The Syndicate

Realism and suspense from BBC One's new excellent drama.

TV is increasingly crying out for products a little more in tune with the real world and a little less inclined to treat the British viewer like a 6-year-old imbecile on speed.

Kay Mellor's new five-part series on BBC One is a step in the right direction and a fine return to the best tradition of engaging British drama.

Starring the ever-reliable Timothy Spall (Secrets & Lies, Damned United) and rising star Matthew McNulty (Control, Looking for Eric), The Syndicate kicked off last week and suggests a promising next four episodes.

An entertaining, gritty, suspence-laden depiction of the life of five low-paid supermarket workers in Yorkshire, The Syndicate starts when the staff are broken the news that the entire store is about to close down.

And while each character is already struggling to make ends meet and juggle the maxed-out plastic, amongst a background of family tiffs and a intriguing criminal subplot comes the bombshell that the five employees won £18m on the lottery.

Which, you guessed it, far from meaning a solution to all problems is likely to precipitate things, as a sneak preview to the next four episodes indicates.

Just one detail: how can one of the character's girlfriend give birth and then go out clubbing and on the piss within 24 to 48 hours? Even for England, that's unfeasible.

But that one flaw aside, flying colours all round and a welcome change from the stifling goo of twee products and repetitive "talent" shows that have been clogging up the telly in recent months.

· The Syndicate returns on BBC One on Tuesday at 9pm.

Jamie's 30-Minute Meals

Far from lecturing and patronising, Jamie Oliver is actually suggesting that good and healthy food should be accessible to everybody.

I like Jamie Oliver.

Britain's most recognised chef has taken so much stick over the last few years amidst accusations that he is "lecturing people" (quote: Health Minister Andrew Lansley over Jamie's School Dinners) and meddling with their eating habits.

And yet, in a media world where celebrities, chefs included, seem to be earning fame and plaudits by virtue of shouting the F-word (literally) or the C-word louder than the next person, Jamie Oliver deserves praise for keeping away from cheap shots and loud-mouthed gimmicks.

More than anything, however, Oliver deserves credit for dishing out tons of advice on how to make your own food without ever coming across as inaccessible or over-complicated. Which is no easy feat.

At first glance, some of the dishes included in his latest series Jamie's 30-Minute Meals may look extremely elaborate and offputting. And yet they're not. It's amazing how much you can do in less than thirty minutes and with the simplest of ingredients.

More, Oliver's programme is based on extreme realism.

Pre-packed artificial microwaveable ready meals have become such a tempting option for most (this blog included) because, after a long day at work, the last thing most people fancy is a gruelling cooking session or a supermarket quest for exotic ingredients.

Which is why, far from lecturing and patronising, Jamie Oliver is actually on a mission to make simple yet good and healthy food accessible to everybody and not just the wealthy.

Most importantly, he doesn't think -shock horror- that everything has to be made from scratch. What matters, like Oliver himself writes: "this kind of cooking is all about using every minute wisely, having fun and reclaiming your kitchen for the job it was meant for".

Cliches of 2011 #4

"Use the off switch or change channel".

The recent controversy triggered by the TopGear trio of Disco Vicars (Clarkson, Hammond, May) and their round of offensive comments dressed up as just-a-bit-of-fun prompted the usual charge of lame justifications.

From "no-one cares" (read "I don't, meeeeee, therefore it follows that the whole world doesn't either") and "haven't the Mexicans more important things to think about", to "this country is losing its sense of humour", the defenders of casual bullying and casual racism have been out in force to stick up for the three white upper class broadcasters.

The lamest defence, however, comes in the guise of the trite "You don't need to watch TopGear. Use the off switch or change channel".

Which really says a lot about some people's sapped power of observation. Because:

a) TopGear is paid for by the taxpayer - that is you and me and the bloke over there. You may change channel (and rest assured Clarkson's is the last TV programme this blog would want to watch), but still you won't be able do jack to stop your own money from being used to fund Clarkson and his side-splitting remarks about the disabled, the blind and various vulnerable people.

b) This is no page-32 article written in dubious taste and published by some local paper we're talking about. Alas, TopGear is the most popular BBC programme worldwide. Me and you may switch off the telly, but in the meantime tens of millions of people abroad will have found more reasons to believe the Brits' growing reputation as a nation of small-minded xenophobic little islanders.

c) Like Steve Coogan wrote in his Observer piece this morning, "tolerance of casual racism [is] arguably the most sinister kind [as] [i]t's easy to spot the ones with the burning crosses".

