Archive for the ‘politics’ Category

I grabbed a few minutes with Mark from our PA team to find out what he thought was interesting about the Obama election result. Here are the key out-takes from that conversation:

• If Florida declares for Obama then all of the talk of a close election will have been in vain. The Obama team talked up the closeness of the race to try to increase turnout – bigger turnout was better for Obama. Similarly the media needed to present a close race to keep views glued to their TVs and, rather cynically, the messages from their sponsors. Obama held almost all key swing states
• The Tea Party had a disastrous night, losing a number of key Senate seats (except Ted Cruz)
• This was a big and challenging victory for Obama. No longer an époque defining candidate, poor economic recovery, hostile Republican right and disappointed Democratic left. Obama proved his worth as a scrapper as well as a professor
• Romney came to the game too late. Not until the first debate was Romney a credible candidate. The Republican right distrusted him and moderates on both sides failed to warm to Romney. The first debate was potentially a game-changer but it came too late to be decisive
• Romney’s running partner Ryan didn’t seem to make as much of an impact as one would have expected, it was still very much a Romney ticket rather than a Romney | Ryan ticket
• The Obama campaign team delivered – slick, sophisticated and well coordinated the Obama party ‘foot soldiers’ again performed miracles for their man
• Election fatigue – throughout all swing states voters were complaining of fatigue and of bombardment by campaign communications. Is this the nadir for traditional ‘carpet-bombing’ election campaigns – who will develop the new politics that gets floating voters engaged without invading their homes on a nightly basis via television, door to door canvassing, leafleting, telemarketing and online marketing
• The Republican house still means that Obama will find it hard to drive his election agenda and despite his victory America is still a very politically divided country

A quick glance at the many tabloid headlines generated by the BMA’s recent decision suggests that the media have already made up their minds about the 79% of voting doctors taking part in the pending strike. The accusations of greed and selfishness levelled at doctors for rejecting proposed changes to their ‘gold-plated’ pension plans put me greatly in mind of the media vitriol levelled at the Fire Brigades Union, who held a two day strike for better pay back in 2002 and faced similar criticism. But what is behind this new action from the BMA?

According to its official briefing document on the ballot, one of the BMA’s main concerns is that by 2014 some doctors will be forced to contribute 14.5% of their salaries to their pensions if the current proposals go through. This equates to almost double their current contribution and for the same final pension pot. The BMA argues that this rise is unfair, particularly given that other civil servants who are earning similar pensions currently contribute just 7.35% of their salaries. The retirement age of NHS staff is also set to rise under these new proposals from 65 to the state pension age – currently 68 – while other civil servants in the fire brigade and police force are able to retire with a full pension at 55.

Under normal circumstances these would seem to be valid reasons for concern and the fact this is the first time doctors have considered striking in more than 20 years suggests this decision has not been taken lightly by BMA members. The failure of the pension negotiations also points to an increasingly rocky relationship between the Government and members of the medical profession, that has developed since the proposed overhaul of the NHS.

I think most people would agree that doctors have a very difficult job, but it is also a job for which they are paid handsomely by the taxpayer. The average doctor earns around £110,000, more than four times the national average, so you can see why, in a time of recession, most people would find it churlish for doctors to argue about pension terms.

I guess the key factor in this case is that, similarly to the Fire Brigade, doctors provide a fundamental public service that saves lives. Unlike other recent union actions, losing access to this service for even a short period of time will not be limited to minor inconveniences such as cancelled trains and a delayed postal service – the BMA’s strike will affect tens of thousands of patients, many of whom will be left waiting for surgery, as well as costing the NHS at least £40m. Ultimately this action appears to have already caused a great deal of damage to the reputation of doctors, with the cost to patients yet to be fully revealed – and who knows if it will even create the desired outcome for the BMA?

So, do you agree with the tabloids that Britain’s striking doctors are just being greedy? Or are they right to contest these changes to their pensions?

David Maseng Will is a second year student at Princeton University who recently started a summer internship at Ruder Finn. Born and raised in Washington DC, he developed a passion for politics growing up in the centre of the free world, and David plans on concentrating his studies on politics and international relations.

The views expressed in this work are solely those of the author and no not in any way reflect those of Ruder Finn.

