The Loo Review: The Diner, King’s Cross

Sleek and Modernist

Sometimes, crossovers work. Alien versus Predator. Chocolate and Chilli. Muse and Dubstep.

And in that spirit, this review combines both water closet review and US political angles. For this toilet is located in an American Diner in King’s Cross, one me and a friend visited before moving on to watch the results of the election at a nearby pub.  My thoughts on the election are posted elsewhere – but here is where I thought I would post my experiences of American dining – through the medium of toilette.

The cubicles can be almost militaristic

 

The Diner, a lovely chain of restaurants that offers exquisite burgers and exemplary alcoholic milkshakes, is decorated like a sixties Diner of the old American road. As such, the loos are decorated in a seek, minimalist black tile, interspersed with red polyfiller which adds a somewhat futuristic feel. It’s like somebody took the Ministry of Magic and placed it inside a toilet.

Facilities-wise, both cubicle and vestibule are more than adequate. With ample, well-scrubbed sinks and welcoming water closets and urinals, the freshness offered by the clean tools on display offsets the minimalistic style of the decor wonderfully. A nice, soft, hand-cleanser rounds off the experience nicely.

Intense lighting and not much space

One downside of the stark decor is that, together with unnecessarily aggressive lighting, it creates somewhat of an amphitheatre to wee in, which, for sufferers of Paruresis, can be problematic, but in the final analysis this is a more than adequate restroom that will is clean. well-decorated, and futuristic.

 

VERDICT - Clean, functional and modernist – this tiled toilette will enable you to get the job done, but may not be spacious enough for those claustrophobic. 8/10

Cliff-Diving

According to Politico, House Speaker John Boehner told Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to “go f–k himself.”

Those looking for an argument in the beauty and strength of democracy, I would suggest averting your gaze from Washington.

The last-minute, frenzied negotiation that saw the nation go over the fiscal cliff for just short of a day could have been a thought experiment straight from Plato’s Republic. It was the political equivalent of being robbed at gunpoint by yourself, with one hand supplying the other with the firearm. The whole sorry episode, which could have been conducted with much greater magnanimity and much less of a deadline, reminds us all of why Winston Churchill said “Democracy is the worst form of government -  except all the others.”

What it comes down to is that in a nation of 300 million people, in a world where the global economy hangs by whether or not a particular vote is passed, power is delegated to a handful of leaders – the President, who has the good grace to have an elected mandate, the Speaker and Senate Majority Leader, and their counterparts in the opposing parties, who also have mandates – but only for one of the fifty states their decisions will have massive consequences for. Further, when negotiation become as fraught as the discussion for averting the fiscal cliff became, power devolves even further to those in authority who can get along with one another. In the closing hours of the cliff deadline that saw a final agreement, the chief ambassadors for either side were Vice President Joe Biden and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell – one elected only be inference as part of being Barack Obama’s by-line, and the other only by the good people of Kentucky and 45 Republican Senators.

The threat of a deadline was used by House Speaker John Boehner to try to get greater concessions from the democrats – which from this agreement they failed to achieve. In reality, doing any sort of serious negotiation whist playing russian roulette with deadlines accomplishes nothing more than postponing decision to a later date – which, by moving the decision to work out what the sequester designated to cut $1.2 trillion from the federal budget will actually consist of to coincide with the next time the debt ceiling will need to be raised, February, the GOP have all but guaranteed.

But are the consequences worth it? Democrats, who have secured for the first time in two decades a breach of the infamous GOP “pledge” not to raise taxes, and managed to preserve their cherished entitlement programs for another two months, could argue yes, as could the GOP, who see this as losing a fiscal battle for now in order to win the war. Certainly having a deadline focuses the negotiations, but instead of being the fire underneath the feet of legislators, all that seems to have happened this time, as with the 2011 debt fight in Congress, is that negotiations collapse, the amount of people involved in them decreases, until a bill which does a little but ultimately kicks the can down the road is hammered out at the last-minute.

It creates a democratic deficit, leaves little time for the scrutiny these bills demand – indeed, why else are people sent to congress if not to appropriately propose and review legislation – and spooks world markets, which in a day of uncertainty and fear can unravel years of financial recovery. If we were discussing a “grand bargain”, such of the kind once touted by Boehner, that stood for long-term deficit reduction by reduction in spending and increase in revenue, then the threat of time running out could seem like a useful tool. But as far as I’m concerned, it’s added nothing, taken away legislator’s holidays for no reason, threatened the global recovery, and all for a bill that could have been drawn up on the back of a fag packet at the beginning of December.

