Lowering your personal carbon footprint and saying you’re reducing climate change is like fitting a burglar alarm and saying you’re talking crime. You’re not, you’re just opting out of the problem

Jacqui Smith’s down-to-earth nature and soft approach seemed a breath of fresh air in the early days of Gordon Brown’s government. Now she’s stepping down, her tenure appearing, to many, one of disappointing underachievement. The parallels with the government she served in are inescapable. 

Bet you a tenner I’ve got one of them almost word for word.

They were careless people, Tom and Daisy — they smashed up things and creatures and then retreated back into their money or their vast carelessness, or whatever it was that kept them together, and let other people clean up the mess they had made.

-F. Scott Fitzgerald, The Great Gatsby, ch.9

Substitute “George and Dick” and you’re pretty much there, no?

Fitzgerald, of course, also said “There are no second acts in American life.” A world nervously hopes that he’s proven right in this case.

Funny how political change is aided by acts of god. Would Tony Blair have become PM if John Smith hadn’t died? Surely not. And I wonder: if Hurricane Katrina hadn’t begun the total breakdown of Bush’s popularity, would Obama have become president?

On the Today programme a few days ago, the Israeli ambassador to the UK expressed his hope that the crisis in Gaza would lead the people of the beseiged strip to reject the leadership of Hamas. Pro-Israeli commentators - especially in the US - have repeatedly said that it’s the Gazans’ responsibility to make peace possible by choosing a government that wants peace.

But leaving the moral validity of this argument aside, it’s clear that it’s a fantasy. One British journalist on Today recalled speaking to a long-time Fatah member who told him, “we are all Hamas now”. The Israelis, like the US in Iraq, are underestimating the power of nationalism. It doesn’t matter how terrible a government is - its people won’t reject it at the behest of any foreign power. Indeed, support for bad governments is usually strengthened by such pressure.

The furore over Obama’s selection of Rick Warren is emblematic of one of the wider stories of the 08 election: the death of the myth of the ’60s “rainbow coalition” of minorities. The idea that women’s rights, racial civil rights and gay rights were all in some way complementary was always, of course, the fantasy of liberal straight white males. Minority members knew it wasn’t so simple. The Civil Rights Movement was strained by sexism, leading black and white women alike to leave it for feminism. And obviously, gays and blacks have had their issues - the black community voted heavily for Prop 8.

In truth, the relationship between minority rights struggles has always been more competition than coalition. They all vote Democrat, but beyond that there’s little love lost, as the furious feminist response to Obama’s popularity among liberals shows. But liberals keep invoking civil rights as the central objection to the Warren choice. Of course, in the UK, we have legally equivalent civil unions, everyone uses terms like ‘husband’ and ‘wedding’, and everyone seems fairly happy. But even if you accept the gay-marriage movement’s contention that the symbolic effect of the word ‘marriage’ is vital to equality - a view recently endorsed by the California Supreme Court, prompting the Proposition 8 farrago - to compare that symbolic difference with the brutal treatment of blacks in the segregated south is so fatuous as to border on the offensive.

I don’t blame the gay community for being worried - Obama wouldn’t be the first president to talk a good game on civil rights and not live up to it in office. But I find the assertion that Obama, as a member of a “minority”, should have some special sympathy with the gay cause to be silly and hopelessly naive.

Listening today to “I’m alive” by Stretch ‘n’ Vern - which is essentially a mash-up of “Boogie Wonderland” and “I’m Riffin’” by MC Duke - I got to thinking about the avalanche of lazy sample-heavy hits that dominated the charts in the 90s. It’s clear now that what seemed at the time like a total breakdown of all remaining value in the music world was, in fact, basically a technology problem. Sampling and PCs had made it a straightforward matter for young, aspiring DJs and producers to cobble together fun versions of forgotten songs with minimal effort; but the technology hadn’t yet developed to distribute such fluff for free. Now, we find mashups on music blogs, pay nothing for them, and they don’t seem annoying, just fun. In retrospect, Danger Mouse’s digital release of the “grey album” was the turning point. And it also demonstrates that giving such easy-come stuff away can launch a lucrative producing career.

The old ‘Skins’ trailer reminded me of how I wished my teenage years had been: colourful, joyful, sexy. The new one reminds me of how they actually were: bored-looking drably-dressed kids causing trouble in a shit pub

Just watched McCain conference speech again. It’s good, but the crowd aren’t listening to the best bits. The first time he tries to talk seriously about the economic crisis, he’s drowned out by chants of “USA! USA! USA!” But then he goes on to talk about cutting taxes, and the crowd goes insane. Which, quite possibly, sums up the whole reason the McCain campaign failed.