How did we get here? On Friday 29^th July, the United States Commerce Department reported that the economy grew by 0.4% in the first quarter of the year, and by 1.3% in the second quarter of 2011. As the three year anniversary of the global financial meltdown approaches, a serious assessment of the subsequent recovery initiatives is warranted. When President Bill Clinton left office in 2001, the United States had a budget surplus of over $200 billion. By implementing an expensive prescription drug program, the Toxic Assets Relief Program (TARP) and waging two wars, President George Bush managed to squander the excess funds and accrue unprecedented debt. Indeed, it was the Bush administration’s warped political philosophy of impulsive, hawkish foreign policy and reckless spending which is primarily responsible for bringing down the American economy. To be his successor was not an enviable task, but one Barack Obama sought nonetheless.

When President Obama took office in 2009, Democrats controlled the executive branch and both houses of congress, including a filibuster proof super-majority in the House of Representatives. With the country shedding approximately 750,000 jobs a month, it was time, we were told, for the progressive agenda to save the nation. And so a government takeover of healthcare was initiated by the $2 trillion Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, $862 billion was spent to stimulate the economy and an onslaught of regulations cascaded over the economy in the summer of 2010 by way of the Consumer Protection Act, which cost about $50 billion. Adding on the auto industry bailouts, the US debt skyrocketed past the $14 trillion dollar mark and through the legal borrowing limit, which was recently raised by congress. Two and a half years into his term, with the housing market still in shambles and the unemployment rate remaining sky high, it is time to recognize the failure of the progressive approach to economics.

If the stimulus package was not implemented, the nation was warned, the unemployment rate might rise to 8%. Well, after the bill’s passage, joblessness soared past 10% and now rests stubbornly at 9.2%. Obviously unable to cite substantive statistics, the Obama administration has attempted to defend its failed attempt at revitalization by cryptically painting an apocalyptic alternative reality void of the Recovery Act. The stimulus package averted another great depression. That is the feeble defence the administration has been reduced to. To swat away such senseless fear mongering, note that when the recession was officially declared over in June 2009, only 7.7% of the stimulus had been spent. Therefore, at best, the stimulus was irrelevant to the recovery, and more likely has hurt the nation’s progress by adding greatly to the deficit.

Most likely the greatest policy hindrance to job creation implemented by the administration is the Consumer Protection act. The positive impact of some added critical safeguards is dampened by the tidal wave of new regulations which will greatly chill job creation. Running conversely to the assertions of the act’s advocates is the reality that the law makes future crises more likely. Hal Scott, a professor of international financial systems at Harvard Law School, elucidates the negative impacts in a 19 July 2011 Financial Times op-ed marking the one year anniversary of the law’s passage. He states, “The Fed can no longer lend to individual companies, as it did to AIG…The treasury also can no longer use its economic stabilisation fund to guarantee money market funds. As a result, at a whiff of a new crisis, liquidity will dry up in a flash.” It becomes clear how the world cannot afford the progressive economic agenda, given the stifling effects of over-regulation.

To comprehend the detrimental nature of progressive policies, and to advocate the immediate implementation of conservative economic initiatives, Americans need not look farther than across the Atlantic. Coinciding with strict austerity, the pace of growth in the UK was anaemic, at 0.2%, in the second quarter of 2011. The figure has falsely been attributed to the shift of the UK government to living within its means. However, not only is Britain not as weak as the data might suggest, given that the economy has been hampered by natural disasters around the globe, and a pick-up in investor spending is expected.

The true culprits of the UK’s flagging economy are burdensome regulations on small businesses, as well as huge taxes on higher income earners and corporations. Britain is admirably taking the first of what must be many steps in cutting senseless regulations in its adoption of recommendations made by The Red Tape Commission. On taxes, to any sensible conservative, or moderate liberal for that matter, the idea of taxing job creators at 50% is incomprehensible.

It sure is tempting to dissemblingly label those earning enough to qualify for the 50% tax rate bracket as members of an idle echelon of billionaires, but such trite class warfare doesn’t pass the tests of decency or reality. In truth, government may impose the policy on people making as little as £150,000 a year. Not to diminish the value of such a grand sum, but the number dwindles when sapped by such a steep rate, and is further reduced by costs of business and living. For at Princeton University, the school which I attend back in America, and at numerous other academic institutions with generous financial aid policies, the family of a student making roughly the dollar equivalent to £150,000 a year receives financial aid. So as nice as it may be to picture this class of tax over-payers as flying far above the plight of the commoner in private jets, the reality is that this government theft of wealth reaches down to small businesses as well.

