whether it turns into a viable run for the Presidency, we’ll see. Just look out for him in Iowa and New Hampshire.

Go, go Sheriff Joe!

2011-02-15T16:13:00.005Z

Well, he may be getting on but Sheriff Joe Arpaio still remains awesome. He's also the Republican favourite for the vacant Arizona senate seat in 2012:

* Joe Arpaio 21%
* Jeff Flake 16.8%
* J.D. Hayworth 16.6%
* John Shadegg 12%
* Ben Quayle 6%
* Undecided 28%

I'm not sure if he's announced anything, but I hope this poll makes him seriously think about it. Who else is better to talk on law and order, immigration reform and public service than America's Sheriff?

Go for it Sheriff Joe!

Ron Paul

2011-02-14T19:07:00.004Z

Nothing more needs to be said of the title. No extrapolations required. Ron Paul is a legend in his own right. Singlehandedly, he has corralled a movement for liberty. His CPAC speech is the epitome of his campaign for freedom, shuffling, unpolished, unspun, it’s a delight to watch, to see the fervour he generates.

He is no orator, he hasn’t been trained. The passion in what he believes in brings on stutters, the fumbling of words because he can’t say what he wants to say fast enough. No politician comes close – since Goldwater – to achieving sainthood amongst movement conservatives and libertarians.

In winning the CPAC straw poll for the second year running, Ron Paul has reached his zenith. And it is where he should remain, a campaigner for principles and not a campaign for the presidency. The baton must be handed over, I recommended, to Gary Johnson, to carry the libertarian mantle in this contest.

Ron Paul is principle on steroids, intense and uncompromising. As noble in abstract, it is – sadly – a flaw in presidential politics. I, like many others, am lock step with Ron Paul on the economy. Lock step on civil liberties. On life. But his America bashing, well, it’s unpalatable to many of the grassroots as to put most people off.

And this is the problem with Ron Paul, it all comes back to American isolationism and the presumption that American force is always a force for bad in the world. Without such American force, would the dictator’s hand not tremble when addressing crowds of his own ‘people’? But that is a debate for another time.

Ron Paul is an American icon, not a President. There is room for a libertarian in the race, but it’s not Ron Paul. This time it’s Gary Johnson, a laid back, calm candidate who lacks the feverish intensity of Paul who can reach out to independent supporters of the Tea Party agenda.

It’s time to thank Ron Paul for what he has done, and for him to depart from the Presidential scene. Besides, he needs to get Rand Paul up to speed for a Presidential run in the future.

Wipeout for the Democrats

2011-02-08T08:33:00.002Z

It was a trendy topic for the establishment to do-down the GOP. It was all the rage back in the mid to late 2000s that the GOP has been eliminated from the North East and there was clearly no way back. Two consecutive drubbings in 2006 and 2008 turned the North East even bluer. There was nothing the GOP could do to make any sort of fight back. If it was to get elected, then it would be under the guise of RINOs like Maine Senators Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe. They had to become more Democratic, not more conservative.

But guess what, like so many other things the establishment muse about – they were wrong.

While the Tea Party steamrollered its way into New England, it is now the Democrats who face talk of a wipe out in the growing South.

Since the 2010 mid-term elections, 24 state Senators across the South have already defected to the Republicans.

In what should make troubling news for the Democrats, this terminal decline is in the worst possible part of the country, as the South and West will face GOP gains at the expense of Democratic states. Georgia, Texas, South Carolina and Utah will gain between them 7 Electoral College votes after the latest census returns. Over all, the states gained by McCain will be up six, Obama’s down six.

Those who thought Obama’s success was the second coming better think again. Even if it’s a close contest in 2012, Obama’s liberalism is shutting him out of 2/3rds of the country.

Stopping the cuts

2011-02-03T19:12:00.004Z

As much as I dispute an incredible amount the Coalition does, it is the government. The parliament at Westminster is the seat of political power in the UK and, as you will find in my writing on the EU, can and should override any other political authority. We have the constitutional power, through an act of parliament, to reverse any judgement made by any other legal entity. That power is transferred down to councils by the will of parliament to perform duties locally. They, too, are elected and therefore legitimate.

This is why it unnerves me greatly that voluntary and charity organisations, angry that they are losing taxpayers’ money from councils and government, are going to the courts to overturn the spending decisions of elected authorities. A High Court judge this week ruled that London council cuts to voluntary services were unlawful because they had not carried out a full equality consultation. Yeah and who the hell elected him!

Notwithstanding the ridiculousness of the ruling on equalities, the fact that a court can overturn the will of an elected authority sets an undemocratic precedent that will only further strengthen the likes of militant unions and Ukuncut.

If you are a voluntary group or a charity and you get government money, you have no right to complain. You have effectively become an arm of the state and you cannot try and claim special status. In fact you cease to be a voluntary organisation when you coerce money out of the taxpayer by receiving taxes. If I want to donate to you, I’ll do so in my own time with an amount I decide.

I would go even further and encourage the charity commission to de-register every single fake charity that takes government money. Councils and government are handing over our money, almost in blank cheque form, without any democratic control over how the money is spent. For instance, it was clear all along that the British people did not want the Lisbon Treaty. But the NSPCC, aided with our cash and other ‘charities’, lobbied for it and welcomed it. Oh dear.

So, either withdraw the taxpayer funding from all charities or nationalise them and bring them into the welfare system where they will be democratically accountable for what they do with our money.

The problem remains that the forces against the government’s economic plan are subverting the political process to get democratic decisions overturned by the courts.

But, I hear you say, the Equality Act provides for equality audits and consultations, which Unison say the councils did not follow. Precisely. This is perhaps my third blog, in a week, where I explain clearly how the Coalition are making a complete hash of it in government and maintaining the Equality Act ensures the Coalition is making a rod for its own back.

If you’re a Tory and believe in the Equality Act, you are clearly a saboteur to your cause. If you don’t realise it’s a political dirty-bomb Harriet Harman left for you, timed to go off when you’re in government, then you lack the political intelligence God gave to nectarines.

You have taken political power and given it to groups like the Unions to stop you doing what the public mandated you to do. Shamefully they’re not doing it through the ballot box, the democratic option, but through the courts. So whilst the constitutional principle applies, parliament should be able to push through what it likes with regards to these cuts, it’s bound itself in Equality legislation preventing it doing so. It’s another spectacular own goal from the Coalition that will only make sorting out the nation’s finances that much harder.

Huckabee's clever game

2011-02-03T17:44:00.004Z

As we continue to guess what Mike Huckabee will be doing for 2012, his book tour announcement is either a clever game of politics or a pure coincidence.

I’ve said before, Huckabee doesn’t have to be ‘in’ the race to be in and travelling around Iowa, South Carolina and a host of other GOP/marginal states to publicise a book about what America should be doing is surely as much of a political tour as a literary one.

Of course the benefit here is it raises Huck’s profile and a bit of extra cash. Getting a book out early also makes sure Huckabee drives the agenda. In Iowa and South Carolina, he will get to meet thousands of caucus goers and primary voters. Precisely how you differentiate that from a grip'n'grin political campaign, I don’t know.

The only difference is formalisation, officially setting up a campaign office, state and local chapters, fundraising. But if Huck is doing so well against official campaigns with his book tour and media exposure alone, surely that is a bonus. The fanfare of an official declaration will undoubtedly kick the likes of Santorum, even Palin, out of the race (if the latter even runs). Defections from campaigns will boost the grassroots effort, this of course is providing the likes of Pawlenty and Santorum don’t take off.

