Miranda BBC2 at 8.30pm

Tonight is the first episode of a new sitcom called 'Miranda'. It stars Miranda Hart and is a show based around her life, struggles, friends and foibles. And it's ace.

I have to declare an interest - I was involved in episodes 2-6 (so not tonight's one). I technically co-wrote three of them, and am an additional writer on the other two, but it didn't quite work like that. I sat in a room with Miranda and a chap called Richard and we went through stories and ideas and jokes - but the show is very much Miranda's own, which is great because she really knows what works for her. And she worked incredibly hard on the scripts to get them just right. And I think she succeeded.

The BBC have spotted there's very little swearing in it and that it's a lovely, silly show, so have decided to air it at 8.30pm. Can't quite remember the last time BBC2 did that. But I'm all in favour.

The studio audience went mad for it. The BBC are quite excited about. Ignoring the critics (always best), the only people left now are the viewers. So it's over to you...

You can also catch it on iplayer here.

Money in the Bin

I've been meaning to get round to reading Money by Martin Amis for a few years. I read a short extract of it in a book by David Lodge about writing fiction (The Art of Fiction, which is excellent, by the way). The book is about British writer/director who's pretty much addicted to anything going. The quote that hooked me was:

In LA, you can’t do anything unless you drive. Now I can’t do anything unless I drink. And the drink-drive combination, it really isn’t possible out there... So what can a poor boy do? You come out of the hotel, the Vraimont... You walk left, you walk right, you are a bank rat on a busy river. This restaurant serves no drink, this one serves no meat, this one serves no heterosexuals. You can get your chimp shampooed, you can get your dick tattooed, twenty-four hours, but can you get lunch? And should you see a sign on the far side of the street flashing BEEF -- BOOZE -- NO STRINGS, then you can forget it. The only way to get across the road is to be born there.

It's that last line that got me and I decided to find a copy and read it. A found a copy a few months ago and started last week. The only problem is that fifty pages in, Martin Amis has painted such a vivid picture of this dreadful character, called 'Self', that I simply don't want to read on. I've just read some adventures in New York (which was not a pleasant place to be in the early 1980s, when the book was written). And I almost threw it in the bin. Almost. Shoud I? I'm sure the book is well-constructed and there's a justifiable artistic reason for all this sleaze, but I just makes me feel ill. Please advise. Bin?

When is an Advisor not an Advisor?

When he works for this current government. Professor Nutt, the Chief Advisor to the government on drugs, was sacked for expressing a view that was different from Government policy.

Clearly, the current administration is so deranged and insistent on conformity that they insist all scientists re-intepret all scientific data to fit in with government policy. That's a shame, and a worrying sign. And one doesn't want to bandy the F-word around willy nilly but it is, technically, Fascism.

It is the Home Secretary's duty to formulate policy (any kind of policy from this government would be a welcome change. It won't happen, of course, since this government has simply no idea what government is actually for.) But Professor Nutt is a scientist who looks at data, one would hope, and gives honest opinions on it from a scientific point of view. He's not elected, or a member of the government, or member of the Labour Party. He's good at science. Mr Johnson is a politician who has to make a decision that takes that scientific opinion into account, but he is not obliged to legislate purely scientific. The minister will take other decisions into account - such as morality, cost and public opinion. (Whether these are adequate criteria for any government decision is higly questionable, but that is the current custom).

Sadly, our next Prime Minister, David Cameron, has sympathised with Mr Johnson by saying that the Professor Nutt's comments were badly put. "I don't think what Professor Nutt said about the respective merits of taking ecstasy and riding horses was a particularly good way of putting it," said PM-to-be. Perhaps he should have said that Professor Nutt is free to express whatever he wants in whatever way he wants - as long as it is consistent with scientific data. And perhaps it's the press's duty not to whip up the slightest disagreement between our elected ministers who are not scientists and their non-elected advisors who are scientists. We live in confused times. I wish I was more optimistic about sea-change in May. I don't think we'll be getting one any time soon.

A Fraction of the Whole

I finally finished this epic novel - all 711 pages of it. It's a debut work by an Australian called Steve Toltz. It was shortlisted for the Man Booker Prize 2008 - so it's a proper book. Not your average thriller, although this book is extremely thrilling in places.

It begins in a prison cell, and much ink is entertainingly spilt about how the protagonist, Jaspar Dean, got there. He tells the most extraordinary story which largely focusses on Jaspar's father Martin, a man who thinks far too much. He questions everything, doubts everything and sees through everything and everyone. As you might expect, this makes him ultimately go mad. There is much talk on about God, gods, philosophy and politics. Martin is (intentionally) the most infuriating character and there was a big sigh of relief for me when he met his fate - and quite a lot of the story is told from his point of you. Like father like son, there is much overlap - and concerns that Jaspar is turning into his father.

Enough of the what's it about. Was it any good? Yes. It was. Lots of wonderful turns of phrase, set-pieces and laugh-out loud moments - bits that you want to read aloud to your spouse, and some bits you'd never read aloud to anyone since you're ashamed to admit you find it funny. The book is undoubtedly gloomy and, as I mentioned, infuriating and this is clearly intentional. It reminded me of Tibor Fischer and Christopher Brookmyre in that fact that the strangest things happen and no one seems a bit surprised.

