Missives from Doktorb

joke in search of a punchline

2012-01-16T18:53:00.000Z

The internet likes its memes and tropes - giving kittens the language of human toddlers, putting 'first' at the bottom of newspaper comment columns, adapting kanji into emoticons (they're so HIPSTER o(^-^)o)

As anyone who has analysed humour will testify, jokes are fragile creatures. Kenneth Williams would implore the importance of the punchline ("taaag, it's all in the taaaag"); Danny Baker, Stephen Fry and Dave Gorman have all investigated how much like a fragile plant is the humble one-liner ("Dig it up to examine its roots the plant will die.."). Throw a penny into that particular pond and you'd never hear the splash - the 'net will merrily permit its users to duplicate, replicate and murder every quip at the moment of birth. Such is humour - the joke you heard at the comedy club is the one you've just told at your office canteen, out into the world like so many butterflies. The important thing is the hit, the pay-off, the freshness and unexpected nature of which ensures the impact is never lost: the internet tends to dip the butterfly wings in varnish before setting them free. Up, up and.....run over by a mobility scooter.

"So Gazza turned up with a roast chicken and a fishing rod!" is one such pay-off which is deeper in the red than most Greek bank accounts. It may spew out from mainstream panel shows like baby sick, on-line communities have long since ruled (in that weird group-think Wikipedia excels in) that there's more chance of getting a giggle from saying "Your mum!" and running off down the road. There was inherent surrealism, and thus humour, from the tragi-comic image at the time; it's long since gone the way of most fads. Look out "#winning", they're coming for you next.

Like millions of people around the world, I watched the film Downfall in stunned silence - never knowing such an emotional film was to be hijacked by the Internet's Culture and Humour Committee for a constant series of parodies which would define the phrase 'diminishing return'. The infamous bunker scene, in which the ailing Hitler begins to realise the figures on his map have more life than the troops they represent, is the thousand-and-then-some duplicated subtitled meme sensation. Want Hitler to comment on your team's latest signing, the latest film flop or a political scandal? Use Downfall, and watch Hitler garble your own subtitled outrage for much lulz and re-tweets.

Except, in reality, this doesn't happen. Or it should not happen, at least as much, so successfully, because the Bunker parody is tired and old and unfunny. It has been misused, failing the basic test of humour. The tag, that vital element of a joke, has been flattened and squashed, with all the flavour of supermarket tortelloni.

The Labour MP Tom Harris has been shunted out of his "Twitter tsar" role (whatever the heck that was) for posting a Downfall parody video related to the ongoing Scottish independence saga. Teh Grauniad calls him a "Twitter expert" which over eggs the pudding somewhat, though he is one of the few Labour MPs (or indeed any MP) who seems to naturally understand the microblogging service. Labour poster boy Chuka Umunna is one of the most high profile users who gives the impression of only typing what he's told, not once engaging in discussions with people outside an acceptable check-list of contacts. Harris broke through the central party's behaviour bubble to act like ordinary members of the public expected him to; insofar as ordinary people use Twitter, Harris behaved like one of them. To say he was "expert" is a bit much, to give him a formal role obviously too much as his colleagues continually failed to do more than type out press released. To sack him over a Downfall parody? No, I see no logic either.

The video he posted, as with so many of their kind, was dull, not the funniest, not particularly harmful to anyone's cause. It was a bit of silly, Internet based japery. The sensitivity police have claimed another victim. However, even with that said, Harris probably could have said as much as he wanted to do with a blog, a series of tweets or even an interview - the video he posted was one of far, far too many polluting memes which damage the message and remove credibility. His sacking is an over reaction from a knee-jerk leadership. His video was a flinch from a dying corpse.

On-line humour has killed off old jokes harmlessly before ("I can see Russia from my.....Oh..."). It should see to the Downfall parodies as soon as it can - couple of gunshots and set it on fire.

QRazy

2012-01-12T10:24:00.002Z

I understand social media, to a lesser or greater degree, enjoying the expansion/development of the Internet into a jamboree of tagging, poking, checking in and checking out.

All the same, there's a block, a black mark across the mind, bubbled and scratched and defaced by white blobs, like a popcorn'd barcode. This is the QR Code, not "the humble" or "the dear old", just the straight down the line, aren't we all fans, let's celebrate our cleverness QR Code. It cannot be my age or lack of a decent scanner, it has to be plain old common sense, because I just do not understand the appeal. It's the worst kind of technological clever-clever, not too dissimilar to using an in-joke at an interview, or eating English food with chopsticks.

The latest company to grind my particularly well oiled gears on this is Heineken. I don't drink Heineken, preferring beer/ale which tastes of something, rather than fizzy water with a hint of battery acid, so their "Concert goers are all QR crazy" shtick weakens my disposition.

The transformation of a humble logistic company's tracking device into a gig-goer's name badge should, by all records of such things, be exactly the kind of development I would welcome with giddy abandon. "It's the future!" as a wise man once said of garlic bread. But no, alas, I am not convinced. Not even curious - less so when faced with Heineken and their corporate video of doom. I've not been to any music festival, ever, so maybe I am wrong in cynically dismissing a QR Tent full of shoulder slapping, wide-grinned strangers as being contrived. Drugs can't have that much of an impact on people. ("Wow, this stuff is amazing, I'm totally baked and I've just unlocked the Munchie Badge on 4squre").

This is the future

QR codes on the sides of buses (no, really), shop windows, even pub menus (though to be honest, that was spotted whilst drinking a few doors down from Angel tube station so it's probably considered normal there) - all combine to form a language marginally less useful than Esparanto. Or Canadian French. There's an implied barrier of snobbery with companies who use them - more so when the box is not accompanied with any explanation to its meaning. Unfortunately I fear the ship has sailed around the world picking up passengers and hosting all day orgies because the dreaded box is not going away; film distributors offer extra long trailers for people who scan in the right code. It's worth remembering the rule about long trailers mean terrible films.

I want to like the QR code in its new guise as hip and happening password to the future, it's just impossible to do so. It's an impersonal and impractical image of style which abandons pretence of function. The "concert friend hook up" wheeze is a desperate act akin to putting casters on a dead horse and pushing it around Ascot.

Wales under review

2012-01-09T08:06:00.001Z

Much later to the party than their counterparts across the other bits of the country, the Boundary Commissioners for Wales are gearing up to show off how they've managed to carve up Cymru under the new parliamentary constituency rules.

Reducing the number of MPs to 600 was never going to be without controversy - the English Commission was accused of treating the exercise like men of Empire armed with a ruler, a sharp HB and northern Africa. Their "Mersey Banks" will go down in legend.

Welsh MPs and commentators have been heavily critical of the consequences of the law, as the country will lose ten MPs, 25% in one strike. Arguments for and against have been oft-repeated - the Valleys seats are too small, the Valleys seats have to be that small, Welsh language constituencies must be protected, there should not be any protection for seats in Wales as there has been in the Highlands. Perhaps inevitably, Labour have been most critical, claiming the new legislation disrespects the Welsh people and their parliamentary history. In one waft of a hand, ten constituencies are removed from the map, Wales loses any influence within Parliament for purely partisan reasons.

These claims are so much fluff and bluster. The loss of MPs everywhere as part of this process does not rob anyone of their voice, influence or supply of green ink to write letters to the local gazette on the matter. Britain has always had too many parliamentarians - the reduction to 600 should be a first-step, not the final destination. Wales has its own Assembly and will have forty MPs shouting very loudly for attention - I don't believe the loss of influence argument much at all.

The Welsh Commission have left it this late through all manner of confusion and administrative cock-ups. Their Local Government colleagues dropped enough balls to drown the First XI, which impacted on the national review. We've finally got whispers and hints on what's to come this week, putting into motion the very tight timetable which has to end by October 2013.

North Wales should be the easiest for the Commissioners to fathom. Ynys Mon (Isle of Anglesey to you and me) has to be attached to the mainland somehow, which is handy because the Menai Strait isn't exactly the Amazon (if you allow me to coin a phrase). The towns of the North Welsh coast are compacted together like neat jigsaw pieces, so expect Wrexham, Denbighshire, Flintshire and (Aber)Conwy to be largely touched. Good news for the three parties in contention to mop up the seats here - y Blaid will pick up the Anglesey/Bangor seat, Labour and Conservatives will divvy up the rest. One to watch? Wrexham, a dim and distant Conservative target which might yet one day turn blue.

South Wales has a trickier time of it. There's a fair few mountains and valleys which get in the way, and the small town attitude is not mere awkwardness. The pride and tradition of the industrial and mining past will live on as long as women of ample bosom have enough breath in their lungs to belt out "Land of my Fathers" at fifty paces. This is where the problems start. Cardiff will lose a seat, and this puts the Liberal Democrats under particular strain in holding on to their only bit of the capital city. Swansea will be divided into two - one bit attached to Gower - whilst Newport is likely to be broken up into "doughnut" style into central and outer seats.

What happens to the Labour bankers (if you will) depends on how many mountain passes and mining villages the Commissioners choose to split down the middle.

Mid Wales will see both east and west sides of the country carved up as never before - the statutory minimum constituency size is not kind to sparsely populated rural hinterlands and as a result there will be clumsy rural/urban combinations. The Conservatives and Liberal Democrats will be concerned with how the Carmarthen/Pembroke mathematics work out. Geography may have to mean nothing for the sake of making the numbers work - as the English Commission has so enthusiastically displayed.

For your perusal, a very convincing 30-seat Wales is presented on the Syniadu blog, written by blogger Penddu.

The Boundary Commission will present its initial proposals this week on their website

Ballot papers decide elections though the administrator's pencil is sharp enough to make points in the fabric of democracy. How Wales is governed in the long-term depends on the decisions of the Assembly and of Westminster - the loss of 10 MPs in one go will colour that debate intensely.

This is London, sponsored by...

2012-01-07T08:45:00.001Z

The BBC is in a financial bind. Since the election in 2010, the licence fee has been frozen (effectively cut) and both Welsh network Sianel 4 Cymru and the World Service has been brought under its funding responsibilities. Less money, stretched so far, means serious consequences. We almost lost 6Music, and they've only gone and axed Something For The Weekend.

Critics of the Beeb always trot out the line "What about showing adverts or go subscription?", the former of which is now to become a reality. If all goes to plan, the BBC is to broadcast adverts on BBC World Service programmes for the first time.

Auntie's neutrality means last night's coverage of this news was as measured as it could be. The phrase "thin end of the wedge" was used only in quotation. There's probably plenty within the Corporation who think exactly that. Adverts on the BBC? Well, there's a path now taken and there's the destination and doesn't it look NICE? All warm and fluffy and neon lit with advertising types raising their glasses and beckoning us all inside.

The World Service is the most iconic of all the networks prefixed with the letters 'BBC'. Its legacy is stunning - getting news to places where it was otherwise filtered through genuinely bias sources, if indeed the news ever got to people at all. Famously, Mikhail Gorbachev heard of the 1991 coup in the Soviet Union through the Russian language World Service broadcasts.

The BBC is required to source £3m funding from commercial activities by 2014. Adverts can only be the start - and pessimists are meeting with realists to paint what that must mean for the television channels we take pretty much for granted today. Unlike its other radio networks, the World Service is not merely news and opinion; for millions of people, it's the voice of reason, neutrality and wisdom they are denied at home. It is often the only credible news source they can access all day. Adverts may be necessary because of the new funding rules - but the consequences can only be damaging. The inclusion of commercial messages between BBC programming was always the 'scare story' used to shore up support for the licence fee; the scare story is now coming true.

If you're angry about the inclusion of adverts on the World Service (which isn't funded by the licence fee, or at least not yet), step away from the Daily Mail website. Its commentators have rubbed themselves to an awkward, disappointing orgasm over this story - "The arrogance of the Bunch of Boring Creeps...." groans one. "I'm sure I'm not the only one who's tired of paying for left wing biased programming I neither watch or agree with." faps another. "It's about time these Socialist parasites funded their own programming." tugs away one more. Good old Daily Mail - for whom 'you don't know what you've got till it's gone' should be a secondary by-line. Wait until it /has/ gone, DM faithful, you'll be left with Channel 4 and product placement during the Archers (now broadcast on Virgin Nostalgia).

The "thin end of the wedge" will weaken, compromise and ultimately kill off most of what makes the BBC World Service so important and crucial as a provider of news. Successful adverts will promote the Government to force the Beeb to add commercials onto national television; and with it goes the licence fee and ultimately everything commercial companies would not dare risk paying for. Goodbye to BBC Four, 6Music, the archives of plays and interviews and live music. The World Service was a beacon - it should not be allowed to transform into a billboard.

Caucus envy

2012-01-04T12:04:00.002Z

So, then, Rick Perry? Excited, aren't we? He only beat God's Representative On Earth by the narrowest of margins! And so, the Republican Party begin their long, ultimately fruitless search for a nominee to take on Obama, spending the GDP of a developing nation in their criss-crossing, attack ad developing, podium thumping electioneering jamboree.

(If you're Rick Santorum, "podium" is "pulpit", and if you saw his speech earlier this morning, you'd be forgiven for thinking CSPAN stood for "Christians Stand Preaching, Americans Nauseous")

The primary and caucus period in the US is unlike any other election format enjoyed elsewhere on Earth; it is truly unique. Nothing is more bizarre, out dated, over the top or free from policy details and I've followed local administration elections in Britain for years. Listen to Michelle Bachmann for perhaps the most outrageous delusion this side of British National Party candidates claiming they will win seats at the next election. "There maybe a different Michelle in the White House next year!" she told supporters today. Maybe there will, Michelle, I understand they are always looking for interns.

David Cameron was instrumental in bringing primary-ish elections to the UK in the run up to the 2010 general election. In two constituencies now held by the Tories - Totnes, and Gosport - anyone who lived in the constituency could vote in a ballot to choose the Tory candidate. Turnout was piddling and strains between the local associations and Tory HQ stretched to breaking point. The primaries did poke the local party members into action, however, and opened the door to the possibility of the UK welcoming them in full in time. Indeed there was talk during the election period of legislation being introduced to allow "Open Primaries" in marginal constituencies across the land. LibDems in Glasgow, Labour members in Cambridgeshire, Tories in Liverpool - imagine the fun and games to be had there...

One argument speaks highly of Primaries. The Conservatives struggle to fight Westminster elections in, say, Manchester or Birmingham, so why not open up selection of candidates in the first place to get names and faces out there, and then run with the built-up momentum for the next X months or years (ideally) to reap long-term rewards?

The downside arguments write their criticism in neon lights. Atop them all is the cost: millions across the country compared to barely a thousand per constituency if done the traditional way. And for the avoidance of doubt, the "traditional way" can often be the rubber stamping of a single candidate by a dozen members of a constituency party on a rainy Tuesday night. Britain does not have the same federal administration as the United States or even France where the Socialist Party undertook its own Primary system last year. The consequence of this would be a lack of reporting and explanation, potential alienation between neighbouring regions as one party pours in money at the expense of another.

Political parties are dying in some parts of the UK, which means anything goes in the ideas machine for building up membership and activism. For parties with "black holes" in the national map, Primaries could be ideal. They might not exactly bring back the Hustings of centuries past, though conversations on- and off-line would be at their most political for years. It would remind "those in the know" that ordinary people happen to care about their political representation, they're just sick of being taken for granted (in safe seats) or swamped for a month every five years (in marginals). Primaries would engage political parties like never before - forced into a contest out of their control beyond traditional election time, some parties might struggle to adapt to candidates they don't necessarily know.

The "curiosity" factor of the US election process blanks out the rest of the world at this time of the Presidential cycle. We shouldn't absorb so much from the US, but we do - Blair was much more of the Congressman than he ever was an MP. Primaries are an awkward fit for the UK system, just as The Leaders Debates caused the machinery of British elections to stop/start, reset, wobble at the edges like a cartoon. We were not prepared for the long-term consequences of the Leaders Debates...would we be happy with spending months in the audience of 6 wannabe Labour candidates in Sussex or a handful of LibDems in Dagenham in the form of an Apprentice/Question Time hybrid in the cross-fingered hope of political renewal?

Early last year, I wrote a blog post suggesting that my second preference behind choosing AV was introducing Primary elections. If I was convinced then I am undecided now. There is much wrong with the British electoral system - which is why we needed AV to succeed and why STV is needed for local elections pretty damn quick. Primary elections could be "fun" but not necessarily useful. Walker's Crisps ran a competition some years ago which allowed consumers to vote on a new flavour of crisp; thousands of people voted, resulting in Builders Breakfast filling the shelves the next week. Sales were awful and the product was swiftly withdrawn before the month was out. Proof that things like Facebook Elections and Leaders Debates create fire.....they do not necessarily create light.

Word of the Year

2011-12-29T10:40:00.001Z

End of year summaries and lists are in full frenzy, and if anything uses up space in late December space-fillers, it's the "Word of the Year". With this year being particularly cuckoo-bananas, trying to sum up the whole thing in one word is hard. It's been a good year to disprove the attitude that ideology has died: this year has been, if anything, more polarised than any time in generations. Time-travelling Soviets could zip forward to any point during this year to assume the collapse in respect towards the police and politicians meant they were onto a winner.

The "Occupy" movement has defined this year, with all the other protests and riots branching off like tree made from malevolence. Although the aims and ambitions of the "Occupy" lot haven't yet achieved anything, their attitudes and methods dictate and decide the patterns of anti-austerity protests across Europe and the Middle East freedom marches. Each educates each other - methods, slogans, processes. As one "Occupy" movement uses foursquare or Twitter or Google+, so another learns to do the same. The aims may be fuzzy, the ambitions confused, but the methods are unlike anything the Establishment has seen before. This is what happens when the ideology which fed the 60s and 70s teenage marches is super-sized.

Cynical about the markets and corporatism, comfortable with turning the word "occupy" into a capitalised brand, "Occupy" is the measure of 2011, its skeleton and its organs. Whether you agree with those who camp out fully or not, their actions have redefined the protest movement forever. The word "occupy" has been adapted, redefined, reformed, from something implicated with war and detention to expression and freedom. Suddenly "occupy" can also represent the possibility of change, not a determination to crush the human spirit. "Occupy" protesters are themselves an ill-defined bunch - some are more anarchic than others - though until their own organisation begins to break down they have successfully made an synonym of "organise".

Nominations for "word of the year" tend to focus on technology ("check in", "share", "Andrioid") or culture ("hipster", "chinos", "pop-up restaurant"). It seems more important this year to look deeper than material goods. That's why politics retains its importance and relevance, and how 2012 is already defined by what politics cannot deliver.

Kim Jong-un looking at things

2011-12-19T13:17:00.000Z

Like father, like son

KIM JONG-UN LOOKS AT A BOILER

AT SOME FISH

AT HIS FATHER'S GLASSES

Off the peg

2011-12-13T11:58:00.001Z

I wander into the shop. A bright young thing leaps at me, eyes wide with the expectation of commission.

"You okay today?"
"Yes, yes, fine, fine. I am, yes, FINE. Fine, yea, just, yep, fine."

He's looking at me strangely. Am I on drugs? Maybe I am on drugs.

I'm waving my hands around like a scarecrow in the wind. Am I pointing at something that makes it look as though I'm interesting in buying a specific item?

"Thinking of anything in particular?" Oh God, he's dying behind the eyes
"No...just.....yes, no..Just..thinking....around...Fine. I am FINE." Stop pointing at specific items you idiot
"Oh you're thinking of buying that? I mean..I was thinking of Bonnie Tyler the other day but that doesn't mean we all have to live in the 80s, does it?"

Three...two...one.....Out of the shopping centre, on the next bus, home...

Clothes shopping is an absolute nightmare, my personal Room 101, walls plastered with models and designs and preening, judgemental assistants who are more willing to make an assumption on your suitability as a human faster than the Head of HR at an interview. I'm surprised TopMan hasn't employed security guards on the front door.

"And how old are you, mate?"
"Er...Thirty-one...."
"There's nothing for you here, pal, move on..."

It is because of the instant deflation in confidence which comes from needing clothes that a) I indulge in round-town wanders whilst I build up the cojones to walk into a shop, and b) I make choices woefully inappropriate just to get out as quickly as possible.

I remember a Victoria Wood sketch in which men ask for a fire extinguisher to be wrapped up in giftwrap rather than focus for too long at the underwear department of a major store; ("Yes, that one, red, it's in her size", "That's a fire extinguisher, sir", "Yes, yes, put a bow on it, wonderful, bye!"). That's me in most shops that aren't Primark or TK Maxx. In my misguided youth I meandered inside Reef (clothes made for young people who look like anime characters), scaring the assistant into thinking I was stealing. "Sorry, are you...do you want to try that on...at all...?" "No, I'm just queuing to pay!" "...Oh..."

People who get clothes deserve an award. I don't know what the Latin is for "purchasing items of clothing" but stick "-phobia" on the end and that's my diagnosis. I have tried the "spoonful of sugar" technique only for that to become increasingly laborious by age. Have you tried buying anything from Burtons? It's good for suits worn as a one-off by boybands at award ceremonies, and if you fancy having the eyebrows of strangers raised in response to you merely brushing your hands across short-sleeved t-shirts.

One result of all this is my wardrobe of doom - a time-capsule for every time I grabbed-and-ran something without looking at it twice. The sky-and-cloud design shirt, the beige hooded jacket, the over-sized 'skater' jeans...Oh yes, and the jumper (£90, cheap at half the price) bought from a place far fancier than I should have ever wandered into but it was either that or another meaningless confidence boost stroll around Manchester City Centre so what you gonna do?

I would like, in keeping with the mindset of most men of my mindset, for all the horror of shopping for clothes to be improved by the actions of other people. Turn every shop into a clearance warehouse so the people I pay care less than I do. Or if it comes to it, and this goes against all my principles, get the State to provide everything. If the High Street were to be nationalised maybe I could have a chest of drawers so stuffed full of plain t-shirts it'd look like a Uniqlo store room.

Or North Korea. That's it - instead of feeling inadequate everytime I so much as stroke my chin near Duffers, I'll order everything I need from Pyongyang...

Design on the right tracks

2011-12-05T13:32:00.001Z

Good design lasts a life time. Bad design tends to hang around as a warning to others; Private Eye filled columns every week showcasing how the Consignia rebranding of the Post Office involved a logo which resembled water running down a plug-hole. An entire episode of Points Of View obsessed over the decision to spend licence fee money on introducing the Gill Sans typeface to BBC television. "It looks like you're broadcasting programmes on 'BB CONE'", said one viewer. They had a point. Indeed, they still do.

If any symbol of good design still does its job today, it is the sign you'll notice but not realise you've become accustomed to, the logo which has been adapted and adopted by groups far beyond its original organisation, and one which has outlived numerous changes to the structure for which it was intended. The most remarkable characteristic is how, years after rail privatisation, the British Rail 'two arrows' has remained in every place it was originally put and countless more besides. Each new multi-storey car park displays the logo in over sized lozenges, every new build railway station uses in signage, councils still use it on direction signs.

First seen in 1965, the 'two arrows' is an iconic reminder of an era long gone, and design vision which remains at the heart of exponents of classic works today As easily recognisable as the O2 bubbles or the Nike tick, the 'two arrows' have long since survived the selling off of British Rail in the tail end of John Major's Conservative government. Amongst the mess of private company logos and rebrands, this 60s landmark is a proven survivor.

Following the collapse of Railtrack, a new company was set up to look after anything trains ran on, in, under or through. Network Rail could have been the 'new' British Rail, a national touchstone and branding exercise to revitalise the industry. Its logo has not seeped through the consciousness of the nation, its attempt to ape the BR original looking both obvious and weak.

Why has the BR original survived? It is simple, effective, pure - the directional arrows may have been mocked as proof of "indecision" back in the day, but now there is no realistic alternative. The Network Rail version has an unapologetic corporate look, the triangles and rectangles are too clever-clever, badly thought out, almost ugly. What do we trust most - rails running off into the distance, or arrows pointing the way?

With the great soup of private companies and TOCs trying to bury tradition under a mesh of their own typefaces, logos, emblems and symbols, it is refreshing to see those 50+ years old time capsules surviving at railway stations across the land. "Railway" font is used almost everywhere still today, though new build railway stations have been grasped by the hand of 'modernisation'. As long as the 'two arrows' point the way, we should always know where we are. Very few alternatives from any other field are so brilliantly resilient.

Ruffled feathers

2011-12-01T08:35:00.001Z

Cards on the table - though by now regular readers should have fathomed this out - I am not the biggest fan of the Labour Party. I was struggling even as a child, when my dad would sneer at the very sound of the word "Kinnock" and I'd be given very compelling reasons why the son of a Wiganer whose entire working life was down the mines was no more 'socialist' than a goldfish.

It doesn't help that the current Labour leadership is so ineffectual. Remember Ed Miliband telling us that the strikes earlier this year were wrong "while negotiations are still going on"? (It's the video in which he tells us again and again and again and oh sorry my ears have run away). Now he's using the same drone-voice reasoning for this U-turn. I presume the Union leaders have sharpened their poking sticks. He must be one of the few walking talking humans whose voice doesn't change when goosed.

Ed Balls doesn't help make the Opposition very attractive to me either, and that's not a personal insult against his face, though it does resemble a sack of cauliflowers. I would appreciate Balls admitting that the Labour Party is partly responsible for the mess we're in, though that would be less forthcoming that admitting he dresses up in Yvette's clothes of an evening, so instead we're faced with an economic "5 point plan" that's more insane than a cheesecake made from Ritalin.

During yesterday's Prime Minister's bunfight, two things happened. One - John Bercow signed his resignation letter. Two - D-Cam used "left-wing" as an insult. It was obviously the soundbite he wanted because he used it twice, including the bit at the end where he can say whatever he likes because Ed has used up his six questions. It wasn't much of a soundbite anyway, because the flow was all wrong - "Irresponsible, leftwing and weak!" sounds clumsy and without any rhythm. It's not an insult so much as a shopping list.

"Red Ed" still gets used against the Labour leader, and despite its accuracy has not stuck. Political labels are difficult to sustain as insults. "Liberal" in the United States might as well be "Baby Eating Whore", though that's very much a product of the polarised political situation over there. "Liberal" in this country has never caught on as a disparaging label. "You're too liberal!" sounds almost effete and camp. "You can protect my civil liberties any day of the week, you jolly old eek." "Fascist" has taken to wearing on the damp cloak of "Tory!" and "Thatcher!", not so much an effective swipe to the ego, more a measure of the man saying it. "You're just a Yellow Tory!" is something I am often accused of being, though it does paint a picture in my mind of an elderly conservative woman having trouble with her bodily functions. But that's just me. And in any case, I am no Tory. Okay, I'm a bit more economically conservative than I am socially liberal but I point honourable members to my dad for that one.

Cameron's use of "leftwing" as an insult landed squarely on the floor in a heap of damp tissue and I suspect he knows this. Nobody denies that the left have their loony tendencies, or being a slogan-shouting anti-everything socialist does tend to have you marked down as potentially unstable. "Tax us more! Spend more! Borrow more!" - it's like being shouted at by a drunk Open University lecturer, one whose still trapped in side your television in a beige box room, strangling himself with his kipper tie in your nightmares.

If "leftwing" sticks, it'll be accident and not design. One time socialist micro-grouplet "Left List" tried and failed to win elections some years ago in the London Assembly elections, the word "left" seeming unusual and out of place. We know "Labour" and we know, at a push, "socialist". The slow beating to death of ideology in the years following Margaret Thatcher's fall from power probably did for the extremes to do much good in the identity stakes. It took Tony Blair the Iraq war for some members of the Labour Party to remember that they were, in fact, on the left wing. Hence the birth of the Socialist Alliance and Respect and all the other far out placard wavers.

Both sides of the political spectrum agree with each other more than they think, or would dare to admit. It's expediency to use each others stance as a beating stick. It's also potentially damaging to a discourse already reduced to its most shallow forms. We're supposed to do democracy different in this country, and Cameron had vowed to end Punch and Judy politics. If Ed Miliband is wrong just for being "leftwing", than Cameron has missed the point entirely. Labour is wrong for all sorts of reasons. Using political labels in this way is inaccurate and insulting. It would just have to be a fluffy, fence-sitting liberal to point that out.

Anatomy of a punchline

2011-11-22T09:30:00.001Z

Viral videos are unpredictable creatures. Who knew, back in my school days, that Rick Astley would have a cult status around the world as the 'go to' for merking friends and message board regulars alike? How did putting mints into bottles of cola develop from High School science trick to YouTube ratings winner?

The viral video we're all waking up to this morning is a delicious slice of British humour - it's deadpan, plays on class (an ever present ingredient in British humour), and is frankly absurd (and from the earliest Goon shows to The IT Crowd, there is always room for the bizarre in comedy here.)

It is simple, short, effective - a lesson for sketch show writers everywhere who don't know when to stop. A man has lost control of his dog, and the dog is having a right old time chasing deer through Richmond Park. It could be The Fast Show and plays out like an alternative comedy show from a lost age. Helping the joke along is the accent - the heavy rounded vowels, deep in panic, undeniably middle-class. Who calls their dog "Benton"? People with a sense of comedy, that's who. "Jesus Christ!" is never more funny than when shouted by a well-to-do country gent legging it through fields. This is Downton Abbey with a laughter track.

Danny Baker is always quick to criticise those who analyse jokes - to investigate the beauty of a flower, one must rip it up by the roots and thereby kill it. Jokes are fragile and honest creatures, they don't always need insults and swear-words and sarcasm. Sometimes they just need the beauty of human life, the ridiculousness of ordinariness. "It's all in the tag!" Kenneth Williams used to say, and this is exactly what "The Benton Incident" has in under 50 seconds.

You couldn't - quite literally - write this stuff.

