Saturday:
People seem to have forgotten – in the face of the Prime Monster's now-you-see-it-now-you-don't General Election – that Mr Balloon spent last year working up a reputation as a FLIP-FLOP-FOP, with such masterpieces as being against and then for Grandma schools and for and then against Hugging of Hoodies.
He's now come out AGAINST the government's policy of supporting the Northern Rock, even though he was previously FOR it.
In Prime Monster's Questionable Time, he accused Mr Frown of "DITHER AND DELAY!" not once, but three times.
The Conservatory Policy on Northern Rock will be announced, er, sometime later this week.
The Liberal Democrats, as you know, have been calling for the Rock to be taken into temporary public ownership since November. This is not a "good" solution, because governments are NEVER any good at running businesses: the 1970s saw THAT theory tested to destruction. However, it does secure public control over the company's assets against which so very much of our money has been loaned.
Admittedly, this would see the shareholders lose out, which is a SHAME. Except some of the larger shareholders are Hedge Funds who jumped in AFTER the bank's share price crashed, buying up stock dirt cheap in the hope of making a killing if the Bank of England came to the rescue. Which it did.
Anyway, isn't the POINT of investing in shares that you get a better return in exchange for taking a RISK? If the government is going to guarantee you NO risk, then isn't that getting money for NOTHING – and at the taxpayers' expense! No, if you wanted a SAFE return, then you should have put the money in a bank… which, ironically, the government would NOT have promised to bail out if it got into trouble. There is something wrong with this system.
Speaking to "The Week in Politics" Mr John Deadwood, chair of the Conservatory review group for benefiting stinking rich city types said that the Conservatories would reject all forms of nationalisation. His solution, he said, was for the Bank of England to show a bit more banking common sense before handing out great big loans like this.
Which isn't a terribly PRACTICAL solution as the Bank has ALREADY given them the money. Mr Deadwood may be caught in a TIME LOOP but for the rest of us that decision has been and gone.
So, that's the Conservatories without a policy. No change there. What about the Labour?
Well, Chancellor Sooty has announced what he has been told to do by Mr Frown (speaking to him from India on his Virgin Mobile roaming tariff).
He's going to have Northern Rock issue government backed-bonds. That means that the stock market will buy some and maybe eventually all of the debt, paying back the taxpayer. Unless the bankrupt bank defaults on the loan, in which case the taxpayer picks the tab right back up again. Fortunately it is very rare for a bank not to be able to pay its debts, and the only recent example is the… oh dear.
Add to that, Chancellor Sooty is going to take a "shareholding" in the Rock so that the public can "benefit" should the bank recover and he'll insist on having a say in who goes on the Board of Directors. So, basically all the WORST aspects of nationalisation – government ministers tinkering in the boardroom; the taxpayer taking the risk of losses – without the advantage of actually securing the loan against something.
Still, at least – like the Conservatories – the Labour can claim to be BUTCH against NATIONALISATION. Even when it might be in everybody's interest.
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Day 2573: Chinese Takeaway
Friday
From Tiananmen Square, that huge, implacable face stared out at us – yes it was Mr Huw Edwards doing a BBC News report, live from China as Mr Frown flew in to ask, very nicely, if we couldn't have some jobs please.
Chairman Frown
There is a NEW formula, nowadays, for talking to the People's Republic of China – avoid all talk of PEOPLE. And anything to do with being a REPUBLIC. And don't call them CHINA either – it's Chung Kuo.
Anyway, apparently it is OKAY to talk about global warming – that way you can be mildly CRITICAL and they can say "ahh, but we are improving and anyway, you did all this first". What you MUST NOT do is mention human rights, because they are not interested and frankly they think we have got to be kidding anyway what with our record of Guantanamo Bay, Abu Grahib, rendition flights and Celine Dion.
President Sarcastic of France kept to this formula, and managed to flog a whole load of ATOMIC POWER STATIONS as a result. The Monkey-in-Chief went and talked to the Dalai Lama and since then the Chinese have CRUSHED HIS CURRENCY like a bird's nest in soup.
Great Britain, of course, has a LONG history of FRIENDSHIP with the region, going back to the Boxer Rebellion and the Opium Wars. Er… they probably won't remember that though, will they?
For us in the West, Human Rights in the Middle Kingdom remain a VEXED and COMPLICATED question. We cannot just IGNORE them as we have in the past and pretend that they are some poor country cousin, especially as they grow in POWER, both diplomatically and, perhaps more importantly, financially.
Because, although remaining "communist" in name – in fact the Communist Party has basically replaced the old Imperial Bureaucracy, a sort of bizarre feudal meritocracy-cum-corruptocracy – the truth is that the PRC government has changed its policies considerably since the 1970s, and particularly since the economic powerhouse that is Hong Kong was absorbed back into the Republic in 1999.
However, that financial success may in fact be the key, as a burgeoning middle class, with higher income levels and better, broader education may lead to more freedom of thought in the East just as it did – eventually – in the West.
From Tiananmen Square, that huge, implacable face stared out at us – yes it was Mr Huw Edwards doing a BBC News report, live from China as Mr Frown flew in to ask, very nicely, if we couldn't have some jobs please.
Chairman Frown
There is a NEW formula, nowadays, for talking to the People's Republic of China – avoid all talk of PEOPLE. And anything to do with being a REPUBLIC. And don't call them CHINA either – it's Chung Kuo.
Anyway, apparently it is OKAY to talk about global warming – that way you can be mildly CRITICAL and they can say "ahh, but we are improving and anyway, you did all this first". What you MUST NOT do is mention human rights, because they are not interested and frankly they think we have got to be kidding anyway what with our record of Guantanamo Bay, Abu Grahib, rendition flights and Celine Dion.
President Sarcastic of France kept to this formula, and managed to flog a whole load of ATOMIC POWER STATIONS as a result. The Monkey-in-Chief went and talked to the Dalai Lama and since then the Chinese have CRUSHED HIS CURRENCY like a bird's nest in soup.
Great Britain, of course, has a LONG history of FRIENDSHIP with the region, going back to the Boxer Rebellion and the Opium Wars. Er… they probably won't remember that though, will they?
For us in the West, Human Rights in the Middle Kingdom remain a VEXED and COMPLICATED question. We cannot just IGNORE them as we have in the past and pretend that they are some poor country cousin, especially as they grow in POWER, both diplomatically and, perhaps more importantly, financially.
Because, although remaining "communist" in name – in fact the Communist Party has basically replaced the old Imperial Bureaucracy, a sort of bizarre feudal meritocracy-cum-corruptocracy – the truth is that the PRC government has changed its policies considerably since the 1970s, and particularly since the economic powerhouse that is Hong Kong was absorbed back into the Republic in 1999.
However, that financial success may in fact be the key, as a burgeoning middle class, with higher income levels and better, broader education may lead to more freedom of thought in the East just as it did – eventually – in the West.
Friday, January 18, 2008
Day 2570: The Bongs of War aka They Think It's All Over
Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and indeed Thursday:
Here is the News at Ten: Bong! We're scuppered!
It seems that ITVnone's new CGI Bongs – which we've managed to miss every night this week – were beaten by the BBC Ten O'Clock News on their first night
And on their second night.
And on their third night, by which point it was getting silly.
By the fourth night, no one cares anymore*, though the new news picks up a handsome lead in from the preceding drama (which comfortably beat the BBC's Fairy Tale). But they STILL didn't beat the Beeb for the news slot.
And tonight the BBC will take a win by DEFAULT what with ITVnone not thinking Friday's deserve proper news.
*as if they cared in the first place.
More importantly, a more SIGNIFICANT format war may be finally drawing to its close, with the announcement this month that Warner Bros. are dropping their support for the HD DVD, followed by the news in Variety that the last two Hollywood studios still backing HD DVD – Universal and, perhaps more importantly, Paramount with their still hugely powerful Star Trek franchise – are now pretty much released from their exclusive contracts.
Despite support remaining from the dear old BBC (and, er, naughty things) this looks like it may mean Blu-Ray wins by a FAIT ACOMPLIS.
Obviously, this is GOOD NEWS for me but less good for Daddy Richard who was just warming up to HD DVD's region free and better menu approach. Still, at least it means we can finally think about what new TELLY to get!
Here is the News at Ten: Bong! We're scuppered!
It seems that ITVnone's new CGI Bongs – which we've managed to miss every night this week – were beaten by the BBC Ten O'Clock News on their first night
And on their second night.
And on their third night, by which point it was getting silly.
By the fourth night, no one cares anymore*, though the new news picks up a handsome lead in from the preceding drama (which comfortably beat the BBC's Fairy Tale). But they STILL didn't beat the Beeb for the news slot.
And tonight the BBC will take a win by DEFAULT what with ITVnone not thinking Friday's deserve proper news.
*as if they cared in the first place.
More importantly, a more SIGNIFICANT format war may be finally drawing to its close, with the announcement this month that Warner Bros. are dropping their support for the HD DVD, followed by the news in Variety that the last two Hollywood studios still backing HD DVD – Universal and, perhaps more importantly, Paramount with their still hugely powerful Star Trek franchise – are now pretty much released from their exclusive contracts.
Despite support remaining from the dear old BBC (and, er, naughty things) this looks like it may mean Blu-Ray wins by a FAIT ACOMPLIS.
Obviously, this is GOOD NEWS for me but less good for Daddy Richard who was just warming up to HD DVD's region free and better menu approach. Still, at least it means we can finally think about what new TELLY to get!
Thursday, January 17, 2008
Day 2569: DOCTOR WHO: The Pirate Loop, by Mr Simon
Monday
Torchwood's back! So here's Daddy with some proper Doctor Who:
Torchwood's back! So here's Daddy with some proper Doctor Who:
First, a confession. Simon is a friend. That's why my name is included in the acknowledgements, much undeserved. Beyond consultation on one or two little points of science and continuity I didn't contribute nearly so much at all, unlike Alex who proof-read, argued points extensively and is certainly responsible for placing the Chapter One cliff-hanger (which is therefore obviously the best).
And for some reason Alex was very nervous about how I was going to react to the finished book. Which really was quite silly.
Because, obviously, it's brilliant.
"Brilliant" is ever so very much the word of choice for the Tenth Doctor. Much as everything was "fantastic" for the Eccleston incarnation, Tennant is always boggling with delight and finding things "just brilliant". So when Martha finds it ridiculously funny to hear of the lost Starship Brilliant, we completely empathise with her. And so, after one of those – excuse me – brilliant openings where you come in at the end of a different adventure, Martha persuades the Doctor to take her to discover whatever happened to make it disappear.
Anyone still feeling depressed after the near total slaughter of the Starship Titanic at Christmas needs to go out and buy this book at once. While still managing to touch many of the same dark places, "The Pirate Loop" manages to finish with a triumphant success, rather than mere dispirited survival.
Sure, you're going to find yourself on board a wrecked Starship full of upper-class passengers, heroic-looking crew and dire peril, and sure there's going to be a TARDIS crash and hull breaches and dastardliness, but really this is nothing like Russell T Davies' Christmas disaster. Er movie.
A Pirate Loop is, in case you don't know, a Time Loop full of pirates. Oh, all right, it's also a single earring made of gold and worn so that if you end up dead your pirate mates can sell it to buy you a funeral, and there's a rather sly gag about them that probably deserves more prominence, but instead is just joyfully slipped in to get if you notice it.
And these pirates are, it goes without saying, Badgers. Oh, the discussions about homo sapiens sapiens meles meles meles we had. Personally, I say that since they're genetically engineered then they're human. Well, human-ish, anyway. Homo meliform Guerriensi, something like that. They're totally lovable; murderous, but totally loveable – basically naughty children who've never been taught any better and this is, at heart a book about how the Doctor gives them the chance to learn. And you can't knock a teaching exercise that relies on everlasting cheese and pineapple on sticks.
In many ways, Simon catches the spirit of Douglas Adams in a way that Russell's more conscious lift of "Starship Titanic" does not.
Rather than trying for Douggie Adams style jokes, in the way for example that Jonathan Morris has tried, it's about capturing the essence, the bouquet of Adams.
This is a book that is – and I mean this in entirely the best way – ineffably silly.
The ship's robots insist on being as polite as possible. The passengers, though posh, are charmingly alien – described as "family of Mr Tickle," you immediately know what they look like without any tedious comparison with some Earth animal (and in fact anything that looks like it comes from Earth in this book probably does, and it's a plot point). And there's that Time Loop that insists on tidying everything up. And on doing it discreetly. Even the view – of the Ogidi Galaxy – is vaguely Adams-esque.
But more than anything it's in the use of almost-but-not-entirely-implausible science that Simon catches this mood. It's almost impossible not to think of the Starship Brilliant's new reality-bending experimental drive system without expecting it to avoid all of that tedious mucking about in hyperspace. And the way that all these things interact to direct the way that the Time Loop works – because it is being directed by the polite ship it keeps bringing everyone back to life, but only when no one is looking – is an idea as (sorry again) brilliant as the Somebody Else's Problem field or the Babelfish.
One thing Alex talked me out of having a frothing fit over was interstitial scrambled egg. And you know, in this fictional environment I think I can live with it. There's an internal analogy: when the Starship Brilliant is damaged it is designed to fill up the gaps with strawberry jam; when the Time Vortex is damaged, it is designed to fill in the gaps with scrambled egg.
I suppose that it ought to be obvious, but increasing I think that the secret of writing a good BBC Doctor Who novel is to get the Doctor and Martha right. If you can read them off the page and it sounds like David Tennant and Freema Agyeman are talking inside your head then almost inevitably the rest will follow. Yet it is much harder to catch these multi-faceted characters than at first it appears: Martha is ironic but not world-weary, she likes to see the funny side but also expects responsibility, and she wants to make things better almost more than the Doctor does. Tennant's Doctor is really quite complicated, capable of naïve humour and great anger, and sometimes almost seems to have no conception of memory – a clever flag that there are so many things that he is trying not to remember. All of this comes over at different moments in "The Pirate Loop", and it still sounds like the right cadences of the actors' delivery.
The other main characters all come across well, though perhaps the human crew are – understandably – a little sketchy, while the passengers who aren't Mrs Wingsworth are virtually silhouettes. But Mrs Wingsworth is a gem, and the three hero badgers are all well-rounded and interesting and credible as intelligent fourteen-year-olds. Alex has told me several times that he now wants a series of adventures with Archie and Mrs Wingsworth as the Doctor's companions. In fact all of the badgers, once we get to see more of them, are equally real and well-written.
Combining creativity and daftness at this level is way beyond what the new series does, though ironically the Who that I am most reminded of is the Cartmel era's zany graphic-novel approach. In some ways this is closer to the intelligent script mixed with psychedelia of something like "The Happiness Patrol" than the BBC's current live-action cartoon. And it would work rather well as three 25-minute episodes too.
The first third of the book is full of charming whimsy, with Martha and the Doctor separated in separate time zones thanks to (a) aforementioned scrambled egg or (b) crashed into a time loop malarkey. This allows you to try and puzzle out what is going on by showing you the situation from two rather different perspectives. We are also introduced to most of the main cast: Gabriel the robot; Mrs Wingsworth representing the passengers; and the pirates, of whom only three have managed to get aboard – Dash, Joss and Archie. Humour, drama and irony are all generated by the duality of the Doctor and Martha's discoveries, but you couldn't keep that up forever, and thankfully Simon doesn't try, reuniting our heroes after what would make a gripping end to a first episode.
The centre of the book shifts to a new challenge as the Doctor urgently needs to get to the bridge and there we meet the crew of human beautiful people. I probably have to mention that names like Georgina Wet-Eleven are a bit more "Year Five Billion" than fortieth century*, but never mind that, because this is where the heart of the novel comes: our teenage pirates have started to learn manners. It should be pointed out that Mrs Wingsworth also comes to learn some of her flaws and strengths too, though mainly not until later – here she's still thinking she's superior to the badgers, in spite of some sly commentary from the Doctor. But the scenes on the bridge, where the badger pirates have clearly "turned good" are a joy. Particularly once the Doctor has taken the upper hand. And, most importantly, it's from one of the pirates, Archie, that the Doctor gets the really magnificently clever idea of what he's going to do next.
[* though I loved, absolutely loved that "pirates" gets treated as a motif of the year nearly 4000 – remember, we've already had "The Resurrection Casket" and "The Infinite Quest" playing the pirate card and set in this just-before-The-Daleks'-Master-Plan time zone.]
In the final part of the book, it appears that the Doctor has made one heck of a colossal blunder. This is the darkest, and most disturbing part of the story – reminiscent, with its time-twisting and saving people you were lead to believe were dead, of the third (and superior) Harry Potter (and the Prisoner of Azkaban, as if you didn't know). Embarrassingly, I must confess I didn't work it out until we were aboard the pirates' pirate ship. I won’t spoil all of the conclusion, though; only to say that for a story set in a Time Loop it is remarkably open-ended.
Mind you, I'm still not sure that mini-pizzas and blinis are one and the same thing!
Here's to the never-ending canapés.
Unashamedly: brilliant.
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
Day 2568: The Faces of Mr Balloon
Sunday:
Mr Balloon demands that Beige-Basted Bumbler Mr Peter Vain explain his £100,000 error or resign.
Mr Balloon says that penny-whistle pixie Mr Gideon Oboe has nothing to explain about his £500,000 error and we should move on.
Is the Conservatory leader REALLY such a DUNDERHEAD that he did not realise that these two stories would be conflated in every news summary for the rest of the day?
