Unfortunately Black has not always been associated with such a positive collection.  Last month (October) children in the UK would have studied Black history as part of Black History Month.  Similarly in the US Barack Obama becoming the first Black President-elect has caused many Americans to look back in to their own Black history.  The history of “Black” whether in the UK or the US has been characterised by suffering, struggle and sacrifice.  From Slavery, to the assassination of civil rights leaders in the US, and from immigration to discrimination and race riots in Britain.

However it has been possible to buck these trends and Black has been nothing if not enduring, diverse and adaptable.  Black has been the colour of success in sports, music, media and of course fashion, as modelled so exquisitely by the British fashion icon Naomi Campbell.  All of the above have captured the imagination of our young people and Black has become colourless as the hip hop generation of all colours dream of mirroring the success of Black achievers.

Black has been traditionally woven in to the fabric of socially deprived inner city areas, often accessorised by crime and violence in America and Britain.  Ironically this negative collection of unfortunate stereotypes has become glamorised and at times promoted alongside a misogynistic range of rap lyrics as part of a grand design to make money at the expense of Blackness.  This design took Black from authentic to commercial as mainstream youth culture invests in a product that many blame for growing trends of gang culture, knife and gun crimes and the legitimisation of the “N” Word.

This style of Black has not been a good look and the lack of positive and visible Black male role-models some have argued has created a void which has been appropriated by cheaper imitations far less worthy of any admiration.  To protect its young gifted and Black consumers the UK Government has launched “Reach” a national mentoring programme where Black men mentor black boys, seeking to raise aspiration and educational attainment.  But with raised aspirations come higher expectations.  Will Black be the colour of choice for employers, investors and consumers?  A recent edition of Vogue recently featured all Black models in response to criticism of racism against Black models in the fashion industry. It broke all records and was the highest selling issue ever and has had reprinted many times over.

Someone who knows all too well about high expectations is President-elect Barack Obama.  However Barack has brought a new shade to Black which is fashionable and forward looking but also feels kind and comfortable.  The Obama range is a winning brand and marketable to a broad demographic as evidenced at the ballot box.  Black is not only an innovative and imaginative line for one season.  Black is now a universal fabric of inspiration, hope and elation as worn by Obama supporters, readily available to all in every colour.

This is an historic event for America and her people.  More Americans voted in this election than any other.  Millions of Americans who had not voted in previous elections ensured they voted in this one. Without a doubt people in the US and abroad believed they hada vested interest in this election. President-Elect Obama’s campaign managed to raise record amounts of funds from ordinary people enabling his message of change to reach more Americans than ever before.

November 4th 2008 marks the birth of a new America, where the American people voted on a candidate for the highest office in the land, a man who as Dr Martin Luther King dreamed forty five years ago, was judged not on the colour of his skin but on the content of his character.  

The election of an African American Head of State and Commander-in-Chief, closes the chapter of an era of suffering and shame in US history.  It has taken a century and a half for America to evolve to this point.  From a society where race dictated your class as slave or as free individual through to emancipation, segregation and the civil rights movement to defend the rights of African Americans to vote and equal treatment under the law and in the work place.  America can feel that she can stand proud in front of critics of her politics, her record on race and say we have come to day one of a new era.

A new era for any American who has ever struggled, faced adversity or felt that their personal American dream could never happen.  For any American who has ever felt limited by their background, race or personal circumstances. Obama’s victory says to them “Yes you can!”  For the single mother in a rough neighbourhood cherishing aspirations of something better for her children,  for the young professional seeking to break through the corporate glass ceiling, for the young African American boy who until November 4th only saw images of Black success in rappers and sports stars. Obama says to them if you believe in yourself and demonstrate competence and the ability to win then you will succeed in whatever you choose to. This has always been the key to America’s success that overrides any prejudices on race or class.  America loves and rewards success regardless of background, which is why people from all over the world migrate there from rich and poor countries alike to pursue the American dream.

However for President-Elect Obama, ahead lies both a great challenge to meet the expectations of Americans who have elected a President to rescue their economy and a great opportunity to stand alongside the great American Presidents.  George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Franklin D Roosevelt, John F Kennedy - all of whom took office in times of turmoil and steered a nation towards becoming the most powerful on the planet.

