Day 2479: The New Leader Speaks! aka So, Farewell then, Sir Mr the Merciless

Monday:

I do not know what has left me more SHOCKED: the suddenness of Sir Mr the Merciless' departure, or the speed with which I have found myself being talked up as a potential PARTY LEADER alongside Mr Clogg and Mr Hewn.

(Within minutes of the announcement, Mr Kiss-me Guru-Murphy was trying to get me "live" on the Channel Four News, and know-nothing numbskull Mr Nick "Mate of Dave" Robinson wanted me on Parson's Green for the "Ten".)

But I have to ask: if 66 is too OLD to lead a political party, is 7 [R: 6] too YOUNG?

Personally, I almost fell off my sofa: I thought Sir Ming was In-Vince-ible… until Mr VINCE did him IN!

On the other fluffy foot, at least our very own TERRACOTTA WARRIOR Mr Hugs has agreed to be INTERRED with the Emperor Ming.


So, what WOULD I do if I really DID become Leader of the Liberal Democrats?

Well, it seems to me that there are several urgent tasks to get on with.

First things first, we MUST massively increase our public profile. Everyone seems to agree that Sir Mr the Merciless suffered DEATH BY MEDIA – his leadership ended up SUFFOCATED by lack of coverage. It is not IMMODEST to admit that I am very CUTE – and I am VERY good at sitting on my sofa, a large part of today's daytime media duties for the busy party leader – but there is only so far that a fluffy face will carry you in the world today.

We need a press team that can create a BUZZ, and that can BLITZ THE PRESS into attending OUR events, and covering them the way that they cover Mr Balloon's stunts. Not that we should DO stunts, as such, but we should plan to be more STARTLING: launch our Nuclear Policy from the Greenham Common Peace Camp or our prison plans from a young offenders institution; see lovely Sarah Teather and me climb to the top of a HUGE Wind Turbine in Scotland or watch me and Captain Ashdown parachute into Afghanistan with emergency medical supplies…

It would mean a larger team, and that means more volunteers, maybe some sort of INTERN scheme. With today's technology, a large team DON'T all have to be in Cowley Street: e-mail, instant messaging and telephone conferencing can all play their part in keeping people briefed.

But we need them to be chasing down the news – especially the BBC – when they don't give us coverage and when they get things wrong. And we want to be GOOD when they give us balanced coverage, reward them with the good interview, the interesting story. We want for them to be HAPPIEST when they just need to phone up the Liberal Democrats and we have the informed comment that they want.

What happens at the moment? Mr Frown fails to call an election, the Conservatories' polls go up and our polls go down. From THIS (39:33:19) to THIS (36:43:14).

Quite simply: THAT DOES NOT MAKE SENSE. Good journalists shouldn't be satisfied with just reporting that, but we need to help them make the story.

The pat explanation that "it's a third party squeeze" is NOT an explanation at all: it is just DESCRIBING THE SYMPTOMS in a different way.

The Conservatories have announced ONE policy – a cut in Inheritance Tax. We announced LOTS of policies, but MOST IMPORTANTLY we announced a FOUR PENCE CUT IN INCOME TAX.

If people are switching their votes because of a TAX CUT then OURS is a LOT BETTER than theirs.

(Which would YOU rather have? More money maybe when Granny dies, if she's RICH, or 20% less Income Tax RIGHT NOW?)

Therefore the media's explanation for the poll shift is WRONG and we need to be challenging that.

What are the issues that are ACTUALLY of concern to people? Families that think they are being PENALISED by the benefits system just because they are MARRIED – do they KNOW that Liberal Democrat policy is to make sure everyone is treated fairly? No, of course not. We need people to know that we are the "fair deal" party. People who are too FRIGHTENED to go out on the streets – do they KNOW that Liberal Democrat Councils have a fantastic record of success in tackling anti-social behaviour. Do they know that we want to recruit thousands of extra police AND let them get on with their job, not fill in forms. No, of course not. We need people to know that we are the "freedom from fear" party.

We have a TERRIFIC policy platform, and when people ACTUALLY HEAR our policies lots of them realise that actually they are Liberals too. More than that, we have terrific strength right here in the Lib Dem blogosphere for forensic analysis, pithy comment and rapid response. Let's really USE that resource.

The important thing for us is to BE HEARD – get us a FAIR SHARE of coverage and we are halfway to victory.


But we mustn't forget the Party's most IMPORTANT asset: its members.

Sir Mr the Merciless has revitalised the party in Parliament, but I would want to get out there and re-energise the activists, meet with as many local parties as possible. After a second leadership challenge, I bet the party's loyal workers will be feeling a bit shell-shocked and a bit nervous about the future and a bit uncertain about this new fluffy elephant who has come from nowhere. So I will want to make sure that they know that THEY are the important ones, and that they are being LISTENED TOO, and that their new leader is NOT AFRAID of getting his big fluffy nose stuck in a few LETTERBOXES on the front lines with them.

Even with more than two years to the election, that's only a-hundred-and-some weeks, giving a good meeting to one local party a week is still only going to cover our top targets. We need to move from local campaigning to SMART campaigning – we need better lines of COMMUNICATION between the local parties and regions and the leaders office, so that we will make the best use of MY time and YOUR time.

I would want to use the tools of technology to give members a greater input into the party's national activities – the campaigns that we choose to press, the issues we support, even the questions at Prime Monster's Questionable Time.

Ah, yes, Prime Monster's Questionable Time – I am going to need some sort of GREEN LEATHER HIGH-CHAIR.

What we COULD do is set up greater feedback between the membership and the leader – they can raise the issues that they really want put to the Prime Monster; I can explain why I chose to go with one question rather than another, and what I thought of the Prime Monster's reply – if he actually gave one!

But Questionable Time is a bit of a JOKE really, a pantomime battle that usually only makes you look stupid. Sadly.

Many people think that the world made up its mind about Sir Mr the Merciless at that every first QT when he stumbled over a heckler. And while it is true that Questionable Time is not as important to real people as those watching would like to believe, it is ALSO true that first impressions last, especially among opinion formers like the sketch-writers. One important thing to remember is always to begin with offering CONDOLENCES to the families of soldiers lost in the wars. It is important that Parliament remember each week that people are dying because they voted for it.


I think that we should adopt Mr Jonny's idea: the Prime Monster should continue to have to answer questions from BACK-BENCHERS… but once a week, ON TELEVISION, he would sit down with Mr Balloon and me and we would ask him questions. (To be fair, Mr Frown should also be able to challenge us to say what we would do differently.) We ALL know the tricks that politicians can use to avoid answering tricky questions in an interview… which would mean that we can any of us point them out when they are used.

It might, just MIGHT, mean there was less posturing and shouting and more discussion of things that actually matter. When are our soldiers coming home? What are we doing about Foot and Mouth, and when will farmers be able to sell their sheeps and cows? What evidence is there – if any – that taking away our civil liberties has made ANY difference to the terror threat? How much have I.D.iot cards cost THIS WEEK?

If we can ask some questions about the issues, it could genuinely lead to a national debate, rather than a silly slanging match once a week and media interviews about personality rather than policy.

Because we need to reach out, way out, beyond our own comfort zones to the huge numbers of voters, often young voters, who don't vote.

If Mr Wedgy Benn, at the age of a-thousand-and-three, can fill a theatre for a talk about politics then so can I. I've got to! It's not that people out there aren't interested; it's just that they think we're not listening.

It's like Europe, and the new European Treaty. People WANT to join the debate – and fair enough it MAY just be to vote against Europe by proxy, but (and I've said this before) if we trust the people then sometimes we've just got to take it on the chin. We should SUPPORT calls for a referendum on the new treaty. And we should go out there and try to WIN the argument, not duck the fight.

You think that is an EASY WIN for Mr Balloon? Not a bit of it – we are united on Europe in a way that the Conservatories can NEVER be. The more we talk about Europe, the more opportunities they have to TEAR THEMSELVES TO PIECES. (You KNOW they're just gagging to do so!)

I think that Sir Mr the Merciless OUTSMARTED the Media in the end. Once those QUESTIONS of leadership have been raised, they tend to stick around like bad smells. Mr Balloon would do well to remember that – Mr Oboe may have covered them up with a WHOLE CAN of Ozone unfriendly AIR-FRESHENER (Inheritance Tax Lily Fragrance, naturally) but they will soon come back once his big poll lead dips again.

Sir M cut the Gordian Knot – or more appropriately the "Gordon" Knot – by going in his own time. Not a ditherer he. Like many other Liberal Democrats, I say we can be proud of his honour and dignity. Instead of letting them get ugly, he has left many of the papers IMPRESSED with his integrity. He has turned ADVERSITY into OPPORTUNITY!

Now we need to rally to a new leader, one who can reach out and grasp that opportunity with a FLUFFY FOOT!

With your support I will lead us into the next FIFTEEN general elections!

Vote early, vote often, vote elephant!

Day 2475: The Language of Luntz

Thursday (again):


But obviously there was also the ODIOUS Mr Minus 273 Centigrade (or ABSOLUTE ZERO Kelvin) McKenzie on Questionable Time as well.

I was reminded of this when Mr Humpy was giving Mr Andy Crashand-Burnham a toasting on the The Today Programme in the morning. Not that it wasn't a THOROUGHLY DESERVED toasting – Mr Crashand-Burnham is the Chief Secretary for Keeping Mr Frown's Desk Tidy Straight and the nearest thing to a Government spokesperkin in a week when the Government's changes to Capital Gains Tax have hit small businesses and workers' share option schemes. Although simplifying the system, Chancellor Dialling-Tone threw out the idea of REWARDING people for investing LONG-TERM (and this is on top of the increase in small company tax that Mr Frown introduced in his last budget).