The US can’t keep ignoring the fact it has an out of control deficit, still high levels of unemployment and a weak recovery which could come off the rails at any point. The country is in a stronger state than most of the rest of the world, but it is finding itself in the vice-like contradiction all governments in this economic downturn have – cut too quickly, in order to retain investors’ confidence and not default on debt, and you risk the limited gains you have made already – and nothing breeds investment like well, investment. However, throw money at jobs, unemployment programs and entitlements to strengthen society and trigger growth, and incur debt, which risks the confidence of the market, and without investment, guess what – you get no investment?

How to answer this dilemma is now the central question to any government in the modern world. It is a question of balance – and getting it wrong can be catastrophic. If you don’t invest and cut, cut, cut but therefore stymie growth, then you’ll end up borrowing more money – probably more than the loan it would have taken to trigger some investment and growth in the first place – only you have to borrow twice as much – the money to get you out of the first hole, the money for the debt incurred by scaling back spending, and then a whole tranche more for the investment you should have made in the first place. Similarly, fail to cut and you may create growth for a while, but when the ratings on your debt are downgraded and you lose the confidence of the market, investors may bail on you rapidly, triggering a second financial crisis. It is a difficult equation to get right – and one that often involves, smart, sophisticated mathematics to solve. Such detailed and intelligent legislation cannot be hammered out against a clock. It needs to be treated seriously, negotiated properly – and a proper resolution and a way forward to deal with it.

Nobody wants to be the President with a calculator for a mascot. It will be all too tempting for President Obama to hammer our another can-kicking solution in February, and press on with gun control, immigration reform, and climate change legislation. But since when did winning an election give you only a year and a half to govern, as the received wisdom suggests? Barack Obama will serve a four-year, not a two-year, Presidential term, and Senators and Representatives serve six and two years respectively. When a political campaign swallows up six months to a year of the time you are in office, you know you have a problem. In two years, its more than possible to pass a proper, well-developed finance bill, immigration reform, gun control, and climate change bills, as well as other business – but Congress has become such a political football that if the President just gets two of those bills passed, it will be seen as a major achievement? When did democracy lower it’s standards so? Term limits are the length they are for a reason – to encourage good government by the brevity of the privilege to serve, not using the opportunity to stall legislation for months at a time to campaign.

For the circumstances it was passed in, the fiscal cliff aversion bill is an OK one. But it never needed to be passed in such circumstances. The US needs to lance this boil, and accept it needs to pass a huge bill – one that aims to make a serious dent in the deficit and give it the time to make the cuts in a way that won’t increase further debt – for instance, it’s pointless axing medicare and medicaid and Obamacare if the state will just end up covering the costs of healthcare on its citizens anyway through emergency provision and welfare benefits – but there are no doubt efficiencies that can be found from all three programs. But in February, the US will vote to increase its deficit to beyond 16 trillion, and the new tax rates only extend on just over 1 percent of the US population. A long-term, revenue-and-reduction spending bill that allows the US government to go over its debt ceiling but ultimately restores a measure of frugality to the federal deficit is desperately needed – and that settlement will be crucial for America’s future. It needs to be conducted in the spirit of civility and bipartisanship Obama first promised when he came to office. Given the intransigence of the GOP, it seems unlikely to hope that such a “grand bargain” (once again, Speaker Boehner’s initial idea) can be achieved, but one thing is for certain – if the US keeps suspending the need to deal with its fiscal woes comprehensively, through both spending reductions and increased taxes, then the biggest loser will be its economic credibility.

Standing Up

Today is one of the more monumental days in my life. Today, I handed my notice in to the BBC.

From the middle of January next year, I’ll be changing jobs - I’m going to become a media officer for the Salvation Army, helping to devise campaigns which put a spotlight on issues such as homelessness, statelessness, people trafficking, drug abuse and those who need help with welfare. For me, its fundamentally about standing up for those in society who have no-one to stand up for them.

In 2010, the last year for which the Poverty Site has recorded statistics, homelessness in the UK stood at over 50,000 households – a sizeable decrease since 2003, but still, as far as I’m concerned, over 50,000 too many. Of those who had become homeless, 53% were because of loss of accommodation of friends and family or relationship breakdown, compared to just 5% who were in mortgage or rent arrears. For most of the people I know, mortgage or rent is their biggest financial concern each month, and the biggest contributor to their anxieties about making ends meet. But for over half of the people who end up on the streets, it’s because people aren’t there for them.

People trafficking, where people are treated like meat for either sexual or economic exploitation, their human rights flogged on a black market, and statelessness, whereby people find themselves without access to basic rights such as healthcare or a national insurance number through no fault of their own, are two of the most horrendous fates I can imagine. I don’t think any of us know anybody who hasn’t been affected by the awful spectre of substance or alcohol abuse.

