Slipping, slipping...

From: DonkeyHotey

It seems that the old idiom “it never rains but it pours” has never been truer for Mitt Romney than it was last week. No sooner had his half-baked attempt to score political points from the assassination of the United States’ ambassador to Libya spectacularly backfired than some grainy footage in which he disparaged almost half of the American electorate surfaced. To make matters even worse, his campaign’s promise to unveil a new strategy with more details on Romney’s plans (they had been blatantly absent hitherto) was not to be, as his gaffes left him standing awkwardly in the media limelight.

Romney was caught on film at a fund-raising dinner in Florida in May saying that the 47% of Americans who do not pay income tax “believe that they are the victims” and could never be persuaded to “take personal responsibility and care for their lives.” As the cherry on top he added that they “believe they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it...and they will vote for this president no matter what.” In a sense, it is true that he has fewer voters to convince given the increasingly polarised electorate. As Republican Don Fierce explained, “The number of people we’re trying to win over is very small...that’s what’s different from 1980 or other campaigns in the past — there’s such a small number that are there to move.” Notwithstanding polarised politics, writing off half the electorate in a rather supercilious manner as ineffectual spongers is probably not the best way to go about convincing that small, undecided chunk.

As The Economist notes, the frozen party loyalties in American presidential elections do not mean that elite actors cannot influence the fringe sections of the partisan electorate, and this year it looks like capturing just those swing voters will be key to winning. Obama will benefit from a steady support base of Hispanics, African-Americans, and university-educated women in addition to changing demographics. What were previously traditional swing states, such as Nevada, Colorado, Virginia and North Carolina, have now become Democrat strongholds thanks to the rising Hispanic share of the vote. 

Whilst gaffes are a staple feature of campaigns and a rite of passage for most politicians in the spotlight, Romney risks alienating part of his more moderate elite by pandering to the strident, yet stale, ideas of his conservative base. Having tacked back to the centre of the political spectrum after the primary he has dispelled his image as one of the more moderate Republicans only to reveal that he is clumsily out of touch with the electorate as well as fickle when it comes to his positions on important issues. He seems to have gambled everything on the economy, which is indeed the overriding issue of November’s election, but has failed to capitalise on the general disenchantment by offering a specific plan for revitalising it and creating those elusive jobs. Moreover, his lack of a plan seems to signal that he has staked everything on the economic situation being so dismal that it irreversibly tarnishes Obama’s record so as to make his re-election inconceivable. It is quite a hazard to rely on external events, rather than one’s own capacities, to attain leadership of a country.

It is also hard to see how Romney will be able to surmount the high level of public admiration for Obama which is impervious to depressing economic data and stems rather from his historic significance as the first black president. The high degree of public sympathy for Obama arising from those voters who do believe he was handed an exceptionally bad hand of cards from his predecessor George W. Bush will also play in his favour, unless, say, Romney is banking on the United States being hit by an economic cataclysm on the scale of Lehman Brothers between now and November.

Romney’s vacillating positions highlight his lack of an overarching and most importantly, vaguely inspiring message. He churns out the standard Republican spiel on the economy and foreign policy (actually he’s said precious little in this regard) but has failed to translate it into a clear, coherent and specific message about how he is going to turn the status quo around. Even if we were to overlook the absence of a vision, we could not find Romney compensating for this with his personality. In fact, he just comes across as being a bit awkward, flailing about like a goldfish thrown out of its bowl. He does not have Obama’s penchant for rhetoric and has pretty much handed his opponents a joker card with his background, which was always going to be a magnet for flak in tough economic times. This is not to say that his career at Bain Capital is worthy of condemnation per se, but rather that any other candidate would seek to mitigate its potentially negative legacy and turn it around to highlight the leadership, business know-how and management qualities that Romney demonstrated there. It goes without saying that telling a bunch of fellow millionaires that almost half the American electorate is a hopeless case is, to put it lightly, not wise.

The presidential race is still not set in stone, and given how fast things have turned in the recent weeks it is perfectly possible for them to turn back the other way. It would be rash to write off Mitt Romney just yet. But if he keeps fudging along as he has until now he will quickly have finished digging his own electoral grave.

