Doctor Who: Day of the Moon

Oh. My. My oh my. That was good. In fact, that was more than good. Actually, I'd go so far as to say that was very good. Exceptionally good, if you will.

*Pauses for a moment to open a dictionary of superlatives*

So, what did I like about this superb adventure? Well, firstly, the fact that it opened so well. A neat trick that Moffat has done time and time again, but to have what you expect the second episode of this story to consist of dealt with and subverted before the opening credits is just great. I love the idea of the Doctor using the idea of the Pandorica to his own advantage - no longer a prison so much as a bit of privacy.

And doesn't the Doctor look great with a beard? No? Oh. Maybe that's just me looking to justify my own preference for having a beard at all times.

Then we move forward, and learn more about the Doctor's plan to stop the Silence. And it is worth pausing for a moment, particularly as we consider the moments in the children's home, to consider just how close this story came to being a horror movie. I can imagine that, if I was a child, this would have freaked me out. But more on how children would respond to this sort of episode later.

Inbetween, you have scares, banter, and one of the most sympathetic uses of Nixon in popular culture that I have ever seen. It is nice that he wasn't portrayed as one of the monsters; it is also nice that the Doctor played his part in creating the Watergate scandal through the suggestion of taping everything that happens in the Oval Office (although, in reality, that was the suggestion of Lyndon B Johnson. Then again, was he one of the Silence...?)

And Rory - poor Rory! Never quite knows whether his wife wants him or the guy with the floppy hair. Of course, the episode played with that as well - and it's nice that the Doctor and Amy care about the man who believes he is the gooseberry in their relationship. But the Pond pregnancy - what to make of that?

But to the resolution of the story. It was nice that a number of elements across the story came together to form a way of stopping the Silence. It was also nice that the Doctor - as he tends to do nowadays - gave them the chance to run before he stopped them. And this takes me back to my point about the kids who watch the show - yeah, the plot is quite complex. But I think most kids will get that the way in which you defeat the monster you cannot see is to film 'em and stick 'em on TV.

Of course, they'll be some who object to this story. Some who object as it doesn't answer all of the questions posed by the first episode (although given the number of questions opened by that episode, it would take the best part of a season to answer all of those questions - as I suspect it will). Others will object to what they see as the grafting of a progressive agenda onto the programme - I won't ruin the surprise unless you've seen it, but the reaction of Nixon in the show is both spot on and a good representation of those with a limited view of adults living together.

In short, this was not the best Doctor Who story - nor, arguably, the best that the current show-runner has written. But it was clever, controlled, and able to leave enough questions open to keep the overall story running for a good long while yet. And it also stands as a startling testament of its author to throw a genuine curveball toward even the most experienced of fans.

That girl. At the end. Y'know, the one regenerating. What the fuck is that all about?

A Review That Just Plain Doesn't Get Doctor Who

Ah, there’s nothing like an ignorant, ill-informed review of a good Doctor Who episode to wind me up. Consequently, this morning I’m going to be deconstructing this review of The Impossible Astronaut from The Sunday Mirror

SATURDAY night, BBC1... and Doctor Who storms back with the first of a two-part adventure called The Impossible Astronaut. As in impossible to understand.

Well, no, actually quite easy to understand. If you pay attention to what is happening in the episode.

Strictly sci-fi nerds only as our 960-year-old hero died and then didn’t die and then landed the Tardis in the Oval Office while President Tricky Dicky Nixon looked on in bemused amazement.If there was a cogent plot it was brilliantly disguised.

Err, there was a cogent plot, but it is one that will only be explained across two episodes. To complain that there isn’t a plot is a little like complaining that there isn’t a cogent plot to Psycho after just 45 minutes of the film.

Plus anyone who actually paid attention to the episode would understand that the Doctor did die - the Doctor we saw for the rest of the episode was an earlier version of the Doctor (who was about 200 years younger than the one who died on the beach). Seriously, pay attention.

Anyway, a picnic in the desert, babies in space suits, an alleged tale of intrigue involving the 1969 Moon landing... and smartly-dressed monsters wearing ties.

Well, it is an intriguing tale. It refuses to play all of its cards in the opening five minutes. But for a story that is going to span circa ninety minutes, that’s actually not a problem.

And is there are a problem with monsters wearing ties? I mean, do they all have to look like the Daleks?

“Have we done Jim the fish?” enquired River Song – the mysterious Time Lady played by Alex Kingston. Gee, River... I dunno. What the hell are you flowing on about?

Have you ever, ever seen the show before? It is filled with asides about what has happened, and what will happen, but what we haven't seen. The Doctor, for example, has never fought the terrible Zodin on screen. Likewise, we’ve never seen the adventure that led to Battlefield as it is (still, apparently) in the Doctor’s future. But surely to fuck that’s inevitable in a show about time travel – and part of the charm. Chances are we’ll never see the adventures River Song and the Doctor discuss in this episode on screen. But the Doctor will always have had adventures we don’t get to see.

And since when has River Song been confirmed as a Time Lady?

A twitchy whirl of studied eccentricity, Matt Smith remains a derivative Doctor who brings nothing new to the party.

Precisely who is Matt Smith derivative of? As far as I can see (and I do know a little bit about Doctor Who), Smith is one of the most original Doctors we have ever had. His mix of brilliance, arrogance and childlike glee is original and very, very watchable. In fact, he is far less derivative that his predecessor, who played The Sociable Doctor mixed with The Forlorn Doctor with a healthy dose of the Fifth Doctor thrown into the mix. You might not like Smith's Doctor - that doesn't automatically make him derivative though.

And this ball of all-round confusion was no way to start a series.

Nah, you’re right, why make the first episode of a season (the series began over 47 years ago) with a plot that is complicated and requires thinking? What sort of a crazy fool would do that?

But I’m guessing the second instalment will end with the sonic screwdriver guy saving the world with seconds to spare. Again.

It is almost certain that the Doctor and/or one of his companions will save the world with seconds to spare (assuming that the plan of the Silence is to damage the world), but then again, it would rather limit the future of the series if all the regulars were killed off and the world destroyed. Yes, the Doctor tends to win (but not always). That is one of the points of the programme. And if you don’t like that, then what the hell are you doing watching the series in the first place, let alone reviewing it.

Elsewhere...

Over at the Orphans of Liberty, I've got a post up about democracy in the UK. Or rather, the complete lack thereof.

Enjoy!

Re: The Royal Wedding

Really don’t care about it. In fact, just thinking about those two smug shites getting married with the nation (and many parts of the world) looking on winds me up. A lot.

So I wish everyone who, like me, is trying to avoid the Royal Wedding the very best of luck today. Avoiding it will be really tough, but I hope you can at least minimise your exposure to it. And all I would ask is that someone wakes me up when it is all over. Preferably by talking about something else than the wedding of two people I hold in total contempt.

