Day 3336: the PCC - Not Worth The Papers Who Pay to Have it Printed aka There's Been a Jan Moir-der

Thursday:


The PCC (Press Cover-up Cronies) have come to the opinion that twenty-five thousand people were wrong and Daily Hate Mail scribbler Ms Jan Moir-der is NOT a LYING, INTRUSIVE, HATEFUL HOMOPHOBE.

But let's be honest, that's a COMPLETELY UNNATURAL decision. Grown-up inquiries don't just lie down on the sofa and drop dead all the charges, so there's probably some very SORDID and DISGUSTING reason why they've rolled over and come to that conclusion.

No, don't worry! Apparently, according to the PPC, it's FINE for me to say that because I've mentioned the facts and the rest is just my opinion.

How it works: the Press Complaints Commission:

So let's have a look at how the PCC works for YOU. So long as by "you" we mean "someone who writes for/owns a newspaper who is looking to get pesky complaints dismissed".

Clause 1 – why the PCC thinks it's okay to tell lies

"Clause 1, […] states that comment, conjecture and fact should be clearly distinguished,"

"The article was a comment piece…"

So, right from the start it seems clear that, in the PCC's opinion, "facts" should be confined to the "factual" parts of the newspaper and that once you're in the "comment" sections anything goes.

"…it was important to recognise that the article had clearly referred to the official verdict on the cause of death that was available at the time ("all the official reports point to a natural death, with no suspicious circumstances"; "acute pulmonary oedema, a build-up of fluid on his lungs"). It was against this context that the columnist had stated her views on the matter."

This is the most amazing DOUBLE-THINK! So long as you state a fact, if you then go on to flatly contradict it, and strongly hint that it's not a fact at all but spin and cover-up, then that's not in any way being deceitful.

In other words, something like…

OPINION PIECE: "Ms Jan Moir-der isn't an evil witch. That's a fact. But that fact isn't true. Come on she's got that gingerbread cottage, and everyone knows that people like that are only interested in luring children into the oven."

…would be fine and dandy under that kind of logic. And it really isn't.

"…the Commission was fully aware of the widespread objection to the reference to Mr Gately's death as not being "natural". This was undoubtedly a highly provocative claim which was open to interpretation, and many people had considered this to be distasteful and inaccurate.

"It was a claim, nonetheless, that could not be established as accurate or otherwise."

Could not be established as accurate or otherwise… except of course by the coroner's post-mortem which, in fact, established AS a fact that Mr Gately's death WAS natural.

And therefore established this statement as A COMPLETE LIE.

And given that the post-mortem was QUOTED in the article itself, Ms Moir-der KNEW that it was a LIE.

"it was clear that this was a broad opinion rather than a factual statement"

No, it was clear that this was a LIE. Only the most WILFULLY PERVERSE interpretation of the facts can allow the PCC here to present Mr Moir-der's out-and-out refutation of the facts as anything other than a DELIBERATE DECEIT.

"Finally, the Commission considered […] the 'happy-ever-after myth'…"

"…the fact that a newspaper had published what might be considered to be an illogical argument (connecting two entirely separate individuals and seeking to draw a general conclusion) in itself did not equate to a breach of the Code."

You'll have to draw your own conclusions about WHY Ms Moir-der might choose to stoop to "illogical arguments" or what, shall we say, "prejudice" might lead her to include an unrelated death and not recognise that she was being illogical. Or for that matter why no one on the Daily Hate Mail editorial staff thought to suggest "hang on, this doesn't connect to the rest of what you're blathering about".

Clause 5 – why the PPC thinks it's okay to piddle all over someone's shock and grief

"Newspapers are under an obligation under Clause 5 to ensure that publication is handled sensitively at a time of grief."

Sounds good, doesn't it.

"In coming to a view on this aspect of the complaint, the Commission considered that the context of its publication was paramount. The article was a comment piece by a columnist whose regular readers were aware of the provocative nature of her articles."

In what way does that EXEMPT her and the Hate Mail from "an obligation to ensure that publication is handled sensitively at a time of grief"?

They appear to be saying that if you are PROVOCATIVE then you can say what you like, regardless of how people might be feeling, regardless of whether it's hurtful, harmful or even just old fashioned disgusting, and people jolly well ought to know better if they get offended by reading you.

Which, interestingly, is very much NOT what the Daily Hate Mail thought when PROVOCATIVE Islamic trouble-maker Mr Anjem Choudary wanted to make a COMMENT piece in the CONTEXT of being in WOOTEN BASSETT.

But after all, if it's on page 37 there's no way anyone might find out about it unless they were LOOKING for it. Because, you know, people had told them about the hurtful things that your paper was saying.

"It was also relevant that Mr Gately was a famous individual in a successful pop group. His life had attracted a large degree of public and media attention, as did his death. The immediate context of the column was therefore a body of public comment about what had happened to Mr Gately, and the forthcoming event at which his life was to be celebrated by many."

The only POSSIBLE interpretation of that is that the PCC is saying that the piece was fair comment BECAUSE it was a deliberate attempt to SPOIL that celebration of Mr Gately's life. Is it just me, or doesn't that make the article MORE offensive, not less?

Clause 12 – why the PCC thinks it's okay to be homophobic

You might think – given that the whole POINT of Ms Moir-der's drooling was to link Mr Gately's LIFESTYLE to her disturbing fantasies about DEATH that it would be unarguable that she came to this opion through a prejudicial opinion about the way gay daddies live. But no!

"Clause 12 makes clear that the press must avoid prejudicial or pejorative reference to an individual's sexual orientation. The question of whether the article was homophobic or discriminatory to gay people in general did not fall under the remit of the Code."

In other words, you can say WHATEVER you like about gay daddies IN GENERAL, so long as you don't refer to the SPECIFIC individual whom you are slandering.

Isn't that ACTUALLY BONKERS – how is it less bad for you to be homophobic to LOTS of people than to ONE person in particular?

But in that case how DO you get away with calling Mr Gately's death "more than a little sleazy" and "dubious events" and "strange and lonely", never mind all the snide asides of the "…could barely carry a tune in a Louis Vuitton trunk" kind, without it being in some way "prejudicial or pejorative"? Here's how:

"There was a distinction between critical innuendo - which, though perhaps distasteful, was permissible in a free society - and discriminatory description of individuals, and the Code was designed to constrain the latter rather than the former."

That is clearly self-serving nonsense: WEASEL WORDS – literally, because it's saying if you USE weasel worlds you can say whatever you like. Something like this...

OPINION PIECE: "There are some REALLY SORDID HYPOCRITES out there. Incidentally, Ms Jan Moir-der is someone whose actions in private* would make you BARF! Nod. Wink."

(*writing for the Daily Hate Mail)

...ought to be really OUT of ORDER because the IMPLICATION is clear, even if the cover of DENIABILITY is in place. That's the whole POINT of innuendo: that everyone KNOWS what you mean without you having to say the incriminating words. But it's the MEANING not the WORDS that is important. If you're going to have a code that claims to protect people against HATE SPEECH then you really HAVE to do people for being HATEFUL even if they do it SLYLY. Perhaps ESPECIALLY if they do it SLYLY.

If Ms Moir-der had said what she said but about BLACK people, then her career would be over; she would be UN-EMPLOYABLE. And rightly so. If she had said it about JEWISH people, she would have made herself ARRESTABLE in several European countries.




Ultimately, the PCC's defence of the odious Ms Moir-der is "free speech is too important for us to say people shouldn't be allowed to say stupid, horrid, deceitful things".

And on those grounds, THEY ACTUALLY HAVE A POINT.

She kind of DOES have the right to spout her horrid nonsense. And twenty-five thousand people have the right to call her the most hated woman in Great Britain. That's how it goes.

But they have to bend their own rules completely out of shape in order to say it. Under their actual rules, she's bang to rights and ought to have been severely censored. Double meaning intended.

The PCC's code of practice – in fact the PCC itself – exists as a framework to PROTECT free speech from Government legislation. It is saying: "look we will make sure that we do not lie or defame or distort or intrude or be blatantly bigoted and in return you won't bring in a raft of laws to silence us when it's really important."

And that's where this judgement is REALLY REALLY damaging.

Because if the Press thumb their noses at the LARGEST EVER protest about an article, if they break their own rules, and worse OBVIOUSLY break their own rules, then they are inviting the Government to take self-regulation away. People will DEMAND that the Government takes self-regulation away.

And then, next time someone discovers a scandal like the MPs' Allowances shock, the Government will super-injunction the Papers into silence.

You don't lie about "fire" in a crowded theatre. And you don't tell obviously homophobic lies about a much loved young man who has tragically died. Because the CONSEQUENCES are so much worse than the giggle you get out of doing it.

After all, a toothless tiger is STILL better than a sabre-toothed Government poodle!

Think about that, Ms Moir-der. You, lying, intrusive, insensitive, homophobic but above all desperately STUPID playing-into-Hard-Labour's-hands Government stooge.

Though that's just my opinion.


.

Day 3330: MI5 deny cover-up of [removed for security reasons]

Friday:


Writing in this morning's Tell-lie-graph, we hear from Mr Jonathan "good" 'Eavens, the head of MFI, the British Self-Assembly Security Service, who says:

"We did not practise mistreatment or torture then and do not do so now, nor do we collude in torture or encourage others to torture on our behalf."

Perhaps not. But we DID try to COVER IT UP.

It's, surely, UNDENIABLE that the Government DID go to Court to try to prevent the publication of the secret US documents which reveal that the treatment of British resident Mr Binyam Mohamed had been "CRUEL, INHUMAN and DEGRADING".

Nor can you DENY that the Government APPEALED against the High Court's decision to allow publication.

And it certainly looks pretty convincing that – allegedly –the Government had its lawyer try to lean on the Master of the Rolls to be a bit more, er, circumspect in his references to You Know Who.

With their fluffy foot forced, the Foreign Office have released the documents in question on their website and the crucial paragraph reads:

x. The treatment reported, if had been administered on behalf of the United Kingdom, would clearly have been in breach of the undertakings given by the United Kingdom in 1972. Although it is not necessary for us to categorise the treatment reported, it could readily be contended to be at the very least cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment by the United States authorities.

So, quite clearly, the treatment of Mr Binyam was ILLEGAL in Great Britain. And it was ILLEGAL in Americaland. And we KNEW about it. And we TRIED TO STOP anyone else knowing that we knew about it.

What part of "covering up torture" have I missed here?


