On Monday, President Obama is going to sign into law permission for federal funding to go to stem cell research.  Virtually no federal funds have been allowed to be spent on stem cell research since 2001 when George Bush banned it and twice vetoed attempts to overturn the ban. 

Admittedly, private research funds have always been permitted but examples such as the experience of JFK and his declaration that by the end of the 1960s there would be a man on the moon and the (ok, ok, fictional) experience of President Bartlett in the West Wing when he discusses cancer funding with his wife’s colleagues demonstrate the necessity for focus and effort, and for serious public money to be spent on things we consider to be public ‘goods’.

I don’t want to get into the rights and wrongs of stem cell research here (happy to another time though).  What I do want to say is this:  this is another example of governments being able to act where individuals cannot. 

There is an argument to be had about how to oversee and award public money.  Creating quangos all over the place probably isn’t the right way to do it – the example of NICE and their ridiculous approval process tells us that.  There needs to be a way to reliably assess what has a chance of success – I can’t think of many governments that would be able to do that (see how difficult it’s been for IT projects…).  There needs to be an acceptance that lots of the research isn’t going to succeed – think of the claims made for AIDS vaccines in the mid-1980s, and today’s complete lack of anything remotely likely to work.

But overall, I believe that these big public works projects can and must be funded by the people who it will benefit – us.  And if private companies fund and develop something themselves that is hugely beneficial and is in demand, good luck to them and their profits.

I have just returned from a New York City still bathed in a glow of euphoria after Obama’s stunning win last week.  As many people have been quick to point out the really hard work for Team Obama begins now – the process of governing is always much more difficult (albeit also more rewarding than the process of opposing).  But in the warm afterglow of the victory of the candidate most in tune with the progressive Conservative values of this blog, it is worth considering the lessons of a famous victory.

Firstly, do not be scared to be ambitious in targeting areas traditionally dominated by your competitors.  Note demographic changes and levels of dissatisfaction in those regions or areas and look to satisfy them.  Kerry barely campaigned in some states won by Obama this time (Virginia, North Carolina and Indiana to name just three).  By using a bottom-up, community and net based style of organisation, Obama was able to quickly gain a foothold in areas that had voted solidly for Bush in 2004.  An ambitious campaigning strategy, not focused on the heartland plus one or two swing states paid off handsomely.  In the UK, we must follow the example and not restrict our campaign to traditional Tory heartlands and some swing seats in the Midlands, London and the South East.  We need to expand our strategy and our message to areas that may not have voted Tory for some time – noting demographic changes in some areas – and look to bring the North,Scotland and Wales back in play.

Secondly, be disciplined and keep to a message.  From Day 1 the McCain campaign was a bit of a rabble.  Erratic, unsure of the key message and made even more erratic by the appointment of the absurdly ill suited Palin to the VP slot.  On the other hand, the Obama campaign was relentlessly disciplined, totally focused and remained steady as the opposing camp wobbled from one message to another.  If a message is working stick to it.  If a message is not working (see McCain’s ridiculous “palling around with terrorists” message) it is probably too late to change it three weeks from polling day.

Finally, always remember the power of “change” to inspire voters and energise the grassroots.  I was at the Washington Post party on election night and haven’t seen such pure excitement about a political event, both inside the party and on the streets of New York afterwards.  Obama succeeded by harnessing the power of change with the ability to persuade Americans that life would be better off under him.  He used this message and to energise a broader voting bloc, to inspire previous non voters such as young people and ethnic minorities and to create a new political coalition. We need to take heed of this lesson and emphasise the awesome power of change to inspire.

Last week’s election was good for America and good for the world.  At a stroke it has helped to repair some of the damage done to the reputation of the US over the past eight years.  It is the first victory for the new wave of progressive politics that both Barack Obama and David Cameron represent. Hopefully after the next election Obama and Cameron will mark another golden phase in the history of the special relationship.

From Danny Finkelstein: the 7 Eleven chain in the US runs an election predictor every four years. They have a pretty good track record – you pick a cup according to your candidate for President.

