Doctor Who: Matrimonial Bliss!

Tonight's episode of Doctor Who was truly magnificent and was yet another timely reminder to the Whoniverse's fiercest critics, that the show is alive and kicking. Penned by Neil Gaiman and titled "The Doctor's Wife",  the story focused on the intimate relationship between the Doctor and his "wife". It's a series highlight and features a solid story and some top drawer acting from Matt Smith and Suranne Jones.

The Doctor's Wife - a solid episode steeped in Who lore and rich in emotion.

As I'm sure you gathered before the show aired, the titular character was/is in fact the TARDIS. The master stroke that Neil Gaiman played was to hold a mirror up to the anthropomorphic relationship between The Doctor and his home/mode of transport. Many times we have heard The Doctor vocalise his attachment to the TARDIS, many more times have we seen him demonstrate it... on this occasion however, the TARDIS finally gets an opportunity to reciprocate and express its own affection for The Doctor.

The soul of the TARDIS is captured by a malevolent entity and lured into a "bubble" on the edge of the universe. There in the darkness, a being has quietly been luring Time Lords to their destruction... feeding off their power and cannibalising their body parts along with other aliens to sustain its servants. The Doctor arrives on this barren junkyard asteroid in the hopes of finding some good Time Lords who may have escaped the Time War and who can forgive him for his actions. It soon turns out to be a ruse however and the Doctor is trapped on the rock with his TARDIS personified in the form of Idris (played by Suranne Jones), as the malevolent alien entity known as "House" hurtles off towards our universe in search of more "food" in the physical TARDIS, with Amy and Rory trapped inside... subjected to it's evil tricks.

Back on the asteroid we are treated to some wonderful interaction between The Doctor and the TARDIS as they desperately try to cobble together a working makeshift TARDIS from the remains of all the other TARDIS hulks that have crashed on the asteroid.

Eventually they make it back to the real TARDIS interior in time for a final conflict. When all seems lost and Idris' body dies, the TARDIS' soul is released back into the console and reclaims her rightful home from the "House entity"... purging him.

We are also treated to the cryptic portentous message:

"The only water in the forest is the River"

This isn't the first time Neil Gaiman has used this dramatic tool. He did something very similar in his Babylon 5 episode "The Day of the Dead". Two things struck me with regard to this statement. Firstly that River's eventual fate was to be downloaded into the memory of the library planet in the episode "Forest of the Dead", I think the Doctor may very well be travelling there in the future to rescue River's essence (because both river and forest are referenced). Secondly the fact that there is only one kind of water present... and of course Amy also shares a water related surname. Does this mean that Amy will not be with the Doctor in the future... or that perhaps that there will be an impostor of Amy travelling with the Doctor at some point?

The episode succeeds as a whole because you really believe in the relationship between the Doctor and the TARDIS, so much so that in her "death" scene... I found myself welling up along with Matt Smith.

I think the episode is very much about treasuring the moments. One segment of dialogue in particular sums this up for me:

Tardis: Doctor? Are you there? It’s so very dark in here.

Doctor: I’m here.

Tardis: I’ve been looking for a word. A big, complicated word, but so sad. I’ve found it now.

Doctor: What word?

Tardis: Alive. I’m alive!

Doctor: Alive isn’t sad.

Tardis: It’s sad when it’s over. I’ll always be here. But this is when we talked and now even that has to come to an end. There’s something I didn’t get to say to you.

Doctor: Goodbye?

Tardis: No, I just wanted to say … hello. Hello, Doctor. It’s so very, very nice to meet you.

Doctor: Please! I don’t want you to. Please.

 That scene really did have me weeping. Life is fragile... and the life we live in this world is temporary and all too brief. The knowledge that it all must come to an end is heart wrenchingly sad... most especially for those left behind. We should remember that although we eventually say goodbye to the people we have known and loved... that much more importantly we had the opportunity, the honour and the joy of saying hello to them in the first place and sharing a part of their journey too. As a Christian I believe that like the TARDIS, our loved ones may live on (by the grace of God). Although they are in a place where we can't commune with them... every so often the universe gives us a gentle reminder of who they were in order to reassure us of where they are.

The other thing that struck me in this episode is how everything that is truly important to us in life, requires a relationship. If we merely like or appreciate something... it is a one way thing and worthless. Friendships, partnerships, relationships, marriages, families, schools and even belief systems require a bond to work.

Even faith hinges on it.  If salvation was just about us expressing our belief or even our love for God, it would be of little value.

The Doctor believed that he had chosen  the TARDIS, yet it is now the TARDIS who tells him that  as much as he chose her, she chose him. She wanted to go off on a journey exploring the universe and he was the only one mad enough or willing enough to do it... the only one with the same desire to be free.

