The BBC Trust – DQF: Dithering Querelous Farcical

After being told in January to revisit its plans to hack the heart out of local radio, the BBC Trust finally came back today with its revised report: BBC Trust’s service review of BBC Local Radio. After threatening to hack the heart out of local radio provision, the revised proposals basically did exactly the same, only slower and in a louder voice.

It’s quite difficult to understand the Trust’s logic, if we’re being honest. It [The Trust] starts out by supposedly reasserting its commitment to local radio by saying

“While we accept that there will be some overlap in music output between BBC Local Radio and other BBC stations, we would like music on BBC Local Radio to be as distinctive as possible in order to maximise choice for listeners. We have asked BBC management to develop a music policy that will underpin Local Radio’s distinctiveness within the BBC radio portfolio.”

And how, dear reader, precisely does the Trust intend to underpin this distinctiveness and maximise listener choice? By sticking to their original proposal, and removing a whole load of regional content, including music:

“On weekday evenings (7pm–10pm) all stations will join together for a new all-England programme, with opt-outs for live sport and local news (as currently provided).”

This appears to be an almost textbook definition of the concept of weasel words. Isn’t the whole point of a local radio station that it doesn’t just act as a relay to a national programme? That’s not local radio – that’s an affiliate station. If I’d wanted that, I’d listen to national radio . It appears that, as far as the BBC Trust are concerned, the only really important times are the mass market periods of breakfast and drive time, followed by mid-morning. Strange, but I always believed the whole point of the BBC was to provide the services that the commercial sector doesn’t (or can’t). Why focus on the mass-market periods when the commercial sector actually does this too, and reasonably well sometimes?  The shows that will be cut have distinctive music, both local and otherwise that the commercial stations won’t pursue; their formats are pretty much fixed in stone.

And what to we get in its place? A national programme from 1900-2200 that is designed to please everyone. Just look at the editorial parameters for this new programming:

The new all-England programme between 7pm and 10pm on weekdays would be targeted at the same audience as current BBC Local Radio output. BBC management intends the show to have the following editorial characteristics:
•    It will be speech-led (a minimum of 60 per cent).
•    Speech will cover the best of what BBC Local Radio has broadcast on a given day. There may be debates involving listeners about how the main subjects and talking points of the day have played out in different areas. Material and strands should reflect and debate local culture and arts, and stories should be told through the perspective of listeners and local communities; programmes should include live reports from different BBC Local Radio stations and areas.
•    Music will be based on the current Local Radio core playlist, with an increased bias towards music from past decades and reduced amounts of current music.
•    News and travel bulletins will remain local. The programme will go to breaking news where appropriate.
•    Local stations will opt-out for sports coverage and for major breaking stories.

So, it will be cheap, as all it will do is repurpose existing content. There’ll be not much in the way of music, except for the usual banal back catalogue selection. There well be reduced amounts of current music, because no one over fifty wants to listen to that racket, do they?.  Oh yes, and , “There may be debates involving listeners”. We can guess why: because phone-ins are even cheaper.  The Trust  has looked at the largest audience segment (50+) and decided all they want is safe programming and a shoddy mix of Radio4/5 Live. In doing so, it has done the local radio listener base a terrible disservice.

It’s inevitable that it will satisfy no one at all. Some  stations will even have to share afternoon programming, which begs the question: when does local radio actually stop being local. I think we’re getting perilously close. But the Trust don’t seem to think so. Their Executive Summary says:

While we believe BBC Local Radio is performing well and that its future strategy will provide a good foundation for future growth and development, we have set out a number of conclusions and actions to ensure that the service continues to deliver its distinctive speech-led content which puts local issues at the centre of its output.

I’d love to know what evidence they base those beliefs upon.

Meanwhile, the BBC News website cunningly hid this news inside the headline article that basically said what we’d known for ages: Blue Peter is moving to CBBC and won’t be on BBC1 any more, especially after switchover.. Nice way to bury bad news there, chaps.

Relaunching the Coalition (or Polishing Turds: A Guide)

Sometime today, the Prime Minister and his fag, sorry deputy, will appear on an anonymous Essex industrial estate and publicly reaffirm their shared commitment to Coalition Government after what might be charitably described as not one of their better weeks. Given their recent travails this is actually saying something.

In the past few days, the tone within the Government has changed from penitence and self-flagellation on Friday morning to the more traditionally political responses of Saturday and Sunday, where first the Prime Minister assured the public that he was listening by carrying on doing exactly as he was anyway and not listening, then the Chancellor took great pains to tell Andrew Marr that he had made mistakes with Budget: in its presentation. In effect, George says he simply didn’t tell us loudly enough or slowly enough, like you’d do while toilet training a toddler. Or a dog.