At the moment, Obama is leading by 18 points.

At Platform 10, we have been pretty consistent in making the progressive Conservative case for Obama (although, as with most issues, not all contributors are on the Obama bandwagon).  See here and here.  The case is pretty straightforward.  The USA has been a deeply polarised country for at least two decades and needs a figure who can go beyond partisan differences and begin to heal the wounds in American society.  The image of the US in the world has also been deeply tarnished over the past decade and Obama is clearly the best candidate to do restore the image of the USAaround the globe.  On a wide range of issues, from social liberalism to universal healthcare, Obama’s Democrats are much closer to the modern day Conservative Party than McCain’s Republicans.  The smears, negative campaigning and pandering to the worst elements of the religious right that has come to symbolise the McCain campaign has only widened this gulf.  At the same time, Obama’s message of hope and change is echoed by David Cameron’s rhetoric.

Over the course of this financial crisis, it is Obama who has remained calm and statesmanlike.  He has looked, in a word, Presidential.  In the past few weeks, McCain has shown all the calm of an erratic speed-freak (debate on, debate off; campaign suspended, campaign back on etc) – further highlighting doubts about his temperament. 

Against this background, it is good to see that other Tory bloggers have followed our lead and backed Obama as the best candidate to heal America and restore the reputation of the US in the world.  See this piece from Iain Dale this morning and his Telegraph column this morning about the number of Tory MPs backing the Democrat.   The myopic world view of Republicans good, Democrats bad has been replaced in some elements of the Tory blogosphere with a desire to weigh up the candidates on their merits.  That can only be a positive development.

On a bit of a tangent, Jon Stewart has been magnificent throughout this campaign.  Check out this skit of McCain’s stage wandering in Tuesday’s debate, which should bring a smile to your face whatever your political preferences.

Joe Biden was the clear winner in most of the post VP debate polls last week.  CBS had him winning 46% to 21% amongst uncommitted voters.  CNN handed the debate to him by a 51% to 36% margin.  Obama is also surging in both the national and the state by state polls, with a remarkable 13% lead in Virginia. 

Having said that, if you relied on Conservative Home for yourUS election news, you might be in some kind of parallel USuniverse, where Palin had won the debate and McCain was roaring to victory.  The only post debate poll they focused on was a highly suspect focus group by partisan Republican Frank Luntz on that “unfair and unbalanced” network Fox News.  And the last time I saw Con Home report on an opinion poll it was during McCain-Palin’s artificial bounce.  Hopefully, certain figures in the Party will accept that the special relationship should prosper under a Democrat as well as a Republican President.

Having said that, it is clear that McCain is ready to unleash the dogs of war on the Obama campaign.  They have already started hitting Obama for his links to Bill Ayers.  The fact that Obama barely knows him and that he was 8 when Ayers had his campaign of domestic terror doesn’t seem to stop the Republican smears.  Doubtless Reverend Wright will soon be dragged back into play.  The Republican Party are taking LBJ’s dictum that “if you do everything then you will win” to the limits of truth and acceptability.  Of course, McCain has to be very careful about this.  Obama could quite easily resurrect the scandal of McCain allegedly taking bribes from convicted felon Charles Keating in the 1980s.  They could remind voters that this ‘family values’ candidate left his crippled first wife for an heiress worth $100 million on his return from Vietnam. They could point out that this 73 year old has had considerable health problems in the past and that a vote for President McCain is also potentially a vote for the part frightening and part absurd sceptre of President Palin.

Having said that, I’m not convinced that the swift boat and smear tactics of the Republicans will work this time round.  It is pretty difficult to “turn the page” on the economy when the Dow is recording record fall after record fall.  The economy can not be a secondary issue when people’s number one concern is insecurity about their jobs, their homes and their livelihoods. Last time round, Karl Rove said that if the War on Terror was the number one issue Bush would win.  This time round, if the economy is the number one issue then Obama will win.  I can not see the economy being anything other than the number one issue come the first Tuesday in November.