Hoping For More Than Slogans

A jumble of end-of-the-week thoughts on British political culture

noreply@blogger.com (LonWon) — Sat, 11 Feb 2012 03:47:00 +0000

Five-and-half related thoughts from this week about British political culture, and a joke at the end!

1. Lib Dem parliamentarians need to be more transparent

I complained a week ago about a need for better communications in relation to the Welfare Reform Bill (WRB). Elsewhere (too numerous to list) many Lib Dems have sought explanations about the Health and Social Care Bill (HSC), while the Tory attacks on subsidies for wind and solar power have filled a vacuum left by Chris Huhne's departure from the Energy Department.

But this week we've seen Tim Farron explain his reasoning on WRB, Jenny Willott make the case for the ESA changes, Shirley Williams offer balanced arguments about the HSC on BBC Question Time, and Ed Davey put down important markers on wind and solar power.

Even when I'm not entirely persuaded on some issues, such thoughtful explanations are vital for maintaining the spirit of a party committed to reasoned, evidence-based public discussion as the basis for policy. So well done Tim et al. Political parties the world over seem to find this spirit hard to maintain in government, and it certainly doesn't come naturally to British political culture, perhaps even more so when the government is a coalition rather than a one-man-band like the Blair, Brown and Thatcher regimes.

Yet if anything could save the Lib Dems from the long-anticipated mauling at the next General Election, it would be the public appeal of such a spirit. More opportunistically though, the narrative "We stopped the Tories doing worse things" needs a steady stream of good evidence, otherwise the public will wonder if a minority Tory administration would have resulted in fewer stupid laws. So to make this case we actually need there to be stupid proposals, but we also need to be seen stopping them.

Incidentally, I happen to believe that Parliament is the proper place for agreeing Coalition positions on bills. But I recognise that many sensible people think this is unrealistic.

2. It shouldn't be this hard for governments to back down

Talking of stupid laws, private polling on Liberal Democrat Voice has found that Lib Dem members are opposed to HSC by a 2-to-1-majority. I also thought Ed Miliband had an excellent Prime Minister's Questions on Wednesday, focusing calmly on the key arguments about the Bill and its opposing voices, and keeping PMQ's ritual exaggeration, over-simplification and immature jibes to a minimum.

The bill is less disastrous than before Liberal Democrats & the professional associations began pointing out the problems, but the Bill is still alive.

Nevertheless, watching PMQs it did strike me that our democracy doesn't make it easy for governments to back down from stupid proposals. Cameron needs to be prepared to lose a lot of face if he is to scrap the Bill. And in fact PMQs forced him to entrench his position rather than giving him a way out. He has a choice now between insisting on an unpopular Bill and major humiliation. This is great for Oppositions, but scarcely in the best interests of the country.

3. Let's stay friends and build a wishlist

The quid pro quo of "Lib Dem parliamentarians need to be more transparent" is that Lib Dem members need to keep the lines of communication going too. It's tempting to storm off when stupid bills that are not part of the Coalition Agreement become law. But that reduces the number of voices within the party objecting, and we need those voices to build up a wishlist of things we want to put right if we get the opportunity in the next Parliament.

It's also tempting when angry at stupid bills to slip into the language of "betrayal" that is a beloved strand of Labour tradition. But it doesn't actually help improve those bills (or help get rid of them entirely, if possible) if the motives of Lib Dem parliamentarians are regularly attacked. There's obviously an element of trust that Clegg et al. are securing the best compromises they can and are not being out-manoeuvred by those wily Tories. Clearly there are some measures that really stick in the craw, but then this is a coalition not a Lib Dem government. So there are times when we have to agree to disagree with the compromises that have been obtained. That doesn't mean we stop being passionate about wanting better.

There are also obviously things the Coalition is doing that many Conservatives don't like, such as keeping the 50p Tax Rate, the Green Investment Bank, postponing Trident, Fixed Term Parliaments, and ending Control Orders). And things we would like to do that circumstances don't allow us to do (Voting Reform, a Mansion Tax and the abolition of university tuition fees being big ones). We have the excuse that we are the junior partner in a Coalition, and so we have a growing wishlist to put to the electorate. Labour had absolute power for 13 years and has no such excuse.

4. Er, I thought we liked discussion?

I've been baffled by the derision and animosity meted out by some normally calm and reasonable Lib Dems in response to the founding of Liberal Left. I've tried asking a few people on Twitter for why they feel so strongly about this group, but perhaps boiling blood is blocking their hearing. There's a calmer case against, but I didn't really understand it.

Looking for the commonalities with Labour, the Greens, the SNP and the like is precisely what a party that will be seeking future coalition options should be doing. Of course the mainstreams of these other parties won't make that easy. But, as I've argued before, Liberal Democrat tribalism is the real danger to furthering liberal and social democratic agendas.

Delivering on our growing wishlist for the next Parliament might very well depend on our relations with these other parties. No-one is forced to belong to Liberal Left. It's just another group of people exploring alternative policies to the agenda of the Conservative - Liberal Democrat Coalition. I'd be worried if there weren't such a group.

5. Ken Livingstone is no homophobe, but that's not the point

I've blogged separately about this. But in essence... I'm troubled that Ken has been misinterpreted so virulently; and I worry that presuming the worst about people engaged in public discourse degrades that discourse and consequently our political culture. We need a more tolerant, generous spirit.

6. The composer of "A Windmill in Old Amsterdam" has died aged 83.

OK, I don't know why I think that's important to British political culture.

I could make something up about how it's interesting that the windmill - a technology that was vital to life in the Middle Ages - might turn out to be a vital component in our future energy needs.

I could pretend that the idea of happy mice just doing their own thing in Amsterdam, doing no harm to others, and living a fulfilled life in an adapted product of an earlier age somehow represents an authentic vision of liberalism.

But I think I just like the tune.

Mind you, he also composed "Right Said Fred" and that song has a huge amount to say about British political culture. :-)

A joke

I put this on Twitter, and got a paltry number of retweets. I was really proud of it!

Last week a lorryload of molasses spilt near Tiverton. Story here. Devon Police have promised to investigate properly & not to fudge it

Maybe it's the way I tell them...

Ken Livingstone is no homophobe, but that's not the point

noreply@blogger.com (LonWon) — Sat, 11 Feb 2012 02:13:00 +0000

I didn't want to have to write this blog post. I thought someone else was going to write something similar, and I could get on with more productive things. But I haven't seen it, and this issue is more important than what one man happened to say, so here goes.

I was horrified at the treatment on Twitter and in the blogosphere of Ken Livingstone's New Statesman interview. Not all of this was opportunistic faux-outrage by opponents. Some genuinely believe that Ken thinks that being lesbian or gay resulted in preferential treatment in the Blair government and that homosexuality is akin to a disease with which a political party can be "riddled".

But really.

Come on.

Really?

[The public] should be allowed to know everything, except the nature of private relationships - unless there is hypocrisy, like some Tory MP denouncing homosexuality while they are indulging in it.

Pressed by Khan about his use of "Tory MP", Ken responds:

Well, the Labour ones have all come out . . . As soon as Blair got in, if you came out as lesbian or gay you immediately got a job. It was wonderful . . . you just knew the Tory party was riddled with it like everywhere else is.

Surely he is saying here that being lesbian or gay was welcomed in Labour, whereas many lesbian or gay Conservatives were hypocritical in denouncing their own sexuality? I.e. the Conservative Party was riddled with hypocrisy.

Of course you might not interpret it like that. The "it" is ambiguous. Perhaps "it" refers to "homosexuality".

In that case surely the obvious interpretation is that Ken's voice is dripping with irony. He's saying something along the lines of "With Labour, if you came out, the Prime Minister would come up to you at once and give you a job on a plate, regardless of whether you deserved it." I.e. actually meaning something like "We went out of our way to celebrate diversity: We broke with the past and refused to discriminate against lesbian and gay people; we treated them fairly. You might almost have grounds for thinking (haha!) we gave them preferential treatment, but of course we didn't; I'm just exaggerating for comic effect to show how much we celebrated diversity."

The wonderful thing about human communication is that all of that can be communicated with a certain tone and a twinkle in the eye.

In the same tone and twinkle he goes on to say something akin to "For all the denunciations of homosexuality by these Tory MPs, their party must have been just as riddled with homosexuality as anywhere." I've put "riddled" in italics. Italics are fairly inadequate for conveying sarcasm in print, but in this interpretation such a response is actually signifying something like "The private lives of these Tory MPs were fair game because they were being such hypocrites. They thought homosexuality was like a disease rather than a completely normal part of life, and yet many of them must have been lesbian or gay themselves. In their bigoted terminology, the Tory Party must have been 'riddled' with homosexuality."

If you know Ken, you know he uses that tone and that twinkle a great deal, so maybe this latter interpretation is more likely than the first. You also know that the idea that his transcribed words might be misinterpreted as homophobic would never have occurred to him, because advocacy of LGBT rights is innate to his political core.

Personally, I think you're only going to interpret his responses in the interview as homophobic if you're predisposed to be anti-Ken, or if you've been on the receiving end of a huge amount of homophobia in the past, or if you assume that pretty much every politician has a protective layer of ideology hiding an inner core of bigotry.

I also defended Diane Abbott when she was attacked for racism. Just like Ken, so many people (including Ed Miliband and many Labour supporters) preferred a negative interpretation of Diane's comments, ignoring both the context and the limitations of the medium.

I'm not a big Labour fan right now (Iraq, civil liberties, centralism, the economy, blah blah blah), and I don't happen to agree with Ken's point about how much the public have a right to know about politicians' private lives.

But that's not the point. Presuming the worst about people engaged in public discourse degrades that discourse and consequently our political culture. It inevitably results in the diminution in the rich panoply of ways people have of expressing themselves. We end up with bland politicians mouthing the platitudes, simplistic soundbites, long-winded evasions and empty rhetoric that cause so many citizens to disengage from the country's political processes.

And this is more than about eloquent politicians such as Ken and Diane, who delight in colourful, attractive language to make their points, and who occasionally trip up. Very few of us are classically-trained orators, delivering unambiguous set-piece speeches from on high, and therefore we shouldn't expect our politicians to be like that either. I thought we had grown out of expecting this when John Prescott became Deputy Prime Minister.

We need a political culture that encourages diversity, that accepts we all "misspeak" at times, and that understands how hard it is to develop language to grapple with complex and evolving social problems. This culture needs a generosity of spirit if our minds are not to become prisoners of safe sentences.

What's the point of the parliamentary sketch?

noreply@blogger.com (LonWon) — Sun, 05 Feb 2012 03:13:00 +0000

Maybe it's just me. I read a few words of Ann Treneman's sketch in The Times, or Simon Carr's sketch in The Independent, or Simon Hoggart's sketch in The Guardian, and then quickly move on.

It's probably the same with Quentin Letts's sketch in the Daily Mail. Goodness knows. I can't read beyond more than a paragraph before wanting to throw up.

I don't get the parliamentary sketch.

Who is it for? How many read it? Is it the highlight of some readers' lives? Do they laugh? Or hoot? Or guffaw? Nod thoughtfully? What do they get out of reading it?

We have news channels, newspaper columns, topical comedy shows, online video, Twitter, blogs... What precisely is the gap that the parliamentary sketch uniquely fills in our national life?

