Radio news, and the latest RAJARs came out last Thursday. We were otherwise engaged. Locally, BRMB had a poor showing, and is still adrift of Heart. Saga continues its slow but steady climb. WM is down slightly from last quarter's record high, but is still well ahead of a year ago. WABC continues to be a disaster area, dangerously close to dropping behind the Asian station XL in terms of total hours. Kerrang looks to have stabilised, and if it has, it's some way distant from projections. In wider circles, Coventry's Mercia FM had a very good survey, Kix had a very poor one. It'll be interesting to see if these changes persist in the next quarter.

The East Midlands' Century FM showed little change, and looks set to become the third Heart station. It's owned by Capital Radio, which to-day merged with GWR to become the atrociously-named GCap. The combined company has too much of the radio market in the East Midlands to avoid the regulator, so has decided to sell off its regional station. Century is a close fit with the Heart brand of music for thirtysomethings, though I'm not sure about the extended speech the license has - 30 minutes of news at drivetime, news through the night, some significant speech most daytime hours.

permanent link
posted 09 May 2005, 22.02 +0100

A posted on Political Betting suggests a modification to Godwin's Law to deal with British politics. "As an online political conversation develops non-conservative voting posters eventually refer to the conservatives as 'racist' or 'akin to the BNP' without giving any plausible explanation why."

So, let's try to avoid The New Godwin Law, and comment on the new shadow cabinet. George Osbourne is the new Conservative spokey on finance; at 30, he's disgustingly young and perhaps a bit too young to be made the party leader at this election. He needs to prove himself in the cut and thrust of high politics, and Gordon Brown is the perfect foil. David Cameron - another rising star, and possibly the main contender for the leadership - goes to education, where he's got the easy target of kiddyfiddler R Kelly.

Dr Fox moves from drivetime to foreign affairs (opposite John Straw). Malcolm Rifkind's only been back in the Commons for a few days, and he's already got the work and pensions job opposite the boorish David Plunkett. Francis Maude is a safe pair of hands at the party tiller. David Davies remains favoured for the leadership role, though he's not yet been inspiring against Charles In Charge, where he remains. Michael Ancram moves from foreign to defence, David Willetts to the DTI (in Blair-speak, the Department of Productivity, Energy, and Industry.)

Billy Hague has not been re-appointed to the shadow cabinet; and former finance spokey Oliver Letwin has also been rather dropped.

To our colonial friends

Don't believe the hype: the British Nationalist Party Of Racist Scumbags is not the fourth largest in the UK. Their 189,242 votes put them behind Labour, the Conservatives, the Liberal Democrats, the Unitedkingdom Independence Party, the Scottish Nationalists, the Democratic Unionists, Sinn Fein, the Greens, and just behind RESPECT. In terms of seats, they're behind all these parties and Plaid Cymru, the Social Democratic and Labour Party, Kidderminster Health Concern, Independent Socialist, and the Ulster Unionists. All of the above have one or more MPs; the BNP has none. Let us speak no more of this falsehood, otherwise we shall ask Mr Alan "Liar and bullshitter" Sugar to point out the error of your ways.

permanent link
posted 10 May 2005, 19.15 +0100

Since last week's election, many people have been quietly expressing discontent regarding the UK's not-particularly-representative system of democracy. The main grounds for discontent is that the Labour party has secured a 60% majority of seats in the Commons with the backing of barely 20% of the electorate.

There have been as many proposed solutions as there have been commentators. Many suggest combining the existing constituencies, and electing lots of MPs by the single transferable vote (see Ireland.) Others suggest "top-up" MPs, where voters go for both an single person and a party in separate ballots (see Scotland or Germany.) Still others propose run-off voting (see France or London's mayor), or STV in single-member constituencies (see, er, most universities.)

Allow me to throw a further idea into the mix - Honest RON. The basic concept is this: we keep single-member constituencies, we keep a single MP, we can even keep the same constituencies as we've got at present. Into each election is added a dummy candidate that will serve to Re-Open Nominations, or RON. This candidate will ensure that the constituency elects someone who is reasonably popular, even if it takes more than one attempt.

