Academies: They Aren't All Bad

You will know I am not one to get onto a mildly political rant… but just for today…

I am getting horrendously pissed off by (amongst other things) the constant bashing of Academy schooling. There are streams of reports taking the ‘academies are failing our children’ stance yet I have seen nothing written of schools which are actually the better for it.

So for a moment, I want to talk about my own experiences of the academy system… nothing funny/entertaining in this… but if you prefer your arguments to have balance, then maybe you will read on!


Baby’s school announced they were contemplating ‘going academy’ and progressed to send home swathes of information explaining what this meant for the school, how the parents (and more importantly children) were going to be affected by the decision and dates of the many consultation events which were going to be held.

Now I am not an idiot (no, really, I am NOT!!) – I know if they want to give a persuasive argument what is sent home will only be positive so being a researcher… well, I researched… and read page after page of negativity deriding the move. I could see nothing before me which made me think this would be a good move; yet the school were promising rainbows and bunnies … what to do?

The entire process felt much like the run-up to an election: the school promising everything we could ask for whilst we, the voters, listened carefully thinking all the while “they probably won’t do that, but wouldn’t it be great if they did?!”

So after many well-planned consultations (some during the day, some evenings- even a couple at the weekends, so the only excuse for non-attendance would be your own apathy) a vote was taken. Having weighed up the evidence against such a move and heard the promises of the staff to the contrary, I voted YES.

As did the majority of others.

But having been shown accounts, sample academy accounts, seen school meal menu plans and outlines of new buildings which would be affordable only under academy status, it seemed the logical move.

And it has been.

• In complete contrast to a recent article by Jamie Oliver regarding academy meals being dire, ours are great. Good, wholesome ingredients are delivered fresh each day from local suppliers and turned into fantastic meals the kids love.
• Sports provision has improved greatly with the main focus being on outdoor activity, raincoats now being part of the PE kit and ‘manning up’ generally encouraged.
• A new library has been built and stocked with far more books than previously
• Music is featured more heavily on the curriculum, giving scope for children to develop more of an interest
• The school facilities have been fully renovated; toilet blocks, access ramps etc have all been developed beyond the crude stages afforded under previous funding

These are just a few of the changes to the school itself. In real terms though we have a school filled with happy children, confident in their surroundings, well-supported by a staff team who work together brilliantly. High standards are achieved by all, with most parents I speak with telling me their own children have increased greatly in achievement level since the changeover. The children take part in many enrichment activities and trips which have relevance to their learning as well as being fun, be it as simple as a walk into the town as part of an orienteering session, a two-hour coach ride for a city experience or a week in a foreign country (although I couldn’t bring myself to set my nine-year-old off on that particular journey!). Staffing levels are hugely increased, also. Whilst class sizes themselves remain at previous levels, there are more LSA’s, giving greater support to the teachers and helping pupils get the attention they might need.

All round, it has been the most positive move you can think of.

So don’t immediately knock the academies… they will work as well as those running them so should each be judged on their own merit.

Just in Case

Ordinarily I steer clear of politics… I’ve explained why before so won’t go into it again now!

The thing that pisses me off most when you start declaring a political stance on anything is the dependence on the level of intelligence of those reading it. And since I don’t doubt the intelligence of my readership here, I will use this place to rant… because the world is clearly filled with morons incapable of understanding a throwaway statement of glibness.

A friend had posted something on their own blog with reference to the ‘Pasty Tax’ and the current queues for fuel, stamp prices etc… to which I made the remark:

“Well, I live in the home of pasties so we make our own, my car has all the fuel I will need for the few trips I make and I mail probably around four items a year so am feeling very let down by the government; when will they give me something to complain about.”

I should say it isn’t a particularly political blog, it’s a personal space for ranting and as such is visited mostly by friends and family – so I gauged that my comment would be ok and for the most part it was – except for one person who came by the post and replied that I was obviously “far too rich” for my own good and that if I wasn’t worried for our future I must live a very privileged existence, blah-blah- WTF!!!


