Saturday 30 April 2011

ROYAL WEDDING VIEWING FIGURES

The jolly old BBC keeps repeating that yesterday's royal nuptials were watched by an 'estimated two billion people worldwide' but they don't say how this estimate was arrived at.

If we consider that yesterday was a normal working day for most of the world, that has to mean that a large part of the world's population of 7 billion were at work at the time of the wedding. We also have to take into acount that it's unlikely that many people in China, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh or the countries of South East Asia would have watched, and neither would most of the populations of the Arab world and, particularly, Iraq, Iran, Syria, and Libya. We can probably take out most of the rest of the middle east, too. What about Russia and the assorted states that were previously part of the Soviet Union ? I have some difficulty believing that the Turkmens, Khazaks and the like were all clustered around thier 50 inch plasma TVs.

Most of Africa would surely have been occupied more with their own survival than with watching a couple of unknowns in a foreign land and one also has to wonder what the viewing figures from Mexico, and Central and South America were.

This actually leaves us with western Europe, the USA and Canada, Australia and New Zealand, and Japan as the only countries where any significant part of the population would have been likely to watch the ceremonies; many in these populations would have been at work or school, or been too young or old or disinterested, or not had access to a television. If we were to assume that, perhaps, 50% of the populations of these areas really did watch, then the likely viewing figures would have been more like 500 million, rather than the grossly overestimated 2 billion suggested by the BBC; if 10% of the rest of the world watched, the total would still only have been around one billion. Of course, more people may have seen highlights on their own news channels, but that hardly counts - I sometimes see all sorts of uninteresting rubbish, such as stories about sports or other programmes, as part of our news broadcasts but can surely not be counted as having watched the original programmes.

Why is it that the media feels a constant need to exaggerate everything it touches ?

Friday 29 April 2011

A RIGHT ROYAL DO !

As the Royal Wedding bandwagon races to its conclusion at Westminster Abbey, those who are not terribly interested in watching all of the televison coverage are left wondering what else to do. The two main television channels have committed themselves to hour after hour of wedding coverage, reports, reviews, reruns etc., while the other channels are dishing up their ususal diet of, mostly, repeats and tripe; sometimes it's even repeated tripe.

Of course, I could do something more productive but I have a poorly foot and getting around is difficult at the moment, so here I am, sitting in front of the televisionlooking for something to watch that doesn't involve listening to the egregious Huw Edwards and his nauseating colleagues on the BBC, or whomever they have doing exactly the same thing on ITV. Thankfully, though anyone who wants to see both may not think so, the 'happy couple' have chosen to tie the knot as the World Snooker Championship nears its conclusion, and there is the alternative of watching one of the semi-finals on the BBC's 'Red Button'. So that's where I'm tuned, watching the poker-faced Chinaman, Ding Junhui, and the new 'wonder boy' Judd Trump, as they battle it out for a place in Sunday's final.

This is not to say that I don't have reasonably positive feelings towards the Royal Family, but I really can't be doing with all the celebrity drivel that's whipped up by the media. In days gone by, a royal wedding was an event worth watching as we rarely saw the Royal Family in all its splendour but, these days, they're front page news most of the time and, frankly 'familiarity breeds contempt'. I have now switched over to catch the moments when the bride arrives at the Abbey and have to admit that it's a wonderful occasion, but why do we have to have 8 HOURS of coverage for an event that really takes about 1½ hours ?

Now she's arrived and a very attractive bride she is too. It must be a day that she could never have imagined in her wildest dreams as a child. Before long, 'Kate Middleston' will become 'Her Royal Highness Princess William of Wales, Duchess of Cambridge, Countess of Strathearn and Baronness Carrickfergus'. Jolly Good Luck to her and William.

I'm going back to the snooker before all the religious tosh gets under way.

