The plug is not the end, it's just the beginning...

Originally published on The Collective Review on 17/09/2010:

On the 20th April, the Deepwater Horizon oil rig exploded in the Gulf of Mexico killing 11 people. Early estimates of the extent of the spill were appealingly optimistic; starting at ‘no oil leak at all’ before sharply increasing to a manageable 1000 barrels a day. Before long, though, the real extent of the disaster became apparent. No longer was it 1000 barrels of oil but anything in the region of 35,000 to 60,000 barrels seeping its way into the fragile ecosystem every 24 hours. Numbers such as this barely do justice to an event that President Obama himself described as ‘the greatest environmental disaster of its kind’ in American history. Now, almost six months on from the explosion, the leak is reportedly hours from being plugged. It seems that even with BPs greatest minds working around the clock on all manner of imaginative solutions and a full-time governmental Nanny, General Thad Allen, leading from the front, little could be done to stop an estimated 5m barrels of crude oil funnelling forth into the vulnerable Gulf. Despite appearances, the plug is not the end, though; it is merely a punctuation mark in a continuing story of struggle between Americans and the environment they inhabit.

In the short-term, there are the local communities that depend on their livelihoods to consider. Residents of this part of the world are now battle-hardened, having had to endure it all after Hurricane Katrina tore through the region in 2005. That, though, was a faceless natural phenomenon, as much unfortunate as it was unexpected. This time, it’s different. The former-CEO of BP was a Brit who paid for his company’s carelessness, as well as his own astounding lack of tact, with his job. The new American incumbent, Bob Dudley, would do well to learn from his predecessors mistakes and treat the residents of this most unfortunate piece of America with the same amount of care and respect that Tony Hayward markedly did not. Needless to mention that BP should, and surely must, bear the brunt of the considerable investment needed to get the local economy running again.

No less urgent but considerably farther reaching than the economic redevelopment of Louisiana is the far greater issue of America’s national energy policy. In the medium term, the spill represents a genuine opportunity for political change. President Obama used every opportunity he could to voice his continued desire to cure America of its oil-addiction while being careful not to further upset the BP employees who rely on that very same resource for their income and, as Bob Dudley rightly pointed out, are woven into the fabric of the Gulf community. Before President Obama can address that particular elephant in the room though, he must deal with another great political elephant; the Congressional Republicans. With Tea Party climate sceptics fighting themselves into winning positions in the Republican Congressional primaries, and the Democrats bracing themselves for an unfavourable mid-term appraisal at the hands of the electorate, the President must try to use the memory of this catastrophe for good and persuade his Congressional party that clean energy is not only the right strategy, but a winning one.

Regardless of the outcome of that particular conflict, though, the way in which this disaster must live in the memory in the long-term is as a story of nature biting back. Environmentalists have a unique opportunity, served up by the fantastic unpredictability of nature, to drill home a much deeper message; we are residents of this planet, not its proprietors. We hold this planet on a lease, and nature has the right and ability to revoke that at its will – just as it did on that tragic April day. As businesses are rebuilt, and energy policies are debated, what must remain in the mind at all times is that for all the products we mine from the earth, we ourselves remain a product of it. Ultimately, that should be the legacy of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill; albeit plugged.

The Ash Cloud: A Victory for Computer Modelling - Now why can't we apply the same logic to climate change?

The ash cloud from the Eyjafjallajokull volcano has caused havoc, millions of dollars in corporate losses, and untold hilarity at its mispronunciation (it's pronounced AY-yah-fyah-lah-YOH-kuul according to the Icelandic embassy in Washington, apparently - http://phreakaholic.com/news/iceland-volcanos-name-eyjafjallajokull-pronunciation/). All this, based on a computer model that has an informed but nonetheless imperfect idea of its whereabouts and density, combined with widely varying estimates as to the damage it will do to the aircraft that would probably/possibly/almost certainly encounter it. Fortunately I wasn't planning on flying anywhere, which means I am something of a bemused spectator to the media ruckus that occurs every time the cloud 'moves' (I don't like 'move' as an adjective for clouds, it makes them sound too athletic; clouds 'drift' or 'saunter' or 'meander' in a manner that is vaguely whimsical and for the pleasure of those with time to cast an eye to the sky on a warm summer evening with a glass of cider in one hand and rapidly melting strawberry-split in the other, surely). What does interest me though, is that the authorities have taken what appears to be relatively immediate and drastic action on the basis of modeling estimates that tell them they probably should - estimates that are precisely the same in nature as our best sophisticated forecasts on climate change. Yet on the latter issue, they continue to do nothing.