June Sarpong

Watch his victory speech below:

Should Senator McCain become the 44th President of the United States it would be one of the greatest political comebacks of our time, especially as the polls show this is unlikely. Because of McCain’s age and Sarah Palin’s fame, the office of the Vice President would become increasingly significant and there would likely be immediate questions around whether he would run for a second term. Governor Palin may assert herself more then previous Vice Presidents have done (even more so than Dick Cheney), possibly feeling emboldened by the support she enjoys among the conservative Republican base. Sarah Palin would want to be seen as having gained international experience to prepare her for a possible future presidential campaign. Palin’s charisma has seen her eclipse McCain during this campaign, but whether she could inspire confidence both at home and abroad remains to be seen. Last week it was suggested that Sarah Palin’s focus was on her own political future rather than the outcome of the current presidential race. The divisions between Palin and McCain and other Republican figures may become evident and this would make it more difficult to achieve progress on Global issues such as climate change and reducing emissions.

The Republican campaign has highlighted national security issues but not focused so much on the role of the UN or working with international institutions. The international community has been less than impressed with the Bush administration for marginalising the UN, and a McCain administration may not do much to reverse this or seek to build bridges with states perceived to be hostile. John McCain has also emphasised energy independence as a means of enhancing national security. If the US is able to reduce dependency on foreign oil this would mean oil producers outside the US may reduce prices to compete with US domestic energy sources. This could be good news for other international consumers or alternately energy prices could rise to compensate for the reduction in oil exports to the US.

A McCain presidency may see a renewed commitment to free trade which would be beneficial to countries who are able to compete in this environment. However poorer countries may be hit twofold, with less economic support from richer counties experiencing economic recession, coupled with competition from imports form richer countries. Free trade policies would assist exports and support economic growth for some countries but there would inevitably be losers which would increase the divisions between prosperous and poor countries. However McCain as president may continue President Bush’s commitments on assistance to African countries and provide assistance to Latin American countries through free trade agreements. There would also undoubtedly be greater regulation of global finance, which would protect international consumers.

Senator Obama, perhaps because his background is international in itself, has tended to be the favoured candidate outside the US. This was not especially helpful to his campaign where he has found it difficult to establish his patriotic credentials against McCain’s record as a war hero and POW. Barack Obama was portrayed as naive in International affairs for expressing his willingness to negotiate with countries hostile to the US and its allies. This saw Obama take a harder line on pursuing Bin Laden and Al Qaeda and defending Israel. This could be political posturing but whilst it is more likely that there will be a withdrawal of US troops from Iraq it is less likely that would be the progress with the Middle East Peace process that former UK Prime Minister Blair had attempted to engage George Bush in. On the other hand some Middle Eastern states may see the election of Obama as a change in direction and an opportunity to pursue diplomatic resolutions to outstanding conflicts.

On the international economy Obama’s instincts appear to be protectionist, free trade considerations and overseas aid is likely to be secondary to protecting jobs and smaller domestic enterprises even those that may not be competitive. Obama will be mindful that sections of the US electorate - due to his international appeal and his mixed heritage - questioned where his loyalties lay. Even though he is as much white as he is black, Obama would be classed as America’s first black President. Being of African descent (on his father’s side) he may be expected to sympathise with disenfranchised people at home and abroad. If elected he may feel vindicated in little “spreading around domestic wealth” through tax breaks for lower earners, but I doubt whether he’ll be doing this at an international level. Obama has preached personal responsibility and self help to poorer communities in the US and may take a similar line with developing countries. I expect Obama’s international admirers may find an Obama administration more inward looking than they had hoped. However, Senator Obama’s analysis of the economic situation - which during the campaign saw him as calm and competent - helped to increase his lead over McCain. This in addition to Obama’s willingness to work with foreign leaders rather than act unilaterally, or seem prone to erratic decisions, may well inspire confidence in international markets and help promote a global recovery.

As exciting as it has been for me following this campaign here in the US and in Europe, I believe whichever candidate wins there will be ‘change’ as both have committed themselves to it. Actual change may not be felt here in the US or abroad immediately after Tuesday’s result. However, psychologically an Obama victory will feel like a more significant change from the Bush era. A victory for Obama would have an impact across the globe and may go some way to improving race relations between us all. At the end of the day, that is something that a McCain win would not.

Now for this week’s blog.

