All this furore about the Budget and the tax rises for the top level of tax is a bit silly. After all, to achieve a fairer society, income tax is the most redistributive of all tax systems. All these moaners saying "I earn 400,000 pounds a year and I'm going to have to pay a few extra hundred pounds in tax," is beyond satire or downgrading the annual skiing holiday from the French Alps to Bulgaria. These people deserved to be taxed till the pips squeak!
Watching Will Hutton's conclusion to his superb (if slightly lefty) two-part chronicle of the credit crunch to date, last night, one feels that the bankers should be thrown in prison for five to ten years, rather than milking the taxpayer for bonuses and retirment packages. Their aggression, their arrogance and their inability to understand the financial packages their conjure up (it is utterly appropriate for 'creative accounting' to continue as a perjorative), means the dunderheads who appear in The Apprentice really are the ones who were running the economy when they couldn't run a bath. These tax rises are the least that should be meted out to them.
First of all, the top level of tax burden until the late 1980s (so under an arch-Tory government) was actually higher than it currently is. Secondly, this is payback for ninety per cent of the population who will never earn that much but are still being punished. Thirdly, the argument that you can't have such high tax because it will drive away wealth-creators - well actually these people were the opposite, they were wealth-destroyers and the sooner we drive such pestilence from our shores the better.

Spaced out

The revived Red Dwarf commissioned for Dave (which temporarily renamed itself Dave Lister in the top left-hand corner, following a plot strand involving the eponymous character) was like a cosmic curate's egg - good in parts, but those parts much diminished - more white dwarf than Red. It was funniest, logically, when on board the spaceship of the title. When they fulfilled the sub-heading Back to Earth, post-modern exposition doesn't quite cut it as worthwhile humour. And, anyway, it wasn't really back on Earth since there isn't a futuristic, Blader Runner-style pyramid in central London nect to the Houses of Parliament (though it would correspond to the ghoulish plans of some Victorians, who wanted a vast mortuary pyrmid to counter running out of grave plots). Doug Naylor, the sole writer afetr Rob Grant left after Series 5 (claiming justifiably that the sitcom had run out of steam), did interestingly reveal that Blade Runner was the inspiration behind Red Dwarf, which is strange given that Alien and Dark Star seem a lot closer in concept. Moreover,a post-modern charcters meeting their creator(s) in real life has already been done with the feature film The League of Gentlemen Apocalypse. Dave Lister meeting Craig Charles did offer up a soupcon of amusement but overall it was funnier the last time they were on Earth, albeit one that was going backwards (and they weren't so shocked at the state of contemporary civilisation). Then again, so many ideas were recycled from previous episodes (beats sending them to China for processing), shame the funniness didn't travel so well, warp speed ot not.

Astounding

After last week's thumping at Anfield, I though the second leg at Stamford Bridge would be a mere formality. I turned on the telly at half-time to hear the progress of the game and heard Liverpool were winning 2-0 making it 3-3 on aggregate and leaving the Reds needing only one more goal to progress. I thought, hmm, Liverpool are making a real fist of this, the second half could be interesting. The next 45 minutes was the best football I've ever seen as a neutral. 4-4 (7-5 on aggregate) doesn't do the match justice. It flowed back and forth with gleeful abandon. Cheslea fought back to be winning 3-2 with only 12 minutes left, Liverpool came again to score two more goals to be winning 4-3 with seven minutes left and needing just one more goal to go through and then Frank Lampard scored his second, which of course had to cannon off two posts before going in - it was that kind of match. What would have been the result had Gerrard played - or Terry? Barca fans must have been salivating at the prospect of Henry, Messi and Eto'o attacking the defence of whichever team got through. It's certainly going to be a fascinating semi-final, but this game was mind-blowing.

