"My mother was a Farquhar"

Think this is what Bill Murray experienced in the film "Lost in Translation"?

Read more...

Language and Oratory

I don't know if you caught "Yes We Can: The Lost Art of Oratory" on BBC2 last night (you can watch it here on BBC iPlayer if you missed it).

I'd suggest it as a must-watch for any politico (so, probably, you if you read this blog!) who is interested in how politicians shape their message. It's also probably pretty interesting for fans of The West Wing (oh, how I miss it!) with a couple of clips from the show used to illustrate points.

Here's one quote from President Bartlet on the show, used in the documentary to illustrate just how oratory works. I think it captures the point beautifully.

"Words, words, when spoken out loud for the sake of performance are music. They have rhythm and pitch and timbre and volume. These are the properties of music and music has the ability to find us and move us and lift us up in ways that literal meaning can't."

That, for me, is what a good speech does. It rises and falls with crescendo and diminuendo. It has a flowing melody and takes you on a journey from start to finish. And a good orator will use the same techniques that a musician will to maintain your attention.

Anyway, the point is, if you have a spare hour, watch the documentary. It is pretty good.

Alternatively, if you only have five minutes, you can watch this Fry and Laurie sketch with Stephen Fry using language to tie himself in knots. Kinda makes the same point (I think - if you look close enough!).

Read more...

Word of the day: "Seize"

"Seize the day" is a phrase with positive connotations - from the Latin Carpe Diem - emphasising the need to make use of your time wisely.

Contrastingly, to "seize power" suggests something of a more negative tone - over-riding democracy to install a military junta for example. A military intervention might be helpful in this case, to "wrest control" away from those legitimately in power.

"SNP seizes control of Dundee Council for the first time"

screams The Scotsman today. They also point out the hand that (former Labour) Councillor John Letford played in the SNP's ability to "wrest control" of the council from the Lab-Lib Dem coalition.

I wonder if this is an indicator of why the Scottish print media appears to be in such bother. Maybe if they reported the news without such an inherent bias people might still read their stuff.

Anyway, I'm off to "wrest control" of the kettle.

Read more...

Mater tua criceta fuit, et pater tuo redoluit bacarum sambucus

Scottish Labour are bereft of ideas.

Okay, that's not really news. But I took this screenshot of their website in the section titled "The Scottish Policy Forum."


You can see for yourself. Either Labour have decided to up the ante on education and print all their material solely in Latin (not exactly the language of the working class) or their Scottish Policy Forum doesn't really exist.

I know what my money is on.

- Ad Absurdum

Update (7pm): It seems someone who has the power to change these things, has done... and the link now redirects to a different page. Nice to know MitB has some power and influence (or something!). You can still see what it looked like before here.

Read more...

Not a Calman influence...

I've been reading Sir Kenneth Calman's comments regarding the Calman Commission's upcoming report. The title of the BBC's piece, "Calman warning to SNP government" is another piece of bizarre biased reporting from the Beeb (not to mention somewhat questionable grammar).

Said Sir Kenneth yesterday:

"If it [the Scottish Government] doesn't wish to help with that process - and we would like it to help - then it will be quite difficult for them to criticise at the end. If you don't vote - you shouldn't criticise the outcome."

I understand the principle of his comment, I do. But I don't think his comparison works. Let me explain.

I encourage everyone I know to vote come election time. Everyone tells me what a waste of time it is, that whoever gets in willl just do the same as the last lot and that nothing will change (which is, I suppose, also a fair charge). But my point is always that if you don't make your view known by voting for someone - anyone - then you forfeit your right to complain about anything politics related (which is most things).

But this is slightly different. In an election, everyone has the opportunity to put their point across. Anyone (with certain caveats) can stand in an election if they don't think they agree with any of the other candidates. No one's view is excluded from the democratic process and people can make up their mind on who to vote for from a variety of different viewpoints. That's how democracy works.

The Calman Commission is not an election. Not everyone's view is represented. Some views (notably those supporting independence) have been disallowed from discussion. By my reckoning, if your views are not only not represented but have absolutely no means of being represented within that body, you are well within your rights to criticise that body.