US

Women make waves……

Last week was all about the women. Senator Obama put campaigning on hold to visit his terminally ill grandmother, leaving Michelle Obama to lead the campaign on his behalf. Mrs Obama refers to herself as “Mom-in-chief” emphasizing that this election is for a more better future for America ’s children. Though as much as Mrs Obama might want American mothers to identify with her, she is definitely not your average in any way. She confidently discusses her husband’s policies on the economy, housing, health, education and Iraq. She in the beginning was more successful than him and was in fact his mentor. I do not doubt that in choosing Michelle Obama for a wife Senator Obama was also choosing a First Lady. You can tell a lot about a man and where he wants to be in life by the woman he chooses to stand by his side. Michelle Obama comes across as confident, intelligent and sassy - a good fit for an ambitious young senator who would be president.

However Mrs Obama’s earlier sassiness caused a few ripples earlier in the campaign when she had commented that “for the first time in my adult life, I am proud of my country” due to her husband’s campaign. This enabled McCain’s camp to cast her as an angry ungrateful woman and unpatriotic. Patriotism is a favoured battle ground for Republicans with Senator McCain’s military record and his frequent, but sincere no doubt, declarations of love for his country. Mrs Obama has responded by concentrating much of her campaigning on low-key events in swing states with military wives who are raising families while their husbands serve abroad. Michelle Obama is definitely stepping up to the plate as her husband’s trusted second. Watch out Joe Biden!

Actually it may be John McCain that needs to watch out. As conservative Republicans begin to lose faith in McCain, they are beginning to look to his running mate Sarah Palin as a future Presidential candidate in her own right. No doubt impressed by her ability to connect to the Republican core and appeal to ordinary working class Americans. Despite being in the headlines for all the wrong reasons (her famed gaffes, Troopergate and now a reported $150,000 on her wardrobe and cosmetics not to mention $22,800 on a travelling stylist for 2 weeks) Governor Palin has managed to go head to head with Obama in Charisma where McCain had been waning. Sarah Palin was expected to heat up luke warm support amongst the Republican base, her right wing credentials compensating for his moderate tendencies.

However rather than shoring up Senator McCain’s flank, Governor Palin has broken ranks and exposed differences between them. Sarah Palin has been vocal in her belief that abortion should be outlawed and recently commented that unlike her principal John McCain she supported a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Governor Palin has also contradicted Senator McCain on drilling for oil in Alaska and over foreign policy towards Pakistan , and on de-listing North Korea as a terrorist state. These “gaffes” had initially been put down to Palin’s inexperience and her endearing tendency to shoot from the hip. Though as McCain slips behind in he poles some in McCain’s camp believe that she may actually be purposefully undermining McCain and setting out her stall for a future candidacy of her own. I wonder if Mrs Palin has been underestimated by the same people that initially tried to “handle” her and keep her out of the spotlight when she first emerged as McCain’s running mate. Sarah Palin has definitely livened up the campaign; however as future presidential candidate she would need to appeal not only to Republican core voters but to moderates as well. This would require rather more than a cosmetic makeover. Well, regardless of the outcome of Nov 4th, she has at least four years to practice!

UK

… While the boys flap in them

Meanwhile in the UK last week it was all about the boys and their toys on the UK political circuit. A party on a private yacht off the Greek island of Corfu was the scene of a boys’ night out which would result in embarrassing revelations and some tit for tat accusations. Well the head boys in this class were the former European Trade Commissioner and newly appointed Business and Enterprise Secretary, Lord Mandelson, the Shadow Chancellor George Osborne, Nathaniel (Nat) Rothschild of the Rothschild banking family (both former Etonian school boys) and Oleg Deripaska, Russia’s richest man an aluminum magnate.