Free trade agreements signed between the UK and China, as well as by America with South Korea and Colombia, will no doubt boost the economies of all nations involved. For international competition and engagement, along with soft power pushes for social reform means free trade makes economic and moral sense in the eyes of conservatives. Unbridling the world’s innovators to unleash their inspiration is to truly stimulate the global economy. In the United States, George Bush hurt the country with his perversion of conservative principles. Next, Obama had all the tools and political capital he thought he needed, and his policies still failed to make the country better. In great powers like The United States and Britain, adopting sensible tax policy, as well as constructing a lean and nimble consumer protection network will be critical to each nation’s economic recovery.

David Maseng Will is a second year student at Princeton University who recently started a summer internship at Ruder Finn. Born and raised in Washington DC, he developed a passion for politics growing up in the centre of the free world, and David plans on concentrating his studies on politics and international relations.

The views expressed in this work are solely those of the author and no not in any way reflect those of Ruder Finn.

Fractured then cemented, the tempestuous beginnings to U.S.-U.K. relations have evolved into a formidable bond. To comprehend the evolution of the alliance, I immersed myself into London life. Over the past month and a half I have pursued a deeper understanding of what separates and unites America and Britain, beyond driving and spelling that is. Up to now, it has been a privileged pilgrimage for this aspiring civil servant.

In a seminar I took in the fall semester of my first year at Princeton, I read most significant natural law and human rights literature. Until this summer, however, the gaping vacuum in my world view was my ignorance to the contemporary manifestations of the modern interpretations to the works of classic philosophers. Indeed, the noble victories championed by the United States and Britain in both World Wars validated the structures and systems of checks on government theorized by Emmanuel Kant and John Locke.

Moving beneath international relations, the creations of welfare states respectively mark America’s and Britain’s attempts to uphold rights to different degrees, operating therefore between natural and human rights. In brief, the former may be compromised in order to enter civil society, whereas human rights may never be questioned or bargained. During my short stay in the UK I have come to understand what becomes of a people accumulating an ever-expanding arsenal of entitlements. Not to decry the noble venture of preserving protections for all, but my time abroad has led me to understand myself as a greater advocate for natural rights. I believe compromises on most freedoms, bestowed upon humans by God because we possess dignity, are necessary for greater goods like peace and justice.

To exist in the country which was once paradoxically the U.S.’s ideological inspiration and antithesis broadens one’s understandings beyond the limits of rigorous academic pursuit. Partially assimilating into the birthplace of common law has allowed me to better understand the intellectual inceptions of the American political system. The concepts, fragmented through a sincere embrace of multiculturalism and liberty, have yielded the archetype of civil society. For a mosaic of those passionately pursuing freedom and opportunity have amalgamated over generations to make the world’s greatest human experiment a success.

I was immensely blessed to be born in the United States, and equally as fortunate to have come to understand the full scope of my advantages from across the pond in the great United Kingdom. Ruder Finn has offered me spectacular opportunities, this digital platform included. Also, in what may be the highlight of my time abroad, I attended a meeting at parliament and gained a thrilling glimpse into the mechanics of a world power. I have been, and continue to be, truly privileged to learn from such a great people. However, the longer I peer into the centre of the free world from my magnificent, ephemeral perch in the UK, the more I cannot wait to jump back in.

David Maseng Will is a second year student at Princeton University who recently started a summer internship at Ruder Finn. Born and raised in Washington DC, he developed a passion for politics growing up in the centre of the free world, and David plans on concentrating his studies on politics and international relations.

The views expressed in this work are solely those of the author and no not in any way reflect those of Ruder Finn.

Reading about UK public school teacher’s organized strike, which began last Thursday, I wish I could say I was surprised. Having been routinely subjected to contrived cries of injustice, triggered by the slightest encroachments upon even the most superfluous of their benefits, I have come to understand the US Teacher’s Union’s almost exclusive mentality of benefits protection. Unfortunately, clearly some of this apathy for student interests has seeped across the pond. For as pensions are about to be made solvent for the long term by way of reform, UK public sector teachers are boycotting the end of their immunity to the impact of austerity.