Of course I am worried:

I live in the region with the highest water bills, highest council tax, highest dependence on cars and lowest income in the whole frigging UK… so YES I worry for the future – but I am not filling my house with fuel, stamps and fucking pastry goods to prove my point.

Even living in a town as I do, I cannot live without a car – bus journeys cost as much as the fuel would to drive them and do not cover everywhere; being a really hilly area we use more fuel than other places; and things are generally spread over a greater distance. The hub’s hospital appointments are all at closest 56 miles away – beyond a walk even for me! So YES – I do need my car. As does everyone I know. Were public transport more affordable and available to all, then maybe more people would be able to do away with their vehicles, but it is just not practical.

So yes, I am worried at the ever-increasing cost of fuel and at the possibility that there might not be any – but I am more worried at the nature of the people who are filling can after can and stockpiling the bloody stuff ‘just in case’.


And yes, food prices concern me greatly. I have three children and a disabled husband to provide for. I could be far better off financially were I to stop working and just claim benefits but I choose not to – and I do worry that at some point this choice might bite me in the ass as prices grow higher and higher – might there come a time I can no longer afford to put food in people’s mouths? Maybe – but I am not giving in now ‘just in case’.


And in all honesty, big whoop if stamps cost more; if you mail enough stuff that it really makes a difference to you maybe you should be looking into using a delivery service already? There are plenty of them around, many far more reliable than Royal Mail. Or maybe think about whether you really need to be mailing paper at all.

Or just buy a hundred stamps now – ‘just in case’.



So don’t tell me I am out of touch with reality – I am fully aware of how shit the world is.

I choose to ignore it and worry instead about the things I actually have it within my power to change and/or control…


So shut the fuck up, yeah? – Just in case!!

School Report Rant

Given my hoarder nature, it will surprise none of you to discover that my parents are likewise afflicted. They are currently preparing to leave the house they have occupied for some thirty six years for a smaller, more conveniently located place in town.

As an aside, this suits me greatly, as I will be better placed to make my own move without worrying for my parents struggling to cope in the middle of nowhere through another harsh winter. That said, there is a whole new concern as they face such things as central heating, mains gas and having to pay the sewage removal part of the water bill but at least I don’t have to worry about them being stranded when they aren’t able to drive along roads which are dodgy enough in good weather!

This downsizing means that they are getting brutal; collections are being disbanded, dust-gatherers sold or given away and the shredder is on burn-out over working at thirty six years worth of bank statements and quarterly electricity bills and it is from this paperwork clearance that I found myself one day last week with baby’s school report in one hand whilst clutching a bundle of my own in the other.

Reading them, I was struck by one huge factor; the glaring lack of individuality and character within the current report format. It has been this way for many years, but seeing the new style alongside my own personal reports just highlighted it all the more.

Reading the summary of each subject, I could clearly see the template the teachers start with:
This term, we have been studying [----].
[Child’s name] has worked hard across the subject to meet [his/her] targets and is currently working at a level [slightly below/slightly above/significantly above] the average expected of this age group.
[Child’s name]’s target for the term ahead is [-------]

From this standardisation of reports our children are denied the simple joy I had on that day last week as I sat with a large mug of coffee to read through the old reports, reminiscing over particular events which led to such remarks as
“an extremely active participant in class debate” - well it hadn’t started as a debate, but if someone is wrong, they need telling!
“dedicated to the completion of tasks” - after a particularly heated argument with a teacher about wanting to finish a story, which resulted in a change of lesson plan for the afternoon session from games to 'story-finishing'

and the somewhat revealing
“she seems far more actively involved in sports this school year, perhaps aided by the introduction of mixed-sex classes” - actually, true as that statement may be it was not for the reasons her words implied, merely that as the boys were naturally more competitive, games were more exciting and fun; consequently I forgot my kit less and claimed far fewer ‘early showers’ once they joined us on the hockey pitch!

But what memories will today’s reports invoke besides “Oh, I remember that year – the one when I was slightly above average in everything but reading, where I was significantly so!” - this could be any year, surely! There is nothing that will remind them of that day they made a model, played a particular game, had a certain conversation; all we are doing is churning out a generation of Insert-name-here, copy/pasted automatons completely void of any emotional involvement, personality or individuality.