But if there's one thing that I keep wondering more than anything else about the parliamentary sketch, it's this: These are clever writers; why are they wasting their talents on such a pointless art form?

It's rude. It's patronizing. It mocks what politicians look like, their faces, their clothes, their hair. It mocks their mannerisms, their stumbles, their gestures, their clichés. It focuses on the quirky, the silly, the moments of pomposity or vaudeville. It assumes politicians are ridiculous, venal, lying hypocrites of varying stupidity and incompetence. It compares them with fictional buffoons and farmyard animals. It speculates on their home lives, their relationships, their sexual predilections. And it casts aspersions on the parentage of their children.

But, most of all, it pays as little attention as it can to the content of what politicians are actually saying. It lampoons politicians but without the promise of insight into policy and power.

It is unedifying. It demeans our politics.

Besides, we've got Twitter for the funny stuff. And Twitter does it better.

So what's the point of the parliamentary sketch?

Why Pereira Maintains

noreply@blogger.com (LonWon) — Tue, 17 Jan 2012 17:56:00 +0000

You know the cultured, portly, lonely, sweaty, gentle, rather sad character in thrillers who is mostly indifferent to the heroes and villains alike (except to become mildly irritable when his work is interrupted by the machinations of the plot), and who ultimately bravely overcomes innate political apathy to help the heroes in some small but vital way, often resulting in fatal retribution by the villains? Yes, that man.

I've been listening to Derek Jacobi reading "Pereira Maintains" by Antonio Tabucchi, a novel that puts centre stage just such an archetypal character.

For those who've not read the book...

I'm not sure whether to recommend it. It's about the ruminations of the widowed culture editor of a small 1930s Lisbon newspaper. The story is slight: as an essentially incidental character, Pereira is inevitably mostly unaware of the romantic, political and thriller elements that swirl nearby, and we see everything from Pereira's perspective. So you might find it obscure.

But the novel provides an evocative portrait of 1938 Lisbon; it provides some insight into choices in relation to censorship and cultural resistance that can faced by those whose country is falling into dictatorship; and it's a fascinating exercise to have this thriller archetype made central. I particularly like the way we're as much in the dark about events and characters as the cerebral but studiously unaware Pereira.

For those who've read the book...

*** SPOILER ALERT!!! ***

In the end, not only are we left in the dark about much of what has occurred and why it has happened, but we also don't know what happens to Pereira after his act of rebellion. There's no God's-eye view, no denouement in the library, no epilogue.

In one sense there is nothing to know: Pereira has fulfilled his role in the thriller by publishing Monteiro Rossi's obituary; that story is finished.

But it is natural to want to know what happens to the lead character in a story we have been reading, even if this story is a small part of a bigger story. Indeed, as mentioned above, very often there are unfortunate repercussions for this archetype, although perhaps usually only when the hero is still around to avenge the death.

Did Pereira escape Lisbon? Or is he lying dead at the bottom of a stairwell? Did the thugs make good their threat to deal with him as they dealt with Monteiro Rossi? Is he sprawled, bloodied, broken but alive, on the hard floor of a Lisbon prison, waiting in pain for yet one more in a seeming endless series of brutal interrogations. Is he sitting with Dr Cardoso at some French seaside café, eating seafood salad and sipping mineral water, while secretly yearning for the lemonades and omelettes aux fines herbes of the Café Orquidea? Or was he shot in the back of the head without warning, on his way to the train?

The work is a translation from the Italian, so I cannot be sure, but the recurring yet unexplained phrase "Pereira maintains" gives a clue. He's alive. But it's not clear whether we are hearing Pereira maintaining key aspects of his testimony in the face of an apparatchik's relentlessly sceptical interrogation, or in response to Dr Cardoso's gentle curiosity about Pereira's case as an insight into the psyche as a confederation of souls.

This ambiguity is delicious. The archetype returns to obscurity, and we are left with the feeling that we may never be sure what is happening, even at key moments in the history of a nation or in the life of a person.

Personally, I like to think we are being told Pereira's story by Dr Cardoso at a café in St Malo. Partly because Pereira's testimony is more elegiac than factual. Partly because the things Pereira maintains are more often about his awakening of conscience than about his knowledge of plots against the regime. But mostly because I'm an unreconstructed romantic. Or so I maintain.

Update:
Details of the music used in the Radio 4 reading.

Radical Euroscepticism has resulted in a massive failure of diplomacy

noreply@blogger.com (LonWon) — Sun, 11 Dec 2011 18:41:00 +0000

Experience has taught me that scepticism is an extremely healthy worldview, so long as it is tempered by a touch of pragmatism and a generosity of spirit. But, if you are arguing with someone who appears so sceptical that they will reject any possible mutual search for common ground, the motivation to continue to engage with that person rapidly evaporates.

Many in the British Conservative party have been pumping out antagonistic posturing sceptical rhetoric about the EU for decades. The current economic crisis has caused the heads of European governments to finally lose patience with such Eurosceptic rhetoric, and the consequences are clear to see.

The UK has become isolated from its partners in Europe: Britain has been forced into a position in which it alone has to veto proposals accepted by the rest. Without the Eurosceptic rhetoric, Britain would have been able to develop allies in its alternative view of how to tackle the crisis. Indeed, it is possible that such proposals might never have come forward in the first place if other countries had perceived Britain as interested in pursuing compromise solutions. Instead, when David Cameron made some modest suggestions, he did not have a friend in the room.

As Andrew Rawnsley has written, "Even Eurosceptics will soon find that there is nothing splendid about isolation. Our capacity to shape the future of the world's wealthiest economic bloc, which is also our most important export market, has just been dramatically diminished. This will have consequences not just for Britain's influence in Europe, but its standing in the world." The only thing Cameron has blocked is British influence.

Radical Euroscepticism - the kind of scepticism that exhibits itself as rampant antagonism towards the EU - has resulted in a massive failure of diplomacy. It has meant that David Cameron has been unable to build relationships within the EU. This historic diplomatic failure may have long-lasting repercussions for British jobs.

Acknowledgements
Photo: "Frog" by Jonathan.vail

Why bash the bishop over Occupy Exeter?

noreply@blogger.com (LonWon) — Tue, 15 Nov 2011 13:34:00 +0000

There's been a good-natured occupation of Exeter's Cathedral Green by the Occupy movement. Here's a video of them moving in, accompanied by a friendly and constructive speech by one of the clergy:

Photos and another video are at the Exeter anti-cuts alliance website.

Now I'm conflicted about the Occupy movement. This is not what democracy looks like to me. I don't want decisions about the future of my city, country and planet to be taken by those groups who shout angriest and loudest that they speak for everyone. And I'm angry that many people have failed to engage in our democratic processes in the past. However, the movement has its heart in the right place when it attacks corporate greed and inequality, it has captured imaginations, and it has real potential to help more people engage constructively in these issues.

But I note the spin by The Telegraph and others on comments made by the Bishop of Exeter, Michael Langrish. He has said plainly that he is very sympathetic to the questions raised by Occupy Exeter folks. He echoes the warmth of the cleric in the above video. The bishop also notes the protest appears misdirected at the church. This is positive. A key message that Occupy Exeter is trying to get out there is that this isn't about the church, but about the failure of our financial sector. The bishop is a thoughtful figure to be engaged with, not the enemy.

Yet The Telegraph portrays him as "dismissing 'copycat' protests", and praises his "robust stance". The BBC emphasizes the bishop's concern that this looks like a protest against the church, rather than his friendliness to the cause.

However, Professor Francesca Stavrakopoulou, of Exeter University's Theology department, seems to have taken this spin at face value. She has tweeted:

"Bishop of Exeter against #occupyexeter: 'Each day we will remind protesters that this is sacred space'. Jesus would probab be ashamed of him"

The bishop is clear he would rather there weren't protesters on Cathedral Green, but he and his clergy have gone out of their way to engage with Occupy folk, to offer practical help, and to highlight how the church shares a similar mission. To say the bishop is "against" Occupy Exeter is therefore simplistic and misrepresents his views.

More importantly, it is divisive to portray the bishop as an enemy. Claiming that Jesus would be ashamed of him is an unhelpful insult. The bishop's status means that his sympathy with the issues being raised could carry some weight with many people who have so far been left cold by the Occupy movement. Let's build support, not barricades.

When councillors get fixated on "progress"

noreply@blogger.com (LonWon) — Wed, 09 Nov 2011 04:14:00 +0000

John Lewis is coming to Exeter. That's terrific news. Everyone's delighted. Great success. Congratulations all round.

Unfortunately, officers and councillors of the County Council and the City Council are planning a weird scheme (pdf document) to make the road outside John Lewis one-way. It's at the point where New North Road joins Paris Street, an area known (apparently) as London Inn Square.

The proposal is to remove the route marked with a red line

What's so weird about that, you might ask. After all, the road has 22,000 pedestrians crossing it daily. It "acts as a physical barrier between the main shopping area and Sidwell Street", and "Sidwell St / Paris St has seen 20 collisions in a 3 year period (14 involving pedestrians)". Moreover, "People should be able to enjoy their surroundings without concerns about crossing busy roads, or being subjected to poor air quality caused by cars and lorries which need not be in the middle of the city." (All quotes from the scheme flyer linked above.)

Yes, fine. It would be better for cars not to be cutting through the shopping area at all. But the big question is: Where will the traffic go then?

What the proposed scheme mostly doesn't fix

Before I come to the question of where the traffic will go instead, I want to look at that "20 collisions in a 3 year period" statistic. It's potentially very misleading. There's no indication whether this refers just to the immediate area affected by the proposed scheme or to the whole of Sidwell Street and Paris Street.

And this ambiguity matters: the plethora of signs and road markings at the top of Paris Street and the intersection between Sidwell Street and Cheeke Street are dreadful, with different rules for cars, buses, taxis and bicycles.

Paris Street will be unchanged

So, for example, Paris Street is one-way for cars, but two-way for bicycles. Drivers who want to go straight on have to cut in front of buses leaving a bus stop at a pedestrian crossing; a crossing that also has 3 sets of traffic lights, two with a "straight on" filter (so the red lights confusingly only apply to the right-hand turn); and at just at that spot when cars are having to uncomfortably squeeze in front of the buses (and take in all the lights and road markings), a bike box, some bike racks, and a route sign suddenly become visible (they're likely to be obscured by a bus before that point). The route sign, by the way, tells you nothing about what happens if you turn right, but lots about what's straight on (Crediton, Tiverton, railway stations and the University) and if it wasn't visible until you're at the lights, you're also likely to be in the wrong lane for going straight on, so you'll somehow have to break lane discipline, while taking account of pedestrians, cyclists, buses and other vehicles all doing different things. Meanwhile the cycle lanes come and go.

Paris Street was two-way not so long ago, and it was all much less confusing. There was also a central island for pedestrians in New North Road, which the council removed.

Incidentally, having a taxi rank right next to this confusing semi-one-way intersection is also daft.

Meanwhile, inadequate signs at Cheeke Street mean that cars sometimes go the wrong way up Sidwell Street, a route on which only buses and taxis are allowed. In fact there are two cars in Google Streetview doing precisely that. They end up having to turn right out of Sidwell Street into New North Road. I once saw a small boy almost mown down crossing New North Road when the pedestrian light was green. It's possible the driver had gone through a red light, but I think it's more plausible that the lights in Sidwell Street assumed that buses would be going straight on into the High Street, rather than turning right.