Crazy football

Last Friday, on BBC Five Live, Jacqui Oatley was commentating on Reading vs Sheffield United which hoisted the Blades up to an incredible second in the Championship (I always imagine them since their relegation to be sceond-tier mid-table mediocrities) and her summariser was described (on the DAB) as former Brentford manager Leroy Rosenior. It should have been former Torquay United manager for his return to that club may not have been his finest hour, but it could go down as his finest ten minutes - the length of time he was in charge for - the honeymoon hadn't even had a chance to begin.
On ITV after the Porto game which Man Utd drew 2-2 at Old Trafford, I hardly expected Wayne Rooney to quip "yeah, we'll just go and get a 3-3 draw out there," but you expect more from a seasoned pundit (but for his nous, he might as well have been seasoned with rosemary and thyme than experience) who said to Sir Alex Ferguson "you have to win in Portugal." They probably have to, but there's no certainty to that. A 3-3 or higher scoring draw would take Man Utd to the Champions League semi-final and Porto could keep their unbeaten home record against English teams. After all, 2-2 at Old Trafford might have seemed highly improbable and it ensures that Porto have still not won on English soil against English sides. So why not a night of pandemonium in Oporto?

A climate of doubt should not exist

Is there any organisation more immoral than ExxonMobil (Known as Esso in the UK)? Okay, its ruthlessness has made it the richest company in the world (bar a few blips regarding German car makers) and it dominates like Standard Oil used to. But shouldn't it devoted itself to sustainability because its executives and their children may be able to weather the effects of climate change more effectively, but they will still be affected. But the bottom dollar is all that concerns this company. For its top employees, greed still is good. But in 1989, the scum on television screens wasn't just the oil leaking out of the Exxon Valdez, but the Exxon middle-management covering up their bosses oversights. The guy responsible for Exxon's operation in Alaska was interviewed all these years later and he reeled off all these reasons why the spill was appalling before admitting it was bad publicity and you could just feel in your gut, like those animals on the felt the oil in theirs, that this was the main point that Exxon did anything at all to try and clean it up. They did this in the most brutal way possible, with any life that did survive the slick being obliterated by the high-power hoses (whose steam affected all those who used it, causing cancer and other ailments after the clean-up had finished). It still cost them $2 billion, which was a drop in the ocean for their finances, a term they probably felt for the disaster. As the operations manager of Exxon Alaska said that so what so many animals died, as there would be others who could propagate and replace them. Well, that's the kind of argument that given Exxon's recklessness in spite of the warnings that could be used to justify pouring oil down the throats of every single member of his family - because there are more humans who could propagate and replace them.
The scientist of Exxon who went to the fishing community in Prince William Sound probably got his degree from a mail order company, but he probably thought he was talking to a bunch of hicks who he could bamboozle. However, in front of the world's cameras he was confronted by a native of that community who had a PhD in marine biology and toxicology, disproving all the untruths he was peddling.
The fishermen and women of Prince William Sound successfully sued Exxon for ignoring repeated warnings, having a man known for his drinking as captain (he abandoned his post because he felt tired after a drinking session, leaving it to an inexperienced sailor who wasn't legally allowed to operate a supertanker) and having only a single skin for the hull of the Exxon Valdez (all supertankers now have two skins). They proved that the rock the ship struck had been plotted by Captain Cook and the jury awarded them $5 billion. Exxon fought this until in 2008 the battle reached the Supreme Court, which reduced it to only £500 million or $12,000 per person who have had to scratch a living for 19 years from their devastated industry, with many illnesses and rashes occurring and oil still around in patches. Disgracefully, Exxon sold off the Valdez to an East Asian haulage company (because, derr, they don't have reefs in East Asia).
The 1989 spill should have been a watershed moment. Hollywood (Waterworld) and television (The Simpsons) strongly attacked it. But Exxon survived and they went to fund all the climate change deniers. Al Gore showed that in the presidency that was stolen from him by the, ahem, Supreme Court, the top environmental advisor, who had no scientific experience, crossed out much of the report compiled by scientists about climate change. This censoring was leaked and the man resigned, only for a little while later to get a top job at ExxonMobil. Incidentally, the Al Gore film An Inconvenient Truth, which I watched last night, two weeks after the BBC Two programme commemorating the 20th anniversary of the spill, was banned from being shown in schools by a High Court judge, unless an opposing view was put forward - a bit like saying any teaching of geography which shows the Earth is round, has to have a contrary commentary saying that the world is flat given equal time and resources. The Supreme Court would probably have come to the same conclusion. I wonder who funded the complainant in that case? The film was very instructive, even given the 'nine minor errors', since the broad thrust was true. The frog that jumps into boiling water will jump out again, but the frog that jumps into lukewarm water but whose temperature in inexorably upwards to boiling point, will be boiled. Just look at recent events, governments have thrown more than $1 trillion to solve the banking crisis and their stalling economies without causing a revolution (the frog jumping out of the boiling water), but if only ten per cent of that was devoted to helping the environment, Barack Obama is told he would have a revolution on his hands (proving people are like the frog that's going to die without realising it). Environmental politics is plastered everywhere we look, but it's amazing how far behind the curve of what needs to be done, the public and the politicians are in doing anything about it. Al Gore demonstrated that it was a false choice for countries to choose between their economies and their environment (as Tony Blair once did, saying countries would not sacrifice their economies for the environment, proving the fraud he always was) because jobs can be created in the 'green' sector. Part of the rescue plan for General Motors, Ford and Chrsyler (which were failing because they produced the most inefficient cars in the developed world and China) is a mandate that they build mor green cars. President Obama shows himself to be the opposite of the gutless New Labour project - a man of firm intellect, principles and determination. As Al Gore said, political action is a renewable resource and after eight long, dark years, some positivethings about the environment can take place, once the banks have been dealt with that is, of course, they always have to come first it seems.

