What now for the UK Press?

<p dir=ltr>Today we finally heard from Lord Justice Leveson and his conclusions from his eight-month inquiry about press standards and their relationship with politicians and police.</p>
<p dir=ltr>Predictably there has been generally more focus on press standards rather than the other terms of Leveson's remit. In recent days there has been a lot of hyperbole, most of it from sections of the press. Some of it has been disingenuous to the point of being deliberately false. One of the worst, or most vocal, has been Fraser Nelson of The Spectator. Nelson made headlines the day before the report was published by announcing that The Spectator would nit participate in any sort of statutory regulation, as if there were a choice.</p>
<p dir=ltr>Earlier today at 7.42pm Nelson tweeted this: "By my maths, the moment of maximum danger lasted 99 minutes: from Leveson proposing state licensing of press to Cameron rejecting it."</p>
<p dir=ltr>This statement is provably false on two counts. Firstly, Leveson never proposed state licencing of the press. On the contrary, he said that his proposal "could not be characterised as state regulation". Secondly the Prime Minister has not rejected Leveson's proposal. He has stated that much thought and caution should be entered into before going down that road. Either Nelson has been wilfully false or, giving the benefit of the doubt, he has simply seen what he expected to see whether it was there or not.</p>
<p dir=ltr>There has been a few instances where people who should know better have not been altogether forthcoming. For example, David Blunkett MP was on the BBC Radio 4 Today programme this morning discussing this issue. Unusually we had a Conservative MP, George Eustice, advocating regulation whilst Blunkett (a Labour former Home Secretary) wanted none of it. What the listener was never told is that Blunkett is paid over &#163;49000 per year by Murdoch-owned press companies. There are several members who are, either clearly or otherwise, with vested interests in the press retaining the current regime.</p>
<p dir=ltr>Another tactic which is being used, unwisely, is an attempt to draw this issue down party lines. Liam Fox MP, whose ministerial career was torpedoed by the press, being the most egregious. He tweeted earlier;</p>
<p dir=ltr>"PM's instincts correct. Freedom to the right, regulation to the left. "One Nation" Labour exposed for the statists they are. #Leveson"</p>
<p dir=ltr>This conveniently ignores that there are approximately 40 Tory MPs who support regulation as well as Labour MPs who oppose it. This was a lazy partisan statement when clearly cross-party cooperation is what is required. Fox should remember that even the Deputy Prime Minister doesn't support Cameron. It shows politicians to be self serving and childishly territorial.</p>
<p dir=ltr>Leveson was clear that at times the behaviour of the press was totally unacceptable. That was perhaps an understatement. The press drove the daughter of actor Denholm Elliot to suicide. It has hounded various celebrities over their weight and their personal lives. It has notoriously hacked the phones of many many people including politicians, celebrities, murder victims families, and other people such as the Hillsborough campaigners and, unbelievably, the lawyer of the phone hacking victims!</p>
<p dir=ltr>The press knew this activity was illegal at the time and certainly morally wrong. It has gone through people's bins and even tried to use the children of their quarries as a lever to get them to talk to them. They knew it was wrong and they knew it was happening. They knew it was not the actions of a single rogue reporter as they initially said.</p>
<p dir=ltr>The press was aware of the laws of contempt of court and libel, yet this did not stop certain sections from announcing the guilt of Christopher Jeffries in the Jo Yeates murder case. Even if Jeffries had actually been guilty, their actions would have greatly reduced his chances of getting a fair trial. It could even had prevented a trial from taking place at all. Jeffries was hounded for weeks by reporters and forced into hiding.</p>
<p dir=ltr>The press, collectively, has not allowed the threat of regulation by its peers to dissuade it from not just printing stories that are intrusive, salacious and needless, it has employed unlawful and distasteful methods to collate the information in the first place. With this background, how can we trust the press to continue to arbitrate on its own conduct? This situation is untenable.</p>
<p dir=ltr>This is a situation entirely of their own making. If the press did not want to be treated like schoolchildren, then it shouldn't have acted like irresponsible adolescents.</p>
<p dir=ltr>The press, in attempting to justify itself, says that stories like the MP expenses scandal would not have been possible with state regulation. It's true that sometimes the press does print stories that are gained by clandestine measures that are unquestionably in the public interest. The expenses scandal is perhaps the best example of this. However I do not see why proper regulation could not have a true public interest test, either prior to or after publication.