Wednesday 27 April 2011

ALTERNATIVE VOTING

Our masters have decided that we should vote in a referendum to determine whether or not we, the people, want to change our voting system. The suggestion is that our existing 'first passed the post' arrangement is unfair and unrepresentative, and ought to be replaced by 'something better'; the 'something better' currently under debate is called the 'Alternative Vote' or 'AV'.

Under the current system, and given that we have numerous political parties, and independent candidates, in most of our elections, it is inevitable that there will be many occasions on which the winner in a poll will receive less than half of the votes cast. Those who support 'AV' seem to believe that this is inherently unfair. Their solution is to get us all to rank the candidates in order of preference and for the votes to be resorted and recounted until one candidate received more than a 50% share. This, they argue, ensures that the most preferred candidate eventually wins.

To be clear, 'AV' is not actually the preferred system, even of those who want a change; they really want a wholly proportional system in which members of Parliament are appointed in proportion to the votes cast for each party. However, a wholly proportional system has drawbacks that make it a non-starter with the 2 major parties and 'AV' is seen as a step on the way, even if not really desirable, by the proponents of change.

To me, 'AV' is complete nonsense. Instead of each poll being a simple horse race, with the winner being the candidate who gets the most votes, in the event that no candidate gains 50% of the total votes, the votes gained by the candidate at the bottom of the poll will be reallocated according to the next preference of those voters. Thus, if the bottom candidate was an Independent, and all of his supporters expressed a second preference for the 'Monster Raving Looney (MRL)' candidate, all of his votes would then be added to the first preference votes of the MRL candidate. The result is then re-examined and, assuming that no one has 50% of the total votes, the same process is repeated; this time, let's say that the bottom candidate is another independent, whose supporters also prefer the MRL candidate to the others. With still more votes, the MRL candidate now moves above the BNP and the Greens; further reallocation sees them gain more votes and move above UKIP, etc., etc. Take note that if your 3rd, 4th, 5th preference etc. is for a candidate who's already been eliminated, it isn't counted at all. Overall, some voters have more effective votes than others.

Eventually, one of the candidates will reach the 50% threshold and be declared the winner, but what a convoluted process to get there. There is no compulsion to vote for more than one candidate, so everyone could, actually, continue to cast a single vote; what would happen then, with no second preference votes to reallocate, is anyones' guess. It is argued by some that 'AV' will lead to permanent coalition government, while others claim that, while its is fairer, it will not make much difference to the final election outcome. If the latter is the case, why do we need to change ? If the former, it is a recipe for weak government in which decision-making is dominated by the need to hold the coalition together. Either way, how is it better than what we currently have ?

It is clearly the case that the winner of each poll will be the least disliked candidate, but whether this is the same as the best liked candidate is a moot point; it is perfectly possible that the winner could be a candidate who was only 2nd or 3rd, or even lower down the order, in terms of first preferences. Is this really 'fairer' ? 'AV' would mean an end to the traditional 'Election Night' excitement as the counting of votes would have to be delayed until at least the following day, due to the nature of the system; in the event of a recount, the result may well be delayed until the following week, giving rise to potentially damaging uncertainty. Of course, we could always invest in expensive voting and counting machines, but to what real benefit ?

Over the years, fewer and fewer people have voted as they feel less and less connected to their political masters. Most Members of Parliament stick slavishly to their 'Party Line' on most if not all issues, and pay little more than lip service to their constituents' concerns; most are relatively wealthy and, increasingly, have little real understanding of the lives of the ordinary people of the country. It has been argued that 'AV' will increase their accountability and encourage people to vote in greater numbers; personally, I'd think it's more likely that the additional demands and complications of the system will encourage even more people to stay away from the voting booths.

A final interesting question is 'What will the turn-out be for next week's referendum vote ?' Current opinion polls seem to be showing that people are tending increasingly towards voting to retain the current system, but this outcome could be heavily affected by the turn-out on the day; a very low turn-out could favour the 'Yes' campaign but, either way, we could be faced with a decision based on a choice made by, perhaps, 30% of the population of whom 50.1% vote for the winning side. In other words, our future voting system could be in the hands of as few as 15% of the population, surely something that the proponents of 'AV' should find unacceptable. They may well do so, if they lose, but I doubt there'll be a murmur if they win.

