Monday, September 29
Sorry, folks. Nothing doing today. I'm off to get my teeth fixed on the wretched NHS. So it's perfectly possilbe that this will be my last ever post. In which case, it's been nice knowing you.
|
|
Friday, September 26
Things have come to a pretty pass when Polly Toynbee makes more sense than a pair of ex-cabinet ministers:
"The party hired him as their gun-slinger to rid them of the Tories but once he got his feet under the sheriff's desk, he was never going to obey their rules. "I was elected as New Labour, I will govern as New Labour," he warned on the steps of Downing Street. While the electoral guns were all on his side, the deal has held. But now, with the Tories a distant memory out there in the cactus desert, the townsfolk want their party back. The sheriff looks like their problem not their saviour and the deal is cracking at the seams.
He is not one of them, never was and made little pretence of it. They knew very well when they hired him that this was the secret of his electoral magic. He is not a deep egalitarian. He wants more fairness, but it doesn't well up in him as his source-spring. It is not in his water the way it is for every loyal soul still clinging to their party card despite one-parent benefit cuts or Bush and Iraq".
Yeah. It made me wince too. But at least I can follow it. But check out Alan Milburn, who quit the cabinet, and has more time "to spend with my family in the community", as he puts it:
"We are for less inequality, not more. New Labour should not be neutral on where power, wealth and opportunity lies. That is why Labour's constitution - carried on every membership card - argues they should be "in the hands of the many, not the few".
That is our purpose. There is a sharp differentiation to be made, however, between ends and means. It is not our values that need to change. It is our sometimes conservative attachment to institutions that have failed to keep pace and which, as a consequence, hold too many people back. The traditional ends of the Labour party, based on values of fairness and our collectivist belief in opportunity for all, remain. The means must change to recognise the consumerist and more individualist world. We can have a NHS free at the point of use and we can have more than one provider. We can have an education system that is universal and in which pupils are taught as individuals.
In other words we need to be both more Labour and more New Labour. We need to renew both".
I think he's been spending too much time with his family. It's done his head in. Sock-wearing seducer Stephen Byers, on the other hand, thinks: "We must follow the example of Mrs Thatcher". Good God. What? Well, of course he doesn't. He'd like the Master to be as successful as the Magster, that's all.
Now I'm sure these three titans think they know what they mean when they write this stuff. Basically, what it all comes down to when you've burrowed through the rhetoric, is: do more of what I'd do if I were PM. And be more caring. And do more about the poor. And get everything working. And do what you said you'd always do. And stuff. Well they ain't.
The achilles' heel here, of course, remains that, even in their neo-socialist heaven, there are a limit on resources and not everyone can get a slice of them. So some will do without, or at least get less, and the question remains whom? And if these goons think 'fairness' can be termed into a new exciting ideology than they are even more naive than I take them for. Or maybe not, and maybe the New Labour aficianados will stand up and cheer when Tony sits down after making his speech next week. They usually do.
|
"The party hired him as their gun-slinger to rid them of the Tories but once he got his feet under the sheriff's desk, he was never going to obey their rules. "I was elected as New Labour, I will govern as New Labour," he warned on the steps of Downing Street. While the electoral guns were all on his side, the deal has held. But now, with the Tories a distant memory out there in the cactus desert, the townsfolk want their party back. The sheriff looks like their problem not their saviour and the deal is cracking at the seams.
He is not one of them, never was and made little pretence of it. They knew very well when they hired him that this was the secret of his electoral magic. He is not a deep egalitarian. He wants more fairness, but it doesn't well up in him as his source-spring. It is not in his water the way it is for every loyal soul still clinging to their party card despite one-parent benefit cuts or Bush and Iraq".
Yeah. It made me wince too. But at least I can follow it. But check out Alan Milburn, who quit the cabinet, and has more time "to spend with my family in the community", as he puts it:
"We are for less inequality, not more. New Labour should not be neutral on where power, wealth and opportunity lies. That is why Labour's constitution - carried on every membership card - argues they should be "in the hands of the many, not the few".
That is our purpose. There is a sharp differentiation to be made, however, between ends and means. It is not our values that need to change. It is our sometimes conservative attachment to institutions that have failed to keep pace and which, as a consequence, hold too many people back. The traditional ends of the Labour party, based on values of fairness and our collectivist belief in opportunity for all, remain. The means must change to recognise the consumerist and more individualist world. We can have a NHS free at the point of use and we can have more than one provider. We can have an education system that is universal and in which pupils are taught as individuals.
In other words we need to be both more Labour and more New Labour. We need to renew both".
I think he's been spending too much time with his family. It's done his head in. Sock-wearing seducer Stephen Byers, on the other hand, thinks: "We must follow the example of Mrs Thatcher". Good God. What? Well, of course he doesn't. He'd like the Master to be as successful as the Magster, that's all.
Now I'm sure these three titans think they know what they mean when they write this stuff. Basically, what it all comes down to when you've burrowed through the rhetoric, is: do more of what I'd do if I were PM. And be more caring. And do more about the poor. And get everything working. And do what you said you'd always do. And stuff. Well they ain't.
The achilles' heel here, of course, remains that, even in their neo-socialist heaven, there are a limit on resources and not everyone can get a slice of them. So some will do without, or at least get less, and the question remains whom? And if these goons think 'fairness' can be termed into a new exciting ideology than they are even more naive than I take them for. Or maybe not, and maybe the New Labour aficianados will stand up and cheer when Tony sits down after making his speech next week. They usually do.
|
Thursday, September 25
I really do hope that both these stories are true. Mandy and Stevie - back again, by popular demand. It would make life a lot more interesting. It does make you wonder, though: are the Labour back benches so depleted of talent that these guys keep have to be brought back to life? I wonder who'll win. It'll be like Freddie versus Jason all over again.
|
|
Wednesday, September 24
Wonders never cease. Polly praises the Tories!
"A remarkable document has emerged from the Conservative frontbench. Search it from cover to cover and few would guess its provenance. Its deceptively dull title hides a radical departure: Old Europe? Demographic change and pension reform, by David Willetts, the shadow secretary for work and pensions, transforms Conservative family policy".
This is worrying.
"Gone are the moralising obsession with single mothers (Willetts has declared, "The Tory war on lone parents is over!") and the yearning for a golden age of family values. Here, instead, is a hard-headed feminist manifesto. "Feminism is the new natalism," he writes. Contrite about his own past postures, he tells me: "I am trying to move my party on in social policy." If the Conservatives do adopt the paper's policy implications, they will leapfrog Labour in modernity".
And into the wilderness of long-discredited ideas.
"How is an ageing population to be paid for by too few workers? He offers practical and non-ideological solutions: first, expand the workforce by getting as many people of all ages into work as possible; second, increase immigration; and third, and most important, have more babies. Demography and pro-natalism can be dangerous - a strand of political thought with antecedents in eugenics, racism and oppression of women into Kinder, Kirche, Küche breeding farms. But no whiff of it is here".
No? Why not? Valuing individuals by the contribution they make to 'the greater good' has some very significant historical antecedents. Not ones I like, but there's nothing new about this.
"The EU needs many more people in work, starting with the young".
Well screw the EU, then.
"It needs to get students into work faster, shortening courses for German and Italian students who often stay at university until they are 30, neither working nor starting families. Many more mothers should work - and that means more flexible hours and part-time working patterns, rare in Germany and similar rigid societies".
Mothers should work, should they?
"Delaying retirement is essential, too: across Europe, only 39% of people aged 55-64 are still working".
Shocking news that, eh?
"In the end, it is the birth rate that matters.
Most women want more children than they have, according to official population research; even at the age of 38, 85% of childless women still want babies they will probably never have. Most women want at least one more child. If all those women could only achieve that ambition, it would solve the demographic problem".
And of course there is only a demographic problem, because there is a state problem. But thinking like that could be a little... anti-EU, I suppose.
"So this is not about forcing or bribing women, but simply removing the obstacles to motherhood and creating a society that supports working mothers".
Yes. But they always say that: Adolf, Stalin, Saddam. They all start like this with their winning smiles and benevolent aspirations. And it always goes wrong.
"Traditional Catholic societies such as Italy and Spain have fewest babies. "Countries that have had a feminist revolution have the highest birth rates," Willetts says. Sweden, with its universal childcare, comes top".
Sweden? Not again.
"The economy needs mothers to work and women to have more children. Here the Tories - the party that always abominated working motherhood - produces the most powerful economic argument for making it easy. Labour now needs to prove it can deliver babies, too".
And I dare say it will. I wonder who I'll vote for, next time around. Perhaps it's not as dangerous as this, and perhaps Polly's misrepresenting him, but I must say I've always had my suspicions of David "Two Brains" Willetts, ever since an episode of 'Any Questions', when he was getting all excited about the prospect of new legislation on religious discrimination. Funnily enough, I believe that Toynbee was a fellow panellist, and she was against it. But Willetts was in favour. What an irony.
|
"A remarkable document has emerged from the Conservative frontbench. Search it from cover to cover and few would guess its provenance. Its deceptively dull title hides a radical departure: Old Europe? Demographic change and pension reform, by David Willetts, the shadow secretary for work and pensions, transforms Conservative family policy".
This is worrying.
"Gone are the moralising obsession with single mothers (Willetts has declared, "The Tory war on lone parents is over!") and the yearning for a golden age of family values. Here, instead, is a hard-headed feminist manifesto. "Feminism is the new natalism," he writes. Contrite about his own past postures, he tells me: "I am trying to move my party on in social policy." If the Conservatives do adopt the paper's policy implications, they will leapfrog Labour in modernity".
And into the wilderness of long-discredited ideas.
"How is an ageing population to be paid for by too few workers? He offers practical and non-ideological solutions: first, expand the workforce by getting as many people of all ages into work as possible; second, increase immigration; and third, and most important, have more babies. Demography and pro-natalism can be dangerous - a strand of political thought with antecedents in eugenics, racism and oppression of women into Kinder, Kirche, Küche breeding farms. But no whiff of it is here".
No? Why not? Valuing individuals by the contribution they make to 'the greater good' has some very significant historical antecedents. Not ones I like, but there's nothing new about this.
"The EU needs many more people in work, starting with the young".
Well screw the EU, then.
"It needs to get students into work faster, shortening courses for German and Italian students who often stay at university until they are 30, neither working nor starting families. Many more mothers should work - and that means more flexible hours and part-time working patterns, rare in Germany and similar rigid societies".
Mothers should work, should they?
"Delaying retirement is essential, too: across Europe, only 39% of people aged 55-64 are still working".
Shocking news that, eh?
"In the end, it is the birth rate that matters.
Most women want more children than they have, according to official population research; even at the age of 38, 85% of childless women still want babies they will probably never have. Most women want at least one more child. If all those women could only achieve that ambition, it would solve the demographic problem".
And of course there is only a demographic problem, because there is a state problem. But thinking like that could be a little... anti-EU, I suppose.
"So this is not about forcing or bribing women, but simply removing the obstacles to motherhood and creating a society that supports working mothers".
Yes. But they always say that: Adolf, Stalin, Saddam. They all start like this with their winning smiles and benevolent aspirations. And it always goes wrong.
"Traditional Catholic societies such as Italy and Spain have fewest babies. "Countries that have had a feminist revolution have the highest birth rates," Willetts says. Sweden, with its universal childcare, comes top".
Sweden? Not again.
"The economy needs mothers to work and women to have more children. Here the Tories - the party that always abominated working motherhood - produces the most powerful economic argument for making it easy. Labour now needs to prove it can deliver babies, too".
And I dare say it will. I wonder who I'll vote for, next time around. Perhaps it's not as dangerous as this, and perhaps Polly's misrepresenting him, but I must say I've always had my suspicions of David "Two Brains" Willetts, ever since an episode of 'Any Questions', when he was getting all excited about the prospect of new legislation on religious discrimination. Funnily enough, I believe that Toynbee was a fellow panellist, and she was against it. But Willetts was in favour. What an irony.
|
Tuesday, September 23
David McKie also chips in, and admits that Hugo wasn't all modesty and uncertainty:
"People used to complain that his tone was Olympian: and so it sometimes was. He once wrote a notorious sentence dismissing Neil Kinnock in terms of a poor honours degree from a lesser university - a line he came to regret. It sounded vindictive, but that was not his intention. If a political leader seemed to him inadequate for the highest office, it was his duty to say so. He took no pleasure in it".