But again, these crises are crises of abandonment. Somebody who has been stood up for and helped, with the exception of a tiny minority, does not find themselves in the positions some of the unluckiest in our society do.

It would be so easy for me to carry on at the BBC, and my leaving is no reflection on this institution. It is enduring some tough times at the moment, but make no mistake, it will return, stronger and better than ever. It still occupies a huge place in the living room of every British citizen, educating, informing and entertaining with aplomb. The reason I know it will see a new dawn is because the people who work there are some of the most committed, creative, enthusiastic and kind people you will ever meet. The things they achieve on a daily basis would take months in different industries. I have learned a great deal since I first stepped through the doors of the White City complex over three years ago – then I entered a slightly old boy, now I emerge a young man. The work is incredibly good fun – and I could happily do it every day for the rest of my life.

But the sad fact is, fewer people are standing up for those without as much anymore. We have a government composed mainly of rich people who have good intentions but no real experience of what reality is like for the vast majority of people in the nation, and whose values are guided by the abstract ideas of cutting the deficit, rather than the very real experience of how difficult most people’s lives are. The increase in tuition fees has created a gulf between the haves and have-nots in terms of what they can attain, and when the country’s institutions are dominated by those born into economic, political, or cultural power, those who aren’t begin to think that they have no chance.

Someone has to stand up for those who have nothing. Someone has to look the children who will grow up in poor backgrounds in future generations in the eye, facing much tougher odds of success then I have, and demonstrate to them “the power of our example”. In a nation where the haves are beginning to control everything, somebody needs to put the have-nots’ agenda back on the table.

I do not know where the journey will take me. I know only that it will be difficult, unwieldy and a true test of my character. I know that it will require the more difficult road of investing faith and hope both in God, others and myself over the easier, road of cynicism, doubt and despair, but I do know how it begins.

It begins with one step – and standing up for those who cannot stand up for themselves.

So here goes….

B-A-R-A-C-K, Here to Stay: Lessons from 2012

Obama wins a second term

First of all – sorry for the delay in this post. Partly, it was deliberate; I wanted to take some time to collect my thoughts a couple of weeks after the election result, once all the immediate emotion and impact of the victory had drained away, and partly, I got swept up a bit in everyday life following the free time not being an all-consuming politico created.

Not to sound smug, but for 2% in Florida, I got my prediction spot on. Looks like Nate Silver and the model of analysing collective over singular polls will be with us for quite a while yet. The first thing to draw from the election result is that, as Rachel Maddow says, “doing math” works. Political instinct – the arbiter of the old guard, the indistinct wisdom political hacks and seasoned reporters point toward when trying to explain their views on the election, has given way to the science of the states – the aggregation of collective polling and the mathematical realities of the ground. From the unpredictability associated with the 2000 campaign, from now on a new rule is likely to hold sway – that if the polls say it is so, then it’s damned likely they’re telling the truth, and new, smarter pollsters such as Silver are likely to have a much more influential role going forward. This is likely to have quite a few consequences.

First of all, the more these models’ veracity is proven by continued success, the less fun it becomes. Now we know the 2012 race was not really at all that unpredictable, it seems a lot less interesting in hindsight then it did at the time. Now Silver’s model has been proven twice in a row, the influence of his polling increases. If, in 2016, it demonstrates a clear advantage either way, then it is likely to leave election speculation more muted then it is today – and that is likely to have a poor effect, eventually, on democratic engagement. If polls seem immovable, then it is likely people won’t show up to try to move them.

Secondly, it disproportionately gives power to the pollsters. Whilst the rallying cry for the GOP against Silver was accusations of a liberal bias, which was subsequently proven false by the math, there is an element that now Silver has re-asserted his credibility, his and similar models could be used to create either bandwagon - the momentum seems to go with one challenger and so the public jump on board – or boomerang – the public see a surge for one candidate and so vote for the underdog – effects in the future. The following is a hunch, and has no basis in anything other than that messiest of arbiters, instinct – but I suspect the American public won’t like their elections pre-determined, and that at some point in upcoming elections, a massive boomerang effect will occur. Might take years, decades even, but it will.

That’s the polls. Now for the politics.

Simply put: the election result is a massive vindication of President Obama, a slight victory for the Democratic Party, a warning for the Republicans – but not quite the end of the world for them it’s being portrayed as.

