Hillary duffs up Donald

August 26, 2016

Hillary.jpg

Donald Trump’s recent decline in the polls has been traced to his reactions to the Democrat’s National Conference. Hilary Clinton’s speech was one important and damaging blow before the Kahn family’s interventions

 

I first heard Hillary Clinton’s acceptance speech as she was making it, and late into the night European time.  This gave me benefits of live radio (BBC5) as well as its drawbacks.

I missed the opening few minutes, but then listened to its ebb and flow uninterrupted by commentary.  (Except for one brief period when two American voices assessed the impact of  a pre-announced demonstration and walk-out by  Californian delegates supporting Bernie Saunders).

Rehearsed but not over-cooked

The delivery sounded to me rehearsed but not over-rehearsed.  Hillary does not do warmth, and did not attempt to do so.  The voice was familiar, somewhat detached, slightly strident (yes, I know that’s a judgement open to criticism as gender discriminatory. Men are rarely described as strident)

Hillary does Tough better than Warmth

The would-be POTUS may not do Warmth, but has to do Tough.  Hillary mostly let the words carry the Tough message.

Two portions of the speech struck me and rather surprised me.  There was lot of what our own dear Sun or Daily Mail would have sneered at as loony-Leftie stuff of the sort expected from Jeremy Corbin.  Holding Wall Street to account.  Even I.  Did she say that?  Surely I missed some vital qualifiers there. Leveling out inequalities. (Are you listening Bernie?). Whatever, the reception to her words seemed rapturous, but that was more predictable.

Trump kippered

I had wondered how she would deal with Trump.  On this I am more confident.  She kippered him.  It was as clinical and merciless as the weekly going-over which David Cameron handed out to Jeremy Corbin over the last few months.   She took as her main point the megalomaniac claim thatTrump alone could rescue a weak America. She contrasted it with her belief that no President fixes things alone. America is best when it works collectively, the United bit, right? I remembered how Obama had a rare failure when he once tried out that theme. He was challenged for dissing the entrepreneurial giants of big business, and the spirit of free enterprise.

‘Us not me’

Tonight Hillary got across the ‘Us not me’ point well. But how to deal with the giant shadow cast by Husband Bill?  I couldn’t she how that could be done. Hillary just said she had learned how to deal with a lot of bad stuff, and when knocked down got up fighting.  I think the audience got what she was driving at.

Will she be a great President?  I don’t know.  Will she even become President in the first place? I don’t know. Incidentally, the great futurologist Alvin Toffler died this week, but if he had lived I guess he would have found a way of predicting while maintaining residual doubts.

Her remark about not trusting the Presidency to someone easily riled was seized on and maybe will continue to rile the thin-skinned Trump. I do know that today’s speech [July 28, 2016] has not harmed the chances of a woman becoming the next President of the United States of America.

Postscript

Since the post was written, the Trump campaign has dropped further behind Clinton’s efforts. A series of misjudgements starting with the attack on the parents of an American fallen hero appear to have added to Mr Trump’s problems. At the same time, the setbacks may have strengthened his core support.

The campaign remains fascinating to students of politics, leadership, and trainwrecks.


Catch-up Part Two: The campaign to become Prime Minister

August 3, 2016

David Cameron ListeningIn Part One I looked at the developing stories from June 23rd 2016, the date of the European Referendum in the UK. To deal with the next part of the story, I have to go back to February, to the start of the months of national campaigning. 

Read the rest of this entry »


Catch up: Unedited notes for an unedifying time

July 21, 2016

I believe

 

For the last four weeks [Tuesday June 21- July 19] the political news in the UK has been changing so quickly that drafts of an unpublished post became outdated at least four times. Publication was then hindered for technical reasons. I have attempted to make  some retrspective sense out of my unposted notes

Read the rest of this entry »


The EU Referendum: Fate knocks on the door

June 23, 2016

June 23rd 2016. After a fractious period of debate, the voters of Great Britain head for the ballot boxes. Some for various reasons have already recorded a postal vote

Read the rest of this entry »


And the leader of the week was …

June 14, 2016

Chosen from the eight candidates battling for votes in the ITV referendum debates

The debates were two hours long with a similar format. The leaders had a brief chance to outline positions, then faced well-thought out questions from what appeared to be audiences representing the main demographics (gender, and political persuasion were particularly well balanced).

