Red Dwarf: Back to Earth

Smeggin' hell! Red Dwarf's back after a 10 year absence! 

Time for some backstory. Among Red Dwarf fandom, there has long been debates about which series, or rather series of series, are the best. For the purists only seasons I and II were any good. Then there are those who champion series III-VI, and others who defend VII and VIII. I'd place myself in the wishy-washy camp. For my money series I to VI (1988-93) produced some of the finest moments in British comedy. But unfortunately series VII and VIII were, well, not as good. Both suffered the curse of the twee and compared very unfavourably with what went before.

The man mainly responsible was Doug Naylor, who along with Rob Grant formed the Grant Naylor writing partnership. At some point between the end of series VI and the start of VII, Grant quit the partnership determined to have more under his belt than just the 'Dwarf. Several unfunny novels later he's still scribbling away in relative obscurity, determined to escape his history. Naylor proved much smarter. He stuck with Red Dwarf and steered it through those difficult couple of seasons in the dying years of the 90s. But without Grant VII and VIII lacked bite. So when I heard a three-parter was due to be screened on Dave, entirely written and directed by Naylor, my hopes weren't high. But alas I was unprepared for what followed.

Red Dwarf: Back to Earth finds the boys - Lister, Rimmer, The Cat and Kryten continuing to float aimlessly through space. Nothing is happening. But then the crew become aware of a dimension-hopping squid has taken up residence in the ship's remaining water tank. They set out to investigate and inadvertently activate Katrina, a hologram of the ship's deceased chief scientist. Her mission is to use Lister to start off the human race again, and sets about using a severed tentacle to reverse the polarity and open a transdimensional gate way back to Earth. But something goes wrong, we are informed the reality in which they live is invalid and the crew is sucked through. They are vomited out of sets in a TV shop, the screens surrounding them full of the unfolding action. Isn't there something strange going on here? The chaps stumble across a Red Dwarf: Back to Earth DVD and from its blurb learn they are really characters in a TV show and are not real. They also read that they're scheduled to die at the end of the special, and so go off to find the writer and plead for extra life.

The problem is, it's terrible. The clever-clever postmodern plot of media creations becoming self-aware as media creations is hopelessly dated. The thing is you can tell Naylor thinks it's original and edgy, when in fact it is a hopelessly tired trope that's been not only done to death, but also carried off with greater aplomb elsewhere. If one was being generous, and I mean really generous, you could interpret this pomo turn as wry comment and cod philosophy. I'm sure media commodification absorbed a mighty blow when it made hey with Red Dwarf  being brought back to cash in on the nostalgia of an affectionate and devoted fan base. And then there comes the Baudrillardian twist - it is all a dream and it happens we are the outgrowths of their imaginations, not vice versa. Deary me. This plot device could partly be forgiven if the jokes were spot on, but almost without exception they fall completely flat. The only consolation is that as comebacks-long-after-a-series-has-ended go, it's not as awful as Blackadder Back & Forth, but it comes pretty close.

Overall the viewing public pretty much agreed. From ratings of two million for episode one - a triumph for a digital channel - it had fallen by over half last night for episode two, and I doubt it recovered for tonight's finale. On TV and related forums, blogs and the tweetosphere, apart from die-hards who wanted it to be good, the verdict was damning.

There is talk of a 10th series (deliberately skipping the ninth - what it is to be ever so quirky!). If so it really needs to up its game. But I doubt it will work. Our post-ironic, post-alternative and irreverently banal times demands much more than the pen of Doug Naylor can produce.

Edit: Slightly more favorable review from Iain at Leftwing Criminologist here.

Smeargate and Anti-Politics

The silly season must have started early this year. Mainstream bloggers, the press and the 24 hour rolling news media have gone crazy over 'Smeargate': the revelation that Damian McBride, the prime minister's chief political advisor (pictured) was plotting a series of smears against leading Tories. The email was leaked and picked up by Paul "Guido Fawkes" Staines, the fans flamed by Iain Dale, and was run in the press by the Torygraph. The tawdry contents of the email can be found here.

