85 - Forthcoming

I need to try to ensure I post more often in the new year in this blog. Often I'll have ideas for a post, but because I don't write it down, it ends up getting lost in the ether of the my terrible memory, only coming back days later when either it's not relevant any more, or I've lost the impetus to write it. 

This year, I tried to write a post a day, but this fizzled out in mid-February when I missed a day, and my enthusiasm popped like a bursting balloon when the streak had ended. I'll try to do the same next year, but without the giving up bit if I miss a day. Maybe I should aim for a number of blog posts over the course of the year instead? Maybe say that by the end of next year I'll be up to 300 posts? That'll be just over 200 in a year, which is more than I've ever written in a year. And whilst I can still aspire to a post a day, if I miss some days as long as I stay on track to get to #300 by the end of the year I'll not get too disheartened. 

Yes. 

I think I like the idea...

84 - Fairytale

 After talking about the censorship of Fairytale of New York the other day, I kinda feel like talking about the song itself, and why it's one of the greatest songs ever recorded. Heck, I'd put it in my top three of all songs I've ever heard in my life, and this is why...

(Atta Girl by Heavenly, and There is a Light That Never Goes Out by The Smiths before you ask!)

Like most people of my age I first heard FONY when it was released in 1987. At the time I was just 14 years old, and I'd never heard anything quite like it. Christmas songs at the time were pretty much all completely joyous, and uplifting, and talking of how great the time of year was. Think Slade, or Wizzard, or Shakey, or... and yes, I know there were some exemptions like Mud or Jonah Lewie, but these were not that common, and none had anything like we were to get with FONY. I must have played the 7" millions of times. Just the a-side. The b-side was an instrumental version. 

The song, is at heart, the story of a relationship between a man and a woman, and catalogues the ups and downs of this relationship. The song begins with a man, arrested by the Police, thrown in the drunk tank on Christmas Eve. Here, he slurs his drunken words, some almost incomprehensible (a theme that would continue through the song with Shane's parts), but here we still get the central theme of the song, about dreaming of how the future could be better. 

The argument verse is the one the seems to get all the press because of the language (not going in to it here; see post 81); but the whole thing is in character. We've had the optimistic first duet of the song when the couple have first met; here, it's where they've been together for a while, and despite the fact they still love each other, things have not been going so well, so they have a full on blistering row. But this is not the end. 

The peak of the song comes with the last verse - the dreams verse - where the woman complains that he "took my dreams from me"; but this is soon countered with "I kept them with me, babe; I put them with my own", and soon reaches a peak with the line "I built my dreams around you", which is one of the most beautiful lines in any song, and this openness on his part suggests there may yet be hope for this couple to live happily ever after, or at least comfortably with each other. 

I like to hope they have a happy ending. 

"There is no harp player in The Pogues."

If you can track it down (and hopefully it'll be repeated on the BBC this year again) there's an hour long documentary about FONY, going in to how the song came about, its reception, its legacy, and acting as a tribute to the late Kirsty MacColl, who was taken from us 20 years ago. It shows early demo versions of the song, which really don't work anything like as well. But there's a sublime moment where the song's producer Steve Lilywhite takes us through the master tape, isolating individual tracks. At one point he isolates Kirsty's vocal, and even unaccompanied it's so very powerful and the reason the song works so well.

Ironically, though, Shane and Kirsty didn't record the song together. Kirsty's vocals were only meant to be a guide vocal so that the Pogues could used it to show the eventual singer what they wanted. However, as soon as Shane heard Kirsty's vocal he insisted that it was just right and that she be the one on the record. He recorded his bits separately. They performed the song live in concert many times, though. 

It is a song that's been covered many times, and this is something I alluded to in the previous post on this topic; if you are going to sing Shane's part on the song, we have to believe you could be in the drunk tank on Christmas Eve, or it just doesn't work. This is because it is a song as much about the performance, the acting of the roles, as it is of singing a song. That belief. Could you imagine Shane McGowan in the drunk tank on Christmas Eve? Hell, yeah! Ronan Keating? Hell, no. 

There's all sorts of covers released of the song over the years, some fairly straight, some giving it their own spin (one reimagining it as a solo song, rather than a duet), but I don't think there'll ever be a version to top the original 1987 version. 

83 - Numbering

 Now I am sure those among you who have been paying attention will notice that every post on this blog is numbered, and that today's is #83, and the previous post was #81. So. Where is post #82?

Well... I was looking through my post list on the dashboard of the site and saw that the post count after #81 was 83 posts. Now, this post count includes unpublished drafts, and there is an unpublished draft from a little while back that never saw light of day. It's called "Manifesto", and one day should I summon up the energy to finish it, it'll be published. 

But that still left a post unaccounted for as there was definitely only the one draft... so, looking back through the blog I happened to realise that a little while back I gave two posts the same number... see if you can find which two...

So, I had two choices; go back and revise all the post numbers from that point, or skip the #82 so that the total number of published posts matches the current post number. 

You can see what I've chosen to do. 

Hopefully, there will be no further duplications...!

81 - Language

Well, it's late November so we're now in the annual tedium of the censoring or banning of the Pogues and Kirsty MacColl's Christmas classic single, Fairytale of New York. 

This year it seems particularly notable as it's Radio 1 who have decided to blur our the word "slut" and replace "you cheap lousy faggot" with "you're cheap and you're haggard" whenever it plays it as it thinks their listeners are too sensitive to hear a song featuring the omitted words. Other BBC radio stations have apparently left it to the DJ as to which version of the song is played...

I guess before I go on, I should go in to a bit of a history in to the censorship of the song.

Back in 1987, when the song was first released and was to be performed on Top of the Pops, they had no problem at all with the words "slut" or "faggot", and instead took issue with "Happy Christmas your arse, I pray God it's your last", insisting that "your arse" be replaced with "you ass". It is this performance, with Shane's unique lip-syncing, that is most often repeated on the Christmas TOTP2 compilations. 

Much less seen is the performance shown just after Christmas 1991, just in to January 1992. This is the origin of the alternative "you're cheap and you're haggard" version of the song, where Kirsty sings these very lyrics. And, therefore, how Radio 1 can play a version where Kirsty sings these alternative lyrics. 

There are many people who think this alternative originated with the dreadful Ronan Keating cover of the song; they are wrong. They're not wrong about it being dreadful, though; it is. Though after seeing him speak about it on the terrific BBC documentary about the song I understand why he covered it, his version just doesn't work as to sing Shane's part of the song you have to believe the singer could spend Christmas Eve in the drunk tank... can you imagine that about Ronan? No! Nessa, fer sure... (Now if we could have a release of the full version of the Nessa and Bryn version released I would be very happy...)