And yet Mr "good" 'Eavens says that a cover up is "the exact opposite of the truth". Which is, presumably, something he would know about. He says:

"The material our critics are drawing on to attack us is taken from our own records, not prised from us by some external process but willingly provided by us to the court, in the normal way"

Apart from, obviously, the whole going to court to prise the documents out of you, obviously. And:

Likewise, we co-operate willingly with the Intelligence and Security Committee so that it can fulfil its oversight role.

Ahh yes, the Intelligence and Security Committee… the Chair of the Committee, Hard Labour's Agent Kim "Philby" Howells huffed and puffed and tried to say that the published documents somehow "don't count" because they've not yet been proved in a Court of Law. Well if the CIA's OWN opinion that it was torturing someone doesn't count, I don't quite know what standard of proof will be good enough for you!

And both Mr Philby and Mr 'Eavens fall back on the old " Appeal to Fear" fallacy: Terrorism is very scary. You must let us do whatever we like because terrorism is very scary.

Mr 'Eavens opens his letter with a reminder of "…the backdrop of the current severe terrorist threat to this country" and concluded with the threat that "…our enemies will also seek to use all tools at their disposal to attack us" threatens. And Mr Philby begins his defence with talk of "Islamist suicide bombers and other murderous terrorists".

The terrorist threat is "very real" said Mr Philby at one point. Well no, actually. The WHOLE POINT of "terrorism" is that MOST of the threat is VERY IMAGINARY. The terrorists want to control MILLIONS of people by just harming (very violently) a few people; everyone else imagines that the threat might be to them personally too and react through terror. That's why it's called "terrorism".

It's basically: This thing we do is very scary. You must let us do whatever we like because thing we do is very scary.

Hang on; that sounds FAMILIAR…


The terrorist threat to Great Britain is PATHETIC. Motorists kill more people in Britain in a WEEK than al Qaeda have managed in a DECADE! SNOW, for goodness sake, SNOW has done more to paralyse London transport than the bombers could manage. They couldn't even ram-raid an airport without setting themselves on fire! Is it REALLY that the Spooks are so jolly brilliant that they've thwarted all the really dangerous attacks, or is it just remotely possible that the enemy we are facing is a bunch of poorly organised, badly financed, ill-equipped, not-terribly-bright malcontents without much of a plan or even idea of what they want to do? Basically, aren’t our enemies a bit RUBBISH?

We don't need "Special Powers" and "Section 44 Orders" to defeat this lot. We don't need the police forcing tourists to delete their holiday snaps. We don't need people being arrested for bad taste jokes on Twitter!

What we need is to show them we're BRITISH (dammit!).

The BRAVE response to the so-called "terror crisis" would be to REDUCE the powers of the police, increase freedom and say to them "look, we reject your ways of fear, we have nothing to be afraid of, and besides, your mother smells of ELDERBERRIES!"


It's about time that we stood up to these COWARDS and BULLIES – terrorists or Government, take your pick – and told them to just GET STUFFED.

.

Day 3328: Marginalising the BBC (that's: Bible-Bashing Christians)

Wednesday:


Today the top men-in-frocks of the Church of England voted to express their "deep concern" that the national broadcaster isn't carrying enough ADVERTS.

…What?

Oh all right: their worry that the BBC isn't pushing THEIR AGENDA hard enough.

…No, seriously, what?

OK: as a body with a symbiotic relationship with the nation, it is TRUE that there ought to be representation for all and a variety of views presented to satisfy all the deeply spiritual people of this great country. But enough about women bishops.

The BBC absolutely should not have to broadcast any more FRIGHTENINGLY DULL FAIRY STORIES!

As usual, the religions ALREADY HAVE extra privileges that ordinary groups don't get. And, in a very DUDLEY DURSLEY fashion, they are now wailing that they don't have more presents than last year.

On the radio they've got "Fart for the Day" every single day; that's a LOT of farts.

On the telly they've got "Snogs of Praise" to kiss bottom with Mr God every week. Not to mention that ghastly Sunday morning punch-up hosted by Nicky Campbell. (This week's questions: Since Mr God says Lord Blairimort was okay to invade Iraq is that all right then? Do paedophiles have the right to privacy or should they be burned at the stake in public? And is paganism more relevant than Christianity – we ask Lord Summerisle and a representative of the Scottish Constabulary…)

And that's without counting the times Dr Sentimoo or the Beardy Weirdy of Canterbury get to turn up at random as a talking head as though a lifetime of manoeuvring your way up the CofE's gilded pole makes you some kind of EXPERT rather than just a different form of POLITICIAN.

(e.g. suddenly the Beardy Weirdy pops up on the otherwise excellent "A History of the World in A Hundred Objects" to talk about an Ice Age carving of swimming reindeer… "primitive art… that's a bit like Jesus…")

Remember boys and girls, OTHER political parties have to make their OWN political broadcasts!

And they ARE really like politicians: they are a group who hold certain philosophical views and hope to convince people that they should be allowed to exercise control over everybody's lives.

Except that normal political parties get their views ROBUSTLY challenged on a daily basis. When was the last time you heard Mr Paxo scoffing at the promises that Mr Jesus is said to offer?

"Nnnnyeaaas, Messiah Secretary, but did you threaten to overrule Mr Bealzebub?"

It's also a bit rich to complain that the programmes aren't "innovative" enough. From the theatrical company who've been putting on the same three shows every Sunday since practically the Dawn of Creation! Oh no, sorry, that's the other lot – this show's just been running since the First Coming.



And while I'm on the subject, it's not just the Christians who are at it: there's a former High Court judge who's been doing some special pleading this week too: Sikh-ing Special Privileges, you might say. (Oooh, I AM sorry!)

It isn't PREJUDICE when you are expected to follow the same rules as EVERYBODY ELSE.

It's not impossible that saying you can't carry a dagger around IS breaking your human right to religious expression. On the other fluffy foot, we don't say that, for example, Aztec Priests are exempt from the laws about Class A drugs just because peyote is an important part of their religious ceremonies. So why should "religious expression" give you the "right" to ignore the knife laws?

(Are the knife laws too draconian? Well, probably, but at least there you can justify your case on the grounds of wanting to reduce the number of stabbings, compared to "we have to wear a knife because we always have".)

But to say that you have a "right" to attend any school you like whether or not you are willing to abide by that school's (entirely sensible) rules is just SILLY. Not least because lots of people CAN'T get to go to whichever school they like because of league-tables and oversubscribing and so on.

And it's just not on to keep complaining that you are hard done by because you don't get special treatment compared to everybody else.


And no, I'm not going to bring the Hindu who wants the special right to be incinerated into this as it turns out they've found a way for him to go up in smoke that's within the rules.


A spokesperson for the BBC ought to have but didn't say:

"It's a crying shame how the so-called British Church has marginalised television. If only they'd stop banging on about gay daddies and give us some proper coverage!"


.

Day 3320: Are we AV-ing a laff? Or: What would a REAL New Economic Model look like?

Tuesday:


First thing, Mr Frown is going to ram voting reform through the Cabinet today and force it down Parliament's throat next week. But being Hard Labour his idea for "fair votes" is actually LESS fair.

Second thing, Master Gideon says he'll be bench-pressing the UK into a "new economic model" which looks suspiciously like the OLD economic model of "free-market capitalism with a hint of Government intervention".

Third thing, an e-mail from the POWER2010 people pops up saying that their 25,000th contributor has posted his vote for "None of the Above".

Funny thing: all these things are TOTALLY interconnected.


This urge to REJECT the entire political establishment, to vote "None of the Above", arises out of the perception that "all the parties are the same".

But that perception is driven by exactly the sort of language that Master Oboe uses today: dancing on the head of a pin so that he can say that HIS policies are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT to those of Hard Labour which in turn are completely different to those of the Liberal Democrats, when in fact everyone – yes even us – are offering relatively unimaginative VARIATIONS ON THE SAME THEME.

But that in turn is because those policies are driven by the choices of the electorate, or rather a very small sub-section of the electorate whose opinions are HUGELY MAGNIFIED by the DISTORTED calculus of the electoral system. Anyone who wants to get elected is FORCED into a very narrow range of options to satisfy a very narrow range of people: in short, swing voters in marginals.

And that, ultimately, is why we NEED a reform of the voting system that opens up politics to HUGE change.



Now, saying we want to vote for "None of the Above" is a SYMPTOM of people's disaffection, but as a solution it's nowhere NEAR good enough. In fact, I'd say it was both MEANINGLESS and it's LAZY.

Meaningless, in part, because it doesn't tell us WHY none of the above satisfy the voter. Did they want a candidate who was more socialist or more capitalist? Or more liberal or more authoritarian? Or more female or more male? Or more local? Or more famous?

"None of the Above" adds together all of the splinters of people not satisfied with what's on offer and artificially adds them together. And it would STILL probably be fewer than the votes cast for real candidates because it's not the lack of a "none of the above" box that causes people to NOT BOTHER TO VOTE.

People don't vote through a combination of "they don't think they can change things" and "they don't think things need to change (because they ain't that bad, really)".

But much more than that "None of the Above" is meaningless because what actual EFFECT is it supposed to have on the election?

It's just an "I turned up but didn't vote" box. Now, a "Re-open Nonimations" box, that comes with REAL power – i.e. if "RON" is elected they HAVE to re-run the election with new candidates – that maybe has some merit. Some. Maybe. But just giving people a chance to stick two fingers up at the candidates seems totally pointless.

And it's also LAZY because it's saying "I see a problem here and I refuse to try and solve it"; it is expecting someone ELSE to come along and present you with another option. Well, why SHOULD anyone be bothered if YOU can't be, eh?

And it's not like people AREN'T presenting you with other options.

IThere already ARE lots of choices beyond " the Above", because I'm assuming that by "the Above" what you really mean is "the three nationwide parties (oh all right, four, if you MUST count UKPnuts just because Mr Bob "elected-as-a-Conservatory" Stink sits for them these days… and in Scotland and Wales add a smattering of nationalists) who have representation in the House of Commons".

From Anarcho-Communists to Anti-Abortionists to Sickly Greens to British Nasties to Vanity Candidates to Respect the Leotard Gorgeous Pussycat George Supporters to Monster Raving Loonies… you have got a lot of choices.

But, comes the protest, they don't get elected.

That's partly because they don't have the support and partly because of the system. And those two things do feed off each other too. Our current system biases the results in favour of very large Parties or very concentrated-in-one-place Parties and completely ignores Parties with support spread out across the whole country. Under first-pass-the-port, you can of course get 49% in every seat in the country and still get no MPs at all.