By Sir Kenneth's reckoning, the Unionist parties in Scotland shouldn't be allowed to criticise the Scottish Government's National Conversation on the very same basis - that they haven't gotten involved in the process.

Both arguments are absolutely barking. Criticism and debate are part and parcel of a healthy democratic process. And the Scottish Government, like everyone else, will be well within their rights to criticise Sir Kenneth's Commission when their findings are made public.

To think otherwise, is just plain stupid.

Read more...

The insensitivity of the BBC

I don't have Sky Sports in the flat, so I was keeping up with the football scores last night on the BBC's live football blog - which on this occasion was written by Jonathan Stevenson.

I usually find this a fairly good way to keep up with scores and general banter if I can't actually watch the game. The humour is pretty good and occasionally text comments, emails and lines from the BBC's sporting debate site 606 are published.

Let me paint a picture of what was going on in the Arsenal-Roma match last night. Arsenal were 1-0 down to Roma on the night, tying the score 1-1 on aggregate over the two matches, with five minutes left in extra time. Their strikers had a pretty rubbish night, their shooting was abysmal and they missed a few sitters. Then this comment came through on 606:


In case you can't read it there, it says: "Looks like Arsenal should've bought more Germans..."

Now, after Bayern Munich beat Sporting Lisbon 12-1 on aggregate, if I'm being generous to the guy, he may have been referring to that. But after yesterday's shooting in a German school, the comments seem crass and insensitive and in all likelihood, should not have been published.

I mean, there's banter and there's banter. And there's a public discussion forum and in private and the BBC should really have drawn a line there.

EDIT
On reflection, I may be reading a bit more into this than was the intention. A number of commentators have suggested the reference was to German penalty taking, something that never occurred to me. However, I still think whoever was editing at the time might have thought it through a wee bit before publication.

Read more...

Unionist parties support binge drinking

Okay, so the title isn't strictly true.

Here's what has actually happened.

SNP Government wants to amend existing legislation to introduce minimum pricing for alcohol products and ban alcoholic drink promotions in order to combat binge drinking in Scotland.

Opposition parties have blocked the plan, insisting that new legislation is required.

But the headline got your attention because I don't tend towards such sycophantic party allegiance on a regular basis.

Point is though, had it been the other way round, I don't think it is too much of a leap of faith to imagine newspaper headlines screaming about the SNP being soft on knife crime or supporting repossessions when the actual story is not quite what the headline proclaims.

Maybe if sub-editors gave articles a title that reflected the reality of the story and not a headline-grabbing, sycophantic partisan press release then we'd still read them - and their jobs wouldn't be under threat.

Or am I being a tad unfair there?

Read more...

One story... lots of versions.

I do love how different media outlets report the same story.

On President Obama's budget plans:

Washington Post - "Obama's budget proposals would push deficit to $1.75T

New York Times - "Obama plans major shift in spending"

MSNBC - "Deficit soars in Obama budget"

Fox News - "Height of Audacity"

This is one of the things I find refreshing about America and American media. Views are disparate and they cater for different tastes - Republican and Democrat, liberal and conservative, hawk and dove.

Would be nice if we had that here...

Read more...

The politics of the possible

Swinney & Salmond enjoying better times

There's been quite a lot of absolute tosh written about John Swinney's decision not to bring forward a bill replacing the Council Tax in Scotland with a Local Income Tax during this Parliamentary session.

I'll write that bit again, just in case you didn't catch it the first time.

There's been quite a lot of absolute tosh written about John Swinney's decision not to bring forward a bill replacing the Council Tax in Scotland with a Local Income Tax DURING THIS PARLIAMENTARY SESSION.

To quote John Swinney:

"The parliamentary arithmetic means that, while we might get the support of the Liberal Democrats for our proposals to introduce a local income tax, the Labour and Conservative parties are united in their opposition.

"In short, we cannot put together a stable majority to enable us successfully to steer detailed local income tax legislation through this parliament."

"The cabinet has therefore decided not to introduce legislation to abolish unfair council tax and replace it with local income tax until after the election in 2011."

