Bristol Labour councillors undermined by blinkered NEC

A farce and an embarrassment is how I’d describe recent events in Bristol. In under a week, Labour have managed to score not one, but two own goals. All coming off the back of the election on November 15^th of the city’s newly elected mayor, George Ferguson, the independent candidate.

From the moment he took office, Ferguson has called for a “rainbow coalition” to sit in his cabinet. Based on the election results, he vowed to fill it with three Labour councillors, one Tory, one Lib Dem, and one Green. A city beset by years of political squabbling and inertia was finally going to put Bristol first. Indeed, the city has felt just that little bit more upbeat, hopeful that this time things will be different; a mayor, with bite, and the power to get things done.

Well, that was the fantasy, anyway. Labour has shut the door on the chance to be a part of Ferguson’s cabinet. Last Wednesday evening, Bristol Labour Party members gathered to reflect on defeat, and to look ahead to the future, where it was to decide on whether the party should accept a role with the new mayor. A vote was taken, where much to my dismay but not surprise, most members voted against entering into coalition rule. I was at this meeting and voted in favour.

Then, last Thursday, Labour councillors had their own meeting to discuss what to do next. On Friday morning, live on BBC Radio Bristol, Labour’s leader on the council, Peter Hammond, revealed that the party had voted in favour (discovered yesterday to be 9 to 8,) of working with Ferguson. I was stunned, shocked, and delighted. Naturally, those who supported this decision took to Twitter (where else?!) and the blogosphere to express their relief, more than anything else, that sense had prevailed. Other not so happy members naturally had a somewhat different take, angered that the views of the party membership had been ignored.

And then the NEC got involved. On Sunday, Hammond told the local media that the party had been instructed to abide by the wishes of its members, and to take its place in the new administration as “constructive opposition.” Something which prompted Hammond to resign as party leader, but not before he articulated what many Bristolians, both within and outside the local Labour Party, felt:

“Earlier today the Labour Party announced that they were not prepared to endorse a proposal from Bristol’s Labour councillors to take up the offer of three seats (out of six) in George Ferguson’s cabinet. As a loyal member of the Labour Party I must and will abide by that decision however flawed I think it is.

“[But] in all conscience I cannot publicly support a decision that runs contrary to the advice I gave to Labour councillors which they accepted by a majority decision as they are entitled to do.

“To date I have received numerous emails and had numerous conversations (with Labour Party members and members of the public (Labour voters and otherwise) who told me that Labour should forget what they saw as narrow party self-interest and ‘get in there’ to argue for the values and practical measures Labour represents.

"I have never believed that Labour participation in this cabinet would deliver the manifesto upon which we contested the mayoral election but in these changed political circumstances we should at least be able to be at the table to advocate Labour’s approach in dealing with the issues facing the people of Bristol in the face of government actions which do not benefit Bristolians.”

I couldn’t have put it any better.

A chance for Labour to put some of its agenda at the heart of George Ferguson’s first cabinet has been squandered in the most chaotic fashion. There’s no doubt in my mind the behaviour of the Lib Dems in government has somewhat sullied rule by coalition. For every unpopular decision made by the Tories, the Liberals have taken the greater battering in the polls. Those members opposed to this political union from the start argue that they don’t want Bristol Labour to be associated with every unfair cut, or ill-conceived policy, that may be enacted. We’re told that cuts of up to £32m are on their way.

To which I say, use the power available to you – remember, Labour have been offered three cabinet posts, to the three offered collectively to the Tories, Liberals and Greens – to ensure our city’s most vulnerable and most in need of help don’t get penalised. Rather than carping from the sidelines in a city which has stopped listening to you.

This was a wonderful opportunity for Labour to try and shape the policies of the city’s first directly elected mayor. Ferguson himself has expressed his desire to work with Labour, saying he is sympathetic to some of its ideas and proposals put forward during the campaign. Labour, and the Greens, have led the way in calling for a living wage. Their pressure has resulted in Ferguson agreeing to implement it by the end of his first term.