So here's a question for the "I'm-Not-Racist" Brigade: what's more dangerous and more hateful, a twat dressed up in ku klux klan robes that everyone can see, or a (not so) subtle and growing set of xenophobic remarks thrown left right and centre and dressed up as "just-a-bit-of-fun"?

If no-one ever stood up to bullies and racists in the name of "getting-a-sense-of-humour" and "relaxing", telly would still be packed with stuff like The Black and White Minstrel Show and Curry and Chips.

You may be content enough to switch channels, but I don't want to be forced to spend £145.50 a year to reinforce the notion that the British constantly look down on everything foreign, thank you very much.

Jeremy Clarkson and his sidekicks can play the bully if they want, but not with the taxpayer's money.

PS: Incidentally- Three Brits pouring scorn on Mexican food saying that it's like "sick with cheese on top"? Brits laughing at other people's food???? Now what did you say about sense of humour?

Click here to access the full list of cliches (2010-11):
"Young female TV presenters are a response to market demand".
"You've GOT to own your own home";
"Society benefits from extreme wealth at the top";
"There are jobs out there if you really want one";
"The Royal Family brings in tourism revenue".

Cliches of 2011 #3

"Young female TV presenters are a response to market demand".

Last week former Countryfile host Miriam O'Reilly won a case against the BBC on the grounds of ageism, after losing her job the moment she turned 50.

It was reported that O'Reilly "had been asked if it was 'time for Botox' and was warned to be 'careful with those wrinkles when high definition comes in'". The case ended with the BBC issuing an apology and Director General Mark Thompson phoning Miriam saying: "Sorry, we got things wrong in the way older women are treated".

One category of people, however, reacted to the news with little sympathy, their views typified by entrepreneur James Caan. On last Thursday's BBC Question Time, he said: "TV channels respond to market demand", adding that "if we're really honest, as a consumer society [we want to see] young, pretty, dolly-looking people" on TV.

And so here we are again. The mythical notion of "the consumer society" evoked to justify anything that suits whichever ruthless practice of the day - nevermind questions of humanity, taste or simple pig-headedness.

It's the 21st-century version of the Ancient Spartans' custom of chucking people off a cliff as a means of 'purging' their population of weakness. "Sorry very much, it's what the market demands", become the default smokescreen for anything, crass varieties of geezerist ageism included.

Shame these people never specify which "market demand" or "demographics" they're referring to.

No doubt there are copious amounts of randy people who genuinely look forward to seeing "young, pretty, dolly-looking people" on the telly, the same way there will always be a constituency for the Sun and various rags of an onanistic inclination.

But what about the equally vast amounts of viewers who are unfazed by all of the above? Haven't they got a right to have their "market demand" heard too?

There are millions out there who don't judge the quality of a programme on the basis of whether the presenter was born in 1940, 1960 or 1991.

Those who would rather television reflected real life (ie not everybody looking like a fembot); those who find this obsessive quest for everything "young" and "fast" and "trendy" and "wicked" both pathetic and patronising.

Or those who think that we've already fulfilled our fix of giddiness or trollop-ness on both the TV screens and the newsagents' shelves.

Ignore all of the above and the market demand becomes a severely crook-eyed one.

Click here to access the full list of cliches (2010-11):
"You've GOT to own your own home";
"Society benefits from extreme wealth at the top";
"There are jobs out there if you really want one";
"The Royal Family brings in tourism revenue";
"Iain Duncan Smith is a kind and honourable man".

Eastenders cot death: too much too crass

Has the BBC soap joined the foul practice of exploiting bereavement for ratings?

BBC News reports that "around 3,400 viewers have complained" about EastEnders' New Year storyline (first announced in November) in which Ronnie Branning turns into a baby snatcher upon discovering that her own newborn has died of cot death.

It is true that the original intention of drawing awareness on sudden infant death syndrome was commendable. But by drowning it out with industrial dollops of unnecessary sensationalism and unrealistic drama, the result was just a mish mash of morbid goo and crassness.

In a statement, the Foundation for the Study of Infant Deaths said: "Despite the continuing statement [...] by the BBC that 'FSID were consulted on the storyline...', FSID had no involvement in the planning or adoption of the specific 'baby-swap' plotline. The behaviour and actions of Ronnie Mitchell are in no way 'endorsed' by FSID as a typical, or even likely, reaction of a bereaved parent".

This blog has always believed that what sets Eastenders aside from a lot of its pappy televisual competitors is their knack for challenging storylines and social (though not narrative) realism.

Covering the tragedy of a cot death and its aftermath in order to raise awareness and promote infant health would have been admirable enough. But to introduce such an unfeasibly brutal development smacks of exploiting grief for the sake of jacking up TV ratings. Tactful, it was not.