Right to Recall

2011-11-19T15:18:00.001Z

Remember the expenses scandal? Hazel Blears waving a cheque around, duck ponds and trouser presses ("It's a bit Alan Partridge", said Chris Huhne, who probably wishes that was the end of the word association game connecting "MP for Eastleigh" with "controversy".)

The aftermath flushed out all suggestions and attempts to clean up politics as though the establishment was blowing down the garden hose that had been stuffed on the tallest ledge of the shed for the best part of the year. "PR! Smaller House of Commons! An independent expenses regime! Dealing with lobbyi....Stuff!"

One of the bright ideas coming through all of this mild panic was the "right to recall", a mechanism through which people could get their MP off the green benches and into the Job Centre...Or at least an enforced by-election of some sort. The Labour Party love "right to recall" so much that they still put it on their website - look, it's here in their manifesto section. And the Tories thought it was a good idea too - in April of last year they explained how right to recall might work.

Deputy PM Nick Clegg described plans for a right to recall in a Q&A session in August last year. And now....Well...

...it's not easily found anywhere. The usual websites tend to fall silent on the matter, and Hansard is not an easy stamping ground for looking at where the proposal has landed. Just how long is the long grass?

"Right to recall" is a messy process if handled incorrectly, which it might just be if the proposals are given the same treatment as those to reduce the number of MPs by 50 (which I support, though the specifics of the legislation has created some absolute howler constituencies ).

Would the trigger be an official Parliamentary review? In all cases? Would Liam Fox, for example, be subject to a recall by-election if the good burghers of North Somerset were able to organise enough signatures on a website? If Parliament or an independent review decides that Mr or Mrs MP has not committed an offence even though the "court of public opinion" thinks otherwise, would a petition still be allowed?

There's all the usual lines in the background about "turkeys", "christmas" and "the voting for", and of course professional troublemakers will be in their element attempting to deselect the Prime Minister for looking at them funny. (I notice the NUS has now gone very quiet over its ill-fated recall attempt for all those nasty Liberal Democrat MP, maybe the take up of their wacky scheme didn't match their lofty ambitions?).

I hope that someone can bring back the recall scheme where it belongs, because as a powerful tool it is one of the most effective. But it needs to be properly configured, and not open to the kind of nutter magnet tendencies you see in the (otherwise flawless) e-petition scheme. Members of Parliament have not been whiter-than-white....ever.....but the mood music at the moment has no patience for wrongdoing amongst our elected masters. "Right to recall" is not a very British policy and would take a while to slot into our mindset. (It has not moved from "shouldn't grumble" to "Whose Streets?! Our Streets?!" without any intervening period, despite the over-the-top self-promotion of the Occupy ''movement'').

"Right to recall" byelections would open up political and democratic debate, and Lord knows we need a bit more debate recently. They would be rare, of course, because the rules would require a structure that ensured it was used properly by both Parliament and the electors. Those MPs who slipped through the expenses scandal with only nips and cuts to their pride need to feel the heat of the "recall" threat - I'm a democrat, that's my default position, and recall triggers fits very comfortably into a democratic model.

The age of the local referendum and devolved power is approaching - the Localism Act is a great tool and one which the Liberal Democrats should be rightly proud of producing. This might not be a sexy subject, but it's important and relevant today as it was during the depths of the expenses scam.

But until someone pokes the Cabinet Office to remind them about this policy, one wonders if it'll ever be enacted? What's that people say about the more things change.....

Adventures in Groundhopping

2011-11-07T19:26:00.001Z

The football website BornOffside is just over one year old and from Shamrock Rovers to the stadia blueprints in Qatar, it's been quite a journey. There's a lot of exciting things to come from the BornOffside lads in the coming months, so if you've not checked the site out yet, be sure to do so.

As I noted a few months ago now, this current football season is one where I'll be hopping around the lower and non-league grounds (...within affordable public transport reach, natch), and scribing about the experiences for BornOffside.

It's been two months already and I'm ticking off some great little games and cracking grounds, but much more than that, I'm enjoying people watching, comparing pies and noticing how all right-backs are frustrated centre midfielders who just want a CHANCE IN LIFE DAMMMIT.

By way of a catch-up, here's the run down of my adventures thus far. There's more to come, hope you enjoy the ride as much as I do....

A day trip to Squires Gate, and then to Lancaster, covered in The First Weekends.

An early FA Cup qualifier saw Prescot Cables take on Warrington, all scribed up as Prescot Punch

Trying out plucky little Flixton against the "phoenix club" AFC Liverpool in Flawed Phoenix

Taking the 30-minute walk from my house down the road for Bamber Bridge in Bridge Too Far

Making my way to North Wales to take in the beautiful game from the vantage point of the Welsh First Division, which I hope was translated accurately as Y gêm hardd

Down the West Coast Main Line for the charms of Wigan, only without the threat of bumping into Gary Caldwell, which was all a bit all pastry, no filling

Last weekend I found myself on a park in Radcliffe for the lowest level of non-league football I have ever watched. It should be up on the site later this week, so check it out.

Scot Free

2011-11-04T09:43:00.000Z

Later today, the results of the Scottish Conservative Party Leadership contest will be confirmed. All the smart money, and some of the maverick pounds too, has backed Murdo Fraser, the man who will win the Leadership, thank the men and women and cake bakers and raffle ticket sellers for all their hard work, and then announce the immediate termination of the Scottish Party's existence.

Murdo thinks the only solution to the "Scottish Problem" which has infected the Conservatives with pox marks and scars is to rip it all up and start again.

And the man has a point.

In terms of brand awareness, word association plays a huge part in ensuring your target audience stay with you. "Labour" brings to mind so many thoughts and considerations, as does "Liberal Democrat" (and post-Coalition, heaven knows how many swear words amongst the images, but that's for another thread....).

In Scotland "Conservative" is essentially a swearword. At the 1997 General Election, the Party fell to a complete collapse north of the border, and to this day the Tories have but just one Scottish Member of Parliament. In the Holyrood elections this year, even with a proportional voting system, the Party musters fifteen members, a minority grouplet in one part of the United Kingdom where the current Prime Minister is one of their number. When Murdo Fraser points to the reputation issue as justification for wanting to rebrand the Party, you can see his point.

At the core of Fraser's concern is an issue more substantial than changing the letterhead and choosing a decent typeface (though, if the leaked document discussing names is accurate, "The Caledonians sounds like a novelty act on the X-Factor and Scotland First is a discount travel agents). Fraser complains that the need for a real centre-right party in Scotland is hindered by the negative connotations attached to the words "Conservative" and even "Unionist". His victory later today would draw a thick black line under the history of the Party going back centuries; Scottish politics would move further away from its already semi-divorced status to the rest of the United Kingdom, becoming ever more European in its political structures. The new Party would take the Conservative whip, but would form independent from the Cameron-led Conservatives in its policies and practices.

There is danger in this radical idea (and for the Conservatives, this is about as radical as things get). Scottish political culture is a distinctly different place to the English equivalent; at the last Westminster election the swing was to Labour, conversely at Holyrood the Labour Party was wiped out of its heartlands. Pinning a new badge on a lapel is not enough. For the Conservatives need to combat a distinctly Scottish problem without having the Oak Tree logo and David Cameron's face moving into frame, to combat the SNP without the connotations of doing so with an English accent.

The influential Conservative blog, ConservativeHome, recommended the strategy in the immediate aftermath of the 2010 election. As Unionists it might come as an unusual tactic to deploy but when everything else has failed...

I am no Tory, though I am certainly no lefty-leaning apologist either. The Labour Party is a walking, talking economic disaster zone, one which has proven itself adept at persuading great swathes of the electorate to support its candidates despite taking those voters for granted. Scotland is going through an unusual two-tier electoral development, pro-Labour at Westminster, creating a built-in Labour bias regardless of circumstances, whilst rejecting the Labour model at Holyrood. The consequences for other parties, including the Scottish Liberal Democrats, is the political equivalent of patting your head and rubbing your belly. There is nothing to suggest the SNP have coherent policies beyond "independence now, oil profits for a brighter tomorrow!" written in North Korean-style poster boards.

I live in Northern England, where "brand Tory" is devalued in some major population centres. Whilst it is true that Conservatives have many councillors in Cheshire, Trafford and even Salford, their numbers in Manchester and Liverpool can be counted...er....in thin air. Whatever repair job is achieved by Fraser in Scotland will need to be carefully watched by the English party.

All democrats need to accept the vibrancy and urgency which comes from a multi-party system. The Labour Party has an attitude of entitlement which is drawn from years of lacklustre opposition; if the Scottish Conservative rebrand fails, it might mean opposing the Labour Party on both sides of the border becomes even harder.

red faction

2011-11-02T07:47:00.000Z

November brings cold nights, dark skies and the perennial tabloid topic; "How shall we fill 500 words on Remembrance Sunday?". For as long as I can recall, there is never a bad time to start complaining about wearing a Poppy too soon, in the wrong lapel, or if wearing one at all is distasteful. Recently, Facebook and in the Internet generally has fostered a form of nationalistic hubris which mixes the remembrance of our fallen war dead with twisted nationalism and barely hidden racism. "You'll never see Muslims wearing a Poppy!" screams the copy-and-paste status updates.

For every group where users speak in general terms - such as "Poppy's {sic} show our gratitude to our boys injured and killed for our freedom and should be promoted by companies not banned" - it does not take long to find prejudice of a very unsettling kind. One status update in a Poundland group, hastily set up in the heat of the "Poundland ban the poppy" controversy, reads "Disgusting! I'm not racist in any way but if Great Brittain's {sic} traditions and morals offend you ''Vistiors'' then PISS OFF and don't come back!!!". Some mouse clicks further and I find "The shop manager in question was probably some Muslim extremist let into the UK after claim political asylum from Pakistan or somewhere equally horrific."

As a symbol of war and remembrance, the poppy has always been easily hijacked, adopted by those who push a very different message than that of peace and understanding. Its colour is vivid and unromantic, the blood of the fallen, the setting of many suns on the bodies of men and women who will never see loved ones again. It's the colour of sacrifice and of England. Associations which would always attract disquiet and those who would like to cause disquiet. In an age where nationalism beats close to the surface of the news agenda, particularly the extremist English nationalism with its football hooligan connections, the poppy sits with the cross of St George and lions in Trafalgar Square as adopted symbols of a mindset completely at odds with the peace and understanding the end of armed conflict is supposed to promote. Yes, the burning of poppies by Muslim extremists is an incendiary act, but the anti-everything English nationalists who would rather smash up a town centre than engage in debate are extremists too. Ignorance and prejudice anger me more than the absence of a poppy on a suit-jacket.

The politics of the poppy has been tackled by two very different blog posts in recent days. Laurie Penny wrote last year an article in New Statesman which was reproduced at the start of this week in which she decries the "hypocrisy and showbiz" of poppy day. In an otherwise considered article - and there's not often when Penny can be described like that - she spoils everything with a jarring paragraph on politicians "cheerfully author[ising]" cuts to jobs and education "in order to defend Britain's military spending." Her attempt to tie the sacrifice of the fallen to "the sacrifice...of working class people" in a political diatribe is unfortunate and misplaces her anger. Blogger "Stackee" brings Penny to task - objecting to the way Penny has chosen to use working-class people as a way to score crass political points.

In the middle of all this are valid points teetering on the edge of hubris. The sight of Tony Blair at the Cenotaph every year did stick in the throat, his reasons for war so tenuous and weak, the justification for invading Iraq nothing less than a false prospectus. In the two minutes of silence on 11 November, how many prayers and thoughts can realistically balance the perfunctory orders which sent men and women to fight?

Wearing a poppy is not a right. It is neither a symbol of piety. Armistice Day is not primarily a date to mourn the deaths of men who fought under our flag. Laurie Penny is right to feel awkward at the sight of politicians wearing poppies though her substantive point is way off the mark.

Would any of this be resolved if the White Poppy was more readily available? It would certainly get the nationalists talking...

Farage fandango

2011-10-30T20:03:00.000Z

Nigel Farage has enjoyed more false dawns than a customer at a transvestite holiday resort. Third place in the Bromley and Chislehurst by-election and runner-up spot at the European Elections in 2009 pointed towards a spectacular break-through at the 2010 general election. Focusing on election in the Speaker's constituency of Buckingham - the constituency of the sitting Speaker is nominally uncontested though every election sees a collection of independents and oddities make a contest out of it - Farage stood down as leader to be replaced by Malcolm Pearson, aka Lord Pearson of Rannoch. I have a distinct memory of their election press conference crumbling before my very eyes, Lord Pearson struggling to hide the rather obvious fact that he hadn't read his own manifesto.

Decked out in their garish purple and yellow party colours - which tend not to go well with mahogany tan - UK Independence Party candidates are notoriously good at talking up their chances. Under our current First Past The Post voting system, it matters not that the recent YouGov poll puts them within one point of overtaking the Liberal Democrats: no UKIP candidate will ever be elected directly to the House of Commons.

That said, it's not as though Nigel Farage is Nick Griffin, who has seen his own British National Party collapse from height to shambles in a matter of months. Farage is the master of his party's image and spin, and boy can the man talk. Yes, his anti-Belgium diatribes are embarrassing. His Statesman like behaviour carries all the credibility of a garden gnome. And yet...

The threat of UKIP has never been so potent as it seems to be this year. By "threat" I also mean "promise" and "aspiration". Farage is not the captain of a sinking ship, even if the tan and fancy get up shouts "Howard's Way". With this month's European Union referendum controversy still ringing in David Cameron's ears, it's little wonder UKIP are being talked about in terms of spoiling the party come election time 2015.

Realistically Farage has much more of a steep climb even with the EU debate so freshly served on the agendas of breakfast television programmes and commentariat sections in newspapers. Europe is the bee-hive poke which ruins every well laid out policy picnic Governments have planned since the days of Heath. There's Cameron and Clegg in the rose garden, trying to return to the happy days of their honeymoon over barbecued halloumi and fruit juice when armies of purple and yellow ants creep up from behind.

Whilst the Liberal Democrats have been excellent in holding back most of the excessive policies of the Conservatives since last May, the secret coalition partner stalking Downing Street has been Nigel Farage. There must be times when even the mention of the word 'defection' sends Cameron into a blind panic, the kind which enters the mind of a teenage boy in the middle of entertaining upon hearing the sound of footsteps outside the bedroom door. What if, what if, what if...Whilst decent showings in general elections are quite beyond UKIP under the current voting system, causing a shock in local and European elections most certainly are not, something Cameron knows all too well. Additionally, any threat of a backbench defection, even just the one, would be a heck load of urine in the punch.

Crucially for the Conservatives, and in a broader sense pro-Europeans from all parties, is the lack of credibility on Farage's part with regards to selling UKIP as a genuinely broad church. They have one policy - Europe - to which they return for each and every question posed. Until that problem is solved, then the polls will continue to show only one thing - where Liberal Democrats were once the party of protest for electors fed up with the mainstream parties, now stands UKIP. And as once was said of the LibDems, there's no chance of a protest party ever getting into government.

Boundary Review - NW England - LibDem Proposals

2011-10-27T10:41:00.001Z

These maps show an overview of the NW Region LibDem counter-proposals for the North West review region.

ELA - Rossendale and Ramsbottom
ELB - Darwen, Accrington and Oswaldtwistle
ELC - Burnley

WLA - Southport
WLB - West Lancashire
WLC - Mid Lancashire
WLD - Chorley and Leyland

NLA - Valleys of Ribble and Lune
NLB - Lancaster and Morecambe
NLC - Blackpool North and Fleetwood
NLD - Blackpool South
NLE - Fylde
NLF - Wyre and Preston North
NLG - Preston
NLH - Blackburn
NLJ - Pendle and Clitheroe

Mong the Merciless

2011-10-19T16:51:00.000Z

So, another news story generated from Twitter. It's as though journalism really is onto the final injections and long talks about inheritance, the way all this is going on.

In summary - yes, this is Ricky Gervais, whose brand of comedy thrives on awkwardness, subverting conventions and generally pushing people further and further in their pressure points. I am not without criticism towards Gervais as it is, particularly as the cross-over between creative genius and self-satisfaction occurred halfway through Extras and hasn't been returned to since. But he can still be very funny and thought provoking....as we have all seen with this latest version of Twitter Generated Public Fury.

By using the word "mong" in a one-liner tweet, Gervais unleashed the usual InstaReply Corps. of Twitterati, the libertarians and PC-brigade, the professionally shocked and defenders of the free speech; all falling over each other in hurried attempts to prove themselves either more shocked or more in support than the last. Edifying? Well it hasn't done much to save the general public from sounding like reactionary keyboard warriors, and I say that as a blogger...

Is "mong" offensive? It's been a while since my schooldays but even back then it was considered one of the harder swearwords, most likely to cause teachers to scowl and scold. But we giggled and guffawed all the same - as we did with "gay" and "spaz" and all the rest. It was a bog standard primary in the north, and we were very young, so every swear word and offensive term was scoffed up like sweets. They were bad words, naughty, and tempting. "Queer", "Paki", "wanker". How much joy it was to be alive with these terms on our tongues. "Retard", "spastic", "belm".

Language alters and changes, all grammar leaks, and meanings of words develop and mould; any English language tutor can tell you that. "Gay" and for that matter "queer" are reclaimed by the homosexual community, leading to one classic Homer Simpson line ("That's our word for you!"). And if you're worried about "Paki", then you needn't worry one bit.

So why the on-line whom-a-flip over Gervais and his use of "mong", or the way in which some celebrities have placed themselves on the side of the critics? In all fairness to Gervais (and it's not as though he gives on single hoot), the term does carry provocative and offensive weight, one of the remaining slang terms which walks around with punch in its fists. It is related to many turns of phrase which have not been rescued by the cape of irony ("And then Mr Smith went full retard", case in point). There is nothing in law or reason stopping Gervais from using the term in a joke, thank heavens, and long may there not be. The massed ranks of the "how dare you" brigade would do well to remember it's a far better state we live in which allows him to use it.

However....and there will always be howevers...there are very good reasons why we have the offended mechanism hard wired into our brains. Jokes are not automatically funny by virtue of being jokes; "it's all in the tag" as the comedian's watchwords go. As Frankie Boyle has found to his cost, being offensive for the sake of it turns the person making the gags into a tiresome and predictable bore. The hardest and most effective part of a joke, or indeed any turn of phrase, is the pay-off. That the tweet at the centre of all this centred on an offensive term misses the point; did the term itself assist the joke being effective?

We are told that children must be protected - from swearing, violence on TV, sexual content, explicit computer games. We are told by certain reactionary quarters that adults too must be protected, that horses must never be scared, that naughty words and blue humour is outdated and boring. This age of political correctness and attitude of 'we know best' just has to be brought to an end. "Mong" will be a term that causes severe offence, of course it is, just as "spastic" must have done in the 1980s, but there was no legislation then to wean people off the term then and there sure as hey should not be now.

Gervais could have used a different term, and if he was that kind of person, no doubt he would have climbed down a bit by now. ("Time to show some humility, eh?" to quote Ed Miliband from earlier today.) His use of the word was ill-judged, though you will find me nowhere near the crowd of orchestrated shocked types lighting up the pitchforks. The words we need to find these days are reasoned ones for debate; it's more offensive to read frothing rent-a-quote outrage than it is to see the word "cunt".

Björk

2011-10-08T09:10:00.001Z

Released this Monday, Björk's new album Biophilia is possibly her most ambitious, complex and bemusing to date. Each track is an iPad app, one which opens up into games, National Geographic videos and opportunities to remix songs. One particular game will stop a track from playing if the user 'wins'; how many artists would invent such curveball wizardry?

A clue, to open: I am somewhat a fan of Björk, having fallen under the spell not long after Cable TV was installed at the family home. Whoever was choosing MTV's rota back then needs a handshake - "Venus as a Boy" and selected Sugercubes tracks scattered throughout the day. That voice, its unusual phrasing somewhere between Norwegian and Cockney, her presence: yep, this is the favourite singer for me. At a time when my High School friends were pairing off into indie or dance, there I was trying to balance waiting for the next Oasis or Ocean Colour Scene single with putting Debut on repeat.

(And for that matter, I was eagerly grossing out on Eurovision but that's possibly for another thread...)

The journey from that first solo album to next week's multimedia extravaganza has been long and exhausting and occasionally too bewildering for words. There was Dancer in the Dark, the bleak Lars von Trier film encompassing musical numbers and suicide, from which came the bewitching duet with Thom Yorke. (From which, additionally, came the half-truth rumour from the recording of the single, that Björk admonished Yorke for trying to take over 'her' song).

Lest we forget Drawing Restraint 9, the utterly confusing and often unlistenable soundtrack to the arthouse film of the same name made with her partner Matthew Barney. To say the album needs a running jump is something of an understatement; I find you need the clearance comparable to that of a 747.

From the post-90s club comedown album Debut to the literal Post album, the direction taken from radio turnaround to underground was abrupt and artistically liberating. Listening again to the earliest albums retains satisfaction, the first has a great charm and cuteness about it, with Crying, Human Behaviour, and Play Dead as stand out tracks still today. The inventiveness and quirk breaks through with the follow up Post, which brings the industrial crunch of Enjoy and the twisted romanticism of Isobel.

That album also provided, of course, the one albatross It's Oh So Quiet, a re-imagining of the 1951 hit by Betty Hutton. Fans are divided on whether the song retains any artistic merit at all; when Björk polled website visitors to decide the tracklisting of the Greatest Hits, the song didn't feature anywhere near the top 20. Snobbery? Or realising that some choices early in a career don't always need revisiting? For what it's worth, I am fairly neutral on the matter - it is not much of a song anyway, and the Björk reinvention has a certain eccentricity I like.

Many singers and groups claim their albums are all different with characters of their own (cf. David Bowie and indeed The White Stripes, who would challenge themselves to record each album in different ways to guarantee different results each time). Björk certainly does give each of her albums characteristically different attitudes and accents - you need only to look at the cover art for that. The young and wide eyed singer on Debut grows into the digital Geisha on Homogenic, who turns into a monochrome swan for Vespertine. Heaven only knows what character lay behind Volta, with its flames and fur and oversized neon boot. At the time of its release, I was amongst many reviewers who noted just how much fun Björk was having if the megapop madness of Volta was any guide. It's certainly true that it's the only time you'll ever hear something approaching the Pussycat Dolls on one of her albums...

We approach the new release this Monday unlike most others, not least because all her tracks are available on YouTube and versions aplenty were showcased at the Manchester International Festival. Fittingly for such a 'digital' album in an app-age, remixes and re-worked versions already slosh around the Internet, and the iPad version of Biophilia will allow users to take and make their own interpretations as standard. It's a concept album like no other, and this is why her output is so vibrant and consistently interesting.

Now aged 46, she shows no signs of wanting to make easy or predictable choices. It is for these reasons why I have always liked her - for the invention, the other-worldliness, and the interpretation of reality that is unlike most other contemporary singers. Yes, the output retains an eye on the commercial, but ultimately the results are personal. From the radio hits in the 90s to breakbeats and laptronica in the 21st century, these results also happen to be almost entirely without fault.

I leave you with some of my personal highlights.

porn anyone can edit

2011-09-25T13:45:00.001Z

With social media merrily building extensions and BBQ pits to its walled gardens, other sites of this world web of ours appear to be struggling to attract enough people to pick their own fruit. Remember Wikipedia? Encyclopaedia anyone can edit, and formerly one of the great phenomenons of the Internet, now sadly diminished.

Amongst the noise generated by Facebook and Google+ (and if you think the Facebook fandago has died down, wait until the Timeline format is launched), a loud and occasionally chaotic controversy has played out, developed and died on the great Wiki policy pages. If the media decide to take a look, it could blow open another hole in the debate about internet freedom and censorship.

Behind all the Wiki articles on sporting events, capital cities and electoral statistics, an army of editors and administrators busy themselves on the site's version of message boards. Here the various, numerous, often contradictory and highly muddled ''rules'' are bashed out using the infamous "consensus model", which usually means nobody agreeing on anything and the editing policy carrying on regardless for another six months. Diplomatic discussions around the tables of middle-sized companies have nothing on the Wiki model, especially now so few editors are taking on the roles of admins leaving a small set of middle management (the so-called "marzipan layer") to fix the rules of their own ends.

Out of nowhere, 13 year old editor admitted he had joined the Wikipedia project on Pornography, a group which exists to co-ordinate the editing of articles related to pornographic material. An editor created a policy discussion asking if, under Florida law where the Wikipedia servers are based, this was something to legislate against. The debate flourished into a bewildering half-page analysis of policy, philosophy and social norms across both sides of the Atlantic.

Much of the votes opposing a ban on underage editors contributing to the Porn project used recognisably libertarian opinions; Wikipedia is not censored, nor should it act in loco parentis. We tend to see the Internet generally, and sites such as Facebook and Wikipedia specifically, as places where inappropriate material might just be round the corner. If the editor really is 13, and genuinely wants to assist in editing articles related to Pornography, what stops could be installed which would not encourage other site owners to close down undesirable quarters 'for the sake of the children' ?

There is the issue of responsibility running through this which comes from stepping back from auto-response reactions relating to allowing users of the 'net to run free like the 60s really had changed the world. Porn (the imagery) and porn (the concept) are separate issues; discuss the latter with your children and make sure they don't search Internet History without someone over their shoulder. It would be a PR disaster for Wiki to be associated with adult material, even if the project itself is designed to educate and inform people about everything from the Vietnam War to the vulva (needless to say, perhaps, but one of those links is NWS).

Wiki does not have the mindset, amongst its users, to block material or build high walls around contentious subjects. On the whole Wiki is a centre-left/liberal organisation, and one which considers it a virtue if mature editors wish to contribute to difficult, minority interest content. The policy debate this single 13-year old started chipped at the core of the Wiki body. It's not as though the project contains sexually arousing content, as such, with articles on anti-pornography movements and sexual objectifications under the umbrella terms of the project. The articles relating to lesbianism lacks any moving images on girl-on-girl action, and if you clicked on auto-fellatio expecting a treat you'll leave disappointed.

Wiki retains the potential it always had as an ambitious, well-meaning project, even though the fleeting regular editors and increased administrative regime has left it looking exhausted and out-dated. The lack of a social-media companion tool alongside Wiki leaves the site appearing cold and unappealing. Debates on how to exclude and block editors, however responsible the wider debate may be, can do only more damage. Ultimately we are dealing here with something keyboard diplomats cannot legislate for - parental responsibility. Wikipedia could attract trouble it did not expect if an issue like this is mishandled.

Boundary Commission Public Hearings

2011-09-23T12:02:00.000Z

Boundary Commission Public Hearings:

11 and 12 October
Britannia Hotel, Portland Street, Manchester, M1 3LA

13 and 14 October
Ramada Leeds North, Millgreen View, Ring Road, Leeds, LS14 5QF
Brook Mollington Babastre Hotel, Parkgate Road, Mollington, Cheshire, CH1 6NN

17 and 18 October
Town Hall, Pinstone Street, Sheffield, S1 2HH
Holiday Inn, 97 Cromwell Road, London, SW7 4DN
Civic Centre, Rickergate, Carlisle, Cumbria, CA3 8QC

20 and 21 October
Royal Berkshire Conference Centre, Madejski Stadium, Reading, Berkshire, RG2 0FK
The Golden Lion Hotel, 114 High Street, Northallerton, North Yorkshire, DL7 8PP
Brent Town Hall, Forty Lane, Wembley, Middlesex, HA9 9HD
Radisson Blu Hotel Liverpool, 107 Old Hall Street, Liverpool, L3 9BD

24 and 25 October
Macdonald Tickled Trout Hotel, Preston New Road, Samlesbury, Preston, Lancashire, PR5 0UJ
Milton Keynes Council, Civic Offices, 1 Saxon Gate East, Central Milton Keynes, MK9 3EJ
Lewisham Town Hall, Catford Road, Catford, London, SE6 4RU
Hull City Hall, Queen Victoria Square, Hull, HU1 3RQ

27 and 28 October
Guildhall, Guildhall Square, Portsmouth, PO1 2AB
East Ham Town hall, Barking Road, London, E6 2RP
The Derby Conference Centre, London Road, Derby, DE24 8UX

31 October and 1 November
Northampton Guildhall, St Giles Square, Northampton, NN1 1DE
Town Hall, Wandsworth High Street, London, SW18 2PU
Town Hall, High Street, Colchester, CO1 1PJ
Crowne Plaza, London Gatwick Airport, Langley Drive, Crawley, West Sussex, RH11 7SX

3 and 4 November
City Hall, St Peters Street, Norwich, NR2 1NH
Ramada Maidstone, Ashford Road, Hollingbourne, Near Maidstone, Kent, ME17 1RE
Lincoln Hotel, Eastgate, Lincoln, LN2 1PN
Copthorne Hotel, Paradise Circus, Birmingham, B3 3HJ

7 and 8 November
Town Hall, George Street, Luton, LU1 2BQ
Ludlow Conference Centre, Lower Galdeford, Ludlow, Shropshire, SY8 1RZ
Holiday Inn Bristol City Centre, Bond Street, Bristol, BS1 3LE

10 and 11 November
Shire Hall, Warwick, CV34 4SA
Alverton Manor Hotel, Tregolls Road, Truro, Cornwall, TR1 1ZQ
BW Gonville Hotel, Gonville Place, Cambridge, CB1 1LY

14 and 15 November
County Buildings, Martin Street, Stafford, ST16 2LH
The Civic Centre, Barras Bridge, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE1 8QH
De Vere Royal Bath, Bath Road, Bournemouth, Dorset, BH1 2EW
Edinburgh City Chambers, High Street, EH1 1YJ

16 November
New Lanark World Heritage Site, ML11 9DB

17 and 18 November
The Guildhall, High Street, Exeter, EX4 3EB
St George Hotel, Durham Tess {sic} Valley Airport, Darlington, Co Durham, DL2 1RH

22 November
Teacher Building, St Enoch Square, Glasgow, G1 4DB

24 November
Town House, High Street, Inverness, IV1 1JJ

29 November
City Chambers, 14 City Square, Dundee, DD1 3BY

'via Blog this'

taking the register

2011-09-21T04:07:00.001Z

Justice Minister Michael Willis has hailed the switch to individual registration as "radical" and "an unprecedented move". To tackle electoral registration fraud, including at the initial stage and on polling day, the step-change away from blanket forms for one house is a welcome development in attitudes by central Government.