The NEC’s intervention has ensured that if any Labour policies are passed, it won’t be Labour getting the credit. The NEC’s stance is idiotic, foolish, and short-sighted. Naked tribalism over the majority has won the day. It also shows a complete lack of understanding of peoples’ feelings towards the council over how things have always been done in Bristol.

George Ferguson’s election has generated a lot of good will. I’m sure even amongst Liberal or Tory voters, resentment has been somewhat tempered. The NEC has badly misjudged the mood of the city. They have imposed diktat from afar. Lambasted by the public following Wednesday’s vote, Labour councillors had started to restore some pride to its party. Only for it to be cruelly and humiliatingly taken away a couple of days later.

Labour’s refusal to jump on board has been met with incredulity. Some proclaim this now makes Labour irrelevant in the city.

Bristolians want to see some action. They want to see a change from the bad old days. They want someone to come along and make this great city even greater. They want affordable, reliable buses; they want more homes built; more primary school places; anti-social behaviour dealt with. They’re not interested in incestuous party politics. If Labour doesn’t want to be a part of this, that’s fine, we’ll carry on and leave them behind. You can guarantee these thoughts are going through the heads of a great many locals right now.

A browse through some of the comments on the pages of “thisisbristol,” the online version of the local newspaper, The Post, should make for sobering reading for key party strategists. They are not uninformed rants, but highly insightful, and in tune with what the city needs at this moment.

My feeling is that this is a mistake Labour will come to regret. Every justification the party makes, with the same reasons monotonously churned out, only serves to strengthen this belief.


This article was first published on Labour Uncut on Tuesday 27th November 2012

Labour councillors undermined by party’s blinkered governing body

What a farce. What an embarrassment. In under a week Labour have managed to score not just one, but two major own goals. A chance to put some of its agenda at the heart of George Ferguson’s first cabinet has been squandered in the most harebrained fashion.

The reaction last Thursday from many Bristolians to the news that party members had voted against joining Ferguson’s “rainbow coalition” was met with a mixture of incredulity and dismay. Worse, some proclaimed this now made Labour irrelevant in the city. Again, in the interests of openness, I declare that as a Labour Party member I attended Wednesday’s meeting, and of course voted in favour of joining the cabinet. Unfortunately, I was in a minority. A browse through some of the comments on these pages would have made for sobering reading for key party strategists.

And one can only assume certain personnel read them, judging by the decision from Labour councillors to defy its members and vote in favour of coalition politics. Assuming that the party’s councillors would go along with the views of its members, I was somewhat stunned, and delighted, to hear the news that sense had prevailed. I’d like to think someone, somewhere, had listened to me. I should be so lucky!

This morning on BBC Radio Bristol, Labour MP for Bristol South, Dawn Primarolo, revealed that councillors had voted in favour by the narrowest of margins: 9 to 8.

And then yesterday we had the dramatic and humiliating u-turn. Humiliating for councillors to see their wishes, however small, overruled by the NEC, the governing body of the Labour Party which oversees its direction and policy-making process.

George Ferguson’s election has generated a lot of good will. I’m sure even amongst Liberal or Tory voters, resentment has been somewhat tempered. The NEC has badly misjudged the mood of the city. They have imposed diktat from afar. Lambasted by the public following Wednesday’s vote, Labour councillors had started to restore some pride to its party. Only for it to be cruelly taken away a couple of days later.

What the NEC doesn’t realise, or for whatever reason has chosen to ignore, is the possible damage all this is doing, and will do, to the party in Bristol. They are either so removed or so unaware of the politics of this city that they haven’t the faintest clue how this looks to non-Labour voters. Only the most tribal, the most blinkered, would think their intervention has helped.

There is certainly a debate to be had about whether elected party councillors should be able to brush aside the desires of party members. But, it’s a debate for another time, and certainly one that the wider public couldn’t give two hoots about.

