You’ve got a good case against Guiliani but even Romney’s record as governor of Massachusetts is pretty good. The problem is, he just didn’t run on his record.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/nov/30/obama-white-house-barackobama

Ron Paul was better – but his loss only demonstrates that your beloved Republican party is far away from its traditional libertarian roots. In fact, the social conservatives and foreign policy hawks (who want a big, powerful state) now overwhelm that coalition.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/nov/30/obama-white-house-barackobama

I’m really not sure demonising the enemy does anyone any good whatsoever.

What does campaigning properly to be president mean? Shaking enough hands while promising to screw over a minority of the population so that you can get the majority to support you? Honestly, give me someone who can’t be arsed over someone who can be any day! Of course, they never stand a chance but thats the whole point.

…or he simply couldn’t be arsed to do a proper job: let’s face it, the competition wasn’t exactly scintillating.

Never better evidence that he was genuinely libertarian leaning! Only people who really really really want to make it their life’s work to screw everyone else from a position of power ever get the chance to do so in a representative democracy. Those that are just partial to a bit of power mania, and only during office hours, are just not taken seriously.

Actually scratch that. You will forever be a tiresome unfunny old bore with far less to say than he thinks he has.

Laurie may be a “young person” (horrors!) but intellectually and journalistically she runs rings around you.

Pathetic.

The impression I had was that Thompson barely bothered campaigning. Besides, wouldn’t the whole thing have turned into The West Wing v Law and Order?

Of course, in the West Wing, the Iraq war hadn’t happened and the Republicans weren’t the incumbent, and the fictional Vinnick had no Bush doctrine to either support or reject. The only Republican candidate to outright reject Bush’s foreign policy was Ron Paul.

Like who? Mitt Romney? Rudy Giuliani? Heh. Face it, the Republican party is populated by scum.

“Why not synthesize your re-imagined matriotism into suggestion for the lyrics for a new National anthem .”

Ach no, Newmania, we’re just going to give a lusty rendition of The Internationale as we storm the British equivalent of the Winter Palace (whatever that might be).

Ben

I agree with the a lot of themes on this thread. The revolution will be local. Progressive elements of all parties are starting to become genuine decentralists, at least in theory. If the theory can be turned to reality, I think we could see some good things emerging in terms of greater liberty and welfare.

it’s all gism, whoever the donor is.

I wish you’d stop intellectualising and get down to brass tacks. You’ll be much less frustrated afterwards.

‘God’
State preferred deity omitting gender specific references or state no god or indeed weak deism as preferred etc.

‘save’

Save has an unfortunate inference a weaker sex that requires saving . Recommend replaced with” Work in a team with “…

‘our ‘

Our is no good excluding as it does those who have complex identities .Recommend replace with ….”a “ and any admired person for example Kylie Mingoue fro recently arrived antipodeans

‘gracious ‘

No no no … this desexualising compounding of the parochial hegemony is virtually an unadorned phallus ,. Suggest “Nice” for safety

‘Queen,’

I think not The implied hierarchy is virtually a reintroduction of slavery .Suggest replace with vestigial tribal figurehead tolerated temporarily whilst remnant of accrued ignorance are surgically removed .

‘Send her victorious,’

Pleeeeze “ enable her / Minogue /other / to be cooperative perhaps ?

‘Happy and glorious’

Glorious is of course militarist and triumph list and should be replaced with “ Guilty . Craven and apologetic but self abasing enough to be tolerate by other better people/places “

Hey this is really shaping up , alright if I hang myself now ?

Happy to have a look and pass on any suggestions

Thanks for the advice – I know you’re right on many levels. Question is, is there any way I can carry on doing this stuff whilst earning money and living in London? I’m still in love with the city and could not bear to leave…

Sunny: we should talk more about reimagining patriotism. Yes, we should. For I have some ideas and I’d like to hear yours.

Excellent article as ever. But I do think you’re looking in the wrong places if you are looking for experience and skills about how to bring about change. Working for a central London thinktank, liberal newspaper or as an MP’s “researcher” are all enjoyable jobs for people who are interested in politics – but they are also leftie-liberal comfort zones, with the disadvantages that you’ve noted.

Instead, I’d suggest looking at things like being an MP’s caseworker, working for a grassroots (local rather than national focused) charity, trade union lawyer, local councillor, or one of the other jobs that is really interesting politically, but which isn’t part of the Westminster bubble and which involves helping people on a day-to-day basis.

Living Wage – unconvinced that it won’t hurt those right at the bottom. I would support a Citizens Basic income instead. Increases workers’ bargaining power, and allows them to make easier life choices, without distorting the market aggressively.

Mental illness – good desire, a crucial issue

Flexi-work – working hours that work around the employee, not the employer will never be the case unless the employee has more of a role in running the business. We should encourage cooperative business structures using corporation tax. The more of a business is owned by its workers, the less tax it should pay. This is the route to flexible working, increased altruism, and an end to inefficient hierarchical businesses.

Taxing the rich – at what level and how? We have to be one sensible and two radical about this. Firstly, we should be trying to tax land and capital much more than work. Secondly, we do not wish the rich to just pack their bags and leave. So we have to strike a balance. Taxing work (income) is not the best solution. Land value tax and some targetted property taxes would be far superior, and increase, not decrease economic efficiency. On the speculative tax (often termed a Tobin tax), I see the logic but think the level will probably be lower. This proceeds of this tax should go into a fund managed by the banks themselves, so that they can bail themselves out in future using that money. It will be their decision, not a political one, and they can stand by their successes or failures, like everyone else.

School curriculum – sex and relationships, fine. Financial matters, key. We must be teaching kids “life maths”. Maths through the medium of heating bills, savings accounts, online security, and mortgages etc. Kids must be equipped to handle the modern world, that means a modicum of knowledge about financial systems: interest rates, exchange rates etc. So absolutely crucial. As for political inheritance, what do you mean? It sounds like that could easily become politicized. I do not want kids political views being knowingly shaped by the state.

Military spending – could be lowered if we found greater cooperation with Europe and took on board some economies of scale. Our defence spending is not huge and their are not massive efficiency gains to be made from simple cuts. As for plowing cash into scientific research, how is the state going to pick winners, who’ll manage the fund, and will it cause any crowding out? These are the salient questions.

Internet and e-democracy – I think e-democracy will gradually develop and will be very exciting indeed. We should not force it, but wait patently for its development. As for cheap internet connection, as you going to mandate this? The market is already doing a pretty good job of extending fast cheap internet to all. Or are you suggesting a Seoul style wifi in our major cities?

Interships – don’t know enough about this, to be honest. Looks interesting.

Reproductive choice – yes, but there will be limits which can be debated. Clearly an abortion at 8 months in unacceptable. The limit will lie somewhere, but the principle is good.

refashioned ersatz Patriotism – no thanks. sounds like a load of arse. sorry.