Whoever tops the poll is deemed to be elected for the seat. If that's a real person, then all's well and good, and that person becomes the MP. However, if RON has topped the poll, we may still have a real winner. Only if RON has scored more votes than all other candidates combined is RON deemed elected. If RON wins but without this absolute majority, the winner is the candidate who polled second behind him. So if RON scores 12,000 votes, the Blues have 7,000, the Reds 4,000, and the Yellows 2,000, then the Blues win. However, if 1001 voters from the Reds and Yellows defect to RON, then RON has more than 50% of the vote, and wins.

A win for RON results in nominations being re-opened, and candidates who stood in the first election cannot stand in the second. Very similar rules apply to this election, the best candidate to beat RON wins. The dummy will only win if it secures an absolute majority and increases its vote in numeric terms. While it's possible for the voting to continue indefinitely, I suggest that RON would rarely win two votes, and almost never win three.

Some worked examples:

Constituency 1

Blues - 10,000
RON - 8,000
Reds - 7,000
Yellows - 5,000
Blues elected

Constituency 2

RON - 12,000
Blues - 8,000
Reds - 4,000
Yellows - 2,000
As RON has not secured an absolute majority, Blues elected

Constituency 3

RON - 17,000
Blues - 7,000
Reds - 6,000
Yellows - 2,000
RON has more votes than all others combined, RON elected

On the second ballot:
RON - 9,000
Greens - 7,000
Purples - 5,000
Pinks - 2,000
RON does not have an absolute majority, Greens elected

Constituency 4

RON - 17,000
Blues - 7,000
Reds - 6,000
Yellows - 2,000
RON has more votes than all others combined, RON elected

On the second ballot:
RON - 15,000
Greens - 7,000
Purples - 5,000
Pinks - 2,000
RON has an absolute majority, but has decreased its numeric vote, so Greens elected.

Constituency 5

RON - 15,001
Blues - 7,000
Reds - 6,000
Yellows - 2,000
RON has more votes than all others combined, RON elected

On the second ballot:
RON - 15,002
Greens - 7,000
Purples - 5,000
Pinks - 2,000
RON has an absolute majority, and has increased its numeric vote, so RON re-elected.

On the third ballot:
RON - 15,003
Blues - 12,000
Reds - 5,000
Yellows - 3,000
RON no longer has an absolute majority, so Blues elected.

This is, admittedly, a bit of a back-of-the-envelope idea, and I'd welcome other people's input. Points for discussion: should RON benefit from low turn-out - if (say) only 45% of people turn up, could RON's vote be increased so that the total was 50% of the electorate? Indeed, would RON help to boost turn-out? Would it be reasonable to bar parties or individuals from participating in a re-run election? Should contestants RONned in the first ballot be able to re-enter in the third? How would this affect the smooth running of government - I suspect that in February 1974, RON might have secured an overall majority in parliament, resulting in no clear government until April or May.

Thanks to P. Vague for the original idea.

permanent link
posted 10 May 2005, 19.43 +0100

For my money, there were four highlights of the election coverage last Friday. In reverse order:/p>

4) The sparring between David Dimbleby, Nick Witchell, and Mister Blair coming out of the palace.

3) Thumper -v- Gorgeous George. "Congratulations."

2) The amazing shot of Mister Blair's plane being encircled by a flotilla of cars after parking up at Luton airport. You don't expect to see art being created at 5.30 on a Friday morning, or even at 5.30 on a Saturday evening.

1) Reg Keys' speech at the Sedgefield count. This, people, is his "Land Of My Fathers" moment, the time that will come back to haunt him forever. Here's the video, 3.5MB.

To foreign shores

Who's the Canadian equivalent of Anthony King, because it looks like he'll be able to camp out in the CBC studio next month. Barely a year after an indecisive election, it looks as if Canadians will be going to the polls again.

Paul Martin's Liberal government has been rocked by an ongoing scandal over bungs paid by the government to the Liberal party faithful in Québec. The scandal has already contributed to the resignation of Jean Chrétien as Liberal leader.

Last year, Canada held a general election, and returned a minority Liberal government. The ruling party has made common cause with the left-wing New Democratic Party, against the right-wing Conservative-Reform Alliance Party and the seperatist Bloc Québécois. Low-level sniping has taken place since last year's election, it's increased in ferocity following fresh revelations about the funding scandal.

