British Media discovers Prank calls, Hypocrisy

Just a quick note on this daft business of evil Australian DJs (it's late, excuse the poor flow)

We expat Poms have a rather unique insight into this strange case of a bog-standard prank call gone very wrong

You see, we get to know all about Australia's commercial radio stations, and the rank hypocrisy of the British press

The Mail has 'discovered' Kyle Sandilands (who is a controversial DJ who works for the same station) because of course, the two are linked  - dirty Aussies and their crass ways

Not that the left wing Fairfax press here haven't tried to get in digs at Alan Jones, but I digress

The prank was pretty tame, there were no abused children involved, nothing offensive was said, it was a standard Sydney morning radio show wind-up call, but shame on the Ozzies for shaming a nurse into so much anguish that she'd kill herself

But hang on, some Australians may have committed the crime originally but somehow I doubt the nurse would have been too upset by the very concept of being tricked, and was unlikely to be listening to 2day FM or picking up a Sydney daily

No, it was the rampant and vile British press, who are so obsessed with a pair of 30 year olds who managed to have sex that they camped outside her place of work, filled acres of newsprint and got the rather pedestrian prank-call global coverage

This is where my British instincts come in, because you just know the tabloids were having a field day - criticising the hospital, the staff, Australia...wondering if Diana is still alive...

and then of course she was found dead, and it's party time, with lashings of hypocrisy as the same press who flooded the world with such a moronic story turn it into a global epic as they point the finger at a pair of hapless DJs

I'm not sure the two DJs are the ones who have 'blood on their hands', if there is some sort of charge out of the inquest then surely the fault should lay on the ones who applied the pressure so relentlessly and drove a possibly fragile person to such extremes - and they wonder why we got Leveson (I disagree with limits on the press, but it's clear why Leveson happened)

If this had been some politician found with a rent-boy, who was then hounded for a week and found dead, would it be the politician's fault...?

Do we need daddies?

In the aftermath of these riots-cum-looting, or general thuggishness, whichever you prefer, much has predictably been made of fatherless families

For example IDS has just said:

“We’ve been ambivalent about family structure in Britain for far too long.”

Of course, we all know this means single-parent families, predominantly single mothers, but are they really to blame?

Well, yes and no, I think

Undoubtedly the rise of the Vicky Pollard style teenage mother with her feckless brood is a problem - arguably if there were good hard-working fathers in those lives those children would be much better off (or alternate partner if you wish, I don't necessarily think it has to be a male, although generally it's going to be)

But this does not simply mean a single parent is worse, or a problem in itself

I come from a single parent family, did I go and out and rampage through the streets? I can't prove this here of course, but I'd like to think you believe me

You see it's all well and good to bang on about families and how bad people like me are, how I'm so much less likely to have a degree (masters) or a job (I do) or have a family (married), but the real issue is hidden in what I said earlier - 'good' and 'hard-working' - it is the stable environment that is vastly more important

I bet you we all know a single parent, and I bet, unless you roam around inner city ghettos that the kids are fairly standard, and likewise you may have right terrors born to 'proper' families

The statistics bear out of course, but they also bear out for black people - anybody want to suggest that's inherent to what they are rather than where they are?

You live in a place where young women are poorly educated, have little respect for themselves and are treated like dirt by feckless young men, who also have no respect for themselves or anything, then you are going to get social problems and out of control kids - even if you were to force marriage, and even fidelity, upon them, you are not addressing the root of the problem - the single mothers in question are a symptom, not the cause

So there's no need to worry about young Mrs Smith down the road, whose husband just buggered off with his secretary, producing the next gun-toting hoodlum

I do think welfare is misguided - we effectively encourage people to breed and be irresponsible, because we won't let anyone starve, but this just encourages dependency, ironically my mother never did, and never would, claim welfare

Ultimately this is about those willing, or able, to engage with society and play by the rules, and those who can't, or won't - a breakdown of respect, particularly for themselves, the individual family structure has little to do with that

So how could I ever say single parent families are to blame? I couldn't, and frankly anyone who says that is a dimwit, or just hateful

What I do say is a lot of these problems do happen to come from single-parent families, but what is needed is a stable and loving home, the culture that happens to create single mothers in deprived, inner-city areas rife with gangs is to blame - attacking the notion of single parenthood itself is, at best, just plain daft

Ever actually been to a library?

There's been a lot of talk about how libraries will be having to close due to cuts (which, by the way, has more to do with local councils deciding to cut certain services over other savings because it's politically expedient) but I really do have to ask, when did you last go into a library?

I ask because I recently started using my local public library in my quest to read more classics, I am a fan of books and wish for there to be free public access to them

However, having actually been to a few I soon realised they are little more than hang-outs for deadbeats, the elderly and stay at home mums which provide more CDs, newspapers and magazines than actual books

In fact, I estimated that roughly an eighth of the building was dedicated to fiction, while the reference section was about as much use as a chocolate teapot

I don't know about you, but when I envisage saving the libraries I picture people perusing shelves crammed with literature, not an old woman saying how she just got the Lady Gaga CD to provide for her granddaughter to burn onto her computer

I think few people realise how bad public libraries are - I am not of course referring to great institutions such as the British Library, the Magdalene Library, or any decent university library (mine was top notch), which no doubt educated people regard fondly, but real local libraries which no doubt educated people never bother visiting because books are so damn cheap anyway

Because the truth is they are drab, underused buildings which can barely be placed in the same bracket with real libraries - no doubt they provide books to some people, but clearly it is very few and it seems to me that we have passed the age where we need to provide literature to the masses through poorly stocked local book houses, my local Tesco probably sells more Jordan autobiographies than the total number of books the library lends, likewise the internet is all but eliminating the need for reference material (and thank god because I pity anyone who is forced to rely on even a city library)

This may sound cruel, and to be honest, I would have thought so too a few weeks ago but having witnessed it first hand I have to conclude they are an outdated model - I still want to provide literature to the masses for free, but the model no longer fits - if you were to invent the concept today, you would not take a large building and stick a few rows of books in it, you would utilise the internet, or even mail-order, mobile libraries are probably more effective

There is of course, another argument for them - the community aspect, libraries provide one of the very few places poorer people in particular can attend classes...or where old people can spend their days communally reading newspapers

But could we not find a way to provide these services whilst getting rid of the books? It would mean smaller buildings and less staff, and I can't believe they even cost a lot now, so surely a 'community centre' would be very cheap

So yeah, cut the 'libraries' - frankly they are an embarrassment to the word and pretty much useless as a provider of books

I appreciate that this is a difficult concept to swallow, I would simply ask that you go and walk into your local town or city library and take a look - see how little use they are getting, how much space they are wasting and of how much use they are to your reading needs

I don't wish to close them per se, I just want to make a relevant service for this century

The Phony Book

I recently had the displeasure to read what is possibly the most overrated book of all time, namely the Catcher in the Rye by J.D Salinger

This is that 'shocking' book that became the most controversial piece of literature in America and is considered one of the great modern classics, nearly always by baby boomers with an obsession with the 60s

To be honest, I knew relatively little about it, 'Catcher' is relatively popular as a set text in schools, but my school were very much anti-American literature, and I have never gone out of my way to read American since, so all I know is based on the views of others - I knew that it was a 'coming of age' tale for example, and I also knew it was considered shocking for a considerable amount of profanity in the 50s, but that it is largely inoffensive to a modern audience

That was about it, so I read it, seeing as it's always on those '100 books to read before you die' lists and everybody has an opinion on it

I knew from the first page that I was going to hate it, the book is from the perspective of a 16 year old, Holden Caulfield and is seemingly the definition of a stream of consciousness novel, from the outset he is speaking in this incredibly roundabout, pointless fashion that drove me near insane. It really did. People who constantly repeat the same goddam point really knock me out. They really do.

That's essentially the gist of it - and that dear reader, is the sort of language you will endure for nearly 200 pages, whole paragraphs devoted to him repeating and reaffirming the same goddam point, and as you may have guessed, saying 'goddam' rather a lot

I eventually worked out, after finding nothing offensive for the bulk of the book, that 'goddam' was in fact the controversial profanity - this is probably a result of my being English, where damn has never particularly been considered to be a 'swear', I was expecting at least a s h one t here and there, but nothing, the thing is ridiculously mild by modern standards, particularly if you aren't American (where the controversy has always been, in fairness)

I laboured on, learning the language after a few pages (i.e. skipping lines which I knew would only be him saying 'I hate X. I really do. That really knocks me out.') appreciating that many old classics are often written in strange ways due to their subject and/or period, assuming that there would be some great metaphorical point to a fascinating plot here

Alas, no, the 'plot' is that Holden is kicked out of his posh boarding school for the umpteenth time and goes on a bit of a bender as he heads to his home in New York, while calling everyone phonies and fantasising, a lot

The plot itself is not really the point, it's more his thoughts that the various scenarios bring up that are the key elements of the novel - like how near everyone is a 'phony' and how he hates essentially everything about modern life (movies, school, adults in general), he is both a nihilist and a hypocrite, as while Holden may be making a valid point about the falseness of society, he repeatedly shows us how much of a phony he is - constantly lying and going on about drinking and women for example - maybe that's the point, but I found it very hard to sympathise with the general point when he was so weak and childish and I kept bouncing between who was worse - the individuals who he was so disdainful of, or him

His other main focus of thought is his dead younger brother, who he hero-worships as a genius and his little sister, who seems to be the sole living person that he is positive about

That's about it, he's a confused nihilist who is defensive/hostile towards pretty much everything except that which is dead, or a child

....And now do you see why angst-riddled teenagers love it?