Yeah, sure. An alternative reading might be, perhaps, that Hugo was full of shit, snobbish, arrogant, and misanthropic. He hated Kinnock, and only last July was calling for Blair's head. It's one thing for Tories like me to have a go at them, but when someone supposedly on-side starts doing this, and with such frequency, questions ought be asked. It's the mirror image of Bruce Anderson on the Indy, forever calling for IDS's head. Loyalty? Duty? Or maybe it's just rampant, unchecked egotism, and the sad delusion that if only they hadn't made the terrible mistakes of becoming a journalist, they would have made a far better Prime Minister. Yes, I'm sure he was a delightful chap, and I'm sure he was loved by all and sundry. But it never came across in his writing.
|
"People used to complain that his tone was Olympian: and so it sometimes was. He once wrote a notorious sentence dismissing Neil Kinnock in terms of a poor honours degree from a lesser university - a line he came to regret. It sounded vindictive, but that was not his intention. If a political leader seemed to him inadequate for the highest office, it was his duty to say so. He took no pleasure in it".
Yeah, sure. An alternative reading might be, perhaps, that Hugo was full of shit, snobbish, arrogant, and misanthropic. He hated Kinnock, and only last July was calling for Blair's head. It's one thing for Tories like me to have a go at them, but when someone supposedly on-side starts doing this, and with such frequency, questions ought be asked. It's the mirror image of Bruce Anderson on the Indy, forever calling for IDS's head. Loyalty? Duty? Or maybe it's just rampant, unchecked egotism, and the sad delusion that if only they hadn't made the terrible mistakes of becoming a journalist, they would have made a far better Prime Minister. Yes, I'm sure he was a delightful chap, and I'm sure he was loved by all and sundry. But it never came across in his writing.
|
Disturbing news: Hugo liked cricket, according to the former editor of the Sunday Times:
"No doubt he was sustained by his Catholicism, but he had an instinct for the moral; as I saw it, no dogma of any kind interfered with his concept of duty".
In which case he can hardly have been a Catholic, I would have thought. Duty to God, mate, is slightly superior to duty to Alan Rusbridger.
"My suggestion that he might write a regular political column ran against his innate modesty and a curious uncertainty that he could do it week after week".
Well he got the latter right. But innate modesty? Never came across on the page.
"I have lost count of the number of politicians on both sides of the Atlantic who have looked to Hugo's Guardian column for analysis and insight, always reassured to find endorsement and ammunition for their own imminent convictions, never less than dismayed by one of his stinging rebukes".
Really? I want their names.
"Hugo would, in my judgment, have made a splendid editor of the Sunday Times, the Times or the Guardian, but perhaps he was happiest in being free to develop his intellectual range and imagination as a historian".
Well, thank God he never got to edit the Times. Otherwise some of us would really be up the creek.
|
"No doubt he was sustained by his Catholicism, but he had an instinct for the moral; as I saw it, no dogma of any kind interfered with his concept of duty".
In which case he can hardly have been a Catholic, I would have thought. Duty to God, mate, is slightly superior to duty to Alan Rusbridger.
"My suggestion that he might write a regular political column ran against his innate modesty and a curious uncertainty that he could do it week after week".
Well he got the latter right. But innate modesty? Never came across on the page.
"I have lost count of the number of politicians on both sides of the Atlantic who have looked to Hugo's Guardian column for analysis and insight, always reassured to find endorsement and ammunition for their own imminent convictions, never less than dismayed by one of his stinging rebukes".
Really? I want their names.
"Hugo would, in my judgment, have made a splendid editor of the Sunday Times, the Times or the Guardian, but perhaps he was happiest in being free to develop his intellectual range and imagination as a historian".
Well, thank God he never got to edit the Times. Otherwise some of us would really be up the creek.
|
Hugo Young is dead. According to Alan Rusbridger, his editor:
"Hugo was, simply, a towering figure in British journalism. His twice-weekly Guardian column was the sharpest, best informed and most humane political column in any newspaper in this country. To lose him at the peak of his powers is a shattering blow for us and for his family."
This strikes me as part of the problem. Hugo may have towered over the likes of Moonbat and Zoe Williams, but I think he peaked about twenty years ago. Leaving the Sunday Times for the Guardian was in fact the beginning of the end. Unfettered by having to write for a capitalist-friendly organ, all his bile and venom boiled over, whereupon his ignorance, fatuity, and peevishness was given full rein. There were occasional flashes of sharpness, but he was too ideological really, becoming a Euro-obsessive to the point that he started to dislike the public more than he disliked the politicians; always a mistake, in my view. Best informed? I thought he was, quite often, completely clueless. And as for most humane - compared to whom? Still, people talk rubbish quite a lot when people die. Rusbridger's trouble is that he talks rubbish even when they're alive.
|
"Hugo was, simply, a towering figure in British journalism. His twice-weekly Guardian column was the sharpest, best informed and most humane political column in any newspaper in this country. To lose him at the peak of his powers is a shattering blow for us and for his family."
This strikes me as part of the problem. Hugo may have towered over the likes of Moonbat and Zoe Williams, but I think he peaked about twenty years ago. Leaving the Sunday Times for the Guardian was in fact the beginning of the end. Unfettered by having to write for a capitalist-friendly organ, all his bile and venom boiled over, whereupon his ignorance, fatuity, and peevishness was given full rein. There were occasional flashes of sharpness, but he was too ideological really, becoming a Euro-obsessive to the point that he started to dislike the public more than he disliked the politicians; always a mistake, in my view. Best informed? I thought he was, quite often, completely clueless. And as for most humane - compared to whom? Still, people talk rubbish quite a lot when people die. Rusbridger's trouble is that he talks rubbish even when they're alive.
|
Monday, September 22
"Why do people of talent and ambition join the Conservative party in the first place?"
asks Peter Preston, the former, and much-missed, editor of the Guardian. Well he could have asked me, but instead he offers his own answers:
"Sometimes from ideological passion, to be sure, but mostly because it offers a guaranteed piece of the governance action. There's an implicit deal here: toil for us, raise money for us, and we'll deliver a slice of the good life".
He's being far too generous, of course. If he'd sent me that email I could have told him: We don't give a damn about the proles, and the idea that those scuzzers should have any slice of the pie is just moonshine. We want it all for ourselves, Presto. As Yvonne Roberts wrote only yesterday:
"Liberals hate to be seen to be judgmental. They are nervous about discussing values, ethics, rules and standards since that smacks of censorship and authoritarianism and children being seen but not heard".
She's right. Come on, you liberals, it's time to start discussing values, ethics, rules and standards. Start censoring, and being authoritarians. You know you want to.
|
asks Peter Preston, the former, and much-missed, editor of the Guardian. Well he could have asked me, but instead he offers his own answers:
"Sometimes from ideological passion, to be sure, but mostly because it offers a guaranteed piece of the governance action. There's an implicit deal here: toil for us, raise money for us, and we'll deliver a slice of the good life".
He's being far too generous, of course. If he'd sent me that email I could have told him: We don't give a damn about the proles, and the idea that those scuzzers should have any slice of the pie is just moonshine. We want it all for ourselves, Presto. As Yvonne Roberts wrote only yesterday:
"Liberals hate to be seen to be judgmental. They are nervous about discussing values, ethics, rules and standards since that smacks of censorship and authoritarianism and children being seen but not heard".
She's right. Come on, you liberals, it's time to start discussing values, ethics, rules and standards. Start censoring, and being authoritarians. You know you want to.
|
So the Indy is going to go tabloid. I seem to remember the Sunday Correspondent trying this one, back in the eighties, about a month before it folded. Fact is, nothing short of a major editorial shift will alter the Indy's failings. The Guardian's cornered the market in humourless, pompous leftishness, and its also got more wit, as well as superior arts coverage. Of course, a more radical gesture would be, instead of competing with the Guardian, would be to go downmarket and compete with other tabloids like the Sun. Page 3 stunnas like Deborah Orr, Joan Smith, and maybe even the Yazzmonster - that sort of thing. Most Indy readers like to affect a kind of disdain for that sort of thing, but I reckon they can be as horny as any capitalist, and the prospect of seeing those eminent ladies getting their tops off for the lads would at least get some attention anyway instead of fading into the distance, as is its current fate.
|
|
Robert Wyatt, whose long-playing record Rock Bottom is my all-time favourite, is interviewed in the Guardian. Yes, I know he's a communist, but still...
|
|
Friday, September 19
"It's hard to believe, what with disasters striking the world from Cancun to Stockholm, that the most important questions on the American public's mind are whether Ben Affleck and Jennifer Lopez have broken up, or whether they still want to tie the knot if only they could find a safe and secure location - something everyone seems to be looking for these days".
Especially when that American mind is encapsulated within the head of B. Ruby Rich.
"There are many fabulous details that the public, steeped in the hyper-marketed machinations of the dream machine, now claim as their own. I'm astonished that I never knew any of this stuff before".
I'm not. You obviously aren't American. Otherwise you would have known it. It's taught in all those schools that also preach that evolution is evil.
"And why do we care? Or, to put it more accurately, why do they care? They, the audiences around the globe, who want more and more of Bennifer, the Ben and Jennifer hook-up that sells magazines, newspapers, and cable shows with breaking news".
Don't be so modest, love. Don't hide behind about the we and the they. You do care. You're just ashamed of the fact.
"The obsession is not actually so mysterious: the American public believes in its celebrities precisely because it doesn't believe in anything else".
Wrong. It's not the American public. It's you!
"If movies are the new religion, then cinematic celebrities form the new firmament, dazzling us with their glamour and receiving our worship as simply their due".
Us? She still keeps trying, doesn't she?
"Is it a case of denial, holding fast to movie fantasies so as to avoid what passes for the real world entirely? Or just simple wish-fulfillment, trading in the stresses of modern life for a glossier parallel reality?"
It's denial, girl. And we know what you're denying.
|
Especially when that American mind is encapsulated within the head of B. Ruby Rich.
"There are many fabulous details that the public, steeped in the hyper-marketed machinations of the dream machine, now claim as their own. I'm astonished that I never knew any of this stuff before".
I'm not. You obviously aren't American. Otherwise you would have known it. It's taught in all those schools that also preach that evolution is evil.
"And why do we care? Or, to put it more accurately, why do they care? They, the audiences around the globe, who want more and more of Bennifer, the Ben and Jennifer hook-up that sells magazines, newspapers, and cable shows with breaking news".
Don't be so modest, love. Don't hide behind about the we and the they. You do care. You're just ashamed of the fact.
"The obsession is not actually so mysterious: the American public believes in its celebrities precisely because it doesn't believe in anything else".
Wrong. It's not the American public. It's you!
"If movies are the new religion, then cinematic celebrities form the new firmament, dazzling us with their glamour and receiving our worship as simply their due".
Us? She still keeps trying, doesn't she?
"Is it a case of denial, holding fast to movie fantasies so as to avoid what passes for the real world entirely? Or just simple wish-fulfillment, trading in the stresses of modern life for a glossier parallel reality?"
It's denial, girl. And we know what you're denying.
|
"The BBC is in graver danger than many of its friends may realise".
announces a worried Polly Toynbee. And with friends like these...
"Here are the BBC's serious new threats: in the next four years, Sky's income will double the BBC's, and it will be able to make programmes on a big scale for the first time".
Well we can't have that, now can we? A commercial operator taking on a state-sponsored one and winning!
"the BBC is not in a "market" and must not be levelled. It belongs to the nation, and others can find their commercial niches around it where they can. Let it dominate if it can, in the name of citizens, for their good".
There's something very lovely about those last three words, isn't there?
"Is the BBC blameless? Of course not, but considering the prevailing stink of most journalism, it has probably over-done the hairshirt mea culpas".