Labour's Royal Wedding Snub Bleatings

Here's a wonderful example of absolutely manufactured and completely unconvincing ersatz rage from the modern Labour Party:

St James's Palace has dismissed any suggestion of a "snub" towards Mr Blair and Mr Brown, but shadow justice minister Chris Bryant said he was unhappy with their exclusion.

"I really don't want to rain on anybody's parade because I really wish the happy couple a lovely day on Friday," he said. "I just think they've been let down by their advisers, or by Number 10, because I'm sure this list will have been passed through Number 10.

"I think the same same proprieties should have been followed as for Charles and Diana's wedding and that was that all former prime ministers should be invited."

Mr Bryant added: "I think it shows a bit of vindictiveness from Number 10."

First up, quite why anyone would care what Chris Byrant thinks is beyond me. But the whole tone of the protest from the Labour party follows a particular pattern. Firstly, find a perceived snub against the Labour party. Second, find a way - no matter how unlikely - that the Prime Minister or his team was somehow involved in that snub. Thirdly, use a tone of hurt indignation. Finally, studiously ignore any facts that might impact on your fabricated bit of pointless outrage.

For example, some Labourites have made much of the fact that Margaret Thatcher and John Major have been invited to the wedding, while Blair and Brown haven't. This handily ignores that fact that the rather frail Thatcher effectively retired from public life a long time ago, and was always unlikely to be able to accept an invite to the wedding. Plus, to snub a frail old lady right at the end of her life would have provoked far more general, and real, outrage from people than not inviting two wealthy men who are proactively pursuing lucrative careers for themselves. And on John Major - my understanding is that he is guardian to both William and his brother Harry. Seems a natural person to be invited to the wedding, then. Then there's the whole Knights of the Garter thingy, which is best summarised as Thatcher and Major are, Brown and Blair aren't.

Then there's the fact that the Royal Household probably have a veto over who No. 10 wants to be invited to this bloody wedding. If they wanted Blair and Brown to be there, then they could have made it happen. I almost suspect that they didn't, and who can blame them? One dragged this country into a brutal, unnecessary war that has made it more vulnerable to terrorism, while the other did his level best to bankrupt the fucking country. I can understand why the future king might not want those two at his wedding...

And to close of this post, I'd just like to note how far the Labour party has drifted from its socialist roots if now it can have its MPs bemoaning the exclusion of its wealthy former Prime Ministers from an occasion of privileged extravagance at a time of national austerity. At times like this, I do wonder "what would Nye Bevan have said?" It would be memorable, but not positive...

General Election 2011?

Not often I agree with something Jackie Ashley has to say, but her parts of her analysis here are spot on. An election this year would benefit the Tories and would almost certainly result in an outright win for Cameron and his band of happy campers. The Tories have the money to fight and Cameron looks Prime Ministerial in a way Miliband Minor just can't match. Furthermore, Labour has done little to change or reform itself; it remains a party based on negativity, with no positive message to offer whatsoever.

But if anything can stop an election this year, it's the Liberal Democrats. Yeah, they're getting little from the coalition other than flak (which would have happened had they signed up with Labour as well) and it seems unlikely that they will get their much hoped for electoral reform. But they made their bed, they've got to lie in it. Breaking away from the coalition now would mean they are showing that they can't be trusted as partners in power (a big problem for a party that has only governed once as a junior partner in the current coalition). Furthermore, the Liberal Democrats aren't popular at the moment - in a General Election right now, they'd face something approaching a wipe-out. Finally, their leader, Nick Clegg, must know that he will only lead his party for as long as the coalition lasts. If there was a General Election now, I'm pretty sure his leadership of the Liberal Democrats would end shortly after the results of that election came in (and there are no guarantees that he would keep his own seat in the Commons).

The Tories have a lot to gain through an election this year; it remains unlikely as the Liberal Democrats have literally everything to lose.

Doctor Who and Scheduling

It looks likely that, in terms of viewers, Doctor Who had its worst opening night since the show came back on Saturday. Still streets ahead of the last season of the classic show, mind. That struggled to breach the four million mark way back when Battlefield began.

Of course, there are a number of different reasons why the viewing figures might be down (but remain far from catastrophic). The warm weather will have meant that some (in my completely biased opinion) utterly mental people may have rather stayed in the garden that coming indoors to watch Doctor Who live. Plus, the way we watch things has changed. The vast majority of TV I watch is watched online, and I think this may impact of the ratings for pretty much everything bar live contests (like The X Factor) and live sporting events where, if you don't see the live transmission, you run the risk of someone telling you the result and thus having the whole thing ruined for you.

But there is something the production team can do to get better ratings. Something relatively simple (even if achieving it is not). And that's get the transmission time moved back to 7pm. I always got the impression that RTD fought tooth and claw to get the show on at 7pm, and he was exactly right about that. 6pm is too early - it's too late to be the afternoon, but too early to be the evening. Furthermore, many people who work on a Saturday are only just heading home at 6pm, meaning they miss the initial transition. By 7pm many of them will be home, and ready to start watching.

So if the producers want more people to watch then they should have that battle with the BBC and get the show on at 7pm. Forget the weather and the use of internet TV; decent scheduling is as much a part of the popularity of the show now as it has ever been.

Vince Cable wants to prevent future Tory victories. This from a man in a Tory-led government, who was once a member of the SDP (a party that helped to guarantee Tory victories just by existing).

Yeah, Vince. Basically, you're talking shit. Now as always.

Doctor Who: The Impossible Astronaut

Let’s put tonight’s episode in context. Previous season openers tend to be jolly little adventures designed to ease you into the new season. As a result, they tend to be quite lightweight and not always that convincing – as Partners in Crime (possibly the worst episode since the show returned) so clearly shows. Even The Eleventh Hour was relatively light in terms of plot – it was all about showcasing (understandably) the new Doctor. Not so The Impossible Astronaut. It was undoubtedly the most involved, clever and striking season opener since the show returned. And possibly ever.

I’m going to withhold any proper analysis of the plot until I’ve seen the second installment. Instead, I’d like to make three observations:

(1) Regardless of whether you love or loathe this episode, I think you have to concede that any story that begins with the Doctor being murdered and ends with his main companion gunning down a child has to be worth watching.

(2) Steven Moffat is increasingly becoming a Doctor Who serial killer. Seriously, he killed off River Song when she first appeared, Rory halfway through the last season, and the Doctor at the beginning of the new season. Amy Pond should be very worried.

(3) Talk about giving nothing away. At the end of this episode, we know pretty much nothing. I mean, who is the astronaut? And what are the Silence? What is their plan? How can you defeat an enemy you don’t even remember seeing? What is that slightly grisly lab all about? And that attempt at a TARDIS that we first saw in The Lodger - what's that about? Why is the Doctor dead? How long have the Silence been around for? What impact is being pregnant going to have on Amy Pond's life in the TARDIS? And how the hell is this all going to be resolved?