Mr Balloon demands that Beige-Basted Bumbler Mr Peter Vain explain his £100,000 error or resign.
Mr Balloon says that penny-whistle pixie Mr Gideon Oboe has nothing to explain about his £500,000 error and we should move on.
Is the Conservatory leader REALLY such a DUNDERHEAD that he did not realise that these two stories would be conflated in every news summary for the rest of the day?
Day 2567: A Society Willing to Take Risks
Saturday:
"A Society Willing to Take Risks" was the phrase used by Councillor Cathy Bakewell in her response to the challenges and opportunities for the Liberal Democrats.
Wouldn't it be FANTASTIC to see that on a MANIFESTO? It would scare the PANTS off the other Parties! Fewer rules; less nannying: what WOULD they do?
We'd already heard from Mr Clogg, a good speech with a couple of "sharp intake of breath" moments from the audience. But you know all that, because it was in the news. What you REALLY want to know is how we go forwards from here.
And this was why we'd gone along to the Liberal Democrats' Mini Manifesto Conference, where we all got to take part, listen and contribute our own ideas back again. There were also a dozen parallel sessions to choose from, so we couldn't go to them all. (I decided to send my daddies along to hear about how to sell PR in the morning and to see Mr Brian and discuss policies for London in the afternoon.)
But the morning was very much given over to the "where do we go from here" question, and we were joined by two guests from outside the Party to give us an alternative perspective.
Mr Matthew Anaconda opened by referring us to this article in the Sunday Telegraph by Auntie Maude and Mr Steven Dorrell. (Though it is possible that this is something he's referred to before!)
It's an analysis that sees us as having SUPPLANTED the Conservatories as the voice of opposition to the Labour across Urban Britain; AND become the anti-Conservatory vote of choice in rural communities.
Crucially, it identifies the STRENGTHS of the Liberal Democrats as seen from the Conservatory perspective: authentic, credible, achievable policies in areas that matter to people coupled with sounding "as though [we] approve of the modern world, and are glad [we] are living in the 21st century. Too often their Conservative counterparts look and sound as though we regard the modern world as an aberration and look forward to the restoration of a lost golden age."
Similarly, went on Mr Anaconda, Dr Vince managed to define himself as the "voice of the public", the "normal person" puncturing the frothing hatred of the grudge match between Mr Frown and Mr Balloon.
The opportunity for the Liberals is to be the AUTHENTIC party: we mean it, and we're not being opportunist; we are listening to the public; and most of all we look like we can achieve it.
He suggests that our TONE needs to be pragmatic, and our POLITICS needs to be personal, about closing the GULF between the citizen as "consumer" and the public services as "provider". At the moment, he suggested, too many people are left to take what they are given by health services, police or schools while the rich operate the "politics of secession" and opt out of the system, often literally shutting themselves off behind walls and fences.
Mr Frown and Mr Balloon, he said, are LENINISTS. They are in favour of centralisation NOW, in order to achieve decentralisation LATER… maybe.
So, Mr Anaconda wants us to be the radical liberation front, making the public services more responsive in the way that we are used to from online and telephone direct companies, breaking up the state's monopoly of control in order to find opportunities for new providers to give a better service.
Now my thought is that this is all very well but it doesn't half sound like the "Producer Choice" idea that Mr Davros Birt brought to the BBC in the nineties. In this model, the BBC is the public service provider, contracting out the provision of actual services (in this case television programmes) to independent producers. It caused one heck of a fuss and ruined a lot of television for ages until Mr Greg Dyke came along and spent an awful lot of money putting it right. Now you need to ask yourself: does the BBC's current creative high come out of the pains (and the freedoms) of Producer Choice or out of what Mr Greg did to fix it?
After this we heard from Professor John Curtis, who is a top PSEPHOLOGIST or "Opinion Poll Dancer". According to him, in 2005 the Liberal Democrats showed that, against the popular belief, we COULD do well against an incumbent government of the LABOUR. He suggests THREE key ingredients: first, to be CLOSE enough to the government to appeal to the people who supported that government; second, to have a CRITIQUE of where that government has gone wrong; and third to have solutions that are DISTINCT to those on offer from the unprincipled principal opposition.
The Iraq War was of course the example that he gave: the Labour's supporters thought that it was WRONG, they saw that we said so too and that the Conservatories had backed the war. So voters chose to switch to the Liberal Democrats.
Although he did not spell it out, clearly Prof Curtis was hinting that our CURRENT position does NOT satisfy his three conditions. Mainly, I suspect, because shifty Mr Balloon has moved perceptions of the Conservatory position – on the environment, on taxation, on public services reform, on civil liberties – so that we no longer have that vital THIRD point, a policy distinct from the Opposition.
A limited Conservatory revival at the Labour's expense could actually be good for us – especially if a Hung Parliament is the outcome. But a Conservatory revival at OUR expense, which is what we have had in the last year, is always going to be BAD!
Looking to the future, Prof Curtis said that the Leadership election will probably have put many of our difficulties behind us, but that we need to recognise that in the meantime the Conservatories have got back into business in a BIG way, and that Iraq is now a dying issue.
But, that the issue of ECONOMIC COMPETENCE may be our new trump card. Take, for example, the Northern Rock issue – there we have a solid criticism of the government's failure, but our policy (short term nationalisation) is completely different to the Conservatories. And also, Master Gideon is a nincompoop.
Now, it is easy to see how this analysis ties into our developing narrative of being the ANTI-ESTABLISHMENT Party, the ones on the OUTSIDE of the Cosy Conservatory Consensus between Mr Balloon and the Labour government.
But, on the other fluffy foot, I think that Professor Curtis has limited himself to a rather BI-POLAR sort of thinking.
Liberalism is NOT just about hugging close to one or other of the OLD parties on the OLD left-right spectrum.
Liberalism, localism, is about putting decisions into the hands of people, and that is where we come back to our title: "A Society Willing to Take Risks". It IS a risk, because you will get different outcomes in different places. But it's also EMPOWERMENT and FREEDOM for those people. Without risk, our children are mollycoddled, our creativity is stunted and our enthusiasm is crushed. Centralisers like Mr Balloon and Mr Frown talk about a "postcode lottery" to try and FRIGHTEN you all into having every outcome THE SAME.
It wasn't until the END of the day that we heard the ANSWER: a LOTTERY is when you take your ticket and then have NO CHOICE but to take what you are given; LOCALISM is where you TAKE CHARGE, and rather than accepting what you are given, you DETERMINE what you end up with.
"A Society Willing to Take Risks" was the phrase used by Councillor Cathy Bakewell in her response to the challenges and opportunities for the Liberal Democrats.
Wouldn't it be FANTASTIC to see that on a MANIFESTO? It would scare the PANTS off the other Parties! Fewer rules; less nannying: what WOULD they do?
We'd already heard from Mr Clogg, a good speech with a couple of "sharp intake of breath" moments from the audience. But you know all that, because it was in the news. What you REALLY want to know is how we go forwards from here.
And this was why we'd gone along to the Liberal Democrats' Mini Manifesto Conference, where we all got to take part, listen and contribute our own ideas back again. There were also a dozen parallel sessions to choose from, so we couldn't go to them all. (I decided to send my daddies along to hear about how to sell PR in the morning and to see Mr Brian and discuss policies for London in the afternoon.)
But the morning was very much given over to the "where do we go from here" question, and we were joined by two guests from outside the Party to give us an alternative perspective.
Mr Matthew Anaconda opened by referring us to this article in the Sunday Telegraph by Auntie Maude and Mr Steven Dorrell. (Though it is possible that this is something he's referred to before!)
It's an analysis that sees us as having SUPPLANTED the Conservatories as the voice of opposition to the Labour across Urban Britain; AND become the anti-Conservatory vote of choice in rural communities.
Crucially, it identifies the STRENGTHS of the Liberal Democrats as seen from the Conservatory perspective: authentic, credible, achievable policies in areas that matter to people coupled with sounding "as though [we] approve of the modern world, and are glad [we] are living in the 21st century. Too often their Conservative counterparts look and sound as though we regard the modern world as an aberration and look forward to the restoration of a lost golden age."
Similarly, went on Mr Anaconda, Dr Vince managed to define himself as the "voice of the public", the "normal person" puncturing the frothing hatred of the grudge match between Mr Frown and Mr Balloon.
The opportunity for the Liberals is to be the AUTHENTIC party: we mean it, and we're not being opportunist; we are listening to the public; and most of all we look like we can achieve it.
He suggests that our TONE needs to be pragmatic, and our POLITICS needs to be personal, about closing the GULF between the citizen as "consumer" and the public services as "provider". At the moment, he suggested, too many people are left to take what they are given by health services, police or schools while the rich operate the "politics of secession" and opt out of the system, often literally shutting themselves off behind walls and fences.
Mr Frown and Mr Balloon, he said, are LENINISTS. They are in favour of centralisation NOW, in order to achieve decentralisation LATER… maybe.
So, Mr Anaconda wants us to be the radical liberation front, making the public services more responsive in the way that we are used to from online and telephone direct companies, breaking up the state's monopoly of control in order to find opportunities for new providers to give a better service.
Now my thought is that this is all very well but it doesn't half sound like the "Producer Choice" idea that Mr Davros Birt brought to the BBC in the nineties. In this model, the BBC is the public service provider, contracting out the provision of actual services (in this case television programmes) to independent producers. It caused one heck of a fuss and ruined a lot of television for ages until Mr Greg Dyke came along and spent an awful lot of money putting it right. Now you need to ask yourself: does the BBC's current creative high come out of the pains (and the freedoms) of Producer Choice or out of what Mr Greg did to fix it?
After this we heard from Professor John Curtis, who is a top PSEPHOLOGIST or "Opinion Poll Dancer". According to him, in 2005 the Liberal Democrats showed that, against the popular belief, we COULD do well against an incumbent government of the LABOUR. He suggests THREE key ingredients: first, to be CLOSE enough to the government to appeal to the people who supported that government; second, to have a CRITIQUE of where that government has gone wrong; and third to have solutions that are DISTINCT to those on offer from the unprincipled principal opposition.
The Iraq War was of course the example that he gave: the Labour's supporters thought that it was WRONG, they saw that we said so too and that the Conservatories had backed the war. So voters chose to switch to the Liberal Democrats.
Although he did not spell it out, clearly Prof Curtis was hinting that our CURRENT position does NOT satisfy his three conditions. Mainly, I suspect, because shifty Mr Balloon has moved perceptions of the Conservatory position – on the environment, on taxation, on public services reform, on civil liberties – so that we no longer have that vital THIRD point, a policy distinct from the Opposition.
A limited Conservatory revival at the Labour's expense could actually be good for us – especially if a Hung Parliament is the outcome. But a Conservatory revival at OUR expense, which is what we have had in the last year, is always going to be BAD!
Looking to the future, Prof Curtis said that the Leadership election will probably have put many of our difficulties behind us, but that we need to recognise that in the meantime the Conservatories have got back into business in a BIG way, and that Iraq is now a dying issue.
But, that the issue of ECONOMIC COMPETENCE may be our new trump card. Take, for example, the Northern Rock issue – there we have a solid criticism of the government's failure, but our policy (short term nationalisation) is completely different to the Conservatories. And also, Master Gideon is a nincompoop.
Now, it is easy to see how this analysis ties into our developing narrative of being the ANTI-ESTABLISHMENT Party, the ones on the OUTSIDE of the Cosy Conservatory Consensus between Mr Balloon and the Labour government.
But, on the other fluffy foot, I think that Professor Curtis has limited himself to a rather BI-POLAR sort of thinking.
Liberalism is NOT just about hugging close to one or other of the OLD parties on the OLD left-right spectrum.
Liberalism, localism, is about putting decisions into the hands of people, and that is where we come back to our title: "A Society Willing to Take Risks". It IS a risk, because you will get different outcomes in different places. But it's also EMPOWERMENT and FREEDOM for those people. Without risk, our children are mollycoddled, our creativity is stunted and our enthusiasm is crushed. Centralisers like Mr Balloon and Mr Frown talk about a "postcode lottery" to try and FRIGHTEN you all into having every outcome THE SAME.
It wasn't until the END of the day that we heard the ANSWER: a LOTTERY is when you take your ticket and then have NO CHOICE but to take what you are given; LOCALISM is where you TAKE CHARGE, and rather than accepting what you are given, you DETERMINE what you end up with.
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Day 2566: The Mayoral Debate: Soap and Flannel
Friday:
Oh dear, a DREADFUL confession: we have been watching ITVnone, Britain's Tackiest TV channel.
It would be nice to say that it was ONLY to watch the debate between Mr Brian, our top quality candidate for Mayor of London, and that pair of ASBO-monkeys from the other parties.
But NO, we have been having a bit of a Ben Millar-fest too, with the return of schlocky Doctor Who wannabe "Primeval" and of course ITV's new Fourth Wall Bulldozer: "Moving Wallpaper/Echo Beach", hilarious in the way that Mr Sorkin's "Studio 60 on Sunset Strip" was meant to be (but wasn't).
"Studio 60" took most of the first episode to TEARFULLY remove the old producer of the show and woo in the series' real stars, Josh from The West Wing and the one from Friends who can act. "Moving Wallpaper" does this in ten seconds flat, and features the defenestrated ex-producer head butting a photograph of Mr Michael Grade and calling him abas bad word! This wins hands down. Instantly every Dr Who fan in the land loves it (and that's even before the two Doctor Who references in the second episode).
And, of course, unlike "Studio 60", "Moving Wallpaper" actually has the BOTTLE to show us what all the fuss has been about. And wisely rather than the show-within-the-show being the bestest bestest wittiest wisest comedy in the whole of cuddle town, it's a ghastly soap who plot and characters have all been entirely derailed by the producer's megalomania. Wise, and also brave!
The TRULY terrible thing – among MANY terrible things – about the 9.30 soap "Echo Beach" was the nagging worry that Mr Grade had succeeded in commissioning ANOTHER turkey of similar magnitude to the last time anyone tried to mix SUNSHINE into a British soap opera – I mean of course "Eldorado", anagrammatically if unkindly remembered as a "Real Dodo" – and the only way to save the channel from going onto the rocks was to apply heavy IRONY.
British people, famously, do not like their soaps to be "happy". EastEnders and Consternation Street vie to bring gales of misery down upon their inhabitants in between the reigns of terror of the local murderers. (At one point, I tell you, there were more SERIAL KILLERS than GAY DADDIES living in Consternation Street!) Sunshine is UNNATURAL in this context. Usually, the only way around this is by application of wall-to-wall Australian accents. And obviously – even if Jason of Jason'n'kylie wasn't in it – this is why the model for "Echo Beach" is meant to be "Neighbours" (although so far the production standards are managing to make "Home and Away" look CLASSY and "Hollyoaks in the City" look like DRAMA). With the exception of Mr Hugo Speer and (perhaps astonishingly) Mr Jason himself, no one up to and including Tiffany can actually act (though she can tremble a lower lip with the best of them). What you are left with is a load of what my disgusting daddies insist on calling "totty" in not very many clothes.
It ought to be TOTALLY UNWATCHABLE.
But you cannot escape from the awfully impressive cleverness of placing GIGANTIC AIR-QUOTES around the whole edifice through the addition of "behind the scenes" show "Echo Beach Confidential". Er, "Moving Wallpaper".
With more laugh-out-loud moments in the first ten minutes than in "Studio 60's" first ten EPISODES (literally: three!) it centres around Mr Ben as "Jonathan Pope" the "producer" of ITV's new "hit" soap. In the first episode he crushes a little girl under a stack of lobster pots, spends the design budget on his own office so announces that the surf shack will have to be derelict, and puts Tiffany in the pink dress to avoid "diva tendencies". I thought he was VERY funny. But having seen the second episode – when he beats up a CUDDLY PANDA – I now realise that he is the UTTERESTBAST BAD WORD on television! (I am sorry, Mr Charlie Brooker, your crown has been taken.)
The "clever clever" part, of course, is to spot which bits of "Moving Wallpaper" will appear in the subsequent episode of "Echo Beach". Little girl, derelict surf shack, pink dress and panda all do.
Although pitched as a "comedy drama", "Moving Wallpaper" is a SATIRE – satirising television production itself, and just as mercilessly as, for example, "The Thick of It" skewers the government. That is why it appeals to "smart alecs" like my Daddies. Then they watch "Echo Beach" to play "spot the jokes" and feel quite clever about this. People who do not like that sort of too-clever-by-halfness can skip it and watch "Echo Beach" IRONY-FREE.
This, I believe, is called a "double whammy"!
For genuinely BAD television, then, you had to wait for later in the evening.
The Mayoral "debate" on ITV's "London Talking" (presumably they couldn't afford the more iconic "London Calling") was BAD in all the ways you EXPECT ITV to be bad: cheap set, dreadful format, Blue Peter presenter being patronising to the viewers in exactly the way that she wouldn't be when playing with terrapins.
Each candidate gets to make a little speech, then they get cross-examined by the other candidates, then they take questions from the floor (where everyone wears a handy badge so you know they are all party supporters and you only get questions from the OTHER two parties).
But rather than taking turns at each stage, what they did was have Mr Brian do all three stages and then Mr Mayor Ken do all three and then Bonkers Boris do all three. It meant that it was more like watching three JOB INTERVIEWS rather than generating any sense of DEBATE between the candidates. MY suspicion is that this is because they could only afford one LECTERN!
Mr Brian was jolly good, in spite of this format not playing to his strengths. To see how good he REALLY is, you want to see him CHAIRING a meeting and fielding questions, often with a dryly WITTY response and always with the facts and policies at his fingertips. It is JOLLY IMPRESSIVE.
