The idea that this is a genuine exercise in localism just simply isn't credible, because the coalition is only interested in devolving power to two sectors: the private and the voluntary. If you want to know what Cameron and Osborne really think of local government, go and count the number of empty offices at council buildings across the land.
So what next for Hillary? In the short term we don't know, but in the long term she will run for President in 2016. This has always remained her ambition despite her 2008 defeat when she faced more than just a candidate. She lost out to an ideology, the hysteria, glitz and glamour. She and Bill know that she has the capability and financial backing to annihilate a Romney or McCain.
Investors were clearly thinking along traditional lines last week and wanted Romney, but the Obama victory doesn't have to be such a bad result for them. Chances of reaching a deal to avoid the fiscal cliff have increased a little bit with the outcome of these elections. And the outlook for getting to a more comprehensive agreement on getting back on a healthy fiscal track have improved somewhat with a second-term president and less power for the Tea Party.
I feel very privileged and lucky to have been in Washington at a time of such importance and excitement. Speaking to many individuals it was evident that the result of this election was perhaps even more important than 2008. President Obama delivered a decisive victory, confirming his presidency for a further four years, with the American people choosing a clearly defined domestic and foreign path for their country.
One thing is for certain, however. In 2012, super PAC politics proved ineffective when faced with a massive Obama turnout/campaign machine that was able to mobilize the base and push huge numbers of supporters to wait in line and vote for the incumbent. It appears that grassroots efforts and microtargeting, as old school as these electoral methods may appear, trumped the new, emerging brand of super PAC politics. Good.