In fact, it's the very geographical POLARITY of the two red-blue Parties – one in the urban strongholds of the industrial and post-industrial North, one in the Home County retreats of the moneyed South-East; neither can really be called broad based anymore, and both suffer from nasty inflammations of the Core Vote Strategy – that contributes to their unhealthy stranglehold on the Government and, more cogently, the DISTORTED importance of those few seats where swing voters can pick which of them will win.

So either organise a revolution and change the system or get involved with the Liberal Democrats and change the system. Or you can always start your OWN political movement to try and capitalise on that big wave of we-reject-all-the-other-parties that you think is out there. And see how far you get.

Anything less is just WHINGEING.

Which, quite naturally, brings me to Master Oboe.

His idea for a "new economic model" includes his eight-step programme of:

• Ensure the whole country shares in rising prosperity – by raising the private sector's share of the economy in all regions of the country, especially outside London and the South East (as thought the Government can actually DO this… does he mean he'll actually REDUCE the public sector in areas where private investment isn't matching London?)

• Get Britain working (well who doesn't want that?)

• Ensure macro-economic stability (well who doesn't want that?)

• Make Britain open for business (well who doesn't want that?)

• Reform public services to deliver better value-for-money (like EVERYONE says they'll do)

• Create a safer banking system that serves the needs of the economy (no, do you think?)

• Build a greener economy (gee, an original thought… when everyone else had it five years ago)

And

• Create a more balanced economy – presumably with both more motherhood AND more apple pie.

So, basically it's a recipe for BUSINESS as USUAL.

The Government (Hard Labour OR Conservatory… or even Liberal, if you credit the idea we could win) will raise most of its money from a not-very-graduated income tax and a regressive sales tax and then spend a third of it on pensions and benefits, and another third on the health service and schools and the army, and the rest will go on lots and lots of little things that are all important to SOMEONE.

(And remember, this system benefits a relatively narrow range of people, i.e: people on slightly better than moderate incomes who want their health care and pension paid for don't want the unemployed actually to starve but don't want to pay more tax to see them "dossing about" and would quite like various things, from the Arts Council to continuous supply of electrical power, to continue without them being bothered about the details, or more succinctly, voters in marginals again.)

Saying you want a Britain built on "savings, enterprise and exports" is saying you want them exactly as they are… but a bit better. It's really NOT a new economic model.


A GENUINE, but still MODERATE, change would involve actually addressing some of the things that the Government DOES.

For example, the NHS. Make it a separate corporation, like the BBC, paid for by a health insurance that would not be much dissimilar to the licence fee or a subscription. But oh yes, that's the great HOLY COW of British Politics and tinkering with it is as unthinkable as GOOSING Mrs the Queen!

Or the benefit system. Pay every UK Citizen over the age of 16 a Citizen's Income of £100 per week, paid for by an income tax rate of, say, 45% on all other earnings (abolishing employee's National Insurance), and abolish all other benefits. Depending on how much Employer's NI generates, it even raises money for the Treasury. And there would be a bit less bureaucracy. In theory EVERYONE on benefits is quite a bit better off and NO ONE has to be humiliated with means tests or medical exams ever again. But it's crazily difficult to work out how it impacts people on tax credits and of course everyone earning over about sixteen grand is going to be slightly worse off. That's not even average national earnings, so you'd never get THAT past those marginal voters!

Of course REAL change to our economic model means looking at the factors that are limiting our freedom and doing something about them. The BIG limiting factor is ENERGY. If we can greatly increase the supply of energy we can actually increase people's freedom too. This happened in the Industrial Revolution when we moved from person-power to machine-power, unfortunately fuelled by, well, fossil fuel.

("Unfortunately", because not only is it running out, and not only are we as a country increasingly having to import our energy supply but of course we now know that we are seriously damaging the planet that we happen to be STANDING ON!)

What we need in order to achieve a step-change is to invest in a new and more abundant energy source… if we can FIND one. (The obvious candidates would be hydrogen fusion – if it can be made to work like it hasn't for fifty years – or solar power – probably based on orbital platforms, which requires not just a lot of engineering but a lot of international co-operation too – or something from the exploitation of Outer Space – so we'd better not cancel the Moon Base… oh dear.)

The truth is, though, that GAME-CHANGING revolutionary developments like that tend to be EXTERNAL to the Government. To an extent, the best you can hope for is to LIMIT how much Government HOLDS BACK innovation – which certainly means stopping Lord Mandelbrot intervening to decide what universities should be studying! Because Government tends to be a conservative force even when the Conservatories AREN'T in power.

ALL Government is based on COMPROMISE – not just democracies, though there it becomes obvious, but even dictators have different power blocs to balance – and ANY compromise between change and status quo will take the edge off the radical, blunting it, even turning it back.

Ironically, the so-called "strong governments" generated by our first-pass-the-port system are in fact MORE compromised, more small-c conservative, more, in fact, WEAK, because there is a NARROWER number of people to whom they owe their majority.

That is why we have had conservative government for the last THIRTY YEARS, preserving the status quo for large business interests in the City at the expense of real progress; that is why Hard Labour turned themselves into rouge Conservatories; that is why when they said "things could only get better" things DIDN'T.

That's why everything comes back to electoral reform. And it's why Mr Frown's proposals don't go nearly far enough.

The Liberal Democrats favour STV, or Single Trunk Voting, because it gives most power to the VOTER – you get to choose between parties AND between members OF those Parties, so you can choose Orange Booker or Soggy Liberal, local candidate or high flyer, man or woman whichever you want. And we think it should promote MORE diversity because Parties will naturally favour MIXED slates leading to more women and minority candidates getting elected.

The AV system that Mr Frown proposes is really kind of like first-pass-the-port only MORE SO. The Parties RETAIN control over the candidates standing in each constituency, rather than giving the voter the chance to express a preference, and it REINFORCES the effect of local polarity, with a chance of making safe seats SAFER.


On the one fluffy foot, AV IS pretty similar to STV with single member constituencies. And once you've convinced people of the benefits of ranking the candidates – as opposed to systems with LISTS where the candidates are just RANK – then the move to multi-member constituencies is as simple as of grouping them by fives. Your five constituencies still have five MPs; you just have a better chance of having one you voted first preference for. You might even be able to use the results of the AV election to map out what an STV election "might have done", to show people how easily things could be different.

But, on the other fluffy foot, it's not always the BEST idea to accept compromise as your "first step". I mean look just at the House of Lords Club… we took the first step to reform in 1911 and compromised and STILL the buffers hang on!

And you know, even STV isn't some magical solution. It's not ENOUGH.

What we have at the moment is a BIZARRE system, where our representatives talk to THEMSELVES to make decisions. One where the lobbyists and the vested interests are all hidden behind the scenes and all we get to see is a weekly pantomime at Prime Monster's Questions. What we NEED is a system where the MPs SHUT UP and listen to US.

We need a Parliament that is open to EVERYONE to ADDRESS. We should not have to sit quietly in the Visitors' Gallery like good little children lest someone cry "I spy strangers"! WE should be the ones making the speeches, for and against. We're the ones it matters to! Raise a petition, get enough support and you should be able to take it to Parliament and have them vote on it. We shouldn't be beholden to the Great and the Good – more often the Mediocre and the Malicious – to decide what laws are good for us. WE should be in CHARGE.

We can't just TINKER round the edges. We need to EXPLODE our politics – that's in a METAPHORICAL sense, dear MI5 reader, no ACTUAL explosions – so that we let in the daylight so that everyone can see and let in new ideas so that everything can change.


.

Day 3317: Mysteries of Doctor Who #22: How Many Limbs Does Alpha Centauri Have?

Saturday:

Twelve.

Centauri, the funny-shaped Federation Ambassador to Peladon, is described as an hermaphrodite hexapod. That means he/she/it walks on six legs. But we can clearly SEE six more tentacle-like arms waving gaily out the front.

The rest is simple maths.

Of course in a completely different TV series, Londo Mollari, the funny-shaped Centauri Ambassador to Babylon 5, lets slip that the Centauri there have six prehensile, er, tentacles, sticking out the front too. And along with their four other limbs that must make them very nearly related to Alpha.

Though that probably makes Alpha even RUDER than she/he/it looks!

Actually, the fact that we can’t SEE the six feet on the floor, leads to the assumption that rather than being naked under that fetching yellow shower-curtain, Centauri is ACTUALLY wearing a floor-length dress with a bit of a ruff at ankle height. He/she/it likes a bit of rough, says Daddy. It’s green a tight collar. So it’s like the Centauri equivalent of a flesh-coloured roll-neck pullover. Very Nineteen Seventies!

Why not check out Daddy Alex's preview, and then go and see for yourself!


.

Day 3316: Lord Blarimort's Lesson for the Nation

Friday:

Addressing the Chilcot inquiry, the former Middle Eastern Invader warned of the danger to the World:

"If you let dangerous maniacs get their hands on weapons of mass destruction they WILL go around attacking people. After all, I did!"

He's right about one thing: there ARE some people in the World who are mad and dangerous and refuse to comply with the "club rules" that we need to live by if we are all to live together.

Lord Blairimort is one of those people.

Because the beginning, middle and end of everything about Iraq is this: IT WAS WRONG.


.

Day 3315: Millennium's Falcon

Thursday:

It's Daddy Richard's birthday! And what could be more fun than playing with some Lego.

Time to take my diary into a whole new dimension! Movement! Run VT!



Happy Birthday Daddy!

.

Day 3314: Holocaust Memorial Day – You May Avert Your Gays

Wednesday:


It's UNSUBTLE isn't it, to have to bring up the Equality Bill when we're remembering the ultimate HORRIBLE consequences of NOT just treating people as people. And yet here we are: STILL not learning the lessons of history.

Let's be fair, six MILLION Jewish people being murdered for NO REASON is way more than the quarter of a million Gypsy/Romany people being murdered for the identical NO REASON and the quarter of a million differently-abled people being murdered for not fitting into a BONKERS and completely-ignorant-of-how-evolution-works EUGENIC stereotype and the we-don't-actually-know-how-many gay people murdered that we DON'T ACTUALLY KNOW because when the surviving Jews and Romany and Polish Slavs and black people and prisoners of war and the rest got liberated the Allies DIDN'T liberate the gay mommies and daddies because being gay was STILL A CRIME!!!!!

But it shouldn't be the SIZE of your holocaust that matters, but the fact that it happened AT ALL. That some people could pick a community to blame and vilify and ultimately destroy is WRONG. IT doesn't matter whether that is a community of millions or one of hundreds. Every single person is uniquely different and that should be a reason for CELEBRATION not an excuse to put people in boxes. And then LITERALLY put some of them in boxes.