Now that, to me, doesn't suggest a huge U-turn. It doesn't suggest that the party have suddenly decided that the policy is rubbish or that they think the current system of Council Tax is great. What it suggests is that the party have recognised their position, in light of the budget fiasco, as a minority government. They've looked around the chamber, seen they don't have the votes to pass such controversial and significant taxation-changing legislation and have decided not to waste parliament's time by bringing forward a bill that is not going to pass. Yet.

They still like the policy. They'll campaign on it going into the 2011 election, telling voters that if they give them enough MSPs they'll be able to pass it. So what is this hysteria from the other parties about?

Iain Gray calls it "the day Alex Salmond's credibility died". What, because he can count to 65?

Jeremy Purvis: "The Lib Dems are now the ONLY party in Scotland that want to scrap the deeply unfair council tax." Well, that's just blatantly wrong. The SNP WANT to scrap it... but the opposition parties don't want to help them. Its the price of minority government.

Lib Dem and Labour blogs have it that its a huge U-turn, that it is another broken promise, that a key pledge is lying in tatters. Some of them don't seem to grasp the nature of minority government.

At least the Scotsman tells it like it is (and how many times will I get to say that?!!) when they say "LIT dead... for now." And Brian Taylor is his usual analytical self - pointing out, on balance, that opposition parties will attack and the SNP will defend their minority position.

You can say what you want about the policy (and I'm pretty sure I have in the past, though I can't find it on here) but if you haven't got the cards, you haven't got the cards. First the budget, now this. The SNP are learning about minority government. And I guess the other parties are too. As ever, we live in interesting times.

UPDATE: Just read Kez's take on it, which makes a good point about the issue. The SNP know there is not a majority for a referendum on independence, but they are still planning on bringing forward that legislation. That kinda puts the thing in perspective a bit. If only the LOLITSP could think on his feet like that and notice that kind of thing, then he might have a bit more credibility.

Read more...

BBC - Bastion of British Censorship

You've got to love the BBC.

Actually, if you are a regular reader of MitB, you'll know that you don't really have to love the BBC. But you've got to love the pickle they've gotten themselves into now.

Those fine purveyors of impartiality, those upstanders of British traditions, those "we cannot possibly be seen to be acting unfairly or offending anyone" fine, fine people.

First there was the Russell Brand/ Jonathan Ross hoopla with thousands of complaints. Result: huge apologies all round, resignation of Brand, BBC radio controller and suspension of Ross.

Then the BBC decides not to show the DEC's Gaza appeal film on the grounds of impartiality (and, no doubt, that it will offend some people).

Then Carol Thatcher, after making remarks - off-air - that the BBC deemed offensive, has been sacked from working on The One Show (which is totally rubbish anyway).

So what are they going to do with Jeremy Clarkson, a man not known for his subtlty, who has seemingly offended time after time after time - and remains in his job?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not calling for the BBC to suspend, sack or even discipline Clarkson in anyway. The guy (in the most recent instance anyway) was just reeling off facts (and I guess, his opinion of them) in calling Gordon Brown "a one-eyed Scottish idiot."

Yes, it might be offensive to some, but I reckon the PM has heard people call him much worse. And really, is that any worse than the banter I get? - balding Scottish b****** springs to mind. Outside questioning my parentage (which is patently ridiculous given the lack of hair follicles myself and my father have in common) I'm not offended by it. Because its usually meant in jest. Pretty sure he meant it as a joke. And, obviously, to get some publicity.

So now the BBC has to decide whether it is actually going to go PC-mad and sack Clarkson, or if it is going to lighten up a wee bit. I don't really know what my money is on in this instance.

UPDATE: It seems Clarkson has apologised for "a remark about the PM's appearance" and so the BBC have been spared taking any action against him. What I find, well, bizarre is that so many politicians (from a range of parties) have largely ignored his slight on the PM's partial sighted-ness but are mad at his describing him as "Scottish" - feeling it to be meant in a derogatory manner. Honestly, if you are offended by a description of someone's nationality, you really need to get out of that business...

Read more...