Anyhoo... there is other stuff blocking my brain right now, most of it not quite so maudlin or complainy, so I shall leave this rant for now!

Challenging Perception

I held off reviewing Warwick Davis’ show ‘Life’s Too Short’ when it was relevant because to be perfectly honest I remained undecided throughout. I know it will surprise you when you consider how much I refer to the thrill of comedy which challenges, but whilst I defended this show to those who dismissed it as having no value whatsoever, I also have to admit to squirming in my chair at times feeling uncomfortable at watching someone struggle with the circumstances caused by their condition wondering just what was funny about seeing someone suffer such humiliation.

I could quite easily see the humour in it, don’t get me wrong; but there were times I just felt that to laugh was somehow contributing to a negative image of dwarfism in general.

Having watched this interview, however, I have to stop and wonder if I didn’t allow the whole point to wash over me completely.

Warwick Davis: 'Life's Too Short reflected my world' - video
Actor Warwick Davis talks to disability campaigner Nicola Clark at Rada about growing up with dwarfism, and how it has affected his life - from doing the long jump to living life as if a contestant on the Crystal Maze. Though in constant pain when walking, Warwick struggles to label his condition as a disability, as it has brought him so much success over a 30-year acting career

As I heard Davis talk of the fact that the show represented simple exaggerations of real experiences, it suddenly hit me: this is exactly what every comedy writer does. Why then should we not feel able to sit back and laugh at the situation? Surely it is the case that my own discomfort as a viewer doesn’t come from the situation itself but rather my perception of it; and as such it becomes apparent that I and others like me are merely perpetuating the negativity through our attempts to the contrary. Especially when it is so clear that in Davis’ mind, his status as a dwarf (and yes, we are allowed to use the word!) is not at all debilitating having in fact opened doors for him and given opportunities he might not have otherwise had. Not only that, but if we decide it is not okay to laugh at such events, we are also denying him a voice and an opportunity to highlight his own experiences; and surely thus are also telling him (and others with what is perceived to be a disability) that in order for us to laugh along with them, they must conform to our idea of what is ‘normal’.

You have to wonder, too, is it the laughter that causes the discomfort? I used to watch the show ‘Little People, Big World’ in awe of the way Amy and Matt Roloff just got on with life in spite of their obvious difficulties. By far the most influential moment for me was an episode showing Amy grocery shopping and she simply scaled the shelves to claim something from the top. Although this seems a rather trite incident to draw anything from, it is one I could associate with. I am not blessed in the height department and often find myself unable to get the things I want when shopping, but I always shamefully asked for assistance… I realised when I watched that show that any barriers I was seeing were of my own making and as such I should look for solutions before looking to others – not just in terms of size but in every aspect of life.

So if I can glean a positive aspect from this show, why do I view Warwick’s efforts to similarly highlight his own life in such a different way?

You can call the exploitation card but what is more exploitative; to have someone tells tales of their own experiences in the way they choose or to place cameras filming every aspect of a family’s life to be picked over by editors and sub-editors having every moment analysed for its entertainment value?

And with all this in mind, I have to admit to the gleaming realisation that I wasted the time I spent watching the show worrying un-necessarily about things that matter to no-one but myself. After all, what is it telling anyone else if I laugh at a particular scene of a comedy show but that I have a sense of humour?

Is there any chance of a do-over now that I have made my own mind clearer? I’d quite like to go back and watch the series again with blinkers removed!

A Matter of Politics

Generally, I avoid making intentional political statement. Not through any deliberate avoidance of the subject, more a lack of confidence in my own opinion I guess, that and that I really feel my own political stance is of little consequence, there being others far better qualified to express and analyse the thoughts and opinions of the population.

I have in my time encountered a great many people who hold blindly to the all-politics-is-bullshit ethos; those who refuse to vote because ‘voting makes no difference’; who will hate on a politician simply because of their role in society rather than their opinions or actions; those who shout loudest about the way ‘the system’ does not give enough of what they want and only benefits others. These people, it will not surprise you to learn, grill my goat in the worst way possible. If you refuse to participate in a system designed to (usually) give voice to the majority you cannot complain about it not performing in the way you want – END OF!!