So now, the much trumpeted Liberaling of Britain revealed by the British Social Attitudes Survey, shows that since we've gone from the heady days of Conservatory Section 28 and Colin and Barry on EastEnders to swinging modern Civil Partnerships and, er, Christian and Syed on EastEnders so the public have swung from two in three agreeing that cuddles between people of the same gender is always wrong to ONE in three agreeing that cuddles between people of the same gender is always wrong… oh, we have a LOOOOOOOONG way to go.

And yet STILL the Bishops of the Church of England whine on about wanting SPECIAL RIGHTS so they don't have to follow the same laws as everyone else, just because they BELIEVE that they have a right to be NASTY. Suppose they demanded the right to fire people just because they weren't WHITE enough. No one, but no one would give them even a SECOND before ticking them right off. But if they want the special right to treat people as second class because they aren't heteronormative enough…

Sigh.

Steps towards treating people AS people have been made, sometimes in the face of the government kicking and screaming and having to be dragged to the European court and made to behave like a grown up. And, mark you, that's the CURRENT Hard Labour Government, never mind the preceding Conservatories. But it's FRAGILE and the forces of Conservatism are bringing their full evil might to bear. It would be all too easy for Mr Balloon – with his history of throwing bones to his right wing nutters, and his alliance with homophobic Parties in the EU Parliament – to cave and bring in Section 28 II this time it's personal… again!

So the BEST way to remember the Holocaust and all its victims is to ask yourself this: what are you doing to stop it ever happening again?


.

Day 3309: Captain Clegg Leads the Agenda – Mr Balloon is Labour's Mini-Me

Friday:


If you want something doing, ask a LIBERAL DEMOCRAT.

Last week, Captain Clegg put the Prime Monster in a tight spot about the Iraq inquiry and now Mr Frown finds he'll be facing questions and answering for his actions BEFORE not AFTER the Election.

This week, Captain Clegg skewered Mr Frown AGAIN, with a timely question about the Royal Bank-that-we-own of Scotland funding the foreign takeover of yet another British institution.


And all Mr Balloon can do meanwhile is COPY Lord Blairimort and bring up his very own "Jamie Bulger case" as "proof" that Great Britain is "broken". Again.

Frankly, this "broken Britain" guff is beyond BORING and getting INSULTING. If you WANT to see a "broken" country… go and look at HAITI.

When Lord Blairimort seized on the tragic fate of little Jamie Bulger, it was with the express purpose of reinventing Hard Labour as a party that sounded tough on crime, sounded tough on the causes of crime; it was about taking a perceived weakness and turning it into a strength.

Obviously it was not just WICKED and MANIPULATIVE to use a horrible – but extremely RARE – crime for personal political gain, it was also a TOTAL FLUFFING DISASTER for law and order in Great Britain, because it led directly to a decade of Hard Labour Home Secretaries trying to appear MACHO in order to outflank the Conservatories ever further to the RIGHT. As a result, far from being the person who makes Britain feel SAFER, the Home Secretary has seen it as his or her job to SCARE people more and more and more. And look where THAT'S got us!

The Conservatories have merrily followed Hard Labour out there, clearly with the idea that "opposition" means "the same but more so". In contrast to Hard Labour though, they are ALREADY the "hang 'em and flog 'em" party – so, when Mr Balloon tries to get tough, far from being a clever piece of repositioning, he is singing to the choir, he is preaching to the converted, he is giving them some of what they want. Rather than reaching out to a wider electorate, it is his OWN SIDE he needs to convince. He is speaking from a position of WEAKNESS.

After messing up the marriage bribe policy and with his recent run of poor performance in the House, is the HEAT starting to get to him? We've seen it happen before, remember, when Mr Frown first became Prime Monster and before the election-that-never-was, a wobble over Grandma Schools turned into a full blown melt-down. And here he is, propping up to old, failed, Conservatory Core Vote strategy all over again.

He's not EVEN announcing any policies that would address monstrous events like this. Do not get me wrong, I think that the Government is already FAR TOO intrusive and NANNYING, but if Mr Balloon's speech is:

"We should stop this sort of thing! Something must be done! And I for one will make sure that the Government does LESS to stop it!"

…then someone needs to check his logic circuits.

This isn't opposition; this is HECKLING.


You've seen it all before, but once again the REAL opposition to this frightening Hard Labour Government – and their Conservatory Mini-Me – is coming from the LIBERAL DEMOCRATS.

You can see it in the way that Mr Frown's hand was forced, so that he wrote to the Chilcot Inquiry saying he was ready to face them sooner, lest people start to ask awkward questions about why he's getting special treatment.

You can see it from the way that Mr Brendan Barber, Head of the TUC, is respecting Captain Clegg for pointing out that the Government itself was helping to fund food megacorp Kraftwerk's takeover of British confectioner and bastion of good business practice Cadbury's. A genuine case of Mr Frown being as effective as a CHOCOLATE CHASTITY BELT. (Actually, I don't know what that means, but I heard it on Blackadder and it sounds good.)

You can see it with the Conservatories too. When their Ms Caroline "Magic" Spellman was on Questionable Time asked about Conservatory married couple tax allowance policy, she wasn't responding to Hard Labour's Mr Liam "Father Dick" Burn but to Captain Clegg's arguments that it PENALISES BEREAVED and ABANDONED mothers and offers no help to families who aren't RICH enough for one parent to quit work.

They're not just LOVE-BOMBING us; they are FRIGHTENED of us, because they know that we are SERIOUS and they know that we are spotting the BIG ISSUES and getting the answers RIGHT.

I don't need to remind you that Mr Dr Vince "the Power" Cable was first to warn about the BUBBLE BURSTING; AND that he was RIGHT to say that the Banks needed cutting down to size. Even the President of Americaland is on board with THAT one now!

But perhaps you've forgotten that we were FIRST to spot MR Frown's ten pence tax takeaway, hitting the poor to give a tax break to the better off. No wonder Mr Balloon is so keen to COPY him!

On issue after issue, from Green Taxes to Gurkahs (Captain Clegg was campaigning for them more than a year before Mr Balloon jumped aboard) the Liberal Democrats are right there, leading the way, not necessarily taking the POPULAR choices, but making the RIGHT ONES.

Yes, even on Iraq. It seems very FASHIONABLE nowadays, especially among a certain class of Conservatory commentator, to say that our opposition to the illegal Middle Eastern invasion was "populist". As though the Craven Conservatories in Parliament – including Mr Balloon – who voted to go along with Lord Blairimort's war were somehow doing the BRAVE thing. They were not.

The Country WAS divided, but the majority (slightly) were FOR the War. Despite a million people marching to say "not in my name" the "popular" option was to to support the invasion. And the Liberal Democrats took a hit in the opinion polls too. But we didn't oppose the war to be "popular". We didn't, like Mr Balloon and his chums, just jump on the bandwagon, cheering the Hard Labour warmongers on, and never mind the evidence – not Mr Alistair Henchman's made-up dossiers, the REAL evidence that Mr Hans Blix and Bumsidaisy was finding (or rather NOT finding) in Iraq. No, we opposed the war because it was WRONG. And now a LOT of people can see that, and they agree with us.

Do we get everything right? No, of course not. But you've got to admit a PRETTY GOOD batting average.

Start with your PRINCIPLES. Consider the EVIDENCE. State your policy CLEARLY and PLAINLY. Explain the costs. Make your CASE. And in the end, most people see that you got it RIGHT.

That's why the Liberal Democrats are setting the agenda for 2010.


.

Day 3309: Millennium the Poster Boy

Friday:

Anything Mr Balloon can do... I can do BETTER!

This has been my one-thousand-one-hundredth diary, brought to you by the miracle of "mymrballon.com""






.

Day 3305: the Naked Truth – How Scottish Justice wastes HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS of POUNDS on LITERALLY NOTHING!

Monday:


So it's 2010 and the VICTORIAN ERA is still well and truly in full complete-lack-of-swing here in ye Olde Grande Britannia, as Mr Stephen Gough, aka the Naked Rambler, is released from Prison only to be re-arrested six paces later. Again. Because he's still NUDE!

Apparently he could spend the rest of his LIFE in and out of jail (well, "out-for-a-matter-of-minutes") as this cycle goes on forever!

And it COSTS a bleedin' FORTUNE to keep him (in the buff) in chokey.

Yet the Sherriff has the NAKED CHUTZPAH to accuse HIM of having no concern for the public purse!

Murderers, terrorists, MPs even… we don't send them to the Big House for the whole of their natural lives. And yet this man seems to be a worse criminal than ANY of them! What COULD he have DONE?

Well, Mr Rambler first became famous for his naked hike from Land's End to John O'Groats in 2003.

He was arrested several times over the course of his odyssey.

Nevertheless he completed his journey in 2004 and hailed it as a success!

In 2005, he announced his intention to repeat the epic voyage.

And got arrested again.

In 2006, he flew back to Scotland to appeal against the charge of indecency. Stripping off while on the plane in order to appear in court naked.

He was sent to prison for four months.

The following April, he successfully defended himself against the accusation of breaching the peace on the grounds, get this, that no one had ACTUALLY been alarmed or disturbed.

Yes that's: "naked man in NOT ACTUALLY FRIGHTENING shocker"!

But he remained in jail awaiting further contempt hearing… because he wouldn't get dressed to appear in the dock.

By November 2007, after nineteen months in jail already, he was found guilty of contempt and sentenced to another three months in jail.

January 2008 and – still naked – he is released from prison. He gets SIX PACES before he is re-arrested and banged up again.

December 2008 and it's the same story. He's taken back to court, appears naked – quelle surprise – and is charged with another breach of the peace.


Are our court officials REALLY so easily startled? Goodness knows how they cope with a REAL crime; they must just SWOON a lot.

Six months later and it's not so much déjà vu (with it ALL still on vu of course) as a revolving door policy at the court.

Sherriff Richard McFarlane, presiding, even pathetically claimed he had "no choice" but to send Mr Rambler back into clink. Yeah, because you should ALWAYS go for the Nuremburg Defence when quashing a man's liberties.

And then the good Sherriff starts on about MONEY! As though Mr Rambler had a penny in his pockets. Or even had pockets for that matter.

"Would you like to estimate how much it has cost as a drain on the public purse to keep you in prison?

"You don't care about the public purse or the public generally."

Message for you your worship: YOU are the one pouring the public's money down the toilet by insisting that it be spent on keeping a man in prison when he is NO THREAT to anyone.