A vindication for the President

From birth in Hawaii, to journeys across Indonesia as a child and Kenya as an adult, from corporate worker to community organiser, to lawyer to politician, Barack Obama’s life has been extraordinary. He has achieved, throughout his first term, many things that have eluded previous Presidencies; the passing of universal healthcare; which is now likely here to stay; the assassination of Osama bin Laden; two Supreme Court appointments; a slight reduction in unemployment and economic stabilisation (to a point); the ending of the War in Iraq and drawing down of US involvement in Afghanistan; the beginning of female pay equality and the end of “Don’t ask, Don’t tell”, and he has done so with, poise, elegance, unmatchable rhetorical ability and persuasion, and has restored credibility to his office. He has not been perfect; poor management of the debt ceiling fiasco led to his country’s credit rating being downgraded, and he has failed to tackle climate change seriously as well as only making superficial headway on immigration – something he hopes to correct in term two – but often this has been in the face of Republican intransigence. Whilst congress’ approval lies in the doldrums, President Obama has once again convinced a majority of the American people that  they trust him to get the job done when it comes to what is best for the country. I personally believe this is down to the record and excellence of the candidate – I do not think any democrat could have won this election. President Obama can quite rightly feel this victory as a personal vindication of his public service.

A slight victory for Democrats

Following the ‘shellacking’ of 2010, 2012 bore out some crucial and heartening victories for democrats – and frankly, for Americans. Both candidates to treat rape lightly, Mourdock and Akin, were defeated, and Elizabeth Warren reversed the extraordinary blue-red swap following Ted Kennedy’s death in Massachusetts. Scott Brown, despite his best efforts, is out of office. Several states passed laws allowing gay marriage, the GOP failed to gain Senate control, and, albeit only by a handful of seats, Dems cut into the Republican House Majority. This carries sway, with the President’s slight lead in the popular vote, into an argument that Washington’s mandate now carries more of a blue than a red tinge.

But it is only slight. The Democrats did not take the House back, or even seriously diminish the GOP majority. They only marginally increased the Senate majority, and the President’s popular vote share was only 3-4 percentage points above Romney’s. There is no sweeping mandate ala 2008 for a Democrat agenda. What there is, is a demand from the American public for congress to stop the intransigence that has stopped progress for months. Arguably, there is, following the Presidential victory and slight Senate gains, an argument for that progress to be slightly more blue then red. But the message is simple – President Obama promised bipartisanship. Now’s the time to get on with it and get to work. In one of the most vitriolic campaigns in recent history, the American people demanded consensus.

A warning for Republicans

Sarah Palin, Todd Akin, Richard Mourdock, Rick Santorum, Rick Perry, Michelle Bachmann: yours is not the future. If Moderate Mitt cannot be elected over fears of his extremity, then learn this: you definitely won’t. The GOP has already signalled moves towards a more centrist position – Mitt’s complaint, just a week or so after being defeated, that Obama won because he offered ‘gifts’ to minorities, has been widely decried and denounced – and a host of young and moderate candidates are stepping up; Chris Christie, Bobby Jindal, Jeb Bush, to name a few. There seems to be a genuine tilt towards winning over minorities rather than alienating them – and this bodes well for Obama’s hopes of second-term immigration reform. But if the GOP throws its toys out of the pram again, if it tries to please the base over the centrist voters in the country, it can expect to lose again – big. If the 2012 mandate was a mandate for consensus and bipartisanship, you had better believe that if either party fails to live up to that spirit to reach for progress, they will suffer at the next elections.

Not the end of the World for the GOP

 

At the end of the day, Mitt Romney lost the election by just over three percentage points. That’s a better showing than John McCain had, and if the next GOP contended has a similar increase, it’ll be a dead heat in the national vote. The Republicans control the House and are within a shout of taking the Senate in two years, and have a host of up-and-coming aspirants ready for office. Alongside Hillary Clinton, Julian Castro, and Ted Strickland on the blue side are Marco Rubio, Nikki Haley and Susana Martinez on the red – all young, driven, and representative of minorities, fast becoming some of the determining demographics in national US elections.

2016 will be a different story. Hillary is the Democrats’ biggest candidate, and she might not even run – and will be 69 if she does. Beneath her are a host of not-too-enticing candidates who may not be able to match up to the new generation of Republicans that are eager, hungry, and passionate to change their party and the country. We don’t know yet who will even run in four years, let alone win – but one thing is for sure. I would be very surprised if the electoral map – and the shape of both parties – looked the same in four years time.

Them’s the lessons I draw. One final thing to say – covering this election in this way has been interesting, fun and a great challenge. Though only a few people may have read this, I’ve enjoyed it immensely. Thanks for stopping by and enjoying 2012 with me. Over the next few years, I hope to cover US government in Washington in a more general way, after having a bit of a break, and the Loo Review and Tigheland will be updated often. But thanks for being on the ride. It’s been fun, so far.