Indeed it has, says Polly. And there are other things wrong with it as well.
"Also the BBC, too, often joins the unthinking cacophony of abuse and bullying of politicians; in the din of mindless attack-journalism it has to stay analytical, serious and trustworthy. But these are all slippages easily repaired with firm editorial control".
Imagine - holding politicians to account. Still, that's easily repaired, isn't it?
"When next annoyed with the BBC, just turn to its website and gaze upon news in 43 languages, news that is more read than on any other website in the world. Or the CBeebies site for children. Look up anything at all and savour the tone of authority, balance and depth".
And that's where we get out authority, balance, and depth, by watching CBeebies. I dare say that in four years' time when the Sky News website starts to overtake the BBCs, she'll start all over again. We have been warned.
|
announces a worried Polly Toynbee. And with friends like these...
"Here are the BBC's serious new threats: in the next four years, Sky's income will double the BBC's, and it will be able to make programmes on a big scale for the first time".
Well we can't have that, now can we? A commercial operator taking on a state-sponsored one and winning!
"the BBC is not in a "market" and must not be levelled. It belongs to the nation, and others can find their commercial niches around it where they can. Let it dominate if it can, in the name of citizens, for their good".
There's something very lovely about those last three words, isn't there?
"Is the BBC blameless? Of course not, but considering the prevailing stink of most journalism, it has probably over-done the hairshirt mea culpas".
Indeed it has, says Polly. And there are other things wrong with it as well.
"Also the BBC, too, often joins the unthinking cacophony of abuse and bullying of politicians; in the din of mindless attack-journalism it has to stay analytical, serious and trustworthy. But these are all slippages easily repaired with firm editorial control".
Imagine - holding politicians to account. Still, that's easily repaired, isn't it?
"When next annoyed with the BBC, just turn to its website and gaze upon news in 43 languages, news that is more read than on any other website in the world. Or the CBeebies site for children. Look up anything at all and savour the tone of authority, balance and depth".
And that's where we get out authority, balance, and depth, by watching CBeebies. I dare say that in four years' time when the Sky News website starts to overtake the BBCs, she'll start all over again. We have been warned.
|
Thursday, September 18
And say hello to two more bloggers, Leash and Adam Smith. The former is, by the look of things, in some serious need of some prozac. Or at least company. The latter is an economic think tank apparently, named after some famous bloke.
|
|
Well done, the lads! Sussex win the Championship for the first time ever, in the history of humanity, cricket, and everything. I hope Murray Goodwin gets 502 and we declare at lunch on Saturday, at about 1200 for 8. And then bowl Leicester out for 80. So far the plucky little Zimbabwean's got 279.
UPDATE: Ain't gonna happen. We declared, leaving Goodwin on 335, the highest ever Sussex score. Shame really. There are still two days to go and I'd have thought the lads would have been happy running the Leicester boys into the ground, while seeing if he could yet beat Brian Lara's 501. Now we'll never know. Still, we did get two out in the last seven overs.
|
UPDATE: Ain't gonna happen. We declared, leaving Goodwin on 335, the highest ever Sussex score. Shame really. There are still two days to go and I'd have thought the lads would have been happy running the Leicester boys into the ground, while seeing if he could yet beat Brian Lara's 501. Now we'll never know. Still, we did get two out in the last seven overs.
|
Does the goon who writes the Guardian leader column really think his readers are all completely stupid? Probably, judging by today's entry. Can anyone take this nonsense seriously?
"Equality first" it is somewhat unpromisingly titled. Here are some of the highlights:
"Real evidence is growing that some of New Labour's trademark centralism is being replaced by a more open, more honest and more grown-up approach to politics".
What evidence?
"The cabinet is at last being allowed to debate policy".
Whereas before, of course, all they discussed was who liked sugar in their tea.
"The Downing Street media operation has been toned down and recast since the exit of Alastair Campbell".
Which happened less than a month ago.
"There is talk of a revitalised role of Labour's much criticised policy forum".
Talk. Fine. But will it ever come to anything?
"There is a determination to debate difficult issues in public at an early stage, rather than announcing policies as accomplished facts".
Determine all you like, pal, but will it ever come to anything?
"These are all green shoots and not established growths. But they are very much to be welcomed and encouraged".
Well blow me down. We're talking about a six year old government here, not some slope-shouldered teenager with a vaguely encouragingly school report. So now, six years in, what should these shysters, lawyers, and purveyors of vacuous mediocrity do next?
"The great priority of the government must therefore be to throw off this pessimism and to return equality to the centre of the stage. This is not a critique that can be dismissed as Old Labour or ultra-left. It comes from the heart of Blairism itself".
Equality, eh?
"One of the new Downing Street appointees, Matthew Taylor, was working on it before he went to work for the prime minister. A number of cabinet ministers privately share these views too".
Do they? So there's a sinister cabal of egalitarians who have infiltrated the higher echelons of the Labour Government, all wanting to give equality a go, but too scared to tell anyone, except some cub reporter on the Guardian, perhaps. We're supposed to be impressed by this, are we?
"As he composes his speech next week, Mr Blair needs to engage with these principles as well as these people".
No he doesn't. They're buffoons. He should ignore them.
"Renewal does not require the government to renounce its past. But it does require a move beyond it. John Reid seemed to be heading in the right direction in a speech on equality in health care yesterday. But Mr Reid was dealing with just one aspect. Mr Blair has to put all these indisputably difficult issues about equality at the heart of his whole project. Nothing, though, would be more principled or more popular".
Amazing. For a principle, there really is little depth here. Little explanation of what equality is exactly. Perhaps that's the point. Define it, and you'll find you're already limiting your audience, and creating opponents. Are we talking equality under the law, equality of outcome, equality of opportunity, of hair colour, or life expectancy?
Honestly, this sort of stuff could have been written by any New Labour spokesmoron, at any time over the last six years. Byers, Hoon, Mandelson, Blair himself. There's nothing new here. Like I said: how can you take this seriously?
|
"Equality first" it is somewhat unpromisingly titled. Here are some of the highlights:
"Real evidence is growing that some of New Labour's trademark centralism is being replaced by a more open, more honest and more grown-up approach to politics".
What evidence?
"The cabinet is at last being allowed to debate policy".
Whereas before, of course, all they discussed was who liked sugar in their tea.
"The Downing Street media operation has been toned down and recast since the exit of Alastair Campbell".
Which happened less than a month ago.
"There is talk of a revitalised role of Labour's much criticised policy forum".
Talk. Fine. But will it ever come to anything?
"There is a determination to debate difficult issues in public at an early stage, rather than announcing policies as accomplished facts".
Determine all you like, pal, but will it ever come to anything?
"These are all green shoots and not established growths. But they are very much to be welcomed and encouraged".
Well blow me down. We're talking about a six year old government here, not some slope-shouldered teenager with a vaguely encouragingly school report. So now, six years in, what should these shysters, lawyers, and purveyors of vacuous mediocrity do next?
"The great priority of the government must therefore be to throw off this pessimism and to return equality to the centre of the stage. This is not a critique that can be dismissed as Old Labour or ultra-left. It comes from the heart of Blairism itself".
Equality, eh?
"One of the new Downing Street appointees, Matthew Taylor, was working on it before he went to work for the prime minister. A number of cabinet ministers privately share these views too".
Do they? So there's a sinister cabal of egalitarians who have infiltrated the higher echelons of the Labour Government, all wanting to give equality a go, but too scared to tell anyone, except some cub reporter on the Guardian, perhaps. We're supposed to be impressed by this, are we?
"As he composes his speech next week, Mr Blair needs to engage with these principles as well as these people".
No he doesn't. They're buffoons. He should ignore them.
"Renewal does not require the government to renounce its past. But it does require a move beyond it. John Reid seemed to be heading in the right direction in a speech on equality in health care yesterday. But Mr Reid was dealing with just one aspect. Mr Blair has to put all these indisputably difficult issues about equality at the heart of his whole project. Nothing, though, would be more principled or more popular".
Amazing. For a principle, there really is little depth here. Little explanation of what equality is exactly. Perhaps that's the point. Define it, and you'll find you're already limiting your audience, and creating opponents. Are we talking equality under the law, equality of outcome, equality of opportunity, of hair colour, or life expectancy?
Honestly, this sort of stuff could have been written by any New Labour spokesmoron, at any time over the last six years. Byers, Hoon, Mandelson, Blair himself. There's nothing new here. Like I said: how can you take this seriously?
|
So, how was it for you? I thought Aaro carried it off pretty well. Okay, he isn't Jacob Bronowski, and the sight of him sharing a hot tub with that ample-breasted lady did make me turn over to Newsnight. But then they were interviewing that Edwina Currie so there was little option but to return to Aaro. I quite liked the shots of him in his shed, thinking. And he writes with only two fingers, which is at least one more than most Guardian journalists anyway. Moreover, he does get about. As soon as the programme was over there he was on BBC4, wittering on about the Trade Unions. And he'd already been on earlier, on BBC News, gabbing about Gilligan. A veritable renaissance man, that Aaronovitch.
|
|
Wednesday, September 17
And finally, the tv programme we've all deserved. Guardian columnist David 'My First Wank' Aaronovitch discloses the truth about a subject upon which he is the world's leading authority. It's a new series in which the great thinker
"explores contrasting perceptions of sexual attractiveness, beginning by investigating changing social stereotypes of what constitutes the ideal female body. Among the other subjects tackled are attitudes to body hair, penis size and the importance played by smell in determining whether people are considered desirable".
I can't wait. The sight of Aaro being trussed up like a turkey, while some hairy-breasted dominatrix sticks a red hot poker up his jaxi, all in the name of research you'll understand, would be worth the price of the license fee alone. Except it isn't, this is Channel 5.
Update: How the hell do you spell 'jaxi', anyway? Jacksy? Jacksi? Jacques-ci?
|
"explores contrasting perceptions of sexual attractiveness, beginning by investigating changing social stereotypes of what constitutes the ideal female body. Among the other subjects tackled are attitudes to body hair, penis size and the importance played by smell in determining whether people are considered desirable".
I can't wait. The sight of Aaro being trussed up like a turkey, while some hairy-breasted dominatrix sticks a red hot poker up his jaxi, all in the name of research you'll understand, would be worth the price of the license fee alone. Except it isn't, this is Channel 5.
Update: How the hell do you spell 'jaxi', anyway? Jacksy? Jacksi? Jacques-ci?
|
Second - two cretinous articles on the Swedish rejection of the Euro. Both contradict each other, but in the rarified world of conflict-resolution that passes for modish liberal thinking, I don't suppose too many Guardianistas worry about such trifles. Paul Foot, in any case, is delighted:
"Consternation in high places is always a cause for rejoicing. The gloom that struck down important people throughout Europe after the result of the Swedish referendum on the euro was utterly delightful. Every big political party, every major national newspaper, every representative of Swedish big business and the stock exchange, they all called for a yes vote. In a huge turnout, the neglected element - the Swedish voters - by a substantial majority voted no".
So why's he pleased?
"Capitalism is a fundamentally undemocratic system. The big companies, banks and financial institutions operate on the principle of oligarchy. The great, the good and the rich rule their fiefdoms without having to put up with any impertinent interference from the people who do most of the work or buy the goods. So the right to vote - representative government - is a constant threat to them".
Contrast this with the Pollster:
"The chill Scandinavian wind sent shudders right across Europe. Can any government now be sure of winning a referendum on anything? At least six countries are bound to hold votes to confirm the new EU constitution: every nation needs to ratify, or the whole project falls. That would leave an ungovernable community of 25 countries, each with a veto, a recipe for stalemate. Late in the day, EU leaders are examining what has gone wrong".
Capitalism threatens democracy, says Foot. Democracy threatens governability, says Toynbee.
"Why are citizens everywhere dangerously inclined to stick two fingers up at Brussels if given the chance?"she muses.