Monday 25 April 2011

EASTER, WEDDINGS AND PARADES.

So Easter 2011 is almost over and we can all go back to normal, except we can't. This year, we have the added 'bonuses' of an additional bank holiday for a royal wedding and the fact that Easter has been so late that next Monday is the May Day bank holiday.

All of this is very disruptive to normal everyday living. Businesses have to cope with 3 weeks of disruption as last week, this week and next week are all interrupted by national holidays; on Friday, we're all expected to be ever so excited by the wedding and to sit glued to our televisions. In direct contrast and contrary to the way things were in the past, shops and other attractions are expected to be open to provide for those of us who find ourselves bored and with nothing else to do.

There was a time when Bank Holidays served a purpose. That was a time when workers had little respite from the daily grind and the State decreed that certain days would, in effect, be national days of rest. There was also a time when Royal occasions were a rare opportunity for the public to get close to their Monarch, to see them in their regalia and to be awed by the experience. Sadly, Bank Holidays are now something enjoyed by only some of the population and the ubiquitous media coverage of the daily activities of the Royal Family has totally removed the element of mystique from their more significant occasions.

I well remember watching previous royal weddings, but I doubt that I shall watch this one. The magic has gone, to be replaced by nothing more than 'celebrity'; we might as well be watching the Beckhams or any other 'celebrity couple'. It's a sad indictment of our modern culture that the Royal Family are so prepared to prostitute themselves in this way; in order to maintain their position, they seek popularity through celebrity. Queen Victoria must be turning in her grave.

Of course, Friday being a Bank Holiday means that there'll be almost no public transport; being a royal wedding day also means that there'll be nothing worth watching on television. The alternative is to go to the local pub, but they'll no doubt have the wedding coverage on their TV and will see it as serving a public need. In the end, we're trapped by those who pander to wholly outdated nonsense and escaping it all becomes a genuine problem. Perhaps I'll just stay in bed and look forward to Saturday morning ........ and the newspaper coverage of what happened on Friday, God Help Us !

And then I can look forward to Monday and another Bank Holiday, this one, of course, dedicated to the working man and in celebration of the Communist 'May Day' which the Russians traditionally mark with huge military parades. Four Bank Holidays in 11 days - does that make any sense ? Will any of us ever be the same again ? Will chocolate still taste the same next year ?

Who knows.

Saturday 23 April 2011

NEWS, WHAT NEWS ?

Flicking through the 'Teletext' news pages recently, I saw that we have the same old mixture of trivia, political shenanigans and, supposedly expert, analysis.

Retail sales in the UK apparently 'rebounded' in March, much to the surprise of analysts, who had also been suprised by the fall in sales in February. I find the most interesting, and worrying, part of this story as the fact that these supposed experts have been 'surprised' 2 months running; these are the people whose predictions can have dramatic effetcs on financial markets and, therefore, the fortunes of all of us, and yet they seem to have no idea about what's currently happening in our economy.

Another story was of a sick granny who'd been dropped in the sea off Norway during an attempt to transfer her from a cruise ship to a lifeboat. While sympathising with the granny, why on earth this story is considered worthy for our national news, I can't imagine.

Then we had the story of two news photographers being killed in Libya. This one has produced all manner of media nonsense about the brilliance of the two and we'll no doubt be treated to an enormous amount of 'overkill' in due course as the rest of the media rings its hands over the story. Frankly, if the two men in question were stupid enough to put themselves in the firing line in a war-torn country, what happened was hardly unexpected and deserves little more than a footnote on page 5.