But the big complaint was that abolishing taper relief means that for long-term investors their tax rate is increased from 10% to the new flat rate of 18%.

And what Mr Humpy kept saying was "you've given them an 80% tax rise!"

Now it is MATHEMATICALLY true that 18% is an 80% increase from 10% - but putting it like that is DECEPTIVE in TWO ways.

The FIRST is that, of course, people do not JUST pay Capital Gains Tax. It's usually quite a SMALL part of their taxation. Shrieking about "80% tax rises" sounds like you've nearly DOUBLED what some poor schmoes have to pay to Mr Frown's Revenue Men. You haven't. And in fact since the taper relief is quite difficult to get, you've cut the tax paid by a lot of other people too. Nevertheless, some people – and really, Mr Crashand-Burnham should have challenged Mr Humpy to say how many – some people will be worse off.

But the SECOND deception comes from the way that we use the English language. It would be QUITE NORMAL to refer to that increase as an eight point increase or an increase of eight pence in the pound, or even just an 8p rise. And what often happens is that people call it an EIGHT PERCENT increase.

(It is the same with opinion polls – people talk about the Labour going down by 2% when the ACTUALLY meant that their percentage has gone down by two POINTS, nearer to 2/40 or 5%.)

The Liberal Democrats are proposing to cut the Basic Rate of tax from 20% to 16%, but I bet you won't hear Mr Humpy going on about THAT as the "Liberal Democrats' twenty-percent tax cut"!

Talking about an eighty-percent increase could make the casual listener – even if only for a moment – think that the Capital Gains Tax has gone from ten percent to NINETY percent, not eighteen.

It makes the rise sound BAD; it makes it sound WORSE than bad, it makes it sound PUNITIVE and UNFAIR and MEAN.

Of course, all tax rises are a BIT bad, because someone will have to pay. But Capital Gains Tax is really quite a fair tax – it is a tax on the GAIN that you make by owning something even if you do nothing with it.

The people that it is HARSHEST on are – as above – small businesspeople who buy shares in their OWN companies and see the value of those shares increase as a result of their own hard work. But it's ALSO a tax on people who just use their huge wealth to buy shares off the stock market and let other people do the hard work while they sit back and cream off the profits. (Mr Balloon's family made their money this way, apparently. I mention for no reason.) And it is a tax on people who buy SECOND homes – not the one you live in; THAT's exempt – SECOND homes as investments and let the housing shortage push up prices enormously. They haven't done any work for that profit either.

So it's not like CGT is a VERY unfair tax.

It is a BAD TAX for a small number of small businesspeople, and this is a QUITE BIG increase in what for most people is a quite small part of their tax and it IS a SLAP in the FACE for people who have invested long term rather than smash and grab city raiders…

So why was Mr Humpy shrieking about it like it was a crime against humanity?

Well he COULD have just thought it all up by himself… or he COULD have just read it in the Daily Torygraph who don't have ANY kind of agenda at all, noooooo.

. I guess we shall just never know.

Because the OTHER people hit by this tax are the RICH traders who could take advantage of loopholes to make profits on their wheeler-dealing share deals at only 10% tax.

But – and you will be shocked to learn this – headlines saying "Rich People Stung by Tax on their Ill-Gotten Gains!" attract LITTLE SYMPATHY.

For many years, though, the rich and the right-wing did not realise this.

But then along came… guess who? None other than my old fluffy chum, Mr Frank Luntz of the Republican Party (back in them days) who realised that there WAS a way to sell tax cuts for the GIGA-RICH.

This was about changing LANGUAGE so that instead of – bluntly – making people think "hey, you deserve it!", many otherwise sensible people would start to think that taxes on the plutocrats were BAD.

The idea was to convince the everyday folks back home that (a) this was somehow GROSSLY UNFAIR or (b) there was some angle that hit the LITTLE GUY or (c) while there was no way in a million years this tax could affect them, in their DREAMS it just might.

(And it's not just taxes – it works on all sorts of things. In a NASTY BUSINESS? Change your mission statement from "oil exploitation" to "energy development" or from "logging" to "sustainable forest management". Got a FAILING BRAND? Make the switch from "The Labour" to "New Labour" or "The Nasty Party" to "Dave Balloon's Conservatories". Just SEE how the benefits roll in. Except in Ealing.)

So when I hear a… shall we call it a MODIFICATION OF LANGUAGE that makes a rich person's tax sound worse than it is… well, I can only say that I get SUSPICIOUS!


Of course, the DADDY of them all – and this brings us back to Mr Minus 273 Centigrade – the real KILLER was Mr Luntz's idea to change the name of ESTATE TAX (what we call INHERITANCE TAX) to the DEATH tax.

Taxing DEATH, golly just how monstrous and evil does THAT sound?

A "tax on aspiration" Master Gideon calls it. Well, Mr Oboe might aspire to DIE – that's probably why he's after Mr Balloon's job – but I think the rest of us can aim a little higher.

I know that MY Daddies are looking forward to a LONG and HAPPY life WITHOUT getting an inheritance; because that means that their parents are STILL IN IT WITH THEM!

Mr Minus 273 Centigrade, though, calls Mr Oboe's tax cut: "letting us keep more of our hard-earned money". How exactly, I wonder, does THAT work? Because – and I have to be BLUNT again – you can't keep ANY of that money, hard-earned or otherwise… because you are DEAD.

If this is about giving MORE of your money to your children or loved ones or the DONKEY SANCTUARY from which Mr Oboe escaped… well, do it while you are still ALIVE. Because if you give money away while you are still alive it DOESN'T GET TAXED.

(Daddy makes me point out: so long as you live another seven years, which is apparently to stop you dodging the duties on your deathbed.)

Or, if you want, go out and SPEND IT. It is your money, and you have – well, unless you stand to inherit a mint like Mr Balloon – earned it. You've even paid your taxes. So go and have fun!

But if, on the other fluffy foot, this is REALLY about hanging on to every last penny until your dying gasp… well then, it's a bit late to complain when the Government turns out to be even more MISERLY than you were!


I have said this before and I will say it again: Inheritance Tax is NOT a tax on "death" it is a tax on "MONEY FOR NOTHING"!

Anyone inheriting – for NO work – more than one million pounds would, from Mr Oboe, be getting an extra two-hundred and eighty grand free gratis and for nothing, not even any more "NO work".

The vast majority of people, ninety-six percent of us, do not inherit enough to pay ANY inheritance tax. From Mr Oboe they would get NOTHING, NADA, NIL. Whether they are hard-working families or not.

The argument that it is "double taxation" – because that money has already had Income Tax deducted – is just NONSENSE. If anyone says that to you, ask them if they will also abolish the VAT – because that's a SALES TAX on everything we buy, everything we buy with money that has ALREADY HAD INCOME TAX DEDUCTED.

Of course, if they say "yes" then you can ask them how they're going to fill the gap left by abolishing a THIRD of the tax take!

There has NEVER been a principle of "No Double Taxation" – that is a FICTION invented by, well, by people who usually try to pay NO taxation at all.

The family home is a RED HERRING too. (Not literally, unless you are Mr Jonah and live in a Whale.) Lots of people SELL their big expensive house once they are getting on a bit. Not because they have to, but because they want somewhere more cosy. Especially if they have been unlucky enough to lose their partner. And even if they don't (and why should they) the average house price is LESS than the tax threshold anyway.

But if that's a REAL worry, then make like Capital Gains Tax and give people a tax exemption for their family home – yes, even if it is also a STATELY home. That way, no one would "lose their home" over inheritance tax and you could make it fiscally neutral by lowering the threshold again – after all, it's only so high because of the value of houses: it's not about the money, right?


The right wing are now AGGRESSIVELY and DELIBERATELY pushing the meme that "Taxes are too high". You hear it in lots of places – newspaper columns, questions on Questionable Time, even round the office – a viral marketing strand of the greedy. "They're wasting our money," is another. The image of the profligate incompetent NuLabour minister is now as everyday as the sleazy corrupt Conservatory used to be.

(And be fair: the Labour pushed the "sleaze" meme just as hard and as far as the Conservatories are trying today.)

They tell us that under the Labour this is a "high tax country". This isn't TRUE. This isn't a high tax country. This isn't a low tax country either. We are somewhere in the middle. And that's probably about right.

But that doesn't suit the right-wingers.

They want the public to soak up these ideas like a sponge soaking up vinegar until we're all pickled enough to vote for them because they seem like a nice bunch, promise a few tax cuts (not sure about the details, we'll probably be better off), and they're better than the other lot, never mind that they don't really have any policies (still, in spite of what they tried to spin at that Conference).

Language is the BEST TOOL that people have for expressing their hopes and plans and aspirations and truths.

There's a word for it when language is used to do the opposite of all that too.

Are YOU thinking what I'M thinking?

Day 2474: Thursdays Are Funny

Thursday:


Especially when you add up the days in your diary and realise that Daddy has missed one out again.

(It was Thursday 30th August if you are interested.)

Note to self: must watch Darth Maul's new telly show one of these days.


Mr Hugs was on cracking form on Questionable Time, though – favourite moment was when he completely DERAILED Ms Harriet Harpy. Ms Harpy was going into one about how Mr Balloon said his Conservatories would be coming first in the Ealing by-election when Mr Hugs (from off camera) asked:

"Did they come second then?"

"No," shrills La Harpy, not spotting the ELEPHANT TRAP, "they did not even come second…"

"Who came second then?"

Ms Harpy, face now like thunder, "it was the…" snarls "…Liberal Democrats."

Huge applause. Well done Mr Hugs.

PS

I now have to face the terrifying possibility that Ms Harpy reads my diary!

