Why Mitt Romney's flip-flopping may turn out to be a political asset

Throughout Mitt Romney's hard slog towards becoming the Republican nominee one criticism pursued him wherever he went and was equally vociferous on both sides of the political spectrum. The issue of course was over Mitt Romney's propensity to mould his views to fit whatever audience or electorate he was facing, otherwise known as flip-flopping.

Hard line conservatives despaired at Romney's record as Governor of Massachusetts and the resented the way he was suddenly appearing to show very conservative principles on topics like abortion when there were reams of interviews and statements directly contradicting what he was purporting to now believe.

Liberals and much of the mainstream media saw an open goal and a heavy amount of hypocrisy. They also latched on to the fact that it was conservatives who had initially launched the attacks on Romney therefore covering them from accusations of bias. They were simply reporting on the attacks by conservatives and there's nothing the mainstream media loves more than Republicans attacking their own.

It seems conservatives were willing to ignore Ronald Reagan's golden rule, thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican, as they could not stomach this so called Massachusetts moderate becoming the nominee.  Of course even Reagan didn't stick to this principle throughout his career as Gerald Ford would attest.

While Romney's flip-flopping provided plenty of ammunition to the media and his primary opponents it also had the effect of painting Romney as a politician not wedded to any particular political ideology. Voters could see this was a man who assessed the situations and jobs he was in and was able to mould his positions to fashion the best outcomes possible.

A good example of this was the 2006 healthcare legislation he brought in whilst Governor of Massachusetts. At the time it was widely praised across the country by commentators as a model that could be used as a template for a federal system of healthcare insurance. Indeed Obama and his team clearly took notice and incorporated many of its aspects into the healthcare bill that passed through congress in 2009.

This link between the two bills could clearly not have been predicted by Romney when he passed his legislation but it subsequently became a major headache when repealing Obamacare became a central plank of Republican policy. He was repeatedly hammered by his opponents and harangued by the media to explain how he could support his own bill but not the presidents. His answer was simple but in the end effective, just because something works at state level doesn't mean it should be implemented federally.

This is a logical reasoned argument that most people can accept. Whether they agree with his stance on healthcare is another issue but the idea that his position is the height of hypocrisy and that it shows his inherent weakness as a leader just doesn't hold up.

The malleability of his positions can be highlighted as a strength in fact. Washington politics is deeply divided and compromise has become the dirty word of politics, especially within conservative circles. It seems Congress can only hear the shrill voices on the edges of the parties, as its approval rating has been consistently under 20% for the last two years. This shows the electorate does not want more ideology and dogma in Washington but people who will get things done in a sensible pragmatic way even if that means you have adapt long held policy positions.

As Chris Christie has said there is a wide boulevard in between getting all you want and compromising your principles. Romney has shown he understands how to adapt when faced with a hostile legislature and this is one area where Obama has been especially ineffective. There are valid arguments to be made that the Republican Congress has been overly intransigent but a President must lead and he failed spectacularly to do this when he handed over the healthcare bill to Congress.

The number one issue that will decide the election in November is the economy, as it almost always is. The American electorate is not looking for an ideology to follow but just simply a solution to the mess the country's in. Romney, due to his altering views, has allowed an image to grow of a politician with no concrete ideological beliefs and this could prove to be a major plus in the current climate.

Yes Romney has had to pander to the hard right of the Republican party during the height of the primary battle but his folksy and slightly awkward manner didn't make him sound like an extreme fundamentalist such as Rick Santorum. His delivery and mannerisms give the impression that he is from another era and therefore detached from the modern vitriol that surrounds present day Washington.

This perception can become a plus as it taps into that influential emotion, nostalgia . Non ideological voters who long for a time of low unemployment and pre 9/11 sanity will be drawn to this and could provide the key to Romney being able to create a large enough coalition to take him over the top come November.

Afghanistan: It is and always will be a failed state

As the 2014 withdrawal date for American and British combat troops creeps ever closer the rhetoric coming from leading politicians about the great strides that have been made by Afghan forces has increased significantly. In Britain the three major parties have formed a cosy consensus with a steady drip of comments about how well Afghan troops have performed in recent operations and the great leaps forward that have been made in training the Afghan police and army.

Clearly some level of progress has been made but this isn't saying much if you consider they were starting from the bottom. In a sense the only way they could go was up but this still doesn't imply the Afghan state will be able to guarantee security and prosperity once NATO forces leave. In fact even with the current high levels of NATO support, the central government under Hamid Karzai do not hold much influence outside the main urban areas.