I see no reason whatsoever why the print media cannot be regulated by OFCOM as broadcast media has been for a long time. The press might argue that broadcasters are required to be impartial. There is a good case that the same should be required from newspapers and, dare I say, The Spectator. However I see nothing wrong with opinion based news as long as its clear that there is an agenda.

The Police Service Still Shies Away From Examination

I was never the sort to pull legs off spiders or burn them under a magnifying glass. I was more interested in using that magnifying glass to examine, to search for fascinating detail and to learn. I grew a little more wary of examining spiders when, at about the age of six, one that was languishing in our old enamel bath bit my enquiring hand.

Obviously I meant it no harm, but it reacted with an instinctive defence mechanism. It lashed out against me in the only way it could.

A similarly thoughtless and unnecessary act of retribution has been meted out to a brave man of unimpeachable integrity, James Patrick. James is a serving officer in the Metropolitan Police. Earlier this year, dismayed by the onset of police reform driven by ideology rather than logic, by vested interests instead of necessity, James wrote a series of blogs called The Police Debating Directive. It is here on Blogspot.

In these well written blogs, he follows the trails and connections of most, if not all, of the key players involved. All, and I do mean all, of the information used is in the public domain, available to anyone with a search engine and an inquisitive nature. Like someone unpicking a sweater, he follows the threads wherever they go, as the edifice unravels around him. Not a single piece of information, save James's general experiences of being a serving officer, has come from any privileged sources.

It was in the process of reading these blogs that I discovered that the Association of Chief Police Officers, ACPO, is actually a limited company. Yes you read that right. A limited company is at the head of the UK Police service, and has been for years. Do I discern a conflict of interest?

The blogs relentlessly followed the motive forces behind police reform. The light shone by James got brighter and brighter even though the path got ever darker. Every measured statement is supported by facts in linked or footnoted articles.

In order to generate some much needed funds for the charity Care Of Police Survivors, the blogs were collated and self published into a book called The Rest Is Silence. This is available in Kindle form as well as hard copy and I heartily recommend you find a way of reading these collated essays.

The book and the content began to attract a wider audience. It gained attention in police stations across the country, by operational officers as well as those "upstairs".

It was almost inevitable that the spider chose to bite. James has been served with disciplinary papers for Gross Misconduct by the Met. I assume someone feels that James has brought the Met or service as a whole into disrepute. As I said on Twitter when I learned of this; "Some things are sad. Some things are predictable. Some are sadly predictable."

Disrepute. Yet what could be further from the truth? Had the subject of the blogs been a major corporation or even, say, the NHS, then the questions James has raised would, or should, be causing a great deal of soul searching in the national press and Parliament.

But this spider doesn't like to be examined too closely. Especially by one of its own. As soon as the cover was lifted, it scurried away in search of another hiding place and went into defence mode.

It is an accepted fact in the sciences that the very act of observation changes the nature of the thing you seek to examine. Except the dark and deep recesses of the police service.

Don't get me wrong, ACPO is mostly happy to throw its foot soldiers to the wolves periodically, to give the impression of being progressive. However when it comes to questions of real leadership, ACPO suddenly loses its fighting spirit. We could only speculate as to why. A cynic might say that Chief Officers are too busy toadying up to Government, ensuring their future knighthood or Peerage. In some cases both. Did anyone else notice that at the height of the Plebgate issue, Met Commissioner Bernard Hogan Howe refused to back the accounts of his officers in Downing Street, instead issuing a joint statement with the Cabinet Secretary encouraging everyone to 'move on'. In the last week or so, with Andrew Mitchell safely resigned, and almost as everyone forgot the matter, Hogan Howe now decides to say publicly that he thinks the officers were telling the truth.