Sean Penn Milking it

Compared to the last cinematic experience, Milk was immensely more pleasurable, but that was on its own strengths, wll directed by Gus van Sant, rather than the weakness of Zack Snyder's offering. Milk is the eight-year tale of how Harvey Milk rose through political activism to becoming the first openly-gay elected politician in the USA. In the film, he is quoted as saying that he would never reach 50 years old and he was assasinated aged 48 - an echo of Martin Luther King, who said he would never reach 40 and was murdered aged 39.
But gay cavorting is not what the film is about - it does show homosexuals having passionate times, but it is not explicit and just presented as part of their lives. The story is about the fight for the rights of man - that everyone deserves to be treated like a human being. It also displays the strain on any family and friends - straight or gay - that electioneering places. Harvey isn't presented as a saint either, though he's better than most people. At the end, the power is starting to go to his head, which proves its corrupting effect on even those most opposed to 'the machine'. Sean Penn fully won his Oscar for Best Actor, portraying Milk as camp, but not fruity - and this one of the hard men of Hollywood. Josh Brolin and James Franco and no less the full cast were very convincing too.
Milk is an unplifting film, despite the sad ending (foreshadowed with a real news broadcast at the start). It confirms the basic decency in human beings.

Never too late for commentary

The Olympics in Beijing last year will be remembered in the UK as the most successful for Team GB since the Second world War, giving the nation's sports projects a boost ahead of London 2012. However, there was a dark side to the event that has been all too readily forgotten. These were the totalitarian Olympics, even more so than Moscow 1980 (which was boycotted by a large slice of the world); indeed, only Berlin 1936 can rank as more disgraceful. The IOC (but also FIFA and other sporting bodies) has never been particularly picky about the political proclivities of a host nation, but the People's Republic of China did make promises at its bid, promises it did not keep. The IOC's mantra that sport is separate from politics is a chimera. Okay, so this is only the third time since WWII that the Olympics has gone to a non-democracy (aside from Moscow, the other was Mexico City 1968), but in the 21st century, a post-Cold War era, higher standards should be kept. Sochi 2014, the Winter Olympics, in Russia (and not so far geographically from Chechnya and Georgia), prove that to be a forlorn hope.
Undoubtedly, the Chinese leadership used the Olympics to glorify the regime and its way of doing things. Even its slogan for the 2008 Games - 'One Dream' - smacked of creepy conformity. 'Protest parks' were supposed to be where licensed dissent occurred (i.e.nothing spontaneous or about Tibet), but not only were no licences granted but the police arrested a good deal of those people who did apply. Thus the protest parks were gloriously undisturbed. The grotesque absurdity of it all is a gift to internationally aware satirists (since no Chinese person could mock it and escape consequneces). It is a good mirror to communism, the idea sounding splendid in theory, but is hollow and redundant in practice.
The regime also grudgingly opened up to journalists, but was most displeased when they started covering issues other than sport. Certain dissidents were rounded up and locked away before the Olympics even began, while Tibet was off-limits to all foreigners. The Szechwan earthquake while a great personal tragedy was very useful to the communist leadership as it distracted the world from its brutal repression of a Tibetan rebellion. Some Internet sites became uncensored but that was only for the duration of the Games. It was purely of show, as was the fakery in the opening ceremony, indicative of the emptiness of the regime's promises, demonstarting that only economic growth has kept it in power. The Chinese communist party is rotten to the core, the endemic institutional corruption can only be tackled by democracy but it would take anothe revolution, a true people's revolution to achieve that. London 2012's unveiling may not be as outstanding but it will be a good deal more honest. The CGI fireworkd, the little girl not only miming, but miming to less pretty child's voice, the various ethnic groups who were all just Han Chinese dressed up. It is the equivalent of the local Chinese communist party that painted the side of a quarry green to convince others of its environmental credentials (while it pocketed the rest of the money allocated for the department) or the other local party that built an exact replica of the US Capitol building in a town of only a few thousand. China may have big reserves, but its foundations are shaky with the slowdown in world economic production. Teh above two examples smack of pre-Revolutionary France - the hierarchy hopelessly out of touch in running the country.
The IOC, meanwhile, should fire its official spokeperson. When faced with stern questions that China had broken its promises at it bid (for instance, the protest parks or keping air pollution down), the spokeswoman spouted something completely unrelated and off the topic and then had the bald-faced temerity to say that she had answered the question, when it was blatently obvious that she hadn't. Such stonewalling wasn't deflective, but, on the contrary, exposed her bosses to ridicule. Fine, so she was uncomfortable with defending the indefensible, but her representation made the IOC look like a joke. A smooth dissembler would have been far more appropriate to put up at those press conferences and, at the time, I thought of several avenues of though that could be pursued with far more success against inquisitive western journalists than her technique. Just because its been 28years since the IOC has faced ushc stern questioning over a host nation does not excuse such a performance. But then it summed up how the spirit of the Games had been totally trampled over at these Olympics.

