21/01/2012 Dateline London

More news for you at the top of the hour at 1pm. Now, time for Dateline

A warm welcome to Dateline London. Choosing a future president. Why

are Republicans so look -- lukewarm on admit it from me and can

violence end in Syria? Our guests are Ashis Ray, mind

macro and Janet Daley. Good to see you. -- Mina Al Oraibi.

By this summer, they rarely row behind their party's nominee. The

presidential campaign. Given President Obama's problems, why

have the Republicans are failed to get any real enthusiasm. What is

wrong with Mitt Romney? His problem is he doesn't have this natural

connection with voters. He has had a lot of experience but he comes

across as a bit stiff and artificial. I think his wealth

counts against him and voters are put off by him having millions of

dollars. In John Kennedy's day, he made it glamorous and carried it

well. Mitt Romney's is like John Kerry years ago. He came across as

a guy a as a child of privilege and had the wife he was a billionaire.

Mitt Romney has been cast that way. He is not connecting. He needs to

have a moment where he establishes authenticity. This guy has been

running for the presidency for six years. People have a lot of time to

look at them and they are not warming to them in sufficient

numbers. I think his problem is he thinks he is going to be the

candidate. He hasn't put in enough affect. The Hillary Clinton effect?

Yes. It is showing in the polls. Newt Gingrich is gaining. Mitt

Romney is still ahead. He is still thinking he is going to be the one

and will not have to sparkle in front of the voters. That is one of

his problems. He has been doing it for six years, waiting for everyone

to fall by the way out -- wayside which we have seen happening. He

thinks he is a sensible candidate. I don't think he has decided not to

sparkle. He is pathologically boring. It is as if they are trying

to excite -- inject some in his excitement into the process. I

think Newt Gingrich might win the South Carolina tonight. All bets

will then be off. Mitt Romney ceases to be the favourite. The

rich element of it, John Kennedy did suffer. I remember it. Richard

Nixon always used to accuse him of being a millionaire's some, who

never have to work for a living. He had to overcome that. Kennedy was

famous for it. Kennedy was a war hero. He had done something. There

is almost a class warfare but in the Republican Party, saying that

he is the kind of guy who hands out the pink slips. In a time of

financial crisis, that is not good. I preferred Newt Gingrich. He is

brighter and potentially charismatic. You can see him get in

and obey it with Obama. He is an intelligent politician. Mitt Romney

is so dull. In a charisma contest... Just to pursue at Newt Gingrich who

is an interesting character, it would be extraordinary if a

Republican party where the insurgency of the tea-party

movement end up being the quintessential Washington in Sydow,

which he years. That is an accusation that is thrown in every

year. He is an experienced politician. Since Lyndon Johnson,

people have been accusing them of being Washington insiders. The

other side of that is you have no experience of dealing with Congress.

He didn't say in a financial crisis, "I am the man to do with Congress

and I am the experienced man.". has come back and hit him. Because

it was such an issue... It is early days. The contest is open and the

Republican Party is divided. I think there is an elegance and

polish about Mitt Romney yet he doesn't connect. Bass and a sparkle.

Last night apparently come at a speech, there was a bit of sparkle.

People say he will lose the South Carolina caucus at primary. There

is a bit of debate about his role in private equity. Then, eventually

called the -- evangelical Christians have concerns about him

because he is not a mainstream forward.

People say Mormonism is not a religion.

The right wing of the party is certainly having concerns about him.

He being a moderate, he has had a good track rough-edged -- record as

governor. It is not necessarily a good track

you could -- record. He obviously is not a conservative

in his party and therefore the Conservatives have concerns about

him. The fact that he is a Mormon

explains why he has not focused too much on his personal life which is

part of building the whole candidate, private life, they have

tried to not going to eat too much detail on that. One of the great

introductory moments for any presidential nominee or candidate

is to say who I am. You have to have a compelling personal story.

If Mitt Romney's is that he worked for a particular company that they

have cut jobs, that is a problem for him. Everything he is doing is

geared towards a general election. The things we are talking about

would allow him to move to the centre if he gets nominated. This

will be one N S centre. He may be well positioned for a general

election that he is never going to win over. He has obviously got a

career out of politics after his singing episode the other day. The

economy is going to define it. There are signs of the economy

improving. It is unusual for an incumbent president not to be

elected. The odds of the gravitational pull is towards re-

electing the present president. He has all that force behind him. If

he is up against someone who really challenges his competence economic

cake, that will be the weak spot. If these glimmerings of hope don't

coming to fruition, that will be bad years. The business about

personal history, have this revelation about Newt Gingrich's

marriage has played in his favour. There was supposed to be the

bombshell under his campaign and he dealt with it so well in the debate

that he got enormous support. is very interesting because

actually the point at which ferns - - things tend to favour of Clinton

was when he had to deal with personal matters. America had

changed and Newt Gingrich get that. People want to know how you would

deal with their crisis. If you rise to it and look as if you can cope

and he was courageous, that works in your favour. The fact that Rick

Perry with true and cast his support in favour of Newt Gingrich

has consolidated support behind him and therefore he is a serious

candidate. If he wins tonight, he is a runner, it is an open contest.