Which is why extra credit goes to actress Samantha Womack for quitting over the distressing scenes.

UPDATE (7 Jan): OK, now the whole thing has turned into a witch hunt as usual, with the hyaenas from the Daily Fail landing on the carcass in search of bits to gnaw at. What the fuck has Womack's past lovelife got to do with anything?

Cable TV

Rupert Murdoch couldn't have pulled off a better one even if he'd tried.

Much has been said and written about the Daily Telegraph sting job on Vince Cable and his surprising revelations on the coalition's internal conflicts and various issues including his "war on Mr Murdoch".

We also learnt that Cable has been stripped of his responsibilities for overseeing media and broadcasting companies, that he will no longer rule on the controversial Rupert Murdoch bid to take full control of BSkyB, and that his replacement is going to be Conservative Culture, Media and Sport Secretary Jeremy Hunt, a man whose views on Murdoch and his media empire appear to be very favourable to say the least.

Coincidence, the announcement was met with BSkyB's shares leaping like a frog on crack. You can guess who is the only person benefiting from all this.

The UK's worst politics programme

They say the BBC is looking for programmes to axe. In which case, what better place to start than 'This Week'?

If you thought you knew the real meaning of cringeworthy, then you may want to think again. Last Thurday's episode of Andrew Neil's "political" show on BBC One plumbed depths previously unknown to man.

The combination of dogs from Britain's Got Talent performing tricks in the studio, Quentin Letts and Kevin Macguire doing a stomach-churning impersonation of Downturn Abbey, and Andrew Neil's profoundly unfunny jokes hanging in the studio like a toxic cloud was just too much to take.

Some people may have long wondered what the purpose of This Week is.

Is its lighthearted tone meant to draw in viewers that are not normally interested in politics? Then wouldn't the 11:35 pm slot defeat the object? But suppose it was given prime time, its relentless bombardment of annoying in-jokes and cryptic backslapping would be enough to make most people turn the telly off within minutes.

Because the thing is, someone should tell Andrew Neil that he is not funny. But really not funny, not one bit.

Last Thursday was the first time I had the misfortune to watch This Week in ages and the words "Alan" and "Partridge" sprang to mind - as in, the type of egomaniacal televisual bigwig that Steve Coogan intended to parody. Just think your most cringeworthy family member churning out unfunny jokes at Christmas gatherings catapulted on national television. That's almost as bad as Andrew Neil.

With light entertainment ruled out, it's obvious that This Week is not about in-depth analyses either. Hapless guests (including regulars Diane Abbott and Michael Portillo) are lucky if they manage to open their mouth for five seconds before Andrew Neil chokes the conversation again with one of his "jokes".

It's obvious that the producers' script is "avoid anything remotely engaging at all costs", which is why anything that isn't a soundbite or extremely shallow gets trampled over by the presenter's industrial-size ego.

They say that state-funded TV often appeals to the lowest common denominator in order to compete with commercial television, but it's hard to think of any other channel, even Five, ever commissioning something like This Week without the words "commercial" and "suicide" flashing in big lights as the credits roll.

The Amazing Transformation of Ben Mitchell

The worst casting decision ever made?

Thank god for the minds behind Eastenders for bringing light entertainment in the midst of this bleak Autumn of Discontent.

Cue the ridiculous return of Ben Mitchell and the several million laughters that saluted the poorest casting in living memory; so poor that the only feasible explanation can be the casting directors' cravings for the next British Comedy Award.

Look at the picture and tell us if that isn't pure genius. The same kid who walked away looking like a child, chubby, fresh-faced and soft-skinned, is supposed to come back a mere four months later looking eight years older, sideburns and all, and with a voice about four octaves lower than its previous helium-like incarnation.

We've all heard of growth spurts, but this is something else - as if good old Ben Mitchell had been force-fed industrial quantities of the stuff Tour de France riders are too often caught guzzling for breakfast.

After the botched job with Lauren Branning and the laughing stock that is Ben Mitchell's recasting, expect Lady Gaga to stand in for Ian Beale. The producers at EastEnders probably think she's his spitting image.

Whatever happened to empathy?

There's nothing more grating than televisual drooling where the privileged or the lucky tell the populace that "there's lots of opportunities out there". Especially during a crisis.

These are strange days indeed.

You get University Minister David Willetts coming up with the remark that "if you can't find a job then you should consider setting up your own business".