A short time ago, I discussed the important role comedy had played in my own political education and I have since learned this is the case for many other people brought up in similarly apolitical and disenchanted households. Off the back of that particular post and the commissioned article which had led to the investigation, I began to look at things in a different way and looked for new sources of comedic political statement.

And here is where I started to realise the bigger problem. We had only three, then four, later still (occasionally) five television channels, four national radio stations and one local. Those and a far smaller selection of newspapers was the full extent of availability of information and entertainment; thus we often ended up watching things which would not ordinarily hold our interest and become informed on more diverse subject matter. Nowadays, with a 24-hour bombardment of hundreds of television and radio channels and the internet yelling incessantly from the corner of the room we can always find exactly what we want; so if politics does not interest you, it can be avoided quite easily. We truly have become an ADHD society, unable to watch more than a few seconds of anything before deciding “not for me!” and moving on.

I am perfectly aware, of course, that it is this same response that has many of you landing here now as you frantically jab at the “next blog” button looking for something worth reading. If this is the case and you are still with me, I feel I should acknowledge your efforts, so Thank You!

But back to point…

If we are to seek out our politically-based comedy, how do we firstly know where to look and secondly encourage the disaffected to also find it?

The answer, as with most things in modern society, possibly lies in the social networks. In a spirit of double standards which seems to be very much the model nowadays, I find myself loathing the loss of my own privacy brought by the new ticker feed whilst praising it for the fact I see every click of the ‘like’ button by my friends and it is that very feature that has led me into my current phase of renewed interest in political statement and satirical comedy. I noted that a friend regularly ‘liked’ posts by the comedian Tiernan Douieb and soon found myself subscribing to his blog, checking out some of his work online and taking more of an interest in politics off the back of his commentary. Incidentally, Tiernan Douieb has recently started a blog at the news site, Huffington Post which you should really check out! Another friend whose posts I generally pay little attention to was posting many links to a particular video to which I eventually succumbed. In reality, this person is not one known for her sense of humour and possibly believes whole-heartedly in every word of the video concerned, but regardless I found it funny… and in one of those rare Youtube journeys that ended in a positive place, I want to share a brilliant video of that same comedy character, Sir Ian Bowler:



So I guess the message for today is to pretend like it’s 1985, find the thing which interests you least and start your own google journey… or pay greater attention to what your facebook/twitter/tumblr friends are up to… or to be slightly deeper:

If you wish to express an opinion about immigrants, the benefits system, how we all pay too much for fuel, taxes being too high, wages being too low, schools performing badly, kids being given limited options/too much freedom, bankers and/or politicians receiving too high a wage and too many ‘extras’ or any similar bandwagon statements of opinion you have to contribute more than a re-hashed Daily Mail headline… so teach yourself something before you speak out. What’s that quote often misattributed to Twain? (or some would say “attributed to”, I think it depends on your source) …something about keeping quiet and having people think you a fool vs speaking and proving them correct… it would be relevant to professionally quote that now, but I have already spent longer than intended writing this after a simple exercise in transcription became a major re-write so we shall assume you all know the one I mean rather than trawling off on another Google voyage!

In short, if you think there is a chance you could be one of those people who after the riots of the past summer were claiming a political reason for their actions in spite of not having a clue what they were talking about: really, stop now. Do not speak. No. Stop. Not one word.

You know the ones… we all watched them and laughed at their stupidity… well, I hope you did anyway! Those claiming that they had a right to take a 3D television as recompense for the taxes they were paying out of their benefits; those declaring that rioting was a nation making themselves heard in spite of not knowing what it was they were trying to say; those who believed that somehow their actions were going to change the government stance on immigration. Listening to interviews with participants trying to justify their actions with such an outpouring of misinformation really grated at me at the time. Even now with so much time passed, I am getting angry again just remembering them….

So thank you, people. I was feeling kinda good today, but giving you all something worthwhile to read has really quashed my nice.