Why, in actuality, are governments and associated federations willing to penalise and annoy British Airways and Ryanair but not BP and ExxonMobil (ignoring the fact Ryanair is run by a obnoxious self-publicising man from the British Isles who has a penchant for unsubtle and ill-advised comments in the face of major crises, oh wait...)? BAA claims that the restrictions on flights cost it £28bn, the city of London supposedly saw £100m lost from reduced tourism, and even little East Midlands Airport claims the cloud cost it £1m in revenue (BBC News). These are not insignificant amounts, and represent a good hack off the profit margins of those who rely on flights and tourism for their businesses. Yet, while making decisions on climate change - a problem that will cost considerably more to confront than the ash cloud and increases significantly the longer we wait - those with the power insist on delay in the face of corporate opposition. Loathe am I to describe the until-recently-unheard-of Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) as 'brave'; but it seems that this is precisely what they were. In the face of a natural challenge with immediate consequences and very apparent costs, they chose action in the name of safety rather than inaction in the face of market opposition. Yes, Mr Bureaucrat in your grey suit and unnatural interest in air pressure, yes you; take a bow.

The ash cloud example shows us something more, though, than just how officials can act on the best information available to them if they so choose. It shows us how the public will respond when - grounded, stranded, and grumpy - they are presented with no other option. Yes, they will whinge, moan, question the decision and blame everyone 'foreign' (to the point where poor old Iceland were forced to put what can only be described as a year-7 papier-mache art project model of a volcano filled to the brim with baking powder in front of them while performing on Eurovision in the hope of garnering some empathy/sanity when the votes came in). But, ultimately, they will relent; they will understand and intelligently question, rather than belligerently disobey. After all, when there is no other option, what can Little Sammy stuck abroad really do other than accept that his fate is in the hands of nature, and that by being born on this planet he implicitly agreed to abide by Mother Nature's occasional whimsy.

The worst is over; the decision was made, the immediate effects were felt, and the fallout has all but passed. People have now accepted that if they want to fly abroad then they have to account for the small risk of an angry Scandinavian mount spewing its guts. Corporations have started to go quiet realising that no-one unnecessarily dieing is probably more valuable to their long-term financial security than their immediate quarterly losses. And the CAA - bless them - have dismounted thier shiny white horses, taken off the chainmail, and returned to grey-suited drudgery; happy that tomorrow will involve spreadsheets rather than press releases. I can't help but feel that if the equivalent officials showed the same faith in the science of climate change as the CAA did in the met-office - and, frankly, had some kahunas - then we would be much closer to radical and effective action on the greatest problem of a generation, any generation, than we currently are.

Copenhagen Contradictions

For those who take any interest in green politics, politics of the environment, climate change, or international relations at all can't have missed the palava that was the UNFCCC's COP15 in Copenhagen in December. It was two weeks of unbridled politicking, bitching, policy-making, policy-wrecking, and all round political giggles that as far as most can see had rather little to do with mitigating disastrous climate change and quite a lot to do with (poorly played) power games. What emerged at the end was the 'meaningful' (not 'historic', nor 'effective', not even 'quite good') Copenhagen Accord. While this has been received as it should have been (that is, laughably) in most quarters, the Accord is not really what is interesting about the event.

