This is my favourite of today’s reasons for Brexit. Tomorrow we may be back to blue passports for all I know. Or bendy bananas. Yes, I know you — dear “sensible” Brexiteer — may find such notions risible or patronising. But the great thing about democracy is the bendy-banana woman on Question Time had exactly as much say in the referendum as you did. There were doubtless people on the other side who voted “Remain” for reasons you would find silly.
But I doubt there’s as many of them. And I doubt they’re as silly.
Truly, the reasons for Brexit are many and varied. But I’ve yet to hear a single one that rang true for me.
Anyway; it appears from the above tweet that the UK is leaving the EU — a massive policy shift and one that, even if you’re a fan of Brexit, clearly has the potential to wreak havoc if carried out badly (both on the UK and its neighbours) — and it’s doing it because they think some of the people working in the EU aren’t very nice to them.
“Arrogant” and “unelected” it seems. And it’s hard not to read that and immediately think of The Citizen in Ulysses… sure, sure he’s the butt of many a joke, but there’s plenty of insight amid the bombast and rhetoric…
– That’s your glorious British navy, says the citizen, that bosses the earth. The fellows that never will be slaves, with the only hereditary chamber on the face of God’s earth and their land in the hands of a dozen gamehogs and cottonball barons. That’s the great empire they boast about of drudges and whipped serfs.
– On which the sun never rises, says Joe.
– And the tragedy of it is, says the citizen, they believe it. The unfortunate yahoos believe it.
The navy is still there, albeit less fearsome than it once was… but so is the hereditary chamber, the royalty and the belief that Empire was something to take pride in. So is the sense that 52% of the population can make a massive, long-term decision without even considering the impact it might have on a close neighbour (one who has been treated quite shabbily enough already) and then start trumpeting about The Will of The People.
“Arrogant”? “Unelected”? Is it possible, just possible, that there’s some projection going on here?
While thankfully you don’t do it as often as you once did, you do still give air time to Climate Change Skeptics / Deniers ostensibly in the interests of “balance”. What’s more, these skeptics / deniers are rarely climatologists but instead tend to be politicians, ex-politicians or business people with no recognised qualification in the field; though often with ideological positions or personal agendas that are fundamentally opposed to industrial regulation.
However, I have noticed that — when discussing the Holocaust — you fail to provide air time to David Irving so that we may hear both sides of that story (or better yet, perhaps a non-historian, ex-politician with overt antisemitic views… perhaps give Jean-Marie Le Pen a prominent slot next Holocaust Remembrance Day?) In the interests of “balance” of course.
For the sake of clarity, let me point out that I’m not actually suggesting you give air time to Holocaust-deniers. You have quite correctly accepted that the evidence for the Holocaust is strong enough that it doesn’t merit a contradictory voice.
What I would like to know, therefore, is precisely what standards of evidence are applied by the BBC that are passed by the Holocaust, but failed by Climate Change? Why does the BBC feel the evidence for Climate Change is lacking? What aspects of the scientific consensus does the BBC find unconvincing or doubtful? If there is doubt about the science, why doesn’t the BBC interview a climatologist on the matter rather than a politician and industrial lobbyist? And — importantly — precisely what further evidence does the BBC require before they stop giving air time to Climate Change Deniers?
This right here. This is why Brexit will be a godalmighty disaster. That’s a Conservative Party MEP saying that. Not some random commenter below a Daily Mail article lamenting the end of the British Empire. Check out the banner image on the guy’s profile…
No, I assure you, that’s not a joke. That’s the flag beneath which a tory Member of the European Parliament chooses to speak to the public. It’s the kind of detail that makes you wonder whether Hannan might not be a character created by Peter Cook, somehow escaped from the pages of an uncommissioned script. But it’s tough to be whimsical for too long when it’s clear from his tweets that this Tory MEP genuinely thinks of Ireland as “belonging” under that flag. And he’s a little put out, quite frankly, that everyone else doesn’t think so too.
It’s not just Hannan. A 2014 YouGov opinion poll has recently resurfaced — given fresh new relevance by the brexiteering lurch towards isolationism. In this poll, a significant majority of respondents believed Britain should be more proud than ashamed of its imperial past.
And this is why we find ourselves in a peculiar farce. The British unilaterally* took a course of action that at the very least is causing a lot of concern here in Ireland; and at worst could potentially be catastrophic for our country. And yet a significant portion of the British Establishment and commentariat seem vaguely affronted by the notion that we’re not falling meekly into line behind them. The referendum campaign on the British mainland barely mentioned Ireland. And the subsequent General Election campaign featured Ireland mostly as a 1980s-era prop with which the tories could beat Corbyn.