Wrong

As I say, the proposed scheme mostly wouldn't fix these threats to safety, although, to be fair, the layout of the taxi rank would be improved, and most traffic would be removed from Sidwell Street between the High Street and Cheeke Street.

Where will the traffic go?

Current route in red (New North Road, Sidwell St, Cheeke St)
Encouraged route in blue (Bonhay Road, Western Way)

At peak times, 300 cars an hour travel along the route to be closed. So what will happen to this traffic?

Firstly, the councils say that they will "encourage drivers crossing the city to use more appropriate roads such as Bonhay Road and Western Way".

I can imagine that suiting people driving from the areas around Crediton, Tiverton and Exeter St David's station, although the perennial bottleneck that is Exe Bridges might be a reason why they are not using Bonhay Road currently. People driving from the areas around Exeter College and the University might take more persuasion.

My guess is, though (and it'd be nice if the councils published their research so that we can be working with actual data rather than guesses), that most of the traffic going east via New North Road
originates far from easy access to Bonhay Road or Western Way. They will be heading to places like the hospital, the business parks, industrial estates, edge-of-city retail parks and the M5. A route via Bonhay Road and Western Way is going to seem a big diversion. Moreover, buses from the Cowley Bridge direction (the north-west of the city) will still need to get to the bus station, just off Paris Street.

In fact the councils estimate that "half of the existing traffic turning left into Sidwell Street is expected to divert onto Blackall Road and York Road".

Current route in red (New North Road, Sidwell St, Cheeke St)
Likely alternative in blue (Blackall Rd, Pennsylvania Rd, York Rd, Summerland St)
Note the bus station is off Bramfylde Street, hence all the bus stops there

This alternative route is unarguably residential, with four zebra crossings, two mini roundabouts, and several severe speed bumps. St James is a conservation area, but this seems to count for nothing.

Blackall Road is residential

Mini roundabout and zebra crossing in Blackall Road

The alternative route also features a left-hand turn from Pennsylvania Road into York Road that often results in long waits by cars coming out of York Road and by cars turning into York Road from the other direction. And at the top end of York Road, there are often jams by the traffic lights. This is not a route that can sustain much more traffic. Yet it is estimated that 150 an hour additional vehicles would be travelling along these roads if this scheme is approved.

The junction of Pennsylvania Road, York Road
and Longbrook Street

The junction of York Road, Sidwell Street
and Summerland Street

This route also goes directly past the gates of the local primary school.

It's at this point that the councils need to be reminded of their own stern warning:

"People should be able to enjoy their surroundings without concerns about crossing busy roads, or being subjected to poor air quality caused by cars and lorries which need not be in the middle of the city."

The councils trumpet the importance of making it easier for people to cross the road and of minimising air pollution, but somehow this doesn't apply to the children at the school.

Another likely alternative route is via Longbrook Street and then (again) up York Road. This is again a largely residential street.

Longbrook Street

So what are our councillors doing?

The ward that will suffer from the proposed scheme is St James. St James has two Liberal Democrat city councillors (Natalie Cole and Kevin Mitchell). The City Council is in minority Labour control. Labour is strongly targeting this ward. The election is in May 2012.

But it would be too simplistic to suggest that it's just a case of Labour hoping St James residents will punish sitting city councillors for failing to stop this scheme. St James also has a Liberal Democrat county councillor (Philip Brock) and the County Council is held by the Conservatives. Moreover, an improved area around John Lewis could be trumpeted as a Conservative success by a Conservative challenger to the sitting Labour MP.

Meanwhile, the three councillors for St James (Cole, Mitchell and Brock) support a further alternative proposal that sends traffic down Longbrook Street and then right along King William Street. This alternative avoids the majority of the residential areas and the school, but still sends traffic along quiet streets, and also past the front door of a community centre.

The Labour candidate for the forthcoming city elections (Keith Owen) notes the concerns of residents, expressed forcefully at a meeting last month when council officers explained the scheme. Yet he is careful not to indicate his opposition to the scheme. [But see the update below] When it comes to planning matters, Labour councillors in Exeter tend to vote en bloc, often in favour of development, rather than each individual making up his or her own mind on the merits of the particular case.

None of these councillors seems to be arguing the merits of the status quo, on the basis of the scheme's damage to the quality of life of St James residents. [Again, see the update below]

Many Exeter people want Paris Street made two-way again

It also seems that none of the councillors is arguing that the decision to make Paris Street one-way was a huge mistake, and should be reversed. Rather than travelling a few hundred yards to get to the bus station, bus passengers were sent a long way round, clogging up Sidwell Street. The new proposal sends bus passengers on an even bigger diversion, via narrow residential streets. Taxi drivers are also unhappy with the current situation. Moreover, Sidwell Street is clearly currently more dangerous for pedestrians and road users than it was when Paris Street was two-way. It would be good to know how the figure of 7 collisions a year compares with the rate before Paris Street was made one-way.

Over the past decade there have been large numbers of changes to the road layout in the area of the new John Lewis. And yet somehow it is still worth spending up to £2m on yet another scheme, at a time when the County Council is implementing cuts of £40m, on top of £55m last year. It has been claimed that John Lewis would not come to Exeter if Paris Street were to be made two-way again. Well John Lewis is coming. Has a commitment been made on Paris Street?

In Exeter, the quality of decision-making when it comes to planning decisions is very poor. Just read the minutes of planning meetings, or go along to one. Attendance is variable; details are glossed over; reasoning is typically nebulous or tautologous; officers' opinions are often accepted uncritically; "progress" is automatically seen to be a good thing, even if it isn't actually progress.

Parties can afford to make these kinds of cavalier decisions, because it is just one ward out of many. But the real question is how councillors get fixated on a particular idea as representing "progress". Is it that they get jazzed up by grandiose words in "vision" documents? Or a desire to leave their mark on the city? Do they somehow talk themselves into corners through macho posturing? Or are they somehow intimidated by developers, officials, lawyers, or business imperatives?

I don't know. I doubt it's any of these reasons; and it's rather than councillors simply believe that this is the best way forward. But in that case, rising above the issue of whether this proposed scheme is sensible or not, is a bigger concern: I resent the fact that councillors and would-be councillors treat residents disrespectfully by failing to provide well-reasoned arguments for their decisions.

So come on councillors and would-be councillors, whatever ward or electoral division you represent. Your decision on this issue is affecting my community. You owe us an account of your personal decision.

Update 3 Dec 2011

I'm pleased to note from this week's Express and Echo that at least some councillors are giving the proposal careful consideration.

Jill Owen, county councillor (Labour) for Priory and St Leonard's, comments on the displacement of traffic from Sidwell Street:

"I don't think the displacement issue has been made clear enough to everyone and I hope that it is looked at very clearly and in great detail. This is a very important scheme but it seems it is being done with indecent haste. If we do something that is not right then it will be very difficult to turn back."

Meanwhile, James Taghdissian, city councillor (Conservative) for Polsloe, notes that Mount Pleasant Road, Stoke Hill Road and Prince Charles Road might well turn into rat-runs.

And last week's Express and Echo carried a very welcome letter from the Labour candidate for the St James ward on the city council, Keith Owen. He comes out as opposed to the plans, and gives clear arguments about the various options. I'm delighted to note that he makes a case for the status quo.

These proposals go before Devon's cabinet on 14 December. I hope they will take the concerns of residents seriously.

Tintin and the Wreck of the Treasured Memory

noreply@blogger.com (LonWon) — Sun, 06 Nov 2011 16:43:00 +0000

I had been prepared for the new Tintin film to be dreadful. The many excoriating articles about the film in The Guardian and elsewhere had set up low expectations.

The reviews though were surprisingly vague on what exactly was wrong with the film. They tended to be strong on highly emotive condemnations and amorphous pseudo-intellectual critique, but weak on actual details.

And the film wasn't as bad as all that. Lots of humour. Good voice performances by the cast. Ambitious set-pieces. Great opening credits. A rollicking score.

But, in all honesty, I didn't enjoy the film much. I rarely felt invested in it. In fact I was positively alienated at times. And after about an hour I couldn't wait for the film to end. Not a good sign.

And that's crazy, because Spielberg is an amazingly talented director. I'm a huge fan of each of the writers, Steven Moffat, Edgar Wright, and Joe Cornish. The cast is fantastic. The composer, cinematographer and editor are also top rank.

So what was it about the film that made me feel this way?

I'm not 100% sure. I think a lot had to do with the film lacking the huge charm of the books. Of course film is a very different medium from graphic novels, but I'm not a comic snob, and I don't have a feverish devotion to Hergé's originals that blinds me to their flaws. But I did enjoy the originals; whereas the film jarred.

Now I've no idea if this charm gap is something to do with the storyline or dialogue or direction or music or acting or something else, because I couldn't get past the distancing caused by the 3D effect and the 3D glasses, and, most of all, the famous Uncanny Valley.

For me, the characters ended up creepy, not charming.

There were other problems I had with the film - Captain Haddock's accent seemed wrong, the action rather too involved at times, the self-empowerment guff misplaced, the theme music forgettable - but I suspect these didn't make much difference to my enjoyment.

To avoid me being completely negative, here's an idea for an experiment the producers might consider. Allow freelance animators to re-render the visuals in their own way, giving them a cut of additional sales their work generates. I suspect that, all else being equal, more people would download a traditionally animated version than your sophisticated motion capture version. Go on. Dare you.

The angrier we protest, the simpler the answers

noreply@blogger.com (LonWon) — Mon, 24 Oct 2011 13:30:00 +0000

The Exeter Anti-Cuts Alliance sums up "a momentous week in global protest terms". The blinkers are off:

People can see that their governments, everywhere implementing the same austerity measures, are in the hands and the pay of the global corporations and banks and their (largely invisible and unaccountable) wealthy owners.

Occupy, Uncut, anarchists, anti-capitalists, socialists, Anonymous... all are angry about the corrupt system that has resulted in the world's economic woes. You're angry with the politicians. You're angry with the bankers. You're angry with the rich. You're angry about the cuts.

Except... you know what? I'm pretty angry with you. You failed to get behind the only party that was warning about the impending economic crisis and bankers' behaviour; the only party that's against illegal wars and an authoritarian state; the only party taking climate change seriously; and the only party that wants to improve our democracy.

So you cynically failed to engage with the arguments; you failed to rally support for democratic change; and you bleat about "betrayal" and "propping up the Tories" when the reality is that the people were divided on what should be done. We need honest politicians to work together. But you have worked yourself up into a frenzy that dictates that all politicians are venal and that anything less than an automatic transmission of belief into action constitutes a betrayal.

You are holier-than-thou and angrily shout and protest as if you speak for everyone who cares about these matters, as if we don't live in some kind of democracy, imperfect though it is. That you see yourselves as equal to the heroes of Tahrir Square, Tunis, the Libyan NTC and Syria is ludicrous.

Right. You care. Good. Now take a breath. Stop with the sloganeering, the posturing and the negativity. And think how you can engage constructively, collaboratively and cleverly. We can win this one.

Why is Chris Huhne hitting the nuclear button?

noreply@blogger.com (LonWon) — Sat, 15 Oct 2011 04:39:00 +0000

Homer Simpson is the perfect person to be put in charge of safety of a nuclear power plant.

Why?

Because he's made so many mistakes, there are no new mistakes for him to make.