My Prediction

 

You gotta put your money where your mouth is

In 48 hours, we will know who’s won.

I’m beginning to get a familiar feeling in my stomach, one I haven’t felt in four long years. The beginnings of a two-day churning of my stomach, the release of adrenaline, a marked inability to sleep. After nearly two years disparate blogging, months of electioneering, and far too long dreaming of a land far across the Atlantic Ocean, finally, it’s high noon.

Will the first African-American President cement his legacy, or will the moderate from Massachussetts turn the White House red?

Much is at stake. The nation is at a critical crossroads. It has been rescued from financial armageddon, but is sandwiched between the twin dangers of a confidence crisis based on a need to cut the deficit, and still-high levels of unemployment, which are dependent on investment and growth to continue coming down. Whoever wins the election is going to have to walk a tightrope of fiscal responsibility, and the differing philosophies between the two candidates are likely to impact hugely on the next generation of public spending. Romney, for instance, has threatened to repeal Obamacare the day after taking office – if Obama wins, the law comes into effect in 2014 and will be all-but unreputable.

I believe Barack Obama will win a second term.

He’ll win by a slender lead in the popular vote, and a substantial majority in the electoral college. Obama will win 303 electoral votes to Mitt Romney’s 235, claiming the swing states of Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico, whereas Romney will claim North Carolina and Florida.

The reason for this is simple – I trust poll averages over individual polls this late in the game, and they all point toward this result, as 538 and Real Clear Politics demonstrate. In a week where the Romney campaign lost three days and Obama spent a few days looking like a leader in the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy it seems all but inevitable it would produce more benefits for the Preisdent than his challenger. Looking back over the aggregates of the polls, it would seem, given a little slip and slide here and there, that the polls crested for Mr. Romney in mid-October. Since then the President has enjoyed a slight yet stalwart advantage in all but two of the swing states.

I could be wrong, but the polls, the precedent, and the powerful instinct that Obama has done enough to persuade voters in times of crisis, to stick with what they know, are what leads me to this prediction. I’m fully prepared to eat humble pie if I’m wrong, but I will be putting a fiver on this later on.

Whoever wins, the biggest and most immediate challenge facing them will be the negotiation of the fiscal cliff, and the breaking of a deadlocked congress so the work it was put there to accompolish can actually happen. America, and the world, cannot afford another two years of partisan sniping and little legislative consequence.

I’ll be posting a full review of the results after the election, but until then, the choice is the people’s. From an admiring fan in the hinterlands abroad, to the residents of that shining city on a hill, if any of you are reading this, go vote. You have a hand in electing the most powerful office around the world, and what happens next is up to you.

The Final Push

It’s just a week away

In just over a week, we will know if Barack Obama has won another term or Mitt Romney has cast him from office.

Excited yet? I’m starting to have dreams about the number ’270′, looming large in a sort of numerical, kafka-esque image of obsession.

In the interim between then and now, of course, we’ve had the third debate between the candidates on foreign policy, the publishing of Obama’s second term manifesto startlingly late in the campaign, and a hurricane threaten eastern states, prompting both challengers to hunker down. But, though wind and rain lashes the shores of the east, the inevitability of time’s passing continues. And though the gales may be tumultuous, so too are the polls which, though ever close, seem to be toying with each candidate’s fate with the delicacy of an uncommitted lover.

So where do we stand?

First, the final debate was a clear victory for Obama. He risked coming across as snarky and bitchy – a perception aided by comments such as “the 1980s called, they want their foreign policy back” and the mocking description of Romney’s complaint the navy was at its lowest strength since the end of the first world war by claiming “we don’t have bayonets and horses anymore either” and painting a description of Romney that had the foreign policy of the 1980s, the social policy of the 1950s, and the economic policy of the 1920s.

But aggressive as he was, he succeeded in making Romney seem less than au-fait with international affairs, as well as having a fairly cavalier approach to the truth – which, following the fact-check smack-down of the second debate, will have done the most Obama could do – open a niggling fear in voter’s minds – can you really trust Mitt Romney? Romney, it has to be said, looked sweaty, nervous, and blustering. He was also given a gift – the closing statement of the last debate, and he blew it. Ronald Reagan has laid the blueprint for a closing argument from a challenger by asking “are you better off than you were four years ago”? and Mitt blew it by rambling on about how he’s a businessman. There’s only so many times you can earnestly claim “I KNOW how to create jobs” with that earnest, wide-eyed pitch before you come across as desperate, rather than committed.