Within the countryside, where the majority of the population reside, it is the tribal leaders and councils who govern. In fact the local populace show more loyalty to these tribal leaderships than they do to central government. Even the police struggle to exert influence, preferring to do deals with the local warlords rather than risking conflict by keeping law and order as the central government wants.

This reluctance by the Afghan local branches of government to properly exert its influence in the tribal regions is telling as it shows the true strength and power they really have. The police and army units on the frontline may lack in professionalism and in some cases even courage but essentially it comes down to the fact that they don't feel they are genuinely backed up by the government. This lack of confidence is extremely detrimental to overall health of the state and is unlikely to be resolved any time before 2014.

Most likely the politicians in Washington and London privately accept the futility of the NATO mission, some have even made tentative steps to accept this publicly. Ed Miliband's recent comments on a visit to Afghanistan show that even among the political elite there are serious reservations as to whether the Afghan government will last much beyond 2014. This comment was quickly followed by Miliband declaring his strong support for the 2014 withdrawal plan, which shows how purely political the exit date is and has no bearing on the conditions on the ground.

Some would argue however that NATO should never have gotten involved in nation building and its original mission of defeating Al-Qaeda was completed in early 2002. The subsequent mission creep was born out of the hubris of the time, a belief that America was going to re-shape the world for a new century of dominance.

This was a deeply flawed belief and shows how little politicians at the top had studied their history. It would only take a brief period of research to see how many great powers had tried to tame Afghanistan's various tribes and bring a central order to the country. All failed and suffered great humiliating retreats which scarred the invading nation. One example of this is being explored by Rory Stewart in a new documentary series starting on the BBC.

Nevertheless even people who at the time did understand Afghanistan's brutal history believed advances in technology and modern warfare would allow NATO to be the exception to the rule. For a short period after the initial fall of Kabul there did seem to be hope for a stable Afghanistan. Billions of dollars of aid was poured into the country on regeneration, the problem was much of this did not reach the people who really needed it. The fact remained even though the Taliban had been defeated they had not simply left, they remained living in the same communities they had for generations.

You cannot simply dismiss the Taliban as an evil group who were reviled by every Afghani.  They are as much the people of Afghanistan as anyone else. They have fought invaders of their land since the time of Alexander the Great and will continue to do so long after the last vestiges of NATO have been blown back through the Khyber pass.

The Taliban have not succeeded on their own however, they are a wily bunch who have been willing to join forces with the most unlikely of allies in order to achieve their goals. When the Soviet Union was attempting to impose its will on the country they found a very willing ally in the United States. When the Soviets left and the American support disappeared they found Osama Bin Laden and his terrorist buddies more than willing to fund them financially in return for safe haven.

Both these alliances were friendships of convenience as is the current close relationship they have with elements in the Pakistani intelligence and military communities. This relationship has grown out of the immense amount of paranoia Pakistan directs towards India. Pakistan are willing to accept a brutal, destructive group running Afghanistan just so long as they are their brutal group and not India's.

This attitude by Pakistan shows no sign of abating and if anything the ties are being strengthened the closer we get to the 2014 deadline. Pakistan recognise Hamid Karzai's government will be acutely vulnerable once he is unable to call upon the power of NATO to maintain his governments sphere of influence across the country.

Even if Pakistan could be persuaded that their main security threat is no longer India they still have yet to admit that a relationship exists. The irony is the true threat to the Pakistan state is from internal terrorism being directed from the tribal areas of northern Pakistan and southern Afghanistan. The Taliban may have severed most of their ties with Al-Qaeda but there are still individuals within both groups who share information and at times work together.

There are many more factors that could be listed which would highlight the futility of NATO's mission but fundamentally Afghanistan is a country of disparate tribes and peoples who have for centuries been ordered and cajoled by foreign powers to come together as one unified nation state. The British Empire failed and so did the Soviet Union, at some point NATO will face up this but not before more blood and treasure is expended for a mission that since early 2002 has been fundamentally flawed. If this analysis is correct then all we have exerted for the last ten years has been for nothing and serious questions need to be asked of the British and American governments.

Maybe if only half the amount of energy that has been exhausted on constant inquiries on Iraq could be directed towards Afghanistan then maybe we'll develop a proper understanding of this conflict which will hopefully act as a warning for future generations who might be considering an intervention in this most unforgiving land.

