The Globe's Jeffrey Simpson has treated us to a withering attack on Stephen Harper's fiscal policy.
He begins his salvo by reminding us that, what seems like an eon ago, the Conservatives inherited a large budget surplus, which they then proceeded to blow within the space of about three years, through a succession of tax cuts and high spending, so that by the time that surplus was actually needed (during the recession of 2008-9), there was none to be had. And they STILL got re-elected in the next general election...
Since then, they have complicated and distorted the Canadian tax code with a raft of small targeted tax credits, most of which, despite the positive spin that accompanied them, actually benefit well-off families rather than the "hard-working Canadian tax-payers" Harper is always spouting about. Universal Child Care Benefits, the "Family Tax Cut", income splitting, increased Tax-Free Savings Accounts, changes to RRIF rules, yada yada - the working-class actually get little or no benefit from these much-touted measures.
All the talk now, of course, is about a balanced budget, which is being re-branded as a revolutionary Conservative invention. This they hope to achieve by quietly slashing the national defence budget - not necessarily a bad thing in itself - even while increasing Canada's participation in other people's wars (Iraq, Syria, Ukraine) as a smoke screen, as well as by selling government holdings in General Motors, continuing to over-collect EI premiums, and almost certainly by reducing the federal contingency fund. Meanwhile, they continue to promote their high-profile tax cuts at the public expense, at an annual cost of about $75 million a year (with $7.5 million allocated to promote the up-coming budget measures alone).
All in all, Mr. Harper has raised the smoke-and-mirrors approach to politicking to something of an art form. The shame of it is that the Liberals and NDP are currently too weak, and too afraid of the optics of appearing to condone spending and tax increases of any sort, to provide any meaningful opposition to this process, so Harper gets away with it all scot-free.
UPDATE
The actual 2015 Canadian federal budget presented few surprises, and all of the above still applies, with the added insult of a very un-Conservative assumption of a rebound in the price of oil. Additionally, several of the beneficial measures and tax-breaks offered are in fact post-dated, sometimes for several years, in the hopes that the Conservatives will reap the voter goodwill but not have to actually pay the piper.
And the budget was indeed balanced - largely though a series of accounting sleight-of-hand moves, including reducing the contingency reserve from $3 billion to $1 billion, assuming a rebound in oil prices, maintaining higher than necessary EI premiums, etc. - despite the broad opinion of many economists that the Canadian economy is under-performing, and that now would be the ideal time to take advantage of the current low interest rates and invest in job-creating stimulus projects in order to kick-start the economy. But the Conservatives stubbornly insist on balancing the budget, largely for the value of its electoral optics, and ignoring the possible benefits of strategic deficit funding.
What may prove to be even more important, though, is that the Conservative budget deliberately ties up the public purse for some years to come, so that, even were they to win the upcoming election, any putative Liberal or NDP government would be hog-tied and unable to carry out their own agenda without alienating segments of the electorate by rolling back some of these measures or substantially increasing taxes. Clever, but incredibly cynical.
So, to summarize: many small but loudly-touted sops to various niche-voter segments (seniors, suburbanites, immigrants and small business owners), the use of accounting trickery to balance the budget come what may, and a fiscal emasculation of any future governments. All in all, a Machiavellian exercise in political and economic cynicism par excellence.
Thursday, April 16, 2015
Saturday, April 11, 2015
Engage Russia? No contest
This year's Munk Debates, the prestigious Canada-based annual face-off on moral and political issues of our time, is entitled "Be it resolved the West should engage, not isolate, Russia", and from what I have gleaned from the preview in the Globe and Mail, I find myself siding with Gary Kasparov rather than Vladimir Pozner.
I don't think that I am giving a preferential reading to Kasparov, a chess player-turned-politician and something of a romantic renegade figure, as compared to Pozner, the dry journalist and Putin lackey. Kasparov's arguments just seem to make more sense, and be more convincingly and cogently argued.