Why indeed?
|
"Consternation in high places is always a cause for rejoicing. The gloom that struck down important people throughout Europe after the result of the Swedish referendum on the euro was utterly delightful. Every big political party, every major national newspaper, every representative of Swedish big business and the stock exchange, they all called for a yes vote. In a huge turnout, the neglected element - the Swedish voters - by a substantial majority voted no".
So why's he pleased?
"Capitalism is a fundamentally undemocratic system. The big companies, banks and financial institutions operate on the principle of oligarchy. The great, the good and the rich rule their fiefdoms without having to put up with any impertinent interference from the people who do most of the work or buy the goods. So the right to vote - representative government - is a constant threat to them".
Contrast this with the Pollster:
"The chill Scandinavian wind sent shudders right across Europe. Can any government now be sure of winning a referendum on anything? At least six countries are bound to hold votes to confirm the new EU constitution: every nation needs to ratify, or the whole project falls. That would leave an ungovernable community of 25 countries, each with a veto, a recipe for stalemate. Late in the day, EU leaders are examining what has gone wrong".
Capitalism threatens democracy, says Foot. Democracy threatens governability, says Toynbee.
"Why are citizens everywhere dangerously inclined to stick two fingers up at Brussels if given the chance?"she muses.
Why indeed?
|
Not a good day for the Guardian. First up, Jonathan Freedland, with this gruesome warning:
"Saddam Hussein is still at large: his war goes on".
I'm finding it very difficult to sleep at night at the moment, what with all this hot weather we've been having. The terrible prospect of Saddam returning, meaner, leaner, and fitter doesn't help. I could have nightmares.
|
"Saddam Hussein is still at large: his war goes on".
I'm finding it very difficult to sleep at night at the moment, what with all this hot weather we've been having. The terrible prospect of Saddam returning, meaner, leaner, and fitter doesn't help. I could have nightmares.
|
Tuesday, September 16
In other news - go say hi to Alice Bachini, who has left her previous underscored, and therefore unreadable ( to me, anyway ) home. And hello again to Stephen Pollard, who is currently being traduced by the Guardian. He's had a site-redesign. It all looks a bit too much like a frog just vomited over my computer, but as a content-over-style man, I'm sure we'll all get used to it.
|
|
I supposed it was too much to expect. The Swedes voted Nej to the single currency, and the Guardian is bending over backwards to be nice about them. First, there's Caroline Lucas, who is an MEP for the Greens:
"The rejection of the euro by Swedish voters should give both sides of the debate in Britain pause for thought. The Swedish no camp won not on the basis of nationalist or conservative arguments, but a compelling case on the economics and politics of the decision - while the yes campaign lost in spite of the support of big business, the mainstream political parties and all major media outlets. Give voters the respect of a mature political debate, it seems, and they will turn out and make their minds up for themselves".
How very unnationalistic and unconservative. How very mature.
"If the EU is to stay relevant to everyday lives, and engage citizens - as it must to retain legitimacy - it needs to promote and protect democracy, sustainability, equity and jobs. Monetary union poses a lethal threat to all these objectives.
That's why the Swedes voted no on Sunday, after a referendum campaign based not on euroscepticism and xenophobia but sustainability and accountability - and that's why progressive internationalists, greens and a growing number of trade unions and left-thinkers are opposed to the euro here in the UK".
Well that's an interesting redefinition of euroscepticism, anyway. Then there's the leader column, which displays a remarkable sang froid:
"If traditional political stereotypes mean anything, Sweden ought to have been enthusiastic about the euro. Swedes, after all, have few of the cultural hang-ups about Europe that characterise Britain. Sweden is large, important and confident, an agenda-setting country. It is an outgoing trading nation, with a military tradition that exists alongside an advanced, even unmatched, sense of internationalism. As a generally left-of-centre country, and the embodiment of the welfare state that distinguishes the "European" as distinct from the "American" capitalist model, Sweden might have been expected to embrace the single currency with some optimism".
Large? With a population of nine million in contrast to our 58? And as for its military tradition, I assume we're going back in time a bit, maybe to the Vikings. In which case, what about Nelson? And as for agenda-setting... what and where? Bjorn Borg? Roxette? Or are we talking Toynbees here, and the fabled nil unemployment figures? Still, let's take a look at the bigger picture:
"Sweden's rejection of the euro poses a wider challenge. It comes as California stands on the threshold of unseating its leftwing governor by plebiscite, and as Italians collect signatures to challenge the immunities of their rightwing prime minister. All three events raise a question about the practice of modern politics and of representative democracy. It is easy and sometimes right to blame politicians for a nation's ills, but it can also be unjust and destructive. Direct democracy may seem like the answer to such dissatisfactions, but what is it worth if it eventually makes modern societies ungovernable?"
Too right. Let's get rid of all that horrid democracy. It's all a bit too complicated for those large, important, confident, and agenda-setting Swedes.
And finally... well it had to be Hugo. Not even this crusty commentator could take it upon himself to take on the Abba-lovers. Instead it's another country he's decided to pour his scorn over:
"we have ceased to be a sovereign nation. There's been a tremendous amount of talk about sovereignty in recent years. It became, and remains, the keynote issue at the heart of our European debate. Something to do with sovereignty was clearly operative in the Swedes' decisive rejection of the euro: more, many observers suspect, than the minutiae of economic policy - important, in the Swedish case, though those were. What it means to be an independent nation is a question that touches the wellsprings of a people's being. Yet it is one that our leader, as regards this war, has simply disguised from his people, egged on by sufficient numbers of North American papers and journalists who seem to be wholly delighted at the prospect of surrendering it".
Yup, it's the UK. What a Little Englander he is.
|
"The rejection of the euro by Swedish voters should give both sides of the debate in Britain pause for thought. The Swedish no camp won not on the basis of nationalist or conservative arguments, but a compelling case on the economics and politics of the decision - while the yes campaign lost in spite of the support of big business, the mainstream political parties and all major media outlets. Give voters the respect of a mature political debate, it seems, and they will turn out and make their minds up for themselves".
How very unnationalistic and unconservative. How very mature.
"If the EU is to stay relevant to everyday lives, and engage citizens - as it must to retain legitimacy - it needs to promote and protect democracy, sustainability, equity and jobs. Monetary union poses a lethal threat to all these objectives.
That's why the Swedes voted no on Sunday, after a referendum campaign based not on euroscepticism and xenophobia but sustainability and accountability - and that's why progressive internationalists, greens and a growing number of trade unions and left-thinkers are opposed to the euro here in the UK".
Well that's an interesting redefinition of euroscepticism, anyway. Then there's the leader column, which displays a remarkable sang froid:
"If traditional political stereotypes mean anything, Sweden ought to have been enthusiastic about the euro. Swedes, after all, have few of the cultural hang-ups about Europe that characterise Britain. Sweden is large, important and confident, an agenda-setting country. It is an outgoing trading nation, with a military tradition that exists alongside an advanced, even unmatched, sense of internationalism. As a generally left-of-centre country, and the embodiment of the welfare state that distinguishes the "European" as distinct from the "American" capitalist model, Sweden might have been expected to embrace the single currency with some optimism".
Large? With a population of nine million in contrast to our 58? And as for its military tradition, I assume we're going back in time a bit, maybe to the Vikings. In which case, what about Nelson? And as for agenda-setting... what and where? Bjorn Borg? Roxette? Or are we talking Toynbees here, and the fabled nil unemployment figures? Still, let's take a look at the bigger picture:
"Sweden's rejection of the euro poses a wider challenge. It comes as California stands on the threshold of unseating its leftwing governor by plebiscite, and as Italians collect signatures to challenge the immunities of their rightwing prime minister. All three events raise a question about the practice of modern politics and of representative democracy. It is easy and sometimes right to blame politicians for a nation's ills, but it can also be unjust and destructive. Direct democracy may seem like the answer to such dissatisfactions, but what is it worth if it eventually makes modern societies ungovernable?"
Too right. Let's get rid of all that horrid democracy. It's all a bit too complicated for those large, important, confident, and agenda-setting Swedes.
And finally... well it had to be Hugo. Not even this crusty commentator could take it upon himself to take on the Abba-lovers. Instead it's another country he's decided to pour his scorn over:
"we have ceased to be a sovereign nation. There's been a tremendous amount of talk about sovereignty in recent years. It became, and remains, the keynote issue at the heart of our European debate. Something to do with sovereignty was clearly operative in the Swedes' decisive rejection of the euro: more, many observers suspect, than the minutiae of economic policy - important, in the Swedish case, though those were. What it means to be an independent nation is a question that touches the wellsprings of a people's being. Yet it is one that our leader, as regards this war, has simply disguised from his people, egged on by sufficient numbers of North American papers and journalists who seem to be wholly delighted at the prospect of surrendering it".
Yup, it's the UK. What a Little Englander he is.
|
Monday, September 15
The Telegraph takes a shot at the BBC, and the Guardian is worried:
"This constant undermining of the BBC is a dangerous game. No institution can withstand such remorselessly hostile coverage indefinitely. One day the enemies of the licence fee may even get their way".
I suppose there are some cynics who think institutions can only be undermined by getting things wrong. The Guardian, thankfully, is not in their number.
|
"This constant undermining of the BBC is a dangerous game. No institution can withstand such remorselessly hostile coverage indefinitely. One day the enemies of the licence fee may even get their way".
I suppose there are some cynics who think institutions can only be undermined by getting things wrong. The Guardian, thankfully, is not in their number.
|
"New Labour has proved itself to be a necessary but increasingly insufficient response to the challenges facing Britain".
Or so say Tom Bentley and Sue Goss.
"The roots of drift lie in the deep pessimism that underpinned the original New Labour project".
Okay, then. Let's be optimistic. What's to do?
"First, equality must return to centre stage. Inequality is still rising, and undermines every attempt at wider social reform. A just society must be the centrepiece of the government's appeal. And if we are to realise the richness of human potential, government policy must connect pluralism and egalitarianism".
Yeah, pluralism. Second?
"second, we must reclaim the public sphere, championing public institutions and the values they embody. Public services cannot be reduced to competitive markets; and they must be decentralised if their innovation and dynamism is to be released. Local government must be re-empowered, making it once again the focus of democracy and public accountability".
I'm yawning, mate.
"Third, we have to revitalise the democratic process. We seek to build a 21st-century progressive society, yet our political institutions limp on with the apparatus of the late Victorian period. Parties, parliament, Whitehall, voting systems - all need radical makeover if the public are to be re-engaged. But so too does the culture of citizenship. We need to demand the public's responsibility for and involvement in the institutions we live and work in".
Equality, empowerment, and revitalisation. How original.
"Fourth, the central failure of nerve for New Labour has been a refusal to accept that modern consumer capitalism diminishes the prospects for equality, pluralism and democracy, and crowds out the public sphere. The market gives us a vast array of choices of things we can buy. But it does not give us - and may limit - the choice of those things we must buy together".
Too much capitalism. Not enough togetherness.
"Finally, Labour needs a vision of the good society to motivate and mobilise its members and supporters...".
You really don't want to believe the rest of that paragraph. In my humble opinion, New Labour won't die of disaffection, corruption, lies, and economic failure. It will simply die of boredom. Bentley and Goss, by churning out such vapid nonsense, will only quicken things along. More power to their elbow.
|
Or so say Tom Bentley and Sue Goss.
"The roots of drift lie in the deep pessimism that underpinned the original New Labour project".
Okay, then. Let's be optimistic. What's to do?
"First, equality must return to centre stage. Inequality is still rising, and undermines every attempt at wider social reform. A just society must be the centrepiece of the government's appeal. And if we are to realise the richness of human potential, government policy must connect pluralism and egalitarianism".
Yeah, pluralism. Second?
"second, we must reclaim the public sphere, championing public institutions and the values they embody. Public services cannot be reduced to competitive markets; and they must be decentralised if their innovation and dynamism is to be released. Local government must be re-empowered, making it once again the focus of democracy and public accountability".
I'm yawning, mate.
"Third, we have to revitalise the democratic process. We seek to build a 21st-century progressive society, yet our political institutions limp on with the apparatus of the late Victorian period. Parties, parliament, Whitehall, voting systems - all need radical makeover if the public are to be re-engaged. But so too does the culture of citizenship. We need to demand the public's responsibility for and involvement in the institutions we live and work in".
