Temperatures are now so high in Australia that the weather scientists have had to adopt a new colour. This is the forecast for Monday:

Worried yet?

(link courtesy of Kottke and ftrain)

Over on his blog Marbury there’s an excellent piece by Ian Marbury on his love of American politics, which was originally written for the RSA’s Fellowship newsletter. It includes this:

But if American politics got under my skin it wasn’t because it represented some noble democratic ideal, but because it was a source of the best and the biggest stories (I’m a writer, after all). An American presidential election is the highest narrative form democracy ever created. It is an epic drama, played out on the grandest of stages, containing all the Greek themes: power, money, war, fate, family, human ambition and human frailty. Its structure is essentially gladitorial: every four years, the combatants enter the arena knowing that by the end only one will be left standing. Their fortunes trace long, criss-crossing arcs that end in disappointment, disaster, or – for one man or woman and their legions of supporters – triumph. In dramatic terms, at least, it beats proportional representation.

When I returned to Britain in 2002, British politics seemed cramped and provincial by comparison. Front page headlines had the flavour of a gossip column in a local newspaper reporting on the machinations of the parish council. Was Gordon upset with Tony this week? It was hard to care.

Like Ian, I find myself fascinated with American politics, and follow it almost as much as I follow the British stuff. And like him, I find the American flavour stronger and more interesting. I’ve always thought the reason for this is at least partly the way mainstream British political coverage is set up to discuss ‘process’ (as Alistair Campbell used to call it) rather than policy.

We see this time and time again from the BBC and the main newspapers. Announcements are discussed not for their content, but for what they might suggest about the way politicians are positioning themselves. I saw it today, when the Coalition government pushed through the highest profile reduction of the welfare state in a generation, when the question being asked more than any other has been “what does this say about the Coalition’s chances at the next election?” Discussions of the merits of the policy, the economics of it, the effects on the ground, are few and far between.

I think political journalists somehow imagine that these tales of manoeuvring among politicos are somehow more compelling than the substantive debates over policy. I think they’re wrong, and I think American media has a different approach. To quote Mr Campbell again, we should cover politics with the same attention to detail, and the same resources, as we cover sport.

Even more, as John Rentoul stated in his recent Independent column, it’s events that dictate politics. Not the other way around:

My conclusion, therefore, is that the next election won’t depend on how far Labour is ahead now. Nor will it depend, in any quantifiable way, on how well the economy does over the next two years. Obviously, if people feel more secure in their jobs and more hopeful about their family finances, that will make it easier for the coalition parties, but it really depends on how much the Chancellor can persuade us that it was down to his stewardship and that he knows what to do next.

As a final point, this Tweet from Daniel Knowles of the Economist earlier today really resonated with me. Interestingly, the Economist is one of the few cultural affairs publications that puts policies above personalities.

The Rest Of The World had a field day laughing at Americans last week. Ironically, the catalyst for this was the Supreme Court’s ruling on Obamacare. Many people (particularly in Europe) seem to think that opposition to any kind of nationally operated healthcare system is a sign of brazen, deep American stupidity. So when the Supreme Court ruled that Obamacare was not unconstitutional, and a good number of Americans complained about the decision, lots of people on this side of the pond laughed.

Picture by MattHurst on Flickr

Which is odd. Because what I saw was a smart country working its way through a complicated issue. I tried to imagine, say, Britain trying to introduce a national health service these days. I failed to see how it would. And I got more than a little irritated by the sneering assumption that Americans who don’t think like Europeans are somehow dumb.

I’ve met dumb Americans. I’ve met dumb French people. I’ve met seriously stupid English people. I’ve met some spectacularly idiotic Australians. There are dumb people everywhere.

But when I read things – history, literature, websites, even Tweets – I see Americans in the round as smart, connected, hard-working, resilient, articulate, well-educated, proud and self-aware people. Those of us who take pleasure in mocking those things which look “dumb” to Europeans – gun-ownership, say – make no attempt to understand American history and how it got where it is today. Even the most stupid Tea Party anti-tax goon knows more about American history than 99.9% of those mocking American decisions and American instincts from this side of the Atlantic. We Europeans fail to understand the fundamental differences in relations between individual and state in that country, and how they came about from its unique, glittering, epic history.

The depressing thing about stating this kind of very obvious truth is how inevitable the response will be. There are those for whom America is some overfed combination of dumb and evil, the big fat overstimulated teenage kid in the playground. Nothing anyone can say will convince those people of the wrongness of their prejudices. But they are wrong.

I have a rather old-fashioned left-wing attitude to the current debate over cuts and services. It’s this: if you’ve run out of money for services which you’ve said for decades are vital, don’t cut them. Make us pay for them. Go on, grow a pair and put up taxes, and explain why that’s important.

In the long run, of course, that isn’t going to happen. The conversation just now is all about cutting back the Leviathan of the state – there’s a pretty good Economist section on it this week, and some of what is said in unarguable. If the government’s spending the equivalent of more than half of a country’s GDP, that just feels wrong. And if public sector workers really are retiring to a life on the Costa Brava in their mid-fifties, that feels wrong too. On the ground, it’s easy to see a new generation of senior public sector managers in their 30s and 40s who grew up under New Labour’s prescription of professional competence and reform, who believe that anyone taking money out of the public purse unfairly is somehow defrauding society. They’re the ones who’ll change things.

But I would just like to point out a broken bit of this conversation. Today, I received Lambeth’s council tax leaflet. There’s a picture of the cover to the right of this post. And what does it boast?

“Council tax frozen for third year!”

That’s it. That’s the only message from the cover. And it’s like a missive from a different world. Inside, the council explains that their central government funding is being cut by £79 million over three years, and that just makes me want to scream: “Why the hell are you not raising council tax then! Blame it on the government! Explain what services it protects! GROW A PAIR!” Everything about local government funding is driving me nuts. The fact that house prices haven’t been rerated for TWENTY YEARS, for instance. How can that possibly be fair or efficient?

So, if you want to close a library, look me in the eye and explain to me why you didn’t try and raise the money to keep it open. Show me now. Because the way we’re going, deficits are always only going to be about cuts, and never about taxation.

YouTube – Tom Watson calls Michael Gove a “miserable pipsqueak of a man”.

Turkey can afford to keep tax rates unchanged “for the foreseeable future” while other European governments struggle to repair the damage done by the financial crisis, Ali Babacan, economy minister, said on Wednesday.His comments reflect Turkey’s pride in weathering last year’s turmoil without bailing out any banks or seeking help from the International Monetary Fund. In contrast with much of the European Union it aspires to join, Turkey won recent upgrades to ratings of its sovereign debt after setting medium term fiscal targets it is likely to beat in 2010.

via FT.com / Europe – Turkey proud to keep current tax rates.