By Ben Chu

I'm confused. Today's Spectator leader tells us that "Internationally, Obama's victory will rout lazy Anti-Americanism". But not long ago, the UK-based neoconservatives, many of them given generous space in The Spectator (see here, here and here), were telling us that to oppose George Bush's foreign policy was to adopt a bitter "anti-American" attitude.

Yet Obama was swept to power by American voters largely because the Democrat candidate opposed just about every aspect of Bush's record, especially his international legacy. So doesn't that make the president elect himself "anti-American" in the eyes of these self-appointed guardians of US honour? Apparently not. But why? Can anyone shed light on this mystery?

By Ben Chu

Why have no heavyweight comedians ridden to the defence of Russell Brand and Jonathan Ross? We had Adrian Edmondson in The Independent today, but his argument felt a bit half-hearted. So where are the Michael Palins, the Terry Joneses, the Armando Iannuccis, the Chris Morrises? They've all been on the receiving end of public opprobrium for their material over the years. Surely they should be standing up for two of their persecuted brethren now, writing stirring defences of free speech and the like?

By Ben Chu

They still don't get it. Read this report in the FT today on banking bonuses and the (belated) political pressure for them to come down. Here's an anonymous quote from what is described as "one prominent UK banker" defending the present remuneration levels: "A bonus has completely lost its value because you can't live on basic pay in London". Bear in mind that basic pay for many "prominent bankers" in London is £300,000 a year.

By Ben Chu

One of the piquant ironies of the effective nationalisation of a large chunk of the British high street banking sector this morning is that it leaves those politicians and commentators who have spent their careers ridiculing the clumsiness of the state and scorning any form of government intervention in society utterly bereft.

However happy Gordon Brown might seem to be in this crisis, no one seriously believes that the Prime Minister entered into this unprecedented state intervention in the private banking sector willingly. This package was not imposed on a healthy private industry by ideologically-driven socialist politicians. The bankers pleaded for this package as the only way to stop their businesses being utterly destroyed.

Now they have got it. And the political, as well as the financial landscape, is transformed at a stroke.

By Ben Chu in Manchester

There have been plaudits from here about how wonderful Sarah Brown was in her introduction to her husband's conference speech: "She gives him warmth", "she's truly his greatest asset," etc.

I was less impressed. Why should I care about the personality of a political leader's wife. Is she elected? No. Is she making crucial decisions about the future of the country? I certainly hope not. Having her up on the platform is the sort of meaningless and nauseating political theatre they go in for in American Presidential elections. It's dumbing down. It also smacks of sexism - women defined by their husband's job and all that.

Brown announced in his speech that "My children are not props, they’re people". But what about his wife? Poor old Sarah looked rather like a political prop to me today.