A final thought. It is still everything to play for. It will end

up being really close and will have as much to do with personality as

with the economy. I don't think the economy will be unbelievably bad

and I don't think Americans think bringing in a Ronald Reagan or

somebody from the past or bringing in a Mitt Romney overnight will

bring back a employment of growth. They are in a real doldrums and it

is a matter of who they trust. may be a question of how they see

the future rather than the past. Are things broadly getting better,

they may give him, Obama, some credit. If he can push this

argument that Obama is heading towards a social democracy and

going away from the traditional values of America, that will be

serious. The Arab League is figuring out

what next to do about Syria. With the text continuing in Iraq -- with

attacks continuing, how optimistic should we be in those three

countries? Syria first. The Arab League were seen as something that

many people on the street wanted to talk to. They wanted to voice their

concerns. They are the real people on the ground. You have to get your

voice and say this is what is happening. You have seen people who

have flooded and the major organisation going in. Reporters

wanting to get their stories out. The Arab League has never done this

before. The fact that they have got together and send in military is

saying they have played a role is insignificant. If his goal is to

stop the killing, that has succeeded. If his goal is to get to

a political solution, they are not in political discussions on the

surface with the Syrian regime so I don't know how that will solve

anything. How much of it is about buying time? The Arab League is not

united on this. What is the position towards the regime? You

have a lot of divisions. Because you are from Iraq, the fact that

they have been more sectarian killings in Iraq is very sad.

is that a difficult position. The political process is about to break.

You have the vice-president who is sitting because he has terrorism

charges against him and you don't know when I will be pushed forward.

You have the Deputy Prime Minister and the head of it is circular.

Inside there is the position that the majority are Sunni's. There is

a feeling that the Sunni politicians are being targeted. The

Prime Minister still has full control of the security forces

because we still don't have a minister of defence. We have an

acting minister. That is the detail. The bigger picture is Iraq

politically it is about to get to breaking point and that is when the

security situation gets worse. We are having an attack every day.

To outsiders have any washing or Well, I think it is quite

explicitly clear to the USA that their input is not welcome and I

think there is some resentment and his appointment in Washington that

they don't have a role. -- disappointment. The Americans are

pretty much acting that they did what they could, pretty much

accomplishing something, and it is a mess and nobody wants us around.

So they are glad to get out? Yes. The focus now is on returning

veterans and their lives of now. The press is writing about that to

a degree. I don't agree. I know that for the election they are

talking about the done deal and Barack Obama sticking to his

campaign promise. But Iraq still matters a lot to the USA. When we

look at what Iran is doing, how the Gulf is doing, Iraq is still

strategically important for the USA. I think this administration just

did not know how to deal with it. It is not a lack of influence, they

just don't know how to use it. Syria is important because the

relations between Syria and Iran are important. Iran is there be? --

Iran is the big lingering question. I don't think they can just right

of that area and forget about it and say it is up to someone else to

sort it out. This is probably a turning point for the Arab world.

Can the Arab League actually exercise any mature political

responsibility? Can they get anything under its control and find

solutions? Everyone would like to think that the Arab world is that

the point where they can govern themselves and sort out their own

problems but there doesn't seem to be much likelihood of that. I think

there needs to be some reconciliation between the three

points of view. One is the Western point of view, leaning towards

condemnation and perhaps intervention as well. Then there is

the Arab League, which is important because it is a regional body. It

is divided on whether there should be intervention or not. We will see

tomorrow what the outcome is. For me, the monitors were there to

really absurd and find out what is going on and report back and then

decide. -- it to really observe. In this day and age, we have to take

into account what Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa are

also saying. Their point of view is that there should be an

encouragement of dialogue. Ideally, a situation led by a Syria. This

may be Utopian, but at the moment I think that military intervention

seems to be a non- starter. Talking about the Arab League, based in

Egypt, we have to say that this is the anniversary of the revolution

in Egypt picking off. How Egypt end up is going to be crucial for the

Arab world. Many of the previous leaders are now in dire straits and

that will impact on the Arab world hugely. Let's move on. The

Government has been talking about a fairer, better kind of capitalism,

and this sort of talk is common ground in British politics. Does it

have any real meaning? Surely the whole point of capitalism is that

fairness is not its guiding principle. Everyone knows the way

the electorate feels about bankers and that sort of thing. People are

grumpy. But does fair capitalism get us anywhere? Obviously not! The

capitalist market cannot impose fairness because the capitalist

market by definition does not impose values, that is not what

they are about. It has been very interesting when all three

political leaders have come out effectively finding ways to make

capitalism humane, acceptable, whatever, so now there is no

alternative. It is the only global economic solution. China is still a

totalitarian country but they have a capitalist economy. Everybody

agrees that capitalism is the only way to create wealth, and that is

where we start. What we do with the bath afterwards is the political

question. It is not for the capitalist market itself to impose

that, because nobody elected them, so it is up to the Government to

decide what to do with the wealth that the capitalism creates. You

don't want to kill the goose that laid the golden egg so you do not

get any wealth to do anything with. That is the dilemma to resolve.