I love the UK. I lived there for many years. Went to university there. Worked there. Met many great friends there. Here in Ireland, if I was ever idiotic enough to enter politics, I would be immediately tarred with the term “West Brit” and it’d be a tough label for me to shake. By a great many yardsticks, I would be considered an anglophile for an Irishman**.
Point being… given the mess of a situation we find ourselves in, and accepting that we can’t change the past… if the argument for Ireland to leave the EU and join some kind of federation with the UK was likely to find any sort of traction here in Ireland, then I’d be exactly the sort of person who would give it some consideration.
But I’m not. When Irish people are polled on EU membership, you get numbers that would appear baffling to a lot of British people. Even after the frankly unjust and unjustifiable way in which the Irish citizenry were treated during the banking crisis… even then we never polled less than 80% in favour. Right now… it’s creeping closer to 90. At some level we didn’t fully appreciate until quite recently, we Irish are European. And if we leave the EU, it’ll be because the entire thing collapses, or we get dragged out kicking-and-screaming for some other reason. It won’t be because we feel an attachment to the Union Jack, or because it makes logistical sense for us to climb into the boat with the British, even as they blow holes in the hull with an antique blunderbus inherited from their Great Grandad.
Brexit is a psychotic pitbull the UK brought into the neighbourhood. It’s up to them to make sure it doesn’t hurt anyone else. It’s not up to us to accommodate their delusions that the thing is a harmless poodle.
The British have seriously screwed up with Brexit. Whatever they have done to themselves (and it may be very damaging indeed), they have likely inflicted a great deal of harm here in Ireland too, risking both political and economic upheaval in a region that might still have a bit of Semtex knocking about in it. And yet the Tories are exasperated when, far from backing them up, the Irish are infuriated. After literally centuries of utterly shameful behaviour in Ireland (Empire-nostalgia notwithstanding), I don’t think it’s unreasonable for us to expect Britain to start acting like half-decent neighbours for once.
Fat fucking chance.
* Let’s be clear… I am in no way questioning the legal — or even the moral — right of the British people to choose their own path (within reason — you’re not allowed randomly nuke countries even if you vote for it 52-48). However, if something is to be described as truly “democratic” then I’d argue everyone significantly affected by it should be given an equal vote. The Irish were not allowed to vote on Brexit. Again, let me stress, I’m not saying we should have been. I’m just saying you need a different word than “democratic”.
** Though it’s a good deal more complicated than that. There are aspects of British culture (the monarchy, the militarism, a huge chunk of the national character surrounding class, self-image and nostalgia for empire) where I would be far more extreme in my dislike than even the most fervent Republican. So yeah, as ever, do be careful with those broad strokes.
I got three and a half episodes into Season 2 of Game of Thrones. It was only sheer bloody-mindedness that kept me going that long. Even now I find it remarkable that a show doing so much to overload the senses and demand the attention of the viewer should so completely fail to engage me. Don’t get me wrong… I’m not saying it’s an Emperor’s New Suit thing. Enough people, whose opinions I value, are enjoying Game of Thrones for me to assume there’s something worthwhile there… it’s just not for me.
It’s not quite the same with Doctor Who. As a kid it was one of a handful of shows I watched (the TV was rarely on in our house) and I enjoyed the way the Christopher Ecclestone reboot played with that nostalgia, nodded to it, but didn’t wallow in it. It brought a fresh perspective, and something that could have gone terribly wrong turned out surprisingly well.
Sadly — for me — that fresh perspective ended up being something of a one-trick pony. Unlike Game of Thrones I didn’t actively resent Doctor Who for taking up time that could be more enjoyably spent watching paint dry; but even by the end of Ecclestone’s run I was finding it all a wee bit empty. Over the passing years I dropped in and out; paying vague attention, following for a few episodes then losing interest. Peter Capaldi was good and I probably saw most of his run… but I can’t say I retained much of it. It’s all a bit “enjoy the eccentricity but otherwise just let the silliness wash over you”. The silliness, sadly, generally meant the plot and a good 70% of the dialogue.
The other 30% — a lot of which involved Capaldi and Matt Lucas complaining at one another — was a lot of fun though.
Again, I’m not calling out the show… plenty of people love it. Just because it doesn’t hit the mark with me personally does not, by itself, make something an artistic failure. Much as I might have believed that when I was 17. Besides, it is — at its core — a kids show. That I get anything from it at all is pretty good going for something whose target demo. is 35 years younger than me.