In the studio, he was not able to set the audience ALIGHT in the way that the two seasoned hacks were. That is his strength and his weakness – he is an ordinary person, with extraordinary talents. And not a huge gob with legs attached. (Also hair, if Boris.)
His best moments were when facing the audience, as he was able to make a real connection with them, even if they were supporters of his rivals. Possibly a note to the other parties: if you want to try and trip Mr Brian up, maybe best not to try to "surprise" him with details of his police career – he really was really, really good at that job, you know, and he WILL have answers.
The other candidates, though, were bad, and in quite different ways. The Mr Mayor started with a very GOOD pitch – no, really – "if you think I've not improved London then don't vote for me". The problem was he was REALLY cross-patchy if anyone actually referred to his record – promises that haven't been met, opinions that have been switched. At one stage he was asked why he had said a mayor should only serve two terms and was now running for a third: "this will be the last job I do in politics," he said – well yes, Mr Ken… unless you change you mind AGAIN and do another one! Also, it SERIOUSLY isn't on to say that youth crime in the city is because those kids' PARENTS grew up under the Queen Maggie government. I mean, obviously, the answer is because they have grown up under a Thatcherite government TOO: the Thatcherite governments of Lord Blairimort. But since he's broken ANOTHER promise and rejoined the Labour, Mr Ken can't seem to say THAT any more.
Boris is all FOR blaming Lord Blairimort, but doesn't really have any ANSWERS as to what to do. Bus conductors… no, maybe not bus conductors, that was Mr Ken believing his own press releases… well maybe SOME bus conductors. He didn't half old school tie himself in knots. And while it seems the Labour's record is fair game, he didn't have a lot of defence of his OWN, particularly on the subject of race ("let's just move on," hmmm) and then Mr Ken fair bludgeoned him with his voting record: number of speeches in the House about London – none; number of debates about London attended – none; number of votes cast on motions about London – none; number of MENTIONS of London – n… oh, one actually, but in passing and about something else. Oops.
More subtle were Mr Brian's quick puncturing of Boris's ego: "Boris, you need to pay attention, I've already said all that!" was one; and another was replying to the assertion that if you needed experience then no one would ever stand: "But Boris, we ARE standing and we're trying to choose the BEST candidate." Terrifyingly, though, Mr Boris still thinks that he can run London the same way that he ran the Spectator.
The only "news" coverage to come out of the debate was the somewhat unedifying SPAT between Boris and Ken over teenage murders. "What are you going to do about these 27 murders in the last year?" thundered Boris. "I'll try to get more of the buggers next year," Mr Ken IN NO WAY REPLIED!
And it is a SHAME, because the Mayoral race needs people to be serious about London.
This election is an important one, one that concerns the lives of six or more million people and the governance of the world's TOP city. It deserves better coverage than some rubbish late-night slot on ITV.
What it needs is a big advertising campaign to get people watching and a prime-time slot for a huge audience and, and, and… and a "behind-the-scenes" show to show the drama and the comedy of the teams producing the mayoral run… now, hang on: there's an IDEA there!
Oh dear, a DREADFUL confession: we have been watching ITVnone, Britain's Tackiest TV channel.
It would be nice to say that it was ONLY to watch the debate between Mr Brian, our top quality candidate for Mayor of London, and that pair of ASBO-monkeys from the other parties.
But NO, we have been having a bit of a Ben Millar-fest too, with the return of schlocky Doctor Who wannabe "Primeval" and of course ITV's new Fourth Wall Bulldozer: "Moving Wallpaper/Echo Beach", hilarious in the way that Mr Sorkin's "Studio 60 on Sunset Strip" was meant to be (but wasn't).
"Studio 60" took most of the first episode to TEARFULLY remove the old producer of the show and woo in the series' real stars, Josh from The West Wing and the one from Friends who can act. "Moving Wallpaper" does this in ten seconds flat, and features the defenestrated ex-producer head butting a photograph of Mr Michael Grade and calling him a
And, of course, unlike "Studio 60", "Moving Wallpaper" actually has the BOTTLE to show us what all the fuss has been about. And wisely rather than the show-within-the-show being the bestest bestest wittiest wisest comedy in the whole of cuddle town, it's a ghastly soap who plot and characters have all been entirely derailed by the producer's megalomania. Wise, and also brave!
The TRULY terrible thing – among MANY terrible things – about the 9.30 soap "Echo Beach" was the nagging worry that Mr Grade had succeeded in commissioning ANOTHER turkey of similar magnitude to the last time anyone tried to mix SUNSHINE into a British soap opera – I mean of course "Eldorado", anagrammatically if unkindly remembered as a "Real Dodo" – and the only way to save the channel from going onto the rocks was to apply heavy IRONY.
British people, famously, do not like their soaps to be "happy". EastEnders and Consternation Street vie to bring gales of misery down upon their inhabitants in between the reigns of terror of the local murderers. (At one point, I tell you, there were more SERIAL KILLERS than GAY DADDIES living in Consternation Street!) Sunshine is UNNATURAL in this context. Usually, the only way around this is by application of wall-to-wall Australian accents. And obviously – even if Jason of Jason'n'kylie wasn't in it – this is why the model for "Echo Beach" is meant to be "Neighbours" (although so far the production standards are managing to make "Home and Away" look CLASSY and "Hollyoaks in the City" look like DRAMA). With the exception of Mr Hugo Speer and (perhaps astonishingly) Mr Jason himself, no one up to and including Tiffany can actually act (though she can tremble a lower lip with the best of them). What you are left with is a load of what my disgusting daddies insist on calling "totty" in not very many clothes.
It ought to be TOTALLY UNWATCHABLE.
But you cannot escape from the awfully impressive cleverness of placing GIGANTIC AIR-QUOTES around the whole edifice through the addition of "behind the scenes" show "Echo Beach Confidential". Er, "Moving Wallpaper".
With more laugh-out-loud moments in the first ten minutes than in "Studio 60's" first ten EPISODES (literally: three!) it centres around Mr Ben as "Jonathan Pope" the "producer" of ITV's new "hit" soap. In the first episode he crushes a little girl under a stack of lobster pots, spends the design budget on his own office so announces that the surf shack will have to be derelict, and puts Tiffany in the pink dress to avoid "diva tendencies". I thought he was VERY funny. But having seen the second episode – when he beats up a CUDDLY PANDA – I now realise that he is the UTTEREST
The "clever clever" part, of course, is to spot which bits of "Moving Wallpaper" will appear in the subsequent episode of "Echo Beach". Little girl, derelict surf shack, pink dress and panda all do.
Although pitched as a "comedy drama", "Moving Wallpaper" is a SATIRE – satirising television production itself, and just as mercilessly as, for example, "The Thick of It" skewers the government. That is why it appeals to "smart alecs" like my Daddies. Then they watch "Echo Beach" to play "spot the jokes" and feel quite clever about this. People who do not like that sort of too-clever-by-halfness can skip it and watch "Echo Beach" IRONY-FREE.
This, I believe, is called a "double whammy"!
For genuinely BAD television, then, you had to wait for later in the evening.
The Mayoral "debate" on ITV's "London Talking" (presumably they couldn't afford the more iconic "London Calling") was BAD in all the ways you EXPECT ITV to be bad: cheap set, dreadful format, Blue Peter presenter being patronising to the viewers in exactly the way that she wouldn't be when playing with terrapins.
Each candidate gets to make a little speech, then they get cross-examined by the other candidates, then they take questions from the floor (where everyone wears a handy badge so you know they are all party supporters and you only get questions from the OTHER two parties).
But rather than taking turns at each stage, what they did was have Mr Brian do all three stages and then Mr Mayor Ken do all three and then Bonkers Boris do all three. It meant that it was more like watching three JOB INTERVIEWS rather than generating any sense of DEBATE between the candidates. MY suspicion is that this is because they could only afford one LECTERN!
Mr Brian was jolly good, in spite of this format not playing to his strengths. To see how good he REALLY is, you want to see him CHAIRING a meeting and fielding questions, often with a dryly WITTY response and always with the facts and policies at his fingertips. It is JOLLY IMPRESSIVE.
In the studio, he was not able to set the audience ALIGHT in the way that the two seasoned hacks were. That is his strength and his weakness – he is an ordinary person, with extraordinary talents. And not a huge gob with legs attached. (Also hair, if Boris.)
His best moments were when facing the audience, as he was able to make a real connection with them, even if they were supporters of his rivals. Possibly a note to the other parties: if you want to try and trip Mr Brian up, maybe best not to try to "surprise" him with details of his police career – he really was really, really good at that job, you know, and he WILL have answers.
The other candidates, though, were bad, and in quite different ways. The Mr Mayor started with a very GOOD pitch – no, really – "if you think I've not improved London then don't vote for me". The problem was he was REALLY cross-patchy if anyone actually referred to his record – promises that haven't been met, opinions that have been switched. At one stage he was asked why he had said a mayor should only serve two terms and was now running for a third: "this will be the last job I do in politics," he said – well yes, Mr Ken… unless you change you mind AGAIN and do another one! Also, it SERIOUSLY isn't on to say that youth crime in the city is because those kids' PARENTS grew up under the Queen Maggie government. I mean, obviously, the answer is because they have grown up under a Thatcherite government TOO: the Thatcherite governments of Lord Blairimort. But since he's broken ANOTHER promise and rejoined the Labour, Mr Ken can't seem to say THAT any more.
Boris is all FOR blaming Lord Blairimort, but doesn't really have any ANSWERS as to what to do. Bus conductors… no, maybe not bus conductors, that was Mr Ken believing his own press releases… well maybe SOME bus conductors. He didn't half old school tie himself in knots. And while it seems the Labour's record is fair game, he didn't have a lot of defence of his OWN, particularly on the subject of race ("let's just move on," hmmm) and then Mr Ken fair bludgeoned him with his voting record: number of speeches in the House about London – none; number of debates about London attended – none; number of votes cast on motions about London – none; number of MENTIONS of London – n… oh, one actually, but in passing and about something else. Oops.
More subtle were Mr Brian's quick puncturing of Boris's ego: "Boris, you need to pay attention, I've already said all that!" was one; and another was replying to the assertion that if you needed experience then no one would ever stand: "But Boris, we ARE standing and we're trying to choose the BEST candidate." Terrifyingly, though, Mr Boris still thinks that he can run London the same way that he ran the Spectator.
The only "news" coverage to come out of the debate was the somewhat unedifying SPAT between Boris and Ken over teenage murders. "What are you going to do about these 27 murders in the last year?" thundered Boris. "I'll try to get more of the buggers next year," Mr Ken IN NO WAY REPLIED!
And it is a SHAME, because the Mayoral race needs people to be serious about London.
This election is an important one, one that concerns the lives of six or more million people and the governance of the world's TOP city. It deserves better coverage than some rubbish late-night slot on ITV.
What it needs is a big advertising campaign to get people watching and a prime-time slot for a huge audience and, and, and… and a "behind-the-scenes" show to show the drama and the comedy of the teams producing the mayoral run… now, hang on: there's an IDEA there!
Saturday, January 12, 2008
Day 2565: Nuke Labour New Danger
Thursday:
The bright hope of the sixties that turned into a frightening nightmare relic of enormous expenses overruns and imminent danger of meltdown: it can only mean… fuchsia-finished old fraud, Mr Peter Vain!
Oh no, sorry it's the return of Nuclear Power.
What MOST turns me off the Nuclear Industry – yes, even MORE than the thought of becoming a GLOW-IN-THE-DARK toy! – is the way that their ADVOCATES cannot seem to control their TELLING of FIBS.
A typical one is the "you cannot rely on renewables – the wind doesn’t blow all the time" meme that they trot out.
It seems so SELF-EVIDENT, doesn't it? Sometimes the wind is blowing and sometimes it is not. And yet, it would really be ASTONISHINGLY UNLIKELY if the wind stopped EVERYWHERE at once. It is a case of making sure that you have windmill farms in SEVERAL places so that there are always some catching the breeze.
Though of course, there are parts of the country where the wind RARELY falls, particularly out at sea – funnily enough this is how SAILING SHIPS work and we seem to have found THOSE fairly reliable over the centuries.
Even MORE outrageous was the suggestion one of their mealy mouthed apologists offered on News 24: "oh well, Tidal Barrage only works twice a day".
Er, NO. It works as the tide goes in and then goes into reverse and works AGAIN as the tide goes out. ALL the way in and ALL the way out. And then all the way in and all the way out AGAIN (twice a day, you see).
A little learning is a DANGEROUS THING, said the Sainted Oscar, and you can see why: you think you know a LITTLE about something and then RADIOACTIVE MAN and chums come along and FOOL YOU!
They want you to believe that Nuclear has a TRACK RECORD – well yes, it has a track record of promising "energy too cheap to meter" and then delivering tons of deadly toxic waste that lasts forever and oops sorry no more cash, the government will have to clean it up. How can we POSSIBLY believe promises that the private sector will properly dispose of waste that will literally last longer than humans have been on this Earth?
And while we're at it, just what IS the annual carbon footprint of safely storing this crud? Because multiply THAT by a million years and factor it into your calculations before claiming that Nuclear Power is GREEN.
Meanwhile, the government is threatening to take away MP's right to vote on their own pay.
Typical NuLabour thinking: oh, some people do not like this thing; it must be up to US to order it changed!
It seems Ms Harriet Harpy does not believe that MPs can be TRUSTED with the responsibility.
Well, maybe they CAN and maybe they CAN'T but it is the VOTERS who get to decide on their MPs performances. The MPs are there to keep charge of the government, NOT the other way around, no matter what bossy Ms Harpy might think – and yes, they are NOT very good at it, are they. But just imagine how much worse they will be if their salary depends on being compliant with her.
Well, maybe they CAN and maybe they CAN'T but it is the VOTERS who get to decide on their MPs performances. The MPs are there to keep charge of the government, NOT the other way around, no matter what bossy Ms Harpy might think – and yes, they are NOT very good at it, are they. But just imagine how much worse they will be if their salary depends on being compliant with her.
The bright hope of the sixties that turned into a frightening nightmare relic of enormous expenses overruns and imminent danger of meltdown: it can only mean… fuchsia-finished old fraud, Mr Peter Vain!
Oh no, sorry it's the return of Nuclear Power.
What MOST turns me off the Nuclear Industry – yes, even MORE than the thought of becoming a GLOW-IN-THE-DARK toy! – is the way that their ADVOCATES cannot seem to control their TELLING of FIBS.
A typical one is the "you cannot rely on renewables – the wind doesn’t blow all the time" meme that they trot out.
It seems so SELF-EVIDENT, doesn't it? Sometimes the wind is blowing and sometimes it is not. And yet, it would really be ASTONISHINGLY UNLIKELY if the wind stopped EVERYWHERE at once. It is a case of making sure that you have windmill farms in SEVERAL places so that there are always some catching the breeze.
Though of course, there are parts of the country where the wind RARELY falls, particularly out at sea – funnily enough this is how SAILING SHIPS work and we seem to have found THOSE fairly reliable over the centuries.
Even MORE outrageous was the suggestion one of their mealy mouthed apologists offered on News 24: "oh well, Tidal Barrage only works twice a day".
Er, NO. It works as the tide goes in and then goes into reverse and works AGAIN as the tide goes out. ALL the way in and ALL the way out. And then all the way in and all the way out AGAIN (twice a day, you see).
A little learning is a DANGEROUS THING, said the Sainted Oscar, and you can see why: you think you know a LITTLE about something and then RADIOACTIVE MAN and chums come along and FOOL YOU!
They want you to believe that Nuclear has a TRACK RECORD – well yes, it has a track record of promising "energy too cheap to meter" and then delivering tons of deadly toxic waste that lasts forever and oops sorry no more cash, the government will have to clean it up. How can we POSSIBLY believe promises that the private sector will properly dispose of waste that will literally last longer than humans have been on this Earth?
And while we're at it, just what IS the annual carbon footprint of safely storing this crud? Because multiply THAT by a million years and factor it into your calculations before claiming that Nuclear Power is GREEN.
Meanwhile, the government is threatening to take away MP's right to vote on their own pay.
Typical NuLabour thinking: oh, some people do not like this thing; it must be up to US to order it changed!
It seems Ms Harriet Harpy does not believe that MPs can be TRUSTED with the responsibility.
Well, maybe they CAN and maybe they CAN'T but it is the VOTERS who get to decide on their MPs performances. The MPs are there to keep charge of the government, NOT the other way around, no matter what bossy Ms Harpy might think – and yes, they are NOT very good at it, are they. But just imagine how much worse they will be if their salary depends on being compliant with her.
Well, maybe they CAN and maybe they CAN'T but it is the VOTERS who get to decide on their MPs performances. The MPs are there to keep charge of the government, NOT the other way around, no matter what bossy Ms Harpy might think – and yes, they are NOT very good at it, are they. But just imagine how much worse they will be if their salary depends on being compliant with her.
Friday, January 11, 2008
Day 2564: Mr Clogg's First Day
Wednesday:
Well, obviously Mr Clogg's first day was AGES ago now, and I was THERE – though we don't mention that now! And he's done LOADS of things since then, DRIVING THE AGENDA on subjects as diverse I.D.iot cards and Kenya.
But it would be unfair NOT to mention his debut at Prime Monster's Questionable Time.
I suspect that, for Mr Clogg, this was one of those less agreeable chores, like visiting an elderly, infirm relative who you don't know very well but who keeps on insisting on treating you as though you were five.
