Or rather, what has already happened: in this case, the much debated debate between the two men battling to become the United States’ next commander-in-chief, Republican John McCain and Democrat Barack Obama. For 90 minutes, they sparred over the financial mess the US is in and the Iraq war. The question is: who won?

 

 

The verdict has been returned, but the jury is split.  Pundits on both sides of the Atlantic called it a draw, with few gaffes and no knockouts, but viewers – and polls – declared Obama the victor. “All in all a waste of time,” blogged the BBC’s Justin Webb, calling the occasion “Flabby and insipid – too long and too unfocused to tell us anything.” The Huffington Post is less reserved, describing McCain as “irascible and bellicose throughout”, while Obama’s “good manners and civility left the talking heads stunned – what kind of politician is actually nice to his opponent?” McCain's response to the tie? “I was a little disappointed the media called it a tie, but I think that means when they call it a tie that means we win,’’ he told a fellow Republican, according to the New York Times. Why the disparity between pundits and viewers? One media expert suggests it’s because professional commentators have short memories. 

 

...or not, as the case maybe. Fred Barnes, who in 1984 was one of the questioners at the first debate between President Ronald Reagan and Walter Mondale, writes in the Wall Street Journal: “As important as they are, debates can't change the fundamentals of a presidential campaign.” And the fundamentals of this campaign, he says, favour Obama, but we should still scrutinise the remaining debates: “We'll find out if either man is resourceful enough to exploit (each other’s) weaknesses, or wise enough to learn from their mistakes, as Reagan did. If not, that will be revealing all by itself.” 

 

What's your verdict?

 

P.S. McCain’s campaign has devoted several pages of its website to the commentary on his performance, while Obama’s features a single video clip entitled “Debate highlights: you were wrong.”

Bookmark with:
Digg	del.icio.us	Reddit
Facebook	Newsvine	StumbleUpon

 

 

Actually, it’s what isn’t happening: the first televised debate between would-be US presidents John McCain and Barack Obama, slated to take place in Mississippi tonight, is in limbo – another victim of economic turbulence. Until their respective parties help Congress reach a deal on the Bush administration’s $700bn plan to rescue Wall Street, McCain, who says it’s time to put politics aside, wants the debate postponed.

What people are saying:

In a speech about the crumbling US economy, McCain said: “It is time for both parties to come together to solve this problem. We must meet as Americans, not as Democrats or Republicans, and we must meet until this crisis is resolved. I am directing my campaign to work with the Obama campaign and the commission on presidential debates to delay Friday night's debates until we have taken action to address this crisis.” Obama responded by telling reporters: “I think that it is going to be part of the president’s job to deal with more than one thing at once.” A statement on his website says: “Barack is moving ahead with plans for Friday’s debate. The election is less than 40 days away, and the American people deserve to hear directly from the candidates about how they intend to lead our country.”

 

The debate over the debate now dwarfs the original, which would have comprised eight 10-minute head-to-head sessions on key issues. McCain has been accused of ‘naked politics’  on a day when a Washington Post/ABC poll showed him nine points behind his Democrat opponent. Both sides have been accused of manipulating a national crisis for personal gain. But, as one commentator warns, this maybe the election you wouldn’t want to win... I'll be watching the debate, which organisers have said will go ahead with or without McCain, and will bring you the best analysis and opinion from across the web in its wake. In the meantime, do you agree with McCain that it’s time to put politics aside, or is Obama right when he says the US deserves to hear from the candidates?

Bookmark with:
Digg	del.icio.us	Reddit
Facebook	Newsvine	StumbleUpon

 

 

(Image courtesy of PA)

 

He did it: Gordon Brown rolled out his vision for Britain to 2,000 Labour MPs and activists in his keynote speech, outlining plans to steer the country through economic turbulence by building a society based on fairness – getting several standing ovations and, some say, facing down his leadership critics in the process.

 

The prime minister’s 60-minute speech, which he delivered without notes, prompted several standing ovations. Afterwards, Home Secretary Jacqui Smith told BBC News that it showed he was a great leader and the leadership question “should have gone away”. Cabinet minister and Brown supporter Ed Miliband said it was “the speech of his life”, “much more conversational” than normal and demonstrating “who he is.” Former Labour leader Lord Kinnock, sitting in the front row, said the party appreciates the danger of division and is “well advised” to support Brown.

 

Outwith the Labour camp, the Guardian’s Michael White said it was “Not bad. Not bad at all.” Why? Because Brown made an emotional connection with his audience – something critics say he has struggled with in the past. The Times acknowledges he did a good job of tugging the party’s heartstrings, but warns “his fate remains in the hands of other forces.”

 

The Tories are running a picture of Brown on their website, with the caption: "Sorry seems to be the hardest word". George Osborne says the speech contained no apology and no new ideas. "This was the same old Brown. No apology for the mess he's got the country into, no new ideas that show us how he's going to get out of it, no idea how anything will be paid for."

 

You’ve raised some interesting points, too. Alan Rees asks if there was any mention of immigration. The answer, Alan, is yes. Here’s what Brown said: “We recognise the contribution that migrants make to our economy and our society, but the other side of welcoming newcomers who can help Britain is being tough about excluding those adults who won't and can't. That's why we have introduced the Australian-style points-based system, the citizenship test, the English language test, and we will introduce a migrant charge for public services.”