Day 2473: My Next Car

Wednesday:


Now, I KNOW that I am TOO LITTLE to have my own car JUST YET, but this prototype looks VERY COOL! And – more importantly – because it uses HYDROGEN FUEL it has ZERO Carbon Dioxide emissions from driving.

Its makers, General Motors (who actually own Vauxhall so they sort of made Daddy's tank Penfold, too), have created a "Project Driveway" to give over a hundred drivers Fuel Cell cars like this for a year.

HINT HINT!

Maybe Daddy could try one out for me!

HINT HINT!

Failing that, and since it IS a prototype, maybe by the time that the production model is ready I will be all grown up!

Meanwhile, I hear that Honda are developing a Home Refuelling Station – initially for use with their natural gas hybrid Civic, but eventually for Hydrogen Fuel too. Basically it is a box the size of the TARDIS that you plug in and it separates water into hydrogen and oxygen, essentially the reverse of the process by which the Fuel Cell turns hydrogen into water and electric power for the car.

Now, I know what you are thinking – that's going to need a lot MORE electricity, and that electricity is going to come from somewhere that probably ISN'T carbon neutral. You are RIGHT!

But let us not get too up in arms about this. Remember first that this is a MEANS to an END, not the final end itself, and if we are aiming to convince people to switch over to a Hydrogen-powered emissions-free car, then this is something that will make it EASIER while we wait for somebody to please start installing Hydrogen Petrol stations everywhere.

Of course, in the end it will probably be more efficient to electrolyse water into hydrogen and oxygen AT the green power station – so you do not lose power transmitting it through cables. (Though you also have to transport the hydrogen safely too – so there is a balance to be found.)

Also, more and more of our electricity WILL be being generated from RENEWABLE sources. For example, plans are going ahead this year for two of the largest wind farms in the world.

After a public inquiry, the government have given permission for (specifically the substation that will connect to) a huge wind farm in the Thames Estuary between Essex and Kent called the London Array. Three-hundred and forty-one majestic windmills will generate power for three-quarters of a million homes and potentially save one-and-a-half million tons of CO2 emissions.

And an even (slightly) larger farm of three-hundred and fifty windmills called the Atlantic Array is planned for the North Devon coast.

Each of these huge projects is capable of generating a whole 1% of the UK's electricity.

Yes, I know (again) – a whopping 2%; we have a LOOOOOOOOOOOONG way to go. But it is a beginning.

As the old Chinese Proverb goes – the journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step… into your shiny new Hydrogen Fuel car!

Day 2472: Sooty makes a Statement

Tuesday:


Just so that no one is in ANY doubt: when Mr Frown became Prime Monster earlier this year, he chose as his Chancellor of the Exchequer… Mr Frown.

That bloke with the eyebrows is there to answer the telephones, fetch the coffees and occasionally pop up in front of the nation's press and terrify everyone into a run on a major bank.

It IS a good trick – you can BARELY see Mr Frown's lips moving!

Take a look at this picture of Mr Frown's CABINET and see if YOU can spot the GRANT SHAPPS:

Darling, Vain, Balls and Millipede

It is not an UNFAMILIAR situation – Lord Blairimort's foreign secretary was… Lord Blairimort, leaving Mrs Bucket to carry the bags (even if she usually managed to avoid carrying the can – see also her time at the Ministry for Failing to Feed our Farmers).

The give away, of course, is when you spot the Prime Monster's hand stuck up their DISPATCH BOX.



What's that you say, Sooty? You want to make a Pre-Budget Report to the House of Commons? Well, you know what to do:

"Izzy Wizzy, Let's Get Busy!"

As if by MAGIC, headline grabbing policies appear! Or, at least in many papers, headlines ABOUT policy grabbing.

Much of the talk was of the "cut in inheritance tax for couples".

This left my Daddy Richard CONFUSED for a long time. "How can a COUPLE have an Inheritance Tax allowance?" he asked – knowing well that the Tax Man does not believe in people dying SIMULTANEOUSLY.

After a while we worked out that what this ACTUALLY meant. Up to now, everyone has had an allowance of £300,000 – you can leave money or the cash value in goods up to that amount FOR FREE, no tax will be deducted. Everything OVER that amount gets 40% deducted and whisked away to Mr Frown's treasury vaults.

EXCEPT… anything that you left to your SPOUSE – or your CIVIL SPOUSE if you are gay mummies or daddies – was tax free no matter how much you left. Which was nice, and helped to stop little old ladies (or gentlemen) getting a big bill from the tax man just after losing a loved one.

The CATCH with this GENEROUS SEEMING exemption was this: both granny AND granddad have a £300,000 allowance, but if one leaves everything to their other half, then between them they LOSE one of the £300,000 tax free amounts.

Rich people would employ TAX ACCOUNTANTS to tell them that the BETTER way of settling their affairs was for granddad to leave £300,000 (tax free, remember) to the kids or grandkids or BABY ELEPHANT, and all the rest (also tax free, remember) to granny. Or vice versa. THEN, when granny goes to join him, there is ANOTHER £300,000 saved from the Tax Man.

All that the Darling Chancellor has done is to make this arrangement AUTOMATIC. That is to say, that granny (or granddad) will effectively INHERIT her hubby's £300,000 allowance so there is no longer any need for the fiddly ACCOUNTANCY.

What it DOESN'T do is make anyone REALLY better off – it is not giving anyone anything BACK; it just stops some people falling into an ELEPHANT TRAP.

(That's he has set aside one-and-a-half BILLION pounds to cover any shortfall, just shows what a LARGE and EFFECTIVE trap it was!)


Mr Gideon Oboe doesn't seem to have worked this out. Which isn't very surprising.

Instead, and in another sign of how CLOSE the Labour and the Conservatories have become, he stood up and accused the Chancellor of delivering the SAME speech that HE would have done.

The Conservatories have sworn to follow the Labour's spending; now, the Labour are implementing the Conservatories' tax cuts.

If you can get a CIGARETTE PAPER between them, then the chances are that it was FATTY CLARKE who sold it to you! Of course, HE was on the Radio in the morning criticising the Government for putting up borrowing… says the man who tripled the national debt in one go AND invented most of the STEALTH TAXES. That RAID on your pensions? THAT was to pay off the tab what Fatty Clarke ran up!

The Conservatories are just CROSS because Mr Frown has shot another couple of their Foxes. NOT Fantastic Dr Fox – we couldn't get THAT lucky – but their policies of cutting Inheritance tax and giving a tax break for married couples. Mr Frown, sorry, Chancellor Dialling-Tone's stunt has at least winged both of them with one blast.

It puts them in a real pickle too – they will have to think about repealing what the Chancellor has just done OR scrapping the policy that they have had for, oooh eight days, because they SERIOUSLY could not afford to allow people to hand out DOUBLE HELPINGS of one million pound tax exemptions. Expect to see Master Gideon being STUMPED by that one repeatedly in the coming weeks.


The Liberal Democrats, on our own, one against two again, still have a DISTINCTIVE tax agenda: our GREEN TAX SWITCH – cutting Income Tax, a tax cut that is generous to everyone not just millionaires like Mr Balloon, in order to give people a PROPER CHOICE over how their money is spent; raising taxes on pollution and carbon emissions because only WE are going to take the action needed RIGHT NOW to save the environment.

I'm GLAD that Mr Frown, sorry, Chancellor Dialling-Tone has seen the WISDOM of taxing flights not passengers, and investment in new green technology is good too. But these are HALF MEASURES or FUDGES (like not spending enough on flood defences even after this year!).

Clearly, if you want something doing properly, if you want a REAL change in the Budget, get a LIBERAL DEMOCRAT to do it!

Day 2471: THE SARAH JANE ADVENTURES: The Eye of the Gordon

Monday:


The hideous monster was FABLED for its legendary glower, supposedly capable of PETRIFYING its enemies with a single glance of its BLOODSHOT eyes. It stepped forwards with a hideous gurgling death rattle to cry:

"I did NOT… uhh… bottle out of an… uhh… election!"

Still, enough of Mr Frown – we didn't watch his Press Conference anyway, we were too busy watching Sarah Jane Smith!

Here is Daddy Richard's review of the second two-parter. As usual, no concessions to those who have not watched next week's concluding episode via time-machine and/or CBBC.

The episode opens on Sarah's car. Sarah Jane drives a rather wonderful car these days: its odd, slightly anachronistic colour and shape lend it the air of coming from another place. Alice Troughton, the director of these episodes, likes to linger on it, catching it with some terrifically tilted camera angles. The way that that car whizzes into shot manages to suggest both the TARDIS and the Nineteen-Sixties of "The Avengers" like a junior Emma Peel's E Type…

There were two rather startling moments in this pair of episodes, both of them in part one, actually. The first is the casual reference to the Sontarans – and almost coincidentally in the week that the BBC's Doctor Who website broke the news that they would be returning to the parent series (Grandfather Series, perhaps?) in 2008. I have to confess, I'd thought that introducing the Judoon meant that the Sontarans had had it for a return – the same silhouette, the same militaristic stylings, the same helmet gag… I've been wrong before, though, and am delighted to be so again here. (And incidentally, can I hope that the New Series has the budget and the CGI finally to show the Sontaran Army in all its millions-at-a-hatching might.)

The surprise is that the series is confident enough to drop in such a huge continuity reference – and get the detail right: they are nasty blighters for all that they look like potatoes – without self-consciousness or unnecessary back-story explanation. It's not like the little "kisses to the past" all over Sarah's attic hideaway – I noticed this week that Mr Smith is concealed behind a wall on which is pinned a page from "Metropolitan" magazine (next to an outline of the TARDIS) – this was full on, in your face and a vital part of the plot. Sarah recognises the name "Sontaran" and that is what tells her that dotty old Bea Stanley-Nelson is not so dotty as everyone else thinks.