But then again, that is the point of a first episode in a two part Doctor Who story. A successful first episode is all about creating anticipation for the second episode. And in this regard The Impossible Astronaut succeeds brilliantly.

Actually, I’ll make a fourth observation. It was bloody good.

On Doctor Who Fans

So, a new season of Doctor Who is just hours away. Regular readers of this blog will know that this is pretty exciting for me.

As with the past two seasons, I'll be posting reviews (no doubt full of spoilers) on this blog as soon as I can after each episode. And, like last year, I'm hoping that they'll be some good debate in the comments section to each review. But before it all begins, I'd just like to point something out. And it's that fans are perhaps the worst possible people to watch Doctor Who. Not least because they often seem (and I'm no exception here) to be under the delusion that each and every moment was made specifically for them. Rather than factoring in the thought that elements of the show may have been made with other members of the six to ten million people who watch the show each week.

Therefore, when we all hit elements of the new season that we don't like (which almost certainly will happen at some point) let's keep it in perspective. You're not going to like every second of every episode. And you know one of the best things about Doctor Who? It doesn't matter, because you can very easily find something else to enjoy.

Let's take an example. I don't like what many refer to as the new Dalek paradigm, or what I prefer to refer to as the Fat Daleks. Fine - that's my opinion, and others disagree. But there are countless other Dalek designs out there for me to enjoy, from the slightly wheezy Daleks who somehow managed to invade the Earth in the sixties to the design introduced so effectively in 2005's Dalek. Across over 47 years worth of adventures on the TV, in books, on audio and in comics, you should be able to find something you like. Even if you're not that into the episode on screen in one particular week.

By all means say if you don't like a particular episode (I know I will), but remember that there is more to the mighty world of Doctor Who than the current episode.

In the meantime, hope you enjoy what's coming this evening:

Stuff I Couldn't Give a Fuck About Part One: The AV Referendum

Can we have the referendum on AV right now please? Because I'm mightily sick of the whole thing.

I get the impression that we are supposed to be surprised by elements of how the whole campaign has gone - like it is supposed to be some sort of revelation that David Cameron and the ever thuggish John Reid should share the same platform. Of course they can share the same platform; they've both spent enough of their careers chasing Daily Mail headlines. Likewise, seeing Ed Miliband and Vince Cable on the same stage is meant to be news, but I can't really see why. They are very much the same, both in terms of the way they think and the (generally idiotic) way they act. Cable and Miliband Minor together isn't so much a campaign as the queue for the audition for a political version of Some Mothers Do 'Ave 'Em.

And then there's been the proper campaign (by which I mean the one not conducted by jobbing politicians looking for a photo opportunity). What is striking about it is that neither side has ever made the case for their particular voting system. No To AV have stuck resolutely with the twin pronged attack of "ooo, AV'll cost ya" (ironically spending vast sums of money to convey that message) and "AV works for the BNP"* while Yes To AV have fought (judging by the completely unsolicited and unwelcome e-mails they insist on sending me) a purely reactive campaign, indignantly rebutting charges from the other side with the playground logic of "I know you are, you said you are, but what am I?" at the same time as thinking the use of the word "Fair" will automatically win people over to their side. As I say, neither campaign has truly set out to make an effective case for or against AV - in part, I suspect, because they know that their system is just as flawed (albeit in different ways) as the other side's.

And, of course, this referendum is basically on nothing - it is on a minor change to our unwritten constitution that will have precious little impact on the problems of politics in this country regardless of the outcome. The problem isn't the voting system - it is the political class, and those vainglorious turds who enter it. Show me a way of changing the type of person and raising the calibre of the individuals who enter our political elite, and I'll be listening. Hell, if it works, I'll campaign for it. But given the amount of power that has been ceded to the EU without a referendum and the wars we have entered/the near bankrupting of our country that took place without consulting the British people, you'll have to forgive me if I consider the AV referendum little more than a sideshow in British politics. The fact is, the real stuff is happening elsewhere while some people bicker about the system we use to vote.

*The irony is that the voting system impacts on the BNP remarkably little. Their grubby little star is in ascendance when mainstream politicians fail to make the strong and inclusive case for immigration, while it is in freefall when the BNP actually get some of the limelight and people see what nasty, ignorant and pointless thugs they are.

Ed Miliband: Beyond Boring

If I was to sum up what is wrong is Ed Miliband in one sentence, it would sound something like this: “He’s an indignant potato fatally compromised by his close association with the miserable failure that was the Brown administration”. Helpfully, Miliband Minor has managed to sum his problems as Labour leader in one sentence as well. And it is this sentence, apparently meant to sell the Labour party to potential high-profile Lib Dem defectors:

I think we are now the natural home for progressive politics because we are the only party that can meet a credible claim on social justice.

So… let’s count the ways in which this does not work. Firstly, let’s put it into perspective – he’s trying to get people to defect to his party. He needs something that sounds confident and inspiring. So starting his sentence with “I think” is pretty weak. As party leader, he should know. Even better, he should believe. Modern politics seems to be all about the belief.

Secondly, the natural home sounds quite comforting – the sort of place you might retire to. It certainly doesn’t exude urgency. Perhaps something better like “the only choice”.

Likewise, “credible claim” sounds like a lawyer hedging their bets. Not a leader trying to inspire ministers to leave the cabinet and join his party in opposition for what will probably be a minimum of the next 4 years.

And overall, the whole thing is too long. It is a two part sentence when it should be a short and punchy slogan. I mean, Obama didn’t have “with all things considered, and all other options evaluated, I do believe I can make a credible claim to be the candidate of change” on his posters. No, his watchword was simply “change”.

Miliband Minor’s flaw – and I think it will be the fatal flaw for his leadership – is an inability to inspire. It has become almost a cliché to say it, but he really does resemble IDS. As such, he is a liability for his own party and an asset for the coalition. He sounds annoying, and his words are insipid and uninspiring. Hell, if I was Vince Cable (who his pitch seems to be directed at) I’d stay put – not for ideological reasons, but rather to avoid the tedium I’m sure is involved in having a conversation with Ed Miliband.

RIP Lis Sladen

Obviously, I notice the passing of Doctor Who stars. And each one is saddening in their own way. But the death of Elisabeth Sladen combines sadness with shock.

But in death we should celebrate life, and note that Sarah Jane Smith is probably the most iconic of all the Doctor's companions. After all, she was the one who was nearly brought back to ease the transition between Tom Baker and Peter Davison. She was the first one to get her own spin-off series (seriously, she was the star, not the frickin' robot dog). She was the one brought back into modern day Doctor Who. And she was the one who got a second spin-off series - which was one of the best, and most engaging, shows on television.