Team England: Explaining the stark differences in achievement by the national football and cricket teams

The commonwealth cricket team, sorry I mean England, are straddling the top of the ICC test rankings and despite a tricky winter have the potential to stay there for some time to come. The England football team however are experiencing the lowest level of expectation from the public for many a year and this despite English domestic football coming off the back of arguably the greatest season in its entire history. The explanation for this lack of enthusiasm is down to England's poor record in recent tournaments and the number of times they have come up short. The reasons for this are not, as commonly bemoaned, down to poor managers. The cause is far more deep rooted and lies in who actually exerts all the power in the game.

The power and grip the domestic game and especially the premier league has over the national team has always been there but it has been especially stark since the turn of the millennium.  Alongside this English cricket has also experienced a radical shift in power but in the other direction. The England and Wales Cricket Board (ECB) under its first Chairman Lord MacLaurin, set out to create an elite, professional national team whose players would view success with England as their number one goal.

The idea that success with England would not be the main priority of an England cricketer may sound strange in today's climate but that fact was before the implementation of central contracts playing for your county was the main job of a cricketer. Turning out for England was a bit of a jolly one enjoyed for a few weeks in the summer and during the winter.

There have been many stories told by ex England players of disunity and division in the dressing room during the dark days of the nineties. Players would regularly spend more time checking up on the county scores on ceefax than bothering to watch the team out on the field. This was partly driven by insecurity that was bred from the managements susceptibility to chop and change personnel on a regular basis. Many players were unable to feel like they truly belonged as they knew one bad game could spell the end of their time in the team.

The advent of central contracts alongside Duncan Fletcher's appointment as coach led to major shift in the culture of the team. Playing for England became a centrally contracted players main focus, that was who paid them the majority of their income and that was who they had major legal obligations to. Although financial incentives are not what fundamentally drives a sportsman they clearly have a role to play even if it's only subconscious.

This is where the difference between cricket and football is most stark. Footballers earn the overwhelming majority of their income from their clubs and even the money they do get from turning out for England is voluntarily donated to charity. This shows that there is no financial need to play for their country which contrasts hugely with cricket. County cricketers are paid a fraction of what centrally contracted England players receive. If a player were to lose their central contract with the ECB their living standards would take a severe hit. Now this is not to say this is the sole reason why a cricketer would strive to play at their best for England but also it cannot be discounted as a major incentive in their performance.

Clearly on the flip side financial incentives are not the sole reason for the lack of performance by the football team but it's the mentality that comes from this that is crucial. Whoever has the financial power has ultimate control over a players timetable of activity. The ECB can dictate when a centrally contracted player turns out for their county, this would be unthinkable by the FA and the premier league clubs simply wouldn't accept it. This is all because the premier league, due to its financial strength, has far more power and influence than the FA could ever hope to have. If the ECB feels James Anderson is fatigued or has a slight niggle after the 2nd test against the West Indies, they can tell Lancashire to rest him from their next game. Can you imagine what Alex Ferguson would say if the FA or Roy Hodgson asked him to rest Wayne Rooney from a premier league match. They would be given short shrift and told to go whistle.

Some ex cricketers have bemoaned this practice and believe this has damaged the county game but the counties are so financially depended on the ECB there's really nothing they can do. Also England success filters good will and money down through the game, all the way to the grass roots. The administrators and people who run the counties appreciate this and therefore having been in the main willing to accept the changes that the ECB has asked for. This has meant the main goal in the entire cricket structure is a winning England team, this cannot be said for Football sadly.

It's true county cricket and the premier league are very different beasts but it is telling how different their attitudes seem to be. The impression given by many premier league clubs, especially the top sides,  is one of annoyance when a player is selected for international duty. Their view is that one of their most prised assets, potentially worth millions, is being taken away from them for a couple of weeks or longer during tournaments. In that time there is the very real potential for some harm to come to that asset which could adversely affect the clubs overall performance.

This attitude is understandable but extremely short sighted. A successful England team can only be a good thing for the club sides but their goals and priorities have become so short term they cannot appreciate the long term impact of a poor England team. Yes the Premiership will continue to generate vast amounts of money from media and advertising but football has no god given right to be the national game. More people have been drawn into the game by watching England's past exploits  at summer tournaments than anything else. If England continue to be treated as an after thought by the clubs and players their performances at these tournaments will suffer and we will face real difficulty in even qualifying.