What I find most interesting is the plethora of reaction, response, recommendation, reflection, and soothsaying that occurred post-fiasco. The number of quoted 'successes' and 'failures' of the Conference is truly astounding. And, what's more, often the 'successes' are recorded as 'failures' (and vice-versa) simply depending on which publication you happen to read. I have had the privilege (no, Mat, it really is a privilege, come on now, don't be defeatist, you have a lot to be thankful for, such as the ability to type, even if you're hands are freezing because they won't fix the heating in your tiny, neglected, empty, grey, lonesome office)... sorry... I have had the privilege of looking through about 180 mainstream broadsheet news articles published since the end of the Conference and it is amazing at the sheer lack of agreement on such a large number of issues post-event. Ignoring the major question of whether the Conference as a whole was a 'success' or 'failure' (it's probably becoming increasingly obvious which side of that I fall on), there is extremely little agreement on even whether the smaller happenings in the Conference represent a good or bad thing. So, to that end, below is a list of my favourite post-Copenhagen media contradictions:

1. Getting States talking about Climate Change

Success: The UNFCCC got 193 States in all one place talking about Climate Change, yes!
Now, this is in fact an impressive feat. To get the representatives of all the 193 UN accredited nations into the Conference centre in Copenhagen, largely at the same time, largely together, talking about Climate Change represents a massive increase in the official interest in the issue since the Kyoto talks of 1997 where there were more like 90 delegations.

Failure: The UNFCCC got 193 States all one place only talking about Climate Change, bummer.
Of course, given the impressive nature of getting all the delegations to the Conference to discuss the issue (and putting aside the fact that most of the less important little delegations got left outside, in the snow, in Denmark) what would have been great if there was actually some action following all the talk. Unfortunately, what occurred was much like a Monty Python sketch except that instead of trying to one-up each other on how little they had, the smaller countries competed on how badly hit they would be by climate change and how they couldn't possibly do anything about it themselves while the developing countries stood around arguing the finer philosophical points of regulation. By this I mean America asks China to let people check they were actually doing what they said they might say they might do in terms of emissions reductions, to which a junior Chinese aide replied 'if a tree falls in the forest, does it make a sound?', to which America went 'huh? Yes. No. Maybe. Look, are you gonna let us police it or not?!' The end result being that all parties came away declaring boldly that climate change was a 'bad thing' for much the same reasons they (and everyone else) thought it was before.

2. The Accord

Success: They did actually agree, an Accord was written, and something 'meaningful' happened
They all sat down, made signs at each other that suggested they each thought that climate change was 'bad', Ed Miliband made the V-sign in response to the whole process and someone took this as a signal that there was unified agreement to try to reach a 2 degree cut in emissions to avoid the worst effects of climate change while still slowly killing the planet ('two, Ed, is that two degrees you're trying to suggest, Sir?'). A 'meaningful' moment it was.

Failure: They all sat down, and agreed... to do nothing, really
It is well publicised, well known, and well repeated that the UNFCCC's science bods themselves admit the Accord goes nowhere near the reductions needed - in word, spirit, or policy. It's not even a proper UN declaration; for that you need unanimity. As such what we're left with is the UN 'noting' something that they had already 'noted' before (in the form of an actual treaty at Kyoto, shoddy as it may have been) thanks to a few small, holdout states.

3. Having the US on board, discussing climate change properly

Success: The US were there, with a delegation, seeking to actually do something about climate change
It is hard to refute that seeing the massive, over-the-top, heavily 'secured' delegation that the US took with them to Copenhagen is an improvement. The big man himself showed up and everything. They are willing to talk, and isn't that the start of any rehabilitation process; admitting you've got a problem (even if it's bleeding obvious to eeeeeeeeeeeeeeveryone else) is the first step, right?

Failure: The US were there, with a delegation, seeking to do something, but going about it in an oh-so-American way
Sure they were there, but did that actually help? Obama insulted China, so China insulted Obama, so Obama insulted China some more then smiled and moved on, so the Chinese frowned and sulked and will hold a grudge (God only knows how long for). Likewise, Todd Stern (Obama's Climate Change Special Envoy) said climate change wasn't a social problem at all but all Math(s) - something the drowning masses will no doubt ponder as another unexpected Tsunami hits their homes built on nothing but numbers and engineering. Oh wait, that's not right is it - homes are built by people, who then live in them as people, and die in them when an unexpected weather event hits like people do. Ah well, at least the US were there to show themselves up, unlike last time.