Find a happy place…find a happy place…find a happy place

The Need for Reform

I make no apologies for the lack of laughter or references to comedy within this post. I know that generally there might at least be a smirk at the banality of the humdrum but I am afraid this post does not even offer that. I am getting serious for just a minute or two, so if that does not suit your need right now, then simply await the arrival of the next ... I have a couple more reviews coming and some other brain-fuzz that needs clearing out so there will be more soon I am sure... after coffee!

Today’s moan-iness comes at the expense of the education system… in particular the whole debacle that is becoming of the GCSE.

I know, you are probably thinking this is more a June topic but for those unaware of the timings of such things, rising 16s across the UK are currently taking their mock exams so the subject is fairly relevant right now, especially in my household.

I do not want to start on the tone of “exams are getting easier” as is so trendy to do, because even were it true (and I wouldn’t know having only a vague memory of the content of my own GCSE’s) that makes little difference to the pressure felt by those sitting them. With pressure to have all post-16’s remaining in education, the system is being tweaked constantly to create an ‘everyone wins’ situation, but in reality is this and the fact the kids are hearing outcry from the nation’s media about how easy the exams are simply placing more pressure on them? If they are hearing that there is no way they can fail, the worry about what will happen if they do is surely all the greater?

So just what are these tweaks?

For those unaware of the process, I will explain a little from my own experience. Bear in mind, child one sat her GCSE’s two years ago, child two is sitting hers this year… my own were too long ago to be relevant, but I can see the way the system has changed just over the past two years.

The biggest change is that rather than having eighteen months of learning then six months of exam prep, revision and practice papers prior to a few weeks of frantically prying the knowledge from the back of your brain, the kids are tested on each module individually. And for those around my age, I do not mean in the form of coursework which was so demonised in our day (that seems to have fallen by the wayside) but that they are sitting exams at fourteen which contribute to their final results. There is some eight months or so of formal teaching, and then a round of exams on everything learnt so far; those topics are then deemed closed, knowledge forgotten and new things taught. I suppose it is endemic of the short attention spans of today’s youth that it is done this way, but is this a trait we should be pandering to? In ten years or so, when this generation are surgeons and the like, would you want to hear “I can’t really remember how to do this; we, like, did it in the first term or summat! ” How will this generation grow up to teach the next if they are unable to remember anything themselves? “Sir, I don’t understand!” “Neither do I, let’s just google it.”

Okay, testing at the end of year ten (the fourth year to oldies such as myself!) might give those performing well a great boost, but for the most part the kids have not developed the skills needed to learn, revise, remember and recall information before they are being given final grades on huge chunks of their exams. In our case, daughter did not perform well… we were not really expecting her to given the problems we were having at the time, but seeing such poor grades after having been predicted A’s B’s and C’s at the beginning of the year had her completely floored. Do we really think it is worth putting them through such a potentially harmful process? Living in an area with a fairly high rate of teen suicide it’s a worrying thing indeed to see your child lose all hope with one swift action, which left us all walking on eggshells for weeks after.

GCSE year two seems to offer pretty little opportunity for actual learning. Especially given that they are almost starting from scratch in some subjects, taking on a new module for their second round of examinations. I was quite stunned a few weeks ago when child two proudly announced “Mum, I got a B for my mock mock today!”… I know you went back over that sentence, didn’t you? What can I say but: yes, you did read it right…. Examinations are in June… so Mock Examinations are in December… and at the beginning of November the children were sitting mocks of their upcoming mocks… WHY?? That gives teaching time in this school year thus far of something like ten weeks out of sixteen – but consider for a moment that a lot of that classroom time is being spent on past papers, revision methods and such, are the children being taught a subject or are they simply being taught how to pass an examination? Are we placing more importance on receiving certificates than on the imparting of knowledge?

The current scandal over the release of information about examination contents perfectly highlights this. We all want our children to do well, don’t get me wrong, but why should teachers have the right to choose what they teach based on what will be tested? Surely an entire subject should be taught and the exam content should reflect that.