So fret not, Huck’s Army, if he is going to leave it late to announce, he’s doing a good job of it.

'Ken must go'

2011-02-03T09:35:00.006Z

God bless the small mercies in politics. The Sun today calls on Ken Clarke to be sacked and leave the government. I agree. I have done for some time.

In wanting to give sex offenders, violent criminals and other prisoners the vote, Ken Clarke has become a disgrace, especially as he is meant to be the ‘Justice’ secretary. It gets worse, though. He obsessively supports it because the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg has told him he has to. If that didn’t make your blood boil enough, he’s urging it because if we don’t do what the ECHR says, we’ll be fined. Yeah, right, by who and what army?

Just. Say. No.

No to giving prisoners the vote because when you infringe the rights of others to an extent that you should be put away as a threat to society, we are agreeing your loss of liberty is for the greater good of society. That means no vote, hombre.

No to giving prisoners the vote based on the edict of a foreign court. Parliament has the constitutional right to vote for what it wants. It is still – theoretically – sovereign and an act of parliament can override any judgement from any court anywhere, anytime.

Finally, we should not give anyone a single penny of any fine because no other authority has either the power or right to ‘fine’ us for not doing what it says. To quote a wise sage: “Who the hell do you think you are?”

Of course I never expected Ken Clarke to put the safety of the British people or the sovereignty of parliament first. Thankfully, when parliament votes on the matter next week it will be a free vote. They may be out of touch, but the motion on prisoner voting rights is cross party so, fingers crossed, Ken Clarke's desire for prisoner voting rights should get voted down.

When parliament rejects the ECHR's demands, it will be a vote of no confidence in our Minister for InJustice. With parliament lacking confidence in a minister, he should go. And good riddance.

Democracy?! It's so 20th Century

2011-02-02T13:39:00.003Z

If your MP isn’t one of the following, then you were stitched up last night. These very, very few were the only ones to vote for Peter Bone’s amendment to give us a referendum on EU membership:

Baker, Steve; Baron, Mr John; Bone, Mr Peter; Bridgen, Andrew; Campbell, Mr Gregory; Carswell, Mr Douglas; Cash, Mr William; Chope, Mr Christopher; Clappison, Mr James; Drax, Richard; Goldsmith, Zac; Henderson, Gordon; Hoey, Kate; Howarth, Mr George; Jenkin, Mr Bernard; Lewis, Dr Julian; Main, Mrs Anne; McCrea, Dr William; Nuttall, Mr David; Percy, Andrew; Shannon, Jim; Shepherd, Mr Richard; Simpson, David; Skinner, Mr Dennis; Turner, Mr Andrew; Vaz, Keith; Mr Philip Hollobone and Mark Reckless

Out of the 650 MPs we have, only the above MPs actually support the right for us, the British people, have a say on where our laws ultimately come from, Parliament or Brussels. We can have a referendum on fiddling the electoral system. We can even have a vote in our local authorities on whether we would like an elected Mayor. But self government and constitutional independence, nah, that’s too 20th Century...

That South Carolina Poll

2011-02-02T09:31:00.004Z

I mentioned here how South Carolina is going to be more important to the GOP Primary than Iowa or New Hampshire and here I hoped that PPP were going to poll South Carolina next in their state-wide polls of preferred candidates for President. Well, they did.

Here are the results:

• Jim DeMint 24%
• Mike Huckabee 20%
• Mitt Romney 17%
• Sarah Palin 12%
• Newt Gingrich 10%
• Ron Paul 4%
• Tim Pawlenty 3%
• Mitch Daniels 2%

(without DeMint):
• Mike Huckabee 26%
• Mitt Romney 20%
• Sarah Palin 18%
• Newt Gingrich 13%
• Ron Paul 7%
• Tim Pawlenty 4%
• Mitch Daniels 3%

It was hardly the mark of a political expert to predict that Huckabee would win in SC with the field as is currently expected. The general trends are typical of most other states, Huckabee out front, Romney viable, Palin falling and Gingrich drifting. With DeMint, we could question whether only getting a quarter of your home state makes you viable. But I wonder if Jim DeMint is looking very carefully at this and thinking that a few more trips to Iowa are in order, seeing as Huckabee is going to keep us all in suspense.

An elected Senate, please

2011-01-31T18:01:00.007Z

The composition of the House of Lords is the best argument for an elected Senate to replace it. Watching the Lords delay the Alternative Vote bill was stomach churning not because they did it out of spite, or because the Labour Lords who held up the bill went into the election promising AV, but because the Lords themselves had no mandate to do so. I say mandate because no Lord has a right - from any voter - to regulate the way people in the UK live and work.

Oona King, who lost her Commons seat in 2005, today takes her seat in the Upper Chamber and joins Lord Coe (defeated at the 1997 election), Lord Forsyth (defeated 1997), Lord Knight (defeated 2010), Lady Smith (defeated 2010), Baroness Kramer (defeated 2010) and – a case of multiple defeats – Shirley Williams (defeated for the last time in 1987). And Lord Taylor of Warwick (defeated 1992, found guilty of false accounting 2011). There are probably more, I’ve only just skimmed through the list of Peers. But do you see a pattern emerge?

How can anyone justify an MP losing their seat – the privilege to legislate the laws and regulations that govern our lives – and then accept their elevation to a different chamber where they can do exactly what they did beforehand, give or take. We voted them out. They should go, not be wrapped in ermine, given a title and keep their legislative powers.

Politicians have no power to decide anything the moment they break the bond between the people and parliament. You can't then turn around after losing and say 'sorry Joe Public, we don’t like your decision so we’re going to carry on regardless', isn’t that right Baroness King?

Then there are those MPs who decided to voluntarily take leave from the accountable Commons and move to the Lords. Hang on a minute. MPs who ‘stand down’ should stay down and be nowhere near the law-making process afterwards. If you remain in the legislative business after removing yourself from public verdict altogether, you are a disgrace to democracy. Again, there are plenty of Peers who continue to irritate in public after succumbing to the boredom of engaging with the hoi-polloi every four or five years.

I’ll have nothing of this ‘retirement’ business in the Lords. Play golf instead. If you retire you cease to do the job you did beforehand. End of. Now go away.

There are the ‘experts’ that we are told should be in the Lords by right of being ‘eminent’ in their field or a ‘captain of industry’. I join Douglas Carswell in opposing the ‘divine right of experts’. We have been listening to the ‘experts’ for a while and, looking around, they appear to be as mortal and fallible as the rest of us. I find it funny that these ‘experts’ can also take wildly differing views on the same subjects, even able to sit on both sides of the House opposing each other. Then we learn they're not really experts, just obsessives in one particular field and in practice their presence in the Lords is yet another reason to subvert the democratic process in our revising chamber.

Expertise is no reason to avoid the judgement of the electorate. Peer-review is not a mandate to govern or legislate. Select Committees can call upon your advice as and when they need it. Or, better still, run for election.

Finally we have the 92 remaining hereditary Peers. The hereditary principle rests with the Crown in Parliament as the source of political power in the UK, not families in the Lords. The hereditary noble Lord of Upper Nowhere in the Valley of Blimey is entirely able to place himself before the voters and explain why he should legislate for us.