Of course, the Sontarans were Sarah's first monster, back in "The Time Warrior" and in a way that makes them special for her. So it is a little appropriate that they get to be an important SJA continuity reference to the "Classic" series.

The writer of these episodes, Phil Ford, had a big hand in the CG remake of Gerry Anderson's Captain Scarlet – 23 of 27 episodes, actually – often adding emotional shading to the characters of Scarlet, Destiny Angel and even Captain Black. He does the same here.

The other moment was the sudden intrusion of some social comment. The emotional explosion of teenage Maria over her parents' divorce was an unexpected but very welcome realisation that she comes from a real world place that can often be as frightening as the adventures she has with Sarah. And it was about time someone thought of adding some depth to her parents: comedy mum and too-good-to-be-true dad. Building on that, the second episode scene between mum Chrissie and what she believes to be a statue of her ex-husband that Sarah has had made showed that perhaps mum has a (small) sense of her own ridiculousness. Almost she manages to convince that – like the sixth Doctor – the blustering, annoying front is an act to cover up that she cares too much about the mess she's made.

Alan being turned into that statue was, of course, the cliffhanger in the middle, and although it blindsided me – yes, obviously he's been wandering into Sarah's house all episode to make up with Maria so it is well set up and yet still totally unexpected – it does also scream of being "undoable". The bafflegab in part two – it's not stone as such, he's still changing so there is time to save him – almost had me convinced, but even so, killing off Maria's dad at this stage would have been just too too much. Even "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" – and that was aimed at an older audience by several years – didn't bump off mom until year five!

Of course, this intrusion of real reality into what would once have been a cosy fantasy world is very much the inheritance of the "Buffy" generation. And it's very Russell T Davies, too – you do have to wonder if he didn't just wander down the corridor at Upper Boat to stick his head round the door and say "It's all lovely – now she should have a row with her parents!"

Although they don't have much to do but get captured and escape via tunnels and passages, the boys manage to have an engaging time. Clyde gets some good moments early on, reacting to being lumbered with chores for his gran's friend in just the way anyone would. Luke then gets some enjoyable scenes with Mrs Stanley-Neville, with neither of them quite in the real world. But really it's a girls' story, this one, and Maria is pretty good throughout: the fight with her parents may not be quite completely natural but she's very good in the sensitive scenes with Bea.

Sarah too gets some solid emotional moments. Just watch her as Maria comes storming into the attic – Lis Sladen gives a very subtle little glance that tells you she's read what's up with Maria in an instant and so obviously she follows it up by taking her young friend out for a bit of girl time. And, of course, she gets her own "Rose Tyler" moment – if "School Reunion" was about Rose seeing a future version of herself in Sarah, then "Eye of the Gorgon" gives Sarah a glimpse of her own fate as Bea. She bears up very well, actually.

And it was good that the magical pendant didn't cure Bea of Alzheimer's – magical cures are appropriate for magical maladies like being turned to stone, but dementia of a loved one is something that many people will have to face, and it would be trivialising it to wave it away with a wand.

All in all, rather more grown up than the average episode of "Torchwood".

None of that is to say that the actual "Adventure" part of the story wasn't also rather good. In fact it was terrific. The wicked Nuns, gliding about in their hearse, were a treat: oh what a shame they were just hypnotised, as they – like Samantha Bond's Mrs Wormwood – were well and truly worthy of a rematch. Doesn't this series do good female villains! And the Gorgon herself was a worthy addition to the rogues' gallery. A parasitic villain with glowing eyes, hmmm; a touch of Stargate in the mix as well, perhaps? But she was very well realised with some appropriately ghastly prosthetics and the Mill adding a nice snaky CG effect for her petrifying gaze. I rather liked the way she scooted around in her wheelchair – threatening and disturbing in equal measure. Nice garden, too.

I'm not quite sure about the story's geography, though. The opening drive in country lanes appears to say that Lavender Lawns is out of town – but then Clyde and Luke set out to walk there. Nor does St Agnes' Abbey look like it's located in Ealing, not unless the Central Line has been extended to Wales by those Slitheen contractors last time.

But that's (almost literally) neither here nor there. This was a good, solid, old-fashioned and yet up-to-the-minute Doctor Who story. Terrific timing in a week when British Children's television has been criticised for being unoriginal and/or American in origin. We could do with more like this!

Next time… Laser Tag gets lethal for the Warriors of the Kudlax.

Day 2470: Here's What Mr Frown SHOULD have done… and why we'd have been STUPID enough to let him!

Sunday:


You MAY remember that I said that Daddy had had an idea about what Mr Frown might do about calling the election. Well, since Mr Frown has now CANCELLED the election, it is SAFE to tell you about it.

The thing that occurred to him was this: what if on Monday Mr Frown had announced that - in keeping with his new openness to democracy(!) - he was going to give Parliament a FREE VOTE on the motion of CALLING A GENERAL ELECTION.

There would have been NOTHING that we could do except vote FOR such a motion (the Conservatories too, for that matter) – given that the alternative would have been to look (a) hypocritical (since both Parties have been calling for one) and (b) cowardly (since Mr Vague had been busily calling Mr Frown exactly that).

Mr Frown could have, quite literally, forced us turkeys to vote for Christmas.

The benefits for Mr Frown - if he'd been going to call an election anyway, there was no chance of Parliament saying no. (And of course since he's decided against it, then he just does nothing.) He would have gotten to look like Mr Consensual and Mr Non-partisan again, ideal for the start of his big "father of the nation" campaign, and he makes us join his motion, so we look like little duckling following along in his wake. The media would have LOVED the AUDACITY of it, the whole CLEVERNESS and POWER of getting his own way with a HUGE yes vote in Parliament. He could have stood up and said "I have heard all this talk of an early election, and I am a listening Prime Monster. But it would be wrong for me to use the Royal Prerogative to my own advantage, so let us let Parliament decide." And it would be in keeping with his previously stated commitment to letting Parliament always have a vote before going to WAR too.

Disadvantages - well, it would have slightly bound the hands of his future self next time he wants to go to the country (assuming there ever will be a next time, i.e. that he wants to go though two elections rather than handing over to Mr Balls / Mr Millipede in five/six years.)

And it's exactly the sort of too-clever-by-half stunt that Mr Frown pulls all the time.


Calling for a General Election was therefore VERY NEARLY exactly the wrong thing to do. Even apart from the fact that there is no good constitutional reason to do it – in fact it's almost the exact opposite of the fixed term Parliament we are now MUCH MORE SENSIBLY demanding – we were not then and are barely now in a position to give a good showing. The reason that we DID do it was obviously to gain PUBLICITY. The Conservatories were pretty much BOUND to do it anyway, and by jumping in first we helped to DISTANCE ourselves a bit from the Labour while looking BOLDER that Mr Balloon. But publicity stunts are Mr Balloon's territory, and we don't gain so much if we also look OPPORTUNISTIC. It was a HIGHLY DANGEROUS bluff, that – just by chance and Mr Frown's general habit of backing off when things get tough – we managed to get away with.

On the other fluffy foot, my TOP LIBERAL DEMOCRAT CONTACTS have tipped me off that we WERE making plans just in case Mr Frown did something like this. So we're not ENTIRELY dim.

Day 2469: Elections, elections, elections

Saturday:


If you think that the elections have been cancelled, you need to THINK AGAIN!

Coming in 2008 is the important election for LONDON MAYOR, and we need to get working fast! Then in 2009 there are the EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT elections – here in London we NARROWLY missed out on getting a second representative and so we need to work harder next time!

That is why I took Daddy along to the Liberal Democrat London Hustings in Bethnal Green.

Part way through, we received the news that everyone had been on tenterhooks waiting for… England had beaten Australia at Rugby. Oh, and also Mr Andy Marrmite had been up to Mount Sinai and received some tablets of stone from Mr Frown saying "NO" and "ELECTION".

Is it just me, or is Mr Frown's FACE slowly MELTING?

Going...

...going...

...gone!

So yes, Mr Frown has decided to rule out an Autumn election, though he denies that poor performance in the polls changed his mind.

"The… uhhh… weather looks a mite… uhhh… nippy… so I… uhhh… just didn't fancy it… uhhh…" stammered the stumbling Secret Stalin.

Sir Mr the Merciless was first on the case, saying Mr Frown has lost his nerve and calling for fixed term parliaments so that the Prime Monster (whoever he is) cannot put the country (or himself) though this sort of DITHERING again.

Mr Balloon has spent a lot of time smugly harping on about Mr Frown treating us like fools.

It does, of course, take one to know one.

Some people, though, might think that it's not TOO clever to keep on saying, "he's just fibbing: everyone knows that he wanted an election!" when everyone ALSO knows that you desperately DIDN'T want one, even if you keep saying that you did.

Anyway, our magnificent Ms Lynne Featherweight has called Mr Balloon's bluff by telling him to PUT UP or SHUT UP. Either he is serious about democracy – and will back the Liberal Democrats on our fixed term parliament bill – or he is ALL MOUTH and NO TROUSERS.


So anyway, THAT was all a storm in a teacup. We have proper elections to fight, not just Mr Frown's phoney war.

So, back to the hustings...

Getting a seat early

The message that came strongly from our Euro-candidate hustings was that we are just not Pro-Europe ENOUGH! Or rather, everyone KNOWS that we are the pro-Europe party – as one candidate put it: UKIP are Liberal Democrat ANTI-MATTER – but we sometimes seem to be EMBARRASSED about it, as though we don't want to get caught having the strongest support for the most brilliant European peace and prosperity plan since, well, ever.