The boy is angry at the world and the whole wanting to stop children falling off a cliff (he's a catcher in the field of rye...) is an obvious allusion to the pain of growing from a child into an adult, the metaphor is laid out on a plate for you

Any other metaphor taken from this is just wishful thinking I think, he is a boy who is probably suffering from some sort of grief related disorder and possibly having a nervous breakdown, but I can see how his nihilism and complete disregard for anything, even himself, chimes with teenagers, while his actions may be rather extreme, I can sort of see a resemblance to my own thoughts in my nearly-forgotten teenage years

Maybe I would have liked it more back then, I certainly wasn't as bad as him, his thoughts are ridiculously erratic for one, but then very few teenagers would go that far, they might share the general sentiment of hopelessness, however, so I can see why a fair chunk of American teenagers thought it was so radical

Look at me, I seem to have started defending it and finding meaning in it, well actually I was never going to call it complete garbage, it's not a trashy romance novel and there is a clear allusion to teenage angst, but that's about it

What I wouldn't do is call it a 'classic', while there is a point to it, it is a very simple one that is made in absolutely mind-numbing language and dressed up in a load of seemingly pointless and excessive description

As I've just shown, there is a discussion to be had on it's meaning, but you could say that about all but the trashiest novels and what I really want to point out is that while I have been thinking it over since I finished it, I absolutely hated reading it - the whole point of a good book is that you enjoy it, or it is has an incredibly profound point to make, I am principally debating the meaning of this book now because I have been conditioned to expect one from it, and it's a lot more enjoyable going back over it in my mind than in the actual book -and the points I have found to think about are very few in number, I seem to have forgiven it by trying to find some meaning and I really shouldn't just forget how irritating it was solely to discuss some fairly inane points about growing up

I simply don't think it adds up to being a classic, Salinger has described an angry teenager quite well and maybe appealed to a fair few angst-ridden teens but that's about it, the thing is a chore to read and, crucially I believe, has not aged well - you look at it's biggest fans (brilliantly, almost certainly 'phonies') and they are primarily those baby-boomers who were teenagers in the 50s and 60s, they think it's a classic because it spoke to them when they were kids, and of course they, the most powerful present generation, still love the damn thing, but a modern reader has little to take from it - a classic must be timeless, it must be at least an enjoyable read or impart some wisdom or philosophical point, this just describes a moody teenager in the 50s (ok, 40s if you want to be technical)

Certainly this book is important, I have seen praise for its description of post-war New York and its impact on a generation is clear, but that makes it of historical interest - it means we look at it from the perspective of 'why was this book popular' rather than 'why is this book so good', it's akin to the current fascination around the Twilight books, it's quite simply an overrated teen novel

One last point, I've been thinking about why teachers inflict this novel on teenagers:

Number 1 is obvious - because they are baby-boomers and liked it when they were school-age

Number 2 is more fun - that teachers want to do some amateur psychology on their students and see how many can identify with it and how many think it's tosh

All thoughts welcome...unless they involve phonies, 'goddam', horsing around or knocking people out

They did not invent them!

Watching the Daily Politics, Oona King and Portillo are having a debate about inventions - main topic, who came up with the rent-a-bike scheme in London - Johnson or Livingstone

The real question is - who went to Europe and pinched the idea?

Launched in Paris in 2007, any tourist will see them - and indeed most major northern European cities had a scheme when I went round Europe long before Boris launched our system in London

As Wikipedia states - Lyon had the breakthrough in 2005, and even Portsmouth toyed with it in the 90s

Likewise, it's been popular in the US for many years

Basically we saw a good idea and stole it - nothing wrong with that, but it's not 'innovative', nor was it our invention, it's just about in the realms of forward-thinking, that's it - don't believe politicians when they state it's a London thing, we're as behind on this one as the famously useless Ozzies

Introducing the Oyster card was somewhat more impressive - certainly wasn't the first smartcard, but it involved massive changes to a pre-existing infrastructure system, and it actually worked, the bikes just required a copy of someone else's system to be built

edit: and as any Cambridge resident will tell you - we've been practising a reciprocal bike-sharing agreement for decades, they just call it 'bike theft' everywhere else

Taking 'fairness' to a new level

I found this rather bizarre entry in the BBC's Magazine (which let's face it, is usually bizarre)

Can men and women ever compete fairly in a sport like running?

Well, um no is the answer

In short, Lucy Proctor has used statistics to work out when men and women can, on average best performances, perform equally well - in a nutshell, men in their early fifties are equal to peak performance women. Now, while I am rather fond of daft academic studies that seek to work out these things for the hell of it (she is clearly not being serious or promoting a Harperson-esque agenda), the fact is 'fairness' means all things to all men

I don't actually consider it fair to test a much older male against a younger female just so that they are on a supposedly level-playing field, in the same way it's not fair to work out the best time a lardarse can do and weight a lithe runner against him, that's equalising, not fairness

It's just statistics - fairness is in the eye of the beholder - to me, that means shoving everyone onto a start line and saying 'go' - that's a fair fight between all

Yes you can adjust the results for age, a seventy year old is hardly likely to match Paula Radcliffe, and it's a different expectation of achievement, but they are never going to be fairly competing - for a start the statistics are far too malleable and only relate to the very best athletes, not your common runner who will have a host of other advantages or disadvantages besides sex

I would like to see a team sport equalised in such a way - how do you make women's football as fast and powerful?

Answer: you don't

Still here

Still having net problems (hopefully sorted next week) and now I'm behind and don't know what to blog about

The only really big news has been of Copenhagen and dear god am I bored of this rubbish

Most of the blogosphere has been raging against 'the lie', while the press have been indulging in it, the politicians are in their element away from their constituents, eating fine dinners and having cosy chats away from all accountability, and bloody annoying activists are...well, bloody annoying

So where do I sit? Am I a 'sceptic' or 'denier'?

Not in the proper noun sense - I am a proper sceptic about pretty much everything, which means I view everything. particularly politics, with one eyebrow raised, much like the Roger Moore-era Bond - I am a very sceptical and cynical person

So I would be a hypocrite to totally and unequivocally accept the assertions of some incredibly preachy people and politicians, in all fairness I probably would accept the science if there weren't such a lot of idiots going around screaming 'we're all going to die'

I'm not sure if I've been reading too many right-wing blogs, and the old saying, 'repeat a lie often enough and you start to believe it', has come true and made me question something quite widely accepted

But as I say, I am not a 'denier' - I can't say I know either way, and I honestly don't believe most of those activists and politicians know a thing about the science either, I don't like blind faith

It's a bit sad that I can't believe scientists, one group I would usually always back - but from what I can tell their science is based on guesswork - what will happen, why this has happened etc - it's certainly not totally conclusive, and that means I can't come to a rock-solid conclusion either

There are a couple of points against it, but generally the 'scientists' quoted by 'deniers' are discredited, and/or in the pay of big oil (e.g Plimer) - it doesn't exactly help the case, I base my view on the evidence that I can see myself, or at least get a grasp of - while I can easily spot a flaw in someone's analysis, I still can't in all certainty agree or disagree that in 50 years Fiji will be underwater

Regardless of the science debate, I have always felt that pumping tonnes of black clouds into the sky is probably not a good thing, regardless of whether it's melting the icecaps, burning dirty things that we have a finite resource of is not the wisest idea, nor is chucking plastic into landfills and the ocean - so I have always wanted to move to clean, renewable energy and sustainable living anyway, the issue of global warming and why it's happening are by-the-by for me

All I have ever wanted the politicians to do is work towards supporting renewable energy with funding, but instead they talk about a few percentage points of emissions, and then tax the consumer to the hilt

This is probably the biggest reason I dislike Copenhagen - I have a similar end to the eco-loons, whether or not we agree on rising sea levels, so I don't hugely have a problem with a big climate meeting