Keeping him in prison for wearing nothing, that's literally keeping him there for nothing, has cost hundreds of thousands of pounds already.

But never mind THAT because actually there's something more important than JUST wasting public funds because you're scared of his gentleman's area.

SERIOUSLY, what is more offensive: a glimpse of WINKEY or a MAN'S LIFE in CHAINS?


And in fact, we are ALL in chains. Because this farcical law applies to us ALL.

Equating NAKEDNESS with BADNESS harms every single one of us.

We have SERIOUS intimacy issues in this country because we are always being told to cover up, put up barriers between each other. We have SERIOUS body dismorphia hang ups in this country too, with people OBSESSING over being too fat or too thin or too the wrong colour or too airbrushed (er)…

Some even go so far as to assert that a naked people must be a "threat to the children". ("Oh won't somebody think of the children!") Because OBVIOUSLY naked people MUST be exactly the same as PAEDOPHILES. And as soon as you can make THAT connection then WHOAH! anything goes! So long as it STAYS ON, obviously!

That is why it is USUAL at this point to wave a big surrender-flag of disclaimer and say something like "but being naked isn't about the SEX! (shock! horror! cover the fluffy elephant's eyes!)".

But I'm NOT going to say that because I'm not willing to surrender!

I have had a "TALK" with my Daddies.

Sometime being naked IS about being "sexy". Whatever THAT is. And we can't go around saying "the sexy sort of naked is the bad sort", because that just gets us into even MORE of a fuddle. For hundreds of years society and the church used that sort of brainwashing as their best means of CONTROL – 'cos controlling the most INTIMATE aspect of people's lives makes it SOOOO much easier to control the rest.

Sometime being naked IS about being sexy. And that's got to be all right. And sometimes it's NOT. And that's got to be all right too. And sometimes DRESSING UP is about being sexy. Apparently.

(And I'm only TEN so that's as far as "THE TALK" with Daddy has got, so far!)

What I'm saying is that it all seems MUCH TOO COMPLICATED to just say "you've got nothing on so you're BAD!"

The Law is locked up in a PURITAN CHASTITY BELT because it was written by people so SCARED, so AFRAID, so buttoned-up TERRIFIED of their sexuality that they made their PIANOS wear DRESSES! Is it any wonder, this country is SERIOUSLY warped!


So here is the test. If you are a Liberal Democrat, it says on the front of your membership card:

"we exist to build and safeguard a fair, free and open society… where no-one shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity."

This man is enslaved by conformity.

We EXIST to save him.

SO WILL SOMEBODY PLEASE JUST STOP THESE MANIACS SENDING HIM TO PRISON!

PS:

In New Zealand, naked bicyclists get off with a safety warning. Isn't that better all round?



.

Day 3299: The Not-at-all-sexed-up Dossier Did NOT Mislead, claims Mr Alistair Henchman… so THAT'S all right then(!)

Tuesday:


Lord Blairimort's enforcer, Mr Alistair Henchman, is at the Chilcot Enquiry defending the Iraq Dossier.

That dossier: "Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction – The Assessment of the British Government" (pdf), aka the SEPTEMBER Dossier (NOT the subsequent FEBRUARY Dossier "Iraq – Its Infrastructure of Concealment, Deception and Intimidation", aka the "Dodgy Dossier", which was a complete fabrication*) is the one that said Mr Saddam still had Weapons of Mass Destruction and could launch them within forty-five minutes.

"I don't believe the dossier in any sense misrepresented the position," said Mr Henchman.

Apart, obviously, from being COMPLETELY WRONG.

Asked about weapons of mass destruction, he said their alleged existence became such a "central issue" because of the sense of the "serious and credible threat" they posed to stability in the region.

But to the best of my fluffy knowledge, Great Britain is not IN the "region".

And the ONLY possible justification for Great Britain going to war under INTERNATIONAL LAW is an attack on GREAT BRITAIN.

According to Mr Henchman, Lord Blairimort had "a fundamental view about this."

Aren't we supposed to be AGAINST fundamentalists?

On the 45-minute claim, which was retracted after the war, he said the dossier "obviously" could have been clearer about it referring to battlefield munitions. But he insisted that Mr Blair had put forward a balanced argument in the House of Commons on the issue and the 45-minute claim was only given "iconic" status by the press.

But this claim doesn't JUST appear in the Prime Monster's foreword; it appears FOUR times in total – it's in the Executive Summary, and gets its own (black humour) bullet point; it's in Chapter 3 "The Current Position", listed as one of the "main conclusions" and repeated in section 5 of the same chapter under "recent intelligence".

In none of these cases is it qualified as referring only to "some battlefield munitions"; none of these cases clarifies that this is from ONE uncorroborated source of information; not once is the word "maybe" deployed.

We know NOW that Mr Saddam didn't HAVE any Weapons of Mass Destruction. There was nothing capable of being launched within forty-five DAYS let alone minutes.

Oh, you may claim that it's EASY to say that with HINDSIGHT.

Well the UN inspector, Mr Hans Blix and Bumpsidaisy, was saying it AT THE TIME – saying there was no evidence of WMDs and asking for more time to conduct more inspections.

And the LIBERAL DEMOCRATS were saying it AT THE TIME – saying that in the absence of ANY evidence this was an ILLEGAL WAR.

And this is why this sort of war IS illegal.

If you are FRIGHTENED of the FOREIGN GENTLEMAN living… well not even next door, but in different town altogether… you can't just go round to his house, beat him up and throw him out and then say: "oh, I really, really BELIEVED at the time that he had a GUN and he could have threatened his neighbours in that town, some of whom used to know me a long time ago."

And yet that is EXACTLY what Lord Blairimort DID do, and what he is now – it would seem – claiming as justification.


Doing his best to cover Lord Blairimort's fluffy bottom, Mr Henchman insisted that Lord B had wanted a DIPLOMATIC solution.

Lord Blairimort was clear that military action against Iraq should be regarded as a last resort if the diplomatic process failed and war only became inevitable when efforts to get a second UN resolution collapsed."

Sorry, let me just get that right – the war became inevitable because the UN wouldn't agree to a resolution that would allow the US and UK to go to war?

Isn't it time we just stopped PRETENDING and admitted that the invasion of Iraq was an ILLEGAL and COSTLY mistake, a hideous, ghastly mistake that cost the lives of thousands and thousands of people.

Dwelling on whether the dossier represents what people BELIEVED was the position is neither here nor there. IT WAS WRONG.

If you broke into someone's house because you "really, really believed" they were a threat you would be arrested and sent to prison.

What Lord Blairimort did was tens of thousands of times worse.



*Remember: it would be VERY WRONG to assume that the British Government might in any way have made up any of the intelligence in the September Dossier just because they completely made up the contents of the February Dossier.


.

Day 3297: Mr Balloon Preaches Politics of Envy

Sunday:


Can you believe Mr Balloon would say that a successful, popular British producer (and exporter) ought to have their operations squished in order to benefit less well-performing operations?

Restricting the people doing best in order to give a helping fluffy foot to their less-commercial rivals… wouldn’t he call that a bit, well, SOCIALIST in any other context?

And yet he DOES say this:

“I think sometimes there are sort of territorial extensions … into areas where, frankly, they are in danger of sort of squashing the smaller commercial operators.”

Who’s he talking about? Oh, it’s the BBC of course.

Yes, restrictive practices! Yes, handouts to the underprivileged (multi-megacorporations)! Yes, deal a blow to those free market wheeler-dealers who say a body that does what it does well should bally well be left to get on with DOING it well!

Yes, this is CLASS WAR, Conservatory style!

If it ain’t broke, hunt it down and kill it!


And he comes close to accepting the TERRIFYING idea of turning the licence fee into A GENERAL TAX – oh I’m sure he’d SAY he was “abolishing” the licence, but he’s still have to raise the money. So he’d have Master Gideon raise OTHER taxes “to pay for the BBC” and THEN promptly not pay Auntie Beeb as much as he was raising “in order to cut the deficit”.

“I mean the advantage is that if you didn't have all the paraphernalia of the licence fee arrangements, you could actually make it much lower because you wouldn't have the administrative costs.”

Yes, you could save LOTS of money by not collecting it. I wonder if he’s thought of suggesting that Sky could save money if THEIR subscriptions were collected though general taxation as well.

And what does he know about broadcasting anyway?

“Oh I’ve worked in television,” boasts Mr Balloon.

Oh, what do you act? DO you direct? Do you design sets? Sew costumes? Rig lighting? Fix make-up? What?

Name us ONE television programme you’ve had a fluffy foot in the making of! Saying you “work in television” is like saying that Mr Edward Timpson is one of those people who makes shoes by hand. You know: cobblers.


.

Day 3295: Harriet’s Hit and Run

Friday:

Did Harriet Harman engineer the snowplot silliness?

Radio Four’s Weekly Political Review* did their review of last year and after twenty-five minutes of talking up Conservatories and down Hard Labour, suddenly Mr Peter Riddler remembers there might be a BROADER spread of political opinion and asks:

“So, the Liberal Democrats… Jackie Ashley, has it been a good year for Captain Clegg?”

And La Ashley replies:

“Well no, but I’ll say who has had a good year: Harriet Harman…”

So much for the Guardianista insight, but you must admit 2009 aside, 2010 has started with a GOOD WEEK for Harriet the Harminator.

At the end of the week, Mr Frown is wounded. Again, Mr Millipede is derided. Again. Mr Balls, the schools bully, has lost some of his grip. Mr Lord Sideous (Senator Mandeltine) has been sidelined. And the only real winner is Harriet.

And, of course, she miraculously gets to keep her driving licence by admitting to a lesser offence when the more serious charges of “driving using a mobile telephone”, “driving away from the scene of an accident” and “driving under the influence of delusions of grandeur” were all dropped by the Justice Department. How very fortunate for the former Minister in the Justice Department.

She said she’d be back!

Ask yourself how it happened. Wednesday sees Buff Hoon and Patricia Blewitt lose the plot.

That reminds me: does the Prime Monster read my diary? Decide for yourself!

Millennium Elephant: Thursday Morning – coup is a snowstorm in a teacup

Mr Frown: Thursday Evening – coup is a storm in a teacup.

Talk about blowing a good GAG!

But anyway, as I asked before, what were they even THINKING? Surely, they can only have believed that picking over the scab of Hard Labour’s bitter internal divides was a good idea if they had reason to believe it might WORK.

Which must mean that SOMEONE had given them reason to believe that those six cabinet ministers might GENUINELY be ready to resign.