 

 

 

Bookmark with:
Digg	del.icio.us	Reddit
Facebook	Newsvine	StumbleUpon

 

Gordon Brown is about to deliver 'the speech of his political life' - maybe. I'll be following it live. Join me here for minute-by-minute coverage.

 

2:25pm: Gordon's wife, Sarah, just took the floor to introduce her husband. The BBC's commentators are saying it's hard to imagine Cherie Blair doing the same.

 

2:27pm: "Your love keeps lifting me higher" by Jackie Wilson - the chosen track for the PM's entrance.

 

2:28pm: He's going to get "straight to the point" - tell us who he is and what he believes in. "I didn't come into politics to be a celebrity - or thinking I would always be popular." <laughter from the crowd>

 

2:30pm. "If people say I'm too serious, quite honestly, there's a lot to be serious about." Don't call him dour! He managed a smile...

 

2:32: He says he'll admit his mistakes - and was shocked by what happened with the 10p tax debacle, because on the side of working families "is the only place I want to be." It's a fairer Britain that Gordon wants.

 

2:33: Times have changed since 1997, he says - and we need to raise our game accordingly. The collapse of banks, spiralling oil prices, a resurgent Asia: it's a global age. Gordon wants Labour to be "the rock of fairness on which people can stand."

 

2:35: "Fair duties for all, matched to fair opportunities for all." Anyone who says the government should butt out "will be on the wrong side of history."

 

2:37: Hard work, effort and enterprise are what Labour thinks really matters - and should be rewarded.

 

2:39 Those who believed in the dogma of unbridled freemarket forces have been proven wrong, he says. He wants to build a world-leading financial system - and the work begins now (well, tomorrow - when he and Alistair Darling will meet with the US banking sector).

 

2:40: Banking speculators beware: bonuses will no longer be paid for speculating, but for hard work and results.

 

2:41: The new 'global settlement' also needs to end the dictatorship of oil and avert catastrophic climate change, he says - there are too many people in this world and not enough energy. And he's not short of ambition: CO2 emissions should be reduced not by 60%, but by 80%.

 

2:42: "You can't just wave a magic wand and solve spending problems - not even with the help of Harry Potter." Much laughter among the muggles.

 

2:44: The new global settlement should be about more than the world's economy. It should include law and order; security and dignity for the elderly; helping parents protect their children.

 

2:47: Neil Kinnock is in the front row... Brown seems assertive, almost slick. Do you think he's consciously trying to outdo David Cameron 'unplugged' performance at last year's Tory conference?

 

2:50: "We're changing the world the only way we really can - one home, one family at a time - that's the power Labour has to change lives."

 

2:51: "Fairness is in our DNA" - how long before the Conservatives produce a geneticist to testify otherwise?

 

2:52: Developing all the talents of all the people is the modern approach to social mobility, he's saying.

 

2:53: "Fairness is why Labour will continue to fight the British National Party" - rousing applause from the audience...

 

2:54: Brown wants to make the biggest investment in children that Britain has ever seen: more nursery places; affordable childcare for all; "the complete elimination of child poverty by 2020" (to be enshrined in law); more schools; "no child who falls behind will be left behind" - each child will have the right to personal catch-up tuition; failing schools will be given new leadership or closed; 1million extra families will be given funding to get online.

 

2:58: He's saying a personal thank-you to all the doctors, nurses, cooks, cleaners, etc who comprise the NHS, which turned 60 earlier this year. His personal tale: he lost the sight in one eye at 16 during a rugby match. Later, he almost lost the sight in the other - and was mentally preparing himself for "a life of audio books" - but it was saved by an operation paid for by the NHS, which his parents could not have afforded otherwise. He wants to make the NHS "more personal". As of next April, there will be free health check-ups for everyone over the age of 40 and doctors' surgeries will extend their opening hours.

 

3:03: Labour's "unprecedented" £16bn investment in the NHS will be used, in part, to push for pioneering treatment for conditions such as cancer. He's pledging to scrap prescription charges for cancer patients <standing ovation>. This will later be rolled out to sufferers of other long-term conditions.

 

3:05: "No one should fear growing old": he wants older people to be able to stay longer in their own homes and not have to fear punitive care costs.

 

3:08: Back to fairness: "everyone who can work, should work" - a blatant warning to dole abusers.

 

3:10: More police on the streets and more emphasis on making criminals "pay back" their communities - that's the message on crime. "We will create rules that reward those who play by them, and punish those who don't."

 

3:11: By the way, he's speaking without notes - had you noticed?

 

3:13: 'If the Conservatives were running the country, things would be much worse than they are' - I'm paraphrasing Brown's "What if?" comparison of Labour and Conservative policies and how they would have influenced recent events, including the credit crunch. "This is no time for a novice!" he says, triumphantly. "Their strategy is to change their appearance to give the appearance of change" - he says that's what salesmen do when they're selling something no-one wants to buy.