OK, so this reasoning is not exactly analogous with why Chris Huhne believes that, despite all the mistakes that have been made, it's a good idea to start building new nuclear reactors again.

But he does have a quote from Winston Churchill that he feels has resonance with how the British have tried to exploit nuclear energy over the past 50 years:

"Americans can always be counted on to do the right thing, after they have exhausted all other possibilities."

Perhaps Churchill can be excused this barb, given that he was half-American.

Yesterday, Huhne, the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, gave a speech to the Royal Society explaining why the future of nuclear power will be different to its past. He was explicit about the many mistakes that have been made in relation to nuclear power, but averred that nuclear power should be a key part of our future energy mix.

His speech makes five main points:

1. We're still paying for the electricity that nuclear power generated in the fifties, sixties and seventies.

In particular:

In the UK, there is currently enough high-level nuclear waste "to fill three Olympic swimming pools. We have enough intermediate-level waste to fill a supertanker, and a lot more low-level waste."
We have the world's largest plutonium stocks, which have to be guarded, converted and stored for many years.
The government spends £2 billion every year, cleaning up this mess.
The costs of decommissioning are still increasing. Now over £50 billion.

2. Any new nuclear construction must be without public subsidy.

Huhne repeats the Coalition Agreement's vital principle that any new nuclear construction cannot have public subsidy. Whether "Feed-In Tariffs", the Carbon Floor Price or insurance liability count as public subsidy is not made clear.

3. Despite the costs and risks, nuclear should be a key part of our future energy mix.

The reason he gives for this is that "we face the greater risk of accelerating climate change if we do not embark on another generation of nuclear power. Time is running out. Nuclear can be a vital and affordable means of providing low carbon electricity".

Moreover, by 2023, all but one of our current nuclear reactors reach the end of their lives, leaving an 18% gap in the electricity supply. So that gap has to be plugged.

Huhne cites costings for the three large-scale low carbon technologies:

technology	£ per megawatt hour
offshore wind	130
gas with carbon capture	95
nuclear	66

These figures include waste and decommissioning costs. He also notes that world gas prices have risen hugely over the last year, and are expected to be volatile. He argues that there are considerable uncertainties about promising renewable technologies such as wave and tidal, and costs remain high.

So he concludes that nuclear is the cheapest low carbon source of electricity.

4. A portfolio of energy generation technologies is needed.

We've been wrong before about the economics of nuclear power. We can be wrong again: "The industry still has to prove that it can build these enormous investments on time and to budget."

A "broad portfolio" of low carbon technologies is therefore needed, to handle the economic risk.

5. We must learn the lessons of the past.

And this is where Huhne invokes Churchill's quip above about how you can count on Americans to do the right thing... after they have exhausted all other possibilities. In relation to nuclear policy, Huhne says, "we have made pretty much every mistake human ingenuity could devise. And boy, are we British inventive."

Specifically:

Fostering a culture of secrecy in relation to strategic national decisions.
Conflating energy needs with military needs, and so leading to confused, expensive design decisions.
Letting the drive for innovation prevent the gains to be made from standardising designs: all 11 Magnox power stations were built to different specifications, for example.
Failing to take into account the environmental impact of nuclear power stations.
Failing to devise a costed plan for cleaning up afterwards, heaping costs on future generations.
Letting waste pile up.
Setting up a body that was supposed simultaneously to give the Government impartial advice and to promote nuclear energy, resulting in a lack of proper oversight.
Failing to ensure that regulatory systems were geared towards long-term protection.
Letting costs spiral without proper scrutiny.
Hiding subsidies in complex financial arrangements.

My reflections on this speech

I'm not at all convinced by the cost arguments presented here. Even if cost differentials turn out to be roughly as quoted over the next 30-50 years, fossil fuels and uranium are finite resources and so are not likely to be cutting-edge 22nd Century solutions. If we are serious about sustainability for future generations, I would have thought we need to focus our technological efforts on harnessing renewable resources.

This is a bit of an over-simplistic cop-out on my part though, because a lot hangs on accurate energy cost estimates. Such estimations are complex, well beyond my capabilities to unpick, and controversial. They need to take into account numerous hard-to-quantify risks and trends. But several authoritative sources have come up with estimates in which nuclear is not always the most cost-effective low carbon technology (e.g. Mott MacDonald, 2011). Of course in all discussions of such calculations there's also political game-playing, vested industry interests, scaremongering and so on, most of which serve to baffle non-experts like me into seeking simplistic grounds on which to decide.

Furthermore, although the commitment to "no public subsidy" sounds like it will finally put the viability claims of the nuclear industry to the test, governments have a long-standing habit of sneaking in subsidies by the back door. And this industry has a, as Huhne puts it, "terrible reputation for secrecy". Huhne says, of course, that he wants to encourage open competition, rather than monopolistic practices, and to ensure tough, transparent regulation, rather than a slipshod, secretive industry. And that's great; but what are the grounds for hoping that this government can get this right in the nuclear industry when the governments so clearly have got it wrong in the past in this industry and in others?

Nevertheless, on secrecy, I do wonder to what extent I'm still subconsciously influenced by that terrific nuclear thriller from the 1980s, Edge of Darkness:

But most importantly, in relation to climate change, the time-scale for nuclear looks wrong. If Britain started building 10 new nuclear reactors now, they would deliver a 4% cut in carbon emissions some time after 2025 [1]. Action is required now. As Greenpeace says, "It's too little too late at too high a price."

In addition, heat and transport energy needs are largely not addressed by nuclear power, and it would only supply a fraction of our electricity. So it is difficult to see why it is getting this level of attention as a way of addressing CO2 emissions. There has been huge investment into nuclear research and development in comparison with the research into renewables. At the same time, there are serious challenges associated with the idea that a huge investment in renewables and energy efficiency could be enough to cover both the lost nuclear power and the fossil fuels we need to stop using. So I don't have the answers, but I don't think that nuclear is the solution.

(These reflections are based on Huhne's speech. So I'm leaving to one side the familiar issues of aesthetics, safety, waste management, terrorism, nuclear proliferation, and uranium mining)

Over the years I've moved from equanimity about nuclear power to ambivalence to scepticism to opposition. I'm still open to contrary arguments. But it seems to me that appearing to have "exhausted all other possibilities" does not imply that what we do next constitutes "the right thing". We are ingenious in our ability to create new ways of failing. And I'm not yet convinced that there are strong enough grounds to be confident we'll avoid repeating old ways of failing.

Acknowledgments

Hat-tip to Ian Eiloart for the link to Chris Huhne's speech.
Image: "Windscale" by tim_d.
Video: Edge of Darkness montage by MSoundtracks.

Doctor Who: The War Games

noreply@blogger.com (LonWon) — Mon, 03 Oct 2011 13:38:00 +0000

Continuing my catch-up of highlights from the last 50 years of Doctor Who, we reach the end of the Second Doctor's era.

(Spoilers follow)

And the difference in ambition between earlier stories and "The War Games" is huge: 10 parts, richer music and camerawork, multiple time zones, a more complex story, diverse motivations... and... we finally meet the Doctor's own people...

The Doctor, Jamie and Zoe discover a planet on which soldiers abducted from various times in Earth's history are being brainwashed into continuing their conflicts in simulations of those periods. The idea is to train an army to conquer the universe. The plotters are helped by a renegade Time Lord, "The War Chief", one of the Doctor's own race.

There is a revealing exchange between the Doctor and the War Chief, in which the Doctor is defensive about his reasons for leaving his home planet and rejects the War Chief's quest for power.

WAR CHIEF: You may have changed your appearance, but I know who you are.
THE DOCTOR: Oh do you?
WAR CHIEF: Your machine is a TARDIS. You're too familiar with its controls to be a stranger.
THE DOCTOR: I had every right to leave.
WAR CHIEF: Stealing a TARDIS? Oh I'm not criticising you; we are two of a kind.
THE DOCTOR: We most certainly are not!
WAR CHIEF: We were both Time Lords and we both decided to leave our race.
THE DOCTOR: I had reasons of my own.
WAR CHIEF: Just as I had.
THE DOCTOR: Your reasons are only too obvious: power!
WAR CHIEF: How much have you learnt of our plans?
THE DOCTOR: I know you've been kidnapping soldiers from the Earth from various times in its history and bringing them here to kill one another.
WAR CHIEF: But do you realise our ultimate objectives?
THE DOCTOR: No objective can justify such slaughter!
WAR CHIEF: The war games on this planet are simply a means to an end. The aliens intend to conquer the entire galaxy. A thousand inhabited worlds.
THE DOCTOR: Yes, but why choose the people of the Earth?
WAR CHIEF: They are the most suitable recruits for our armies. Man is the most vicious species of all.
THE DOCTOR: Well that simply isn't true!
WAR CHIEF: Hmm... Consider their history; for a half a million years they have been systematically killing each other. Now we can turn this savagery to some purpose. We can bring peace to the galaxy - and you can help. You see, I'm not the cold-hearted villain you suppose me to be. My motives are purely peaceful.

The climax sees the Doctor calling for help from the Time Lords via a small box, a means of communication that cropped up again earlier this year in "The Doctor's Wife". The last episode is on the Time Lord home planet (which we now know to be Gallifrey).

Having seen the Time Lords appearing as from Hell in the Tenth Doctor's final story, the Time Lords in the War Games initially appear monk-like. They seem austere, gentle, peaceful, thoughtful, serene, slightly aloof. But then we come to their punishments... They decree that the planet behind the war games plot is to be isolated forever from the rest of the universe by a permanent force field. And the leaders of the plot are removed from time, as if they never existed.

Meanwhile, the Time Lord's punishments for the Doctor's crimes (stealing the TARDIS and interfering in history) are particularly cruel. They force a regeneration on the Doctor and exile him to a single time on a single planet (Earth); something like torture for an inveterate wanderer in time and space. But they go further, and wipe Jamie's and Zoe's memories of the Doctor, apart from their first encounter with him. Just as with Donna Noble in recent series, the loss of memories of so many adventures that saw these companions develop and grow as people seems shocking. Jamie and Zoe do not know they have suffered, but a central part of their existence has been lost to them. Moreover, this action also punishes the Doctor horribly. There is no possibility of his ever being able to reminisce about old times with these dear friends.

How was it?

Not too bad. A bit long, with some (unintentionally) laughable moments, particularly the mannered acting of the Security Chief and the unrealistic fight scenes. The bad guys come across as interestingly intelligent and diverse, although subsequent television history means that Blackadder's General Melchett has made one of the protagonists less scary than he might otherwise be! Nevertheless, some interesting ideas, pursued intelligently, unfolding nicely, and without crudely spelling everything out. The Doctor's terrific fear of the Time Lords is palpable, and his attitude to them hints at a liberal critique of the powerful.

Audience Reaction 2011

I decided to show just episodes 8 to 10 to one of the 21st century companions with whom I have been erratically sharing this Doctor Who catch-up. Despite the borderline offensive stereotypes (particularly of the Mexican bandit), the historical periods were of interest. But boredom thresholds were quickly breached. The special effects, music, dialogue and pace were the familiar culprits. Nevertheless, clear improvements in these aspects over previous stories were noted. The quality of the ideas was also appreciated.

Idle Questions

Why did the War Chief not regenerate when shot by the security guards?
Aren't ground troops a slightly underpowered way of conquering planets?
How will the Doctor get his TARDIS back?

