(Republicans seem to have this thing with botox…)

So, McCain picked up Schwarzenegger’s endorsement today.  Not at all a surprise, when you think about it, but important anyway.

Schwarzenegger’s politics are…odd.  He’s a Republican - but not exactly a conventional one.  He’s got some very typically Republican views.  He considers himself a fiscal conservative, wants to strengthen the military and has said he’s a Republican because he wants, “the government off our backs.”

Oh, and he thinks it’s okay to call people he doesn’t like, “girlie-men,” while claiming that he’s got nothing against women or gays…

Yet, at the same time, some of his views infuriate traditional Republicans.  He’s pro-choice, has repeatedly funded stem-cell research, and has cooperated several times with Democratic legislators - especially over the environment.  Arnie is, if you didn’t know, nuts over green issues.  Quite how he manages to square that with his Hummer, I don’t know…

He’s also gone on record calling marijuana a, “leaf.”  This is not typically Republican.

So, in conclusion: he’s a fiscally conservative, socially moderate figure who’s willing to work with Democrats when he needs to, and is concerned about the environment.  And very blunt.

Rather like McCain then.

To my mind, this reinforces McCain’s cross-party credentials, such as they are.  Arnie won’t lose him many Republican votes he hasn’t lost already - but can win independents.  Schwarzenegger has twice won a traditionally Democratic state as a Republican.  That’s no mean achievement, and requires the same cross-partisan appeal that the media (somehow) is talking McCain up to have.

This only reinforces McCain’s disguise, and will stand him good stead in California - and later on, if he needs it.

This race is becoming utterly impossible to keep track of.

I had no idea what Edwards was up to until recently, when I read convincing arguments suggesting that by this stage he was remaining within the race purely in order to play kingmaker with his roughly 10%s worth of delegates {or as many as he could pick up} and become the Vice Presidential candidate of whomsoever received his favour.

And now this.

My view that the race is simply beyond prediction by this stage is reinforced by this event: if you had asked me what the biggest drop-out story of the day would be yesterday I would have said “Giuliani” without a second of consideration. Given that he came third and had established his entire strategy around the “Late States” he was certain to leave but given that Edwards failed to secure 5% in the last primary to come a third by that sort of a margin was not a crushing defeat but  instead a return to his norm.

But then, if you had asked me six months ago who would have just won the Florida election it is likely that I would have said “Giuliani”. McCain’s campaign seemed to implode entirely in the middle of last year and at that stage it was only Thompson who seemed likely to de-throne America’s Mayor. But besides this glamorous insurgent the prospects for any other candidate were truly bleak and Rudy seemed set to force the Evangelical base into submission.

But now McCain, ancient man McCain who seemed likely to drop out before the voting had even started not so long ago, is toe-to-toe with previously unknown Romney, while the Theocrats incapable of stomaching either Mitt’s Mormonism or McCain’s social liberalism are flocking to Huckabee and forming a firm core that will not waver but shows no signs of expansion.

Yes, it has become a show-down between the one who wants to “Double Guantanamo” and the one who wants to keep America in Iraq for centuries in order to win, with the one who wants to amend the Constitution to include a little more Leviticus fun as a nearly ineluctable VP.

What is striking above all else is that the Republicans can manage to be so volatile yet remain utterly vile.

Also interesting is that McCain, he who once referred to the fundies as “Agents of Intolerance” may well have to accept their doyenne as his running mate. There are a variety of reasons against selecting Huckabee to be his would-be-VP but electoral reasoning is not amongst them: McCain needs to do all that he can to expand his success into evangelical enclaves and Huckabee is by far his best means of doing this. He has already been making advances recently but they remain unconvinced, standing shoulder-to-shoulder with the man who once advocated locking away AIDS sufferers from the World is the perfect way to do it.

But for Edwards’ departure the Democrats field would look notably similar: two headlining candidates with a lead that no opponent could ever hope to close with a third that is certain to receive the consolation prize and an extreme but admirable outsider lingering and refusing to leave {Kuchinich or Paul}.

{Ah, wait, Kuchinich dropped out. That this was not deemed notable by anyone at all tells you something about his chances of winning anywhere. It is, however, notable that Giuliani advocated “Peace through Strength” while the aforementioned’s slogan is “Strength through Peace”.

Regardless…}

Without Edwards there, however, the dynamic shifts: it is a simple zero sum game of Obama and Clinton. Unless he continued to endorse one of his former rivals Edwards is still the most likely candidate by far for the VP slot, although Clinton could do well to at least offer that to Obama should she win {the thought of her face if he won and offered it to her is simply priceless…} but for now he has simplified the process to the extent that the only way neither of them could triumph is if somebody dies.

This makes the importance of Super Tuesday even greater as previous estimations of its impact were based around the principle that roughly 10-15% of the votes and a proportionate amount of delegates would be siphoned off by Edwards. Without this and where {if anywhere} the votes which would have been his will go is entirely uncertain and for the time being this race is entirely up in the air.

