The Independent's Hamish McRae  says that politicians must struggle to get the deficit under control before the next downturn in eight or ten years' time:
[C]orrecting the deficit is a race against time. We got through the downturn in the early 2000s in very good shape because our public finances were exceptionally strong when we went into it and public spending could, to some extent, offset slower private spending. We are doing badly this time because our finances were relatively weak. We don't want to face an even bigger catastrophe next time round.
In the Daily Telegraph, Irwin Stelzer  writes that David Cameron continues to be alarmingly unclear about his economic policies:
[A]ll we know is that he plans to eliminate waste, and that he might go along with Labour's plan to raise the marginal tax rate to 50 per cent, but might not. He would like to cut benefits, but is not certain which ones -- or is not saying. He plans to extend parent choice, but is against vouchers. He might be planning green taxes, but we can't be sure. He does want to raise VAT, but might change his mind if the recession continues to bite and shopkeepers howl.
The Guardian's Jonathan Freedland  warns that if Barack Obama can't win support for health-care reform there is no hope of the US reaching agreement on a new climate-change treaty. The greens and diplomats who hailed his victory may be disappointed:
They have seen a summer campaign demonise him as an amalgam of Stalin, Hitler and Big Brother, bent on sending America's frail grannies to their deaths in the name of a new socialism. If that's the response he gets when he suggests Americans should be covered even when they change jobs or get sick, imagine the monstering coming his way if he tells his compatriots they have to start cutting back on the 19 tonnes of CO2 each one of them emits per year (more than twice the amount belched out by the average Brit).
In the New York Times, Maureen Dowd  says that the disciplining of Congressman Joe Wilson for calling Barack Obama a "liar" in Congress revealed a positive side to US politics:
It was a rare triumph for civility in a country that seems to have lost all sense of it -- from music arenas to tennis courts to political gatherings to hallowed halls -- and a ratification of an institution that has relied on strict codes of conduct for two centuries to prevent a breakdown of order.
The Times's Daniel Finkelstein  argues that parties must broaden their membership to avoid the dangers of "group polarisation", under which individuals become more extreme as they deliberate with each other:
Group discussion among racially prejudiced people made them more prejudiced; the punitive damage awards of mock juries are higher than the median of individual jurors; a group of chess players was more inclined to a risky strategy than the individuals; a group of burglars became more cautious about the ease of breaking into a house than they would individually; protesters against police brutality became more supportive of violent action after group debate.