For an alternative view...

A collection of reviews at the Doctor Who Ratings Guide.
Alex Wilcock, at Love and Liberty.

Next time on LW's DW catch-up...
The very next episode, the Third Doctor appears in "Spearhead from Space".

No more Torchwood, touch wood

noreply@blogger.com (LonWon) — Fri, 16 Sep 2011 17:36:00 +0000

I've been busy defending Torchwood: Miracle Day to friends over the past couple of months. Now I've seen the finale I'm rather regretting that.

I never said Miracle Day was very good; just that it was a return to the ups and downs in quality of the first two series, after the blip that was the exceptional third series Children of Earth.

To be fair, I never found compelling the concept, characters and stories of the first Torchwood series (left). I stuck with it for the first two series in the hope of the writing being able to build on the flashes of brilliance that it occasionally showed. Children of Earth worked brilliantly (no thanks to the previous two series), and made me care about Jack and Gwen.

I defended Miracle Day in response to the outpouring of critical ordure that was being heaped on it in relation to the story, the characters, the sex and the violence. I didn't think it was terrible. Just not terribly good. Much like the first two series.

The final episode, though, made me rather ashamed for having stuck with Miracle Day. There were no satisfying pay-offs. No real answers. No authentic emotion. No explanations for the numerous loose ends and idiosyncratic tangents. It was naff and pointless. And an insult to the intelligence of the viewer.

I still think over the whole series that the actors did their best with, on-the-whole, weak material. The ambition was great, and the writing and direction did have their moments; but mostly this series failed to work for me at all in terms of mystery, suspense, character, story, incidental music, you name it.

If there is another series of Torchwood, I'd watch it. I tend to like sci-fi, and I couldn't bear not knowing how Jack's and Gwen's lives continue. But I'd rather there is no more Torchwood, unless it's up to the quality of Children of Earth. This series was 10 hours of my life I'm not going to get back.

Exeter's newspaper: neither Express nor Echo?

noreply@blogger.com (LonWon) — Mon, 12 Sep 2011 15:51:00 +0000

Back in the early 18th century, Exeter was one of the earliest English cities outside London to have a weekly newspaper [1]. Exeter's popular local daily paper - the Express and Echo - has been going since 1904. Now in 2011, the Echo has just gone weekly. What's the story?

Over the years, I've bought the Echo only intermittently. I like to support local journalism. After all, who else would spend the weeks and months (sometimes even years) needed to scrutinise local developments and ferret out hidden scandals?

However, as with many local papers, much of the time there's not much to report; and adverts, trivia and worthy campaigns are the main content. Recently, tedious parking stories have been trying the patience of readers. The Echo's journalists do their best. But often there's not enough in the paper to interest me.

Times are particularly hard for local newspapers at the moment. Advertising revenue is down; and people are preferring to get their news instantaneously and free from the web, rather than a day late from a local rag that costs money.

It's in this context that the Echo has just gone weekly (also see the comments on this announcement at HoldTheFrontPage and thisisexeter).

What does this mean for Exeter's newspaper?

A brief history of the Express and Echo

The publisher, Northcliffe Media, is owned by the Daily Mail and General Trust, but mostly does not follow The Fail's blatant biases and obsessions.

The Echo tends to go for human interest, but that's popular journalism. It tends to favour the sitting MP (Labour's Ben Bradshaw), but he's a nice chap and a former Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, so that's understandable. And the Echo tends to bash the city and county councils, but again that's understandable, since it's a key part of the paper's role to hold these councils to account.

The editor, Marc Astley has been with Northcliffe for 20 years, and has edited the Echo since 2007 [2]. He was previously deputy editor of the Nottingham Post and assistant editor at the Hull Daily Mail [3].

The Echo most recently cost 36p, and its circulation was around 17,000 a day [4]: not bad for a city of only 120,000 people.

What is the new weekly Echo like?

At first glance it looks like the old daily edition, but bulkier. It costs £1 and promises "20 pages of local sport. Plus 88 pages of property. And the latest job vacancies." Curiously, the word "Exeter" does not appear on the front page, except in the tiny www.thisisexeter.co.uk url. But this seems to be a tradition [5].

It has some big stories this week (well, "big" for local news), including...

a front-page exclusive on highly confidential police information left in a car sold at auction;
plans for a new site for the Exeter Royal Academy for Deaf Education (a long-standing contentious issue);
the deferral of plans for a £19m research centre at the Royal Devon and Exeter Hospital;
a proposed expansion of Exeter International Airport;
multi-million pound plans for a training facility for successful local rugby team the Exeter Chiefs;
and the news that there are more "increasing risk" drinkers in Exeter than anywhere else in the country.

These stories and more are covered in some 46 tabloid-size news and features pages. On average about half of each page is taken up with advertising, in addition to the 18 full-page advertisements. The writing style seems quite flat. Neither especially sensationalist nor particularly formal.

Other familiar sections for local papers are present:

Property (88 pages, as a separate pull-out section)
Sport (20 pages)
What's On (11 pages)
Classifieds (7 pages)
Letters and opinion (6 pages)
Cars (5 pages)
Jobs (4 pages)
Announcements (2 pages)
Puzzles (1 page)

Do we need a printed Echo?

According to the excellent Exeter Memories website, James Owen launched the Echo in 1904 with the words:

"We claim to do no more than to give our friends news served up in the brightest, crispest manner we know how. Performance being at all times preferable to promise, we will not trouble our readers with protestations. Here is the paper and we must be judged by it."

The first issue leads with a report on the Russian-Japanese war, and follows up with the story of a cyclist decapitated in an accident.

But in 2011, Catherine Fraser, features writer for the paper, notes (p. 21):

"A few people have wondered whether a regional newspaper is relevant in this world of instant information, local and national, on the radio, television and internet, either through traditional routes or, increasingly, mobile phones, and have suggested that we just shut the presses down forever."

Nevertheless, she makes...

"... no apologies for the same agenda of bringing you all the local news, battling bureaucracy, running campaigns and taking pride in our place in the city. ... there is no question that a local newspaper still plays a very important role in its community - and beyond."

She cites as an example the story of a local woman with breast cancer, a story which led to significant donations and fundraising events, and then became a national story.

Almost all the stories, with the front-page exclusive a clearly deliberate exception, became available on the thisisexeter website in the days leading up to publication day. The larger stories were available from online sources, particularly the BBC, although not typically as readily as from the Echo. The old knotty question remains as to whether the Echo's website (a free, generic and badly-designed Northcliffe construction based on automated feeds) is undermining print sales, and whether that matters given the income from online advertising.

In relation to news, The Echo is also competing with BBC News online, the BBC television programme Spotlight (and related shows from the South West studios), and ITV Westcountry News. These services have shrunk in recent years, with the economic downturn: they cover larger geographical areas than previously, have less resource, and lack some of the content they once had. But they are still formidable competitors. Radio, too, offers potentially more immediate and dynamic news than the printed page. Exeter FM, Heart and BBC Radio Devon seem to be surviving for now.

What about advertising?

If the value of printed news is under question, how much more this must be true of other sections. Perhaps I underestimate the proportion of people who prefer to shop for houses or cars through printed newspapers rather than through the Web. But why would one choose to pore over pages and pages of houses or cars most of which don't fit my needs than use the user-friendly and powerful web-based search engines that show me far greater detail, tailored to my particular requirements?

88 pages of property is a huge amount, in straitened times, so clearly estate agents believe that they make enough sales via such ads to justify the cost. Moreover, findaproperty.com is heavily promoted at the start of the property section, so it is clear that these printed pages still happily co-exist with online house-buying tools.

On the other hand, at just 5 pages, the motoring section is a pale shadow of past years. So either far fewer people are buying and selling cars than previously, or the convenience of being to locate a car online is winning out. Maybe something similar is true in relation to jobs. And it's clear that classified advertising is also potentially threatened by internet-based initiatives such as eBay and Freecycle.

Isn't the paper a focus for citywide debate?

In the time before websites, Twitter and Facebook, local newspapers served hugely important civic functions of galvanising and hosting public debate in favour of reform [6].

These days, the Echo's leader column and opinion pieces are largely anodyne; while the letters pages are dominated by the largely lowbrow scribblings of a small number of slightly bewildered eccentrics.

Yet the newspaper can still serve as a focus that can easily be lost in the cacophony of digital channels and online sites. You still frequently hear "Did you see that article in the Echo about...?" Twitter has an Exeter community, but its core is tiny in comparison with the Echo's circulation. And even a medium renowned for being tomorrow's chip wrapping is far less ephemeral than the rapidly-changing Twitter, at least for now, when it comes to its impact on citywide debate.

What's the future for Exeter's newspaper?

It could be argued that Exeter's printer newspaper is neither express nor echo. Firstly, it lacks the "express" immediacy of the TV, the radio, and the internet. And secondly, its role in "echoing" the views of the good people of Exeter has been overtaken in some respects by Twitter and the web. Yet there is a fluidity right now about how all these media operate, a fluidity that inhibits hard-and-fast conclusions about the future for print newspapers.

It is possible that if the move to a weekly format fails, the Express and Echo could become an adjunct of the Western Morning News, a stablemate in Northcliffe's South West Media Group. After all, we have seen other media services having to enlarge their geographical areas in response to changing financial circumstances.

Yet news is a peculiar thing. A minor burglary a few miles away is not news; a burglary up the road is. A primary school next door getting bad results is not news for me unless my children go there; a big company going bust elsewhere in the county is, if it has implications for the economic health of the city. Getting "local" news right is very hard to do, and I doubt that newspapers, TV, radio or the internet are yet in a stable state, conceptually or financially.

My own view (pace Marshall McLuhan) is that the medium isn't the message. The polis requires good local journalism, and I don't mind if that journalism is attached to the printed page, the airwaves or the broadband connection, so long as it is somehow sustainably funded. The future of local journalism is not clear.

Acknowledgements

Pictures of the first issue of the Express and Echo, the sub-editors and the machine room are from Exeter Memories.
"Old printing press", by -Kj

Archers Update

noreply@blogger.com (LonWon) — Mon, 05 Sep 2011 12:24:00 +0000

Today I finally managed to catch up my podcast listening to the latest edition of The Archers.

The great thing about the podcasts is that you never need to miss an episode. The downside is that you can fall weeks behind when you're busy.

I've been weeks behind since... not sure... probably April or May.

So I'm taking to the opportunity to jot down a few thoughts...

!!!!!! Spoilers below !!!!!