And speaking of Mr Frown, the Prime Monster welcomed Mr Clogg to his new job (with only a BIT of prompting from Mr Balloon), and said that there was always an open door for him:
"It's, uhh, the one hidden under the rug in my, uhh, study with the, uhh, spikes underneath," he inexplicably forgot to add.
Of course, Mr Frown's generosity to the leader of the "Liberal" Party – he DOES still seem incapable of saying the word "Democrats"; I wonder what he shall call the next President of Americaland? "Master," probably – his generosity, though, is quite telling, particularly when he obviously cannot bear to look at the Leader of the Opposition. Which is odd when you consider how much they have in common.
Mr Balloon too got in there with the LOVEBOMBING, though his QUIP that Mr Clogg is already moving away from him will have been MYSTIFYING to anyone not physically IN the Conservatory Leader's arcane club. So pretty typical for Mr Balloon's gags, then.
In fact, of course, Mr Clogg is merely sitting in the MIDDLE of the Liberal Democrats, the way that Mr Frown and Mr Balloon sit in the MIDDLE of their OWN front benches.
Mr Balloon's FIRST question was OBVIOUSLY a spoiler, hitting on I.D.iot cards – a Liberal Democrat HOT TOPIC and one that Mr Clogg has made central to this year's political agenda.
Sadly it was "Not Natural Tory Territory" and even Mr Frown noticed that Mr Balloon couldn't keep it up for his whole six questions.
As my Daddy Alex points out, Mr Balloon is increasingly likely to waste his questions by spluttering on for too long, trying to cover too many subjects, and generally being just too HYSTERICAL to be believed. According to Mr Balloon everything is in CRISIS and in imminent danger of ANARCHY and DESTRUCTION. It's not just the danger of being the little boy who cried "Wolf!"; if he gets much more worked up, he's going to POP something.
But Mr Balloon was OFF TARGET in more ways than one. He was WRONG too to guess that Mr Clogg would pick such an OBVIOUS target as the Prime Monster's plainly self-destructing I.D.iot cards scheme.
In contrast to the Etonian Punch and Judy Show, we had a sober, unflustered "bread and butter" performance from Mr Clogg, picking up on an issue that is topical and important to many people watching but NOT one typical chosen to make Liberal Democrats feel warm and fuzzy – it's the start of doing those things "outside of the Party's comfort zone".
Many people have also remarked upon Mr Steve Webb who popped in with a FOLLOW-UP question to Mr Clogg's pair. Watching on the telly, I also noticed the green jacket of Ms Susan Kramer-vs-Kramer bobbing up and down to attract the Speaker's glass eye. And, more importantly, almost no one else. I think that this DOES show a new STRATEGIC approach to PMQs from the Liberal Democrats. Acting as a TEAM, we can get three or even four questions "ON TOPIC" to the PM, then we stand a much improved chance of breaking through to the NEWS AGENDA. Which is good. PMQs is currently a pantomime, but if we behave seriously, and treat it seriously, then people will take us seriously.
And the response from the media and commentators was generally POSITIVE – and by that I include the Conservatory Trolls on politicalbarking.com who did their best to dismiss him. If he'd done BADLY you can BET that they would have made much hay of it; clearly they were left with literally nothing as all they could say.
You cannot be spectacular all the time. People at home just don't have the ENERGY for watching that. But you can be good, honest, hard-working and in touch with what the issues that concern your constituents are. Start as you mean to go on, Mr Clogg.
Well, obviously Mr Clogg's first day was AGES ago now, and I was THERE – though we don't mention that now! And he's done LOADS of things since then, DRIVING THE AGENDA on subjects as diverse I.D.iot cards and Kenya.
But it would be unfair NOT to mention his debut at Prime Monster's Questionable Time.
I suspect that, for Mr Clogg, this was one of those less agreeable chores, like visiting an elderly, infirm relative who you don't know very well but who keeps on insisting on treating you as though you were five.
And speaking of Mr Frown, the Prime Monster welcomed Mr Clogg to his new job (with only a BIT of prompting from Mr Balloon), and said that there was always an open door for him:
"It's, uhh, the one hidden under the rug in my, uhh, study with the, uhh, spikes underneath," he inexplicably forgot to add.
Of course, Mr Frown's generosity to the leader of the "Liberal" Party – he DOES still seem incapable of saying the word "Democrats"; I wonder what he shall call the next President of Americaland? "Master," probably – his generosity, though, is quite telling, particularly when he obviously cannot bear to look at the Leader of the Opposition. Which is odd when you consider how much they have in common.
Mr Balloon too got in there with the LOVEBOMBING, though his QUIP that Mr Clogg is already moving away from him will have been MYSTIFYING to anyone not physically IN the Conservatory Leader's arcane club. So pretty typical for Mr Balloon's gags, then.
In fact, of course, Mr Clogg is merely sitting in the MIDDLE of the Liberal Democrats, the way that Mr Frown and Mr Balloon sit in the MIDDLE of their OWN front benches.
Mr Balloon's FIRST question was OBVIOUSLY a spoiler, hitting on I.D.iot cards – a Liberal Democrat HOT TOPIC and one that Mr Clogg has made central to this year's political agenda.
Sadly it was "Not Natural Tory Territory" and even Mr Frown noticed that Mr Balloon couldn't keep it up for his whole six questions.
As my Daddy Alex points out, Mr Balloon is increasingly likely to waste his questions by spluttering on for too long, trying to cover too many subjects, and generally being just too HYSTERICAL to be believed. According to Mr Balloon everything is in CRISIS and in imminent danger of ANARCHY and DESTRUCTION. It's not just the danger of being the little boy who cried "Wolf!"; if he gets much more worked up, he's going to POP something.
But Mr Balloon was OFF TARGET in more ways than one. He was WRONG too to guess that Mr Clogg would pick such an OBVIOUS target as the Prime Monster's plainly self-destructing I.D.iot cards scheme.
In contrast to the Etonian Punch and Judy Show, we had a sober, unflustered "bread and butter" performance from Mr Clogg, picking up on an issue that is topical and important to many people watching but NOT one typical chosen to make Liberal Democrats feel warm and fuzzy – it's the start of doing those things "outside of the Party's comfort zone".
Many people have also remarked upon Mr Steve Webb who popped in with a FOLLOW-UP question to Mr Clogg's pair. Watching on the telly, I also noticed the green jacket of Ms Susan Kramer-vs-Kramer bobbing up and down to attract the Speaker's glass eye. And, more importantly, almost no one else. I think that this DOES show a new STRATEGIC approach to PMQs from the Liberal Democrats. Acting as a TEAM, we can get three or even four questions "ON TOPIC" to the PM, then we stand a much improved chance of breaking through to the NEWS AGENDA. Which is good. PMQs is currently a pantomime, but if we behave seriously, and treat it seriously, then people will take us seriously.
And the response from the media and commentators was generally POSITIVE – and by that I include the Conservatory Trolls on politicalbarking.com who did their best to dismiss him. If he'd done BADLY you can BET that they would have made much hay of it; clearly they were left with literally nothing as all they could say.
You cannot be spectacular all the time. People at home just don't have the ENERGY for watching that. But you can be good, honest, hard-working and in touch with what the issues that concern your constituents are. Start as you mean to go on, Mr Clogg.
Day 2563: Personchester
Tuesday:
Manchester (NOT the Capital of the State of New Hampshire; that is Concord (NOT the aeroplane; that is Concorde)), Manchester is the setting of one of the KEY episodes of Mr Aaron Sorkin's witty, intelligent, informative, ground breaking, all-American political soap-opera: "Coronation Street", er, "The Left Wing".
And this week, the Monkey-in-Chief flies to Palestine certainly seeming to think that HE'S starring in Season Seven.
"Heh heh heh: if that Bartlet fella can pull an Arab-Israeli peace deal out his ass in the last year, then I sure can!"
Unfortunately, this wasn't believable even when it was fiction!
And, unlike President Bartlet, the Monkey-in-Chief is fiction in a BAD way.
Still, if it is comedy-drama you want then look no further than Mr Sorkin's latest: "Studio Zogby on the Obama Strip" – it's a COMEDY of ERRORS. Yes, with everyone from the Windy-pendent newspaper to the candidate, Barry O himself, jumping the gun there were plenty of RED FACES on Wednesday when Hillary-Billary stole a last minute march on him.
Just as before, in Iowa, it really doesn't make much of a difference in actual SCORES – in fact, both Hillary-Billary AND Mr Oklabama go away from New Hampshire with nine delegates each (and John Edwards took the remaining four).
Nor, for that matter, does it "throw the contest wide open". Gee, it is now a close-run thing between last week's "Front Runner" and the week before's "Front Runner". Senator Edwards is (probably) running to be VP again, however bizarre and unlikely that might have seemed a year or even a month ago, and STILL no one else is in the running.
And anyone feigning surprise at Senator Oven-Chip doing well in "Live Free or Die" country is fooling no one, either.
Manchester (NOT the Capital of the State of New Hampshire; that is Concord (NOT the aeroplane; that is Concorde)), Manchester is the setting of one of the KEY episodes of Mr Aaron Sorkin's witty, intelligent, informative, ground breaking, all-American political soap-opera: "Coronation Street", er, "The Left Wing".
And this week, the Monkey-in-Chief flies to Palestine certainly seeming to think that HE'S starring in Season Seven.
"Heh heh heh: if that Bartlet fella can pull an Arab-Israeli peace deal out his ass in the last year, then I sure can!"
Unfortunately, this wasn't believable even when it was fiction!
And, unlike President Bartlet, the Monkey-in-Chief is fiction in a BAD way.
Still, if it is comedy-drama you want then look no further than Mr Sorkin's latest: "Studio Zogby on the Obama Strip" – it's a COMEDY of ERRORS. Yes, with everyone from the Windy-pendent newspaper to the candidate, Barry O himself, jumping the gun there were plenty of RED FACES on Wednesday when Hillary-Billary stole a last minute march on him.
Just as before, in Iowa, it really doesn't make much of a difference in actual SCORES – in fact, both Hillary-Billary AND Mr Oklabama go away from New Hampshire with nine delegates each (and John Edwards took the remaining four).
Nor, for that matter, does it "throw the contest wide open". Gee, it is now a close-run thing between last week's "Front Runner" and the week before's "Front Runner". Senator Edwards is (probably) running to be VP again, however bizarre and unlikely that might have seemed a year or even a month ago, and STILL no one else is in the running.
And anyone feigning surprise at Senator Oven-Chip doing well in "Live Free or Die" country is fooling no one, either.
Wednesday, January 09, 2008
Day 2562: Conservatories – we will make the Unemployed do Morris Dancing(*)
Monday:
(*) Other forms of public humiliation also available.
Now Mr Balloon claims he can cure the sick and make the unemployed walk. Terms and conditions may apply.
I thought that Mr Balloon SUPPOSEDLY did not believe in making it HARDER for people to get benefits. After all, he FAMOUSLY wants to give ALL married couples a twenty quid bribe, regardless of whether they need or deserve it. Just for LOVE.
So, why does he want to give freely like a Liberal Conservatory with the one hand while going all NASTY PARTY and snatching back greedily with the other?
The answer is DEPRESSINGLY obvious: for the "new" Conservatory Party there are two kinds of people: NICE people andWORKERS SCROUNGERS.
Nice people – defined by Mr Balloon as "people he thinks are nice people" – deserve the state to lavish largess upon them. For them, Britain ought to be a GREAT and WONDERFUL place of opportunity, with easy access to Grandma Schools and private hospitals and other nice stuff. If it ISN'T like that, then someone is to blame.
Workers Scroungers – defined by Mr Balloon as "all other proles" – deserve to GET the blame for bringing Britain down.
That is why this SCROOGE-LIKE miserliness is dressed up in talk of "Benefit Fraud". No one likes to think that they are being CHEATED. (And, goodness, the Conservatories are going to be cross about it when they realise what Mr Balloon has been doing to them!) So the word FRAUD is an easy short cut to saying that people claiming for incapacity are BAD. Even if most of them AREN'T.
(This, incidentally, is the same trick with language as the phrase "Bogus Asylum Seeker", designed to pollute the term "Asylum Seeker" – itself a cold, hard neologism for "refugee" – and to make it both a threat and an insult.)
Apparently there are 2.6 million people in Britain claiming Incapacity Benefit and Mr Balloon wants to get rid of 0.2 million of them – i.e. he wants one person in thirteen to be UNLUCKY.
Quite HOW Mr Balloon thinks he is going to test all 2.6 million people on Incapacity Benefit remains as bafflingly unexplained as most of Mr B's policy wheezes. Jumping through hoops is hard enough when you are FIT and WELL, so the last thing you need when you are feeling a bit ICKY is for Mr Balloon to come along to start prodding you with his podgy fingers.
What IS certain, though, that this would be an expensive and probably pointless exercise. Squeezing out a few people who aren't as depressed as they claimed, or whose backs aren't quite as crooked as they thought is NOT going to address the real problems of fraud, which are to do with organised criminal gangs and the theft of insecure data (usually from government databases).
Of course, the BIGGEST fraud has nothing to do with benefits at all – it is the import-export Missing Trader con trick or CAROUSEL FRAUD that costs literally BILLIONS OF POUNDS in VAT. But that's not SEXY and it doesn't come with an easily target group of BLAME-EES.
The truth is that we are a RICH country and we can EASILY AFFORD to look after the numbers of people who are not well enough to work. We do not need to throw them in the poor house or have them begging on the streets; we can give people a life of (some) dignity. This is CIVILISED. This is CHARITABLE.
(And we don't, on the whole, tick off OXFAM or SAVE THE CHILDREN for the fact that not every penny that goes into the collecting tin reaches the poor and needy without some being misspent or lost or eaten by HYENAS or stolen by corrupt governments, either!)
Certainly, there ARE some people who claim when they shouldn't; there are some people who "swing the lead". So what? If fewer than one in ten claimants are faking it – as Mr Balloon's target figure seems to suggest – then that does not seem too bad. Especially since it means that MORE than nine in ten people deserve and need the cash!
You cannot get rid of all fake claims, not EVER. You are a FIBBER if you say you can. What you have to do is say – HONESTLY – what level of losses you are willing to accept so that the money reaches those who do need it.
Of course, one of the reasons thought to be behind the large increase in claims for Incapacity Benefit is that the LAST Conservatory government made is SO MUCH HARDER to claim unemployment benefit. I beg your pardon, "Jobseekers' Allowance", since you can no longer be unemployed and can be MIND PROBED to make sure you are not wasting your life in front of Jeremy Kyle when you could be out interviewing for a post of deputy ladder holder (windows cleaning) third class.
You would not have thought there were THAT many "layabouts" still to SQUEEZE out of the system, but trust Mr Balloon to believe (with the fervency of true Thatchian) that he can find a few more lives to CRUSH.
In Mr Balloon's world, you are allowed to be unemployed for two years... IN THE WHOLE OF YOUR LIFE! Yes, that's right; it's not even just two continuous years – which frankly would still be pretty horrible – it's CUMULATIVE. And in today's busy, busy world of high staff turnover and little job security it could be all too easy to rack up those "frequent firing miles".
After that, if you don't want your benefits stopped, then you can be SOLD INTO SLAVERY! With one of a select group of companies, no doubt hand-picked by Mr Balloon, you will be expected to perform "community service". Possibly in a fetching uniform, no doubt marked out with yellow star or pink triangle as appropriate.
Or, of course, you can starve! (Remember, choice is GOOD in the New Conservatories.)
Mr Balloon says he wants to end the "something for nothing culture"; which is interesting, because he'll be paying those companies to DO the community service while they will in fact, not be paying minimum wage to their "unemployed" slaves.
So much for the nation being "a Caravan moving across the desert"; Mr Balloon isn't going to let you dawdle as he's keen to close the caravan park!
"Where is the dignity in sitting at home, dependent on the state, not having a job?" he asks.
Well, first and foremost: what business is it of yours anyway?
And second: what dignity there is is in that it is THEIR CHOICE, and who the good golly are YOU to take that dignity away?
On the whole, I am thankful that Mr Frown is this week stealing his policies - Encourage regular health “MoTs” tailored to individual patients’ needs, with wider access to screening and blood pressure and cholesterol tests – from the Liberal Democrats!
(*) Other forms of public humiliation also available.
Now Mr Balloon claims he can cure the sick and make the unemployed walk. Terms and conditions may apply.
I thought that Mr Balloon SUPPOSEDLY did not believe in making it HARDER for people to get benefits. After all, he FAMOUSLY wants to give ALL married couples a twenty quid bribe, regardless of whether they need or deserve it. Just for LOVE.
So, why does he want to give freely like a Liberal Conservatory with the one hand while going all NASTY PARTY and snatching back greedily with the other?
The answer is DEPRESSINGLY obvious: for the "new" Conservatory Party there are two kinds of people: NICE people and
Nice people – defined by Mr Balloon as "people he thinks are nice people" – deserve the state to lavish largess upon them. For them, Britain ought to be a GREAT and WONDERFUL place of opportunity, with easy access to Grandma Schools and private hospitals and other nice stuff. If it ISN'T like that, then someone is to blame.
That is why this SCROOGE-LIKE miserliness is dressed up in talk of "Benefit Fraud". No one likes to think that they are being CHEATED. (And, goodness, the Conservatories are going to be cross about it when they realise what Mr Balloon has been doing to them!) So the word FRAUD is an easy short cut to saying that people claiming for incapacity are BAD. Even if most of them AREN'T.