Mr Simon James asked us why it is that while in local elections and even general elections we manage to raise our performance ABOVE what the opinion poll ratings say we are getting, in Europe we fall below expectations.

He pointed to the media's OBSESSIONS that Europe is about BIG CENTRAL IDEAS: "the Euro", "the Constitution", "the straight banana" (err…) but the European Parliament is NOT about those things.

Mr Simon put forward the suggestion that we should remember our roots in COMMUNITY POLITICS. We need to take community politics to the EUROPEAN LEVEL: connect people to how Europe affects THEM, not in some abstract way, but directly, in their own local area, and not just the person on the doorstep but our own local activists, who have to campaign for us, and need to be fired up by how important Europe is to THEM too.

Mr Jonathan Fryer told me – in one of the SEVEN European languages that he speaks! – that we need to talk about Europe's SMALL BUT PRACTICAL achievements as well as the big ideas.

Things like "the environment" seem large, but can come down to better controls of air quality or whether we get a third runway at Heathrow (supported by the cosy Conservatory Labour partnership; only the Liberal Democrats are speaking out for the local people who don't want it). Do people know that Liberal Democrat votes in the European Parliament helped secure cheaper roaming charges for their mobile telephones? Not to mention protection from dangerous toys… I gave him a VERY HARD STARE for that!

As Lady Ludford added, Europe should not be boxed off into a separate area. She's used her time in Brussels to press for CIVIL LIBERTIES (she's been praised by Ms Charming Chakrabati of Liberty for her Human Rights work) and that is CENTRAL to Liberal Democrat policy.

I wonder if – just like our manifesto has a Green Thread running through every page – we might need to have a EUROPEAN thread running though all of our policies too.


After the Euro-hustings, we got to hear from the three candidates hoping to stand for the Liberal Democrats for Mayor of London. (For those of us who had been at the packed-out hustings in Brighton this was "another chance to see".)

On the panel

This time around, Mr Fizzle gave a very stirring speech (to be quite honest it was a LOT better than the one he gave in Brighton!) full of passion and promises. He STILL had too many things to say in the time though! Then came Mr Paddock, who was more serious this time, with fewer jokes. He was less impassioned than his two rivals, but more focused and really knew his stuff on the questions (I bet my Daddy has been giving him LOTS of homework). Last to speak was Ms Chamali, whose speech was quite similar to the one from Brighton. (I must admit that she did stumble slightly, using her "rose between two thorns" line twice, I suspect because she was trimming for time.) However, she was much improved answering the questions – apparently she has grade 5 in ballet too.

All of them are TERRIFIC candidates, each bringing different skills and experience to the table, and I would be PROUD to support any of them. In fact, it is a shame that we cannot have ALL THREE as prospective Mayor!

What we REALLY need, though, is to have a candidate who has a better RUN UP to the election.

We know that developing a council seat or a parliament seat we have to work for often SEVERAL elections before we can build up our support. The same MUST be true for the London Mayor – and yet here we are still choosing our candidates with less than seven months to go! Excellent though they are, we have left them with a big handicap at the start of their race.

What we SHOULD do is have a candidate who can campaign for us for four solid years, and always be ready to appear on the news as "Liberal Democrat Mayoral Spokesperson" – just like we try to choose prospective parliamentary candidates early in our target seats.

It is not like Mr Ken has not been campaigning solidly for himself for the last four years – what are all those "Mayor of LondOn" posters if not adverts for HIM!

Of course, part of the problem is that while Mr Balloon can lose an election but still gets a paid office in Parliament from which to call Mr Frown names, runners up to Mr Ken get no such luxury. Being leader of the opposition to the Mayor is not a paid position… or is it? What about the London Assembly members?

Now, this is just a thought: how about if our mayoral candidates are also one, two and three on our list for London-wide members of the London Assembly. That way, even if we do not succeed this time, our terrific team will be in a proper position to KEEP CHALLENGING Mr Ken and developing their – and the party's – profiles. (I am not sure if you are ALLOWED to stand for Mayor and Assembly at the same time, though.)

(I don't mean any offence to the likes of Lady Tope and Lord Hamwee but at least they do already HAVE jobs in the House of Lords Club to fall back on.)

The London Assembly OUGHT to be where top-quality candidates want to be; it OUGHT to be the OBVIOUS place to look for a Mayoral Candidate as well as for potential top London MPs like Ms Featherweight; and it OUGHT to be full of people who can hold Mr Ken to account and not let him RUN RINGS around them!

After all that, all that remained was for Humph to thank the lovely Samantha…

Sa-mathon-tha?

…for keeping them all to time and then to usher us out to do our (Cancelled) Election Special Focus delivery rounds!

PS

If you still have anything you want ask the candidates, you can visit the online hustings.

Day 2468: Does one Speech make a Difference?

Friday:


The media's topsy-turvy view of the world is that Mr Balloon wanted to AVOID an election because he was bound to LOSE, but by putting the Conservatories back in contention he has actually avoided a chance to WIN.

They think that Mr Frown is basing his calculation on whether he will gain or lose seats in Parliament. A simple choice – if he thinks his majority will go UP then off to the Country we will go.

In fact, I think that they are missing a BIGGER factor: if the Conservatories lose this time, it could be FOREVER – so how many seats off his majority would Mr Frown be tempted to trade away to "grind their faces into the dirt"?

The Labour are TORN between GAGGING for an election which they think will give them an easy win and an increase in seats, and GIBBERING in TERROR at the prospect of the same election slashing their majority because they've misread the runes / tealeaves / entrails of Mr Peter Mandelson.

This is not too surprising – indeed it is the story of Mr Frown writ large. Caution mixed with tricks that are too clever by half.

What HAS left me polishing my button eyes in ASTOUNDED-MENT, though, is the reaction among many CONSERVATORY commentators: well, if Mr Frown does make us go though an election now, it will be a bit bruising but we are bound to win the next time around.

The COMPLACENCY evident in this approach FLABBERS my GAST!

Let me just say that, as a Liberal Democrat, I think that this is a MODERATELY BAD time for us to have a General Election. Between them, Mr Balloon and Mr Frown have taken several important points off of our opinion poll ratings just by being "different" to who came before them – that is usually OUR selling point! We have developed a strong new Liberal narrative: Green action, fairer taxes, freedom for people. But we haven't had time to get the message across. The media haven't wanted to give us the space to tell our story and we haven't had time to deliver all the Focus leaflets to tell it ourselves.

On the other fluffy foot, we were FIRST to call for this election – if it arrives – because we think that the people deserve the opportunity to say what THEY think should be the change in government, rather than leaving it to Lord Blairimort and Mr Frown to carve it up between them. We desperately want to put a stop to the erosion of Civil Liberties under this authoritarian government and ought to welcome ANY chance we can get – no matter how slim – to change things for the better.

But it is a VERY AWFUL time for the Conservatories to have a General Election and they know it, which is why there is all the talk of them trying to fool Mr Frown that it is not worth having one.

It would NOT be "a bit bruising" for them. It may very well be the end of them as a Party ALTOGETHER!

What no one seems to be taking into account is the HUGE amount of damage that losing an election will do to "Brand Balloon". You get one chance and ONE CHANCE ONLY at being a "freshman" Party Leader – lose this election and Mr Balloon is CONFIRMED as AT BEST "the Conservatory Mr Kinnock-knock". He won't be the "new fresh thing on the block" anymore; he will be "that toffy windbag who lost last time".

Worse than that, he won't even be the NEWEST new young leader. Sir Mr the Merciless will fight the next election, whenever that is, but The Liberal Democrats will have a new and younger leader to fight the one after that.

And it would be NO SURPRISE if the Labour did too. Mr Frown's plan may have been looking at a SIX-YEAR term, all along – one year from taking over, then an election and then a full term of his own – before handing on. Mr Millipede and Mr Balls can decide who will be the next Lord Blairimort and who will be the next Mr Frown. And THEY no doubt expect to have ANOTHER fifteen years between them too!

But if the Labour have a line of SUCCESSION, it is difficult to see where the Conservatories can GO after Mr Balloon loses an election. He will stay on as leader because he can say – with some justification – that he didn't get a fair chance to finish what he started. (Though some will say – also with some justification – that he got the same two years that Mr Iain Drunken Swerve got!)

But there isn't really anyone ELSE that the Conservatories could turn to. Mr Davis David is looking past his sell-by date: two years ago, his supporters were saying that Sir Malcolm Rifkind was over the hill – Sir Malcolm is two years older than Mr Davis David: do the math, as the saying goes. Fantastic Dr Fox gave a TERRIFIC presentation this week of why he is a swivel-eyed nutter. He is no more fit to lead the Conservatories than I am to join the Olympic Hurdling Team. And Mr Gideon Oboe would be a horrible, terrible joke. HE might think he's going to be the next leader, but really does ANYBODY else?

Anyway, Mr Balloon's SHAM modernisation has poisoned the well for any genuine moderniser. How can you convince a Party that it has to REALLY change, when they've been trying so hard to LOOK like they've changed for the last two years? The Party will have tried that. Actually, the problem is that they will pretty much have tried EVERYTHING by that point.


So, Mr Balloon gave his cosy chat to the Conservatories and the media fell in love with him all over again.

Mr Balloon's mate at the BBC, Mr Nick Robinson, gushed with enthusiasm – "The speech may be as long as an hour so he certainly won't have been able to memorise it all."

(Actually, I have a feeling that some of Mr Shakespeare's plays are over FOUR hours long, and that ACTORS often DO memorise things of that length, but that is by the by. Mr Paul has more on this sort of thing.)

I should not like to do down his achievement – it is not something that I could do. At least, not without Daddy to carry me around on the stage!