Channel Four News choosing to discuss youth unemployment and the labour market not with entrepreneurs, or the unions, or directly with the jobless, but with no less than the winner of TV show The Apprentice, as if he was an authority on the matter...

Said winner of The Apprentice coolly remarking that he "totally believe[s]" in David Willett's words and that the millions who are stuck in post-graduate unemployment or call centre work forget that "there's lots of opportunities out there" and there's "no need for doom'n'gloom", because - remember - we all live in a "knowledge economy", of course.

So the question is: if this is how the real world ticks, then why stop at The Apprentice? If national news broadcasters have got to discuss youth/graduate unemployment and the Blairite legacy of bullshit expectations, why not go the whole hog and invite a Big Brother contestant like Chantelle or Chanelle? Or, even better, a Lottery winner?

They could dish up even more rose-tinted patronising advice and inform the wider public that there's no need for "despondency", because "opportunities" are rife.

And then maybe David Cameron should follow suit and pass a law that makes playing the lottery compulsory.

Lost in the supermarket

The show went from having the right balance of mystery and intrigue to a cross between Dr Who on speed and Nick Clegg's pre-election manifesto.

I see that Lost has finally come to an end. But I also see from reading around that the final episode didn't answer any question and that it all ended up in a big puff of Billy Bollocks.

Like this blog wrote last year, within a few seasons Lost went from being one of the most compelling and refreshing TV series of recent years into the most unfeasible collection of inconsequential crap ever known to man.

Personally I gave up at the end of Season 4 because it became apparent that there was no point in getting carried away with all the suspense and anticipation. You just couldn't trust the story line anymore.

Too many events were being undone, reversed and neutralised and the show went from having the right balance of mystery and intrigue to being a proto sci-fi cross between Dr Who on speed and Nick Clegg's pre-election manifesto.

It wouldn't matter if a character had snuffed it. He or she would just resurface five minutes later with the justification that it's all a "parallel universe" or that "the island has been moved" (by turning a rusty handle), or that - didn't you notice- Sawyer was none other than John Locke wearing a syrup all along, while Kate-was-also-Jack-who-pretended-to-be-Charlie-who-was-also-the-dog-who-was-also-Ben-in-Purgatory. That sort of stuff, y'know.

Given how profitable the whole Lost circus had become (just check the action figure dolls for evidence), the end of the show suggests that, truly, the writers must have run out of every single possible twist and turn, even the most bollocksy one available.

What are the bets on a film version coming soon?

Worried About the Boy

The BBC drama portraying Boy George's pre-fame years and the rise of the "new romantic" movement.

Whatever you think of Boy George, you can't argue with the fact he's an integral part of Britain's artistic heritage and that, as a cultural icon, people like him only come once every two generations.

But even if you're not particularly interested in what motivated him into pursuing his popstar dreams, Worried About The Boy will make excellent viewing as it recreates one of the most fertile periods in the history of pop culture.

In the late 1970s and early 1980s, Britain was at a crossroads between punk and new wave - with at least another dozen youth cultures mushrooming up at the same time: ska, skinhead, heavy metal, goth, mod revival etc.

The rise of early electro along with the legacy of the glam rock years spawned one of the most interesting subcultures - the so-called "new romantic" movement. With his androgynous fashion sensibility and music taste, Boy George found himself at the core of the new eclectic scene.

Worried About the Boy is possibly the first official full tribute to the new romantics ever seen on national television. Thirty years on, this unique "youth subculture" that produced a number of legendary bands (aside from Culture Club, think Spandau Ballet, Duran Duran, the Human League, Visage, etc) is finally portrayed in all its glory.

The TV Drama focuses on Boy George's pre-fame days: his spell as a squatter in London, his time as a cloakroom attendand in what was to become the mecca of the new romantics (the Blitz Club) and, above all, the singer's most tormented aspect: his lovelife.

There is one scene when George confesses to his mate Marilyn that he seems to have an uncanny tendency to pull "straight" blokes. His meeting with future bandmate Jon Moss will fall exactly within the same pattern.

And while their love affair may twistedly provide the fuel for Culture Club's meteoric rise into one of the most successful bands of the Eighties, it will also prove their eventual undoing.

Worried About the Boy is part of the BBC Eighties Season.

BBC shame: "Is Britain full?"

Panorama: the London Underground is packed and house prices are sky-high because of mass immigration.

This programme was broadcast two weeks ago as part of BBC Panorama, but I only watched a re-run last night. I wish I hadn't. It was a spectacular collection of half-truths and distortions straight from the scaremongering book-of-bollocks that reigns supreme amongst the pages of both the Daily Mail and the Express.