(This, incidentally, is the same trick with language as the phrase "Bogus Asylum Seeker", designed to pollute the term "Asylum Seeker" – itself a cold, hard neologism for "refugee" – and to make it both a threat and an insult.)
Apparently there are 2.6 million people in Britain claiming Incapacity Benefit and Mr Balloon wants to get rid of 0.2 million of them – i.e. he wants one person in thirteen to be UNLUCKY.
Quite HOW Mr Balloon thinks he is going to test all 2.6 million people on Incapacity Benefit remains as bafflingly unexplained as most of Mr B's policy wheezes. Jumping through hoops is hard enough when you are FIT and WELL, so the last thing you need when you are feeling a bit ICKY is for Mr Balloon to come along to start prodding you with his podgy fingers.
What IS certain, though, that this would be an expensive and probably pointless exercise. Squeezing out a few people who aren't as depressed as they claimed, or whose backs aren't quite as crooked as they thought is NOT going to address the real problems of fraud, which are to do with organised criminal gangs and the theft of insecure data (usually from government databases).
Of course, the BIGGEST fraud has nothing to do with benefits at all – it is the import-export Missing Trader con trick or CAROUSEL FRAUD that costs literally BILLIONS OF POUNDS in VAT. But that's not SEXY and it doesn't come with an easily target group of BLAME-EES.
The truth is that we are a RICH country and we can EASILY AFFORD to look after the numbers of people who are not well enough to work. We do not need to throw them in the poor house or have them begging on the streets; we can give people a life of (some) dignity. This is CIVILISED. This is CHARITABLE.
(And we don't, on the whole, tick off OXFAM or SAVE THE CHILDREN for the fact that not every penny that goes into the collecting tin reaches the poor and needy without some being misspent or lost or eaten by HYENAS or stolen by corrupt governments, either!)
Certainly, there ARE some people who claim when they shouldn't; there are some people who "swing the lead". So what? If fewer than one in ten claimants are faking it – as Mr Balloon's target figure seems to suggest – then that does not seem too bad. Especially since it means that MORE than nine in ten people deserve and need the cash!
You cannot get rid of all fake claims, not EVER. You are a FIBBER if you say you can. What you have to do is say – HONESTLY – what level of losses you are willing to accept so that the money reaches those who do need it.
Of course, one of the reasons thought to be behind the large increase in claims for Incapacity Benefit is that the LAST Conservatory government made is SO MUCH HARDER to claim unemployment benefit. I beg your pardon, "Jobseekers' Allowance", since you can no longer be unemployed and can be MIND PROBED to make sure you are not wasting your life in front of Jeremy Kyle when you could be out interviewing for a post of deputy ladder holder (windows cleaning) third class.
You would not have thought there were THAT many "layabouts" still to SQUEEZE out of the system, but trust Mr Balloon to believe (with the fervency of true Thatchian) that he can find a few more lives to CRUSH.
In Mr Balloon's world, you are allowed to be unemployed for two years... IN THE WHOLE OF YOUR LIFE! Yes, that's right; it's not even just two continuous years – which frankly would still be pretty horrible – it's CUMULATIVE. And in today's busy, busy world of high staff turnover and little job security it could be all too easy to rack up those "frequent firing miles".
After that, if you don't want your benefits stopped, then you can be SOLD INTO SLAVERY! With one of a select group of companies, no doubt hand-picked by Mr Balloon, you will be expected to perform "community service". Possibly in a fetching uniform, no doubt marked out with yellow star or pink triangle as appropriate.
Or, of course, you can starve! (Remember, choice is GOOD in the New Conservatories.)
Mr Balloon says he wants to end the "something for nothing culture"; which is interesting, because he'll be paying those companies to DO the community service while they will in fact, not be paying minimum wage to their "unemployed" slaves.
So much for the nation being "a Caravan moving across the desert"; Mr Balloon isn't going to let you dawdle as he's keen to close the caravan park!
"Where is the dignity in sitting at home, dependent on the state, not having a job?" he asks.
Well, first and foremost: what business is it of yours anyway?
And second: what dignity there is is in that it is THEIR CHOICE, and who the good golly are YOU to take that dignity away?
On the whole, I am thankful that Mr Frown is this week stealing his policies - Encourage regular health “MoTs” tailored to individual patients’ needs, with wider access to screening and blood pressure and cholesterol tests – from the Liberal Democrats!
Day 2561: Mr Frown, the Bettabuys Prime Monster
Sunday
Well, that is what he told Mr Andy Marmite:
"We can do Bettabuys Police; and we can do Bettabuys Nurses!"
"What about the Army?"
"We can do Bettabuys soldiers too!"
It's about the people working in our public services. Typically, the Prime Monster is trying to cut corners as he cuts costs, by nipping off to the made-up, lo-cost supermarket from Consternation Street!
Of course, he was BUTTERING them up with JAM tomorrow because he was also telling them that they weren't getting any jam TODAY.
Or in fact TOMORROW either under Mr Frown's new Three Year Plan plan.
Chancellor Sooty has been doing the colouring in on Mr Frown's new plan to fix public services pay rises in advance, and HE was on the The Today Programme trying to sell this as "a good thing".
Sooty's justification was that people will get: "certainty as to what the pay increase will be, not just this year, but next year and the year after".
But the thing is that fixing people's salaries like this actually increases their UN-certainty. You see, as it stands, people are ONLY uncertain about how inflation will affect the DIFFERENCE between prices and their salaries.
Costs can vary quite a bit – look at the large jumps in train fares and energy costs already this month. And on top of that there is the surge in mortgage and loan interest because of the Credit Crunch. (Which is why for most people, the relevant inflation rate is the RPI that INCLUDES interest rates, rather than the CPI, the one that Mr Frown quotes all the time, that does not.)
But they will ALSO have a pay rise which will, probably, reflect the inflation at the time. So even if prices are unexpectedly higher, there's a good chance that wages will be unexpectedly higher too.
In effect, the uncertainty about your salary CANCELS OUT some of the uncertainty about prices.
So if you FIX the salary rises in advance, then you are actually MORE uncertain, because unexpected changes in what things cost you will not be compensated for.
This is obviously similar to the problems facing people like pensioners who are on a fixed income (though of course THEY know that they will get a fixed increase of 0% each year for the next three years).
Or you could compare it to fixing your mortgage costs with a fixed rate loan.
You MIGHT think about taking out a fixed rate mortgage for a few years – but you know that that is a GAMBLE: you COULD save money if interest rates go up, but you will lose if they stay the same or go down, but then you might also think that the certainty about the payments is worth the risk of losing a bit of money on the interest. The thing is, it is YOUR gamble to take.
Here, Mr Frown is the one who is gambling – he bets that he can keep inflation DOWN – but he is expecting the public service employees to put their salaries on "32 Red" for him.
Or, to put it another way, over the last couple of years, inflation got a bit (a little bit) out of Mr Frown's preferred band. How happy would YOU be, taking him at his word that he has gotten inflation back under control and isn't going to lose it again?
Let us have a quick look at the NUMBERS.
Three years ago, January 2005, the Retail Price Index is 188.9 (compare with 2004: 183.1) and inflation is about 3.2%.
Mr Frown – who was Chancellor then (as he still is, now) – might offer you a, let us say, generous-seeming 3.3% pay rise every year for three years. (Generous when you bear in mind that TODAY he is currently only giving up a 1.9% rise for anyone he is responsible for paying.)
However, by November 2007 (the latest month for which the Office of National Statistics have figures) the RPI has increased to 209.7. That is an increase of about 14.5% in (nearly) three years, equivalent to about 4.7-and-a-half% a year each year.
As you can see, Mr Frown's hypothetical offer of 3.3% would have left you substantially worse off.
And that's just picking the figures for three years ago TODAY.
(Because it's not like Mr Frown has a record of picking the inflation figures from their lowest point in the year to base his GENEROSITY upon – ask any pensioner who got the INFAMOUS 75p rise! Ooh, look: it's Sooty!)
I may just be being a very fluffy elephant, but I am not certain that MY certainty is improved by the prospect of being a part of our Glorious Leader's plan to triple tractor production. Is yours?
Well, that is what he told Mr Andy Marmite:
"We can do Bettabuys Police; and we can do Bettabuys Nurses!"
"What about the Army?"
"We can do Bettabuys soldiers too!"
It's about the people working in our public services. Typically, the Prime Monster is trying to cut corners as he cuts costs, by nipping off to the made-up, lo-cost supermarket from Consternation Street!
Of course, he was BUTTERING them up with JAM tomorrow because he was also telling them that they weren't getting any jam TODAY.
Or in fact TOMORROW either under Mr Frown's new Three Year Plan plan.
Chancellor Sooty has been doing the colouring in on Mr Frown's new plan to fix public services pay rises in advance, and HE was on the The Today Programme trying to sell this as "a good thing".
Sooty's justification was that people will get: "certainty as to what the pay increase will be, not just this year, but next year and the year after".
But the thing is that fixing people's salaries like this actually increases their UN-certainty. You see, as it stands, people are ONLY uncertain about how inflation will affect the DIFFERENCE between prices and their salaries.
Costs can vary quite a bit – look at the large jumps in train fares and energy costs already this month. And on top of that there is the surge in mortgage and loan interest because of the Credit Crunch. (Which is why for most people, the relevant inflation rate is the RPI that INCLUDES interest rates, rather than the CPI, the one that Mr Frown quotes all the time, that does not.)
But they will ALSO have a pay rise which will, probably, reflect the inflation at the time. So even if prices are unexpectedly higher, there's a good chance that wages will be unexpectedly higher too.
In effect, the uncertainty about your salary CANCELS OUT some of the uncertainty about prices.
So if you FIX the salary rises in advance, then you are actually MORE uncertain, because unexpected changes in what things cost you will not be compensated for.
This is obviously similar to the problems facing people like pensioners who are on a fixed income (though of course THEY know that they will get a fixed increase of 0% each year for the next three years).
Or you could compare it to fixing your mortgage costs with a fixed rate loan.
You MIGHT think about taking out a fixed rate mortgage for a few years – but you know that that is a GAMBLE: you COULD save money if interest rates go up, but you will lose if they stay the same or go down, but then you might also think that the certainty about the payments is worth the risk of losing a bit of money on the interest. The thing is, it is YOUR gamble to take.
Here, Mr Frown is the one who is gambling – he bets that he can keep inflation DOWN – but he is expecting the public service employees to put their salaries on "32 Red" for him.
Or, to put it another way, over the last couple of years, inflation got a bit (a little bit) out of Mr Frown's preferred band. How happy would YOU be, taking him at his word that he has gotten inflation back under control and isn't going to lose it again?
Let us have a quick look at the NUMBERS.
Three years ago, January 2005, the Retail Price Index is 188.9 (compare with 2004: 183.1) and inflation is about 3.2%.
Mr Frown – who was Chancellor then (as he still is, now) – might offer you a, let us say, generous-seeming 3.3% pay rise every year for three years. (Generous when you bear in mind that TODAY he is currently only giving up a 1.9% rise for anyone he is responsible for paying.)
However, by November 2007 (the latest month for which the Office of National Statistics have figures) the RPI has increased to 209.7. That is an increase of about 14.5% in (nearly) three years, equivalent to about 4.7-and-a-half% a year each year.
As you can see, Mr Frown's hypothetical offer of 3.3% would have left you substantially worse off.
And that's just picking the figures for three years ago TODAY.
(Because it's not like Mr Frown has a record of picking the inflation figures from their lowest point in the year to base his GENEROSITY upon – ask any pensioner who got the INFAMOUS 75p rise! Ooh, look: it's Sooty!)
I may just be being a very fluffy elephant, but I am not certain that MY certainty is improved by the prospect of being a part of our Glorious Leader's plan to triple tractor production. Is yours?
Saturday, January 05, 2008
Day 2560: A Trip to Pantoland
Saturday:
Last Saturday actually, and Uncle Alan treated my daddies and me to a trip to the Old Vic, where Ms Sandy Topsywig presented us with the King's Magnificent Balls... and the all the rest of "Cinderella".
Meanwhile, while we were out, the recorder was recording the conclusion of the second series of Robbing Hoodie: a double-parter (or two episodes bunged together) of "A Good Day to Die" and another trip to a faraway land in "We Are (not in the third series of) Robin Hood".
Let me just say this: only one of these productions had CONVINCING BACKDROPS!
Cinders was a magnificent production, with some marvellous acting (and occasional stripping!) from a cast very familiar to watchers of TV's Doctor Who, featuring no less than Queen Victoria as the Fairy Godmother, Foon van Hoff as the Wicked Stepmother, Mr Phillips the Bursar as King Neville, and Alan Maria-from-Sarah-Jane's-Dad (known forevermore as "Sarah's Mum" – we know why!) as Prince Charming. Though to be fair, the biggest part in the show – and the tightest trousers – belonged to Mr Paul Keating as Buttons, who had previously played Seymour in "The Little Shop of Horrors". Daddy Alex took me to meet them all at the Stage Door afterwards, while Daddy Richard hid under a nearby car for some reason [R: shyness!].
The songs were very jolly, if occasionally a little difficult to make out all the words, with PARTICULAR favourites being the Ugly Sisters' duet "Ladygirls" and Prince Charming's number on how he hates parties. There was also a funny song from Cinderella, describing her perfect BOYFRIEND… and Buttons singing "mine's just the same". (Well, it's that sort of production.)
The script was probably not QUITE as witty as you would have expected it to be, coming as it did from the pen of Mr Stephen Fry – Ms Topsywig's aside (was it scripted?) after one of the DOOBLE-EST of ENTENDRES: "Oh, you can just hear the wit of Stephen Fry pouring through" The inclusion of several rather duff groaners (which often didn't even raise a groan) was perhaps a little misjudged, though the audience loved many of the more ERUDITE gags.
"I 'ave an 'eadache," says the wicked Stepmother at one point.
"Oh, take a couple of aspirants," replies Ms Topsywig.
Pause.
Yes, all right, it took the audience a moment to get it too!
Funniest moment, it must be said however, was definitely not of Mr Fry's... see in a moment!
All the traditions of pantomime were there to be played with: hissable ugly sisters; audience participation (everyone shout "Cake!" whenever "Cake" is said on stage); a sing-a-long... with actions; a pantomime cow (yes, I KNOW there isn't a pantomime cow in "Cinderella"); a magical transformation; some of the kiddies invited up on stage...
Oohh, the kiddies on the stage. They say: never work with CHILDREN or ELEPHANTS! Two little girls from near the front ("how can you not know Fortnum & Masons?" asks Ms Topsywig, "I plucked you from the best seats!") were asked to come and help Buttons prepare lunch for the entire family. Out of the hamper comes chicken and eggs and pasta and gentleman's relish (Ms Topsywig made a joke about gentleman's relish being Buttons's favourite which went right over my fluffy head!).
"That's all a bit BORING," says Buttons, "what can we add to our food to make it taste better?"
"Sugar!" says little girl number one.
Audience howls with laughter.
"Riiiiight," says Buttons picking up the large SALT POT. "Well, here's my SUGAR SHAKER!"
"Oh, well recovered," says Ms Topsywig.
"And what else can we add?" asks Buttons, reaching for the Pepper Mill.
Pause.
"Honey!" says little girl number two.
Audience dissolves into ANARCHY.
The role of Cinderella herself was played with SIMPERING GOODNESS by Madeleine Worrall. As Daddy Alex and Uncle Alan discussed, it is DIFFICULT these days, to believe in a character who is MEEK and VIRTUOUS. Daddy referred to the recent BBC adaptation of "Oliver Twit" where Oliver is not the saintly, prayerful little wuss of the book, but made over into a believable if modern cheeky scamp... thus making him just like all the other boys and leaving the viewer perplexed as to why he has so cataclysmic an effect on Nancy. For his Cinders, Mr Fry takes an entirely other approach, having her played exactly as good and true as ever, but with a Fairy Godmother who comments to the audience on just how SOPPY and WET Cinders is being.
The Fairy Godmother herself came jolly close to stealing the show (as did the singing MICE!) with her knowing winks and fourth-wall-shattering Mockney asides to the audience. "Heveryone's ha wonderin' 'ow we're goin' to do this!" she says as she stands over a ME-sized plastic pumpkin (i.e. large but not nearly large enough to be a carriage).
(No I won't spoil it!)
All that needs to be said is that it all ends happily: Prince Charming marries Cinderella; Buttons marries Dandini (well it's that sort of production); and the Narrator marries the Wicked Stepmother. For all of her huge moustache (in fact, Ms Topsywig performs the entire pantomime in character...as Mr Stephen Fry) this means that, as Daddy Alex pointed out, we finish with three couples: two men, two women and two who are one of each. How happy-making is that?
Probably more than the conclusion of Robbing Hoodie. Last year, the Sheriff managed to round out the first season by committing High Treason in front of witnesses. How to top that? Well, how about shooting the King in the back with an arrow! Last year, they decided to kill off Lady Marion... and then raise her from the dead. How to top that? Well how about just killing her?
The first of the two episodes – which, despite the hundreds of mercenaries and the Sheriff, Guy and Marion actually visiting new locations, manages to LOOK like they were trying to save money by having Robin's Gang just hang out in a barn all week – is obviously there to resolve any unfinished plotlines through the power of TALKING. So, Alan a Dale makes up his mind to turn back to the Light Side; Little John is finally given some acting to do; and D'jaq and Will Scarlett decide that they are in LURVE. (That's not COMPLETELY out of left field: it's been hinted at before, though the idea of some sort of rivalry between Alan and Will over D'jaq has been tossed aside.) Much manages to get a lot of justifiable anger off his chest. (Speaking of chests, my Daddies were both MOST disappointed that Robin did not keep his promise that he would be getting his top off more this year than last – that would be in fact FEWER times than last year. When he took it off ONCE.) Finally, Robin confesses that he's not able to kill people because it was all just too TRAUMATIC what he saw in the Holy Land. Sigh: Paging Doctor COD! Paging Doctor COD!