Kasparov argues that, although sanctions need to stepped up, they are having some effect already, that Putin's high reported approval ratings are probably fixed (just like Saddam Hussein and Moammar Gadhafi used to do), and that the separatist movement in Eastern Ukraine is largely a creation of Putin's propaganda machine rather than a deep-seated desire for independence. He essentially argues that appeasement of Putin is just not an option.
Vladimir Pozer, on the other hand, appears very tentative. He has a habit of prefacing his answers with statements like "It’s a complicated question" or "This is a tough one to answer", which has the effect of automatically weakening anything he then goes on to say. He argues that Putin is largely responding to the threat Russia feels from an expanding and encroaching NATO, that Ukraine is essentially chauvinistic and fascistic in nature, that no one knows why Boris Nemtsov was killed or by whom, and that "might means right" (yes, he says just that, in so many words). He goes on to say that, if NATO can allow Kosovo to secede from Serbia, then Russia is justified in "taking back" Crimea and eastern Ukraine, so meh! He does not extend the same logic, however, to the Chechens, who he maintains have no right to Chechnya (nor China to some disputed parts of the Russian Far East), mainly because they are not strong enough to take it, and therefore do not deserve it. Wow!
This debate portrays such a clear dichotomy between an essentially Western way of looking at things (Kasparov's) and a Russian/Eastern point of view that seems so completely alien to us. It is difficult to see how two such different viewpoints can ever find common ground.
Coincidentally, I have just finished reading H.G. Wells' "The Shape of Things to Come". Written back in the early 1930s, Wells' utopian speculative history of the next 200 years, in which all of mankind puts aside their differences and comes together under a benevolent and freedom-loving World State, looks incredibly naïve and idealistic, especially when we look at the real shape of things in the world today - marked by a whole host of apparently intractible and deteriorating political and territorial disputes, incomprehensible religious terrorist attacks, and cut-throat competition between blocs and nations - some 80 years into Wells' future history.
I don't think that I am giving a preferential reading to Kasparov, a chess player-turned-politician and something of a romantic renegade figure, as compared to Pozner, the dry journalist and Putin lackey. Kasparov's arguments just seem to make more sense, and be more convincingly and cogently argued.
Kasparov argues that, although sanctions need to stepped up, they are having some effect already, that Putin's high reported approval ratings are probably fixed (just like Saddam Hussein and Moammar Gadhafi used to do), and that the separatist movement in Eastern Ukraine is largely a creation of Putin's propaganda machine rather than a deep-seated desire for independence. He essentially argues that appeasement of Putin is just not an option.
Vladimir Pozer, on the other hand, appears very tentative. He has a habit of prefacing his answers with statements like "It’s a complicated question" or "This is a tough one to answer", which has the effect of automatically weakening anything he then goes on to say. He argues that Putin is largely responding to the threat Russia feels from an expanding and encroaching NATO, that Ukraine is essentially chauvinistic and fascistic in nature, that no one knows why Boris Nemtsov was killed or by whom, and that "might means right" (yes, he says just that, in so many words). He goes on to say that, if NATO can allow Kosovo to secede from Serbia, then Russia is justified in "taking back" Crimea and eastern Ukraine, so meh! He does not extend the same logic, however, to the Chechens, who he maintains have no right to Chechnya (nor China to some disputed parts of the Russian Far East), mainly because they are not strong enough to take it, and therefore do not deserve it. Wow!
This debate portrays such a clear dichotomy between an essentially Western way of looking at things (Kasparov's) and a Russian/Eastern point of view that seems so completely alien to us. It is difficult to see how two such different viewpoints can ever find common ground.
Coincidentally, I have just finished reading H.G. Wells' "The Shape of Things to Come". Written back in the early 1930s, Wells' utopian speculative history of the next 200 years, in which all of mankind puts aside their differences and comes together under a benevolent and freedom-loving World State, looks incredibly naïve and idealistic, especially when we look at the real shape of things in the world today - marked by a whole host of apparently intractible and deteriorating political and territorial disputes, incomprehensible religious terrorist attacks, and cut-throat competition between blocs and nations - some 80 years into Wells' future history.