But in this day and age are we quite sure that we should be deciding how good a leader someone would make based on how well they can do in the SCHOOL DEBATING SOCIETY? The power of oratory to SWAY opinion (like the Jedi Mind Trick that works on the WEAK MINDED!) should never be dismissed, but ought we not to be thinking about the CONTENT rather than the delivery. After all, haven't we been complaining all along that Mr Balloon is ALL style and NO substance. Or in recent weeks, all MESS and no MESSAGE.

And the content – for all that it was dressed up in fuzzy talk of healing and hugging – the content was all "family values", "cuts in benefits" "tax cut for millionaires", "lock 'em up forever", "environment, what environment?" traditional Conservatory fare though and through.

Essentially, the message is that Mr Balloon has found a nice new way to sell the same old schlock. Heartwarming if you are a Conservatory; mealy-mouthed if you are anybody else.

I keep coming back to the way that Conservatories SHY AWAY from self-analysis. Mrs Teresa May Not: "people THOUGHT we were the nasty party" NO! You WERE the nasty party. Mr Portillo: "we had the APPEARANCE of being arrogant" NO! You WERE arrogant! Mr Balloon's idea of CHANGE is just the same. It is ABOUT staying the same.

Has it done them any good? Well here are the polls for the weekend: YouGov: 40:36:13, ICM: 38:38:16, Populus: 39:36:15. Average lead for the Labour: 2.3% And it looks like Mr Frown will not be popping in on Mrs the Queen for scones and a dissolution this week. Which is, of course, exactly what Mr Balloon wanted to avoid.

Which MAY be why Mr Frown is going to confound us all and go and do it anyway!

PS

Daddy Richard had a terrible, terrible thought the other day, of something TERRIFYINGLY CLEVER that Mr Frown might do. I have locked him in the bedroom with a pillow stuffed in his mouth to prevent Mr Frown from finding out.

Day 2467: Whatever Happened to the Space Age?

Thursday:


Happy Birthday Sputnik!


It was fifty years ago that the very first artificial satellite was launched into space from a Soviet Rocket Range in Kazakhstan and began broadcasting its message to the whole world:

"Bleep… bleep… bleep… bleep…"

as Mr Leonard Nimoy says in Daddy's Civilisation Computer game when you invent satellites.

Within four years a man had flown in space; within twelve years another man had set foot on the MOON.

So how has it been, living in the future? Were we not all supposed to have JETPACKS and TELEPORTERS and trips to the MOONBASE by now?


Since the end of World War Part II when Mr Werner Von Braun showed that we might actually get there, the journey into space has always been a mixture of HOPE and THREAT.

As the World sank into the Cold War, the people who were most interested in Space were the ones who wanted to throw rocks at each other – and since they had the bucks, they called the tune. But that isn't to say that the people actually BUILDING rockets for them saw things that way – many of them, Mr Werner among them, had a different vision, one of exploration and discovery.

It is SAD to remember that a BIG driving force behind the development of space was the prospect of WAR. Although Mr Dr Roger D Launius – who has a SPACE name it ever there was one – tells the BBC that Sputnik was a force for peace, convincingly arguing that just HAVING satellites – spy-satellites, let us be honest – actually calmed everyone down in the Cold War because they could SEE what the other side were really doing. The Soviet breakthrough in launching Sputnik, he says, coincidentally put them in the position of supporting Mr President Eisenhower's proposal that Space should be considered outside of national boundaries so those spy-satellites COULD go looking.

The Space Race that began with Sputnik was, in part, a war by other means. By showing off their technological muscles, the two big bullies of the age could compete without the need for actually blowing each other to smithereens.

It was a young and silly and yet somehow very OPTIMISTIC way of carrying on. It was a very SIXTIES way of doing things.

Tragically, the seventies saw a more CYNICAL approach – depression and oil shocks turned governments into penny-pinchers: budgets were cut back and missions abandoned. The War in Vietnam made a lot of the optimism go away. Instead of trips to MARS, the space agency started to build a SPACE TRUCK, the reusable shuttle… a dream of a cost-effective, frequent service to near Earth orbit that in the end proved very infrequent and very expensive.

By the 1980s REAL space couldn't compete with the special effects version that was coming out of Hollywood, except possibly in the addled brain of President Raygun who saw the Star Wars project as a means to prove to the Russians once and for all that America was WAAAAAY crazier than they were. It worked too, and by the end of the decade the Russians were our friends but space was just too expensive.

Well, it's time to turn all that around again!

Governments from America to Russia to China to India have all announced their intentions to send more people to the Moon, and maybe even further. And if we're really, really lucky Great Britain might get involved too! And a new breed of space explorers – entrepreneurs – are jockeying to get to the launch platform.

It is TOO SOON to be disappointed by the Space Age! Goodness me, the Iron Age lasted for a good THOUSAND YEARS and some people STILL hadn't gotten the hang of it by the historical time of the Greeks and Romans. The BRONZE AGE lasted even longer – three-and-a-half to four thousand years – and there were still some folks using flints and asses' jawbones by the end of it. We are just at the beginning of our true first steps.

What happened to the Space Age? Just you wait and see!

Day 2466: EXCLUSIVE: Millennium Meets Mr Balloon: the interview!

Wednesday:


Ahead of his BIG SPEECH to the Conservatory Conference, Mr Balloon has granted me EXCLUSIVE access to his breakfast table in Madam Cholet's cosy B&B on the Blackpool seafront (though his shoes are staying at the de luxe Hotel Plus Richesse).


MM: Mr Balloon, thank you for seeing me. Let's start with an easy one – what did you have for breakfast?

Balloon: Well, we faced tough choices – Mr Gumboot was trying to get me to have a half a grapefruit, but Mr Deadwood wanted me to have the Full English.

MM: But what did you choose?

Balloon: Well, it was a tough choice, so I decided to have my cake and eat it.

MM: Isn't that…

Balloon: Please don't interrupt me. What is important is that people know that I am taking decisive decisions and making the changes that they want. Small changes. Anyway, I had porridge.

MM: You had porridge?

Balloon: Yes, for breakfast. Definitely porridge.

MM: Aren't you just having what Mr Frown is having?

Balloon: Yes… But no... By which I mean maybe. It's a tough choice. I should think more so... Only less.

MM: Riiiiiight…

Balloon: Does he have sugar? Yes? Then I didn't have sugar – it's a sign of the ten wasted years, this New Labour indulgence in sugar. By not having sugar, I've saved enough for jam for everyone!

MM: Okay, turning to policies…

Balloon: Or does he take salt? I could do that; it would show how manly I am. How about this: we'll abolish inheritance tax for the rich and give free salt for first time porridge eaters!

MM: Mr Balloon, are you making up policies at the breakfast table?

Balloon: No…

MM: Anyway, what has inheritance tax got to do with breakfast?

Balloon: Or indeed with first time porridge eaters.

MM: Sorry?

Balloon: Well, we want all the headlines to say "Conservatories sting the rich to help young porridge eaters."

MM: So why not do something to really help the people who need, er, porridge?

Balloon: Oh, no, the rich would never wear that! So we give the richest 6% a whopping great three billion pound inheritance tax freebie, and then cover it by dropping a couple of mill on porridge. Then get Johnny Foreigner to pay for it all.

MM: The Labour are claiming that your figures don't add up, though.

Balloon: Look, there are hundreds, possibly thousands of wealthy foreign non-doms in the country and that's almost hundreds of thousands.

MM: If you say so.

Balloon: Look, we've checked and this is backed up by Home Office figures that say there could be anything from four to six-hundred billion foreigners living right here in Blackpool…

MM: Er…

Balloon: Look, many of these people are all too willing to do their bit. I spoke to one just today, Esme from Latvia, who happened to be serving my tea this morning. And I said to Esme as she was tucking in my napkin: "You'd be very happy to pay twenty-five thousand pounds to keep your tax status, wouldn't you?" and she answered very enthusiastically in the demotic Latvian that is her native tongue. Though she did drop my marmalade so I had to have her fired.

MM: That doesn't sound very nice.

Balloon: It was a tough choice.

MM: And isn't it just a bit rich to ask people who've come to work in this country to pay for your tax cuts when you've also said you think there's been too much immigration?

Balloon: It isn't racist to ask questions about immigration. Are you thinking what I'm thinking? No, flip, that was last time.

MM: But haven't you had a bit of a problem with racism, this week. A political aide to Lord Lyell has had to be suspended for making a joke using the "N" word on Facebook. And your Shadow Minister for ticking the token ethnic representation box, Ms Insider Warsi, said that British Nasty Party voters had some legitimate views on immigration!

Balloon: Look, Lady Warsi is NOT a racist… everyone knows she's a homophobe!

MM: Er…

Balloon: Look, the important thing is that we've changed. The Conservatory Party used to be full of closet racists and bigots and we realise that that was wrong. So now we're much more open about it!

MM: Oh and in a very real sense kay.

Balloon: Look, it's a tough choice. I've led from the front on this. There are now almost as many black women in the Conservatory Party as there are Old Etonians in my Shadow Cabinet.

MM: fifteen?

Balloon: I think it's about twelve, actually.

MM: Nice. So… tea or coffee?

Balloon: It's a tough choice. I'll have both. I like to have my tea flown in fresh from India and my coffee delivered from Brazil. But then I carbon offset it, by having my tea sent out to Brazil and my coffee shipped air freight to India.

MM: I don't think it works like that!

Balloon: Doesn't it?

MM: No!

Balloon: Look, the important thing is that you CAN have it both ways.

MM: No you CAN'T! It's like AIRPORTS – you say you want more development AND you want to stop any more development. Which is it?