There simply is no logical reason to support the House of Lords as it is. In fact there is no reason to support an Upper House that does not have a 100% elected populace. To argue for anything but is to reject democratic accountability for the decisions made in Parliament.

Ukuncut Vs. the Eunuch Coalition

2011-01-30T15:34:00.004Z

In a pathetic effort to express ‘solidarity’ with the protestors in Egpyt, the socialist, anarchist, green forces of ‘Ukuncut’ have taken to the streets today to rally against perfectly logical ‘tax avoidance’ procedures and other perceived ‘ills’ associated with capitalism, globalisation and free trade. We know this because, decked out in their ‘made in China’ rip-off trendy gear, they are tweeting this very middle-class, revolution from their iPhones and Blackberries. There is of course no irony there whatsoever.

A comparison between the Egyptian protests for democracy and Ukuncut isn’t worth thought, let alone type. But Ukuncut’s ideas pose a serious threat to our economy and country. It is extraordinarily impressive that this ramshackle bunch have taken off, unifying the Left much better than Aaron Porter or Ed Miliband will care to admit. Their message, more worryingly, carries dangerous consequences for the country, if they succeed in convincing the people that socialism is the answer.

I wrote here how the Coalition, in its centrist folly, let Ed Balls in as Shadow Chancellor. Were they more forthright in the defence of a market, capitalist economy, and engaged in a battle of ideas, that taxing and spending less is right, I imagine someone more sensible would be Shadow Chancellor. But instead the Coalition are spending more, not cutting, and doing everything based on circumstances rather than ideology.

It may work against Labour, but we cannot let the rubbish spouted by Ukuncut win the battle of ideas in the country. Tax avoidance only happens because rates are far too high and our tax code too complex, enabling clever lawyers and accountants to weasel hundreds of millions out of the country. A low, very competitive flat tax would solve all this. Were the Ukuncut protests about anything other than enviro-Marxism, then they would be protesting for a flat tax, for taking the poorest out of the tax system altogether and lowering rates to attract more jobs and investment in the UK.

But no, what we have is a battle of ideas. Ukuncut aren’t pragmatic, they’ve taken Rahm Emanuel’s advice and they’re not letting a good crisis go to waste, using the ‘cuts’ as a premise for advancing socialism hidden behind their masks, placards and questionable attire.

What was once expected to be the chief opponent of Ukuncut’s outdated mantra, the Tories, are almost siding with them with their centrist complacency. They have foolishly started with the wrong cuts because their cowardice on the EU (or complicity with) avoids the biggest cut in the room. The £17bn or so we contribute annually to the EU, over the same 5 year period, is more than the ‘cuts’ imposed by the Coalition. How much aid have we spent propping up dictators the Middle East now tries to expunge? Another cut. The bonfire of the quangos fizzled out, but the work of the Potato Council lives on. Cuts like these, first, would have brought the country round to accepting cuts for the future as we scale back the size of the state.

But the Coalition, frankly, is there for its own self preservation, why else has it pushed for the Alternative Vote that supplements the fall in Lib Dem support with Tory transfers in Labour seats and marginals? They spend political capital trying to create a fiction, the ‘Big Society’, instead of freeing people from tax slavery, reducing our taxes and engaging in a serious bout of tax reform.

There will be no challenge to the ideas of Ukuncut from the House of Commons unless those who believe in lower, flat taxes, free markets and free trade stop behaving like battered wives and change their vote to support people who believe as they do. The longer you put party loyalties ahead of ideological solidarity, the more ground Ukuncut will make up.

GOP '12 Profile: Mike Huckabee

2011-01-29T16:29:00.015Z

I like Mike Huckabee. I ended up backing him in 2008 and I think he’s the best candidate for the GOP again this time. His strengths outweigh his weaknesses and he is the right Republican to take on and defeat President Obama.

Usually associated with social conservatives and the evangelical base of the Republican Party, Huckabee soared into the top tier in the 2008 cycle with the help of the Fair Tax campaign, those economic conservatives. Not what you'd expect. It’s his support for ending the federal income tax that propelled him into the top tier last time and the social conservatives have kept him there.

Broke, his campaign needed a boost and it was the Fair Tax delegation at the Ames Straw Poll that helped him out. He could barely afford adverts, limiting his exposure to Iowa’s social conservatives and evangelicals. Support from Bob van der Plaats, a popular statewide politician, helped. Ames was meant to be a fight between Sam Brownback and Mitt Romney. But Huck’s position on tax won him the Big Mo out of Ames as he pushed Brownback aside and set up a tie against Romney at the January caucuses.

I mention this because tax and the economy is seen as one of his weaknesses, when it shouldn't be. The classically liberal Club for Growth and Cato Institute lambasted him last time for his spending and tax increases in Arkansas, something Governor Huckabee manages to neuter with his support of the Fair Tax.

By replacing the federal income tax with the nation-wide Fair Tax (a sales tax), you remove the federal tax on productivity. What more of an incentive could that be to blue collar, working class folk who want to pick themselves up by their boot straps and leave their children better than what they had? That figures with Huckabee and his background, Arkansas is one of the poorest states in the Union. It’s what drives him and, I believe, by endorsing a tax system that rewards the productive forces in the American economy, ending the complexities and loopholes, Huckabee can’t be challenged by those who defend the current, complex federal American tax code.

The fewer, simpler and lower a country’s taxes, the better off it will be. Huckabee’s support of the Fair Tax goes in that direction, which is why, as an economic liberal, I have no problem supporting Huckabee.

As a social conservative, he can’t be rivalled, especially with Mike Pence out of the race. Huckabee won the 2009 Values Voters Summit, came second last year to Pence and in my analysis has a clear run at Republican Values Voters this time. Romney tried, and failed, to out-conservative the Southern Governor in 2008. Palin might be able to challenge Huckabee, but her polls have fallen remarkably fast, so much so that I don’t think she will run at all – you’ll have more chance of Michele Bachmann running. Senator DeMint may run, but he has said he will only do so if no one suitably conservative gets in the race.

Huckabee’s problem isn't his conservatism, it's money. Romney will outspend him this time, come what may. It didn’t work during the last cycle; I doubt it will this time. But Huckabee’s PAC hasn’t been outstanding at fundraising, it's lagged well behind those supporting Romney and Palin. But with criticism from the neo-liberal think tanks and PACs, is it any wonder he doesn’t fundraise well?

That said, money will come with viability and Huckabee is far more viable this time around. He leads in Iowa, does better than expected in New Hampshire and is miles ahead in Texas, North Carolina, West Virginia and a whole host of other states being polled early. PPP are asking readers to vote on the state they should poll next, do check it out. I voted for South Carolina because it will determine which candidates survive until Super Tuesday.

So we’re agreed he’s by far the social conservative choice, he has tax policies open to economic conservatives, so it all seems rather good. This is precisely why he can’t wait until the summer to announce, and why his backers are getting a bit edgy. Luckily for Huckabee, Mike Pence is not running and I can't emphasise enough how important that is for Huckabee. He was the most credible candidate to rival Huckabee amongst Values Voters. But he needs to get in soon to start fundraising before all the money gets soaked up and build on the momentum he’s already achieved in the polls.

