Whilst I was an avid fan of Life on Mars, I'm feeling a bit mixed about the new series, Ashes to Ashes.
Life on Mars was awesome. The show had a new concept and there was an air of mystery. It wasn't until the end of the second series that we found out that the 1970s world was all in Sam's head. He was in a coma in hospital and had imagined it all. In Ashes to Ashes, we know that Alex Drake has been shot and is imagining everything. She knows this and keeps reminding us of her situation (perhaps more than Sam questioned whether his situation was real or if he was imagining it). You can't empathise with the character because you know that it's all in her head and that at some point she will either wake up or die.
On the other hand, Philip Glennister is just as good as Gene Hunt as he was in Life on Mars. As arguably the most popular character of Life on Mars, Ashes gives him an even bigger spotlight. Sam Tyler's problem was adapting to the 1970s (of which Gene Hunt was merely a part) - in Ashes, Drake's trouble is working with Hunt - not the 80s. In Ashes, Gene Hunt is perhaps more arrogant and just as politically incorrect as he was in Life on Mars.
The show also tries far too hard to make portray the 80s. In Life on Mars, 70s music was only played occasionally and often to enhance the scene - in Ashes, 80s music is played often and usually without much reason. It tries too hard and looses the subtly of Life on Mars. Having said that, the show is still good. It hasn't met it's potential but I have enjoyed it so far and I will continue to watch it, just not as avidly as its predecessor.
25 February 2008
20 February 2008
National Rock
As most people (at least those in touch with current affairs) will know by now, the stricken bank Northern Rock is in the process of being nationalised by the government.
Many have been critical of the nationalisation and the billions of pounds of public money lent to the Rock to stop it from failing. Northern Rock was a private institution operating within the "free" (but how free is it if the government is prepared to intervene like this?) market. If the market were allowed to take its natural course, the Rock would have gone bust. Shareholders would have completely lost out and many would have lost their savings (although the government now protects these). By pumping so many billions in to the Rock, the government had hoped that it could stop it from falling. It couldn't and to cut a long story short, the bank has had to be nationalised.
The government has dithered for months to try and avoid nationalising the bank. Nationalisation is a last resort. The word itself is 'dirty', tainted by the free market Thatcherite policies that began in the 1980s. For many it has throw-backs to the 1970s and the days of Labour nationalising the big industries. This isn't the case.
If Gordon Brown had wanted to nationalise the bank he would have done it back in September, instead of dragging this saga on and on. Nationalisation of banks could be seen as a socialist policy, but when implemented as a last resort, this is clearly the wrong view to have.
Even in America, leader of the free world and free market capitalism, banks have come close to nationalisation when the fail. In the 1980s, under the neo-liberal presidency of Ronald Reagan, the Federal Reserve bailed out the Continental Illinois National Bank. Letting the bank fall would have had a hugely negative knock-on effect on the economy and this was to be avoided at all costs. The situation is the same with Northern Rock.
Nationalisation is the best solution for most parties. Taxpayers gain as the bank will stay in public ownership until it can be given back to the market (when conditions improve), savers will gain as they don't lose their money. It is the shareholders who will lose out. The government will pay compensation but only a minimal amount, resulting in some shareholders plans to sue the government.
However, these shareholders are, in my opinion, missing the point and getting caught up in their own greed. Shareholders are capitalists. They invest money with the aim of making a profit but know the there is a risk of losing that money. Profit is not guaranteed. This is how capitalism works, and in this case, the shareholders lost. This is the price of investing in such a risky business.
The government will however be the ultimate loser. The dithering and constant indecision has caused many to lose faith in Gordon Brown's government. The Lib Dems have been calling for nationalisation for a long time, but with the opposition to nationalisation now, even though there isn't much choice, it's likely that the government would not have been able to win in either situation.
Many have been critical of the nationalisation and the billions of pounds of public money lent to the Rock to stop it from failing. Northern Rock was a private institution operating within the "free" (but how free is it if the government is prepared to intervene like this?) market. If the market were allowed to take its natural course, the Rock would have gone bust. Shareholders would have completely lost out and many would have lost their savings (although the government now protects these). By pumping so many billions in to the Rock, the government had hoped that it could stop it from falling. It couldn't and to cut a long story short, the bank has had to be nationalised.
The government has dithered for months to try and avoid nationalising the bank. Nationalisation is a last resort. The word itself is 'dirty', tainted by the free market Thatcherite policies that began in the 1980s. For many it has throw-backs to the 1970s and the days of Labour nationalising the big industries. This isn't the case.
If Gordon Brown had wanted to nationalise the bank he would have done it back in September, instead of dragging this saga on and on. Nationalisation of banks could be seen as a socialist policy, but when implemented as a last resort, this is clearly the wrong view to have.
Even in America, leader of the free world and free market capitalism, banks have come close to nationalisation when the fail. In the 1980s, under the neo-liberal presidency of Ronald Reagan, the Federal Reserve bailed out the Continental Illinois National Bank. Letting the bank fall would have had a hugely negative knock-on effect on the economy and this was to be avoided at all costs. The situation is the same with Northern Rock.
Nationalisation is the best solution for most parties. Taxpayers gain as the bank will stay in public ownership until it can be given back to the market (when conditions improve), savers will gain as they don't lose their money. It is the shareholders who will lose out. The government will pay compensation but only a minimal amount, resulting in some shareholders plans to sue the government.
However, these shareholders are, in my opinion, missing the point and getting caught up in their own greed. Shareholders are capitalists. They invest money with the aim of making a profit but know the there is a risk of losing that money. Profit is not guaranteed. This is how capitalism works, and in this case, the shareholders lost. This is the price of investing in such a risky business.
The government will however be the ultimate loser. The dithering and constant indecision has caused many to lose faith in Gordon Brown's government. The Lib Dems have been calling for nationalisation for a long time, but with the opposition to nationalisation now, even though there isn't much choice, it's likely that the government would not have been able to win in either situation.
Comment is free
After being bugged and told that I should, I'm going to make another attempt at blogging. I've lost count of the number of times that I've tried to do this now and I'm making no promises on the success of this attempt.
The reasons for another attempt:
For the most part I'm going to try and attempt to blog about current affairs issues. I don't want to bring any personal stuff in to this - I'll keep that to Facebook - and I want to try and give people something remotely interesting to read. If no one does read this, then so be it - hopefully I'll get something out of my writing.
Having learnt from past experience, I'm not going to set myself any wild targets like "one post per day". That very quickly became a chore when there was nothing I particularly wanted to comment on and I will get lazy. Because of this, I'm going to aim for a minimum of one post per week, or a post on anything major in the headlines that grabs my eye.
I'll keep this one short. Keep checking back, or subscribe to the feed, and hopefully I'll deliver some content.
The reasons for another attempt:
- People actually read the last blog (apparently)
- It will help improve my writing skills
- It will force me to keep up to date with current affairs
- It will help me develop my own opinion on issues and further educate myself
For the most part I'm going to try and attempt to blog about current affairs issues. I don't want to bring any personal stuff in to this - I'll keep that to Facebook - and I want to try and give people something remotely interesting to read. If no one does read this, then so be it - hopefully I'll get something out of my writing.
Having learnt from past experience, I'm not going to set myself any wild targets like "one post per day". That very quickly became a chore when there was nothing I particularly wanted to comment on and I will get lazy. Because of this, I'm going to aim for a minimum of one post per week, or a post on anything major in the headlines that grabs my eye.
I'll keep this one short. Keep checking back, or subscribe to the feed, and hopefully I'll deliver some content.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)