Just say no it ain't so

Bugger Super Tuesday, and even the supercasino decision...the story that's got me going today is the demise of Grange Hill after 30 glorious years.

I suppose deciding when to end a successful series is always a difficult call to make. Brookside clearly went on a few years' too long - the final episode was one of the most surreal experiences in the history of TV soap, but by then the producers were clearly taking the piss. And Eastenders, in my view, should have finished about five years ago when it still maintained a modicum of artistic credibility, before they started resorting to Dallas-style stunts like bringing people back from the dead.

If I'm honest, Grange Hill has probably passed its sell-by date too. The saddest and yet posibly most perceptive comment I have seen on its demise came from a commenter on the BBC website who said:

"Things have changed too much in both education and society. If Grange Hill were to reflect the lives of teenagers today it would need to be shown after the watershed and not during children's prime viewing slots."

Be that as it may, as a "first generation" viewer from the late 70s, nothing for me can sully the memories of Tucker, Cathy, Gripper, Duane, Suzanne and of course Messrs Bronson and Baxter, the kind of old-school teachers who simply wouldn't exist in today's education system.

What I'm hoping for out of Super Tuesday

I don't have a vote in the US presidential election, and I doubt I'll be filling this blog with speculation about it over the next nine months, but here, for what is worth, is my take on each of the five candidates left in the race.

Barack Obama simply isn't ready to be president. Sure, he's got charisma, sure, he says the right things about Iraq, but he's done nothing of note in US federal politics and his election to the presidency at this stage of his career would represent a triumph of style over substance.

Hillary Clinton is a good social democrat and if she were anyone else but Hillary Clinton I would be rooting for her. But as I have explained before, the greater health of US democracy requires that the Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton era is brought to an end.

Mitt Romney is a very right-wing version of Jed Bartlett. Enough said.

Mike Huckabee is a good Christian and a man I agree with on many issues, but his selection as the Republican candidate would simply be too divisive and open the way to an Obama-Clinton landslide in November.

So, almost by a process of elimination, it's John McCain for me. I think he is the right person to restore some credibility to the White House after Dubya and, as Ken Clarke said (although not in so many words) on Question Time last week, electing a 71-year-old to the presidency would give new hope to old gits everywhere.

I'm hoping he will achieve a clear win tonight, with an inconclusive result on the Democrat side that will cause Obama and Clinton to go on fighting while McCain can concentrate on being statesmanlike. And before any of my leftie friends accuse me of letting the side down, I am at least being consistent.

Agree? Disagree? Take part in my quick presidential poll HERE.

They're not all bad

A little later than usual...but here's my weekend Column in which I give my reflections on the Derek Conway affair.

Following in Sir Nicky's illustrious footsteps

For all the continuing furore around Lib Dem MP Greg Mulholland calling health minister Ivan Lewis an arsehole, he is not of course the first politician to utter the a-word in the course of parliamentary business.

The word was used by the Scottish Tory maverick Sir Nicholas Fairbairn when he intervened on Tony Blair during a 1994 debate on equalising the age of consent for homosexual and heterosexual acts. On this occasion, Hansard actually allowed it through rather than placing the word in asterisks, and the full exchange can be read HERE.

Question Time Review

Tonight's Question Time was predictably dominated by the Derek Conway affair, but there was also a great question from the audience on whether the most revolutionary outcome of the US election would be the election of the first black president, the first woman president, or the oldest president.

Here's my verdict on the how the panel performed.

Shaun Woodward – Quietly impressive, though at times almost too smooth. Said MPs should publish details of staff salaries, and backed Hillary Clinton for the White House. It was not clear whether he was speaking for Gordon Brown on either question. Daringly suggested at the end that both Philip Green and Richard Branson should emulate the Sainsbury family by giving more to charity.

Ken Clarke – A class act, showed once again what a great Prime Minister he would have been. Came out with the best line of the night on the US presidency question – “Ming Campbell and I are going for John McCain" - prompting Amanda Platell to ask whether he was mounting another leadership bid.

John Sessions – Amusing in parts but inconsequential. Looked as if he was reading out his answers.

Amanda Platell – The only one to directly call for Conway’s sacking. Was she settling old Tory scores?

Bonnie Greer – Appeared to be a makeweight but came good on the US question, giving a compelling justification of why as a black woman she was for Hillary and not Obama.

I will be endeavouring to make this review a regular feature of the blog over the coming year.

Liberal Conspiracy and God

As someone who badly wants to see a really successful liberal-left blog to counter the right's contunued dominance of the political blogosphere, I was delighted to be asked to join the Liberal Conspiracy group blog when it started up last year. But I always feared that as a Christian I would find myself in a distinct minority when it came to issues such as abortion and embryology.

I accept this, much in the way that pro-life Labour MPs have always accepted their party's majority position on such issues, in the interests of building a broader coalition on the kind of society they would like to see.

I do however take the view that when it comes to faith-related matters, people should be careful not to use inflammatory language and to try to respect the other's sincerely-held point of view. Up until now, this has by and large been the case on LC.

However yesterday I was finally moved to protest following an intemperate post by Kate Belgrave entitled Jesus H. Christ Rides Again which referred to Christians as "Jesus freaks" and "Holyrollers" and likened Christ to "a made-up figure like Big Bird and Po."

As you will see from the comments thread, the consensus on the site appears to be that LC bloggers should feel free to make such attacks on the grounds of "free speech," which is, after all, a perfectly respectable liberal point of view. After sleeping on it for a night, I've decided to go along with that and let it lie for now.

But if the general verdict is indeed that freedom of speech is king, I will of course expect the same degree of licence to be shown to anyone who criticises the adherents of any other faith in similar terms. Not that I have any particular intention of doing so.

Jan 31 Update: Mike Ion has now written this excellent piece on LC explaining much more eloquently than I ever could why so-called "progressives" need to be more ready to engage with people of faith.