In summary then… I’m vaguely disappointed Capaldi is leaving, but only in the sense I’d be vaguely disappointed if my local Chinese Takeaway stopped doing their spiced plum sauce — it’s lovely and all, but I’ve probably only actually ordered it twice in the past couple of years. Hell, for all I know, they stopped doing it months ago.
But a Timelady? What gives!?
Yes, I’m aware “Timelord” is a gender-neutral term… I’ve been watching the argument rage on twitter. I’m also aware there’s nothing in Doctor Who canon to suggest Timelords cannot switch sex. In fact, the regeneration of The Doctor’s nemesis (The Master) into a female body a few seasons back clearly sets a precedent (I wasn’t watching at that point, but it’s been a semi-regular plot point during Capaldi’s shenanigans).
That said, The Master’s transformation was recent enough that it could be viewed purely as a foreshadowing device for The Doctor’s transformation. So it doesn’t itself set precedent so much as pave the ground for precedent to be set. It’s part of the same plot-arc. Or so one could argue.
I mention all this because there are people out there upset at the notion of a female Doctor Who, and I would view that upset quite differently if the internal logic of the show was undermined by this plot development. If previous seasons had established beyond doubt, as a plot device, that male Timelords always regenerated in male bodies… then… well, I still wouldn’t be outraged by the decision to go against canon, but I could completely understand hardcore fans feeling quite miffed.
The fact that most hardcore fans seem pleased (or at worst nonplussed — “who is she?”) while most of the criticism seems to come from people who open their tweets with “haven’t watched in years, but…” tells me — a dabbler — that a female Doctor is not contravening some vital aspect of Whovian lore. It’s not like Walter White suddenly shows up as Jimmy McGill’s best friend in Better Call Saul (obviously there’s few direct analogies for a Doctor Who regeneration in television… I’m just illustrating how jarring an actual plot contradiction could be… the point being; that’s not what’s happening here).
No Ordinary Casting Decision
Let’s be honest though, this is clearly going against form, even if not against canon. One might certainly be forgiven for thinking male Timelords always come back in male bodies… 12 male Doctors before the first female? If that’s anywhere close to Timelord average, then it’s probably not a recipe for success as a species (though arguably a half-decent mechanism for population control within an advanced and extremely long-lived species… so who knows? It could certainly be phrased so as to make more sense than half the dialogue fans accept from the writers every week). That’s not my point though… there’s clearly a bit more to all this than the internal narrative consistency of a Saturday-teatime show for kids.
For the avoidance of doubt, I’m totally on-board with a female Doctor Who (I can think of few actors — male or female — who’d be better in the role than Tilda Swinton). And I’ll certainly watch the first few episodes and see if Jodie Whittaker retains my attention more than Tennant or Smith. I can’t say whether I think she’d be good in the role as I don’t really know her. I did see Attack The Block but it was years ago. I recall a central female character, but the movie as a whole didn’t leave a lasting impression… “alien fur-balls attack a London council flat where Nick Frost is growing some weed” is just about all I remember. Maybe she’ll be a fun Doctor, but she’s got a hard act to follow in Capaldi and I fully expect to return to dipping in and out, as I did with Tennant and Smith.
So what’s the issue?
I saw a tweet earlier but I won’t be linking to it. I’m not engaging directly with any individual on this — just with the general issues — but if you search twitter using appropriate keywords, you will find plenty of tweets expressing this opinion. Anyway, this one had a screen-capture of a number of very silly comments on the Daily Mail website objecting to a female Doctor Who. The tweet mocked and lampooned them, suggesting it was absurd for grown adults to get worked up about who was going to play a character on an evening TV show for children.
The same person then re-tweeted a video in which a young girl reacts to hearing the news of a female Doctor Who. The girl is obviously delighted. They added a message to the re-tweet… “This is why it’s important”.
And that irritated me. I’m sorry, but it did. Not the second tweet / re-tweet. That’s not what I’m saying. And not the first one either. It was the two combined… the intellectual inconsistency made the first seem like a lousy cheap shot and added a layer of cynicism to the second. Either this is a trivial casting decision on some kids show, and people should be mocked for taking it seriously… or it’s important at some cultural level and worthy of celebration. But it’s not both.
There’s a nice Bill Hicks routine about flag-burning…
– “hey buddy! My Daddy died for that flag!”