Forget debate, different opinions or a simple comparative look across trends in similar countries. For 28 minutes the licence payer was bombarded with images of overcrowded London trains, kids in maternity wards, busy London streets and satellite pictures heaving with city lights. The message? Immigration is turning Britain into an excessively overcrowded place.

According to BBC Panorama, seriously, the London underground is packed because of immigration. Not because it's a big capital city or a highly touristic destination. As if Paris, Berlin, Milan and New York could boast empty carriages all the time. Nah. In London, the tube is crammed with people because of immigration in the last few years, and if you don't believe it, look at the footage of packed carriages.

According to BBC Panorama, incredibly high house prices are an obvious direct consequence of immigration. Nothing to do with Margaret Thatcher's deregulation of lending and the financial markets that turned housing into the centre of a casino economy of asset bubbles and speculation. Nothing to do with City gamblers and assorted tycoons pricing Londoners out of their own city. That'd be too complex. The fault lies with the immigrants, who else.

According to BBC Panorama, England (not Britain) is "the most densely populated country in Europe". They obviously forgot the Netherlands and Malta, but nevermind, that's the Daily Mail school of churnalism. It wouldn't sound scary enough if they'd said "the third most densely populated country in Europe".

According to BBC Panorama, 52.3m people lived in the UK in 1960. That went up to 57.2 in 1990, meaning an extra five million. Twenty years later, in 2010, the total is 62.2m, another five million.

I know it's boring, but just look at those figures. The population growth in the last twenty years isn't significantly higher than the period 1960-1990. Of course Panorama didn't mention at all that people now live a lot longer. In 1960 an average person would live until 69. Now it's around 79. Yet Panorama tells you that the population is growing purely because of immigration.

BBC Panorama did not bother to check what percentage of the population in Britain is made up by immigrants. If they did, they'd have to tell the viewer that the figures are much higher in Austria, Germany, Sweden, Spain, France and the Netherlands.

BBC Panorama did not bother to investigate what the trends are like in Germany, France, Spain or Italy, countries with similar levels of wealth and population. They were too busy showing constant footage of overcrowded London streets and trains, just in case the viewers don't twig that it's the immigrants' fault.

And yet in the last ten years alone France has seen an increase of 3m, Italy of 2m, and Spain of a staggering 6m people. Elsewhere too. Australia's population has gone up by 2.6 since 2000 and let's not even mention the United States, where there are now 32m people (that's thirty-two million) more than there were in 1997.

Clearly immigration is an international phenomenon, but if you were to base your judgement from BBC Panorama you wouldn't have had the slightest clue.

The next time I hear anyone saying that the BBC is "left-wing" or "biased towards the left" I will slap them with a recycled arse wipe or, better, a soiled copy of the Daily Mail.

Shame on you, Jeremy Vine.

Letter to Nick Clegg

Hours away from the final Leaders' Debate, here's a plea to the Lib Dem leader. Your plan to scrap tax on the low paid is your winning card. Use it.

Dear Mr Clegg,

I know you're never going to read this letter but, as the clock is ticking towards the third and final Leaders' Debate, there is one thing in particular I'd like to ask you.

You're probably aware of this already, but did you know you have a real trick up your sleeve that you didn't quite use up in the previous debates?

There is in fact one of the Lib Dems' manifesto policies that chimes with voters more than any other. I read last week that over 80 per cent of the electorate agree with it.

I'm talking about your excellent plan to lift the low-paid out of taxation altogether. Around 4m workers in Britain earn under £10,000 a year and pay a precious 20% of that sum to Inland Revenue.

Your proposal will mean £700 in extra cash available to all of them. This is a true vote-winner and you need to spell it out loud and clear tonight on the BBC and maybe even repeat it a couple of times.

While the other two can waffle about with words like "challenge", "big society" and "tough times ahead", the Lib Dems' tax plan would definitely stand out.

And that's because it is factual, fair and progressive. It would have the same impact the minimum wage had. It would show whose side you and your party are on. It would strike a chord with people - the millions of voters who know far too well what it feels like to struggle with bills and trips to Poundland in a quest to make ends meet.

£700 a year may be spare change to a City gambler, a Tory donor, or a Premier League football player, but to most ordinary people it can really make a difference.

It could mean less chances of slipping down the circle of depression. It could help most families torn apart by poverty-related rows and assorted dramas. It could mean an end to red letters, final demands and defaulting on repayments. It could mean treating kids to better clothes or a small holiday. It would allow a lot of people to afford better and healthier food or, who knows, it could even be put aside for savings, the kids' future education or whatever.