Part the other sees everyone off to the local sandpit (and ooh, look they've all got nice sandy-beige combats on) for a game of Crusaders. It turns out that D'jaq is actually terribly well connected, and not at all in trouble for (a) not wearing a veil at all and (b) hanging around without a chaperone with a group of men not related to her. Still, Robin is chums with the King of England.
Richard Coeur d'Lion, though, has clearly been spending TOO MUCH TIME IN THE SUN, as his brain has melted. Shifty chum of the Sheriff, Nasir (ho ho a reference to "Robin of Timotee"), pretends to be a messenger from Saladin to arrange a meeting with King Melty-Brain. And good King Richard agrees to sally off on his todd into the desert to meet whoever turns up. Because Kings do that ALL the TIME! I mean there's leading from the front and there's sticking your fluffy nose in the blender to see what happens!
And THEN Nasty Nasir asks for a word in private. And, because OBVIOUSLY no one who works for Saladin could be an ASSASSIN, King Melty-Brain sends his bodyguards outside. So Nasir reveals that someone Richard really, really trusts will say they are coming to protect him but ACTUALLY they're the traitor... and King Melty-Brain BELIEVES him, without ANY checking up or wanting evidence or anything. And so he sentences Robin to death and stakes him out in the middle of the desert without so much as a nice hat.
(Which obviously is a GOOD argument against the Divine Right of Kings, and possibly some sort of DETENTION WITHOUT CHARGE metaphor – though they've been trying to get over that sort of thing this season.)
Quite simply, the Sheriff's plan RELIES upon the King abandoning all reason and doing exactly what the Sheriff wants... which the King then DOES – which makes you wonder why the Sheriff needs to kill him at all!
It doesn't get any better once Robin has been set free by a convenient chum and proved that the whole deal with Saladin was a COMPLETE FIB. Kingy goes off in hot pursuit of the Sheriff into a ruined town leading to the whole arrow in back thing I mentioned before.
With the King lying stricken, Sir Guy finally gets his chance to do his thing, only Marion goes and gets in his way and doesn't he just have to stab her all over again. Then everyone else turns up, so Guy misses his chance again and instead he and the Sheriff jump on a horse to do a runner, at which point two things ENTIRELY FAIL to HAPPEN. Firstly Robin ENTIRELY FAILS to go completely bonkers the way he did last time Marion was dead and so does not shoot them full of arrows at a hundred paces (despite earlier bragging that he could kill a man at a thousand paces). And second, Richard ENTIRELY FAILS to whistle up his great big army and send them to OBLITERATE the fu... gentlemen who came within centimetres of MURDERING HIM!
Now we all know that Sir Guy is DEFINITELY the best actor in Robbing Hoodie, particularly this year doing his whole "ooh, my loyalties are so divided" shtick, and also his "but really I really AM evil, bwah ha ha ha haaa" shtick, but Marion and D'jaq and Will were all the REST of the good actors. Well, D'jaq and Will, anyway… So it's a little DISTRESSING that they all seem to have said "We'll be staying in the Holy Land, ta, very much" (in Marion's case literally IN the Holy Land!).
Actually, Daddy Alex is VERY WORRIED that Marion might just come back from the dead AGAIN.
(The theory, from some people, behind this goes as follows: look, it is SO obvious that Guy's sword is stuck in the sand next to her rather than even TRYING to look like he's really got her, that maybe Guy was faking out the Sheriff again... and Robin and King Melty-Brain went along with it for a laugh and... then they buried her as a jape and... oh dear...)
Frankly it is all total CODSWALLOP. Having spent a lot of this year trying to put right the sort of things that they got so very wrong in year one, they go and blow it all with a great big lemon meringue pie of nonsense. With which they then flan the viewer in the face.
Last year, the conclusion was DREADFUL because it was all plot without consequences on top of a whole year of nothing mattering. This year, things HAVE mattered, events HAVE had consequences. The characters, particularly Sir Guy but also Marion and even, startlingly, Much have grown and changed for their experiences. There has even been a sense of an ongoing PLOT – the Sheriff's Black Knights gathering their forces and Robin trying to get the King to notice. But then they go and finish it with THIS!
Daddy Alex thinks that it's not as bad as last year: one turkey does not bring down the season. But I am not so sure! I think it it's MORE of a let down after it seemed that they were going to get it fight.
Seriously, seriously Sheriff Vasey cannot possibly expect to get away with this AGAIN.
"Oh, Prince John will protect him!" NO, no he won't – when Richard says "Execute Vasey" then John has to go along with it, or at the very least put the Sheriff somewhere in hiding and very much NOT back in charge in Nottingham Castle.
"You're revolting," says Marion (obviously before being deaded).
"No, a revolution is when the people rise up against their ruler. What I am doing is Coup-ing," coos the Sheriff in reply.
No, Sheriff, it's only a coup if you WIN – otherwise it's merely TREASON, and for that you get a nasty case of what Mr Charlie Brooker calls HEIGHT REDUCTION!
So that was this year's PANTOMIME. Where's the Sheriff? He's BEHIND you! Oh no he isn't! Oh yes he is! Oh good grief!
And anyway, didn't Doctor Who do this story more convincingly forty years ago?
Last Saturday actually, and Uncle Alan treated my daddies and me to a trip to the Old Vic, where Ms Sandy Topsywig presented us with the King's Magnificent Balls... and the all the rest of "Cinderella".
Meanwhile, while we were out, the recorder was recording the conclusion of the second series of Robbing Hoodie: a double-parter (or two episodes bunged together) of "A Good Day to Die" and another trip to a faraway land in "We Are (not in the third series of) Robin Hood".
Let me just say this: only one of these productions had CONVINCING BACKDROPS!
Cinders was a magnificent production, with some marvellous acting (and occasional stripping!) from a cast very familiar to watchers of TV's Doctor Who, featuring no less than Queen Victoria as the Fairy Godmother, Foon van Hoff as the Wicked Stepmother, Mr Phillips the Bursar as King Neville, and Alan Maria-from-Sarah-Jane's-Dad (known forevermore as "Sarah's Mum" – we know why!) as Prince Charming. Though to be fair, the biggest part in the show – and the tightest trousers – belonged to Mr Paul Keating as Buttons, who had previously played Seymour in "The Little Shop of Horrors". Daddy Alex took me to meet them all at the Stage Door afterwards, while Daddy Richard hid under a nearby car for some reason [R: shyness!].
The songs were very jolly, if occasionally a little difficult to make out all the words, with PARTICULAR favourites being the Ugly Sisters' duet "Ladygirls" and Prince Charming's number on how he hates parties. There was also a funny song from Cinderella, describing her perfect BOYFRIEND… and Buttons singing "mine's just the same". (Well, it's that sort of production.)
The script was probably not QUITE as witty as you would have expected it to be, coming as it did from the pen of Mr Stephen Fry – Ms Topsywig's aside (was it scripted?) after one of the DOOBLE-EST of ENTENDRES: "Oh, you can just hear the wit of Stephen Fry pouring through" The inclusion of several rather duff groaners (which often didn't even raise a groan) was perhaps a little misjudged, though the audience loved many of the more ERUDITE gags.
"I 'ave an 'eadache," says the wicked Stepmother at one point.
"Oh, take a couple of aspirants," replies Ms Topsywig.
Pause.
Yes, all right, it took the audience a moment to get it too!
Funniest moment, it must be said however, was definitely not of Mr Fry's... see in a moment!
All the traditions of pantomime were there to be played with: hissable ugly sisters; audience participation (everyone shout "Cake!" whenever "Cake" is said on stage); a sing-a-long... with actions; a pantomime cow (yes, I KNOW there isn't a pantomime cow in "Cinderella"); a magical transformation; some of the kiddies invited up on stage...
Oohh, the kiddies on the stage. They say: never work with CHILDREN or ELEPHANTS! Two little girls from near the front ("how can you not know Fortnum & Masons?" asks Ms Topsywig, "I plucked you from the best seats!") were asked to come and help Buttons prepare lunch for the entire family. Out of the hamper comes chicken and eggs and pasta and gentleman's relish (Ms Topsywig made a joke about gentleman's relish being Buttons's favourite which went right over my fluffy head!).
"That's all a bit BORING," says Buttons, "what can we add to our food to make it taste better?"
"Sugar!" says little girl number one.
Audience howls with laughter.
"Riiiiight," says Buttons picking up the large SALT POT. "Well, here's my SUGAR SHAKER!"
"Oh, well recovered," says Ms Topsywig.
"And what else can we add?" asks Buttons, reaching for the Pepper Mill.
Pause.
"Honey!" says little girl number two.
Audience dissolves into ANARCHY.
The role of Cinderella herself was played with SIMPERING GOODNESS by Madeleine Worrall. As Daddy Alex and Uncle Alan discussed, it is DIFFICULT these days, to believe in a character who is MEEK and VIRTUOUS. Daddy referred to the recent BBC adaptation of "Oliver Twit" where Oliver is not the saintly, prayerful little wuss of the book, but made over into a believable if modern cheeky scamp... thus making him just like all the other boys and leaving the viewer perplexed as to why he has so cataclysmic an effect on Nancy. For his Cinders, Mr Fry takes an entirely other approach, having her played exactly as good and true as ever, but with a Fairy Godmother who comments to the audience on just how SOPPY and WET Cinders is being.
The Fairy Godmother herself came jolly close to stealing the show (as did the singing MICE!) with her knowing winks and fourth-wall-shattering Mockney asides to the audience. "Heveryone's ha wonderin' 'ow we're goin' to do this!" she says as she stands over a ME-sized plastic pumpkin (i.e. large but not nearly large enough to be a carriage).
(No I won't spoil it!)
All that needs to be said is that it all ends happily: Prince Charming marries Cinderella; Buttons marries Dandini (well it's that sort of production); and the Narrator marries the Wicked Stepmother. For all of her huge moustache (in fact, Ms Topsywig performs the entire pantomime in character...as Mr Stephen Fry) this means that, as Daddy Alex pointed out, we finish with three couples: two men, two women and two who are one of each. How happy-making is that?
Probably more than the conclusion of Robbing Hoodie. Last year, the Sheriff managed to round out the first season by committing High Treason in front of witnesses. How to top that? Well, how about shooting the King in the back with an arrow! Last year, they decided to kill off Lady Marion... and then raise her from the dead. How to top that? Well how about just killing her?
The first of the two episodes – which, despite the hundreds of mercenaries and the Sheriff, Guy and Marion actually visiting new locations, manages to LOOK like they were trying to save money by having Robin's Gang just hang out in a barn all week – is obviously there to resolve any unfinished plotlines through the power of TALKING. So, Alan a Dale makes up his mind to turn back to the Light Side; Little John is finally given some acting to do; and D'jaq and Will Scarlett decide that they are in LURVE. (That's not COMPLETELY out of left field: it's been hinted at before, though the idea of some sort of rivalry between Alan and Will over D'jaq has been tossed aside.) Much manages to get a lot of justifiable anger off his chest. (Speaking of chests, my Daddies were both MOST disappointed that Robin did not keep his promise that he would be getting his top off more this year than last – that would be in fact FEWER times than last year. When he took it off ONCE.) Finally, Robin confesses that he's not able to kill people because it was all just too TRAUMATIC what he saw in the Holy Land. Sigh: Paging Doctor COD! Paging Doctor COD!
Part the other sees everyone off to the local sandpit (and ooh, look they've all got nice sandy-beige combats on) for a game of Crusaders. It turns out that D'jaq is actually terribly well connected, and not at all in trouble for (a) not wearing a veil at all and (b) hanging around without a chaperone with a group of men not related to her. Still, Robin is chums with the King of England.
Richard Coeur d'Lion, though, has clearly been spending TOO MUCH TIME IN THE SUN, as his brain has melted. Shifty chum of the Sheriff, Nasir (ho ho a reference to "Robin of Timotee"), pretends to be a messenger from Saladin to arrange a meeting with King Melty-Brain. And good King Richard agrees to sally off on his todd into the desert to meet whoever turns up. Because Kings do that ALL the TIME! I mean there's leading from the front and there's sticking your fluffy nose in the blender to see what happens!
And THEN Nasty Nasir asks for a word in private. And, because OBVIOUSLY no one who works for Saladin could be an ASSASSIN, King Melty-Brain sends his bodyguards outside. So Nasir reveals that someone Richard really, really trusts will say they are coming to protect him but ACTUALLY they're the traitor... and King Melty-Brain BELIEVES him, without ANY checking up or wanting evidence or anything. And so he sentences Robin to death and stakes him out in the middle of the desert without so much as a nice hat.
(Which obviously is a GOOD argument against the Divine Right of Kings, and possibly some sort of DETENTION WITHOUT CHARGE metaphor – though they've been trying to get over that sort of thing this season.)
Quite simply, the Sheriff's plan RELIES upon the King abandoning all reason and doing exactly what the Sheriff wants... which the King then DOES – which makes you wonder why the Sheriff needs to kill him at all!
It doesn't get any better once Robin has been set free by a convenient chum and proved that the whole deal with Saladin was a COMPLETE FIB. Kingy goes off in hot pursuit of the Sheriff into a ruined town leading to the whole arrow in back thing I mentioned before.
With the King lying stricken, Sir Guy finally gets his chance to do his thing, only Marion goes and gets in his way and doesn't he just have to stab her all over again. Then everyone else turns up, so Guy misses his chance again and instead he and the Sheriff jump on a horse to do a runner, at which point two things ENTIRELY FAIL to HAPPEN. Firstly Robin ENTIRELY FAILS to go completely bonkers the way he did last time Marion was dead and so does not shoot them full of arrows at a hundred paces (despite earlier bragging that he could kill a man at a thousand paces). And second, Richard ENTIRELY FAILS to whistle up his great big army and send them to OBLITERATE the fu... gentlemen who came within centimetres of MURDERING HIM!
Now we all know that Sir Guy is DEFINITELY the best actor in Robbing Hoodie, particularly this year doing his whole "ooh, my loyalties are so divided" shtick, and also his "but really I really AM evil, bwah ha ha ha haaa" shtick, but Marion and D'jaq and Will were all the REST of the good actors. Well, D'jaq and Will, anyway… So it's a little DISTRESSING that they all seem to have said "We'll be staying in the Holy Land, ta, very much" (in Marion's case literally IN the Holy Land!).
Actually, Daddy Alex is VERY WORRIED that Marion might just come back from the dead AGAIN.
(The theory, from some people, behind this goes as follows: look, it is SO obvious that Guy's sword is stuck in the sand next to her rather than even TRYING to look like he's really got her, that maybe Guy was faking out the Sheriff again... and Robin and King Melty-Brain went along with it for a laugh and... then they buried her as a jape and... oh dear...)
Frankly it is all total CODSWALLOP. Having spent a lot of this year trying to put right the sort of things that they got so very wrong in year one, they go and blow it all with a great big lemon meringue pie of nonsense. With which they then flan the viewer in the face.
Last year, the conclusion was DREADFUL because it was all plot without consequences on top of a whole year of nothing mattering. This year, things HAVE mattered, events HAVE had consequences. The characters, particularly Sir Guy but also Marion and even, startlingly, Much have grown and changed for their experiences. There has even been a sense of an ongoing PLOT – the Sheriff's Black Knights gathering their forces and Robin trying to get the King to notice. But then they go and finish it with THIS!
Daddy Alex thinks that it's not as bad as last year: one turkey does not bring down the season. But I am not so sure! I think it it's MORE of a let down after it seemed that they were going to get it fight.
Seriously, seriously Sheriff Vasey cannot possibly expect to get away with this AGAIN.
"Oh, Prince John will protect him!" NO, no he won't – when Richard says "Execute Vasey" then John has to go along with it, or at the very least put the Sheriff somewhere in hiding and very much NOT back in charge in Nottingham Castle.
"You're revolting," says Marion (obviously before being deaded).
"No, a revolution is when the people rise up against their ruler. What I am doing is Coup-ing," coos the Sheriff in reply.
No, Sheriff, it's only a coup if you WIN – otherwise it's merely TREASON, and for that you get a nasty case of what Mr Charlie Brooker calls HEIGHT REDUCTION!
So that was this year's PANTOMIME. Where's the Sheriff? He's BEHIND you! Oh no he isn't! Oh yes he is! Oh good grief!
And anyway, didn't Doctor Who do this story more convincingly forty years ago?
Friday, January 04, 2008
Day 2559: What does Iowa Mean?
Thursday:
In Americaland, this year they are holding a contest to see who will be President after the Monkey-in-Chief is sent to Guantanamo Bay. This is going to be very much like the contest that they were holding LAST year (and the year BEFORE), except that someone might actually win.
The first stage of this game is played in the State of Iowa. No, sorry, the FIRST stage is played in a State of Nervous HYSTERIA and DENIAL aka the national media. We now move on to the SECOND stage, where actual people and/or Iowans get to have their say.
Because of the slightly ODD system they have over there, the candidates from either side spend most of the campaign slugging it out with their OWN SIDE in a sort of LEADERSHIP ELECTION to decide who will be the one to go through to the HEAD-TO-HEAD and play for DOUBLE JEOPARDY.