And the credit for that must go to Lis Sladen. Because on paper, Sarah Jane Smith read like just another attempt to create a new style companion for the Doctor: a feminist journalist. Coming after the co-opted Cambridge professor and the ditzy girl with connections, but before the lyotard wearing savage. Yet Lis Sladen took the material she was given, and created one of the most real people ever to travel with the Doctor. Someone inquisitive, loyal, determined, argumentative and very, very human. And years later, when Sarah Jane Smith came back, Lis Sladen continued to make the character real, changing her from the sparky, spikey, confident young journalist into an often sad figure, who never truly emotionally recovered from travelling with, and then being unceremoniously dumped by, the most amazing man in that fictional universe.

So rest in peace, Lis Sladen. The world is full of celebrated actors who are praised from the rooftops for various performances. And at this moment we should praise Lis Sladen to the hilt. She managed to take a paper-thin characer designed to play second fiddle to Jon Perwee and Tom Baker and turn it into so, so much more. Which is a massive tribute to her formidable skills as an actress.

Couldn't Have Said It Better Myself...

...and believe me, given the number of posts I've written about Laurie Penny, I've tried. But here is Bella Gerens dismissing Penny in a withering, yet wonderfully concise, way:

She is travelling an extremely well-trodden road bearing the placard of thoroughly-explored philosophies. And the destination, reached so many times before, has benefitted no one except the travellers themselves.

Awesome stuff. You really should read the whole thing.

Towards a Libertarian Union?

Ok, so, following on from my pessimistic post from the other day, what next for UK libertarians? I’m not going to rehash my arguments about why I think LPUK is screwed. What I will point out is this – the members of and advocates for the party who approach a realistic position are those who, like me, would argue that any real success for that party lies in the distant future. And given the constant encroach of statism and its advocates, the question is pertinent – what do libertarians do while waiting for LPUK to get up and running/do if the party disappears?

We can find a clue in the Rally Against Debt. A grassroots campaign started by two UKIP members has grown massively in a very short space of time. Indeed, its growth is something that LPUK could, and perhaps should, be jealous of. Why has it been so successful? In part, it is about topicality. Debts and spending cuts are at the heart of the debate raging in British politics today. But there is another reason. The rally against debt is not party political, and thus it is not exclusive. It can attract people from the Tories, the Liberal Democrats, UKIP, LPUK and independents. Whereas a political party can only really attract those with no other party affiliation, or an affiliation that they are happy to sacrifice. That automatically limits its potential. So topicality and being inclusive rather than exclusive. What sort of organisation could allow for that?

It occurs to me that some sort of Union might be the way forward (or Federation, for those right-wingers who can’t cope with the idea of Unions). An organisation that can offer people membership in tandem with membership of other organisations – just as members of Trade Unions can be (and often are) members of the Labour party. But rather than offering representation in the workplace, this could be an organisation that fights for its members in the pursuit of liberty. As a Federation/Union, it could do things other than fight elections directly. It could offer support to campaigns run by other organisations (like No2ID, the IEA and the Adam Smith Institute) and highlight events like the Rally Against Debt. At the same time, it could run its own campaigns. It could also have spokespersons on crucial issues and topical events – for example, an organisation that might offer Tim Worstall as Economics Spokesperson and Chris Snowdon as Health Spokesperson (or at least debunking the spurious claims of health “experts” spokesperson) would be pretty formidable. And it could do so without demanding they join a particular party. Likewise, it could attempt to attract high-profile libertarian politicians to write for it on occasion.

But where it could be most formidable is through having a dedicated band of volunteers who could work on behalf of libertarian leaning politicians in election campaigns. Politicians like Douglas Carswell, Steve Baker and Dan Hannan. And LPUK, if they ever become credible contenders in elections. On the flipside, it could also campaign against egregiously statist politicians. A host of Libertarian inclined people pounding the streets in Ed Balls' constituency arguing against his re-election could make all the difference, for example. Indeed, the organisation could replicate the influence of the Tea Party in America (albeit without that organisation’s occasional lapses into insanity). Not backing one party or running its own candidates, it could instead offer support to any candidate it perceives to be a champion of liberty.

Of course, it wouldn’t be easily achieved. Getting libertarians is, as numerous people point out, like herding cats. And there would be a need for the organisation to be professional at all times. There’s no point it being a super-swear-blog; candidates should want to be associated with it, rather than embarrassed by it. But a looser organisation than a political party, one more able to choose what battles it fights, might be able to circumvent the inherent anti-small party biases of our political system. A powerful, grassroots pressure group that can make or break candidates in constituencies maybe far more effective than entryism into an existing party or LPUK. The aspiration would be to have a UK based version of the NRA or a major Trade Union (albeit not necessarily with the core beliefs of either). It wouldn’t be easy, but it might just be worth it.

Sparky's Magic Piano Remixed and Re-imagined.

Simultaneously hilarious and deeply bad taste:



Well, it is a Saturday.

PTSD in Political Parties

Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) is pretty well recognised in humans; I think it also happens in political parties. In fact, I think it is one of the reasons why the dominant political discourse in our country is so anondyne. In the past 20 years, both of the dominant political parties in this country have had PTSD.

For Labour, it hit them in 1992 when Neil Kinnock managed to snatch defeat from the very jaws of victory. The party had already changed – it had moved to the centre from the alarmingly leftist Labour party of 1983. But it still hadn’t won – despite facing a tired government led by a weak-willed PM. At that point, the party changed. The desire to win became everything. And that led to the gutting of any real ideology. It led to the election of Tony Blair as party leader. The rest is now, mercifully, history.

For the Tories, it probably hit about the time they decided to concur with what just about everyone else was telling them – that IDS was an utter disaster as a leader. Their PTSD took a little longer to fully manifest itself, though. Of course, that manifestation is embodied in the incumbent Prime Minister – a man who dragged the Tory party to the centre ground and away from any controversial opinions or positions whatsoever. He gutted the Tory party just as surely as Blair did for Labour.

And herein lies the problem – both Cameron and Blair have gone on to get the top job in British politics, whereas many of their predecessors as party leaders did not come close. And that is what tends to silence the ideological critics in both of their parties – it is pretty difficult to argue with success. So we can trace the impact of debilitating events such as the 1992 General Election defeat for the Labour party and the failure of the IDS leadership for the Tories through to the eventual return to success – but at the price of shedding much of the ideology that made the different parties distinct in the first place. Success – but at what price?

Don’t get me wrong, an election defeat is a clear indicator for a political party that something needs to change, and the answer is seldom a superficial change like a new leader. This is a lesson that the Labour party – post-2010 – has still yet to learn. Yet the extent to which a party changes is the crucial issue; recent politics gives us two examples of political parties who sold their souls for a chance for electoral glory. They gave into the panic of PTSD, and lost their way as a result.