Last night, the Liberals suffered a 153:150 defeat on an amendment that bound the public accounts committee to recommend the government's resignation. The opposition say that this is an effective vote of confidence, Mr Martin says that it's not, and as he's the PM, his word goes.

All this is rather delaying the inevitable; the opposition will have three supply days at the end of the month, during which they dictate the topic for debate, and it's almost certain that they'll put forward a motion of no confidence. Attention will then move to the three independent MPs, who will, quite literally, be kingmakers.

Let battle commence; and let someone deliver the Bob Mackenzie Memorial Lecture On Proportional Representation on the Friday Wednesday morning.

permanent link
posted 11 May 2005, 21.00 +0100

In a vain attempt to wrench the head-lines back, the warmongers who have been made mad by the Texas sun have launched an unprecedented attack on two respected politicians. *George Galloway (RESPECT, Bethnal Green and Bow) and the French politician Charles Pasqua have been accused of profiting from Iraqi oil sales. The shadowy group making the accusations, calling itself the "Senate", has refused to hear from Mr Galloway or M Pasqua, in spite of repeated calls and emails. The group, believed to be linked to the recent coup in Iraq, has clearly acted like a kangaroo court, reaching its conclusion before bothering to consider the evidence.

This group was elected by no-one, and is accountable to no-one. They are attempting to usurp the genuine democratic choice of the people of east London, and this interference in the internal affairs of a foreign country cannot be tolerated. We look forward to seeing the indefatigable Mr Galloway demolish their arguments next Tuesday, and pursue them for every penny they've got through the courts.

In other news

The cross-party Investigations Panel has issued its interim report on the oil-for-food programme operated by the UN before Iraq's liberation two years ago. Alongside the expected criticism of the UN is a brief claim that minor French and English politicians received oil money from the Sadaam regime. The report says that Iraqis claim they gave the oil to the two men, but fails to provide a conclusive paper trail. Further hearings will be held next week.

Not unrelated...

Does anyone else remember the Neil Hamilton v Mohammed Fayed libel action from 1999? That was cracking fun, and we didn't much care who lost, so long as they both did, and they both did.

permanent link
posted 12 May 2005, 19.22 +0100

To-day's Indytab runs long on electoral reform. They're discussing the pros and cons of four strategies: STV, AMS, AV, AV+. The Indytab chooses to ignore Chris Lightfoot's work of genius, PFPTP, and my less well thought-through proposal, RON.

Julian Wiseman argues that asking voters for too much information is a mug's game - there's no completely satisfactory way to deal with a full list of preferences, or sometimes even with a second preference. I don't particularly support his implicit contention that extreme parties are a priori a bad thing, but not asking for a second preference does follow logically from his conclusion.

My personal view is that the electoral system should satisfy the following criteria, in roughly the following importance:
* Be a mathematically monotonic system - if the majority of people prefer A to B in a head-to-head contest, then under no circumstances can B beat A.
* Make it very easy to remove a single representative.
* Not require the voter to give more information than is required for the system to function correctly.
* Accurately represent the views of all electors, including those who wish to actively abstain from all or part of the vote.

The Indytab considers:

Single transferable vote in multi-member constituencies

Fails the first criterion - it is not only possible to work out examples to this system's lack of monoticity, but they regularly occur in fields with large numbers of elected members. I would point you to the full tables for Birmingham Uni's NUS delegate elections this year, only they've now been taken off-line.

Does get bonus points for making it reasonably simple to remove someone (don't vote for them at all) but loses marks for taking irrelevant information we can't consistently deal with.

Additional member system

Splits the vote into two - one for a most-votes-wins single member, the other for regional (or national) party lists.

The FPTP element is trivially monotonic, and a party cannot be harmed by accruing one extra vote in the top-up phase.

However, under the AMS systems used in the UK, the party lists are closed lists; if the particular poor MP retains the confidence of their party, and is at the top of the party list, they will be re-elected on a minuscule share of the vote.

This system shares FPTP's deficiencies in representing active abstentions.