Oh Mitt...

Few people must envy the Republican campaign after its spectacular Libyan debacle. What could and should have been an opportunity for America's squabbling politicians to continue their truce to mark the anniversary of 9/11 following the tragic killing of Chris Stevens, the US Ambassador to Libya, and three other Americans on Tuesday night has turned into a cringe-worthy display of Romney's crass irreverence. 

It all began when protesters gathered outside the US embassies in Cairo and Benghazi to protest an anti-Islam film produced by an American, Sam Bacile, that depicts the Prophet Muhammed as a womanizer, child-molester and impostor. Previously the US Embassy in Cairo had posted a statement online condemning "the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims – as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions". When the news that a US official had been killed trickled out in the evening, the US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton issued a solemn statement condemning "in the strongest terms the attack on our mission in Benghazi today…Some have sought to justify this vicious behaviour as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet. The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others…But let me be clear: There is never any justification for violent acts of this kind." 

These statements certainly did not warrant Romney's violent outburst before the end of the 9/11 truce as he branded the Obama administration's response "disgraceful" for sympathising with "those who waged the attacks" before condemning them. Not only was Romney's rash statement a blistering example of political opportunism, as he proved unable to put on any façade of dignified statesmanship, but it was also an embarrassing episode of shoddy fact-checking on the part of his campaign. The statement by the US Embassy in Cairo had, after all, being released before the attacks actually started as it was trying to mollify the rapidly rising tempers. The fact that Romney was undeterred in his political attacks on Wednesday morning, when it was clear that the Ambassador and three other officials had been killed, and in fact chose to stoke the flames further by arranging a press conference, only served to highlight his flimsy grasp of the situation. 

“The statement that came from the Administration was a statement which is akin to apology. And I think was a severe miscalculation.” Alas, dear Mitt, the severe miscalculation was yours alone. Most of his fellow Republicans, including his running mate Paul Ryan, steered clear of partisan bickering in their messages on the attack. The contrast between the Obama administration’s sombre tone and Romney’s bluster could not be any more blatant. Given that Romney was considered, until now at least, one of the most moderate Republican candidates, this episode is likely to tarnish his image. After two years of gruelling partisan strife in Congress, Romney ought to have perceived that Americans would not want every news story concerning America turned into a political campaigning instrument. 

Not only did he miss an opportunity to start a foreign policy debate, but he decidedly squandered it. After being criticised for not mentioning the war in Afghanistan in his speech to last month’s Republican convention, Romney could have rectified this omission and shown that he is mildly competent when it comes to foreign policy matters. Instead his ineptitude stood out like a sore thumb. 

He also failed to grasp the mood of the American public, who is disillusioned with just about everything yet nothing quite disheartens it so much as the sluggish pace of the economy and the steady stream of lukewarm news on the job situation.  It is a well-known fact that the overriding issue that will shape the outcome of November’s election is the economy, and that it is also the Obama administration’s Achilles’ heel. So quite why Romney blindly pounced on the attacks in Libya is frankly puzzling. What is certain is that his ill-conceived exploit has spectacularly boomeranged.

Reaching for the stars – House of Lords reform

The Houses of Parliament, by:  Rajan Manickavasagam

“If a second chamber dissents from the first, it is mischievous, if it agrees, it is superfluous.” Thus spoke the Abbé Sieyès on the essentially contested topic of bicameralism. Looking at the debate that has been raging (at least within the walls of Westminster) for the past hundred years over reform of Britain’s upper chamber, the House of Lords, and the various stunted attempts to reform this anachronistic appendage of British democracy, an outsider would be shocked at how complicated and politically toxic the issue has become. 