It has been noted by many that Shane McGowan himself doesn't care which version of FONY is played; well, yes, he's not daft. He'll be more than aware that whichever version is played he'll still get his royalties. If not played at all, then he gets nothing. Radio airplay of FONY is probably enough to keep him in whisky for a whole year... 

And all that's a load of preamble before I get to the point; what do I think? Well, my opinion is that if you're going to play the song, you should play the song as it was released in 1987, bad words and all. 

"'Cos you know sometimes words have two meanings..." Led Zeppelin, Stairway to Heaven. 

It is the use of the word "faggot" that stirs up much negativity towards the song, and it is an unacceptable slur towards gay people. It's also an old Irish (and apparently Liverpudlian) slang for a lazy person. The question is which definition of the word would the Irish chap Shane McGowan have had in mind when writing the song?

I would certainly suggest the latter as it's the definition of the word that actually best fits the context of the story in the song; that of the ups and down in the relationship of a man and a woman, and there is not a single moment in the song that suggests the male character is gay. Therefore, logically, the "lazy person" interpretation to me would be the correct one. 

(Faggot's also an old word for a bundle of twigs, and a very tasty gravy covered meaty dish; neither of those contexts fits either. Oh, I do miss faggots since I went vegetarian. I used to have them a couple of times a month until then. If only Brains could make a vegetarian version. It'd be brilliant. Piers Morgan would disagree, I expect... )

I know there is also the argument that homophobic bullies use this part of the song to denigrate gay people; but let's be honest, bullies will use anything they can get their hands on to use as a weapon. If not this song, they'd just use something else. It's a nothing argument as to give in to the bullies is admitting they've won, and they can never win. They must never win. 

But at the end of the day it comes down to a personal choice. If I play the song, I'll play the original. Other people will play the censored version. It's not like it's being taken away, and never heard. 

You have the choice. 

And that freedom of choice is oh, so very important. 

Now... what have we all got to say about the censoring of Mel and Kim's Rockin' Around the Christmas Tree and the excision of the line "I haven't had this much fun since Two Little Boys was number one..." 

80 - Single

The thought does sometimes enter my mind as to whether I’ll be single for the rest of my life. I realise this may be a somewhat pessimistic outlook, but perhaps it may be realistic, and with how 2020 has been going, the isolation and all that pandemic related malarkey, makes me increasingly think this is my future.

 

And it’s not even necessarily a bad thing.

I have now spent close to 8 and a half years as a single chap, and I am somewhat used to just doing exactly what I feel like, when I feel like it – subject to restrictions of needing to do pesky things like working, and planning around school days/holidays and the other fun things the kids do. Oh, and of course, traversing the may different rules of the lockdowns this year. But, ultimately, decision are mine, and I am rather used to how life is.

 

I sometimes wonder if I’ve spent so much time single that I’d be no good in any kind of relationship, or that I’d need a lot of knocking in to shape to be even remotely bearable around, and that I’d put off anyone that might even contemplate a date with me? You may think this is, again, pessimism; but precedent set would point in this direction. I mean, of the handful of dates I have been in on recent years virtually all of them I’ve thought have gone well… until the inevitable “nah, not for me” follow up. Even the rarer second dates have failed to lead to a third.

 

Oh. Well.

 

And also I really don’t like dating as a concept much anyway as it’s far too much like a two way job interview with all the questions etc (I’ve been told I both ask too many and too few questions!), and trying to cram as much in as you can in a pretty short amount of time. Sometimes the conversation flows better than others, but I guess that’s a part of how things are; conversations with someone you’ve only just met will never be the same as with those who have been your friends for many years. You don’t yet have the shortcuts, in-jokes, and knowledge of the kind of things the other will find funny etc. These things take time, which is in short supply on a date. Also, to be honest, on a first date I really don’t care what your job is; all that can come later. I mean, chances are it’s not that exciting; certainly mine isn’t. I’d rather be talking about the things you choose to do, hobbies, interests, likes, dislikes, opinions on things. All that is much, much, more interesting. I remember one date was a massive EastEnders fan; she talked for ages about that, and it was great. Can’t remember her job at all.  

 

Of course, you have to get someone to go on a date with you in the first place, and these days that’s mainly the apps; even when you match with someone only a small number will actually bother to message you back. And then it’s hard to know exactly what to say in your first message. I always try to make sure I include something that shows I’ve actually paid attention to her profile, so it doesn’t sound like it’s a generic message that could be sent to anyone (though I admit, I have sent some of these). I mean, I don’t expect a reply within 30 seconds of hitting “send”, but when you look in your inbox and see piles of messages without replies it does get a little disheartening. Almost wish you’d not got the match in the first place.

 

Looking back, I sound like a right moaning old whingebag, and that’s really not the tone I was aiming for here. I do retain at least a little optimism that I might not be single forever, but I am much less worried about it than I might have been in the past. I have far fewer expectations now than I might have had in the past, and I guess whatever happens, happens.

 

No-one knows just what the future holds, and in some ways that’s exciting. The pandemic has put things on hold for a while, but it won’t last forever. You never know, maybe a match or two might work out how to reply to a message and it could be the start of something big? Or maybe the start of something nothing much at all?

 

Either way there’s only one way to find out…

79 - Potter

So, at my advanced age (46) I've finally watched all eight Harry Potter films. I did very much enjoy them on the whole. There were some better than others, some glorious moment, and that cast... so many great actors throughout. Alan Rickman stole the show, though. But then, he always does... Also, I'd have liked to have seen a lot more of Miriam Margolyes, too. 

I can't help but wish we'd got a few more two-part films, though, as I think the last one really benefited from having more room to breathe. I can't imagine how they could have squeezed that in to a 2 1/2 hour film, so it makes me wonder what may have been excised from the other books to fit in to a single film. 

I guess the next thing to do is read the books, to see exactly what was snipped for time. I expect there's all sorts of secondary characters who get more time in the books than they do in the film. And probably all sorts of excised sub-plots. 

After watching, I do have a few questions, though...