– “Well, I bought mine. Sorry. They sell ’em at K-Mart. 3 bucks… you’re in, you’re out. No violence necessary…”
It’s a good bit. The Hicks backlash is well underway — with carefully edited compilations from routines now almost 3 decades old, highlighting his most culturally insensitive material — but I still love the guy. And that’s a funny flag-burning bit. Which is why I feel bad deconstructing it…
… but while it’s possible to coherently argue that a flag is just a piece of cloth with a coloured pattern on it; or that a flag is a physical symbol of a set of shared values; you can’t argue both simultaneously. And let’s be honest, if you’re out there burning a flag it’s not because you’re engaged in an aesthetic critique of the palette. You’re doing it precisely because it’s a physical symbol of a set of shared values. You’re doing it because somebody’s Daddy died for the damn thing.
And no, of course I’m not bloody saying flag-burning should be illegal. Christ people!
I’m just saying the “3 bucks in K-Mart” line is funny, but doesn’t actually constitute a legitimate argument if someone gets upset when you burn a flag.
I thought this post was about Doctor Who…?
It’s the same bloody thing with a female Doctor Who, right?
OK. So it’s not the same thing — but even you have to admit there’s a solid analogy in there. The casting of Jodie Whittaker was met with a great deal of celebration by people who are not young girls in twitter videos. Within hours of the announcement every mainstream media website in the UK, and a few here in Ireland, had opinion columns and think-pieces about “the female Doctor Who“. Some heralded it as a significant cultural milestone — others suggesting, “nah, not so much”. And the usual tabloid suspects screamed bloody murder. In that context, it is a lousy cheap shot to dismiss the objections of others as “silly” or as placing too much importance on a kids’ show.
Especially when you yourself acknowledge how important that particular show might be in shaping the cultural landscape of children (and adults).
That’s not to say we shouldn’t dismiss the objections of Daily Mail commenters when they’re ridiculous. And they are. In fact, if someone is objecting to something and using the Daily Mail website to do it…
… OK, so on a cosmic level, mocking them probably isn’t a lousy cheap shot.
But you do see the basic internal inconsistency, right?
And do you also see the downside of a female Doctor Who? Because there is one.
Whether it outweighs the upsides is another discussion entirely, but it is there and I honestly don’t think it requires a subscription to The Mail or the donning of a fedora to make it.
It’s very much linked to the video of the young girl. Because it struck me that it’s totally possible the mirror of that reaction took place somewhere, with a young boy suddenly feeling let-down by something he loved. And before you start in with the “but boys have so many iconic cultural characters to identify with…” let me politely ask you to slam on the brakes for a goddamn second and think carefully about something. Head back to the start of this post and recall the bit about me watching Doctor Who as a kid. And while the cultural landscape has changed significantly for young boys since the dark days of the late 1970s, I bet one thing has stayed roughly the same… damn near every fictional character for us to identify with, as witty and smart as they might be, damn near all of them were handy with a sword, or a gun, or their fists.
Doctor Who may not be entirely unique among iconic male leading characters within “action fiction” for his evangelical anti-violence position and unwavering confidence that either diplomacy or ingenuity is the best route. But I’m betting if you took a ratio of both male and female characters who espouse that philosophy versus a “hit it til it’s fixed” alternative, you’ll find that far from having a galaxy of stars to choose from, you may well be robbing many shy, quiet, nerdy 9 year old boys of literally their only heroic figure who doesn’t leave blood on the floor every time you meet them.
Again. Not saying that’s a valid reason to be outraged at a female Doctor Who. And I very much doubt many of the outraged people are outraged because of it. I’ll be tuning in and giving Whittaker’s run a chance. I really hope I enjoy it. But I do feel a little bit sad for that hypothetical 9 year old boy. Can’t help it. And if it had been up to me… I’m not at all sure I would have made that decision.
This is a strange one. Conventional wisdom and hearsay suggest that Irish-America generally tends towards voting Democrat. Actual figures are hard to come by and much of the evidence from this is historical, anecdotal or circumstantial. However, there’s no doubt that the major cities which have a significant Irish-American presence have tended towards Democrats.
On top of that… between Kennedy, Clinton and Obama it has generally been Democratic presidents who have actively courted the Irish-American vote and made a great deal of political hay (both at home and abroad) with high-profile visits to Ireland. Reagan tried the same thing, but his search for his roots down in Ballyporeen alienated as many as it charmed.
Having said all that; there is no indication that Irish-America is overwhelmingly Democrat. It’s hardly news to anyone that there’s a powerfully conservative streak within Irish Catholicism, and the Republicans get a great deal of support from Catholic America. Indeed, there are indications that a slim majority of Irish Americans may have voted for Trump in the last election. The actual figures are for “white Catholic” (51% of whom voted for Trump) rather than “Irish-American”, but I have to assume that means around half of Irish America supported Trump.