I wonder, was the fence he was sitting on so high it took him that long to get down from it, or did he have at least one eye fixed on a cosy seat in the Lords to go with his police pension? I can't answer that question, but if I was a serving Met officer, I'd want an answer to that question. And one other question. Why is shining a light on (at best) morally questionable conduct by Ministers, Senior Officers, and think-tanks considered Gross Misconduct?

In the light of recent revelations about Hillsborough, the public needs to know that the upper echelons of the service are open to scrutiny. That it is not only open to examination, but welcomes the opportunity to show how the service has changed since 1989. That is, if it has at all.

The scandal of Hillsborough was that senior officers changed the accounts of lower ranking officers to silence or stifle criticism of those at the top. That philosophy still seems alive and well in 2012.

Smoke & Mirrors?

Today, 22nd November, the 41 Police & Crime Commissioners take office for the first time. Before lunchtime, we had seen the first casualty. The Chief Constable of Avon & Somerset Police announced his "retirement" as Sue Mountstevens settled in for her first day in the job.

Nearly all of the candidates up and down the country campaigned on the promise of making police "more visible" on our streets. This sounds great, but there was usually little substance behind these claims. Some promised to achieve this through the use of Special Constables, and I've discussed this before - here and here.

The new PCC for Staffordshire, Matthew Ellis says in this article:

“There are simple solutions to some of the problems we have. Why are such a large proportion of vehicles unmarked? If we mark them up you could instantly double the visibility of police on the streets.

“I haven’t been able to find an answer as to why so many are unmarked, but we will do so.”
 

 I'll cut Mr Ellis a bit of slack as it's his first day in the job, but if he'd asked a few of his new colleagues he might have found out these reasons, for starters;

• The vehicle isn't marked because it doesn't contain a police officer. Scenes of Crime and Crime Prevention are just two roles that used to be filled by police officers and are now done by civilian employees of the Police or, increasingly, private companies under contract.
• The vehicle isn't marked because it's used for covert operations. D'OH! CID, Traffic, even neighbourhood and proactive teams all use unmarked cars for a very good reason. Sorry Mr Ellis, but if you don't understand that you're not fit for the role of PCC. But then, you probably think all the police are there for is to cut crime.
• Times when discretion is called for even if it's not actually for covert reasons. I would imagine that Family Liaison Officers might well use unmarked cars.

The biggest problem with this that I have is that if we mark up ALL police vehicles, regardless of whether or not an operational officer is inside it, then this is little more than an attempt to fool the public into thinking that there are more operational officers around than there actually are. We really might as well put cardboard cutouts around our neighbourhoods. (I know, some forces have actually done this already)

I've been taken to task via my blog, correctly, for having a go at PCSOs. Not PCSOs themselves, just the role. It's a role I disagreed with when it was introduced. PCSOs do a valuable job as part of the policing family. That's all well and good, but they are not sworn police officers - which is what the public actually wants. More than that - it's what the public thinks they are seeing when a PCSO is walking a beat.

I had a similar argument with West Yorkshire Police a couple of years ago. I witnessed some appalling driving by two cars from West Yorkshire Police, out of force area and without blue lights, and I phoned them to complain. To cut a long story short, the two cars were from the Driving School. The occupants were learning advanced response driving. I was told that the training cars used to be unmarked precisely because they could or had caused this sort of embarrassment to the force in the past, but that the Home Office had insisted that all training cars be marked to "increase visibility". What is the point of making them more visible if they are to all intents & purposes, not on operational duty? If my house is burgled, will those training cars respond? Of course not. So it's basically a confidence trick perpetrated on the public. I might as well paint "POLICE" on the side of my own car for all the good it would do.

So is this what being a PCC is about, in reality? Finding more ways to fool the public into thinking that they have more police officers than they actually have? If this is the case, then we can see why PCCs were introduced. It's a way to "democratically buffer" the blame for this from central Government, the ones who started this "smoke and mirrors" campaign.