1. In one of the films Hermione has a time turner, which enables its wearer to go back in time and undo unfortunate events. Which is exactly what they do in that film. So... why is it when there are further unfortunate events, such as the one at the end of The Goblet of Fire for one? Or the end of Half Blood Prince?
2. What's with the Quidditch scoring? If catching the Golden Snitch means an automatic win, why bother with anything else and just concentrate on that?
3. If the Elder Wand is so potentially dangerous in the hands of Voldemort, and it's so easy to destroy, why doesn't Dumbledore just snap it in half?
4. Why on Earth was David Tennant wasted in a role that was little more than an extended cameo?
5. If Voldemort was unable to kill Harry as a baby, why would he think he is able to when he's a teenager?
6. Why do we see so very little of Hermione's parents? We see the Weasley's all the time...
7. Is it just me or does "Luna Lovegood" sound like a girl from a James Bond movie? I mean, devoid of context you could just imagine Roger Moore's eyebrow raise at the mention of the name.
8. What happened with the Malfoys at the end of the last film? They just seemed to walk away. Are we to infer anything by Draco's appearance on Platform 9 3/4 19 year later?
9. What's with all the, essentially, "baddie" wizards being sorted in to Slytherin? Wouldn't it be safer just to expel anyone sorted in to this house? 
10. Lastly; just how brilliant was it when Neville stood up to Voldemort near the end of the Deathly Hallows?

I could probably think of many more questions, but these'll do for now...

78 - 1984

Sometimes I feel like we're living in 1984. That is, the Orwellian version, not the real life version that happened 36 years ago. I say this because increasingly I see people silenced because of their opinions, bullied for their thoughts, and a general sense that if you do not say that you love Big Brother, and that Eurasia has always been at war with Oceania, you must be some kind of horrible bigot that must be erased from whichever online platform you are using. 

The fact is there is never going to be a consensus about any issue, especially those that cause controversy. Where there may be people with polarising opinions on either side, but also people trying to navigate a middle way. It's often these trying to navigate a middle way that get caught in the cross-fire and before you know it, the cancel-culture idiots are down on them like a tonne of bricks. 

I have for a long time thought that the best way to persuade others that yours is the best path is by reasoned debate. That when concepts which perhaps are quite a leap from the status quo maybe time needs to be taken to gently, and reasonably, persuade people that actually this is the right way, rather than hitting people round the head with a metaphorical sledge hammer. 

Your message may be right, but the way how you deliver it is also very important and can be the difference between people suddenly realising "oh, yes, I see what you mean" or thinking you're an obnoxious shit who's best ignored. 

I see people on places like Twitter who are clearly on the right side of the argument, but the tactics they use end up antagonising many people, and rather than drawing people in to their cause they drive them away. And that's very sad indeed. Similarly, the willingness to insult, and abuse, those who hold rationally thought opinions that don't chime with your own. 

There are always people who will disagree with you. People who do not share your opinion. The question is, how do you react?

Personally, I don't care if you love Big Brother or not...

77 - Cummings

Perhaps Dominic Cummings has been cleverer than many think during all this hoo-ha about him allegedly breaking the quarantine. After all, it is known that he is quite the strategist, and is adept at coming up with techniques to ensure certain outcomes are what happens.

Picture this scenario…

Imagine a situation where the Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, wants a way to relax the lockdown greatly, but knows that politically it’s not the right time. So., he needs a way to get more people out and about but can’t do things officially too soon.

Enter Dominic Cummings and his trip up north…

[I’ll not go in to all the details; they’re all out there…]

Now, Cummings could have fallen on his sword, and apologized profusely, and begged forgiveness. But he didn’t. He’s riding it out. Boris isn’t sacking him. And there’s outrage amongst a lot of the country.

Outrage that is manifesting itself by many people thinking that if the rules aren’t applying to Cummings then they’re not applying to them. This is, therefore, leading to an increase in people flouting the lockdown. You can see the footage and photos.

So, Boris effectively gets much of the lockdown relaxed, albeit unofficially.

And when there’s a second peak he can just turn around and say that people shouldn’t have ignored the lockdown. For him, it’s a win-win situation. And you can bet Cummings had a hand in guiding it…

Oh, such an imagination I have…

76 - Absence

So, I'd gone a while this year writing a post a day every day without missing one, when... well, I accidentally missed one. 

Instead of just carrying on the next day, I've now somehow left a gap that's linger than the consecutive blogging days. 

Best get restarted...

75 - Repetition

I do apologise if sometimes there is an element of repetition in this blog; pretty much every post is written on the hoof every day, and there may be some points I make one day that I need to elaborate on the next day, or maybe even days later.

Just bear with me about this. 

Much of what's on here is me spitballing about things. Sharing my opinions, which can shift. After all, if a person's opinion could never shift, we could never learn, and we could never grow... and if we didn't do those things, what's the point?

74 - Debate

I think one of the most important things in any civilised society is the freedom to express your opinions. This will certainly mean there are people out there who have opinions that are diametrically opposite to your own. Some of these opinions may even cause you offence. 

Tough. 

If a person has such an opinion, debate with them, engage with them, expose the fallacies in their arguments. prove your own point. 

The one thing that should not be done is to censor their opinions.

Once you have to resort to such censorship, you have lost the argument. It shows that you have no coherent points to prove them wrong. Censorship is the last resort of someone who cannot win an argument. 

And we do seem to be becoming more censorious as time passes. A person can post a message on Twitter, and if it's not what is deemed to be the "correct" opinion of the day, there is a massive scope for abuse, threats, and demands that their account is banned. People have been arrested, and taken to court, for saying something deemed incorrect. 

This cannot happen.

It is a slide towards a state where we are afraid to even open our mouth lest what comes out be not the right opinion. Yes, if someone says something you deem to be wrong, challenge it. Debate it. Etc. 

But the right to express that opinion? That must be held as a cornerstone of a civilised society...

73 - Ethel

No matter what else she does, the thing I will always remember Sandi Toksvig for most will be as Ethel, from TV's Number 73; which was one of those Saturday morning kids' shows they used to do. 

My memories of it are that it was quite brilliant, a little anarchic, and something about sandwiches. 

I sometimes wonder if the show would hold up if I were to watch an episode today (I'm sure there must be some on YouTube), but then I come to think that if it doesn't it would taint the memory. Sometimes the memory cheats. 

Hmm...

72 - State

I don't intend this blog to end up just being a Star Trek blog, despite what a notable number of recent posts may be suggesting, but I feel like writing about elements of ST at the moment, and as it's my blog that's what I'll do...

In any case, if I weren't yakking about ST today I'd probably end up writing a mopey post about Valentines' Day, and really... no-one wants that. 

It's just one thing today, a question; the Prime and Kelvin timelines are talked about as if they are separate things. But surely, it is impossible for one to occur without the other. So, from a certain point of view, are they not both the same time line? 

71 - Borg

I still don't buy the notion that the unseen enemy in The Neutral Zone episode of TNG was The Borg - at least, the Borg as we they emerged in the Season 2 episode Q-Who.

There was a notion that a species of aliens, with a hive mind, but insectoid in nature were to be those behind it; they were due to be introduced in the first couple of episodes of season 2. But a combination of the writers' strike (why there a fewer episodes in that season), and an inability to come up with a design for the creatures that they could make on budget meant these aliens were scrapped. 