No, my problem is my usual one - politicians, they aren't going to do anything

Their aim is for a 20% cut in emissions - that'll come down for a start, and presumably 20% won't halt anything, merely delay it a few years, if they were really serious, felt it was really urgent and about saving the world then they would actually do something serious

If the threat is real, like a giant asteroid hurtling towards us, as many activists see it, then they don't really fear it, perhaps because it's not visible, perhaps because they'll all be dead by then, as some woman who claimed to represent my generation put it (god, I hate those bloody activists)

Either way, this meeting is about as pointless as the Munich Agreement - there will be no drastic action to save us from the asteroid - no rocket sent up to destroy it, just more taxes to 'combat' the asteroid while we continue living normally

If they were really serious, they'd be wanting rid of all fossil fuels, funding research in more efficient renewable sources - but they won't, it'll be a bit of posturing and a 'pledge' to cut emissions, while the average person is fleeced of more and more money in the name of 'green'

So it doesn't actually matter if it's real or not - Copenhagen is a crock, the politicians involved would have more dignity if they didn't believe in it, rather than just going along with it and then doing nothing but taxing us

and I guess that's a blog - about global warming! Don't expect another one of those for a while

Noughtie TV shows

I recently stumbled across the Telegraph's top 100 TV shows that defined the decade (what with it being in its last month) - it's a bit of a hodge podge that includes some big american TV shows with worldwide appeal that didn't actually air terrestrially here, while being mostly Brit-centric and including some very minor British shows

So I thought I'd do my own version according to the same lax rules and try to improve it a bit by doing it in sections, because what's the point ranking genres against each other? We shall see how it turns out...

(hat tip to From the North.. blog for pointing me to it)

I shall start with...Comedy and I think then I'll do Animation separately after, so I don't get cries of 'where's South Park/Family Guy etc' so, onward - sections are of no particular length, so I'm hoping 'reality TV' can be brief, if intense

Comedy

20. The Kumars at no.42 (BBC 2001-6) The successor to Goodness Gracious Me was as important for its cultural impact as much as its critical success, even if the comedy was fairly benign

19. Trigger Happy TV (Channel 4 2000-1) HELLO!? YES, I'M IN THE CINEMA!...You had to be there, red fox

18. Malcolm in the Middle (Fox 2000-6) There aren't many decent Fox comedies out there, but Malcolm in the Middle was a classic that went global and won various awards

17. Scrubs (NBC 2001-8) Not much point counting the butchered ABC version after this classic - Scrubs was the Friends of the noughties - countlessly repeated on daytime and digital TV, couldn't really miss it, oh and it was a good laugh

16. Outnumbered (BBC 2007-) A surprising entry for a show that's only produced 13 episodes (and isn't Fawlty Towers) and spent its first season on late at night, but its obvious quality shone through and got everyone watching this brilliant improv-comedy by the second series (and buying the first en masse)

15. Marion and Geoff (BBC 2000-3) Although a bit forgotten now, this Rob Brydon monologue-fest was a big hit in the early part of the decade

14. Da Ali G Show (Channel 4 2000) ah, is it because I am black? Hard to ignore this ridiculous send-up that appealed to both the intelligent and the illiterate, and of course, gave the world Borat

13. Peep Show (Channel 4 2003-) Excruciatingly painful comedy about two pathetic losers, its sheer brilliance could have you in tears, but its 'alternative' appeal has kept it restrained to younger people and late nights, reducing its impact (and 13 just felt right for Mark, you know...)

12. My Family (BBC 2000-) This mild sitcom is not particularly edgy, and lost it's appeal many years ago but spending a decade as the BBC's mainstream family comedy is no mean feat

11. QI (BBC 2003-) This intelligent game show made a nice change from the usual dumbed-down rubbish, without being elitist, and became a quick hit with anyone who considered themselves to have a brain

10. Mock the Week (BBC 2005-) The satirical stand-up show is one of BBC two's biggest successes and has done a good job in taking over from the aging HIGNFY as well as launching several stand-ups

9. Extras (BBC 2005-7) - Gervais' second big hit was a more usual sitcom, I didn't realise it was so long ago already...

8. Gavin and Stacey (BBC 2007-) This quaint, off-the-cuff little comedy about Essex and Welsh people that started life on BBC 3 somehow became a household staple that we all watch at Christmas

7. Brass Eye - paedophile special (Channel 4 2001) - Few single episodes can cause such an impact as Chris Morris' send up of tabloid hysteria

6. The Daily Show/The Colbert Report (Comedy Central 1999-) Both shows made their name as the major American voices of satire during the Bush years, lampooning the ridiculous right-wingers of Fox

5. Bremner, Bird and Fortune (Channel 4 1999-) The major British voice of satire during Bush/Blair years

4. Curb your Enthusiasm (HBO 2000-) Yet another masterpiece from HBO, so painfully funny it could almost be British

3. Little Britain (BBC 2003-6) This at-times vulgar and repetitive sketch show somehow became a mainstream staple on the BBC, and a worldwide hit, thanks to its many catchy catchphrases

2. The Thick of It (BBC 2005) The incredibly produced replica of the New Labour spin machine won't have you laughing out loud, but rather terrified, a worthy successor to Yes, Minister

1. The Office (BBC 2001-3) Need I say more? Gervais' and Merchant's mockumentary was not only brilliant, but groundbreaking

Animations (I felt this deserved a separate section seeing as how many there have been)

7. The Simpsons (Fox 1989-2126) I had to include it, didn't I? While the show has arguably not produced anything of worth in the whole decade, it was still there! Making a 2007 movie blockbuster at the same time, which was equally as rubbish

6. Robot Chicken (Cartoon Network 2005-) Certainly not the most mainstream of shows, but it's developed into a worldwide cult hit

5. American Dad (Fox 2005-) Seth MacFarlane's second big hit is arguably better, considering it has actual plots, but is also still very, very silly

4. Family Guy (Fox 1999-) Dumped by Fox, but saved by fans and DVD sales, this thoroughly annoying show featuring random surreal clips seems to have been wildly popular

3. King of the Hill (Fox 1997-2009) This well-observed comedy about a mild-mannered conservative family from Texas is deceptively brilliant

2. Futurama (Fox 1999-?) Another show Fox tried to dump, but the comedy prospered and lived on to provide a show much better than the contemporary Simpsons episodes, as well as some legendary characters and catchphrases

1. South Park (Comedy Central 1997-) It was big in the late 90s, with its major film coming out in 1999 - but the fact remains that several of its best episodes came out this decade and even after the mainstream success waned it's remained very popular , and arguably better now that parents have stopped whingeing (since that generation of precious children are now probably the adults who watch it)

(Overall I would rank the animations as fairly low as important for the decade however)

Documentaries


8. Traffic Cops (BBC 2003-) I'll be honest, I have no idea which one this is, I stole it off the Torygraph as a representative of those many inane police shows that are really propaganda



7. Monarchy (BBC 2007) Typical royalist bilge turned into a national scandal when the production company misrepresented our dear queenie in a trailer, had the tabloids salivating like Pavlov's dogs


6. The Power of Nightmares (BBC 2004) Ah remember this? Exposing Blair's lies about terrorism after the Iraq invasion, the irony of course, is that Labour used this exact title for its own sodding advert about global warming (which was banned)


5. The Blue Planet (BBC 2001) Let's face it, any Attenborough documentary, made in any decade, makes it in


4. Living with Michael Jackson (ITV 2003) 'That's ignorant'....This is that one with Martin Bashir, caused a bit of a stir if I remember correctly


3. Pedigree Dogs Exposed (BBC 2008) This was one of the most memorable BBC investigations in many years, it was strange considering the common knowledge that pedigree animals are more inbred than your average royal, but it certainly had an impact on people and resulted in Crufts getting a very bad press and being dumped by the Beeb



2. Coast (BBC 2005-) Quite impressive how much material you can get out of one little island's craggy coastline, one of those BBC two programmes that most intelligent people quite like


1. Planet Earth (BBC 2006) David Attenborough is still going - and about the only thing worth watching in HD

Drama

This is very tough, what 'defines' a decade - popularity, or quality?

15. Shameless (Channel 4 2004-) Comedy or drama? This show set in a Manchester council estate is delightfully funny, while being well-observed and realistic (apparently)

14. Cranmer (BBC 2007, 2009) It seems odd to include such a minor drama (compared with CSI, House etc) but this is a British list and it was pretty defining

13. CSI (CBS 2000-) Like it or not, this pretty crappy cop show about forensics is the most popular franchise in the world, the modern day general interest cop show

12. The Trial of Tony Blair (More4 2007) This imagined future of Tony Blair expressed a lot of the nation's outrage at the run-up to the controversial Iraq war, and seems to be a little too fondly remembered by a lot of people

11. Bleak House (BBC 2005) Another critically acclaimed costume drama, if there's one thing we can do, it's dress-ups!

10. 24 (Fox 2001-) More Fox...and it just keeps going, this initially ground-breaking series made waves all over the world, it labours a bit now, and there's little to take from what is effectively die hard for your tv screen, but it works...