But who could have DONE such a thing? Let us, as Monsieur Hercules Porridge might say, apply the little grey cells. Look at the motives – who benefits?

Could it be someone who WANTED to get rid of Mr Frown? The week’s events have only succeeded in locking Mr Frown into the Downing Street Bunker for good. Well, until the election anyway. Not a win for the “anyone but gordon” ABGbies.

Could it be someone who wants Mr Frown’s JOB? The person who is, after Mr Frown, most damaged by this week is actually the person many would expect to benefit MOST from a regicide, the Secretary of State for everywhere else, Mr Millipede.

Mr David Millipede looks – and more importantly is widely BELIEVED – to have WANTED to topple Mr Frown and then MUFFED his chance. Again. He left it far too late to offer his support and was far too mealy-mouthed when his statement finally came. And only referring to “the Prime Monster” rather than Mr Frown by name didn’t help either. Rumours that “davidmillipede.org” was ready to roll out are reminiscent of Mr Michael Portaloo prematurely installing telephones in anticipation of another leadership challenge that never happened.

In contrast, Ms Harman is widely reported to have seized the BULL by the HORNS, or more literally, seized the PRIME MONSTER by the SHORT-AND-CURLIES, going directly to Downing Street and staging a CONFRONTATION with the Mr Frown, at the end of which she secured MORE POWER and a BIGGER ROLE in the General Election campaign.

Well, yes, that COULD be a poison chalice, but it also advances her chances of standing for Leader should Mr Frown happen to fall under a LANDSLIDE.

So how about someone who wants Mr Frown to stay in post, or in the firing line, until after then General Election when he gets, er, fired, but needs to position herself to be ready to take advantage. Let’s just say “could be…!”

Or is that all a bit too clever?




*That thing that they broadcast on Saturdays, also known as “the Saturday Morning Shouty Show” whenever Daddy is forced to listen to it.


.

Day 3293: Snowstorm in a Teacup

Wednesday:


Sometimes that Mr Balloon has all the luck. He's all ready to launch the Conservatory election campaign when he falls flat on his airbrushed face because he forgets his own Party's policy on tax and marriage (it's one of, what, four that he has to remember?).

And no one's going to notice because the very next day two of the so-called Big Beasts of Hard Labour decide to shoot the Prime Monster in the foot. Again.

And you've got to ask how badly off ARE Hard Labour if their "Big Beasts" are Mr Buff Hoon and Ms Patricia Blewitt?

I mean, for all this talk of Conservatories preparing posters, images of that pair beside the slogan "even THEY think we can't go on like this" are less likely to provoke a revolution than baffled cries of "who?" from the general public.

Just WHAT did the conspirators think they were DOING? Talk of this being the "last window of opportunity to change the leader" is blithering nonsense – the last window of opportunity was six or seven MONTHS ago, before the Party Conference season (so the new leader can have one big platform speech and then go directly to the country). The election campaign has ALREADY BEGUN. Once you've ACTUALLY started to cross the CHASM it's a BIT TOO LATE to start hacking at the ropes holding the bridge up.

I mean never put it past people in public life to do something BRAIN MELTINGLY STUPID, but surely even a heartbeat's consideration by ANYONE would lead you to notice that this couldn't have ANY POSSIBLE good outcome. IF they DON'T hold a vote, the Prime Monster is frit, and it reminds everyone that he's never faced even an INTERNAL election to get his current job; if they DO hold a ballot then too big a victory and people will claim it is a fix (thanks to his Mr Stalin reputation) and too narrow a victory and people will claim he's lost his mandate. And he might just LOSE…!

In which case who, pray tell, did they think could take over? Postman Pat and his black and white DRUGS POLICY? One of the MILLIPEDES (it's too early to say which)? Mr James the Scarlett Pimple-purnell?

And incidentally, this surely HAS to be the end for any ambition that the senior Millipede has to lead his party. This is the third time he's been led up to the bring of showing some BOTTLE and EACH time he's fumbled the decision. As candidate to be ditherer in chief, a Mr Frown II (this time without the gravitas), that's fine, but is that REALLY what the defeated and demoralised Hard Labour fraternity will look for in their next, er, Big Brother?

But then the catalogue of second-raters and also-rans crawling out of the Cabinet woodwork to off the Prime Monster their full support reveals just what a WRECK of his Party Mr Frown is going to leave behind when he finally goes.

I realise that this kind of ATTRITION is almost INEVITABLE in Governments that go on way too long: the Conservatories under Mrs Queen Maggie had the same problem, as one by one she saw off the Grand Figures of her Party like Mr Willie Whitelaw, Mr Michael the Hessleswine or Mr Nigella Lawson or even Mr Sir Gerffey Howe, leaving behind the distinctly B-Team likes of Mr Major Minor and, well, most of his Cabinet.

But the only figure of ANY substance – even if it IS mostly SHADOW – is First Lord Sideous (aka Senator Mandeltine).

Speaking on the Newsnight Show, the First Lord High Everything Else told Mr Paxo: "I don't need to threaten anyone in the Cabinet," before adding: "They all already know that I know where they live."

After him we've got puffed-up, over-promoted maroons like Mr Johnson & Johnson, the hilariously invisible Mr Benny Hill or the sinister minister Mr Jack Man'O Straw. And that's without even mentioning Nectarine-tinctured Non-entity Mr Peter Vain.

The idea that a CABAL of Mr Bob Aimless (Defence), Mr Wendy Alexander (International Development), Mr Jim Murky (Scotland) and led by Ms Harriet the Harminator could topple Mr Frown isn't even SATIRICAL. Does anyone even know who these people ARE?

Lord Sideous again: "The whole Hard Labour Party are united in wanting Mr Frown to lead us into the next General Election."

But that's really not the point: the HARD question is do they really want Mr Frown to lead them for the four years AFTER a General Election. Obviously not.

Hard Labour are finished and they know it. They're not even waiting for the General Election to BURY them before starting to FALL APART.

Like the Conservatories before them, Hard Labour are probably over for a political generation.

That means it's up to the Liberal Democrats, once again, to be the EFFECTIVE Opposition.

Because if Mr Balloon has all the luck, then that's bad luck for EVERYONE else!


.

Day 3289: Mr Balloon Speaks: I Can’t Go On!

Saturday:


Conservatory Leader, Mr Balloon, has admitted that he’s not up to running a country at war and will be having to go begging to Captain Clegg and whichever unlucky troglodyte ends up in Mr Frown’s shoes as leader of the THIRD party after the election annihilates the Hard Labour Government.

Yes LUCKY us! We have been privileged to be addressed by the Conservatory Cowardy Custard in waiting, and he’s broken the SHOCKING news that he’s going to start campaigning for the 2010 General Election. Like he’s been doing since it was the 2007 General Election.

Let the Lovebombing Commence or “Fly My Pretties” as Mr Balloon almost certainly wouldn’t put it unless he thought he could get away with it.

By a curious twist of completely making it up, I have here for you the text of an early draft of WHAT HE WAS REALLY THINKING as he did his usual shtick for the cameras. Possibly.

“My future serfs,

“It’s a brand new year.

“It’s a new decade. At least that’s what Gideon tells me, and I’m FAIRLY sure he can add up. Anyway, I believe in Year Zero.

“This time always comes with smug self-satisfied complacency. I‘m sorry did I say complacency, I meant hope.

“Hope for me, anyway

“But in 2010, I can do more than just hope. The next general election is no more than 153 days away and thanks to Lord Ashcroft – tax position subject to negotiation – I can BUY that election.

“Let's make this the year for change. Change. Say it with me. Change. Change you can believe in. If it worked for Barry O… I’m willing to black up. I’ve seen the Black and White Minstrels. Heck, at Conservatory Conference I’ve seen the Bullingdon Boys DO the Black and White Minstrels. Er. No, forget I said that.

“So let's make this the year for change: the year when the positive defeats the negative. That’s why I say we can't go on. No, not negative at all there. We can’t go on. Look, I’m going to be saying ’we can’t go on’ eleven times, so just remember I’m being positive even when I’m being really negative. Okay then?

“We can’t go on with the same irresponsible economic policies – we need NEW irresponsible economic policies.

“We can’t go on with an old-fashioned left-wing class war on aspiration – though I hope to goodness Hard Labour DO… or at least I can keep on PRETENDING that everything that they say or do is a Class Attack. After all, just because I’ve never held a responsible government position or indeed ANY sort of job other than doing PR for the failed ITV Digital company and carpet-bagging for Norma Lamont on Black Wednesday, that’s no reason to infer that I got where I am because of my background rather than my talents. Remember you don’t HAVE to be posh to be privileged. But I certainly am. Posh, that is. AND privileged, now I think about it.

“We can’t go on with the old style of politics that divides our country instead of uniting it – setting people against each other with accusations of a ‘broken society’, urging homeowners to turn vigilante.

“We can’t go on with Hard Labour's bureaucracy, running everything from Whitehall – it’s about time we handed over even more power to the big City institutions that have done SO WELL for us – well those of us who can get non-executive directorships lined up, anyway – institutions like the banks, the insurance brokers, the pensions companies…

“We can’t go on in these difficult times with a weak Prime Minister and a divided government – that’s why I promise – a cast-iron guarantee, if you like – to be led around by the nose by the Euro-nutter factions and splinter groups on my back benches rather than risk any confrontation.

“We can’t go on with another five years of Mr Frown… When I say “another” five years, remember that Mr Frown’s already been Prime Monster for five years… At least that’s what Gideon tells me. And I’m FAIRLY sure he can add up.

“This is no time for more of the same. Still, that’s what I’ve got to offer, so here we go.

“We need change to get our country back on its feet.

“And it’s the modern Conservative party that has the plans and ideas… the evil plans, the mad ideas… the chutzpah, the brass neck, and the sheer bloody good fortune to have the election fall into our lap to bring that change…

“We are starting our campaign to win the general election today. I know I’ve announced the launch of our campaign before. You can be sure I’ll announce the launch of our campaign again. Don’t say I haven’t learned anything from Lord Mandelbrot! So long as Baldy Nick at the BBC keeps buying it, I’ll keep shovelling it.

“So, it’s finally time to announce our actual plans. Almost.

“Until then, you can have some more soft soap. Or warm handwash in these days of Swine Flu.

“First, we need change in our economy, because – all together now! – we can't go on like this.

“Britain needs responsible economic policies that deal with our debts, so we have stability to create jobs and keep mortgage rates and taxes lower. Which means’ your stuffed, ‘cos there’s no way Gideon can manage all of that! Or ANY of that, really.