Not only that. The Lib Dems' tax plan would ruthlessly expose Labour's ineptitude (they had the time and the numbers to come up with something similar in the last 13 years but never did).

It would also humiliate David Cameron. What better chance for the viewers to compare the Tories' inheritance tax cuts in favour of millionaire's kids with your proposal in favour of millions of ordinary workers and pensioners? Have you noticed how embarrassed Cameron looks each time their inheritance tax plan is mentioned on TV? The guy knows this is deeply unpopular, especially in the middle of a massive downturn.

In short, your plan to scrap tax under £10,000 is a serious vote winner. Please Mr Clegg, use it.

Wishing you all the best for tonight,

A potential Lib Dem voter.

Leaders debate across the papers

The verdict is unanimous: clear victory for Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg.

"The Liberal Democrat leader was given a great opportunity to introduce himself to the millions of voters who scarcely knew him and he took it with gusto".
Nick Robinson, BBC News

"Nick Clegg seizes his moment in historic TV debate"- "A Populus poll for The Times gave a stunning victory to the Liberal Democrat leader as he used the limelight of the historic ITV broadcast to devastating effect".
Roland Watson, The Times

"Clegg smashes through two-party system".
Andrew Grice and Nigel Morris, The Independent

"Nick Clegg's star rises in great showdown"- "Nick Clegg emerged as the early winner of the first televised leaders' debate last night by successfully positioning himself as the Westminster outsider".
Robert Winnett and Andrew Porter, The Telegraph

"Clegg seizes moment in TV spotlight" - "Lib Dem leader makes powerful pitch as he depicts his party as a significant change from Labour and the Conservatives".
Patrick Wintour and Polly Curtis, The Guardian

"Brown beaten into third in debate"- "A YouGov snap poll for The Sun put the Lib Dem leader clearly ahead of his rivals, winning just over HALF the full vote".
Tom Newton Dunn, The Sun

"Clegg wins the TV war of words: Viewers are turned off by Brown's aggression but leaders fail to land knock-out blow"- "While the two main leaders clashed repeatedly, it was [...] Mr Clegg who seemed to have the advantage".
James Chapman, Daily Mail

Why Plaid/SNP should be at the Leaders' Debates

Look at the picture. Only the big parties from the grey bit are going to be part of the televised Leaders' debates. That is unfair, writes Marcus Warner. And he's right.

I think Plaid/SNP should be present on the Prime Ministerial debates.

This is based on my view that many of the issues discussed are devolved. Not enough so far is done to offer the ‘England Only’ health warning.

‘Free Schools’, ‘Cancer Guarantee’ – are all meaningless to Welsh and Scottish voters.

It’s also worth remembering that:

* That voters in Wales and Scotland are often in seats whereby the fight does not include either Labour, or Tory or both.

* That the BBC has a right to be fair to other parties

* Plaid get 1000 votes in every single seat in Wales. Unlike the three major Westminster parties, who do not.

* We do not have an elected presidency – voters in Wales vote for an MP, and in places like Aberconwy, Ceredigion, Llanelli, Ynys Mon the battle is not between two westminster parties, but Plaid/Lib Dem, Plaid/Labour/Tory.

Secondly, from a liberal left perspective:
* English voters hearing about devolved policies is good for understanding the system, but also hearing different ideas. There is a westminster consensus on things, often teetering centre right at times.

* The Lib Dems are being asked about their views on a hung parliament, but it is just as valid for English voters to hear the SNP/Plaid views too.

The opposing arguments are also worth arguing against:
* That Plaid/SNP leaders cannot be PM. Nor will Nick Clegg.

* That you open the floodgates to other parties – which is not true, both those parties have elected westminster representatives. UKIP, Greens and the BNP do not.

Marcus Warner blogs at Plaid Panteg.
This article originally appeared on Liberal Conspiracy.

Car crash TV: Famous Rich and Jobless

If the future of state-owned television was to depend on programmes like this, you could probably wave goodbye to the BBC within a week.

TV is bursting at the seams with crap and pathetic programmes, but with Famous Rich and Jobless, as shown last week on BBC One, the expression 'scraping the barrel' plumbs new depths.

Presented as "[F]our famous volunteers [who] agree to swap their fame and fortune for a world of joblessness, job-hunting and surviving on the poverty line and benefits", it can only be explained as some producers spotting long-term unemployment as a last resort to milk the "docu-reality" TV frenzy til the last drop, whatever happened to dignity.