Ultimately, that is what I think has to happen in a journey of faith. We may start out thinking it's a one way thing, a series of devotional acts towards God... but sooner or later in life we have an encounter with the God we are worshipping and he becomes real to us in a new way. When that day comes it changes everything. We learn that inasmuch as we think we have chosen God... he  in fact has chosen us for himself too. When that day comes... it changes everything.

We, like the Doctor, may protest that we are not always taken where we want to go; God, like the TARDIS, gently reminds us that he always takes us where we most need to be. Just recently I had a personal experience that reminded me of this very thing.

At the end of the episode, The Doctor was deeply saddened that he couldn't communicate with the TARDIS in the same way any more... but is reassured when the controls start flipping and switching of their own volition. I am thankful that in my walk with God, that I don't need that kind of reassurance... you see God doesn't stop talking. True... sometimes he grows quiet... but it isn't because he is unable to talk to us, rather it is because we either need to rediscover our hunger for him... or because we are being encouraged to grow in faith in a hard but necessary way.

So I guess the questions I am asking tonight are.:

• Who is in control on your journey through life? 
• Who has chosen who?
• Is your faith or your life a one way thing?

May you be blessed as you seek an answer to those questions.

Oligarchy

So the British public have decided to reject AV in yesterday's referendum. This has caused several politicians such as John Reid, to suggest that this destroys the argument for any form of PR full stop... and that this is a ringing endorsement of First Past the Post. The BBC twitter account @BBCBreaking suggested that Britain had chosen to "overwhelmingly reject" AV. Whichever way you look at it, I would suggest that is a distortion of the facts.

I think we need to get a little perspective here. Out of all those eligible to vote in the referendum, only 42% bothered to even show up. While this doesn't help the AV cause... it certainly can not be claimed as a ringing endorsement of FPTP, which if you add the missing numbers only had 28.5% actively voting in favour of it.

Does it also not strike you a bit odd that 32% can be considered a crushing defeat for electoral reform and yet 35% sweeps a party to power? If the referendum has done anything, it has highlighted the anomalies in our political system all the more clearly. 

It is abundantly clear that the only "winner" was apathy (as always seems to be the case these days).

Yet politicians, the media and the public alike will hail the outcome or lick their wounds respectively... and sweep the elephant in the room under a conveniently placed carpet.

One of the reasons I am so actively opposed to FPTP, is that it introduces a form of oligarchy into our democracy... especially as things stand at present. Oligarchy is a form of government whereby the majority are ruled by the whims of a minority, a ruling elite. Oh sure, our electoral process is democratic enough in that you have the right to express your political preference... but when all is said and done, in the current climate whoever wins the day... does so with a minority backing them as first preference. While FPTP is a democratic form... it doesn't fit the politics of the UK for two reasons - diversity and apathy.

With diversity, the vote is split into a spectrum of colours. This currently favours the perceived right because outside of the Conservatives, there is no reputable right wing parties.... so they get the lion's share of votes. The left side is more fragmented... which causes problems for them... as more often than not it is their side that gets split. The trouble is that we have an electoral system that works best for two parties... and yet we have an increasing amount of political parties with varying degrees of respectability vying for our attention all the time.

The second problem is apathy. With 68% of people not committing their views to paper, their views are largely unknown. Proponents of FPTP will be eager to point out that it's their choice and their problem. This of course is true but it does not alter the numbers... or the facts - the vast majority of people who do not participate could easily take out any winning party.

My belief as an independent is that we need to take bilateral action to tackle both problems if we are to have a sensible democracy. Realistically, democracy hinges upon achieving the broadest consensus view.... something FPTP cannot give in our current political landscape. If you favour FPTP you actually favour oligarchy... you are actually saying "I don't care if most people completely disagree with me, if I get enough support I can impose my views on others".  This doesn't sit easy with me... it has an amoral whiff about it. In my view it doesn't marry up well with the idea of loving my neighbour as myself. It does marry up with survival of the fittest and that is perhaps why it leaves me with a bitter taste in my mouth. Long ago on this blog I drew a comparison between the law of God and the "law of the jungle". First Past the Post has a kind of selfishness around it that I find quite distasteful. If we do decide to replace it, we will need to think it through carefully and choose wisely.

As for apathy... what do we do about it? Some would call for compulsory voting to be put in place, but is that really a realistic solution? I don't think so. An authentic democracy can never exist when it undemocratically subjects it's electorate, bullying it to make a decision against their willingness and freedom to choose not to participate... this too is immoral. It is clear to me that only a positive course of action will work. Politicians need to better engage with their constituents and perhaps be prepared to abandon some of their dogmatic views about how the country should be run... and actually let the electorate have a say in manifestos... make them malleable rather than rigid. I know plenty of people (myself included) who find themselves all at sea politically because we are in areas on the socioeconomic scale that have no representation and therefore whatever views we do have... are often seriously compromised when we come to vote.