Friday, April 10, 2015
Aboriginal families also need to step up to the plate
I'm not in the habit of defending Conservative ministers, but it seems like my gut reaction to Minister of Aboriginal Affairs Bernard Valcourt's rather rash recent claims were in fact justified. Back on March 20th, he made the assertion that 70 per cent of murdered aboriginal women were actually killed by indigenous men, and, despite a predictable outcry from native leaders, it turns out that the RCMP have now confirmed that figure.
My gut reaction when I first heard it was, "that sounds about right", although I was surprised that a top-level politician would put himself in the position of having to defend such a statement. RCMP Commissioner Bob Paulson also seemed surprised that M. Valcourt would publicly air this previously-unreleased statistic, but he nevertheless confirmed that 70 per cent of the offenders were indeed of aboriginal origin, 25 per cent were non-aboriginal, and five per cent were of "unknown ethnicity". Of course, native leaders still do not believe any of this, and were, are still are, in high dudgeon.
It is just an unfortunate fact of life that the vast majority of murders of women, whether native or non-native, are perpetrated by spouses, family members or some other intimate relative, which is how the RCMP happens to know the racial profile of these murderers. The equivalent percentage for other (non-native) Canadian women who were murdered is actually even higher, around 74%. The Minister's comments are therefore not necessarily of a racial character, just stating facts.
M. Valcourt's other related comment at the time, though, that the deaths and disappearances of native women come down to a lack of respect among aboriginal men on reserves for aboriginal women, and that chiefs and councils need to take action to address this, is perhaps a little harder to justify, especially given the above-mentioned statistics for deaths of non-native women, although I actually think he probably has a point to some extent.
When I read these murder reports, I often wonder why so many young native women are walking the streets of Saskatoon and Winnipeg in the wee hours of the morning. But then it often comes out that the young woman's father has been M.I.A. or in jail or otherwise avoiding parental responsibility for most of her life, and that her alcoholic or drug-addled mother lets her do pretty much whatever she wants, whenever and wherever she wants, with next to no supervision or moral education. It's an all too common tale, and it needs to change.
Also today, a separate study in B.C. suggests that young aboriginal women are more likely to be victims of violence if they were sexually abused as children, or had a parent who attended a residential school. Probably no big surprise there, although I think we should be wary of using residential schools as an excuse for everything bad that happens on a native reserve. I don't mean to make light of the experience and plight of natives in Canada, despite the cash being thrown at them by various governments, but the buck can not be passed indefinitely, and some kind of responsibility needs to be claimed by someone, just as we would expect from any other segment of society.
Yet another article reports how the Misipawistik First Nation and Nisichawayasihk Cree Nation in northern Manitoba have adopted a novel policy whereby they remove the parents, not the children, from dangerous home settings, or where the parents were demonstrably not taking proper care of their children. Usually, the child goes to stay elsewhere on the reserve for a few months, typically with friends or family, and the removed parents spend a period of time receiving counselling or treatment (most often for alcohol dependency). In the vast majority of cases, the parents eventually return at some point to assume their parenting duties. It is not a perfect solution, but it seems to work better than the more common alternative, and helps to instil some sense of responsibility in the parents.
One only has to read the books of Joseph Boyden to know that peace and gentleness and family values are not necessarily mainstays of aboriginal culture, despite the romantic image of the noble native living in harmony with nature that we are brought up with. Yes, we stole their country many years ago, just like Europeans stole Australia, and the Romans, Vikings, Saxons and French stole Britain at various periods in its history, and one indigenous culture ousts another in a never-ending cycle of change. But, given the situation in which we all find ourselves, excessive political correctness may not always be the best way forward, and sometimes we do have to tell it like it is, even if the truth is sometimes less than palatable.
Currying favour with India
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi is modish at the moment in the Canadian press, partly because of his upcoming state visit here, but partly because of the uranium deal he hopes to strike with Canada, either before, during, or soon after that visit.