Well whenever the boys get together whatever the location the age old sacred rule applies, “What happens here stays here”. This rule should be followed regardless of political affiliation. George Osborne (Tory) and Peter Mandelson (Labour) although of opposing political parties were at a party involving mutual friends with deep pockets, where discretion is seen as the better part of valour. However George Osborne neglected to display such valour on his return to Westminster as he leaked details of private conversations he had with Peter Mandelson, who he whispered was apparently “dripping pure poison” over his new boss the Prime Minister Gordon Brown, blaming his period as Chancellor for the current financial crisis and pending recession. George Osborne apparently thought it would be clever to refer to his insider knowledge to criticise the fast tracking of Peter Mandelson in to the Cabinet via the House of Lords. Nat Rothschild (a banker by trade) appeared to take his old school chum’s use of inside knowledge at his party personally as it compromised his guests. So Mr Rothschild decided to expose some of George’s misdemeanours on the merry yatch, possibly with the acquiescence of Peter Mandelson. The Shadow Chancellor had seen fit to take a party fundraiser with him to the party which had coincidentally had a lot of rich people many of whom were foreign nationals so would not be legally able to make donations. However George Osborne was facing allegations that he was involved in conversations around how to solicit a donation to his party from Oleg Deripaska via a UK company. Shadow Chancellor Osborne spent most of the week refuting the allegations whilst Peter Mandelson also faced questions over his friendship with the Russian aluminium magnate during his time as European Trade Commissioner and possible conflicts of interests. I suppose we just aren’t meant to know what goes on at these boys’ nights out, especially when some of the boys are exceptionally rich. Well, boys will be boys.

Like everything else politics costs and more so during a credit crunch, but the argument is that rich individuals who make large donations to political parties may have an undue influence over policy as they are in effect paying the piper.

The ordinary voter witnessing becomes cynical and further disengaged It would be refreshing to see a political party that could connect with the general public and get voters to literally buy in to campaigns as has been achieved with that of Senator Obama. I think both Osborne and Mandelson could learn a thing or two from this approach, power from the bottom up is more real and more laudable -and a lot less complicated.

Enjoy!

Now back to blogging.

UK

Gordon Brown has reached apparent superhero status and is finally able to put the the “Flash” before “Gordon” for his efforts to broker an international response to the global financial crisis. With talk of leadership challenges now melted away and an election due within two years it seems as though “Iron” Gordon Brown is back.

The Conservatives have been cautiously supportive but have been unable to put forward a clear alternative strategy to deal with the economic downturn and rising unemployment. Gordon Brown, no doubt boosted by support for his international efforts, is seeking to revive the British economy, at least to an extent, by promising to create jobs through investment in public infrastructure projects such as Crossrail and the Olympics.

Opposition parties have warned of increasing government debt at a time when banks are being bailed out and home owners in debt are vulnerable to losing their homes. However the Government’s new-found confidence has led it to believe spending is the best way out a recession. Time will tell who is right.

The Government has also gone on the offensive with immigration. Phil Woolas, the new immigration minister, perhaps with an eye to the BNP presence in his Oldham seat, will impose tougher restrictions on immigration to safeguard what Gordon Brown has called “British jobs” as unemployment rises. Businesses will find it harder to recruit workers, especially non-skilled ones, from outside the European Union. Phil Woolas is quoted as saying it’s been “too easy to get into this country in the past and it’s going to get harder”.

Because of freedom of movement guaranteed within the European Union the new restrictions will focus on would-be immigrants from Africa, Asia and the Caribbean. However, Phil Woolas was insistent that the Government’s immigration policies are not linked to race as this has inflamed the issue in the past and made it harder for difficult but necessary decisions to be taken.

The majority of British people would agree that immigration levels must be regulated, but politicians should also be mindful of the language and methods they use to tackle this issue. Britain has come too far as a tolerant nation where multiculturalism has, by and large, been a success. When it comes to different cultures living side by side, there’s no place for scaremongering and headline grabbing spin.

US

Stateside, the issue of race is slipping into the presidential contest as the pressure on the candidates increases. The final presidential debate last week focused on domestic policy and the conduct of the candidates themselves. McCain has accused Obama of spending more money than any other candidate on negative campaigning. However, the polls show that two thirds of independent voters feel that it is actually McCain who spends more time attacking Obama, and I have to say, having been in the US recently, that’s my perception. With McCain still behind in the polls, Obama’s camp have suggested that the “Straight Talk Express” is derailing

The negative campaigning has seen a resurgence of race as an issue, though both candidates would want to want avoid accusations of playing the race card. There have been reports of chants at a McCain rally where some supporters were heard to shout that Obama was a terrorist and for him to be killed. Palin’s attacks on Obama have become increasingly overt. linking Obama with “terrorism” (hang on there, lady) and questioning if he’s a real American, rather than his actual policies.