Alternative vote

In effect, STV in a single-member constituency. See discussion above, though with the added note that it's trivial to remove a poor MP.

Alternative vote plus

STV in single-member constituencies, plus top-up lists from AMS. The proposal came from Roy Jenkins' 1998 report, and he suggested keeping the AMS lists open, so that voters could choose individual candidates within a party list if they so chose.

Mr Lightfoot's PFPTP is, in effect, the existing FPTP system, but treating all voters as equal, rather than all MPs. FPTP meets all my criteria, with the possible exception of the active abstainers. My RON system meets those, just about.

Mr Wiseman has proposed a PR² system, in which seats won are allocated in proportion to the square of the national vote, and in such a way as to maximise the national total of voters who voted for their MP. In effect, marginal constituencies have their local vote overturned by national considerations.

Therefore, this scheme can re-elect a poor local MP who just loses the FPTP vote and experiences a greater-than-average swing against them. Call this the "Gyles Brandreth" effect, for reasons that may become clear shortly.

I'd also argue that this scheme doesn't represent all voters correctly - the notional results return no MPs for Plaid Cymru, or for any of the Northern Ireland parties. For the UK, this increases the English hedgemony to an unreasonable degree. Would there be a reasonable argument to count votes in large geographical areas, short of the entire country?

One final theoretical argument against this system - the winner in each constituency isn't known until the final result is in. When there's a delayed election, as is happening in Staffordshire S, the result won't be known until six weeks after the national election date. Is it reasonable to keep the voters in a marginal constituency on tenterhooks for almost two months waiting for a result many miles away?

To work out the exact nature of this system, I've quickly simulated it against last Thursday's results. Labour scores 280 MPs, the Conservatives 236, the Lib Dems 110, the SNP and UIP 1 each. I'm giving the Northern Ireland parties the benefit of their own 18 seats.

The following constituencies change hands, to the runner-up unless noted with a star (* - 3rd place, ** - 4th, *** - 5th)

Lab --> Con Battersea, Birmingham Edgbaston, Bolton West, Broxtowe, Burton, Calder Valley, Cardiff N, Carmarthen W, Chatham, Chester, Colne Valley, Conwy, Corby, Crawley, Dartford, Dorset S, Enfield N, Finchley, Gillingham, Harlow, Harrow W, Hastings, High Peak, Hove, Loughborough, Medway, Nuneaton, Pendle, Portsmouth N, Ribble S, Selby, Sittingbourne, Stafford, Staffordshire Moorlands, Stourbridge, Stroud, Swindon S, Thanet S, Vale of Glamorgan, Wansdyke, Warwick and Leamington, Wirral W

Lab --> LD Aberdeen N and S, Birmingham Hodge Hill, Birmingham Ladywood, Birmingham Sparkbrook, Blaydon, Bradford N, Burnley, Derby S, Durham, Ealing Acton, Edinburgh E, Edinburgh N, Edinburgh S, Glasgow N, Hampstead*, Holborn, Islington N, Islington S, Leicester S, Leyton, Liverpool Wavertree, Manchester Gorton, Newcastle C, Newcastle N, Newport E, Northampton N*, Norwich S, Nottingham E, Oldham E, Oxford E, Plymouth Sutton*, Sheffield C, Stirling*, Swansea W, Watford, Wrexham

Con --> LD Dorset N, Dorset W, Eastbourne, Guildford, Ludlow, Totnes, Weston Super Mare

SNP --> Con Angus, Perth and Perthshire N

SNP --> LD Eilean Siar*, Moray**

SNP --> Lab Dundee E

Plaid --> LD Caernarfon*, Carmarthen E**

Plaid --> UIP Merionnydd Nant Conwy***

IKHC --> Con Wyre Forest

RESPECT --> Lab Bethnal Green and Bow

Ind Soc --> Lab Blaenau Gwent

Observant readers will notice that most of Dorset will be represented by the runner-up in the poll, that six seats are represented by Lib Dems who polled no higher than fourth, that Oona King retains her seat even though she has been rejected by her local electorate, and that the greatest Plaid Cymru stronghold remaining is represented solely by the 466 people who voted for the UIP.

