Category: Politics

Is Fido a communist? Thoughts on Andrew Currie’s unlikely hero in suburban America.

Irony with zombies
‘Fido’ is not strictly a zombie movie. Yes, its main premise is the story of a domesticated zombie, played by a strictly-grunting Billy Connoly, in a 1950s ‘perfect America’ universe where zombies are the ‘pets’ of mankind. The trick is to simply lock a collar around their necks to surpress their need to eat and create fenced off communities that protect them from the ‘Wild Zone’ where all the remaining un-domesticated zombies live. These communities are perfect in every way (it never rains apparently) and the families living in them look like they came right out of a Norman Rockwell painting. The working 9-5 husband Bill (Dylan Baker), the stay-at-home wife and mother Helen (Carrie-Ann Moss) and the well-mannered skinny kid Timmy (Kesun Loder). Only in this movie, instead of a dog, the pet is a zombie called Fido who starts to wake up from his permanent state of apathy and develops a will of his own despite the collar’s technology. As parts of his humanity emerge, seen through his cravings for a cigarette and appreciation of a woman’s scent, he protects and cares for Timmy and his family, as the ugliness of this seemingly-perfect American community appears. Through an accidental malfunction of his collar, Fido attacks Ms. Henderson, the generic old lady that spies on her neighbours, and before we know it there is a containment problem as zombies spread and death multiply. The head of ZomCom security, Mr. Bottoms, a decorated veteran of the Zombie Wars, succeeds in stopping the contamination just in time but many people are dead and he needs to make an example out of Fido and little Timmy.
The charm of this movie is not just its vibrant palette of colours, its shiny settings or the classic 50s images, like the wife greeting her husband at the door with a three-olive martini while the ham is in the oven. The images of this blissful suburban life are now romantic flashbacks, back to a time where family values were at the core of the American Dream and husbands, mothers and children had specific roles to play, a far cry from some family images we see in the movies today (absentee fathers, drunk mothers, rebellious sons and daughters). There is almost a longing to see a James Dean look-a-like appear at a some point to shake that blinding white smile off everyone’s face and make them act human, because they are as ‘zombified’ as their pets. This is what this film is all about though. It is the zombie that teaches Timmy to stand up to his bullies, it is the zombie that ignites the spark of feminism in Helen, it is the zombie that makes Bill want to be a better father to his son and it is the zombie that transforms this generic, dull community into a lively and human mix of people that have to face their inner demons. Irony at its best and the definitive charm of this film.

Zombies spread the life
When Mr. Bottoms, the illustrious war hero, declares that there is a containment problem within his perfect community, it is as if the film screams at you ‘Sound familiar?’. A decorated Zombie War veteran, risen to politics, protecting a town from a dangerous pandemic that kills people and turns them into heartless, emotionless eating machines? A pandemic whose source, Fido, seems to make women stand up to their husbands (‘Get it yourself dear’ ) and children rebel against their parents wishes. This film brings back memories of old Cold-War science fiction films like ‘Invasion of the Body Snatchers’, ‘The Thing from Another World’ and ‘It Came From Outer Space’ where such contamination scenarios do occur but their consequences are different. Instead of breathing life into a community, the threat tries to destroy all humanity it finds and replace it with pale copies of people, devoid of all emotion and free will. But this was 60 years ago, since then the Cold War has ended and the threat does not come from space but from the all-American home, from the people in power. They talk of perfection, control and safety, attainable only through the use of a gun and isolation.
Fido does not talk, does not actually control anything but through an accidental ‘dinner’, he sets off a sequence of events that show the rotten state of the American family core. However it is not beyond salvation. The solution? Human contact, conversation, sentiment and understanding, something that the status quo forbids in order to contain the zombie virus. In this world, if your mother turns into a zombie, well then she is easy to kill if you don’t love her. If your neighbour tries to eat you, you forget that he gave you 10 extra dollars for mowing his lawn and you chop off his head. Easy, simple and emotionally detached. Mr. Bottoms is a fervent believer in this ethos and is the representation of how America should live in this post-Zombie War world, looking more and more like communist-hunter Joe McCarthy who imprisoned and persecuted any citizen deemed to challenge American values and show left-wing sympathies in the 1950s. Timmy and Fido are challenging the status quo and draw in more people in their movement, until finally the whole town is contaminated. But this illness does not bring the community to an end, in fact it makes the viewer connect with the characters, love them, admire them and cheer for them, because they found their true voice and a lifestyle that makes them truly happy instead of acting like actors in a 50s toothpaste commercial. Helping Fido and Timmy in their quest is Mr. Theopolis (played by the brilliant Tim Blake Nelson), the only human adult in the film that sees through this technicolor sham and does not quite fit in. The cares for his zombie, Tammy, despite her nature and keeps her beside him as a partner, not just a servant. Their relationship is frowned upon by the rest of the town, showing that every community has their black sheep. However Theopolis and Tammy are the perfect example of what the community should in fact aspire to be.