The moderator Mary Nightingale would have been a strong contender, managing as well as any to have ‘control over the borders’ of time permitted to the panellists obviously not used to such a treatment. (I was reminded of the approach of the horse whisperer Monty Roberts, which has a well-constructed but unobtrusive approach to keeping critters moving where he would like them to go).

How to rate the leaders

I decided on a context-specific rating approach as found in such reputable scientific journals as Which, Ryan’s Air best deals, Delia’s dozen best flans, Celebrity hottest oboists.

Three factors of performance

After some thought I decided that the key measure of the leadership performance was on the influence or impact achieved by the performance on three groups of votes.

IOU: Impact on undecided (to swing to his or her side or the other side)

IOS: Impact on supporters (to stay as supporters, become unsettled, or switch)

IOO: Impact on opponents (to stay, become unsettled or switch)

Given time and a research budget I would arrive at a reasonable set of scales for each of these three factors. As I have neither, I resorted to another approach sometimes known as first impressions to help me fill in the matrix.

I read as many articles as I could find about the two debates may have been influenced by them, or (more likely) my own bias which is more strongly towards remain than it is towards the politicians and their advocacy of their cause.

Candidate Impact on undecided voters Impact on supporting voters Impact on opposing voters Notes
Cameron 4-5 5-6 3-4 12-15 Same old same old
Farage 2-3 7-8 2-3 11-13 Same old same old
Johnson 4 5 4 13 Needed plan B
Stuart 5 6 4 15 Bit bland
Leadsom 5-6 4-5 4-5 13-16 OK but forgettable
Sturgeon 6-7 6 3-4 15-17 Most authoritative
Eagle 3-7 5-6 3-4 11-17 ‘Marmite?’
Rudd 4-7 6-7 3-5 13-19 ‘Marmite?’
Range 2-7 4-8 2-5 11-19

What if anything does all this mean?

It’s just one of the thousands of ways you can set up your own thought engine, to help you get underneath the surface of arguments. These matrix methods do not give answers so much as suggest new possibilities.

My interpretation of the debates is that we have no game-changing speaker out there at present. And, of course my judgement about the impact of a speaker is unlikely to capture the views of the voters be they decided or undecided.


Justin Welby: how a leader deals with news that would devastate most people

April 19, 2016

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/be/Mobilising_Faith_Communities_in_Ending_Sexual_Violence_in_Conflict_%2815862086073%29.jpg/330px-Mobilising_Faith_Communities_in_Ending_Sexual_Violence_in_Conflict_%2815862086073%29.jpg

The Archbishop of Canterbury discovers his private life conceals a secret that most people would find difficult or even impossible to deal with.  His reaction is admirable

The news headlines promised prurience. The spiritual leader of the Church of England finds himself the product of a brief extra-marital relationship between his mother Jane Portal who was Winston Churchill’s personal secretary, and Sir Anthony Montague Browne (1923–2013), Churchill’s private secretary.

Read the rest of this entry »


The Commons vote on Syria: All human life was there and also a few political dilemmas

December 4, 2015

thatchertankOn December 2nd 2015, the elective representatives of the people of Great Britain and Northern Ireland debated for over ten hours and voted on the motion for overt military action in Syria.

The debate captured the whole range of human reactions from the authentic to the sycophantic, from the informed to the inflamed, from the arrogant to the resentful, from the committed to the confused.

Read the rest of this entry »


George Osborne and Joe Root strengthen their cases as future national leaders

July 12, 2015

This week two leaders and their possible successors were tested. Alistair Cook opened the batting for England in Cardiff, and David Cameron started for the Government at Westminster

Here are my notes made at the time, [8th July 2015] which have been slightly edited for clarity purposes.

