A Vague Similarity

I know this is a very juvenile thing to do, but I noticed something very chilling in David Cameron's face. Can you guess what it is?!

Apologies.

The Current Smear Campain Against Clegg...

... will simply fail. Both the Tories and the right-wing papers look truly desperate and pathetic today.

One thing is utterly surreal though, and that's Lord Mandelson rushing to Clegg's defence on today's The World at One. Wheels within weird wheels...

A Cleggophany of Cleggonymy...

After Cleggomania we've had Cleggophilia and Cleggstacy. Now I've found Cleggolatry in The Telegraph. Where will it all Clegg?!

Letter to the Times

When the British get angry and animated, they don't have a revolution, they simply write a strongly-worded letter to The Times.

So, following on from the frustration I mentioned in my last blog post, here is my own little bit of fuming:

Sirs,

Forgive my possible naivety, but my many years as a Liberal Democrat supporter and activist leave me sure that I can rely on the party sticking to its principled guns and not supporting a future minority Labour government if the Tories win the most seats. Nick Clegg would be committing political suicide if he were to even contemplate going against the will of the electorate. When as a party we talk of electoral reform, we really do mean it.

So please don't give credibility to the "Vote Clegg, get Brown" mantra spun in an attempt by Tory HQ to get the working majority they feel entitled to. If Cameron wins, Clegg will support him. Save us the histrionics!

Joseph Blurton,
Devon.

Debunking Coalition Talk

I've noticed a sour odour wafting around the newspaper columns and TV studios over the last couple of days, and thought I'd expound on it for a little while.

There is an assumption in the press - all of it, even at the BBC - that the Lib Dems are most likely to prop up a minority Labour administration after the election. This is giving cheer to many on the left, and making Gordon Brown seem decidedly complacent. The prevailing theory goes that if current polling is reflected in the eventual votes cast, Labour will come last, but still - under our crap electoral system - have the most seats. As the incumbent, Brown would certainly by precedent have the first right to seek to build a coalition. But it actually won't happen.

You can see why the idea's gained headway. There are certainly some policy similarities between the Lib Dems and Labour, and most of the Lib Dem membership would probably self-describe as social democrats. The Lib-Lab pact narrative also appeals to the Tory spin machine, since they can scare floating voters their way. But I have news for them.

I am almost 100% certain that Clegg would not prop up Gordon Brown if the final vote share went a bit like: Con, Lib Dem, Labour (in descending order). Party members might feel more at home with Labour on social issues and constitutional reform, but they are currently a lot closer to the Tories on the economy and civil liberties. There is also another very crucial factor: the principle of the thing.

Let me explain. It's no use spending decades ranting on about electoral reform in the wilderness unless you actually - when the crucial moment comes - stick to your guns and follow the principle of the thing you believe in. If the Tories get the most votes, they have the mandate. Simple. I know this choice will be a hard one for Lib Dems, but I also have faith - from years of personal experience - in how fervently they believe in this particular principle. They would most likely join the Tories and win the concession of electoral reform. (How now could the Tories refuse?) For those interested, Guido Fawkes' blog has quite an amusing take on this hypothetical Lib-Con coalition here.

Now, this all assumes that the Tories will win the most votes. Looking at a lot of the polls, it's actually relatively easy to see that the Lib Dems might themselves be the party with the peoples' mandate, and still form the smallest party. In this position, the Lib Dems would probably demand - as well as proportional representation - the right to impose terms on the other parties. In this scenario they probably would work with Labour, but on the proviso that Gordon Brown steps down, in favour of Alan Johnson or one of the Milibands. They would simply and undeniably have the power to do this, and to demand electoral reform, or else the public would fume if they were thus denied the expression of their will.

So, this talk of "Vote Clegg, get Brown" is all hokum. It's a Tory scare tactic designed to give them the working majority they feel they're entitled to. It looks almost guaranteed that voting Clegg will mean change, because the Liberals hate Gordon Brown just as much as the rest of the nation. They're not too keen on Cameron either, but probably feel he's a man they can work with.