And the results are in.
For the Democratic (almost as Right Wing as New Labour) Side, the winner by quite a long way was Senator Barak Oklabama (named after the famous musical "Oklahoma-Alabama!") This was BAD NEWS for Senator Hillary-Billary (named after the famous musical "The King and I") who was knocked (just) into third place behind Mr John Edwards, the Vice Presidential Candidate from last time (the campaign named after the famous musical "Apocalypse Now!").
In terms of actual delegates to the National Convention, the difference is in fact TINY: Senator Hillary-Billary scores 14 out of the 2605 needed to become "The Candidate", a mere 2 behind Senator Oklabama! But that is not the point – the significant development is the DENT to her credibility that has been dealt by the big percentage gap between her and her main rival. Coming third won't have helped either. On the other fluffy foot, she IS married to the "Comeback Kid"... ooh, New Hampshire next!
So it is now the "Battle of the MO's": MOmentum versus MOney. The suggestion that money WON'T make a difference is obviously very SILLY – in a month's time there will be Super-Double-Duper Tuesday, the biggest day of Primaries yet, when 20 States with over half the delegates will be deciding – in particular the KEY States of New York and California, with loads of delegates each and on opposite sides of the country. Only money, and loads of it, will give anyone a chance to reach all the potential voters. This is where Hillary-Billary's deep pockets may yet count.
The feeling though remains that the WIND of CHANGE is very much in Senator Oklabama's sails at the moment. Though that can be a MIXED blessing – Mr Oklabama now has to do well, perhaps VERY well in New Hampshire, or risk the story becoming "faltering lead" and Hillary-Billary will be "Comeback Queen" – plus, where do you think she's been SPENDING all that money?
And it's so much more of a TOUCHY-FEELY Lord Blairimort sort of promise of change than anything tremendously TANGIBLE: Senator Oklabama not having adopted any particularly radical positions on anything, supporting the status quo on Roe v Wade, the Death Penalty and Mexican workers (although he did vote FOR a big fence to be built between America and Mexico). And he's wibbly-wobbly on Civil Liberties, with a vote FOR the Patriot Act on his conscience. He's also slightly blotted his EQUALITY copybook recently, by inviting so-called "ex-gay" and anti-gay-daddy preachers to join him on his "Hey Look I'm Black" Gospel Tour.
Of course, a lot of that could also be said of Senator Hillary-Billary, so the real question mark is whether Mr Oklamaba is READY for it; whether that same youth that gives a magic sparkle of the old Kennedy Camelot to his campaign also means he isn't yet experienced enough for the top job. Remember how he managed to threaten nuclear war against Iran, and ponder.
Ms Hillary-Billary definitely IS ready for it; frankly she's run America twice already and everyone knows she can do the job. And, out from under her hubby's shadow, she might actually be MORE radical than her rival... or than her Senatorial form and stated positions might suggest – remember how much further than him she wanted to go on health reform first time around? Incidentally, Universal Heath Care in America may now be an idea whose time has come, with both Democratic front runners including it as a major plank of their platform.
Clinton-Obama remains a possible "dream ticket" outcome in some people's eyes (though I'd still keep an eye out for a Clinton-Richardson combo: Governor Bill Richardson's status as "First Hispanic Candidate" for the Oval Office is often foolishly overlooked because of the big thrill around Mr Oklabama, but could be in fact more important DEMOGRAPHICALLY).
What remains ALMOST as interesting is that despite his second placing, STILL no one is seeing Mr John Edwards as a possible contender. Perhaps it is because of the HUGE weight of expectations that Ms Hillary-Billary and Mr Oklabama have gathered that "another white guy" is really no longer on the menu. Maybe it is just that he didn't come second by a BIG ENOUGH margin to gain LIFT OFF. Interestingly, his speech welcomed the result as a "vote for CHANGE", perhaps flagging up an intention to throw his support behind Mr Oklabama – THAT might be enough to propel the black Senator into the STRATOSPHERE and leave Hillary-Billary behind.
Meanwhile, on the Replutocratic (Dark Lords of the Sith) Side, the electors have chosen a Jesus-bothering, homespun, anti-Washington, folksy nincompoop as their front runner. This is, apparently, because they are crying out for a CHANGE from the Monkey-in-Chief. Riiiiiiiight.
Mr Mucky Humvee, a former governor of Arkansas, is an ordained Southern Baptist minister who believes in CREATIONISM and the DEATH PENALTY and opposes women's RIGHT TO CHOOSE and GAY DADDIES pretty much in general, though he HAS softened his stance on victims of the AIDS disease: he no longer believes that AIDS patients should be isolated in internment camps.
Rev Humvee has a slightly wonky immigration policy, both wanting to secure the American borders and allow illegal migrant workers a path to citizenship. This AMBIGUITY can easily be explained, because he is obviously following in the Monkey-in-Chief's simian footsteps and sucking up to the large HISPANIC community (while simultaneously appealing to religious zealots).
His GODLINESS hasn't stopped RUMOURS emerging that he fired the Arkansas Chief of Police when the latter wouldn't help out with a "problem" that Mr Humvee's son had had – i.e. when the Boy Scouts sacked him for hanging a stray dog!
Still he is not ALL bad, as he DOES support the Space Programme and NASA. Though whether this is as a first step towards blasting all AIDS patients into orbit, or merely as a mission to get closer to Mr God has not been made clear.
Coming a relatively poor second, only picking up 25% of the votes – a rather EXPENSIVE way of coming 9 points behind the winner – has got to be a blow for former governor and practicing Moron, Mr Might B. Roamin', whose political wanderings have taken him out to the conservative right to try and pick up votes. Clearly not far right enough, though, and probably not Christian enough though, either.
The NIMBY for Massachusetts (he opposed a Wind Farm project because of its "visual detriment") he supports more Nuclear Power and drilling for oil in Alaska as part of an energy independence strategy. On social policy, he sought to reintroduce the Death Penalty for Massachusetts (and was defeated) and wants to make abortion illegal, while pushing "Abstinence Education" in schools. His position on Gay Daddies is best described as peripatetic: he once promised to be a stronger advocate for equal rights than Senator Edward Kennedy, but nowadays has RENOUNCED his support for domestic partner benefits or non-discrimination employment legislation.
Naturally, he is PRO-WAR on Terra, and pro-torture, well torture-lite anyway. And he has said he wants to "double Guantanamo".
"I want them in Guantanamo where they don't get the access to lawyers they get when they're on our soil. I don't want them in our prisons. I want them there."
So, basically, anything that does his campaign at the kneecaps OUGHT to be a step in the right direction... except they appear to be favouring the guy who is Mr Roamin' but MORE SO!
In a tight race for third and fourth were President Ray-gun wannabe Fred Flintstone and a surprise comeback from the Monkey-in-Chief's bestest chum Senator McCain's Oven-Chips. Recent polls suggesting that Mr Oven-Chips might even WIN in a tight race with Hillary-Billary or Senator Oklabama might make him the one to watch if Mr Roamin' now falls off the post and assuming the Replutocats come to their sense about Rev Humvee.
Trailing in in fifth place was Mr Ron Paul, the only candidate who, while he may not be bordering on sane, is at least within shouting distance of the customs post. A strong advocate of CIVIL LIBERTIES, he opposed the Patriot Act and use of torture, and also opposes the so-called War on Drugs, favouring legalisation for medical use of pot. On the other fluffy foot, he wants to pull out of the UN and NATO and pursue a strict non-interventionist, even isolationist policy for America – which might be what most of the world actually WANTS America to do, but still labels him as a WHACK-JOB! Still, if he fails to win the Replutocratic Nonimation there are at least two minor parties – the Libertarian Party and the Constitution Party – who are seeking to draft him as their flag bearer, thus giving him two more chances to be HUMILIATED by the voters.
(Mr Rudy Giuliani got a derisory 3.5% but clearly hadn't even bothered to campaign in Iowa, so this may not be indicative of anything much!)
So what Iowa REALLY means is that it is GAME ON for the American elections. For the winners, the media coverage is FREE ADVERTISING for themselves and FREE ATTACK ADS on their rivals all in one. It will shape the nature of the debate and sharpen the focus on who the real choices are between for the States whose Primaries follow on – New Hampshire next week, then South Caroline then, importantly, Florida on the 29th of January before Super Duper Tuesday may – or crucially may not! – settle the matter.
For the REST of the WORLD this is another of those sports where America is the only country to take part in the World Series. We can only watch and hope and sigh and try not to SHRIEK as they make up their minds who'll be meddling in all the rest of our business for the next four years!
In Americaland, this year they are holding a contest to see who will be President after the Monkey-in-Chief is sent to Guantanamo Bay. This is going to be very much like the contest that they were holding LAST year (and the year BEFORE), except that someone might actually win.
The first stage of this game is played in the State of Iowa. No, sorry, the FIRST stage is played in a State of Nervous HYSTERIA and DENIAL aka the national media. We now move on to the SECOND stage, where actual people and/or Iowans get to have their say.
Because of the slightly ODD system they have over there, the candidates from either side spend most of the campaign slugging it out with their OWN SIDE in a sort of LEADERSHIP ELECTION to decide who will be the one to go through to the HEAD-TO-HEAD and play for DOUBLE JEOPARDY.
And the results are in.
For the Democratic (almost as Right Wing as New Labour) Side, the winner by quite a long way was Senator Barak Oklabama (named after the famous musical "Oklahoma-Alabama!") This was BAD NEWS for Senator Hillary-Billary (named after the famous musical "The King and I") who was knocked (just) into third place behind Mr John Edwards, the Vice Presidential Candidate from last time (the campaign named after the famous musical "Apocalypse Now!").
In terms of actual delegates to the National Convention, the difference is in fact TINY: Senator Hillary-Billary scores 14 out of the 2605 needed to become "The Candidate", a mere 2 behind Senator Oklabama! But that is not the point – the significant development is the DENT to her credibility that has been dealt by the big percentage gap between her and her main rival. Coming third won't have helped either. On the other fluffy foot, she IS married to the "Comeback Kid"... ooh, New Hampshire next!
So it is now the "Battle of the MO's": MOmentum versus MOney. The suggestion that money WON'T make a difference is obviously very SILLY – in a month's time there will be Super-Double-Duper Tuesday, the biggest day of Primaries yet, when 20 States with over half the delegates will be deciding – in particular the KEY States of New York and California, with loads of delegates each and on opposite sides of the country. Only money, and loads of it, will give anyone a chance to reach all the potential voters. This is where Hillary-Billary's deep pockets may yet count.
The feeling though remains that the WIND of CHANGE is very much in Senator Oklabama's sails at the moment. Though that can be a MIXED blessing – Mr Oklabama now has to do well, perhaps VERY well in New Hampshire, or risk the story becoming "faltering lead" and Hillary-Billary will be "Comeback Queen" – plus, where do you think she's been SPENDING all that money?
And it's so much more of a TOUCHY-FEELY Lord Blairimort sort of promise of change than anything tremendously TANGIBLE: Senator Oklabama not having adopted any particularly radical positions on anything, supporting the status quo on Roe v Wade, the Death Penalty and Mexican workers (although he did vote FOR a big fence to be built between America and Mexico). And he's wibbly-wobbly on Civil Liberties, with a vote FOR the Patriot Act on his conscience. He's also slightly blotted his EQUALITY copybook recently, by inviting so-called "ex-gay" and anti-gay-daddy preachers to join him on his "Hey Look I'm Black" Gospel Tour.
Of course, a lot of that could also be said of Senator Hillary-Billary, so the real question mark is whether Mr Oklamaba is READY for it; whether that same youth that gives a magic sparkle of the old Kennedy Camelot to his campaign also means he isn't yet experienced enough for the top job. Remember how he managed to threaten nuclear war against Iran, and ponder.
Ms Hillary-Billary definitely IS ready for it; frankly she's run America twice already and everyone knows she can do the job. And, out from under her hubby's shadow, she might actually be MORE radical than her rival... or than her Senatorial form and stated positions might suggest – remember how much further than him she wanted to go on health reform first time around? Incidentally, Universal Heath Care in America may now be an idea whose time has come, with both Democratic front runners including it as a major plank of their platform.
Clinton-Obama remains a possible "dream ticket" outcome in some people's eyes (though I'd still keep an eye out for a Clinton-Richardson combo: Governor Bill Richardson's status as "First Hispanic Candidate" for the Oval Office is often foolishly overlooked because of the big thrill around Mr Oklabama, but could be in fact more important DEMOGRAPHICALLY).
What remains ALMOST as interesting is that despite his second placing, STILL no one is seeing Mr John Edwards as a possible contender. Perhaps it is because of the HUGE weight of expectations that Ms Hillary-Billary and Mr Oklabama have gathered that "another white guy" is really no longer on the menu. Maybe it is just that he didn't come second by a BIG ENOUGH margin to gain LIFT OFF. Interestingly, his speech welcomed the result as a "vote for CHANGE", perhaps flagging up an intention to throw his support behind Mr Oklabama – THAT might be enough to propel the black Senator into the STRATOSPHERE and leave Hillary-Billary behind.
Meanwhile, on the Replutocratic (Dark Lords of the Sith) Side, the electors have chosen a Jesus-bothering, homespun, anti-Washington, folksy nincompoop as their front runner. This is, apparently, because they are crying out for a CHANGE from the Monkey-in-Chief. Riiiiiiiight.
Mr Mucky Humvee, a former governor of Arkansas, is an ordained Southern Baptist minister who believes in CREATIONISM and the DEATH PENALTY and opposes women's RIGHT TO CHOOSE and GAY DADDIES pretty much in general, though he HAS softened his stance on victims of the AIDS disease: he no longer believes that AIDS patients should be isolated in internment camps.
Rev Humvee has a slightly wonky immigration policy, both wanting to secure the American borders and allow illegal migrant workers a path to citizenship. This AMBIGUITY can easily be explained, because he is obviously following in the Monkey-in-Chief's simian footsteps and sucking up to the large HISPANIC community (while simultaneously appealing to religious zealots).
His GODLINESS hasn't stopped RUMOURS emerging that he fired the Arkansas Chief of Police when the latter wouldn't help out with a "problem" that Mr Humvee's son had had – i.e. when the Boy Scouts sacked him for hanging a stray dog!
Still he is not ALL bad, as he DOES support the Space Programme and NASA. Though whether this is as a first step towards blasting all AIDS patients into orbit, or merely as a mission to get closer to Mr God has not been made clear.
Coming a relatively poor second, only picking up 25% of the votes – a rather EXPENSIVE way of coming 9 points behind the winner – has got to be a blow for former governor and practicing Moron, Mr Might B. Roamin', whose political wanderings have taken him out to the conservative right to try and pick up votes. Clearly not far right enough, though, and probably not Christian enough though, either.
The NIMBY for Massachusetts (he opposed a Wind Farm project because of its "visual detriment") he supports more Nuclear Power and drilling for oil in Alaska as part of an energy independence strategy. On social policy, he sought to reintroduce the Death Penalty for Massachusetts (and was defeated) and wants to make abortion illegal, while pushing "Abstinence Education" in schools. His position on Gay Daddies is best described as peripatetic: he once promised to be a stronger advocate for equal rights than Senator Edward Kennedy, but nowadays has RENOUNCED his support for domestic partner benefits or non-discrimination employment legislation.
Naturally, he is PRO-WAR on Terra, and pro-torture, well torture-lite anyway. And he has said he wants to "double Guantanamo".
"I want them in Guantanamo where they don't get the access to lawyers they get when they're on our soil. I don't want them in our prisons. I want them there."
So, basically, anything that does his campaign at the kneecaps OUGHT to be a step in the right direction... except they appear to be favouring the guy who is Mr Roamin' but MORE SO!
In a tight race for third and fourth were President Ray-gun wannabe Fred Flintstone and a surprise comeback from the Monkey-in-Chief's bestest chum Senator McCain's Oven-Chips. Recent polls suggesting that Mr Oven-Chips might even WIN in a tight race with Hillary-Billary or Senator Oklabama might make him the one to watch if Mr Roamin' now falls off the post and assuming the Replutocats come to their sense about Rev Humvee.
Trailing in in fifth place was Mr Ron Paul, the only candidate who, while he may not be bordering on sane, is at least within shouting distance of the customs post. A strong advocate of CIVIL LIBERTIES, he opposed the Patriot Act and use of torture, and also opposes the so-called War on Drugs, favouring legalisation for medical use of pot. On the other fluffy foot, he wants to pull out of the UN and NATO and pursue a strict non-interventionist, even isolationist policy for America – which might be what most of the world actually WANTS America to do, but still labels him as a WHACK-JOB! Still, if he fails to win the Replutocratic Nonimation there are at least two minor parties – the Libertarian Party and the Constitution Party – who are seeking to draft him as their flag bearer, thus giving him two more chances to be HUMILIATED by the voters.
(Mr Rudy Giuliani got a derisory 3.5% but clearly hadn't even bothered to campaign in Iowa, so this may not be indicative of anything much!)
So what Iowa REALLY means is that it is GAME ON for the American elections. For the winners, the media coverage is FREE ADVERTISING for themselves and FREE ATTACK ADS on their rivals all in one. It will shape the nature of the debate and sharpen the focus on who the real choices are between for the States whose Primaries follow on – New Hampshire next week, then South Caroline then, importantly, Florida on the 29th of January before Super Duper Tuesday may – or crucially may not! – settle the matter.