But the notion of aliens with a hive mind stayed in the producers' minds and this is what eventually became The Borg.

So... why could these Neutral Zone aliens not be The Borg?

Well... cast your mind back to exactly how the Enterprise first encounter the Borg... Q flings the Enterprise across the galaxy, to an area no humans have ever gone. Q makes it quite clear that this encounter with the Borg has drawn humanity to their attention and they are on their way - perhaps a year/year and a half away from the Federation, and humanity. 

This is the key point. 

The Neutral Zone is not a place where humanity has  not gone before. It is the border between Federation and Romulan space. On the edges on each side are outposts - Romulan and Human - that are destroyed by the unknown attackers. 

So... if the Borg were a year/year and a half away from humanity mid-season 2, they could not be encountering humanity at the end of season 1.

Simple as that...

(Though all of the first contact with humanity was later contradicted by ST: First Contact, Voyager, and Enterprise... ho-hum...)

70 - Joker

I've just seen Joker.

I think it's a film that's going to take a while to fully sink in.

It's quite, quite, brilliant. 

Give me a few days and I'll write more. If I don't, prod me...

69 - 69

Oh, there's all sorts of things I could say with this blog post's number, but I think all those reading this - yes, both of you - could write the punch lines yourselves.

So... go ahead...

68 - Romulans

Just as an aside to yesterday's post; I also watched the last episode of the first season of TNG, The Neutral Zone, which is the episode that reintroduces the Romulans in to ST.

In this episode it's stated that the Romulans have been away for the last 50 years, and have had no contact with the Federation in that time; there is a reference made that they had other business that meant they concentrated on internal matters. 

The question is... did we ever actually find out what it was that kept the Romulans so insular in that time? What occupied them to mean they cut off contact of all kind?

I don't recall ever seeing an answer.

Or have I just forgotten?

67 - Contrast

I've recently gone back and watched a handful of Star Trek; TNG episodes, largely as a result of ST: Picard. There's a certain contrast with something that happens in a pair of episodes.

So. I started with Measure of a Man; I'd not seen this episode for a very long time, and i'm not really sure why. In this episode, Bruce Maddox (yes, that Bruce Maddox) tried to get Data transferred from the Enterprise to him in order that he can be disassembled and studied, so that Dr Soong's work can be reproduced (which is something that has yet to happen). 

Maddox reckons he'll be able to put him back together, but there are doubts. He begins proceedings to take control of Data, and carry out his work.  

Jean-Luc objects to this, and there's a courtroom trial in order to determine what to do with Data, whether he is sentient, and whether he has the right to choose what happens to him.

Needless to say, Picard wins and it is determined that Data has the choice as to whether or not he is disassembled for Maddox's experiments. Data, of course, declines to be disassembled; although he says he finds Maddox's work intriguing, and he perhaps be interested in working with him in the future. 

Absolute, clear message. 

After this, I watched I, Borg, followed by Descent parts 1 and 2. Largely because of Hugh. 

Descent, of course, also features another appearance by Lore, Data's "evil twin", and the other android successfully built by Dr Soong. They are, to all intents and purposes, and from a design point of view, the same. If Data is sentient, and has choice over his life; so must Lore.

Yet, at the end of the episode, once Lore's plan to rule the Borg has failed, Data shoots him with a phaser, and deactivates him. After this... well, there's a line of dialogue that says he has been disassembled. 

Now, you see... this sits badly with me. Yes, Lore was a wrong 'un, but surely as the case in Measure of a Man proved, he was a sentient being with the right to choose his life. To disassemble Lore is as wrong as it would have been to disassemble Data. Yet, this is what happens. 

Surely there could have been an other way?

[And, as a sideline; what happened to to the disassembled Lore? Did he find his way to Bruce Maddox? As I recall, Descent part 2 is the last time we see Lore, so I'm presuming it's possible... unless someone can tell me otherwise.]

66 - Picard

Three episodes in, and I think I'm safe to say that Star Trek Picard is the best Trek we've had since 1994... (That's the year The Next Generation finished in case you need to Google.)

[Warning before you go further; I'm not planning on dropping massive spoilers here, but if you've not seen it yet and want to go in completely clean, possibly best not to read...]

It works both as a series in its own right and as a continuation to Next Generation, despite not really being anything like that show. It's got the right level of references to the past, and of building its own new additions to Trek lore.

It's a single story that's being told over ten episodes, with a number of strands weaving together. The show is pointing in a direction at the moment, but I'm sure there will be plenty of twists along the way, and where the story ends up will be in an unexpected place. 

The nods to the past have generally been subtle; it would have been very easy to have brought the whole of the Next Gen crew together for one last mission, but that would have been the easy way. And it really would have stretched all credibility. 20 years on, everyone from the Enterprise crew would have moved on with their lives. Been doing other things. 

Heck... is there even an Enterprise still in service? Would NCC-1701E still be flying, or would be be on NCC-1701F by now?

Oh... will we get to see it? I hope so. 

But, of all the nostalgic elements of TNG I most want... the one more that ever is Q. At some point - whether this season, the next, or the third, or whenever - Jean-Luc has to come in to contact with Q. To see Patrick Stewart and John de Lancie sparring one more time would be joyful. The biggest mistake they made with the TNG movies was not doing one with Q. 

Still, at least we know that season 2 sees Whoopi Goldberg returning as Guinan...

65 - Endless

There is the phrase "Everything will be alright in the end; and if it's not alright, it's not the end". 

What if something is endless?

Does that mean it will never be right?

Or that it won't be alright for a bit, then be alright for a while, not alright for a bit, then alright for a bit...

...repeating in a continuing cylcle. 

Or like a whirlpool; it never ends. 

Now I'm dizzy...

64 - Happening

I was rather chuffed to see the imminent release - well, in June of this year - of the Pet Shop Boys' movie, It Couldn't Happen Here. 

It is one of those movies that really does deft description; I've seen it a couple of times, and whilst I very much enjoyed it I can't really say what it's about. It's almost like it's a bunch of sequences joined together, that don't really all relate to each other.

There's a bit with a postcard seller who's averse to politicians; Chris at what looks like a B&B with his mum, played by Barbara Windsor; stuff about Chris and Neil's relationship with a priest, both as adults, and as children; a second hand car salesman; and someone who looks rather like Biggles. 

Oh, and a sequence with dancers on Clacton Beach.  

Yet, somehow, despite the incoherence as a complete whole, as an experience - whilst you're watching it - somehow it just works perfectly. 

It's all early Pet Shop Boys music - only from the first two albums - and as with all such films you're waiting for the bigger hits. It's a Sin is a particular treat. But then it always is...