In what is usually described as a "rapprochement" - but what is in fact much more than that - the Harper government overturned 40 years of cool distance between the two countries when it struck the Canada-India Nuclear Cooperation Agreement back in 2013. This agreement effectively opened the way for Canada to recommence exporting nuclear fuel to India for the first time since this was banned way back in the 1970s (when India tested a nuclear bomb using plutonium produced by a CANDU reactor). This agreement could finally come to fruition with a uranium deal during Modi's upcoming visit.
Of course, this is happening at a time when Modi, an outspoken Hindu nationalist, has recently come to power, and the world has very little idea of just how stable (or unstable) he will prove to be. Modi is often described as "wildly popular" and a "rock-star politician", but Sikhs throughout the world hate him vehemently for his part in the violent repression of Sikhs in Gujurat state after the riots of 2002, and it is anyone's guess how his relations with next-door Islamic nemesis (and fellow nuclear power), Pakistan, will develop.
Modi is already making moves to ban the slaughter of cows throughout India in order to placate Hindu religionists, even though India is the world’s second largest beef exporter and its fifth biggest consumer. How he deals with Pakistan is still very much up in the air. And, remember, neither India nor Pakistan have signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty...
Personally, I wouldn't trust the guy further than the end of the street, and this seems to me to be a really bad time to be extending nuclear trade relations to India in an attempt to curry favour (sorry!) with Indian-Canadian voters, and to make a few fast bucks for the languishing Canadian uranium and nuclear power industry.
In what is usually described as a "rapprochement" - but what is in fact much more than that - the Harper government overturned 40 years of cool distance between the two countries when it struck the Canada-India Nuclear Cooperation Agreement back in 2013. This agreement effectively opened the way for Canada to recommence exporting nuclear fuel to India for the first time since this was banned way back in the 1970s (when India tested a nuclear bomb using plutonium produced by a CANDU reactor). This agreement could finally come to fruition with a uranium deal during Modi's upcoming visit.
Of course, this is happening at a time when Modi, an outspoken Hindu nationalist, has recently come to power, and the world has very little idea of just how stable (or unstable) he will prove to be. Modi is often described as "wildly popular" and a "rock-star politician", but Sikhs throughout the world hate him vehemently for his part in the violent repression of Sikhs in Gujurat state after the riots of 2002, and it is anyone's guess how his relations with next-door Islamic nemesis (and fellow nuclear power), Pakistan, will develop.
Modi is already making moves to ban the slaughter of cows throughout India in order to placate Hindu religionists, even though India is the world’s second largest beef exporter and its fifth biggest consumer. How he deals with Pakistan is still very much up in the air. And, remember, neither India nor Pakistan have signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty...
Personally, I wouldn't trust the guy further than the end of the street, and this seems to me to be a really bad time to be extending nuclear trade relations to India in an attempt to curry favour (sorry!) with Indian-Canadian voters, and to make a few fast bucks for the languishing Canadian uranium and nuclear power industry.
Thursday, April 09, 2015
Art and politics collide (again)
The Toronto Symphony Orchestra's recent cancellation of a performance by controversial pro-Russian Ukrainian-born pianist Valentina Lisitsa has opened up a proverbial can of worms, hornet's nest, dog's breakfast, Pandora's box, call it what you will. The Twittersphere and social media in general is a-buzz, apparently mainly in Ms. Listsa's defence, but the reality is far from clear-cut and unequivocal.
Valentina Lisitsa may be a good pianist - and I really hope she is, after all this fuss over her - but she is also a notoriously outspoken, polarizing and contentious figure, with a huge following (and an almost equally large opposition) on social media. Frankly, the feckless TSO should probably have left her well enough alone in the first place, however good she is.
Her online pro-Russian, anti-Kiev rants flirt with hate speech, and certainly qualify as intemperate, ill-advised and irresponsible. Of course, like so many of these things, there are grey areas here too. Ms. Lisitsa claims that many of her Russian-language tweets are being misinterpreted in Canada, and that one particular image, of a heap of holocaust victims associated with the phrase "strong medication works", was cropped and its intended meaning skewed. Anyone using such imagery, for whatever political message, surely has trouble written all over them.