What he doesn’t need is to wait for money and endorsements to fly elsewhere. For if they do not get in the race, Bachmann, Pence, DeMint and co. will all be valuable assets to the Huckabee campaign, or to whoever they back. With their endorsement, as is the law of politics, comes legitimacy in a policy area. Getting Bachmann or another Tea Party endorsement will be crucial and further cement Huckabee’s status as the front runner. It could even dampen some of the criticism from libertarian quarters this time around.

One other option is that he may not run at all, which is troubling. He has a good gig with Fox News and as a commentator. Will he want to give that up for the endless campaign trips, sleep deprivation and exhaustion? He should because the causes he fights for are too valuable to leave to someone less well placed to carry the torch. No better candidate can fight for the right to life as Huckabee. No other candidate is campaigning to release the productive potential of the American workforce. No other candidate is, frankly, as likeable.

Like 2008, it will be seen as a battle between Huckabee and Romney, providing the latter holds onto his lead in New Hampshire. Huckabee all but seems to have chased Romney out of Iowa. At South Carolina Huckabee, on top form, will win and run away with it. Then the real battle begins to get Obama out of the White House. I really do hope it's as simple as that.

Mike Pence not running

2011-01-28T09:28:00.003Z

“There’s a 100 percent chance that he’s not going to announce a run for president”

Full story here.

I must say this is a shame. Mike Pence had the right window of opportunity to run with Huckabee waiting and Bachmann still yet to decide. Values Voters backed him last year, which would have evened out the race in Iowa and possibly the South and led to who knows what. I hope he doesn’t come to regret the decision.

Another endorsement for Newt, but...

2011-01-27T11:01:00.004Z

Good and bad news for Newt. The good news out of Iowa, fresh from Newt’s call for the replacement of the EPA and support for ethanol production, is a huge endorsement from the Iowa House majority leader Linda Upmeyer.

This comes just days after Georgia Governor Nathan Deal backed Gingrich for the Presidency.

The bad news is that nearly one-in-four potential GOP primary voters would not like to see him as the Republican nominee.

Clearly spending his time in Iowa, meeting the Governor and securing endorsements mean he is going to compete for the caucus next January. But he needs to sort out his negative ratings if he is to make it into the top tier. If one-in-four don’t want you now, how many will it be when you’re walking the tightrope of a primary election campaign?

How crucial are Iowa and New Hampshire?

2011-01-26T19:47:00.002Z

Two polls out yesterday tell us that New Hampshire and Iowa are almost foregone conclusions. National Strategic polls (H/T to Race42012) show Huckabee leading by 9 in Iowa over Romney and Romney racing away with a 20 point lead over Huckabee in New Hampshire. I can’t see Huckabee losing his core social conservative, evangelical base in Iowa and Romney will likely ditch the caucus and spend his time in New Hampshire to fend off any further challenge from Huckabee, Gingrich, Gary Johnson and whoever else could be a contender.

That said, Huckabee will not win New Hampshire. His economic record isn’t sufficiently libertarian. Romney has his weaknesses but Massachusetts is next door and there has been considerable overspill into the live-free-or-die-state. It’s his to lose.

So we have to ask ourselves, are the Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primary worth much this time around? Should we be looking elsewhere?

Iowa and New Hampshire are a test of a candidate’s organisation and how motivated their grassroots are. The Ames Straw Poll this year and Iowa Caucus next are indicators that a candidate has the organisation to reach out to Republicans, win them over and crucially get them to the Poll and Caucus on a cold, dark Iowa night. New Hampshire is more about money and how you reach out to independents in the first state-wide primary. Money, crucially, will be more of a factor this time in New Hampshire because there won’t be a Democratic primary, so there’ll be a much larger potential electorate than Iowa. We can assume then that Romney will break the bank to sweep New Hampshire.

So should South Carolina be the real turning point? It was that contest last time that killed Mike Huckabee’s momentum, eliminated Fred Thompson and kept John McCain alive.

It’s looking like it. It has a mix of conservative tendencies, military and social, a mixed demographic and is the jewel of the Republican South. But...enter the joker in the pack, Senator Jim DeMint the Tea Party favourite, Senator from South Carolina and the subject of a draft campaign. He has already made waves boycotting CPAC over the appearance of a Republican gay rights group, joining many social conservative groups in doing so. Teeing up a run for President, maybe?

If he does it complicates things further. But it will show how strong the Huckabee and Romney campaigns really are with DeMint in the race. A win over DeMint in his home state, where he breezed to re-election, will prove a candidate's power to soar through Super Tuesday. They'll have proven their fundraising prowess and organisational strength. They'll need it to out-do Jim DeMint. Also remember South Carolina was the turning point last time, stopping Huckabee in his tracks and John McCan never looked back. So never mind the early snow-drenched states, the palmetto state is where this race comes alive.

GOP '12 Profile: Mike Pence

2011-01-25T18:05:00.013Z

The more I hear about Rep. Mike Pence, the more impressed I am. If you can be judged guilty by association, you can also be judged sound. Tea Party activists, social conservatives and fiscal conservatives are lining up to draft Pence to run for President before he makes his decision at the end of January.

This reminds me of the groundswell of support that pushed Fred Thompson into the 2008 primary, and must serve as a warning. The problems started in 2006 when George Allen’s presidential ambitions crumbled around him. Conservatives subsequently failed to coalesce around a single candidate. As time went on the conservative movement decided Thompson should fill that void. Thompson was dragged into running for the GOP nomination and his lacklustre campaigning record throughout the primary contest demonstrated that he didn’t really want to run. The movement made him run and, ironically, he stole enough social conservative votes in South Carolina to rob Huckabee of a spectacular upset victory and let John McCain through the middle. Thompson bowed out soon after.

I maintain Gingrich should have been the movement’s choice, but that is history. Now the same movement is saying Pence should fill the ‘void’ in the GOP primary. Palin can't win, Huckabee can't raise enough money and may not run, they say, so Pence has to.

But Pence is showing the same hesitation Thompson displayed. As a member of the House of Representatives, he lacks the experience of the other candidates. Only James Garfield, in 1880, has successfully run for the White House whilst being a member of the House of Representatives. So naturally commentators are saying Pence should run for the Governorship of Indiana when Mitch Daniels steps down so he can govern on a state-wide level in preparation for a future presidential run.

He has set himself until the end of January to make up his mind, and it is a tough decision. Will he spend most of the campaign thinking that he should have waited, become Governor of Indiana and run later, especially if he doesn’t take off in the polls? Will this lead to some malaise in the campaign which fizzles out quickly? I don’t think so. He should run and be 100% committed to winning.

He has plenty going for him. He already has a broad coalition supporting him, he is more of a campaigner than Fred Thompson and Mike Huckabee is waiting until the Summer to decide on a White House run. He has a window of opportunity he must exploit because, I guarantee, he cannot bank on having as good a set of circumstances next time, if there is a next time.

Clearly, the conservative movement is in a far stronger position than it was in 2008. The Tea Party insurgencies have made it possible for a ‘true-believer’ to run. Pence seems to satisfy all three wings of the Tea Party and GOP, which no other candidate can effectively do. Completely out of the blue, to me at least, he won the 2010 Values Voters Summit, knocking Mike Huckabee into second place. In social conservative politics that is David beating Goliath and making Pence competitive in Iowa, in theory.