“Since I started speaking today, more than half a million pounds has been added to the national debt. And that’s just by the Conservatory advertising agencies! Imports from Columbia can be SO expensive… er, I’ve heard.

“Anyway, that’s why we’ve been clear – by which I mean almost completely opaque – about our intention to cut public spending, and clear – by which I mean as vague as possible – about where some of those cuts will come – from something or other to, ooh, whatever it is. Oh, I know teachers and old people: they can foot the bill. No, forget I said that too.

“But that’s not enough just to deal with the deficit. So we’re back to being a bit stuffed. I’ll just call it an ‘economic miracle’ and hope that someone else rescues the economy.

“Anyway, the mission that drives this party is building a stronger society. No, don’t laugh.

“We are progressive Conservatives. No, I said DON’T laugh.

“Our goal is to create a fairer, safer, greener country where opportunity is more equal. Though we’ll settle for a richer, richer, richer Conservatory Party where you oiks pay for us to keep all our opportunities.

“We will protect the NHS – we will protect it from government interference… by privatising it!

“We will protect schools… by privatising them!

“We will protect welfare reforms… by privatising them!

“We will… oh look you get the picture…

“But don’t worry, we’ll be tough on crime, tough on the causes of… thingie. Alcoholics, drug addicts, people in debt. We’ll lock em all up. It won’t solve anything, but it looks terrifically tough. Michael Howard always used to think so. Do you remember thinking what he was thinking? No, neither do I.

“A decade of big government and blunt, bureaucratic control has undermined responsibility and made our social problems worse, not better.

“We are determined to forge a new direction. And I’ve worked in PR. I know about forgery.

“We will encourage people to take responsibility for their actions.

“Obviously I don’t mean IMPORTANT people; that’s why I oppose EU banking regulations and proper reform of the House of Commons. Who wants their MP to be actually accountable, when fewer MPs, which means larger constituencies, could put them more under the control of the Whips’ Office instead.

“No, I mean ordinary little people. They can take responsibility. And so they can take the BLAME.

“Within months of a Conservative victory there would start the most radical decentralisation of power this country has seen for generations.”

“I know what you’re thinking: will we start by reversing and repealing Mrs Thatcher’s Local Government Acts then? No, of course not. Conservatory centralisation and QuANGOcracy is GOOD for you! That’s while I’ll begin by introducing NEW ‘Bonfire QuANGOs’ to run the Bonfire of the QuANGOs. Then we’ll be having a Bonfire of the Bonfire QuANGOs. And we’ll need a whole SPECIAL COMMISSION to run that! It’ll bring REAL opportunities back to people.

“And Government will enter a new era of transparency. You can see my policies. You can see right through them!

“These are the changes our country needs.

“These are the changes that will help get Britain back on its feet.

“But I know people have heard this sort of talk before.

“Yet nothing ever happens and nothing ever changes.

“So why now?

“Why should people trust this change?

“I’ll tell you why! It’s because people are MORONS! Yes, I really believe it. If you suckers will watch Britain’s Got Talent and think it’s a GENUINE SURPRISE when Susan Boyle looks like the Honey Monster and sounds like a choir of angels, then you’ll believe I’m for real too. Especially if Mr Roger Stavro Moredick has the Scum tell you so over and over and over between now and polling day. Oh please, Roger, I’ll give you BBC3 if you make it so!


“We have shown over the past four years that we can make change happen. Look how much we’ve changed by NOT having Conservatories in government. Just imaging how much we can change by NOT having Conservatories in Government for the NEXT four years!

“So believe in me, and believe in the leadership that I have shown.

“Leadership that is modern, strong, decisive, united!

“And how can “leadership” be “modern”? Leadership is leadership – so by “modern leadership” I mean “not the old sort of leadership”… or basically “not leadership”. Er.

“So how can our leadership be simultaneously “strong” and “united” – you may think that either you have a strong leader and a SUBSERVIENT Shadow Cabinet or you have CONSENSUS leadership and a united Shadow Cabinet, but you can’t have both unless you have the Stepford Shadow Cabinet… oh…

“And HOW can I claim my leadership to be decisive? Well look at this very SPEECH! Here I am, rowing back from that “age of austerity” drama that I was pushing before Christmas. THAT made everyone very depressed. So I’ve DECISIVELY decided to do a complete U-Turn and go back to being Mr Sunshine. For the moment.

“We have argued for fiscal responsibility from day one of my leadership.

“Remember how Mr Deadwood responsibly called for slashing of banking regulation or when Gideon responsibly announced he was slashing taxes for dead millionaires? Remember when we were responsibly spending more on hugging huskies before we responsibly said we couldn’t afford it any more.

“We have argued for social responsibility from day one of my leadership.

“Remember how I said we should hug a hoodie? Remember how I said we should blame the hoodies for the broken society? Remember how I said MIXED MESSAGES were BAD!

“And I’ve ALWAYS said that marriage is an institution that is so important to our society – unless it’s between gay daddies in which case it’s a matter of conscience and my voting record is clear on where I stand, which is completely the opposite of what I say nowadays – but marriage is under threat and it can only be supported with a ten pound bride bribe. That’ll keep the family together.

“We have campaigned consistently to put the environment and civil liberties on the political agenda.”

“Oh no, no, sorry – I’m thinking of the Liberal Democrats. They haven’t dropped their Green policies during the recession. In fact their Green Tax Switch is even MORE important for them now, because they’ll be using that to help fund a substantial cut in tax for lower and middle earners. Something we in the Conservatory Party couldn’t consider doing because it wouldn’t benefit ourselves. Er.

“Still, when the expenses scandal broke, we were the first to pay money back, we paid the MOST money back. We had to. We were the WORST! Er. We were first to publish our expenses online. Apart from those Liberal Democrats who ALREADY published their expenses online. And we were the first to commit to cutting the cost of politics. Not actually REFORMING politics. That would be SILLY when we’re going to win! Whether you want us to or not. Isn’t First Past The Post grand!

“Anyway, over the past four years, we have always tried to work with other parties rather than looking for political dividing lines where none exist.

“Remember that, voters: We’re JUST like the people you REALLY want to vote for. We stand for change. But only into something the same.

“We backed Lord Blairimort’s invasion of that Middle Eastern Counry – Iran, Iraq, can’t remember which – and we backed renewing Trident even though we could have inflicted a damaging defeat on the Government. We just thought we were better off stirring up damaging dissent on his back benches.

“And we backed Mr Frown’s spiralling house-price bubble and credit boom too!

“And we worked with the Liberal Democrats to get justice for the Gurkhas jumping on the bandwagon at the last minute when it looked like I could get my picture taken with Ms Joanna Lummey! Lor’ Bless Her!

“We called for TV debates more than four years ago…just as Hard Labour did in the four years before THEY actually had something to lose. And we have stuck to that whether ahead in the polls or behind in the polls. Our consistency on this issue has been… well totally irrelevant, actually; it’s Mr Frown’s desperation and Lord Mandelbrot’s sly cunning that has made it happen.

“In that spirit of unity, of a greater purpose than the simple pursuit of politics, I have an announcement to make.

“I can announce today that if we win this year's election, I will invite leaders of the main opposition parties to take the blame for every single British soldier that dies in Afghanistan.

“After all, I don’t see why I should! I mean I’ve been there twice but I’ve still no idea where it is. Apparently we’re at war with the Toblerones. Or possibly Alka-Seltzer. Anyway, I’m jolly sure that we should be doing exactly whatever it is we’re doing there and I’ve always supported the War on Whoever, whoever it’s actually on. So I think the other parties should agree with me too. Even the ones who don’t agree with me.

“Anyway they can have this special access to my Special War Cabinet on Privy Council Terms just like being on the Privy Council. Which they’re already on. And which already also gets the War Cabinet briefings. So basically they get nothing. And I get to cover my nicely Saville-Row suited arse.

“When a nation is at war, it needs to pull together. Pull together. Pull that chain and flush those other Parties.

“I am determined that with a Conservative government, it will.

“Because we can't go on like this. I told you there would be eleven of those.

“So there are some of our plans.

“Our plans are not timid – but the truth is they can’t be. They have to be INVISIBLE or you won’t vote for them, no matter HOW stupid I think you all are.

“A better NHS; an aspirational economy; a big society; a new politics…and a load of old HONK.

“We have a four year track record of covering up the worst in our party; now I’m determined to do the same in Government.

“We are all in this together – and by that I mean YOU are all in it together; me and Gideon and the other multi-millionaires, we’ll be just fine thanks – and we know that if we – YOU – all pull together then this country can have great hope for the future. For us.

“You may now sit.”

.

Day 3288: DOCTOR WHO: The End of Ten, Part Two

New Year’s Day:

The first grew too old, his body wearing thin; the second confronted the Time Lords; the third realised his own mistakes before facing death by radiation; the fourth was visited by each of his companions; the fifth gave his life for a single ordinary, extraordinary person; the sixth saw his own future; and when he became the seventh he crashed his TARDIS. Paul McGann doesn’t count. The ninth survived the Time War and burned in the TARDIS.

The tenth was all of these things, and with “I don’t want to go” uniquely his own.

The perfect conclusion.

“The End of Time” was the perfect capstone to all that Russell Davies has brought to the series: a big, batty, crowd-pleasing, Master-pleasing spec-tac-u-lar mixed with small beautiful moments of pure driven emotion to break your heart. And one last magic-Rusty-diamond plot device of making no sense whatsoever.

Finally, though, Russell writes a part two that is actually right: one that pays off the set-up in part one, indeed pays off things set up going back to the noise in the Master’s head from “The Sound of Drums” and even the Doctor’s tear for the Time Lords in “The End of the World”.

In fact, even if you aren’t going to take this as the Time Lord Invasion of Earth from Lawrence Miles’ almost perfect not-quite-Doctor-Who novel “Dead Romance” and their plan to “ascend” being, basically, “we will become the Celestis, and thank you again Lawrence” or “we shall steel the future from humanity and become floaty energy-beings gods as per “The Book of the War” and saying Gallifrey is “only the outer edge of the Time War” sounds very like Larry’s concepts of the moving fronts, with secure centres, while in the end the Houseworld is left time-locked just like Utterlost – even apart from all that, you can still go the full Lawrence Miles and spot a link or nod to each and every story of the Russell era… I’ll start you off in a post-script.