But, when all is said and done, is it the function of a respected arts organization like the TSO to wade into these matters at all? Many have argued that the TSO's cancellation amounts to censorship, which is frankly ridiculous: Ms. Lisitsa is free to say whatever garbage she likes online (indeed the TSO's cancellation has probably just increased her online profile many-fold); she is merely being told not to play the piano for the TSO's patrons, even though she is apparently still being paid for it.
Having already booked her, the TSO would attract flak from one side or another in the dispute whatever they did. Their mistake was in booking her in the first place. Let's just chalk it down to a learning moment, and put it behind us.
Valentina Lisitsa may be a good pianist - and I really hope she is, after all this fuss over her - but she is also a notoriously outspoken, polarizing and contentious figure, with a huge following (and an almost equally large opposition) on social media. Frankly, the feckless TSO should probably have left her well enough alone in the first place, however good she is.
Her online pro-Russian, anti-Kiev rants flirt with hate speech, and certainly qualify as intemperate, ill-advised and irresponsible. Of course, like so many of these things, there are grey areas here too. Ms. Lisitsa claims that many of her Russian-language tweets are being misinterpreted in Canada, and that one particular image, of a heap of holocaust victims associated with the phrase "strong medication works", was cropped and its intended meaning skewed. Anyone using such imagery, for whatever political message, surely has trouble written all over them.
But, when all is said and done, is it the function of a respected arts organization like the TSO to wade into these matters at all? Many have argued that the TSO's cancellation amounts to censorship, which is frankly ridiculous: Ms. Lisitsa is free to say whatever garbage she likes online (indeed the TSO's cancellation has probably just increased her online profile many-fold); she is merely being told not to play the piano for the TSO's patrons, even though she is apparently still being paid for it.
Having already booked her, the TSO would attract flak from one side or another in the dispute whatever they did. Their mistake was in booking her in the first place. Let's just chalk it down to a learning moment, and put it behind us.
Saturday, April 04, 2015
Ontario moves to tackle greenhouse gas emissions - but is it the right move?
Kudos to the province of Ontario for (finally) going ahead, subject to cabinet approval, with a fiscal program aimed at tackling greenhouse gas emissions. Given the size of Ontario's economy, even in these times of relative economic gloom, it would represent one of Canada's single largest endeavour against climate change, on a par with Ontario's recent phasing out of all its coal-fired power stations, and the money raised (up to $2 billion a year) can be ploughed back into public transit or energy conservation programs.
The model they have chosen, however, is a cap-and-trade system, similar to and linked with those of Quebec and California. I understand the advantages of cap-and-trade - as compared to the other main alternative, a carbon tax, like the one being so successfully administered in British Columbia - and there is much to be said for it. For one thing, unlike a carbon tax, it caps the absolute amount of carbon emissions, which might help Ontario in its ambitious and aggressive goal to reduce emission to 15% below 1990 levels in just five years.
However, it is a much more complicated system that a straight carbon tax, and more potentially prone to manipulation and fudging, especially if it is applied, as it usually is, on an industry-by-industry basis (for example, Quebec's energy-hungry aluminum industry is exempted from the scheme on the grounds that it would put them at a competitive disadvantage!). Plus, exactly how and where the caps are set is a horribly fraught and contrived process, and notoriously prone to the influence of powerful industrial lobby groups, and I can imagine they are as likely to be relaxed by future administrations as tightened (which is the stated intention). Cap-and-trade also puts all the onus on industry, and does not work to change the bad habits and preferences of individuals.
Furthermore, cap-and-trade systems are notoriously subject to the vagaries of the market. As we have seen in recent months, with the sharp fall in oil prices, the trading price of carbon credits has likewise fallen precipitously, thus weakening the system's effectiveness.