Tory Hypocrisy on Turnout

The Police & Crime Commissioner votes took place yesterday, and turnout was low, as expected. Before the elections, both Theresa May (Minister for Government Incompetence) and Damian Green (Minister for Police Privatisation) both refused to specify a minimum turnout for the elections.

This is not surprising, given that the Tories have been vociferous in their opposition to strike ballots with turnout lower than they think should be valid.

Here's a few examples.

Francis Maude and Charlie Elphicke - Public Administration Committee - 28/11/2011 (Link)

Q412 Charlie Elphicke: Minister, isn’t there a basic point here that the strikes are taking place on turnouts of between a quarter and a third? How can it possibly be right for the few to hold to ransom the many? That is not just in the union movement, but across the country as a whole. [Emphasis added]

Mr Maude: It is true that the ballots held by the biggest unions-Unite, GMB, PCS, UNISON-had a turnout in no case of more than a third, and one case of not much more than a quarter; they were between 25% and 33%. Some of the other unions, particularly the smaller unions, had higher turnouts, in a couple of cases over 50%. That is the way the law is. Those union leaders who actually call for strike action on the basis of these extraordinarily low turnouts, particularly when they have argued that this is the most important issue facing their members for a generation, have a limited claim on legitimacy. In most circumstances, I think union leaders would have chosen not to go ahead on those very low turnouts.

Does it justify changing the law? That is not our first response. We think the strike laws, for the most part, work reasonably well, but every time there is a very low turnout, and a strike called on the basis of that turnout, the case for change, and the advocates for change, will feel their hand is strengthened.

 

Later in the same exchange, Francis Maude says

"The CBI have argued that there should be a requirement for there to be at least a 50% turnout; regardless of what the percentage voting in favour of industrial action is, the ballot would not be valid unless there was a 50% turnout".
 

 In this Telegraph article, on the PCS strikes shortly before the Olympics, there are rich pickings to be had on the matter.

Dominic Raab, the Tory MP, said: “These reckless and damaging strikes strengthen the case for a voting threshold, so the militant minority can’t hold the hard-working majority to ransom.

“It can’t be right that union bosses can paralyse vital infrastructure and humiliate the nation on a malicious whim, when just 11 per cent of their members support strike action.”
 

Fellow Tory Priti Patel said

"Any ballot in which fewer than half of those eligible to vote do so should be ruled invalid. This strike is yet another irresponsible protest by those who are once again putting their own interests before that of our county.”

 The outspoken Conor Burns had this to say:

“The idea that these cloth cap colonels can hold the public to ransom on a turnout of 11 per cent is grotesque and anti-democratic.”
 

This was the contribution of that well-known oasis of good advice, Francis Maude:

"If very disruptive strike action is carried out on the basis of these weak ballots, weak turnouts, the case for reform gets stronger.” 

At the time of the article, the Minister on the sharp end of these strikes before the Olympics was Damian Green who by coincidence is now Policing Minister. He said this of the strike action:

“This is a completely selfish and irresponsible decision by the PCS leadership. With only around one in 10 voting for industrial action, they have no authority to call their members out on strike.” 
 

Can we draw any other conclusion from this other than that the Tories are all for Democracy as long as the vote goes the way they want it to?

 

Why I Intend To Vote For My PCC

The Police & Crime Commissioner (PCC) elections are on this coming Thursday.

Many people, including serving and retired police officers have encouraged people not to vote in the election at all. The purpose, as I understand it, is to carry a message of low turnout back to the Home Office and Theresa May to show that the "public" don't want elected police commissioners.

Assuming that my interpretation is correct, I suspect that this would probably reflect the public mood. The percentage of the population that actively want PCCs would, I believe, be a vanishingly small number. A lot less than 10% but that's just my feel from listening to media coverage and from social media such as Twitter.

My own position is that I think that the PCC concept is flawed, foolish, unrealistic, unwanted and has the potential to create enormously damaging situations up and down the country. It's a costly waste of money at a time when experienced police officers are being forced to retire, despite the desperate claims of the Minister Damian Green claiming on BBC Question Time last week that it was ok as the costs of the PCC elections came from a different budget.