India has inequalities, so do you have this similar debate? India has

always lent in the direction of a mixed economy. Of course it is a

capitalist economy but the state plays an important role. The public

sector has a very important role to play, even today. Therefore, while

India has opened up considerably over the last 20 years, and free

enterprise has flourished, it is still cautious. That said, I think

it is generally argued that capitalism being profit-driven is

uncaring by definition. On the other hand there is a difference

between profiteering and making prophet. I think it is the latter

that can be described as caring capitalism. Therefore that is

really what people are talking about. It is a theory that emerges

from the middle ground, rather than the right of the Conservative Party.

When things again of JF Kennedy. You raised that earlier, and people

broadly seem to agree with that. What they really hate is when

catalysts in particular lose magnate and personally make money

and get rewarded for it. -- lose money. In our industry we see lots

of newspaper publishers that take the country to the ground and then

leave with $30 million and that annoys people and that has become

very common. This was billed by Downing Street as a big moment, a

major speech, part of the Big Society, and then when we saw him

on television talking it was not having much impact. You could feel

the air going out of the speech. I don't think it was terribly well

planned or well-positioned to have much impact. Talking about

capitalism in the UK now when there is so much fear of whether it is a

second dip in a recession, whatever, the atmosphere is so negative that

I think that speech really went unheard. They think it is a

theoretical debate about what capitalism is. This has been going

on since the economic crisis, people discussing what systems work.

There are so many different types of capitalism now that you have to

have new definitions, whether it is profiteering or others. The

socialism and capitalism of Norway is very different to the capitalism

or socialism of Egypt, for example. There are all these new ideas and

concepts. I don't believe the idea that you can't have too much

regulation in capitalism, because the markets are regulated but what

are the benchmark? Whether they are regulated properly and carefully?

Exactly. They have had that discussion at the G20. We're

talking about Britain's Pacific late but they think it is a much

bigger issue. It is important to remember that in the last few years,

a generation of catalysts have behaved very badly. That does not

necessarily mean that we have a crisis of capitalism. We have a

generation of people behaving badly. It is like saying democracy has

been discredited because Adolf Hitler was elected to office. You

have to say how do we come to terms and deal with people that discredit

their own system? This is nothing new. But when you listen to that

speech and other people talking about it in political parties

across the country, don't you think what do they actually mean? Yes,

but there is a reason for that, the reason why none of them can suggest

practical policies. It is very dangerous for Government to start

intervening in the private remuneration of individual people

employed in private industry, that is effectively totalitarian and you

can't do it. You also can't have a general rule about what constitutes

a responsible behaviour. It is impossible to define so there is

precious little that Government can do. It has to be a cultural thing,

like the 19th century social reforms. The Factory Acts and so on

began as cultural movements. I don't think that Government can

dictate how a generation of people behave. There are still laws.

is just it, you can't make laws so nobody can earn above a certain

level. And if people go bankrupt, the people cannot walk away with

$30 million. But can you make a law to dictate that? One of the things

we are suggesting is somehow lone parent shareholders, but the simple

truth has been for years that shareholders have shut up and taken

the money. -- and powering shareholders. Now they are grumpy.

You can't make effective rules that have a positive impact. People are

afraid of the City being replaced by Frankfurt, Dubai, whatever. And

suddenly London becomes a place where bonuses are strictly

regulated and then companies may leave, which terrifies people.

the globalisation of capital and markets, effectively the danger is

that economics has gone beyond the control of politics. Any political

Government, any national Government, cannot control the movements of

capitalism. Is this like a pantomime? Booing and hissing if

you attack the bankers? Will it not go anywhere? So will it take

cultural reasons to make something emerge? The public mood has been

foul ever since the crisis hit the world and that has not changed

because nothing radical has happened since. What David Cameron

proposed was what he called co- operative capitalism. In other

words, co-operatives deriving benefits from free enterprise. Now

that is easier said than done. What has happened is that the obscenity

of capitalism as we have seen it in the last three years is nothing

other than the cascading effects of Thatcherism and Regan is him, which

needed rectification at a certain point. This is the stage when

people have to address this problem in a serious manner. You obviously

don't agree with any of that! deregulation of the City that

Thatcher brought in, and the things Ronald Reagan brought in, they have

their effect but it is interesting that the real crisis has occurred

since communism collapsed, oddly enough. I wonder if losing the

alter ego of communism as a system didn't cause capitalism to become