But the thing is, Obama was levelling back to a draw. If Romney wins this, the President has only himself to blame. The worst criticism of the President levelled by his opponents is that he is arrogant and elitist. He didn’t show up the first debate, and if he had, the polls wouldn’t be so close right now. My sense is that the whole series of debates have been a net win for Romney, because instead of writing him off, they brought him to within a few percentage points of the White House. But the democratic ticket has fought back hard in the town hall, seated and VP forums, and I think the President can now look himself in the mirror and say he tried his best after the latter two altercations.

One area he can’t say that about, however, is the general tone and demeanour of his campaign. Never has there been a more startling juxtaposition between two campaigns from the same candidate. The Senator from Illinois ran on the conviction that there “were no red states or blue states, just united states” and that the unyielding audacity of hope would be sufficient to overcome a gridlocked congress’ partisanship. The President Obama of 2012 ran on the idea that red congressmen are bad congressmen, that his opponent, who, unlike John McCain in 2008 was frequently praised for his service, was a “bullshitter”  , and that his re-election was a dead cert.

Now, as I’ve said before, a certain bit attack doggery is always inevitable in incumbent election campaigns, but to have  not even released a plan for the second term, coming from the author of not one, but two books spelling out the change America could believe in four years ago, is fairly unforgivable. Also, call me old-fashioned, but I don’t care if Nick Griffin is your opponent – whilst you occupy the Oval Office, have some decorum. It seems the Obama campaign has finally, two weeks out from election day, got the message – that tearing down Mitt Romney won’t be enough for them to retain the White House, just as the more and more outlandish attacks from the death throes of the McCain campaign in 2008 failed utterly – but they are in a hole of their own digging, and it is a hole dug with a shovel finished in the varnish of the worst political sin of all – arrogance.

I say it again – if Obama loses, the White House, it’s entirely his own fault.

But he has a few mitigating factors to cling to – and it seems to be a lesson he learned from his nearest democratic predecessor, Bill Clinton. How far we have come from the vitriol-filled New Hampshire primary two years ago, where racial barbs were flung 42′s way, and Obama said President Reagan had “changed the trajectory of the country in a way that Bill Clinton never did!” From the love-in on a Charlotte stage, to the fact-attack adverts bearing Bill’s anti-GOP message, Arkansas’ native son has been everywhere this campaign – and the lesson David Maraniss drew from his life, that it was a constant cycle of triumph, disgrace, learning lessons and resurgence – is one that Barack Obama seems to be applying to his presidency.

Since the fired-up Obama appeared in the debates he’s began campaigning more aggressively, disclosing more plans about his second term, and sharpened his critique of Romney. He has managed to cling to his slender lead in Ohio, which all but bars Romney from Pennsylvania Avenue, and is starting to re-assert a lead in Virginia, and narrow the gap in Florida. If he wins re-election, it will be because he learned his lesson just in time. If he fails, it will be because he didn’t learn it soon enough.

Lastly, Hurricane Sandy lands this week – prayers and thoughts are with all those in its path. In electoral terms, the wake of ‘Frankenstorm’ lies across several swing states. Depending on how bad the destruction is, it could play a last-minute role in how voters see the President’s crisis-management skills. But the immediate effect is a quieting one – campaign appearances are being cancelled left, right and centre, and the immediate effect is likely that however close this election is, it isn’t likely to knock Sandy off the front pages for the next couple of days.

Barack in Business

Fingers at Dawn

There’s nothing like a comeback. And on Tuesday night, that’s exactly what Barack Obama got.

Having spent the last two weeks being lambasted for his snore-o-rific performance against Mitt Romney in the first Presidential debate, and watched the polls not so much creep as rush headlong toward his opponent, it was a must-win fracas for the President on Tuesday night, and, albeit by a slender margin if the post-match polls are anything to go by, that’s exactly what he did.

From the opening, it was clear that this was a different Obama than the pissed-off, ever-hesitant Professor that rocked up in the prior contest. From the opening “Governor Romney doesn’t have a five point plan, he has a one point plan – letting the folks at the top play by different rules”, it was clear the Commander-in-Chief was not going to let the former Massachusetts Governor get away with the data-strewn polemics he issued forth in debate one.  Citing his now infamous editorial headline to “let Detroit go bankrupt”, Obama more than held his own with his opponent.

The debate quickly became the most aggressive one of the campaign so far. With pointed fingers, sauntering hips and facial proximity, it was evidently clear that these were two men fighting for their political lives, and that there was little love lost between them. But the aggression held the contest even and bitter – until a question about women’s rights was asked, and one of the key constituencies in the 2012 election suddenly found itself thrust into the spotlight.