In conclusion, PR is a part of the answer... but we must never confuse it as being the whole answer... or mistakenly believe it to be a panacea to solve all the problems in UK politics. Even at its best it will only give us a consensus from the minority who participate. It is only with a political renaissance, a reinvigorating of the disenfranchised voter... that we can truly revive democracy.

Then perhaps, at last... we can finally start to take more responsibility for our country and hammer the nails into the coffin of oligarchy and leave it in the grave... where it belongs.

"Ave!" AV?

With only a couple of days to go before the local council elections and voting system referendum takes place, I feel somewhat obliged to blog on the topic. My primary aim in this is  not to sway your vote in any way.  I will be posting my own view, and will uncharacteristically nail my colours to the mast publicly... but don't worry if you aren't interested in hearing yet another person's take... because I will make a clear distinction before I go into that.

The point I wish to address is why you should go and vote on the subject of AV at all.... particularly if you feel ambivalent, nonchalant or apathetic about the whole thing.

The AV Referendum: How Should We Vote?

As you may know, I'm a strong believer in exercising the right to vote... even when you feel there is no "right" choice... I absolutely believe you should express your opinion by deliberately spoiling your ballot paper. I think it is lazy and disrespectful to all the people who have fought and in many cases died to obtain and preserve your right to vote as a free person.

For me, this belief is amplified when it comes to the referendum.

Why should this be?

It is simple. Referendums are curious political exercises... in many ways they deliver more power and say into our hands than a simple electoral vote. This is because when we are voting on a single issue (especially one as hotly debated as electoral reform), we are actually directly shaping policy. Whatever the outcome at the end of this week... Parliament will have to abide by it.

In an age when many of us have become sick and tired of being pushed around by politicians, many of whom exist within a detached bubble of irrelevance... when all of a sudden we are presented with an opportunity to directly manoeuvre the country's direction... we should grab it with both hands (and if necessary fight tooth and claw).

Having established that we should take part we come to the question.: how should we vote?

No... this isn't the bit where I tell you what I'm voting and try and sway you. Instead I want to make some very important points about the criteria we should... or more to the point, should not be using when making a decision.

1. I Will Vote In Line With My Preferred Party.
   If you are thinking of making a decision based on this notion, then I humbly suggest you take another look at what you are doing. This would be a waste of your vote... you would not be exercising democracy, you would be acting like a robotic sheep. I have become incensed at the way certain parties have thrown all their weight behind one campaign or the other. The Conservative Party had absolutely NO business making the "NO" position the party line. Similarly I was disgusted with Peter Mandelson for coming out and stating that this was an opportunity for the British public to hurt the Government and give David Cameron a bloody nose. Tribalising the debate about electoral reform benefits nobody.  It neatly avoids the issue and turns the vote into a farcical re-enactment of the last General Election... or a dry run for the next one. Both Government and Opposition are guilty of using this as an opportunity to damage their adversaries' credentials; they are making this debate about them... and not the country. They should be ashamed of themselves and need to be taught a lesson.
   
   
2. Voting X Will Benefit The Party I Am Most Inclined To Support
   This is a similar argument to the one above (in fact, it is pretty much the same intent dressed up in a different way). The simple truth is that you are not charged with the mere task of voting for the outcome that benefits your personal ideology. That is extremely selfish thinking. Instead you are bestowed with a far greater responsibility - deciding which form of democracy is fairer for all.... even if it flies in the face of your own deeply held political convictions.
   
   
3. Tradition or Change for Its Own Sake.
   This isn't a game... and you should treat the subject with appropriate gravitas. "It's always been this way, as far as I can remember" and "lets get rid of this just because I'll feel like I've achieved something" are once again invalid criteria. The former reflects an attitude of unmoving, overbearing parental imposition... the latter betrays a vein of recklessness and a desperation to make a mark without thinking things through. In both cases, any decision is dominated by ego and not by sound objective judgement.

Tempting as it may be to take any of the paths above, may I urge you instead to take the road less travelled by? When Thursday comes and you make your mark on the ballot... do so with objectivity and responsibility.  Remember that this vote is not about them (the politicians) and it is not about you (personally), it is about all of us collectively. The decision you make will not be for part of our society... it will be for all of our society. Try to take yourself and all the public figures clamouring for your attention out of the equation. Research the basic facts and come to an informed decision.

The power is yours, the freedom and choice are yours... and the responsibility is yours.

