Voting today will go along way to decide the two main candidates for the 44^thpresident. McCain and Obama are narrowly the favourites in their races.  With George Bush’s terrible poll ratings Republican candidates will have a hard time to win the White House and with the Democratic race creating more of the buzz it will be easier for Obama or Hillary to “be the change”. 

The Republicans are a shadow of their former coalition because of a mishandled war and intellectual exhaustion on domestic issues.

There are three touchstone issues with their respective wings in the party; Iraq/Iran – Neoconservatives; abortion – religious-conservatives and tax cuts – fiscal-conservatives.

Frustratingly the Republican shadow is what matters in the primaries and the candidates have rushed to the right.  The main candidates all have similar policies on the touchstone issues.  

These issues has led to Bush’s unpopularity.  Yet what would be the repercussions of another Republican presidency?  A Middle East or terrorist “incident” that led to a Republican candidate scaring American’s into thinking a Democrat will not protect them (not so far fetched when either a black man or woman will be nominated) could lead to a Republican president.

Why do all the candidates support “strict constructionalist” judges which will overturnRoe V Wade given the declining influence of the religious right?  Why do all the candidates support the war in Iraq given it and the neoconservatives has been discredited and made America more vulnerable?  Why do all the candidates support (income) tax cuts when the argument could be made for budget deficit reduction?

Parties always pander during the primaries and tack back for the election.  But after eight long years of George Bush “the change”, long overdue, looks like it will have to be a Democrat. John McCain, my preferred candidate, has agreed to make Bush’s tax cuts permanent – after being an eloquent opponent.  Still the other options are less promising, Romney has flip flopped Kerry style, Giuliani has a dubious judge of character and Huckabee’s moral beliefs are unpalatable.  McCain with his foreign policy experience is the most formidable candidate.  His bold stance on immigration offers hope that he can make the tough calls which are right.

But I hope Obama wins today and in November and if he does I think President Bartlett and President Palmer will have played a part in the final result.  Obama anti-war from the start can bury Vietnam once and for all.  His unifying stance and relentless focus on hope, optimism and change even when flagging in the polls shows he has the mettle and hopefully the vision thing.  Finally a black man with a Muslim (agnostic) father who spent four years growing up in Indonesia is the only plausible candidate who could win hearts and minds on the “war on terror”.

The South West Regional Development Agency has invested in a wave hub to enable pioneering marine renewable energy projects – the Marine Renewable Deployment Fund offered just £4.5 million to the project.  The Governments renewable energy agenda is advanced by nothing more than pathetic window dressing. 

•  
  • DBRR have offered just £50 million for the marine renewable deployment fund to support the large demonstration projects
  • on Carbon sequestration a total of just £46 million for research and industry led development
  • Most shockingly of all Government Investment on Research for all renewable energy technologies stands at just £19 million spread over nine technologies.

The Prime Minister wants to impose legally binding targets for a sustainable environment but without the investment. Britain should be a world leader with substantial Government investment and proper commitment.

Waterloo International Terminal becomes the responsibility of the Department for Transport in March 2008.  The decision by Alistair Darling to retain the Terminal for domestic services was announced in October 2005.  Since then developments have moved at a snails pace. One platform will be in use by December 2008 and the other four in 2012-14.  Given the chronic overcrowding at Waterloo it is hard to understand why everyone has to walk past five empty platforms after many of their journeys had suffered delays.  With no respite for another six years it’s not good enough that the promise to turn Waterloo’s old Eurostar platforms over to commuter use has been broken.

Is English votes for English laws unworkable and does it put the Union at risk?  Is the Barnett formula which gives Scotland more money than England sustainable? How they are answered will determine the Union of the future. I just want to discuss here the West Lothian question.

I am not a fan of a codified constitution and revel in the constitutional anomalies that exist. The system of devolution in the UK & NI is asymmetric, there is no common pattern to the responsibilities devolved to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland or that matter England. “Better an imperfect union than a broken one” said David Cameron yesterday.

If Scotland elected the same number of Labour and Conservative MPs toWestminster this would, to all intense and purposes, be a dead issue.  Instead,Scotland returned 39 Labour MPs and 1 Conservative.  If Labour cling on at the next election, thankfully unlikely, it is more than likely their Scottish MPs will be decisive. 

Can a Government be formed that make policies on the key domestic issues but voted through by MPs not accountable to the electorate for their decisions e.g. tuition fees?

If we have English votes for English laws, the question is reversed and it becomes apparent the absurdity of a Government that could not pass legislation in relation toEngland on health, housing and education.  Coincidentally the supposed issues of Gordon’s vision for his Labour Party.

If we had English votes on English laws the Commons becomes a mess. As the only democratically elected chamber in Westminster its role as a link to constituents, a legislature and the executive means it becomes a jack of all trades and master of none.  A Government with a minority in England unable to control the Commons on the key domestic issues of the day would sideline it altogether and use for exampleStatutory Instruments to push through decisions.

The key to unlocking the debate is the future of the House of Lords where the West Lothian question is irrelevant.  A fully elected, by PR, upper chamber would throw up as many constitutional questions as it does answers.  But it would allow the Commons the political space to represent geographical interests that it can’t do whilst there is a wholly appointed upper chamber without a democratic mandate.

Everyone knows how Gordon Brown has virtually bankrupted the private pension system and raided £5 billion a year. But I was surprised to discover the Government has no up to date figures for the unfunded public service pension scheme.

The last calculation was back in March 2005 when the Government said the liability stood at £530 billion.  The reason why it has not been updated is because according to Andy Burnham, Chief Secretary to the Treasury, they are “complex calculations”.  Is Government no longer making “complex calculations”!

As Mr Burnham makes clear they are awaiting “updated assessments of the discount rate”.  By using a higher discount rate in its sums, the Treasury is able to charge state employers, such as the NHS, less for their pension contributions — leaving more money for current improvements to public services but obliging future taxpayers to pick up the tab.  

Independent current estimates of liability vary betweenWatson Wyatt’s £960 billion and Neil Record’s £1,025 billion. This is just under double the size of the national debt.

The cost of meeting the public sector pension commitments already made could cost every family in Britain £33,000 according to, Shadow Spokesman Philip Hammond.  Current commitments will peak at £90 billion a year in 2045 which is larger than the current education budget of £80 billion.  This Government is irresponsibly mortgaging our children’s future.