So there you are. If more vote Clegg, you'll get a Lib-Con pact. If even more vote Clegg, you'll effectively get government by, er, Clegg.

~~~~~
I have to add that, personally, I would rather see a Lib-Lab coalitionthan a Lib-Con one, but I don't see the arithmetic going that way. It could, but it won't. This is what riles me about the assumptions in the media at the moment, since I have no hope of this happening, why should they?!

Yet more Lib Demmery!

I just heard something that tickled me on the Westminster Hour on Radio 4, and thought I would share it. One of the panel of journalists raised the point that the very fact the Tories and Labour are attacking the Lib Dems shows that the party is now a serious threat. And despite the attacks, whatever their nature, the Lib Dems may actually benefit from all of this increased exposure; before, people liked the Liberals but didn't think they could win. Now they have the potential to be the most popular party, this may bring closet Liberals out of the woodwork. That, my friends, is a pretty heartening thought.

Notes on the Lib Dem surge.

Wow. It's the only appropriate word right now. This weekend's polls are so staggering I may have to bite my arm off just to see if this is actually deep sleep. Nick Clegg's much-praised performance in the ITV leaders' debate on Thursday night has propelled him into the forefront of British politics, and seems to have caught the media, and the other parties, by surprise. Today's YouGov poll puts the parties at C 33, L 30, LD 29, and a BPIX poll in The Mail on Sunday actually puts the Lib Dems in the lead for the first time since 1985, on C 31, L 28, LD 32.

The phenomenon vindicates the long-time mantra of the Lib Dems about their historically awful Catch 22 situation. Without support they cannot get enough exposure, and without exposure they cannot get support. But since almost 1 in 4 voters chose the Lib Dems in 2005, there was little chance of them being left out of the new leaders' debates. The Tories and Labour must be sorely regretting this. But complaints by the likes of Anne Widdecombe about allowing the Lib Dems a platform really do reinforce Clegg's claims about the supreme entrenchment of the political orthodoxy. It's a very useful angle for them. They're both rotten, so come with us!

However, now that the Lib Dems are in the public spotlight after almost a century in the wilderness, and are threatening Cameron's sense of entitlement to govern, the two "old" parties will train their sights anew on the third party.

The conservative press, by which I mean most of the, er, press (The Sun, The News of the World, The Daily Mail, The Times, The Daily Telegraph - really, almost every newspaper!), have essentially printed a memo verbatim from Tory HQ. The main three points of attack seem to be as follows:

• The Lib Dems will sign Britain up to the Euro.
• They will scrap Trident's replacement, leaving Britain without a nuclear deterrent.
• They support an amnesty for illegal immigrants.

This is a classic case of attack by misrepresentation. If you alter the wording of any policy significantly, you can completely change its meaning. In the previous three cases, the Lib Dems' meaning is as follows:

• The Lib Dems would like Britain to join the Euro eventually - like Labour - but now is definitely not the time.
• Given the size of the deficit they would prefer to replace Britain's four on-duty nuclear submarines with an alternative, cheaper deterrent, such as land-based missiles or airborne delivery, at a cost of £20 billion, rather than £100 billion. This is expected to be operational from 2030, and coincides with America and Russia making bilateral reductions.
• The Lib Dems support an amnesty for all illegal immigrants who can prove they have been here for 10 years or more, contributing to the economy, and not committing any crimes. "Playing by the rules," as folks like to say. This would help to grapple impoverished people out of the hands of criminal gangs.
  

It all sounds very different, put like that, doesn't it?

Now, let's do the same thing for the Tories, because it's fun.

• The Tories will abandon communities stuck with poor schools and hospitals to run them by themselves. A source close to the Conservative leader was quoted as saying: "we can't afford to fix them, so you're on your own."
• David Cameron announced last week that the Tories will value commitment at the paltry sum of £3 a week, or the very reasonable price of 3 Daily Telegraphs.
• On Sunday the Tories enlisted Gary Barlow to help turn every school into a spin-off of The X-Factor. Simon Cowell, interviewed about the scheme at a charity fund-raiser hosted by The Horned Beast, Lucifer, rubbed his hands in glee.

You get the idea. Why not try writing your own?!

Anyway, the Lib Dems are doing well, and good luck to them. But the Tories will have to do a lot better than attacking invented policies to halt the yellow tsunami. Conservatives call Lib Dem policies "eccentric", but I think the polls show that the public have been itching for something new and optimistic. They won't get that from the old duopoly.

A Very Tory Marriage

The Tories are big on marriage. Broken homes are apparently a cause of their Broken Britain. There might be some truth in this, but their recently-announced £150 tax break for married couples is nothing but bribery.

So who does it appeal to? The Daily Mail vote, obviously, but they're already voting Tory. Or UKIP. Or BNP. And it appeals to married people, obviously. That's already quite a sizeable proportion of the demographic most likely to vote.

But if the Tories seriously think £150 a year is enough to save a marriage from collapse, they're utterly deluded. I can see it in houses up and down the land. "We'll stay together for the kids" being replaced with "we'll stay together for a new A-rated freezer!"

It's also grossly unfair. They've certainly dodged a bullet by extending it to Civil Partners, but it devalues the very thing the Tories say they are trying to support: commitment.

For all of those couples who are loving, and committed, but not married, and for all of those sorry people who struggle alone but would love to have the chance to be loving, and committed, and married, it's a huge slap in the face.

And for what? It's purely designed to win over the middle class vote. It is, in short, a flat out electoral bribe.