For the REST of the WORLD this is another of those sports where America is the only country to take part in the World Series. We can only watch and hope and sigh and try not to SHRIEK as they make up their minds who'll be meddling in all the rest of our business for the next four years!
Day 2558: Old King Coal
Wednesday:
Conservatory controlled Medway Council in Kent have voted in favour of a new COAL POWERED electricity station.
Coal is BAD because it produces the GREENHOUSE GAS Carbon Dioxide when burned. But things are a little more complicated than just "Coal: Bad".
The electric company, E.On, are promising that they will be REPLACING an existing coal station with a new, more efficient, less polluting one. Which sounds good, doesn't it? And, they say, they will be using the very latest in "Carbon Capture technology" further to reduce the climate change impact. So that is nice, isn't it?
Or is it?
Simply comparing the – hypothetical – better carbon emissions from the new plant to the old one sounds good, but it is not really the very best way of planning. For starters, you should do a PROPER calculation of the Carbon Footprint that involves adding in all the Carbon Dioxide that will be released by the process of BUILDING the new power station (and presumably demolishing the old one), add up the emissions over the plant's expected working life and then see if they are any better than keeping as you are.
But, more importantly, you should ask yourself: what are the ALTERNATIVES? The new coal plant MAY WELL be better than the old one, but is it cleaner than a nice WINDMILL FARM?
And how much do the promised "better emissions" rely upon as yet unproven carbon capture and storage processes?
I would also like to know where this proposed coal is to come from. Believe it or not, despite having billions of tonnes of coal reserves underneath our island, Great Britain nowadays IMPORTS the vast majority of the coal that we use for generating power. This, it seems to me, adds a whole load of extra carbon footprints to the TRAIL of GUILT! What is more, the coal that we import is often more SULPHUROUS than the stuff we dig up at home, meaning that it is worse for making ACID RAIN and other non-greenhouse pollution.
Of course, there are PRACTICALITIES involved here. A coal-fired station may well be QUICKER to build and CLOSER to where it is needed (though not THAT much closer than the Thames Array in the estuary that the Kingsnorth station will overlook). The company has an obligation to maintain the supply of electricity and at a reasonable cost. At the moment the financial incentive is on CHEAPER power, with the environment as at best a concern for the PR office. That is why there should be a proper CARBON TAX to rebalance the decision in favour of the most environmentally friendly option.
Anyway, "greening up" our fossil fuel based power generation can only be, at best, a STOP GAP solution while we get on a build a Hydrogen Economy. Even if it wasn't halfway to roasting the planet, coal – like gas and oil – is a FINITE resource that will run out. Sticking the CO2 back at the bottom of the sea is NOT going to magically replenish the oil reserves! The possibility of mopping up the CO2 by artificially triggering ALGAL BLOOMS (like the one that took place in the Silurian Period!) may do more HARM than good! It may even be "blooming stupid".
We need to think about LONG TERM SUSTAINABILITY as well as SHORT TERM PROFITS.
This would be Britain's first new coal powered station in thirty years. I think that this needs a LOT more thought.
Conservatory controlled Medway Council in Kent have voted in favour of a new COAL POWERED electricity station.
Coal is BAD because it produces the GREENHOUSE GAS Carbon Dioxide when burned. But things are a little more complicated than just "Coal: Bad".
The electric company, E.On, are promising that they will be REPLACING an existing coal station with a new, more efficient, less polluting one. Which sounds good, doesn't it? And, they say, they will be using the very latest in "Carbon Capture technology" further to reduce the climate change impact. So that is nice, isn't it?
Or is it?
Simply comparing the – hypothetical – better carbon emissions from the new plant to the old one sounds good, but it is not really the very best way of planning. For starters, you should do a PROPER calculation of the Carbon Footprint that involves adding in all the Carbon Dioxide that will be released by the process of BUILDING the new power station (and presumably demolishing the old one), add up the emissions over the plant's expected working life and then see if they are any better than keeping as you are.
But, more importantly, you should ask yourself: what are the ALTERNATIVES? The new coal plant MAY WELL be better than the old one, but is it cleaner than a nice WINDMILL FARM?
And how much do the promised "better emissions" rely upon as yet unproven carbon capture and storage processes?
I would also like to know where this proposed coal is to come from. Believe it or not, despite having billions of tonnes of coal reserves underneath our island, Great Britain nowadays IMPORTS the vast majority of the coal that we use for generating power. This, it seems to me, adds a whole load of extra carbon footprints to the TRAIL of GUILT! What is more, the coal that we import is often more SULPHUROUS than the stuff we dig up at home, meaning that it is worse for making ACID RAIN and other non-greenhouse pollution.
Of course, there are PRACTICALITIES involved here. A coal-fired station may well be QUICKER to build and CLOSER to where it is needed (though not THAT much closer than the Thames Array in the estuary that the Kingsnorth station will overlook). The company has an obligation to maintain the supply of electricity and at a reasonable cost. At the moment the financial incentive is on CHEAPER power, with the environment as at best a concern for the PR office. That is why there should be a proper CARBON TAX to rebalance the decision in favour of the most environmentally friendly option.
Anyway, "greening up" our fossil fuel based power generation can only be, at best, a STOP GAP solution while we get on a build a Hydrogen Economy. Even if it wasn't halfway to roasting the planet, coal – like gas and oil – is a FINITE resource that will run out. Sticking the CO2 back at the bottom of the sea is NOT going to magically replenish the oil reserves! The possibility of mopping up the CO2 by artificially triggering ALGAL BLOOMS (like the one that took place in the Silurian Period!) may do more HARM than good! It may even be "blooming stupid".
We need to think about LONG TERM SUSTAINABILITY as well as SHORT TERM PROFITS.
This would be Britain's first new coal powered station in thirty years. I think that this needs a LOT more thought.
Wednesday, January 02, 2008
Day 2557: Eight is the Magic Number
Hooray, I am EIGHT!
[R: He is seven, but there's no arguing with him.]
Today I had a very happy birthday, with lots of presents but my especially favourite was getting all of Mr Pierce on DVD from Daddy Alex along with this EXCELLENT card:
The Name's Dome, Millennium Dome
'Tis the season to get Tag'd, it would seem, and so we had a VERY SEASONAL Magic Eight Meme from Citizen Alix, while everyone else seems to be picking their eight wishes for '08.
Here are MY eight BIRTHDAY wishes then:
1. Mr Brian to win the Mayor of London job (or at least beat Bonkers Boris into third)
2. "James Bond 22" to be as brilliant as "Casino Royale" and to have a REALLY good name, when they think of one
3. Mr Frown to take Mr Clogg's GOOD ADVICE and abolish the I.D.iot cards scheme
4. Everyone to enjoy Mr Simon's new Doctor Who book so much that he is IMMEDIATELY asked to come and write a TV episode (and he asks Daddy Alex and Daddy Richard to come and help him)
5. A cheap and practical hydrogen fuel cell (or other clean car engine) to be invented
6. Mr Lucas to relent and announce "Star Wars: Episode VII: Elephant of the Force" for release in 2010.
7. The next American President to be GOOD
8. I get offered a three book and movie deal for the publication of my Diary!
Phew, that was more difficult than I expected! And Citizen Alix's are EVEN HARDER, but I will TRY to give some answers to her too:
8 things I’m passionate about:
Eight sticky buns
8 things I want to do before I die
Get into the House of Lords Club
8 things I say often
Daddy! Don't SING!
8 books I’ve read recently or am still reading
"The Pirate Loop" by Mr Simon (I like the robots of Milky Pink City)
8 songs I could listen to over and over and do
The theme song from "Casino Royale": "You Know My Name (It's Millennium)"
8 things that attract me to my best friends
Fluffiness
PS:
Happy New Year, Everyone!Tuesday, January 01, 2008
Day 2555: Lord Blairimort is History!
Sunday:
At least according to Mr Steven "Pants on" Byers, and he's an expert in BURYING the BAD NEWS.
Some people think that this is a sign that the Blairite wing of the Labour are ready to bury the hatchet – and for once, NOT in Mr Frown's BACK!
This should be HAPPY news, and only a CYNICAL person could think that it is because they are scared of the Conservatories "resonating" with the public.
Mr Frown, for his part, continues to offer a New Year of New Change for New Labour: he intends to find whole new ways to MESS UP Lord Blairimort's legacy!
At least according to Mr Steven "Pants on" Byers, and he's an expert in BURYING the BAD NEWS.
Some people think that this is a sign that the Blairite wing of the Labour are ready to bury the hatchet – and for once, NOT in Mr Frown's BACK!
This should be HAPPY news, and only a CYNICAL person could think that it is because they are scared of the Conservatories "resonating" with the public.
Mr Frown, for his part, continues to offer a New Year of New Change for New Labour: he intends to find whole new ways to MESS UP Lord Blairimort's legacy!
Day 2554: Do they REALLY want to work with us?
Saturday:
That is what Mr Clogg wants to know, after receiving FULSOME offers of support from Mr Frown and Mr Balloon.
Being a KIND and TRUSTING sort of person – who does not know them like you and I do – Mr Clogg has taken them at their word. That is why he is inviting the other parties to help him to sort out constitutional reform.
I am sure that they will be VERY keen to help – just as the have for the last NINETY years. Er.
Oh well, it MIGHT be worth a try – if only to show them up for what they are really like!
That is what Mr Clogg wants to know, after receiving FULSOME offers of support from Mr Frown and Mr Balloon.
Being a KIND and TRUSTING sort of person – who does not know them like you and I do – Mr Clogg has taken them at their word. That is why he is inviting the other parties to help him to sort out constitutional reform.
I am sure that they will be VERY keen to help – just as the have for the last NINETY years. Er.
Oh well, it MIGHT be worth a try – if only to show them up for what they are really like!
Day 2552: Benazir Bhutto
Thursday:
Ms Benazir Bhutto, assassinated trying to return Pakistan to democracy.
This was the most shocking news, and it caught us completely by surprise, not hearing it until the headlines after the conclusion of "Extras", and not believing it for several moments after that.
It is, of course, appalling. But also appalling for the inevitable all-crushing on rush of the rolling news cycle. No concessions are made to people only just receiving the next news, and no excuses for not keeping up. The headlines were already taking the horror of assassination AS READ.
By the next day, reports went straight into Ms Bhutto's funeral and never mind if you had no idea that she had even died. By Saturday we were into speculation about the succession and questioning the accounts of what actually happened. By Sunday, a nineteen-year-old Oxford undergraduate had had the title of Mr Number One Target bestowed upon him. I really, really cannot begin to guess how he's going to be able to cope.
This is the modern age: relentless, unstoppable, appalling and no time to BE appalled.
Ms Benazir Bhutto, assassinated trying to return Pakistan to democracy.
This was the most shocking news, and it caught us completely by surprise, not hearing it until the headlines after the conclusion of "Extras", and not believing it for several moments after that.
It is, of course, appalling. But also appalling for the inevitable all-crushing on rush of the rolling news cycle. No concessions are made to people only just receiving the next news, and no excuses for not keeping up. The headlines were already taking the horror of assassination AS READ.
By the next day, reports went straight into Ms Bhutto's funeral and never mind if you had no idea that she had even died. By Saturday we were into speculation about the succession and questioning the accounts of what actually happened. By Sunday, a nineteen-year-old Oxford undergraduate had had the title of Mr Number One Target bestowed upon him. I really, really cannot begin to guess how he's going to be able to cope.
This is the modern age: relentless, unstoppable, appalling and no time to BE appalled.
Day 2549: Dancing on the Head of a Pin
Monday:
Ain't technology grand!
It was written using a device called Focused Ion Beam (FIB). How can you resist that!
Now, let's make it so small it can't be read AT ALL!
Ain't technology grand!
It was written using a device called Focused Ion Beam (FIB). How can you resist that!
Now, let's make it so small it can't be read AT ALL!
Day 2548: Lord Blairimort in the Biggest Cult in the UK. (I said CULT!)
Sunday:
In the Spirit of Christmas our former Prime Monster has gone in search of a Get Out of Hell Free Card.
This in a week when UK Catholics are claiming to have overtaken the Anglicans as Britain's favourite flavour of fantasy.
Actually, the numbers are for weekly attendance, and the claim is that there are 862,000 taking Mass compared with only 852,000 celebrating Communion.
Or to put it another way, of the 59,000,000 Britons today, NEITHER of the largest two religions can break the one million worshipers barrier – a strong suggestion that the REAL winner is the SECULAR majority.
In the Spirit of Christmas our former Prime Monster has gone in search of a Get Out of Hell Free Card.
This in a week when UK Catholics are claiming to have overtaken the Anglicans as Britain's favourite flavour of fantasy.
Actually, the numbers are for weekly attendance, and the claim is that there are 862,000 taking Mass compared with only 852,000 celebrating Communion.
Or to put it another way, of the 59,000,000 Britons today, NEITHER of the largest two religions can break the one million worshipers barrier – a strong suggestion that the REAL winner is the SECULAR majority.
Day 2547: Elbows (wot I do not have)
Saturday
Driving through the howling winter sunshine yesterday, our hearts were warmed to hear from newly appointed Liberal Democrat Shadow Home Secretary Mr Huhney-Monster not once but twice, getting onto the radio news at one and AGAIN at five with two different stories.
Then glancing at the Wibbly Wobbly Web today, we notice that (after a story about Lord Blairimort needing to confess his sins) we see that the top two stories on the BBD News website are both Clogg-led: at home concentrating on education; and abroad, continuing to challenge the al Yamama scandal.
Along with stories about Mr Clogg not believing in Mr God and appointing Mr Eno oh, and the rest of his Shadow Cabinet it is good to see we have been working hard to seize the political AGENDA right from the outset of his leadership!
Driving through the howling winter sunshine yesterday, our hearts were warmed to hear from newly appointed Liberal Democrat Shadow Home Secretary Mr Huhney-Monster not once but twice, getting onto the radio news at one and AGAIN at five with two different stories.
Then glancing at the Wibbly Wobbly Web today, we notice that (after a story about Lord Blairimort needing to confess his sins) we see that the top two stories on the BBD News website are both Clogg-led: at home concentrating on education; and abroad, continuing to challenge the al Yamama scandal.
Along with stories about Mr Clogg not believing in Mr God and appointing Mr Eno oh, and the rest of his Shadow Cabinet it is good to see we have been working hard to seize the political AGENDA right from the outset of his leadership!
Day 2546: Too Few Turtle Doves; No Partridges in Pear Trees
Friday:
A report on the State of Europe's Common Birds says that there have been BIG declines in the populations of the famous Christmas birds. There has been a 62% decrease in turtle doves and an enormous 82% fall in numbers of grey partridges, with only large populations in Asia staving off the threat of Global EXTINCTION! Apparently it is down to more INTENSIVE farming taking away their habitats.
On the other fluffy foot, apparently BUZZARDS are making a come-back.
Which is nice.
A report on the State of Europe's Common Birds says that there have been BIG declines in the populations of the famous Christmas birds. There has been a 62% decrease in turtle doves and an enormous 82% fall in numbers of grey partridges, with only large populations in Asia staving off the threat of Global EXTINCTION! Apparently it is down to more INTENSIVE farming taking away their habitats.
On the other fluffy foot, apparently BUZZARDS are making a come-back.
Which is nice.
Day 2542: Bali Water-ed Down
Monday:
The Climate Summit in Bali has come to a successful outcome.
Well, successful if you count arranging for two more years of negotiation and hot air to try and come up with a REAL conclusion by the time the travelling circus gets to Denmark.
The BIG success being hailed is that the Americans, even the Americans, now accept that Global Warming is happening. Which IS a step forwards.
And yet I am strangely reminded of the Foreign Office's standard response to any crisis:
stage one: say nothing is going to happen
stage two: say something may be going to happen, but we should do nothing about it
stage three: say that maybe we should do something about it, but there's nothing we can do
stage four: say that maybe there was something we could have done, but it's too late now
The Climate Summit in Bali has come to a successful outcome.
Well, successful if you count arranging for two more years of negotiation and hot air to try and come up with a REAL conclusion by the time the travelling circus gets to Denmark.
The BIG success being hailed is that the Americans, even the Americans, now accept that Global Warming is happening. Which IS a step forwards.
And yet I am strangely reminded of the Foreign Office's standard response to any crisis:
stage one: say nothing is going to happen
stage two: say something may be going to happen, but we should do nothing about it
stage three: say that maybe we should do something about it, but there's nothing we can do
stage four: say that maybe there was something we could have done, but it's too late now
Yes, Prime Minister: A Victory for Democracy
Day 2538: A Late Treat(y) For Mr Frown
Thursday:
Mr Frown was a LITTLE late signing the Euro treaty.
I am a little late writing my DIARY about it.
Personally, I think that we SHOULD have a referendum on the treaty – even though it will probably be lost – because, as I have said before, there is a feel that people WANT to be heard. We may say that the REAL issue is "Europe in or out" – and it IS – but the REAL real issue is getting everyone to feel they are a part of the process.
Number Ten might dismisses this as a "fuss" but I suspect that this treaty will cause a lot more bother… for ALL of the Parties.
Mr Frown was a LITTLE late signing the Euro treaty.
I am a little late writing my DIARY about it.
Personally, I think that we SHOULD have a referendum on the treaty – even though it will probably be lost – because, as I have said before, there is a feel that people WANT to be heard. We may say that the REAL issue is "Europe in or out" – and it IS – but the REAL real issue is getting everyone to feel they are a part of the process.
Number Ten might dismisses this as a "fuss" but I suspect that this treaty will cause a lot more bother… for ALL of the Parties.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)