So what hope do we have that parties can start to take defeats – a natural part of any engagement in a democratic political process – as a reason for change, but not a mad dash from ideological commitments to the centre ground? Well, Blair is utterly discredited and a strong candidate for the dubious title of Worst Prime Minister in Living Memory (along with his successor as PM). And while Blair – for all of his flaws – did win a stunning victory in 1997, Cameron is only in power through a coalition with the Lib Dems. Labour gained 145 seats in 1997, the Tories 97 in 2010. The law of diminishing returns seems to be rearing its head for those party leaders who choose success over political commitments.

So my point is this – any defeat is difficult for a party to take. Any failure to be returned to power or to win an election is potentially traumatic. But the key thing is how parties deal with that trauma. Gutting yourself in order to win next time or the time after that is undeniably one option, but there are others – the options that allow a party to both win and lose at the next election, but to do so with dignity.

British Politics, Libertarians and LPUK

This post will be long; for that I offer a warning, but no apology.

I haven’t been a member of LPUK for about a month now, and after Anna Raccoon’s devastating post on that party’s current leader, it seems unlikely I will be again. Personal responsibility is crucial to almost every successful formulation of libertarianism, but according to Raccoon’s post, the current leader of LPUK is utterly irresponsible. More than a bit of a problem, I would argue.

Of course there may be those who argue that I’m judging based on only one side of what will probably be a vicious argument. But the facts presented in the post fit the facts as I have observed them, and the whole post has more than a ring of truth to it. And it is a thoroughly depressing truth.

LPUK now appear to have two choices. Either they can ditch Withers and elect a new leader (Christ knows who, and doing so would enhance the perception of a party in crisis) or they can keep him on, and become increasingly like a version of Veritas without the unique selling point of having a celebrity as leader. Neither fate is particularly edifying; it is more than possible to see the Libertarian Party of the UK as entering terminal decline.

But there’s another reason why I don’t much care about hearing both sides of the story. And it’s this: the accusations about Withers are just the icing on the cake for me. The reality is that it is easy for LPUK to enter terminal decline, and easy for it to wink out of existence. And the reason for this is simple – they have made startlingly little progress since they were formed. The party, when it has contested elections, has done beyond poorly. And this is a crucial, debilitating problem. If you can’t credibly contest elections, then the media won’t care about you. If the media doesn’t care about you, you can’t win elections. And so the vicious circle continues, and LPUK remains a largely virtual entity, incapable of the sort of practical action needed to make a genuine political impact in our deeply flawed democracy.

In fact, LPUK are a standing rebuke to those who wax lyrical about the importance of the internet in modern politics. The internet has a role to play, for sure. But if your party was formed, largely managed and supported through the internet, then you have a problem. In a constituency based electoral system such as ours, you need to have constituency organisations that are building support across years, doing the endless (and endlessly tedious) work of canvassing on rainy Saturday mornings. If you are largely an internet organisation, you don’t have that. In fact, the internet becomes as much a virtual prison as it does a virtual tool. After several years in existence, LPUK have remarkably little to show for their efforts. And for all the talk of a resurgence under Withers (a resurgence surely dead in the water now, if it ever truly existed) the party has a mountain to climb, and seemingly precious little resources to allow it to do so in order to get anywhere. The odds were stacked against the party before this scandal (if we can call something a scandal that precious few people in this country will really care about). Now proper political influence seems further away than ever before.

There will be some who will crow over my acceptance that LPUK are not going to go anywhere; the sort of libertarians who have always argued for entryism into the main political parties now have every right to say “I told you so”. Except their victory is pyrrhic, and their laughter hollow. Because there is no natural home in British politics for the genuinely libertarian.

Anyone who argues that libertarians have a natural home in one of the main parties (by which I mean a party larger than LPUK; a pretty minimal hurdle to overcome) is simply wrong. We can ignore anyone who says that libertarians have a natural home in the Labour party as utterly delusional. The same for anyone who might make the claim that the Greens have something to offer libertarians. Their environmental and economic policies could only ever be implemented through draconian state intervention.

Which takes us to the Tories. So many professed libertarians seem to reside in the Tory party, and I don’t really understand why. The Tories are deeply socially conservative. And there is nothing libertarian about social conservatism. In fact, I have a little litmus test I always use when I think that the Tories are a good idea. I think about whether I could honestly vote for the policies they championed at the last election. Then I think of their National Service plan, and remember why I don’t vote for them.

The same for UKIP. There are some who would make UKIP a libertarian party. Sadly, I think they are in an ineffective minority. And to emphasise that point, I can always remember something like their proposed ban on the burqa to reassure me that they are often little more than the right-wing of the Tories in self-imposed exile.

And the Liberal Democrats? Well, I had hope when Nick Clegg was elected. And it lasted for about five seconds. He’s an apologist for the Tories with, according to his writing in The Orange Book, staunchly Europhile leanings (albeit with a reformist bent). Not an intolerable position, but hardly libertarian either. And his party is fatally flawed in my eyes because, as vast swathes of the party has shown since they gained some real political power, far too much of it is still social democratic, and thus Labour supporters who can’t quite bring themselves to be Labour.

Which leads us back to LPUK. A tiny party that has spent most of its life fighting for survival, rather than for power. And I want to stress this point – the alleged behaviour of Andrew Withers is just the tip of the iceberg. The party is sinking; which is hardly surprising, since it has always struggled to stay afloat.

But whatever. I don’t need to be a member of a political party. In fact, a spell as an independent is very, very appealing. I wish LPUK the very best – and they’re going to need all the goodwill they can get over the coming days, I rather think. But no more money from me; no more links; no more support.

And that’s that. LPUK is done, as far as I’m concerned. Finished.

What’s next?

LPUK Civil War

Well, I'd heard whispers that all was not well at LPUK towers, but this post is - for a small party like LPUK - explosive. In fact, my first thought is that it is difficult to see how the party will survive this.

Still, at least it answers this conundrum. No renewal of my party membership. Obviously.

UPDATE: I've got more - a lot more - to say about this. Watch this space.

Those who know me will have clocked that I'm not the tidiest of people. In fact, scruffy would probably be the best way to describe my appearance most days. I've never, for example, been big on doing those things that others do daily - like spending time combing my hair. But if I was running for public office - even for a District Councillor role in a very sleepy part of the country - I'd probably make a bit of an effort. Unlike this chap running on behalf of UKIP:

With the best will in the world, he looks pretty mental.

Prime Minister David Davis

I love a good counter-factual. I even love a lactlustre one, like this effort. And there can be no doubt that recent politics will generate more than a few “what if?” scenarios. What if Miliband Major had been elected Labour leader and therefore Prime Minister in 2009? What if Brown had been challenged properly rather than just being crowned as Prime Minister? What if the Labour party had scored a few more seats at the last election, and been more open to meaningful negotiation with the Lib Dems?

Inevitably, a lot of these scenarios focus on Labour – after all, they did spend over a decade in power. But I’ve got an alternative counter-factual. What if David Davis had won the Tory leadership contest in 2005?