Bristolians want to see some action. They want to see a change from how things have been done in the past. They want someone to come along and make this great city even greater. They want affordable, reliable buses; they want more homes built; more primary school places; anti-social behaviour dealt with. They’re not interested in incestuous party politics. If Labour doesn’t want to be a part of this, that’s fine, we’ll carry on and leave them behind. You can guarantee these thoughts are going through the heads of a great many locals right now.

Again, I sympathise with some of the reasons Labour have put forward for wanting to sit in opposition, even if I think they are wrong. There’s no doubt in my mind the behaviour of the Lib Dems in government has somewhat sullied rule by coalition. For every unpopular decision made by the Tories, the Liberals have taken the greater battering in the polls.

Bristol Labour doesn’t want to be associated with every unfair cut, or ill-conceived policy, that may be enacted. But, then do your best to fight them. Use the power available to you – remember, Labour have been offered three cabinet posts, to the three offered collectively to the Tories, Liberals and Greens – to ensure our city’s most vulnerable and most in need of help don’t get penalised. Rather than carping from the sidelines in a city which has stopped listening to you.

I strongly believe that refusing to sit in cabinet is a mistake and one the party will come to regret. As touched upon above, read some of the comments by readers of these pages in response to Wednesday’s vote. If these are anything to go by, the backlash has already begun. They shouldn’t be dismissed as rants and ravings. Many are highly insightful.

At least Peter Hammond, Labour’s leader on the council, did the honourable thing over the weekend and resigned. How often do we get to say that in politics? Citing central party interference, Hammond declared that he wasn’t prepared to ignore his colleagues’ wishes:

“Earlier today the Labour Party announced that they were not prepared to endorse a proposal from Bristol’s Labour councillors to take up the offer of three seats (out of six) in George Ferguson’s cabinet. As a loyal member of the Labour Party I must and will abide by that decision however flawed I think it is.

“[But] in all conscience I cannot publicly support a decision that runs contrary to the advice I gave to Labour councillors which they accepted by a majority decision as they are entitled to do.

“To date I have received numerous emails and had numerous conversations (with Labour Party members and members of the public (Labour voters and otherwise) who told me that Labour should forget what they saw as narrow party self-interest and ‘get in there’ to argue for the values and practical measures Labour represents.

"I have never believed that Labour participation in this cabinet would deliver the manifesto upon which we contested the mayoral election but in these changed political circumstances we should at least be able to be at the table to advocate Labour’s approach in dealing with the issues facing the people of Bristol in the face of government actions which do not benefit Bristolians.”

I couldn’t have put it any better.


This article was first published on thisisbristol on Monday 26th November 2012

It’s a no brainer: if invited, Labour should join Ferguson’s cabinet

Newly elected mayor, George Ferguson, may soon find that winning proves to be the easy part. The tricky bit will be bringing all the city’s power brokers together. It’s pretty much accepted that the Lib Dems will find themselves in Ferguson’s cabinet, together with the Greens. After all, it was those disenchanted Liberals who helped get him elected.

What about Labour? Noises coming out of Bristol’s Labour’s Party suggest things may not be quite as straightforward. Early indications are that being a “constructive opposition” would be preferable to accepting a place at the top table. An opposition which scrutinises and holds its leaders to account is essential in a democracy. I accept this.

Except, this isn’t Westminster. This is Bristol. Local democracy should at times be able to rise above the dog eat dog world of the Commons. Now with an elected mayor, it’ll finally have some bite. For the first time in a generation we have a chance to get this city moving and release its untapped potential.

Labour can sit idly by watching/opposing Ferguson et.al. implement cuts they perceive to be damaging, disproportionate, and unfair, or they can do something about it. By not joining, they are showing the city that they are putting their own party’s interests above the city’s. Or that’s how some might see it. Remember, perception is everything in this game.