I do not understand the concept of modules at all if I am honest. For instance, one of daughter’s subjects is History. She received a half-GCSE last year based on the module of “Ancient Medicine”; this year’s is “The American West”. Now whilst I fully appreciate the concept of studying certain elements in detail, is it not quite important that the kids are taught about more specific historic occurrences? And is this maybe one case for the return of the old system of coursework, whereby there is room to study one or two topics in detail whilst other more general history is being taught?

History in itself is something I feel quite passionately about, mostly because I managed to get through my entire secondary education without a single history lesson in spite of the fact it was always a great passion of mine. I do not know if the subject exists on any plane nowadays (I could do a websearch and find out, I know, but the internet is attention-seeking in the worst way today!) but we studied Humanities; a bizarre amalgam of history, geography and religious studies which was taught by a group of teachers of all three subjects. Throughout the entire time at the school, my lessons were taught by geography teachers and their lack of passion for something outside the subject for which they had trained was always quite apparent! Of course, this meant that when choosing my GCSE subjects I stuck with what I knew so I walked away with a mediocre geography GCSE – with the benefit of hindsight, though, I’d have done far better at history… digressing again I know… sounding bitter? Not I!!

Anyway…

All of this complaining leaves me with one question:

Is the GCSE relevant to today’s society?

Does it fully represent the aims of the education system as-is?


Ok, that’s two questions, so before I descend into a Monty Python sketch it is impossible to climb out of I will continue and hope no-one else notices…


Given that the end-goal is a system in which every child leaves school with a qualification, you would have to question if subject-specific certificates are needed at all. Maybe the way forwards is a US-style award representing the fact that a certain level was achieved across the board. There is a certain comfort from knowing before the completion of your final year of school whether you have done all you need to… and this would certainly avoid all the uncertainty that comes of results day. One has to wonder if that is not something government are trying to sneak past us in the form of the Baccalaureate; whether they might one day announce that this is the new way of doing things… but would this necessarily be a bad thing? An all-in qualification which shows a standard has been reached over a range of subjects is surely a better gauge than a collection of unconnected grades. How many employers look at a CV and refuse someone an interview on the basis of that D grade at GCSE art, after all?

And with the age of compulsory schooling raising to seventeen in 2013 and eighteen in 2015 one would have to wonder if testing at sixteen in any form will be either relevant or necessary. To my mind, a formal test is only really needed on leaving compulsory education to give an idea of standards to potential employers or higher education providers so we could cut out the pressure placed on our 14-16’s altogether.

On Those Topman Tshirts

Amidst a huge campaign of faux-feminism, Topman have been forced to remove part of their new range from sale.

I’m getting on my high horse again, but really – what gives with society that we have to be so prissy about everything?!

I looked at these shirts and had a chuckle… ok, so they aren’t the funniest slogan t-shirts I have seen, but this is not a t-shirt review so that’s not the issue is it?



The claim that one shirt somehow condones domestic violence – wrong on a few counts…

Firstly, where is the suggestion that it is referring to acts of violence? To me, it’s more of a general “I’m a bloke, bound to have done something wrong, whatever it is I’m sorry” kind of thing. I really did not consider until reading further into the article linked above that there was a suggestion of battery.

Secondly, were we to assume that to be the reference, would we then also make the assumption the wearer of the shirt is in some way advertising his own violent nature? When you see a man in a superman t-shirt, do you assume he can fly? I have to say, it’s not the first thought to cross my mind…

Were I in a new relationship, meeting a friend of my new partner for the first time and he arrived in the “new girlfriend” shirt, would I really assume his shirt was a reference to me? Maybe if he whipped off for a wardrobe change once introductions were dispensed, but other than that; no. It’s just a vaguely amusing t-shirt.


I personally find the generic “They are sexist” argument really insulting. It suggests that females have no sense of humour; that we somehow take ourselves too seriously.

The main issue for me, though, is: what exactly is it about these shirts that can be construed as anti-feminist?

If anything, these are more sexist against men: women can speak out and make their thoughts known without need for a t-shirt declaring their opinions; women do not screw up often enough to warrant the necessity of a permanent reminder of their need for excuses; women, frankly, would not been seen dead in such tacky shirts. Is that not the real issue here?