I’ve come to the conclusion the ‘culture wars’ aren’t really about class resentment. People will elect and adore a toff if they think he’ll listen to them. The trick is to do just that - to listen. Not to pander, not to switch positions, not even to try to be like them - but to listen. And trust ‘em with the truth. Say, I know we disagree on gay marriage/abortion/lipstick/whatever, but we agree on the things that are most important right now, and I’m asking for your trust and help in turning them round. Obama’s stadium speech did that. He needs to do it more.

The truth is, it’s not ridiculous to prefer a less capable candidate who you feel gets you, to a more capable one you fear doesn’t. For people who don’t have time to read up on every candidate’s economic plan, or discuss in detail the success or otherwise of the surge, a candidate’s character has to matter. Obama has to swing it back to policy, because he won’t win on character. But he also has to acknowledge that people’s concerns about character are natural and legitimate, and pass a kind of minimum standard of honesty and humility, before policies can become the focus.

Obama’s smile is almost everlasting. We didn’t see it once last Thursday, but you know it’s there, underneath. That energy- the joy inside him - the joy inside him, as well as the solemnity - is what makes him inspiring

I wrote this a couple of days ago after watching “The Audacity of Hope”. OK, I was drunk

Brown’s exhortation to cut food waste, though probably entirely sensible, demonstrates once again how badly his administration lacks the instinct for the mood of the public that served Blair’s so well. Had he said this a year or so ago - when there was actually quite a lot of concern about food being too cheap - it would have appeared prudent, honest and sensible. Now, though, it pricks people’s resentment rather than their guilt, making him seem puritanical and unsympathetic.

UPDATE: Martin Bright agrees with me.

I have long believed that the vast majority of people in Britain are racist.

Put simply, most people - including, i suspect, many black people - feel far more nervous walking at night around young black men than young white men. This is based, in part, on the slightly higher black crime rate. But it nevertheless is racism, because it makes assumptions about individuals, and alters our reactions to them, based purely on the colour of their skin.

Until we stop talking about racism as a rare and evil crime, and instead recognise it as something we’re all capable of, we’ll never have a real conversation about it.

But I’ve said this to friends and they’ve looked at me like I’m mad. What do you think?

UPDATE: This article on the American election cites interesting evidence about the widespread nature of this sort of instinctive racial stereotyping.

The Fed’s cutting interest rates, reviving the banking markets, all to the good. But the sub-prime repossessions didn’t really kick in until the rate rises of ‘07, right? So isn’t the whole crisis kind of the Fed’s fault anyway??

Alistair Darling made a mistake using “stability” as his budget watchword, I reckon. Hearing the word “stability” just makes me think of “instability” - it’s one of those words that isn’t as resonant as its antonym. “Prudence” works, because when has anyone heard George W. Bush trying to scare everyone with the risk of “imprudence”?

why are goals always compared to 1990 levels? The Millennium Development Goals were designed in 2000 but are all measured against 1990 levels. And the EU emissions reductions targets, agreed in 2007, are also against 1990 levels. Why? Do the bureaucrats of transnational organisations all really love Twin Peaks? And isn’t it kind of cheating? If I lost ten pounds in two months, and then loudly declared my intention to lose a stone (against the levels of two months previous), that goal wouldn’t actually be that demanding, now, would it? I think I’m going to aim to increase the amount of my time I spend in a godforsaken office by 50 hours a week compared to 1990 levels. Oh look, finished!

Poor Hillary. Everyone calls the near-crying a sign of weakness, but I kept wondering watching it if she was putting it on. Why is she so damned hard to trust?

Update: Oh. Clearly not everyone thinks so.

Update 2: But thinking about it, surely this makes it more likely she was putting it on?

Update 3: See! Even she thinks so!

A few more random Madrid thoughts:

• Those who bemoan the demise of the sit-down lunch in London and elsewhere would like it here. It’s very, very hard to get takeaway food, or much resembling fast food, really. A languid bocadillo over a beer in a tiny cafe is more the Madrid style, which I very much like, now I’m used to it.

• Graffiti notwithstanding, Madrid is, I think, the most beautiful city I’ve visited. From the shambolic, but completely charming old centre to the deft neoclassical elegance of the Palacio Real, it’s a stunner all over. And unlike many cities with a rich pre-20th century architectural heritage, it’s embraced modernity with gusto. The Paseo de la Castellana, the long avenue that divides the old town from more recent Northeastern areas, is packed with impressive buildings from the 70’s and 80’s banking and insurance boom, notably the Peurta de Europa (see below). Underwhelming in film and from a distance thanks in part to its bland location, it’s awe-inspiring up close.

• The city also has a truly impressive slate of parkland to its East. From the three spaces surrounding the palace - the exquisite Plaza de Oriente, the Campo del Moro, which was closed when I went past, and the Jardines de Sabatini to the North with some excellent surrealist sculpture - to the massive Casa de Campo, kind of Madrid’s answer to Hampstead Heath, accessible by cable car from another excellent space, the Parque del Oeste.