9. Battlestar Galactica (SciFi 2003-9) Not many sci-fi shows can boast such an impact on wider culture - this re-imagining of the cheesy 70s show, whilst not a massive ratings winner by any means, inspired debates about humanity, religion and human rights, as well as winning truckloads of accolades for its storytelling and acting (and making sci-fi credible)

8. Band of Brothers (HBO 2001) Effectively Saving Private Ryan for the small screen, had a similar effect on the audience and is on many DVD shelves and often repeated on TV channels around the world

7. The Wire (HBO 2002-8) Praised as the best show in the world by people cleverer than you or I, but it's lack of mainstream interest kept it off most people's radar, hence it's lower position (commence egg throwing...)

6. Spooks (BBC 2002-) One of the few top-notch dramas to come out of Britain recently, this modern spy thriller was our saving grace

5. Desperate Housewives (ABC 2004-) Surprisingly the Torygraph left out one of the most popular shows in the world, featuring an ensemble cast of women and a dead narrator, in what is a very witty comedy-drama about suburban life - surely it's very influential?

4. House (Fox 2004-) Hugh Laurie puts on an accent and suddenly Blackadder will never be the same again as we watch this limping, drug-addicted, cynical, medical genius work his magic

3. Lost (ABC 2004-2010) The happenings on the mysterious island have enticed millions around the world, as well as pissed off quite a few, but nonetheless it remains a truly global show and has sparked it's own sub-genre

2. The West Wing (NBC 1999-2006) The Torygraph put this as its top drama, it's just a matter of taste I guess

1. The Sopranos (HBO 1999-2007) - I went for the mafia family for the fact that it's the most watched cable show ever, and had the most reach

Entertainment

Big group, this

17. Bargain Hunt (BBC 2000-) Who would've known rubbishy daytime TV about flea markets could be so defining, this show gave the world David Dickinson and was pretty popular for a few years, inspiring other nonsense such as Flog It and Cash in the Attic, as clearly people were a bit too obsessed with quick money back then

16. Location, Location, Location (Channel 4 2001-) Sigh, such drivel, but it was indicative of our fascination with house prices, late 2007 put an end to all of that

15. Jeremy Kyle (ITV 2005-) ITV finally gets a show in, and it's the British version of Jerry Springer, exposing the very worst of our society while Kyle behaves like a complete tosser - it's surprisingly watchable

14. Harry Hill's TV Burp (ITV 2001-) Another ITV show that became surprisingly popular - this rehash of Tarrant on TV became a family staple, winning Baftas and being exported globally

13. 100 Greatest Britons (BBC 2002) It was big back in the day and is the pinnacle of all those public-voting shows (although I personally preferred the greatest comedy - Blackadder all the way!), the public weren't even that bad - the BBC deliberately giving prominence to people like Brunel and Darwin prevented the list becoming too much of a joke, Churchill won in the most surprising upset since England went out of the world cup

12. Soccer Saturday (Sky 1994-) Technically started way back, but didn't become big until the vast majority of people could get Sky Sports News with the rise of digital TV, Jeff Stelling and friends' comical banter drew millions away from the BBC's ancient football focus show

11. Spongebob Squarepants (Nickolodeon 1999-) Any show which has the lines 'Who lives in a pineapple under the sea...' and 'absorbent and yellow and porous is he' deserves a spot as the defining kid's cartoon of the decade

10. SM:TV (ITV 1998-2003) Although Ant and Dec left in 2001, virtually destroying the show at that point, (and ITV Saturday morning kids' shows) it has a recognised golden age from 2000-2001, which really felt like it was a lot longer back then, it was easily the best kids' show in decades, and of course, gave us Ant and Dec, who were that show

9. Grand Designs (Channel 4 1999-) More on our fascination with property and having a good nose around other people's homes

8. Who do you think you are (BBC 2004-) This 'genealogy show' proved to be a highly popular franchise which has been taken up across the pond and in various other countries, more of that nosey-parker stuff that seemed to dominate us

7. Deal or No Deal (Channel 4 (+ various worldwide) 2005-) Oh god, no! Sorry, but it's impact was phenomenal for a gameshow, and it brought Noel Edmonds back from the grave...fortunately only a few such shows can claim to be important

6. The Weakest Link (BBC 2000-) - Who would've thought dressing up Anne Robinson as some sort of dominatrix would work so well on daytime tv, this show epitomised our strange fascination for being cruel in the early noughties


5. Jamie's School Dinners (Channel 4 2005) - Already a well-known celebrity chef, but this show catapulted Jamie Oliver into politics and saw him meeting world leaders and become a champion for childhood obesity and food ethics

4. Life on Mars (BBC 2006-7) Yet another renewal to define this decade (as the one that couldn't think for itself, perhaps) this time it was the seventies - the public lapped up the nostalgia...and political incorrectness

3. Doctor Who (BBC 2005-) Technically a drama, but it's really light entertainment for the family - the resurrection of the longest running sci-fi show in history proved surprisingly successful and a Saturday night staple

2. Strictly Come Dancing (BBC 2004-) The return of ballroom dancing on tv proved remarkably popular, the show became a worldwide hit as dancing with the stars (I've decided it's not 'reality' tv as it's celebrities doing an act)

1. Top Gear (BBC 2002) - Biggest entertainment show..............in the world, this re-invented motoring show made Jeremy Clarkson Britain's number one choice for PM, and is watched by an estimated 350 million (men)

Reality TV

This is the biggie, truly the concept of reality TV itself defines this phenomenally lazy decade more than any other, and of course, launched pretty much in 2000

10. Castaway 2000 (BBC 2000-1) God, this was an awful show that was the BBC trying doing its own version of reality TV in a non-tacky way, it bombed, and yet - Ben Fogle...why??

9. Survivor (ITV 2001-2) Considered to be the 'original' reality show coming out of the US, this show was actually a massive flop in the UK, despite the media hype - clearly we did have some taste, but it remains pretty definitive because of said hype back in 2001, and the fact that it still running in the US, and various other places, after 20 seasons...

8. Britain's Got Talent (ITV 2007-) Another Cowell creation, you could argue it wasn't that defining, more minor than the other talent shows, but it's gone global, and of course gave us Susan Boyle...because ugly people shouldn't be able to sing, or something

7. The Osbournes (MTV 2002-5) So this is why Sharon Osbourne was a judge on one of those pop shows...

6. I'm a Celebrity...put me down get me out of here! (ITV 2002-) How is this stuff still going? Basically Big Brother but with minor celebrities and nastier challenges in the jungle, people apparently still watch it

5. Wife Swap (Channel 4 2003-9) Yet another one that falls firmly in the category of 'getting off on other people's misery', mixing families with completely opposite lifestyles resulted in the best type of car-crash TV - the fights at the end were especially beloved

4. Masterchef (BBC 2005-) The reinvented version of the drab cookery programme from the 90s proved remarkably successful as people seemed to gain an interest in reality cooking shows over the ones where we watch a load of people sleep, it went global and became ridiculously popular in Australia, among others

3. The Apprentice (BBC 2005- US: NBC 2004-) Something we imported from them for once, but improved by actually having an entrepreneur as the boss rather than some wealthy landowner, anyway, this show went from minor BBC2 reality show to full-on household favourite about a bunch of shallow, backstabbing whingers being fired...we still love the cruelty

2. Pop Idol / Popstars / X Factor (ITV 2000-) Let's face it, they're all the same, and X Factor remains popular for some reason, despite the shows only ever giving us one major musical act, millions vote via premium rate phone numbers and fill ITV's coffers, also see American Idol and various other exported versions

1. Big Brother (Channel 4 2000-2010) You know it, and absolutely perfect dates as well - this show may be utter dross, and barely watched by anyone any more, but the first couple of series had the nation hooked, we grew tired of it years ago, but it was defining, no doubt about it (and it gave us Jade bloody Goody)

------

That's only 77 - I wanted 90 and to leave the last ten blank for your own entries, but I don't see the point filling it in with stupid shows like Two pints of Lager... - how is that late night rubbish 'definitive' anyway?

One hundred is such a pointless number to aim for, but I have no doubt missed some (many) so please feel free to offer suggestions, and of course disagree...it's only opinion after all

Can you blame them?

