CentreRight

1. Republican delegates left St. Paul much happier and enthusiastic than they had expected to be. Though John McCain has never been the darling of the Republican base, they think that he can win. Sarah Palin  wowed the Party's activists and aroused massive public attention. Her acceptance speech drew a TV audience only slightly smaller that Obama's (despite being on fewer networked channels) and significantly bigger than Biden's.

2. On pretty well every objective criterion, this ought to be the Democrats' year. The Republicans have held the White House for two terms and their incumbent President is hugely unpopular. The economy is in trouble. Democrat registrations have boomed while Republican registrations have fallen by one million since 2004. Obama's success in fundraising is enabling him to out spend his opponent. Every pundit expects the congressional elections to produce bigger Democrat majorities in both Houses and no President has ever been elected who did not add at least some seats to his Party's tally in one or other House. Republican strategists say privately that this is a tough election in which they are the underdogs.

3. Against that background, it is remarkable that the polls show the Presidential race as being so close. Probably, no-one but McCain, with his record of independent thinking, straight talk and transparent integrity could have made this happen. To win, he has to reach out to independents and Democrats and Sarah Palin must not only inspire the base but win over blue collar families who don't think of themselves as ardent Republicans.

Matty B's bar was crammed when Henry Kissinger spoke to participants in the Republicans' International Visitors Programme. He strongly endorsed McCain and offered his thoughts on foreign policy. McCain's advisers are reportedly engaged in an internal debate about the direction of foreign policy. Should McCain lean towards the more confrontational, unilateralist approach of President Bush's first term, or the more recent emphasis on negotiation? McCain made little mention of foreign policy in his acceptance speech. His language about both Russia and Iran has been tough, but his record also includes supporting normal relations with Vietnam at a time when that was anathema to most of his Party. Kissinger's language was cautious but his preference was clearly to put stability ahead of promoting democracy and for America to use her power in a measured way, working with her allies. A few excerpts. The International Community.Different parts of the world are at very different stages of political development. In Europe, you have long-established nation states, with a sense of national identity and capacity to act as a nation, that have decided to give up many national powers to supra-national institutions and a code of law. But this process is not complete and America can't expect the EU to act as if it were a nation. Asia operates a bit like 19th century Europe. Countries have a clear idea of their national identity and act to pursue their national interests.Other regions, notably the Middle East,resemble 17th century Europe. International relations are determined by religion, ideology and by dynastic ambitions and loyalties. So policymakers have to deal with a world in which these utterly different models for the conduct of international relations all exist at the same time.The challenge is to find a way to promote peace and stability in this diplomatic environment. Russia. America and her allies need to resist Russia's bullying of neighbouring states but also understand how Moscow sees the world and recognise that Russia has legitimate national interests. Putin's action in Georgia was unacceptable. Both Georgia and Ukraine should be integrated more into the Western family of nations. Ukraine at least should be admitted tit the EU. But was it sensible to offer full NATO membership? Remember that much of Ukraine had been an integral part of the Russian state for centuries. Can we find a means to offer effective political support without the military guarantees that flow from NATO membership? China. As the Olympic ceremonies showed, China is assertive about her place in the world, proud of her cultural achievements over millennia and determined that other countries should accept her on her own terms. A stable world political and economic system needs China as an active and responsible lead player. Iran. Most countries in the Middle East are creations of the Versailles settlement. Iran is the exception - an ancient nation state with a powerful sense of its identity and its entitlement to a leading role in the region. No problem with that. The problems are over the alignment between Iranian policy and jihadism and the risk of nuclear proliferation. The West has used the word "unacceptable" about Iran's Nuclear programme, but seems now to be unsure of its position. Is an Iranian capability acceptable? If so, what conditions should the US and other countries insist upon? If unacceptable, what action should be taken and what should trigger such action? Can sanctions be made truly effective?The US needs to get together with its allies to work out a common approach and stick to it. The next day, Kissinger told another meeting : "As a nation, we have to understand our reach, but also our limits".

It was a very impressive speech. Yes, of course she had the services of the top Republican wordsmiths to draft an hone the text. But any politician knows that you can have the best text in the world but you and you alone have to get up there and make it sing in front of your audience. I felt that at the start Mrs Palin sounded a bit nervous -hardly surprising- but as the speech went on she relaxed into it, worked her audience and milked the applause lines to great effect. The party faithful loved it.

