Wednesday, August 29, 2007

And now, Richard Dawkins and Simon Schama arm-wrestling

I see that this week the Observer newspaper has a huge advert trailing its 'exclusive' interview with David Beckham. This really is celebrity gone a bit off its trolley. David Beckham has, as they say, a very educated right foot, but that's about the limit. Who on earth cares what he thinks about things? One might as well trumpet an exclusive video of Andre Previn playing tennis or the finance editor of the Wall Street Journal playing canasta.

Get a grip!

Friday, June 29, 2007

Ladders to nowhere

A lot of talk at the moment about the fact that Britain has the lowest social mobility of any developed country. It is quite a comment on the legacy of Thatcher and Blair that they have accomplished this, despite the fact that both were fulsomely committed to the opposite and both argued that their policies would achieve the opposite. It does not take much to answer the question of why mobility is shrinking, at least from the point of view of government policy.

But there are far more radical and important questions that need to be asked. The first is, why is there a 'ladder' at all? What is the ladder? The fact is that we neither recognise nor care how society really works, and that the mere existence of any ladders means that there will always be someone at the bottom. Does there need to be? If this the natural order? If it is, then it doesn't sit well with the fact that for 90% of human history we managed to have classless, non-stratified social systems.

Of course, the scale and complexity of modern societies, especially after the rise of industrialism, amplifies the problems to a fantastic degree. But these revolutions also gave the tools, intellectual, social and political, to solve the problem. So why don't we - even to the point that we don't even recognise that the problem - the problem of the ladder itself rather than the rate of movement up and down it - exists any more?

Are we now wholly incapable of envisaging a world of practical equality? Evidently so.

Saturday, June 09, 2007

Poor Ms Hilton

I got my haircut this morning. My hairdresser (a rather nice lady called Sue) and I chatted about politicians and Big Brother and things like that. And naturally we talked about poor Ms Hilton. Our conversation confirmed the consensus I had identified during the week: as far as I can tell, not only is a 100% majority in favour of Paris Hilton being in jail, but exactly the same percentage want her in jail regardless of whether she has actually done anything illegal.

Yet, now that I am back from the hairdressers and looking quite ginchy, am I alone in feeling a twinge of guilt about all this? Isn’t this singling out just this one rather worthless individual actually abhorrent in the extreme? Doesn’t this persecution of this one silly person not violate the principal of equity on which our legal systems so proudly – and rightly – insist? There are after all many other bogus celebrities, and even quite genuinely powerful people, who are just as worth as Ms Hilton of a spell in jail, so why should she alone be treated this way?

This brings me to an idea that came to me many years ago, while fantasising about having Margaret Thatcher, Mary Whitehouse and Barbara Cartland wrestling together in Wembley Stadium, fighting to the death nude in fresh fish before an audience of 100,000 miners? Yes, that does rather date it doesn’t it? When were there last 100,000 miners in this country? But anyway, the idea was simple enough: that a referendum would be held once a month, and everyone in the country could vote for the person they would most want to be thrown into jail for a month.

Actually I think my original idea was that they should be exposed to some kind of very public humiliation, probably involving a chimpanzee, a dildo and a global TV audience, but you get my drift.

Personally I find the prospect quite enticing. What editor of the Sun, what particularly tiresome government toady, what ludicrously self-important celebrity would be immune to the public wrath? Or should be, for that matter. Although the right to privacy should be sacrosanct for any normal human being, the kind of person who courts public attention with the egomania that currently parades itself across our media has surely foregone any such right.

But perhaps this would be redundant. After all, who is currently a better case for treatment than – well, Paris Hilton?

Tuesday, May 15, 2007

Goodbye Mr Tony

A strange experience: watching Tony Blair announce his retirement as Prime Minister and leader of the Labour party the other evening, I felt quite sorry for him. I have distrusted him since the day I clapped eyes on him, and my opinion of him has only fallen since. Yet, watching him make his little speech, he seemed to be feeling genuine contrition and to finally recognise that we really don’t like him. As Mark Steel put it several years back, if he is the most popular Prime Minister we have ever had, then he must be the most unpopular most popular Prime Minister we have ever had too.

Yet we should not be too easy on him even now. I thought Margaret Thatcher raised the untrustworthiness of British governments to new heights, but New labour, with its interminable spinning, disingenuousness, image control, endless announcements of the same resources as though they were new each time, and utter lack of either genuine political vision or intellectual substance has discredited the political process to the point where I simply do not believe a word they are saying. What worse thing, short of a coup, capability they have done to what limited democracy our ludicrous Parliamentary offers?

And Mr Tony’s legendary (or is that ‘imaginary’) sincerity only made things worse. After five years with Thatcher I was literally unable to hear her vile voice without turning off the radio, and Blair came quite close. Still, he looked genuine enough the other night. Or perhaps I just couldn’t think of anything he could be lying about. What a dreadful epitaph.