This strategy, of encouraging non-participation, omits one crucial element. The Coalition Government long ago abandoned any sort of pretence of representing the public view. The only agenda that matters is their own, whatever that may be. Unless criticism or opposition is vociferous and loudly carried in the media, they will just press ahead regardless; arrogantly assured of their own superiority. The Government in general, and the Home Office under Theresa May in particular, has no sense of shame. It will press ahead with whatever crackpot scheme, or defend any lie no matter how preposterous, as May has shown time & time again.

So why vote? A Labour candidate was recently asked on Twitter how a Labour candidate could stand when Labour opposed the whole PCC concept. The answer to both questions is simple.

The elections will happen on Thursday. Whether you vote or not. Whether Labour put up a candidate or not. As it happens, there are no "extreme" candidates (by which I mean EDL or BNP or suchlike) in my area. However, I immediately discount the Tory candidate on principle as we know what Tory police policy contains. There are a handful of Independent candidates. One of those could not (for some reason unknown) manage to supply even a photo or brief statement of intent to the website www.choosemypcc.com so I have no option but to exclude him. He seems a nice enough bloke (we have spoken briefly on Twitter) but I know nothing about him. The other Independents either don't carry enough gravitas for the role in my opinion, or there's just something that doesn't quite click about them for me.

My vote on Thursday will be going to John Prescott. Yes, he's a politician, but he has experience of life, as a working man. He's managed even larger budgets than the Humberside Area, and I know he knows the area and the people well. He may not be perfect, or all things to all people, but he seems to me to be the only viable candidate in my area.

You may not agree with the PCC concept. You might like to send a low turnout message to Theresa May. Mrs May is arrogant enough to not care if turnout nationally is 5% or 85%. PCCs are here, and they're here now. Even if you can't find a candidate you endorse 100%, then find the one that you think will do the least damage and vote for them. It's not a positive message, I know, but it's more positive than not voting at all. Come Friday evening, your area will have a PCC whether you voted or not, whether you wanted one or not. So please, pick the best of the available candidates and vote. Not voting, and getting a disastrous PCC via a low turnout seems to me to be a Pyrrhic victory that will do no one any good. Least of all you.

Special Constables Part 2

Earlier this week, I wrote about how PCC candidates are planning to use (or misuse) Special Constables. I ended that blog by saying that the role needed to be radically rethought to cope with modern demands.

I've had a few thoughts since then. It's as though it's been brewing inside me for years.

The most obvious thing is that there needs to be some way of balancing the flexible needs of the Specials with the needs of the organisation, to know that people will turn up when planned. Fire brigades manage it with retained firefighters, so it can't be beyond the wit of man.

Secondly, Special Constables need a damn sight more protection than they currently have. There can be few jobs where the dividing line between being the hero, and being nailed to the wall by your Force, the Courts and the Press is so thin. To do so from a voluntary standpoint, on the face of it, makes no sense at all. Why would ANYONE do this? The Police Federation have never looked fondly upon Specials for several reasons I won't go into here. There needs to be a national body to look after the interests of Specials.

Special Constabularies really need to differentiate between those who are really looking to get stuck in (whether as a route to the regulars or not) and those who wish to retain the status quo as assistants to the regulars. Bedfordshire was doing something similar by around 2003 but it didn't go far enough.

My last point is a bit more political. I mentioned how Specials felt exploited compared to the TA or fire. How on earth does this Government expect to be able to recruit & retain people to fill, voluntarily, a gap in policing that THEY created, whilst a series of millionaire politicians (who have mostly never done a days real work in their lives, and will never have wondered how they will afford their kids' shoes) bang on about the evils of a 'something for nothing' culture. The irony seems to have completely escaped them.

"Come and work for free to help us silly old twits out of a hole. We do seem to have cocked up rather. Oh, I should probably mention that if you stuff up in any way you'll be completely on your own and will probably end up in court. If you need us we'll be over here demonising people whose jobs we destroyed for claiming benefits."