I've only ever seen the movie in VHS quality; so seeing it in HD on Blu-Ray will be quite a treat. In fact I'd hope it'll receive some exposure on the big screen. The BFI is releasing it, so hopefully they'll put on a few screenings at the NFT. Hey... maybe they could even get Neil and Chris down for a Q&A after a screening. That would be awesome. 

63 - Shoes

I've just read an article about some Nike running shoes that supposedly give an unfair advantage to athletes because of how they are designed. They fall, just, within the specifications permitted by the World Athletics authorities. 

Other companies are whinging about these shoes, but I just say; tough. Do better. Design your own shoes that have advantages. Don't just sit there whinging. 

If they can design better shoes, so can you.

62 - Millionare

What I like about channels like Challenge & Sony are the repeats of Tarrant era Who Wants To Be a Millionaire? Makes me wish I'd been able to go on it. I keep meaning to try to get on the Clarkson version, but haven't got around to it. 

Which really, isn't good enough. 

All the while while I'm thinking of doing it, I'm not actually doing it, when I really should be. 

Which applies to all sorts, really. 

Oh, well...

62 - Framing

Meh.

I switched to BBC4 and they're showing reruns of This Life and the picture's got black bars on all four sides of the screen. This is never acceptable. Picture squeezed to a little box in the middle of the screen. 

If there's black bars on two sides of the screen, that's fine. If it's a movie shot in 2.35:1 being shown on a 16:9 screen you'd expect bars at the top and bottom so you can see the whole picture as it's meant to be seen, without it being cut or stretched. 

Or if you're watching an old TV show shot in 4:3 on your 16:9 telly, you'd expect bars to the left and right, so you can see the whole picture as it's meant to be seen without being cut or stretched. 

But bars on all four sides? No. Never acceptable.

If the original ratio of the picture is not 16:9, in order to fit the telly one aspect, either the horizontal or vertical should fill the screen; thus giving black bars on just two of the sides. As it should be. 

Bars on all four sides. Sheer laziness. 

It takes me out of things and is a distraction. 

I mean; rather than giving it my full attention, I'm writing this... when I should be commenting on just how young that Rick Grimes looks... 

61 - Days

There's a line in the final episode of the the US version of The Office that I think of every now and then. It goes like this;

"I wish there was a way to know you were in the good old days before you left them."

And it was one of those simple quotes, that with hindsight seems so blindingly obvious that it seems impossible that it's not something everyone has always thought forever.

When were your "good old days"? A year ago? Five years ago? Ten years ago? That quote challenges you to think... what if the good old days are actually happening right now? We all reminisce about the times we had that were great, but we just don't always recognise them when they are happening. There's various parts of my life I look back on and think "yeah, those were good times"; but at the time they just seemed like normal life.

Life has a habit of doing that to you, its extremes can somehow become the norm. Heck, even when there are bad things happening to you it becomes the norm. Although when you do have moments that can be deemed the bad times, you do really know them; and then you end up thinking it'll never end. But it will. It always does.

I'm sure there was a point to all this, but for the moment it's escaped me...

60 - Ureasonable

The only thing I want to post today is this quote I very recently came across from George Bernard Shaw;

"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man."

Makes perfect sense. Maybe I should start being more... unreasonable...

59 - Today

Given what is about to happen in less than thirty minutes, I think there is only one thing to say. Those of you who know will get the context...

So long, and thanks for all the fish...

58 - Change

There's a bit in a Billy Bragg song called Waiting for the Great Leap Forward, where Billy sings;

"If no one out there understands, start your own revolution and cut out the middle man."

And I can't help but think he's entirely correct. If there is something out there you think is wrong, do something about it. It may be that there is already a movement to make this change, but if there is not... well, every movement started with an individual. 

It may come to naught. But then again it may end up changing the world. You never can tell...

(The song also contains the line "The revolution is just a t-shirt away", which you can actually get on a t-shirt. I have one. It's great.)

57 - Everything

I may have said this before, but context is everything; it's not enough to just look at the words spoken, or written, the surrounding context always has to be borne in mind. Is something said out of malice, or of ignorance? These things are important. 

And if someone does say something a little off, is that reason enough to demonise them? If they recognise their error and apologise, should that not be the end of the matter? Especially if this is something they learn from, so that they are not going to repeat it?

It seems to me in this day and age these things are not taken in to consideration. A badly thought out tweet can be enough to turn someone from being an ally to an enemy. This is surely wrong. No one person is perfect. We all have the capacity to make a mistake, and to learn from it. 

I dunno...

56 - Songs

I think of all the things that summarise the Remain vs Leave debate in regards to the most horrible of words, Brexit, is the battle that is currently being fought. 

This Friday, January 31st, is Brexit day, and since the changes to the singles charts were made a few years back, it's also the day the new singles chart is announced. Who will be number one?

(As a quick divergence; I really cannot get used to this malarkey where the charts are announced on a Friday, when it should be between 4-7pm on a Sunday, nor the release of new music on a Friday. But that's a post for another time.)

This week there is a battle. Two rival campaigns are bying for the number one spot. 

In the red corner are those who wish to remain in the EU; they are championing a particular version of Beethoven's Ode to Joy, from his 9th Symphony, which also happens to be the EU anthem. It's a stirring piece of music that brings out emotion in the listener, it's a piece of music that has stood the test of time in the (almost) 200 years since it was composed. It's just glorious. 

In the brown corner is a song written and "sung" by a chap called Dominc Frisby entitled "17 Million F**k-Offs", the title of which refers to the (approximate) number of votes cast for leaving the EU in the referendum. And, frankly, it's a dirge. Badly written, badly sung, and frankly an insult to pretty much anyone that's not a rabid Nigel Farage loving Brextremist. 

I know you'll probably say that I would say that as I'm a "Remoaner" and all that sort of piffle, but the fact is that it is just a dirge. Were it a decent song, with stirring lyrics (rather than a succession of various "f**k offs" to various people) I would have acknowledged its craftsmanship, but still have disagreed with the sentiment of the song. That's not impossible. 

It's very rare you can make a statement that "Song A" is better than "Song B" on a truly objective basis, but I think this is a very rare occasion when this is possible. 

When I first heard of this battle, I headed to iTunes to download Ode to Joy and was quite pleased to see that in their chart it's currently number one, with the other "song" at number 2. Hopefully that will be the case when the full chart, compiled from its various sources, is announced one Friday. 

As Number 2 is an entirely appropriate place for that pile of sh.........

55 - Trust

One of the key things in politics should be trust; that you can trust that those who make our laws are doing so in any entirely honourable manner. And, indeed, this is true of many MPs that sit in the House of Commons. 