The Archers Timeline is brilliant. Never again do I need to wonder when exactly Emma first slept with Ed; when Usha first arrived in the village; when Brian had an affair with Caroline (shudder); when Pat proposed to Tony; or when Kenton joined the Navy. (Hmmm... not sure those count as "spoilers"!)
Something dreadful seems to have happened to Emma Grundy (née Carter). She used to have the scarcely-suppressed passions of a Hardy heroine. Now she appears to be turning into a more feckless version of her mother (double shudder). Almost as disappointing as the failed descent of the religiously self-righteousness Shula into Madame Bovary.
Against expectations, Little Henry Archer is still not yet showing signs of the autism that would fit so well the story arc of the beautiful, tragic neurotic Helen; Little George Grundy seems so far unaffected by his mother being his aunt; ~~Miles and Flora~~ Little Freddie and Little Lily Pargetter are staying the right side of insanity for now; Little Phoebe Tucker has yet to turn into anything resembling the glorious monster that is Kate Madikane (née Aldridge); and Little Ruairi has yet to display the consequences of his journey from the controlled mania of his mother Siobhan to the beautifully portrayed cauldron of irritation, selfishness, indulgence and neglect practised by Brian and Jennifer.
Josh "crayfish" Archer is turning into a most interesting character. Difficult to believe that he's from the same family as David, Ruth, Pip and Ben.
Ambridge Extra gave voice to Rhys the Bull barman; introduced tension into the marriage-made-in-heaven of nasal but fragrant Alice Aldridge and thick but hunky Christopher Carter; and fleshed out the character of Jamie Perks. But it didn't move or excite in any way. And it failed to fix the woeful neglect of the wonderful Kirsty Miller!
Clarrie "E. Coli" Grundy deserves our sympathy, in a great storyline. But the marketing genius that is Brenda Tucker does not. How can the word "re-branding" have failed to cross her lips yet?
The partnership that is James "Occupation: Property development/management consultant/waster" Bellamy and Leonie "The Rightful Heir to Lynda" Snell is fantastically ghastly. Excellent!
Happy 90th Joe Grundy, another of my favourite characters.

Acknowledgements

"A cow [15/365]" by publicenergy.

How the BBC's Newsnight can recover

noreply@blogger.com (LonWon) — Mon, 22 Aug 2011 11:20:00 +0000

There's a useful debate over at The Observer on "Has Newsnight lost its way?" As anyone who's followed my tweets over the last year can tell, I'm pretty much with John Naughton's views. There are some good comments there too.

The guests are drawn from a narrow pool, often lacking the intellectual heft that a serious-minded analysis requires. Moreover, the discussions often seemed designed to generate heat rather than light, and they are far too short to allow proper elaboration and critical engagement. Meanwhile, Jeremy Paxman's interviews have become shallow lazy exercises in attention-seeking rudeness rather than the razor-sharp dissections they should be.

More broadly, this comment from Naughton is particularly telling:

"What was most striking about Newsnight's attempts to cover the recent unrest was the absence of any sign of intellectual curiosity."

Rather than dwell on the negatives though, I'd like to summarize my view of how Newsnight can recover:

1. Newsnight needs to sharpen its focus on what gets lost in the hubbub of 24 hour news. This means putting events into social and historical contexts, and worrying away at the kinds of questions that Naughton notes are missing: the hows, the whys, the shoulds. It means forensic analysis and not accepting simplistic answers.

2. The presenters and reporters need to be given time to do their jobs. Maitlis, Esler, Mason, Urban, and Watts are all good journalists. They are being let down by an agenda that is about grabbing attention rather than pursuing understanding. They need more time and a clearer mission.

3. Interviews need to be more subtle. The old-fashioned bombastic interviewing style of Paxman and Wark has had its day. It's time for careful questioning rather than trying to provoke gaffes.

4. The excellent Max Atkinson has noted a number of production mistakes that need to be stamped on. Examples include distracting graphics, silent speeches, and patchwork formats.

5. More intellectuals should be invited on, and they need to be given time to develop their views and to engage directly with each other. Lack of proper time for these discussions and too much interruption lead to superficial analysis.

LonWon's 2011 Five Self-Denying Ordinances for the Arts

noreply@blogger.com (LonWon) — Sun, 21 Aug 2011 15:58:00 +0000

... which is a comically overinflated way of saying that I've decided to attempt to enhance my personal enjoyment of certain art forms by stopping doing certain things that have historically failed to enhance my enjoyment by much, or have actually diminished it.

1. No spoilers

Yes: previews in the press (especially the Radio Times), review programmes on radio (Saturday Review, Front Row), and review programmes on TV (The Review Show, The Culture Show) have all in their time served to ruin the unadulterated experience of TV, film, radio, theatre and novels. Enough. Enough. Enough.

Of course, there is still the problem of how to identify what to see, to hear, and to read. So these articles and programmes have their place. But I shall be preferring "Is it any good?" over "Why is this good (or bad)?", "What resonances did this have for me?", "How does this tap into the zeitgeist?", etc.

And Wittertainment is an exception, because I love the show in itself, and Kermode and Mayo are mostly good about spoilers. But again, the minute I decide this is a film I will see, I will skip ahead.

2. No opera or dance*

Yeah, sorry, I'm a neanderthal. But there we go. I've tried. And tried. But they do nothing for me.

* Unless strongly recommended by many people I trust, of course.

3. No horror or graphic violence*

I may be a neanderthal, but I'm also squeamish.

And inconsistent... I finally saw "Saving Private Ryan" and "Get Carter" recently, having put them

off for years because of the violence, and thought them both excellent. So see the footnote. There are always exceptions.

* Again, unless strongly recommended by many people I trust.

4. No interviews with actors, directors or writers

OK, this is more controversial. Many people's enjoyment of various art forms is strongly enhanced by behind-the-scenes insights into artists' intentions and experiences. Well, rarely for me, it seems. This'll be different for most other people, I would think.

5. No "making of" programmes

See (3).

Like spoilers and interviews, such programmes are invariably beguiling, especially about things I love or make me think. But experience has taught me that for my personal enjoyment it's best to stick with the products of creativity rather than the creative process.

Maybe I'll return to these 5 Self-Denying Ordinances for the Arts in a year's time, and realize how closed-minded they have made me. Or, like a typical bigot, I will remain smug in my self-constructed self-reinforcing tiny little world view forever.

Acknowledgements

"Horse Blinkers" by Alex E. Proimos
"Neanderthal" by Andrew Griffith
"Horse-drawn cart" by Travel Aficionado

Do we need a House of Lords?

noreply@blogger.com (LonWon) — Mon, 27 Jun 2011 10:25:00 +0000

My answer: We could easily do without a House of Lords, by beefing up the powers of Commons Select Committees and by formalising the role of expert advisory working committees in defining problems, proposing legislation and reviewing legislation.

BUT...
... if we're going to stick with a Second Chamber, for reasons of political tradition or constitutional nervousness (which are not entirely unreasonable considerations, in my view), we need to get clear what we intend the purpose of such a chamber to be; and then we need to specify how its members are selected in order to achieve that purpose.

It seems apparent that many people see the Second Chamber as providing an opportunity for wiser heads to scrutinise legislation passed by an occasionally over-enthusiastic House of Commons; a place for more deliberation and less populist rhetoric; for arguments derived from expert knowledge rather than campaigning slogans, party whipping, or clichés; a process that does not ultimately veto legislation but can help make it better by calm scrutiny and cautious revisions; a constrained addition to the checks and balances of our political decision-making.

So how to select the members of such a Second Chamber?

It's clear that the unelected nature of the Lords increasingly offends our democratic sensibilities. But straightforward direct election would run the risk of reproducing the House of Commons and so failing to create an independent scrutinising body.

After all, how likely would it be for people to vote on a substantially different basis for a senator than for an MP?

An alternative idea for selecting senators is a mixed approach:

Election by regional STV (Single Transferable Vote).
Nomination by professional, union and other bodies, followed by votes in the Commons.
Ex-officio representatives of local councils.
Sortition (akin to jury duty).
Co-option, requiring a majority vote.

The proportions of the Second Chamber that come from these different selection methods would need to be decided. But the key point is that there is no overlap with the constituency-based voting that determines the Commons. Methods (2), (3) and (5) involve indirect election; method (4) involves random selection; and method (1) relies on much larger geographical areas than single constituencies.

Of course there will still be objections that...

Anything other than 100% direct election is undemocratic.
This proposal embeds the power of Vested Interests, the Establishment, the status quo, the political classes, etc.
Instead of rewarding the wise and experienced, it favours the mediocre technocratic time-servers.
It will challenge the supremacy of the Commons, leading to constitutional crisis.

I think I'd dispute all of these objections. But I'm not fussy: I'd prefer to go with whatever sensible reform consensus can be built than for the anachronistic House of Lords to await reform for a further 100 years.

Reflections on "The Prestige"

noreply@blogger.com (LonWon) — Sun, 19 Jun 2011 13:39:00 +0000

"Now you’re looking for the secret, but you won’t find it because of course you’re not really looking. You don’t really want to work it out. You want to be fooled"

I saw The Prestige yesterday, and enjoyed it much more than the reviews had led me to expect. Christopher Nolan is a superb director.

The ending is intriguing and not entirely obvious. So I've been reading a lot of posts about exactly what happened. The IMDb FAQs do a good job of explaining in broad terms what we see and where the main issues of contention are amongst viewers. But I wanted to post a few reflections on my reactions to the film, before I forget. So go away now if you don't want spoilers!

*** SPOILERS FOLLOW ***

Here are my four thoughts...

1. I guessed that "Borden" might actually be twins about halfway through, which was great because I could then appreciate a lot of the hints dropped during the film. It also meant that I found the tragedy of the Bordens' relationships with Sarah and Olivia very moving.

Borden: I love you.
Sarah: You mean it today.
Borden: Of course.
Sarah: It just makes it so much harder when you don't.

2. I wrongly thought that Cutter was somehow manipulating the situation to steal all three men's tricks. I'm not sure this theory really hung together, but I do think Cutter is a more ambiguous character than he seems on the surface. His motivations for wanting Tesla's machine and for betraying Angier at the end are not clear cut.

3. I didn't foresee that Tesla's machine might actually work. I assumed that Tesla and his assistant were pulling a fast one on Angier (with "Edison's men" being part of the con); and when we see (in Caldlow's flashback) two Angiers appearing at the same time I was amazed, even more so when the camera pulls back to reveal many drowned Angiers in tanks in the abandoned theatre. I loved this twist.

4. After some reflection, I love the film even more, because it is also possible that Tesla's machine doesn't work. The inability to choose between the two possibilities is delicious.

This fourth point is the one I want to linger on slightly.

One view is to take everything at face value, to believe that Tesla's machine creates a duplicate, which is drowned and disposed of at the end of every performance. This works logically, and is satisfying emotionally, in that the tragedy of Angier's story is that he doesn't know if the machine transports-the-original-and-leaves-a-copy or leaves-the-original-and-creates-a-copy-elsewhere. Every night he doesn't know if he is to die horribly in the tank or take rapturous applause as the prestige. The Angier that comes out of the show believes he was transported, but he has no way of telling if his life actually began just moments ago. Every night, the prestige thinks "Transported again!" Every night, the man in the tank always thinks "WHY AM I IN THE TANK?! I WAS ALWAYS TRANSPORTED BEFORE! WHAT WENT WRONG TONIGHT?!"

In this view, Borden is simply stumbling across what happens every night. The blind stage hands take the tank containing the drowned Angier to the old theatre, whether Borden is there or not. No-one knows but Angier. Cutter discovers Borden trying to free Angier and believes that Borden was responsible for the tank being there. Cutter is puzzled as to why the stage hands had been taking the tanks away every night, but later discovers the reason: Tesla's machine works.

But there is another view.

Cutter: You're a magician, not a wizard.

What if the story of Tesla's machine is simply fiction, written by Angier to misdirect Borden? In fact, why did Angier give Tesla his "diary" in the first place? Borden's trick baffles Angier, and Borden's fake diary sends Angier halfway across the world. So Angier decides in turn to create an illusion that will baffle and obsess Borden, and thereby gain revenge for the humiliation.