Equality, empowerment, and revitalisation. How original.
"Fourth, the central failure of nerve for New Labour has been a refusal to accept that modern consumer capitalism diminishes the prospects for equality, pluralism and democracy, and crowds out the public sphere. The market gives us a vast array of choices of things we can buy. But it does not give us - and may limit - the choice of those things we must buy together".
Too much capitalism. Not enough togetherness.
"Finally, Labour needs a vision of the good society to motivate and mobilise its members and supporters...".
You really don't want to believe the rest of that paragraph. In my humble opinion, New Labour won't die of disaffection, corruption, lies, and economic failure. It will simply die of boredom. Bentley and Goss, by churning out such vapid nonsense, will only quicken things along. More power to their elbow.
|
"Everyone loves Dizzee Rascal",
says Martin Clark, in the Guardian, which is news to those of us who had never actually heard of Mr. Rascal. So who is he? Well, Mr. Clark is the "Mixmag UK garage correspondent and Deuce news editor". Which means, I imagine, that Mr. Rascal comes from the streets, and has something to do with trip-hop junglist urban rhythms. And the like. Further perusal of the article confirms the suspicion. Moreover, he doesn't just come from any old streets, No, he comes from ones not so very far from where I write: Bow, East London. He's also one with a dangerous message:
"Listen to the lyrics and ask yourself this: how can a country with a welfare state produce an artist this angry? Someone pushed this far?"
Good golly. People brought up on welfare are angry? Whatever next?
"I'm a problem for Anthony Blair," rhymes Dizzee on the album. He certainly should be.
The album depicts Dizzee's life in Bow, east London. Uncompromising, raging, it is not easy listening - but every MP in Westminster should be forced to hear it".
I wonder if this is fair. I mean, I bow down to nobody in my dislike and annoyance of every MP. But haven't they suffered enough? Wouldn't the Brandenburg concertoes be a bit more, well, life-affirming?
"The street language of Dizzee and his peers evolves daily: "coch" means to move undetected; you don't say "the street" but "road"; a "sket" is a sexually derogatory term for a girl; "shotters" and "blotters" are drug dealers; a "screwface" is the scowl etched on inner-city faces. And we'll leave it to the Radio 1 playlist team to explain what a "bowcat" is. Even a traditional word like "real" gets reinvented. When things are getting "real", life is harsh or violent.
Perhaps, therefore, it's understandable that politicians and the powerful can't translate this generation's message. (The Today programme stumbled at the first hurdle, calling him "Rapper Rascal".) But they have a responsibility to learn the language, and fast".
Do they? Why? If they want to be understood, why do we have to have Mr. Clark providing the translations?
"There is precious little dialog between the establishment and the street. Locked into US hip-hop, Jamaican ragga and UK garage culture, Dizzee and his peers couldn't be more isolated from Westminster. But Boy In Da Corner is a loud message from Bow to Blair".
If we could only understand it.
"But if Tony Blair doesn't listen to this message, and act on what he hears, perhaps even this glimmer of hope will be extinguished".
Poor old Tony. Osama to the left of him, Saddam to the right, and Dizzee Rascal coming straight at him down the middle. Maybe it's time to retire.
|
says Martin Clark, in the Guardian, which is news to those of us who had never actually heard of Mr. Rascal. So who is he? Well, Mr. Clark is the "Mixmag UK garage correspondent and Deuce news editor". Which means, I imagine, that Mr. Rascal comes from the streets, and has something to do with trip-hop junglist urban rhythms. And the like. Further perusal of the article confirms the suspicion. Moreover, he doesn't just come from any old streets, No, he comes from ones not so very far from where I write: Bow, East London. He's also one with a dangerous message:
"Listen to the lyrics and ask yourself this: how can a country with a welfare state produce an artist this angry? Someone pushed this far?"
Good golly. People brought up on welfare are angry? Whatever next?
"I'm a problem for Anthony Blair," rhymes Dizzee on the album. He certainly should be.
The album depicts Dizzee's life in Bow, east London. Uncompromising, raging, it is not easy listening - but every MP in Westminster should be forced to hear it".
I wonder if this is fair. I mean, I bow down to nobody in my dislike and annoyance of every MP. But haven't they suffered enough? Wouldn't the Brandenburg concertoes be a bit more, well, life-affirming?
"The street language of Dizzee and his peers evolves daily: "coch" means to move undetected; you don't say "the street" but "road"; a "sket" is a sexually derogatory term for a girl; "shotters" and "blotters" are drug dealers; a "screwface" is the scowl etched on inner-city faces. And we'll leave it to the Radio 1 playlist team to explain what a "bowcat" is. Even a traditional word like "real" gets reinvented. When things are getting "real", life is harsh or violent.
Perhaps, therefore, it's understandable that politicians and the powerful can't translate this generation's message. (The Today programme stumbled at the first hurdle, calling him "Rapper Rascal".) But they have a responsibility to learn the language, and fast".
Do they? Why? If they want to be understood, why do we have to have Mr. Clark providing the translations?
"There is precious little dialog between the establishment and the street. Locked into US hip-hop, Jamaican ragga and UK garage culture, Dizzee and his peers couldn't be more isolated from Westminster. But Boy In Da Corner is a loud message from Bow to Blair".
If we could only understand it.
"But if Tony Blair doesn't listen to this message, and act on what he hears, perhaps even this glimmer of hope will be extinguished".
Poor old Tony. Osama to the left of him, Saddam to the right, and Dizzee Rascal coming straight at him down the middle. Maybe it's time to retire.
|
Friday, September 12
Polly disses the Tories. Look, Poll, we can all quote people out of context to make them look ridiculous. But when you're living out on the streets, pushing a trolley with all your worldly belongings, and railing against the evils of Duncan Smithism and the Daily Mail, and with a can of Fosters only for company, then you'll be sorry. Capitulate to capitalism, baby! You know it makes sense.
|
|
"Any sensible person can see that cricket would be more enjoyable to watch, and perhaps play, if the number of stumps were increased to four, if the pitch were lengthened and no batsman would be out leg before wicket if he played a stroke".
Thus spake Simon Jenkins, in self-satirical mode. His computer ought to have a button that kills everything he has written in the previous hour, every time he uses the word 'sensible'. It would make life easier for everyone.
|
Thus spake Simon Jenkins, in self-satirical mode. His computer ought to have a button that kills everything he has written in the previous hour, every time he uses the word 'sensible'. It would make life easier for everyone.
|
Thursday, September 11
"It happened; it was truly awful. But life must go on".
Or so says the Guardian, reminiscing about events two years ago. Indeed it must. But not like this, surely? Likewise the Indy:
"The "war on terror" has produced only more war and more terror".
I wonder what they'd have said two years into WW2. These liberals, they always want it now, don't they? For lighter relief, check out this guy. The credibility of this wretched newspaper really does decline with each passing minute. David Carr got there first, and I don't think I can do better. He does get up early in the morning, doesn't he? I guess it's all that training he has to do.
|
Or so says the Guardian, reminiscing about events two years ago. Indeed it must. But not like this, surely? Likewise the Indy:
"The "war on terror" has produced only more war and more terror".
I wonder what they'd have said two years into WW2. These liberals, they always want it now, don't they? For lighter relief, check out this guy. The credibility of this wretched newspaper really does decline with each passing minute. David Carr got there first, and I don't think I can do better. He does get up early in the morning, doesn't he? I guess it's all that training he has to do.
|
Wednesday, September 10
Make your mind up, woman! One day he's washed out, the next he's on top of the world. Today, says our Polly, he's the master:
"He puts on a good show. No one might guess the shadows of Iraq could yet be his nemesis. Resolutely returning to domestics, the prime minister, launching the children's green paper at a London comprehensive, listened with shining eyes as the dynamo head teacher listed all her school's recent improvements. Not just GCSEs up 10%, but breakfast and after-school clubs with tea, plus TV, computers, homework help, drama, music and sport. Parents have a one-stop shop for benefits, plus classes in literacy and IT. This model "extended school" is exactly what the children's green paper is all about - with social services, health and counselling offering holistic, wrap-around care in one place".
Aren't the kiddies lucky? To have a PM that cares so much. And is so holistic about it too.
"So the Prime Minister came away beaming, as well he might".
He always beams, Poll. It's something to do with those shining eyes of his.
"One thing he certainly does know: he and his government are not getting political value for the money spent. Not, as the Tories claim, because taxpayers' money is "wasted", but because most taxpayers have no idea where it is going or what good it is doing, however often he tells them".
You at the back - listen! And be grateful.
"A quarter of a million more people now work in the public services, jobs multiplying to fill the new programmes. Do people realise how the public sector has flourished under Labour?"
Too right we do.
"Results in just about everything are improving and the poor see most of the improvement - but the public does not recognise social justice as Labour's mission. It means good policies like this children's paper are lost as one-day wonders, not part of a coherent story".
And yet, in spite of everything, it's all gone wrong.
"Hard facts revealed at last weekend's conference showed in chart after graph that upward mobility has stopped and has become near-impossible in a society itself growing ever more unequal. It is no longer plausible to pretend inequality doesn't matter so long as the poor are pulled upwards: the only societies with upward mobility are those that are already the most fair - Finland and Sweden".
You know, I would have thought that if the poor are being pulled upwards then that is, by definition, upward mobility, but anyway... Well she can jabber away all she likes about equality of opportunity and equality of outcome, and even fairness of outcome, but so bleeding what? The more interesting fact to consider is that there's a referendum in Sweden this weekend on the Euro. I really hope they vote no. Not just for the obvious reasons. But just to read next week's Polly Toynbee column on how her beloved Swedes have let her down. Don't they know happiness when it's just around the corner? Must be the Daily Mail's fault.
|
"He puts on a good show. No one might guess the shadows of Iraq could yet be his nemesis. Resolutely returning to domestics, the prime minister, launching the children's green paper at a London comprehensive, listened with shining eyes as the dynamo head teacher listed all her school's recent improvements. Not just GCSEs up 10%, but breakfast and after-school clubs with tea, plus TV, computers, homework help, drama, music and sport. Parents have a one-stop shop for benefits, plus classes in literacy and IT. This model "extended school" is exactly what the children's green paper is all about - with social services, health and counselling offering holistic, wrap-around care in one place".
Aren't the kiddies lucky? To have a PM that cares so much. And is so holistic about it too.
"So the Prime Minister came away beaming, as well he might".
He always beams, Poll. It's something to do with those shining eyes of his.
"One thing he certainly does know: he and his government are not getting political value for the money spent. Not, as the Tories claim, because taxpayers' money is "wasted", but because most taxpayers have no idea where it is going or what good it is doing, however often he tells them".
You at the back - listen! And be grateful.
"A quarter of a million more people now work in the public services, jobs multiplying to fill the new programmes. Do people realise how the public sector has flourished under Labour?"
Too right we do.
"Results in just about everything are improving and the poor see most of the improvement - but the public does not recognise social justice as Labour's mission. It means good policies like this children's paper are lost as one-day wonders, not part of a coherent story".
And yet, in spite of everything, it's all gone wrong.
"Hard facts revealed at last weekend's conference showed in chart after graph that upward mobility has stopped and has become near-impossible in a society itself growing ever more unequal. It is no longer plausible to pretend inequality doesn't matter so long as the poor are pulled upwards: the only societies with upward mobility are those that are already the most fair - Finland and Sweden".
You know, I would have thought that if the poor are being pulled upwards then that is, by definition, upward mobility, but anyway... Well she can jabber away all she likes about equality of opportunity and equality of outcome, and even fairness of outcome, but so bleeding what? The more interesting fact to consider is that there's a referendum in Sweden this weekend on the Euro. I really hope they vote no. Not just for the obvious reasons. But just to read next week's Polly Toynbee column on how her beloved Swedes have let her down. Don't they know happiness when it's just around the corner? Must be the Daily Mail's fault.
|
Tuesday, September 9
Never mind the Pollocks, here's Freddie Flintoff!
