Sunday, April 18, 2010
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:
Now, let's do the same thing for the Tories, because it's fun.
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.
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.
- 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.
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.
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.
Sunday, April 11, 2010
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...
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.
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.
Thursday, March 25, 2010
On the Independent Buyout / Newspaper Ownership
You should never believe anything you read in the newspapers. It's trite but true, and now more so than ever. Today's news that Alexander Lebedev has bought The Independent for £1 shouldn't come as a surprise. The mysterious ex-KGB agent, having bought The Evening Standard last year for the same nominal sum, has a stated aim of being a media player. How much this has to do with his forming a political collaboration in Russia with Mikhail Gorbachev is difficult to say...
The case of The Independent is a sorry one. It hasn't returned a profit since the Chinese invented paper, and in recent years has hardly been a newspaper at all. Its lead stories are often magazine-style articles about some far away calamity. All very noble, but of little interest to most casual readers browsing the titles on offer at the news-stand. Okay, I'll call it. It's just a cheaply-printed magazine with some news thrown in.
Lebedev's purchase of the title may actually reverse the fortunes of The Independent. He has the financial clout to throw sacks of saffron at the paper, and there is even talk of his replicating the regeneration of The Evening Standard by offering copies of the paper for free. So far so shiny.
But what worries me is that - in an age when every newspaper carries its own editorial baggage (I'd cite The Guardian as an exception, but I'd be wrong to, frankly) - The Independent may cease to feel quite so independent.
Perhaps this entrenched bias is why the intelligentsia are hooked on the modern 'spheres'; the blogosphere, twittersphere et al. Whilst every commentator here has his own bias, it's largely self-proclaimed. (Disclosure: I'm in the Social Democratic wing of the Lib Dems) That allows for an amount of easy rational discernment on the part of the reader.
Given the amount of hyperbole, fabrication, embellishment and lying that thrives in the newspapers, it's no wonder that today's savvypost-ideology pragmatic consumer has headed for the hallowed, eclectic high ground of the interwebsphere.
The case of The Independent is a sorry one. It hasn't returned a profit since the Chinese invented paper, and in recent years has hardly been a newspaper at all. Its lead stories are often magazine-style articles about some far away calamity. All very noble, but of little interest to most casual readers browsing the titles on offer at the news-stand. Okay, I'll call it. It's just a cheaply-printed magazine with some news thrown in.
Lebedev's purchase of the title may actually reverse the fortunes of The Independent. He has the financial clout to throw sacks of saffron at the paper, and there is even talk of his replicating the regeneration of The Evening Standard by offering copies of the paper for free. So far so shiny.
But what worries me is that - in an age when every newspaper carries its own editorial baggage (I'd cite The Guardian as an exception, but I'd be wrong to, frankly) - The Independent may cease to feel quite so independent.
Perhaps this entrenched bias is why the intelligentsia are hooked on the modern 'spheres'; the blogosphere, twittersphere et al. Whilst every commentator here has his own bias, it's largely self-proclaimed. (Disclosure: I'm in the Social Democratic wing of the Lib Dems) That allows for an amount of easy rational discernment on the part of the reader.
Given the amount of hyperbole, fabrication, embellishment and lying that thrives in the newspapers, it's no wonder that today's savvy
Monday, March 22, 2010
My Poor Neglected Blogs
I noticed something today. People have been commenting on this blog. It truly surprised me that people were even reading it, let alone commenting. It's all the more surprising since - now that I'm actively focused on writing the Samain screenplay - I've let both this blog and World Domination Today fall by the wayside.
No longer. I will redouble my efforts to maintain them, since it's obviously something both enjoyable and productive. And dear reader, it's good to see you.
No longer. I will redouble my efforts to maintain them, since it's obviously something both enjoyable and productive. And dear reader, it's good to see you.
Friday, March 19, 2010
My New Audio Adventure Series
I've been working on this as a side project for a couple of weeks, and finalised the script yesterday. Enthused, I set about recording, and hope people like the result. It's a very silly sci-fi tale of a small group of Catholic missionaries, battling a baffling Universe.
Tell me what you think!
Tell me what you think!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