A more significant story and one that caused my hackles to rise.was the aone about the 80,000 people in the UK currently receiving incapacity benefit due to obesity and drug and alcohol addictions; more than 20,000 of these have not worked for more than a decade. If these figures are correct, this is, in truth, a national scandal. People are being allowed to idle away their time on state support, and I have no doubt that these same individuals will also be enjoying a huge range of other benefits, for year after year simply because they can't be bothered to sort themselves out. Of course, the ubiquitous 'campaigners' claim that it's all actually the fault of the government for failing to provide enough treatment facilities but this is just poppycock. We have become far too soft in this country and it's well past time that these spungers on society were given a hearty kick up the backside, and had their benefit lifestyles curtailed.

More serious news was that the number of serious child abuse cases referred to either the police or social services  by the NSPCC has reached an all-time high, according to the NSPCC themselves. However, what this bald headline really meant is less easy to determine; the NSPCC attribute the steep rise of 37% in referrals in 2010/11 to better public awareness of child abuse, but I also wonder to what extent our level of tolerance has reduced. Years ago, it was relatively normal, and acceptable, for parents and other to routinely beat children; depriving them of food or shutting them in a cellar for bad behaviour would hardly have been noticed. Today, the slightest infringement on what is seen as a child's 'human rights' is seen as being abuse and various agencies are all too keen to 'step in' to rescue the 'victim'. Beware bald numbers and statistics.

Similarly to the story of the silly photographers, we also had the death of a bomb disposal officer in Afghanistan. Bomb disposal is an inherently dangerous activity and those who volunteer for it must be of a very particular type; the main occupational hazard is serious injury or death. While having every admiration for the work that these individuals do, and symapthy for their families when it goes wrong, I fail to see why every death is treated as front page news and why we have to be regaled with statements from colleagues and family members. This latest death is, perhaps, more noteworthy than most as it concerns a female officer, surely one of the very few women to ever take to this line of work, but she was, after all, a soldier in a dangerous place doing a dangerous job  for which she had volunteered. Yet again, the media will no doubt ring every ounce of coverage out of a story that really doesn't warrant it.

Then we had the coverage of the Royal Wedding, not actually a news story at all as it hasn't happened yet, but that's never stopped the rampant media from making a mountain out of a mole hill. My great hope here is that we only have another few days to go before the event HAS happened and we can all go back to normal life. What annoys me most is the constant television and radio coverage that suggests the entire world is utterly gripped by the forthcoming nuptials; haven't they yet realised the truth of the old saying that 'familiarity breeds contempt' ? We have been inundated with Royal Wedding nonsense for months, in addition to the usual ridiculous coverage of the doings of the younger royals on an almost daily basis for year after year; do we really want still more ?

This is very different to the situation of 30 or 60 years ago when royal occasions were genuinely big news because the people were largely divorced from the activities of the Royal Family and knew little about them. Today they are, mostly, public figures with a celebrity status; their activities, however mundane and boring, are followed assiduously, and reported daily, by the obnoxious press. Frankly, I've heard enough of the modern crop to last me several more lifetimes than I have left. Next Friday will be an opportunity for me to have a bit of free time in a quiet Pub; I, for certain, will not be glued to the TV watching the interminable repeats of the 'most significant moments' of yet another hugely forgettable celebrity day. Good Luck to William and Kate, but leave me out of it.

Saturday 16 April 2011

BOYS, GIRLS AND STORMS IN TEACUPS.

I don't really know whether I care or not. If Kate has a girl first, should she be heir to the throne ahead of any younger brothers ?

This hasn't actually been an issue for generations; the last time there was an eldest child who was female was in 1840 when Queen Victoria's first child was born. The Princess Victoria went on to marry the Prussian Crown Prince, later the German Emperor, and was the mother of Kaiser Wilhelm II who led Germany into the First World War. Had she been entitled to succeed to the British throne, she and the Kaiser would have ruled in Britain as well as Germany, from 1901, instead of us having the somewhat dissolute Edward VII, followed by those we have now. Which would have been better ?