4. Developed countries showing leadership

Success: The developed countries finally agreeing to lead the way
The EU, UK, and US all turned up prepared. They had knowledge, expertise, delegations, and nicely prepackaged policy. I have absolutely no doubt that much of this policy would be great and would make a massive difference (in real terms) but to try and get it rubber stamped without having the courtesy to at least pretend some of it came from elsewhere is just not how the UN works, ya know.

Failure: The developed countries finally agreeing to lead the way, so long as the developing nations do as they say
Seriously guys, a leaked policy document from the (ever agreeable) hosts proposing to take power away from all other countries who aren't HD-ready on day two?! Even by our colonial standards that's a bit quick.

5. Brazil, China, and India talking to each other about doing something about climate change

Success: They were in a room, they were talking climate change
Like point (1), that's actually pretty impressive. The fact that they are prepared to talk about multilateral action on this issue is genuinely a massive step, and a darn significant one.

Failure: They were in a room, they were talking about climate change, when the Chinese Premier was meant to be in a room, talking about climate change, with Obama
In one of the most public and balls-out snubs of what promises to be a great decade of Chinese snubbery Obama was sent a junior aide instead. And when he tried to meet the Premier again 'just found all these other people' (the Heads of State of Brazil and India) in the room too. How dare they, this was meant to be Obama and China's alone-time, darn it.

All in all, a bit ridiculous. Not so much one-step forward, one step back as 20 horses trying to do the Samba, on ice, thin ice, because of the climate change and all that. Whether or not Copenhagen was a 'success' or 'failure' I really can't say. It just kinda 'was', like climate change will 'be', until we find a frankly less ludicrous way of going about trying to abate it than this.

Is climate change 'awareness' the answer, or the problem?

So, I was meant to write a blog last Thurs as part of the Blog Action
Day whose theme this year was climate change. I didn't. This was for two reasons. Firstly, I forgot, and when I remembered, I also remembered that I was too busy. Secondly (and you can take this as an excuse if you like) I'm not sure raising awareness of climate change is really worth the effort. My argument is that we have reached a point now where 'awareness' initiatives are actually having a negative effect on motivating public or personal action and, perhaps more damagingly, they act as an excuse for governments unwilling to take they bull by
the horns and make policy (evidently they'd rather stroke the bull and
ask it not to hurt anyone).

While I appreciate the aims of Blog Action Day (while vehemently
opposing its tactless acronym), and find a certain academic intrigue
in the idea of using 'new media' to pressure policy action, I
ultimately think it may do more harm then good. To start with it only
raises the awareness of those who read blogs, in particular those who
read political, environmental, or current affairs blogs. These people
are generally pretty 'aware' as it is (you clever informed lot
you).Further to this, it may only serve to antagonise those who differ
in their views. Now, I genuinely think there are very few who 'deny'
climate change, and on the whole people seem to know a broad range of vague and difficult to quantify activities they can undertake to
mitigate for climate change (or environmental degradation more
broadly). But, nonetheless, people don't appear to like being told
what to do. They dislike it from their parents, they downright hate it
from politicians, so I'm not sure they're going to like it much from
faceless quasi-intellectual cyber monkeys. Now I know the point of BAD (I said I disliked the acronym, not that it wasn't easier to type -
particularly on a Blackberry) was not to directly influence actions of
the individual, rather it was to impore policymakers to take a stand,
but an indirect consequence of this is that a bunch of people write a
pile of stuff that makes them look like prescriptive moralistic
knowitalls. No wonder comedians and clowns (Clarkson included) are
starting to have a field day digging into the Green Brigade.