Yesterday was a good day for the forces of conservatism. England slaughtered South Africa, Sussex crept one step closer to their first ever county championship, and my feelings about Denis "the Menace" MacShane have been granted an even bigger readership. Nothing, not even Hugo Young claiming that "Blair will fight the next election and, in all probability, win it against the least equipped, most shapeless, most incompetent opposition anyone can remember" can spoil it. We'll see, Hugo my old china, we'll see.
UPDATE: The link to the Times article has expired, so here it is:
"Why do more people go to see meretricious American films than exciting European ones? Answer: because they are better. No, not according to our Minister for Europe.
Today is the launch of the New Europe Film Season, one of those publicly funded shindigs that no one goes to. Denis MacShane has decided to co-opt it for his own dubious agenda. Instead of simply saying how worthy European cinema is, he has decided to have a go at those dreadful Yankees.
"My sense is American movies are quite tired now," MacShane told a newspaper.
"American culture is running out of steam. It has become meretricious and so obsessed with money-making. You can't have a culture that reduces everything to consumption and hope you'll find the space for art that allows great film making."
I suppose it is par for the course for some Eurogoon to use any excuse to bash the United States and indulge in crowd-pleasing rhetoric aimed at snooty, oversubsidised European intellectuals. But if Mr MacShane means any of this, and wants to turn this posturing into policy, we should all be petrified. He says he wants multiplexes to stop showing Hollywood blockbusters and "be more outward-looking and let people understand that Lithuanian, Estonian, Polish, Hungarian, Romanian and Turkish films are a pretty good thing".
Of course, I stand second to no one in my admiration for Lithuanian cinema (though, for some unaccountable reason, I couldn't actually name any of its hits), but the idea that cinemas should remain empty so that otherwise unemployable European film-makers are kept in beer and sandwiches is one that barely deserves taking seriously.
Owners of multiplexes do not fill their cinemas with American blockbusters because they are all part of a great neo-conservative plot to take over the world. They do it because they are popular. To take issue with this is take issue not with the owners of multiplexes, but with the public.
America dominates movies. Australia dominates cricket. Ethiopia dominates long-distance running. If Estonian cinema were better, it would put more bums on seats. You got a problem, buddy?
And this is really what Mr MacShane is about, when he tells us, in that revealing phrase, that American culture is "reducing everything to consumption". Which is liberal-speak for "giving the public what it wants". A guiding principle for the American film- maker but a positively subversive concept for those wedded to the European ideal that the public are basically morons.
That's not to say that all European films are terrible. I, like many men of my age, have whiled away many an hour at some arthouse, pretending to be impressed by all the sensitive camerawork, understated nuances and delicate sensibilities, while secretly longing for any opportunity to gawp at a scantily clad Nathalie Baye or Catherine Deneuve.
But the sad fact is that if all the film cameras in Europe simultaneously combusted and no more films were made here for the next ten years, a bunch of paper-pushers at the European film councils would notice, but not those queueing for tickets on a Saturday night.
Why? Not because European film-makers are less talented than their American counterparts, but largely because they are chasing grants from the Euro elites who are more interested in providing films that are good for you, rather than films that are good.
Given the choice between Arnie killing lots of bad people, and a bunch of menopausal women going naked and talking about buns, I know which I'd prefer".
|
Yesterday was a good day for the forces of conservatism. England slaughtered South Africa, Sussex crept one step closer to their first ever county championship, and my feelings about Denis "the Menace" MacShane have been granted an even bigger readership. Nothing, not even Hugo Young claiming that "Blair will fight the next election and, in all probability, win it against the least equipped, most shapeless, most incompetent opposition anyone can remember" can spoil it. We'll see, Hugo my old china, we'll see.
UPDATE: The link to the Times article has expired, so here it is:
"Why do more people go to see meretricious American films than exciting European ones? Answer: because they are better. No, not according to our Minister for Europe.
Today is the launch of the New Europe Film Season, one of those publicly funded shindigs that no one goes to. Denis MacShane has decided to co-opt it for his own dubious agenda. Instead of simply saying how worthy European cinema is, he has decided to have a go at those dreadful Yankees.
"My sense is American movies are quite tired now," MacShane told a newspaper.
"American culture is running out of steam. It has become meretricious and so obsessed with money-making. You can't have a culture that reduces everything to consumption and hope you'll find the space for art that allows great film making."
I suppose it is par for the course for some Eurogoon to use any excuse to bash the United States and indulge in crowd-pleasing rhetoric aimed at snooty, oversubsidised European intellectuals. But if Mr MacShane means any of this, and wants to turn this posturing into policy, we should all be petrified. He says he wants multiplexes to stop showing Hollywood blockbusters and "be more outward-looking and let people understand that Lithuanian, Estonian, Polish, Hungarian, Romanian and Turkish films are a pretty good thing".
Of course, I stand second to no one in my admiration for Lithuanian cinema (though, for some unaccountable reason, I couldn't actually name any of its hits), but the idea that cinemas should remain empty so that otherwise unemployable European film-makers are kept in beer and sandwiches is one that barely deserves taking seriously.
Owners of multiplexes do not fill their cinemas with American blockbusters because they are all part of a great neo-conservative plot to take over the world. They do it because they are popular. To take issue with this is take issue not with the owners of multiplexes, but with the public.
America dominates movies. Australia dominates cricket. Ethiopia dominates long-distance running. If Estonian cinema were better, it would put more bums on seats. You got a problem, buddy?
And this is really what Mr MacShane is about, when he tells us, in that revealing phrase, that American culture is "reducing everything to consumption". Which is liberal-speak for "giving the public what it wants". A guiding principle for the American film- maker but a positively subversive concept for those wedded to the European ideal that the public are basically morons.
That's not to say that all European films are terrible. I, like many men of my age, have whiled away many an hour at some arthouse, pretending to be impressed by all the sensitive camerawork, understated nuances and delicate sensibilities, while secretly longing for any opportunity to gawp at a scantily clad Nathalie Baye or Catherine Deneuve.
But the sad fact is that if all the film cameras in Europe simultaneously combusted and no more films were made here for the next ten years, a bunch of paper-pushers at the European film councils would notice, but not those queueing for tickets on a Saturday night.
Why? Not because European film-makers are less talented than their American counterparts, but largely because they are chasing grants from the Euro elites who are more interested in providing films that are good for you, rather than films that are good.
Given the choice between Arnie killing lots of bad people, and a bunch of menopausal women going naked and talking about buns, I know which I'd prefer".
|
Monday, September 8
And for those wanting yet more conservative contemplation, Peter Cuthbertson is temporarily living here, while his old pad gets redecorated.
|
|
"My sense is American movies are quite tired now," reveals Dennis MacShane, our Minister for Europe, who has clearly been infected with the Cherry Potter virus.
"American culture is running out of steam. It has become meretricious and so obsessed with money-making. You can't have a culture that reduces everything to consumption and hope you'll find the space for art that allows great filmmaking.
'I'm just astonished how thin easy-come, easy-go American and Hollywood movies are now - maybe when Arnold Schwarzenegger goes into politics that will release some space for serious new filmmaking".
And when Dennis leaves politics perhaps there might be a bit of a gap for some serious new political thinking. So what, anyway, does the great sage think our multiplexes should do, then?
"Just be a bit more outward-looking and let people understand that Lithuanian, Estonian, Polish, Hungarian, Romanian and Turkish films are a pretty good thing".
I don't think Dennis has been talking to Tessa Jowell. our Minister for Culture, who told the Times about her favourite movie. Said Tessa:
"Although I saw it the first time with my husband, this is a film to be watched with girlfriends, a glass of wine, chocolate and a hankie. I have always loved films with that ineffable weepie quality — glamour, will they/won’t they, tragedy and finally triumph".
So, what exactly was this ninety minutes of celluloid that will be talked of long into the night, long after New Labour has been sucked into the vacuum of history? The Italian neo-realist classic Bicycle Thieves? That magnificent tale of Yorkshire grit and coal-mining, Kes? Or perhaps it was Yol, the Turkish masterpiece about the brutal nature of the prison system? No way, mate. No, it was that searing indictment of capitalism and patriarchy itself, Pretty Woman.
So this is what they argue about in the cabinet.
UPDATE: You say Denis and I say Dennis. Throughout this article he's called Dennis, but elsewhere he seems mostly to be called Denis. A bit like Shakespeare and Shakspear, I suppose.
|
"American culture is running out of steam. It has become meretricious and so obsessed with money-making. You can't have a culture that reduces everything to consumption and hope you'll find the space for art that allows great filmmaking.
'I'm just astonished how thin easy-come, easy-go American and Hollywood movies are now - maybe when Arnold Schwarzenegger goes into politics that will release some space for serious new filmmaking".
And when Dennis leaves politics perhaps there might be a bit of a gap for some serious new political thinking. So what, anyway, does the great sage think our multiplexes should do, then?
"Just be a bit more outward-looking and let people understand that Lithuanian, Estonian, Polish, Hungarian, Romanian and Turkish films are a pretty good thing".
I don't think Dennis has been talking to Tessa Jowell. our Minister for Culture, who told the Times about her favourite movie. Said Tessa:
"Although I saw it the first time with my husband, this is a film to be watched with girlfriends, a glass of wine, chocolate and a hankie. I have always loved films with that ineffable weepie quality — glamour, will they/won’t they, tragedy and finally triumph".
So, what exactly was this ninety minutes of celluloid that will be talked of long into the night, long after New Labour has been sucked into the vacuum of history? The Italian neo-realist classic Bicycle Thieves? That magnificent tale of Yorkshire grit and coal-mining, Kes? Or perhaps it was Yol, the Turkish masterpiece about the brutal nature of the prison system? No way, mate. No, it was that searing indictment of capitalism and patriarchy itself, Pretty Woman.
So this is what they argue about in the cabinet.
UPDATE: You say Denis and I say Dennis. Throughout this article he's called Dennis, but elsewhere he seems mostly to be called Denis. A bit like Shakespeare and Shakspear, I suppose.
|
Friday, September 5
Hoon's a goon. Which is almost a pity. I judge politicians almost entirely by appearances, and I always quite liked his calm, robotic streak. Like a more human Stephen Byers, I suppose. Anyway, he's finished.
And so another brick in the crumbling edifice hits the concrete. I wonder who's next. Polly Toynbee puts it all a lot more colourfully, of course, and she knows who to blame:
"Get the politicians, catch the government lying, denigrate, mock, kill. Never mind the substance of a policy - that's boring and time-consuming. The fun is targeting the next minister who might be knocked off his or her perch - will Hoon be the next Byers? (The public barely heard of either dull fellow until they came under fire.) This is political decadence, games filling the vacancy in ideals and ideas".
No it's not. It is politics.
"Journalism has become obsessed with the processes of government, but incurious about any complex problem that cannot be blamed upon some hapless minister".
Rightly so too. These cretins insist on controlling as many aspects of our lives as they can get away with - usually in the guise of liberalism, or some particularly brainless version of equality - so why shouldn't we, and the press on our behalf, complain when they get things wrong? Does Polly really want us to lie down and die?
"This approach is in danger of making the country nearly ungovernable: were Iain Duncan Smith to win power, his government would get barely more respite these days. Journalism of left and right converges in an anarchic zone of vitriol where elected politicians are always contemptible, their policies not just wrong but their motives all self-interest. Those on the left should take this very seriously indeed. The right is individualist, anti-government, anti-tax, anti-collective provision. Undermining the idea that government is a force for good is its ideological aim, alongside the mad militias of Idaho".
And those eminently respectable people over at Samizdata.
"But the left, which purports to believe in government, should be wary of joining the same all-governments-are-rubbish camp. This anarcho-individualism is a very British mindset - and it is not compatible with social democracy".
I hate to break this to you, Poll, but Idaho is not in Britain, you ignorant halfwit.
"Competition in the media is pernicious: shrieking headlines fighting for fickle readers on newsstands drive out thoughtfulness and balance. The famous US papers are monopolies in their cities and calmly balanced as a result".