So men: make a stand! Declare your interest if you feel so inclined…

But the reality?

In my usual stance of cynicism, I have to suggest once again that with reports of extremely low pre-Christmas spending and the panic businesses are going through over how to get their share of what little cash is being spent on gifts… just how many extra sales have the Topshop group gained since the commencement of this current campaign? How many have looked in to see what other “offensive” offerings the new range has? And how many have just ‘had’ to buy something whilst they were there?

So for today I ask this of you:

When you read about how offensive something is, think about why it could seem so and whether you think it a valid reason before deciding to blindly follow the crowd.

On Politics...

The life-plan of my oldest daughter has changed once again and she is now aiming to be a politician. She wants it for all the right reasons; like changing the world, ending bad stuff happening to good people, making sure unpleasant people are adequately punished for their actions and so on. This new tack, however, has made me realise just how politically ill-informed her generation truly are.

As I was growing up in the eighties, comedy was highly politically-charged and it was from this comedy that as a teen I gained most of my political education. From the anti-Thatcher rants of Ben Elton, to the almost documentary aspect of Yes Minister and all between, I learned about the inner workings of government, how the parties’ beliefs differed from (or often mirrored) one another and how easy it was for someone to make a stand against a regime one did not agree with.

Sunday evenings were a particularly special time, as I was allowed up beyond my bedtime to watch the fantastic Spitting Image. This show was possibly the most influential political comedy of its time. From the stand-ups and character-based satire of the time, we were drip-fed opinion and told how we should feel about something. The creators of Spitting Image, however, were far cleverer; they almost showed us the politicians just being themselves. But for the hideous puppetry, it could almost have been the original fly-on-the-wall docusoap, thus responsible for all the mind-numbing reality TV which has followed since. Ok, a little extreme, but I am sure you get my point. The show did not make cheap tawdry insults towards its subjects, nor did it seek to belittle simply on the grounds of political leaning; all politicians were targeted in the same way, regardless of party and whilst caricature was a vital part of the puppets’ design, this was not done in a particularly insulting way. From watching this show, I learned who the key politicians of the time were, which roles they held and what the positions entailed. Without this insight, today’s youth are unable to distinguish one politician from another. Case-in-point, I asked my daughter and a couple of her friends who the Chancellor of the Exchequer was and was met with blank looks, whilst asking who presented the budget half knew the right name, the others simply thought it was the Prime Minister.

In thinking about this a while ago, I desperately wanted the show to return. I felt it was so important to my own education that I could not bear the fact that my own children do not have this source. I realised, though, on listening to an interview with Armando Iannucci that it would never work. (I would link to it, because it is relevant to this topic, but unfortunately was on the BBC I-player, so is no longer available) He pointed out that the type of comedy that stemmed from the political situation in the eighties could never exist nowadays because of the lack of political personality. I hadn’t realised before (well, hadn’t thought about it too much, really!) but for the main, today’s government are career politicians, those who have been almost bred especially for the purpose. They do not have opinions of their own, merely ingrained party policies shared by every other member; they do not have quirks or idiosyncrasies, as they are considered a weakness; they do not say anything which has not been written by a team of nine and proof-read by fifteen for fear that something could be taken out of context or might represent another u-turn. Gone are the free-thinking, spirited politicians who can address an issue with the benefit of hindsight and experience, replaced by kids fresh out of university who have been shaped by their junior-party, moulded into the perfect little bundle to spout the same drivel as their predecessors. Time was that the right person leading a party really could change the world, but I have to wonder nowadays if it really matters any more.

So what of the future? Who will be the politicians of tomorrow?

In spite of government claims to the contrary, they will continue to be predominantly from the upper classes, as the lower classes feel for the most part that politics is wholly irrelevant to their own lives. Voter apathy is higher in lower-class areas for this very reason. The masses believe it doesn’t matter who is in power as all parties will screw you over in the end, so don’t think it worth the effort of voting. These people are not going to be looking to a career in politics as they feel that one person can no longer make a difference.