If is an entirely realistic scenario. He was the front-runner for ages, and he clearly bested Cameron in their TV debate. In fact, all it might have taken to make Davis Tory leader is a decent speech to the party conference. It was that hurdle he failed to clear, and it was at that point that he ceased to be the presumptive leader.

Had he won, I think he would have made a formidable leader of the opposition. He wouldn’t have started with the aspiration of ending the Punch and Judy side to modern politics – from the outset, he would have relished it. Furthermore, his commitment to civil liberties would have enabled him to put clear blue water between his party and the Labour government very early on. And as leader of the opposition, he probably wouldn’t have gone ahead with that faintly pointless stunt of resigning his seat in the Commons (although quite how his impatience and desire for a fight would have been sated throughout his time as opposition leader is an open question).

Furthermore, his relatively humble background would have enabled him to avoid all the tedious charges of poshness that have dogged Cameron. Indeed, Davis’s status as a self-made man would have answered many concerns about the Tory approach to social mobility. And not being distracted by such concerns, Davis could have spelt out a more meaningful version of modern Conservatism than Cameron’s notoriously vague “Big Society”.

So Davis would have entered last year’s election campaign in a strong position. And in that campaign, he’d probably have excelled. Imagine him in the debates – he’d not only have seen off Brown (which, in all honesty, isn’t that difficult) but he’d have nipped Cleggmania in the bud. In fact, a Davis leadership might have meant the end of Clegg as party leader as well as Brown. Because I think Davis, with a pugnacious attitude and clearer alternative to the Labour agenda, would have won the election outright. It wouldn’t have been a massive majority, but it would have been enough for the party not to need a coalition in order to govern. And with his party's mediocre showing in that election, Clegg would have fallen.

But there would have been a downside as well. Because if Davis hadn’t won the election outright, it is difficult to imagine him being as open to a coalition with the Liberal Democrats as Cameron. Furthermore, his personality – which often comes across as difficult, idiosyncratic and monomaniacal – would not have been conducive to the needs of running a minority government or even a government with a small majority. Indeed, it is difficult to see how Davis would have inspired a team across his time in opposition when he himself is so clearly not a team player.

Still, these problems notwithstanding, a Davis premiership would have given us one of the finest sights modern politics could imagine – David Davis against Ed Miliband at Prime Minister’s Questions. He’d have eaten Miliband Minor alive.

So my point is this – counter-factuals are great, but we shouldn’t ignore the fact that the leadership choices made by the Tories in the last parliament are just as important as those made by the Labour party.

When "Liberal" ceases to mean liberal...

Longrider rightly laments the corruption of some key political terms. Like the word "liberal":

All of which is all very well, but what about legitimate words that have been thoroughly corrupted to the point where their accurate and original meaning is lost entirely? “Liberal” being one such. Many of those who write for and comment upon the Groan’s CiF call themselves liberals, yet their expressed opinions are decidedly illiberal, indeed, positively authoritarian.

Quite. To take another example of the corruption of the word liberal, we just need to take a look at the website Liberal Conspiracy. Any truly liberal opinions expressed by the writers of that website are the exception rather than the rule. In fact, the only way in which it could be a liberal conspiracy us if the authors are conspiring against liberalism.

And it bothers me - it really does. My blogging moniker involves the word "Libertarian", but in reality I feel far more comfortable describing myself as a liberal. Yet that word now encompasses everything from Barack Obama to Simon Hughes, and leaves precious little room for the genuinely liberal (the likes of J S Mill, for example) within it.

Which is the hideous irony, really. We end up with "liberals" who actually care little, if at all, for genuine freedom.

Universities Charge What The Government Allows Them To Charge Shock!

So, it appears that some universities will be charging the maximum possible in tuition fees that the government allows. Fair enough, I reckon. A degree from a decent university is worth much more than £9k. What does bother me, though, is the government then whining about universities charging the maximum.

I’m sorry, but what precisely did they think was going to happen here? That most universities – entities that need to make money – would charge as much as possible in many cases was 100% inevitable. To think otherwise is completely naïve. Yet the government seems to have been precisely that. There seems to be a certain incredulity that money-making organisations would choose to, well, make money. This talk of only charging the maximum in “exceptional circumstances” is nonsense on stilts – after all, what could be more of an exceptional circumstance for a university that having large amounts of its government funding removed?

Just to be clear – I’m not concerned about tuition fees, or the substantial rise in them. In many ways the new system is fairer since it is being financially able to pay back the cost of a university education is now categorically the criterion for being expected to do so. What does bother me, though, is the terminal stupidity of a government that allows organisations to make money, and then gets the hump when they do. The coalition need to get a grip. They need to be far more astute and political than this. Fundamentally, they need to remember the basic point that their policies have consequences, and if they don’t like those consequences, then they shouldn’t pursue the related policies in the first place.

Nick Clegg: Still Less Odious Than Ed Miliband

Here's an interesting interview with Nick Clegg. Well, when I say it is interesting, what I mean is it tries to do more than make him out to be the greatest traitor since Judas. While at times clearly just trying to find fault, the interviewer does seem to understand that, at least on some levels, that politics - particularly at the top, rather than sniping from the sidelines - requires compromise.

And - before we go on - let's just pause for a moment and reflect on Nick Clegg's year. This time last year, he looked like yet another failed Lib Dem leader. Quite frankly, he didn't have a voice. Then came the debates, and Cleggmania. Suddenly he was, in the eyes of some, a British version of JFK (despite the fact that all he did was not be shit at debating with a vacuous ex-marketing man and an arrogant, dour drip of a man). Then his party did poorly at the General Election - all Cleggmania meant was they were, more or less, able to maintain their 2001 level of popularity (in vote percentage terms, even if not in terms of Commons seats maintained). Despite this, less than a week after that result, Nick Clegg was the Deputy Prime Minister, and enjoying a level of power that no member of the Liberal Democrats has ever enjoyed before. Of course, that must be of little comfort on occasion when faced with the rage of the Shy Labour Lib Dems, who really wanted the Labour government to continue but who couldn't quite bring themselves to put their shaky "X" in the box of their local Labour candidate on their ballot papers. In short, quite a year for Nick Clegg - from non-entity to Second Coming to real political power and then to hatred. The whole of the Tony Blair experience in about 12 months.

But anyway, let's get to the point. I can, if I really force myself, understand why some people feel frustrated with Nick Clegg. And there is something faintly pathetic about Nick Clegg. He looks and sounds compromised most of the time. But I genuinely think he was placed in an impossible situation, and he is making the best of it. So when I read an interview with Clegg, I might feel a bit of pity for him. Whereas when I read an interview with Ed Miliband, I can't help but feel a certain level of anger and, well, hate.