I rarely defend politicians, particularly Messrs Brown and Cameron, and I hardly condone using armistice day as a photo-op

(Slightly more moderate article from the BBC here)

But I am in reflective mood, and when I think about it - it's hardly their fault is it?

They do it because they know we want it - Brown is a clumsy fool and always comes off insincere when he talks to real people, Cameron is a smarmy PR man, but they both play the game, our game

But much like how football's lax rules allow the Henrys, Maradonas and Ronaldos to get away with it while we watch, so too does the political game allow Brown and Cameron to perform these stunts

In reality I want a thoughtful, rational government that doesn't resort to appealing to the lowest common denominator - but if that happened what would we get? They'd be ripped to shreds, they'd be seen as ditherers, weak, boring and so on - because image is king

And we ask for it, we let the media peddle their stories - had Brown and Cameron not showed some heartfelt compassion they would've been seen as ingrates, this time they misjudged it, but for the most part people want them to do completely pointless gesture politics, such as visiting flood victims... or talking to Mumsnet

What the hell can Brown do about floods? Nothing could've prevented a month of rain within a day, this was basically a morale booster - and faced with the choice between our two unelected leaders, I'd prefer the unused, neutral one was put to some use (and while I remember, Peter Hitchens really shows his true colours in this week's column)

But we want our leaders to be 'human', to show compassion - and that ultimately is going to come down to who is the best actor (or not in Brown's case)

I doubt that Brown could ever be an effective leader, but who knows, either way we get useless politicians who can't make a decision for fear of the media and its various agendas, and this is only compounded by the fact that the nature of the game drives away the best sort of people for the job

So I don't blame Brown and Cameron for being shameless media manipulators - we get the politicians we deserve

Wednesday Randomness

I notice that Archie Norman is to be the next person to take over the doomed-ITV network

He is known for building up Asda from near bankruptcy before its sale to American giant Wal-mart in 1999, as well as heading retail giant Kingfisher before that, and for being the only FTSE 100 chairman to have ever sat in the Commons (apparently)

I couldn't help remembering Rod Liddle's recent article about how these top directorship jobs always go to the same people, who are often seemingly about as bright as an EU-standard light-bulb and proceed to run companies into the ground - he was referring to Terry Burns specifically, and clearly Norman is very successful in business - but I couldn't help thinking why appoint someone who's been successful in retail in a publicly-owned media company? He did excellent work building up retail chains - but isn't that somewhat different to increasing profitability for a television channel that's on its knees?

What skill set does he bring? There's only a track record of success in retail - if you are good at leading a company in one field does that naturally mean you can lead any company? Is it just a success thing, you either got it or you don't?

Because to me, all I see is ITV saying about a champion swimmer 'ooh he's good, let's have him', when they're in a rowing competition

I'm not out to disparage the man, I'm just struggling to work out why being the very successful head of a retail giant means you can run a TV network - is he just smart enough to make profit out of anything?

From what I've seen of top executives, if you actually are bright, and not just some rich bastard, you can usually make anything work, Terry Leahy would be comparable as chief executive for example - but it still strikes me as odd to not go for a successful media man (although I admit they're running out of them)

---

Secondly, why is a fairly obscure story about an Australian independent senator's challenge to Scientology the most read (international) story on BBC? It's only in the sidebar, and yet it's above Obama and all the rest

I only pick up on this because I happen to be there, and it's just Nick Xenophon saying things - it's not the government attacking it, or throwing it out

The power of Scientology eh?...

Blow it up...?

There's a reasonably interesting article in the Mail today about whether we really should just blow Parliament up, it being the 5th November and all

I can agree with a fair bit of it but this stuck out

"And to ensure we have a political class with a record of achievement - in other words, people who have had real jobs and real lives, rather than overgrown teenagers plucked straight from Oxford to work as special advisers before being parachuted into safe seats - I would raise the age threshold from 18 to 35"

I don't think it's meant to be tongue-in-cheek, it always surprises me how the older generations view parliament as 'too young' - Peter Hitchens calls the Tory front bench 'teenage' - average age: 51, with two MPs under 40

'Incredibly unrepresentative' I hear some jowly old man roar, while I do have time for the 'experience' line I have always found it interesting that some people bemoan the representation of a whole generation of adults, particularly when there are at present *two* MPs under 30 - the world's going to hell in a hand cart!

Here's a handy table, lifted from Iain Dale

They have obviously aged since 2005, leaving only one of those three currently under 30, and Chloe Smith (27) entered through a by-election

So we shall take a conservative guess at 45 current members being under the holy age of 35, despite it being obvious after four years that it is more likely that only about 20 are currently 'under-age'

That's 7% to represent...wait for it...

About 18% of the population who are [young] adults, according to the 2001 census

Meanwhile, the youthful number of MPs has clearly shrunk since the 97 election, from a whole ten!

And those in their fifties has only swollen - 249 MPs [or 39%] represent about 12% of the country - yes we definitely need more 'wise owls'

Meanwhile those over 40, at the last election represented 84% of MPs, despite only making up about half the population - so we really need to keep those young 'lickspittles' out of politics don't we? With all their fake mortgages and student children to pay off?

Of course I don't really support proportionate representation across the ages, but I see no problem with having young MPs, when they already face massive hurdles - it's just fogeyism from the older generations, who are incredibly over-represented anyway (and who also think 40 is 'young')

The reason I bring it up is that Dominic Sandbrook thinks that the older generations don't get their own MPs and that we need more 'grey hairs' in there - so he doesn't want special representation for 'slack-jawed twentysomethings', as no-one else gets such treatment, but then advocates the very same thing for older people, who already have far more of their own kind in parliament - little confusing and hypocritical? (again, I stress, if this is satire, it's not very good)

I also bring it up because politicians are so keen on ethnic minorities and women yet ignore an even bigger disparity - age, which is very important to society (and one look at the Youth Parliament should quash any feelings that they would be any worse)

Why do we pay for this?

Imagine if you will, giving an MP or a minister breakfast in bed every morning, personally delivered by a tax-payer funded lackey who cooks all your meals and even gets your clothes out

Imagine the outrage - Brown got it in the neck for having a cleaner, Smith decorated her house, Tories cleaned moats - our elected officials were living the high-life at our expense, the audacity to have someone deliver them breakfast at 8am when most of us are already on our way to work on a rushed down piece of toast

But no-one ever mentions this side of the Queen - unelected, with no practical purpose, and yet she receives far more money than any individual elected politician, and not a peep from the press about our taxes wasted on butlers and footmen, in fact, while politicians constantly have to engage in hairy-shirt contests, the taxpayer-funded lives of royalty are practically praised and seen as something interesting and quite acceptable

Is it not a tad strange?

I Love Anniversaries!

September 3rd 2009 - the 70th anniversary of the outbreak of war, on which day people who never even saw the war express their opinions on what we should have done...

The cynic in me sees manipulation by the media to sell papers in an otherwise dull season, but some are a good laugh - that man, Peter Hitchens, caught my eye again

In a rather long article in the Mail, he asks if we had stayed out of the war would we still have an empire?

Short answer, in his view, yes we would - had we allowed Europe to get on with it we wouldn't have been weakened by the war, wouldn't have lost Singapore and wouldn't have become America's bitches

A reasonable conclusion, most of Europe was after all, under the control of dictators anyway - allowing Hitler and Stalin to duke it out would probably make little difference to the conditions east of France, we had after all, left Europe alone for a century until the first world war

Regardless of the outcome of this war between the Reich and Stalin, we could have been building up our army without crippling ourselves in the process, and dealt with whatever emerged using our own Imperial force

Now this leads to the assumptions that we wouldn't lose our empire - no fall of Singapore means India remains a dominion thanks to Gandhi, there's no Pakistan split, north Africa is left alone, so no apartheid in South Africa, no Idi Amin or Mugabe (he glosses over the pre-existing chaos in other parts of Africa), while the Japanese can be dealt with by the British, Dutch and French who would still have a strong naval presence, and would probably just occupy China (and Korea?) and prevent Mao and Communism rising to power, oh and therefore no Israel and no Middle-east as we now know it

So we have a completely new world order based on the single fact that Chamberlain did not go to war in 1939 (because we decided not to defend Poland, or anyone else in Europe) - but I ask: at what price?

