Reuters Blogs

Front Row Washington

Tracking U.S. politics

October 12th, 2009

Well isn’t that special! Clinton reassures Britain on its U.S. relationship

Posted by: Jeff Mason

picture-176

It turns out the relationship between the United States and Britain is very special.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton went to great lengths on Sunday to reassure Britons and their political leaders that the “special relationship” between the two allies is strong and intact.

Exhibit A: at a news conference with Foreign Secretary David Miliband, Clinton opened her remarks by stressing their strong relations.

“First, let me just underscore how grateful I am for this opportunity to reaffirm the historic importance of the special relationship between our two countries,” she said.

Exhibit B: at a meeting later with Prime Minister Gordon Brown, Clinton reiterated the message again. Note how many times the word “special” creeps into her sentence.

“It is a special relationship,” she said at the prime minister’s country estate. “I have a special personal relationship with the prime minister and of course I think it can’t be said often enough, we have a special relationship between our countries.”

Here’s the background: some Britons feel President Barack Obama has snubbed Brown by, for example, not holding a full press conference with him in Washington earlier this year (the two spoke to reporters in the Oval Office instead) and not scheduling one-on-one meetings at various international summits.

U.S. officials often appear mystified by the concerns. Clinton did her best, verbally anyway, to show they need not worry.

Later in the day she visited Dublin. The Irish, who are perhaps less concerned about semantics, welcomed her warmly as she made a visit to a coffee shop and a local pub, sipping coffee and swigging part of a beer.

Now that’s a special relationship.

Photo credit: REUTERS/Jeff Mason (U.S. Secretary of State and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, October 11, 2009)

March 30th, 2009

Watch out for the G20 spin

Posted by: Mike Dolan

Be careful this week about buying wholeheartedy into any G20-related spin about supposedly savvy, free-spending Britain and America doing more to combat the world economic crisis than supposedly stubborn, overly cautious Germany and France. The actual figures show it is much more complex than that.

A Reuters calculation on discretionary fiscal stumuli and the International Monetary Fund's assessment show that, if anything, Britain is the significant laggard and that German spending almost matches the United States over the next two years. Here are the IMF's numbers (% of GDP):

                                                          2009                     2010

 Germany                                             1.5                       2.0
 France                                                 0.7                      0.7
 UK                                                      1.4                     - 0.1
 US                                                      2.0                       1.8

Just to add to the complexity, discretionary spending estimates do not include bank bailouts (which would boost UK and U.S. anti-crisis spending numbers)  But nor do they include automatic economic stabilisers such as existing social welfare schemes and safety nets (which would boost Germany and France versus the U.S.  where such things are rare to non-existant).

There is bound to be some squabble over who is doing what when the G20 starts on Wednesday. Just remember the numbers.

(Reuters photo: Juan Medina)

May 15th, 2008

McCain favors UK-style question time for U.S. president

Posted by: Caren Bohan

COLUMBUS, Ohio - Republican presidential candidate John McCain says he would take a page from the British government if elected and hold question-and-answer sessions with lawmakers.

“I will ask Congress to grant me the privilege of coming before both houses to trtx5mdz.jpgake questions, and address criticism, much the same as the prime minister of Great Britain appears regularly before the House of Commons,” McCain told an audience Thursday.

Although U.S. presidents deliver annual “State of the Union” speeches to Congress at the start of each year, those formal addresses do not include a question-and-answer session.

McCain says exchanges like the sometimes raucous sessions in the British House of Commons are a way of holding leaders’ feet to the fire.

“When we make errors, I will confess them readily, and explain what we intend to do to correct them,” McCain said. He also reiterated a pledge to hold weekly news conferences, a change from President George W. Bush’s practice of holding them roughly once a month.

Is it a good idea to give lawmakers a chance to pepper the U.S. president with questions on a regular basis?

Click here for more Reuters 2008 campaign coverage.

Photo credit: Reuters/Richard Clement (McCain speaks in Oregon)

April 20th, 2008

Financial Times backs Obama in Democrats’ nominating battle

Posted by: Jeremy Pelofsky

WASHINGTON - Britain’s Financial Times newspaper, which has bigger paid circulation in the United States than its home country, weighed into the bitter Democratic nominating contest– offering its endorsement to Sen. Barack Obama.rtr1zo49.jpg

The backing of the financial newspaper in Monday’s edition comes just a day before voters in Pennsylvania go to the polls, a state that could offer some salvation for his opponent Sen. Hillary Clinton, who has been clinging to a narrow lead in the state but trails in the delegate count. 

The FT points to Obama’s well-run campaign and cross-party appeal for putting him over the top of his rival. It also cites Clinton’s unpopularity and questions her campaign strategy, arguing it has been re-tooled several times.

A small excerpt (more here):

After Tuesday’s vote, the Democrats should move quickly to affirm Mr Obama’s nomination. That is not just because his lead in elected delegates is already unassailable and the contest should be brought to a swift conclusion. It is also because he is, in fact, the better candidate.

The contenders’ differences on policy look small and in reality are even smaller. Their disagreement on healthcare mandates, for instance, frequently emphasised by Mrs Clinton, is of little practical significance. A mandate to obtain insurance, as proposed by Mrs Clinton, does not achieve universal coverage unless enforced with punitive sanctions, which she does not advocate.

Some question the value of endorsements, does this bit of overseas analysis add anything to the mix?

Click here for more Reuters 2008 campaign coverage

- Photo credit: Reuters/Tim Shaffer (Obama waves to supporters at a rally outside Philadelphia.)