In Bristol, we exist beyond the suffocations of the Westminster Village. Labour can have a very real and positive influence. In an ideal world, it’d be great to see Marvin Rees, Labour’s mayoral candidate, offered a prominent role. As I mentioned in my previous posting, of all the mayoral candidates, only Rees truly grasped the damage that is being done to the city by the gaping chasm that is its social inequality. If anything, his concession speech proved what Bristol stands to miss out on. I had always hoped that whoever won would offer the losing candidate a significant role in the mayor’s first cabinet.

But, I find some of the reasons given for why Labour should turn down possible cabinet posts incredibly depressing. In a piece for LabourList, Labour’s premier grassroots blog – independent, but supportive of the party – its editor, Mark Ferguson, outlined his rationale, warning Bristol Labour people why they should do just this:

“Some Labour people will be placed in a difficult and uncomfortable position – being offered positions in an independent administration, perhaps alongside Tories, Lib Dems and others. In a way it’s understandable if some consider taking roles working alongside independents. Four years in opposition is a long time, and the need to help those who only Labour can stand up for is great.

“And yet by working for an “Independent” – those Labour people could end up doing a great deal of harm to Labour voters, and the party.

“Labour politicians helping a politician push his anti-Labour agenda would leave a bad taste in the mouth for sure, but it would also damage the party in Bristol… It would be a betrayal of the party that got them elected to advance their careers.

“Bristol is the kind of place where Labour needs to maintain and extend its support, and this task will be made harder if local Labour councillors are acting as apologists for a non-Labour Mayor who will (like everyone else in local government) be forced to make unpopular cuts.”

Normally, I have a lot of time for what Ferguson writes. He is often astute and measured in his analysis. But, on this, I think he is wrong.

Firstly, it’s hard to pre-judge what kind of mayor George Ferguson will be. Labour doesn’t know. None of us know. Part of his appeal was this unknown quantity. Yes, cuts will be on their way. Up to £32m, so we’re told. This is therefore a chance for Labour to help in shaping the mayor’s agenda, ensuring it isn’t the city’s most vulnerable who bear the brunt.

In fact, this is a chance for all the four parties in Bristol, (including the Greens) to show that for once, they are above party politics. Don’t you think this city has had enough of the pettiness and the mud-slinging? It’s held Bristol back for years. Now, with a mayor, with cross-party support, we can put the past behind us.

Some may dismiss this as idealistic and naive. I’m happy to accept both charges. There’s nothing wrong with believing that all parties, and none, can work together.

Labour accuses George Ferguson of having run an unashamedly “anti-Labour” campaign. Of course he was going to do this. He knew full well that getting voters to reject Labour represented his best chance of cashing in. In the end, it was their rejection of the Tories and Lib Dems that benefited him the most. Of course asking voters to reject one party, rather than positively endorsing another, is negative and cynical. But, everyone does it. It’s just electioneering.

Not joining Ferguson’s cabinet would be short-sighted, foolish and wrong. It would also show voters they were right to reject business-as-usual party politics. It is also worth pointing out that Ferguson doesn’t have to bring Labour along with him. Let’s be honest, had Labour won, would Ferguson be invited to join the cabinet? Unlikely.

Rather than putting their careers ahead of the party, as Mark Ferguson says they would be doing, I ask Labour to put Bristol ahead of their party. After all, it could end up benefiting the party rather than harming it.


This article was first published on thisisbristol on Wednesday 21st November 2012

Why George Ferguson won, or why Labour lost

Bristolians have always known what makes their city special: its beauty, diversity and edginess, as well as the locals’ refusal to follow the herd. Once again, for the second time in six months, Bristol has dared to be different. There are several reasons why George Ferguson won last week’s mayoral election. Some of them are the same reasons why Labour lost, some are not.

If it were a choice between who had the better manifesto and the most alluring pledges, Marvin Rees, Labour’s candidate, should have won hands down. Rees understood from day one the key issue Bristol needed to address: its social inequality. Yes, the buses are a disgrace, we all know that. And, most of the candidates promised to fix them. But, only Rees was talking the language of equality, or lack of. Who better to address the alarming gaps in quality of life – be it housing, work, crime, or even just life expectancy - between residents of Lawrence Hill and Westbury on Trym, than a resident of the former, who has seen with his own eyes what happens when parts of the city get left behind?