In Hitchens' world everything is perfect - Britain still has its empire! It mines its own coal, makes its own steel, and pretty much everything else, we are far stronger for not bothering to deal with Hitler and the US remains in its own continent

Only what exactly would happen? Does he think the Empire would have stood up? Presumably the 60s never happen, there's no free love, and all our colonies are happy to bow down to a minuscule island in the North Sea - does he not think, with the rise of communications technology, that our colonies would have become a little surer of themselves eventually? - Maybe the Empire would still be going today, but I find it hard to believe India, Africa, the Pacific and Australia would not have continual murmurings of discontent - the war certainly hastened the fall of the Empire - but the first had already done a lot of damage to Britain, and I struggle to find a conclusion that the far-flung peoples of the world would not come to assert their own identity

Presumably though, Hitchens accepts this and just feels that Britain would be stronger without being crippled by the war - a stronger country to trade and deal with the US, with more friendly relations to former (or current) colonies

In this view I can't help agree that from a purely British point of view, we could be better off, at least in financial and foreign affairs - socially and politically I am unsure how we and other subjects would fare compared to now, technologically we would also probably be less advanced as well, but that's by the by, and obviously an issue where we disagree - Hitchens is at least being true to himself by seeing the best possible scenario for the British Empire he loves so much

But there's an awful lot riding on assumptions here - what is exactly happening in Europe? Even if various dictators polish each other off, there is probably little hope of democracy without the occupying Allies to ram it down their throats, meaning we're leaving Germany, now a more powerful and freer country than we, an unstable power in whoever knows what form - I would guess Hitchens would bank on Europe being in the old 'balance of power' situation - the lack of one major player would mean we had no threat

But that seems a bit of a risk to me, had Germany been allowed to complete its expansionist policies to the east there is no guarantee the Russians could have down anything but kept a border, there was after all no 'second front' - from there what would have happened, would a large central nation rise up? Who knows, but if we take the risk in 1939 then it's pretty possible that we could have been facing another major hostile power a few decades later, Hitler was hardly the most trustworthy of leaders, and I doubt whatever nation he left would adopt a liberal democracy again - surely France would have been at risk again, and the low countries? Right there on the doorstep - as I said, you aren't exactly dealing with someone you can trust, and if Russia wasn't in the mood by then you would basically have the British Empire against another one

Like I say, it's all speculation, but so is the original piece - in my view if you left Europe alone then it would just happen again - what we have now is incredibly successful nations in Germany and northern Europe (and Japan), virtually no threat to western Europe and the highest level of living in history - now, if we were to take the view that we should have avoided the war and left Europe unstable could you guarantee we had such a decent outcome? We went through six years of hell and got a reasonable outcome in the world

That is of course the difference, Hitchens hates the modern world, more on that later, but as I say we got a stable Europe, even if we also got a weakened Britain and a powerful US, does he think the Empire would stay the same, that Europe would not present another threat, as it did twice in the early twentieth century? We would almost certainly have to deal with that at some point, by then it may have been too late - we are after all, a small island with a small population, we only got away with the war in the first place because Hitler overreached and the yanks were simply too much - maybe we could have formed an alliance with the Americans and prepared for war better, then rammed democracy down Germany's throat - but we truly are now in 20/20 hindsight mode, this is becoming a game of risk, not the reality of the world - it is incredibly easy with hindsight to see what we should have done, and then assume it would work out better, but it's also unfair to blame Chamberlain and the British for aiming to protect parts of Europe when we know that they would fail

This is a perfect scenario, and it's a perfect scenario for Britain, not the people of the world - the Empire would have collapsed eventually, they all do, maybe we would've survived for longer, but then someone would just be going over the mistakes a hundred years later instead - and there almost certainly would have been more suffering under the dictatorships than the EU (despite what you may hear..) - humans are just flawed, very resourceful, animals and there would be as many wrongs in the world, if not more, if we took this route

Could you for example, prevent the rise of the US, which is pretty much the crux of Hitchens ideas - a nation so many times larger in both population and size, with more resources, more room to grow and better borders - I am not sourcing anything here but I take it for granted that the US was outstripping us by 1905 - it was inevitable it would move onto the world stage, maybe we wouldn't have been so weak, but I have to ask - would it really be worth it so we could try another route, just in case we did better?

If anything the mistake was to get involved in the First World War - I think there's a stronger case for picking over that ludicrous war, if there's ever any point picking over what might have happened - who knows, for all I know Britain could have become insanely arrogant (as it was by 1900) and been put eventually down by the US, and there'd still be right-wingers whinging that something was wrong nowadays

-----

A collection of doozies from the article:

Our Parliament is a bought and paid-for puppet chamber. Our culture and customs have been debauched and our younger generations corrupted, as subject populations are, with drink, drugs and promiscuity.

Modern life, eh? He really ought to look up the debauchery in 18th century Britain - you always get this with 'proper' conservatives - they have this view that Britain was in its very essence the late Victorian period through to the Edwardian period, and that it's slipped from a peak - maybe it has, but don't try to tell me it was some sort of happy constant, people were writing stuff like this two centuries ago...

We are compelled, like an occupied people, to use foreign measures to buy butter or meat, and our history is largely forgotten or deliberately distorted in the schools to suit anti-British dogma.

Ah the old 'metric is bad (and foreign)' line - interestingly, although metric is now technically being forced on us by the EU (since 2000) we actually adopted decimalisation and metric in 1965, and there was as much opposition to it then - but there was no EU to force anything until 1973, which we joined up knowing full well their directives on it...

The system had been championed in Britain for over a century before by some of our greatest scientific names (such as James Watt) and most big businesses - it quickly became used in science because it was far easier to use than our antiquated, 'national' system, and plenty of British people helped to influence it (see: Kelvin, and Farenheit was German anyway!) - it was only our politicians who refused to play, hating the French in the 19th century and refusing to pay up in the early twentieth

Meanwhile nations independent of Britain also adopted it in the 60s (such as Australia, India and New Zealand) and virtually every country was using a system that was recognisable all over the world by the 70s, regardless of the EU - get over it

As for British history in schools - I am sceptical about claims it is anti-British, these are just claims made in the tabloids as far as I can tell and are ridiculously opinionated - I learnt about the second world war no end - which is why I dislike it, I hate the fact that every Tom, Dick and Harry is an expert on the war and I have little interest in thinking about such a busy area of history (except on days like these of course, and even then I am in speculative mode, not going into mind-numbing detail about El Alamein)

We had stayed out of the two great and decisive conflicts of the late 19th Century: the American Civil War and the Franco-Prussian War, and come to no harm as a result.

That's just specious reasoning - neither bore us particular harm, but then why would they? One was a fairly minor fracas over a strip of land, only 'great' because the 19th century largely saw no major action, the other was a domestic issue in the US - Bismarck uniting Germany was not quite the same as Hitler's totalitarian regime occupying the whole of Europe, which I struggle to think wouldn't have happened had Britain and France not engaged him at that point - and as for a war between two rival democratic states largely revolving around slavery I don't see why we would need to get involved - at least Bismarck wasn't into democracy... Saying 'it worked then so why wouldn't it work 70 years later' seems a tad foolish

I think that'll do...lunch

Bagehot was smarter than me

I've always felt that Bagehot's advice in the English Constitution was a bit outdated, the whole needing the majesty of the monarchy and lords to deflect attention from the real politics of the Commons seemed like it belonged in a time where most people were uneducated and believed in the natural order of things

But recently I've been rethinking this position in light of the death of Ted Kennedy, who seems to have been revered for who he was rather than what he did

What does a Kennedy have to do with Bagehot's famous work? Not a lot really, but his death made me remember the bizarre nature of American politics and how regal a lot of it seems to be - the Kennedys are by far the best example of that - champion of healthcare reform 'Teddy' may have been but if you think he, and his siblings, got where they did on merit alone you're a loon - it was all down to their father's wealth and influence

This is a family of attractive people who are (or were) more worthy of celebrity than politics, the reverence shown to them in Massachusetts is extraordinary - they have held at least one of the Senate seats for the past 57 years and the last one was re-elected as he was dying and unlikely to see his term out, this is common practice - the most 'senior' senator, Robert Byrd, is on his last legs too

This is of course common in America - the senate basically is a club of white-haired old men with a bizarre concept of 'seniority' in place - these are the elder statesmen of America and their position is more usually down to parentage than democracy

We suffer the same problems of course - once people have a stranglehold on a political position they have a natural advantage to give to their children, this is just as rife in our House of Commons as it is their Congress

However there is a difference - we don't like politicians, not all yank ones are beloved of course, but no son of a famous family will come back from Parliament a hero, a celebrity, a 'lion' on an open-topped bus - Joanna Lumley might, but we don't show respect to those 'above' us

Except of course, we do - the difference is it is the royals that receive this odd reverence - a family who are famous and a big part of our constitution and yet are powerless, the Kennedys have been called 'virtual royalty' too many times to remember this week - and yet we don't give our 'actual' royalty a jot of real power

So whereas the American dynasties are an active part of their democratic process and have control over their politics, ours is a merely an image, a shiny trophy to distract us from the nasty world of politics - the irony of a system intended to better ours being more firmly entrenched should not be lost on us

This was the thrust of Bagehot's idea - that we need a family to focus on and revere, idiots who will go out and get drunk and intrigue us by who they last slept with, and that it is very useful to have the real politics happen behind all that - I used to think we had no need for this theatre any more, and that it would be quite insulting to 21st century people to say that we need this trickery

But it's all true! Look at the stories about royals, they are akin to celebrities in a national role - we humans seem to need our sportstars, celebrities and popular heroes for some reason and it would appear that managing to keep that aspect out of our legislative and executive apart from it is still a huge part of the British constitution

...Bagehot was aware of the human condition far more than I gave him credit for

Can the Lib dems get a swing?