Although he is torn on whether to run for President or Governor of Indiana, the base is clearly there for him to carry out a national campaign. With support in South Carolina as well as within Tea Party chapters and social conservative groups, there is an organisation coming together. Remember, Huckabee had the Fair Tax organisation push him into contention, which turned out to be more dynamic than those who cajoled Thompson into the race. Pence can easily put together a national organisation that will rival any other conservative in the race, making him a more serious candidate than Thompson was in 2008.

And, finally, most of what you do in politics depends on the other people in it. Huckabee’s decision to wait gives Pence plenty of time to eat into his support base. Alright, just because a candidate isn’t officially declared doesn’t mean they’re not ‘in’ the race. Huckabee will be able to comment on the first debate without being cross-examined by the other candidates or be given an opportunity to trip himself up. But for that hour, hour and a half, Mike Pence will have Huckabee voters – and Palin voters – watching with interest.

The question is can this House member, this fiscal and social, constitutional conservative make the right choice for 2012. Mike Pence will be a great Presidential nominee. But will he make his run from the House now or from the Indiana Governor’s office in 2016? I think he should run now because one office has been overlooked. If Pence runs, competes strongly but doesn’t quite make it, he could always make his next run at the Presidency from the office of the Vice President.

Gingrich secures early endorsement

2011-01-25T17:12:00.007Z

The Governor of Georgia, Nathan Deal, has said today that he will support Newt Gingrich if he runs for President.

Getting a Governor's endorsement usually throws the state party machinery behind a candidate, which is a massive advantage in a primary campaign. You need to show viability and feet-on-the-ground activists demonstrate your level of support. As I stated earlier, with Huckabee's core strong in Georgia, Deal endorsing Gingrich makes the prospect for a proper Southern showdown more likely. An exciting development that, in the long run, may benefit Mitt Romney the most.

Rasmussen Poll: Romney's slim lead

2011-01-24T22:00:00.005Z

I will post these polls infrequently for the next few months or so, and here's why:

"A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney leads the pack with the support of 24% of Likely Republican Primary Voters. Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, the party’s nominee for vice president in 2008, runs second with 19%, closely followed by Mike Huckabee with 17%...

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich comes in fourth with 11% support. Tim Pawlenty, who recently stepped down as governor of Minnesota, earns six percent (6%) of the primary vote, followed by Texas Congressman Ron Paul at four percent (4%) and Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels with three percent (3%). Six percent (6%) like some other candidate, and 10% are undecided given this list."

Although Newt holds steady, this compared to the PPP poll I referenced earlier shows the race is still wide open and we can't really infer much from these early polls. Whereas the PPP poll has Huckabee leading by a mile on 24%, Rasmussen show a much tighter race. Polls will only become worthwhile the closer we get to the Ames Straw Poll and beyond.

I'll continue to profile the candidates one by one, however, with analysis on Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum and Gary Johnson already complete for your interest, comment and debate.

GOP '12 Profile: Newt Gingrich

2011-01-24T18:59:00.008Z

There we have it, finally, news that Newt Gingrich will declare for the Presidency. Interesting but predictable, he has informed the Georgia Republican Party of his decision to not only run but run out of Georgia. This is important because if the Gingrich campaign survives until Super Tuesday it keeps Huckabee in the South to shore up his support, allowing Romney a free hand at the swing, delegate-heavy states.

Huckabee, realistically more viable this time around, will need to lock in the South early to spend more time in the delegate-heavy states in the Mid-West and West that will ultimately decide the winner of the primary contest. Gingrich in Georgia makes it more difficult, he was congressman for the Georgia 6th for twenty years and Speaker for eight. States often tend to vote for their favoured son in the primaries.

That said, with both still in the race I’d still be tempted to put Georgia in Huckabee’s column. The Fair Tax is incredibly popular there and Huckabee’s populism and social conservatism play well across the whole South. I just don’t see Gingrich denting Huckabee’s Southern lead.

A recently released PPP poll, however, shows that Gingrich has a lot of work to do to make it to Georgia. He should have run in 2008 – I was, and still am, one of his biggest fans, at the time I was writing for the Draft Newt campaign website. But registering 11% now, whilst not bad, isn’t great. Huckabee was within the margin of error of nothing this time in the 2008 cycle, so anything can happen. But Huckabee is on 24% now and has survived Palin-mania.

Newt's other problem is that he let a lot of people down cautioning against Tea Party insurgencies. It surprised me when he endorsed Dede Scozzafava in the New York 23rd special election as I would have expected this firebrand partisan to go for broke in favour of the real conservative in the race, Doug Hoffman.

This is where I suspect he has only just made up his mind to run. Newt, with both eyes on the Presidency, would have been an ideal champion to lead the Tea Party revolt to weed out unsound congressmen. His ‘21st Century Contract with America’ was as innovative, far-reaching and inspiring as the 1994 Contract.

Now we have the conservative wing of the GOP calling for a massive $2.5 trillion of spending cuts, a repeal to Obamacare and a perennial fight against socialism. Nothing new for the GOP. The point is party unity on this is immense, just as it was in 1994. The vote to repeal Obamacare carried all GOP congressmen in the House...and 3 Democrats. This is the legacy Newt Gingrich brought to the Party in with the '94 Contract. He should have been riding the wave earlier, standing, leading with Palin, Bachmann, Armey, Pence and the other Tea Party favourites, forging a new Contract for 2010.

Newt is a partisan fighter, notoriously unpopular with his opponents dating back to the Congressional shutdown and the Clinton impeachment hearings. But he is to Democrats what Obama is to Republicans. It is independents Newt needs to reach out to with ideas to reform the way government in America works. We need less of his Catholicism, the affairs will come back to haunt him if he preaches morals, and more of the Gingrich ideas-factory. Let’s not doubt that Newt is by far the smartest of the contenders lining up to tackle Obama.

We need more about personal investment accounts to challenge the burden of social security. We need more on how to fight the war on terrorism within the constraints of a budgetary crisis. We need more of Newt’s common sense solutions on the border and how to manage immigration sensibly. If Gingrich seizes the agenda early on, he goes far in this contest.

As I have stated, Newt’s unpopularity with his opponents is nothing new. But his ideas resonate with the reform-minded independents the GOP captured in 2010. The times are bad enough that we need radical new ideas, not more personality politics. It won’t be easy, far from it, but Gingrich has a serious role to play in a future Republican administration, maybe not as President, but either as Vice President or a senior cabinet level appointee.

The Taxman Profits

2011-01-24T18:48:00.004Z

I was horrified to read in the Daily Telegraph today a very short story about the Taxman. The report says that tax officials ‘received more than £13million in performance related bonuses last year, despite the blunder that saw more than a million people receive new tax demands’. (Page 8)

So it’s ok to bash all bankers, a majority of whom create billions in tax revenue for the UK, but news that the incompetents at Revenue and Customs get £13million in bonuses and receive a mere 4 paragraphs in a story I can’t even find online is an outrage.

That comparison right there is why we’re headed for the economic doldrums. No one cares when those who take our money get rewarded for failure, but when a small minority of those who make the money mess up it’s open season on all bankers. Tax, tax, tax, bash, bash, bash. What a country.

GOP '12 Profile: Gary Johnson

2011-01-23T14:12:00.014Z

If you don’t know who Gary Johnson is, get to know about him. I am going to throw my hat in the air and make a prediction that Governor Gary Johnson will be the surprise of the 2012 Republican Primary. He will elbow out Ron Paul from the contest, who will endorse him early and hopefully run for the vacant Texas Senate seat. I mean, how great will it be for Ron and Rand Paul to be in the Senate?