And if Staffordshire South turns out to a man to give its endorsement to Mr Cormack - or just by more than about 7 Tories to 2 Lib Dems, a perfectly possible result - then the seat that will change hands is not Staffordshire S. No, it's Nottingham East, where Labour topped the poll, and where the Lib Dems finished just 22 votes adrift of the Tories for third. Someone, somewhere, is going to tell me how the Get The Vote Out effort in Pattingham should directly affect the people of Nottingham, for I cannot see the link at all.

This system is not just failing to maintain the link between MP and constituency, but is in many cases perverting it completely. Elsewhere on his site, Mr Wiseman wonders why the Jenkins commission rejected his PR² system out of hand. I would respectfully suggest that exercise explains why.

If anyone else has any electoral systems they'd like me to take a look at, do let me know.

permanent link
posted 12 May 2005, 22.42 +0100

Writing in Het Grauniad, Roy Greenslide points out that the indefatigable *George Galloway is the latest whipping-boy for the right-wing press. He follows Ken Livingstone, Peter Tatchell, Tony Benn, Arthur Scargill, and (er) whoever they've been criticising for being too left-wing since.

Mr Greenslide's dug about in the report by the fringe organisation, and finds that it's based entirely on documents "found" in the rubble of Iraq's oil ministry. Lest we forget, Mr Galloway won a libel action last year after one newspaper made almost identical claims, based on documents "found" in Iraq's foreign ministry. Spot the difference. Mr Greenslide continues,

During the case Galloway successfully rebutted every point in the Telegraph story that led its journalists to conclude that he had profited from Saddam's government. So it's hardly any wonder that Galloway has found himself repeating his former denials.

That's all the evidence this "senate" organisation has - documents that may well have been fabricated by Iraq, or fabricated by the coup plotters, or planted by other ne'er-do-wells.

Mr Galloway will be talking to these lying toe-rags next week. We look forward to his forensic dismantling of their case, and hope he has the time to turn his attention to the repirations owed by the north American colonies under the Treaty of Paris.

permanent link
posted 13 May 2005, 19.08 +0100

Election 97 repeated on The Parliament Channel to-day. I had completely forgotten what John Major looked like, and how slightly comical he was. And how all the speculation in the hour before he announced he was stepping down was that he'd stick around for some months. Just as it was in the hours before Michael Howaerd's resignation last week. It's a shame that the repeat coverage didn't include the captions, so we had no idea who was speaking when. On the upside, Snowy was standing in front of a nice wide screen, and wearing a sober grey suit.

The policing of Mr Major's journey to the palace was a nightmare - mooned at by a bloke in a bright orange top, passing the Changing of the Guard down the Mall, and generally not knowing whether they're coming or going. They did it far better last week.

Anyway. The rather Orwellian Department for Productivity, Energy, and Industry will revert to its previous name of the Department of Trade and Industry, by diktat of the minister. Other completely ridiculous things remain about the current government, of course.

"When the show's over, it's time to get off the stage." Andrew Marr will be stepping down as BBC political correspondent to take over David Frost's weekly Sunday morning very easy interview show. Mr Marr's predecessor was Robin Oakley, who is now doing a very similar job for CNN. The new appointee will need to tread carefully, as they could be part of the Third Election Night Dynasty. Following Dimbleby (R) / Butler / MacKenzie / Day, and Dimbleby (D) / (Marr | Oakley | King) / Snow / Paxman, we'll be looking for someone to make up the second leg of Murgnahan / ? / O'Connell / Paxman.

"In the end, I think you have one class of MP," said Mr Blair yesterday. Go on, complete this joke yourselves. And Mister's trying to get one class of peers, appointing all sorts of failures (including Estelle Morris, the only person to resign from the cabinet for being honest) to the Lords. Remember, people, Labour has no clear mandate to govern England, as the party lost the popular vote. Furthermore, Labour's majority depends exclusively on Scottish and Welsh MPs voting on matters that are the subject of devolution, and don't affect their electorate. This Labour government has exposed the fault lines in the United nature of the United Kingdom.