The connection of Obama with Bill Ayers, a “domestic terrorist” (so-called, actually an anti-Vietnam War radical now matured and mellowed, and someone Obama served with briefly on a charity board rather than making Molotov cocktails) is cynical and potentially incendiary as most Americans and probably most Brits identify terrorists with non-white foreigners with names not dissimilar to that of Obama. The underlying message behind the attack suggests that a non-white person with a foreign sounding name is not to be trusted with the office of president. These attacks led to Congressman John Lewis, a hero of the American civil rights movement, to compare McCain and Palin to Gov. George Wallace, the Alabama segregationist of the sixties. McCain took issue with this comparison and called for Obama to repudiate Congressman Lewis’ comments.

Obama seemed not to want to focus on the issue of the conduct of the campaign but sought to keep the debate on the policy issues where he appears on steadier ground than McCain, whose campaign keeps going off at calculated tangents (see above). During this financial crisis Obama has been both calm and measured in his response and the policies he has put forward. McCain has been arguably less so and in true maverick style has accused Obama of socialism and class warfare and claiming that nobody need have their taxes raised. McCain went on to base his whole counter arguments to Obama’s health and tax policies around the plight of “Joe the Plumber”, who turned out not to be all he seemed.

As the campaign draws to its climax Obama has received the endorsement of a high ranking and respected Republican, President Bush’s former Secretary of State and Chief of Staff, General Colin Powell. Powell has crossed the partisan lines and endorsed Obama over his friend Senator McCain as he believes he is the right person to lead America. Powell insists that race was not a consideration in his decision to support Obama. Some have questioned Powell’s motives and suggested he is seeking to line himself up with a key role in an Obama administration. Race may not be a factor in Powell’s decision on who he votes for but it will inevitably be a factor in the voting pattern of many of his fellow Americans.

Much has changed in America since the beginning of the civil rights movement. As both female and black I’m delighted by the strides there have been towards true equality during this election process, the debate that has been had, for positive aims and negative. Hillary Clinton said, there are now 18 million cracks in the glass ceiling of the Oval Office. Undoubtedly there are more.

Whatever happens on Nov 4th, I think it’s fair to say that the case for black and women politicians has been heard and is now accepted, and things will never be be the same again. America has matured further in a matter of months than it has in decades.

Mr Brown is judged to be someone who has a proven track record who can get finance ministers from the richest nations round the table to talk about an international response to rescue our global financial system.

Subsequently there has been a rise in Mr Browns poll ratings, the sort of rise that banks are currently praying for in the value of their shares. If Mr Brown’s bail-out plans have yet to restore confidence amongst the banks to lend to each other, his robust response seems to have restored some confidence in him.

There do not appear to be the same Westminster whisperings of leadership challenges and forced removals this week.  This may also have something to do with the return of Peter Mandelson who could, as an influential former “Blairite”, help to quell any dissent. However the jury is still out on how long the Peter-Gordon peace pact will last.

Stateside there seems to be no sign of a pact between Alaskan republicans and their vice presidential nominee, as Sarah Palin was found guilty of abuse of power by a  14-member bipartisan panel of the Alaskan state legislature.  10 republicans and 4 democrats concluded that a personal grudge influenced her decision. 

Sarah Palin has been mobilising the core republican vote with her All-American-Mom persona underpinned by her traditional Christian values.  However if the meek are to inherit the earth or at least the White House then Sarah Palin still has a long way to go.  Take Governor Palin’s attacks on Barack Obama, portraying him as a friend to terrorists. 

The supposed “friend / terrorist” in question, Bill Ayers, is an American.  However Governor Palin’s attacks on Obama, possibly suggesting that there is something about him that is un-American and un-patriotic, has been seen to take the campaign down a distasteful but not unfamiliar path.  Senator McCain appears to be eager to distance himself from such character attacks and has publicly stated that he believes in Senator Obama’s integrity as  someone who Americans need not fear as president.

The main issue for Americans is the economy and financial crisis, rather than international concerns.  However in a climate of fear it is all too easy for people’s fears to be manipulated.  Senator Obama has taken a more belligerent tone on foreign policy issues. During that latest debate he spoke about being prepared to send troops into Pakistan without permission to find and kill Bin Laden.  Does Senator Obama have to take a more “hawkish” stance to convince American voters of his patriotism?   Does this campaign and exchanges between the two presidential candidates represent a new type of politics or is it simply politics as usual?