 

3:17: Brown says the Tories have nothing to offer tomorrow because they're still "prisoners of their past." And he's reminding us that Britain has never been 'broken' - not even by fascism - and says Team GB's performance at the Beijing Olympics was "Britain at its best."

 

3:20: He's paying tribute to Britain's armed forces - "the best in any part of the world."

 

3:21: Working together - with the rest of Europe, with the US, with whoever - is the only way to confront immediate global security threats and deliver peace.

 

3:23: "Never again": the UK will not stand by as the world's poor die of diseases we know how to cure. Britain will stand up for justice at the next general meeting of the United Nations.

 

3:25: All the headlines, all the criticism, all the polls: it's all worth it if he makes the life of one child better, says Brown. "Tough times strengthen our resolve."

 

3:26: He's been talking for almost an hour and still hasn't said anything direct about leadership challenges...

 

3:27: And it's over - a very different speech to the one he delivered in Bournemouth a year ago, says the BBC - comparing him to Roosevelt. Did every member of the Cabinet get a mention? Sarah is at his side again - standing ovation, cheers from the audience of about 2,000 delegates.

 

How do you think he did? Was he convincing? Did he emphasise the right things? Is he tuned into the national mood?

 

I'll be bringing you a round-up of the best post-speech opinion and analysis later today. Catch you in a couple of hours.

 

 

 

 

At 2:15pm today, Prime Minister Gordon Brown will address Labour MPs and activists at the annual party conference. He’s expected to highlight his experience in dealing with the economy and offer measures to protect families and pensioners most vulnerable to the steep economic downturn.

 

 

The Telegraph hopes Brown will use his oratory to give “a greater sense of the enormity of events in the financial world than has been apparent so far from his Cabinet colleagues.” The Independent says the “complex, obsessive, sometimes tortured creature” should reach into his soul and show his true colours – whatever they may be. Yesterday, Foreign Secretary David Miliband described Brown as an "inspiration" - but there's some doubt over whether he really meant it.

 

 

The speech represents a turning point in deciding whether Brown stays in Downing Street long-term – on that, the pundits largely agree. The right-wing Daily Mail warns: “His first task will be to persuade Labour rebels that they have nothing to gain by pressing on with their ramshackle plot to overthrow him.”  Will he follow the Guardian’s advice and attempt to woo Mr and Mrs Mondeo? If you can't decide whether Gordon’s a good or bad thing for Britain, here’s a guide to the pros and cons of overthrowing him.

 

We'll be watching the speech live and bringing you the best opinion and analysis once it's over. In the meantime, how do you think he'll do?

 

Bookmark with:
Digg	del.icio.us	Reddit
Facebook	Newsvine	StumbleUpon

Bookmark with:
Digg	del.icio.us	Reddit
Facebook	Newsvine	StumbleUpon

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bookmark with:
Digg	del.icio.us	Reddit
Facebook	Newsvine	StumbleUpon

 

 

What’s happening:

Tomorrow morning, deep in the rock near Lake Geneva, scientists will flick the switch on a device that could unlock the secrets of the universe. By smashing proton particles together faster than ever before, physicists at CERN – Europe’s nuclear research laboratory – hope to recreate the conditions that existed immediately after the Big Bang and, in doing so, explain how the universe, and time itself, came to be.

What people are saying:

The Large Hadron Collider (LHC) has split scientific opinion. Dissenters claim the experiment is dangerous: “It’s possible it would allow for the creation of a miniature black hole ... which could potentially grow larger and, over the course of decades to millennia, devour the Earth,” said US physicist Dr Walter L Wagner. But Jos Engelen, CERN’s Chief Scientific Officer, says an LHC safety review shows that “Nature has already conducted the equivalent of about a hundred thousand LHC experimental programmes on Earth – and the planet still exists.”

Why we should we give a damn:

The LHC has raised questions about the purpose of science. Professor Sir David King, former chief scientific adviser to the UK government, says science should be solving more pressing social problems, such as climate change and food shortages. But Stephen Hawking says the LHC is vital for humanity. And John Ellis, a British theoretical physicist at CERN, insists it’s already helping:  “Particle accelerators offer new technologies for power generation and waste disposal,” he told the BBC. “In parallel, the technology developed to analyse LHC data is already being used for many other applications, including climate modelling.” As well as explaining the origin of time, revealing extra dimensions and demystifying dark matter, the LHC could also help fight cancer.

What do you make of it? Share your thoughts here and on our message boards.

Bookmark with:
Digg	del.icio.us	Reddit
Facebook	Newsvine	StumbleUpon

The cat in question isn't dead, merely tranquillised - but it will pause for thought before grappling with any Russian prime ministers again. And could this, ultimately, be the point of Putin's high-profile shooting trip? To reassert Russia's dominance in the global food chain? Putin has already been accused of using the conflict in South Ossetia to flex his political muscle, prompting many to ask: who is really pulling Russia's strings? So, was this a thinly disguised attempt to reassert international authority, or just another Big Boy's jaunt? Join the debate here and on our message boards.

 

Opinion from around the web:

 

Bookmark with:
Digg	del.icio.us	Reddit
Facebook	Newsvine	StumbleUpon