But this is much more literate than that – Mark Lawson’s review in the Guardian is quite right to spot all the allusions to (David Tennant’s) Hamlet, even if he clearly hasn’t watched the broadcast show, merely read the speculative spoilers in the Telegraph. And yet it’s much more contemporary too, full of snappy movie references, but with a uniquely Doctor Who twist!

So let’s do Star Wars, but with Bernard Cribbins as Luke Skywalker. Let’s do the cantina scene but as an excuse for a gay pick-up. Let’s do the radiation-in-a-glass-box ending of “The Wrath of Khan” but with ship already out of danger. Let’s do as many endings as the Return of the King, but make us care each and every time. Let’s blow up the ship – and kill the crew – like it’s the end of a season of Blake’s Seven, but we know that they’re both coming back.

This is where you need a movie-quality director like Euros Lyn, to give the big moments the big-screen magic and at the same time to draw in the focus on the quieter, contemplative moments.

The weaving together of dangling plot threads to make a satisfying whole is done with such ingenuity as to make it look planned from the very beginning. (Yes, I’m a sucker for “The Curse of Fenric” too!) By cross-linking the flashback in “The Sound of Drums” with Davros’ rescue as described in “Journey’s End” we get a way for the Time Lords to return that actually makes sense without betraying the whole thrust of the series’ continuity since we learned that the Time Lords were lost.

Dalek Caan had to punch a hole in Time in order to rescue Davros from inside the Time War, and it drove him bonkers and blew his casing to bits. But the Time Lords already have their very own hole in Time, the Untempered Schism, a perfect backdoor escape plan so long as you can find some poor patsy to play homing beacon on the other side. And it still drives / drove / will drive / has always driven him bonkers.

The Doctor’s relationship with Master reaches a new intensity here. The Master has totally won, done away with the whole human race and succeeded in placing the Doctor in literally his own place: the full Hannibal Lecter, bound and gagged and tied to a trolley. (The hilarious scenes of the comedy cactusses cacti bouncing him down the steps drew cries of “is this Russell trying to torture David through his last story”… which the big man later confirmed during Confidential!). But even then, the Doctor still tries to talk him back to the light side.

And nor will the Doctor accept the proposition that if the Master wants to kill him, he should kill the Master first. Not even to save the six billion humans alive (and I loved the macabre implication that the Master has possessed, violated, the dead as well). Though he snatches up that gun fast enough the moment he hears that the Time Lords are returning.

The Master’s Plan is to possess the Time Lords the way he’s possessed the human race. But then he does that ‘why don’t I just tell you all my plans so you can work out a way to defeat me?’ that he vowed not to at the start of this body. And he does it to Rassilon, of all people, who does indeed listen and foil him with a flick of the wrist But it was brilliant that the Lord President dismissed it with a contemptuous wave of his gauntleted (in a very Buffy the Vampire Slayer way) hand. And brilliant that it was all the Time Lords’ plan all along anyway.

So, ironically, the conclusion sees the classic Pertwee-era theme of the Master and Doctor joining forces to defeat a greater enemy that the Master has raised and underestimated. Perhaps death has turned him all traditional. And yet it’s done with greater subtlety than ever before. There’s no crass agreement of terms, just the mutual request to “get out of the way” as first the Doctor defeats the Time Lords without having to kill the Master and then the Master saves the Doctor in order to take his revenge. It’s almost the conclusion to “The Final Game” that Barry Letts and Terrance Dicks planned to be the third Doctor’s final adventure, though without the metaphysical “the Doctor and the Master are the same man” bobbins and without the Master losing his edge by “turning good”. He seems to disappear back into the Time War with the High Council, but who knows if that means we’ve seen the end of him.

I’m assuming here that the five Time Lords who actually set foot on Earth are the (surviving members of the) High Council. In fact, the Lord President’s address to the assembled Panopticon, when he says the High Council must vote, may imply that the High Council of the Time Lords means all the Time Lords, and that the five or six around the council table are the Inner or perhaps Supreme Council (depending on whether it’s “The Invasion of Time” or “The Five Doctors” that you’re taking as your template… and may the Time Lords have mercy on your soul).

And yes, Timothy Dalton is The Lord President of Gallifrey, Rassilon – maybe even that Rassilon, awoken from his slumber in the Dark Tower like an evil King Arthur come at the hour of Gallifrey’s greatest need, or resurrected like the Master.

The portrayal of the glove-of-evil™ wielding, spittle-flecked maniac that we see here is not actually inconsistent with the rumours and stories of Rassilon’s cruelty that the Doctor speaks of in “The Five Doctors”, nor yet with the genocidal xenophobe given delicious voice for Big Finish by Don Warrington.

But I’ve seen it suggested that the Doctor is using the name insultingly, as in: “you’ve become as bad as Rassilon, and I’m imprisoning you in your Black Tower forever”, and that works just as well.

Left open-ended was the identity of “the woman” who was helping Wilf, although she’s revealed as one of the Time Lords, one of those weeping for what their world has become. Apparently, in the commentary, Julie Gardner refers to her as the Doctor’s mother – but nothing on screen confirms this. I prefer the rather beautiful theory that I’ve read online: she is Susan. She says of herself that she was “lost so long ago” – as Susan was in “The Dalek Invasion of Earth” – and the Doctor’s significant glance when Wilf asks who she was is not to Sylvia (the mother) but to Donna, who is Wilf’s granddaughter. To me that gives a better closure, to the past series and to questions of what happened, than introducing a character we have never before seen, to whom we’ve gained no emotional connection.

In the end, it seems so right that the greatest threat to the universe, the universe of the Tenth Doctor, the Lonely God, the last Lord of Time, should be the Time Lords themselves – the answer to his prayers; the root of his nightmares.

And after all the rumours of the “giant reset switch of doom™” Russell effectively says: “no, they can never, ever come back”.

And yet – and quite right too – the Doctor’s death isn’t caused by the huge great events that he crashes through, not even the fall from the glass ceiling, which he also crashes through. It’s the consequence of one small act of kindness – Wilf saves some poor soul who’s trapped inside the nuclear power source for Naismith’s Immortality Gate, and is in turn trapped himself.

I said last week that this needed to be about something, and it was: it was about knowing when it’s over; it’s about saying that sometimes “goodnight sweet prince” can be better than “rage against the dying of the light”. Not that this Doctor doesn’t rage against it; he’s positively petulant about it at times, almost throwing a tantrum when the time comes. But he still steps unflinchingly into that death chamber.

The whole point was saying that the Time Lords had lived too long. That’s a double-edged point when you think metaphorically of all power corrupting, but also in the series’ terms of the way that the Doctor’s people and planet had become debased from a world of omnipotent demigods in “The War Games” to a bickering committee in an airport lounge in “Arc of Infinity”. A universe without gods is better because gods can fall.

But at the same time, the Doctor is spared because ultimately he is able to surrender his view of the big picture and give in to the small events. Sure, it might kill him from time to time, but he can walk away from that and if it’s death for one self, still his next life will be a better man because of the lessons learned.

Were the last ten minutes self-indulgent? Well, yes… but actually that’s entirely in character for this incarnation of the Doctor. He’s always been self-indulgent, whether it’s with his girlfriend Rose, or breaking the Laws of Time, or running away from a date with destiny (in the person of Ood Sigma). The Ninth Doctor had a death wish; the Tenth loves his life just that bit too much. Holding off his regeneration long enough to say farewell is exactly what ten would do, even if the effort of it blows up the TARDIS in the end. And in fairness, it’s what we wanted too. A last lap of glory. A Doctor’s reward.

(Though, okay, maybe Martha married to Mickey is a bit of an indulgence too far – yes, it gets two companions out of the way in a single scene, but really it’s not where either of them were headed after “Journey’s End”. Nor does giving Donna a winning lottery ticket really seem like the Doctor’s style. Unless it’s a reciprocal in-joke with “Nan’s Christmas Carol”.)

And finally, we end where we began, back on the Powell estate. It seems perfect to arrive on New Year’s Day 2005 – when the very first teaser for the returning series aired. “It’s Almost Time… but not yet”.

And then, thirty seconds later, he was gone. And we have a whole new Doctor – with legs, and arms and eyes (two) and nose (had worse) and chin (blimey!) – to look forward to. And I’m totally sold on Matt Smith already. What an entrance.

The future is going to be awesome. Fantastic. Brilliant. Geronimo!

The preview trailer can now be found here.

PS:

As promised, the official Lawrence Miles “let’s reference all the stories of the new series” game:

Rose – the Doctor materialises the TARDIS on the Powell Estate in 2005 and promises Rose a great New Year.


Aliens of London/World War Three – there’s a Slitheen in the Space Bar; flying over the English coastline… with missiles!

Boom Town – there’s another Slitheen in the Space Bar.
Bad Wolf/The Parting of the Ways – Gallifrey appears to be littered with crashed Dalek saucers; the regeneration itself.
The Christmas Invasion – there’s a Sycorax in the Space Bar with Captain Jack; the eleventh Doctor still isn’t ginger.
Attack of the Graske – there’s a Graske in the Space Bar with Captain Jack.

School Reunion – Sarah-Jane Smith

Army of Ghosts/Doomsday – the Immortality Gate comes from the same spacecraft buried under Mount Snowdon referred to by Yvonne Hartman.
The Runaway Bride – Donna’s memories include the Empress of the Racnoss; Donna finally gets married.


Daleks in Manhattan/Evolution of the Daleks – “The Devil in Me” plays in the Space Bar scene.
The Lazarus Experiment – the Master’s Ring bears the logo of Professor Lazarus’ Laboratory.

Human Nature/The Family of Blood – the lovely Journal of Impossible Things scene
Blink – the Lord President refers to “the Weeping Angels of old”.
Utopia/The Sound of Drums/Last of the Time Lords – umm, no, nothing coming to me here.
Voyage of the Damned – Midshipman Alonzo Frame “meets” Captain Jack.
Partners in Crime - there’s an Adipose in the Space Bar.
The Fires of Pompeii - Donna’s memories include the Pythian Sisterhood.
Planet of the Ood – the planet of the Ood.
The Sontaran Stratagem/The Poison Sky – there’s a Sontaran trying to shoot Martha and Mickey
The Doctor’s Daughter – when offered a revolver, the Doctor says “never”; there’s a Hath in the Space Bar.
The Unicorn and the Wasp – Donna’s memories include the Vespiform.

The Stolen Earth/Journey’s End – Wilf refers to the incident with the paint gun; Donna’s memories include Davros .
The Next Doctor – is Matt Smith.
Planet of the Dead – he will knock four times.
The Waters of Mars – slightly naughty, could it be Ood Sigma intruding from this story into the end of that one.



.