Sadly, I think there are several key politicians who you just can't trust and that includes the Prime Minister. 

Now, I am sure the cynics among you will suggest that I would say that being a lefty Labour supporter. and I see where you're coming from. But that's not the case.

I look back at Maggie Thatcher in the 1980s, and as much as I couldn't stand her, you knew you could trust that when she said she would do something that she would do it. 

As Frank Skinner said (and I may be paraphrasing; "You always knew where you were with Maggie Thatcher; unfortunately you didn't have a paddle."

54 - Time

I have been talking of nostalgia a little bit lately, and I wonder if something count as nostalgia if it is something that remains and ongoing concern? 

I ask this as I look back a decade further than the waxings about 1989 back to 1979. September 1st 1979 to be precise. On that day I saw my very first Doctor Who... part 1 of Destiny of the Daleks. I think the 5 year old me would have found in impossible to think that the 46 year old me typing this would have this very evening seen the latest episode (I've no idea how many I've seen; I'm not even going to attempt to count).. yet still the show has a part in my life.

There's another thong, though, that's quite odd; despite the fact that every extant episode of the original run is there and available to watch, on either DVD or Blu-Ray, or even on this new fangled BritBox thing there are decent number of the original 1963-89 run I've never seen. And yet I feel no major compulsion to fill those gaps as any kind of matter of urgency. 

I think one day I will have see them all, but there's a part of me that likes that there are still episodes to see. 

53 - Slow

Having started to watch Home and Away from the start one thing that strikes me is how slow paced these early episodes were, and how little happens. Which I now realise is two things, so in case this turns in to the Spanish Inquisition, I'll stop there. 

Well, I guess it's not really that nothing actually happens, but rather how small the storylines are, and how... ordinary it all is. But everything that happens is seeming to grow organically from the characters, rather than just trying for sensation. 

Some characters work better than others; Lance and Martin are annoying me much more than they ever did when it was first on, and I'm constantly wishing for a swift exit for the pair, despite knowing that they're in it for much longer. And Floss and Neville seem pretty much superfluous. And as I recall they are the first to leave. Well, either them or Lynn. I forget. 

Still, ol' Alf Stewart is still ruling the roost; he's the best thing in the show from the off. He's yet to say the word "flamin'" yet, though. Celia's barely been in it yet as well; it's always such a treat to see the contrast in her character, compared with the other role Fiona Spence is also most known for, Vera "Vinegar Tits" Bennett in Prisoner Cell Block H. 

The same could actually be said of Ray Meagher, as his Alf (general decent good guy) is in complete contrast to his three - yes, three - PCBH roles, all of which were baddies... 

But the core of the show, Tom, Pippa, and the six kids work so very well. Having them as foster parents means there's a decent reason for six such different kids to be under the same roof as each other. It also gives a convenient plot device so that kids can leave, and new kids can arrive and live with them, without a contrivance of a lost relative or an endless parade of nieces or nephews. 

I'm looking forward to seeing how things develop, watching it at a much faster rate than I would have back in the day, and how things change. For example, I can't recall if we had the change in actress playing Pippa before or after Tom died; my gut feeling is Pippa changes, then Tom dies. And then after that she meets Michael. I guess I'll see. 

It'll be fun...

52 - Pointless

Is this the most pointless blog post ever written?

Probably...!

51 - Tech

Another thing I think about from time to time is the march of technology; I look back at what I had as a teenager - say in 1989 - and how much things have developed. At that time the Nintendo Gameboy was being released over in Japan, and the UK computer magazines like C&VG were talking about it (it would be 1990 before they were out here).

Compare the Gameboy with its closest real equivalents today - smartphones - and they are poles apart. The Gameboy, running off 4 AA batteries, had a 4-tone black/greyscale LCD screen, and played games off a cartridge. No internet connection then to download games.

But it was great. 

To be able to play decent games out and about wherever you wanted was just so liberating, and if the batteries ran out you just needed to chuck some more AAs in an continue And they lasted a fair while. 

It was the start of the path that would lead us to the smartphones of today. Then they would have seemed like futuristic things more suited to science fiction that from the real world just a few years later. I mean, at the time Star Trek; The Next Generation has started and one of their hi-tech devices was a "Padd", which was essentially an iPad ahead of its time. 

This then has to lead to the question... if we've gone from a Gameboy to an iPhone over this time; what do the next thirty or so years hold? What will the tech look like in 2050.

I'd attempt to make a prediction, but I suspect the people of 2050, should they look back and read this blog (ha!) would just laugh... 

50 - Apocalypse

Sooner or later the world will end, perhaps with a bang, perhaps with a whimper. Perhaps it will outlive humanity, perhaps by then humanity will have moved to other worlds. and be screwing with their environments as we have with ours... who knows.

Though at the moment. the planet's giving us a bit of a fightback; this new disease originating in the Wuhan area of China, spreading its way around the world. Whilst there are just a few confirmed cases outside of China, how many other people have the virus incubating within them, spreading it around. 

The thing is. to go fully global it doesn't need too many people infected. The right (or wrong!) people spreading it, flying from one country to another... it all spreads quick. Like at the end of Rise of the Planet of the Apes where the pilot is infected, spreading it at the airport to people who fly out to many different locations... 

Realistically, it's probable that this virus will have a vaccine created for it before too long, and it'll end up being a bit of a footnote. 

But what if it's not?

It'll make the forthcoming Brexit - in 9 days - seem completely insignificant! 

49 - Flamin'

Of course, having signed up to Amazon Prime, whilst waiting for Picard to start I thought I'd have a gander at seeing exactly what exciting new stuff is on there. what new 21st century works of art there may be, but oh, what's that?

The first 200 episodes of Home and Away.

I just couldn't resist starting it. There's little I remember of the early days - just the occasional bit here and there. Alf shouting "Flamin' kids!" is the most abiding memory. 

So, rather than the exciting new stuff I think these 200 episodes will be the first thing I end up seeing - with a weekly interruption for Jean-Luc Picard.

I wonder how far in to it 200 episodes will be? How many of the original 6 kids will still be in it? How many times will Alf have used the words "flamin'" or "malarkey"? And how many times in the same sentence? 

I guess this also ties in with the 1989 post the other day about nostalgia as H&A debuted in the UK in early 1989, so I'd have seen all these episodes in that year. They say don't mistake coincidence for fate, but... sometimes it's hard no to. Sometimes these things from the past take you away to a special place and remind you of things long since gone. It feels comfortable, and safe. It's hindsight in action as I'm quite sure 1989 didn't feel safe...

But it does make me smile to watch it...