Reading Vince Cable's regular column I got to thinking - would the support of the Mail give the Lib Dems a big boost?

He only has a column, and it's pretty much the only sane one in there, but it is nonetheless an endorsement of liberal politics, no doubt they are also capitalising on Cable's natural popularity, but isn't that what politics is all about? People like him, Mail readers must like his message, to an extent

The Mail may not be a liberal media outlet but the issues of civil liberties and individual freedom are ones where the hard-headed conservative and 'real' liberal share common ground, and while the Tories refuse to adopt any conservative policies, or any policies at all, it seems the Lib Dems have been left as the sole voice of freedom

This is to me, an opportunity - the political landscape is just begging for a party with actual policies to come in, rather than a bunch of chinless wonders who think they are destined for power, I know Tories who openly admit they offer nothing except for 'not being Labour' - but we need the media to back this change in our heavily-stacked system

There is of course one teensy-weensy problem: while the 'hard' liberal Cable strikes a note with a lot of people, and he clearly does a lot of the work in driving policy, there is still the elephant in the room: the EU - while they support the EU, moderate conservatives will not go near them

Why not drop support for it? Just pledge a referendum and be done with it, you'll never get in while supporting it, and what's the point saying good things if you can't get power? Just sacrifice the EU for the cause, I know that would be opportunism but is it really worth sticking to one principle if it's going to stop you ever putting the others in? In any case why support something that is deeply unpopular? This is their clause IV moment, or it should be

(It's not like you have to actually pull out...the Tories get away with it after all)

There are no 'great' generations

Nicely put by Terence Blacker today

He points out the bizarreness with which society (or certain parts of it) venerate those who fought the First World War as the 'greatest generation' and look down on the rest of us born since the war (essentially all of us now)

It is of course, much to do with guilt, I remember great-grandparents going on about the period between the wars - it didn't help that the suffering wasn't just limited to the ten years of conflict, but to the Great Depression as well, it's not surprising the people of today, who have never been without electricity, water and food, feel a pang of guilt when looking at those who lived through decades of horror

But of course, that's all it is - were they 'greater' than us? Not really, no more than Victorians or Georgians were greater than them, or indeed, us - it's just militarism and nostalgia

They were just ordinary people, like pretty much all of us, in a situation they had no control over - the vast majority of those killed were under 25, a fact usually ignored by the media when they attack the youth (just as they forget it is always the youngest who die in battle, yet always the youth who are destroying society) - and primary documents show that they were no more angelic than any other generation, they were just regular young men, who had to be sacrificed before they were worth anything to the people who idolise them so

Which is what Harry Patch himself said - the reason why Harry Patch was so important, in my view, was that he couldn't be used by the right-wing zealots - he was the only one left with any authority on the issue, and the only one who could get away with taking a 'Blackadder goes forth' attitude to it without being labelled a coward (or Marxist)

He could not be ignored, and unlike the members of the younger generations who view the first world war as futile, he could not be shouted down by the vile right-wing press

It's a bit like you can only shut a feminist up by getting a woman to argue the point - were Harry Patch supporting all the usual bollocks that comes out of the Mail or Express it would be old hat - but here was a man helping to support the view held by many people who would be shouted down in the public arena with highly emotive sentiments

To some this is the pacifist 'narrative' - the narrative of course that is completely opposed by the biggest newspapers in the country...

It riles them to hear someone who is supposed to bemoan social decay and hark back to a greater time of Empire to spout this 'leftist' nonsense, he has much more respect and weight than them, and of course, he lived through it - his was a voice of common sense that had no romanticism attached to war

It's a shame that we have lost this great voice, but hopefully his views will help prevent too many people from falling for the militaristic 'narrative' too soon - or else we'll end up right back in 1914

Sterilise, or not sterilise?

A rather interesting, if somewhat alarming, debate has sprung up about the mother who has had 13 kids taken away from her and is expecting her 14th, Theresa Winters

In the article, A N Wilson makes a fairly well-pitched, emotive argument that sterilisation would be an appropriate response to such drains on the state purse (yes, she and her partner live on benefit)

It's an obvious solution - I have oft heard this argument from people, even my own parents, in response to the irresponsible 'Vicky Pollards' of the world, usually from hyped up cases in the Mail, sometimes from the real-world - 'sterilise 'em all'

Whether or not they would actually agree with state-forced sterilisation is another matter, were the state to actually suggest it I think they would be less sure about their flippant remarks, but anyway, it's a perfectly valid debate

Wilson makes a good, if obvious argument - if people are abusing the state, i.e. the rest of us, in such a way then they should be stopped - the simplest solution would be an enforcement of sterilisation

It's true, nobody agrees with this sponging off the state, and it would be the simplest solution...but then 'simple' doesn't necessarily mean right - normally the simplest solution refers to trampling all over someone else rights to maintain law and order for those who decree what good order is, with liberty comes a degree of disorder, after all

To enforce this rule, first you must decide who shall be sterilised, no doubt Winters is exceptional, otherwise she wouldn't be in the news - but how many babies is wrong? She's had thirteen, but should it be ten? Five? Three-strikes-and-you're-out? Maybe just one? Bear in mind all of these will become a burden on the state, so where do you draw the line - this case of thirteen is an exceptional and emotive issue - it would be pointless to draw up legislation based on someone who has achieved the fairly monumental task of carrying fourteen kids (or at least thirteen to term)

Maybe three-strikes sounds reasonably fair - you've been warned after all, now you get sterilised - but what is the criteria? Should this relate to just benefit claimants who have their children taken away? Or how about benefit claimants who just have a lot of kids? They're a burden too, less foster care involved, but still paid for by the state, or what about tax-paying workers who have kids taken into care? - It happens, they're sending kids into state care as well

Sounds a bit like a 'slippery slope' argument - well seeing as this is an argument from the right, who are the owners of 'slippery slope', I think it's fair game - and besides, I am merely asking where it's fair to draw the line, there seems little to rationalise here - and while Wilson admits this line of debate he doesn't even try to deny these obvious ramifications, he is merely starting a 'debate' in that particular paragraph, however the debate seems rather one-sided throughout the rest of the article, based on assumptions such as

No school will ever educate them. No employer will ever want to pay them wages. Future generations of honest, taxpaying citizens will have to carry them - and all the social problems they will bring with them - as an unwanted, indeed hated, burden.

As individuals, stuffing their faces with junk food, blowing what passes for minds with alcohol or drugs, they are unlikely to have an interesting thought, do a useful deed, or have a relationship which is not abusive or damaging to others.

Those are rather strong words, yes the statistics show that these children are unlikely to fare very well, but statistics also show that those born to single parents are also likely to turn to crime and have worse education - yet here I am, I'd hate to think if some statistic had prevented me from being born - using statistics for such a purpose is going down a very dangerous road

Wilson makes the assumption that all these children will end up being criminals - again this is emotive, she has had thirteen kids - but several have had genetic and other disabilities, one died as a baby, three have been disabled

Now it's my turn to make assumptions - do disabled children tend to turn to crime? I haven't noticed many gangsters with Cerebral Palsy, and one would think they get better care and schooling than a healthy child (ironic in some ways) - making this assumption, we are now left with nine children who will be the scum-of-the-Earth Wilson so detests, not thirteen - he would have helped his argument somewhat by factoring this in when she started raving about prison-fodder when 30% of the 13 kids in the headline are unlikely to be even near criminals

Of course, they are still a burden on the state - but Wilson deliberately brings in the criminal aspect and uses it throughout the article, it needs some balance

As far as I can tell, this is a broadside on all those who leech off the state - I find little reason to attack Winters more than a feckless youth with merely one child, in that case forced sterilisation of any who claim benefits seems appropriate - some might say we are heading into the realms of totalitarian control with that sort of programme

Would it perhaps not be a better solution to reform the benefits system rather than give benefits out and then sterilise people for abusing the system? If we wish to live in a welfare state there are always going to be those who rely on it - workers are always going to pay for those who don't work as hard, there is probably a tipping point at which there are too many takers, but inevitably if you can't tolerate people sliding into real poverty then there will be people who live off hand-outs, a certain degree of social conscience must exist in a welfare state - perhaps it would be better to reduce the state intervention before we ramp it up any further

It would be less effective, yes, but probably a lot safer

Oh, to be young again...