Beyond this though, and I feel far more serious, is the potential for
such activity as this to act as a smokescreen for policymakers and
politicians who continue to fail to implement policy that will
genuinly affect change. It gives them the excuse to point to groups
such as the BAD bloggers and say 'hey, look, we're doing our best, but
have you seen how wonderfully informed and active our citizenry's
are?' They cab claim some victory when there is none, and can continue to utilise 'awareness' campaigns as an excuse for their own relative
inactivity. After all its much easier creating a TV ad telling us all
how to recycle, then it is coming to comprehensive agreement on
climate change within the international arena.

My solution is thus; assume everyone knows, and point ot the fact that this has changed more or less nothing. Make a stand and say, 'I'm
aware so I've done my bit, now do yours'. I know, you know, we know so surely now its time to stop being so 'aware' and actually see those in
a position to do some real good sit down and write some damn policy
instead of wasting time on trying to make windfarms look pretty on the telly. I don't really care if 'the people' know why there's a new
carbon tax so long as there is one; and I'm not sure the planet cares
all that much either.

The solution to the expenses ‘scandal’? Get rid of them all

Recently, I’ve been asked by a few people what I think about the ongoing MP’s expenses saga. The long and short of it is this; I don’t really care. The system certainly needs reforming, I’m glad that those people milking their expenses with abandon have been caught out, and there is no moral justification for the way that our MP’s have behaved. There is, though, a more practical justification that I do think needs consideration, though it falls a long way short of a defence. In the private sector, these people would be paid salaries in a completely different tax bracket, and that’s without the private healthcare, plush hotels, business-class flights all as standard. It’s fair to presume that those who are Minister’s could have progressed to sufficient heights in the private sector to be paid in the millions, rather than thousands. And many backbenchers would be working their way up towards that level. Again, that is not to disregard the extremely liveable salary that MPs get, but to put it into some perspective. What is more interesting to me, though, is not the scandalous disregard for money, but for their careers. We’ve already had a few resignations by those wishing to jump before they’re pushed; leaving with their reputations relatively intact and making for the much warmer waters of the private sector as we speak. It is this aspect that has made me pause to consider a proposal that will be familiar to many a-level Politics students or those who have much interest in American politics but has not really emerged in the public debate at this stage – the idea of fixed term limits.

For those who didn’t have the pleasure of taking AQA’s ‘Politics and Government’ A-level Paper 3 back in 2005, fixed term limits is essentially the idea that people can only be in government for so long. In the US, the President is limited to two terms (so, eight years). (N.B. There are no doubt other good examples of this mechanism, but I’m most familiar with this example). The advantage of this system is that you get an enforced renewal of personnel every so often, bringing with it fresh blood and fresh ideas. If this were to be implemented in parliament, it would prevent anyone entering purely for financial gain as it would be hard to milk too much out of the state in that amount of time, and would prevent any real ‘expenses culture’ taking hold. The consequence of this could be that you get the richer contingent thinking “ah well, at best (or worst) it’s only eight years so I won’t lose too much before I can go back to being Mr CEO”, and you get the lesser-paid contingent eyeing up an attractive salary, knowing that it can’t be their meal ticket for life. This could potentially open up the system to far more people, presenting the opportunity of public service as a short-term ‘sacrifice’ to serve the people - presumably how it was originally envisaged – or a short-term opportunity to influence political happenings and open some doors without it being a long-term career aim.

This may complicate the parliamentary system, admittedly, given that most Ministers have been MPs for a very (sometimes very, very, very) long time and have supposedly been ‘rewarded’ for their competence on the backbenches and in their constituency roles. This argument, though, is nonsense. It assumes that longevity is competence, and wisdom comes with age, both non-starters (a quick look at most of the Cabinet supports my point). The unwieldy nature of government departments must be considered, but the system could be adjusted to allow an extra two terms for Cabinet Ministers to take effect (contingent, of course, on re-election), or acknowledged through some other mechanism. A key advantage of this system is that you get bright new young things coming in with fresh ideas – preventing anyone getting too comfortable and using their position for long-term personal gain. You could also avoid short-term politics as any measure that anyone implements will be unlikely to have properly taken hold by the time their next (and final) election comes around. It would force people to respect their predecessors, and consider their future replacements, moving towards a system of clean and consistent governance. Sure, it would place yet more power in the hands of the civil servants but, given recent revelations, is that really such a bad thing? It may be argued that these ‘bright young things’ don’t have the experience or expertise to be trusted with the oversight of the organs of the state. But if they aren’t qualified to govern, why are we electing them?