Lenin, Guevara, Trotski and Fido
Communism in American cinema, as with its current politics, will never belong on the good side of popular culture. The so-called ‘Third World War’ between America and Soviet Russia lasted from the end of the Second World War, till the collapse of the Soviet block in 1989 under Republican hero Ronald ‘Second coming of Christ’ Reagan. But unofficially, Hollywood never liked ‘lefties’ and probably never will. They will always be portrayed as either eccentric, remnants of the losing side, or just mad but Fido seems to be neither. The similarities between this film and the ones mentioned above is undeniable but the formula is reversed. As the bodysnatchers suck the life out of Americans, Fido retrieves it for them even though he is undead. Is Hollywood changing its mind about Communism? Wishful thinking there I’m afraid since this battle will go on in cinema and American politics for as long as uneducated right-wingers scream on Fox News that healthcare is socialism. No, this is not about communism in the end. It’s about family, it’s about loving your neighbour and it’s about breaking the wall of silence that our society today lives in.
The people in the town are seemingly fenced off from the rest of world, they hardly talk to each other unless it is to improve their social standing, the kids learn how to shoot to kill without a second thought (a nice critique on gun-laws there) and the best accomplishment one could hope for when they die, is to have their heads cut off and to be buried in the cold ground and stay there. All fitting metaphors of the crippling isolation modern society is going through. Emotional detachment, lack of empathy and individualism are all stigmas in today’s world, mostly due to technology, fear, lack of trust and digital networking. All these hinder human contact and increase the chance of living a solitary life while being constantly surrounded by people. In this film, Fido is our saviour. He will accompany you outside to play in the park, he will help you wash you dad’s car in the driveway while you mum makes lemonade, he will help you get the girl, he will save you from bullies, he will want you to be a decent human being to your family and friends. Fido has all the traits of a Hollywood 1950s communist but in fact he is not a revolutionary, he is not a messiah.
He is what we used to be, imperfect in a lot of ways but alive, smoking, drinking, running and biting.

Gove shocked by heckling headteachers

As Michael Gove attended the conference for the National Union of Headteachers he appeared to be taken aback by jeering and heckling aimed at him by the members of the union. During the question and answer session Gove was ruffled by ironic laughter and groans that were the frequent response to his answers.

The National Union of Head Teachers passed a ‘no confidence’ motion in the policies proposed and adopted by Gove, however, he remained steadfast in his belief in the policies and stated that he was striving for higher standards in schools.

When informed that, under his policies, teachers were suffering from stress due to SATs and OFSTED inspections, his response was less than sympathetic. Even when headteachers told him of their own experiences, including feeling that they were working within an environment of ‘bullying and fear’ whilst waiting for OSTED inspections and the subsequent results. Another example of the stress was reported by a headteacher who explained that in her school a governor with 20 years of experience ‘dissolved into tears’ when the school had to cope with SATs and OFSTED in one week. Still Gove seemed unmoved, even though the stress caused by his policies is shown to be affecting not only paid members of schools but also volunteers such as school governors.