Perhaps the main reason it has been chosen over a carbon tax, though, is the worst reason of all: it is probably much easier to sell to a skittish electorate, simply because nowhere does the word "tax" appear in its description. People seem to object to a carbon tax on knee-jerk principle, even when it is specifically explained to them that the system would be revenue neutral, and they would receive rebates on their income tax for every penny collected by a carbon tax. I imagine that some behind-the-scenes politicking also occurred, and apparently it was seen as more politically astute to curry favour with Quebec than with B.C.
My own feeling is that carbon taxes do a better job of educating the general public on the real environmental costs of their habits, something I consider essential in the long run. I also intuitively tend to trust a prescriptive, fixed tax over a complex system that relies on the machinations of the free market. Instead, it looks like what we will actually have is a cap-and-trade system that changes nobody's propensities towards a high carbon lifestyle, but nevertheless maddens the business community and risks an industrial investment backlash.
Interestingly, the vast majority of the commentaries I have read since the announcement favour a B.C.-style carbon tax over cap-and-trade, but there are almost certainly other political considerations and wheelings-and-dealings going on behind the scenes, so I can't imagine this decision being reconsidered any time soon.
The model they have chosen, however, is a cap-and-trade system, similar to and linked with those of Quebec and California. I understand the advantages of cap-and-trade - as compared to the other main alternative, a carbon tax, like the one being so successfully administered in British Columbia - and there is much to be said for it. For one thing, unlike a carbon tax, it caps the absolute amount of carbon emissions, which might help Ontario in its ambitious and aggressive goal to reduce emission to 15% below 1990 levels in just five years.
However, it is a much more complicated system that a straight carbon tax, and more potentially prone to manipulation and fudging, especially if it is applied, as it usually is, on an industry-by-industry basis (for example, Quebec's energy-hungry aluminum industry is exempted from the scheme on the grounds that it would put them at a competitive disadvantage!). Plus, exactly how and where the caps are set is a horribly fraught and contrived process, and notoriously prone to the influence of powerful industrial lobby groups, and I can imagine they are as likely to be relaxed by future administrations as tightened (which is the stated intention). Cap-and-trade also puts all the onus on industry, and does not work to change the bad habits and preferences of individuals.
Furthermore, cap-and-trade systems are notoriously subject to the vagaries of the market. As we have seen in recent months, with the sharp fall in oil prices, the trading price of carbon credits has likewise fallen precipitously, thus weakening the system's effectiveness.
Perhaps the main reason it has been chosen over a carbon tax, though, is the worst reason of all: it is probably much easier to sell to a skittish electorate, simply because nowhere does the word "tax" appear in its description. People seem to object to a carbon tax on knee-jerk principle, even when it is specifically explained to them that the system would be revenue neutral, and they would receive rebates on their income tax for every penny collected by a carbon tax. I imagine that some behind-the-scenes politicking also occurred, and apparently it was seen as more politically astute to curry favour with Quebec than with B.C.
My own feeling is that carbon taxes do a better job of educating the general public on the real environmental costs of their habits, something I consider essential in the long run. I also intuitively tend to trust a prescriptive, fixed tax over a complex system that relies on the machinations of the free market. Instead, it looks like what we will actually have is a cap-and-trade system that changes nobody's propensities towards a high carbon lifestyle, but nevertheless maddens the business community and risks an industrial investment backlash.
Interestingly, the vast majority of the commentaries I have read since the announcement favour a B.C.-style carbon tax over cap-and-trade, but there are almost certainly other political considerations and wheelings-and-dealings going on behind the scenes, so I can't imagine this decision being reconsidered any time soon.
Friday, April 03, 2015
Some wisdom on the modern television series
I was thinking recently that perhaps there ought to be some sort of a rule against television series dragging on for more than two or, I am even tempted to suggest, one season. I am not a big TV watcher, but I flatter myself that maybe that gives me an outsider's objectivity and perspective.
Some of the best series, and here I might mention Lost (now the archetypal the model for many modern TV series) and Breaking Bad, seem to be able to more or less carry off multiple seasons, but even there it is far from effortless. When we get into the realm of second-rate series of the ilk of, shall we say, Arrow, or True Blood, or even, dare I say it, Girls, the original concept, which may be a very good one, gets watered down to such an extent as to be just too thin and diluted to hold the show together.