So, my solution is to get rid of them all – every now and again – and refresh our parliament and (hopefully) our government. Does anyone really want to tolerate Beckett’s screechy voice, Johnson’s “I’m a postman” declarations, or Gordon’s gurn for any longer than is absolutely necessary? Or have I got this completely wrong? Well... anyone got any better ideas?

You want to save the world? Forget Obama and go persuade the middle managers of the U.S.

Much can be said about the nature of American federalism - good, bad, and ugly. But when it comes down to it, the one thing that may actually save the world could be America's variety.

That a nation that has for the past 200 years had one President, one federal legislature, and one all powerful court yet remains as disparate and diverse as America demonstrates the determined individualism and persistent resistance to comprehensive homogeneity in the U.S. That you can wander through New Orleans and be dumb-struck by the devastation and destruction one day, and stroll through the beaches of California and be dumb-struck by the vulgar materialism of it all the next, illustrates the point. I'm not saying that were Coventry to be leveled by a Tornado that shopping in Chelsea would immediately cease, but i think it would probably continue to make the national news for considerably longer than Katrina did. American's love their State, not so much their nation. When they say 'God Bless America' what they actually mean is 'God Bless America; which is Texas; which is Me'. Herein lies what i believe could be the answer to saving the planet from the McAmericans; aim for the States.

There is an inherent symmetry in the American political systems that makes it much more effective to go for the middle-layer of influence (States), than for the top (federal) or bottom (the People). We can try to make people stop driving, turn off their air conditioners, and eat locally in the hope that essentially everyone does but, i'm sorry, IT WON'T WORK. We can hang on every word that Obama says and continue to acclaim him as the saviour of us all in the hope that he can persuade a resistant Congress and a difficult People that it's worth giving the green life a go but, sadly, IT WON'T WORK. We can go to the State legislators and suggest state-wide and regional emissions trading systems, and push for an increase in the use of sustainable transport but, i'm sorry, IT WON'T... oh, it has worked.

In the last couple of months alone, California - a state with more plastic than a bag of Haribo being run by a man who (until recently) looked more like an action figure than a real person - has just committed itself to producing a third of it's electricity from renewable sources. Hawaii has followed suit and has announced a mass network of charging points to accommodate all the lovely new electric cars they're going to get. And it's not just the States, thirteen major U.S. cities are part of the C40 climate leadership group which was set up by a president (Clinton), but only after he'd left office.

Looking further a field (or, as it were, closer to home) the UK continues to try to influence the behaviour of others, but shouldn't we tend to our own back yard first? Arguments persist that an EU-integrated approach is key to success at a global level. This is true. But it could also be true that national examples are the most effective way of persuading others to follow? Britain is very much taking it's wind policy prompts from Germany, and people in the UK continue to marvel at the relatively cheap, efficient, and effective transport infrastructure that is in place across most of the continent. The argument goes that a global deal saves the world; but the fact remains that a global deal only saves the world if it is a good one. In the meantime, why not look closer to home - not as individuals but as States and, if need be, large cities. Then we can go and say 'look, we have; so why don't you?' and, furthermore, 'this is how'. If France reduced it's emissions by 50% in the next three years without imploding then i'd be damned in the rest of the EU didn't follow suit. Likewise, if America could show China and India that it has 'gone green' then a comprehensive international agreement would be that much closer.

America is not a 'green' nation of 'green' citizens, and I don't believe it ever will be. What it can be, though, is an environmentally-friendly nation formulated on the collective efforts of the States. We don't need to persuade everyone to do what's right by the planet; we need to persuade the right people; and the right people are not always the most powerful. Instead of exhausting large expense and effort at the highest level trying to persuade actors with very little room to maneuver, lets expend a little more lower down and see if we can sort it out for ourselves. We need to aim efforts towards those who are essentially the middle managers, the 'Coca-Cola League 2', the 'Team GB's third bronze of the Games', of the most consuming country on the earth; not their Chief Executive. Ultimately, it may be the middle people who save us all.