Since their 19th century inceptions, which were grounded on principles of fairness, the US Unions have devolved into bullying organizations. For in 1857, one hundred educators united to form the National Education Association in order to bring about a better reality for America’s children. 154 years later, it seems, the nation’s largest teacher’s union, the NEA has lost its way. A perfect US example of this downfall has to do with tenure. It perturbs most people to learn that all a teacher has to do to gain tenure in many cases is to exist in a classroom for three years. From that point, a menial and graduated income based on seniority is guaranteed for the rest of the educator’s career. Meanwhile, the teachers of America are left to stew without any consequences for their performances or attitudes. Turning both ways, such a system of unaccountability serves both to stifle master teachers and condemn pupils to incompetent instructors.
While it would be unthinkable, and in most circumstances illegal, for American parents to fill in the vacuum of a teacher strike, the US could learn a lot from the British tact of usurping union authority by appealing to families. Advocating for the working class and children starkly contrasts the blatant self-interest seeking of the teachers who have left their schools. A secondary tragedy to that of the plight of public school children is the corruption of previously honourable organizations. The act of striking has morphed from a potent means of rights protection into the chief roadblock to progress and fiscal solvency. The situation in the UK is not nearly as dire as it is in the US, but the public sector teachers would do well not to mirror the countless conniptions put on by their American counterparts.

Illustrating the chaotic consequences of the current self-interest streak in Unions was the showdown between the Wisconsin Statehouse and the public employees unions this past February. The impending passage of a law limiting collective bargaining for public sector workers in Wisconsin triggered a mass walkout of teachers, extending well beyond Wisconsin’s capital city of Madison to other municipalities across the state. The thousands of deserting educators made their priorities clear: pursue the protection of unsustainable benefits, even if it means casting aside their responsibility to students. Treating children as the problem rather than the promise for the future is a twisted approach to education.

I am hopeful that the so far anaemic demonstrations will not grow into mass walk-outs, even if David Cameron PM follows through on his ambitious agenda of austerity and stabilizing pensions. As one hailing from a country which at the moment is unwilling or unable to confront its chronic systematic problems, to see the Prime Minister set an example of controversial but necessary leadership in a time of economic crisis is inspiring. Insomuch as education fits as an integral priority to a nation in hardship, a reckoning with monetary and economic reality may be an opportunity to hone a successful system, or, in the case of the US, perhaps the last chance to overhaul a failing monstrosity before it swallows the next generation of children.

David Maseng Will is a second year student at Princeton University who recently started a summer internship at Ruder Finn. Born and raised in Washington DC, he developed a passion for politics growing up in the centre of the free world, and David plans on concentrating his studies on politics and international relations.

The views expressed in this work are solely those of the author and no not in any way reflect those of Ruder Finn.

As I sat across from my new boss, each of us trying to decipher terms put forth by the NHS to explain its adoption of the recommendations made by the future forum, I couldn’t help but think: what’s the point? Chalk it up to American apathy , an antagonism to socialism or jetlag, but all I can make of the Health and Social Care bill (HSCB) is a mere reshuffling of the bureaucratic behemoth similar to that which is set to engulf one sixth of the U.S. economy.
The passage in the U.S. of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), known not so affectionately by detractors as “Obamacare”, marks a distinct turn towards the U.K. status quo. The HSCB, as modified by the Future Forum, aims to reorganize and somewhat streamline the National Health Service. Meanwhile, the PPACA sets out to construct an immense, esoteric artifice of unprecedented oversight. Though the current future of American healthcare and the current British system are analogous, a stark distinction ought to be made between the pursuits of progressivism by politicians in both countries. Initially, both efforts are marked by an urge to help all, but the form of progressivism pushed by today’s democrats in is polluted by a sinister bankruptcy of trust in the American people. Insomuch as individuals should retain their freedoms, the American progressive movement seeks a dominant hand in their daily lives. For, it becomes clear that to view government as the ultimate solution, one must also concede that the people are the problem.
To unbind the public system of care in the U.K. would be a foolhardy exercise in social engineering, and it is imperative for the government to swiftly implement reform, within the confines of practicality, to curb rising care prices. However, the impossibility of a move to a more competitive, market-based design seals the fate of the British healthcare structure. Destined to be an indecipherable maze of entangled authority, it appears a myriad of commissions and more than 41,000 over-seers will have a permanent presence in perhaps the most precious corner of a person’s private life: his or her health.
That the U.K. system is not refracted through a dangerous political ideology, but is rather characterized by a pervasive sense of government dependency is precisely what I believe has allowed for the programme to be successfully sustained over so many decades. And although I still very much ideologically oppose what has been established in the U.K., what I truly abhor is the ultimate asphyxiation of creativity furthered by the Affordable Care Act.
To describe the act as polarizing would be an understatement, as it strikes at the source of ideological departure between American conservatives and liberals. The former group favours greater personal liberty while the latter advocates for government to provide greater economic and social protections. As a true republican and advocate for the largest possible unleashing of individual dynamism, it is my view that the spirits of great nations have languished under the cradle-to-grave oversight of European socialist systems. And furthermore, that the entitlement mentality which accompanies broad centralized government authority is the ultimate sedative to the personal creativity at the heart of prosperity.