Mr Michael Willis is now.......Lord Willis, and his place in the Justice Ministry is no longer occupied by a person from his Labour Party. The profound shift in electoral registration came before the most recent general election and was a direct consequence of decreasing confidence in Britain's credibility as a place for free and fair elections. Labour had been stung by an electoral judge condemning the ease with which fraud could be conducted as something which would "shame a banana republic"

Back in 2009, when Mr Willis was flying the flag for this policy as a Minister in a Labour government, the rash of condemnation appears to have been muted. Not so now, as the Coalition's desired move towards the same policy has whipped up the kind of furious anger reserved for filling in comments sections at the bottom of newspaper on-line content. At the core of the opposition argument is a flawed premise - "Ah, it will deny the poor a vote!" - and a disingenuous one at that. "Elections should be based on population not electorate" is another auto-response, an attempt to suggest that all future elections should involve people who are not eligible to vote. Population figures were not used for the boundary review instigated under Labour, and nobody with much of a mind about them is suggesting that should happen again.

Labour helped bring individual registration to the United Kingdom during their time in power by way of Northern Ireland. Known for having...colourful and not always, shall we say, expected attitudes towards putting names on the electoral register, the Norn Iron experience has seen a fall in numbers. How many people were real in the first place is open to argument, and it's that argument which now needs to be tackled here. As the Birmingham case has shown (and not exclusively), we cannot be confident that the rigorous checks we expect on validity are being made. We certainly cannot be confident that the names on an electoral register are always real.

On the politics forum I visit - Vote-UK - this issue has been roundly discussed. As an adjunct to the main debate, one poster said;

At the 2010 election I witnessed some quite disgraceful behaviour at several polling stations in inner city Birmingham. There was clear intimidation and bribery of electors and in several cases the police stood by and watched. If they were willing to turn a blind eye to what I witnessed I have no difficulty believing that they would ignore other cases of electoral fraud.

Another poster added:

Individual registration is obviously superior and it will also hopefully help to keep people on the register who move from place to place regularly. My only concern is that complaints about it removing people from the register are being viewed solely through a partisan prism. I think we should all be able to accept that those legitimate voters leaving the register are more likely to be Labour supporters, but still agree that we ought to be making an especial effort to try to keep the register as full as possible.

Whilst a much less enthusiastic tone was set by the member who wrote:

The real issue here - which I'm surprised hasn't been mentioned in this thread - is not (thread title notwithstanding) moving to individual registration (for which there may be some good arguments, as already mentioned) but effectively making registration voluntary......

As the story says, this is a deliberate calculated decision to lessen involvement in the democratic process - something which I regard as fundamentally immoral

This last post has been the prevailing tone of the opposition. It is not one I agree with - and deep down, I suspect many opponents realise that too. From my own experience in Preston, there is a clear case of "head of the household" registration in some communities, something which cannot be tackled if election officers lack the safety net which individual registration provides. Broader arguments against the change talk about working class, or black and ethnic minority or non-English speaking people having the ladder of democracy somehow whipped away from them. This is far removed from either reality or intention; it is the responsibility of everyone involved in "politics" generally, be it national or hyper-local, to ensure the people we want to represent have the ability and opportunity to case a vote. "This is excluding the poorest in society" is not a valid claim if either you do nothing to ensure that the people who worry about have registered.

Another thread in the argument involves the moves to make parliamentary boundaries fairer, and reviews of constituencies more frequent. From around 15-year cycles to 5, the first of which is now underway. "This is just gerrymandering!" cry opponents, showing another blatant misunderstanding which borders on the medically unstable. Elections have always asked those who are able to vote to do so - it makes no sense to set up straw man arguments about immigrants or under-18s. If opponents wish to encourage individuals to register for elections who are, for example, about to turn 16 and for whom "voting" and "politics" seem like bizarre sexual fetishes, they could do well to help the Youth Citizenship Commission in their aim to roll out registration in schools and colleges.

If we are to have an electoral system people can believe in, then those seats we create for elections must be robust reflections of the voters within the boundaries who are able to vote; everyone who has the right to vote, with the ability to do so, on a register we can trust. There is too much doubt on the issue today, and partisan bleating about "fixing the system" pithily denies an awkward truth about the system as it currently stands today.

It is not evil for any Government to consider it vital that those who are willing to participate in elections should be encouraged to do so themselves. Labour recognised this in 2009, and the Coalition are now seeing it through.

Labour keeps its grip on the NW

2011-09-18T20:13:00.001Z

When the Boundary Commission for England released its initial proposals to reduce the number of constituencies across the country, you couldn't hear yourself think over the shouts from the Labour Party of "fix", "fudge", and "gerrymander". Got a Bingo Card? Full house before noon. "It's a Tory stitch-up," came the cries, and at the first glance it was almost enough to believe the hype.

Now the instant reaction buzz has died down, number crunchers have taken their time over the spreadsheets and maps, and found some rather interesting details which Labour's critics may find interesting.

If we focus on the North West of England, the conclusion is very clear; Labour do very well out of the proposed changes, even if those include such insane creations as "Mersey Banks" (two sides of the River Mersey connected by the M65 and a couple of dual carriageways) and a "Leigh" seat which excludes Leigh town centre whilst requiring prospective parliamentarians to navigate Chat Moss.

From the website Electoral Calculus comes news about Greater Manchester. Rather than demolish the strongholds and citadels of Manchester, notoriously undersized Labour bankers as they were, the BCE proposes to strengthen Labour's in built majority. Current LibDem seat Manchester Withington is calculated as a Labour hold; the same conclusion is made by UKPolling, who decides current MP John Leech would fall by just short of 2,000 votes.

The proposed Manchester Central (which also incorporates Salford city centre and Salford Quays) would fall from an 11,000 to 8,000 seat majority for Labour, not exactly a collapse. Indeed, factoring in the Hazel Blears factor (her cheque-waving fixed-grin arrogance cost thousands of votes last year), the seat could have an automatic majority beyond the existing figure.

There are notional gains for Labour too - the newly divided Burnley would present them with two notionally held seats. "Rochdale North and Rawtenstall", a creation destined to force BBC news presenters to sound like Jane Horrocks, and "Rochdale South" would move further away from the grasp of the Liberal Democrats who regard the town as their northern spiritual home.

Under the new proposals, Warrington, Chester, and Bolton shift away from marginal status, which for Bolton at least should never have been allowed to happen in the first place. The proposed "Westhoughton" (which should be called "Westhoughton, Horwich South, Hindley and Leigh. And also Atherton") creates a cushioned safe-hole of nearly 10,000 votes (around 7,000 using Electoral Calculus).

What this means in the wider picture brings two conclusions; that the in-built natural Labour bias has not been fully eradicated. Neither the BCE nor Democratic Audit found a way to jigsaw Manchester or Liverpool in such a way to make them any less safe for Labour. The second conclusion underlines the extent to which Labour misunderstands the concept of 'gerrymandering', almost certainly wilfully. The new rules presented the BCE with a challenging remit, something which occasionally produced unfortunate accidental brain-farts one assumes can be redressed (taking Fishwick out of Preston, for example, something which hasn't been the case in any context since the mid 1830s). What has happened in the NW is an interesting result of taking boundaries further out into towns which have been consistently undersized before - in quite a lot of cases, it is the Labour Party which benefits the most.

Of course, there is quite a lot of tea-leaf stirring here. These predictions are drawn from past local electoral results and stats, and in politics as in business, past performance is no indicator of future behaviour. It's notable that the loudest critics of the scheme to reduce the size and cost of Westminster have missed out the specific consequences in those parts of the country where first glances would have given the impression of impending disaster.

The whole episode makes things very tough for the Liberal Democrats, who I have supported for over 10 years now. We lose, notionally, two seats, and that is a significant number in a region where vote share and constituency numbers have never correlated particularly impressively. If anything, the results show just how much greatly strengthened should be our resolve against the Labour Party, in parts of the country where we have consistently out performed them.

If Labour go into the 2015 election thinking, genuinely or not, that the boundaries have been stacked against them, they may discover the flip side of getting what you wished for.

Boundary proposals - North West England

2011-09-12T19:36:00.001Z

I have agreed to help the North West Region LibDems with their submission for this year's great Parliamentary Boundary jamboree, so this post should be treated more a précis than any suggestion of what the Region is suggesting instead.

In very brief terms, what the Boundary Commission for England has performed is a highly impressive, highly skilled, and ultimately very controversial. In some cases, the proposals are simply not workable. They should be cohesive, coherent, and democratically valid.

However, commenting much on these proposals in this medium won't get me very far with the bods in Region, so I present instead a quick overview of what is being proposed.

If you want to react to these changes, either do so in this blog (for I'm always up for seeing what other people suggest), or go to the Boundary Commission's website.

City of Manchester

1) Blackley and Broughton. Includes the Broughton and Kersal wards of Salford Council, and brings in Cheetham, Moston, Newton Heath, Crumpsall and surrounding areas. The Charlestown ward is moved into a proposed cross-border seat called Middleton

2) Manchester Central. Two city centres in this proposal - Manchester and Salford, four wards from each coming together into one constituency.

3)Manchester Gorton, Takes Ardwick, Gorton, Levenhsulme, Longsight, Moss Side and Rusholme

4) Manchester Withington. Loses Didsbury from the existing seat. Includes such areas as Chorlton and Chorlton Park, Old Moat, Whalley Range and Fallowfield.

5) Middleton. Very close to an idea I had for a "Middleton, Moston and Failsworth" seat way back when, this new cross-border creation brings together communities whose common theme is close proximity to the point at which three local councils meet. Includes Chadderton, Heywood and Middleton

6) Wythenshawe. The southern quarter of Manchester, with Sale Moor ward from Trafford, also incorporates Didsbury.

City of Liverpool

1) Bootle. Due to the size and shape of Sefton's wards, it's no wonder things are a bit messy round there. One Liverpool ward is attached (they call it an "orphan" in the business) to this slight return to a previous constituency. Kirkdale joins the southern swathes of Sefton.

2) Huyton and Halewood. This is the natural successor to existing Garston and Halewood, and incorporates only two Liverpool wards. Why it drops "Garston" is a mystery.

3) Liverpool North A boring name for a pick-n-mix seat including, amongst other bits, Kirkby Central, Croxteth, Warbrek, and the Netherton/Orrell ward from Sefton.

4) Liverpool Riverside An expanded version of the existing seat - includes the city centre, Everton, Picton and St Michael's

5) Liverpool Wavertree I think this is unchanged - includes Allerton, Hunts Cross, Cressington, Woolton and Wavertree itself.

6) Liverpool West Derby Has been expanded and includes, amongst others, Anfield, Knotty Ash, Tuebrook/Stoneycroft, Yew tree and Stockbridge from Knowsley.

City of Salford

1) Blackley and Broughton. As above

2) Leigh. In what is a badly drawn and incorrectly named seat (this is me trying not to judge or suggest alternatives), the outskirts of Leigh are attached to Irlam, Walkden and Little Hulton. So not quite "Leigh" really, more "Salford East and Tyldesley".

3) Manchester Central. As above

4) Swinton Or perhaps "Eccles and something, something". This is the left-over bits of Salford - Barton, Eccles, Pendlebury, Winton, Swinton, and Worsley.

Borough of Wigan

1) Leigh. As above

2) Makerfield Altered a bit - includes Ashton, Bryn, Lowton (both East and West), Winstanley and perennially mispronounced pub-quiz favourite Worsley Mesnes. Clue - it's not "mes-nes"

3) Westhoughton The border-line fringes of both Wigan and Bolton combine in this one - includes Hindley and Leigh West, the latter being, pretty much, the town of Leigh.

4) Wigan. No change - the town itself plus Standish, Pemberton, Ince, Shevington and the ward name which looks like a mis-print "Aspull New Springs Whelley". No commas.

Borough of Bolton

1) Bolton North. Incorporates Astley Bridge, Heaton, one half of Horwich, Tonge with the Haulgh, and Crompton.

2) Bolton South which brings together Kearsley, Farnworth, a trio of Levers and Harper Green.

3) Bury North is over 90% Bury, and brings in Bradshaw ward from Bolton

4) Weshoughton as above

Borough of St Helens

1) St Helens North
2) St Helens South and Whiston Neither of which change at all

Borough of Trafford

1) Altrincham and Sale. The existing seat extended a bit further.

2) Stretford and Urmston. Not much change here either - Davyhulme, Stretford, Urmston, Clifford and Ashton-upon-Mersey all incorporated.

3) Wythenshawe As above.

Borough of Oldham

1) Ashton-under-Lyne Takes the three Ashton wards and combines with Failsworth, Hollinwood and one half of Chadderton. Name change needed perhaps?

2) Middleton. As above

3) Oldham and Saddleworth An expanded version of the existing Oldham East

4) Rochdale South No, it doesn't make sense, but it's Crompton, Royton's northern ward and Shaw attached to Castleton, Kingsway and Deeplish amongst others.

Borough of Rochdale

1) Middleton As above

2) Rochdale North and Rawtenstall A very ye-olde Lancashire seat this one, taking the town centre of Rochdale and all parts around and attaching it to the southern cotton and factory villages of Rossendale.

3) Rochdale South As above

Borough of Stockport

1) Cheadle Combines, amongst others, Bramhall, Cheadle, Davenport and Heald Green

2) Denton Gives one ward - Bredbury and Woodley - to a cross-border seat with the Denton and Droylsden parts of Tameside

3) Hazel Grove and Poynton. Attaches Hazel Grove and Marple with Poynton from over the border in Cheshire

4) Stockport The town itself, also including both Heatons and Reddish. I don't mind saying at this point that I had proposed "Didsbury and The Heatons" but this was swiftly never spoken of again

Borough of Bury

1) Bury North takes Bradshaw from Bolton
2) Bury South doesn't appear changed at all

Borough of Tameside

1) Ashton-under-Lyne As above

2) Denton As above

3) Stalybridge and Hyde. The existing seat, plus Dukinfield

Borough of Knowsley

1) Huyton and Halewood,. As above.

2) Liverpool North. As above.

3) Liverpool West Derby. As above.

4) Maghull. One of the posher bits of Sefton (the other being Southport) attached to left over bits of Knowsley. The ward names are fairly anonymous - Park, Northwood, Whitefield - though these cover the northwest fringes of Kirkby.

5) St Helens South and Whiston. As above.

Borough of Sefton

1) Bootle. As above

2) Liverpool North. As above.

3) Maghull. As above

4) Southport. The existing town of Southport with approximately 2/3rd Formby.

Lancashire - Boroughs of Chorley, West Lancashire, and South Ribble

1) Chorley is drawn to be completely coterminous with the Borough

2) South Ribble is barely changed at all, adding Farington and Lostock Hall back into a seat they should not have been taken away from in the first place. Also includes Tarleton, North Meols, Hesketh Bank, and Rufford from West Lancashire.

3) West Lancashire is unchanged - Ormskirk, Skelmersdale, Burscough and surrounding fields of what appears from the train to be two-thirds of the county's entire vegetable import for the year

Lancashire - City of Preston, Boroughs of Fylde, Wyre, Blackpool and Ribble Valley

1) Preston expands to take almost all the city wards - oddly, and somewhat free of all logic and reason, this means Lea, Cottam and Fishwick are all excluded. Would be the first time since, I think, before the Second World War that so much of the borough was included in the same constituency - only the rural parishes and Lea and Fishwick are elsewhere.

2) Fylde continues to incorporate the parish of Lea and Cottam. Otherwise the other major addition is Poulton-le-Fylde from Wyre.

3) Lancaster is very oddly named - the boundaries are essentially the same as "Lancaster and Wyre" which existed between 1997 and 2010. Anyway, this is "Lancaster, the M6 Corridor and bits of rural Preston", including Grimsargh, Goosnargh and Woodplumpton. I'm not making up any of those place-names.

4) Blackpool North and Fleetwood is essentially status quo ante

5) Blackpool South avoids the temptation to cross into Lytham St Annes and cause a riot, by moving ever more suburban. Includes Squire's Gate, Layton, Stanley, Waterloo, Bloomfield and Claremont. I think the Tower is in this seat.

6) Ribble Valley continues to be a right old funny one - not only continuing to include Bamber Bridge, but now Fishwick, which would mean one of Preston's main thoroughfares (not to mention some of the most socially and economically troubled parts of England) are hobbled onto one of the most expansive and rural.

Lancashire - City of Lancaster

1) Lancaster. As above

2) Morecambe and Lunesdale A slightly bigger version of the current seat

Lancashire - Boroughs of Blackburn and Darwen, Hyndburn, and Rossendale

1) Blackburn is virtually unchanged. Includes only seats within and surrounding the town itself - amongst their number, Audley, Ewood, Livesey with Pleasington, Wensley Fold, Little Harwood and Roe Lee.

2) Darwen and Haslingden takes areas from three boroughs, including Oswaldtwistle and Haslingden, expanding the current Rossendale and Darwen seat into new directions,

3) Burnley South and Accrington joins together the industrial bits from both these stoic northern towns, including Cliviger, Huncoat, Hapton, Rosehill, Clayton-le-Moors, Overton and Gawthorpe.

4)Rochale North and Rawtenstall As above.

Lancashire - Boroughs of Burnley and Pendle

1) Burnley North and Nelson. Takes the borough of Pendle and slots the most immediate neighbours at the bottom. Nostalgics amongst you might think it's a reinvention of an old seat, but it is pretty much untested territory.

2) Burnley South and Accrington. As above.

parallel lines

2011-09-05T20:20:00.000Z

For a small island with enough room (just) to move about in, we sure do like having our towns, cities and counties carved up by administrators waving their sharpened HBs on a lazy Tuesday. Through centuries of governmental landgrabs and civil servant line wobbling, there is barely half-a-year free of local administrative boundaries, or parliamentary boundaries, having changed for the benefit of democratic cohesion and representative validity.

Common changes which carry on without much comment outside the local press, if at all, are the product of the Local Government Commissions, hardy souls whose responsibility starts and ends with the Town Halls and Civil Centres of Great Britain. Right now, if you're that way out of an evening, you can comment on the proposed council ward shake-up of Purbeck council. THRILLING, I am sure you agree. Some of you may even learn where Purbeck is, for I'm sure it came as news to me.

Next week sees the bigger brothers of the local boundary shakers take to the centre stage of political discussion, and boy, will it be bigger. You may have heard the cries of "Gerrymandering!" from the summer of last year, from ill-informed bitter opponents of the somewhat overdue plans to cut the number of MPs and do something about the huge difference in Westminster constituency sizes. When the Boundary Commission for England publishes its proposals for the 500 English seats in a weeks time, followed by Northern Ireland and Scotland before November, and Wales in the new year, it will be part of the greatest constitutional shake-up since devolution. Not since 1945 have Westminster constituencies been subject to such radical reforms.

First off - the reasons why it's obviously a good idea to take an axe to 50 Members of Parliament and a stretching device to those seats which border soon-to-be-abolished constituency units. Quite obviously, all boundaries are fake. All of them, completely invented. From the decision to draw country lines round mountains and through lakes by means of happenstance and expediency, through to contemporary council ward shapes, every attempt by some form of establishment or other to carve up nation states begins with circumstances nobody wants. It's a measure of man how we agree to the invisible lines which bind us into boxes and files and codes: most significance is only drawn in this country through somewhat petty partisanship. I often wonder what opponents of the forthcoming parliamentary boundary review would do in Israel or Somalia or Western Sahara.

We need smaller, more relevant democracy in this country, one in which the machinery of party politics is left to tick and tock far away from the streets and playing fields of peoples every day lives. To lost 50 MPs in one go is but a small step - it is necessary to take the axe to the 'payroll vote', reduce the size of most Town Halls and create more local, responsive parish/neighbourhood councils. Reducing the number of MPs by just 50 to 600 is a small, vital, and progressive step in the right direction. Having done nothing to reform the parliamentary establishment, it's very rich of the Labour Party to sound off about 'representing the people'. Losing 50 MPs saves money in the long term, and opens up the possibility of greater, more significant reforms in the long term. Proportional representation, above all, an elected Senate, an axing of two-tier local government....Can you hear the creaking in the old guard's strides?

What begins next week is not gerrymandering. The Labour Party can cry all it wants (not least because they did so well in persuading the Boundary Commission under their regime to divide Derbyshire, East London and a fair amount of Wales in their favour). By making the new parliamentary seat rules so tight, so rigid, so difficult to twitch, alter, manoeuvre, the Coalition has created a refreshing alternative to the old school horse trading of years gone by. Having followed the most recent review, which ran up to the 2010 election having started over 10 years previously, I know only too well how 'stitched up' everything felt.

There is nothing in the Great British Rule Book which dictates "An MP must not represent both rural and urban communities". We are a small island, where urban sprawl exists almost everywhere, and the outdated ideas of 'rural isolation' and 'high street magnetising suburbs to its core' all reek of ancient arguments dusted off by those most likely to do well from favourably drawn lines. It is not beyond the means of any conscientious MP to represent town, city and farmland in one go.

Cheaper democracy, and more vibrant too, as candidates fight over unfamiliar territory at the next election. Yes, the resulting constituencies in some parts of the country may have some contrived elements - watch out Leeds, things aren't going to be pretty - though when did it become necessary for the United Kingdom to be marked up in straight boxes? This is not the United States, we do not need compact squares and rectangles to make it easier to colour in the lines.

Cheaper, vibrant, more reflective of the 'commute to work' culture, and more relevant to the population shifts in northern cities and the affluent south. The recent previous reviews finalised their ideas ready for 1983, 1997 and 2010; from this year onwards, the reviews must take a maximum of 5 years. The most recent English review saw parts of the country experience two general elections and a change in Prime Minister before they finally got the chance to vote in the seat designed for them half-a-generation gone. It's not very modern of our democracy to take outdated population figures and expect representative seats to be drawn from them.

Cheaper, vibrant, up to date, relevant, reflective - and independent. We are not the US - appropriation is carried out by pen pushers and map mechanics, not political appointees and the interested parties. Our parliamentary representation is the more precious and important because of the way in which we draw our lines; it is vital we retain that independence, something opponents of the new regime seem to take for granted.

Is it a Tory gerrymander? No, and it is not because Labour supporters have proven it. The left-leaning Democratic Audit published its report and found rock solid Labour seats in Manchester, Liverpool, east London and Scotland remained even with the tougher, tighter electorate rules. As I discovered when thinking about submitting my own proposals to the Commission, the domino effect caused by the new regulations make the creation of isolated blobs of party support very hard indeed.

Labour's opposition seems to be tainted by two flavours - bitterness that they didn't get here first when they had the chance, and uncertainty over the safety of their smaller, compact inner city seats. It should do our parliamentary system some good if Labour, and all other parties, have to fight that little bit harder in newer, more unusual seats. Why the Labour Party is so obsessive in their opposition is beyond me; are they so cynical? Or bored, and in need of anything to shout down if it's seen as easy enough to do?

Our attitude towards the ever changing, always shifting representative means seems mostly shrug-shoulders and rooted in the past. We cling to "Greater Manchester" and "Merseyside", both of which no longer exist. We occasionally scratch our heads at "Middlesex", and look in vain for "Clwyd". Our incessant bored fiddling with figures and numbers have awarded Southport with a PR postcode and L-accented Post Offices. Next week sees one opportunity to take seriously the new chapter in representation which will revitalise our relationship with candidates, parliamentarians and politics. It's lazy and churlish to whinge about the radical nature of the review process; remember, only 50 MPs are going. I would prefer far less with a proportional voting system; maybe you want even fewer than 500 by 2020.

If you want more information about the great boundary re-jig, then Wikipedia is your friend. Whatever happens when the Boundary Commission for England declares its provisional plans next week, let's try and get through it without too much bruising.

I have been asked to advise the North West Region Liberal Democrats on some specific constituencies for the North West of England, and will be present at a number of North West public consultation meetings on behalf of them.. The proposals I linked to in this post are my own ideas, almost all of which are absent from those which are being considered by the NW Region.

EDL - home grown terrorists

2011-09-04T08:06:00.002Z

Despite and in the face of the ban on marches, the English Defence League took its circus tour of provincial high streets to the London Borough of Tower Hamlets. Symbolism abounded - the East End has dealt with this sort of thing before.

The EDL have always had a lot of explaining to do - what they believe, and why, and how they would progress from slogans to action. Their 'manifesto', such as they have one, drips with hatred, fear, prejudice and ignorance, handicapped by paranoia. At the start of this year, the group was viewed as the knuckle-dragging wing of the British National Party, to be viewed with distrust and disquiet, protested against, though not given much more attention. National Front, British National Party, English Defence League - eventually, history tells us, all the far-right groups fail. The explanations which are presented crack and fissure under the weight of mis-explanations, omitted details and spin.

And then July 2011 happened.

Anders Behring Breivik, an extremist Christian who had deep-seated distrust against Muslims specifically, immigration policy generally, left-wing policies in the round, massacred members of the political party he blamed for changing his country in ways he would not accept. His name is etched into history - the three words "Anders Behring Breivik" as a symbol of Norway's darkest days in modern times.

We know the Breivik admired and supported far-right and racist groups across Europe and possibly further overseas. Links between Breivik and our own EDL are sketchy though those which exist utterly condemn the group and destroy their arguments about being "peaceful". Breivik himself wrote about meeting EDL members; he spoke on their messageboards, he met members in person. His much quoted statement, taken from his manifesto reads:

“I used to have more than 600 EDL members as Facebook friends and have spoken with tens of EDL members and leaders. In fact; I was one of the individuals who supplied them with processed ideological material (including rhetorical strategies) in the very beginning.”

One infamous photograph of Breivik, amongst the thoroughly unsettling profile images that resemble perverse spoofs of L'Oreal adverts, shows him posing with a weapon ready for action. "This is how I will be remembered," the photograph says. "This is my legacy."

Such photographs are not exactly uncommon on-line. There are probably hundreds of thousands of images showing teenagers flexing their muscles in front of bathroom mirrors, women pouting in nightclubs, and housewives throttling their kittens.

The "posing with guns" imagery is common too, and can be traced to plenty of ''wannabe'' headline providers from across the social and geographical classes. In the UK, the imagery always appears tinged with parody, mockery, as the consequence of our national attitude towards carrying guns makes showing off with them appear ludicrous, unreal. Running counter to this is the imagery from Northern Ireland, where for generations the violence and counter-violence developed into a cottage industry for photographers. Imagery from The Troubles appeared on television and newspapers with all the expected elements - balaclavas, pistols, flags, shotguns, military uniforms, portraits of the fallen and avenged. Attached together, these images and photographs developed into a lurid backdrop for the history of Britain - the running commentary by the armies formed by consequence and necessity.

Whatever your opinion on the specifics of Northern Ireland and its history, the images that conflict produced has provided blueprints for future generations who have the misguided assumption that they, too, can nominate themselves as guardians of their own self-confirmed truth. The EDL and its offshoots are misinformed if they believe they can form their own 'army', their own twisted form of 'loyalism' to a cause they were not invited to join. The images I remember from my youth, channel flicking through the news headlines, hearing my Dad complain about the "never ending" "problems" in Ireland (as he politely put it), these are the images which have convinced the far-right of 2011 that they represent a long-held British tradition of armed resistance and responsible vigilantism.

Simply put, supporters of the EDL are potential terrorist threats. Like Breivik, they believe only in armed resistance against an enemy - a target they have incorrectly identified and wrongly convicted, but an enemy to them all the same. Their nationalism is as extreme as that of Breivik - the use of Nordic and Gothic typography, their obsession with nationalist images, their subservience to a flag. And their hatred of political parties which they blame for the situation which exists only in their mind - "force feeding Halal meat", as one EDL member told me in a messageboard; "forcing Islamic laws in Parliament" as another assured me was happening on the comments section to a newsstory. Obsessed, violent, angry, isolated, paranoid - the characteristics we are told must be looked out for, the "if you see anything suspicious" warnings on railway stations.

If we are to accept freedom of expression, as any democracy must, then we must remember that the rule of law exists to keep that freedom sacred and valued. We are told by the mainstream media, with suspicion and cynicism, that we must be aware of the 'danger' in immigration, the Muslim family down the road, the Mosque planning application, the use of Urdu in schools.

We should remember not to be 'race blind' to the terrorist characteristics of the self-appointed army of tracksuited, shaven haired nationalists, whose iconography, language and behaviour would ordinarily instigate tabloid campaigns and government action. The distinction with the BNP (which should not be banned, not least because they appear to be falling apart all by themselves) should be obvious.

We were told to be vigilant against possible acts of terror on British soil by Irish dissidents for generations. Our media asks us to treat Muslims as outsiders who could be priming bombs and suicide vests as we speak. But what of the EDL? Yes, they're idiots and football hooligans and bored married men wanting to revisit their former youthful glories - but look at the images below, taken from Hope Not Hate's collection, and wonder if the link between Anders Behring Breivik could turn into something more serious, more horrific.

If the threat exists whereby members of the EDL or their offshoots go from photographs to shooting spree, what steps do we take now? Against all terrorist threats on this island of ours, we have to be prepared.

Morality manifesto

2011-08-29T10:24:00.004Z

British elections - indeed, most elections in western democracies - are won and lost on economic matters. Who can make money go further, fund public services better, guarantee jobs and investment, ensure taxes are fair, and so on. "It's the economy, stupid" rings through history and permeates our futures.