I'm not particularly clued up with celebrities, but out of the four "famous volunteers" armed with alleged "fame and fortune", I only recognised Archie Mitchell of EastEnders' fame and Noel Gallagher's ex-wife. The other two turned out to be a celebrity gardener who looks a bit like Piers Morgan and someone related to Camilla Parker Bowles. Wow.

Needless to say, the world really needed to know how they'd cope pretending to be on the dole for a few days. That's a fine piece of public service from the BBC.

Dressed as "putting unemployment in the spotlight", this is the televisual equivalent of those newspaper articles much en-vogue at the onset of the recession, when it was still dubbed 'the credit crunch'. Back in 2008, you couldn't count the number of reports and articles by journalists who'd give up dinner parties for a couple of weeks to take their stab at the Poverty Game.

Famous Rich and Jobless, however, is done in even poorer taste. What's particularly worrying is the fact that it crossed nobody's mind amongst scriptwriters, editors and producers that maybe the whole idea was corny and tactless to the extreme.

No-one there to notice that life on the dole is not a twatty experiment carried out for public consumption. That the feeling you have in your stomach when you can't find the cash to pay off those outstanding bills is not a week-only pursuit. That the pain, depression and anguish of not knowing if and when you're going to have another wage coming in has nothing in common with four Z-list celebs playing at surviving on job seekers' allowance for 7 days. That justifying that growing gap on your CV, which becomes more awkward as each week passes by, has got FA in common with Noel Gallagher's ex-wife trying to remind the public that she still exists.

And no matter how many tons of cheap techno and drum'n'bass the producers stuck during the editing process, no matter how many swirls of the camera, Famous Rich and Jobless would still come across as hopelessly crass and helplessly fake.

Recent weeks have seen the BBC surrounded by the controversy over its so-called "strategic review". With plenty of such car-crash television on offer on other channels, programmes like Famous Rich and Jobless seem like the biggest advert in favour of the most savage of cutbacks.

When the Tories do a Berlusconi

Lawyers gag a BBC documentary on Lord Ashcroft.

I used to think that, for all their faults, the Conservatives could be trusted to not be as arrogant and confrontational as Italian Emperor and media tycoon Silvio Berlusconi.

Most of their ideas may still be a little backwards on social issues and perhaps overly right-wing on economics and workers' rights, but I was convinced that a typically British sense of fairness, principles and liberty would prevent them from slipping down the Berlusconi way.

For the unfamiliar, the Berlusconi way consists in silencing the media (or the remaining bits that don't belong to him) in the run-up to elections. The Italian PM was caught red handed in 18 tapped telephone calls, ordering national TV network RAI to gag all political programmes and talk shows in the weeks prior to the forthcoming regional elections across Italy (incidentally, his suggested ban did go ahead).

This morning, the Independent reports that BBC Panorama was silenced by Lord Ashcroft's lawyers.

The Corporation was about to broadcast a documentary about the controversial tax affairs of the Tory billionaire but, according to the Independent, "[the BBC] has received what one insider described as 'several very heavy letters' from Lord Ashcroft's lawyers [and] there is now little or no prospect of the investigation being broadcast before the general election, if it goes out at all".

The paper also reports delight in David Cameron's camp as the issue of Lord Ashcroft peerage and tax affairs has been seen at odds with the Conservatives' image of "change", contributing towards disappointing ratings in recent opinion polls.

What's wrong with a slimmer BBC?

Before crying that "they want to destroy the BBC" just think about it: are channels like BBC Prime and BBC Kids Canada really a public obligation?

I'm in danger of pissing off many leftist readers of this blog, but Mark Thompson is bang on in stressing the need for a slimmer BBC ('The BBC can't do everything. We need to know our limits').

Calls in favour of reducing the cost of running the BBC by 25% haven't gone down well. Facebook campaigns are being set up and accusations are being flung that the cuts are "politically motivated" to butter up the Tories. According to the National Union of Journalists, "[T]hese plans smack of an attempt to appease commercial and political interests".

In short, the sceptics argue that weakening the BBC will be a gift to its private competitors and a blow to public services on both radio and television.

And yet let's just stop and take a breath. I am totally in favour of the BBC. I think a competitive state-owned TV is sacrosanct and whoever thinks the BBC should be dismantled and/or privatised is purely driven by rampant ideology.

However, the current cost of a TV licence is £142.50. In 2000, it was just £104. In ten years, an increase of around 36% - without anyone asking licence payers if they agreed with the way the corporation was going to balloon in size.

Think about it. Through the last decade, not even Tesco expanded at the same rate.

Aside from areas where everyone agrees the BBC was "largin' it" (i.e. Jonathan Ross's salary), why does the corporation have to cover so much stuff: from news in 32 languages through TV channels abroad all the way to Radio Times?