None of this should come as a surprise. The Tory front bench might be an ideas-free zone but the New Labour project is ideologically exhausted. As a creature of high neoliberalism it is woefully unsuited to what are becoming post-neoliberal times. Its reflex actions remain stamped by the old environment, hence its preference for de facto nationalisation of most of Britain's banking sector but without assuming state control, and not forgetting Mandelson's scheme to part-privatise the Royal Mail - though this is unlikely to happen as the government are having a hard time finding someone who will invest. The only way it can respond to political opponents is through negative campaigning. It is incapable of challenging the Tories on the ideological front, and so has to respond with pathetic smearing. A case in point was Labour's "strategy" in the Crewe and Nantwich by-election last year, when it resorted to pretty desperate class war rhetoric against the successful Tory candidate, Edward Timpson. And as if to underline the point, the West Midlands Labour slogan for the upcoming European elections is 'Stop the BNP'. Pathetic.

These sorts of scandals are ten-a-penny. But do they really matter in the grand scheme of things? They certainly exercise the Westminster Village and their hangers ons in the media and mainstream blogging, but outside of that few people care whether Derek Draper and other Brownite insiders are for the chop. But what it does is contribute to a general, incoherent anti-politics sentiment. This makes it easier to play the populist card, as UKIP and the BNP have found, but by far the biggest winner is political disengagement. Why bother turning out to vote if all you're going to get are out of touch careerist hacks in it to feather their own nests? It's going to take more than MP's expenses rule changes and a sleaze clean-up to fix Britain's eroding political system.

Dr Who: Crap

I'm very sorry to say this, but tonight's Dr Who Easter special was crap.

For those who did not catch Dr Who and the Planet of the Dead, the plot was typical Who: double decker bus hurtles through a wormhole to a desert planet. The Doctor and Zoe from EastEnders soon find out, with some assistance from crap humanoid aliens with fly heads, that the world was previously populated by some 100 billion people who've been reduced to sand by swarms of floating manta ray/hammerhead metal creature things. The Doctor is able to retrieve the bug-eyed aliens' power supply (alas they get eaten - why can't we save ugly extra-terrestrials?), reverse the polarity or something, and fly the bus back through the portal before the chompy-chompy aliens make it through.

It was dull, the special effects were rubbish, the acting terrible. As if that wasn't bad enough, it had Lee Evans in it.

On these occasions my TV review normally veers off into portrayals of gender, race or class in the show. But not tonight. Instead, out comes the soapbox.

There's no getting away from it. The plot lines are naff. The aliens are naff. The actors are naff, and so is the otherwise lovely David Tennant. Am I the only one annoyed by his over-acting? Naffness just pervades the show, there's no escaping it. And unfortunately, the same is true of its "adult-themed" progeny - Torchwood (despite Eve Myles). King Midas had the golden touch, but everything Russell T Davies caresses is irredeemably twee. You could say the premise of both is cheese in the extreme, but then again so was Buffy and Angel. And yet they were never naff.

What is to be done? 

Populist Politics, the BNP Way

Parties that do not hold office have, it is said, the luxury of opposition. The far left is all too often a case study in this piece of political wisdom. There's been plenty of times I've wondered if much of the far left actually want to recruit millions to its politics - I suspect for many a petty sect and guru, they don't. But for parties that have a little more muscle, electorally speaking, this luxury manifests itself in populism. On the one hand there are the politics of easy solutions to complex problems, and on the other there's being seen to be doing popular things.

This pretty much sums up the political approach of the BNP. Their politics are entirely negative - blame the "Marxists" who run the government and media. Blame the Muslims/blacks/asylum seekers, etc. We know the tiresome drill, and it's unfortunate crap like this can fall on fertile ground in some places. Take Stoke for example. This kind of "politics" is the BNP's stock in trade. Presumably the Potteries would flow with milk and honey if the foreigners depart and take their funny languages, religions and clothes with them.

But there's another aspect to Stoke BNP, and this is the second dimension of populism - of being seen to do popular things. So successful has the BNP been pursuing this that Stoke Central Labour MP, Mark Fisher has publicly stated that he believes them to be good community councillors. What is it that they do?

Take Cllr Steve Batkin, for example. To call him a complete tool in the council chamber would do my screwdriver set a great disservice. But during his first term on the council in Longton North, Batkin built a reputation as a community councillor. Got a lawn needing a mow? Need help with that flatpack cabin bed? Just give your friendly neighbourhood fascist a bell and around he'd come. You could tag-team the MDF as he informed you on the finer points of ornithology and Holocaust revisionism. And if no one required his special services he could be found of an afternoon litter-picking his way around the ward. For this he's earned the almost-affectionate epithet of Bin Bag Batkin.

Credit where credit's due. Old Bin Bag has finally learned to utter a few words in the council chamber, which is more than can be said for his fellow BNP'er, Cllr David Marfleet. Almost two years he's sat there and not uttered a single word. Will he serve a full term without opening his gob?