A Constituency of a lot more than one
The most recent US census informs us almost 35 million Americans identify as “Irish American”. That’s a pretty big constituency. It’s not the most important demographic for an American politician; but it’s big enough — with a near 50/50 split between the parties — to swing a national election against any party that actively alienates it.
Which is why Trump’s decision to target undocumented Irish for deportation is strange. While those deported wouldn’t have been able to vote; the wider Irish-American community will feel threatened and betrayed by this move. I predict — if this continues — the Republicans could easily lose a few million votes across the country. Easily.
And for what? From a purely practical / optics standpoint — an undocumented Irish resident in America is effectively invisible. They look exactly like any other Trump supporter. I’m not saying this should matter from a policy perspective. It clearly shouldn’t. But at the same time… for Trump it clearly does. He’s all about optics, and I can’t see how this is going to look good for him.
I didn’t see Toby Young on the Channel 4 news, so I have no idea what the context of his “austerity is a myth” statement might have been. It’s possible Mr. Young was attempting to defend tory policy by insisting things “aren’t as bad as they say”. Perhaps he claimed the consistent increase in national debt, every year since the tories came to power in 2010, indicates that public services have not been cut… that the welfare state and NHS have not been dangerously undermined by a government ideologically hell-bent on slashing the services upon which the poor and vulnerable rely.
In which case, the word “stupid” is an apt choice.
However, I myself made exactly this point recently… that the tories cannot possibly “end austerity” because they never actually implemented it. And I stand by it. I certainly don’t think it’s a ‘stupid’ point.
The reason there may be some confusion is a result of the two different definitions of “austerity” in play. And I think both of those definitions are useful in their own contexts. Moreover, I think it’s actually quite important that people in the UK highlight the fact that the tories never implemented “austerity” (at least, not in the sense they claimed they would do). It’s arguably the most damning indictment of them.
For most of us, the word “austerity” is more or less synonymous with “hardship” or “tightening of belts” or “cut-backs”. And let’s be under no illusion, the ordinary people of the UK have been dealt that form of austerity in buckets since 2010. UK public spending has been cut. The welfare state, NHS, fire service and a thousand other items have been recklessly and viciously attacked by a tory government gripped by greed and ideology and the ordinary people of Britain are suffering as a consequence.
But it hasn’t been “austerity” under the other definition.
The Other Definition
Austerity is supposed to be an economic policy whereby — simultaneously — public spending is cut and taxes either frozen or raised so that a nation runs a current account surplus which is then used to pay down the national debt. It’s all about debt reduction. Nothing else.
However, a simple glance at the publicly available economic figures demonstrate that UK debt has risen every year the tories have been in power this century.By Absolutelypuremilk – Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, Link
Why? Because far from cutting services and raising taxes to pay off debt; the tories have cut services and lowered taxes for corporations and the wealthy. And they were talking about slashing those taxes again (the post-Brexit tax-haven fantasy of the tory inner circle), long before this talk of “dropping austerity” began.
“Austerity” is not an economic policy I agree with (though I’m sure specific hypothetical “edge cases” could be described whereby it makes sense). But I can at least acknowledge there’s a coherent argument in its favour when it’s actually used to reduce debt. Which is why using that term to describe the dreadful tory policies of the past 7 years gives them far more respectability than they merit.
It hasn’t been austerity. It’s been wealth redistribution.
I'm usually not one to take notice of magazine "best thing of the year" polls, but Mojo magazine have apparently named David Byrne's American Utopia tour as its "Event of the Year".
Enjoying the weird implication doing the rounds that nobody should be selling weapons to Saudi Arabia because the only people anyone should sell weapons to are nice people who would never harm anyone.
Turns out if you're on a flight with famous Kerry footballer, "Bomber" Liston, it's probably best not to attract his attention by yelling his nickname...
Just saw a Climate Change denier post a link to a "Moon Landing Hoax" video. I'm gonna grab some popcorn and watch how this develops. What's next? I'm betting on "Flat Earth", but there's still a chance he'll go full Dark Mode and start ranting about Zionism. You just never know.
Philosopher, writer, web developer, ex-industrial engineer. I occasionally blog at The Quiet Road. And I can be found on twitter at @JimBliss23.
Twitter is a useful site. And the character limit is part of that (I’m not on Facebook, which I find troubling for a whole bunch of reasons). I use Twitter to keep in touch with some friends, but also as a news source; and very occasionally as a discussion forum.
However, in the latter scenario, I often find myself wanting to follow-up a point in more depth than Twitter will allow. This site is a response to that.
I could have just stuck with my old blog (which will probably still be updated from time to time); but I fancied a bit of a change, and was interested in how quickly I could build a semi-usable blog theme entirely from scratch (5 hours, give or take).