Use these things wisely.

Don't "Choose Poorly". ;-)

***End of Main Post Scroll Down for Personal View***

Before I go on... I want you to know that my choice in the referendum is based on the criteria I endorsed above... I am not a hypocrite. As it stands, there are no parties (south of the border at least), that match me closely in terms of my politics... I therefore have nothing to gain personally by voting either way. My choice has been made entirely on my interpretation of what is best for the nation as a whole.

My personal inclination is to vote in line with the "Yes" campaign. At first this was on gut reaction. All my adult life I have not been happy with the first past the post system. It is a known fact that whoever gets elected always represents a minority; in fact in modern politics, the number of people who vote for any party are generally outnumbered by those who either spoil their paper... or do not bother to vote at all. I do not subscribe to the idea of enforcing a compulsory vote as a viable way of dealing with this problem... as I find it undemocratic. Much as I loathe people's laziness for not bothering to show up and vote... I respect their constitutional liberty and democratic freedom to not participate if they so choose.   I do not begin to presume that AV will magically redress this imbalance on its own, I do believe it is one avenue we can explore to try and do something about it. If people are deciding not to turn up and vote because they know they are in a political stronghold... then AV would in part at least give those who feel disenfranchised some incentive to become involved once again. The NO Campaign will tell you that AV supporters are sceptical of its merits but they are far more sceptical of the status quo... and many see this as an opportunity to "start the ball rolling", a means to an end.

The NO campaign will also tell you that AV is not widely used... but really is this at all relevant? Should we be deciding the fate of our country based on what everyone else is doing? Are we really that lacking in resolve that we will follow everyone else? So what if only a handful of countries use AV... it isn't about them. It is about us.

The No Campaign states that AV will put more power in the hands of politicians because they will need to make back room deals and concessions to other parties in coalitions.  This argument above all the others betrays the Tory agenda most clearly (it even uses the watchword term "broken politics" that was so liberally applied by the Tories in the last election). They know that ideologically, their list of allies is a lot thinner than that of say Labour or the Liberal Democrats. If you take a look at this analysis on the Political Compass website, you can see why the Tories would be rightly anxious about a system where coalitions are the norm rather than the exception. David Cameron has also stated himself that under AV, politicians would be more corrupt because they would have to make promises to everyone... that they couldn't keep, in order to be elected. This really is nonsense. Call me old fashioned, but I believe that a person should be elected to serve the majority electorate interest... and not make promises left right and centre just to secure power. I for one am not so much interested in a person/party's promises and targets as I am their ideology. When all the smoke and mirrors fade, I believe most people vote on a basic understanding of the traditional agenda and principles of "the big two".  I don't want a politician promising me everything in the world... I want to know what their core standards are. If they think something is wrong and they aren't willing to commit to it, I want to weigh it up against my other choices... not have some schmoozer feeding me a bag of excrement for the sake of his own selfish political ambition.

The No campaigners will also tell you it is unfair and undemocratic. This is a misrepresentation. I would mistrust anyone who said either system were undemocratic. Neither is technically undemocratic, they are different expressions of democratic systems at work.  Whichever system we use will always carry some level of unfairness for someone. What we need to establish is which is which unfairness we are most comfortable living with. Simply put... are we more comfortable with a current system that hands the keys to the country to a party that may win less than 20% support (going by 40% of a 40% turn out), or are we prepared to allow people who have had their first choice eliminated to have their second or possibly third choice counted?

I believe that the most important thing we need to establish going forward in the future of politics for this country is consensus. We live in a society that has been fragmented into diverse political focus groups who have radically different and sometimes opposing agendas. The only way we can establish a government that truly represents this diversity is to establish which party most are happy to live with. The saying goes that "you can't have your cake and eat it". Under First Past the Post there's a danger that "you can't have your cake or eat it". It's a bum deal... you get left with nothing.

Right from birth, we are taught about how to make compromises. Imagine you are a boy in a toy shop. You want to buy a flashing glowing giant Optimus Prime toy robot but your dad tells you you don't have enough money. You do have enough money for a Barbie doll, the other option is that your kid brother has a bit of money that would get you an Action Man if you were prepared to share. Are you seriously going to walk out of the shop with the Barbie? Because that is all you'll get out of First Past the Post. If you are prepared to make the sacrifice and combine funds with your brother that will get you something you can live with? That's Alternate Vote in a nutshell.... and that's why (petty squabbles in the campaigns aside), I've thrown my lot in with the Yes campaign.

In case I have not been concise, the video below was put together by the television historian, Dan Snow. It is by far the best, most positive campaign I have seen on either side of the debate. If you haven't made your mind up yet, I encourage to add this to your contemplation: