Wednesday, June 30, 2010

A Radical Way to Reduce the Prison Population

It is a curious thing when you have a Tory calling for a reduced prison population and a former Labour Home Secretary - in The Daily Mail of all places - arguing that prison works. I guess, if nothing else, that this just goes to show how lost the Labour party has become: some of its leading lights are now on the right of the incumbent Con-Dem government. But hey ho - that's Labour's problem, not mine.

But since this is now clearly on the agenda, I have an idea that could substantially reduce the prison population. It is a radical (if you are deeply unimaginative or an unthinking reader of tabloid newspapers) policy, and one many people won't like. But it is this - reduce the prison population by legalising drugs.

From that point on, you are going to be sending fewer people to prison - users, addicts and pushers. If drugs cease to be criminal, then those involved with them cease to automatically be seen as criminal as well. So fewer people will end up going to prison.

And, of course, there are other benefits as well. The Treasury would make more money through taxing drugs. Addicts might be more willing to come forward and seek treatment since admitting to a drug problem would no longer be the same as admitting to criminal activity. Drug related crime would also fall. Furthermore, we wouldn't be in the ludicrous position as we are now where we send drug addicts into confinement in places rife with drugs - namely, prisons. So to Ken Clarke - and any other politician who wants to reduce the prison population - I say do it. Legalise drugs, and then not only will the numbers of those in prison start going down very quickly, but a whole host of other good things could happen as well.

Of course, this won't happen; no professional politician would dare. But one of the reasons why drugs remain such an emotive topic in this country is because of the media inspired frenzy around them, which provokes an unthinking level of rage and fear in many people as soon as the topic of drugs comes up. But that is something that politicians could rectify if they were courageous enough. There are clear benefits to legalising drugs - now all we need is a politician with the backbone to start making the case for legalisation.

Labels: , , ,

Quote of the Day

From one Ken Clarke, talking about the rise of the prison population under Nu Labour:
David Blunkett and John Reid had a chequebook in one hand and a copy of the Daily Mail in the other.

Labels: , , ,

Those "Ideological" Spending Cuts

It is an odd phrase that is really starting to bother me - "ideological spending cuts". Every time the coalition government trims a budget (often canceling planned future spending rather than actually making a cut, mind) the Labour party and its mindless followers scream that the cuts are "ideological". Yet against every available definition of the word "ideological" it appears that these spending cuts are anything but.

First up, let's look at the parties involved in implementing these cuts. The Tories are probably the least ideological they have been since that fat, shambling oaf Edward Heath led them. And the Liberal Democrats showed the extent to which they are a centre-ground, middle of the road ideological vacuum with their shameless flirtation with both parties after the General Election in the desperate hope of gaining some sort of power for themselves. Whatever this coalition might be about, it is based on compromise between two ideologically compromised parties. Their policies, including their spending cuts, are not about ideology.

Then you've got the fact that Labour were also committed to making spending cuts. Would their spending cuts have been ideological too? Or does the fact that the Labour party would have been doing them absolve them from the charge of being ideological? Because the Labour party has never tried to pursue ideological ends before now, has it? Oh, wait...

And then there's the timid, almost apologetic way in which the coalition has gone about its spending cuts. This isn't a bold, ideologically driven government relishing the chance to cut back government spending - this is a fragile coalition desperately trying to avoid a backlash for the spending cuts it is being forced to make owing to the incompetence of the previous administration.

So by all means attack the spending cuts for their size, their targets and the way in which they are being carried out, but don't try to make out that they are ideological in their nature. They're not. I for one would relish a government ideologically committed to reducing the size of government spending and the state; however, this timid coalition is very much not that government.

Labels: , , , , , ,

Tuesday, June 29, 2010

Joe Biden, Taxes and Foot in Mouth Disease

A little story about US Vice-President Joe Biden putting his foot squarely in his mouth in a frozen custard store:
Then it got really bad. Biden engaged the owner in conversation. "What do we owe you?" he asked, licking a cone. "Lower our taxes and we'll call it even," the owner replied.

Leave it there, Joe! Don't do it!

But no, Biden just had to answer back, for the benefit of the cable news channels. "Why don't you say something nice instead of being a smartass all the time? Say something nice," he snorted.
In fairness, Biden claimed that he was "just kidding" with the owner. Which he may well have been, but it is still a very stupid retort and one that is perhaps more revealing about Biden's thought process than he might like. There is nothing wrong with asking for lower taxes - it isn't a nasty comment, and it certainly isn't being a smartass (despite what The Guardian inevitably implies at the very end of the article). Biden appears to be demonstrating the arrogance that has become an epidemic among politicians on both sides of the Atlantic - that the tax we pay is their money to spend, rather than something they should be looking to minimise on behalf of those they claim to represent.

I suppose that America can at least be grateful that their Vice-President tries to engage with the public - even if it is in a patronising and dismissive way. It is certainly very different from the example set by... I don't know, Gordon Brown - who might disagree with a voter, but would say nothing to them or about them until he was safely in his car.

Labels: , ,

Monday, June 28, 2010

Disgruntled Lib Dem Supporters

It seems that Liberal Democrats are finding out the downside to power, and don't like it one bit:
Nick Clegg is suffering a fierce public backlash over the coalition's VAT rise, with almost half of Liberal Democrat supporters saying the tax U-turn makes them more likely to desert the party.

A YouGov/Brand Democracy survey, which will alarm already restive Lib Dem MPs, shows 48% of those who voted Lib Dem at the election are now less inclined to back them again as a direct result of the increase in VAT from 17.5% to 20%.
Well, I voted Lib Dem at the last election (lack of a Libertarian candidate y'see) and I'm not a big fan of the VAT rise. I understand the logic behind it, and I can understand why they did it - had I been in a similar position, though, I'd have favoured spending cuts every time over tax rises. I can also understand how some Lib Dem voters might feel betrayed - Clegg and Co were very adamant on where they stood on a VAT rise, but in power they have done the exact opposite of what they campaigned for. Yet for any seasoned political observer, a newly empowered politician u-turning is the very definition of plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

As for disgruntled Liberal Democrat voters, well, there is no real point in changing their support to one of the other main parties. After all, the Tories are the dominant power in the coalition that introduced the VAT increase, while the Labour party are the people who made the VAT increase and all the spending cuts pretty much inevitable with their idiotic, spendaholic policies. So the choice is either for Lib Dem voters to stay put, or look to one of the minor parties for a better deal. And if there are Lib Dem voters looking for a party committed to lower taxes and greater freedom within this country, then there is one obvious smaller party that they could transfer their allegiance to...

Labels: , , , ,

Sunday, June 27, 2010

Doctor Who: The Big Bang

In years to come, Doctor Who fans will talk with reverence about how much of genius Steven Moffat is. And I reckon this episode will be the one they cite as the definitive proof.

Because this episode showed just how large the canvas that Moffat has been painting on this season has been. This wasn't the thirteenth episode in a TV season - it was the climax and conclusion to the previous 12 episodes. But it was also a stand-alone story in its own right. The locations, the narrative thrust, the whole structure showed an story that was part of a greater whole, yet still an essential piece of viewing on its own.

Best of all, this episode showed an attention to detail that bordered on the anal, but just about managed to stay on the right side of genius. Don't believe me? Well, what about the moment when the apparent continuity error in Flesh and Stone was revealed to be a future version of the Doctor imparting vital information to Amy? How good was that? It is an example of what Moffat does best - not only in this episode, but across the season. He takes your expectations and your assumptions, and subverts them.

And there were so many moments to savour aside from the rewarding narrative devices at play. Rory was finally shown to be a genuine hero. He saved the Doctor and stood guard over Amy for two thousand years. That's true love. Indeed, when the Doctor was temporarily erased from reality, Rory's terrified and cowed reaction to Amy on the 'phone showed just how much he as developed as a character. Both Amy and Amelia were given a great deal to do, and it was nice that Amy was the one who saved the Doctor in a more comprehensive way than perhaps any companion has ever managed before. And the Doctor... the Eleventh Doctor was firing on all cylinders here, and all facets of his character were nicely represented in this episode. He has become a scatter-brained, alien genius with little regard or care for what others think of him. And his dancing at Amy's wedding brought a broad grin to this reviewer's face.

It also has to be said that the new Daleks - or the fat Daleks, as I like to think of them - look far better when encased on stone. Long may that continue. And I also feel a slight sadness as the passing of Auton Rory. A companion with a gun in his hand would be a useful addition to any TARDIS team.

Ultimately, great television should leave you thinking about it long after the end credits have rolled, and The Big Bang does that. Furthermore, as a measured and controlled piece of writing, it didn't answer all the questions that were posed, thus giving us a reason to go on watching. And with the Doctor, Amy and Rory all in the TARDIS ready for new adventures, why wouldn't we go on watching?

Frankly, Christmas can't come quickly enough.

Labels: , ,

Friday, June 25, 2010

Doctor Who: Predicting the Big Bang

One of the joys of a big cliffhanger is it sets off fans like me speculating wildly about what is going to happen in the concluding episode. And that is precisely what has happened over the past week, since Amy was apparently killed, River Song trapped in the exploding TARDIS and the Doctor locked in the Pandorica at the end of the last episode. Since we are about 24 hours away from the broadcast of this season finale, I thought I'd share my observations on what might happen this time tomorrow. So, what might resolve not only The Pandorica Opens, but also the whole season to date? Assuming, of course, that Moffat isn't going to press the Big Fat Reset Button so beloved of RTD...

1. There are two Doctors

I've heard people commenting on the idea that there might be two Doctors running around - one with a blue shirt and bowtie, one with the red equivalent. This is honestly a revelatory idea for me. I though that the Doctor was simply changing his shirt and bowtie in the same way that normal people change their clothes (y'know, for hygiene reasons), but maybe I'm being hopelessly naive.

2. The Dark Doctor/Dream Lord

You know the one I mean, that naughty monkey from Amy's Choice. Maybe he wasn't just hallucinatory space pollen, maybe he was something more. Quite what, and how adding another element to an already fit-to-burst Alliance of the Doctor's enemies would resolve the story, is beyond me, but it might explain the menacing voice in the TARDIS last week, and who was controlling the TARDIS when River Song was unable to. It might also explain...

3. The Attempted TARDIS

In The Lodger, the Doctor did not stop for one second to consider who might be building an ersatz TARDIS on top of a sleepy flat in a sleepy street in a sleepy town. But now seems like a good time to ask who was building that, and why. Furthermore, who would have the knowledge to even attempt to build a TARDIS? The Dark Doctor might be an explanation for this conundrum...

4. Who is River Song going to kill?

In The Time of Angels/Flesh and Stone River was serving a prison sentence for killing someone - the best man she ever knew, if memory serves. Which sounds for all the world to me like the Doctor. But how can she kill the Doctor? Unless, of course, there are two of them. So back to point 1.

5. Auton Rory

Auton Rory shot Amy, but didn't want to do so. The clip airing this week shows him regretting this. Now, as an Auton, Rory could walk around amongst the Alliance without detection. If he is still remembering his human side, then maybe, just maybe, he might decide that the best way to do help Amy would be to get the Doctor out of the Pandorica. And as part of the Alliance, he might be able to do so. Auton Rory - part of the problem yet part of the solution?

Of course, all of this is speculation, and as someone who thought that the Pandorica might contain Omega, my theories probably aren't up to much. But there are some interesting ideas above to ponder while we await the series finale. However, if you do want my idea as to what will definitely aid the Doctor in saving himself, his companions and the universe, then the answer lies with Amelia Pond. No, no, not Amy Pond - Amelia. Her younger self; the one who Amy said, way back in The Eleventh Hour - hasn't lived in the house for ages... Oh, and that duck pond - the one with no ducks - may also prove to be important.

Labels: , ,

The Pointless Simon Hughes

Simon Hughes is stirring again.

I don't particularly care about the detail of what he is saying - there were always going to be those left on the outside, both ideologically and practically, of the coalition deal. And someone like Hughes was always going to be the mouthpiece of the disgruntled wing of the Lib Dems. No, no, what bothers me is this - why is Simon Hughes still in Parliament? No, even more than that - what the hell is the point of Simon Hughes anyway?

The truth is that Simon Hughes is utterly pointless. He's the sort of Lib Dem who gives the whole party a bad name - someone who tries to appear pious and caring on the surface (yet remains faintly patronising at all times - intentionally or otherwise) yet is actually quite nasty, underhand and unpleasant if you even lightly scratch that surface. His campaign against Peter Tatchell in 1983 is an excellent example of that. His constituency blindly re-elects him each time it gets the chance, despite it having some shocking examples of poverty within it and it also being an area of London that is immune to many of the improvements seen in other parts of that great city. He's run for Lib Dem leader, yet failed convincingly. And now he seems to be trying to undermine the coalition - the Liberal Democrats' sole chance to have any political influence whatsoever for more than a generation.

Wherever the Liberal Democrats go after this - to the right, to the left, straight into an ongoing alliance with one of the main parties - I think they need, and should heed, this piece of advice: ditch Hughes. Deselect him. Bin him. Get rid of him. Your party will be far better off without this waspish, poisonous cretin. He contributes nothing to your party, and he is just a headache in desperate need of a pain killer.

Labels: , , , , ,

The Killing Moon - Echo and the Bunnymen

Labels: , ,

Thursday, June 24, 2010

To Catch a Predator

A clip for the US TV show To Catch a Predator:



You can find many other clips from this startling show online - YouTube is full of them. In an odd sort of a way, the clips are quite addictive. It is like watching a car crash over and over again, because the format of the encounters between the annoyingly supercilious presenter and the pathetic men who come looking for teen sex varies vary little. The predators arrive, often coaxed into the house by an actor pretending to be a horny teen. Then the presenter confronts them. He doesn't initially reveal who he is, but he often comes across like a policeman. He asks them uncomfortable questions and points out their feeble lies, before telling them that they are on the TV. They then leave, only to be arrested outside using methods that would make Vic Mackey proud. And that's what happens, over and over again, in To Catch a Predator.

In a wonderful, yet terrifying, example of satire predicting real life, it all reminds me of this:


Don't get me wrong, those who want to hump underage teenagers do deserve the attention of the police. What I struggle with is the fact that the trapping of these predators* has to happen on national TV, and that the manner of apprehending suspects appears to have more to do with making great TV that it does with the needs of justice and protecting the community. And there is a lethal underside to this "entertainment" as well.

Of course, America is nominally a free society, and there is the argument that all the producers of this unpleasant show are doing is responding to the demands of the audience. Put simply, if people didn't watch this, then they wouldn't make it.

But that, in a sense, is even worse than the realisation that some producer somewhere decided that it would be good entertainment to name and shame potential abusers on prime-time TV. Because it is a pretty stunning indictment of any society that the public humiliation of some of its most maladjusted members might become popular entertainment.

This is an extension of Megan's Law, and of Sarah's Law. It is saying that some members of a society are so abhorrent to the majority in that society that they lose the right to be treated as a human being. They lose the right to justice, to the assumption of innocence until guilt is proven. To condemn a To Catch a Predator is not express sympathy with the victims, but rather to express concerns about the corruption of justice and the legal system in order to create exceptionally low-brow entertainment. It is only a small step from this to watching the execution of child killers or serial killers. After all, people would watch that, just as they watch the arrest of predators. So why not show it?

Ironically, there is something very predatory about To Catch a Predator. It nibbles at the darker side of humanity, and works to make the humiliation of other humans OK because of what they might have done had a TV crew not been there to stop them. Police work and the justice system cease to be a necessary but unpleasant part of life. Instead, they become a form of entertainment. And that is depressing both for justice, and a society as a whole.

*On occasion, those producing the show are keen to point out that there is a difference between a paedophile and a predator - something to do with the ages of their victims. It is a pedantic technicality that I'm sure is lost on those who watch with vengeful fury as potential abusers are forced to the ground at gunpoint by the police in front of the TV cameras.

Labels: , , ,

Wednesday, June 23, 2010

Gary Gilmore's Eyes - The Adverts

Labels: ,

Tuesday, June 22, 2010

On Ayn Rand

Ayn Rand appears to have become one of the icons for Libertarianism, and she is so often cited by (particularly American) Libertarians that a casual observer might expect all Libertarians to be clutching their copy of Atlas Shrugged at all times. Personally, I struggle with Rand in a number of ways, and I'd argue that she is at best a flawed icon for Libertarians.

Don't get me wrong - Rand can write. Atlas Shrugged is a vast novel but it remains readable throughout. However, her writing is not flawless. Realistically, Atlas Shrugged is too long, and is a book in dire need of a decent editor. By contrast, Anthem is too short, and ends up reading like a Ladybird version of Nineteen Eighty-Four (although, in fairness, it was written before Orwell's masterpiece). But, crucially, I've found I can pick up a Rand novel and want to get to the end which is a test many authors fail to pass.

And I'll say this as well in praise of Rand - her attack on the Marxist slogan "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs" in Atlas Shrugged is without peer. Rand paints the picture of a dystopia created by people trying to force fairness on others. It shows just how poisonous equality can be when it is forced on others, and what damage equality of outcome can have if foisted onto a free society. Atlas Shrugged is worth reading for this critique alone - all 1368 pages of it.

But it is with other elements of Atlas Shrugged in particular that I struggle with. Rand seems to suggest that the only good, or worthwhile, life to be lead is that of the successful business entrepreneur. Even the composer - one of the few likable characters in the novel who isn't a business person - talks about how he sees his music in business terms. The whole novel reads like a love letter to the business community. Even lovers compete against each other in a cut-throat way - and the novel suggest this is a good thing. Again, don't get me wrong - I have nothing against business people, and can clearly see that they play a crucial role in our society. However, I believe that other people in other professions and other vocations also have important roles and lead worthwhile lives. Likewise, I don't think that - given freedom from an overbearing state - the pursuit of money and success (or greed, as some would probably see it) is the only way to enjoy freedom. Put simply, I believe that there are a myriad of different ways to contribute to society and lead a worthwhile life. Rand only seems to see one - through business success.

And given Rand's love of business and greed, it is perhaps unfortunate the she is so often associated with Libertarianism, since that association just furthers the notion that Libertarians want a reduced state purely to make as much money as possible. That is, of course, not true. Libertarianism is not synonymous with free-market anarchism, and many would use the freedom offered by a genuinely Libertarian government to pursue charitable goals and alternative forms of community not dictated to them by a central government - not just, in other words, to pursue profit.

It seems all political movements need to find figureheads, be it political or cultural icons. However, it seems to me a shame that many Libertarians have adopted a reverence for Ayn Rand. Because while elements of Rand's philosophy match Libertarian ideals, the clue is in Rand's own philosophy - she is an objectivist rather than just a Libertarian. If you want an icon, by all means find one. But I just don't think that Rand is a particularly good icon for the Libertarian movement.

UPDATE: Mr Civil Libertarian says much of what I wanted to say, with better research and rather more eloquently. Go have a read.

Labels: ,

Monday, June 21, 2010

The Who - Bell Boy

Labels: , ,

Sunday, June 20, 2010

Doctor Who: The Pandorica Opens

Wow. That really was quite something.

In many ways, it was classic Moffat. The whole concept of the Pandorica was set up to suggest one thing (the threat was coming from inside the box) whereas the twist was something else - the threat actually being placed in the box. And there were further narrative tricks at play here - the resurrection of Rory was actually a heartbreaking trap. And a trap that may have led to the second death of a companion of the 11th Doctor.

However, what also worked nicely for me was that this episode started off really very lightheartedly. The River Song flirting, the familiar faces, and the Doctor's attempts to distract the Cyber arm were all very entertaining, and not played too earnestly. Again, this was a nice trick - almost underplaying the threat, making it seem as if the Doctor was in control. Whereas he wasn't in control, and arguably hasn't been for quite some time.

And the episode succeeded in doing something that the new series hasn't done to day - making the Cybermen bloody terrifying. The attempted cyber-conversion of Amy was the sort of thing that nightmares are made of, particularly when the skull came crashing out of the Cyber helmet.

Of course, nothing's perfect, and I could have done without the compendium of monsters at the end - if only because I struggle with the new fat Daleks. Still, it was nice conceit to have them all working together to save the universe from the Doctor. It would also be a shame if this was actually it for Amy (although I suspect it won't be), since she has been one of the most interesting of the Doctor's companions. Whatever happens, I suspect that her character will be crucial to the resolution of this story, and, indeed, of this entire season.

Because this episode showed that this whole season has been one big story, with smaller adventures taking place as part of an awe-inspiring overall arc. Everything has been building up to this point, and we are left with a wonderful, exciting and unnerving cliffhanger.

And it is a cliffhanger in another way, too. Will Moffat be able to pull together all the plot strands of not just The Pandorica Opens but of the entire 12 episodes that preceded The Big Bang? It's a tough call, but if any one Doctor Who writer can pull it off, then it will be the Moff - and let's hope he ends what has been a splendid season of Doctor Who in style. One thing's for sure - I can't wait until next Saturday.

Labels: , ,

Saturday, June 19, 2010

Doctor Who: The Pandorica Will Open...

...although slightly later for me than for most viewers as I will be in transit to London when the episode is broadcast. Rest assured, though, I will see it as soon as I can, and will publish a review of it just as soon as I can after that.

In the meantime, Doctor Who fans everywhere, enjoy...

Labels: ,

Monbiot On The "Free" Market

George Monbiot bloviating on some dickhead who used to run Northern Rock:
A couple of weeks ago, I wrote a column for the Guardian exploring the contrast between Matt Ridley's assertions in his new book The Rational Optimist and his own experience. In the book, Ridley attacks the "parasitic bureaucracy", which stifles free enterprise and excoriates governments for, among other sins, bailing out big corporations. If only the market is left to its own devices, he insists, and not stymied by regulations, the outcome will be wonderful for everybody.

What Ridley glosses over is that before he wrote this book he had an opportunity to put his theories into practice. As chairman of Northern Rock, he was responsible, according to parliament's Treasury select committee, for a "high-risk, reckless business strategy". Northern Rock was able to pursue this strategy as a result of a "substantial failure of regulation" by the state. The wonderful outcome of this experiment was the first run on a British bank since 1878, and a £27bn government bail-out.
It seems curious to me to be making a case against the free market by discussing a market that was not free. But that is precisely what Monbiot is trying to do. He's arguing that because the market was free, Northern Rock was able to follow a dumb-as-fuck business strategy and ended up having to be bailed out by the government. The problem with this "logic" is given away by those final five words: "bailed out by the government". Fundamentally, if the government is intervening in failing companies, then the market is not free.

Both now and when Northern Rock went tits up, we had a mixed economy. The government regulates and regularly intervenes in that economy - even in the banking sector. Had the market actually been left to its own devices, then Northern Rock would have gone under and the government could have saved billions. Furthermore, other businesses would have seen the result of pursuing a dumb-as-fuck business strategy, and might well have decided to change their business plans accordingly.

That's what would happen in a free market - business could take risks, but if those risks don't pay off, then the business itself has to take responsibility for that.

Now, I can certainly understand a certain indignation here: a man who used to run a business that ended costing the taxpayer billions writing a book on best business practice might be a little hard to digest. But the reason why that business cost us billions is because the government decided to bail that bank out. Gordon Brown is just as responsible for the Northern Rock bailout as Matt Ridley. He made the choice to spend that money; not Ridley, and certainly not an unregulated market.

By all means make your case against the free market - there's certainly one to be made. But if you want it to stand up to even the most basic scrutiny, you need to discuss the free market. Not a mixed economy.

Labels: , , ,

The BBC writes that people are both drinking more than they thought they were, and more than they should.

Labels:

Friday, June 18, 2010

Who is the most absurd looking UK politician?

This story is pretty dull - I mean, I'd rather councils did their job and picked up the bins every week, but I can't get worked up about it. But I would like to point out the picture in the story, if only because it is so striking in so many ways:

Oh look! It's Humpty Dumpty forced into a business suit on his way to his first day in the office as an accountant.

Ok, Ok, I know it is wrong to diss politicians because they aren't photogenic, but fuck it. They largely bring it on themselves, the preening camera-whores. So I'd like to set a deeply shallow and deeply offensive, but hopefully still fun, competition - who can come up with the person who is the most absurd looking politician in British politics today? Pickles gets my vote - who gets your vote?

Labels: , ,

The Harsh Truth About Spending Cuts

LabourList has an article up entitled The grim reality of "savage cuts" - you can go read the whole thing if you so wish, but you can probably guess what it is going to be like just by reading the title. It is one long whine from a Labour writer addicted to government spending.

Obviously, as a Libertarian, I have no issue with spending cuts - in fact, I think they are not only essential but also the right thing to do. And I'm not naive enough to think that a LabourList writer is going to understand that point of view - after all increasing government spending is pretty much the Labour party's reason for being. However, I do think that the article in question - like most of the bleating from Labour party types about spending cuts - misses the truth about those cuts.

Because, ladies and gents, the Labour party is the reason why those cuts have to be made.

Had the Labour party not dragged us into two wars that it actually didn't have the will to fight properly, then maybe there'd be enough money to prop up the existing bloated state. Had the Labour party not tried to nationalise the failing sections of the banking sector, maybe the cuts could be small rather than savage. Had the Labour party not fucked up both the economy and, to a large extent, the country as a whole, maybe the bloated state could have lumbered on for a bit under a flabby post-Blairite consensus.

But no - the last Labour government has forced the coalition's hand through its utterly inept dealings when it came to the economy and to spending. So you'll have to forgive me if I feel nauseated by the hypocrisy of a party bemoaning cuts that it made inevitable.

The Labour party needs to go away and think about what went so badly wrong during its 13 years in power, and what it plans to do to prevent history repeating itself if they ever win power again. Until then, they really should show some humility and shut the fuck up.

Labels: , , , ,

Oh sweet merciful Jesus, your ears may be about to be violated: Paul McCartney is writing the music for a ballet:
"I'm interested in doing things I haven't done before," he said.
How about you shut the fuck up and duck out of the limelight forever, Paul? After all, you've never done that before...

Labels: , ,

Thursday, June 17, 2010

Whinging MPs

The poor dears.

Mind you, I know I'm not alone in thinking that they wouldn't have had to have a new expenses system if they hadn't brought the old one into absolute disrepute through their greed, so it is difficult to feel any sympathy whatsoever too much sympathy for them.

And this comment - from Labour MP Ann Clwyd - really cracks me up:
"We are not whinging MPs. I really object to that title. We are raising matters which are quite legitimate to raise because they affect our performance as MPs."
If you don't want to be called whinging MPs, then don't fucking whinge. Honest to God, you'd have though that someone elected to Parliament might just be able to work that one out for themselves...

Labels: , , ,

Wednesday, June 16, 2010

The Evolution of Avatar

Labels: , ,

Where's Gordo? Who Cares?

Gordon Brown - where is he now? asks The Daily Telegraph. I'd like to answer a question with a question here - who fucking cares?

The fact that Gordo seems to have disappeared off the radar since the General Election can only be a good thing. I mean, it took long enough for him to leave Downing Street after that election - normally, Prime Ministers go if they are defeated. Not Gordo. Showing a complete lack of dignity, he clung on until the Liberal Democrats made it very clear that they fancied the Tories more than the Labour party. Only then, when there was absolutely no case to be made, however tenuous, for his ongoing occupancy of Number 10, did he go.

And when he was Prime Minister (and, for that matter, Chancellor) the truth is that he was a complete disaster. Basically, he did more than anyone else across the 13 years of Nu Labour misrule to completely fuck up this country. Every decision that was made he was either at the heart of, or he failed to resist it - and he was consistently at the top of the Nu Labour tree.

Where's Gordon Brown? Sulking in Scotland - powerless and rejected. And you'll have to forgive me if I express the hope that we never, ever hear from Gordon Brown again. Unless he happens to come forward to offer his sincere apologies to the British people for his myriad failings while in power. And he should, preferably, offer reparations to the British taxpayer at the same time.

Labels: , ,

Tuesday, June 15, 2010

The publishing sensation of the decade, I think we can all agree:
It is perhaps the most famous address in the world and now Sarah Brown, wife of the former prime minister, is to pen a book about life at 10 Downing Street.
Of course, there is something inevitable about Mrs Brown writing a memoir - no doubt her husband will at some point put pen to paper to write a tedious tome justifying his execrable tenure in Number 10. After all, once someone leaves politics, the autobiography becomes a nice little earner that can help to take the edge off defeat and the loss of a hefty income.

I just hope that Sarah Brown got the right price in order to write this book. At that price, in case anyone was wondering, should have been £2.50 and a can of Vimto.

Labels: ,

Voodoo Lady



The League of Gentleman do pub rock - a spoof that is an unintentionally(?) quite catchy. And by the way, if you don't know The League of Gentlemen TV show then you should...

Labels: ,

Monday, June 14, 2010

Neil Harding: Failing to defend the Smoking Ban

Neil Harding's been defending the smoking ban again. And in fairness, he is doing so in a bold way - bold in the sense that he's talking abject nonsense in order to make the case for the ban. Of course, since he is talking nonsense, his case for the smoking ban doesn't really work. In any way at all. Let's breakdown his... well, I suppose it's meant to be an argument:
A response to Mr Eugenides.
He doesn't bother to link to Mr E, but I'll assume (based on the comment he left) that he's talking about this post.
Aren't the 1,200 lives saved a year worth something? Does this have to come down to just economics?
Again, there's no link to any source for the 1,200 lives saved so I can't tell how reliable that figure is. The article Eugenides links to talks of hospital admissions rather than lives saved, and there is a difference. Of course, if Harding is talking about the figure relating to hospital admissions for heart attacks, it is next to impossible to prove that the smoking ban directly impacted on those figures - the reduction could have come about in any number of different ways. It could have been down to better prevention of heart attacks, people improving their lifestyles in different ways than not smoking pubs, even just a different way of measuring what constitutes a hospital admission for a heart attack. Even if different factors are taken into account (as they were in this survey), it remains next to impossible to create a direct, indisputable link between the smoking ban and fewer heart attacks. At best, the smoking ban may have been a factor - one of many factors.

And while Mr E may have been making an economic point about the smoking ban, the case against that ban is not just an economic one. It is also based on concepts of freedom and responsibility - the freedom of adults to choose to smoke in a pub (if the pub allows it) and to take the responsibility for that smoking. And it is also about the right of a business to choose what activities it wishes to take place on its premises. Above all, it is an argument about whether the population of this country is adult and can make its own decisions about things, or whether it is largely infantile and needs the guidance of a paternalistic nanny state.
Both me and the wife would take to the streets if this ban is repealed or altered in any way.
Oh, I'd love to see Harding and his wife marching against this. It would be utterly comical. If only because I suspect they would be the only people marching.
It is THE best thing Labour did in office...
The competition for that accolade is not fierce but I'm pretty sure I'm not alone in naming the smoking ban as one of the worst things Labour did while in office.
...and probably the single most important thing done for health since the 1970s.
Presumably Harding means "the single most important thing done for health by a government" here. But even so, I'd suggest that the money spent on research into HIV, cancer, heart disease, debilitating illnesses such as MS and Parkinson's disease - as well as the attempts to raise awareness of and therefore understanding about mental illnesses - are probably more important than instructing adults on when and where they can spark up.
If you are worried about pubs, support the minimum price per unit that will hit off-licence sales. Supermarkets have closed more pubs by far.
Once again, stats please. Making a bold, dramatic assertion is not enough to make that assertion fact. Besides, it is the logic of this that is really breathtaking. One illiberal piece of legislation (the smoking ban) has had a bad impact on pubs, so we should introduce a second piece of illiberal legislation to counteract the impact of the first piece of illiberal legislation. Ever heard the expression 'two wrongs don't make a right', Neil?
Think of the millions with lung diseases and asthma that can now have a drink without having to cough their lungs up.
I have asthma; even before the smoking ban, I could always find somewhere decent to have a drink without coughing up my lungs.
Think of the millions who were forced to stink of smoke and risk their health against their will just because they wanted a drink in their local or wanted to see a band or dj.
Yeah, but think about the millions who now have to endure the rank odour of stale sweat in pubs up and down the country that - that very same rank odour that was once drowned out by the smell of smoke.
The majority agree with me and the Tories know it, no matter how much the tobacco companies fund them, mess with this law at your electoral peril.
Where's the evidence that the majority agree with Harding? He certainly doesn't present any. But even if we give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that the majority of people do back the smoking ban, does that automatically make it right? If a majority of people want the restitution of the death penalty or an end to immigration in this country, then would that make those policies right? Of course not.
You have been duped into believing the millions of PR being spent by tobacco companies who use the same techniques as big oil and big pharma. Open your eyes and see the smoke.
And Neil needs to open his mind and get over his massive ego so he can realise that just because he disapproves of smoking in pubs doesn't make it a wrong that requires draconian government action.

Labels: , ,

Saturday, June 12, 2010

Doctor Who: The Lodger

This isn't the first incarnation of The Lodger - like Blink, Dalek and Human Nature/The Family of Blood (amongst others) it started out in a different format. Yes, once upon a time, The Lodger was a comic strip for the Doctor Who Magazine.

And it's worth pausing for a moment and looking at how this particular episode is different to the comic strip version. But first I'm going to make an assumption here - I reckon that many of the people reading this post won't remember (or even know of the existence of) a Doctor Who Magazine comic strip dating back to (if memory serves) Christmas 2005. So let me fill you in - the new Tenth Doctor (remember when David Tennant was new? My, how time has flown) gets separated from Rose and the TARDIS on Earth and ends up having to stay with Mickey Smith. The then new Doctor proves to be far more sociable than his predecessor - much to Mickey's annoyance, since this makes him even more attractive to Rose. Oh, and while he's staying with Mickey, the Doctor effortlessly saves the world. It's a slight story with clear similarities to the episode tonight. But there is one key difference - the character of the Doctor. The strip is set up to stress just how much more human the Tenth Doctor is than the Ninth Doctor, whereas the episode tonight is based on the idea of how detached the Eleventh Doctor is from normality, and therefore how awkwardly he comes across. As a result, the TV version of The Lodger is far funnier and far more entertaining than it's predecessor.

And I think it is time to come straight out and say it - the Eleventh Doctor is a far more successful creation and a far more successful Doctor (thus far) than the Tenth one.

That isn't too say that Matt Smith is a better actor than Tennant - I think history will show that Tennant is a versatile actor who can take on many different roles successfully while I fear that Smith will only truly be successful in quirky roles, like that of the Doctor. But no, this isn't based on the abilities of the actors - it's about how the characters of their Doctors are set up. The Tenth Doctor was very human in many ways - he liked being with humans, he could fall in love with them, he showed off to and sort the adulation of humans: he was one of the most human Doctors we've ever had. By contrast, the Eleventh Doctor is thinking about a million different things at once, and human beings are only one of them. He doesn't need or seek traditional friendship or human relationships. Even with his companion he still seems slightly disinterested - as evidenced by the fact he calls her Pond. The Eleventh Doctor is alien, and that makes his character more unpredictable and alien.

And this story could only really work with the Eleventh Doctor. The laugh out loud moments - such as the air-kissing, the massively over-the-top reaction to someone talking about "annihilating" another team at football, the wonderful rudeness to customers on the phone - wouldn't have worked with the Tenth Doctor. He'd have been match-making the two character who were clearly in love, he'd have excelled in the call centre, and he would have run around like a puppy seeking adoration.

But this episode worked not just because of the Eleventh Doctor, but because it managed to be spooky, funny and sweet all at the same time. The voice on the intercom and the doorway shrouded in darkness were all pure Steven Moffat - but unlike other attempts to replicate chief writer, the Gareth Roberts, author of tonight's episode, got it so right since his script - like the best work of his boss - was more than just quirky scares. There were realistic characters and a proper, rewarding story to this episode. What could have been a slight, quirky bit of filling before the two part season end instead stood up as a memorable, clever and rewarding episode in its own right. We've come a long way from Fear Her.

Barring the slip that was the Silurian return in The Hungry Earth and Cold Blood, we've been treated to an excellent season of Doctor Who. It has probably been the most consistently good series of stories since the show came back in 2005 - and that is no mean feat. Let's just hope that they can make the season finale live up to what has gone before. Because if they manage to pull it off, this will have been one of the best Doctor Who seasons in history. And given the show has been around for nearly fifty years, that would be really saying something...

Labels: , ,

Beware the Populist Politician

Much has been made in the past few days of Obama's comments about BP in the aftermath of the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. While it is wrong to paint BP as a complete innocent in the story, there can be little doubt that Obama's comments have had implications that were easy to predict - it has damaged BP as a company, it has put strain on the special relationship with the UK and it has left the US wide open to charges of hypocrisy when you consider incidents like the Bhopal disaster. Plus, y'know, this BP bashing doesn't actually help to resolve the issue - it is in everyone's, including BP's, best interest that this disaster is dealt with as quickly as possible. Now, I'm pretty sure Obama is intelligent enough to have anticipated at least some of these consequences, which does rather beg the question of why he went ahead and made his comments anyway. The answer is obvious - a little bit of short-term populism; a chance to identify an enemy of the American people (in this case BP) and then a chance to look tough by bullying that enemy.

You can see another example of the same phenomena here in the UK with Ed Ball's sudden conversion to the need to restrict immigration or, to put it another way, Ball's recent conversion to immigrant bashing. Now I don't think that Balls - who for all the world comes across as an economic policy wonk (as well as nasty little wanker, but that's not the main point here for once) - really has a problem with immigration. However, he saw his boss taking a (deserved) kicking for ducking a debate with a voter about immigration, and has decided that he doesn't want the same thing to happen to him. Plus, he's in the contest to be Labour leader and needs something to differentiate himself from the other candidates other than most people who know of him seem to think that he is a bit of a prick. Therefore, jump on the bash the immigrant bandwagon, and maybe even score some nice headlines from The Sun and The Daily Hate Mail while you're at it.

Of course, this approach from Balls misses the point in a number of ways. Part of the reason why Labour lost the last election was because of immigration. However, there were a number of other factors that were also crucial in creating that staggering defeat. Like the fact that they shafted the economy, the education system, civil liberties and the armed forces over a 13 year period. Balls is also missing the point that the reason why so many people in the UK feel uncomfortable about immigration is because Nu Labour studiously refused to engage with anyone on any sort of a debate over immigration - meaning that it has almost become a bit of a political taboo. What Nu Labour should have done is have made the case for immigration - to have pointed out during their years in power that the economy is dependent on immigrant labour and on immigrant spending. Instead, by saying nothing, they allowed the BNP to grow and for immigration to become something sightly sinister in the eyes of some voters. Of course, Balls could try to make this case now rather than bashing immigration. But he isn't, because that's a debate that needs to be had over a long period of time, whereas he may be able to benefit from immigrant bashing right here, right now.

Both Obama and Balls (surely this is one of the first times that the two have been directly compared and found to be similar) are playing tactical, rather than strategic, political games. They are chasing headlines, and trying to make themselves look tough in the eyes of the media. The problem with this is that politicians chasing headlines are never politicians at their best. In fact, they tend to be at their self-serving and cowardly worst when they're doing things like this. And there is a real danger to politicians in that they might get caught up in responding to events rather than trying to think strategically about what they want to achieve overall. There is a fundamental difference between a politician with a determination to implement a vision and a politician determined to chase headlines/respond to events. It is the difference between a Thatcher and a Major, and an Attlee and a Blair.

So beware of politicians flirting with populism. Beware of those politicians chasing headlines. Beware of politicians trying to look tough for the media. Because this is where we tend to see politicians at their most untrustworthy, self-serving and shallow.

Labels: , , , , , , ,

Friday, June 11, 2010

The World Cup

It is my understanding that the World Cup is starting/has started/is about to to start in South Africa. So I'd like to take this opportunity to assure all of my readers that I could not give a crap about the World Cup, and consequently am not going to comment on it in any other way than in this post.

Seriously, I don't care about it at all. I won't be watching any of the matches - not even if England make it into the final. And I'm going to avoid the merciless hype around the matches - which is no mean feat, given the saturation advertising around this pointless spectacle.

Don't get me wrong, if you like football, that's fine. In fact, you're probably going to have a cracking few weeks. It's just that I've got better things to do with my time than watch a bunch of preening, over-paid wankers prancing about on a field for 90 minutes. Life is too short for many things - the World Cup being one.

Labels: , ,

His Popiness the Pope has being selling the case for priestly celibacy again:
Pope Benedict XVI has strongly defended the Catholic Church's rule of celibacy for priests, speaking to 10,000 priests in St Peter's Square in Rome.

He called it a sign of faith in an increasingly secular world.
Personally, I don't think that celibacy is that natural or nice - which is one of the many reasons why I would make a terrible Catholic priest. But if Catholic priests want to be celibate in order to show their devotion to God, then I think they should be allowed to get on with it.

Just so long as they actually are celibate, mind. Rather than professing celibacy publicly and then abusing children in private...

Labels: ,

Thursday, June 10, 2010

The Labour Party: Patronising Paternalism

The more I think about Diane Abbott's elevation to the status of Labour leadership candidate, the more it bothers me.

They'll be some who treat this as a triumphant breakthrough for women (despite the Tories having had a female Prime Minister decades before the Labour party allowed Abbott onto their ballot paper) and for ethnic minorities. We have a black female candidate for the Labour leadership. What a mighthy step forward.

Except, of course, it is not. Because Abbott's elevation to the status of real-life Labour leadership contender has next to nothing to do with her ethnicity, her gender, or her ability. The reason why she is being able to run for Labour leader is because an aging white man dropped out of the contest, and because a middle-aged, middle-class white male decided to nominate her.

And why did Miliband Major effectively let her into the race? Sure, to make the leadership contest look more diverse in part. But also because he - and the other candidates - just don't see her as a threat. In many ways, it is easier for Miliband Major - and the other three - to have Abbott in the race than it is to exclude her. For all their talk of having a wider debate, this looks like tokenism - they have a black, female candidate, so there can pay lip service to a very nebulous idea of inclusion as they canter towards crowning a middle class, middle of the road white male as Labour leader.

I have no doubt - not a shred of doubt - that the Labour party will promote Abbott's presence on the ballot paper as proof that they are progressive. That is, of course, utter shite. As this action shows, the reality is that they are the party of smug, patronising paternalism.

Labels: , , ,

Abbott - Could She Win It?

Given the sudden surge of nominations for Abbott yesterday, and the media hoopla about her (eventual) arrival on the ballot paper, it is worth asking the question "can she win the Labour leadership?"

The obvious answer is "no, of course she can't. And don't be so bloody stupid". As Charlotte Gore rightly points out, there is something amazingly patronising about how Abbott got onto the ballot paper. The other candidates helped her so they could look more inclusive and because they don't see her as a threat to their own chances. Anyone who thinks otherwise should consider things like this - Miliband Major cares so little about Abbott that he can't even be bothered to spell her name right when he announces that he's nominated her.

Yet she's on the ballot paper now, and as far as I can see there is one way in which she might just pull off a win. She's got onto the ballot paper because of who she is - a black female. Now, if she wants to win, she needs to stress what she's not. Because, unlike all the other candidates in this election, she isn't a middle-aged man trying to pull off an impression of Tony Blair, and she isn't tainted by close association with the disastrous Brown administration. These are her strengths - perhaps her only strengths - in this election, and she'd be idiotic not to play to them.

And I'll allow my readers to insert a pun about "Dianne" (as Miliband Major would write her name) and idiocy in the comments section.

Labels: , ,

Wednesday, June 09, 2010

The Labour Leadership Contenders - Who'll be the worst?

Oh my, I wasn't expecting this. Diane "Prejudiced Against Finnish Nurses" Abbott has made it onto the ballot paper for the Labour leadership election. This promises to make the contest far more interesting...

Andy Burnham (y'know, the one who looks like he should be a Miliband but actually isn't) must be a bit peeved, though. Not for the first time, Abbott has completely upstaged him. His triumph at getting enough nominations to get onto the ballot paper with just hours to spare is being largely ignored by the media because Abbott managed to do the same thing.

I've no doubt that a Miliband will emerge as the eventual victor, but for me the real competition is between Abbott and Balls. I can't wait to see who, over the course of what is sure to be a fiercely fought contest, shows themselves to be the one who'd be most likely to condemn the Labour party to a generation in opposition. They both have unique skills that mark them out as potentially disastrous Labour leaders, but I look forward to finding out which of the two of them comes across as the least capable person to be Leader of the Opposition. Make no mistake about it, will Balls and Abbott now in the contest, the race to be the worst Labour leadership candidate will be a fiercely fought battle...

Labels: , , , ,

John McDonnell: Failure

I think we should all take a moment to consider John McDonnell, who has withdrawn from the Labour leadership race the battle to get onto the ballot for the Labour leadership election. In particular, I think we should consider just how shit he is.

He ran against Gordon Brown back in 2007. Actually, sorry, that's not true. He tried to run against Gordon Brown in 2007 but he was so shit that he couldn't even get on the ballot paper back then either. Even though another left-wing candidate dropped out of the race in order to help him.

And now he's failed to get on the ballot paper once again. He's dropped out of the contest to allow Diane Abbot to get on the ballot paper - even though the evidence would seem to suggest that even if all of his supporters back Abbot, she still wouldn't get on the ballot paper*...

In short, it is difficult to conclude anything other than that McDonnell's campaigns for the Labour leadership were at best optimistic, and at worst just a total waste of time.

*According to the Labour party, Abbott has 11 nominations, McDonnell (according to the BBC) had 16. So the most McDonnell's supporters could give Abbott is to raise her total to 27 nominations - meaning that if she does make it through, it will only have been in part due to McDonnell dropping out.

Labels: , ,

Tuesday, June 08, 2010

Doves - Pounding

Labels: ,

Monday, June 07, 2010

Gordon Brown: Petty Wanker

Via Mr Eugenides, I've come across Brown's final abuse of power before he was deservedly forced from left office: reducing the Prime Minister's salary so it affects... David Cameron:
Gordon Brown's failure to turn up for the State Opening of Parliament may well have been because he couldn't look David Cameron in the face. Mandrake hears that one of Brown's final acts in the Downing Street bunker was quietly to organise a pay cut for his successor which he must have known would leave him out of pocket to the tune of hundreds of thousands of pounds.

On Brown's orders, the Prime Minister's remuneration package was cut from £194,000 to £150,000, but this was done with such stealth that no formal announcement was ever made.
This perfectly sums up Gordon Brown - petty, nasty and hypocritical to the last.

Labels: , ,

John McDonnell: Crass Idiot

LabourList commenting on McDonnell's assassination "joke" with considerable understatement:
John McDonnell says he was on the GLC - and that if he could go back in time and do one thing, he would visit the 1980s and "assassinate Thatcher". The wisdom of such a statement really has to be questioned.
I think we can go further than that. I think we can roundly condemn McDonnell for his atrocious comment. It would seem a crass thing to say among friends in a pub: to say in a public hustings surrounded by your rivals as you campaign for the leadership of Britain's Opposition party seems to be idiotic in the extreme.

But in a sense it explains something for me: how McDonnell consistently fails to manage to get on the ballot paper in Labour leadership contests. His words are very revealing - he is an old school Labour party member, a tribal thinker still fighting the battles of the 1980s - the era when the Labour party consistently lost elections. He'd be a total liability as Labour leader simply because he doesn't get modern politics - either what the Labour party should be fighting in this day and age (the Con-Dem coalition, rather than a woman who hasn't been Prime Minister for twenty years) or how modern politics works, and that a crass comment and/or a bad joke can get across the country almost instantaneously.

LabourList should not only question the wisdom of McDonnell's comment, they should also seriously question the wisdom of John McDonnell the politician and John McDonnell the man.

Labels: , , ,

Religious Education Today

The BBC brings us news of yet another area in which the state school system is failing:
Religious education is "inadequate" in one in five secondary schools in England, according to watchdog Ofsted.
Since “education” and “inadequate” have become largely synonymous since Nu Labour decided to shaft the state school system, it’s worth clarifying what exactly the problem is with religious education:
Its study suggested many teachers were unsure of what they were trying to achieve in the subject.
Which does raise the interesting question of what should religious education look to achieve today? Indeed, should there be any sort of religious education in state schools in this day and age?

To the latter question, I think the answer is yes – despite being a committed atheist. While it sometimes pains me to admit it, religion is still important to many people in society today, so in order to understand what religion is (and maybe even help to combat religious intolerance at the same time), religious education is important – and part of that education should also involve a discussion of atheism. There may even be a chance within this to debate questions of morality when discussing religion.

But what there is no place for whatsoever in religious education is promotion of any one religion. Religious education should not promote Christianity, or Islam, or any other religion. If pupils decide to follow a religion, then that is their choice. Religious education should be explicitly about educating kids, not promoting one religion and critiquing the others*.

To me, this is not controversial at all – but I suspect that to many religious groups it will be very problematic. But ultimately, if you want to educate kids about religion today, you have to reflect the fact that Britain today is a multicultural society where people choose to follow a number of different faiths – and some choose people not to follow any sort of religion at all.

*Which is exactly what my experience of religious education was.

Labels: , ,

Sunday, June 06, 2010

The Working Class Andy Burnham

"Working Class" "Hero" Andy Burnham gives his proletarian credentials:
"People keep saying everyone's background's the same, but mine is different."

He added: "There wasn't much privilege about going to a Merseyside comprehensive in the 1980s, I can assure you of that."
Now, where did people get the idea that Burnham might be privileged? I guess it might be his background as a Cambridge graduate, then his time as a political advisor before coming into Parliament. Oh, and his time in Parliament has also seen him placing his hands in the till using the expenses system.

Your early years may be a little bit different to some of the other candidates, Andy, but everything you have done since makes you into the perfect anodyne Nu Labour drone. You are largely indistinguishable from Miliband, Miliband Minor and Balls. And like the others, you are largely pointless - a throwback to Blairism at a time when that man and his rancid turd of a government have been exposed as utterly incompetent and comprehensively rejected by the British public.

Labels: , , , ,

Saturday, June 05, 2010

Doctor Who: Vincent and the Doctor

Doctor Who has always loved depicting its hero meeting famous historical figures - something that has become much more prevalent since the series returned in 2005. He's met Charles Dickens, Queen Victoria, William Shakespeare, Agatha Christie and, most recently, Winston Churchill. And the series hasn't shied away from showing the darker side to some of these characters - in particular, Charles Dickens' loneliness because of his fraught relationship with his family and Agatha Christie's hurt at her husband's betrayal were important to those stories. Yet all of the historical figures met by the Doctor on screen tend to be those for whom things can get better. We know Churchill will win the war; we know that Victoria will become one of the most famous British monarchs of all time, we know Christie will fall in love again and so on.

Which is what makes tonight's celebrity historical figure such a departure for the show.

There is no way in which it can be avoided - despite his celebrity today, Vincent van Gogh led a miserable life that ended devastated by apparent failure. Tonight, the Doctor met - on prime time Saturday evening television - a man who struggled with mental illness all his life, mutilated himself, and ultimately ended up taking his own life. It requires a very different type of story to deal with van Gogh effectively, and balancing the darker side to the van Gogh story with the needs to provide early Saturday evening entertainment on BBC 1 is no mean feat.

And they did it with considerable aplomb. Vincent was presented as a tormented man, even at one point lying on his bed sobbing as the world rejected him once again. The show did not duck the depression that so blighted the artist. And it also took a moment to show how suspicious people can be of mental illness, and how intolerant people can be of those suffering. In this respect, this may yet prove to be one of the most important Doctor Who stories of all time. It tackled a taboo subject on prime time TV, and did so with considerable sensitivity and intelligence.

Yet it wasn't all solely about misery - there was much humour on offer as well. Vincent's over the top flirtation with Amy was amusing, the banter about bow-ties was nice and we saw a far lighter side to the Eleventh Doctor's personality than we have seen to date. And a more sensitive side too. When he comforted Amy in the museum at the end of the epsiode, he showed a genuine compassion for his companion - which is reassuring, since he has been far less affectionate towards Pond than the Tenth Doctor was to all of his companions.

But - make no mistake about this - it was Vincent who was the star of tonight's episode. The monster was a sub-plot, a side show that enabled the production team to look at someone who had a strange and troubled life, but managed to produce genuine masterpieces. The fact that Tony Curran was able to play the role so convincingly was essential, but this is proof positive that if you are going to deal with a historical figure, then you should put them centre stage. Churchill shouldn't have played second fiddle to the newer, fatter Daleks - he should have been at the core of his episode. Just as Vincent was the heart and the backbone of Vincent and the Doctor.