Morality and moral choices tend not to envelop British elections particularly prominently. During the general election of 18 months ago, the repeated memes were almost entirely financial or fiscal; tax, funding for public services, cost of education. The tone of the election was markedly similar to those in previous years - tax bombshells, tax u-turns, only our party can be trusted on this, on that, on the other.

Across the Atlantic Ocean, tone during election periods has little resemblance to their British forefathers (and for the basis of most American elections across all layers of representation, 'period' means 'all year round'). The rise of the Tea Party Movement and its infiltration into the Republican Party has changed irrevocably the manner in which USA elections are conducted. The rise of the morality brigade, avowedly Christian, right-wing, suspicious of the State, wary of welfare; there are very few British equivalents: imagine the very worst of UKIP and Tories combined with a script written by a greatest hits of Thought for the Day contributors.

Two people who represent the Tea Party ideals on English soil characterise two very different poles of their respective parties; Nadine Dorries (Conservative, Mid Befordshire) and Frank Field (Labour, Birkenhead). They could not be further apart in their political histories or heritages, and yet together they are spearheading repeated attempts to alter British law on abortion with language and attitudes not experienced in this country for generations. They represent the increasingly palpable sense of religious attitudes fighting back after years of secularisation within politics and political debate.

They represent the Tea Party in spirit.

We all know that the word "rape" has been adopted to mean a brutal result in sports ("They were absolutely raped out there"), and almost parallel to that, "abortion" has been similarly re-defined ("That bloke is an absolute abortion"). It is not with this redefining that I consider how Dorries is associated with the word "abortion" is much the same way as water is defined with the word "wet". Her career as an MP has become inextricably linked to the issue and the wider discussion on sexual morality. You may recall her proposed Act of Parliament, which would force schools into teaching abstinence in sexual education classes, though only to girls.

Dorries ("At the next election, the Coalition will ensure the Liberal Democrats are wiped out, which is a good thing") is passionate about driving abortion reform through the Health and Social Care Bill, and connected morality purposes fuel her campaigning spirit. Crucially, such issues require care and attention to debate them soundly. Dorries does not provide much chance of a reasonable debate; she has ridiculed the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists committee ("There is a specific committee which develops the guidelines for the care of women seeking terminations. They're all abortionists. They earn their living from abortions." (Source - the very good, albeit spiky, recent interview from The Guardian : http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/aug/06/nadine-dorries-abortion-sex-education)

She protests too much - she is a religious extremist whose additions to this very tricky subject do far more damage than good.

Together with Field, the amendment aims to make what appears to be a modest alteration to current law. Their claim is that Marie Stopes or BPAS, who offer counselling to women who are pregnant and considering options available to them, pressurise the women into choosing the option of abortion for reasons of profit or financial gain. BPAS is a not-for-profit organisation, and its role as an advisor to women has been largely considered independent and fair-handed.

What Dorries is attempting to do is colour the debate with the red mist of her own permanently irate attitude. She is not as pro-choice as she likes to make out, pouring emotive descriptions of her time as a nurse into her anecdotes and examples, associating all experiences with the trauma of long distance memories. Her claims are so much rhetoric - when she claims "Women are given no advice, they are just spoken to and channelled straight into an abortion clinic where they have their abortion in a factory-like manner, then ejected into the street..", she has not then continued to explain how moving from one state of affairs to another would resolve her view in one move. It's all "from the very worst I can paint to the very best I can imagine".

This issue is very complex and emotive, by its very nature. It is unsettling to see the debate bubble and stir in the way it is - not a reasonable exchange, but prejudice, insults, on both extremes of the political divide. It is the American accent sewn into the British debate which unsettles me more. I do not have a problem with people of faith throwing into any debate their opinions, views or suggestions; the issue gets harder to accept when those people desire to dilute facts with moral teachings. "This is my view based on what I have been taught by my religious teacher" is not comparable with "These are my opinions taken from a religious text I hold to be absolutely true".

I have always held the opinion that women deserve to have the final say on their bodies, their babies, their lives. There is a line in the process from "before sexual intercourse has occured" to "making the decision on whether an abortion should be performed" at which politicians must stand the heck down. Our elected officials push so much judgement on those babies which are born - to single mothers, who are judged; to immigrants, who are judged; to a father who is over 60, who tends to be judged very differently.....What we really need is an isolation tank, a forcefield, behind which is the collated directions from Government, and in front of which is the mother who must be allowed to make up her own mind. Dorries would like to smash the forcefield into tiny pieces, and I cannot accept her notion that it is better for everyone if she succeeds.

And just when we probably need it least, another question of morality and freedom of thought is threatening to run parallel with abortion in the lead-up to the 2015 general election. Martin Green, a government advisor to the Department of Health, has suggested the right to die be a subject to parliamentary debate or even referendum.

I am in favour of decriminalising the right to die. The debate must be held, much as a rational debate on abortion must also be allowed to be aired.

My unease through all of this is drawn from the background noise, the quietened corner of Britain now returning, voice slightly altered but attitude totally reborn. We see through many prisms the natural disquiet over Islamist extremists - whose warped, inaccurate version of the Islamic faith has lead to such tragedies and deaths. News media rush to hear the latest garbled morality fetishism from self-appointed Muslim 'faith leaders', no more representative of mainstream Islam than David Icke or my kettle. We are a small island whose political debate has lost its Christian accent; I fear for what other consequences could follow if the Dorries experience means the voice which roars back is not so much Priests as Palin.

We would be better not having the Tea Party dump its wares in our waters.

Britain First, elections second

2011-08-24T19:05:00.003Z

Some months ago, Richard Desmond's Daily Star splashed across its pages the super-soaraway exclusive that the tracksuited clowns of the English Defence League would be announcing their launch as a political party.

If you follow your far-right fringe parties, you'll know that the English Defence League (EDL) are a touring party of hooligans and anti-everythings, who don't care about issues so much as -isms, and mostly negative, prejudiced -isms at that. Every one of the provincial town marches descends into violence and arrests, including the chant of "You're Not English Anymore" at anybody who dares question their shallow logic. Here in Preston, which hosted the assembled masses of EDL members in early summer, fireworks were thrown through the windows of takeaways.

The political party which the EDL is most closely associated with is not Nick Griffin's British National Party (BNP), a group they regard as being traitors and state plans, but rather the less well known Britain First Party (BFP). This microsect has obscure beginnings - if you search the Register of Political Parties for all entities including the word "First", you won't find them. There's "BPP - Putting Britons First", and "British Jobs First", and even "England First Party". You'll even find that the BNP have registered "Because We Care" as an official ballot paper alternative to having "BRITISH NATIONAL PARTY" next to a candidate's name, though maybe that's by the by.

Links between BFP and EDL are not easy to find. Links exist, though, and are hinted at across every line of a three-page email sent to supporters - and, as it happens, the email proves very useful for fans of the development of the anti-everything nutjob brigades in what is surely the "post Griffin age".

The email ends with requests for money and funding; it begins with denouncing electoral politics with all the fervour of a libertarian on heat. "Virtually the only difference between a campaigning organisation and a formal political party," it says, "is that the latter places all emphasis on fighting media-rigged 'elections' (most of which end in embarrassing failure), whilst our movement will focus on campaigning in all its forms to highlight the many injustices suffered by our people."

It could not be clearer what jibes are being thrust here. Griffin's BNP has been an electoral flan-in-a-cupboard for years, collapsing in former heartland areas such as Barking & Dagenham, and failing to make a breakthrough in any recent general election. At local level elections, the BNP barely register at all, hurtling into obscurity. No candidate for the BNP, not least Griffin himself, made any serious dent in the electoral chances of the far-right at the 2010 election.

The next paragraph sticks the boot into Griffin once more - "...[N]ationalists need to move away from pretending we are going to romp home to power in this country, and that our leaders will soon be in Downing Street".

They go on to say "This failed approach channels our energy, willpower and determination into an ineffectual 'dead end' that usually ends in failure and disappointment..."

In a surge of hyperbole, it continues, "If you want to get native cultural parades reinstated, if you want to hold corrupt politicians to account, if you want to campaign against the encroachment of Islam into your neighbourhood, if you want to form community groups and take charge in your patch, and if you want to be part of a professional baggage-free organisation that will grow to great size and depth {sic}, then Britain First is for you."

Putting to one side the definition of "native cultural parades" - morris dancing? flogging suspected witches? - this paragraph should ensure any links between them and the EDL are formally agreed as clearly existing. This "non manifesto manifesto" approach typifies the new approach by the far-right; they are politics for those sick of politicians. They will approach anyone who has shown, or has the propensity to show, exhaustion with the establishment model. Students? London rioters? Long-term unemployed? The vulnerable who believe that non-politician politicians offer the only true chance for change?

Despite what we, on the left and centre-left of politics hope and believe, the far-right remain a real, true, and stubborn force. The EDL marches are well attended, though just as high numbers oppose and often in-fighting does most of the good work for us. Their threat remains very high - we cannot dismiss their marches as mere side-show comedy acts. Where there is a threat, there must be a counterstrike.

Though the BNP are collapsing into themselves, what comes from them must be kept under scrutiny too - what is Andrew Brons BNP doing with the newly registered Freedom Democrats? How strong is the English Democrats Party, and what links do they have with the BNP? How serious an electoral threat is the far-right, and is there a strong enough opposition from within the mainstream parties and the traditionally election averse harder Left?

Nationalism across Britain has always suffered from its own malaise - its message confused, its audience violent and often criminal, its policies bizarre, self-defeating, ridiculous. It is to Britain's credit that no national parliament has elected a member of the far-right, and that opinion polls consistently wallop their grouplets with derisory totals of support.

That does not mean we should remain complacent. The BFP email is confident, assured, and professional. It is also laced with danger. No ballot box for us, no establishment games, only direct action and street-by-street reconnections. It's the recipe for success which mainstream parties count as their strongest asset. If the BFP are serious - they aim to stand candidates in Westminster by-elections to take advantage of the free Royal Mail mailshot available to all candidates - there is a period which opens today, right now, during which they could be persuading the disenfranchised or apathetic that only BFP candidates can offer an alternative to the same-old politicians.

The BNP is fading. Let us try and extinguish the next flickering lights of fascism. On the streets, at the ballot box, and in the here-and-now forever.

Threedom

2011-08-22T18:09:00.002Z

One of the greatest crime dramas you've never watched has returned to the iPlayer, capitalising on the soon to be launched second series. Amongst other programmes in the schedule around it are travelogues from Orkney, dead-pan comedy Nurse Jackie, the Proms, and an edition of Top of the Pops from 1976, featuring Thin Lizzy. Earlier this year, the channel dedicated almost an entire month to broadcasting subtitled comedy-drama from Iceland. Tomorrow, the story of Italian-language crime fiction and on Wednesday a look at submarines in cinema history. The crime drama, incidentally, is Denmark's The Killing, famous for the chunky-knit Faroese jumpers worn by lead star Sarah Lund.

All this, and as they say, so much more, is found on the BBC digital channel, BBC Four. Paid for through the licence fee, it's remit is as much souped-up BBC Two as it is SKY Arts, the Sunday Times, and BBC Radio 4's Loose Ends. If you're worried that watching a decent enough documentary on BBC Two could put you within channel-hopping distance of Jeremy Clarkson, then this is the network for you.

Or at least it might be the channel for you, for now. With the safeguarded 6Music clusterfruitcake still leaving a bitter taste in their collective mouths, the suits at Auntie Beeb are diving back onto the buffet trolly. Facts are facts, after all, and the fact is the BBC needs to find cost cuttings. And find them fast - the licence fee is guaranteed for six years, though frozen, and that all adds up to a reduction in real terms. Easy targets could cause the usual suspects to start biting, hard, and not just particularly sharp of tooth around the whole argument of the Corporation's funding. Big ticket sporting events, bigger ticket celebrity pay packets and phenomenally successful though populist prime-time entertainment shows are all easy targets for the BBC's enemies - if the network is to compete in multi-channel Britain without an ever increasing revenue stream, those enemies require rapid and effective placating.

Over on BBC Four, the cuts are already showing. Original dramas will be shrunk in number, and mostly shoved across to BBC Two. Non-English imports will struggle to survive at all. Bought-in documentaries will doubtlessly increase. Live music reduced to "Radio 3 with pictures", twice the work for presenters, less outlay for producers.

The argument from within the Corporation itself is tricky to reconcile with the long held assumption that Auntie doesn't do ratings wars. "It's your BBC!", Terry Wogan would recall in a mocking voice, turning the once often heard slogan into a punchline, often when another multi-million pound splurge is outed by the newspapers. This year, the BBC announced that their youth-orientated channel BBC Three would be given greater broadcasting hours, and the money to go with it, for the temporary transformation into BBC Olympics. Further, the channel would continue to enjoy greater amount of investment for new talent - so whilst "The Thick of It" and "Getting On" did very well for Four, it will be more "Two Pints of Lager" and "The King is Dead" for your licence fee pounds from next year.

Selling the BBC Three "youth" angle is easy for the buzz word compendiums which walk around Television Centre these days. Defending "60 Second News", the producers underline the traditional journalistic approach to slashing the events of the day into haiku. The great quote - for all the wrong reasons - is "so much TV news assumes knowledge on the viewer’s part”, but that is not how BBC Three works."

In the light of the riots in London and elsewhere, such forthcoming arguments as "Three verses Four" becomes somewhat harder to balance. In short, the BBC does a great service in providing Three, recognising that BBC One will always be more stable, family orientated, more mainstream. BBC Three has helped young writers and actors, given coverage to womens football and wheelchair ballrooom dancing (no, really) and ensures that fans of "Family Guy" and "American Dad" don't have to sit through "Newsnight" for one episode each, every week, in the graveyard slots on BBC Two.

It's the channel which people love to hate, usually for reasons of thinly veiled condescension. How unfortunate that well meaning critics could be hitting the network at the wrong time. "Down with what the youth want!" cry the establishment, newspaper columnists, the middle-class Twitter hive mind. "It's all just too vulgar"

Looked at from afar, it does appear the BBC Three formula of "shock, awe, and celebrity" sets itself apart from its broadsheet near-neighbour and all of the other BBC output. It's not too much to say "It's not exactly SKY One, is it?". On Monday, BBC Three gave you the option to watch a 'make under' programme with a Lady Gaga lookalike, followed by reruns of "Eastenders" and "Little Britain". On Wednesday there was a 'secret wedding' reality show and the film "Sliding Doors". Tomorrow, an episode of "Total Wipeout" and a rerun of "EastEnders".

But, wait. Go back a few days to "Young, Dumb, and Living Off Mum", in which spoiled teenagers are filmed cleaning youth hostels for minimum wage, as part of a "life lesson reality show". Tomorrow, Cherry Healey (no, me neither, the name sounds like a brand of ice cream), investigates body-image issues amongst young women. On the 24th, there's "Good Will Hunting". Not exactly "The Hangover II".

Despite its brash logo and 'street' outer-skin, the depth of BBC Three saves itself the bother of arguing back against the broad-brush side swipes. Yes, it is very different from other BBC output, and of course BBC Four is far closer to the Reithian manifesto. If there was only one to save, I'd choose Four, and not just because of the occasional chance to revisit "Wallander". I am older than the BBC Three target audience, but can still see that many of its exploitation programming is not exactly doing the Beeb much of a favour. Could you see why there's not a 24-hour "T4 Channel"? It just wouldn't stretch that far.

BBC Four causes Auntie a headache because of its cost and audience viewing figures. Generally, stripped of the Proms and "The Killing", Four costs more money to run, and attracts far fewer regular, loyal viewers. BBC Three is cheap, popular, and serves a part of the population well who have spent months slogan shouting (and rock throwing, shop looting) against the various establishment icons. The potential for BBC Four is huge - though what the BBC could do with Three at a time when the Government aren't exactly striking a confident pose in front of youth unrest is the opportunity to educate, entertain, and inform, Generation Internet.

Standing up for the very best of the BBC is easy. I'm a supporter of the licence fee, I watch far more BBC Four than any other channel, and I do struggle to justify the output of Three if pressed to look at its entire schedule over any given month. However, from a neutral point of view, it seems obvious why the cost-cutting is looking at taking money away from Four; the danger of perception has always shaken the suits at Television Centre. "Beeb Throws Your Licence Fee Into Subtitled Nonsense!" at a time when your teenage target audience feel alienated and ignored? If the BBC can balance the books, and in conjunction with all their executives, take an average viewer to and from BBC Four in small doses, then the possibilities could all turn out okay. It cannot be easy - the Beeb may save Four and face accusations of snobbery and detachment, or save Three and be slammed for dumbing down. The struggle at the heart is snobbery - is it somehow prejudiced against the core audience of Three to suggest they need more history, drama, and subtitled films?

In November 2009, the danger at the time was from a Conservative Party hinting that the licence fee could be "top sliced". Back then, my suggestion was to go for BBC Three for the obvious cost-saving options. Context is all - to choose one over the other will damage the Beeb and alienate millions of viewers. I would prefer the investment needed for BBC Olympic be transferred into more Sarah Lund and 70s prog rock....but perhaps that point of view is precisely the problem.

all change, please

2011-08-16T22:09:00.004Z

Many moons ago, my blog about the railways drew very strident conclusions from broad-brush assumptions. Hey, it's a blog, and that's not exactly uncommon.

My default position has always been largely in favour of competition and private investment in the railway industry - since John Major's government pushed through the Railways Act, there has been a notable and undeniable increase in investment for rolling stock, track repairs and new stations. Commuters on the rat-race to their office-spaces may still be cramped in their carriages, but it's against the backdrop of record customer numbers overall, healthy profits for all those from management level up, and occasional splurges in engineering work and stock renewals across the country. British Rail was not utterly useless; neither did it cost the taxpayer so much money as the fragmented privatised industry we endure today.

This is not a complete U-turn. Maybe a slight reverse; the fabric on which the initial privatisation model was sewn clearly put the long-term health of profits over the long-term needs of passengers. Today, the TOCs which do least are rewarded most: highest fares, highest subsidies, lowest customer satisfaction. And yes, "customer", having long since stopped being "passengers".

I'm a lifelong fan of the railways - young frequent user for wanderings and now older commute to work type. Those weekends I choose for groundhopping and the like rely on trains taking the strain (or in the case of the away trip to Howden, trains and buses and Metros, though that relaly is another story). Consequentially, bemused doesn't cover my reaction to news that fares will increase again for most passengers, especially the increasingly rare 'walk-on' customer. Neither Labour government, nor Coalition today, dare tackle the £4billion cost of keeping the railways running. Phillip Hammond, current Transport minister, struggles to maintain any kind of credibility with his "investing in the future" drivel; when Northern Rail's faithful are forced onto 1984 spine-shakers for the want of any kind of investment in the future, every additional four-quid on fares a week is keenly felt. Labour are going on record with their "too far, too fast" cuts agenda rubbish. I'm taking no lessons in pious hand-wringing from the Party which pretended to put aside £500 million for station improvements which didn't exist.

Little wonder the age of the "walk-on" passenger is all but gone. Like the airways before them, TOCs now see no profit (and therefore, no point) in attracting people who can't afford to book tickets in advance. Romantic ideas of a modern railway fit for all, affordable to many, seem depressingly delayed. Presumed, cancelled. Wrong kind of governance.

Whilst train companies enjoy bumper profits, massive salaries, and huge packets of money from the taxpayer, the other big ticket item in the news rolls silently off the running sheet and down the agenda. England's riots will cost a mere £100m to repair. The quantifiable cost of the troubles is one serious hit - the cost to peoples lives is anyone's guess.

This makes the effect on peoples attitudes all the more important to gauge. So why are politicians goading judges into showboat sentencing? Is it important for the United Kingdom to have prisoners whose crimes would barely trouble Iran's religious elite? Using the Serious Crime Act to throw in gaol the organiser of a water-fight? Or the Facebook users whose arranged gathering may not have existed? For four years?

If Theresa May - whose stock is now falling rapidly - has any kind of legitimacy, she would tip-toe back into the Home Office for some serious one-woman-against-one-keyboard interaction time. Area-wide curfew? Increased powers of arrest? Of detention? I thought all this had been done away with, after the great LibDem successes against IT cards and the DNA database.

What the apolitical riots represented was the desire to break away from relentless police-state mentality - Labour's stock in trade. More CCTV! More PSCOs! No hanging around in groups of 3 in the light of the chippy window, SCARPER! To increase and tighten police presence in assumed known trouble spots will only make those sick of society even less willing to co-operate. May has made the same mistake every authoritarian predecessor would receive the warmest applause. She is failing to remember the difficulties inside the most tricky department. Fighting disenfranchised youths with thousands more police officers hanging around makes me - us all - feel far less comfortable, far less safe.

Both the 'talking points' down the Crickerer's Arms - the railways and police reform - centre eventually to the persons view on their own Englishness. As a rule, we don't complain. Unless, of course, our tolerance and patience were to suddenly snap over the injustices on both sides of these commonly discussed controversies. Let us not be priced out of our own public transport (would that it were, etc.). Let us not exchange the British way of consensus policing for the unjust politicised State Uniformed Brigades of our closest European neighbours. "The French take their police's behaviour and attitude as a given," said one man on the radio over the weekend. "Britain has always enjoyed a public face to their coppers."

Indeed so - but let us not forget the issues with cost, with caution, with due process. The railways cannot justify big-ticker, Beeching-creep, small lines closed when the profits don't add. Let's not allow May to introduce the kind of civil liberty hate so enjoyed by the increasingly right-wing Blairite sect

Tomorrow, I will walk to work, the full 6 miles, as I have been doing knowing that my monthly wage is taxed out of all reason every day, and that it's still possible for our politicians to see just the wooded area of 'headline justice". Oh for a platform alteration there...

Flying the flag

2011-08-15T21:56:00.004Z

His infamous video now part of the Interwebz fabric, David Starkey's "whites have become black" Newsnight melt-down (during which he sounded like a mad advert for OMO) garnered enough hubris and comment to fill Broadcasting House with carpets of Daily Mail and Telegraphs. At the core of his concerns, amongst rather extreme and obvious prejudice, was a subject more commonly expressed amongst the wider population than the commentariat realise; don't just think the weather and house prices keep the English chatting all day long. If there's one thing we like talking about, it's how we talk.

Why does the English language produce such extreme reactions, instantly flinging up the shields and swords as quickly as tabloid newspaper journalists scarper towards a fishmonger with Lb. Oz signs on his stall?

In very broad-brush terms, the English language retains its strength and influence by virtue of its powerful ability to soak-up influences and alter its appearance. Very few major languages can change and alter so quickly - or to such divisive reaction amongst its native speakers. The rapid rise of communication models exacerbates the pace of change; mostly for good, keeping English as the language of sport and music, politics and business. Moreover, the language of culture, and as such the living record of how communities, their people, and ultimately their country, is developing.

That the language amongst young people in London is changing should be only a shock to journalists needing to extend columns by 200-words or more before the next print run. As traditional Cockney has moved across and out of the capital, so new ways to talk have moved in. "Hinglish", "Jafaican", "Caribbenglish". Broad, solt-ov-di-urth East End accents now exist laced either with the coarse consequences of age, women and song, or the semi-conscious adoption of immigrant slang. And lo, it has been thus for generations.

We think nothing of "klutz" or "Kitsch" being naturalised English words, so why the immediate post-riot condemnation of ostensibly Black British slang, by Starkey and others? Is one assimilation less difficult to criticise than the other?

Analysing the use of certain phrases from black culture - from "safe" and "blud" to "break it down" - brings to mind one of my long standing points of reference in matters political or socio-linguistic. "Context is all". The showing off amongst friends by younger people borrowing street slang is no more concerning than the 13 year old me flicking to page 53 of the English-French Dictionary in Mrs Cunliffe's classes for a quick glance at the swears. As British immigrants grew older, made their homes and families here, it makes just as much sense for their language and dialects to be adopted as it would any outsider in a new town. Ever spotted accents altering your own speech in a new town? Or your almost unconscious adoption of new words or phrases after speaking to a mutual friend?

Starkey tapped into a much repeated concern amongst traditional, older generation Englishmen; that somehow, all of a sudden, what was ''our England'' exists only in dreams and flashbacks as a consequence of allowing the language to adopt the traits of those who chose to learn it, share it, make it comfortable on the tongues and in their hearts. Somehow, England the place, the myth, the language, must retain its isolated state off the coast of civilisation until the right kind of revolution improves the lot of us all. It's a stance I have never understood, and can never accept. There is a massive difference between accepting the new forms of modern English as the result of our nation's strengths and attitudes on the one hand, and criticise the inappropriate use of the language in a disrespective manner on the other. I would rather moan at the teenage "like, you know, whatever" speech influenced by Paris Hilton, far more dangerous an influence than third-generation British Asians swapping three languages or more in beat poetry or rap.

As with any bloke getting into older years, some language use amongst people these days passes me by completely. I'm utterly lost at the speed with which the language of my teenage years has been lost to the archives, if they have indeed been recorded at all. Each generation will advance further away from the language of their parents, and their grandparents before them; there is no "English" to be protected, only the tangible exchange of sounds and words between the ages. The 2011 English riots have their causes and consequences in politics, poverty, aspiration and adversity; from which music and speech will flourish and through which the language of these islands will strengthen and grow.

Yes, the looters and murderers and thugs are prize-draw idiots who deserve criticism for their actions. Don't try to connect too many dots - this was largely apolitical reactions to political malaise. The language of the youths who perpetrated the most violent, destructive crimes is not important. What they have to say is the manner to judge them. In trying to make politics out of patois, Starkey has shown he really is living in the past.

Groundhop at Squire's Gate

2011-08-14T08:54:00.004Z

To the first game of the season, the North West Counties league and a coastal train to the environs of Blackpool. Game One - Squire's Gate vs Congleton Town.

Beforehand, I had been given the impression that it would be the visitors taking the game to the Fylde, which turned out not to be the case. It was the home team, resplendent in two-tone shirts, who made the early chances count, turning in a very comfortable 4-0 lead by half-time.

It was grassroots stuff, top to bottom, from the tumbledown ground to the confusion caused by referee whistles coming from an adjacent game. The ground had some nice touches - a social club style bar with a TARDIS-effect gents, wooden gantry stands with room for flasks of tea, and the "St Annes Fish Restaurant Stand" with club initials freshly daubed in blue emulsion.

Best goal of the game was a simple freekick turned into an up-and-under which neither wall nor keeper had much chance in stopping. Squire's Gate had the better pace and space awareness - at times, the only thing Congleton had was a couple of forwards who had very little strength.

Although Congleton did wake up ("They drew the second half, FACT" noted my fellow 'hopper), it was far too little, far too late. It did shake Squire's a bit - notably their keeper turned into a right old flapper.

North West Counties has plenty of decent sides who always make for entertaining matches, which this turned into even with the massive deficit. Enjoyable and within walking distance of a fair decent pub. Nowt wrong with that.

Joy of Mansun's "Six"

2011-08-03T20:48:00.002Z

1997 and 1998 - two interesting years musically, within a particularly packed era. The release of Radiohead's "OK Computer" was a landmark in modern British rock history, not so much reinvention for Thom Yorke's band so much as revolution. Over 12 months later, doubtlessly influenced by this marker flag, came "Six", the Mansum album lauded and left alone in fairly equal measure. Just how - or perhaps, pertinently, why - did the former take so much praise and limelight?

Measuring both "OK Computer" and "Six" invariably brings out the A-Level "compare and contrast" side of most contemporary critics. Any similarities are half-chance and coincidence - the jaw dropping expanse of them both, tinged with vague narratives and arcs, the songs chosen for singles (and charting ones at that), none of which would touch the single charts today. Both include an interlude of some form - touch-and-speak lifecoaching from Radiohead, melodramatic opera from Mansun.

Was the media attitude to blame? "Cool" Radiohead, air-quotes included, against the deliberately obtuse Mansun (as perceived, perhaps, more accident than design?). Was it sheer pot luck - was throwing thousands of fivers over a railway concourse not edgy?

It's not as though Mansun were unique in being strung up by "famous radio friendly early single syndrome" (the catchy label music journos use along side "every third single has to be a ballad because Brett Anderson said so once".) If "Creep" did for Radiohead what "Wide Open Space" ultimately did for Mansun, were would either band now be? Oh for the right to use timey-wimey wibbly-wobbly means to find a 21st Century where it is the latter, not the former, who remain constantly producing and releasing music. Maybe, just maybe, we're better off not knowing...

I fell in love with "Six" on its release, far later than I did for its late-90s counterpart, for my affair with Radiohead had to wait for some years after. With the reputation of Mansun being as it was - "I bet their greatest hits will be their first album with 10 remixes of 'Wide Open Space'" - it wasn't too dissimilar to being a fan of Björk - yes, yes, "It's Oh So Quiet", but, trust me, please, come on, there's more to....Oh....You've gone....

If you have not yet had the pleasure, "Six" is the album you didn't realise you were missing out on. It could, would, should, be inside the highest places in every glossy magazine's retrospectives. The breadth is staggering - the title track alone whisks along with pop-punk beats, psychedelia, vocal trickery and the rarest kind of lyrical pick-n-mix, in which every flavour is combined for successful results. By rights, "shiver(ing) to conformity" and "I'm conditioned to accept it all" would struggle to leave an emo chorus unharmed (erm, if you will).

"Being a Girl" (the "Paranoid Android" nobody knows about) contains a 2-minute sardonic pop classic, within a full seven-minutes of prog majesty. It's the most bold ambition, as pretentious as progressive, tip-toe across the stones of time-signatures in the style of a bored teenager channel-hopping. There's a great chorus, oh now it's name-checking Marx, aaaand now there's trippy guitars over scattering drums. Exhausting, this brilliance.