Having held together surprisingly well in the tough economic and political conditions, Britain’s coalition government stumbled earlier this month over a rather esoteric piece of legislation which rouses the tempers only of politicians and academics, leaving the general population pleasantly indifferent. Nick Clegg, the Lib Dem leader, is eager to push through reform of the upper chamber as part of his project of constitutional reform (which suffered a major setback with the AV referendum) so as to be able to point to an achievement when the time comes for the next general election. David Cameron, the Prime Minister, was happy to let Nick Clegg have his prize until it proved a major contention point with his own MPs, 91 of whom threatened to vote against the programme motion on July 10th which would have set a timetable for debate on the bill, thus stalling the whole process. As ever, the issue of House of Lords reform has not failed to get the blood boiling.

The bill that has caused cracks in the coalition would render the House of Lords predominantly elected, with 360 members elected in three staggered elections and the remaining 90 appointed. On the face of it the rationale for reforming the membership of a second chamber which currently consists of about 825 peers, 700 of whom are appointed through a process which gives the Prime Minister huge powers of patronage, is clear: the people who shape the laws of a democracy should be elected. The fact that 92 hereditary peers still sit on the plush red benches of the second chamber is a blemish on British democracy. Furthermore, Britain sits alongside countries such as Antigua, Lesotho, Yemen, Jordan and Russia in having an appointed chamber. It is hardly dignifying company. Supporters of its present composition retort that its appointed nature enables it to have a higher level of expertise and a less partisan nature, fostering a more edifying debate. However, very often its most eminent members do not attend, or in any case do not vote, as the Crossbenchers’ low voting record shows.

But is it really as simple as that? Members are elected, ergo they have the necessary legitimacy to make laws. As Shami Chakrabarti rightly pointed out, “if it is just about having elections every few years, the people of Burma and Zimbabwe need be very relieved indeed that they too live in thriving democracies.” After all, an independent (and unelected) judiciary is considered legitimate enough to protect our rights and freedoms. The House of Lords, with its rather archaic present membership, is still considered fairly legitimate by the public. Less than half the respondents in a survey conducted in 2007 thought that having some members elected by the public was very important for its legitimacy. On the other hand, making decisions in accordance with public opinion, detailed legislative scrutiny and having a trustworthy appointments process ranked higher. Thus it is time we questioned the exclusive and automatic relationship between legitimacy and popular election. It is undoubted that democratic election confers some form of legitimacy, but that does not mean that an unelected body is a priori illegitimate.

This is not an exercise in slinging mud on democracy and elected upper house members, rather it is intended to foster a more informed debate on the nature reform should take. The argument that those who shape the laws should be elected is too simplistic to be the driving force behind major constitutional change. The House of Lords has worked very well thus far, often acting as a ballast against unpopular legislation (such as control orders in the Prevention of Terrorism Bill in 2005) and acting in accordance with public opinion despite being in no way accountable to the public. Reform should be entirely contingent on the kind of upper chamber Britain wants to see. If it is to remain predominantly a revising and scrutinising chamber, as it has been hitherto, then an appointed membership (without prime ministerial patronage) that limits partisan bickering and favours expertise would be more appropriate. Its public legitimacy would be bolstered by the removal of the hereditaries and the expanded role for the independent Appointments Commission.

If, on the other hand, we want a much stronger chamber that keeps the government in check then an elected membership would indeed be suitable. This is because, with its present composition, the House of Lords has often refrained from challenging the government as much as its powers (which are significant) allow for fear of being reprimanded for obstructing the will of the people’s chamber. An elected second chamber would fundamentally change the balance of power between the two chambers and strengthen Parliament as a whole against the government. Given the largely untrammelled control of the executive over the Commons, this is something to be welcomed. The Parliament Acts, which enshrine in law the supremacy of the Commons, will not necessarily become obsolete should the Lords become elected as they can be amended and possibly strengthened. The fact that the government is still drawn from the lower chamber will continue to ensure it ultimately gets the final word. As Roger Hazell has said, the experience of the United States with gridlock has unduly coloured the debate in Britain.

Coming back to the indefatigable Abbé Sieyès, it is time Britain decided what kind of second chamber it really needs, rather than continually accusing the House of Lords of either being superfluous or mischievous. The scaremongering on the dangers of gridlock is unfounded, as is sanctimonious talk of those who seem to believe that elected representatives are all ignoramuses. Reform has waited a century already; it can wait a little longer so that a mature debate can be instigated.