It is, of course a rather futile exercise to try to look at things in this simplistic way. If the Princess had, indeed, been destined to become Queen, there can be little doubt that the matter of her marriage would have been something that would have exercised the minds of the highest and mightiest in the land for many a long day; it must be doubtful, given the political uncertainties in the Germanic parts of Europe, that a marriage to a German prince of seriously high station would have been considered expedient. The Queen's own marriage to Albert had clearly been to a man of a lower order of nobility and any marriage of a future Queen would surely have to have been of a similar nature. marriage to a Crown Prince of Germany would not have been possible and, perhaps, the First World War and even the second, may not have occurred.

Many will no doubt have an assortment of arguments to support the notion that male primogeniture is unfair and they may well be correct. Others will argue the opposite case and cite issues such as the marriage mentioned above as a reason for sticking to the status quo; after all, would we have wanted to be ruled by the Kaiser ? Such arguments are fatuous.

There is no logical reason for excluding females from the line of succession in preference to their male siblings. Elizabeth I didn't do too badly, Mary II and her husband, Wlliam III, probably saved the nation from religious warfare and serious revolution while Mary's sister, Ann, oversaw the beginnings of the British Empire. Victoria's reign was one of almost unbroken progress and saw the influence of Britain spread to almost every part of the globe, while the current incumbent hasn't exactly thrown in the towel in favour of her husband. What's the problem ?

If we retain the monarchy, and I can see no better alternative, then the eldest child of King William (if he chooses to use that name; he could choose any of Arthur, Philip or Louis instead) and Queen Catherine, regardless of gender, should become the heir to the throne. Job done.

TODAY LIBYA, TOMORROW WORLD WAR 3 ?

I know I'm far from being alone in wondering why the Western Powers are still pissing around with the nonsense in Libya.

For decades, the Western World has not only tolerated but has actively supported the grotesque dictator, Gaddafi. This lunatic came to power in 1969 following a revolution that overthrew the ailing King Idris; this seems to have been a salutary lesson in the old adage of 'be careful what you wish for, 'cos you may not like what you get'. In this case, it could scarcely have been more true.

Gaddafi is bonkers, of that there can be little doubt. Regardless, the US, UK and other major powers have all provided recognition, support and aid to Gaddafi as the ruler of Libya and have never taken any real steps to remove him, until now. They have, in fact, kept this madman in power, supplying his regime with a variety of support, including miltary aid.

Today, they are trying desperately to remove him, without overtly removing him; the political hypocrisy of this is mind-blowing. The United Nations has agreed to a range of measures with specific aims though rather vague operational limits; some nations, notably the UK and France, though with the US close by, have involved themselves in serious actions and have now said that Gaddafi has to go. The problem is that so-called 'Regime change' has not been approved by the UN.

Bollocks. The problem is that the Western World, and that really means the UN as well, allowed this situation to develop through their support of a mad and vicious dictator in an oil-rich county because it suited their needs or aims at the time; now, they see their interests to be better served by a change of leadership and so they're supporting a revolution. Whether or not the UN approves, the aim is now 'Regime change' and there will be no peace until it's achieved.

I'm getting old and I'm cynical. I'm also tired of the political tripe that's trotted out daily around the world. Why can't we just leave well alone ? If the Libyan people want, or don't want, Gaddafi, what has that to do with us ? If we want, or don't want, the Queen, what has that to do with any other country ? The questions are the same and have the same answer; it's up to the people of the country to decide. In the West, we seem to believe that we have a duty to interfere in the affairs of other countries, though only when it's politically expedient; I haven't seen us really trying to stop the butchery in Zimbabwe, for instance.

Gaddafi is a product of Western imperialism, not overtly, but by stealth. Unfortunately, he has proved to be a loose cannon and has now become an emabarrassment, so he has to be removed; this is political hypocrisy of the highest order. This man has shaken hands with Presidents and Prime Ministers and yet now is anathma. "You're havin' a laugh", as someone of my acquaintance would say.