Also, I also wonder from watching the 90 minute pilot episode whether there were some details they hadn't decided up; here Fisher is the interfering next door neighbour and absolutely no mention is made of him being the headmaster of the local school. You'd think there would have been. Was this a change they made once the show got the go ahead to start? 

48 - Prime

I guess this is a bit of a follow up to post #45 in that today I have taken the plunge and signed up to Amazon Prime. 

Shortly before this, I gave NOWTV the chop, and in the box where it asked for the reason I said something like "I'm defecting to Amazon Prime; they have Star Trek Picard, and you don't. Sorry." And then had to click through what seemed like about a million "are you sure?" prompts before they finally accepted it. 

Still, at least I didn't have to speak to a real human. 

And I am more than a little excited for ST: Picard, more so than Discovery. I mean, this is more Jean-Luc. And whilst we'll be getting a few fan-pleasing cameos, it's going to be his series. I also hope that we've not been told all of the returning characters, as there's one who I want to see more than any other; Q.

It always rankles with me a little that in the era of TNG movies, they never made a movie with Q in it. I reckon that, if done correctly, it would have been the best Star Trek film of all. 

John de Lancie was always absolutely compelling to watch whenever he appeared on screen; even in the lesser episodes he appeared in. He elevated every scene he was in. whether it was a comedic moment, or a serious one. Often he would flip between the two in the space of a single scene. 

So, he has to be in ST: Picard somewhere. Heck, if he's not in this series, it's already been given the okay for a second before it's even been shown. We want him. We need him. 

Make it so...

47 - Who

I suppose at some point I'll have to write about Doctor Who, but today probably isn't that day. I think any posts about it will have to be ones that are written, and edited, and precisely worded, rather than the stream of consciousness ramblings I've been doing of late. 

I mean, I'd want to talk about this current series (much better than the last one), or missing episodes, or about how something that seemed okay when it was made isn't okay now, and how you can still enjoy it, or about the chronology of the UNIT stories, about the years in which Eccles/DT/Smith episodes take place in, about how perfect an episode Rose was, or how great The Underwater Menace is, or how the world will fall apart when Tom dies, or how... 

...oh, so many things...

But I need to do them justice. Which I'm not going to do right now. Time is getting on. And I'm tired. 

46 - 1989

As I sit typing this an edition of Top of the Pops from 1989 is on the telly - Kylie and Jason are number one, and are singing right now - and it does get me all nostalgic, and melancholy. I think back, and chances are I saw this edition when it was first screened as it was slap bang in the middle of when I watched the show. So many of the songs evoke memories of that time, not just in terms of the songs themselves but events, conversations, and other things.

It's stirring up all sorts of emotions in me, which are making it difficult to know exactly where I'm going to go with this. I am just spitballing here. It's not just in terms of the things that have changed since then, but how I was. It's now 2020. The me of 1989 couldn't have pictured where he'd be now (heck, the bugger wouldn't even have pictured where he'd be in 2000, or even just a few years down the line). 

I was 15 at the time these shows were being shown. Now we're on a second edition and Then Jericho are playing. Bif Area. I had the album on tape and must have played it a million times. I can only think of one other song on it - What Does it Take? - and I'm not even sure that's correct. 

15. 16 in September of that year. Very much a time of change, heading in to GCSE exam year, which could shape my whole future. But back then, it was a time when Maggie effing Thatcher was still Prime Minister, and in a small town in the country, it did seem the world was narrow and opportunities were very limited (despite what the Pet Shop Boys had suggested a few years before). 

The world seemed smaller. It was hard to see beyond the part of the world I lived in. No internet to find things out; just what the media chose to show us. London seemed a million miles away, let alone anywhere further afield. There was a sense of hopelessness in the air, that things couldn't get better (D:Ream were a few years off at this point). But they had to in the end (if it ever can be said to be the end). 

1989 is one of the years I look back on as being important (though not as important as 1998) to me, but I can never really put my finger on why. But the music does stand out. This was the year of Monkey Gone to Heaven by The Pixies, which I first saw on The Chart Show. The ITV version of Top of the Pops, where it was all promo videos. But every week they also played a specialist chart rotating between the Dance, Rock, and Indie charts. 

That brought me The Pixies, and Eardrum Buzz by Wire, and of course, The Happy Mondays and The Stone Roses. I must have seen that edition of TOTP that everyone cites that had them both on; must have. I definitely remember seeing Kirsty with Shaun doing Hallelujah. I mean, I even had the 7" (probably still do) of that. 

I'm cherry-picking, of course, as for all this great music there was still a lot of rubbish. And songs I don't remember (as is being proved by this very edition of TOTP). We selectively remember things, whether these are particularly good or bad; the indifferent just float away and are never called to mind. Perhaps that's good? 

Or perhaps I'm just over thinking things. And 1989 was just another year that really wasn't anything special at all. Just something I've built up in my mind for no good reason. I once wanted to write a novel set in 1989. It would have been called - imaginatively enough - 1989. But thought never achieved anything. Got to put pen to paper. Got to actually write stuff. But it does seem that when I try to write fiction, it just seems rubbish, or I can't find the words to say anything. Which is kind of ironic as over the last half hour I've been bashing out this tosh, which I'm just about to publish on my blog. 

And that doesn't faze me. I know this whole post really doesn't hang together in any kind of structure. It could probably do with a lot of editing. But I won't do that unless I happen to spot a blatant typo (like that one in the second paragraph; good job I spotted it). And yet I'll publish it. I feel free and able to do this, yet I don't give myself the freedom to write rubbish fiction knowing that I'll rewrite it, edit it and make it good. Even though the incredibly talented writer Paul Cornell once gave a piece of writing advice that went (and I may be paraphrasing here);  

"Have an idea. Write it. It will be bad. Then you rewrite it until it's good."

I should pay heed to that. Give myself permission to be bad, and then to see what tangents I go off on. I mean, I started this post intending to just talk about music, and look where it's got me. Something got a hold of me... and... well, it's just like Marc Almond and Gene Pitney, who are singing that song on TOTP as I type. 

Damn, I loved that song when I was 15 in 1989...

That's probably enough. 

In anycase... the tea's getting cold. I've got work to do. 

45 - Engage

One of the problems with US TV shows in the UK is when a franchise has multiple series... all too often, these will be sold off to different broadcasters outside of the US. 

For example, Netflix has almost every Star Trek series; the new one, Picard, is on Amazon Prime. 

Also; The Walking Dead is on one channel, Fear the Walking Dead on another, and the third series (oh, I can't remember what it's called...) is on a third. 

Recently there was also a scenario where five of the DC TV shows had a crossover event; one of them isn't even shown in the UK so viewers here had no legal way to see one of the episodes. Which I imagine was quite confusing. 