Governor Palin is no shrinking violet. She delivered her attacks on Barack Obama with evident relish. "I suppose being a small town mayor is a bit like being a community organiser, except that you have real responsibilities" . Or: "There are some politicians who use 'change' to promote their careers; and there are others, like John McCain, who use their careers to promote change". And she was happy to paint herself as feisty and fearless: "You know the difference between a hockey-mom and a pit-bull - lipstick!" I did at times last night find myself reminded of Margaret Thatcher laying into her opponents - and, come to think of it, there was another woman leader who was at first derided by many pundits as inexperienced.

Of course one speech does not create a political success story, especially not a speech given to your party's hard-core supporters primed and eager to cheer you to the echo. The debate with Senator Biden will be important, as will Governor Palin's performance in front of more sceptical crowds and her ability to deal with high-profile media interviews.

I've been listening to a thought-provoking presentation from Ken Mehlman, former Republican National Committee chairman and Campaign Manager for Bush/Cheney in 2004. A lot of what he said has echoes of our own party debates over the right way forward.

He started by saying that this election was a historic one in a number of ways. It's the first since 1952 where no incumbent President or Vice-President is on the ballot. It's the first since 1976 without either a Bush or a Clinton on the ballot. And it's the first since 1826 (sic) that an election has followed two back-to-back two-term presidencies.

For either Obama or McCain to win would be to overcome recent historical precedents. Obama's problem is that since 1964, the only Democrats to win the Presidency have been Southern moderates with an appeal to swing voters and at times when national security had receded as an issue. McCain is trying to win a third successive term for his Party, something only achieved since Truman by Bush senior in 1988. 

He identified three target groups for the GOP: blue-collar Democrats (Obama lost primaries like Pennsylania and West Virginia); Hispanics (Arizona and Texas will within ten years be states in which whites are a minority and Hispanic voters will be key in states like Florida, New Mexico, Colorado and Nevada), and moderate ,suburban independents (for small government but socially tolerant) who like McCain's maverick image.

One striking difference between this Convention and a British party conference is the absence of any debate about policy. Yes, there is a Republican platform document, but it is not debated at the Convention and there are no slots for Health, Education or the Economy as we are used to seeing at Conservative or Labour gatherings.  This is an unashamed party rally, designed to rally and cheer the faithful and to tell a story about the virtues of their candidate that will resonate, through the media, to the voters outside.

You certainly become very aware of some of the differences, for good or ill, between American and British public culture. Here, the language employed by the keynote speakers is far more sentimental and more avowedly patriotic than you would hear in Britain. Each day's session begins and concludes with a prayer and speakers refer, naturally and without artifice, to God and to religion. There were videos about the Constitution and about the heroes of the Republican Party, the biggest cheers being reserved for images of Ronald Reagan.

Of the big speakers, former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson delivered the kind of speech that I could imagine Ken Clarke or Michael Heseltine giving, using wit and knockabout humour to drive home his serious message: McCain is a man of honour who will always put the country first; Obama lacks experience and stands for higher taxes and big government.

Thompson was there to rally the base behind McCain (though I noticed that Barbara Bush didn't seem to applaud his pro-life comments). Joe Lieberman, former Democrat and now an independent Senator, was there to reach out to floating voters. He called McCain a man who, as President, "our allies will trust and our enemies will fear". The GOP loved it. The big test will be whether the polls start to show independents shifting into the McCain camp.

Our colleagues from the Canadian Conservative Party reckon Stephen Harper will call a General Election this Friday. Current polls predict Conservative gains in Quebec and the West.

The news about Sarah Palin's daughter is making big headlines. There's no sense at all that conservative support for Gov Palin has been harmed. If anyone has come out of this business looking bad, it's some of the aggressive Democrat bloggers who started by running the untruthful tale that Gov Palin's own youngest child was actually the offspring of her daughter. The fact that Sen Obama has publicly denounced such muck-raking and pledged to dismiss anyone in is campaign who gets involved in it, tells me that the Democrats' private polling is saying that this is not an issue for point-scoring.

I think that this episode shows that in the US as in Britain, it is possible, indeed laudable, for people to stand up for family values and good behaviour while accepting that we are all fallible human beings who make mistakes and misjudgements. I think that's why David Cameron's approach strikes such a chord at home.