I must digress once again, from my rants at the political class and the commentariat and conduct a review - this time of the new Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince

Do not judge me too harshly - I won the tickets... and I feel I must review any worthy film that I happen to see

Broadly speaking, this was a good jaunt - probably the best in the series (for what it's worth) and there was nothing major to complain about

Now, there is little point comparing the film to the book itself - to stick too closely to a large novel such as this will just create a poor viewing experience, the minor plot points and infinite set-ups that can be created in an open book are just too unwieldy to slot into a film (even if it is two and a half hours long)

As such, I don't care if some things were dropped, or characters were switched, or even scenes were invented - it's all artistic licence, the point is to create a good film while sticking to the story

As such, director David Yates opted for the teen romance angle - and in my view this was a good idea - having realised the main objective of HP6 was to be a page-turning mystery there was little point in recreating am on-screen mystery that we all know the end to (see: Da Vinci Code) - we all know Dumbledore dies, that Snape is the Prince, that Malfoy is a death-eater, hell, we all know the end to the whole series

So instead it must be about the journey, the experience - Yates wastes no time trying to make us guess what Malfoy is up to, in the book it is a big revelation in the finale, here we are witness to his scheme right from the start and we get an excellent new angle from which to view Malfoy as he struggles throughout the film, it is one of the highlights, and it is representative of the film's successes and failures - where scenes are properly re-worked for the screen they are excellent, when they are mimics of the book they fall flat

As I said, the teenage romance angle is the thrust of the film - again this works better, focusing on the trials and tribulations of lovelorn teenagers is far more enjoyable to watch play out, and arguably they made a better stab at it than Rowling did - especially Harry and Ginny, which felt somewhat tacked on in the novel, here it is the primary plot and is worked in to most events

Also, Jim Broadbent in the Slughorn role is surprisingly well done - the character being fleshed out a bit and also sticking quite faithfully to the book made his storyline one of the highlights

But where the film falls down a bit is the other references to the book - where Slughorn is well-developed, others are cast as cameos and make the film feel jumpy and shallow - in particular I note Lupin and Tonks, reduced to almost one scene that's makes a quick reference to their relationship - there seemed little point in doing this, as there was no development and therefore little emotion can be attached when the characters die in the next installment. They should have been simply ditched, like Dobby (which again is unfortunate considering his death is one of the most moving of the series) - if they are keeping the characters in for their death at the end of the next chapter then they shouldn't bother, or should've developed them - instead I fear we'll be getting a rather redundant 'cameo death'

It is these scenes that cheapen the film for me, and they ruin the flow of a perfectly good film - the references to the book are crammed in and yet they are haphazard - some are rather deliberately placed, while others are completely trampled over - they would have done better to stick to the trampling, the fans who insist on literary references would be offended enough by the massive changes anyway, and yet we still get a reminder of the gimmickry that made the first few films so bad

It also does not help that the film has so many things to do - while placing a great deal more emphasis on the love angle there were still things that simply had to be done to keep the plot moving - namely Harry and Dumbledore's trips down memory lane, which make up a good chunk of the book - here we are subject to only two of the memories - while some shortening obviously had to be done, I felt they could have done a better job on developing Voldemort and visualising some of the more interesting memories, which is one of the most obvious points of the book

Like I say - too many things going on, the memories were essential to the plot, but were limited by the amount of space given over to character interaction, the 'new' plot as it were - this was not helped by the addition of those trivial cameos that I mentioned, as well as some extra scenes that seemed a little frivolous

Why, for example, did we need to see the Burrow burnt down? I appreciate the moment it created, as well as it being something that shocked the audience, but it seemed unnecessary in such a busy film - in seemed to be for the purpose of creating some extra action in a rather actionless plot, as though the audience can't handle half an hour without an explosion

This was at the expense of some fairly major plot devices - notably the ministry does not even exist in this film - I wonder to what extent they can drop it from the final installment(s), as it was reasonably important and the sixth book did a good job of continuing the thread of the ministry from the fifth book (where it was a major player) - they must surely make the brave decision to drop the ministry scenes from the next films or else make the film series look decidedly patchy - true the ministry was left to tick over in the book, but it was a decent, if small contribution, to the plot - to ignore it would have made the continuity in the books seem rather ropey

A worry is that this 'series' of films will barely feel like a series, the sixth and seventh books were essentially one book, with the first being mostly set up and the latter being the action - I hope that the film's producers have the foresight to marry the two as well

It is this apparent apprehension from moving away from the book that stops the film being 'very' good, they made a good stab at combing love, humour and dark mystery but it really was trying to do too much in the end

Other points that are more personal to me - I felt the Death Eaters, who were given a slightly extended role in the film, were rather flimsy - there were only four of them, and while I'm happy to give Helena Bonham Carter as much screen time as she wishes in this role, they really do nothing - their major scene at the end is taken out, making the build-up throughout the film end in rather anti-climatic fashion - as they get into the castle, then watch Dumbledore get killed, and then run away - all very pointless in my view

This books have too many characters in for film adaptations already, and there was little point adding in a barely-speaking Fenrir Greyback, yet another pointless cameo - more room could have been given to Snape or Riddle

Another point of mine, that will be rather contentious, is Gambon as Dumbledore - I don't like it, sorry but I don't - it's not that Gambon is bad, he's not, he's a great actor, but he plays the role rather differently from the book, I know I said I wasn't comparing to the book, but that's not really my problem - it's that he's different, but then goes on to spout line-for-line quotes from the book - they don't really fit with his more stern Dumbledore - he seems to dart from stern authority figure, to the wizened old softie of the book

It may well be Rowling's fault, for massively developing a character that is probably incredibly hard for an actor to reproduce, but regardless I would rather he was a softer figure, I know that's a comparison with the book so, OK - I'd rather he dropped the airier lines from the book altogether as they don't fit his portrayal - now tell me, is that even possible with such a big character? Probably not, so I'd rather he was a bit softer

But all in all, this was a reasonably good film - it's not a classic in any sense of the word, but it's enjoyable fare, certainly better than the previous entries the series and is well worth seeing

Finito, it's out of my brain

Sweet Jesus

How on Earth do you work over 100 hours a week

I used to work 7 day weeks, 9 hour shifts - that's *only* 63 hours, and believe me that's taxing - if only from the point of view that you're never at home

Doctors may have a far more rewarding job but 100 hours is basically work, then sleep - 6 hours a night is 42 hours a week asleep, leaves barely 20 hours outside work

To be honest, despite getting double the amount of free time they do (in 'some' cases admittedly) I barely remember free time - the occasional hour in the morning involves feeding yourself, as does much of the evening - that's no life

It's an important job no doubt, but 100 hours hardly seems a healthy lifestyle - I would've guessed junior doctors worked between 60 and 80 hours, I can't even contemplate over a hundred

This is news?

Isn't this the whole point of Ramsey's American shows?

If you have ever watched them you'll know every single one of Hell's Kitchen or Kitchen Nightmares US ends up with a very angry yank somewhere along the line - but the Mail decide that this guy is his 'match', because he's a marine

Big headline - I was expecting a giant Stephen Seagal figure but the guy was pretty skinny and Ramsey is a big bloke, not saying the marine probably couldn't deck him, but I doubt Ramsey was intimidated

So in reality this is no different to any other episode and is further proof of the complete pointlessness of the conventional media, who peddle unimportant bilge and fabricate stories to fill their pages

But it did get me thinking - why are the Americans always so much more emotional? When I actually bother to watch the show, the highlight for me is the inevitable flare up as some arrogant yank gets in a mighty strop and requests to go outside

Now far be it for me to promote the stiff-upper-lip stereotype - the producers may well deliberately pick complete nutjobs and edit the show differently (that's the 18 mins of actual content in the hour, not the various shots of the outside and 5-minute recaps) but regardless there is a definite difference in tone - either they actually do it, or they just want to see it

It is a rather different mood to the British versions, where Ramsey used to try and start fights just as readily, but rarely got a real rise out of people, there were a few notable cases, but usually the worst offenders simply ignored him and then just deliberately disobeyed him rather than shouting their mouths off

Are we a much more quiet and reserved people? It's not really about what's 'better' - of course I prefer the British self-derision and dry humour in the face of conflict, because I am a Brit myself and I hate the heart-on-the-sleeve attitude of the yanks and their faux-politeness, again, because I am a Brit (and they have no sense of humour) - I'm as biased as anyone

I merely just find it interesting that there is quite a different mentality to the way that two cultures, with pretty similar roots, behave, particularly in public