Balloon: We decided that we were going to tax flights not people. It was a tough choice but it was the right thing to do.

MM: Stop avoiding the question! Anyway, isn't the POINT of taxing flights to reduce, or at least arrest the growth in air travel? Flying generates a LOT of CO2 which causes Climate Change and we want to stop it from getting WORSE. If you then say you'll build more airports, you seem to be encouraging MORE flying, MORE CO2 emissions and MORE Climate Change. Don't you understand what Green Taxes are FOR?

Balloon: Look, this is what people need to understand: it's not about flying tea around the world, it's about letting people shop at a Tesco the size of Luxemburg if they want to, and it's not about stopping the proles taking as many holidays as they like, it's about raising enough green taxes so that we can bribe the bugg… er, them with a special fund for "hardworking families".

MM: Yes, and what exactly is THAT supposed to mean, anyway?

Balloon: It means more tax credits.

MM: But that's just another of Mr Frown's policies!

Balloon: Look, tax credits are a failed, discredited symptom of Mr Frown's years of neglect. That's why we want to change them.

MM: You want to get rid of them?

Balloon: We want to make them even more complicated.

MM: But aren't tax credits just benefits in disguise? An increase in tax credits is REALLY an increase in spending. You're becoming a TAX and SPEND party!

Balloon: Ah, but because they count as negative tax it actually LOOKS like a tax CUT.

MM: So in fact you are proposing to use Green Tax as a Stealth Tax in order to increase spending.

Balloon: You have to learn that a lot of the truths we cling to depend on a certain point of view.

MM: Do not go all Obi-Wan Kenobi on me. Why not cut taxes for everyone?

Balloon: Everyone in the marginals, you mean?

MM: No, everyone everywhere.

Balloon: What? Even if they don't fit our centrally decided definition of what a "hardworking family" is?

MM: If you want to change how people treat the environment, you have to make it a REAL CHOICE for them. Give people back the tax money and then let THEM choose whether to go on polluting.

Balloon: That's just crazy talk.

MM: And speaking of crazies, what about Europe?

Balloon: I've made it clear that we shall be holding a referendum on the continental breakfast, and I shall be campaigning for a no vote.

MM: It's not REALLY a vote on the continental breakfast though, is it? It's just a vote on whether to have the croissants warmed up centrally.

Balloon: That's not the point.

MM: And isn't it more of a smorgasbord now, anyway, with all the opt outs we negotiated?

Balloon: Look, Mr Frown promised us a referendum and so we should make him have one. It’s the most flagrant breach of trust with the British People that I have ever seen.

MM: Apart from invading Iraq on made-up evidence.

Balloon: Okay, apart from that.

MM: And getting round the rules on fundraising by means of secret loans.

Balloon: Okay, apart from Iraq and the Loans for Peerages…

MM: And Bernie Eccleston's million pound donation.

Balloon: Oh, obviously.

MM: And imposing Student Top-Up fees even though they promised to legislate AGAINST introducing student top-up fees.

Balloon: So, apart from Iraq and Loans for Peerages and Bernie Eccleston and Tuition Fees…

MM: And Lord Blairimort promising to serve a "full term" and then disappearing off after only a couple of years.

Balloon: I'll come in again…

MM: Isn't the real reason you bang on about this treaty because it's safe for you to let your Euro-nutters off the leash on this one? It's hardly constructive criticism of the treaty, but it does ease the tension in the Conservatory Party between those who want out of Europe and those who want out of Europe but know that it would be economic suicide.

Balloon: Look, it's about trusting the people.

MM: So why not have a referendum on whether we stay in Europe or not?

Balloon: Because I don't trust the people.

MM: Well, I've heard that at least you are going to get rid of I.D.iot cards.

Balloon: Yes, that's right. We're going to use the money to deal with the Labour's failed policy of just locking people up.

MM: What would be your alternative?

Balloon: We would offer a SUCCESSFUL policy of just locking people up!

MM: Wouldn't that money be better spent on lots more policepeople to stop crime in the first place?

Balloon: Look, it's about tough choices. It's about taking responsibility.

MM: Locking people up and throwing away the key is "taking responsibility"?

Balloon: I didn't say I should be taking responsibility!

MM: You don't think that we should maybe try and do something a bit different, like reducing the number of people in prison so that the really dangerous ones can stay there for their full sentences?

Balloon: This is about the Broken Society, and you know what to do when something is broken, don't you?

MM: Try to fix it?

Balloon: Throw it in the bin and get a new one!



MM: There's been a lot of talk about defections this week. Mr John Beer-cow might defect to the Labour; Mr Zac Goldfinger might defect to the Liberal Democrats; Mr Boy George Oboe might defect to UKIP. Do you think Mr Oboe is being DISLOYAL by distancing himself from you?

Balloon: Gideon is a true Conservatory through and through.

MM: What do you mean?

Balloon: He's looking out for number one.

MM: Is he really mounting a leadership bid then?

Balloon: Well, I've always said: if you are going to stage a coup then don't be one of the ones inside the palace.

MM: Is he or isn't he?

Balloon: It's a tough choice.

MM: And why do you keep talking about "tough choices". It makes you sound like Lord Blairimort.

Balloon: Look, after literally weeks of Mr Frown, the country is crying out for change. New change. Real change. Change back to the way things were under Lord Blairimort. I can be that change!

MM: So you're not going to stop saying it?

Balloon: It's a tough choice, but no.

MM: Mr Balloon, do you REALLY think that you are ready to be Prime Monster in four weeks time?

[We are interrupted by several senior Conservatories on the next table falling about laughing. Mr Balloon stares at me like a rabbit facing a cat-monster, and then throws his orange juice in his face. I wait while he gets two flunkies to towel him off.]

MM: There're a lot of people saying that this might be your last conference in Blackpool.

Balloon: Oh, these conferences always take place in a one of these places beginning with "B". That's why next year we'll be moving to…

MM: Birmingham?

Balloon: Basra.

MM: Basra?!

Balloon: With the troops all around us. It'll look magnificent.

MM: Didn't Fantastic Dr Fox say that that was a cynical stunt by Mr Frown?

Balloon: Yes. We wish we'd thought of it first!

MM: Mr Balloon, thank you for talking to me about your breakfast. One last question, was it self service?

Balloon: Oh no! It was handed to me on a plate… just like everything else in my life.

MM: Perhaps this is why you have made such a MESS! Mr Balloon, thank you very much.

PS

Oooh, shocking news! I did all this work, and the BBC have gone and reedited my interview with some pictures of Mr Andy Marrmite and Mr James Naughty doing the noddies! You can't trust anyone, these days, can you!

Day 2465: Cat-Monsters Not So Tough

Tuesday:


It turns out that the SABRE-TOOTHED CAT MONSTER – of whom I am NOT in any way afraid – may have been less of a TIGER and more of a PUSSY-CAT.

Scientists have used computers to create a model of the Cat Monster's skull and jaws and famous TEETH and deduced that its bite was only about a THIRD as powerful as a MODERN LION.

Er… hang on, that means LION MONSTERS are EVEN MORE SCARY! Where is Mr Stripy; I need a hug!


Speaking of TOOTHLESS, the Competition Commission has issued a bit of a slap to Mr Rodger Stavro Moredick's Sky Empire over their purchase of seventeen-and-a-bit percent of ITV.

You may remember that Sky snapped up a chunk of ITV in a BLOCKING MANOEUVRE to stop Virgin Media from taking over the venerable terrestrial commercial channel. Er, I mean, as A SOUND INVESTMENT in a promising industry… an investment that has so far lost them TWO-HUNDRED-MILLION pounds as ITV's share price has continued DOWNWARDS.

Virgin Media today welcomed the announcement:

"Sky should not be permitted to remain in a position where there is any question whatsoever about its ability to influence ITV," said a spokesperson.

After all, that's what Virgin wanted to do!

(Not that the Virgin Group EVER holds a grudge… those NICE people at British Airways will testify to that!)

In fact, the Commission does have a point. We benefit from a VARIETY of different providers of television in competition with each other. The BBC is funded by the Licence Fee; ITV is funded by a few pennies on everything you buy in the shops (what, you thought that the advertising money came from the companies?); Sky and Virgin are funded directly – though they take some of those advertising pennies too.

That competition OUGHT to drive them to make BETTER programmes as they try to attract a TV audience that will justify the advertisers' investment / the licence fee money / the subscriptions of their viewers.

Sky's share in ITV – the Commission said – put them in a position to take advantage of a rival. They could sabotage deals for ITV to get better television (say, by seeing a bid for sports coverage before ITV could submit it and then topping it by a pound).

Not that they ever WOULD do such a thing, but the danger would have been there!

Those IMPARTIAL people at Virgin called for "strong penalties" to put an end to the "problem".

The case, though, has been referred to Mr Frown's Secretary of State for Tripe and Infamy, Mr John Hutton (dressed as Lamb).

I am sure that Mr Moredick will want to clear up any UNCERTAINTY that this might cause – especially with the possibility of a General Election so soon! No doubt he and the government will be able to WORK SOMETHING OUT.

So long as the Competition Commission's BARK is – like the Sabre-Toothed Cat Monster's – worse than it's BITE, Mr Moredick is bound to remain the KING of the BEASTS.

Day 2464: DOCTOR WHO: Stink of the Zygons

Monday:


I hope you all watched part two of Sarah Jane Smith's adventures this week – even if you already watched it the first time! Daddy will be reviewing the second story next week, but in the meanwhile, I have given him some light reading to get though

Spoilers, as ever, may follow…

There's nothing that's intrinsically wrong with this book. Steve Cole, who has written several times for the New Doctor Who books already ("The Monsters Inside", "The Feast of the Drowned" and "The Art of Destruction"), is accomplished as a writer with a relaxed style that generally carries the story along at a reasonable pace. There are the appropriate twists and spills along the way, one or two clever enough to surprise me.