But it's long. Too long. Far too long. Especially towards the end where there was lost of talk and not much happening. The Independent said:
My only reservation about this novel is that it is rather too long. By page 711, I was distinctly glad that the exploits and insights of the Dean clan had come to an end, and the wilful perversity of the style had started to cloy well before that. If it had ended 200 pages earlier, I might have given it five stars.
I'd go further than that. I thoroughly recommend you by this book and stop reading at page 226. Seriously. Lots of good books are 226 pages or fewer. (The 39 Steps and The Great Gatsby for starters so you're in good company). When I reached the end of that section I thought "Wow! That feels like an ending to me. A good one at that. What on earth is going to happen in the next 500 pages?" As it turns out, a lot. More people die. In fact almost every character. And, well, it starts to get a bit ridiculous. The book sunk in my estimations the further I read. It was obviously good enough to get me to the end. The prose is good. But by page 500 I was determined to finish it, or it's like running a marathon and giving up at Mile 20.

My overwhelming impression of the book is positive one - and I enjoyed seeing what happens when a man doubts everthing. It feels like a GK Chesterton or CS Lewis - that the man who sees through everything ultimately sees nothing at all. And nothingness is quite a spectacle. Martin Dean in this book shows what that looks like. It looks like a living hell.

X-Factor. I mean it.

No, the title of this blog post is not a reference to something else. It really is about X-Factor. I'm watching it on TV as I type. Seriously. I watched it last night too. And I'm wondering who's going to be voted off.

Let's not get bogged down in how and why I'm watching it. I haven't seen any reality TV since Nasty Nick was thrown out of the Big Brother house in the year 2000. A couple of things are interesting to me in this X-Factor.

The first is the wailing audience who are desparate to cheer anything and everyone. They hate it when the judges are mean. This show is a really blatant example of how people are relational - and determined to find someone to worship and cheer for. I'm not saying it must be stopped because it's idolatry. It's just interesting that this show is a huge phenomenon, and it's very hard not to get swept along by the current once you put your toe in the water. I genuinely care about some of the contestants, and others I want to be voted off (mainly because they're just not as good at singing and someone, well nearly everyone, has to lose).

The other thing of interest is the thing I share with the contestants: the only person's opinion I'm interested in is Simon Cowell's. It's not just that he's very important and owns the show and all that. It's just that he is very critical, shrewd and tough and therefore he is really the only whose praise means something. Cheryl Cole and Dani Minogue tend to say how well they thought everyone did. And so their praise has no value.

What do we want from a judge? Praise? Vindication? No. We want honesty. Forunately, that is the God we find in the Bible. He doesn't tell us everything's okay, because it isn't. He doesn't tell we're perfect, because we're not. He doesn't say he loves us just the way we are and He doesn't want us to change - but he does want us to change to be more like his son. Fortunately, he enables us to do that by His Spirit.

The Big Machine

I've blogged about episode 2 of series 3 Hut 33 here.

The Taxpayer

Some friends of mine on twitter have been getting vexed about comments from The Taxpayers Alliance. This got me thinking about who they are, what they're for and taxation in general - a subject I need no encouragement to go back to.

The Taxpayers Alliance perform a few useful functions. They are a voice of accountability in an age of high government spending. They question and challenge the government - which is something Her Majesty's opposition seem unable or unwilling to do, mainly because they will spend roughly the same amount of money in the similar, give or take the odd billion.

Their mission statement is clearly laid out. Here are some highlights:

The TaxPayers' Alliance is Britain's independent grassroots campaign for lower taxes. After years of being ignored by politicians of all parties, the TPA is committed to forcing politicians to listen to ordinary taxpayers.

Taxes keep on rising but there is very little improvement in the quality of schools, hospitals and transport provided by government... The government is riddled with waste and inefficiency... High taxes are damaging the British economy and our way of life is suffering as a result... In the long-run, higher taxes make us all poorer.

The TPA's mission is:
• To reverse the perception that big government is necessary and irreversible
• To explain the benefits of a low tax economy
• To give taxpayers a voice in the corridors of power

To this end, the TaxPayers' Alliance will:
• Oppose all tax rises
• Oppose EU tax harmonisation
• Seek the abolition of inheritance tax
• Criticise all examples of wasteful and unnecessary spending
• Champion opportunities for votes on tax and spend

So, they have a strong ideology. Or so it seems. What there seems to be a lack of is basic philosophy. It appears that their central thesis is that big government does not work, never works, and should be opposed because it's making us all poorer. This is soley an economic argument. It fails address the reason for taxation, or indeed whether the state has any right to tax, to provide a monopoly on some public services, or even provide public services at all. Scandanavia seems to model a large state that works quite well. Is socialism or statism defective because it doesn't work? And for whom does it not work? We need to go deeper.

This lack of true ideology can make them sound rather shrill - lamenting the poor use of tax-payers money. My friend Kevin tweeted this: "I hate the way they imply they speak for me because I pay tax. No you don't, take your no welfare state ideas elsewhere." Interesting. And he makes a very good point. The taxpayers of Britain disagree about how their taxes should be spent and, indeed, what the purpose of taxation is. For some, taxation is about wealth redistribution and provision of public services as a basic human right. For others, it's more cost-effective that the state provide services, so it's paying your national subscription. For others, it's giving the state money to invest in projects to make us all richer and healthier - that's what Gordon Brown call 'investment' when he's splurging billions on public services, as if their is any prospect of a return on that investment.

What is taxation? What is the point of it? And therefore how much is just? How much is necessary? How much is right? No-one seems terribly interested in discussing this and yet it lies at the heart of the very fabric of our government. Maintaining law and order and defending the realm is only a fraction of what the government spends. What - or who - gives it the right to collect taxation for others things? If it's the people by public mandate, that is one thing. But what if those people don't agree? And why should the people be the ultimate authority - if there is a greater authority in heaven who has made his views known? Lots of questions - and few seem prepared to think about the answers.