English cricket is certainly on a high and doesn't have the same worries as football but they certainly cannot afford any complacency. The issue of how the ECB treat the Indian Premier League (IPL) in terms of player participation is becoming a real issue and has to be carefully managed. Undoubtedly the financial rewards are huge and you can't begrudge players like Kevin Pietersen from wanting to be involved but the potential for divided loyalties is clear. Other national boards like the West Indies, who lack the ECB's financial muscle, have been unable to stop players competing in the IPL at the expense of international matches.  

Due to the crowded international calendar this issue shows no sign of abating so the ECB will have its hands full in managing player participation in the IPL whilst also maintaining the progress that has been made over the last decade.

Football and Cricket are clearly very different sports but they both have a deep tradition in our sporting psyche and if football wants hold on to that position as a truly national game it could do worse than to study how cricket pulled itself up from the gutter it was in in 1999. That defeat to New Zealand and our subsequent drop to bottom of the world test rankings was the catalyst for change in all aspects of cricket. I wonder how far English football has to fall before a similar revolution is started, my fear is we still have some way to descend before this realisation dawns on the football establishment.

Google vs. Hollywood: The Worst of Enemies, The Best of Friends (Potentially)

The battle raging between the big Hollywood film studios and the giant of Silicon Valley is probably the most pointless and futile conflict being raged in media today. The issue of illegal downloading of film, music and TV is a real problem that does indeed cost millions each year but the way forward is not through endless lawsuits against the likes of Sheffield student Richard O'Dwyer.

Hollywood's reluctance to embrace the Internet as a new platform with which to showcase its product has meant illegal downloading and streaming has become the norm. The fact remains unless you provide an alternative that is simple and easy to use, you will never be able to curb the spread of illegal downloading. Even if they target the likes of TV Shack and Megaupload, alternative sites will simply spring up in their place. The genie is out the bottle and has been since the spread of broadband Internet made the process of downloading large files quick and easy.

The potential of legal downloading and streaming can be seen very clearly with the way the music business has begun to adapt. iTunes and Spotify are two very successful online platforms that have provided a high quality alternative to illegal downloading. Yes, Spotify has had an awkward beginning but the signs are that many people, including myself, are signing up to their subscription service as it is a cheap, easy to use, high quality product, that is easier and simpler than going through the hassle of illegal downloading or streaming.

The key for the film industry is implement an online service that has the same level of simplicity and ease of use. Yes, there are services such as Lovefilm and Netflix, but their potential is limited by the size of their catalogue and crucially the gap between cinema release and the release on DVD.

In order to be a truly compelling alternative the service must offer films at the same time as their cinema release. Obviously this proposal would face stiff resistance from many elements in the film industry and from the cinema giants but the argument that people would simply stop going to the cinema is completely baseless. The cinema is a social occasion; people go there for more than just the enjoyment of watching a film, plus the lure of a giant screen and true surround sound will never be fully replicated in the home.

Good quality air-conditioned cinemas with comfortable seats will always attract enough people to make money. The film industry cannot simply rely on the allure of 3D to attract people to the cinema. There will always be a market for good-quality cinemas showing films people want to go and see on a night out.

People will always go out to the cinema as it is part of a wider social experience, the same way people still go out to pubs and clubs even though you can buy alcohol much cheaper in a supermarket and drink it at home.

Once this argument has been won, the next step is make a decision as to what platform the service will be available on, and the obvious answer to that is Google. The sheer universality and global awareness Google has makes it the ideal way for the film industry to sell its products online. Consumers would have a Google account, which would allow them to purchase a film, whether through streaming or download, with one simple search. The majority of the money would go to the film companies but the potential market is so huge that the profits would be eye watering.

Even though many senior executives within the film studios show a visceral hatred towards Google, they need to wake up and accept the inevitable. Consumers want to view content on a multitude of platforms and they will continue to do so whether it's legal or not, no matter how many students they sue. Better they provide a quick and easy legal alternative that will over time significantly cut illegal downloading and generate a tidy profit.

You can't turn the clock back, the days of people just being able to view content through tightly controlled mediums is long gone and will never return unless they implement Chinese-style restrictions on access to the Internet. This may be possible in a totalitarian state, but no free democratic electorate will put up with that level of restriction on their lives. It would be a clear vote looser and would face a huge campaign against it like the 'Stop Online Piracy Act' and the 'Protect IP Act' faced in the United States Congress.

Together Google and Hollywood have the potential to provide a product the world is crying out for and is so clearly inevitable that the mind boggles that it hasn't already been implemented. Ego's and lawsuits need to be put to one side for the good of the long term health of the film industry. By joining forces they can tap into a vast market and make millions, apart everyone suffers including the consumer.