"Six", largely forgotten, deserves its resurgence. Yes, it's a concept album gone feral, its narrative structure making it necessary for most listens to be carried out in full, in order, which is a demand even Radiohead have yet to make. The mood may have all the introspection of Morrissey in a Hall of Mirrors, but given its chance, there's little doubt just how important "Six" has become in the great retrospective take on the hazy, heady 90s period. When memories become more selective in their old age, "Six" will stand out more prominently than currently, and that's quite how it should be.

Amy Winehouse has died

2011-07-23T16:35:00.003Z

It is obvious, too much so indeed, to reach for the coincidence of the rock's "27 Club", and attach the name of the deceased Amy Winehouse to its list of passed talents. Winehouse was, almost from the start, a major British talent lost to the glare of a media world she wasn't designed for.

When my former boss at work, a woman in her late 50s, first heard "Rehab" on BBC Radio 2, she genuinely believed the voice coming through her speakers was that of a 1960s Motown star. That voice - so distinct, tainted with lost hope, quite a lot of booze and a heck-load of attitude, can be heard still today in every female singer who has chosen to speak with pronounced Estuary English and a glint in the eye. Winehouse's launchpad into the commercial world could have been the introduction to one of Britain's most distinctive, long-lasting female talents; she was funny, bold, brave. Ultimately, most tragically, she was misguided and misdirected.

Her tragic death is tinged with dark irony. Her final live performances, caught on camera and shared across the world, are stumbling, incoherent messes; her mind seems completely overblown, her attention lost to the glare of lights, music, voices, crowd. What was there, still in the back of her mind, caught in the grip of booze and drugs? The younger Amy, the star she could have been, desperate to repair damage and carry on?

Amy was a tabloid journalist's dream ticket. Potential megastar wrapped in scandal after scandal - snortable distractions, celebrity lifestyle, body image to mock. And as much as she ran away, she inevitably followed, cuckoo-like, the glare of each and every camera.

Her legacy will be those songs which showcase the woman who was, fleetingly, the biggest British star with the greatest soul voice for generations. What could have been - that perennial question for all rock's lost young talents - will rest on the breeze for all our lives.

When Kurt Cobain was found dead, his generation mourned the loss of a singer and songwriter whose best work could have still made the radiowaves and stadium stages. Today, a new generation finds an icon similarly tortured by genius and drug addiction, and mourns her just the same.

She will be missed.

Norway - jumping to conclusions

2011-07-23T04:09:00.002Z

Labour MP Tom Harris shook up the sensitive elements of Twitter with his reaction to Norway's bombing and shooting tragedy. His two tweets in question, which kickstarted the keyboard warrioring across Left and Right were:

"Even after Oslo, we'll still have the apologists for terrorism saying it was caused by "foreign policy" or by "disrespect to the Prophet".

"If I have unfairly accused militant Islamists for Oslo attacks I apologise and hope it does not interfere with their ongoing charity work."

It doesn't take too many Google searches to find blogs where conclusions (and prejudices) are well and truly exposed:

"The Norwegian people need to get rid of their Leftist treasonous government and display some of that old viking blood. Appeasing Islamic aggression hasn’t work. It’s time for Norway to stand against Islamic Imperialism!"

It is easy to wander around messageboards, forums, chatrooms, to see the thought processes which initially linked the attacks to Islamist terrorists, or linked somehow to al Qaeda. It tapped into assumptions and prejudices many of us shared. When I read the details of the news, I couldn't help but groan. To a Facebook status implying it was Islamic terrorists, I leapt into automatic world-view keyboard warrior. "It was carried out by someone pissed off at the West invading their country," I posted, fresh with the anti-Libya rage I have held since the start of that particular adventure. On a politics forum I visit, the implied assumption of an Islmaic attack hung around every post.

The man accused of carrying out both attacks. Anders Behring Breivik, does not have the appearance of a radicalised convert. It could be, as more details are known, that he is a crazed, lone individual whose actions come from deep seated concerns of his own. Nationalism, perhaps, such as it might exist in Norway. Despite the assumption jumping, it does not hold too many hallmarks of what would be called a 'typical' attack in the Madrid or Bali or London models.

Have we been conditioned, since 9 September 2011, into this automatic unease, this discreet prejudice? Tom Harris, of course, was flamed by the usual suspects who read what they wanted to read; he did not blame "Muslims", if he actually blamed anyone at all. That does not absolve us of every accusation. The easy and convenient labelling comes from years of conditioning by the media, from whom 'divide and rule' retains its news gathering charm.

The existing threat from extremists on all sides keeps us vigil, aware, and ultimately frames how our Governments decide the levels of civil rights and freedoms we can enjoy. We have this situation completely wrong. If Breivik turns out to have no connections to Islamist terrorism, how we reconcile our own beliefs is one thing; how our Governments conclude reconsiderations of civil liberty legislation will be quite another.

Mercury's gold (doesn't always shimmer)

2011-07-20T20:06:00.003Z

Award ceremonies present quite the uncertain prospect for most observers; the general population either adore or ignore, tabloids subject the most meaningless to disproportionate hyperbole, broadsheets offer disproportionate analysis. It's not just the self-promoting ridiculousness of them all (although, to paraphrase Sideshow Bob, there is not yet a trinket out there for attempted physics).

If ever there's a gong show with contentious decisions written all the way across its history like a hipster's arm, it's the Mercury Prize for....well....best album? Greatest? Most beloved Alexis Petridis?

This year's shortlist is the usual eclectic, eccentric muddle of commercial and deliberately obtuse leftfield choices (oooh, jazz, mmmm), makes the already difficult task of comparing different artists collections of work almost laughably impossible. There's a reason why "What kind of music you into, then?" stops attracting meaningful responses after the age of 15. Unless you're talking to your gran (Choice quote from my gran, now sadly deceased. "I like that 'soul music', but not his face", she said of the Prodigy album "The Jilted Generation" upon seeing the album art and the words "sole CD" on the price sticker).

Mercury Prizes are subject to more chin-stroking than most because they have always posited the reputation as being above, higher, and somehow plainly more than commercially minded rivals. They are not the brash Brits, they are not the sell-out NME awards. In truth, natch, their position accurately moves around with the whim of the audience they court, one eye on a mature, world-wise audience (Jesus and Mary Chain nominated in 1992, Radiohead in 1997, the BBC Philharmonic Orchestra in 1996), and another on promotion and advertising kudos (Spice Girls in 1997, Mark Morrison in 1996, Sting in 1993, arguably every time post-1997 that Radiohead have ever been nominated.)

Famously, now, the judges considered M People's "Elegant Slumming" over Blur ("Parklife"), the aforementioned Prodigy, and Paul Weller's "Wild Wood". Plainly bonkers - it's not worth saying, really, that track-for-track, Blur kinda just sorta do beat Heather Small into a mush of smug self-help sludge, even accounting for "Trouble in the Message Centre", which is awful.

Nobody explicitly awarded the Mercury's with a high pedestal from which to sprinkle "indie" stardust on the chart albums below. Partly the responsibility of the panel itself, mostly due to the journalists it feeds so well, the value of its currency is somewhat euro like in its widely unsustainable level. It has blatantly turned to an unwritten rota from which awards are seen to be fairly handed out, such as occurred in right-on trendy comprehensives at sports days. One year, it's an obscure winner (Talvin Singh's "OK" in 1999, which I bought, incidentally), and then follow that up with something a bit more mainstream (2000 was Badly Drawn Boy, beating Leftfield themselves, ironically enough).

"Obscure, mainstream, obscure, mainstream" has turned out to be more of an obvious seating pattern than Tony Blair's "gay, straight, gay, straight" Cabinet seating arrangements. Bloc Party or KT Tunstall count not win in 2005, for that was an obscure year. The xx triumphed last year, the year of the mainstream, which may seem like a rule proving exception were it not for Speech Debelle triumphing 12 months previously.

Assumption and half-remembered memory has not helped the Mercury's laudable attempt to move away from being an unofficial badge of approval from 'proper' critics. It's "indie" credentials only grew on the back of its inaugural winners and subsequent follow-up - had Primal Scream (worthy) and Suede (worthy) not succeeded, its value today would be less than a Greek stocktrader.

This year - the year of the Obscure Winner, betting folks - the commentariat have clucked their collective tongues at a somewhat uneven shortlist, from Adele and Elbow to Anna Calvi (and no, I was unable to whistle anything by Gwilym Simcock until I hit YouTube ). Betting money might be going on Adele (she's no chance). I would suggest Katy B is where the money should be going (she's the Speech Debelle voting option without the chance of a post-award strop two months later).

To leave, not a Mercury performance but from a nominee which still gets me giddy. Who needs a band? And, yes, Antony and the Johnsons beat her in 2005.

Press constraints/contrition

2011-07-10T09:09:00.005Z

"Self-regulation is dead," declares Greg Dyke, as the ongoing development of the News of the World, its closure, and hackgate, reverberates through the Establishment this week as hard as it did months ago. If David Cameron looks nervous, it's genuine; the close relationship between his predecessors and certain elements of the media's largest empires has reached the explosive conclusion everybody knew would detonate eventually. From here - the death of an iconic newspaper with over 7 million readers, arrests and enquiries, questions at the heart of Government as much as the corridors of 'Fleet Street; - where exactly is traversed next?

At the sight of its iconic 1992 front-page - that of Kinnock as a lightbulb to be extinguished were Labour ever victorious at that year's general election - the architects of New Labour realised their immediate future steps would be to the doors of News International, Rupert Murdoch, and every influential newspaper editor connected thereto. The creation of New Labour had right at the beginning the finger-click of Murdoch or his acolytes by way of permission. As the photograph shows, above, current Labour leader Ed Miliband trod up the path to the newsrooms of Britain's soar-a-way NI titles. Press officers and communications directors crossed from one side of the Establishment to the other, making what has always been a difficult relationship (there has always been press barons, there has always been press officers willing to bend the rules) into something far dirtier, complex, malignant.

Cameron's "we were all in this together" speech was the sound of a man having to excuse all his predecessor's behaviour. From the very start of the NI invasion ("I always found it funny how easy it was to buy into British newspapers", as the man Murdoch said himself over a generation ago), Prime Ministers and those behind them stood bewitched by the colour, language, attitude, and ultimately the power, of the new breed of newspaper industry growing in front of them. The consequence was a pact, unwritten, signed only by handshakes. Labour's run of Home Secretaries, each more hardline than the last, effectively allowed their policy papers to be written by Sun journalists the night before. Sway became push, suggest became demand.

Above all the newspapers in this country (well, almost all), sits the ombudsman without much clout, the Press Complaints Commission. As anyone could tell you (including me in an earlier post around the Jan Moir débâcle), the PCC was the wrong body doing a terrible job, ineffectual and irresponsible. The 'freedom of the press' was always guaranteed when the overseeing group was self-appointed, self-serving. Richard Desmond withdrew his Express titles from the ''control'' of the PCC system as easily as a teenager walking out of the house to avoid his parents.

In his speech, and in others by politicians and commentators since, David Cameron has spoken of the vital need of a 'new' PCC, one which is enabled to cope with events like hackgate and the behaviour of all British newspapers. The sound you could hear at the time was the loud tutting with newsrooms - whispers of 'censorship' and one side of the Establishment letting down the other. "You screwed us over with expenses stories," crowed the MPs, "now we're getting our revenge."

It's not necessarily so. Press freedom in the UK is amongst the best in the developed world, and is certainly amongst the most distinctive in the English-speaking press anywhere on earth. There is, largely because of the hands-off regulation approach, almost nowhere the press won't go in search of a story. From dodgy vicars and unscrupulous business men, to the bedroom antics of pop-stars and royalty, the press provided the goods and the public bought it in its millions. Where we are today is the result - so much freedom, so much public interest, so what if mobile phones are hacked in the hunt of another headline, another scandal? The Telegraph's exposé of MPs expenses came from the illicit sale of documents, and from there has been the jailing of former MPs and wholesale changes in the expenses system.

Cameron is right, as are all critics of the PCC, that self-regulation has to change. The PCC is not able to regulate the print media. However, "Ofprint" must not be the filter through which copy must go before the presses, nor should it be populated by the very media folk who ensure the extent to which each back is scratched. Rightly, such actions as the hacking of Milly Downer's phone have been condemned by public and politicians alike - but what can the PCC do, and how does "Son of PCC" better them? To what extent do we demand a tighter press regulator?

The freedom of the press is central to any functioning democracy. We have all enjoyed, as consumers, the freedom of the British press; its foibles, the success stories and shocking line-crossing. We have all bought shares in the scandals and controversies. Rightly, we complain at any perceived bias - the BBC is too lefty, the BBC isn't left enough, the Guardian is too liberal, the Guardian has forgotten its liberal routes, the Mail is an anti-everything rag. What should we demand from the watchdog for the printed press? How much bias? I wonder what we mean by our demands for a stronger PCC. When I complain about prejudice, I do so from a largely left-wing perspective; what do I want from "son of PCC"? I want fairness, the right to expression, the right to shine light on the dark corners of all the Establishment. Do I want it from a left-wing perspective? How strong should the fine be for a commentary piece dripping in right-wing bile? Or for that matter, oozing socialism with which I disagree as strongly?

We demand that the Internet is saved from censorship, control, governance. Towards the press, our attitudes are very different. With reason, given what has been happening. And from this will come, in a new form, possible censorship, control and governance of the print media we celebrate as free and fair and brilliant. My ideal world hands "son of PCC" enough power to counter the excesses of journalistic misbehaviour whilst allowing the right to expression which we expect from a democratic state. The phone-hacking scandal displayed in lurid colour the extreme behaviour of journalism's hunt for the next big headlines. The consequences for the freedom of the printed press are only now being written; the "exclusive to all newspapers" story of that is a splash nobody thought would ever get to the presses.

news of the screws

2011-07-05T04:16:00.003Z

When the on-line world exploded into hurried and manic hysteria over footballers and their unruly bedroom hopping, easily banded about words and phrases bounced around social media sites in a frenzy of keyboard tapping. "Freedom of speech," said some. "Right to know!".

Tabloid journalism has not always been so salacious or controversial. The British press changed, for good and for ever, around 1968 with Rupert Murdoch's purchase of the News of the World and, one year later, The Sun. The rest, as they say, is pretty much history. The more these red-tops and others like it became more sensational, scandalous, gossip-driven, an increased desire to read more stories like it grew amongst the general public. "Freedom of speech," came back the reply whenever shocking content blared out from the newsagents shelves - photos of Princess Diana at the gym? Right to know. Readers like this sort of thing. We want to know. And, deep down, we all probably did.

After all, said the blokes down the Cricketers Arms, the tabloids are decent enough for the footie and some tits on Page 3, tomorrow's chip-paper doesn't have any lasting harm on those in the public eye. "Right to know!" cry us all when politicians are hauled up for their shortcomings, or one television celebrity is found cheating on another. One industry fuels another, and at massive profits for all sides, the chase for more and more headlines for increasing readers and advertising money is an insatiable rush. Drugs provide lesser hits than the journalists need for one more story above his colleagues and rivals.

Last night, the Guardian reported that News of the World journalists hacked into - and deleted messages from - the mobile phone of missing girl Milly Dowler . Condemnation has been, by and large, across the spectrum. To hack into the mobile phones of politicians, singers, footballers - that was something, one level of questionable behaviour, morally dubious, stupid behaviour for which resignations must follow. We all tutted and shook our heads.

This new revelation goes beyond "morally dubious". If as true as reported, the acts of those involved are nigh-on depraved (and potentially perverting the course of justice). Milly Dowler's parents took the removal of voicemail messages as a sign, however small, that their daughter was still alive. It is beyond all reasonable considerations for most sane, rounded individuals that anybody could consider the deleting of messages to be justified in the search of a story.

We are, let us admit and concede, all hungry for scandal, shock, something new in the ongoing storylines of life. When I blogged about the celebrity injunctions earlier this year, search terms "injunction footballer" and "footballer named on Have I Got News For You" landed people here in the desperate search for the identity of the man involved. Despite the outrage over paparazzi behaviour, the death of Diana, hounding of her children, sales for Royal Wedding special editions soared. The "public interest" excuse feeds the tabloids, and the tabloids feed us.

The Milly Dowler revelations reach far beyond anything connected with a journo's desire for an exclusive. This may be the product of the twisted relationship between public and press, but that cannot be used as even fleeting justification. Plain wrong, from top to bottom, now would be a very good time for somebody with Government (Mssrs Hunt, Cameron, Cable, we look to you) to ensure News International are blocked from gaining any more ground on the UK's media market. This episode was bleak enough; the stench of distaste should not permeate any further.

pies, chips, and anoraks

2011-07-02T08:03:00.006Z

One regular column inside the Non-League weekly newspaper is called "Diary of a Groundhopper". Written by different fans every week, its tales and regales follow the national football scene which exists beneath the 92 League teams, beneath even the Conference and its feeder divisions. From the website 50 Yards Wide, this one description of a groundhop should give you the idea of what is meant...

With our original plans thrown into disarray by the lack of a referee at Talysarn, it was a case of any port in a storm at 1-30pm on Saturday. Luckily, Llanllyfni is no more than a couple of miles from Talysarn and arriving at 1-40 it was good to see both teams out warming up for the 2pm KO.Ths is one of those grounds that you'd struggle to find if it wan't a match day. The goals, pitch perimeter fence, dugouts & advertising boards (banners to be precise) all disappear once the game is over, leaving an open field behind the village hall. However, with everything set up, it feels very much like a proper venue, the only thing it lacks is cover.

Another site, now moved, called "Extreme Groundhopping" lists the grounds visited by the author so far - Arsenal's Emirates and Bolton's Reebok joined by Brantham Athletic (they play at a Social Club of the same name, and I've never heard of them), and Norwich United (played within the Ridgeons League Premier Division).

Everything in life collects its obsessives. Ale festivals are great for this, one table always reserved for the men of a certain vintage exchanging tour anecdotes like society-ball veterans transported from another age in anoraks and t-shirts. "Selbeh 92, 'member that, eh? Nowt like that any more, Grimsby last year being an exception, of course!"

Train spotting, it almost goes without saying, has the same effect upon men (though, and this is absolutely true, on the train from Wigan one afternoon I spotted a man and woman sat around a picnic-table at the side of Platform 4. Romance, right there).

The groundhopper is distinctly, absolutely, completely British. It's the very best of the eccentric and the obsessive, the man who makes lists, the woman who always puts clothes in order of colour. We've all heard of "doing the 92", a creditable trophy to chase for any football fan, which requires the committed individuals involved to watch a full game at every one for the ninety-two League stadia. (There is a very good dedicated website, soon to be updated for the coming season). As it happens, there may be purists who are shaking their head at this slap-dash explanation. Just watch the game? What about having to buy a programme? What about doing it in alphabetical order? Of postcodes?

Despite being a hobby, ostensibly, the ''rules'' pervade the whole groundhopping community. Ever heard of stamp collectors who tend not to accept British definitives or anything from WH Smith starterpacks? Then we're in the same arena here.

The question on rules was asked on the Non League Matters forum. It's worth only enjoying this reply in all its glory;

To watch a game, you should be there from start to end, including extra time if played. (Note, Should, not Must).

For example, different people have different ideas of what to do if they miss the start, maybe due to circumstances beyond their control. This is always a potential problem on long trips.

Some will not go without a programme, or without a pasty crimp or whatever.

Some make detailed accounts of players, goal scorers, even perhaps numbers of corners - others would not be able to tell you the score if you ask 7 days after the game.

I think everyone keeps some sort of record, although I know some that are trying to create records from memory, having not kept them from the start of their football watching. [I am lucky in that from the first time I watched a match and decided this was for me, I actually kept a list of the games seen - although some friendlies were not on the list, and a match at Barking which my grandfather had taken me to some years previously was not recorded]

So talk to other hoppers at games, exchange views on here - make up your own mind and then be true to yourself, (no one else is counting for you

Yes, that's right, an earlier poster was concerned by the sale of pies or burgers for a groundhop to "count". We're in dangerous territory, folks.

(You would be, in very enjoyable territory as I understand it, if you watch a game at Devon where burgers are of such massive consistency that the use of excessive tomato ketchup is recommended as otherwise the mouth would almost run out of saliva).

Accusations of 'not being proper fans' are thrown at groundhops as though some of the mud will stick. It's bizarre to think such finger-pointing could have any validity; there's enough struggle to deal with the hypnotised SKY brigade, for whom football exists for glitz, glamour and the top 10 Premier League places. Groundhoppers may not have a single team of their own to follow, though why should this be considered a handicap? Hobbies breed snobs, true, and it's true on both sides. It can lead to awkward conversations with potential future fathers-in-law. ("Don't have a team, eh? Poofter, hmm? One of those give votes to black disabled lesbians, I suppose?")

I have experienced two different extremes of the groundhop within the British Isles, from the extreme of walking 30 minutes down the road to Irongate (home of Bamber Bridge, which is not called the QED stadium for God's sake...), right to the train-bus-Metro-unintended-overnight-stay-in-Newcastle weekend to watch the FA Cup Qualifier between Burscough and Howden. All fans should have at least one nightmare away trip story, after all.

The groundhop status taps into an argument right at the core of the non-league game. Notwithstanding notable exceptions - most Blue Square Premier sides, AFC Halifax, FC United of Manchester - crowd sizes can be very small, and rather quiet. Messageboards and forums hum to the sound of perennial questions - does non league football even count? How low down the pyramid is acceptable? What's the widely held distinction between teams playing Sunday kickabouts on the park and Suffolk County games?

My opinion has always been open minded, perhaps over-romantacisesd. There is a moment of the Saturday afternoon, in my way of thinking, when hundreds of referees across the country blow whistles in unison, momentarily and fleetingly uniting all the levels of football as one, before the differences blossom again and all games return to their rightful place in the strata. At one broadbrush level, there's little difference between the very highest and most low of games, though only somebody so deep in denial that they hold an Egyptian passport would argue that the playing fields genuinely are level. Sadly the anorak tendency within non league has allowed the inverse snobbery to build within otherwise genial fanbases. Yes, the 'culture' amongst some lower league sides is at the opposite side of the Premier League glitz and glamour. That perhaps is the whole point, and should not be the measure by which some fans decide validity of support amongst others.

For groundhopping, my rules are fairly straight forward. Enjoy yourself. It's a game of football, the significance of which should not override the more important specifics, such as roundly criticising the rightback with the acceleration of a mobility scooter and suggesting the liner closest to you enjoys extra-curricular activities with someone other than his wife. Taking a month out of supporting your team - I don't recommend this often - to take in five or six complete unknowns in new stadia could be just the break you need (that is, if you're an Aston Villa fan not otherwise in need of education). If there's any judgemental element to this, it's unfortunate and it's human nature. Different strengths can be found all over the stands and terraces, it's unfortunate that the mud sticks strongest below the League line.

So let's just shake off all the complexities here. There's only a month before the season starts, and that means it's time enough to plan fantasy football teams, train journeys to far-flung away games, and ensure everyone knows not to purchase pies from Altrincham....

shoot 'em up

2011-06-28T03:43:00.006Z

The US Supreme Court has given full First Amendment protections to violent video games (see coverage on CNET, LA Times, and a more specific, chin-stroking look at The Atlantic .

California’s law banned the sale of violent video games to customers under 18. Lawmakers defined “violent” as activity involving “killing, maiming, dismembering, or sexually assaulting an image of a human being.” Each violation could bring a $1,000 fine.

From the British perspective, it always seems the US obsession with creating law and subsequent trips to the Supreme Court makes the jurisdiction of anything as confusing as the results of a modelling balloon show carried out by a man on meow-meow. On the specifics of video games and their sale, the US is markedly different to Britain with its self-regulated industry, one which California (and in a related manner, Florida), had tried to regulate by State law. In Britain, the video game industry has been brought into film/cinema certificate registration, and as such stores are liable for any under-age purchase.

Has the US-approach turned out more responsible than the marzipan layers of regulation over here?

In 2003, the UK government confirmed it had chosen the Europe-wide "PEGI" classification system, over the BBFC's 'in house' judgements, which resulted in the latter giving a "I don't like it, but I'm going to have to go along with it" reaction you may recognise from the German Finance Minister talking to Peter O'Hanraha-hanrahan.

The safety-net of the First Amendment is a comfort blanket for Americans across the political divide - and good heavens, is there not a more appropriate word than 'divide'. Protecting the right to freedom of expression obviously makes some feel awkward - what one person considers the right to speech is another's chipping away at decency. It's something like this which shines a light on what appears to be inherent contradictions within the attitude over here - swearing and violence can be broadcast on television without many eyebrows raised, running parallel to a strict certificate policy for video games.

For the most part, video game players know their own market, and self-regulate far more than the suited legislators realise. Playing Fallout 3 or Red Dead Redemption is far for funny than fierce - however hilarious it is watching the heads of your enemies flying through the air, a very small minority of those playing would consider continuing the action outside.

(Likewise, cannabis smokers self-regulate far more than drug enforcing politicians understand, for whom the idea of quality control amongst drug dealers seems more outrageous than the concept of homes constructed from malt loaf)

Not much has changed since my earlier blog on Mortal Kombat. My view then, and now, is more in line with how the Supreme Court has seen things. There is a moral justification for a level of regulation which ensures children don't see, for example, R18 pornography; though the ultimate responsibility must always be with guardians and not censors.

One notable, if distressing, milestone along the way in the UK was the murder of Jamie Bulger in 1993. His killers, Robert Thompson and Jon Venables, were known to have watched violent videos, including Child's Play 3, which includes a toy possessed with murderous rage ultimately killed by a runaway train. No firm connection was ever drawn which connected their actions to films, never mind games. From the coverage of that story, tabloid outrage about violent films, and by extension computer games, grew into campaign for moral reinvention. Clearly the results have turned from uneven to totally haphazard - for every demand for a strict watershed ("Ban this sick filth!") there is a general demand of, and acceptance for, realism in films which stretches across language and sexual content to violence. The Bulger case has, in time, directed attention to criminals and our attitude towards rehabilitation. What causes the most extreme of crimes, and whether constraints should be put on the freedom to choose, fades into the background of the argument.

Whether video games are influencing cinema, or the other way round, is open to debate. The US Supreme Court recognised the relationship between the two by referencing from the start how many filmic tropes appear throughout the produce of the gaming industry - from narrative structure to character development and explicit scenes. We are expected, and show pretty darn well on the whole, to understand the difference between reality and fantasy, between the world outside the door and that inside the television sets (do we still use "sets"?). Unless the media is suppressing dozens of attacks on innocent bus-stop commuters by crazed Duke Nukham addicts, I'd wager the majority of the UK population clearly can differentiate reality from fantasy, and act accordingly.

I am cheered by the opening paragraph of the Supreme Court ruling. If the United States continues to show far more libertarian attitudes towards personal freedoms in this regard, how deeply embarrassed should European governments or censors feel in comparison?

Video games qualify for First Amendment protection. Like protected books, plays, and movies, they communicate ideas through familiar literary devices and features distinctive to the medium. And “the basic principles of freedom of speech . . . do not vary” with a new
and different communication medium

Union daze

2011-06-18T07:38:00.004Z

Is the Coalition doing too much, too soon, with too many potential enemies?

During his time in power, Tony Blair made himself unpopular with the Unions with his attempts to lead public sector reform (and this was a bloke who was at the bottom of the Christmas Card list from the first time he became Labour leader). Blair wanted to be a Labour leader who rewrote the relationship between the Party and their former Union comrades. He was not a typical Labour politician, and New Labour was not a typical labour party.

I've never had a problem with the right to strike, my problem has always been towards Union Leaders themselves, the self-appointed 'awkward squad' who parade themselves across the media like visiting Presidents from far-flung Socialist islands somewhere. Anyone who grew up from the 1960s onwards could testify to any passing psychotherapist that their childhood was ruined by the constant droning of leftwing firebrands as an audio backdrop.

It's doubtful that the wider population have fully attached themselves to the causes at hand. Brendan Barber and Dave Prentis, never knowingly caught smiling in public, are full of incendiary threats and caustic promises towards the Coalition. It's one thing (and a good thing) to campaign for the best wages and working practices for the people your Union represents. It's not quite so laudable to play politics with those workers, to act as activists for a de-facto political campaign. It's a lot harder to justify strike action to people who are not members of a Union on the same wage as a public sector worker.

Labour's spending spree, record breaking as it was, has left the country with a massive economic hangover. Not just a lager hangover, this one has Jager bombs, Southern Comfort and a 1996 vintage Cava thrown in too.

There has to be consequences to Labour's economic chaos. Including the bank bailouts, the national debt is £2.3 trillion; this cloud touches every aspect of our lives, public and private sectors, food prices, the amount Governments can spend, the amount people can save. What the Coalition is trying to do is not ideological blindness; it's the consequence of facing the balance sheets in such a state that there is no other option. The national credit-card is maxed out.

Of course Unions must ensure their workers are not buffeted too hard by the work required, though that is not what some Union Leaders are doing or saying. In truth, Prentis' threat of strikes 'worse than the 1920s' is the kind of unprofessional hubris you'd expect from the Students Union. The agenda of all three mainstream parties is ultimately the same - reduce government borrowing, make public spending fairer, more affordable and targeted where it's most needed, and reduce the national debt. Union Leaders are living in an alternative universe if they believe the national debt can be allowed to grow much deeper, or if they believe public spending was sustainable without guaranteed results locked in.

Everybody wants to protect those services - especially the NHS - which we are incredibly lucky to have in this country, and having seen the NHS close-up during my mum's time in hospital, I want not one word of criticism to go towards nurses and doctors, whose workrate and compassion impressed me from the first moment I saw them. Protecting those services does not mean preserving them in aspic.

On a politics forum I visit, a poster who works within the NHS wrote this :

We've got authorities who now require a panel meeting to justify any expenditure over £100. So you've got 4 middle managers sat down reviewing a case to see whether they can justify buying a £100 commode.