Special Constables and PCCs

There seems to be much debate in the media at the moment about the role of Special Constables in the post-Winsor austerity era, particularly as they seem to be being used as a football by candidates for Police & Crime Commissioners.

Some candidates have stated that they will allocate Special Constables to operate in particular areas, an intention which has been criticised as impinging on the operational independence of the Chief Constable.

Other sections of the political spectrum as suggesting using Specials as, effectively, a replacement for the "regular" police officers that are being lost around the country as part of the Government cuts to policing.

As you may know, if you've read some of my earlier blogs or follow me on Twitter, I was a Special Constable for about eight years, from 1998 to 2006. I have never applied to be a full-time officer, and have no axe to grind against regular officers who do a great job in difficult circumstances. I was proud of my time serving in the Special Constabulary and it's something that I will always be glad I did.

Now to deal with the two points raised earlier.

Firstly, it seems blatantly obvious that allocating Special Constables to a particular problem or area is an operational decision, depending on several factors including frequency, hours, skills required and risk assessment. It is not a decision for a PCC. (Similarly, it is equally ridiculous for a PCC to say that that won't let "their police" get involved with a potential public order event like a badger cull, but that's another story)

The second point is that the people proposing to use Specials in lieu of paid police officers appear to be assuming that the skill levels are equivalent, or that the skill level of your average Special is sufficient (which is the same as saying that regular officers are overskilled or surplus to requirements). A full time Constable has a two year probationary period. Assuming approximately 2050 hours a year, that's a total of 4100 working hours, during which their paperwork is monitored closely and their skills assessed by a Tutor Constable for a lot of that time. Specials are "targeted" to do about 16 hours per month (many don't do this much), making approximately 200 hours per year. So after 20 years service, a Special will have put in as many hours as a Constable just out of probation. The elephant in the room is that, in my experience, not many Specials last more than about 5 years before leaving. They leave for a number of reasons; some leave because they become "regular" officers. Some leave because they feel that they can't offer sufficient time in between family and work commitments. A lot leave because they feel under valued and exploited, and with good reason. Members of the TA and Retained Firefighters are paid for their service and are well trained to do their jobs. Special Constables earn only travelling expenses and limited subsistence. Training leaves a lot to be desired. When I joined, if I recall correctly, initial training was 14 weeks of one evening a week. By the time I left, that was down to 8 weeks.

Special Constables are of course a much cheaper way to provide a uniformed presence on the streets, in the same way as a Kia is a cheaper mode of transport than a BMW. From the outside they might even look identical, but underneath the structure and quality will be worlds apart.

In summary, the vast majority of Special Constables are simply not capable, however well intentioned, of filling the role of a full time patrol officer. In my station we had one person, who was in a position financially to be able to work as a Special nearly every day, and so she was in practice a fully fledged copper. She could build a file and handle tasks that most (95% +) wouldn't have had a clue how to start.

The other problem is resourcing. With Specials being volunteers, it's extremely difficult to organise (and rely on) numbers for any given operation. With something as simple as traffic management for Remembrance Sunday, operational plans could be completely scuppered if one or two Specials did not turn up as planned. The reverse problem also exists. I had many a night where I arrived at the station and waited 2 hours to be crewed up with someone. This happened regardless of whether I gave notice that I would be in, or not. Some Specials even get fed up with being left waiting around and leave the service.

I would advise any PCC or Chief Constable that basing any sort of plans on Special Constables is indeed a soft foundation. It would be impossible to know with any certainty how many Specials you can rely on having on a given date, or what skill sets those Specials will have. I would strongly advise SMTs to plan as though you have NO Special Constables at all, then use what ever additional resources you have to bolster the full time force, to treat them as a bonus, if you will.

Finally, there is a question of exposure. If you do any sort of risk assessment, one of the things you have to consider is how often the people/person is exposed to the hazard(s). Policing is a dangerous job, of that there can be no doubt. There aren't going to be many people willing to exponentially increase their exposure to hazard whilst remaining an unpaid, undervalued and dispensible resource. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool or a member of this Government.