Party Conference season is upon us once again and this week, to kick it off, were the Liberal Democrats who gathered for their first conference as a governing party in 90 years. How the times have changed, gone are the days of the media neglecting such an occasion and there being no real need for security. The media flocked into town, security has been stepped up, for now this great occasion offers not just senior Liberal Democrat ‘spokesmen’ but ministers and more importantly, the Deputy Prime Minister. Out of nowhere came this blast of importance, a realisation that when Nick Clegg talks, the British press should probably pay attention.

The media were baiting for a disgruntled hoard of grassroots supporters, disillusioned with the coalition, disenchanted with the Lib Dems. Unfortunately much to the displeasure of certain media outlets, this didn’t appear to happen.

They did of course get their headline when Vince Cable made an anti-capitalist speech referring to bankers as “spivs and gamblers”. This proved to be a relatively minor problem for the coalition for two reasons; Firstly because his speech contained no real embarrassing policy suggestions for the coalition and secondly, because Downing Street insisted that they approved the speech in advance.

For the Coalition, it could be described as a week of entering the unknown, when anything could have happened and more importantly, anything could have gone wrong. I imagine they will be quietly chuffed with the end result as all involved came away relatively unscathed.

For Nick Clegg, the conference was just the beginning of what was to be a busy week.

An important summit at the United Nations (UN) in New York took place this week to discuss the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). Fresh from his speech at the Lib Dem Conference, the Deputy Prime Minister flew in to represent the UK on the global stage. Mr Clegg made an important speech, defending the Coalition decision to continue to invest millions into international aid.

The Deputy Prime Minister made a commitment to aim to direct 0.7% of UK Gross National Product (GNP) to international development and reiterated the importance of the MDGs to the Coalition agenda.
He said “my message to you today, from the UK Government, is this – we will keep our promises and we expect the rest of the international community to do the same”.

This was an important week for the Lib Dems as a party, and an important week for Nick Clegg. I suspect neither would ever have predicted such a meteoric rise to fame 4 or 5 months ago.

Now the spotlight moves from the Lib Dems as the Labour Party take centre stage this weekend, their first conference in opposition since 1996 and the focus will be on tomorrow (Saturday) when the new leader is unveiled. The bookies new favourite - Ed Miliband.

Since the coalition government’s decision to rule out further expansion at Heathrow, Stansted or Gatwick, the often controversial subject of aviation seems to have taken a back seat on the political agenda. This is odd as 2010 has been a very difficult year for aviation and it looks set to get even worse.

BAA has had to abandon plans for expansion after spending £220 million on their proposals. The aviation industry argue that Heathrow will now continue to operate at 99% of its capacity and as a result they will face problems including delays, which will encourage passengers to turn to other European hubs, such as Paris, Frankfurt or Amsterdam who will reap the financial benefits.

There is a public consultation due to take place later this year on a ‘per plane tax’ which aviation insiders are concerned will seriously affect both air freight business in the UK and transfer passengers who will avoid UK hub airports to avoid extra taxation. Add to this the huge disruption and lack of revenue because of adverse weather in the UK at the start of the year, the closure of airspace following the volcanic ash incident, 22 days of strikes by British Airways staff with the threat of more to come, the recent decision by BAA workers to strike, which has the potential to close Heathrow and five other airports and it is clear to see that the aviation industry is having a particularly difficult year which doesn’t look like it is set to improve.

227 new MPs have been elected in 2010, the biggest influx since 1997. Most MPs will admit that they do not possess a complex knowledge of aviation issues - there is no reason why they should!
For the aviation industry, this is a crucial time and a significant opportunity to inform the new intake of the plight of UK aviation and the important role it plays in the UK economy.

It’s here, the much-anticipated second leader’s debate. What will happen? Will Clegg triumph again? Will Brown again posture towards the Lib-Dems or will he try to go it alone? Will Cameron finally bring up his Big Society policy, even though it has nothing to do with foreign affairs, the topic for the second debate?

Below is a brief synopsis of how I think it will go for each leader.