The question really is what's if for?

Visually, the Zygons are very interesting, with their knobbly orange shapes and organic crystallography (i.e. in practice squishy) technology they would be a great addition to the New Series and are often highly placed in "which monster should return" polls. Plus they are a favourite of David Tennant. But as written motivations go, they are your pretty bog-standard "we want to take over the world just because…" invaders.

Of their unique selling points, one – we steal human shapes, you know – has already been nicked by the Slitheen, and the other – we've got a huge aquatic dinosaur, you know – is going to look out of place anywhere OTHER than Loch Ness.

It strikes me that there are at most three interesting stories to be told about the Zygons – one, what actually happened back on their home world (I call it Zygospore, but I don't think anyone else does); two, how did they end up coming to Earth and or what made them stay; and three, what's going to happen in a few centuries' time when the rest of the Zygon fleet turns up? One is essentially a tragic morality tale of global calamity; another is an "…and the Silurians"-like story of advanced aliens trying to survive surrounded by dangerous barbaric humans; the third is "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" or, since it's a future with gloomy replicants, "Blade Runner".

What we actually get is just a rerun of "Terror of the Zygons". The setting is shifted to the Lake District and the Laird is swapped for a Lord, but essentially the plot motifs are all the same. Zygon spaceship, last refugees from dying planet, intend to Terraform… well, Zygoform really… the Earth into a swampy new home, look out for the big, scary monster and the bleepy-bleepy control device.

Although the Doctor goes to some trouble to flag up the previous continuity – entirely unnecessary these days when he universally knows everything about every alien he encounters whether or not the audience have ever heard of them – the story makes no effort to segue into the television version.

On telly, Broton, Warlord of the Zygon, claims that his people have been on Earth for Centuries and clearly they've been letting their own Skarasen beast out for a swim as it's been sighted as the famous monster enough times. Several Skarasen sightings going back over a hundred years are mentioned in "Terror of the Zygons". In which case, why do Brelarn Warlord of the Zygons and his Lake Distract lot not notice another Zygon ship on Earth when they arrive? Are Broton and Brelarn just not talking? Why don't their "trilanic activators" attract each other's Skarasen? (Broton uses one to lure the monster from Loch Ness all the way to London, so the Lake District is certainly within range.)

The logical way out of all this would be to make "Sting of the Zygons" a prequel to "Terror of the Zygons". With Brelarn dead, I expected one of his young Zygon-lings to turn out to be junior Broton and we would have him the other survivors up sticks and move to Loch Ness at the end. That might contradict those minor Skarasen sightings, but you could fudge round that.

Alas no. At least there are survivors (unlike in the other failed Zygon novel "The Body Snatchers") but they depart in their space ship with fuel enough for just one trip… not to another planet, as I first thought, but, it turns out, to no further than the north or south poles. Bizarre, given that the Zygons obviously prefer a warm and wet climate (perhaps the Doctor tipped them off about global warming), and again still easily detectible by Broton's lot.

Does any of this matter? Well, it just makes it all seem a bit pointless. The monsters could as easily be the Slitheen or the Rutans, or even the Daleks using Dalek duplicates.

Like the Daleks, Brelarn can't resist trying to combine a desperate survival mission with overthrowing the rulers of the world. Going ahead with a plan to replace Asquith and the British Cabinet while at the same time trying to regain control of your Skarasen is, frankly, barmy. The Zygons are so low on rations – they rely on the Skarasen for food as well as defence – that there are already mutinies breaking out, but Brelarn wants to continue with a complex imposture and assassination ploy. To quote Broton: “You’re utterly unhinged. Must be.”

There's a short-lived interesting set-up question "what could kill a Skarasen?" – yes, there are two of them, just to outdo the TV budget, though "The Body Snatchers" went for several of them rampaging through Victorian London, oh how we forget. Unfortunately, the (much more interesting) idea of getting caught in a cross-fire between two powerful and desperate alien races is quickly ditched, and the answer is no more than "a badly tuned diastellic circuit". One bad headache and BANG-pop dead Skarasen.

In fact, the nuclear-missile-proof monsters never prove to be much of a threat, since the living one remains hidden in the forest until the Doctor gets it under control. It wakes up at the end, growls a bit – okay, it eats Brelarn, but he deserves it by that point – then takes fright at it's dead relative and swims off, never to be seen again. The creature's potential for devastation ought to be the ultimate, unthinkable threat in the story – but then if you let one off the leash in Earth's history it's going to cause so much damage that it would be ludicrous for it not to be remembered. Again, read "The Body Snatchers" if you must.

Oh, and technically this means that – post "Terror of the Zygons" there are now two of them swimming around. Good job the Zygons's reliance on the Skarasen's "lactic fluid" means they must both be ladies, eh.


On a more prosaic level, the Doctor is very well written, recognisably played by David Tennant, even when he isn't the Doctor, if you see what I mean. Unsurprisingly, the Doctor turns out to have the super-power of resistance to the lethal Zygon Sting. ("I'm not human" – yeah, yeah one of these days you'll be poisoned by an aspirin, you know). Heroic guest-child Ian Lunn is pretty well written too, in an Enid Blyton kind of way. Most of the adult characters suffer slightly from the sense that they are slightly trying to be sinister as they are either Zygons disguised as humans or human red-herrings trying to fool you that they might be Zygons. There is, for example, no particular reason why car-and-hunting enthusiast Victor Merridith seems to have a suspicious rendezvous with the wife of missing Sir Albert Morton.

And unfortunately, Martha Jones doesn't entirely spring off the page, either. The wonderfully ebullient, sarcastic, enthusiastic performance of Freema Agyeman, just doesn't entirely come across. To be fair, the book had to be written before the third series aired, so no doubt Stephen was writing from scripts and maybe early sight of "Smith and Jones".

There is slightly too heavy a reliance on quoting the television, too – not just an "Allons-y" and an "I'm sorry, I'm so sorry", but a lot of familiar lines from, unsurprisingly "Terror of the Zygons" too. "Organic crystallography – I'm always underestimating that!" Once again, ha so very ha.

It is a nice pun when the reveal is made that it's all been a con, hence "Sting" of the Zygons. But frankly it's a waste of the set-up, and it's not even that good a con.

It is a nice reveal when it turns out that Zygons can disguise themselves as animals as well as humans, it is subtly clued up – yes, I did spot it, but it was with satisfaction at the pay-off. But again, if the USP of the Zygons is that they are really rather good at impersonating people then the story would do better to focus on the "anyone could be a Zygon" angle. It only really does that once.

So, regrettably, it's another wasted opportunity for the best monsters never to get a comeback story. No one learns anything from this adventure – not the characters and not the readers: at least "Terror of the Zygons" was making a point about the world being a fragile resource and dependence on oil not being so very clever either. It's a romp, and there's nothing intrinsically wrong with it… but couldn't we expect something a bit more?

Day 2463: A Diamond Gone Forever

Sunday:


We were sad to hear that the original Miss Moneypenny, Ms Lois Maxwell, has died at the age of eighty.

We were watching "Diamonds are Forever", interrupted by a telephone call, when we heard the news. It seemed sadly apt.

She won a Golden Globe while appearing with Ms Shirley Temple and had a small role in the notorious "Bedtime for Bonzo" (it stared Mr Ronald Raygun and a Chimpanzee – one of them would go on to become President of America).

She was the voice of Atlanta in Gerry Anderson's "Stingray" and played a Nun-with-a-Gun in "The Avengers" (working for a "bishop" played by Mr David Bauer, who would later be Mr Morton Slumber in "Diamonds are Forever") but she will always be remembered for creating (along with Mr Bernard Lee's "M" and Mr Desmond Llewellyn's "Q") one of the three central supporting roles of the James Bond films.

Originally from Canada, Ms Maxwell first came to Great Britain during the World War Part II. She had run away, aged only 15, to join up and become part of the Army Entertainment Corps but her age had been discovered and she was in danger of court marshal and repatriation to Canada when she managed to secure a place at the Royal Academy of Dramatic Arts. In fact, she sneaked off AWOL in order to attend the audition.

In 1961 she twisted director Mr Terence Young's arm to get a role in the first James Bond movie, Dr No. He owed her a favour and offered her a choice – she plumbed for the more demure, if less well paid, Miss Moneypenny over the role of possibly recurring girlfriend Ms Sylvia Trench. Good choice – Ms Sylvia was unceremoniously dropped after only two movies; Miss Moneypenny appears in EVERY James Bond film except the most recent and for fourteen of those flicks she is realised by Ms Lois.

She managed to imbue a whole relationship between her character and that of Mr James in only a few moments of screen time, so that people remembered her far beyond the actual SIZE of the role.

In later years she tried to persuade the Bond producers that it was time for a female "M". Eventually they agreed with her, but sadly they went and cast Dame Judi Dench instead. Not that Ms Dame Judi isn't TOTALLY WONDERFUL, but it would have been a SPECIAL CHARM to see a new Mr James taking orders from an old friend: "M" for "Moneypenny".

As well as her onscreen performance, we have recently been listening to her engaging and heart-warming contributions to the cast and crew commentaries on my new Ultimate James Bond DVDs. Now, those stories will be tinged with more sadness as the last of those three greats in no longer with us.

Although two more actresses have succeeded her in the role, Ms Caroline Bliss and the almost-as-super-as-Ms-Lois Ms Samantha Bond (saucier than Ms Lois, but up to date and stronger), Miss Moneypenny will be forever associated with Ms Lois. It was a role she made her own: the Property of a Lady.