Angier: [to Borden] You always were the better magician. We both know that. Whatever your secret was, you have to agree, mine is better.

The film begins with the line "Are you watching closely?" and ends with "Now you’re looking for the secret, but you won’t find it because of course you’re not really looking. You don’t really want to work it out. You want to be fooled". We want to believe the science fiction ending. We want to believe that we've just seen proof of a strange inventor's amazing duplicating machine. And emotionally we want to believe that this story is about the tragedy of a man who is so obsessed with magic and revenge that he drowns himself nightly. We're not really looking. We don't really want to work it out. We want to be fooled.

Angier: You never understood, why we did this. The audience knows the truth: the world is simple. It's miserable, solid all the way through. But if you could fool them, even for a second, then you can make them wonder, and then you... then you got to see something really special... you really don't know?... it was... it was the look on their faces...

So how does illusion work then?

I don't know. I'm not a magician. And before the film I couldn't have told you how the tricks with the caged bird were done. So what do I know?

But it's far from impossible for this to be an illusion.

Firstly, Angier has a strong motive to create an illusion: the death of his wife, the humiliation of not knowing how Borden does his trick, compounded by the humiliation of being sent on a wild goose chase to visit Tesla.

Angier: The man stole my life. I steal his trick.

And again:

Angier: I don't care about my wife. I care about his secret.

Secondly, Angier has the means to create an illusion: He might, for example, have had waxworks created to be put in the tanks, hoping that Borden will follow them to the abandoned theatre and be mystified. He might have paid Root huge sums to have his features altered and to do the 100 shows without getting drunk. Root also has a motive: he was tricked by Borden into losing his lucrative gig, and tied-up and suspended on stage.

Root: Did you think you were unique, Mr Angier? I've been Caesar. I've played Faust. How hard could it possibly be to play the Great Danton?

Thirdly, events after Angier's return to London have the structure of an illusion, as described by Cutter:

The Pledge is the implicit one that that this is a magic show, like any other (with theatrics, trap doors and light effects). And yet there is a buzz that something more is going on: For example, there are only 100 shows; the impresario is apparently made to believe it is somehow "real" magic; the stage hands are blind; Angier does not allow his mentor Cutter backstage; and the ticket prices are astonishing. We are to believe that the explanation will be extraordinary rather than mundane.

Angier: No one cares about the man in the box, the man who disappears.

The Turn is the drowning of Root in front of Borden.

Judge: What a way to kill someone.
Cutter: They're magicians, your honor. Men who live by dressing up plain and simple truths to shock, to amaze.
Judge: Even without an audience?
Cutter: There was an audience. You see, this water tank was of particular significance to these two men. Particularly dreadful significance.

The misdirection is solidified in several ways. Root is no longer "mute, overweight, and... very drunk". Moreover, Cutter identifies the body in the mortuary as Angier. Even if Cutter wasn't fooled, he might have his own reasons for not revealing it was Root, such as not wishing to give away professional secrets, or loyalty to Angier, or blackmail. Furthermore the fake diary gives Borden a story of a real Tesla duplication machine.

And finally, the Prestige is Angier turning up at the prison. The man Borden saw die is alive after all.

In this view, the tragedy of Angier is that his elaborate illusion and murder - for an audience of one - is pointless. He gets the satisfaction of having fooled the hanged Borden twin, but here in front of the dying Angier is the face of his enemy, and his enemy's manner here suggests that he simply does not care about Angier's illusion. He has lost his brother and and he has lost Sarah, whom he "loves more than magic".

(By the way, and this is a really minor point, is that while I think it is likely that Angier set up Borden for the murder, it is also possible that he didn't. In the machine-works view, it is possible that Borden's arrival backstage was unanticipated. Angier might simply have taken advantage of the situation to let Borden hang. In the machine-is-a-fake view, Borden's arrival backstage was very much anticipated. It is the turn. But again there is no guarantee that it was part of Angier's plan for Borden to end up charged with murder.)

So which view is correct? The machine-works or the machine-is-a-fake? Each results in a very different interpretation of the ending, each tragic in its own way. I don't know. And it's not really the point. Nolan wouldn't have filled in the blanks of the machine-is-a-fake view for us anyway:

Borden: Never show anyone. They'll beg you and they'll flatter you for the secret, but as soon as you give it up... you'll be nothing to them.

The point is: were we even looking for a "mundane" solution? Wikipedia, for example, gives the impression that the magic is real, while IMDb doesn't question the veracity of the Tesla tale, even when describing alternative theories about the efficacy of the machine.

I believe that Nolan's film is illustrating the contention that we want to be fooled, and so we don't really look.

I didn't look.

Did you?

Liberal Democrat tribalism is the real danger

noreply@blogger.com (LonWon) — Fri, 20 May 2011 16:01:00 +0000

A Liberal Democrat friend was at a barbecue just before the AV referendum, and he was arguing (unsuccessfully) for a greater range of voices in politics.

"For example, I might not agree with everything the Greens want to do" he was saying, "and I certainly don't have much in common with UKIP, but a lot of people in this country do like what the Greens and UKIP are saying, and I think it's important those voices are heard."

There a little silence in the crowd, and then a cocky Labour voice quipped "I don't see why we need to hear the Greens or UKIP for christ's sake !!!"

Then Labour and Conservative supporters alike guffawed heartily in agreement together at the cheeky bravado of admitting to this in public.

I'm reminded of the pigs and the humans at the end of Animal Farm (oops, spoiler!)

And in fact we now know the AV referendum was won by an alliance of partisans, and not the gentle pluralists.

Don't you just hate the Labservatives? Don't you just hate all those who oppose progress? Don't you just wish a plague on both their unapologetically authoritarian houses?

Well, er... actually, no...

Over the past year, the Liberal Democrats have been on the receiving end of so much undisguised tribalist hatred that it sometimes seems impossible to ignore the bile. And the referendum and recent elections, gaffes and scandals have added to the misery. So it feels great to let loose a fusillade against the unprogressive majority.

But I think this might be a profound mistake.

It's true that despite being the junior partner, opposed on both sides by the sizable authoritarian elements within both the Labour and Conservative ranks, the Liberal Democrats are managing to be nimble about helping to encourage policies in liberal and social democratic directions.

There are many examples of positive achievements...

the pupil premium
the higher income tax threshold
halting ID cards
higher Capital Gains Tax
the restoration of the earnings link for pensions
the Great Repeal Bill
ending the practice of imprisoning the children of asylum-seekers
maintaining NHS spending
prison reform

... and many examples of defensive achievements, in the sense of forestalling potential illiberal initiatives such as:

more PFI
enforcement of the Digital Economy Act
new and worse kinds of control orders and imprisonment without trial
upfront university tuition fees
the enfeebling of local government
another illegal war
NHS dismemberment
knee-jerk law-making
secret support for torture

But this state of affairs is only possible (paradoxically) because of traditional Conservative discipline in following the party leader. Cameron, for all his faults, has set a mostly liberal Conservative agenda, and has been a man of his word in keeping to the Coalition Agreement. And this state of affairs is also only possible because the Labour leadership has decided to indulge in gratuitously oppositional politics, so that it has been easy for the Conservatives to maintain party discipline.

Coalition intensely irritates the tribalists within the Conservatives and Labour because it sidelines the Conservative right-wing and obliges Conservative ministers to negotiate formally with Liberal Democrat ministers rather than to make backroom deals with the authoritarian elements in Labour.

Of course, given the nature of Coalition, triumphs are rarely unalloyed. For example:

It would be better to repeal the DE Act and start again, but authoritarian elements within Conservatives and Labour would resist this.
The funding of Higher Education in England is a mess: there has been a huge leap in tuition fees; and while the repayment plan is better for students, it is far worse for the taxpayer. All parties are now however committed to the fees principle for this Parliament.
Reforms of the libel and privacy laws are moving slowly, shaped more by the judiciary than politicians. Over-regulation of media activities is a risk. As too is under-regulation of media ownership.
Conservatives and tribalists within Labour united to defeat the AV referendum.
Conservative traditionalists and Labour tribalists will again unite to try to defeat the introduction of democracy into the House of Lords.

However, if the diverse authoritarian or partisan elements within the Conservatives and Labour were able to maintain common cause over the course of this Parliament, as they did successfully over AV, the liberal and social democratic agendas would be lost. Moreover, if the next election sees the (unwarranted) smashing of the Liberal Democrats, only the liberal and social democratic elements of the Conservative and Labour parties can keep alive liberal and social democratic influences over law-making.

So despite a good record in government over the last year (for which they will never gain credit) Liberal Democrats do not have the luxury of mopping up the middle ground by antagonising supporters of Labour and Conservatives. Liberal Democrats need to foster liberal and social democratic elements in the other parties. Building common cause, not indulging in tribalism, is the only way to keep these ideals alive.

It means looking for those at the barbecue who are not guffawing quite so loudly with Napoleon and Pilkington... those who are, deep down, a bit uncomfortable with a simple binary divide of all political thought... those who would like to hear what others have to say.

Credits: Photo "Kitbash Mercenary" by Shaun Wong

Not voting in the referendum? What's the worst that could happen, eh?

noreply@blogger.com (LonWon) — Sat, 30 Apr 2011 22:24:00 +0000

Right, first ignore all that guff from the YES and NO campaigns about MPs working harder, losers winning, 50% to win, some people getting more votes than others, safe seats, Australian surveys, swing voters, more coalitions, 1951, the BNP, £250m, more choice, Papua New Guinea, blah blah blah blah...

Well maybe don't ignore that stuff completely: there are nuggets of good arguments in there. But they're oversimplified and oversold.

But if you want to know why it's not cool to miss the referendum, you need to understand what's wrong with the current voting system, First Past The Post (FPTP).

The best account I've found is by Dan Snow. It's 3 minutes long. You can afford 3 minutes, no?

Or to sum up Dan's point in a picture:

(Sorry, I don't who created this picture. I'll credit them when I find out.)

So the problem is:
Under the current voting system a candidate is often elected even though most people prefer a different candidate.

So what? Why does this matter?

There are two reasons why this matters:

It means that, over time, people get more and more disillusioned with democracy. Why bother participating in a democracy if it's common for the person elected as your MP to be less popular than one of the other candidates?
In order to try to beat this problem, we've learned to vote tactically: "Don't vote for The Green Man (even though you prefer that pub). That's a wasted vote. You'll just let the Coffee Shop win." And so it is often rational to vote for a party that is not your first choice. Our votes are an attempt to second-guess how others will vote, to try to stop the candidate we hate. We're not free to vote for the candidate we really want, and so this again breeds disillusionment.

Our current crop of politicians have been successful under the existing voting system. Why should they want to change it?

Your current MP might be great. If so, you're lucky, and I can see why you might not care too much about changing the voting system.

But if you've ever wondered why so many people say "politicians are all the same", "they never listen", and "they're just in it for themselves", ask yourself whether this disillusionment with democracy is good for the country.

AV isn't perfect by any means, but it's better than FPTP. And if you don't vote for change on 5 May, it'll be no use complaining about "our awful politicians" ever again.

Coalition with the Devil

noreply@blogger.com (LonWon) — Sun, 24 Apr 2011 22:33:00 +0000

I'm really starting to really appreciate the Coalition.