There is a more damaging aspect to this kind of populism. Ellie and Alby Walker (pictured), who along with Michael Coleman form the "brains" of the local BNP group, are past masters at this sort of activity. One thing the Walkers do without fail is provide a kind of meals on wheels service for some of the old folk around Abbey Hulton and often leave full council to do the rounds. Yes, it's great PR for the BNP. I'm sure their families might appreciate the Walkers' efforts and think about putting a cross in the BNP's box come the next elections.

But hold on a second, shouldn't this be a service provided by the council? If it is failing on meals on wheels, instead of taking on the responsibility themselves wouldn't the Walkers be better serving the voters of the Abbey by making sure this service is available? They obviously do not think so. Not only have they failed to raise the issue in the council chamber, despite plenty of opportunities for doing so, Ellie Walker left one council meeting specifically on elderly provision ... to deliver the meals! And the Walkers have the bare-faced cheek to pretend they're the only ones who care about "our people"!

If the BNP gave a shit they would have addressed the lack of service provision to the Abbey's elderly. But it suits them politically to be seen to be doing something about it themselves. This is not community activism. This is not what being an effective councillor is about. It's pure gesture politics.

EU to Force Through Public Sector Cuts

No2EU Press Release

EU tells UK to cut public spending, No2EU campaigners warn

EU finance ministers have given Britain six months to come up with plans to cut public spending, the EU-critical electoral alliance No2EU – Yes to Democracy warned today.

No2EU - Yes to Democracy West Midlands co-ordinator Cllr Dave Nellist gave the warning after EU finance ministers meeting Prague last week warned the UK to cut its budget deficit to the EU Stability and Growth Pact limit of three per cent within four years.

“The UK government recorded a government deficit of £78 billion last year, equivalent to 5.4 per cent of Gross Domestic Product, and the Stability and Growth Pact limits budget deficits to three per cent of GDP which currently adds up to £43 billion.

“Reducing the current government budget deficit by £35 billion in a year implies potentially appalling cuts in essential public services.

"Local authorities are already conducting a "doomsday study" of the potential impact on local council budgets of up to 30 per cent funding cuts and it paints an horrific picture for local services,” the former Labour MP warned.

NO2EU - Yes to Democracy convener Bob Crow said that the EU’s strict criteria had enforced the privatisation of capital projects to keep them off the government's books, by means of private finance initiatives (PFI) and the disastrous PPP on London Underground, which had increased the costs of essential public services and subsidised corporate profits.

"It is clear that EU leaders want ordinary working people to pay for the recession, by cutting essential public services, instead of the banks and finance companies that contributed so much to the economic crisis in the first place.

"That's why a vote for No2EU – Yes to Democracy against the EU’s privatisation agenda is so essential on June 4,” the transport union leader said.

For more information contact Cllr Dave Nellist on 07970 294 237 or Brian Denny on 07903376303

A Short Note on Liberties, Liberalism and Socialism

2009 marks 150 years since the appearance of On Liberty, John Stuart Mill's classical meditation on individual freedom and its limits. But there's more than just an arbitrary anniversary marker that makes another look at On Liberty timely. It's fair to say liberties and freedoms have been progressively eroded by Conservatives and Labour alike these past 30 years. CCTV, sprawling databases, detention without trial, snooping councils, ID cards - there is no end to the government's appetite for surveillance. And this is peace time in a liberal democracy, remember.

Historically the labour movement has a proud record of defending liberty and fighting for democratic rights in and out of the workplace. But its Marxist wing - despite conceptualising socialism as the democratic self-organisation of the working class - has bequeathed a more ambiguous legacy to the present generation of revolutionary socialists. Too often the revolutionary left has been seen to apologise for anti-democratic movements in the name of anti-imperialism, downplay the importance of "bourgeois" democracy, and erect petty tyrannies in its own organisations. Why would anyone outside our movement take what it has to say about liberty and freedom seriously?

Coupled with the far left's difficulties we shouldn't be too surprised not many have. In civil liberties discourse, "humanitarian" imperialists duke it out with mainstream liberals and right wing libertarians. Independent working class politics don't get a look in, though it is our class and especially the more oppressed and marginalised elements of it that disproportionately suffer the sharp end of the surveillance state. It's about time our voice was heard. But to win hegemony over this contested terrain not only must we constantly check our own political practice, we have to investigate and critique the ideas our opponents draw upon.

Socialism is, among other things, the ideological heir to liberalism. Both are products of class struggles against tyranny and grew to maturity in the fertile climate of Enlightenment thinking. But classical liberalism has settled into being an ideology of the status quo. Like all establishment ideas it has (in its own terms) principled objections and criticisms of the management of capitalist societies. But it shies away from fundamental critique. It is in basic agreement with the conservatives and libertarians to its right; that market economies and market relationships tend to best express individual liberty and freedom better than anything else. But liberalism is guilty of a one-dimensional view of these relationships. Here the freedom to buy and sell is set up as an exchange between equals. In a legal sense, this is true - all are equal before the law. But substantively this is not the case. For socialists the compulsion of propertyless labourers to sell their labour power in return for a wage is no freedom at all. Likewise liberalism may oppose state tyranny, but it has little to say about the tyranny of the workplace. Therefore socialism is, in one sense, consistent liberalism. Whereas the latter limits its attention to politics and the public sphere and regards what happens in the workplace as a "private" matter between employer and employee, socialism stands for extending the political rights and liberties citizens enjoy into economics. In short, where liberty conflicts with private ownership in the means of production, socialism says liberty should win every time.

It's with this in mind I'll be writing about On Liberty over the next few weeks. By no means I'm pretending to a comprehensive study of the essay or delivering a socialist "final verdict" on Mill's arguments. I do believe he did have some things of value to say, even if it was fundamentally compromised by the political tradition to which he belonged, and these are ideas socialists will find of use today.

Edit: All the posts on On Liberty are listed below:

Liberty and Individual Sovereignty
John Stuart Mill's Debating Ethics
John Stuart Mill's Elitism
The Limits of the Individual and Authority
Mill's Applications of On Liberty
Moving Beyond Liberalism

Blogging the G20

There's been plenty of comment about the protests and policing this last week (Jim probably has the definitive protest round-up). But in stark contrast to the demos and police violence there's a paucity in blog commentary about the summit itself. We all now know the IMF will be in receipt of $1.1 trillion that will be used to prop up failing economies - and first in the queue is Eastern Europe. We're also promised more regulation of banking and a tightening up of tax havens. And not before time - according to the OECD, around $11 trillion has been salted away by the tax-dodging super rich.

These measures fall woefully short as far as I'm concerned, but what have blogs been saying about them?

A World to Win reads between the lines and helpfully spells out what the G20's communique really means.

Benjamin Solah reckons the "package" really means business as usual.

Boffy cautions against hyping up the economic crisis along with the media (he argues that in fact the present crisis is a moment within a long wave of growth). By way of contrast, Lenin argues the media, governments and financial institutions are talking up the prospects of recovery.

Molly argues that Keynes offer us no way out of the crisis. The G20 bigwigs might want us to consume more but ultimately the planet can no longer afford it.

Graham over at LEAP says it doesn't really matter how much cash the big powers pump into the IMF, it does nothing to address collapsing house prices and joblessness in the US. And as the world's largest economy spirals down, many other countries will fall with it. Meanwhile, Vino looks at the catch 22 China is caught up in and its motives for its noises over an alternative international reserve currency.

North Briton is a bit more optimistic, pausing to have a bit of a gloat over the Tories' inconsistency on the G20 package.

Rick argues the timidity the G20 has shown toward tax havens means the wealthy have every intent of keeping hold of their loot while lecturing the rest of us on pain and sacrifice. Nigel at the TUC's blog, Touchstone, suggests taking a more measured approach to the G20's outcomes.

The quantity of G20 analysis in the mainstream press has not, however, been matched by mainstream bloggers. Batting for the Tories Letters From a Tory has penned another open missive to Gordon Brown, and true to form he's not altogether fulsome with his praise. John Redwood goes through each of the communique's pledges telling us why it's so much hot air. If one was being charitable it would be impolitic to point out their lack of substantive alternatives. Good job I'm not really.

Does anyone have anything nice to say about the G20? The one place you'd expect to find something supportive of the government would be LabourList. It offers us not one but five different takes. Former Danish PM, Poul Nyrup Rasmussen would like to have seen the agreement go further, but blames Europe's conservatives - principally Sarkozy and Merkel - for obstructing measures that would create jobs. Alastair Campbell concentrates his fire on the conservatives closer to home. He asks if Cameron could have delivered the G20's result? I think you can imagine his answer.

Helen Symons offers what can only be described as a puff piece, with some choice Keynesian proposals thrown in and telling us that we should support Gordon Brown in putting jobs at the heart of Labour's recovery strategy (you mean to say it has one?) Anthony Painter manages to expend a lot of words saying the G20 was a worthwhile thing. Lastly Nesrine Mailk spies potential sources of conflict in our part-tax-payer-owned banking industry, but thinks there's enough openness within Britain's financial institutions for systemic change. That may well be the case, but New Labour's past record implementing progressive measures against finance capital does not inspire one with confidence.

Youth Fight For Jobs March

Protests may have been drowned out by the triumphalist brouhaha in yesterday's media, but a number of actions did take place around London against the G20. Louise has a batch of images and reports here and here.

It was also yesterday that the Socialist Party-backed campaign, Youth Fight For Jobs took to the streets. Unfortunately it appears no reports have appeared on the web yet, save this nine minute film posted on the SP website. Looks like an excellent day was had by all, so well done to all comrades who bust a gut organising this.

It would be remiss to not give a mention to the YFFJ inaugural conference taking place on Saturday 9th May.

Youth Fight for Jobs conference
Saturday 9 May

Cruciform, Lecture Theatre 1, University College London (UCL), London WC1E 6BT. Near Euston and Warren Street tube and rail stations
10-11am - registration
11-12.30pm - opening rally

Speakers include Bob Crow, RMT general secretary; Tracy Edwards, PCS young members network; and activists from the campaign.
12.30-1.30pm - lunch
1.30-3pm - workshops

Topics include: current workplace struggles to save jobs; organising the YFFJ campaign; the politicians' reaction to the crisis; and defending your rights at work.
3-3.30pm - what way forward for the campaign?

Discussion, resolutions & voting.
3:30-4:30pm - closing rally.

Speakers include Sean Figg, Youth Fight for Jobs national organiser, activists from Greece, and more...

G20 Protester Dies

You wouldn't know it if your sole source of news in the mainstream media, but apparently a man died at yesterday's G20 protests. Rumours of a death emerged yesterday evening on the tweetosphere from protesters who were at the event. Redpeppermag tweeted seeing a man unconscious at Cornhill street in the City. The Guardian reports he lost consciousness within the police cordon and a team of paramedics were sent in to retrieve him. A police statement says "The officers took the decision to move him as during this time a number of missiles – believed to be bottles – were being thrown at them", a piece directly challenged by on-the-spot tweets from protesters.

You've got to ask yourself why this is being reported by The Graun, Al-Jazeera, The Australian and ignored by the BBC, Sky, etc. If I was of a conspiratorial mindset I might think they didn't want to embarrass the government with all the great and the good in town.

Even without a death yesterday's policing of the G20 protests was nothing short of disgraceful. The police made it abundantly clear in the lead up to this week that not only were they expecting trouble, they wanted it too. Police violence against protests, including peaceful protests, have become par the course. And it goes unremarked where the political establishment are concerned - probably with good reason. Their silence betrays their connivance in giving the police ever greater powers to trample on our liberties.

The policing on this demonstration demands nothing less than a public inquiry and a rolling of heads. The role their open air mass-arrest and violence had in yesterday's death must be investigated in full public view. If neither are forthcoming, it's more or less guaranteed there will be others like this unnamed man.

Friday update: Turns out the protester was a passerby on his way home from work, but who had happened to get caught up in the police cordon. Good post with relevant press clippings here.

Tommy on the Telly, Again

Words fail me. Is this what has become of "Scotland's most iconic post-war socialist"? What do comrades think about this? Has anyone been consulted with beforehand? Just read the press release from the This Morning website for yourself:

This Morning Welcomes Tommy and Gail

Today, This Morning can confirm Tommy and Gail Sheridan will be taking over the sofa at the start of the next series. They are replacing Fern Britton and Phillip Schofield. Their last show will be broadcast on 17 July, which is Fern's birthday.

"Gail and I are really thrilled to be presenting the show", said Tommy.

"I've been an avid viewer of This Morning for many years. To get a job like this is a dream for us both. We look forward to working with all the crew and the show's regulars."

Tommy and Gail shot to prominence after a successful court case in 2006. More recently firebrand Tommy has been entertaining viewers in the Celebrity Big Brother house.

ITV Director of Factual and Daytime, Alison Sharman, said: "We are very pleased Tommy and Gail are joining us. They are naturals in front of the camera and have just the right bedside manner to smooth over any hairy moments."

ITV Studios' Controller of Daytime and Lifestyle Features, Fiona Keenaghan, said: "It is fantastic news for This Morning. Tommy and Gail are so enthusiastic and can't wait to swing into action."