Palpable nonsense, I'm sure you agree. Examples of a similar nature abound in the public sector - and I know we can list in the thousands examples from within private companies where there's virtually no check against money spent on such situations. The NHS is a wonderful service, one which I would defend to the death, but at what cost do we wrap cling-film around these institutions? Could private companies provide hospital food at a budget higher than £1.51 per patient, per day, as was the case at Preston Royal?

As someone on a low wage, I understand the pain of getting the money to behave itself. I know how it feels to walk to work to avoid train-fares, the necessity to buy cheap food close to its sell by date from discount stores; I have punched many walls in anger at every time a payrise is denied. These realities are not reserved for just employees of private firms; Union Leaders should stop trying to wrap their workers in bubble-wrap. Sometimes we all need to accept that we can't get the improvements to our working lives to which we feel entitled. How much somebody earns, and how much they can expect from a pension at retirement, is the most hot of all current political topics. As someone who works for a private company, I have had no pay-rise in 3 years, and have not put anything away for a pension. I earn just under £15,000 for a 40-hour week, suffering just as anyone would trying to make the money stretch the month.

In time, I suspect the reforms and changes this year - the natural extension of Blairite reforms started 13 years ago - will be seen for what they always were intended to be. Keeping Britain's enviable public services as amongst the best in the world for far less waste and far more affordable overall cost.

Strikes and the right-to-strike are vital parts of any vibrant, functioning democracy. Unions which bargain hard have produced brilliant results for the good of workers running throughout history. Union Leaders who replace responsibility for recklessness are authors of their own misfortune. Governments must always be in fear of their people, Unions are the check to ensure that maxim is never positioned the wrong way round. When Governments take the piss, Unions are one element of the fightback against them. It works both ways, however, something the more militant members of the Union movement have struggled to accept. It's interesting observing Ed Miliband accept his role as an untypical Labour leader, as John Smith and Tony Blair before him realised very early on.

Whatever happens after the first wave of strikes this week, you can't say we don't live in interesting times....

C-Notice

2011-06-06T08:22:00.005Z

My mother passed away last week, and doubtlessly she would be appalled at the subject matter of this blog. That said, she always felt writing on-line always ensured the author was one paragraph away from a broadsheet's newsdesk, meaning everything must surely balance out.

The four-letter C-word which is most offensive is matter for discourse after the Mail on Sunday created (in the sense of inventing something from scratch) one of their classic front page stories. Put together the BBC, liberals, non-British nationals and the breakdown in society and you produce classic MoS flabbergasted outrage.

As you may have noticed, the MoS don't just reproduce the joke at the centre of the outrage, they also make it very clear that Sandi Toksvig didn't actually use the word itself. In common with every comedian, comedy writer and funny woman in history, she used innuendo and implication. The line in full? The Coalition put the "n" into "cuts". Hilarious, no?

BBC-bashing removed, the MoS have nothing else but froth and nonsense sprayed across the front page. It must be like helping an elderly former General, working at the Mail, never knowing when an innocent subject would set him off, spewing hate across the room without warning, leaving a poor care assistant to spend the evening wiping spittle off the Union Flag jigsaw puzzle. "How was I to know it was upside down?"

The word in question, all four letters of it, is at the top of broadcasting watchdog's naughty swears list. For British viewers who must assume that the list no longer exists, it's still pretty much taboo to say it. Chris Morris got knuckles wrapped for just putting the word in an on-screen graphic. It's common to hear "fuck" and "shit" and "twat" all over the channels after 9pm - or at first thing in the morning if you've fallen asleep without turning off the Thick Of It DVD. The most holy of holy words (or if you prefer, hole-y, innuendo fans), is still only present very rarely. American viewers may never hear it at all on their television programmes (indeed, US audiences are always left bemused at just how much swearing, and inventive swearing at that, features uncensored on British TV.)

Any A-level student worth their salt should recognise the word as one used without much red-faced embarrassment across centuries by writers who could tiptoe (not pussy foot, come on now) around the Monks and printing presses. The Oxford English Dictionary has this from the year 1400:

In wymmen þe necke of þe bladdre is schort, & is maad fast to the cunte.

Chaucer, famously, would utilise all manner of alterations to the word - Kent, at one point, making the Wife of Bath seem more well travelled than first thought - and let us not forget "chamber of Venus" while we're at it. If you want real emphasis with your swears, there's also this 19th Century construction:

He‥became in fact *cunt-struck upon her.

and this from a publication called "Romance of Lust".

As the very good blog "No Sleep 'Til Brooklands" says, this entire article is much fuss about exactly nothing. Radio 4 is not CBBC, nor is The News Quiz soft and fluffy family fun. When Alan Coren was a regular team captain, he was just as rude and raucous. Maybe Sandi has the misfortune of being female, and therefore automatically handicapped in the mind of your average Mail journo? Doubtlessly they hated Sarah Lund for not looking after her son properly. These Danes! Nothing but trouble since they landed here, what have we been told about immigration?

Having been brought up without much swearing in the house from either parent, my introduction to any naughty word was at school, and limited in any case to suppressed giggles wrapped around them. I will always remember being ticked off for using "twatted" - in the context of "being hit" - which I used knowing it to be controversial. I tend now to utilise them as and when needed. There's always times and places for using "shyte", which is always better with a northern accent behind it. For this fake front-page splash, the Mail have generated outrage where none is justified - the word was not used, only implied, and if the world of Carry On... movies or Blackpool's saucy postcards are acceptable for their peculiarly outdated world, then so can this.

If you want to go anywhere else to learn about the joyous little world, I can move you towards the BBC Two language programme 'Balderdash and Piffle', where Germaine Greer analysed the history of it with characteristic vigour.

I apologise to my mum for using such terms, of course, though having also used it to bash the damned Mail I'm sure she understands.

Burscough FC

2011-05-16T16:45:00.003Z

The following is a complete copy and paste from a news report concerning Burscough FC, the club I support.

I could copy and paste the dozens of angry, confused and emotional messages and forum posts from across the League and Non-League communities, or the Burscough fans who have found themselves in the middle of one of the most rapidly developed rug-pull stories in a part of the football industry which has an unfair share of unfortunate events. I could let rip myself, because the walks to and from work have given ample opportunity to refine exactly what I feel about the people currently travelling down the road which would see the home of football in Burscough - over a century of the game in the middle of a small village in West Lancashire - vanish at the stroke of a pen. From many perspectives, that fate has already occured. Victoria Park is a no-go area, the club effectively wiped off the map without a chance for supporters to gather their thoughts.

Across the Internet, and beyond, the reaction from football fans up and down the Leagues has been edifying. To their credit, Skelmersdale are being as welcoming and supportive as they can, though the finer details of the ground share into which Burscough is being forced lies beyond the finanical reach of those desparately trying to save the club from extinction.

The Burscough supporters message board can be found here. As of last week, the club's official website has been taken down for reasons unexplained.

The future of Burscough FC is in the balance after the Chairman and Secretary were sacked by post and the team was moved to nearby Skelmersdale in dramatic new developments in the long running ownership saga.

Discussions over the club’s future has led to the owners of the club sacking the Chairman and Secretary with immediate effect, as fans wait and see if they will even have a club to follow next season.

Chairman Frank Parr and long-running secretary Stan Petherbridge were sent letters on Saturday (13 May) informing them they are no longer needed at the club.

According to Keith Forshaw of the Burscough Supporter’s Club: “This morning Stan Petherbridge was informed by post that his position as club secretary has been terminated with immediate effect.
“Martin Gilchrist has appointed his son as the new secretary. Stan was informed to end any correspondence regarding the club and cease to use any official BFC letterheaded paper.”

Meanwhile, Chequer Properties, the owners of the club, will pursue a ground share with nearby Skelmersdale United, moving the club out of Burscough for the first time since its foundation in 1946.

Owners Paul and Martin Gilchrist have signed an agreement to share the ground and plan to sell Victoria Park. However, unlike when the company bought the club last year, they refused to promise to offer Burscough an alternative ground once they moved out.

A covenant on the ground states the current site can only be built on if there is another site for the team to play on in Burscough.

This means any move to Skelmersdale should be temporary, but it is believed Chequer Properties are searching for ways to bypass the covenant and permanently move Burscough out of the town.

However, things could get even worse for Burscough because of the added cost of renting Skelmersdale’s ground. With crowds of around 150 expected to drop dramatically once the club is no longer playing in Burscough, the club’s days seem numbered.

The club’s website has been removed, with only a sign stating it is ‘under construction’ in its place as fans await the owner’s future plans for the club.

Fans are already in discussions about the possibility of a new Burscough team owned by the fans after seeing their team, which won the FA Trophy as recently as 2005, ripped away from the village it serves.

A member of the Supporter’s Club says ‘wheels are in motion’ to create a new supporter-owned club, and talks have begun with Supporters Direct, an organisation which advises on setting up and running football trusts.

Property developers Chequer bought the club last year when it was struggling financially. Chequer had already bought the rights to build on Victoria Park and completed a takeover of the club when previous owner Chris Lloyd.

Chequer Properties originally promised no intervention in the playing side of the club, but have already sacked manager Andy Gray in February to the dismay of the supporters.

Chris Stammers, Gray’s replacement, was forced to deal with player sales as the club struggled in the Evo Stik Premier and were relegated to the First Division this season.

Vote 2011 - Every Loser Wins

2011-05-08T08:15:00.003Z

Football managers are experts at finding diamonds in the rough (even Arsene Wenger, whose track record at actually witnessing contentious episodes on the pitch is quite the stuff of legend). Mssrs Molyles, Grant and the rest are wheeled out for post-game interviews to spout, by and large, the same things. "Yeah, it was two points dropped away from home, but you know, the lads really shone today and to come away with a point at this end of the season, you know, yeah, it's really changed the way we look at the remaining games."

This week I have been reminded that politicians can find positives in every situation with just as much ease and attraction to the tenuous. With so many elections on the same day - a veritable orgy of democracy - it's little wonder how our elected elders have analyses the same source material and found completely different conclusions. Just off-side? Questionable linesman decisions? It's all same-difference....

I will begin with Labour, whose leader Ed Miliband has been doing the media rounds talking much whilst saying little. "There are alternatives to everything this Government is doing" he says (well, sorry, "this Conservative-led government"). Sadly, Ickle Miliband is yet to outline exactly what those alternatives are. His Party were signed up to make public spending cuts in the same mould of the Coalition, so the "unspoken alternatives" he is failing to outline discredit his argument.

Labour did very well in two parts of the country - across Northern England they battered the Liberal Democrats seven shades of Sunday. Many great Northern towns are now without any LibDem representation at local level, or at the very least have seen their numbers slashed to bare minimum. Manchester, Liverpool, Sheffield, Newcastle, Hartlepool, Hull, Leeds, Bolton - each city witnessed colossal drops in LibDem support. Here in Preston, our vote share collapsed in keeping with many others across the region, although we held onto one of our historically safest areas and increased our share of the vote in the target ward of Tulketh. As with all these towns and cities, we will be focusing on the Labour Party's rule to ensure they keep to the budgetary constraints accepted by the Council before the election was called.

In Scotland, unlike Wales, the Labour Party suffered terribly. The SNP ripped apart the totems of Labour support - the Central Belt has almost no Labour MSPs at constituency level. Glasgow is over-half Nationalist, even Gordon Brown's Kirkcaldy ditched Labour for the SNP. Fingers have pointed at Iain Gray, whose leadership did not inspire activists never mind voters, though the SNP's success is clearly one of coherent policies. Labour went for negativity and attack, both of which failed to chime with voters who wanted to hear positivity and leadership.

Supporters of y Blaid may well be looking askance at their nationalist cousins. Labour's working majority at Cardiff Bay clearly shows the difference with their leadership and campaign messages in the two nations. Could it be that Plaid Cymru stepping away from independence talk has made their brand weak and unattractive? What does falling to third do for Plaid's future?

And now the Liberal Democrats. Well....

....Okay, so in Scotland we did appallingly badly. Wiped off the mainland in constituency terms we are now the Northern Isles Party in that regard, saved from total embarrassment by the vagaries of the d'Hondt voting system and its top-up seats. Clearly Scotland voted for its national parliament with one eye on Westminster politics; Scottish people have great difficulty in accepting any political alliance with the Conservatives can be sold for the national interest. That great guaranteed hotbed of liberal support - the Highlands - tossed us away like a caber. Just like the Labour Party in the South, so we have been attacked by our core supporters for not offering a credible or distinctive policy package and until we can speak with our own voice again Scotland will not e forgiving to whoever leads the Scottish Liberal Democrats in the future.

In England's local elections, the Liberal Democrats suffered terribly in the North of England. The figures are stunning and sobering. Liverpool slapped us at every opportunity, Manchester ditched us entirely, and Sheffield stuck two fingers up at Clegg in his beloved backyard. Newcastle and Hull got rid of LibDems only a year after giving them control of their respective councils. Handfuls of LibDem councillors across Cumbria fell without so much as a handshake.

The lesson was very different in the South. We still run Eastbourne Council having lost 5 seats straight to the Conservatives, an increase of 8 Conservative Councillors didn't change our control of South Somerset, and Portsmouth is still under our control (with no increase in Labour representation at all).

We have to learn from this. The messages we gave to voters over the period long before last year;s general election still hold true. We have thousands of dedicated councillors who fulfill their role as street champions and local representatives far better than their Labour equivalents. There is no sense of entitlement to any of our councillors and their wards. Clearly the Coalition is having a damaging effect on our representation, but that is not a reason to ditch it all in and start again.

The Conservatives won seats and councils last week, one of the first times that a ruling party has made advances after in their first year. They consolidated their southern support whilst making very limited increases from the midlands up (indeed the story in Birmingham is one of almost complete Tory collapse). Tories are still almost completely absent in the industrial towns across Lancashire, Manchester and Yorkshire. There may be blue bits in Sefton, but there most certainly are not in Liverpool, St Helens or Knowsley. In Wigan, the leader of the Tory group lost his seat in Orrell. In Chorley, the Tories lost control of the Council.

The winners/losers argument for the post-match interview is, therefore, whatever you want it to be. Labour cannot claim to have "won" the election period, having been demolished in Scotland and only reclaiming old ground in the North. Neither can the LibDems even suggest things are looking alright, for it clearly isn't. The Tories need to examine how they break out of their comfort zones, because it still has yet to happen.

Two final points - the BNP were wiped out of Stoke Council, and seem to have only one defending councillor re-elected across the country. Their slow and satisfying collapse continues and long may that continue.

And I cannot leave without mentioning the AV Referendum. We lost. It's terrible that the No brigade managed to drag victory from the ditches of its awful campaign, not least because this slams shut on meaningful electoral and constitutional reform for a generation. There is no two ways about this - saying No to AV has killed off any chance for a fairer, more representative voting system in the UK and that is a scandal for a so-called developed Western democracy. Labour had 13 years in charge to make a go of this, they failed, and this week their lack of action has come home to roost.

Some election periods are dull. Not this one. Much change, not least in Scotland, with constitutional and representative hoo-ha to follow. For those who found the AV campaign "a bit much", incidentally, you wait until the boundary changes start...

From 140 characters to infinity...

2011-05-03T20:43:00.002Z

21 years ago, the first Gulf War changed television and radio reporting for ever. CNN - not exactly storming ahead in its field - grew in stature and reputation with its one groundbreaking concept. Suddenly their raison d'etre made sense. Newspapers had the content, but did they have the reaction speeds, depth of commentary and instant replay? CNN defined and justified television news, something we now take for granted. Twenty-one years is a lifetime in broadcasting, and from CNN all those years ago, May 2011 has witnessed the next great revolution in news reporting. It has come not from the "mainstream" media (of which, arguably, CNN is now firmly part), or even the "first generation" Internet names. For this month saw Twitter justify its reputation and support amongst thousands of loyal users, in addition to getting grudging respect from the news organisations it has ultimately usurped.

This tweet is the iconic symbol of Twitter's "maturity moment". The one man - Sohaib Athar - inadvertently became the poster boy for all that the live-tweeting, micro-blogging site could offer the world. Real time, uncensored, un-monitored reporting of events, often innocent and natural, more often than not trivial, all of which could be the snowballs to roll down and create headlines. Twitter was always a curiosity, and in many ways it has become much more one now, though it has also given the Internet the shine of respectability it needed in the field of news. Just as CNN did in the 90s, now Twitter has shown the credible side of its quirky selling point.

Twitter began to buzz with news that President Obama would be making a very serious announcement at 2145 Eastern Time (about 0230/0300 GMT). Thirty minutes later, Keith Urbahn, the former chief of staff for Bush's Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, tweeted his exclusive .

"So I'm told by a reputable person they have killed Osama Bin Laden. Hot damn."

Between 2145 and 2215, Twitter was alive with rumours, jokes, repeated jokes, claims, and counter-claims. The Twitter organisation itself reported that by the time President Obama was confirming the news - over an hour and twenty minutes later - 6,000 messages a second were being written with his name. That totals countless millions sent in the period from the initial rumour to the rolling MSM analysis.

Twitter has been the place to go for so-called "live tweeting" or "dual screening" for some time now. In the UK, episodes of The Apprentice, Match of the Day, or even Great British Menu, can be enjoyed by watching thousands of viewers giving thumbs up or down whilst the show is on air. Writer Mark Gatiss has said watching programmes he has written (such as Doctor Who) with Twitter on his phone "would drive him mad". Soon-enough feedback (the notices and reviews in next day's papers) has now become
instant, running parallel to the programme itself. The "Osama day" on Twitter went one step further - effectively running ahead of the news agenda and laughing when traditional television journalists jogged towards them sweating and panting.

The Mumbai bombings was the first real event which suggested Twitter's potential. CNN, ironically enough, commented on how the programme was "ahead" of them, with the news-gatherer having to be careful with every detail and source it received. With little filtering (and no checking for repeated jokes), Twitter can forge ahead where broadcasters rarely can tread. Whilst this is an issue, it's also a bonus. No filtering, no censuring - the most gruesome of videos and the most belly-hurting jokes, all streaming down the news-feed in a collection of views, news and opinions. During the anti-cuts marches in London, protesters used Twitter and Suki to plan sites to gather and police hotspots to avoid. Whilst watching the UK's first ever leaders debates, the "Iagreewithnick" meme blossomed into a T-shirt slogan and backhanded compliment.

Internet historians like to mark exactly when new phenomena or language became popular. Who wanted their kittens to speak in Creole first? When did someone first notice the bloke who couldn't carry all his limes? When did emos start taking photographs at funny angles, and where did they go before tumblr? 2 May 2011 is the cyber-historians newest milestone. It's the day newsgathering and reporting became something new - deeper whilst still giddy, stronger though unpredictable. Years after having its existence questioned by critics and sceptics, the newest darling of the 2.0 generation has grown into a very lucrative (and beautiful) swan. From the alternative to status updates, to the latest version of ticker tape...And I still find the time to update people on how crowded the 1647 Leyland service back home is every workday.

Lifestyles of the Censored and Redacted

2011-04-25T08:39:00.003Z

Some of you may recall the time Jack Straw found himself embroiled in an unusual tabloid newspaper scandal. He had taken his son - William Straw - to a police station to 'shop him in' for selling cannabis. A court ruling blocked newspapers in England and Wales from reporting the story. The press in Scotland could report the story without any problem, though this meant national broadcasters could not review the Scottish papers for fear of breaking the law. With the Internet very different to how it is today, such a story limped on, impeded by the strength of the legal system blocking an industry's ability to print the news.

Fast-forward to today, and the Straw incident seems to much innocent and forgiving. We now live in the age of the "super injunction" whilst the so-called "hyper injunction" is already in use in some jurisdictions. The two well known early examples involve John Terry, and the Guardian newspapers remarkable Trafigura story. In both cases, media outlets were initially unable to report what had been blocked, or why it had been blocked, or who was involved on either side of the case. The Guardian's front page at the time resembled a Kafka post-it note. "Somebody rang, can't say who, or why, or their number, or for whom they'd called."

The details from the legal document are worth summarising here -

Trafigura's lawyers, Carter-Ruck, produced an extraordinary legal document, whereby they persuaded a judge to not just suppress a confidential and potentially embarrassing document, but also to deny anyone even mentioning the existence of the court proceedings and court order.

This week, Conservative MP and author Louise Bagshawe found herself brought into the latest injunction farce, during recording of the BBC programme Have I Got News For You. During the "odd one out" round (featuring Person A, Person B, Person C, and Person D), Bagshawe mentioned a footballer "whose name definitely does not rhyme with...." and the sound was cut. (Memories of the "Are you a friend of Peter Mandleson" episodes, of course).

In these very contemporary cases, the injunctions have only just managed to hold. Bloggers and tweeters have navigated themselves around the blocks like speed-skaters. It took only a number of Google searches to find the name of Trafigura (though remember that the legal block had initially forbid even Hansard from printing related questions, wrapping ties around freedoms within and beyond Parliament). The current injunction relating to "a family-man footballer whose name rhymes with such-and-such" is all the more bewildering because the person with whom he shaked up can have her name and face and womanly bits flashed all over the tabloids (Imogen Thomas, and no, I hadn't heard of her either) whilst the footballer has the ''freedom'' to live in anonymity.

Keyboard warriors have been tip-toeing around the legal injunctions in an act of defiance ever since they were first used. Identifying the footballer (well, footballers) is not difficult at all, just as identifying Trafigura was child's play. This does not mean the courts are powerless against the First Twitter Corps. To coin a phrase, there's many things we don't know we don't know.

The mood music is not melodic. The press is losing its fight against institutions and companies who can afford not to care. We tend to question the "might of the press" and rightly criticise the tabloid media's moral high-ground and grandstanding. It's easy to mock the morals of the redtops - chain up the pedos and look at this cheeky up-skirt pap shot. How far away from the press do we stand in the fight between privacy and press freedom? Can any celebrity - usually men - demand and expect privacy on their own terms?

We feed and fear the beast, the core problem in this entire issue. Investigative journalism still brings in the stories for the quality presses and tabloids alike - the "he is shagging her" breadcrumbs may make the headlines for being under injunctions, chances are the real scandals will never be uncovered. Beyond the locked doors and along the corridors sings the silent truths hidden and locked away. Our press may not always be moral, but they are free; injunctions of the strength, breadth and depth as we see today are compromising that freedom. Lawyers over-riding Parliament is one thing (and is sometimes greeted with pleasure and applause). But journalists?

It is very dangerous for the might of a lawyers hand to flatten both Parliament and the Press. It is not uncomfortable ground to inhabit - the whistle blowers and freedom-fighters and investigators at the heart of truth as much as Parliamentarians. This is much more than "[][][][][][][][][][] and [][][][][][][][][] have conducted a private affair." At the core of this is covering up as much light as corporations can afford (and that's a lit, enough to exhaust Professor Brian Cox of all his superlatives and metaphor). Choosing sides in arguments is not always easy. It's difficult when the only right and moral choice includes tabloid journalists and Members of Parliament. Enemies closer and all that...

Round-table tradition

2011-04-19T19:31:00.001Z

Read the published diaries of almost any former MP - Alan Clark, Gyles Brandreth, Chris Mullin - and amongst the common themes is one 'absolute' which links through every political era and will doubtlessly do so for the foreseeable. If "reform" means anything to the Coalition government, the annual parlour game which distracts MPs, obsesses journalists and distracts even the most ardent policy-wonk from the finer points of the issue at hand. It is, but of course, the Cabinet Reshuffle, the one element of British political life which shared with football, and the one tradition no government has ever considered could be worth putting to bed.

Prior to the election - and reiterated last year both Cameron and Clegg have tried to distance the Government from the annual charade. If only anyone would believe them. It's not necessarily their faults - football fans know that the merry-go-round will one day stop turning, and one of the chosen few will be back in a job not long before or after Christmas.

Only in the realm of politics could there be similar employment attitudes to the chairman of football plcs. The MPs I mentioned above cannot avoid writing - and enjoying - the sport of promotion and demotion, the rise and fall of backbench stars or Cabinet flops. Clark relished every chance to insult those who passed him on their way up the ladder or to scoff when they fell back to earth. Brandreth recalls the need to stuff the Ministerial red box of Stephen Dorrell (newly promoted at the Department for National Heritage as it then was) with videos of British film classics as he was in a position for which he had no understanding. Chris Mullin regularly recalls how ministers across Africa and Europe could not make strong relationships with British counterparts because, amongst other things, the 13 years of Labour rule saw over 30 different MPs given the jobs of Minister for Europe, or Minister for Africa.

The Reshuffle is enjoyed and endured as a consequence of the Old Boys Club attitude within Westminster. The most conscientious constituency representative becomes enslaved to the system - will the call from Downing Street come this year? Next?

Who would care about the Whitenslade Scouts Summer Fayre when there's ministerial responsibility just around the corner? Mullin admits that even the most lowly promotion is grasped with both hands. He also writes very well about how sharp and short the experience can be; the Minister who has spent a year building relationships and strong reputations can be out the door in the morning to be replaced by someone who has to start the whole thing from scratch.

Reshuffles are outdated, outmoded, and clearly straight out of the Great British political traditions dressing up box. They are very expensive - Department names are changed and re-named at whim ("Department for Children, Families and Schools" lasted just over 3 years before returning to "Department for Education". One has to ask - why did it have to change at all?). Ministers suddenly become experts in their new field (and did we have any faith in Margaret Beckett as Foreign Secretary? Really?).

Cameron, as ultimate hirer-and-firer, should take a lead from the rest of Europe on this (and for that matter, the US, where such pack-shuffling is almost unheard of). To allow Ministers and Secretaries of State to get on with their jobs, the constant ticking clocks must have their batteries removed. Cameron has made some unfortunate ministerial choices, but whilst in other jobs (especially in business) time is allowed for improvement, the Westminster attitude leaves sharpened knives at the door. Policies which are not delivering need focus and concentration. The delivery of policy is stifled if the carousel is whirred into action by pressure from every lobby hack with impatience and deadlines on their mind.

To show the wider public that the Coalition really does understand "new politics", Cameron should avoid anything remotely close to a full-scale Reshuffle until at least next year. Another glut of traditionalists doubtlessly feel angered, another reem of right-wing Tories will huff and howl, though it's all for the good. Few people in the real world see as much pointless, expensive, repetitious, duplicating japery as members of parliament. It infects their brains, alters their thinking. Any MP who knows their thing will tell you the same - and it has ultimately damaged our political culture.

One could argue that the only way to fix the Reshuffle bug is a wholesale revolution within our political system, cutting the link between constituency MP and Ministerial job (as happens in so many parliamentary republics), increasing the number of appointed Ministers who are not accountable to voters. Others could argue that no Reshuffle should happen at all between elections, giving voters the right to compare like-for-like over a parliaments life-time.

Some traditions are hard to break. The dinosaurs who want to keep First-past-the-Post (because, you know, an MP needs only 33% of the vote in their constituency to become Foreign Secretary) are the same who lap up the "fun" of the Reshuffle and all it represents. Football is rightly criticised for giving second, third, and forty-eighth chances to the same old dwindling number of ex-managers. Politics really should have the same fingers pointed in its direction. Cameron should lead by example and leave the parlour games for another year.

Lady Ho-Hum

2011-04-16T11:43:00.002Z

Watching the careers of stella-star super-famous types wander up and down the hills and troughs of fame really could drive a person mad. Maybe it does, given the types who write celeb columns in the tabs and build themselves a 'job' from musing on the fickle nature of notoriety.

Two women whose pop careers have contributed a soundtrack to the lives of millions have reached the point where the mojo has clearly been diluted too far. It's what homeopathy must do to those genuinely sick people. Madonna and Kylie Minogue, from two very different starting points, hit the same successful pattern; reinvent and reimagine the image at every possibility, and keep the music fresh and interesting. For Minogue, this was almost effortlessly easy - from pure pop in the late 80s to the indie-chic and mad-as-a-hatter dj cool.

Kylie has had her noticeable drop in form, with "2 Hearts" (not, sadly, a Doctor Who tribute) and "Wow" sounding slim and unremarkable. The instant 'hit' the listener gets from, say, "In Your Eyes", with its pounding dance beat wrapping around the sweetest of melodies, is utterly absent from later works.

The slow deflating balloon that is Madonna's output (or if you like, Madonna herself) has been whistling away since "Bedtime Stories". Whilst "Frozen" hinted at a slight return, most of what has come since is second rate. "Music", "Hollywood" - is this the same woman? If the artist seems uninterested, so will the fans, and that is a factor clearly happening today.

When Stefani Joanne Angelina Germanotta barged her way into the club of notable pop starlets reaching a certain age, it was a revelation. Lady Gaga had a sound of her own produced from the mashing together of all her influences - every male and female mainstream chart sensation with underground flavours all swept up into subversive, compelling and darn catchy dance/pop. Music snobs melted at the sound of "Bad Romance" and "Alejandro", the strongest chart bound pop records in a world dank with the fog of RnB and shouty-voiced harridans. For a woman so clearly intelligent (designing the Lady Gaga character to be as provocative as possible), the media-game she played was complemented by albums stuffed full of decent, good old-fashioned sing-along-able tracks.

So...what's happened? To much fame and fortune? Too much self promotion? Too little time to decide what actually works in commercial music? Because Gaga has done in a few months what it has taken her most obvious inspiration and model a while career; to flop from innovator to background noise. It has been quite the collapse - two singles into the new album and the muttering whispers from critics grows louder: has Little Miss Promotion gone and parked her songsmiths ability too far for her brain to walk?

The first PR disaster was "Born This Way". Without any sense of irony, this was a bad-taste facsimile of "Express Yourself", and one Gaga declared was "the newest gay anthem". We all know gay people, and they tend not to like being told what is and is not done for their benefit. Rather than celebrate this anthem penned for them from the conscious Queen of fashion, the community she claimed to love turned against her. That aside, "Born This Way" isn't a particularly strong song - the chorus is a yawning chasm of dreary and the verses far too derivative to pass comment. "Don't be a drag, just be a queen" did not, notably enough, get adopted by anyone any time soon.