Nick Clegg

His star is shining bright, so there will be sky high expectations of him. Unfortunately, foreign affairs is probably the Lib-Dems worst subject. Clegg has flip-flopped on the Euro issue and now says taking on the Euro would be a mistake, but at the same time, it is there in black and white in the Lib-Dem manifesto that one day the UK should accept the Euro. Essentially, the Lib-Dems love Europe, especially Clegg. This isn’t necessarily going to go down well with some swing voters, but the question is, how many of these people are actually going to vote for the Lib-Dems anyway?

Clegg is also in an interesting position as expectations are high. Brown and especially Cameron are going to try to ground him. But all Clegg has to do is misquote Reagan again and again - “There they go again” in response to the two bigger parties’ attacks. He probably doesn’t need to answer a question other than make everyone feel sorry for the little guy. I feel this is the best option, because going on the attack and trying to be equal to Labour and the Tories on foreign policy is a mistake - because he’d lose.

David Cameron

If Clegg is under pressure, Cameron is under just as much if not more. He has to up his game significantly from the first debate, where he forgot to mention his key domestic policies. Problem is, foreign affairs isn’t the Tories strongest subject and they have been out of power for 13 years, so their international reputation may not be as strong as they’d like it to be.

Cameron will be hit on his ‘iron clad guarantee’ for a referendum on Europe. It obviously isn’t going to happen and there are a lot of conservatives, not party members, just conservatives, who don’t trust his Europe policies. Likewise, Brown and Clegg are both going to hammer him on the Conservative’s relationships within Europe, including his Polish partners.

His promise to keep an independent DFID and legislate a 0.7% aid budget will also come under fire from ultra-conservative voters. I know many aid groups are pleasantly surprised by this, but when you can’t secure your base, it’s not the best strategy to try to out flank your opposition from the left.

Cameron is also going to mention the Iran question, but his intervention during the green revolution was reported by some as a gaffe. The UK and the USA statements focused on a “we’re watching with interest”, because they knew public support of the protestors would enable the Iranian officials to claim the unrest was caused by UK and USA intervention. However, Cameron came out and decried the lack of support from Brown to the protestors and publically stated that the protestors had the support of the UK people. This was naive foreign policy.

Gordon Brown

Gordon Brown has relationships overseas, in fact believe it or not, he is very well-respected internationally, in 2009 he was voted world statesmen of the year and is respected overseas more than in the UK. This is his biggest trump card and needs to play it. This is hugely beneficial for issues such as the Tobin Tax, Iran, Afghanistan and the Middle East in general. Afghanistan funding will again be a weak spot due to issues such as the numbers of helicopters etc.

He also needs to be more forceful I feel. Although he performed above expectations in the last debate, I think the Iron Chancellor needs to be on the stage. Due to the lack of audience interaction, jokes don’t necessarily play well on TV due to the silence in the studio - it makes it sound like the joke has fallen flat. Brown did well confronting Cameron on the police issues in the first debate and I thought the “it’s answer time not question time”, was effective. He needs to do it again, especially on Europe.

Brown is less pro-EU that Clegg, he keeps Europe at an arm’s length, but with an open palm, not a clenched fist. This will make voters feel more comfortable.

But he still has the image problem and that will be his biggest weakness.

All-in-all, it will be a fascinating evening and I’m looking forward to seeing the polls the next day.

Cross posted with my personal blog

If you live in London, you may have seen yesterday’s Evening Standard front page headline Gordon’s ark.

In the time of an election, rarely does a Prime Minister have the opportunity to appear truly Prime Ministerial, however in this very unique case, an opportunity has been served on a plate to Gordon Brown.

Copyright Evening Standard

The Evening Standard hasn’t been Brown’s greatest fan over the years, but this headline  and this story as a whole adds a whole new chaotic dimension to this election campaign. What is particularly novel about this crisis, is that no lives are actually at risk, it is all about inconvenience, granted it is incredibly inconvenient and could be significantly damaging to the airline industry. I would suspect however that many airlines will be given significant payouts through the EU to ensure they stay afloat.

Every party would love to be able to make political gains because of this crisis, but at the same time they all have to be exceptionally careful not to appear to be doing so. If the Conservatives or the Lib-Dems attack Labour for not helping the stranded, than they can be accused of playing political games, likewise, Labour can’t appear to be too chest thumping about sending in the Navy to save British lives, especially when none are really at risk.

Only time will tell about how this plays out and whether the volcano keeps spluttering away, but this is definitely one of the issues that is making this one of the most exciting elections I’ve witnessed.

Cross posted with my personal blog.