Rather than accepting that his policies have caused upheaval and stress, and conceding that he could consider revising them, Gove instead insisted that the problem was that he had not communicated his ideas effectively. He would not be making any changes to his policies whether or not there was a problem with him expecting high standards and this was causing stress.

The overwhelming feeling that came from the question and answer session was that Gove was uninterested in the levels of stress that school staff were facing. He would not change his policies simply because headteachers were suffering and did not wish to work with people who were not happy to be constructive rather than just critical.

The general secretary of the National Union of Head Teachers, Russell Hobby, described the session as ‘bruising’. It is not just the National Union of Headteachers who have lost confidence in the government’s plans for the education system. The three biggest teachers’ unions, ATL, NUT and NASUWT, have also been vocal about their dislike of the policies and are planning regional strikes in response to the continuing dispute over pay, pensions and workloads.

It would appear that Gove has made his position clear and will not be backing down. It is also clear that the biggest unions in the country are not willing to accept this position and will continue to fight for what they believe teachers deserve. Evidently, a rough journey lies ahead, whatever the outcome and whoever ends up being victorious.

Delay in London Cycling Initiative

A major revival of cycling infrastructure in the outer boroughs of London has been put on hold by mayor Boris Johnson, after having initially praised the move.

The mayor of London, and his predecessor Ken Livingstone, both agreed to aim to reach the proposed 400% increase in cycling by 2025. Recent developments have indicated that things are going in the right direction, with 2003 seeing an introduction of a congestion charge, and the “European style” bike hire made available in 2009.

Indeed, the cycling culture of inner London has improved drastically, where it can often be quicker, not to mention far healthier, to commute by bike than by car, but it is the areas in outer London which currently need the most attention. The majority of cycling trips in the future will have to be made in these areas, so it is essential that the experience of cycling there is a safe one, and not potentially off-putting to the novice.

According to the Guardian, the overall “vision” of the cycling initiative will focus on  “the creation of ‘mini Hollands’, to transform conditions in areas of outer London and make safe, pleasant cycling a reality for local people.” Inspired by many European cities, London, being one of the largest cities in the world, realises the sense it makes to develop a similar scheme. But it seems that the scheme is being halted, albeit temporarily.

One obvious reason for this is the severe government cuts being made all over the country; there simply may not be enough money in the near future to fund a better cycling infrastructure. But public interest is being expressed far and wide in the value of investment in cycling.

In Scotland this weekend, thousands of cyclists, novices and seasoned pros alike, are planning to take part in Pedal on Parliament, descending on Holyrood en masse to campaign for better cycling infrastructure, and that the limited resources available will in fact be better spent on a healthier and safer means of travelling.

Certainly from a health perspective, with the current concerns for obesity and widespread lack of exercise, this could be the ideal investment for the governments to make, tackling both health and transport issues at the same time.

Judging from the better records of many other cities in Europe and elsewhere, and the growing expression of interest from the UK public, perhaps it is the best next move for Boris Johnson to reopen the cycling case, and put the limited economy to the best possible use.

Support For Wind Energy

Recent studies have shown that the majority of people are in favour of onshore suppliers of wind energy, but would be less likely to cast their vote.

A number of MPs have claimed that wind farms would be too expensive, despite growing evidence that people would in fact be more likely to vote for them if they were seen to be in favour of environmentally friendly energy.

At the end of last month, The Department of Energy and Climate Change gathered and released data that showed strong support for those in favour of wind energy, and on 1st May a series of polls were commissioned by RenewableUK, which revealed how voters really feel about the views of their local MPs on core issues such as climate change.