The President delivered an eloquent and poised defence of his record, citing his first law being the passage of the Lilly Ledbetter Act allowing women to sue beyond the statute of limitations if they were the victims of unequal pay, and citing how contraceptive provisions were crucial, and part of, healthcare provision.

Mitt Romney said he had “whole binders full of women”.

He was referring to the fact that he had, as Governor, committed himself to female members of the cabinet to the extent he had a massive outreach project that necessitated the search and compilation of entire folders of women, which allowed him to create a more inclusive cabinet, and thus, state government. But the problem was not the unfortunate turn of phrase – it’s a twofold issue. First of all, this approach to tackling female inequality is tokenistic and a treatment of the symptom, not the disease, and secondly, the issue was pay equality – not equality between the genders. To conflate the two is to suggest that the latter assumption was ever in doubt, and thus throw back to a previous approach to women long since thought outdated.

This was the first instance of Obama drawing clear blood (though Romney brought it on himself), but the second one was much more effective – and this punch was a tag-team with moderator Candy Crowley, but was initiated by the President.

Discussing the deaths of US diplomatic staff in Benghazi, an issue which, given the Obama administration’s flip-flopping with the description of the attack, should have been a home run for the Republican, Romney made the mistake of making the President angry. Cue Obama, hulk-esque, turning positively malevolent green with rage and staring down the man from Boston across the stage, saying, “I’m the one who has to greet these coffins when they come home.” Simultaneously accepting responsibility and shifting the focus onto Romney for politicizing the debate, a tactic the President labelled as “offensive”, Obama laid the smackdown and had a debate moment, through the sheer conviction oozing from his angry pores, before Romney nailed his own factual coffin.

Trying to grasp the initiative, Romney asked the President if he had called the attack “an act of terror”, rather than a response to the film. The moderator intervened and read from the transcript of the speech the day after the attack, which affirmed this, leaving Romney red-faced and immediately one debate down. Whilst the administration did obfuscate for two weeks after this address, perception matters, and this takedown feeds into one of the worst problems Mitt has in terms of stereotypes about him – that he has a cavalier relationship with the truth. On the night, he looked a fool, and he lost.

Other than that, it was a very straightforward report. Romney made some good points on tax and welfare, Obama on immigration and healthcare. Both held their own in a Revenge-of-the-Sith esque duel on the economy. But, crow as the GOP might, Mitt Romney definitively lost – the Libya clip has a playback-ability to it that lends itself to replays from now until election day.

Having said that, Dems really cannot afford to start getting cocky. Romney now has a solid lead in once-competitive North Carolina, Florida is much more red than blue, and Virginia is firmly within Mitt’s grasp too. A slender lead in Ohio is all that stops this election at the moment from turning into a toss-up. They can rejoice in the victory of Tuesday night, but this battle remains 1-1. Any further slip ups could cost them the White House.

PS – Credit has to be given to the two of them, though, for their ability to overcome their aggression and supplant it with a good bit of piss-taking afterward. It’s hard to see British politicians behaving so magnaminously.

The Loo Review: Hackney Picturehouse

“Back to Back they Faced Each Other”

Hackney Picturehouse is a cultural triumph. From evenings of storytelling to watch-along Question Time, it’s a grassroots venue of all things comic, tragic, dramatic.

So why are its loos so boring?

Whilst emerging into the water closets at this cultural cubicle, I expected perhaps to hear home-made podcasts, see local artwork on the walls, or maybe even see some hand-written slogans. Instead I was greeted by a bland and basic teal tile job not dissimilar to the toilet in the home I grew up in (in itself a functional and not thrilling establishment). Perhaps it’s Freudian resentment based on those years of below-par evacuations, but I do think a theatre of such varied festivity as the picturehouse could have put a bit more effort into a site as critical as it’s salle de bain.

Space, lighting – neither can be faltered.

Light and Spacious

 

Copious room in the seated compartments, and the use of a double-trough system for the urinals prevents queues and awkward space concerns. There is plenty of ambience without harshness, encouraging the evacuees to perform without pressure, and the sinks are wide and equipped with a lovely in-sink soap dispenser, with spacious mirrors for grooming.

But ultimately, this loo lacks imagination. Whilst the external building is a theatre for the mind, the toilets are a portakabin for the bladder.

VERDICT – Clean, spacious, well-lit. Adequate. But given the venue could be so much more. The experience, like the decor, is bland – in distinct contrast to the cultural festivities outside the water closet doors. 6/10

Veepers Creepers

Best picture ever

It’s becoming clear that in one of the two Presidential Debates left, Obama needs to smash it.  Joe Biden, in a truculent VP debate performance, edged him a little of the way there.