The reason is this - there is a certain level of humility to Nick Clegg. He's not a stupid man; he must have understood what his deal with the Tories must have meant for his career in the long-term, but he still went for the deal with the Tories. A deal that was, given his limited choices, the best option on offer. Whereas with Ed Miliband, you get the same feeling of the pathetic that you do with Clegg (particularly given Ed's inability to say no to one Ed Balls), but Miliband Minor has a certain arrogance to him that makes him pretty repellant. Clegg seems to be incredulous that he is in a position of real power, while Miliband Minor seems incredulous that he isn't. Miliband Minor has all the arrogance of the utterly undeserved.

So, while I don't have a great deal of respect for Nick Clegg, I have nothing but contempt for Ed Miliband.

Call me cynical, but has he pleaded guilty to get a diminished sentence?

Whatever his rationale for his plea, I hope that the judge remembers that, in a gross breach of trust, Elliot Morley stole over £30,000 from the British public. And I hope that prison awaits Mr Morley.

To LPUK or not to LPUK?

Just had an e-mail* from LPUK to tell me that my membership of that party has expired - apparently an admin error meant they forgot to send out a renewal reminder.

Now, I'm in two minds as to whether I should sign up for another year of membership. On the one hand, they are the only party in this country that I could be a member of, since they are the only party that truly challenges the statist status quo. On the other hand, I don't have the time to be an active supporter and, with the best will in the world, there is little danger of them being credible political contenders in the near future. Plus, I'm not as well-off as I was when I first joined and while the membership fees are far from exorbitant, I still don't have much money to spare. So I'd thought I'd ask the readers of this blog for their thoughts.

It is worth stressing that I'll decide what to do myself pretty much on a whim in the not too distant future: this is not a democratic exercise where I follow whatever the majority of any commenters think I should do. And it is also worth pointing out that I'm not looking for other parties to join; no other party is Libertarian, and you can take your entryism and shove it where the sun don't shine.

But anyway, let me know what you think. If you so wish.

*Actually, it may well have been ages ago on the grounds that the e-mail went to my blogging account which I only infreqently check, and ended up in the spam folder which I almost never check.

Friday Night Dinner

It is difficult to know what the makers of Friday Night Dinner were trying to achieve with their TV series. The swearing in it sometimes makes me think that they were going for an edgy comedy show. If this is the case, then it fails. There is nothing edgy about swearing in comedy anymore - The Thick of It put paid to that. So a father saying “Shit On It!” a few times in each episode is hardly ground-breaking.

Perhaps they were going for original. But again, it’s a fail. After all, a fly-on-the-wall family show with farcical elements is just The Royle Family crossed with One Foot In The Grave. Indeed, the whole thing screams BBC sitcom (despite being on C4) – a dysfunctional Jewish family meeting for dinner and japes on a Friday could very easily sit in the TV schedules 1970s and 1980s. In-between Citizen Smith and Just Good Friends.

So not edgy and not original – even to the point of being old-fashioned. There is, of course, one way in which a comedy series could redeem itself at this point. How, I hear you ask. By being funny. And guess what? Friday Night Dinner fails here as well. It might make you smile on occasion, it might even make you laugh out loud. But it is so over-familiar that it is almost immediately tedious. Anyone who has ever had to go for a tedious family meal understands the dynamic of Friday Night Dinner - but it is understandable if they don’t want to watch such tedium on Channel 4.

So what were the makers of Friday Night Dinner trying to achieve? It’s a mystery to me, unless they were simply trying to fill the schedules. Maybe that’s it, then. Friday Night Dinner is sitcom schedule filler. And as such, it is instantly forgettable, and more than a little pointless.

Lots of spam coming through in the comments, so at this rate I'm going to have to introduce comment moderation, which is really tedious but increasingly necessary. However, just so everyone is clear, you can comment on whatever you like in whatever way you like just as long as it isn't libel and you aren't trying to sell anything. Break those two minor rules, and I'll delete your comment. Is all.

Theroux, Westboro and Christianity

So, I got round to watching the new Louis Theroux documentary. The one about a family of (Christian funda)mentalists. Two thoughts strike me about it.

Firstly, I really don't like the way Theroux undertakes his investigations. There seems to be an inherent contradiction within them. When interacting with his targets (and make no mistake about it, they are targets) he seems to be determined not to provoke, or even judge, them (except in the voiceovers). Indeed, one of the most painful yet enlightening moments in his most recent documentary is when he is forced to reveal what he actually thinks of the homophonic shitheads he's dealing with in front of them. Yet the whole premise of his programme judges them. In this case, they are the most hated family in America. In the past, they've been Nazis. Or Weird Weekends. The whole point of his work is that he believes he is dealing with freaks who should be investigated - that's how he selects them. So, as far as I am concerned, he should either engage with them and challenge them properly on the areas he finds weird or freakish, or he should redefine his work as being a broad and open-minded investigation of counter-culture. Not the weird.

But it seems almost counter-intuitive to complain about Louis Theroux's journalistic flaws when he is dealing with an organisation as appalling as the Westboro Baptist Church. Yeah, Theroux could do more to improve his journalistic integrity. The Westboro Baptist Church could do more to be fucking human. They are odious, ignorant people. They hide behind an idiosyncratic interpretation of the Bible to justify their homophobia and rage against America. Their leader is a nasty, hate-filled misanthrope. They are, in short, repugnant Christian fundamentalists.

Of course, it is tempting for an atheist like me to condemn Christianity as a whole based on these malign Christians. But to do so would be wrong. Yes, it is true that this "church" can find its justifications in the Bible, but much of the Bible contradicts itself. Large swathes of the Old Testament contradict the Ten Commandments, such as "Thou Shalt Not Kill" and Jesus's own favourite, "Love Thy Neighbour". And the Bible is not unique in that regard; chunks of the Koran, for example, do not fit with the beliefs of moderate Muslims. And this phenomenon is not solely applicable to religion. Taking Marx at his word is blueprint for dictatorship and for Stalinism, whereas a more critical, moderate and intelligent engagement with Marxism can still find moments of value even if the theory as a whole is fatally and fundamentally flawed. The problem with the Westboro lot is not that they are Christian, but rather that they are dogmatic about it. They refuse to allow for any deviation from their flawed and self-justifying reading of the Bible. Just as those Muslims who strap bombs to their chests and go into battle refuse to engage critically with the Koran, and the Stalinists refuse to allow for any deviation from their dictatorial reading of Marxism.

Therefore, the documentary shows that the problem is not Christianity, but the religious myopia of those who unthinkingly treat Christianity as dogma. The mentalists in the Westboro church are no more representative of moderate Christians than the actions of Timothy McVeigh are of those who legitimately question the scope of the state. I'm no Christian - I believe the worship of the Invisible Sky Fairy is no more rational than a belief in Santa or the Force - but I do get that the extremists lackwits of Westboro have little to do with the much more benign beliefs of moderate Christians.

Predictions and the 2012 Presidential Election

Ok, since it has started, let’s talk about the Presidential 2012 Election in the US. Of course, making any sort of prediction about a contest that is still well over a year away is always going to be fraught with difficulty and risk, but here’s my headline prediction: Obama will win. Comfortably.