There is no doubt that Gaddafi is a vicious dictator and that he oppresses his own people to a horrible extent. It is also true that he is far from being alone in possessing these debatable attributes but why has he been so suddenly singled out for denigration by the Western Powers who mostly run the UN ? There are numerous countries with equally oppressive regimes and yet we seem to ignore them; sadly for Gaddafi, he's simply become non-flavour of the month, and that's all it amounts to.

Next year, it may well be Burma, or Venezuela, who knows. What we can be sure of is that the Western Powers will continue to try to impress their world view on everyone else until they're stopped. China currently has a different agenda in that it's trying to develop an economic monopoly on the world's resources and the Western Powers are going to have to develop a strategy to counter this. One way or another, World War 3 is looking more and more likely, and much sooner than anyone would like to imagine.

NO MORE 'WAKING THE DEAD'.

I've just caught up on the last two episodes of 'Waking the Dead', very sadly the last two episodes ever. What  a story and how superbly produced. Apart from the rather unlikely character of Paul McGann as the 'Assistant Chief Commissioner' the entire story was rivetting from start to finiish.

This has been a very good example of police drama ever since its inception several years ago, with a top quality cast throughout. Trevor Eve always has been good value, but the supporting cast has been top quality too; in particular, Sue Johnston, whom I'd only previously thought of as a 'soap' actress, demonstrated that she is an 'actress', pure and simple. Others, involved, Holly Aird, Tara Fitzgerald and Wil Johnson, who come to mind immediately, have all contributed to a hugely successful series and one that has been unmissable.

The final series introduced the character of Sarah Cavendish, played by Eva Birthistle, who was a bit of a loose cannon but, by the final episodes, had decided which side she was on; tragically, she'd decided too late and it cost her life. It was only in the final 10 minutes or so of this final story that things became unbelievable, but perhaps that's forgiveable given some of the drivel that the BBC has put out in recent tmes.

I shall miss this series and its characters. I will certainly follow the replacement that stars the Tara Fitzgerald character as a forensic pathologist, but wonder if this will be too close to "Silent Witness" which has, anyway, gone horribly down the tubes. Hopefully, Trevor Eve, Sue Johnston and Wil Johnson will be back in new roles very soon, which will help to make the gaping hole left by the demise of this series seem less cavernous.

Saturday 2 April 2011

MASTERCHEF STARTS TO SIMMER.

I've watched the BBC's 'Masterchef' for many years and even in its previous incarnation hosted by Lloyd Grossman. Grossman's programme was certainly fun, but had its day; the revamped presentation that we have today is very different and, for people of a certain age, rivetting television.

The latest series has reached its latter stages with only 7 contestants remaining, at least as far as I have been able to catch up with the viewing. Some of those who've already been eliminated are brilliant cooks and yet they've failed to make the grade; this is a measure of the heights to which this programme now aspires. Contestants are just about expected to be able to walk into a 'Michelin starred' kitchen and hold their own, albeit that they're nothing more than domestic cooks.

The last programme I've watched has such a mixture of talents, it's hard to choose between them. Annie is a great home cook with a traditional approach; Jackie is a vegetarian who produces astonishing food; Alice is a young mum with amazing passion and a wonderful talent; James is a carpenter, rough hewn, who is such an engaging character but also a great cook; Tom turns his kitchen station into a total mess but turns out terrific food; Sara is an Italian who has great passion and produces great Italian-style food; Tim is an American who, despite having some very weird ideas, has produced some dishes that have astonished all the judges. Some have had serious timing problems but who wouldn't when confronted with the challenges placed before them ? Some of their food looks amazing and, according to the judges, tastes even better.

A few years ago, and before entrants realised that 'Masterchef' really could be a passport to a highly successful career, the standards at the start could be fairly awful but, now, you have to be able to do a little bit more than cook a decent omelette to even be noticed. As the contestants go through the rounds, the expectations are higher and higher and the pressure is immense; whoever gets to the last 3 or 4 has done extraordinarily well, whoever wins is a very special person, let alone a chef.