Both candidates spoke of their admiration for the other and took the same line on speaking out against the reckless practices in Wall Street that had led to the financial crisis. However they differed, predictably, on which of their presidential candidates would be best to keep big businesses and banks in line. Palin drew heavily on her background as a Mayor and Governor in her home state of Alaska and her leadership in standing up to energy companies. Energy was clearly a platform Governor Palin feels comfortable and made a convincing argument for investment in domestic energy sources to reduce oil dependency. Senator Biden argued for reliance on greener sources of energy and claimed that Obama would be focussing on the causes to see how best to tackle climate change. Governor Palin had said she was not concerned with the causes, which may in part due to cyclical changes in the planet

Both candidates were able to argue on foreign policy from a personal perspective, both having sons serving in the military. Palin attacked Obama‘s willingness to enter in to discussions with countries hostile to America without preconditions. Biden argued for Iraqis to take on more security responsibilities and was keen to link McCain to the mistakes of the Bush administration. Governor Palin tried to talk up Senator McCain’s reputation as a maverick and a politician capable of working across party boundaries.

Our own maverick on the UK side of the pond, London Mayor Boris Johnson caused controversy this week by showing no confidence in the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Sir Ian Blair. Blair resigned as a result of the Mayor’s comments. This sets a new precedent as it is the Home Secretary as a member of the government who has the power to hire and fire the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, responsible for policing in London.

Despite calls for policing to remain outside of politics, Sir Ian Blair had during his time in office been embroiled in controversies that became political. Allowing his officers to lobby MPs to support the governments plans on extending the time allowed for detaining terrorist suspects, the rise in gun and knife crime amongst London teenagers and of course shooting of innocent Brazilian Jean Charles de Menezes by officers of the Metropolitan Police at Stockwell Underground station in south London. These are all issues that Sir Ian Blair is probably eager to leave behind as he departs his job. Jacqui Smith, Home Secretary accepted his resignation and it is not known what efforts were made to convince him to remain. The Labour government appear to be criticising the Mayor’s role in his departure rather than Sir Ian’s departure itself.

As we bid farewell to Sir Ian, British politics welcomes back Peter Mandelson to the Labour front bench as Business Secretary, where he will sit in the House of Lords. A love-or-hate figure in politics, having had to resign twice from the Government, Mandy was, shall we say, for years not the best of friends with Gordon Brown because he backed Tony Blair for the Labour leadership in 1994. Which makes it all the more remarkable that Brown should bring someone back into government whose name triggers a Pavlovian reaction of hatred in Brown’s most loyal followers. And what was Mandy’s jacket, sweater, tie combination all about? Did he get dressed in the dark?

It seems like it’s all hands on deck, or all hands to the pump, aboard HMS Labour. The Conservatives have criticised this central plank of Brown’s reshuffle as bringing more disunity in to government. Whatever happens it’s sure there will be interesting - and testing - times ahead for Labour.

McCain argued a traditional conservative approach to the economic downturn, calling for tax cuts and less public spending to combat rising prices and higher cost of credit. This would save the public money and allow them to have more money to spend and boost the economy, as opposed to Obama’s social programs which would cost tax payers money. Obama took a traditional liberal stance, criticising tax cuts for higher earners when public services such as health, welfare and education are more important than ever for lower income families who would be experiencing financial difficulties.

On foreign policy the candidates took their usual positions with McCain favouring a more robust approach to states such as Russia, Iran and North Korea, potential threats to US interests. Obama expressed his willingness to meet with leaders of “unfriendly” states without preconditions to resolve conflict. McCain denounced Obama’s position as idealistic and naïve which would give credibility to the unsavoury rhetoric of countries like Iran who have threatened violence to America’s ally Israel. Obama accused McCain of subscribing to the same school of international politics as the Bush administration which led the US and Britain into the current conflict in Iraq. A war which is currently costing the US $2billion a week and the UK almost £5billion since it started.

Sadly, back in Britain the war to save teenage lives from the horrors of knife crime seems as hard to win as any current foreign conflict. The murder of 19 year old Craig Marshall in Acton, West London, last week takes the total number of teenage deaths this year on London’s streets to 27. I will be travelling back to London next month to host a debate for Sky on the current problem of violent teenage deaths.