Sure, his first term has hardly been covered in glory, and those who saw him as something like the second coming of the Messiah have had a rough fall to earth. But it has also been lacking in disaster, and has arguably gone better than the first terms of both Bush Junior and Clinton (both of whom won comfortable re-elections). Furthermore, the remarkable electoral machine that took him from little known Senator to President is gearing up again. Every day now until November 2012 the President will be campaigning by default. Every time he appears on the TV it will be reinforcing the concept of Obama as President. In the meantime, little known or compromised Republicans will be vying to become the nominee. They will be fighting not only against each other but also against the awesome power of incumbency.

Plus, I rather suspect that while the narrative of the last Presidential Election was that it was an exciting, unpredictable contest, the narrative will be that this coming on is a boring, predictable race. Given what the polls are showing, Obama will coast to re-election. The stories will be about what is going wrong with the Republican campaign, why it isn’t gaining traction, why it isn’t going anywhere. Like the Kerry campaign or the Dole campaign.

There is always the risk of a rogue element, however. A third party candidate, like Anderson in 1980 or Perot in 1992, could make a difference. As could a serious scandal involving Obama. But the one rogue element that won’t make a difference to the outcome is Sarah Palin. Far from guaranteed the nomination if she runs (an anybody-but-Palin campaign looks like a distinct possibility), she also simply won’t connect with the majority of moderate Americans who make someone the President. Sure, she has passionate followers in the Christian Right, but she is too divisive a figure (and too intellectually shallow) to be a credible candidate in a national election. History has shown that the Presidential candidates from the extreme wings of either party tend to crash and burn – see McGovern and Goldwater. Palin would join them in the background of the history books. Which is why Palin should seriously consider whether it is actually in their best interests to run. After all, she has her own little niche in US politics. A defeat in a Presidential election would tarnish her image, particularly since that would leave her record as involved in 2 Presidential campaigns, and being on the losing ticket in both of them.

Change will come; it will come in 2016, when Obama can’t run again.

In what is probably the least surprising news story you'll hear all week, Barack Obama is going to run for a second term. And as things stand, he'll almost certainly win:

Despite shedding some support, polling by the Pew Research Center suggests Mr Obama is in a stronger position at this stage than either Bill Clinton or George W Bush, both of whom went on to win re-election convincingly.

In polling carried out in March, some 47% of registered voters said they would like to re-elect Mr Obama, with just 37% saying they would vote for an as-yet-unknown Republican candidate.

Of course, this news - while utterly unsurprising - does have one significant downside. It effectively fires the starting gun on a contest that is still over a year and a half away. Such is the insanity of modern US electoral politics...

Charlie Sheen Live!

The fan response to the recent Charlie Sheen live show:

Fans walked out chanting "Refund!" and were quick to express their disappointment outside.

Sorry, but precisely what were you all expecting from an addict in meltdown? Witty erudition? Sublime eloquence? An evening with Peter Ustinov? It's a bit like going to see Shane MacGowan live, and then expressing dismay that he was slurring his words.

Don't get me wrong, I'm sure I'd have been disappointed if I'd paid to see that show. But I avoid that disappointment by not going to see that show. And anyone who did otherwise is either naive or stupid as far as I am concerned.

You wanted to see someone in meltdown; you did see someone in meltdown. Just 'cause you found out that it wasn't as entertaining as Withnail and I...

Quote of the Day

"Liberalism has only one overriding aim: to secure the political conditions that are necessary for the exercise of personal freedom."

Judith Shklar, 1928-1992

Ed Miliband and the Problem with Policy Wonks

Johann Hari has an interesting post up talking about Ed Miliband’s communication problems. I’d agree that Ed Miliband certainly has a communication problem: when I hear him speak, I feel like I am being lectured by an indignant potato. But Hari’s point is a little more sophisticated than that. He argues that Miliband’s language is the problem. Put simply, the language Miliband uses is that of a policy wonk.

Which is true. Miliband doesn’t seem to get that a big part of being a leader is being able to capture people’s imagination. You need to communicate in such a way as to make your point in a simply, clear and coherent way. And you also need to make people believe that you are on their side. Sounding like a pedantic politico is not going to do that.

See, for all of his evil, that was Blair’s genius. Particularly as Leader of the Opposition, he was able to sketch Nu Labour’s largely empty vision using simple, catchy phrases. “Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime” resonates in a way that nothing Miliband has said thus far resonates. It may have been utter bollocks, but people remembered it. Whereas I honestly cannot remember a single thing Miliband has said. Sure, there is the danger of drifting into spin, but a little bit of spin is essential to modern politics. It is only if it becomes the dominant component of your politics that you have a problem.

But will Miliband accept that he has a communication problem? And if he does, will he be able change? I doubt it. And this is a big problem Labour has got. Its current leadership class are all former policy wonks parachuted into safe seats (even if, in the case of Ed Balls, they’ve done a great deal to change that) and promoted beyond their abilities and level of experience. They are leaders; they don’t even appear to be effective managers. Sure, there’s a place for the likes of Miliband and, I suppose, Balls. But it isn’t at the head of the party, and it certainly isn’t spelling out the vision of that party. They need a new Nye Bevan; unfortunately, their current leadership class has the charisma of Clement Attlee without the humility.

And this is Labour’s tragedy, really. At a time when there is a need to spell out a socialist alternative to the Coalition’s policies, they’ve got Ed Miliband – a nervy policy wonk who sounds like he is constantly constipated. And that may yet prove to be the very thing that gives Cameron a second term in office.

Mike Huckabee - Still a Mentalist.

Ah, Mike Huckabee – it’s been a while since you last crossed my mind. I assumed your political career was over – mainly because you were beaten to the Republican nomination by a grumpy old man whose main selling point was that he was saner than you. But no. You’re still out there, talking terrifying shite.

Here’s the latest quote from one of the US’s favourite bible-bashing political nut-jobs:

I almost wish that there would be, like, a simultaneous telecast, and all Americans would be forced — forced at gunpoint no less — to listen to every David Barton message, and I think our country would be better for it. I wish it’d happen.

David Barton is, in case you were wondering, a fellow Christian fundamentalist. And the apparently delusional Huckabee thinks his fellow citizens should be forced at the barrel of a gun to listen to the fundamentalist toss.

Of course, Huckabee being Huckabee does this with a smile on his face, and makes his extraordinarily illiberal suggestion in a lighthearted way. Which is precisely what makes him so dangerous. He puts a genial face on Christian fundamentalism: he makes his brand of extremism look very, very friendly. Surely he can’t be a threat? I mean, he’s very folksy. Even when he is talking about using the threat of violence to make the people he aspires to rule to listen to his own particular brand of ethereal bullshit.

If Huckabee does run, I hope that this quote is repeated over and over again, so every moderate Republican can see and understand that Huckabee is a dangerous loon.