Will any trace of normalcy strike? Well thus far this race has managed to be reliable only in that it will confound much of what you thought to be overwhelmingly likely. Thompson will lap up the Conservatives and provide an alternative to the liberal Rudy? Clinton is now inevitable? Obama will land-slide New Hampshire? Bill Clinton staying so low-key? Or at least refraining from partisan attack-doggery? Romney’s massive spend will help him dominate? The ‘Late State Strategy’ will stir up the race? McCain’s campaign has collapsed? Huckabee is far too poor and niche to possibly triumph in any state? Giuliani will at least defeat Ron Paul in the early states?

All seemed reliable, all were wrong.

I imagine that this campaign has plenty of surprises left before the election proper begins. There are plenty of uncertainties present {where will Edward’s votes be given? Who will he endorse? Will he at all?} but it is the assumptions that truly need to be watched. Those are the rug which has thus far been tugged and from Obama claiming NYC {if not the state} to an elderly man far to the left of the current Republican establishment, who is a victim of torture rather than an advocate, seizing as an insurgent a party that largely hates his guts and loathes his views on almost everything in a process that is generally the means of a much-flared coronation it seems that events which would once have seemed politically preposterous are now growing increasingly likely.

Perhaps the rejuvenation of America will occur, perhaps the spirit conjured by the 1960s and evoked by Ted Kennedy will return to coat the nation as a blanket or perhaps America will stay locked into Iraq for millenia seeking “Victory”. Stranger still, perhaps Huckabee will actually win. For the time being, anything goes.

Watch this.

Glossary here.

Try to work it out for yourself first, though.

Jack Straw yesterday left a window open for a U-turn on prisons.  The government wants short-term cost-cutting by providing their long-overdue prison places in vast 2500 cell monstrosities.  Dramatically labelled “Titan Jails”, these Uber-prisons cost less to build, staff and run than two smaller ones.  In return for this immediate saving, prisoners are less well cared for, more go mad, more riots take place, more suicides occur and rehabilitation is more difficult.

Most prison experts believe that smaller prisons serve the prisoner best, causing less stress and violence and allowing more respectable rehabilitation rates.  Prison should, after all, be about housing those who are unfit to be be in public.  Just as smaller schools work better, so smaller prisons should be constructed.  Brown’s U-turn on a U-turn is unwelcome.

Now if only he would U-turn on that shocking EU decision…

LibDems and alcohol
A Liberal Democrat wants to ban pubs from selling large glasses of wine. This practice apparently confuses restaurant-goers. The argument is nonsensical, and a LibDem should know better than to try to ban things.

Ryanair and the ASA
Ryanair have been criticised by the Advertising Standards Authority. Ryanair has had a number of run-ins with the ASA in the past; sometimes the ASA has been right, and sometimes Ryanair had a fair point to make.

The advert in question was about school term-time price-cuts, and featured the slogan “hottest back-to-school fares”. Fair enough. The advert (printed in many national papers) also featured a photo of a young model in a skimpy school-girl outfit, posing in a classroom. 13 people complained.

The ASA have banned Ryanair from republishing the poster: a move which has failed for two reasons. Firstly, Ryanair have slammed the report and made it clear that they have no intention of honouring the judgement. Secondly, the move has led to the poster being shown in every media outlet available.

The ASA is stuck between a rock and a hard place. If they do not criticise the advert’s publication, they are allowing the sexualisation of girls to become commonplace in society, prompting angry letters from people with nothing better to do than complain about seeing a model in a short skirt in a tacky airline advert. If they decide to criticise the advert, the poster gets media coverage, is seen by far more people and is published without a penny’s expense from Ryanair. What should they do?

Personally, I think the sexualisation of young girls is distasteful, and if I were an advertiser I would rise above such gaudy attention-seeking. But if Ryanair wishes to cheapen its brand, they should be allowed to do so without censorship from the remarkably reactionary and prudish ASA.

This affair is nothing to my favourite advert ban, courtesy of French Connection. Having built a brand name on dyslexia, FCUK were renowned for provocative logos. One advert was more than a little provocative, and ended with the slogan “FCUKinky Bugger”. The ASA censored the ad. The following day, FCUK ran full-page adverts in many newspapers which reproduced the censored promotion but was prefixed with “we apologise for out advert which said…”.

Ryanair’s use of a schoolgirl image is cheap and unimaginative compared to FCUK’s scrapes with the ASA. Their press releases have been comical, however. One outrageously suggests that the model was “fully clothed”:

The ASA becomes more Monty Pythonesque by the day. This latest ruling shows how absurd and out of touch this quango really is. It is remarkable that a picture of a fully clothed model is now claimed to cause “serious or widespread offence”, when many of the UK’s leading daily newspaper regularly run pictures of topless or partially dressed females without causing any serious or widespread offence.

This isn’t advertising regulation, it is simply censorship. This bunch of unelected, self appointed dimwits are clearly incapable of fairly and impartially ruling on advertising.

At a time when TV and media advertising is full of suggestive and provocative images, Ryanair believes that there is nothing either irresponsible or offensive in the attached advert. Consequently we will not be withdrawing this ad and we will not provide the ASA (Absurd Silly Asses) with any of the undertakings they seek.”