But what effect is all this furor having on the 17 year old girl herself? Most politicians accept that we chose to go into public life and that the intrusiveness of the media is something that must be endured. Our children made no such choice.

It's a bit of a strange atmosphere but there's no doubt in my mind that McCain's decision to suspend Convention political business while Hurricane Gustav struck was the right one. It was right both Morally and politically. To quote the leader in today's local Star Tribune, McCain's statesmanlike comments on Gustav "might convey a message at least as positive as four additional hours of speeches would have".

Sarah Palin continues to attract huge media attention. Her speech on Wednesday will be a big test. For now, having a staunch conservative on the ticket has rallied the GOP base behind McCain and selecting a woman has thrown a spotlight onto the quarter or so of Hillary supporters who say they may now vote for McCain.

Republicans seem pretty upbeat. The polls suggest that Obama got only a slight lift from his Convention last week.

It's back to politics today, with Sen Joe Lieberman, Gore's running mate in 2000, backing McCain from.the GOP conference platform.

I did my first stint in the campaign this morning (Saturday). Let me give three early impressions.

* The campaign is well organised. Leaflets had been counted and bundled, maps and directions were supplied and the turnaround time was about five minutes (for Con Home readers who were asking, the leaflet included both a farewell from Boris and an introduction to John Howell).

*Support was good. As I arrived at the Thame campaign office,  I was met by the chairmen of Buckinghamshire County Council and Aylesbury Vale District Council (I thought I must be at one of my constituency civic services!). I saw people from a number of neighbouring seats and helpers had signed in from as far away as Cambridge and Torfaen.

*I was leafletting in John Howell's own county division of Dorchester-on-Thames. It was very encouraging to hand over a leaflet to someone weeding their garden and get the response "I know John. He'll definitely get my vote." Those who know John Howell best as their local representative seem to have a high opinion of him.

The mood is good but we must not be complacent. I know that our campaign offices in both Thame and Henley look forward to welcoming ConHome readers in their hordes.

An awful lot of parliamentary business is unglamorous and pretty much unnoticed by either the public or the media. Such was European Standing Committee A, to which the kindly Conservative government whips sent me as a new MP in 1992. It was there that I first came across Gwyneth. Watching her in action was the best tutorial a new Member could have in how to use Parliament properly.

The Committee's job was to scrutinise draft European Directives on agriculture and transport. Unusually, the Committee session began with sixty minutes of questions to the Minister responsible for negotiating the Directive on behalf of our country. Woe betide the Minister who had not done his homework. Gwyneth would have read the documents thoroughly and would happily fillet any Minister who had failed to do his homework. I still recall the glint of fear in the eyes of one Minister as Gwyneth rose to her feet, stared into his eyes, announced that she wished to draw his attention to Annexe 8, paragraph 4 (g), asked him what it would cost British taxpayers and then sat down again, leaving the Minister (who clearly did not have a clue about the answer) gesturing to his officials to come up with something, please and quickly!

Just been listening to a pithy presentation from Gavyn Arthur, former Lord Mayor of London, on sovereign wealth funds. His top-line message was that we shouldn't be afraid of them and that the real danger comes from over-reaction by developed countries (he singled out the US, France and Germany) leading to over-regulation.

The figures are pretty staggering: sovereign wealth funds are now worth $3 trillion and could grow to $12 trillion in the next five years. High oil and other commodity prices will swell their coffers and for countries like the GCC states, which depend largely on commodities, such funds offer protection against the depletion of non-renewable resources and against the boom and bust of an economic cycle.

Arthur argued forcefully that western countries benefited too, citing an inflow of c.$69 billion into the US economy over the last few months. In effect, he argued, the savings of emerging economies were being used to rescue a number of financial institutions in the developed world - and that was good for global economic stability. 

This morning's (English language) Qatar Tribune includes an article about Peter Robinson's nomination as leader of the DUP, the latest news and poll findings from the London mayoral race and a piece about a London blackmail trial with a member of the royal family as the alleged victim. This is as well as coverage of the US Presidential contest, Italy's general election, Kosovo, Tibet, the leadership of the Indian Congress Party, the EU Agriculture Council and the Pope's visit to the US (no mention of Gordon's trip though).