Self-contained episode series, like Star Trek for example, are obviously exempt from this phenomenon, as are slice-of-life soap operas like Coronation Street (now 55 years old and still going, as characters literally live and die within the all-enfolding medium of the show).
In the ultra-competitive and cut-throat business of modern television, advertising is king, and ratings metrics and audience reactions become the whole raison d'être of a series, artistic integrity be damned. Thus, those series that don't, for whatever reason, grasp the audience's ever-contracting attention, or tap sufficiently into the current Zeitgeist, get summarily cancelled, regardless of where the storyline happens to be at the time. By contrast, those series that can prove their worth in this dog-eat-dog world get artificially extended, often receiving word of an extension towards the end of a season, requiring an abrupt (and often more or less random) plot change or character substitution. This even extends to individual characters: if a character becomes too unpopular among focus groups, they run the risk of being killed off (perhaps we can blame Doctor Who for this idea); a popular character may be given more prominence, or suddenly discover greater hidden depths to their personality.
What gets lost in this process is the old-fashioned idea of story arc. At the start of a series, the developers will usually (although not always) have an idea of how the main story should develop, and probably of how it will end. Suddenly faced with an additional 15 episodes to fill, that story necessarily becomes warped, often beyond recognition. The usual methods employed are unexpected plot twists (although in some shows twists, and double- and triple-twists, becomes the norm, and you begin to expect them), or beefed-up sub-plots, or the dreaded flashback (thank you, Lost!) Eventually, you realize that the main plot of the show has veered off on an unrecognizable tangent to the original one, or that a whole episode has passed without advancing the plot at all. This is usually a good time to stop watching, because you know that there is no way back, and hardly ever is a series able to regain its balance and integrity.
I always think that being a television series producer must be a rather depressing gig. You are entirely at the mercy of the whims of the market, and any artistic vision you may have pretensions to just do not figure in this scenario. But then, I suppose it is a job, and it pays the bills.
Some of the best series, and here I might mention Lost (now the archetypal the model for many modern TV series) and Breaking Bad, seem to be able to more or less carry off multiple seasons, but even there it is far from effortless. When we get into the realm of second-rate series of the ilk of, shall we say, Arrow, or True Blood, or even, dare I say it, Girls, the original concept, which may be a very good one, gets watered down to such an extent as to be just too thin and diluted to hold the show together.
Self-contained episode series, like Star Trek for example, are obviously exempt from this phenomenon, as are slice-of-life soap operas like Coronation Street (now 55 years old and still going, as characters literally live and die within the all-enfolding medium of the show).
In the ultra-competitive and cut-throat business of modern television, advertising is king, and ratings metrics and audience reactions become the whole raison d'être of a series, artistic integrity be damned. Thus, those series that don't, for whatever reason, grasp the audience's ever-contracting attention, or tap sufficiently into the current Zeitgeist, get summarily cancelled, regardless of where the storyline happens to be at the time. By contrast, those series that can prove their worth in this dog-eat-dog world get artificially extended, often receiving word of an extension towards the end of a season, requiring an abrupt (and often more or less random) plot change or character substitution. This even extends to individual characters: if a character becomes too unpopular among focus groups, they run the risk of being killed off (perhaps we can blame Doctor Who for this idea); a popular character may be given more prominence, or suddenly discover greater hidden depths to their personality.
What gets lost in this process is the old-fashioned idea of story arc. At the start of a series, the developers will usually (although not always) have an idea of how the main story should develop, and probably of how it will end. Suddenly faced with an additional 15 episodes to fill, that story necessarily becomes warped, often beyond recognition. The usual methods employed are unexpected plot twists (although in some shows twists, and double- and triple-twists, becomes the norm, and you begin to expect them), or beefed-up sub-plots, or the dreaded flashback (thank you, Lost!) Eventually, you realize that the main plot of the show has veered off on an unrecognizable tangent to the original one, or that a whole episode has passed without advancing the plot at all. This is usually a good time to stop watching, because you know that there is no way back, and hardly ever is a series able to regain its balance and integrity.