Not especially for what it's doing. (Although I'm not knocking the pupil premium, the higher income tax threshold, higher Capital Gains Tax, the restoration of the earnings link for pensions, and the Great Repeal Bill)

More for what it's not doing.

A minority Conservatives government would have been able to win Commons votes thanks to the sizable authoritarian cohorts within the Labour ranks. Whatever the 2010 Conservative manifesto might have said, who knows what right-wing initiatives would have sprung up by now? A renaissance for ID cards, PFI and the DE Act? New and worse kinds of imprisonment without trial and control orders? Upfront university tuition fees? The enfeebling of local government? Another illegal war? Secret support for torture?

Of course Labour could have chosen to play silly politics by opposing all Tory bills on principle, good or bad. But if one believes (as I do) that this particular Labour tendency is motivated more by honest conviction rather than by low politics, it's quite likely that such initiatives, originated under a Labour government, would by now be becoming embedded under a minority Tory government.

Instead, the Coalition is constantly forcing the Conservatives to negotiate formally with the Liberal Democrats rather than making deals with the Labour authoritarian tendency.

This is such a good thing.

Of course this liberal moderating influence of the Liberal Democrats is making the Conservative Party a better party than it would otherwise be. That's good for the country. Not so good for the electoral prospects of the Lib Dems in 2015. And not as good for Labour in 2015 as it could otherwise be. No wonder Coalition upsets the tribalists.

But what are the limits of this? Should, for example, the Social Democrat Party of Germany have joined a Coalition with Hitler in the 1930s, to act as a "moderating influence"? No, obviously not.

So there are bound to be circumstances in which a shared programme for Government, mutual trust and effective inter-party communication are impossible to develop. Labour wasn't ready for Coalition in 2010, for instance. But provided the conditions are propitious, Coalitions can help minimise the chances of parties energetically pursuing sudden and under-considered brainwaves.

Coalition with the Devil? No. But Coalition with Occasionally Redeemable Sinners - that'll do me.

Why I think the Yes2AV campaign will fail

noreply@blogger.com (LonWon) — Sun, 20 Mar 2011 00:26:00 +0000

The Yes2AV campaign has the best of the intellectual arguments, the most thoughtful people and a timely anti-sleaze message. But I think Yes2AV will fail.

Having looked at the options carefully, I think the AV electoral system is preferable to the current FPTP system. Nearly everyone I respect politically also thinks AV is preferable to FPTP. The anti-AV arguments I've seen are nearly all spurious, weak or ad hominem.

But my gut feeling is that the 5 May referendum is heading for a No2AV result.

Why?

Firstly, many people I've come across simply don't care. Maybe that will change nearer the date, but I suspect not.

Secondly, even if they've heard some of the headline arguments, it sounds a minor, nerdy proposal that seems unlikely to solve the disillusion many feel about politics right now. Many won't turn up.

Thirdly, the No2AV campaign has deployed so much chaff about AV - a lot of it neatly collated in David Cameron's speech last month - that voting No will seem to many like the safe, default option when the arguments appear to be balanced. FPTP has a simple, familiar metaphor - the running race - for people to cling to. AV doesn't seem to have crystallised one. The interview panel? The X Factor eliminations? The pub that runs out of Carlsberg? It doesn't matter that FPTP is nothing like a race, or that the arguments against AV are actually pretty weak. There's sufficient chaff to obscure the clear advantages of AV and create worry.

Finally, many of the most tribal Conservatives and Labour supporters are in the No camp, for obvious reasons if you consider that FPTP favours tribalism. Such tribalists will use their dominant share of the newspaper market to affirm disaster scenarios if AV wins:

"BNP VOTERS TO GET THEIR VOTES COUNTED MORE!!"
"Do you want Nick Clegg in power FOREVER?!"
"SLEAZE: PRO-AV OPERATION BANKROLLED BY COUNTING MACHINE FIRM"
"87% of polling officers confused on AV rules, exclusive survey reveals"
"Greens, SNP & Plaid to be wiped out, experts say"
"UK TO BECOME LAUGHING STOCK IF PAPUA NEW GUINEA SYSTEM IMPOSED HERE"
"Do you want a Parliament of second choices? WE DON'T."
"AV WOULD GIVE BRITAIN NAZI-STYLE DICTATORSHIPS!!!!!"

This newspaper onslaught will happen either on the day of the vote or the day before, to minimise the chances of Yes2AV rebuttals or a thinking through of how realistic these scenarios actually are. Readers will either be stirred to vote No, or stay away so that they can avoid voter guilt if these scenarios were to come true.

As with all my predictions, the above is to be taken with a pinch of salt. I'm usually wrong in my predictions. So here's hoping my gut is wrong again!

Reflections on The End of Lost

noreply@blogger.com (LonWon) — Thu, 24 Feb 2011 23:08:00 +0000

Finally finished watching Lost.

(+++ Spoilers below +++ obviously)

The whole six series turned out to be slightly less of a shaggy dog story than I'd always suspected.

I cried, for instance, at the revelation that the ecstatic flashsideways events were simply Jack's limbo (or Heaven's Waiting Room, or however you want to interpret it); and then felt slightly ashamed at having done so, given the blatant contrivance. Rather than series-long teasing, hinting at deep parallels and ironies, much more satisfying, I think, would have been a 10 minute Last Temptation of Christ style interlude, as Jack lay dying in the Cave of Light, in which we're not sure whether the characters' lives were rebooting.

Nonetheless, by the end, we actually got some answers: e.g. the identities of "Adam and Eve", the cause of the whispering, the source of the island's power, Richard Alpert's agelessness, the purpose of the Swan station, the appearance of dead people, the nature of the smoke monster. But even these answers are ultimately unsatisfactory. What powers does the island's Protector actually have? Why did Mother behave the way she did? How was the cave constructed? Why should the donkey wheel, healing and time dilation work like that? Why are dead people appearing? Etc., etc., etc...

And many central mysteries - the "numbers", the "rules", the origins of the island's powers, the motivations of "The Others", the "infection", to name just a few - are deliberately left as mysterious.

Some people have decried the writers for making it up as they go along. To some extent that's fair. What might have worked neatly in two series was padded out to six; some characters and storylines struck a chord, others didn't, or didn't work out; and keeping the audience guessing led to several over-elaborate detours. But one has to admire the ambition of incorporating so many potentially profound themes within a mainstream show, whilst continuing to rack up the tension.

Part of the writers' skill in sustaining audience interest lay in selectively dripping answers while also striking out in new directions, without appearing to do so. The writers were somewhat protected from egregious narrative incoherence by their creation itself: a world in which all certainties are constantly undermined by the characters' propensities for deception and shifting motivations, and by hallucinations, ghosts and bodily impersonation. They were also aided in no small part by what ranks among the most effective use of music I've ever come across.

It's an incredible skill to keep the audience teetering on the edge, trying to avoid burning curiosity spill over into frustration. And leaving loose ends is not in itself a bad thing. Part of the fun of this show has been the wild speculation it permits. Moreover there's a justification for not explaining too much, in that one of the key themes of Lost was the tension between faith and science in grappling with a world full of events that might or might not be explicable by as-yet-unknown forces. It's not the forces themselves that were the point, but the characters' struggles to make sense of these events.

But, ultimately, stories don't add up to much more than something told in a beautiful way unless most mysteries and motivations are seen to resolve to a very small number of irreducible givens that one has to accept for the sake of the narrative.

The writers of Lost chose not to take that path. And that's why I say it was a shaggy dog story.

The Archers: Poor Nigel

noreply@blogger.com (LonWon) — Mon, 03 Jan 2011 16:35:00 +0000

It's all been said now. The speculation, the tweetfest, and the dissection of the 60th anniversary episode of The Archers are over.

On the whole, I think David Aaronovitch of the Times had the best post-mortem (as it were). Elisabeth Mahoney of the Grauniad was also very good. The Telegraph and the Mail were just nasty.

A few reflections:

Before the episode I was unsettled by Vanessa Whitburn promising an episode that would "shake Ambridge to the core" (#SATTC). I don't like spoilers. I think they ultimately damage drama. On the other hand, they can bring in new or lapsed listeners.

During the episode I felt that we were being teased. A number of threats were dangled, none too subtly, including the banner, Helen's health, Elizabeth's heart condition, Tony's drive to the hospital, and the emergency Caesarean. This made it hard to suspend disbelief.

I took part in the tweeting, which was great fun, but again helped to undermine the suspension of disbelief. Unlike some people, my enjoyment comes from pretending it's real, not from critiquing the craft.

Credibility was also undermined by the crude run-up to the accident - the alcohol, Lizzie's warning, David's "man or mouse" jibe, the wind, the frost, the wind, the dark, and Nigel's final melodramatic speech on the roof. I love The Archers and this episode did it no credit I think.

However, Nigel's scream, from someone we've followed for many years and who has nearly always been extremely calm and cheerful was, for me, terrifying:

I was definitely shaken by Nigel's death, if not the build-up, and I can see how the slow-burn repercussions of this event will indeed shake Ambridge for years to come. Mahoney's conclusion in the Guardian is spot-on that the "real drama will unfold from now".

One last thought: Everyone seems to hate Helen Archer (even Qwerty of the excellent pauseliveaction); but I think she's the most gorgeously self-destructive character on The Archers. She unwittingly accrues and generates misery relentlessly, and her story of constantly thwarted epiphanies is top-notch tragedy. Now that Ed and Emma Grundy have lost their zing, it's tragic Helen, scheming Matt Crawford and the deliciously dysfunctional Aldridges who are providing the best stories. But I suspect Lizzie Pargetter maybe returning to centre-stage...

Doctor Who: The Mind Robber

noreply@blogger.com (LonWon) — Thu, 23 Dec 2010 18:32:00 +0000

The Doctor moves the Tardis outside ordinary time and space to avoid a lava flow (which looks unintentionally rather like an excess of soap bubbles). They land in a white void.

While the Doctor goes to another room in the Tardis to begin repairs, Jamie & Zoe see images of their homes on the viewscreen. They are lured outside the Tardis, which dramatically explodes. There then follows a series of surreal encounters with an array of characters from literature including Gulliver, the Medusa, a unicorn, Rapunzel, and some life-sized toy soldiers.

How was it?

There is more mystery in this story than the previous ones in this catch-up, and the nature of this particular plot means the cruddy sets and effects are not the drawback they have been previously. However it is rather off-putting that the expanse of nothingness looks pretty much like an empty television studio; and the supposedly scary white robots look like cardboard teletubbies. Nevertheless, the premise is ingenious, and there is lots of nicely judged humour to keep things going.

Audience reaction 2010

After the last story, I decided not to inflict this one on my 21st century companions. I suspect their reaction would have been impatience with the whimsy, sardonic comments on Zoe's sparkly catsuit, and a more emotionally and intellectually engaging plot. But I think they would not have complained about the music, dialogue, acting or sets as they did previously.

Idle questions

How did the inhabitants of this realm get there?
Was the destruction of the Tardis fictional?
Victoria is gone, replaced by Zoe. How does the Doctor choose his companions? Are there any consequences to plucking companions out of history?
We saw another room in the Tardis in this story. We now know that it has many rooms. How are they created?

For an alternative view...

A collection of praise at PageFillers.com
A balanced review by John Bensalhia at Shadowlocked.
A nicely baffled account at themindrobber.co.uk

Next time on LW's DW catch-up...
The Second Doctor's final story: The War Games.