Now of course much of this material is news agency copy and the feature articles are mostly syndicated from the US press. The Tribune is clearly aimed at a professional, internationalist expat community .And you won't find here a leader or cartoon excoriating or lampooning the government. But I think you'd be hard put to find comparable foreign news coverage in any one British paper.

Have British publishers and editors got their priorities wrong? Or are we, as newspaper buyers and readers in Britain, just not interested enough in abroad?

Yesterday on Platform, my colleague Andrew Mitchell rightly highlighted the continuing violence and hunger in Darfur. And it's possible that the crisis spreads wider. I've been talking to a Sudanese minister from the SPLM, the former rebel force from southern Sudan. He warned me that the world shouldn't ignore events in the South and East of Sudan. Relations within the coalition government are uneasy. Peace in Sudan is fragile. The southerners feel that the northern majority is failing in practice to deliver on the promises made in the peace agreement. In particular, there is a row about the distribution of revenues from Sudan's oil, which is produced in the South and piped to the Red Sea for export. This morning's news is of progress over another point of contention - arrangements for a new census - but, after so many years of civil war, trust is in short supply.

A couple of points from this morning's presentation by former US Defense Secretary William Cohen:

* Any new US President will need to weigh the consequences on terms of regional stability of ordering a precipitate withdrawal from Iraq;

* With crude oil prices staying at $100 or more, no US President will be willing to bear the cost of large scale foreign interventions without much greater burden sharing by America's allies.

I'm in Qatar for the Doha Forum on "Democracy, Development and Free Trade".These forums, involving politicians and academics from around the world were started by the Emir in 2001.

Two immediate impressions: first, there is a powerful sense coming through in the discussions that we are moving into a multi-polar world. Yes, the USA is going to remain the world's strongest military and economic power for some time yet, but it's clear that the Middle East is now looking in a big way to China and to Asia generally for trade and investment. China is now (an Oxford academic told us) the biggest trading partner for both the UAE and Saudi Arabia.

Second, there are some interesting and creative ideas being discussed about the Israel/Palestine conflict. This evening, Israel's Foreign Minister, Tzipi Livni, will address the Forum. The very fact that she has been invited is significant and welcome. 

It is less than six months since I visited Lhasa with a cross-party Parliamentary delegation. It's particularly shocking when you see on TV streets and squares that you yourself have visited turned into scenes of riot and slaughter. With very few western reporters in Tibet and strict state control over the media and Internet access, it is hard to be certain of exactly what happened.

It looks as though what started as peaceful protests by monks to mark the anniversary of the Dalai Lama's flight to India in 1959, spiralled into rioting directed at Han Chinese and Muslim people living in Lhasa and a ferocious crackdown by the Chinese authorities. As a party, we have called upon China to exercise restraint in its response to the crisis in Tibet and we welcome the call by the Dalai Lama for Tibetans not to use violence.

A few days ago, President Sarkozy completed a high profile tour of the Gulf. He came back with plaudits from his hosts and contracts for French companies in a region where, historically, British interests have been strong.

This is part of a pattern. The Blair and Brown governments have not given enough priority to our traditional friends in the Gulf. Too often, they have left the running to our competitors. And the Gulf leaders have noticed.

The Gulf is a region enjoying rapid economic growth (some reports say half the cranes in the world are in Dubai) where countries are making huge efforts to diversify away from dependence on oil and gas. It is a region of moderate arab regimes - the very countries which we hope will work to build a stable set of security arrangements in the Middle East. We should stop taking old friends for granted.

There was one passage in the recent Senior Salaries Review Body report on MPs' pay that really did annoy me. No, it wasn't anything about pay, pensions or allowances. Rather, it was a reference to constituency casework that concluded rather loftily that most of this was routine stuff, handled by staff, with only the occasional complex case needing the personal involvement of the Member.  Now I don't know who the Commission had been talking to (whoever it was, I'd like to wring their neck) but I don't believe that their description corresponds to reality for MPs of any party.

Yes, we do all rely heavily on the hard work of our staff. But every colleague I know takes their constituents very seriously indeed and woe betide a Member who lets a letter drafted by a staffer go through without checking very carefully what he is signing. It's not the researcher who gets egg on his face all over the local media if clumsy words lead to trouble.