And what comes next? Gordon Brown. Oh dear. Six months ago I really thought Labour could not elect such a person, but it looks all but inevitable. I wonder how soon it will be before I am reduced to voting Liberal Democrat? Can Gordon imagine what it costs me to say that?

Friday, April 27, 2007

How doth the little crocodile

One detail of Alice's Adventures in Wonderland I have always liked is Carroll’s poem, ‘How doth the little crocodile’:

‘How doth the little crocodile
Improve his shining tail,
And pour the waters of the Nile
On every golden scale!

‘How cheerfully he seems to grin,
How neatly spreads his claws,
And welcomes little fishes in,
With gently smiling jaws!’

Carroll was parodying a typical Victorian homily entitled ‘Against Idleness and Mischief’, written by the English theologian Isaac Watts:

‘How doth the little busy bee
Improve each shining hour,
And gather honey all the day
From every opening flower!’

And so on for three more sickly verses.

Last night my daughter Beany, a voracious reader, mentioned that one of the characters in R.C. Sherriff’s play Journey’s End recites Carroll’s poem. If you have not seen it, Journey’s End is a play about life in the trenches in World War One. I do not know what Sherriff meant by inserting this detail, but a contemporary resonance struck me straight away.

The war in Iraq – as previously in Vietnam, Aden, Cyprus and a hundred post-colonial wars – has always been accompanied by shrill nonsense about defending this or that value or principle. Like Vietnam, Iraq is meant to be a ‘shining hour’ for freedom and democracy. But once more such ideals are being dragged in the dust by ignoble individuals like the US and British leaderships, and it is impossible to imagine that the cause of liberty will be advanced one inch by this awful disaster. On the contrary, the very idea of democracy has already been debased so far that in Arab discourse 'damakrata' translates as the forced imposition of western ideas.

But what should one expect when the West is led by arrogant and self-serving fools like Bush, Cheney, Blair and Rumsfeld, who imagine that abstractions like ‘freedom’ have any meaning at all in a country we spent a decade blockading and bombing, causing perhaps a million deaths, all in the name of these self-same ‘principles’. What were they expecting? To be welcomed with open arms? Their own experts had told them that they would be anything but welcome. But Blair’s abstractions told him better, and as the Americans managed to demonstrate almost immediately, the only thing they would do with any efficiency was sell the country’s assets to American corporations.

And the military? Having been promised that they would be welcome with open arms, they find that the peaceful cultivation of the beehive they were promised by our ‘leaders’ has turned into fighting with crocodiles. We have so obviously lost that we should get out immediately. Western governments and armies cannot save Iraq from the disaster they have created – they are the disaster. To persist out of sheer arrogance and fear of failure is to condemn tens of thousands more Iraqis, and many soldiers too, to pointless suffering and death.

After World War One they put up statues to Field Marshal Haig, Prime Minister Lloyd George and all the rest, whereas they should have hanged the lot of them. Meanwhile, shortly after the character in Journey’s End recites ‘How doth the little crocodile’, he is killed in a raid. Is that going to be the outcome in Iraq too – until, we finally admit that, in our arrogance and idealism, we are the problem, not the solution?

Sunday, April 15, 2007

Mud, mud...

The UK government has this wonderful fantasy that they can define Britishness. As I argued in my posting on Identity and Equality, it is almost certainy a self-defeating enterprise. However, if they are looking for something decidedly British, let me suggest that no one should be considered for citizenship who doesn't find utter delight in any and all of the following:

  • Flanders and Swan's Hippopotamus Song (especially the version sung with a live audience on At the Drop of a Hat)
  • Eddie Izzard's 'Cake or death' sketch
  • Monty Python's Batley Townswomens' Guild presents the Battle of Pearl Harbour

It won't work, of course. I can believe that some of the Cabinet have a sense of humour, but somehow not the po-faced Blair. Besides, I would feel quite ill if I thought I shared a sense of humour with him.

A final thought. How about depriving existing citizens of their citizenship if they don't have a suitably British sense of humour. Starting at the very top, perhaps...

Friday, April 13, 2007

Cristiano Ronaldo and the magic of market economics

Today,the BBC website tells me, Cristiano Ronaldo signed a new five-year contract with Manchester United. The BBC news told me that he will 'earn' at least £25 million over the next few years - and that's just from Man U.

Words fail me. In what sense could any human being 'earn' that much money? In what sense could they possibly earn the equivalent of 200 times the average UK wage? I would agree that the man is going to acquire £25 million by legal means, but earn it? Never.

And don't get me started on Bill Gates - a man who is 'worth' more than many small countries. If I were looking for an icon for the absurdity of market economics and unbridled private property, he would be it.