Whilst Ferguson played lip service to this crucial issue, Rees made it a centrepiece of his campaign. But it wasn’t enough. Voters across the country have been in punishing mood for some time now. Punishing the establishment that is.  For many, Rees, irrespective of many of his qualities – such as freshness and authenticity – was the Labour Party. The same Labour Party that people blame, along with the Tories and Lib Dems, for the stalemate and inertia at the council. It’s often been my belief that Bristol is a wonderful city, despite, not because of the work of the council.

Voters were clearly not prepared to take a chance on what they perceived to be just another Labour councillor in the making, with a far bigger paycheck, no matter how unfair that may seem or how strong a candidate Rees was.

Seeing a steady stream of the Labour Shadow Cabinet visiting Bristol would also have convinced many that Rees was, and would be, answerable to Labour Party HQ down in London. Whatever policy ideas Ed Miliband put forward, people would wonder if they’d be replicated here. Opposition attacks on the government? Bristolians would assume these were also Rees’ views.

The mayoralty should be an opportunity for political independence, or at least a little free-thinking, no matter what party you are standing for. That’s part of its appeal. Ken Livingstone, and even Boris Johnson, have made a name for themselves doing just this. The sight of Ed Balls, Harriet Harman, Diane Abbott, and even Ed Miliband, swanning around East Street or Cabot Circus reminds people of the very politics - or should that be the very politicians? - they are rejecting in greater numbers than ever before.

This is not about you; this is about us, Bristol. This should be an election about local issues, led by local activists, some may have thought. Not by big hitters vying for a return to government.

There’s no doubt that the low turnout – at 27.9%, only marginally better than the 24% who voted ‘yes’ in May – benefited an outsider. Historically, low turnouts tend to harm Labour. By the same token, it is the Conservatives who usually benefit, confident that their supporters will turn out on polling day. It’s simple demographics:  the elderly are statistically more likely to be Tory voters and they vote in greater numbers.  

Both of the above happened, but with a twist. The Conservative vote, like the Lib Dems’ (as expected) collapsed. Among Labour activists, there was concern that the Tories would vote in larger numbers than Labour folk. They were right to be worried. Except they didn’t turn out to vote Conservative. They voted for George Ferguson. Right across the city, people snubbed mainstream parties in favour of the untested independent.

There’s little doubt that George’s charisma, his refreshing honesty to admit to not knowing something in hustings, and his ‘none of the above’ appeal, won him many admirers, both old and new.

Ferguson’s main theme was to convince that he could transcend the squabbling party politics that have dogged the council for years. I was never swayed by the argument that he was being disingenuous in proudly proclaiming his independent credentials, when he had been, until recently, a long-standing member of the Lib Dems. He’s always maintained that he hadn’t been an active member for a while. But, more than this, I always felt this line of attack was fruitless and unlikely to have much of an impact on voters. Clearly they agreed.

It is also worth mentioning that, in general, this has been a pretty clean campaign, thankfully devoid of the dirty tricks and cynicism that can often dominate local politics. To this, all the candidates must take credit.

There was however one exception: politics as practised in the Twittersphere. As a Labour Party member (yes, cards on the table time) I was often appalled and rather disappointed at the incessant taunting and baiting of Ferguson online. Some Labour supporters seemed to feel it more worthwhile to devote their energy to unleashing a barrage of negative tweets in his direction, rather than singing the praises and highlighting the strengths of their own candidate. This is the kind of thing that drives people away from politics. To his credit, Ferguson, more often than not, refused to let it get to him, and responded, as far as Twitter is concerned, by being civil, respectful, and good humoured.

Finally, to all those who voted against having a directly elected mayor in May (that’s most of you), let me say this. At least now we know who’s in charge. Who to blame when things go wrong. And who to thank when they go right. Because I imagine most of you couldn’t name our last council leader. A victory for local democracy, if nothing else. (It was the Lib Dems’ Simon Cook, by the way).