The spread of violent deaths of young people across the capital has put knife crime and gang culture high up on the political agenda but the death toll keeps rising. Vast numbers of young people are involved in positive activities promoting peace and non-violence and are calling for an end to the senseless killings of friends and family members. However there appear to be still individuals who do not value the life of their fellow human beings and are willing to forfeit their own freedom by taking a life. Makes you wonder what value - if any - such individuals put on their own lives.

One person who was eager to speak about the positive role young people can play in the world is Tony Blair, former Prime Minister of Britain. We caught up whilst I was moderating an event for his Faith Foundation in Los Angeles. During his time as PM, Tony was always keen that young people be engaged in the political process. This was evident when I interviewed him three years ago in front of an audience of young people.

During his time in office Tony often made reference to the importance of faith in his life. Post Number 10, he has been engaging faith groups and seeking to build bridges and make real progress on certain humanitarian concerns. British politics being more secular than that of the States, the former Prime Minister could be accused of a political leap of faith whilst mixing the two in office.

This week’s guest blog comes from the ever quick-witted feminist author Kathy Lette on why she’s had enough of Sarah Palin. In stark contrast to the glowing piece Ann Widdecombe wrote about the Vice Presidential nominee last week, Kathy doesn’t mince her words. All eyes will be glued on Thursday’s VP debate. Like her conference speech much is riding on Palin’s performance, will she rise to occasion again or will she be no match for Joe Biden? Come Thursday all will be revealed, I for one can’t wait!

Gordon Brown is eager to stress that the economic and financial problems have their roots in global crisis which stem from sub prime mortgage crisis in the US and the steep rise in the cost of oil and food.  Mr Brown is fighting to keep the confidence of his party and the country arguing that the current problems are manageable and best managed by him stating his record as Chancellor during unprecedented levels of economic growth.  However opposition politicians have accused the Prime Minister of being complacent as chancellor for claiming to have eliminated the boom and bust cycle of the economy rather than preparing Britain for the inevitable economic downturn.  There has also been strong criticism for the failure to supervise the banking and financial sector, where unscrupulous dealing and reckless selling of mortgages has seen the demise of Northern Rock and HBOS.  The collapse of a bank brings a financial crisis home and can evaporate confidence when it is needed most.

The financial crisis stateside has been highlighted by the demise of Lehman Brothers and AIG.  The Republicans of the current incumbents have faired worse in the polls as a result of the problems faced by the US economy.  McCain has gone from claiming the US economy was strong to speaking out against “unbridled greed” in Wall St and warned against the tax increases that would result from Obama’s policies.  Obama has proposed taxing higher earners and tax relief for lower earners which would help those most vulnerable and in danger of losing their homes.  Americans who had invested in the American dream of a home in the suburbs have been hit by the instability in the mortgage market and high prices and as a result losing their homes.

Traditionally Americans have not favoured high taxes and believe in less government intervention.  However it appears as if the rule book on tradition has been rewritten following the US government’s nationalisation of America’s Fanny May and Freddie Mac financial institutions.  George Bush is currently seeking Congressional approval to spend 1 trillion dollars pumping money in to the US banking sector to stabilise the economy.  Joe Biden has gone as far to say that in current times of economic hardship it’s patriotic to pay taxes. Obama’s response on the economy has seen him rise clear of McCain in the polls since the boost that McCain recently enjoyed since signing up Sarah Palin as his running mate.

Sarah Palin was the subject of some debate this week as Deputy Labour leader, Harriet Harman publicly voiced her concerns on Question Time about some of Sarah Palin’s views on abortion and gun control.  Harriet stated a preference for Hilary Clinton as a candidate, though made it clear this was a personal opinion not the position of the government. This week we have Anne Widdencombe exclusively blogging for PATC stating her opposing view in support of Sarah Palin as an unconventional candidate.

In fact it is an unconventional response (not necessarily of the Palin kind) that is required to deal with economic problems on both sides of the Atlantic.  Hoping that the market economy will correct and regulate itself in this crisis did not work after the Wall St crash and it will not work now.

Both Gordon Brown and George Bush are now embarking on government led solutions to tackle the financial crises to prevent further problems for the economy which result in lost jobs and lost homes.  How successful current leaders are at relieving the suffering of their respective electorates will decide whether their parties remain in power following their next elections.  Whilst there has been a lot of energy spent at shoring up banks to stabilise the economy there probably needs to be some energy spent on better house keeping to save money and help UK and US households to do the same.   After all it wasn’t solely irresponsible banking practices, which have caused our current practices.  It takes two to tango and many of us have happily danced and dined on credit.  We have spent beyond our means living on the banks’ borrowed money, without saving adequately for the day when the credit bubble pops.