Welcome to Polly's world. The old girl really does appear to think that if only there was one newspaper everything would be all right. I wonder which one, though. Presumably not this one.
UPDATE: David Carr, incidentally, also has a go at this one, and he too spotted her geographical error. I somehow had a premonition it might capture his imagination, you know.
|
And so another brick in the crumbling edifice hits the concrete. I wonder who's next. Polly Toynbee puts it all a lot more colourfully, of course, and she knows who to blame:
"Get the politicians, catch the government lying, denigrate, mock, kill. Never mind the substance of a policy - that's boring and time-consuming. The fun is targeting the next minister who might be knocked off his or her perch - will Hoon be the next Byers? (The public barely heard of either dull fellow until they came under fire.) This is political decadence, games filling the vacancy in ideals and ideas".
No it's not. It is politics.
"Journalism has become obsessed with the processes of government, but incurious about any complex problem that cannot be blamed upon some hapless minister".
Rightly so too. These cretins insist on controlling as many aspects of our lives as they can get away with - usually in the guise of liberalism, or some particularly brainless version of equality - so why shouldn't we, and the press on our behalf, complain when they get things wrong? Does Polly really want us to lie down and die?
"This approach is in danger of making the country nearly ungovernable: were Iain Duncan Smith to win power, his government would get barely more respite these days. Journalism of left and right converges in an anarchic zone of vitriol where elected politicians are always contemptible, their policies not just wrong but their motives all self-interest. Those on the left should take this very seriously indeed. The right is individualist, anti-government, anti-tax, anti-collective provision. Undermining the idea that government is a force for good is its ideological aim, alongside the mad militias of Idaho".
And those eminently respectable people over at Samizdata.
"But the left, which purports to believe in government, should be wary of joining the same all-governments-are-rubbish camp. This anarcho-individualism is a very British mindset - and it is not compatible with social democracy".
I hate to break this to you, Poll, but Idaho is not in Britain, you ignorant halfwit.
"Competition in the media is pernicious: shrieking headlines fighting for fickle readers on newsstands drive out thoughtfulness and balance. The famous US papers are monopolies in their cities and calmly balanced as a result".
Welcome to Polly's world. The old girl really does appear to think that if only there was one newspaper everything would be all right. I wonder which one, though. Presumably not this one.
UPDATE: David Carr, incidentally, also has a go at this one, and he too spotted her geographical error. I somehow had a premonition it might capture his imagination, you know.
|
Thursday, September 4
"Does it matter if the world loses its rich diversity of film cultures and one nation dominates international cinema?"
asks Cherry Potter, in the Guardian. The sensible answer is no, of course. Provided that one nation isn't Britain. Notting Hill, Little Voice, Billy Elliott? I'd rather stick needles in my eyes than watch those narcoleptic monstrosities again.
"Or have we all grown so used to ubiquitous Hollywood that it seems churlish even to ask the question?"
Yes, you are being churlish, Chezza. America dominates movies. Australia dominates cricket. Ethiopia dominates long-distance running. What is the problem?
"What happened to the time when film promised to be the definitive cultural medium of the modern world? Until as little as 20 years ago, one of the most exciting (and educational) experiences for each new generation was the discovery, often at university film societies, of the diversity of the world's cinema cultures".
Actually, for those of us who never joined a film society, there were other institutions. Late night television, the Electric Cinema, the Scala. But anyway, I get the point. So what went wrong?
"Then came the heady free-market climate of the 80s. Financial institutions had to go global or go bust. National allegiances were no longer important, what mattered was maximising profit".
So it was government control that made good movies, was it? This really isn't accurate. The French have had a big state-subsidised film business for years, and I can say that this is one of the few good things the state have ever done anywhere. Chabrol and Rohmer - fine by me. But who's to say that they might have been even better if they'd been unleashed on the free market. You have a monopoly, now and again things are going to work in it. But consider this - if Louis Malle had directed the Star Wars trilogy, surely the world would be a better place for it?
"As for the smaller nations with their patchwork of different languages, cultures and histories, how could they compete in the international box office? The answer, so it seemed to many ailing British and European production companies, was to make films like the Americans or films that Americans like. We must take on board the philosophies and value systems that formerly characterised Hollywood cinema: the conflict on the mythical "frontier" between good (white, heroic, Christian) and evil (wild, out of control, foreign), and the individualistic, goal-driven quest for success or the American dream".
Now, Cherry, you're being silly.
"The urgency of the European quest to understand their own complex history, philosophy and values has, as far as film is concerned, been relegated to the margins. Except at Oscar time, when a smidgen of cultural prestige in the form of "art-movies" such as Schindler's List and The Pianist are useful to pull the wool over the world's eyes, to disguise the extent of film's fall from grace".
It's our old friend complexity again. European films, you see, are too sophisticated. And that's why they're such failures. Because the cinema-going public are all completely stupid. It's simple, when you think about it.
|
asks Cherry Potter, in the Guardian. The sensible answer is no, of course. Provided that one nation isn't Britain. Notting Hill, Little Voice, Billy Elliott? I'd rather stick needles in my eyes than watch those narcoleptic monstrosities again.
"Or have we all grown so used to ubiquitous Hollywood that it seems churlish even to ask the question?"
Yes, you are being churlish, Chezza. America dominates movies. Australia dominates cricket. Ethiopia dominates long-distance running. What is the problem?
"What happened to the time when film promised to be the definitive cultural medium of the modern world? Until as little as 20 years ago, one of the most exciting (and educational) experiences for each new generation was the discovery, often at university film societies, of the diversity of the world's cinema cultures".
Actually, for those of us who never joined a film society, there were other institutions. Late night television, the Electric Cinema, the Scala. But anyway, I get the point. So what went wrong?
"Then came the heady free-market climate of the 80s. Financial institutions had to go global or go bust. National allegiances were no longer important, what mattered was maximising profit".
So it was government control that made good movies, was it? This really isn't accurate. The French have had a big state-subsidised film business for years, and I can say that this is one of the few good things the state have ever done anywhere. Chabrol and Rohmer - fine by me. But who's to say that they might have been even better if they'd been unleashed on the free market. You have a monopoly, now and again things are going to work in it. But consider this - if Louis Malle had directed the Star Wars trilogy, surely the world would be a better place for it?
"As for the smaller nations with their patchwork of different languages, cultures and histories, how could they compete in the international box office? The answer, so it seemed to many ailing British and European production companies, was to make films like the Americans or films that Americans like. We must take on board the philosophies and value systems that formerly characterised Hollywood cinema: the conflict on the mythical "frontier" between good (white, heroic, Christian) and evil (wild, out of control, foreign), and the individualistic, goal-driven quest for success or the American dream".
Now, Cherry, you're being silly.
"The urgency of the European quest to understand their own complex history, philosophy and values has, as far as film is concerned, been relegated to the margins. Except at Oscar time, when a smidgen of cultural prestige in the form of "art-movies" such as Schindler's List and The Pianist are useful to pull the wool over the world's eyes, to disguise the extent of film's fall from grace".
It's our old friend complexity again. European films, you see, are too sophisticated. And that's why they're such failures. Because the cinema-going public are all completely stupid. It's simple, when you think about it.
|
Wednesday, September 3
"The sound and fury of the press in a moral panic is a fine old British sport. The country's going to the dogs, again! Off to hell in a handcart, down the slippery slope to perdition!"
Yes, it's Polly Toynbee once again, acting as a cool calm corrective against the press. Which in her case, seems to mean all the other papers except the Guardian. After reading this opening paragraph I tried to decide what she was worried about this time. The Hutton inquiry? England's latest cricketing disaster? And then I checked the cool and calm title to the piece:
"There is only one way to tame these savage infants"
I see. It's the killer kiddiwinks. The Pollster continues:
"It is usually youth to blame, but this week's moral degenerates are only five years old. "Parents have raised worst generation yet!" the Sunday Telegraph splashed across its front page, flamming up a brief interview that set the whole pack running. Tally ho! Off went the Sun in hot pursuit: "Stone age kids". "Shame of the bad parents failing kids", said the Express. The gist was this: children arriving in primary school are no better than savages - unable to do up buttons, use a knife and fork, sit still or even speak. Parents leave them stuck in front of the television instead of speaking, reading or playing with them. Their lives are "disrupted and dishevelled" without discipline at home, leaving schools to struggle with poor verbal and behavioural skills".
All right, Poll. You've made your point. You're reasonable, everyone else is hysterical. It's an old trick, patented by Simon Jenkins. But let's cut to the chase: Is there a problem with these tearaway toddlers, or isn't there?
Well apparently, indeed it's "undeniably true - far too many children do arrive at school already so damaged that they are often beyond help: any primary teacher in a poor district will agree. Reception teachers are often struck by huge differences in the five-year-olds who arrive, their social background and parental aspiration already stamped upon them almost indelibly. The start of school is often too late to alter a child's trajectory towards failure".
Marvellous. So there is a problem. The Sun, the Sunday Telegraph, and the Express are onto something after all. But what our Poll is actually agitated about, though it takes a while to get there, is that they propose different solutions. They blame the parents. She blames everyone for not paying enough tax, so that the state can take over the tots. We have been here before, of course. Johann Hari tried it a couple of months back, in a rapturous encomium on the joys of the Sure Start scheme. So now it's Polly's turn.
"It is still too early to assess Sure Start's effect in the (too few) areas where it operates".
You've got to love those brackets. If it's too early to assess, then how does she know there are "too few" areas in which it operates?Anyway, it isn't too early to assess. Polly's got lots of assessing to do.
"The first babies picked up from birth to be given intensive parenting support and good childcare have not yet reached primary age. But, when they do, primary teachers ought to see the difference".
Ought? She then quotes some research:
"Testing babies for attainment at the age of 22 months, their progress was followed according to social class. It found very bright children from poor homes and dim but rich babies at the other end of the scale were already on a steep trajectory in the opposite directions, the poor/bright travelling fast downwards, the rich/dim moving up. By nursery school at three, they have nearly converged. At the age of six, the children's lines cross and then diverge for evermore as they head off into opposite futures".
So the rest of school is just remedial to repair early damage already done. That is why David Bell says that the main hope of reducing the number of children failing in secondary school is to catch them before they reach nursery school. Ofsted's own recent study comparing British school results with Finland and Denmark suggests Nordic absence of poverty, plus universal childcare, makes primary teaching more open and relaxed: here discipline is teachers' major worry".
There's no poverty in Finland and Denmark? Well I'm afraid I can't take Polly's word for that. She's full of shit, so why should I trust her on this? But of course, there is little new in any of this. The radical egalitarians have always been on the lookout for some panacea to sort out the age and most significant gesture that will somehow level things out between rich and poor, black and white, straight and gay. It's been the justification for the NHS, for state education, and for all manner of totalitarian fantasies. Now the age is getting lower and they want to get their grubby little hands on the neo-nates. Who knows, next it'll be research that toffee-nosed foetuses have a better chance than tenement embryos, and Polly and Johann will be demanding higher taxes and even more state control.
"As for the moral panickers, if they want to avoid future generations of scary youth, they should urge higher taxes to pay the state to become the best possible nanny to all babies".
It's not the savage infants I'm worried about. It's the savage liberals.
|
Yes, it's Polly Toynbee once again, acting as a cool calm corrective against the press. Which in her case, seems to mean all the other papers except the Guardian. After reading this opening paragraph I tried to decide what she was worried about this time. The Hutton inquiry? England's latest cricketing disaster? And then I checked the cool and calm title to the piece:
"There is only one way to tame these savage infants"
I see. It's the killer kiddiwinks. The Pollster continues:
"It is usually youth to blame, but this week's moral degenerates are only five years old. "Parents have raised worst generation yet!" the Sunday Telegraph splashed across its front page, flamming up a brief interview that set the whole pack running. Tally ho! Off went the Sun in hot pursuit: "Stone age kids". "Shame of the bad parents failing kids", said the Express. The gist was this: children arriving in primary school are no better than savages - unable to do up buttons, use a knife and fork, sit still or even speak. Parents leave them stuck in front of the television instead of speaking, reading or playing with them. Their lives are "disrupted and dishevelled" without discipline at home, leaving schools to struggle with poor verbal and behavioural skills".