I just hope that when the public look at the Tories' tax proposals, they'll see how blatantly opportunistic and unprogressive the party still is. In my dreams...

The Beast Below - A Review

Right, let's dispense with the obligatory spoiler warning for those of you who haven't seen the latest episode of Doctor Who.

I've been prompted to write this because the sublime Mr. Gareth Rafferty has a very different opinion on the episode to mine. I just want to briefly summarise my thoughts on it.

The Doctor and Amy Pond materialise above the rather cheesy-sounding Starship UK, a sort of generational ship searching the stars after the Earth has been slightly spoiled by solar flares. There are echoes of the second Tom Baker serial, The Ark in Space, here. So despite the ridiculousness of the Starship UK idea, it's tempered with an amount of geek cachet.

After the titles we see what is essentially Doctor Who's first ever "spacewalk", and Amy Pond floating serenely in space is a powerful, heartening image. Needless to say, our "Ooohs and Ahhhs" are capitalised on by Murray Gold, whose soundtrack either consists of a woman wailing "oooh" and "ahhh", or the BBC Symphony Orchestra after a bombastic night out on the sauce. So much, so meh.

But this is Amy's first trip to the future. We've been hundreds of times, of course, but the strength of this episode rests solely on Karen Gillan's shoulders. This is New Who through her eyes, much as The End of the World or The Shakespeare Code introduced Rose Tyler and Martha Jones to the Doctor's life. But unlike these past episodes, The Beast Below isn't totally awful.

We get a handle on Amy's character right from the moment she monologues into the TARDIS scanner, and the image of a crying child. The Doctor has just delivered one of the funniest lines in Doctor Who history - "I never get involved" - and there he is, comforting the child. It's a magical moment, utterly contradicts the Doctor's still-cooking self-image, and sets the tone of the entire episode.

And the entirity of The Beast Below is about choices. It's a morality play in space, and it's something Doctor Who has always excelled at.

The Doctor immediately notices that there's something nefarious afoot (or underfoot) on Starship UK, and he baffles us by placing a glass of water on the floor. "There's an escaped fish", he tells the bemused onlookers. This is Moffat's strength - to take something as humble as a glass of water, and turn it into a mystery. A central plot point out of the mundane.

So the Doctor sends Amy off to explore, and she gets into the usual companion trouble. After a scare she's presented with a terrible truth, and is then given the option of forgetting or protesting. Being human, she chooses to forget. But the Doctor arrives, and his words just ring in your ears... "What have you done?"

The Doctor is born to protest, and he presses the appropriate button. And down they go. After a brief spell in the mouth of a giant star-whale, they are propelled back to the surface to be greeted by the "mysterious woman" Liz 10, who is so blatantly the Queen in disguise it's almost laughable. Her line "Basically, I rule" is awful and thrilling at the same time. Less good is her Cock-en-y thief accent.

One of the great tropes of Classic Who is the idea that the Doctor is viewed suspiciously, and observed in all of his investigations. In an inspired bit of casting, the person charged with spying on the Doctor is none other than Terrance Hardiman, the Demon Headmaster. You know, the creepy one who you had nightmares about. We were Matt Smith's beloved "barren generation", and only had the Demon Headmaster, Aquila and the Queen's Nose to fill the Who void.

But I digress. I must stop digressing. Hardiman summons Liz 10, the Doctor and Amy to the Tower of London, where the brain of the star-whale is being electrocuted to act as an accelerator pedal. It's a gruesome thought, but not a surprise. Liz 10 demands to know why this is being done in her name, and she has her little amnesia/Groundhog Day moment. The Doctor, very angry by this point, is left with his own choice. Destroy Britain, Kill the Whale, or make it a vegetable. Gareth makes a good point in that it's actually a rather false choice. He probably has the nous to give them replacement propulsion, or to evacuate the entire population to the TARDIS swimming pool.

But, and this probably won't come as a surprise, I'm always willing to suspend belief in Doctor Who. I think that's the point. Okay Moffat, if you say here's a real dilemma, we'll go with it. Otherwise, the plot would fall down. It would be a failing if it weren't for the real alternative that Amy is left to discover. The whale has volunteered in an attempt to save the children. The adults may be to blame for their collective choice, but the star whale is compassionate. Just like the Doctor.

Now that final point may be a little unnecessarily laboured, but this is a children's show. I don't credit all 8 million viewers with the necessaries to learn an important lesson in passing. And neither, probably, does Steven Moffat. This might in itself seem to suggest Moffat has a negative view of humanity, but I do see him as essentially a Humanist because of the way he writes his characters. Individually, each character is capable of acts of both evil and good. Collectively, he's making a timely point about our political blinkers. But every single one of the characters is given the benefit of the doubt. Even Hardiman's, who looks genuinely apologetic.

There are failings to this story. The Smilers are essentially incidental to the plot, and you get the feeling they're there purely because a committee decreed that All Episodes Must Have Monsters. I actually believe this is a fallacy. There are also too many layers of complexity for everything to gel perfectly, but the key lesson for the viewer is essentially none of the above. We see how well Amy Pond already understands her raggedy Doctor. He is the central pillar of her personal creation myth, and she tries to impress. She succeeds.

Both Matt and Karen's performances are captivating. The Doctor's anger is well caught, and the references to a kind and lonely old man, though we've heard them before, don't seem remotely as tired here as they have before.

Put simply, Moffat can write brilliant characters, and the cast can act them. It's not an instant classic, but there's meat on the bone, and so many wonderful nods to classic sci-fi - especially Hitch-Hikers - seem to permeate the scripts.