A dumbed-down election for the hyper nation; Obama and Decision Time 08

So, it's finally over.

You really can't beat a good old fashioned bit of hype, can you? Whether America made the right choice or not is currently beside the point (in essence because 'the right choice' is a ridiculous thing to try and calculate). But what does matter is that 'America' has chosen Obama - that's right a single man, not a deity or uber-being as we may have occasionally lapsed into thinking He was - to lead the world (so, America) out of the boggy marsh of economic recession and social delapidation that it has been wading through ever since 'America chose' the last time around. Is it just me, or does anyone else see a worrying consistency here?

George Bush Jnr was to be the antithesis to the Clinton years - clean and wholesome, with values that every American could be proud of. Eight years on and Obama is to be the antithesis to the Bush years - clean and wholesome, with values that every American can be proud of. Yes,...YES, that's what this country needs (yell all the fanatics swept up by the loathingly labelled Obamania), real CHANGE. And lest we forget... YES WE CAN!

While it would be foolish to make detailed comparisons between Obama and Bush (particularly at this stage), they did run their campaigns on a remarkably similar platform; that of 'change'. Neither really promised much (and, in most American's eyes, Bush delivered only on that front) but they didn't half promise to not do an awful lot. 'I will not sleep with my political aides' says Bush. Good, well done you. Faithful and wholesome and loeveable George, that's what's needed. 'I will not go to war unnecessarily' pledges Obama. Great, lovely. That sounds like a tip-top idea. Someone who's not a war-monger, brillo, get him in. ('I will not lead this country into recession' chips in McCain, before his aides quietly wheel him back inside and apologise for the old fella who has been under a lot of strain since around January and 'hasn't quite been there' for the last few months before promising that you wont have to see him again for some time.)

My point being that it is sheer genius to base an entire campaign on 'changing' things - and when asked what this change will look like, to deliver a bunch of promises to not do things. I don't plan on going to war or screwing up the economy but that doesn't really qualify me to be the next President, does it? I also don't plan on spouting patriotic nonsense until my eyeballs bleed and spending billions of dollars that could have gone elsewhere on what is little more than a long-running political soap opera; maybe that means i should become King.

I would love to take the 20 central concepts of Obama's acceptance speech and ask what 10 American's that have been cryogenically frozen for the past 18months thought they meant; i'd be surprised if you didn't get 10 much varied responses. He has managed to make himself appeal to all-comers - something that admittedly all politicians attempt to do - but his genius is that he has managed to do it without genuinely specifying anything. McCain was guilty of much the same - moving closer to the centre even when it was obviously too late and when saving face by returning to the right would have perhaps been the best option - but i believe that the fact that Obama actually won rightfully singles him out.

This election has been one sweeping statement after another. It has been reactive, not proactive (despite what Oba may try to tell you). Of course Obama looked at polls before and during his run. Of course he saw Palin and surged forth on her ground. Of course he saw the word 'crisis' in the headlines and returned to messages of hard-work and self-reliance. And, above all, of course he saw Bush's poll-ratings and thought 'change'. Even his Republican competitor (who, as we have all been made tremendously aware, voted with the administration quite a lot) tried the very same thing.

Has it really got to the stage now where politics has become so dumbed-down that we can only speak in sweeping concepts and allow the voter themselves to fill in the gaps? This election has been an ideal-type example in populism for the idiot. If anyone was confused as to the problems with democracy watch the tapes of the last 18 months. 'Decision Time USA 08' represents a continued slide towards formalised idiocracy. Obama may be a good President - i think he can be and i hope he is - but we have to face the fact that the first item on his Presidential CV will be 'won an election in 2008 by saying little, and doing nothing'. Lets hope his eventual legacy proves to be so much more than that.