The new single, "Judas", sounds like three different songs hastily stuffed into one. Is it high-NRG pop? Is it dance? Is it a new take on the dubstep scene? To my ears, there are three elements struggling for attention (which could be how Gaga's head must sound in times of quiet).

There's the pounding beats, fresh from Britney's latest remake (and let's be honest, Britney Spears is looking like a woman who knows she's lived Madonna's career in fastfoward. Calling a song "If I said you had a beautiful body would you hold it against me" is one step away from naming a sitcom "Three Irishmen walk into a bar..."

The other two options are recycled Gaga tropes. Spoken-word middle sections and the melody from "Paparazzi" create a song which appears to have been rushed out rather than considered. It's confused and quite silly (and for a woman so controlling of her provocations, somewhat boring. There are far fewer Christians around to shock, for one thing).

There is nothing wrong with liking decent, honest and interesting commercial pop music, when and where it can be found. What interest Lady Gaga had to offer is currently bubbling at far less a temperature than she has shown able to produce so far. It should not be shrug-shoulders time so early in her career.

Second preference - Primary colours

2011-04-09T08:32:00.003Z

Amongst and alongside the hundreds of council elections in England, and devolved assembly elections in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, there is an additional ballot paper fought and argued over. It is, of course, the AV referendum poll, asking the population to become interested in voting reform and constitutional renewal in a way never done before, and especially unthinkable under a Conservative-led government, but these are the days in which we find ourselves.

(And today, for me, is looking like another very beautiful summer's day, so if the sun doesn't sign on the righteous then at least one hopes it will on pro-AV campaigners).

The level of debate on both sides has been somewhat...tetchy. It's been awkward, unsettling, somewhat irritating. I can't help shake off the feeling that the anti-AV lot are more concerned by their own short-term electoral future, which explains their partisan arguments and insults. At least the pro-lobby have tried to fashion a more rounded, deeper argument, not that it has been faultless on this side either.

It could well be a fatal blow for constitutional reform where AF defeated. My head and heart are saying different things (yes, I really do consider the finer points of voting reform in my quiet moments). There is a hunger for change in the country, one which simmers still after the expenses scandal and all which spewed out thereafter like so much Donner meat on a Sunday morning. Electors have their muscles flexed still, more cynical than ever and less likely to choose any of the main three parties as first ports of call. The age of the protest vote (and, as we've witnessed, the age of the protest) has not been this strong in decades.

What other options exist if the AV vote is lost? Would the door slam on any future political reform, so much ideas and ideals turned to dust?

I am throwing onto the table of ideas (it's a nice table, lots of room for wine and nibbles), the concept of American-style Primaries for almost all candidates for all Westminster constituencies.

Primaries have been tried in the UK in before, with the run up the last general election seeing the Conservatives trying them in some constituencies tainted the most by expenses sleaze. The idea, based largely on the US system of Primaries and caucuses and pulling names out of hats or whatever they do over there, sees residents register in advance their intention to take part in a public meeting at which candidates persuade the assembled bods who should be the candidate at the forthcoming election for a particular party. Crucially, the audience cannot be entirely taken from party members and supporters, it has to be a crowd made from all party supporters and none. "Oh but that could mean Labour supporters voting for the Tory candidate", comes the cry. So? Under our tired voting system so many such choices are made in the selection of an MP, or is context important all of a sudden?

The Labour left are fond of Primaries too. Leader Ed Miliband is one of a number of left figures who has signalled support in the very recent past. In 2009, Will Straw told CommentIsFree that Primaries could work for a Labour party battered and unsettled by a drop in support. It remains true today that candidate selections are often dictated by the HQs, central office and gentleman's agreements. Despite storming to victory at this year's Barnsley byelection, Labour Party members on a number of their websites did cyber-sigh about the alleged imposition of a candidate above local members.

Primaries would hack away some of the grip from 'on high'. Conservative high-ups are not entirely pleased that one of their winners from the process, Dr Sarah Wollaston, is a vocal opponent to NHS reforms, but we need more people like her, and the doors would open wider with Primaries introduced. We all know how candidates would react with non-party members asking questions unbound by convention, mini-Question Times breaking out across the country with the aim of selecting parliamentary candidates in the name of 'attracting ordinary voters'.

Bring Primaries (candidates chosen by the people) with AV (an empowering voting system), and you drag the UK into somewhere beyond the 19th Century. Greater chance of BME candidates, younger participants, greater debate in the lead up to polling day with more coverage of each party and their policies. It is not a panacea, there are lots more to do, though they would shine much needed light into the dark of PPC selections.

I would open up Primaries to as many parties as possible. Each constituency must be opened up to allowing parties and the public to scrutinise the choices put to them, the policies promised and the personalities introduced. Yes, the US examples we see over here are filtered to amplify the 'noise'. Our system is not presidential, our Primaries would not be such big-money freak shows.

If AV falls - and I hope it doesn't - there has to be a flame of reform kept alive. If the Coalition wants to take a lead from its own past, Primaries would be the best thing to happen for the sake of democracy.

AV Q & A

2011-04-03T08:15:00.003Z

Right, I've got my polling card through the post and I'm somewhat confused

By the new proviso they've tacked on the bottom about not getting ballot papers after 10pm?

No, the thing at the top. "Voting System Referendum". What the merry Hell is that, I thought only backward countries in the depths of beyond held referedums. Like Switzerland and California...

Well both those parts of the world do hold referenda...Referendums...And now we've got one. It's got the Internet in a right old tizz of excitement. We're hoping members of the public will get involved around about 24 hours before.

I'm fairly certain it's referenda...Anyway, what are we voting on exactly?

The voting system used to elect Members of Parliament.

Heavens above, what's next, tarrif reforms relating to processed meat products outside the EEA?

Look, these things are rare and beautiful gifts given to us by our elected representatives and they must be cherished for what they are.

Fine, it just seems a bit 'policy wonk' to me.

You wait until I start explaining how the AV system works...

So, anyway, how did we get a referendum in the first place?

At the last election, the Liberal Democrats and Labour both agreed that the UK should change the way it elects MPs. Labour wanted AV, the Liberal Democrats a different system called STV...

Pff, another broken promise from the LibDems, then, that damn Clegg...

No, no, wait...

Where's my gold unicorn, eh? WHERE IS IT?

Back in the room, back in the room, focus now...It is not a broken promise, it's compromise...

Oh yeah, compromise, Coalition rules, all of that...What do you mean?

The Conservatives wanted to keep the current system, with a cut in the number of MPs to 585, whilst Clegg wanted it cut to 500. So the compromise between "same system, 585" and "STV, 500", is "AV, 600".

And are both parties happy with this middle ground?

Pretty much. The traditionist wing of the Tories are against AV to their very finger-nails, and I suspect most LibDems wouldn't have asked for a referendum on the Christmas List but here we are...

And Labour?

Split. Ed Mil....Edward Miliband, forgive me, is all for it, and hopes to take most of his Party with him. There are dissentors amongst the Labour benches, though, and many local council groups are against it out of an automatic knee-jerk anti-LibDem bitterness...

Citation needed?

Yeah, well, it seems Edward is having a hard time persuading the grassroots to follow him on this one.

So what system to we currently use then?

MPs are elected using "First Past The Post", or "Winner Takes All". You just have to win by one vote over your opponents, regardless of vote share. If you top the ballot, you're an MP.

And this is unfair?

In short, yes.

And long?

Many MPs sit on the green benches without a majority in their constituencies. And this isn't a partisan point, there are MPs from almost every Party where this is the case. Phil Woolas (remember him....) "won" Oldham East and Saddleworth with 31.9% of the vote, only 0.3 ahead of the LibDems. John Pugh, the LibDem MP for Southport, was elected with 49.6%, still less than an outright majority.

The FPTP system was at its best when there was much more polarised support for the two main political parties. That era died many moons ago, but our voting system hasn't caught up.

And how does this AV thing work?

Rather than forcing voters into choosing one candidate, even if it's not one they really prefer...

...Like, ooh, forcing people into making a grubby little compromise?

Yes, thank you, I'll choose the labels. As I was saying, rather than forcing people into making a choice they might not prefer - holding their nose to vote Labour in a 'marginal' seat - AV allows people to make as many choices as they see fit. It empowers, whilst FPTP anchors.

But "winner takes all" is quite easy to understand, isn't it?

Oh it is, and in many circumstances it is the better system. Politics is not about "black and white", though, it thrives on the grey areas, the compromise, the give-and-take, which AV promotes.

How do you count votes under AV then?

Voters rank candidates in order of preference - as easy as 1,2,3...All the first preferences are tallied up, and if a candidate reaches 50% of the vote, they're an MP, easy.

What if they don't reach this magic 50%?

The second preferences of the least popular candidates are redistributed until somebody does.

Isn't there a worry that second votes from fringe candidates could swing results?

That's the current line from the "NO" campaign, who are paranoid about the BNP somehow having a big say in British elections. It's not as though the presence of extremists over 50-odd years hasn't had an implied influence over policies, candidates and indeed results as it is, or anything...

Would I be forced into voting BNP? Because I sure as heck don't want to do that...

Nope. Unlike the Australian system, there's no compulsion. You can vote just for one candidate, as now, or all of them. Or just some.

But rank, not with a big "X"

Aye, that's the one. Rank in preference order, and let the counters do the maths...

Don't you mean multi-million pound counting machines which would deny a hospital of life-saving equipment?

No, no I don't.

Is this new fangled system proportional? The LibDems liked to talk about proportional representation once...

Indeed so, and it's a notable uncomfortable truth that AV is not exactly proportional...It was said that Blair's 1997 victory would have been even more immense under AV....

I don't like the sound of that...

It's one of the ghost stories LibDems tell each other over the campfire...

I hear AV will end 'safe seats' stone dead? Is that true?

It is not exactly true - I doubt Birkenhead (Labour Majority 15,195) is about to turn into a knife-edge marginal constituency anytime soon...However for much more seats than at present, the contest will become much tighter - no more "tactical" voting, more votes than ever will actually be counted, rather than simply dismissed.

Why are people saying AV is complicated?

Because the NO camp seem to think that an ordinary person can carry around in their heads minute details about football results, soap opera story lines and national flags without any issue, whilst the concept of counting to 5 is beyond them...

Will AV mean more Coalition governments?

Maybe so, maybe not. The current system has had its moments - the 1970s was awash with minority governments and hung parliaments, and last year you may recall there being no single party with the right amount of seats to form a government on their own...

What would happen if the country voted no? End of the Coalition? Cameron angry, Cameron SMASH?

Er...No....Well, I say no, both men are dismissing talk of the Coalition falling if the country says "no".

Well you've made that clear...

It is a tough cookie, and one which many LibDem members see as the only true prize for making such a hard choice last year...The Tory grassroots are hoping for a big fat NO so they can start tugging on the loose threads of the whole Government in the hope it all falls apart.

In summary then, the current system is not very good, proposed system is better if not perfect, and no baby monitors will be harmed either way?

That'll do for me.

So you could provide a link to the Yes campaign website round about here, shouldn't you?

Why of course..http://www.yestofairervotes.org

Making the Case for AV

2011-03-29T16:38:00.002Z

Ed Mili...Edward Miliband has made some good judgement calls recently, balancing his rather unwise "I have a dream" moment at Hyde Park. (Historians will not, I suggest, draw a linear connection from the Suffragettes to the Right Honourable Member for Doncaster South).

First good call - supporting the "Yes" campaign for the AV referendum, which should ensure a decent turnout amongst Labour supporters, many of whom still smart from Tony Blair's dismissal of all things related to constitutional reform. (It was Blair who asked Roy Jenkins to come up with a new voting system for Westminster. When he did so - a modified form of AV called "AV+", Blair decided he didn't like having his eyes glazed over by policy documents so dumped them without apology).

Miliband's support for AV is significant in this age of Coalition government. He is confident - and genuinely so, it seems - that there still can be bridges built between Labour and Liberal Democrat parties, and others 'of the centre and left', to use his phrase. It ensures that he can have some of his words from last year pinned on him - that Labour under his leadership won't oppose for the sake of it. He makes the case for AV fairly and reasonably, unlike NO2AV, whose ignorance and groundless claims have been rightly ridiculed from the start.

"Having words from the past pinned on you" draws me to my second tick against Edward's actions. He has, quite rightly, ensured Nick Clegg is nowhere near the Yes campaign stage. Nick is currently on some kind of Deputy PM fact-finding tour in Mexico, speaking Spanish no less, so is as far away from the Yes crowd as could possibly be. This is very good news. Clegg's "calamity" moments from the last election do tend to keep stacking up, not least his label "miserable little compromise" attached to the AV voting system he is now supporting.

Making the case for AV is absolutely vital for the wider constitutional health of our country. The chance for change is not mere rhetoric. Saying "No" to AV would mean slamming the door on almost every other reform agenda - the House of Lords especially, possibly even the proposals to allow binding referendums on council tax increases currently in the Localism Bill. Importantly "no" would mean "NO!" for generations. We would be lumbered, stuck, anchored to and disabled by the first-past-the-post system for decades to come, never again able to revisit the question of voting reform, trapped in the frigid Hell of small-c conservative opinions.

AV is not perfect, though it offers much more for our democratic process than FPTP ever would. It would stop this nonsense of candidates becoming very handsomely salaried law makers on 33% (or less) popularity in the constituency they claim to represent. Every candidate from all parties would need to work that little bit harder, sell their candidature that little bit harder, to ensure the magic 50% mark was reached. This silly "one person, one vote" campaign on the NO side, launched today, misses the point entirely. AV gives people ONE vote - just the ONE - which is given to candidates other than the initial leader under specific circumstances. There is no more "loonies deciding elections" than under FPTP (I have been around elections long enough to know how many people go into polling booths to choose one party as an alternative to their first preference, usually BNP or other extreme frapperies)

Making the case for AV means being able to concede that some problems with Coalition government is misplaced. Political rivals can, and should, work together. Political parties are not, here or anywhere, 'walled gardens'. There can be shades of grey. Standing still, trapped within dogma, leads to stagnation. Making the small step to AV opens up the possibility of better, more proportional systems, and if STV is good enough for Scotland and if d'Hondt is good enough for Great Britain's allocation to the European Parliament, then something over and beyond AV is surely decent enough for Westminster.

I agree with Edward. AV must pass. It may be the darkest irony that a Liberal Democrat leader cannot be associated with voting reform, but such sacrifices are often needed in the march towards the greater good. Join Ickle Ed and other progressives - and that includes the Liberal Democrats...and Nigel Farage...and vote YES to AV.

Protest votes

2011-03-12T10:41:00.005Z

Just when you thought it safe to put away the Relentless and return to normal sleeping patterns, the next Constitutional reform package makes its way to the House of Lords. When the "Parliamentary Voting Systems and Constituencies Bill" passed from Commons to Lords, the brakes were slammed for a very, very long time.

Learned Peers are timetabled to begin their toothcomb treatment this week and all signs are pointing to more marathon sittings and strained relationships between Lords and Peers, Labour and the LibDems, and doubtlessly LibDems and Conservatives. In this regard, the Lords are very much like your boss, whose eager expectation of your Report is acknowledged with the assumption that it will be stuck on his desk with questions posed on every full-stop and comma. Copy one VLOOKUP incorrectly and you may as well clear your desk...

A principle shared between both Coalition partners, fixed-term parliaments are long overdue in the UK. The historic situation, during which the Prime Minister of the day can fire the shooting pistol at will, is a postcard from an ancient time. It's a power which no longer has relevance, not just in the 21st century but specifically post-expenses scandal Britain. Prime Ministers have always used their power to call an election as a bargaining tool, explicit and implied, and as a result political discourse is carried on within the context of clock-watching. Fixed-term parliaments would allow governments - and importantly opposition parties - to prepare for the long-term.

When the Parliamentary Voting Syst...."PVSaC" was going through its slow, slow, backstep, slow stages in the Lords, matters of concern were small but significant. The reduction in number of MPs didn't particularly matter, it was the detail which caused the consternation. Should the electoral quota be fixed at 5% either way of the average? When should submissions be accepted and how should they be treated? In matters of constitutional reform, it is always the specifics that count. "PVSaC" foreshadows the Fixed-Term Parliament Bill, which I suspect will slow the already considerably glacial Lords on one very specific point of argument. Should parliamentary terms last 4 years, or five?

British parliamentary terms last, on average, between 3 and 4 years. The 5 years proposed in the Bill is drawn from recent history - John Major and Gordon Brown held on as long as the could to the very end, Tony Blair's attitude ensured all policy announcements were fed into a pre-determined polling day. There is a crucial difference between choosing a date and having one chosen for you.

Five-year terms would allow for grown-up debate, would promote reason, would allow for greater consideration of proposed laws. There is too much broken with the quick-fix demands of the political system today. Maybe - just perhaps - five year terms will iron out the fast-forward attitude of the political establishment.

What I was not expecting from the inevitable swathe of amendments to the Fixed Parl...FPB is former Labour MP Alan Howarth, now Baron Howarth of Newport, coming up with quite the radical alternative take on polling day. Let's chinstroke for a moment about not just fixed parliamentary terms - which every developed state bar the UK seems to function with - but also weekend-long polling periods (see the first amendment and consequential changes here)

Essentially Lord Howarth is trying to modernise by taking Britain back to the 19th Century...and I certainly welcome exploring the suggestion. Having the stubby pencils and school halls ready for one Thursday in May is one tradition which works, though more people than ever are requesting postal votes for no greater reason than wanting the whole darn democratic hoohah done and dusted quick-smart. Opening up the opportunities to vote over a longer period fits into the changing social realities of peoples lives. Weekend long polling periods would introduce the flexibility with which most voters live today - and with it removes the cost and complexity of hiring out halls for a mid-week interruption. Lord Grocott, another former Labour MP, has clearly got the referendum bug: he suggests Britain is asked to choose a polling day. How would that go down amongst the bar-flies at the Cricketer's Arms?

I am bemused at the attitude amongst the "anti" brigade. Fixed-terms are a part and parcel of everyday life. Every democratic institution runs on the basis of fixed-terms, from the smallest parish council to the European Parliament. Every European democracy runs on fixed-terms, with differing 'get out clauses' for votes of no-confidence based on national traditions. Every elected official in the USA, from county level to Congressman, run on the basis of one fixed-date to another in a regular cycle. Britain stands out, and not as a radical twenty-first century model of excellence. We are a nation whose political machinery has been tolerated rather than repaired, and as a consequence almost every aspect of British life is backwards, stubbornly conservative and afraid.

Fixed-term parliaments will, in isolation, fix only limited parts of the great wheels and cogs of the democratic machine. As each aspect of the repair job slots into place, from binding local referendums to alternative voting systems and greater freedom for local authorities from central State control, we should be looking at a much fairer, freer democratic system, responsible and pro-active.

What's that? This won't work whilst we are subjects of a Monarch and not citizens of a state? Well, quite, but maybe that's for another post...

Pablo Honey

2011-02-21T20:37:00.002Z

It's February 1993. The indie chart holds itself in an awkward position, between new takes on punk by American start-ups and characteristically wry British bands without a single umbrella term to hang over them. The top ten indie chart for February 1993 runs from Sugar and Tad and Huggy Bear - all unknowns even outside the few remaining true "record shops" by the winter of that year, never mind today - to Suede and Cornershop and Belly. Also in that month, Oxford's Radiohead released their début "Pablo Honey". For British music, for them, for the charts, corners were turned. Things never quite sounded the same again.

What is "Pablo Honey" today? For whom was Thom Yorke positing "What the hell m'a doin' here?" Foreshadowing Beck and Weezer, both of whom could have passed 'Creep' off as their own, the first album from Radiohead could easily challenge or be challenged by the teenage angst it seemed initially to encapsulate. There are modern day fans of the Manic Street Preachers for whom "Generation Terrorists" is a youthful joke, a throwaway compilation of decent songs with too much naivety, too much eagerness for the title of the next enfants terribles. Who were Radiohead at the time? What label was attached by contemporary critics: indie, grunge, alt.rock, was any of that created yet? Was this the start of shoegazing or the continuation of something else, something older?

"Pablo Honey" begins with "You", a sarcastic, sardonic love song, with a sneer in vocals and thwacka-thwacka guitars which could have come across the Atlantic. At the time, both US and UK teens had their own brand of educated anti-establishment soundtracks, both of whom documented the end of their own respective worlds. "You" sounds like the linear successor to Morrisey's forlorn hope from the middle of the previous decade, an update, an extension. Of course, "Creep" would be too mawkish even for The Smiths; as Kurt Cobain would find, such cryptic self-referential anthems would be both albatross and accolade. "Creep", like "Smells Like Teen Spirit", both celebrates and derides teenage listlessness, balances the delight and despair of introspection. Did Michael Stipe feel the same, hearing "Losing My Religion" adopted as soundtrack? This unholy triptych, this unlikely period piece of youthful diary-writing, hailed as something so fucking special...

This week, Radiohead released "King of Limbs". That is, in the language of the 90s, they "released" their new album, for in the 21st Century, they did nothing more than allow fans to pre-book for downloading. Nobody in 1993 could have foreseen the advances in technology, nor could anyone have assumed the indie boys with a sneer and complex lyrics turn away from melody and rhymes and instruments to the Wonderland world of "Kid A", "Amnesiac". Listen to "Ripcoard", the highlight nobody remembers today, and you might as well be comparing Catatonia with Katatonia.

Is "Pablo Honey" any good? Yes. The NME of the time said "...flawed...but satisfying". Rolling Stone considered it "grungy" before that term was coined. (Well, okay, the Oxford English Dictionary has Vanity Fair using it in 1991 and the Guardian in 1992, but only referring to Nirvana and Hole. I can only suspect that Britain held out against using the term for home-grown bands.)

There are more highs than (artistic) lows on "Pablo Honey". There is muddle, there is clear teenage shoe-scuffing, there is nothing exactly original ("Prove Yourself" could well be There Might Be Giants.) By "The Bends", their career advancing classic, Radiohead had moved on as quickly and assuredly as a train moves from station to station. In the context of the new, obscure, unusual release, its dubstep and ambient elements utterly unknown in the early 90s, "Pablo Honey" is the postcard from a past we cannot bring ourselves to entirely forget. It sounds honest even if the content was not entirely true to themselves.

From our vantage point, older and wiser and more knowledgeable, we can understand the exuberance of youthful excitement, of expression and of intent. "Pablo Honey" is not the record of where Radiohead wanted to be; it's a vital piece of evidence of how much further they were than their peers even then.

Nationstates

2011-02-20T16:22:00.004Z

Across the Arab World, people of all ages and backgrounds risk their lives in demonstrations against corrupt governments. Meanwhile, our close European cousins risk the chill of the North Sea winds in naked protests against the lack of a government. In the topsy-turvy world of Belgium, never knowingly simple to understand, the longest period of time without a national government continues apace and nobody sees an answer in the short-term.

There is a serious economic side to the otherwise eccentric story that has developed in Belgium since elections last year. The country has severe national debt and the risk of investing with the centre of the European Union has been thrown in serious doubt. Whilst local government continues offering services at 'street level', the national scene is one of chaos and confusion. The King of the increasingly polarized Belgians has almost reached the limit to what he can provide in leadership. Away from the high-level talks along the corridors of uncertainty, ordinary Belgians want resolutions. History suggests they will be waiting for a long time.

In short, Beglum (not known as a "made up country" for nothing, in all fairness), is a compromise with a flag and borders. Political parties have split and divided to satisfy the often completely contradictory demands of Francophone and Flemish populations. The small German enclave in the east acts like an unexpected flavour in the bowl of contrasting ingredients which Belgium has become, a failed dessert overcooked and overstirred. Brussels is a Francophone exclave surrounded by the Flemish Region which has been flexing its none-too inconsiderable muscles, the capital city of the EU's beating heart, watching the fabric of the country flicked and charred by the flames of dissent, exhaustion, frustration.

It was after their most recent election that the Flemish population pushed hard enough to unsettle the columns of compromise that held the state up for decades before. The sight of people marching for the formation of a government must seem like Wonderland stuff under the context of Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, Bahrain; placards and posters uniting citizens under one flag, only for different ends from their means, the flip-side to North Africa's pleas for representative democracy and economic reform. Belgium, oddly to observers, is a divided country demanding the ties of compromise are brought together tighter.

The southern, French-speaking Wallonia is statistically poorer with double unemployment levels to the right-leaning, Dutch-speaking north. Politicians from both sides spend so long balancing political compromises to the detriment of economic solutions. Resentment of the north by the south permeates across and through all Belgian society. In an example from the fringes, Belgium has alternated French and Dutch-language entries to the Eurovision Song Contest ever year, to keep both sides "sweet". When, in 1999, the Flemish broadcaster chose an English-language song, tempers flared and questions were raised in Parliament.

Not having a Government for nigh-on 300 days must seem like bliss to demonstrators in the UK from both sides of the political debate. To those under the "UKUncut" umbrella, demonstrating against the Coalition government's spending proposals from a largely left/leftist perspective, such apparent freedom from a formal government structure must seem like a dream come true. After all, Belgium has not fallen apart, its two sides not torn asunder. If all Belgium has is local government delivering services on a tight budget without central government, without crumbling away to nothing, then why not here? They've got a monarchy, so have we, where's the harm?

From the extreme-right in the UK, demonstrators wanting an England of their own invention, pure of race and colour, march under the St George and Union flags, self-styled 'Defence Leagues'. It must be attractive to them, too, seeing how a country with two different peoples struggling to survive under one flag. Observe the contrasting sociolinguistic and geopolitical struggles, watch the tension, see how they run. Without a government the two sides are running their own affairs, and even with a government and titular Head, the populations speak their own language and enjoy their own culture. We've been force-fed multiculturalism and the diluting of culture for too long, why should this be tolerated further?

England (and I specifically use England, not Britain) has all the makings of another Belgium. My politics, my conviction, is not nationalist, is not flag-waving jingoist. I don't want or desire a break-up of England anymore than I would like the break-up of the United Kingdom itself per se. Let us look at recent coverage of the Coalition's plans to reduce the number of MPs by 50; the good burghers of Cornwall signed a petition in their thousands against any new constituency crossing the Tamar. One Mebyon Kernow supporter went on hunger strike. Ask a man from Northallerton where he lives, and he is likely to say Yorkshire before England, and long before Britain. North/South divides in England are almost Belgium reversed: an over-inflated south-east and economically compromised north, pulling in different directions for generations. Can you imagine an England split in two? Would the on-going demonstrations by both left and right result in an England we all wanted to live in?

Each Arab World demonstration has the name of the country seared on the hearts and wrapped around the souls of each protester - Egyptians wanted their country back, Tunisians want their country back, Bahrainians demand (and die for) an island for Sunni and Shia. In England, the political discourse swims around the nationalistic question, flirts with it, places more wood near the fire.

There could be a situation to all this from outside the box entirely, of course. When Belgium needed to choose a Eurovision entry in 2006 they forego Dutch, French and English, chose something in an entirely invented, made-up language and got their best result in nearly 30 years. Maybe there's a political equivilant answer for England in this...

2010 election spending

2011-02-16T19:04:00.005Z

The Electoral Commission, as it must every year, publishes the election campaign spending and donations to every political party and candidate , in handy (ish) spreadsheets. Some of the finer details are certainly worth grappling with the sporadic dummy-spitting of Excel's filters and formatting...

Let's look at the broad picture first. The general election of 2010 was as much 'The Expenses Election" as "the expensive one". The top 200 donations to candidates - not all of them winners, it must be said - totals over £7 million. It takes only 200 candidates to reach six-and-a-half-million pounds in spending. Some "digging down" uncovers the extremes people go to when candidature comes calling; James Thornton, who stood as an Independent in Poplar and Limehouse, spent £269 per vote to come 10th. His final total of nearly £16,000 is staggering.

So to is the percentage of money spent as a proportion of the "aggregate limit", the legal upper amount allowed for each candidate in their seat. Stephen Lloyd (Liberal Democrat, Eastbourne), spent 99.62% of his allowed amount en route to winning; Christopher Philip (Conservative, Hampstead and Kilburn) didn't win despite clocking up 98.93% of his maximum allowance. In the case of Stephen Lloyd, the total was just over £39,700.

Ten Labour candidates have who finished second have "total spent" amounts over £30,000. These range from Michael Foster at £38,645.97 (Hastings and Rye) to Jim Kinght (South Dorset) at £31,150.55. Both are former MPs. Both have 'total donations' over £30,000.

For the Liberal Democrats, riding at the time a wave of optimism (oh what far away lands that all seems....), the number of candidates topping £30,000 without winning the seat in the "total spend" column is 21, over twice the Labour amount, running from Lynne Beaumont at £30,457.63 (in Folkestone and Hythe, a distant target seat at one point) and up to Martin Tod in Winchester (at a whopping £40,382.72, more than 95% his allotted total). I'll leave these facts here, you can make up your own mind on things...

Now let us turn to the British National Party, whose focus at the time was the 'Battle for Barking" led by leader Nick Griffin. The total spend of their candidates who registered any costs adds up to £197,771. This does not include his personal cost of £22,498.77, an amount which is three times more than the next listed BNP failed candidate. (Let's not forget that Griffin finished third in Barking, blaming the population change of that constituency for his failure).

Another interesting factor about the BNP results has been highlighted by a political forum I visit. Forty-four candidates lodge exactly £800 "total spend", a further 142 put down their "total spend" at bob-on £400. Is this coincidence? Was Thomas Main (Glasgow North, position 6th) as exact with his financies as David Lomas (Ashton-under-Lyne, 4th)? Was this amount handed to each candidate in non-target seats (that is, anywhere outside Barking)?

Is this very good business sense from the BNP or accounting with a lot of scribbles and unexplained approximations? Is it further coincidence that two National Front candidates - Terry Williams in Birmingham Erdington, and Paul Morris in Birmingham Yardley, also lodged £400 each "total spend" ?