We see that Cadbury's has bought Green and Black's, a leading organic chocolate maker. So long as they're not going to dilute the fair-trade principles, this is good news. Even better if Cadbury's learns from the ideas.

permanent link
posted 13 May 2005, 20.06 +0100

"I am not sure there is widespread discontent with the way the electoral system works. It's worked for some time and I am not sure there is pressure for a change." Actually, Mr F, the electoral system has singularly failed to work since the beginning of three-party politics. The people send a complex message, and the current electoral system completely ignores much of the signal in favour of a simple result. It's like the people are playing the most complicated new symphony yet written, and all the results people hear is the slightly duff note played by the seventeenth viola.

"He said voters had got what they roughly wanted last week: a Labour government, but with fewer MPs." No, 63% of voters explicitly said that they did not want a Labour government, with any number of MPs. The people have spoken, and they don't want you in power. At all.

permanent link
posted 14 May 2005, 11.23 +0100

Europhobia points out an elegant solution to the problem of the European Constitution. Rightly or wrongly, it looks like the blueprint for a new Europe will fail to be ratified in one of three countries:

* The UK, where soon-to-be-former-prime-minister Mister Blair decided that he would be courting electoral disaster by forcing the treaty through parliament before the election, and expected to have a lower - and possibly insufficient - majority afterwards. For low politics reasons, he's decided to put the treaty to a plebiscite, due to be held early next year. The chances of winning this referendum are flimsy-to-nil, and rejection would probably result in some of the remaining countries splitting into a hard-core Europe, leaving the UK behind.

* France, where the referendum will take place two weeks from now. The opinion polls here show insignificant leads, which generally suggests the Yes camp will win by a whisker. A No-vote would lead to further grousing about France acting like she owns the continent once again, not pulling her weight.

* The Netherlands vote on June 1. Here, the No-vote leads 60:21. While the Dutch have a small country, they also have a tradition of being amongst the most pro-European peoples. A rejection of the treaty from here would, perhaps, be the best way out of this little mess, allowing the whole treaty to be reviewed, discussed, thrashed out in a somewhat more open manner, and made more palatable to the people of the continent.

permanent link
posted 15 May 2005, 11.20 +0100

The imbecile may have left the building five months ago, but nothing sensible has yet come out of the interior ministry. The department charged with the maintainence of law and order in the UK has preferred to concentrate on pointless fripperies - like a non-functional identity database, or locking people up just because they have an Irish Arabic name - than the actual job of stopping crime.

One of the leading distractor fans is Hazel Bleers, who only has to open her mouth to sound like a fool. To-day's Bleery-eyed bonkersness is to force people performing community service to wear distinctive clothing. On planet Hazel, it's more important that criminals are made objects of derision than the crimes don't take place in the first place in the first place.

She's not proposing any investment in communities, so that the young people have something to do. She doesn't want to reduce social tension by ensuring that everyone has something to aim for in life. No, the interior ministry expects people to offend, and to treat the symptom, not the root cause. Ms Bleers' proposal is just the sort of spin we've come to expect from Labour, concentrating on a surface detail in an attempt to distract attention away from the real problem.

A similar distraction tactic's taking place at the Bluewater shopping complex near Dartford. The centre management has decided to bar people from wearing hooded tops or base-ball caps. The management claim that such attire makes other shoppers uncomfortable; behind this decision is an implication that the youngsters who congregate in the centre are not only less profitable than other people, but that their presence is driving profit away. Again, Bluewater is treating the symptom, not the problem. Were they to set up something for the community, drawing upon the vast resources of the tenants and management, this problem would reduce, and there would be no need to attract derision from commentators.

And the soon-to-be-former prime minister Mister Blair has got in on the distraction. He's criticised a "culture of disrespect", without explaining how this culture might have arisen. Could it, one wonders, have come from the devil-take-the-hindmost attitude throughout the Thatcherite settlement, and not addressed through his own actions? Indeed, could it be emphasised by a government that treats morality in a very cavilier manner? Firing someone because he's slept around, he's broken the rules to help his mistress's nanny, and he's lied to everyone is morally right; bringing him back into a senior job after a few weeks, with no evidence that he's learned from his actions or even acknowledged his faults, is not. If the people aren't respected by their peers, how can they respect themselves?

permanent link
posted 15 May 2005, 11.49 +0100

An odd little drama on BBC-7 to-day. Journey Into Space was arguably the greatest science-fiction drama ever. Written by Charles Chilton during the 1950s, the 53 episodes told of a journey from Earth to the Moon, then to explore Mars, and then (only in the third series!) to save the Earth from a great peril. Each episode was structured as a serial drama, complete with cliff-hangers and tense endings. The score, by Van Philips, helped to bring the tension to the fore.