However, in the wonderful world of politics that swift kick can go up the chain as well. So after years of waiting to get into the top job Gordon Brown is faced with getting his collar felt by his subordinates.

Last week it was Charles Clarke voicing his personal views (no love lost between him and Brown) in an article and newspaper interviews which at first glance appeared to be just that - his views! However with Siobhain McDonagh’s call last Friday for Gordon Brown to face a leadership challenge, could it be that Mr Clarke’s interview was actually a call to the Labour party faithful to start a revolt. Well, they don’t come much more faithful than Siobhain who as a Labour whip, was a member of the government charged with keeping party discipline and had never before voted against the government.

Newspaper articles have appeared featuring senior Labour politicians criticising the current leadership and voicing the fears of MPs with slim majorities who fear losing their seats at the next election. Gordon Brown’s inner circle have been keen to dismiss these reports as the mutterings of a few disgruntled allies of Tony Blair.

However, these mutterings seem to have been rather more widespread, as Siobhain has not acted in isolation - although she has become the public face of what one journalist called the “McDonagh Insurgency”. She is credited with being the first to go public and request a leadership contest, prompting others to add their support and call for a leadership contest.

Gordon Brown has of course kicked back by dismissing the unfaithful. But of course getting the sack is less of a deterrent to rebellion if you think that the guy who sacked you will be getting the sack himself soon enough.

All is not lost yet as Mr Brown has received the public backing of David Miliband, the man tipped to take over from him. So it seems the Cabinet’s “make up and move forward” meeting up in Birmingham did the trick then.

Gordon Brown’s week just gets better as he was embroiled in a row with US Republicans following an article in a parliamentary publication expressing support for one of Obama’s policies to help homeowners experiencing hardship. However there was no mention of support for McCain’s policies, which some took as him favouring Obama over McCain. Although the Democrats and Labour as centre-left parties have shared ideas around government’s role in social welfare provision, which suggests a ideological allegiance, it’s a long held tradition that political parties remain impartial during foreign election campaigns, as backing the wrong horse can damage future relations with the new administration. Mr Brown had been quoted in the article but had not written it himself, but the Conservatives who had previous experience of being wrong-footed with Clinton were able to give Labour a swipe and a lecture over their gaffe. The Republicans were also able to get in a backhand swipe in as the policy the Prime Minister had made reference to had been dropped by Obama.

It really does seem to be open season on Mr Brown, but luckily Obama was sharing some of the bullets this week. Well after Gordon had been so complimentary about his old policies, Obama was accused of sexism and being offensive to John McCain’s running mate Sarah Palin after a remark about putting lipstick on a pig! Wow! How catty is that?

All I can say is, it never hurt Miss Piggy - just ask Kermit. It’s handbags at twelve paces, brilliant! Well, before we get over excited, I must clarify that his remarks were not actually about Mrs Palin or any other woman. Barack Obama compared John McCain’s attempt to position himself as he candidate advocating change to putting lipstick on a pig. If you put lipstick on a pig it is still a pig and if a Republican President takes over from another Republican President announcing change he is still a Republican President.

And bear in mind McCain used the same remark about one of Hillary Clinton’s policies. McCain has identified that “change” seems to be key element of what the American people want and has adopted it as part of his campaign. Obama had “change” as his main political slogan and so was probably less than impressed when McCain decided to also position himself as the candidate of change.

Obama refused to apologise over his remarks as he reiterated that they were solely directed at policy and that Republicans were trying to draw attention away from his point by connecting them to Sarah Palin, making the connection between a woman and lipstick. What could be more sexist? And, what’s more, the Republican’s strategy worked as everyone was talking about Obama’s remark and Sarah Palin.

To be honest it was what you might call an open goal. Whether it’s politics or football or Hollywood we all love the “he said, she said” personality clashes. Controversy can seize more attention than policies and viewpoints, not necessarily the best basis to vote on though. But hey it’s an election and if spinning a remark about policy that mentioned lipstick into an alleged jibe at a female candidate can get a collar felt then so be it I suppose.

And meanwhile in the UK, “change” is not a word to mention to Gordon Brown.