With Paul’s early backing, Johnson will have the political capital and the ideological following to storm into the top tier at the New Hampshire primary. He deserves to because this guy is talking common sense about solving America’s economic problems.

This is a bit of a bold assertion; it’s far too early to tell who is going to do what in a primary contest a whole year away. There’s a 99% chance I am completely wrong. It is wishful thinking, in part. Johnson may not even run.

But this former Governor of New Mexico should come at least top 3 in New Hampshire because he is gunning to be the libertarian candidate in the 2012 Republican primary and that message has to be heard throughout the entire primary process. If he has an organisation up and running from Spring 2011 and spends most of his time there, perhaps in Nevada for the caucus if he gains momentum by the Autumn, he stands a good chance of outflanking Romney on libertarian, Reaganomics grounds but also by attracting the business wing of the party, having started one of New Mexico’s leading construction companies.

Just by reading this article you know the guy is serious about cutting spending and government. He could be talking to you over a beer, waving through the billions of dollars worth of cuts he’d make as President, dare I say with a bit of straight talking. He talks about politics and principles with ease, I guess, because he puts principle above the chitter-chatter of Beltway hacks and commentators. He’s honest, a bit too honest.

In an age of political flip-flopping, Johnson is a breath of fresh air. He is a self made multi-millionaire who became Governor of New Mexico, vetoed 750 bills and eliminated the state’s budget deficit. That’s perhaps why they re-elected him. With such a record of libertarian action it would be poetic justice if Johnson had made his money running a railroad.

He’ll push a few buttons, but that’s entirely necessary and typically Johnson. He will say, without a care for politics, that the war on drugs is a costly mistake and to regulate and tax drugs will lower the prison population and save money in the military and police budgets. A lot of money. He goes into territory no Republican will dare by admitting that defence spending needs to be reduced. Departing from Ron Paul, however, he is a defender of Israel and is less keen on attacking American foreign policy and the wars as Paul.

In caucus and closed primary states, Johnson may suffer if economic conservatives flock to Gingrich, however. His 21st Century Contract with America was pure genius and he is still a party favourite. But no candidate, yet, has come close offering a set of ideas to solve the American budgetary crisis as Johnson does. Some may find it tough to stomach, but deficit spending has to stop, China can't continue to buy more American debt and this must become a Tea Party and Republican Party priority for reasons as much to do with sovereignty as economics.

If we have genuinely seen a libertarian takeover of the Republican Party, Johnson will go far in this primary process. If the economy, deficit and national debt are the key drivers now of Republican and Tea Party politics, Johnson deserves to win this.

His make or break moment will be if he can unify Republican libertarians and the vital bloc of New Hampshire independents. Those independents that turned both New Hampshire congressional and the Senate seat Republican. Those independents that switched to the GOP and precipitated a political landslide in the New Hampshire state house. Those independents who like a bit of straight talking in the state whose motto is ‘live free or die’. If he succeeds where Buchanan failed and stages a complete upset in New Hampshire, then have we got a contest.

Let’s be honest, though, if Johnson doesn’t take off in New Hampshire he may as well call it a day. Tea Party money will go elsewhere, as will the activists. But looking at his main challenger in New Hampshire, Mitt Romney, Romney only has geography going for him with Massachusetts next door.

Johnson, however, has his politics and record going for him. He is self made, a governor who doesn’t have socialised healthcare hanging over him. He has run a multi-million dollar enterprise, vital business experience needed to rebalance the federal budget. Under his watch, New Mexico went the longest period without a tax increase in its history. Perhaps best of all, Johnson doesn’t appear to be the flip-flopper, establishment type Romney is.

This race will get more exciting the longer Governor Johnson is involved.

Senator Ron Paul?

2011-01-22T12:47:00.004Z

Looks like the Good Congressman from Texas may be joining his son in the Senate. The polling company PPP has him second in a 2012 race for the Texas Senate seat to be vacated by Kay Bailey Hutchison and Race42012 says he is interested. I don't want Ron Paul to run for President, but having him in the Senate would be perfect. Sound!

The Coalition let Balls in

2011-01-20T19:38:00.007Z

Alan Johnson’s departure as Shadow Chancellor will be arrogantly lauded by supporters of the Coalition as a ‘lurch to the left’. They now think they’re on easy street, no one could possibly vote for a socialist twice around, could they?

Look at the polls. Labour has rebounded with fervour arguing for precisely more spending and higher taxes that ruined the economy. The ratchet is moving leftwards, again. Economic socialism is back and the practical and ideological case has to be made against it and frankly this timid Coalition hasn’t got the guts, balls (!) or the principles to do so. They will just stick to the bland centre, reviving the ghost of Butskellism.

I know I speak for a lot of people when I despair at the hand-wringing, self-loathing in the Commons when Tory MPs and ministers argue how progressive they are, how what they are doing is more progressive than Labour’s record. Pass the sick bag. They bandy left-liberal terms about, trying to carry them off as their own rather than say what they’re doing, principally eliminating the deficit, is morally right.

The argument should be made that spending less is good. Taxing less is morally right because what individuals have legitimately earned is theirs. The state has no business in interfering with the outcomes of voluntary exchange. What the state takes in tax should only be used to aid future voluntary exchanges.

But yet we have Tory MPs lining up to say they ‘regret’ voting to abolish the Education Maintenance Allowance, as did the head of the Education Select Committee in yesterday’s debate. They say circumstance, not justice, is a reason for abolishing wasteful spending. So you mean when you have money to squander, you would use my money to pay for people to go to college instead of giving the surplus back to me? You take money from me to provide education, fine, but you would also rob me to try and bribe those, who may not want to, to go to college?

Why is it still alright to overtax the British people? Why has no one rushed to defend the wealth creators? Yes, bash the banks that feed at the trough of the taxpayer. Taxpayers own or part own them, so we can have a good grumble. But leave the Hedge Funds, the entrepreneurs, the non-government businesses alone. But those arguments won’t be made from the Coalition.

With the arrival of Ed Balls as Shadow Chancellor, the Coalition will palm off what it's doing as Thatcherite. It will placate its followers with rhetoric, whilst politically castrating itself by sitting on the jagged edge of the fence. Labour’s gone to the Left, so clearly what we’re doing is to the Right of Tebbit, they will say to those foolish enough to hear. The careerists and gullible will believe it too.

But at the end of this parliament, VAT will still be at 20%. We will still be spending more as a nation and the opposition will want to spend even more. We will be squandering money on foreign aid and membership of the costly, wasteful European Union. Those arguments for rolling back 13 years of debt-fuelled spending and government largesse won’t be heard. The Coalition, and the Tories, won’t make the arguments because they can’t be bothered or, as I suspect, they don’t believe in it.

Ed Balls is only allowed to be Shadow Chancellor because the Conservatives have made it acceptable for a socialist to return to frontline politics. It's Benn after Foot rather than Kinnock. If the Coalition were vigorously defending a liberal economy and lower taxes the suggestion of Balls becoming Shadow Chancellor would have been laughed out of the room.

GOP '12 Profile: Rick Santorum

2011-01-19T17:38:00.007Z

Here begins my analysis of the 2012 Republican primary candidates, starting with former Republican Senator Rick Santorum.