Though the programmes typically attracted over 10 million listeners, the BBC declined to keep copies of the shows. Thankfully, overseas transcription disks were kept, and those were cleaned up and re-broadcast on Radio 2 in the early 90s.

The middle series of the trilogy, The Red Planet has been repeated on BBC-7 since the start of the year, ending last night. To-day, the station repeated The Return From Mars, a 1981 one-off drama. The cast was completely different - Jet Morgan had become the MP for Warley, David Jacobs an announcer - the producer was different, and the show ran for just 90 minutes without cliff-hangers. Compared with the 1950s original, this was an interesting diversion, but didn't have the feel of being part of the real canon. There's also the little matter of poor science on the show - but that would be a strict spoiler.

permanent link
posted 15 May 2005, 14.16 +0100

Many congratulations to Ilona Mitrecey; not only is she top of the pile in France and Belgium for the umpteenth week, but her simple song about a perfect world is now the biggest in North Europe, according to the only chart we make up as we go along. More on that in a moment.

Germany is currently experiencing a Crappop revival; four of the top five sellers last week were dull rap songs, while the fifth was a three-year old track from Dutch band Chipz. Imagine, if your minds will stretch to it, our old friends* the Vengaboys with an ounce more talent, and going at about three times the pace. That's Chipz in a nutshell, and their British break-through can't be more than about five minutes away.

No surprises to find local faves Diverse hit the top in Denmark, Kent in Sweden, or Prata Vetra (that's Eurovision faves Brainstorm when they're at home) in Latvia.

The Gorillas come within a gnat's crotchet of having the best-seller in the UK, as Feel good inc runs within moment of Akon's cover of an old Bobby Vinton number. The Coral's rather good In the morning lands in the top ten, with Kelly Osbourne, Cliff Dick, the Doves, and Katie Tunstall all turning up in the 20. Bad luck to the Raveonettes' Ode to la, which barely scrapes the 500 sales to land in the top 75. Hopefully their follow-up, Haiku to tea, will do somewhat better. Here's the Northern Europe top 20.

 20 18 Nena - Liebe ist
 19 re Green Day - Boulevard of broken dreams
*18 re Rob Thomas - Lonely no more
*17 NE Will Smith - Switch
 16 16 Sarah Connor - From zero to hero
*15 re Jean Dujardin - Le casse du brice
*14 14 Daniel Powter - Bad day
 13 17 Phantom Planet - Leighton Buzzard
*12 12 Snoop Dogg - Signs
 11  7 Schnappi - Schnappi, das kleine Krokodil
 10  6 Goo Goo Dolls - Give a little bit
  9 10 Gregory Lemarchal - Ecris l'histoire
  8  3 Tears - Refugees
  7  9 Garbage - Why do you love me?
  6  5 50 Cent - Candy shop
  5  4 Mario - Let me love you
  4 11 Natalie Imbruglia - Shiver
  3  1 Tony Christie - Is this the way to Amarillo?
* 2 13 Moby - Lift me up
* 1  2 Ilona Mitrecey - Un monde parfait

permanent link
posted 15 May 2005, 18.36 +0100

A thoroughly lovely week, plenty of sunshine, without ever being too warm - some north winds helped to bring that about.

09 Mo sun, sharp showers 4/12
10 Tu sunny spells       3/12
11 We sunny              2/14
12 Th sunny              3/15
13 Fr sun, strong wind   6/14
14 Sa sun, wind          6/15
15 Su sun                6/17

Another 7½ degree heating days this month, the winter's total advances to 673½.

Next week will be less good - showers on Monday, more rain from Thursday. And the BBC will have some new weather graphics, of which more in a week.

permanent link
posted 15 May 2005, 18.58 +0100

older writing... write to