The market value of our clicks: Google is not a "free" service!

That Google (or any other search engine) values the information we spontaneously give whenever we perform a search is something that is pretty obvious. But how much is this information really worth? Well, today I found out what the market value is of each and every "click" we make when we are online. 

Today I received an "invitation" via Facebook to open an account on "blurum", an internet-based company that gives you points for letting them know every internet search that you make, every web page that you visit, what your favorite web sites are etc. Basically they collect information about our interests and habits and create a sellable profile of people. In return, you get points, and after collecting a certain amount of points you can spend them on prizes that get sent to you for free. Each prize costs a certain amount of points.

For every web page visited, for every search made or for every favorite web site added to your profile you get 1 point. 

Therefore by dividing the cost of the prizes (they range from an Apple macbook air to Omega watch to household goods) by the number of points necessary to win them one can determine the market value of our clicks. The result: about 0,02 Euros per click! 

... But that's not actually what our clicks are worth.... 0,02 Euros is only what we, as users of blurum, get for them. In fact that company is obviously still making a profit, even after paying the users 2 cents a click. A realistic guess is that the clicks are worth about 4/5 cents each!

By going in "history" on my web browser I can see that I visit every day in average 216 web pages, which makes my daily activity on the net worth about 9.7 Euros!

So as a result one could say that we are paying to use google ~9 Euros a day!

The stolen jobs no one wants. Redefining expectations

As I write, a 54 year old Romanian lady is cleaning my garden (a tiny piece of dry earth where no grass grows and only fallen leaves lay). She came to Italy 18 years ago, alongside the italian man she had fallen in love with, full of hope to find a good employment with her Ph.D. in engineering. As it happened the man died before they managed to put together the necessary paperwork to get married.
At the time Romania was not part of the EU and her possibilities for any type of legal work where slim to say the least.
I met her back in 1998, when she started being our housekeeper and eventually became my beloved nanny. Since then she has regularly worked in different Italian households with a wage of about 7/8 euros/hour, with which she had to pay her own pension, taxes, etc. (she had become legal after starting to work for us).
The point of this article, though, is not the sad story of a remarkably honest, sweet, hardworking and humble woman, but rather our (wealthy, western-society people) tendency to identify part of the labor market crisis with the extensive presence of an immigrant and/or illegal workforce in our countries. So the question that I think we should honestly address to ourselves is: would we really be willing to take up the jobs of these immigrant/illegal workers, or are we only using them as scapegoats?

At a time of high unemployment, many Americans are convinced that these aliens take American jobs. As a test, in the summer of 2010 the United Farm Workers (UFW), launched a campaign called "Take Our Jobs" (http://www.takeourjobs.org/) inviting willing Americans to work in the fields. In the following three months 3m people visited takeourjob.org, but 40% of the responses were hate mail, says Maria Machuca, UFW's spokesperson (as reported by "The Economist").
Only 8,600 people expressed an interest in working in the fields, says Ms Machuca. But they made demands that seem bizarre to farmworkers, such as high pay, health and pension benefits, relocation allowances and other things associated with normal American jobs. In late September only seven (I MEAN 7!!!!) American applicants in the "Take Our Jobs" campaign were actually picking crops.
So the point was proven: most Americans did not want those jobs!
Coming back to my Romanian lady: my friends and I often are worried about our employment perspectives but it never occurs to us to actually "downsize" and contemplate a "regular" job. The type of job that is commonplace for the vast majority of people in the planet whilst we, by some type of "natural birth right" seem to be exempted from them.
How many of us complain about the labor market crisis and still pay people to clean our homes, iron our clothes, baby-sit our siblings or relatives, take care of our elderly?
So are "our" jobs (which is difficult to define anyway in this time of mobility) really getting stolen? Is there really a crisis in the labor market or is it mainly that our expectations about what a professional position should be like are not realistic?
Why is it that a Romanian women, with a Ph.D. can clean homes for 20 years without needing therapy or attempting suicide and our young generation cannot even contemplate the idea?