2013-05-26T00:52:57-04:00 Marcus Roberts http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/author/index.php?author=marcus-roberts Copyright 2008, HuffingtonPost.com, Inc. HuffingtonPost Blogger Feed for Marcus Roberts Good old fashioned elbow grease. tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.2075628 2012-11-05T07:39:05-05:00 2013-01-05T05:12:01-05:00

Marcus Roberts http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marcus-roberts/
How to Solve DC's Economic Cluster...mess?

A perfect storm of budget cuts and tax increases is set to automatically kick in over the next two months. Known as the sequester this is the result of Congress' decision to tie the failure of the bipartisan Simpson/Bowles deficit reduction commission to savage cuts in everything from defense to health spending. And at the same time the Bush tax cuts are set to expire. That's why the media's moniker of "fiscal cliff" isn't actually accurate as the combination of cuts and tax increases would be healthy for the federal government's budget even while it would hurt the economy as a whole.

So the second Obama administration must carefully negotiate a deal with a divided Congress to bring in fresh revenue from the top tier of taxpayers whilst protecting the middle class from tax increases. As for spending cuts, whilst some are needed, the scale of the sequester is far too drastic and must be curtailed.

But the mess doesn't end there: Congress hasn't passed a budget for nearly a year and another dangerous showdown with Tea Party-crazed House Republicans on the debt ceiling awaits come 2013.

Hillary 2016?

She's been loyal to the President and clearly has the campaigning chops. But even more important is the strategic case for Hillary. Dems are set to win tomorrow thanks to a demographic coalition known as 'the rising electorate' that comprises unusually high levels of turn out amongst hispanics, African Americans and women bolstered by battleground blue-collar workers. To hold the White House in 2016 for an extraordinary third term, Dems will need that coalition to hold together and turn out with similar enthusiasm as they achieved for the nation's first black president. That argues for a candidate who can inspire all of those groups. And so with all due respect to some fine smart white males like Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley or Virginia Senator Mark Warner, Dems probably need someone special. In fact, the long term electoral legacy of 2012 may well be: whither the white male in Presidential politics?

Ryan vs Rubio?

Facing the 'rising electorate' of minorities, young voters and women that favour the Democrats, Republicans may well turn to the star of their Tampa Convention, Senator Marco Rubio. Young, Hispanic, Conservative: his nomination is the logical choice. But Romney's loss will cause conservatives to rage that they were betrayed again by the top of the ticket and that for the second time running the true conservative soul of the Grand Old Party was only represented by their vice presidential nominee. 'No more!' they'll shout and demand their due. And it's Romney running mate Paul Ryan who may well be best placed to tap into this anger: his impeccable social conservative creds combined with his budget hawk profile gives him a strong starting powerbase. The fight will be fascinating.

What's a second term for?

Against a split Congress and having won a tough election more by defeating Romney then spelling out his forward offer, a huge question for the next four years is, well, just what is it for? In terms of legacy proper, the administration needs to implement Obamacare which only really comes online in 2014 but that's more for the bureaucracy then the White House. So what does President Obama use his four years for: an Israeli/Palestinian peace deal? Climate change and energy independence? Or education (given that the stand out promise of his Charlotte acceptance speech was his 100,000 new teachers pledge)?

Will politics get better pundits?

Lastly, and at the risk of being too inside-baseball, the frankly pathetic standard of coverage displayed by most of the mainstream media particularly in the weeks following the first debate, is a matter for grave reflection. In the face of clear statistical evidence of the president's likely victory the press conspired to call the race "to close to call" or "a tie". The question is, will future pundits more closely resemble NBC's Joe 'anyone who thinks this isn't a toss up is an idiot' Scarborough or 538's über-nerd Nate Silver? Sadly, as long as political coverage is dominated by those more accustomed to passing judgement based upon gut instinct and cosy in-crowd gossip then multiple datasets with hypotheses tested against reality, I fear that at least for a few years yet we know the answer to this question.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1935386 2012-10-03T08:30:18-04:00 2012-12-03T05:12:02-05:00

Marcus Roberts http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marcus-roberts/
Because even after substantive successes on Murdoch and banking Ed was having a tough time proving to elite SW1 opinion that his was a leadership that mattered.

But it should be understood that his tour d'force was not an isolated incident that has suddenly magic'ed unity out of thin air. Rather it was the culmination and public unveiling of two years of painstaking work to avoid the traditional Labour-disunity-in-Opposition effect to make the Tories the first one term government in nearly 40 years.

Even after the media bounce fades, the Party unity will remain for Ed is now in that most enviable of positions: a leader secure in his job, confident of his own leadership and willing to take risks to claim ever more support from the nation at large. Confidence breeds success and Ed can be ever more confident in his judgement and his chance of victory.

With a united Labour Party behind him and a united Leftish/Liberal vote giving him a solid base of 35% in the polls Ed can now turn his sights to the heights of the electoral prize ahead: a clear majority with a mandate from the whole country to pursue a radical programme. And what better proof of that then the approval of both Conservative Home's Tim Montgomerie and Unite's Len McCluskey.

That praise is so widespread is further proof of one of the big gambles Ed has made both with his speech and his leadership at large. He has eschewed the easy option of Union-bashing and Party self-hate that the press traditionally demands of a Labour Leader to prove they are "credible". Instead Ed has made the positive case for Labour values expressed through a rich tapestry of intellectual thought.

And that's where Ed's next big challenge lies: for the speech represented a synthesis both delicate and elegant of so many strands of Labour thought: from Blue Labour's argument for faith, flag and family (although faith here was secular and political!) to Fabian faith in Keynesianism and (whisper it) pre-distribution through action on housing, skills, wages and bills.

But more important then the policy wonk tensions of these matters is the strategic tension that now needs to be resolved between Ed Miliband and policy supremo Jon Cruddas. Both vie for the title of Labour's Intellectual-in-Chief but the two differ on what the politics of this moment allows. Cruddas tours the fringe decrying "small target" policies fearing that that would allow Labour's opponents to define the Party in negative terms. He cites the Australian Labour Party's example where their no-risks, small-bore approach spectacularly backfired under withering attack.

Ed on the other hand has until now worried that the crisis in politics allows only the smallest of promises for the most micro of politics - hence VAT cuts on home insulation etc. Anything more may not be believable. But the logic of his speech and his new found confidence in making the case for politics itself may mean that he yet relents and Cruddas paints policy in the bright and bold primary colours that his appointment first heralded.

This tension must be resolved in the year ahead for the outcome will determine the very nature of Ed Miliband's first term.]]>