However, the number of voters could use a boost in many demographics; proportions of pro-wind energy votes are high among Labour and Liberal Democrat voters, but votes are also relatively high among Tory voters, 33% of whom would support a pro-wind farm candidate. Furthermore, 23% of UKIP voters claim that they would be more likely to vote for a candidate that openly supports wind energy, clearly leaving the rest of UKIP voters in a state of non-support, or uncertainty.

One vote that was given in a surprising quantity was “makes no difference”, which may lend more credibility to the notion that people are not, in fact, opposed to wind farm energy, which many MPs have been claiming, but that there are simply too many other issues to take into consideration.

Propelling wind energy to the forefront of the minds of the people will be something of a challenge, given the priority of other issues, such as welfare cuts, immigration and affordable housing. Yet with various contemporary issues to contend with, the importance of wind energy, and its potential to help conserve the environment in the future, should not be neglected when there are more potential voters than ever before, all of whom have the chance to make a difference to the environmental wellbeing of the country.

Anonymity of the accused in rape cases

In light of the recent arrest of Tory MP Nigel Evans for rape and sexual assault, the Government may be questioning itself as to why it decided not to extend anonymity in rape cases to the accused. If it had taken up this issue and made changes to the law in order to protect people accused of rape and sexual assault then the public would not currently be aware of Nigel Evans arrest. The only time the public would become aware was if he was convicted.

The Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1976 introduced anonymity to victims of rape and sexual assault. This created a lifelong ban on their identity being revealed unless they choose to identify themselves. This anonymity is given to victims largely due to the stigma that comes with being a victim of such an intimate and violating offence.

Anonymity for men accused of rape is not a new idea conjured up by the latest coalition government. It was introduced in 1976 by the Labour Government and repealed by the next Conservative Government in 1988. The Liberal Democrats included it in their 2006 party policy and the current coalition Government proposed introducing it into law only a few years ago. The topic was dropped without being taken forward on the grounds that there was insufficient evidence that a new policy was needed.

Granting anonymity to a person who is not yet guilty of a crime arguably coincides with one of the fundamental principles of the law in the UK – the notion of being innocent until proven guilty.

There are clear grounds for the argument that men accused of rape should remain anonymous unless they are proven to be guilty by a court of law. The stigma attached to being accused of rape or sexual assault is such that it affects the accused’s entire life and their family’s lives. The accused may lose family and friends, their job, be subjected to violence or harassment or have to leave the area in which they live. This is particularly true of a person in the public eye whose accusations are documented throughout the media. If a person is found to be innocent or the accusations are withdrawn then there is often less media attention surrounding this type of story. Many will therefore be assumed guilty, even without trial. Many people believe that a person should not have to experience this if they have done nothing wrong. If they remained anonymous this would never happen.

However, there are also reasons why the accused should be ‘named and shamed’. Arguably, being accused of rape or sexual assault is no worse than being accused of other offences such as child murder. If anonymity is given to one offence then a snowball effect may occur and anonymity demanded for all sorts of offences. One of the features of the justice system in the UK is that it is open to the public. If people accused of crimes are given anonymity then the public will no longer be able to attend criminal court and have the access to the legal system that is currently in place.

Granting anonymity to an accused means that there can be no public appeals for more victims to come forward. In cases such as that of Jimmy Saville, this could have been potentially disastrous. If he had been alive and capable of being prosecuted a lack of victims could have meant that charges were never brought against him. The fact that the allegations came to light after his death would mean that had anonymity been in place the public would never have been made aware of the accusations.

A further argument put forward for accused people to not be granted anonymity is that it is disrespectful to the victim. This may be true in cases where the accused is guilty, however, in cases where the allegations are false and the accused is entirely innocent the lack of respect appears to be aimed at the accused rather than the other way around.

It is unlikely that this issue will be resolved to everyone’s satisfaction. Any form of censorship should not be taken lightly and granting anonymity to a person accused of a crime has an effect on the way the justice system works. The Coalition Government may now be regretting the decision to shelve the idea in the light of the recent accusations; however, to rush into a change in the law is likely to be reactive rather than a logically decided and necessary amendment.