I always think that being a television series producer must be a rather depressing gig. You are entirely at the mercy of the whims of the market, and any artistic vision you may have pretensions to just do not figure in this scenario. But then, I suppose it is a job, and it pays the bills.
Wednesday, April 01, 2015
Nigeria's political coming-of-age moment
I have to say that, probably like many others, I am surprised, nay, shocked that Nigeria's elections have concluded apparently without bloodshed. Call me cynical, but what were the odds against that?
I imagine most betting people were expecting outgoing president Goodluck Jonathan to throw a tantrum, allege massive voting irregularities, and launch an all-out civil war/coup d'état. In fact, the election seems to have been remarkably free from the usual vote-rigging, manipulation and intimidation, despite being so closely fought.
I'm not totally convinced that Muhammadu Buhari - a 72-year old Muslim ex-general and oil minister during the military dictatorship of the 1970s - is the best thing that has ever happened to the country. But, given that this is the first time in Nigeria's supposedly democratic era (since 1999) that a leader has actually accepted democratic defeat, I think we should probably be grateful for small mercies. This may even be Nigeria's political coming-of-age moment.
Nigeria is the most populous and also the wealthiest country in Africa, and ranks 30th in the world in terms of GDP, although these statistics hide some huge discrepancies in income. It is the tenth largest oil producer in the world, and 70% of its government revenue comes from oil. But it has always been somewhat benighted politically, and regularly appears towards the bottom of the international corruption listings. The country also has the complication of being composed of around 250 different ethnic groups (Charles de Gaulle once complained "How can you govern a country which has two hundred and forty-six varieties of cheese?", but imagine governing that many different ethic groups).
A quick perusal of a map of the voting by states shows an almost complete geographical split, with Buhari claiming the mainly Muslim, Hausa-speaking and less-developed north (which is also where most of the Boko Haram terrorist activity has taken place), and Jonathan taking the more developed Christian south. That in itself sounds like a recipe for disaster. But Buhari was voted in on a pledge to fight corruption and to "deal with" Boko Haram, so let's give him the benefit of the doubt, and give credit to Goodluck Jonathan for stepping down with some grace.
I imagine most betting people were expecting outgoing president Goodluck Jonathan to throw a tantrum, allege massive voting irregularities, and launch an all-out civil war/coup d'état. In fact, the election seems to have been remarkably free from the usual vote-rigging, manipulation and intimidation, despite being so closely fought.
I'm not totally convinced that Muhammadu Buhari - a 72-year old Muslim ex-general and oil minister during the military dictatorship of the 1970s - is the best thing that has ever happened to the country. But, given that this is the first time in Nigeria's supposedly democratic era (since 1999) that a leader has actually accepted democratic defeat, I think we should probably be grateful for small mercies. This may even be Nigeria's political coming-of-age moment.
Nigeria is the most populous and also the wealthiest country in Africa, and ranks 30th in the world in terms of GDP, although these statistics hide some huge discrepancies in income. It is the tenth largest oil producer in the world, and 70% of its government revenue comes from oil. But it has always been somewhat benighted politically, and regularly appears towards the bottom of the international corruption listings. The country also has the complication of being composed of around 250 different ethnic groups (Charles de Gaulle once complained "How can you govern a country which has two hundred and forty-six varieties of cheese?", but imagine governing that many different ethic groups).
A quick perusal of a map of the voting by states shows an almost complete geographical split, with Buhari claiming the mainly Muslim, Hausa-speaking and less-developed north (which is also where most of the Boko Haram terrorist activity has taken place), and Jonathan taking the more developed Christian south. That in itself sounds like a recipe for disaster. But Buhari was voted in on a pledge to fight corruption and to "deal with" Boko Haram, so let's give him the benefit of the doubt, and give credit to Goodluck Jonathan for stepping down with some grace.