 

This article was first published on thisisbristol on Tuesday 20th November 2012  

Should young people now think twice before going to university?

Is all that debt worth it? For years we’ve been told that going to university has several advantages. A chance to mix with an eclectic bunch of people, escape the real world for three years, with the best social life you’re ever likely to have. As well as the dull stuff. Such as actually doing some work and getting a degree. Then there’s the financial rewards. As a graduate you’ll earn X amount more than the rest of the country. Opportunities will fall into your lap. You’ll stand out from the crowd.

Except rather than standing out, graduates are now finding themselves swallowed up. Unremarkably just making up the numbers. A major study out this week revealed that the pulling power of recent graduates has been significantly dwarfed compared to previous years.  Researchers at Warwick University found the promise of better jobs and higher salaries slowly evaporating. 40% of graduates from the 2006 cohort were still in non-graduate jobs two years after leaving university, and as of November last year, took home wages 22% less than those from the class of 1999.

The fact that there are now so many people doing comparable degrees at universities of similar quality means we are now in the era of what one might call ‘the squeezed graduate.’ It is employers who are reaping the benefits, luxuriating in the fact that they can afford to be unbelievably fussy and make ever more outlandish demands from potential future workers.

This is before we even get in to the debt issue. 96% of the 17,000 tracked in this study expressed few regrets in going to university. However, compared to their peers a decade earlier, were saddled with an average debt burden of £16,000, or 60% higher than those in 1999.

The evolution of the scale of debt is something that will take more prominence with each year that passes. As someone who entered university in 1998, the first year tuition fees were introduced – an enviable £1000 a year -, even the £3,000 a year students may start to look fondly on their relatively small levels of debt when compared to those who have just started university and staring at debt levels of £27,000, when taking only tuition fees into account.

Which begs the question, if debt is exploding, salaries falling, and the job at the end of it more or less in line with what everyone else is doing: should young people now think twice before going to university? It’s a valid question which deserves serious consideration. Long gone are the days when students could roll up at university, doss around for three years, and then furiously cram study into the final term and be satisfied with a 2:1 in an arts degree at a generic university at the end of it. They’ll be like many of their peers competing for similar style jobs giving employers greater freedom.

Despite all the extra investment into higher education, with more students attending university than ever before, two crucial points need addressing. The first concerns employers. We may have more graduates but bosses remain unimpressed with what greets them. Persistent studies find British university leavers ill equipped to start work, with a majority of employers complaining at having to provide remedial training. Three out of four of the country’s top businesses believe graduate skills to be poor: ‘too many to list,’ according to one employer.  The narrow focus on academic skills and exams has led to a generation of graduates struggling to keep up, hence why many businesses have switched to recruiting foreign talent.

Secondly, whilst the hike in tuition fees to £9,000 a year generated endless debate, very little of it dealt with the quality question. What are students, or customers, to use new university-speak, going to be getting in return for this huge outlay? Will teaching, a focus for a rise in complaints, become more rigorous? In fact, before we even get into this, will the number of hours a week a student in History, for example, rise, from the six or seven, as is common at many institutions?

There’s no doubt in my mind that the nature of getting a degree, and the whole university experience, is going to look rather different ten or fifteen years from now. Lord Mandelson’s call for the two-year degree may become a reality. The cost of higher education may eventually put people off for good. Especially if work stats for graduates don’t improve. Researchers from Warwick University warn that the slide in graduate wages will be irreversible, and not merely the result of the prolonged global downturn.

Taking all of this into account, it wouldn’t be surprising if more and more school leavers bypass university and head straight into work. After all, they’ll be three years of work experience up on graduates staring at debt in excess of £30,000. The choice may soon be an obvious one.

This article was first published by Independent Voices on Friday 16th November 2012

The audacity to hope again

If it’s the hope that kills you, let’s all get ready to die again. Four more years to satisfy his liberal critics, catch up with the great expectations, and take on the perennially disappointed. Hope wasn’t the message this time around, but it’s what many will seek for a President Obama second term.

If we’re talking electoral college votes, this was a synch. A walk in the park. With the exceptions of North Carolina, a state believed to have been lost several weeks ago, and Indiana, lost several months ago, according to Democrat insiders, President Obama took every key battleground state. Very soon Florida will be added to give Obama a 332-203 victory. An electoral college landslide. The popular vote margin of victory is considerably less than in 2008. Over 59 million, or 50% of the votes, won, represents eight million fewer. A 2% win, way down from almost 7% against John McCain.

Obama has again managed to cobble together a rainbow coalition of supporters. And once more it’s women who played the most significant role. By a lead of 12 points, women flocked to the president. Aided no doubt by the stubborn social conservatism of the present Republican Party, and some of its candidates’ jaw-dropping comments on rape. Virtually absent from the presidential debates, women’s rights, or more accurately their bodies, were attacked like never before in the primaries.

Like the Conservative Party in Britain, the Republicans have an ethnic minority problem. 9 out of 10 black Americans, and 7 out of 10 Latinos came down on the side of Obama. Non white voters now make up 21% of all voters, and rising. The Republicans have serious work to do to win them around. Adopting a more flexible, Bush-like, attitude to immigration would help.

Republican intransigence has been the order of the day. The pattern of Obama’s first term. Refusing to budge on many social issues will continue to dog them, unless they can find a softer, more conciliatory tone.

There’s no doubt that Team Obama’s groundwork had again given the president that crucial edge. Stationed in many swing states almost as soon as he first took office has been one masterstroke of many. The Democrats have been better organised, better drilled and knocking on doors even earlier, than four years ago. The Romney camp have been playing catch up for some time.

Numbers aside, have voters positively endorsed Obama or just been turned off by his challenger? There’s little doubt that it’s harder to run on ‘change’ when you’ve been in office for four years. Commentators have accused Obama of running a dirty, negative campaign. Some contrast.

But, the real weapon they always had up their sleeves was Mitt Romney. His flip-floppery made conservatives doubt him and independents wary. Was the real Romney the measured, moderate sounding one who ran Massachusetts as Governor between 2003 and 2007? The one we got a glimpse of in the TV debates. Or was it the puritanical, no compromise Mitt, who pounded the primaries and reached out to the evangelicals? We’ll never really know, and neither did the voters.

Romney was a weak candidate. No, scrap that, he was a dreadful candidate. A stronger, more authentic, less wooden one, would have posed Obama serious problems. When you struggle to enthuse your base, as Romney did throughout the primary season, you’re always fighting an uphill battle. Even with the upturn in the economy, a more convincing Republican would have had a real chance. As it was, Romney was never in the game.

The message sloppily, or deliberately, being pumped out from the mainstream media was that this was a too close to call election. Well, yes, if you ignore the realities of the American electoral system it was. Savvier pundits - arise Sir Nate Silver - told us to concentrate on the swing states, and those in the know did just that. Romney rarely led consistently, and by enough, in most of them. The result was a foregone conclusion.

Where does this leave the current Republican set up? The partisan part of me wants to say let’s sit back and watch the Republican Party eat itself. And what a wonderful sight that would be! But, not great for democracy. The Republicans have to decide if they want to be the angry, extreme, misogynist party, relying on one (diminishing) pool of voters, or one that reaches out to all of America, and stops purging itself of its vital, moderate, faction. If there are any of them left.

Obama is re-elected and the world breathes a huge sigh of relief. His victory speech sought to unite America, knowing that he presides over a deeply polarised country. But, with unemployment falling, an economy improving, involvement in Afghanistan coming to end, he’ll also know that good times are just around the corner. Time for some more of that hopey changey thing.  

This article was jointly published by Speaker's Chair and Shifting Grounds on Wednesday 7th November 2012