Local Elections pose interesting questions

The first week in May is always an exciting one for political anoraks, as people go the polling stations in their droves (maybe) and take part in democracy by choosing their elected representatives. This time around it is mainly county seats up for grabs, which means that while there won’t be as many of them, the impact which those elected can have in communities is significant.

This is a strange time in the electoral cycle, with still more than two years to go until the next general election. None of the three parties has moved towards anything even remotely looking like a manifesto or even an idea of what might be included in one come 2015.

The county seats up for election this time round were last contested in 2009; that strange, distant time when anything seemed politically possible in Britain but most politicians were hiding away trawling through their expense claims.

Gordon Brown was the prime minister who, despite being widely regarded as saving the global financial system, was one of the most unpopular in living memory. David Cameron was leading his Conservatives to what appeared to be an irresistible landslide in 2010 and cheeky Nick Clegg was the darling of the disaffected. Then there was UKIP, seen back then as a slightly oddball bunch who might be good for a protest vote at the European elections but not for much else.

So what can we be looking out for this week to give as an indication of what the future might hold?

Don’t expect big Labour gains

Remember most of the seats up for election are in the Conservative strongholds of the Home Counties and the rest of the ‘Shires’. While Labour should make good gains in the midlands and further north, Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire, Cumbria and the like, don’t expect any big breakthrough anywhere else in the country. Anything more than a 400 councillor net gain would be a pretty remarkable result for Labour.

The UKIP factor

Having spoken to those campaigning in a few places around the country, feedback from the doorstep seems to be that while people are more inclined to think about UKIP, the actual effect they will have on the results remains minimal, perhaps between 5-10% in some seats, but in most places not even that much. As usual though, UKIP may end up being more of a threat in the safest Tory seats, so look out for Buckinghamshire, Suffolk and West Sussex for a good showing, picking up no more than 10-20 seats overall. David Cameron will also be watching his own backyard of Oxfordshire closely.

Can the Tories hold their own

It’s the nature of the cycle of support that about halfway through a Parliament the governing party has to defend seats won when they were in opposition, and they do so badly. In the 1990s Tony Blair won crazy council seats in places Labour would never usually even stand, then haemorrhaged those winnings throughout his premiership. There have been plenty of predictions on both sides as to how badly they will fare, with the Tories saying up to 800 losses and Labour saying 400ish, probably somewhere in the middle is a reasonable prediction. Don’t forget that many people in the Tory heartlands are not only largely unaffected by the cuts to public expenditure, but indeed actively support it and believe more can be done quicker.

What about the Lib Dems

In many ways 2009 was the high water mark for the Liberal Democrats. The time when voters still believed all that stuff about being Social Democrats and wanting to abolish tuition fees before they made their pact with the Conservatives and appeared to give it all up. However, don’t discount them here, while they will undoubtedly take some losses, the ability of the Lib Dems to dig in once elected is well known, and on top of that they have some very hardworking local councillors. After the recent Eastleigh by-election a Labour foot soldier was heard to remark that “after the nuclear apocalypse the only two creatures surviving will be the cockroaches and the Liberal Democrats telling everyone that the cockroaches aren’t local.”

The Independence question

One thing that makes local elections slightly more difficult to predict than general elections is the role independent councillors play. Many communities don’t want a member of a political party to represent them, much preferring to have someone who has, in the voters’ mind, only the interests of the area at heart, rather than some political career ambitions. This may have more bearing this time, given that in 2009 the expenses ‘scandal’ lowered the standing of any politician in the public mind.

Three things are certain on every election day and in those which immediately follow. Firstly, there will be some results which are total anomalies and don’t stand up to any analysis. Secondly, every party will say that the election had nothing to do with them, but was a damning indictment on the state of the other party/their leader/their policies/their lack of policies. Thirdly, the most sobering though for those of us who are interested, the vast majority of people don’t care about the elections, the candidates or the results.