To some extent, this story messed with the format of Doctor Who, but that is perhaps what made it so distinct and so successful. The last two episodes were Doctor Who by the numbers whereas this... this was bold, clever, funny, sad and above all unexpected. It is often stated that Doctor Who has the most flexible format of any TV show, and I'd agree. But it rarely tries to truly challenge that format. It rarely properly stretches it. Tonight, it did. It took a long dead artist, and made him and his brilliant but troubled world into prime time entertainment that everyone could enjoy.

Ladies and gentlemen, this was Doctor Who at its very best.

Labels: , ,

Last of Last of the Summer Wine

Apparently, Last of the Summer Wine is ending. Allow me to take this opportunity to express my incredulity that is is still going.

They'll be some who lament the loss of this programme, no doubt claiming that it is part of our national heritage. They are, of course, wrong. This programme run out of plot ideas at about the time Edward Heath ceased to be Prime Minister. Besides, even if you are going to miss this series, at least you'll have something to remember it by - 37 years worth of episodes that all seem to end with three old men racing down a hill in a bathtub.

Labels: ,

Friday, June 04, 2010

The Daily Mash's take on the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico is spot on in its analysis of why oil is pumped:
Professor Henry Brubaker, of the Institute for Studies, said: "Oil companies aren't pumping this stuff just so they can have it sitting around in buckets under their stairs.

"They pump it because you want it. And what's more, you don't particularly want to pay for it, thereby ensuring it gets pumped in a dangerous and haphazard way - much like a Friday night skank on a playground swing."
They even manage to have a quick pop at George Monbiot:
Professor Brubaker explained that oil is used in some form by virtually every human being on the planet and that even George Monbiot is currently writing one of his absurdly childish articles on a laptop computer that could not possibly exist without it.
Excellent stuff!

Labels: ,

Thursday, June 03, 2010

The Cumbrian Murders

It is difficult to know what to say about the Cumbrian shootings. Such an appalling and senseless waste of human life - and those lives being taken in an arbitrary, pointless way as if to make it even worse - always provokes a response. And, sadly, that response is not limited to just those who want to offer condolences. Such brutal massacres become a way in which people can make their political points, and get into their pulpits and try to make everything alright again.

And you can see this happening in the aftermath of Bird's rampage. Some people want to ban shotguns, others want to prevent knee-jerk responses to the shooting, some want the death penalty restoring. But all miss the point that this story, at this point, should not about scoring political points. It should be about acknowledging the grief of those who have lost someone. Those who have a friend or a family member who won't ever be coming home again.

But that won't stop people making themselves and their opinions heard, and to some extent it is perfectly natural to want to do something in the aftermath of something like this. Opinions and strident calls for action represent a chance to reimpose order. But it is also pointless. Utterly pointless.

These things are arbitrary. They happen apparently at random. There's a man (and it does tend to be a man) who appears to be normal. Suddenly, that man is shooting. And by the time the emergency services start to realise what is going on, the perpetrator tends to be dead. They tend to have taken their own life. The span of the killing spree might be several hours, which sounds like a long time. But in reality, it is next to no time at all. The person starts to kill, they kill, then they are gone. The emergency services are only just starting to understand that there is something going on by the time that person is no more.

The death penalty is an irrelevance - as I mentioned, spree killers tend to kill themselves. Don't believe me? Think about Ryan. Hamilton. And now Bird. And while some American spree killers have gone down (for want of a better word) fighting, more recent examples show that suicide is increasingly the way in which these things end. And besides, America has had the death penalty for ages. It hasn't stopped people going on the rampage.

Those who argue that we should ban different types of firearms have more of a case. After all, those who go on the rampage with a knife tend to have fewer victims that those with a loaded gun. If they indulge in a spree killing, as opposed to a series of killings, that is. But ban the guns and you won't stop the youths with bombs strapped to their backs.

The reality - the terrifying reality that people struggle with, particularly after something like the Cumbrian spree - is that you can't stop the killers. There is something within humans that allows certain humans to commit crimes that shock the rest of the world. On a micro level, you have Derek Bird. On a macro level, you have Pol Pot, Joseph Stalin, and those who turned Rwanda in 1994 into a bloodstained killing field. One of the defining characteristics of humanity is the ability of some humans to be utterly inhuman to other humans. It is a terrifying thought - it is a terrifying reality - but for all the protests and platitudes that occur after this sort of thing has happened, nothing can change that this sort of thing is rare, yet seemingly inevitable.

So go on - argue your gun control, debate the death penalty. You won't stop humans being human - for better or, in the case of the horror in Cumbria, for worse.

Labels: , ,

Bush On Facebook

They used to say that the death of Facebook would come when everyone's parents signed up to that often dubious social networking site. I actually think that Facebook has jumped the shark now George W. Bush is on it.

Bush's wall seems to be filled with lackwitted Republican troglodytes lamenting the fact that their boy is no longer in the White House - even though Bush was the most cretinous President since Warren Harding. But that's inevitable for a fan page, I suppose.

What bothers me, though, is the fact that (at the time of writing) Bush Junior has 81,83o people liking his page. Which is all well and good, but it does show the urgent need for Facebook to have a "Don't Like" button. Because I reckon that the number of people who don't like George W Bush would far outstrip those who like him...

Labels: , ,

Nu Labour's real legacy

Harriet Harman, trying to create a legacy for the Labour party that doesn't focus on their abysmal failures over the past 13 years:
Ms Harman said Labour's opponents would attack the party's record in government, but "we will not let them".

"For every child who, instead of being cooped up in a flat, is playing in a brand new children's centre, that is our legacy.

"For every patient who instead of waiting in pain is cared for by doctors and nurses in a brand new hospital, that is our legacy.

"For every villager in Africa whose life has been transformed by cancelling third world debt, that is our legacy."
Ummm, Harriet, the other parties have already been attacking your record in government. That's how you lost the election.

But let's rewrite her speech to make it a little more realistic:

For every child who emerges functionally illiterate from a school system crippled by Nu Labour meddling, that is your legacy.

For every patient who dies because the NHS refuses to give them the drugs that would save their lives, that is your legacy.

For every orphan, crippled person, or corpse who died at the hands of the Coalition of the Willing in Iraq or Afghanistan, that is your legacy.

For every troop killed or crippled because your government would not provide the equipment they needed to fight the war you created, that is your legacy.

For a country mired in debt because a idiotic government attempted to nationalise the banking sector, that is your legacy.

For every little loss of freedom that became so synonymous with the Labour government, that is your legacy.

A broken, bankrupt country stepping into the light uncertainly after 13 years of draconian Nu Labour misrule: Harriet Harman, that is your legacy.

Labels: , , ,

Wednesday, June 02, 2010

Diane Abott, Failing Leadership Contender

There's much to enjoy about Diane Abbott's increasingly quixotic bid for the Labour leadership. I think my favourite thing at the moment (at 08:51 on 2/6/10, fact fans) is that she only has one supporter, according to the Labour party's figures. As things stand, she's got more chance of winning the 2012 Democratic nomination for President as she does getting onto the ballot paper in this election.

However, there must be some sort of rule that forbids Labour MPs from nominating themselves until they've got a certain level of support. Because Abbott, unlike nearly every other candidate in this race, has not bothered to nominate herself. Which is why I think there must be a rule. There has to be one. Otherwise, why wouldn't Abbott join Lammy in supporting her campaign? The numbers are so dire that by nominating herself, Abbott could increase her support by 100%. She could double the number of MPs supporting her in one go. Under the circumstances, why wouldn't she want to do that?

Maybe she's just given up. Given how her campaign has gone so far, I could understand that...

Labels: ,

Tuesday, June 01, 2010

The Cure: Close To Me

A day off blogging for me, so to keep you amused, some vintage Cure:

Labels: ,