All right, Poll. You've made your point. You're reasonable, everyone else is hysterical. It's an old trick, patented by Simon Jenkins. But let's cut to the chase: Is there a problem with these tearaway toddlers, or isn't there?
Well apparently, indeed it's "undeniably true - far too many children do arrive at school already so damaged that they are often beyond help: any primary teacher in a poor district will agree. Reception teachers are often struck by huge differences in the five-year-olds who arrive, their social background and parental aspiration already stamped upon them almost indelibly. The start of school is often too late to alter a child's trajectory towards failure".
Marvellous. So there is a problem. The Sun, the Sunday Telegraph, and the Express are onto something after all. But what our Poll is actually agitated about, though it takes a while to get there, is that they propose different solutions. They blame the parents. She blames everyone for not paying enough tax, so that the state can take over the tots. We have been here before, of course. Johann Hari tried it a couple of months back, in a rapturous encomium on the joys of the Sure Start scheme. So now it's Polly's turn.
"It is still too early to assess Sure Start's effect in the (too few) areas where it operates".
You've got to love those brackets. If it's too early to assess, then how does she know there are "too few" areas in which it operates?Anyway, it isn't too early to assess. Polly's got lots of assessing to do.
"The first babies picked up from birth to be given intensive parenting support and good childcare have not yet reached primary age. But, when they do, primary teachers ought to see the difference".
Ought? She then quotes some research:
"Testing babies for attainment at the age of 22 months, their progress was followed according to social class. It found very bright children from poor homes and dim but rich babies at the other end of the scale were already on a steep trajectory in the opposite directions, the poor/bright travelling fast downwards, the rich/dim moving up. By nursery school at three, they have nearly converged. At the age of six, the children's lines cross and then diverge for evermore as they head off into opposite futures".
So the rest of school is just remedial to repair early damage already done. That is why David Bell says that the main hope of reducing the number of children failing in secondary school is to catch them before they reach nursery school. Ofsted's own recent study comparing British school results with Finland and Denmark suggests Nordic absence of poverty, plus universal childcare, makes primary teaching more open and relaxed: here discipline is teachers' major worry".
There's no poverty in Finland and Denmark? Well I'm afraid I can't take Polly's word for that. She's full of shit, so why should I trust her on this? But of course, there is little new in any of this. The radical egalitarians have always been on the lookout for some panacea to sort out the age and most significant gesture that will somehow level things out between rich and poor, black and white, straight and gay. It's been the justification for the NHS, for state education, and for all manner of totalitarian fantasies. Now the age is getting lower and they want to get their grubby little hands on the neo-nates. Who knows, next it'll be research that toffee-nosed foetuses have a better chance than tenement embryos, and Polly and Johann will be demanding higher taxes and even more state control.
"As for the moral panickers, if they want to avoid future generations of scary youth, they should urge higher taxes to pay the state to become the best possible nanny to all babies".
It's not the savage infants I'm worried about. It's the savage liberals.
|
Tuesday, September 2
I'd never heard of Oliver James until a few years ago when he suddenly started popping up on television bellyaching about isolation and consumerism and Thatcher and stuff. He had a book to promote, you see. Evidently he's some sort of shrink, and ever since he's been doing the same sort of shtick. But today, in the Guardian, the old boy surpasses himself as he puts Dubya on the couch. It does not make for edifying reading, and makes James out to be even more of a charlatan than ever. He must really despise himself for pumping out this sort of ignorant, specious crud:
"As the alcoholic George Bush approached his 40th birthday in 1986, he had achieved nothing he could call his own...
this dangerously self-destructive man fell to his knees and implored God to help him and became a teetotalling, fundamentalist Christian... On the one hand, Bush worshipped and aspired to emulate him...
On the other hand, deep down, Bush had a profound loathing for this perfect model of American citizenship whose very success made the son feel a failure. Rebelliousness was an unconscious attack on him and a desperate attempt to carve out something of his own... He was aggressively anti-intellectual and hostile to east-coast preppy types like his father, sometimes cruelly so...
As he grew older, the fury towards his father was increasingly directed against himself in depressive drinking. But it was not all his father's fault. There was also his insensitive and domineering mother".
You get the picture.
"The outcome of this childhood was what psychologists call an authoritarian personality. Authoritarianism was identified shortly after the second world war as part of research to discover the causes of fascism".
QED: Dubya is a Nazi.
"Authoritarian personalities are organised around rabid hostility to "legitimate" targets, often ones nominated by their parents' prejudices. Intensely moralistic, they direct it towards despised social groups. As people, they avoid introspection or loving displays, preferring toughness and cynicism. They regard others with suspicion, attributing ulterior motives to the most innocent behaviour. They are liable to be superstitious. All these traits have been described in Bush many times, by friends or colleagues".
And they could equally be ascribed to the editorial staff at the Guardian. They've been described as such, many times, by enemies and bloggers.
"The commonest targets of authoritarians have been Jews, blacks and homosexuals. Bush is anti-abortion and his fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible would mean that gay practices are evil. But perhaps the group he reserves his strongest contempt for are those who have adopted the values of the 60s.".
Perhaps? Is a stray perhaps really good enough? Is this how James analyses his patients? Moreover, Dubya apparently hates Jews, blacks and homosexuals, as evinced by his anti-abortion stance. Hello? Am I missing something here?
"Bush's deep hatred, as well as love, for both his parents explains how he became a reckless rebel with a death wish. He hated his father for putting his whole life in the shade and for emotionally blackmailing him. He hated his mother for physically and mentally badgering him to fulfil her wishes. But the hatred also explains his radical transformation into an authoritarian fundamentalist. By totally identifying with an extreme version of their strict, religion-fuelled beliefs, he jailed his rebellious self. From now on, his unconscious hatred for them was channelled into a fanatical moral crusade to rid the world of evil".
Once upon a time shrinks used to let their patients lie on sofas, and rabbit away to their hearts' content. Now it's the other way round.
|
"As the alcoholic George Bush approached his 40th birthday in 1986, he had achieved nothing he could call his own...
this dangerously self-destructive man fell to his knees and implored God to help him and became a teetotalling, fundamentalist Christian... On the one hand, Bush worshipped and aspired to emulate him...
On the other hand, deep down, Bush had a profound loathing for this perfect model of American citizenship whose very success made the son feel a failure. Rebelliousness was an unconscious attack on him and a desperate attempt to carve out something of his own... He was aggressively anti-intellectual and hostile to east-coast preppy types like his father, sometimes cruelly so...
As he grew older, the fury towards his father was increasingly directed against himself in depressive drinking. But it was not all his father's fault. There was also his insensitive and domineering mother".
You get the picture.
"The outcome of this childhood was what psychologists call an authoritarian personality. Authoritarianism was identified shortly after the second world war as part of research to discover the causes of fascism".
QED: Dubya is a Nazi.
"Authoritarian personalities are organised around rabid hostility to "legitimate" targets, often ones nominated by their parents' prejudices. Intensely moralistic, they direct it towards despised social groups. As people, they avoid introspection or loving displays, preferring toughness and cynicism. They regard others with suspicion, attributing ulterior motives to the most innocent behaviour. They are liable to be superstitious. All these traits have been described in Bush many times, by friends or colleagues".
And they could equally be ascribed to the editorial staff at the Guardian. They've been described as such, many times, by enemies and bloggers.
"The commonest targets of authoritarians have been Jews, blacks and homosexuals. Bush is anti-abortion and his fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible would mean that gay practices are evil. But perhaps the group he reserves his strongest contempt for are those who have adopted the values of the 60s.".
Perhaps? Is a stray perhaps really good enough? Is this how James analyses his patients? Moreover, Dubya apparently hates Jews, blacks and homosexuals, as evinced by his anti-abortion stance. Hello? Am I missing something here?
"Bush's deep hatred, as well as love, for both his parents explains how he became a reckless rebel with a death wish. He hated his father for putting his whole life in the shade and for emotionally blackmailing him. He hated his mother for physically and mentally badgering him to fulfil her wishes. But the hatred also explains his radical transformation into an authoritarian fundamentalist. By totally identifying with an extreme version of their strict, religion-fuelled beliefs, he jailed his rebellious self. From now on, his unconscious hatred for them was channelled into a fanatical moral crusade to rid the world of evil".
Once upon a time shrinks used to let their patients lie on sofas, and rabbit away to their hearts' content. Now it's the other way round.
|
Monday, September 1
The definitive comment on the passing of Alastair Campbell comes from this letter ( entitled BBC spot on ) to the Telegraph from a Charles Banner:
"Sir - On July 25, the Prime Minister's spokesman called a BBC report forecasting Alastair Campbell's impending departure "wishful thinking" and "another example of the BBC fixing upon gossip rather than substance''.
In his statement on August 29, though, Mr Campbell said that his resignation was agreed with Tony Blair "on April 7 of this year".
This is either another example of Number 10 attempting to rewrite history, or further evidence of the habitual mendacity of the Prime Minister's office.
Perhaps Mr Campbell would enlighten us on which it is?"
'Nuff said.
|
"Sir - On July 25, the Prime Minister's spokesman called a BBC report forecasting Alastair Campbell's impending departure "wishful thinking" and "another example of the BBC fixing upon gossip rather than substance''.
In his statement on August 29, though, Mr Campbell said that his resignation was agreed with Tony Blair "on April 7 of this year".
This is either another example of Number 10 attempting to rewrite history, or further evidence of the habitual mendacity of the Prime Minister's office.
Perhaps Mr Campbell would enlighten us on which it is?"
'Nuff said.
|
I suppose that's what comes from listening to too much Johnny Hallyday. Sheena is a punk, Judy is a punk ( as well as a runt ), and Jackie is a punk. But Sharon? He's Prime Minister of Israel.
|
|
- Comment Central
- Stephen Pollard
- Natalie Solent
- Two Blowhards
- Tim Blair
- Daimnation!
- Machinery of Night
- The Bewilderness
- Freedom and Whisky
- Jackie Danicki
- Biased BBC
- Civitas
- Samizdata
- Normblog
- Jim Miller
- White Sun of the Desert
- Progressive Reaction
- Dodgeblog
- Laban Tall
- Atlantic Blog
- House of Dumb
- Blognor Regis
- Burning Our Money
- The England Project
- Mick Hartley
- Iain Dale
- Tim Worstall
- An Englishman's Castle
- Unenlightened Commentary
- Squander Two
- Patrick Crozier
- Stumbling and Mumbling
- Guido Fawkes
- Brian Micklethwait
- Nothing British
- Battenburg.co.uk
- The Devil's Kitchen
-
- February 2002
- March 2002
- April 2002
- May 2002
- June 2002
- July 2002
- August 2002
- September 2002
- October 2002
- November 2002
- December 2002
- January 2003
- February 2003
- March 2003
- April 2003
- May 2003
- June 2003
- July 2003
- August 2003
- September 2003
- October 2003
- November 2003
- December 2003
- January 2004
- February 2004
- March 2004
- April 2004
- May 2004
- June 2004
- July 2004
- August 2004
- September 2004
- October 2004
- November 2004
- December 2004
- January 2005
- February 2005
- March 2005
- April 2005
- May 2005
- June 2005
- July 2005
- August 2005
- September 2005
- October 2005
- November 2005
- December 2005
- January 2006
- February 2006
- March 2006
- April 2006
- May 2006
- June 2006
- July 2006
- August 2006
- September 2006
- October 2006
- November 2006
- December 2006
- January 2007
- February 2007
- March 2007
- April 2007
- May 2007
- June 2007
- July 2007
- August 2007
- September 2007
- October 2007
- November 2007
- December 2007
- January 2008
- February 2008
- March 2008
- April 2008
- May 2008
- June 2008
- July 2008
- August 2008
- September 2008
- October 2008
- November 2008
- December 2008
- January 2009
- February 2009
- April 2009
- May 2009
- June 2009
- September 2009
- October 2009
- November 2009