The thing is, though, there's no way to stop this as the US TV companies will rightly sell the rights to show their shows to the highest bidder; if a new series in a franchise is created it's the same situation. If Netflix doesn't want to spend as much money as Amazon on Picard... well, that's where it goes. 

There's no way to get around that. 

Hmm...

44 - Coincidence

So, fairly soon after writing about Douglas Adams, I find out they're making a new TV version of The Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy. Part of me is very nervous about this as it will depend on how things are handled. I don't necessarily expect it to be a clone of anything that's come before, but it does need to feel right.

When they made the movie it was so very frustrating as all the elements of the thing were right, the look, the cast, the effects. But things didn't gel. 

Alarm bells for me started to ring with the scene where Arthur is in front of the bulldozer; his interaction with Mr Prosser was cut to pieces, with surreality of the planning department's location removed. Just compare how the original TV does this scene so much better than the movie (including the subtle moment where the chap sat in the bulldozers cab looks hastily away when Arthur mentioned the person who charged him a fiver to clean his windows for a fiver). It's Douglas taking things to an absurd level, and when you think it can't get any more absurd... it does. But somehow makes sense. To but it down just showed a lack of understanding as to what made Douglas' writing so precise. 

I have a feeling how this scene is handled in this new version will very much be an indicator of whether the show's going to work or not. 

And make sure the casting is right. I've no idea who I'd put in most of the roles. but I think I'd have Adrian Lester as Slartibartfast. Maybe David Tennant as Zaphod? Perhaps with Danai Gurira as Trillian? And Arthur Darvill as Arthur? He's got that confused look you need for Arthur. No idea about Ford, though. He's probably the trickiest to cast. And Marvin... oh, who would be Marvin? 

Hmm...

43 - Omens

So I watched the first episode of TV's Good Omens today - it was rather good, though that opening narration was clearly a Douglas Adams homage, wasn't it? It could have come straight out of the guide. Damn good, though. 

I've never read the book. Heck. I've never read any Pratchett, and I've really no idea why. 

Then I saw the documentary afterwards and found it very moving. I almost turned it off very close to the start, as the footage of Pratchett shown then at a point when he was probably close to death. That was the only such footage shown, though. I did come close to shedding a tear or two when Neil Gaiman recounted the story of the last time he saw Terry. Such talk is always tough. 

And it got me to thinking... why have I never read a single Terry Pratchett book, and where do I start? Should I start with the first Discworld book and work through in order? But if the early ones aren't brilliant - as Gaiman himself seemed to suggest - will I get put off? Should I start with Night Watch, which Gaiman said was his best? Or is there a better place to start? 

I dunno...

42 - Douglas

I mean it may be cliche, but there was really only one choice for the subject of the 42nd post on this blog... Douglas Adams.

He was definitely a man ahead of his time; if you look at some of the things he foresaw you'd recognise them in today's technology. His most famous creation, The Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy, was essentially an iPad (or iPhone) ahead of its time in terms of its physical nature, with the premise being more or less a version of Wikipedia. 

The sad thing is, the bugger went and died not long before these things became reality You can imagine him loving IPhones and IPads and embracing their possibilities. Let's not forget, Douglas loved Apple's products. It's said he was one of the first two people to get an Apple Mac when they were launched (the other being Stephen Fry). 

I'd also like to have thought that he might have written another Hitch Hiker's book; I'd imagine he'd have staretd it in the early 2000s, and he'd just about be finishing it now. Similarly, I can  imagine Russell T Davies comissioning him to do a Doctor Who script, which might just about have seen the screen by the time Steven Moffat took over, just about making it in to Matt Smith's final season. I'd imagine we'd still be waiting for his follow up...

But I think of all his work, the most important is the book he co-wrote with the zoologist Mark Carwardine, where they visit various locations around the world where there are specific species very close to extinction (sadly since then at least two of them have gone extinct). One of the moments I recall is when he's in Australia and a person Douglas and Mark are visiting says to make sure they don't get bitten by a particular snake, as its venom is fatal. Douglas asks what happens if they do get bit, and the chap deadpans back "You die. That's what fatal means." 

I'd like to think the book made a difference. But sadly, I don't think it did. The world's climate continues to deteriorate, and make further extinctions of species not just a possibility, but a continuing reality. 

41 - Abdicating

Is it terribly bad of me to be thinking that the current hoo-ha with Harry and Meghan is going to make for a cracking sixth season episode of The Crown? Imagine how electrifying the meeting held today will be when portrayed on screen?

I wonder who will play them...?

40 - Power

The aim of a political party is to win power, to win enough seats in a General Election to have an overall majority and be able to form a government. This is the only way it gets to enact its policies and to carry out actions that it believes will make the country a better place. 

If you are in opposition, without the seats to be able to block votes, you're not able to do a thing. 

To do win an election, a political party has to be able to read the mood of the nation and ensure that its policies are relevant, and likely to command support. It also needs to recognise that in this day and age many people only have an overview of what a political party believes; the headlines, the soundbites. So it is important to ensure that a party's message can be delivered swiftly, concisely, and clearly. 

In the last election, the Tories got this aspect spot on. The main slogan they had through the election was the very simple "Get Brexit done". That's what people heard, and that's what many people voted for. It was clear, and concise. 

Other parties were also clear. You knew that if you were voting for the Lib Dems you were voting to revoke article 50 and remain in the EU. In the event that Swinson were to have got a majority that's what would have happened. 

Labour were far less clear; there seemed to be all sorts of flip flopping, and eventually the message was that in the event of a Labour majority Corbyn would negotiate a better deal with the EU for Brexit, and then put it to a referendum, at which time he'd remain neutral and act as a facilitator for the debate. 

Whilst I think this was actually a sensible position, the problem was that it was not in place right at the start of the campaign, and it almost appeared that it was being improvised as time passed, which caused confusion among the public. 

Furthermore, the Labour manifesto contained too many promises for "free" things, which many did not think could be delivered over the course of a parliament. (This is even ignoring the stat I heard during the election that it's usual for only 1/4 to a 1/3 of any manifesto actually becomes law). It would have been much better to have prioritised which aspects of the manifesto were most important, and focus on those over the course of the next parliament Then once delivered, and shown to work, move on to the next set. 

One thing I very much liked that used to happen in the past is the pledge card; a card - debit card sized - highlighting the six main issues in bullet points. Clear. Concise. That way everyone knows exactly what the priorities are. 

I've also seen debates about ensuring the Labour party is ideologically pure, and not compromising; but I ask this question... Is it better to be ideologically pure in opposition, or to make small compromises and be elected to power?

I know what my answer would be...