Santorum is a one of the few candidates fishing around early to see if he can make headway in the social conservative mid-west and demonstrate he is a credible candidate at the Ames Straw Poll. That, after all, is a constituency he’ll be heavily dependent on to boost him into the top tier and enable him to become one of the 3 leading, viable candidates by the time of the New Hampshire and South Carolina primaries. Like I set out in my summary of the 2012 primary race, he has to get out of the blocks early because he’s an unknown quantity compared to Romney, Huckabee, Gingrich etc, barely registering in any poll I’ve seen outside of Iowa and Pennsylvania, where he is a poor 5th.

His political CV is impressive and that of a principled political street fighter. A twice-elected Senator from purple Pennsylvania, he rose quickly through the Republican ranks, becoming the third most powerful Republican on Capitol Hill. Were he in a dark-red state, he would have walked to re-election in 2006. We could even be talking about Governor Santorum right now.

But, alas, his hard-line social conservatism (Santorum is a strident Catholic) didn’t fit well with Pennsylvania voters and he lost his senate seat in 2006. It’s unfair to say that his social values cost him in its entirety. His opponent, Bob Casey Jr., comes from a long line of pro-life Democrats in the state. Values voters – annoyed at the Bush economy – could feel safe voting for Casey as he at least paid lip service to pro-life values.

But such a devastating defeat, Santorum lost by 18 points in a landslide, will hang around his neck like a noose. Losers do not become President. Unless you’re Richard Nixon.

Politically, Santorum earned his conservative spurs taking an outspoken line on social issues. A firm opponent of same sex marriage, abortion and frequent critic of social libertarianism, he will be at odds with the likes of Gary Johnson and this will limit his ability to reach out beyond social conservatives.

Were this contest in the middle of the last decade, the then Senator Santorum could have done well. Social issues saved George Bush in 2004 and Santorum had yet to be routed in his home state. But this is 2011 and the bail outs, healthcare and taxes are the key issues now in the public eye, especially among independents. Those very issues are what drove non-aligned voters into the Republican column and secured victory in the House last November. For those reasons, I doubt Santorum will be in the race beyond the Ames Straw Poll. He will rely too much on social conservatives that Huckabee and, if he runs, Mike Pence will sweep up with ease. If anything, Santorum is running to get a cabinet post in the next Republican presidency. A good, sound move I’d say.

Tomorrow, former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson.

A Thought on EMA

2011-01-19T09:27:00.003Z

So after protesting for the education maintenance allowance (EMA), will the Left argue for a taxpayer funded allowance to get them out of bed in the morning? Just askin'

The Tea Party and 2012

2011-01-18T18:36:00.019Z

The Tea (Taxed Enough Already) Party was the story of the 2010 congressional elections. The political equivalents of Leonidas and co. had shown to Xerxes Obama that he too was mortal with a congressional assault wounding his comfortable two-House majority. Remember that few thought the Republicans could retake any House after their annihilation in 2008.

Turning to the Presidential elections of 2012, everyone is expecting the Tea Party to do the same, to completely control the Republican primary process, get ‘their’ candidate selected and sweep him (it will be a ‘he’) into the White House.

The Tea Party is influential, but it is a knee-jerk association of disparate activists who came together to oppose the economic and public policies Obama stood for. It is a responsive tendency that will have difficulty adapting to the nationwide, long and drawn out presidential primary process and we can see why from the history of Republican rebellion. It’s there to keep politicians in line and true to first principles at state level, how about nationwide?

The real beginnings of this independent, pitch-fork rebellion began in 1992 when Pat Buchanan challenged George H W Bush in the Republican primaries because Bush Snr promised not to raise taxes and then did so.

Surely a sitting President couldn’t be ousted? No, he couldn’t. But Buchanan came mightily close in the New Hampshire primary, garnering 38% of the vote. Come the general election, Buchanan’s campaign, 3 million people voted for him against Bush, fired up enough independents to move from the Republican column to that of the populist billionaire Ross Perot and enable Bill Clinton to come through the middle and win.

Of course the early Tea Partiers tempered their political outbursts in the mid-90s – Newt Gingrich and the Contract with America ticked all the Tea Party boxes. It wasn’t until the special election in the New York 23rd District in 2009 that the Tea Party came into its own and we saw how an organised Tea Party machine worked.

The presumptive nominee Dede Scozzafava was, in rhetoric and policy, a Democrat running as a Republican and the GOP establishment backed her. Obama was at the tipping point of his unpopularity and in a nominally Republican district a liberal was set to win. This was hardly a strike against Obama liberalism and the bank bail outs. At first Palin, Fred Thompson and other politic-commentators denounced Scozzafava and backed the unknown activist Doug Hoffman (centre). Then this guy, who ran for the third-party New York Conservatives, was gaining publicity for his free-market views and rising in the polls. It quickly became a 3-horse-race. He went from a no-hoper to becoming the Great Right Hope. Conservatives didn't have to settle for a RINO, the ideological real deal was out there, so why not vote for him. Someone has to stand up to Obamacare, tax rises and the socialisation of American politics.

Unfortunately Hoffman lost to a slightly charismatic Democrat, but this was only after Scozzafava had endorsed the Democrat and not Hoffman. But precedent was set, it wasn’t good enough for you to have an (R) by your name any more, your principles had to match.

Again, in the 2010 primaries, the Tea Party reacted to the non-believers up for re-election in the House and Senate. They rose up against Senator Bob Bennett’s support for the bailouts and a healthcare bill that, foolishly, came during the time of Obamacare and, somewhat unfairly, was tarred with the same brush. But he served Utah. Utah is arguably the most Republican, conservative state in the US. If you don’t toe the line you join the dole line, Senator. Mike Lee is the new Senator from Utah.

The same happened in Alaska, the pork-addict incumbent was ditched. Although Murkowski survived as write-in, the only one to do so since Strom Thurmond in 1954, she will not be safe forever.

Favourites for the GOP Senatorial nod in Florida (Governor Crist), Delaware (Congressman Castle) and Nevada (Sue Lowden) all fell by the wayside as insurgencies gathered pace and won out. The establishment dared not fight Rand Paul in Kentucky, such was the wave behind his campaign.

Although it didn’t all go to plan, the Tea Party cull of unsound incumbent Senators displayed an article of faith the grassroots has in the principles of limited government, not candidate personalities, and a ruthless show of force they’re prepared to use in the primaries. But the presidential primary is much different.

First, the staged process of the primaries means candidates have to gain the ‘Big Mo’. There are only 3 tickets out of Iowa and normally only 2 out of New Hampshire. Unknown candidates have to get out of the blocks early – businessman Herman Cain already has – but these campaigns fizzle out because they either run out of money or momentum. The Tea Party, therefore, has to rally around a candidate quickly.

If the Tea Party dithers, then the primary will focus back on the establishment candidates. Almost, always. The blip was Mike Huckabee in 2008 when the Fair Tax campaign gifted him a second place finish at the Ames Straw poll and all-of-a-sudden viability. Cash strapped and desperate for attention, had Ames not delivered for him, Huckabee would have withdrawn with Tommy Thompson, Brownback and others as the show moved out of Iowa. Ideally, therefore, between the Ames Straw Poll and Iowa Caucus, the Tea Party, if it is to act as one cohesive body, needs a candidate to push 100%.

As 2008 rolled on, however, the primary process added a course of voting against rather than voting for a candidate. Fred Thompson stayed in long enough to split Huckabee’s vote in South Carolina, letting McCain sneak a stay-of-execution win at the right time. In West Virginia, McCain released his voters to back Huckabee and stop Romney's momentum. Guiliani kept running away, banking on a last ditch effort in Florida that fizzled out quickly.

The key point is that the Tea Party needs to start early – and stay cohesive. It’ll have trouble settling on one candidate, however.

The issue platform will also be vastly different, which again complicates things for the Tea Party. Presidents deal with foreign policy and judges. So here come the hawks and the social conservatives and the final conflict for the Tea Party. Which is more important, money, morals or multilateral machinations?

Mike Huckabee believes in abolishing the federal income tax, but is no friend of social libertarians. Mitt Romney has business experience but he’s a flip flopper and Romneycare treads a bit too close to Obamacare. Ron Paul is eccentric and his attention grabbing outbursts against US foreign policy annoy the hawks who sit with the Austrian School. Gary Johnson is more down to earth than Paul, but he admitted a penchant for pot the law-and-order types might not appreciate. Sarah Palin didn’t even finish her term as Governor. Mike Pence should become Governor of Indiana before he runs for President. Newt Gingrich dumped his wife while she was in the hospital. Haley Barbour is not one man but an amalgamation of different lobbying interests.

You see there is no one candidate suitable for the Tea Party types, no one potential challenger who can appeal suitably to the 3 legs of the Republican barstool. This race is wide open for the Tea Party as well as your bog standard conservative and libertarian types. But the Tea Party is a collection of ideas, not a person. If the Tea Party plays its hand well at the right time, we may have not even heard of the next President of the USA...yet.

Nudge Off

2011-01-18T09:19:00.002Z

Any proposed ban on the sale of ‘cheap’ alcohol is a pathetic, gesture-ridden fop to the sensationalist press that will do nothing to curb ‘binge drinking’. It is a sleight of hand, a red herring to take attention away from the real problem with our drinking, smoking and the vices the politicians decide we should or should not be engaging in. The problem is the politicians themselves, not what individuals do, perfectly legally, in their own time with the money they have earned. You, be you an MP, Lord, Cllr or Herman von Rompuy, have no legal, political or philosophical right to stop me doing what I do, legally, in my free time. End of.

Actions have consequences, be they direct or that of unintended consequences and the government has to live with them. If you ban smoking in pubs, people go outside frequently for a smoke and you break up social groups who go there to, you know, socialise. Eventually more people abandon the pub and drink and smoke at home, unregulated amounts in front of children. Then pubs close and people naturally buy drink from supermarkets and shops. What’s wrong with that – it’s the consequence of government policy and they should be the last ones complaining. It’s a system of rational choices government will be on a fool’s errand to mess with.

Besides, the government should uphold the laws it has. If you’re sozzled and break the law, fine, do your porridge. It shouldn’t be about government wasting time and money trying to control the habits of its people. Sorry, its employers.

Oh and the national debt passed £1 trillion yesterday, so managing our drinking habits is really the most important news of the day...

Ken Clarke should not be in Government

2011-01-13T10:14:00.004Z

Once bitten, twice shy is the saying. Conservatives are meant to learn from experiences. So when a riot breaks out at an Open Prison, yes one where we’re supposed to send the criminals with least amount of risk, you’d think we need more prisons.

Alas not, it appears, for the Sun carries the terrible news that our InJustice Secretary is to close 3 prisons. Add onto this the cuts to police stations and forces (most of the stations in my borough are to become part time) and it’s like starting the firing pistol for a criminal free for all.

Let me say this – Ken Clarke is perhaps the most dangerous man in Britain. His attitude to law and order is so far out of touch with the mainstream public that we do indeed face a rebalancing of justice the Tories talked about. No, not in favour of the law abiding – we don’t even have the right (as promised at the election) to defend our property from intruders. We face an agenda wholly in favour of the criminals, the likes of which are unimaginable to any right minded voter.

Criminals now get the vote, almost as an act of priority. Ken said on Monday he couldn’t do anything to stop this happening. Balls. He could say no. If the House is still sovereign, a vote and bill, if necessary, can override any other authority. Our constitution is quite clear on that.

But it shouldn’t have to come to that. Who in their right mind gets up in the morning and thinks about how they can give more rights to those who broke the law and infringed the rights of others? The idea to give lags the vote should have been laughed out of the room.

Nearly 9 months in and criminals still have the Human Rights Act to hide behind and even worse, with Red Ken’s consent, the Home Secretary is to plough ahead with plans to allow other EU member states to direct our police forces to investigate us for acts that may not even be crimes in this country.

Such an irresponsible approach to law and order will only put people in danger. If, and it’s a big if, there is any fire left among the real conservatives hiding on the backbenches, they should get Ken out of government before he can do any more damage to communities in the UK.

A tale of two protests

2011-01-12T17:47:00.008Z

Please don’t attack political rhetoric. Please don’t. It’s all we have left. Stranded in a political world where hollow mediocrities float to the top, we are left with the brave few who stick to principle and adopt, sometimes, maverick means to get their point across to keep politics interesting, inspiring and innovative. It, sort of, worked for him.

So used are we over here to bland politics – “sharing the proceeds of growth”, “alarm clock Britain”, “Progressivism” (Aargh!) – that our effete political class recoil when a firebrand American politician places their opponent in crosshairs. It’s colourful. It by no means tells people to go out and shoot other people. It’s a metaphor. Now grow up and act your age.

But what is noticeable is how the two strands of protest in the UK and USA differ, in practice and rhetoric. In America, the tide is with people who just want to be left alone. They don’t want the government to take more of their money. They didn’t want to bail out the banks or have government take over healthcare. They just want to live their life according to the meritocratic American dream. The impressive thing is that they did it with spontaneous grassroots protest, then aided by the philanthropic Koch brothers, Freedom Works and the Tea Party Express and Patriots fighting for the principle of individualism against government intervention. Noble and grown up, the Tea Partiers want to be responsible for their own lives.

Here, the Left, students and Lib Dems go apoplectic over £9,000 university fees that aren’t even in place yet and the £30 bribe Labour paid students to go to school. Oh, and they didn’t just protest. They set fire to the Christmas tree donated by Norway to the UK every year. They smashed expensive police vans. They urinated on war memorials. And it’s now that they start talking about politically motivated violence?

As far as rhetorical hyperbole goes, the Left wins hands down. If you took them at their word you’d think that removing £30 bribe to pay kids to go to college – yes, we have to pay them now to keep them in higher education – will make the sky fall in. Closing the wasteful Regional Development Agencies will turn the North into a barren, nomadic waste. Shutting the quango for paperclip distribution will lead to apocalyptic chaos as errant sheets of A4 wreak havoc across the nation.

Because government is doing just a bit less, a tiny bit, is cause for mass panic, hysteria and obscene violence. They hypocritically ignore the tens-of-thousands we owe per person in national debt and over-spending, seeking almost to jack the debt up even further. They live in a cloud cuckoo land where the state keeps churning up more and more of the money generated by the minority who work in the profitable sector of the economy.

And when they’ve squeezed all they can out of the profitable sector, there won’t be anything left. A grim conclusion to a set of ideas long past their sell by date.