Grim up West (Yorkshire)

In the week that saw an end to the longest miscarriage of justice in British legal history, the televised Red Riding saga drew to a close. It chronicled murder and deep-level corruption in the West Yorkshire police and in the wider community in the 1970s and early 1980s. Its central argument was that some of the biggest crims are those in the cop shop and running it. The number of unexplained deaths in police custody in metropolitan centres (where most newcomers i.e. outsiders to an area congregate) that continued into the 1990s, showed the trend of police brutality has only recently been brought to an end as acceptable, unspoken conduct. The Dark Side of (Life on) Mars. Jack Slipper, the detective in charge of investigating The Great Train Robbery, bemoaned before his death that the police force had become too politically correct. Red Riding , graphically if extravagantly, demonstrates that is a price worth paying. The police in these stories, based around facts, believe justice is achieving a socially acceptable outcome, even if it involves fitting up innocent people.
Red Riding was written as a quartet but Channel 4, finding the sceond instalment too bizarre as a narrative, filmed it as a trilogy - 1974, 1980, 1983. 1974 was compelling a drama. You could say that it was overblown but then you would have to apply the same distinction to LA Confidential. 1980 was more of a slow burner, but the twist of betrayal at the end was a shattering denouement and as the credits rolled, I staggered from my chair, still struck by the changes the film had held up against what it had previously led us to believe.
1983 was for long stretches just as good, but fell at the final furlong, not because it was a comparatively happy ending but rather for its lapse into obvious cliches. To be sure, cliches abounded in the previous two episodes, but they were more to do with the scenery than the narrative and so being background were less obstrusive. The pervy, sinister priest is one of two episcopal staples for the liberal intelligentsia, the other being the benign but ineffectual pastor. The same charcter was both, the latter in 1980, the former in 1983. Also, a tragic hero rising up out of physical and metaphorical misery, underground or otherwise, delivering a sweet child to safety in thier arms has been done in countless Hollywood fodder and enjoined one to grind teeth at the familiarity of the scahharine sentimentality. The rescue could have been done better and less flashy. Further, utter bastards as these policemen were, importing directly a facet of Room 101 seemed both implausible (they din't seem the literary types, meaning it was symbolic coincidence) and unoriginal. The acting was consummate in all three, the period detail grand and the story-telling effective (with the slight dip at the end on 1983). Red Riding restores some credibility to Channel 4's battered reputation over the last two years while dragging that of the police at the time through it.