Read the rest of this entry »


GE 2015: “A night is a long time in politics”

May 8, 2015

Tudor Rickards ‏@Tudortweet
On the first day of hustings the pollsters said to me:
There’s no party with a clear majorityTudor Rickards

One the third day of hustings Grant Shapps said to me:
You can’t believe their pledges but you can believe me

Tudor Rickards @Tudortweet · Apr 21
Nicola Sturgeon named as the most dangerous woman in Britain

Tudor Rickards @Tudortweet · Apr 24
English votes for English voters. The prospects for survival of the United Kingdom declines again.

Tudor Rickards @Tudortweet · May 2
On the last week of hustings the media brought to me
Red Ed derided
Dodgy undecided
Audience one-sided
On the very unbiased BBC

PiratePartyUK-Maria ‏@PiratePUKMaria May 8th
UK electoral system logic: @TheGreenParty got 1 Seat with as many votes as SNP (56 Seats) via @nblanchart Maybe they just counted the ballots wrong can we start again tomorrow?

The twelve hours that changed the British political scene

The General Election campaign took place over five weeks in which the polls stubbornly refused to predict anything but a hung parliament. At precisely 10pm on the 7th May 2015 a comprehensive exit poll announced that the Conservatives would win enough support to be to form a Government. By midnight, widespread disbelief turned to shocked acceptance of the prediction. By midday, Prime Minister Cameron was on his way the Buckingham Palace to announce to The Queen that he would be able to form a new Government unaided by other parties.

I was among those shocked by the unexpectedness of this exit poll, and then by the speed of subsequent events. My intention was to watch for a few hours for a general indication of how events were turning out, and maybe get a clearer idea in the early morning news bulletins.

As it turned out, the exit poll was more or less confirmed by the first few results. I went to bed having made the following notes.

Read the rest of this entry »


“Cambridge v Cambridge” Obama and Cameron engage in a cyber-game competition

January 24, 2015

Paul Hinks

War GamesPresident Barack Obama and David Cameron’s agreement to conduct a cybersecurity War Game recognises the very real threat from co-ordinated online targeted attacks

In what is being dubbed as a “Cambridge v. Cambridge” hackathon, Massachusetts Institute of Technology [MIT, of Cambridge, Mass] will go head to head with the University of Cambridge [of Cambridge, England] in a multi-day cybersecurity hackathon where each team will try to outwit its opponent.

After the Sony cyber-attack

The BBC reported the background to the cyber initiative:

The Cybersecurity war games come in the wake of the recent hacking of Sony Pictures’ computers and the US military’s Central Command’s Twitter feed. This posted comments promoting Islamic State (IS) militants.

The cyber-attack on Sony Pictures led to data being leaked from its computers exposing emails and personal details about staff and its movie stars. The hackers, who called themselves #GOP or Guardians of Peace, also threatened Cinema chains planning to screen Sony’s satirical North Korean comedy. The plot of The Interview involves a bid to assassinate the country’s leader Kim Jong-un.

Sony initially cancelled the film’s release after leading US cinema groups said they would not screen it, a move which Mr Obama later described as “a mistake”.

Leaderless Groups and Anonymous

The manner in which online ‘hackers’ collaborate, and distribute their powerbase deserves closer inspection. ‘Anonymous’ is one example of a self-proclaimed ‘leaderless’ group of dispersed individuals labelled as ‘hackers’ for their various well-publicised distributed denial of service attacks.

Anonymous joins the Je Suis Charlie solidarity campaign

Anonymous recently announced that they would target ISIS websites in response to the Charlie Hebdo attack, They’ve already claimed to have had some level of success. The social distribution of multiple leaders does create a powerful and cohesive force – one which can be used for ‘good’ or ‘bad’ – attacking those who are perceived to hold alternative values from their own.

Improving cybersecurity

Obama and Cameron’s initiative may well provide new levels of cybersecurity research, testing current best practice while also creating debate and discussion about how best to protect against future online threats. The initiative needs to look beyond the technical aspects of cyber-attacks and also explore the social dynamics of how online distributed Communities operate.

Acknowledgements

Author Paul Hinks is a regular subscriber to LWD. He blogs on technology, innovation, and social media. His post on Apple, CSR and Leadership is regularly the most visited of the year on LWD.

Thanks and welcome also to our new production assistant Conor Glean.