Not by an outright victory – Paul Ryan, who was on the biggest stage of his career, managed to hold his own – but by putting a full-on, Delaware-flavoured brake-slam to  the momentum gathered by the GOP ticket since last week’s debate Rom-nipotent debate. If Ryan had been able to claim an outright home run against the Vice President, then the GOP would be 2-0 up on the debate scorecard, and with ever-tightening polls, Mitt could find himself with an electoral college lead for the first time in this campaign. As it is, Biden held Ryan in a gritty, bitchy draw which kept the Dems in the game this time around - but is likely to have long-term consequences on Joe’s image. He may well have sacrificed his 2016 ambitions on the 2012 altar, but Paul Ryan – muzzled by a laughing, mocking Veep - was held at bay.

Some have speculated that the Vice President’s attack-dog performance will have led some independent voters, particularly among the all-important constituency of women in swing states, to be turned off by the macho chest-thumping on display, but when you’re trying to slow a train, you need a foreman to apply the brakes. Above all, it was important to fire up the democratic base – their apathy on November 6th will ensure defeat for the President - and demonstrate the power of incumbency, which Biden successfully did. One of the chief complaints of the left in this election has been the tendency of the right to be less-than-accurate in their campaigning, a position exemplified by Romney pollster Neil Newhouse when he famously said “We’re not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact-checkers.”

Whether it was Ryan’s medicare hypocrisy at the RNC, or Romney’s not-five-trillion-that-actually-is of cuts, the Dems have been peeved at how much mistruth has been allowed to be uttered from a GOP mouth – and Biden, challenging Ryan’s claim the Democrats got caught ”with their hand in the cookie jar” taking medicare funds to fund Obamacare with “That’s a bunch of Malarky” finally delivered to the left what they’ve been craving for some time – a barrier between a Republican utterance and its passage into received wisdom.  

Having said that, Ryan cannot be accused of not having a strong performance. Keeping his cool, avoiding the sultry path to wonkiness, he managed to make his arguments calmly and came across as a smart, passionate individual who wasn’t going to be drawn into a brawl. But this did come at the expense of engaging in the debate as much as Biden – a crucial advantage. A distinct tie, one of the observations about this debate diminished both candidate’s future aspirations – Biden, cranky, wired, and aggressive, seemed too old for the Presidency, whereas Ryan, polite, demure but unassertive, seemed too young.

The Dems cannot afford to be complacent for a second. Another Obama-ination  of a performance on Tuesday will, I believe, see the Republicans pull ahead. On Nate Silver’s exquisite electoral calculus blog, five thirty eight, Obama has gone from having a 75% lock on victory to a diminished 63% – and only a ten-vote advantage in the college – and it isn’t necessarily clear that the positive effect for Romney from the first debate has reached a ceiling yet. Although Biden’s equalising performance might stay some of the swing to the right, make no mistake – despite the easy confidence with which it carries itself, the Obama campaign is in trouble. A couple of points, in a couple of swing states is all that seperates Obama II from President Romney.

But, if the Obama of 2008 shows up, and has just one clear win against the Former Massachusetts Governor, it’s hard to see how he doesn’t seal the deal – one of the great unfairnesses of incumbency is that the one in power just needs one clear victory, the challenger three. The game has been thrown to the President – despite the closeness of the race, it’s his to win – and if he manages to take Romney in debate number two, it’s hard to see how Mitt bounces back, given the strength of Obama on foreign policy, the final debate.

But who knows? With the polls as volatile as they are, anything can happen. And for the first time in a long time, we’ve got a serious fight on our hands.

 

The Other Debate

Just a quick post this one – but seeing as we’re sandwiched in the middle of debate season, and that the best humour line to have come out of them so far seems to be about how the President celebrates his wedding anniversary, I thought I’d share this – an absolutely brilliant debate between Liberal Bastion Jon Stewart and Conservative Polemic King Bill O’ Reilly. The Rumble in the Air-Conditioned Auditorium, designed to raise money for charity – so please donate -  is absolutely brilliant. Both of them attack their opponent’s positions with charachteristic antagonism, but demonstrate a respect and charachter missing from many of the political surrogates of Obama and Romney, and get straight to the heart of the chasm divinging American Politics at the moment. It’s a genuine dialogue of Liberal versus Conservative – and it’s also hilarious. Enjoy – and please do follow this link to donate $5 and watch what will undoubtedly be the best debate of the season.