The elections in Greece and France this last weekend have certainly changed things, with a significant move to the political left. This may yet see the Euro utterly destroyed by a Greek withdrawal if the current impasse is not resolved. France is a more nuanced issue. Angela Merkel has been quick to tell the new Président Hollande that the current arrangements are not negotiable. It is inconceivable that he will agree. This will, of course, create tensions but I am fairly sure that Hollande will win out to some degree as the need for investment and growth will need to addressed fairly soon. If this happens, it will put the Coalition’s hairshirt programme into sharp relief; we will look across the channel and wonder: why is it the French can do this, but we cannot?

Mr Cameron also has other concerns, like “What Do You Do With A Problem Like Boris?” Outwardly, on Saturday, the priapic Labrador’s election was the single golden glimmer of good news in a mountain of electoral effluvia for Cameron. But at a deeper level, it could cause him much trouble. Johnson seemingly won in London despite being a Conservative, not because of it: he’s a winner. At the same time, Cameron has had his first real voter kicking. And it’s not going to get better any time soon. Twitchy Tory backbenchers, never the most patient of souls, are already rumbling about his performance and the fact that he’s simply not right-wing enough, forgetting that at least in name, this isn’t actually a Conservative government. Eyes may start to be cast towards City Hall and the man who is damn near bombproof electorally. Already Cameron’s own right wing wants him to jettison “irrelevant” legislation to bring forward reform of the House of Lords, put forward by the Coalition’s “junior partner”. Having it rebuffed would put even greater strain on an increasingly strained marriage of inconvenience.

That’s not even Camoern’s major problem. The economy is still flat-lining and the private sector growth that the Chancellor optimistically claimed was going to offset all those public sector cuts is simply not happening.  Confidence is through the floor and even those jobs being created are in the bottom of the market – low wage, part-time. The market is full of unemployed or down-skilling graduates and people are now properly starting to feel the impacts of both the first and second waves of cuts. The NHS is still a suppurating wound, with few convinced of the wisdom of the recently enacted Bill. And he’s still up to his neck in Leveson. That’s before we even begin to talk about the ineptitude of Teresa May, or Jeremy Hunt, the glacial pace of banking reform or a hundred other things mounting up on his watch. Only a couple of weeks ago he tried to tell us how hard it was being Prime Minister. Well, I’m not sure anyone forced you into your current post. And if it’s too much of a strain, you can always quit, can’t you?

So, today’s exercise in relaunching the tottering Coalition increasingly looks like polishing a turd, because however you may try to make it sparkle, a jobby’s a jobby for a’ that.

The Boys’ Own Bumper Book of Politics : What Do Do If You Lose An Election

Every chap knows that, sooner or later, he’s going to lose an election or two. But, as Beaky the Latin master might say after a particularly hopeless piece of Latin prep, Nil Desperandum! There are ways to make things seem just a little better. So,  for any chap in electoral pickle, here’s what to do:

1. Be humble
   Or at least look it. As soon as possible, admit that you’ve taken a jolly good kicking. And that it hurts. If you can, get someone else to do it first, preferably a girl, because everyone knows it’s horrid to pick on girls. Sayeeda Warsi is a good choice, partly because she’s a bit of a thcky (which maybe because she’s a girl, but more likely because she’s…northern), but mostly because she likes to talk and see herself on the old idiot’s lantern.  But it you must bite the bullet and do it yourself, make sure you use your best sombre voice and serious face to do it. Bawling like a cissy only makes you look like an utter weed. Keep a stiff upper lip and there’s always some poor sap who’ll be more than ready to supply sympathy, possibly even the kind that includes tea and lashings of cake. Hurrah!
2. Tell People How Much You’re Listening
   Even if you’re not. Actually, especially when you’re not. The lower orders always like to think they’re important in some way. Well, by pretending to listen to their incessant whining you make them feel special on those infrequent occasions when they can actually make a chap’s life a touch uncomfortable: e.g. elections, or judicial enquiries.  At these times you might even have to meet some of the beastly oiks. Don’t worry, one can always take a good hot bath afterwards to get rid of the stench of the poor.
   The whole point of “listening” is that you don’t, and carry on doing exactly what you jolly well want. After, all who’s in charge? See how David Cameron (jolly decent chap, very good school) does it.
3. Blame Someone Else
   If possible, when having to explain yourself to one of those fearful oiks on the BBC, always blame the last lot. After all, if you say something often enough with enough conviction, it will become true. Or at least the public will think so. If you just keep saying, “Spoddy Milliband minor is a wet and a weed, and smells”, or, “That awful bully Brown was terrible at arithmetic, gave Alistair Darling a Chinese Burn and left the tuck shop empty”, or “We are committed to fixing the economic mess that was caused by the previous government” often enough, people will think it’s true. And if everyone says it, then it must be true, mustn’t it? So, if you have chance, write down your very best excuse on a card so no one forgets, and can repeat it, word for word, on every single appearance they make, just to make sure.
4. Tell People You Have Made Mistakes
   In Presentation.
   Everyone will be too busy listening the first part of the sentence that they won’t even pay attention to the last part. Clearly, the great unwashed have no concept of tough concepts like budget deficits and fiscal restructuring. Besides, maybe if they had a little less cash, some of the brutes wouldn’t actually breed quite so much.  Actually, the only mistake you have made is not explaining all of these terribly, terribly complicated things to people who only went to a comprehensive school, for pity’s sake. Next time, just explain louder and more slowly. That should be the ticket.
   This technique is best used in conjunction with number two, as you clearly can’t listen if you’re speaking a touch louder. See how George Osborne  (another jolly decent chap, good school) does it.  One would almost say that this was highly professional, if it weren’t for the unfortunate connotations with trade ill-befitting a gentleman, that accompany it.

Do these things after an electoral setback and a chap can carry on exactly as normal. The civilians will be so happy to see you listening to them they won’t even notice you’ve been using these spiffy clever tips.  Good hunting, chaps!

Smoke and Mirrors

So, the lion’s share of elections results are in. And what have we discovered?  Not as much as we might first think.  Well, let’s run through things, shall we?

London

It looks like, to all reasonable intents, Ken Livingstone‘s mainstream political career is pretty much toast. His attempt to throw light on Johnson’s tax affairs has backfired spectacularly. Fine, London gets the mayor it deserves. And they’re welcome to him.

More interestingly, while Boris might get the nod as mayor, he may find a more hostile London assembly waiting for his second term.

England

At First sight, it looks as if Labour have had a pretty good night, making some significant gains. For the Conservatives, things are not so rosy. Already Cameron is lining up to blame the usual suspects, still trotting out “the mess we inherited” line. Problem is, I’m not sure people are listening any more and want him to change the record.  His party’s right wing are complaining he’s not being right wing enough, while you can tell that at least some are looking to capture some of those votes from the improving UKIP. Baroness Warsi‘s rather ham-fisted attempts to conflate UKIP and the BNP last night were fairly laughable – even more conservative commentators like Guido Fawkes were commenting on this.

If things are bad for Cameron, for Clegg things are even worse. Thr Lib Dems have been crushed, suffering the worst results in the party’s history. Their share of the vote was unchanged form last year, which was widely seen as calamitous. The now have fewer councillors than ever before. In fights against Labour, it’s clear that the LD’s hve been wiped out. Those who voted in 2010 for the Lib Dems’ have shown their anger at the position Clegg’s party has taken. If people are listening to the Lib Dems, Nick, then people really don’t like what you’re saying.

All the mood music from the coalition parties is carefully choreographed to commiserate with those who lost seats last night, but there’s little there to suggest that they are really listening to the reasons why this has happened. In fact, it seems quite the opposite as the Prime Minister declaims that he will not be persuaded to change course in any way.

Scotland and Wales & NI

As I write, hardly any results  have been declared, though most of the noises are positive for Labour, with the possible exception of Glasgow, which is a special and complex situation.

But…

Here’s the smoke and mirrors bit. Every party has desperately tried to in something positive to cling on to this morning. some have found it more easy than others, but all of them should stop for just a moment to give some thought about the elephant in the room that only Ed Milliband touched on this morning, but even then only every briefly: the turnout.

National turnout is estimated at a mere 32% – the lowest since the turn of the millennium. This should worry everyone. In elections that are supposedly deeply important, not even a third of the electorate have turned out to register their vote. Even worse, Cameron’s “big idea” for elected mayors has met with utter disengagement and a lack of interest from the voters. Pretty much every mayoral referendum looks set to result in a resounding, “No.” It appears that the dissatisfaction with mainstream politics is palpable (and worsening), but the main parties don’t really want to face that. Smaller parties, even allowing for small turnout, have had some bright moments. In UKIP’s case, this may not be about having a growing base, but being able to mobilise that which they already had.

These results don’t really tell us anything we didn’t already know about disaffection with the government, or even about Labours’ fortunes, but Millband looks to have at least bought himself a little more time to push a more progressive Labour agenda. Perhaps a left of centre change of political climate in France, which may happen on Sunday, will change the dynamics of European politics and help him in future months.  All we can do is wait and see.

A Stopped Clock

There’s an old saying: even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

And that’s exactly what I thought this afternoon as I glanced at the BBC’s coverage of card-carrying nutter and attention junkie Nadine Dorries, who last year had tried to add an amendment to the Health and Social Care Bill that would have massively constrained abortion advice for women.  To be fair, Dorries is getting a bit of a reputation of opening her mouth before her brain had first gear engaged but today was a fairly impressive example of her going off on one in what some might call the grand style.

So the Downing Street PR charabanc (I was going to say well oiled PR machine, but…) creaked into action. But it was something else he said that piqued my interest: in response to Dorries’ complaints that both Cameron and Osborne were, “arrogant posh boys” with “no passion to want to understand the lives of others” the Prime Minister said that he was quite clear that he did not agree with her, saying that he “did not accept” her criticisms.  Now, you might expect this anyway. But if he were arrogant and out of touch, it’s also the exact response he would give.

Cameron plastered on his face of aching sincerity, which looks like he has just performed a particularly uncomfortable bowel movement and whose contents now sit in his pants, then spent a whole load of time whining about how tough it is being Prime Minister. The thing is, I don’t recall anyone ever forced him to do it.  In fact, he spent a great deal of time and effort between 2005 and 2010 specifically trying to get the job, putting the boot into the previous incumbents along the way.  In which case I think he should consider shutting his mouth and just getting on with it. To be less polite: boo-fucking-hoo, Dave.  Here’s the sound of the world’s smallest violin.  This is what you wanted; deal with it.

Let’s look a that “posh boy” insult again. Now, to be fair, one cannot choose the school one’s parents choose. By the time one reaches eighteen, however, a little more autonomy is possible to exercise. So, setting aside Eton and the accident of schooling for now, let’s look at the university careers of our Cabinet. There are 23 Cabinet Ministers, as well as another six who attend Cabinet meetings. Of those 29 people in the Coalition Cabinet, nineteen (19) have degrees from either Oxford or Cambridge. Of those, twelve (12) are Oxonians. Eight of those read Politics, Philosophy and Economics (or some combination of PPE). And not one of the Cabinet as a science degree, unless one stretches to Nick Clegg and his Cambridge degree in Anthropology and Archaeology (and that is a stretch, because it probably isn’t). Vince Cable did start to study Natural Sciences at Cambridge, but switched to Economics. Actually, the Shadow Cabinet is a little (though not much) better.  Of the 31 people with Shadow Cabinet roles or attendance, ten (10) are either from Oxford or Cambridge. Eight are from the former and seven of those read PPE, including the Millibot, Ed Balls and Yvette Cooper. Twenty one members of the shadow cabinet are form outside Oxbridge, but not one of these appears to have any kind of scientific background either. The most popular subjects for front-benchers of all hues appears to be either Politics (quelle surprise), or some variant of History, with a couple of lawyers and linguists thrown in.

There is more than a faint whiff of irony hearing the likes of David Willetts or Michael Gove extolling the virtues of the STEM subjects and the vital role they will play in our economic future when not a single person on either front bench has any real clue about any of it means. In fact, what it does show up is just one aspect of a grindingly depressing intellectual monoculture in our political system.  Quite apart from the class and wealth biases inherent in the current setup, we also have to contend with a world view inculcated by a one-dimensional intellectual bastion of privilege. No wonder there’s so much group-think and wagon-closing in the Westminster village.

All Dorries has pointed out is what most of us suspected anyway: Cameron, and most of his colleagues really are cut off from the reality of life for most of us: selected from an incestuous and limited intellectual pool, with little subsequent life experience and  fundamental lack of knowledge of  (and empathy with) the issues facing modern Britain. Indeed, it may go some way to explaining the comparative lack of either intellectual rigour and clarity or direction within the Coalition at present, or the inability of anyone to consider a Plan B.

She might be as mad as a box of frogs, but Nadine Dorries, like the proverbial stopped clock, is pretty much right on this one, whatever David Cameron might try to say to convince us otherwise.

Robin Ince : Happiness Through Science

Let’s not beat around the bush: it was not very busy in the Spa Theatre last night for Robin Ince‘s show. I am one of a bunch of 75, if the box office are to be believed. I’m not sure why this is, though Robin does note that the demand to see the spiritualists and mediums here is fairly. Perhaps Scarborough still languishes in the days before Enlightenment, or George Carlin‘s maxim, “think how dumb the average person is, then realise that half of them are even dumber then that”, might be being demonstrated. Empirically

Still, small audience or not, Ince, by his own description a “middle-aged man in a cardigan”, is a revelation. Well, he is if you’ve never heard him anywhere before. This is my first time seeing him live, but I’ve heard him a number of times on the radio. The show is in two, fairly loose, parts. Both meander more thana little, but his is not a criticism: it makes everything feel less slick and scripted, and much more personal. And he really seems to be having fun. Judging by the audience reaction, I think we are too. Each time I have, I’ve wondered several things, including: bloody hell, he can’t half talk and (most importantly): I bet he’d be interesting to watch in a proper show.

And indeed he is. He is a wonderfully literate, compassionate angry, lucid, comedian. And he’s an atheist. Not surprising for someone who hangs about with Brian Cox and Richard Dawkins, really. Anyone familiar with Radio 4′s The Infinite Monkey Cage will have some idea of Robin’s lack of patience with the idiotic wing of religious belief, which is actually quite refreshing and admirable.  What you may not be expecting is the flood of impersonations that he does, but all of unlikely subjects: Richard Feynman; an uncanny Carl Sagan and, most arresting of all: Professor Brian Cox.  Ince claims that he’s tried to make him sound more like Orville the Duck than Cox, though I think he’s entertainingly close to making him sound like George Formby (which would make Wonders of the Universe an interesting watch)

Quite a lot of Robin’s ire is directed at the Daily Mail. But not specifically, he also gives the Guardian, The Express and many others a bit of a shoeing.  He also quite right gets angry about the general state of science journalism, which is unsurprising given the amount of time he’s spent with the estimable Ben Goldacre.  This forms part of a wider discourse on the role of “balance” in scientific debate, via way of musings about equine reiki.

It really was a lovely evening: funny, literate, witty, and intelligent. It’s just such a pity that so many people in Scarborough didn’t bother to go and see him: they missed a treat.

Derek

or: How far can you stretch out a comic trope before the public find you out?

During Extras there’s a moment where, while filming the show within a show, When the Whistle Blows, Gervais’s character Andy Milman has the dawning realisation that, for all his high minded aspiration and pretension, he’s become a joke for all the wrong reasons. Watching Derek felt a bit like that to me.

Don’t get me wrong, there are some moments that are really quite lovely and tender, like care assistant Hannah (about 6 minutes in) confessing that she spends most of her time at work, even days off, just for the company and because she doesn’t want to go back to an empty house. But there’s a problem. and that problem is Gervais himself. His portrayal of Derek makes me feel deeply uncomfortable, mostly because it feels like a one note character, but also because it’s difficult to gauge the intent of the portrayal. Derek is a character with a long history, having first appeared on The 11 O’Clock Show, to some mixed opinion. And it’s clear that Derek has learning difficulties, so it’s difficult to gauge how the humour should be played. I’m not sure Gervais gets it right. Too often it feels that we should be laughing at Derek, purely because of his lack of understanding or his haplessness. This would be reasonable if Derek were unimpaired, because we would know that he could exercise control if he wanted, but here we don’t. We don’t know how much of what he’s doing is conscious and how much is down to an innate inability to cope or function in a “normal” way. It feels like too often we’re being encouraged to point and laugh at a freak, but in a knowing and arch way, which makes it even worse.

On the other hand, the moments after Joan’s death are really rather sweet and touching and that’s what makes this programme so annoying to me: that he is capable of scripting something so beautifully judged, but then spoils it by adding a disingenuous patina to so much else.

But this is something that has increasingly bothered me about Gervais’ output over time. I will admit to not liking the Office very much, mostly because there weren’t enough of the characters I liked enough to care about. Extras I enjoyed rather more. I still think the moments with Ronnie Corbett and David Bowie are just great pieces of comedy. And we get Kate Winslet dressed as a nun, which is also very nice. I also felt a little more depth to the Andy Milman character: more to empathise and engage with. It did end at exactly the right time, though. Because, like the Office, it was becoming harder to see just how much of what Gervais was doing was characterisation and how much was just acting as a way of expressing some of his own hang-ups and neuroses.

Life’s Too Short really annoyed me, though. Firstly, it was clunkingly unfunny. If you need evidence of that, just go back and check out episode one’s arse-clenching Liam Neeson cameo, where no one came out looking all that good. Secondly, it wasted Warwick Davis‘s talents by simply making him behave mostly like an avatar for Ricky Gervais. Then, of course, was the fact that it felt like it too too many cheap and lazy shots, like the diminishing returns in writing were kicking in. Perhaps this is why Gervais and Merchant are doing their own things right now, in an effort to recharge the creative batteries.

Maybe it’s best that Derek is left as a one-off.