Are we sure it is the duty of a UK taxpayer-funded public service to include, say, BBC Canada? Then why not BBC Denmark or BBC Spain?

Is BBC Prime really that essential? Are we certain dismantling it would be "allowing the corporate media barons to have (it) their way"? And how about BBC Lifestyle for Singapore and Hong Kong?

Does the BBC need so many radio stations (in succession: One, 1Extra, Two, Three, Four, Five Live, Sports Extra, 6 Music, Seven, Asian Network)? Wasn't five enough already? Ten years ago, that was already way more than any competitor could even dream of. Why not BBC Hiking then? Or maybe a tailor-made one for people in their mid-thirties called BBC35?

And, yes, it's a shame if 6 Music went. But it's not as if music was dying before its creation. Quite the opposite. In fact there was much more music on the BBC 'proper' before.

Does the website need to be so gigantic? If it was a tenth its current size, it'd be already one of the biggest and most effective online resources available. What's the need for comprehensive gardening or travel sections? Again, are we sure that's a public body's obligation? No other state-owned TV in the Western world has expanded to the point of covering more stuff than daylight.

Who and when decided that, like Don Foster of the Liberal Democrats noted, the corporation's duty is that of "roaming wherever it fancie[s]"?

There's nothing wrong with being ambitious. Unfortunately though, it doesn't come for free. Many would rather have a slightly smaller BBC and a slightly reduced scope but an improvement in quality and service. Many others would rather the TV licence didn't go up faster than inflation.

One Day Without Immigrants

On March 1st, migrant workers in France, Italy and Spain will go on strike to demonstrate the importance of their work and fight for their rights.

Last Wednesday's BBC documentary The Day The Immigrants Left, presented by Evan Davis, was one of the most instructive pieces of television as seen in quite a long time.

The experiment took place in Wisbech, Cambridgeshire, a town hit by high-unemployment. Twelve Brits on the dole, some long-term, were offered a chance of filling the shoes of as many immigrant workers in the fields of food packaging, agriculture, catering and construction.

Best of all, the programme didn't pass judgement. The viewers could make up their mind over whether tabloid-based common places such as "the foreigners are stealing all our jobs" or "the British are lazy" have any foundation at all.

And the result was a mixed bag. There was the proud local carpenter displaying a work ethic that could give the most eager Lithuanian a run for his money. Also, two guys who turned up for work at a food packaging plant with a massive chip on their shoulders seemed quite determined to prove that it's the "foreigners"' fault and that British workers could do as well if only they were offered the chance.

Alas though, some simply couldn't be arsed. One of the local chaps who was due to show up at the same factory the following morning texted in sick before he'd even started. The same happened with the three out of four people who'd been given the chance to work at a local Indian restaurant. And the only one who did turn up threw in the towel after a couple of hours.

And then there was the asparagus farm where, quite simply, the three Brits could not hold a candle to their foreign colleagues. They were slow, unwilling and clearly not interested in the job. One in particular appeared extremely resentful when any advice or guidance was given.

Most interesting was the opinion of the local employers. The one in charge of the potato factory was adamant that the number of British applicants slumped in the late Nineties. Evan Davis double checked: are you sure that they stopped applying before the latest wave of immigration took place? Yes, was the answer.

The boss at the asparagus factory was positive: without migrant workers he'd have to shut up shop. And for all talks that foreign labour is undercutting 'homebred' workers, it was only thanks to the minimum wage that the British asparagus pickers didn't end up earning significantly less than their Eastern European counterparts.

On March 1st a similar experiment is going to be repeated but this time on a massive scale.

France, Italy and Spain are all about to witness the first concerted migrant workers' strike. "La journée sans immigrés, 24h sans nous", "Un Giorno Senza Di Noi" and "Un Dia Sin Immigrantes" will call for a mass boycott of buying, selling and working - highlight the social benefits of immigration.

From farming to food packaging, from builders, cleaners and carers to nurses, chefs and the hospitality industry, the idea is to show that, without migrant workers, a whole country can easily grind to a halt.

For too long, too many people in the whole of Western Europe held too many jobs in contempt. Somebody else filled that gap for us -often in really crap conditions- and made it possible for society to carry on and expand.

Like a bunch of spoilt little brats, we've been too quick to forget.

Some people are seriously appalling

Watching this programme on disability hate crime made me feel ashamed of being human. There is no way certain evil behaviour can be explained, let alone excused. Judge for yourself.

[Read more about subhuman scums starting on disabled people here]