There’s been a lot of fuss about this Conway cock-up.  Most recently have come calls that MPs should be banned from employing relatives.

I can’t see the case for this.  Conway was undoubtedly corrupt - but, so what? He should have the whip withdrawn, yes.  He should stand-down, yes.  We should introduce a policy of complete transparency on MPs’ costs and expenses, to prevent the same thing happening again.

But should we suspect every MP who employs a relative of corruption?  I hope not.  That would be a paranoid step devoid of any real rationality - and simply wouldn’t treat the real problem.

There’s no reason for MPs not to employ relatives.  For some, it may be hugely preferable.  An MP might find it easier to work with their spouse - they presumably married for a reason, after all.   A relative might be willing to work harder for another relative, or for less.  It can work better.

And it’s not as if the problem is really to do with families.  What difference does it make to the paymaster’s purse if it’s paying two wages into one household?  None, as long as the work gets done, and everyone can see that’s the case.

And that’s the problem here.  A family member was employed - and did absolutely nothing, with nothing being heard until months later.   Corruption of this sort, where parliamentary expenses are basically fiddled, isn’t going to be sorted out by slapping out viciously at its first symptom.   Instead, total transparency of MPs’ employment details (and spending in general) will allow the public to see immediately if anyone is doing a Derek - and put a stop to it.

There’s nothing inherently corrupt in employing a relative.  There’s something inherently corrupt in drawing a wage without doing any work, and that’s the problem here that should be dealt with.

(Hillary wins the Florida Primary - which, like Michigan, doesn’t count at present - and inadvertently strikes a pose which the Republican shit-throwers will no doubt seize on instantly…)

Briefly, as I don’t have much time:

Edwards has dropped out of the Democratic primaries. This is important. Despite regularly getting his, “butt-kicked,” (his words!) Edwards nonetheless had a substantial number of supporters. They will no doubt side with Clinton or Obama now.  If enough side with one candidate at once, then that could tip several states.

Watch out for a VP deal, as that could well be the way its decided.  If not, his endorsement will still count…

As for the Republicans, expect Giuliani to drop out any minute.  This is absolutely humiliating for him.  Having staked all his hopes on Florida - against all advice, even ours - he, unsurprisingly, was thrashed.  That tends to be what happens when you campaign in one state, with no other wins to build up momentum, or even prove that you’re simply capable of winning a vote…

A floating headline on Google News (the Indy, I think) informed me of a rumour that he’d endorse McCain.  No real surprises there: Giuliani’s biggest priority, his insane views on national security/foreign policy, is closest met by McCain’s own international aggression.  Whether it’ll count for much is another matter, after Giuliani has shown himself to be quite so stupid…

And, meanwhile, the McCain stone goes rolling on.  The moderate guise the media have thrust upon him is working worryingly well.

Must dash!

An interesting story has slipped under the radar in this week of familial money-laundering.  Junior Justice Minister Michael Wills has responded to the recently published report on electoral reform, and is calling for a discussion on the issue.  He believes that the system should stay the same.*

I believe there are two main problems with the electoral system (in General Elections).  First is the clear problem that Labour’s landslide 1997 victory was won with a small fraction of the support of the electorate.  Sole power is expressed by minority views.  The second problem is the huge disparity in constituencies which benefits Labour unfairly.**

No electoral system is perfect.  Either minority parties get majorities, or minority party govern together with no accountability.  I used to like the idea of issue-by-issue alliances, which would be a genuinely positive parliamentary system, but I think a consistent executive government would have to exist outside Parliament.  I don’t want a president, and the alternative is a succession of unaccountable coalitions.  I have come to the conclusion that a proportional system would lead to damaging unaccountability; unfair majorities are preferable.

But in grudgingly accepting a First-Past-The-Post system, I must urge for reform within it.  Accountable government is good: if the public mood shifts significantly against the incumbent party, another will be returned victorious on election day.  We are currently witnessing this system working in practice, as the Tories continue their ascent to victory next year.  But a genuine problem still rests in the nature of parliamentary constituencies: in short, Labour stands to benefit.  To win a majority in the Commons, the Tories need a lead of about 10% over Labour.  Labour need to poll equally with the Tories to gain a majority.  This is unjust and unreasonable.  If we are to side with a FPTP system, it is vital that we ensure the system is robustly fair.

I am encouraged by this new found desire for debate on an issue Labour last floated over a decade ago - coincidentally, they were looking for a LibDem coalition then, too.  This is a Pandora’s Box: unless the government has a plan to sign away their 10-point election boost, the “debate” they are encouraging should be met with nothing more than cynicism.  What a shame if this issue is ignored because of fraudulent self-interest once again.

I will soon be writing more on this issue on my campaigns site, The Fifth Way.  Expect campaigning to follow.

- - -
*The pithy retort here would refer to Labour supporting a debate on the issue of electoral reform where they like the status quo, but oppose a debate on the issue of Europe where they want a change.
**I also consider the West Lothian Question an electoral issue, but that is another discussion.