The creation of PCSOs was the policing equivalent of booting an open goal ten feet over the crossbar. What should have happened was the creation of some sort of more solid platform for the Special Constabulary, perhaps moving them towards a paid retainer or contract which would have made resourcing much easier.

The whole concept of Special Constables needs to be revised to match the expectations and requirements of the 21st Century.

Morality and Priorities, US Style

It's the day before the 2012 US Presidential election.

It's being billed as the tightest election since, well, the last one actually. Even more than last time, the country seems totally divided by their choice of candidate. Tempers are getting flared, strong opinions expressed. I even saw a tweet this morning saying that the author wasn't voting for Obama because "He's a stupid Mooslim communist [n-word]. Honestly being a [n-word] is enough for me." I was absolutely staggered when I read that. It would be prefectly legitimate to disagree with Obama's policies but I didn't realise that there were really people Neanderthal enough to hold views like that but still work a a computer.

Some people from the US have even told non-US tweeters to mind their own effing business with regard to the US election. I can understand this, to a point. I don't think we British would be too overjoyed about people from outside Britain trying to influence the 2015 election. The problem is, the US is not, in practice, as insular as it thinks it is. It is certainly not some tony little island which has little influence on the rest of the world. What happens in the US sends ripples, shockwaves and Tsunamis around the rest of the global population. America sets the agenda for the rest of the world in a way that virtually no other country does.

I like America very much. I enjoy being there whether it is for work or not. I get along well with the vast majority of people I meet. A couple of my closest friends are American. The mindset of America (as opposed to individual Americans) is interesting. I heard this morning on BBC Radio 4 that Obama has been criticised for not giving an unreserved endorsement of "American Exceptionalism". This is a phrase which according to some, means that the USA has a God-given destiny, a place above and beyond all other nations, superior to all. Obama has this to say about it in 2009:

"I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism."
 

My interpretation of this is that Obama believes in the best of America in the same way that Brits are passionate about Britain, which would seem to be a fairly reasonable position. From this quotation, and from my impression of his Presidency, doesn't seem to think that America is superior to other nations, morally or otherwise. Again, I think that's a sensible view and might explain why Obama is extremely popular around the world:

I'd like to think that American voters (especially supporters of Romney) would look at this data and wonder if they are looking at the issues in the correct way. Instead, I worry that some (like our cave-dwelling racist I quoted earlier) would deliberately and specifically vote the opposite way. It seems extremely odd to me that in 2012, a major political candidate can be criticised for not being arrogant enough to think America is special.

This might be a good point to mention that whilst working in America in the past 10 years, I have been asked, on two separate occasions in two different States, what language we speak in England.

Sometimes I just can't identify with the logic of some aspects of the American system. I'm from a country that's had a National Health System since 1948 although our present Prime Minister is trying his hardest to abolish it. It seems a minimum criteria for any civilised country, let alone one that preaches its version of morality, democracy and human rights around the world, to have universal healthcare. It amazes me that America, where the Constitution states that all men are created equal, has made it to the 21st Century before universal healthcare becomes available.

In fact, in briefly researching the US Constituion, I found this:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." (Emphasis added)

A person from Republicans Abroad speaking on the BBC's Question Time last week said that the country couldn't afford universal healthcare due to the size of the deficit. This is the same deficit that George W. Bush created by giving tax breaks to the wealthy and going to war. He inherited a budget surplus from Bill Clinton. Would George W. Bush and his Republicans have backed universal healthcare in 2001, with or without 9/11? Of course not. I'm assuming that it's this same universal healthcare that earns Obama the perjorative tag of Communist.

Take a look at the next graph. [source]UK public debt, as a percentage of GDP, was almost 250% when the NHS was created. We still created it, and sustained it until this year. It doesn't take a great leap of logic to say that a healthier population works better, with corresponding increases in GDP. In fact, in the years following the creation of the NHS, public debt went DOWN even though the public purse was now paying for the NHS!

 

America - the country that can afford to go to war in other countries and kill hundreds of thousands of civilians, but can't afford to provide decent healthcare services for its own citizens.

Welcome to the priorities of the American Right in 2012.