The other side of the financial details deals with political parties as entities in their own right. This tells a lot about the financial health (or otherwise) of the party machines.

Simple things first, then, and that means the column marked "Total" under the heading "Payments Made". The top 5 are:

* Conservative Party £15,588,708
* Labour Party £7,131,811
* Liberal Democrats £4,718,503
* UK Independence Party £640,877
* Green Party £318,534

This shows the immense paying power of the "mainstream" parties, diverting huge funds (by British standards) into the electoral process. For the Tories, this mammoth amount includes over £6 million on "unsolicited material", the much more glossy and professional leaflets pushed through your doors. For Labour, who were once on the backfoot with leafleting and doorstep politics, this "unsolicited material" devoured £4.1 million, almost exactly 50% of their total expenditure.

By far the "mighty" party for leafleting - no Lib Dem worth their salt are ever without FOCUS newsletters - the total in this column is £3.05 million.

Tellingly for the Lib Dems, their total for "rallies and events" is under £100,000, whereas Labour spent 8.5 times as much. Only in one regard do the Lib Dems come out as bigger spenders than Labour - "Canvassing and Market Research", with £12,000 the difference between near-enough half-a-million each on phonebanks. If ever there was a sign that the letterbox isn't king, this is it. Expect such shifts and changes in electoral campaigning to continue.

Other than stretching my self-taught knowledge of Pivot Tables, where does this leave our understanding of British politics today?

One - and it's a big one, fnarr fnarr - the amount of money dished out can be explained purely as a consequence of the election being regarded as a) close (and in the end, t'was close), and b) somehow more relevent given all MPs needed to cleanse their reputations and c) somehow more relevant given Esther Rantzen was losing in Luton South (taking of whom, £24,000 spent to finish 4th and have "ESTHER LOSES LUTON SOUTH" appear on the bottom of the BBC News screen). Okay, maybe just "a" and "b".

The game is never outside the reach of non-party members, though it certainly seems so even under the unique circumstances of 2010. Parties are driven to the brink of bankruptcy by American-style races to the top of the spending tree, desperate to flush more members' money into risographs and coffee mornings. The overall consequence has not been greater confidence in the political process.

It will be interesting to see what will come from two pressing economic concerns - the diminishing donations into political parties and the general attitude towards political spending. These stats could be the last of their kind...

Voted for

2011-02-10T19:03:00.006Z

The following MPs are those who voted to reform the rules (however marginally) relating to prisoner voting rights.

1	Barry Gardiner	Labour	Brent North
2	Kate Green	Labour	Stretford and Urmston
3	Glenda Jackson	Labour	Highgate and Kilburn
4	Andy Love	Labour	Edmonton
5	Kerry McArthy	Labour	Bristol East
6	John McDonnell	Labour	Hayes and Harlington
7	Yasmin Qureshi	Labour	Bolton South East
8	Jeremy Corbyn	Labour	Islington North
9	Peter Bottomley	Conservative	Worthing West
10	Caroline Lucas	Green	Brighton Pavillion
11	Lady Sylvia Hermon	Independent Unionist	North Down
12	Hywel Francis	Plaid Cymru	Aberavon
13	Jonathan Edwards	Plaid Cymru	Carmarthen East and Dinefwr
14	Elfyn Llwyd	Plaid Cymru	Dwyfor Meirionnydd
15	Lorely Burt	Liberal Democrats	Solihull
16	Alan Beith	Liberal Democrats	Berwick-upon-Tweed
17	Tom Brake	Liberal Democrats	Carshalton and Wallington
18	Duncan Hames	Liberal Democrats	Chippenham
19	Simon Hughes	Liberal Democrats	Bermondsey and Old Southwark
20	Julian Huppert	Liberal Democrats	Cambridge
21	Alan Reid	Liberal Democrats	Argyll and Bute
22	Stephen Williams	Liberal Democrats	Bristol West

AVin' a larf

2011-02-07T17:55:00.004Z

Those of you with difficulty sleeping may have already noticed how long the House of Lords has held onto the Parliamentary Voting Systems and Constituencies Bill. Having started before Christmas, it's still there and they're still at it.

One look at the amount of amendments lodged should give a clue as to what is holding back the Bill .

Essentially this Bill is in two halves, and reflects the compromise which ultimately brought the Coalition together. Reducing the number of MPs from the Cameron camp, removing the skewed and failed First Past the Post coming from Clegg. The one Bill - I'll call it "PVSaC", which sounds like a minor player in the first post-Communist elections in Transnistria - has joined a whole swathe of constitutional reform coming from the Conservative-led Government, and heaven knows we've been waiting for the Tories to flood the Commons with reform (voting change, fixed-term Parliaments, directly elected police chiefs, referendums on proposed council tax rises, what a time to be alive, etc.)

Labour's foot-dragging has been an affront to democracy. They daren't even put the door of reform ajar; they would rather lock it shut. Labour's dinosaurs ("they're off the leash, as Clegg put it, somewhat muddled) have not "scrutinised" the Bill, they have torn it to shreds. They patronise the electorate - ("People aren't used to referendums" they say, "They might not know how to cope with multiple ballot papers on the same day", treating voters as fools for the basis of a strawman argument made not from common-sense but spit and string.)

Make no mistake - this Bill is in serious danger of being talked out. Today, tomorrow and Wednesday is all it has left to have any chance to survive. Labour's wrecking amendments have already pushed back polling day from May to October, and have promised to talk out the constituency boundary review section until they drop dead rather than hand the Conservatives with constitutional victory. The AV referendum may be suffocated before it is given to the people to decide. How offensive that Labour will be the Party who deny the people a right to say how parliamentarians are voted.

I have been a passionate (and doubtlessly boring) advocate for constitutional reform all my life. It is one of the rare passions I have left. It frustrates and angers me that Labour, of all parties!, are now those standing against reform whilst the Conservatives, of all parties!, are left making the case for change. The decision to talk out the Bill will ultimately kill any chance of future reform for my life time, if not forever.

Between today and Wednesday the future of democratic reform will be drawn. To borrow a phrase; "the Bill has been torn to shreds, the pieces are in flux, what happens when they rest is up to us. Let's reshape the country."

Brand BNP

2011-01-30T20:14:00.003Z

The screengrabs are from a video released by the British National Party as they confirmed Enis Dalton as their candidate for the forthcoming (when Eric Ilsey finally gets round to resigning, that is) by-election in the Labour stronghold ofBarnsley Central
.

Enis' speech is unlike most you would initially expect from BNP candidates. Learning from Sarah Palin, it would seem, the speech was full of bashing the Establishment, standing up for 'people like us, and our families at home', and talking up the Party as 'for the working class'. The acceptance speech, such as it was, drew pictures of Nick Griffin's Party as the natural place for working class voters to turn in times of economic uncertainty and political unrest.

Ms Dalton, who uses 'you know' as a natural gap between every other sentence, is a known local community campaigner and organiser, and as a woman can deflect many of the automated criticisms of her Party. The new schtick - that the British National Party are the natural home for disgruntled low-paid workers - is notably different from their main rivals on the far-right of politics. Talk to supporters of the English Democrats, or England First, if you can find any, and their rhetoric sounds like the Griffin of old. BNP supporters today are trained to avoid anything unsavory; keep race and religion to a minimum and don't mention Nick Griffin by name. Enis does this to an absolute tee; if it didn't sound so silly, I'd brand her the next potential leader of the Yorkshire Tea Party.

Oh, look, I just did.

However...Look again at the screengrabs. Do you notice something even more significant than either Ms Dalton's smart-ish appearance and the gurning Nick Griffin sneering in the background?

The BNP logo has been rebranded and redesigned, swapped from the old-style "BNP" in block capitals, to the Union Flag encased within a heart-symbol, the words "British National Party" spelled to its side. For reasons I cannot fathom....go on, guess....the word "National" is coloured silver/grey, barely legible from certain angles or in bright light.

In conjunction with the 'softer touch', diluting the racial policies and repositioning themselves as the working class party it's okay to vote for, the BNP now seem intent on losing the very word "national" from their name. Who would feel the need to shy away from voting "British Party", all hearts and flags and 'showing the establishment who's boss"? Shrewd? Desperate?

It should not take any person long to find the tumultuous waters surrounding the BNP which has led to this last attempt at rebranding. An estimated £250,000 is 'unaccounted' for, a figure taken from their latest [late] accounts lodged with the Electoral Commission for which they will be fined [again]. Bank Service Charges are admitted to be over £26,000, actual debt on credit cards, tax and unpaid invoices clocks in at over £393,000. Following the disastrous General election campaign, in which Nick Griffin finished third in their only target seat of Barking, and which saw every Councillor defeated at Barking & Dagenham Council, the Party has been hemorrhaging supporters and money month after month. Rebranding and refocusing now seems hopelessly naive. Virtually bankrupted, the Party are not likely to see the 2015 General election in one piece.

The BNP hope to capitalise on the growing protest movement within the UK, to attract disenfranchised voters to their take on the 'anti-establishment' cause. This threat to the growing grassroots movements would, once upon a time, been enough to mobilise thousands against Griffin, his mobs, his rent-a-crowds, his rhetoric. It seems, just like the very word "national" in the logo, the threat is fading.

Cyber sects

2011-01-30T07:42:00.003Z

Reading in full detail how Egyptian authorities effectively isolated their nation from the rest of the world through one simple act of denying Internet access puts into focus our own complacent attitude to the icon we double-click almost without thinking every morning at work, or every night at home. For the Chinese living under their own stringent regime, even searching for the word 'Egypt' has become impossible.

Hardship at a time like this promotes ingenuity; Al Jazeera [whose coverage has been compelling viewing, the channel coming of age as CNN did during the first Gulf War] reports the uptake of dail-up and proxy accounts has soared. Chinese Internet users have been making subtle changes to the spelling of 'Egypt' [埃及] to circumvent the 'No search results can be found' generated message. Through enthusiastic social media interaction and co-operation around the globe, the development of uprisings and protests across North Africa and beyond has been tracked and followed despite the crackdowns on communication.

Whilst news coverage of Egypt filled our laptop screens, protests in London and Manchester against tax evasion, Government spending cuts and public service reform attracted coverage of the BBC and SKY. Some placards drew parallels between their message and that of the Egyptian protesters, urging the NUS and UKUncut-led umbrella movement to 'walk like Egyptians'. Cyber-communication played a vital part in organising and maintaining the British marches; the website Sukey [http://sukey.org/] enables protesters to stay 'one step ahead of trouble', utilising programmes such as Twitter and Google Maps, and "wisdom of the crowds", to avoid marching into violence or kettles.

Whilst many of the most poor Egyptian protesters would gladly have a fraction of the life of their UKUncut equivalents, parallels between the ostensibly different circumstances can be drawn. Access to the Internet, affordable over-the-net communication and cheaper mobile phones has empowered the most disenfranchised and redressed the balance between the ruled and their rulers.

How did we get to this stage? And how complacent are we in the West to the 'right' of Internet access?

As somebody who remembers the need to wait 4 minutes for the completion of the dial-up tone before accessing Netscape whilst living at home, the strides taken from then and now are beyond comprehension. Schoolchildren in the UK today have grown up with home or school web access almost as a 'given'. The poorest children in Britain are in serious danger of being left behind as the incessant march towards technological advancement creates a two-tier system at the earliest, most important stage in a child's educational development. Governments of all colours, and organisations and companies which manufacture computers, are complicit in this digital divide: we are all complacent as we punch in search terms on Wikipedia or Google or YouTube.

Re-defining what the Internet is, can be, could be, will be the next struggle for those on both sides of the protesting marches throughout this year and future years. Guns and fighter jets are no use against cybercrimes or mass denial of service attacks; Governments cannot rule where there are no borders. Ultimately, though, the question should be "for whom", not "for what". Freedom of speech, freedom to protest, the right to exist above the poverty line: these are the "rights" whilst Internet access itself is the "privilege". From the very trivial - only having email address to a company or service - to the most vital - having blogs censored or deleted by the State - however politics and people exist this year, the world-wide-web is inextricably linked.

Preston Guild Hall

2011-01-25T17:32:00.003Z

Prestonian blogger River's Edge has had an outburst relating to the safe-guarding of Preston Guild Hall. Despite Preston City Council suffering one of the largest funding cuts - over £5m lost in two years - all three parties in Preston Town Hall, Labour, Liberal Democrats and the ruling Conservatives, have worked together in ensuring a budget which secures Preston's Guild Hall as a venue for music, plays and comedians.

I agree with River's Edge view that "[c]reating and enjoying theatre, music and dance are activities that can mean the difference between civilisation and dull quotidian existence." The news that future Guild Hall productions will have a greater emphasis on local productions proves that Town Hall members are dedicated to keeping local theatre groups and local technicians in guaranteed employment. There is still a guarantee of big names being signed - so the best in national figures and local productions will continue to appear side-by-side. Even the Pantomime is secured. We could have the Chuckle Brothers again! Or Paul Dannan....Oh, wait, no, no..Not after last time...

The figures are clear. The Guild Hall complex costs over £1 million to run and maintain, and the last two years has seen consecutive losses of £1 million each. The financial pressures on Preston Council and taxpayers cannot be put to one side. Preston has secured, through some very difficult choices, the continued opening of both leisure centres at Fulwood and West View, and maintained the future of the Guild Hall, whilst suffering the severe central Government cuts.

Preston's Guild Hall is more than just its Charter Theatre - the complex has room for improvements and expansions which would help our city in its aim to become "The Third City of the North West". Some expansion plans will need to be mothballed, others explored through co-operations with third parties and local enterprise. Its 'grotty' side, that which used to be Morrisons leading to the Bus Station, is as bad an advert for Preston as anything I could imagine; surely the Council or the Guild Hall management can explore ways to brighten up this section without breaking the bank?

The reality is all three parties in Preston agree that a closed Guild Hall would be infinitely worse than one cut back to help balance the books. As somebody with the threat of redundancy over my own head, I know the sinking sensation in the stomach which comes from job uncertainty, and I can think of nobody within Town Hall who wants to deliver the worst news to staff currently working within the Guild Hall. There are avenues to explore and I hope the pain today can soon be over. We still have a venue to attract tourists, and ultimately money to help rebuild the shaky economy.

It's refreshing that all three parties are getting somewhere with working within the financial realities for the city. Here's hoping continued cross-party attitudes can carry on whilst the need for such attitudes is required...

School haze

2011-01-24T05:24:00.002Z

One vivid memory from my primary school days involves the dire warnings of the future from a traditional old sort of a teacher about the forthcoming "National Curriculum". His fire-and-brimstone approach painted the newly created world of education would be all "format" and no "freedom". Standards would be prescribed, classrooms would become cages for our dreams.

That was in the 1990s, and now Education Secretary Michael Gove is undertaking the most significant review since its creation. Somewhat predictably, the review and its remit is tinged with political posturing on all sides of the education debate; is the naming of anti-Slavery campaigners and the axing of Winston Churchill ideological, should children learn from rote, should children be filled with facts without opinion, why should children be forced into formal education in the first place, and so on, so on, so on...

Having been introduced to the NC at its inception, thousands of adults today retain the distant memories of learning certain subjects over and over again every other month (Oh good, the Roman Invasion again, it must be Tuesday!). The new regime was backed up with 'attainment targets' and 'programmes of excellence'. Later on in the process, fake-leather 'Records of Achievement' would be handed out, all the better to keep our exam board certificates fresh within plastic pockets. (I have, long since, lost my 'Record of Achievement'....).

Inevitably, subsequent political changes at Westminster have tended to dictate education reform. Nothing works on the stump more effectively than promising to shake-up the schools. The current National Curriculum document speaks in languages alien to my recollection of High School during the 1990s;

The most significant change is the development of
diploma qualifications in 14 lines of learning at levels
1, 2 and 3. The first five lines – engineering; society,
health and development; construction and the built
environment; IT; and creative and media – will be
piloted in schools from September 2008. The diplomas
combine practical skill development with theoretical
understanding, covering sector and general learning in
applied contexts.

"Society" - and "citizenship", which now appears to have been scratched - are Labour reforms, and "practical skill development with theoretical understanding" is policy wonk speak which could only have been created by the kind of people my primary school teacher warned against. The tick-box education system did not happen on the day NC was introduced, though it certainly polluted everything else since.

Bad decisions were made in the race to be seen 'responsive' to education concerns - most infamously the decision to axe compulsory language education beyond Key Stage 3, effectively denying children the opportunities which come from being able to converse in either modern European languages or the new business world languages of Mandarin or Hindi. Search the current NC documents for "language" and no results are found.

Measuring standards across schools is the priority for Governments, fearful of judgements on the reading, writing and arithmetic skills of the children the State is tasked with educating. Sadly the urgency to be seen succeeding has filled most staff rooms with fog and bluster; it takes years for the education reforms of one Government to be seen "at the other end", and the increasing impatience for instant results sees children's educational experiences swapped and changed more times than management away-day agendas. It is hard not to feel sympathy for teachers whose lessons are built from continually changing materials; one year firm-but-fair could become freedom-and-expression. League tables, another on-high prescription for all which ills, force Local Education Authorities into a bizarre competition format within and beyond their borders, although the inability for low- and middle-income families to move children from one underperforming school to another - should they want to - means League Tables are often only useful for one partisan side of the education debate to criticise the other. Parents, children and teachers, whose work ultimately creates those Tables, are left shielding their heads from the sniping.

If Gove is serious about NC reforms, his rationale needs to be far more radical than his Department's briefing notes suggest. It is shocking to me - as someone who relished learning the little things to keep the brain ticking over - that Ministers have highlighted omissions such as "geography curriculum does not identify any continents, rivers or mountains or name any countries apart from the UK." If Gove is honest in his endeavour to reintroduce 'facts' into the classroom, this deserves support and praise. The curriculum was always 'alien' to Britain by its very nature; if it takes one Conservative to improve on the foundations from predecessor Conservatives, then that should be congratulated.

The wider education debate is far more involved than merely publishing new booklets explaining what can and cannot be taught to eager teenagers. The opportunities for learning and expression across younger years has been blanketed under boardroom tussles and Government grandstanding for decades, generations held within the grip of ideology and party politics. Gove is clearly an educational enthusiast, bias cut towards the schooling he received. In the wider education argument drafting prescriptive checklists and targets seem wholly inappropriate.

My teacher was concerned by how the National Curriculum would miss the specifics in its model for the wider 'ambitions' for education. I fear he has been proved correct. Gove should making 'free schools' with lowercase letters, and axe the National Curriculum entirely.

Oldham East and Uphill Struggle

2011-01-13T18:04:00.002Z

Tomorrow morning, in front of Oldham's Civic Hall, Labour leader Ed Milliband and his newest backbench MP Debbie Abrahams are holding their victory press conference in the open air surrounded by shipped-in supporters of all shapes, sizes and religions.

"A new dawn has broken, has it not?" asks the younger Milliband, holding onto Debbie's wrist with his left hand. (Her left hand is flat and by her side, as focus groups find female candidates doing the thumbs-up "too Palin". She is permitted two (max) little waves of the hand, like the fattest bridesmaid at the wedding reception.)

"This result is a sensation that rocks the heart of the ConDemNation!" barks little Ed, to the choreographed delight of the invited crowd. By the end of the evening, Oldham East (and Saddleworth, "like attaching Coronation Street to Last of the Summer Wine" as described by Michael White) would be thankful for never being asked to vote on anything, again, ever.

All being right and reasoned with the world, the good burghers of Oldham East and Saddleworth will put Labour back with a handsome-ish majority. LibDem Elwyn Watkins is a damn fine candidate, and I would prefer him winning after running Phil Woolas so close (one-hundred-and-three votes) in 2010. My smart money is on Abrahams; this is Labour's to lose, not the Liberal Democrats to lose.

Doubtlessly, the combined forces of the on-line Labour keyboard Corps. will hed asplode at 11pm when the Returning Officer takes to the stage. It would certainly wobble the Coalition, just nothing like as hard as Labour think it will. This is more "finger poking a cheesecake" than "hammer against a balloon".

Ed, for one, has yet to strike a name for himself. Though his stance has advanced from "opposition for the sake of it", he appears to have given up reminding his Shadow Cabinet colleagues of his Conference plea to 'grow up' and 'do Opposition differently'. Labour MPs appear confused, still, over the best way to deal with Coalition Britain; pointing out divisions between the two partners is counter-productive. Of course there's going to be differences, that's what "coalition" means. On the deficit reduction plan, Labour have yet to define exactly what they would do differently (if we sidestep the inevitable reminders of Liam Byrne's "there's no money left" note, there's Alistair Darling's "cuts worse than Thatcher" quote whilst still Chancellor to bring to mind....).

I'm not as rabid pro-Coalition/anti-Labour as some notable interweb commentators appear to be, clearly frothing at the mouth at every whisper of Westminster gossip about early elections, splits and divisions, as though 'new politics' means the same tedious parlour games that turned off voters years ago. Labour, it has to be said however, are not addressing the nation as a "Party prepared". In the fast-forward news agenda world of today, the Opposition are expected to be primed for action; more mature and reasoned opposition would stop chasing the spotlight and dictaphones (and, indeed, some members of the Government could do well to stop acting like newspaper commentators, too....)

Labour must be careful what they wish for. Unsettling the Coalition, even pressing for an early election, would be a disaster. Ed's profile is negligible. His position on the student protests was shaky, uneasy, and even now his reputation amongst the growing numbers of youthful protesters and anti-cuts groups seems weakened and wary. An early election would underline the under-cooked centre of his strategy, splitting his internal coalition - Brownites and Blairites at opposite ends of the Shadow Cabinet table ready to pounce.

Opinion polls are two a penny at the moment, bringing Labour some cheer with their constant and growing lead. Annoyingly for Ed, the polls show much less obvious support for not making so many cuts so quickly. His "squeezed middle" has yet to permeate beyond the hacks in the Lobby. They are also within the margin of error; and after the 2010 election you can forget 'uniform swing', it no longer exists.

A snap election would doubtlessly "do" for the LibDems...but for Labour? They're constant House of Commons "bantz" as they ridicule the Coalition without putting up answers themselves could backfire. An electorate who accept the need to keep tight hold of their pursestrings don't want to hear about spend, spend, spend. An outright Tory majority is statistically more likely than an outright Labour win. Coalition is currently putting the brakes on the worst Conservative excesses (see how angry the 1922 Committee is getting with their allegations of 'tickling the LibDem tummy'). Coalition is working, and Labour know deep down how realistic an outright Conservative victory really is.

Playing the long-game annoys MPs, especially now, when the news agenda demands quick-smart reactions and fast-forward changes. It would be far better for Labour to play the slow game, make the subtle and considered moves of the poker player. Ed may win in Oldham tonight, but lose the long-term battle. That's the gamble at the foot of the Pennines. Whatever happens, it only matters what moves Labour makes next...

All that glistens

2011-01-09T10:53:00.002Z

The BBC has been on the wrong side of soap opera publicity this month (only one week in), with mass-appeal programmes attracting the wrong kind of focus and commentary. The soap suds were well and truly whipped with perennial gloom half hour Eastenders, with its cot-death storyline curtailed following 6,000 complaints about the additional narrative element involving a 'baby swap' and mental instability.

Across on Radio 4, where listeners are often less likely to take to the complaints forms and Basildon Bonds unless it is absolutely necessary, the 'everyday tales of rural folk' took a leftfield (see what I did there, geddit, etc) turn with the death of Nigel Pargetter. Former Radio 4 controller Mark Damazer coined the phrase "Shock Armitage to the Core", inevitably reduced to the Twitter hahstag "sattc", to describe the storyline which was kept under wraps (unusually for a soap opera) until the moment it happened. When it did happen, all the usual soap opera tropes were there - I listened waiting for someone to say "Please, Nigel, don't go onto the slippy, icy roof at night in a storm, for you might fall off", and I wasn't that disappointed...

Both these examples show the attraction of, and problems with, soap operas as mass-market audience magnets. That Eastenders has felt the need to run with a cot-death storyline for prime-time television is a topic for another debate; that they chose to include a baby-swap element indicates part desperation (like it or not, the Beeb has to participate in the ratings war) and part acknowledgement of the hyper-reality of soap storylines (real life is never as interesting for those who don't live in a street or square with weekly murders, affairs and morality price-wars).

The Eastenders storyline is now being wound up faster and sooner than originally intended The 'power of the 'net' didn't quite force the producers hand, though interestingly it was the founder of Mumsnet who led the charge against the BBC with claims of inappropriate sensationalism. How many television programmes have now been subjected to social media users running campaigns and groups for or against specific elements of output? Should producers be concerned by this viewer power revolution? I am reminded of Mark Gatiss' remark about live-tweeting during television programmes; it's best not to watch what viewers are saying in real time to broadcast, it'd drive a writer mad.

So is this just 'Points of View gone feral'? Certainly it seems that way for Radio 4 and The Archers, where the death of Nigel has been called 'an anti-climax' after weeks of publicity and heavy hints in newspapers (though Twitter and Facebook did play a part in whipping up suggestions for what exactly would cause Ambridge to shake to its core, running from a gun rampage to a character turning on the radio, hearing the Archers themetune and causing a time-vortex across central Cambridgeshire).

Soaps are very rarely failures for channels with the time and investment to keep them high profile. When Channel 5 launched, they did so with a soap ("Family Affairs") and when that soap began to falter, killed off the main family for an effective relaunch. ITV capitalised on kitch being cool with relaunched (and dream sequenced) Crossroads. For the BBC, Eastenders and Archers are testament to quality and patience, loyalty and treating audiences with as much respect as possible. Why these recent surges in criticism matter is because the last point has not been upheld, like a contract not being respected.

For the Beeb, shaky confidence in soaps matters. These two incidents should recall, however briefly, the one instance of Auntie getting it completely wrong, the launch and plane-into-mountain collapse of Eldorado in 1993.

This 'sun, sea and scandal' soap (opening credits somewhat truncated here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cmUpuMcQlUU) bumped Wogan off the schedules and was promoted across the BBC as the best soap launch since Eastenders in 1985. To cut costs (it was filmed entirely on location), producers used untried actors and simplistic filming techniques. The results were disastrous. It would close its doors in 1994, a million or plenty thrown away, leaving the Corporation red-faced through shame rather than sun-tan.

Notable elements of the Eldorado disaster are legendary. The international cast had many who could not speak fluent English, so were given entire scenes (often 3 or 4 minutes long) of dialogue in their native tongue without subtitles. To help viewers in the UK understand what was going on, contrived scenes appeared later on with laden dialogue ("So, Swedish girl, you are having problems with your partner, maybe you should tell me all about it before your next Swedish-language scene with him?"

What is still known as the 'Eldorado effect' hampered production. If you want to know what a swimming pool sounds like through a boom mic, watch old episodes, as the lapping water would be louder than the actor's voice. Filming in bare villas, not studios, meant echoing footsteps and laughter sounded unusually flat, or lifeless.

Ultimately, the programme finished because viewers did not feel engrossed in the lives of the 'everyday folk' soaps need for success. Ex-pats living abroad, shacking up with 17-year old girls or having a bemused Spanish speaking waitress as a live-in lover at your exclusive villa, did not give the mid-90s soap audience (generally those suffering from the recession) much attraction to tune-in.

Pre-internet campaign groups, all pro-Eldorado viewers could do was demonstrate outside Television Centre demanding Alan Yentob's head on a stick. There was little sympathy.

For Eastenders today, the cot-death storyline will bruise the brand but not hoik the show off the screens anytime soon. The BBC has forgotten about the core audience now being joined by a multitude of on-line keyboard warriors ready for action whenever outrage is afoot. Eldorado was badly written, terribly acted and too well-meaning to be saved. But nothing is too big to fail, as we are learning to our costs. It's only television, granted. If it's not scaring too many horses (unless it's supposed to, like the Archers or Emmerdale), just switch off...

Fringe thinking about binge drinking

2011-01-03T11:40:00.003Z

A professor at Chicago University has advised the Government on how to deal with binge drinking.

I suspect this guy - Richard Thaler - knows nothing much about the British drinking culture....

But that is just one factor of this story. I thought this kind of 'State knows best' advice mindset had been deposed at the last election. "Behavioural economics", as the story calls it, is questioning what is not merely 'tradition' but polite, ordinary behaviour. Rounds at the pub is probably the best way to keep checks on outgoings - the additional cost of buying for a small group should persuade most sensible people out of drinking excessively. If you don't want to 'keep up' with the people you're drinking with, then don't.

Pubs are closing at a record rate, and whilst I don't want to encourage people to get ratted just to keep the local open, I can't see how previous or current Government policy is helping to stem the tide. There are numerous threads to the problem - the smoking ban, the Licensing Act and its tangled bureaucracy, increased duty on alcohol and little support for small/micro-breweries...I am against 'minimum pricing' on booze because the costs can be soaked up (if you will) by supermarkets whilst hitting publicans hard. There's no incentive for landlords to stay open outside city centres, and even within busy towns traditional pubs are shutting at an alarming rate.

This professor seems to be interesting in 'engineering' social behaviours. If I'm out with some mates around town, it's up to us to decide when the next ales are bought. I don't see suggesting some kind of tab system in a city centre pub is feasible for this situation, never mind the endless combinations of groups going out for a quiet 'un or an all-day bender. This idea seems targeted at young first-time drinkers, but as ever with Government advisers, is stretched out to fit everyone. "Prevention is better than cure" shouldn't be advice outside the Department for Health.

I understand why Governments need to deal with 'binge drinking', and the related problems of pubs closing and supermarket buying power. It seems, as ever, the best advice tax payers are ultimately charged for is 'micromanage'. Tab systems in British pubs as a 'solution' to a round-buying 'issue'? It must be a slow news day. It just has to be. The sour taste in my mouth after reading this just won't go away, I need a stiff drink...