Why there's nothing to be learned from raising tuition fees.

Speaking as a young person raised in the 90s, it will probably come as little surprise that I am not a huge fan of the Conservative party. One of my earliest memories is Tony Blair’s first speech as Prime Minister and I remember thinking even then that this was a huge step for the better- even if that was only because Tony Blair reminded me vaguely of Noddy. From tales of the milk snatcher to wincing at the sight of Michael Howard’s saggy testicle head, I have always had a predilection for a world without Tories in it.

Even in my adult years, this is an opinion that has not wavered and the burden of comprehension has only served to greater enforce the bad taste that washes over my mouth when the subject of a Conservative rule is raised. Immigration,’ benefits-culture’, ‘hug-a-hoody’, every buzzword, catchphrase and ridiculous tabloid hook sees my blood pressure jump in full metres of mercury. Perhaps it is the arrogance of youth- or the fact I know everything about everything- but I honestly cannot understand how a rational culture would elect a party as wholesale evil as the Tories.

The more I work the idea around my head, the more the aches and pains beg me to stop. Despite my best efforts, my most humane, modest and honest appreciation of our society is that we are simply not a rational culture. There are hundreds of others who have written, both more eloquently and more impassioned, about the dangers of a society as seemingly brainwashed as ours and I wouldn’t wish to dilute my point by re-uttering stale anti-Conservative clichés.

Through my personal relationships, I have seen the full scope of our culture; the hard working, under-appreciated selflessness of state and council workers, the lofty arrogance of those in the top tier, the quiet acceptance of those in the middle. I have friends who are right wing, left wing, apolitical, ethnic minorities, eclectic majorities, homosexual, intellectual and those that amble along; blissfully unaware of what goes on in 2010 Britain. Raised in a liberal household where we have never been so arrogant as to pick a party over a policy, my mother was firmly a Lib-Dem, briefly voting Labour in 1997 and now, much to my chagrin a blooded Conservative. My father has always seemed mostly apolitical, perhaps of the opinion that whoever wins; we lose. Little has changed my family’s social standing over the last twenty years- we are still working class, we still live in a London suburb and we still have The Sun, the Daily Mail, the Guardian and the television guide on the table.

The Tories too, have barely changed over the last twenty years. They are still a self-serving group of xenophobes dedicated to burying the working class to build foundations for the upper tier. My family hasn’t changed, the Conservatives haven’t changed, so it must be society that has. This is obvious to anyone who has read a newspaper in the last three years. We have the world’s largest financial crisis, immigration on an unprecedented scale, a globe gradually heating up, a record amount of money being dedicated to those on social benefits, a youth culture where knife crime is the norm and Ashley Cole.

The more discerning amongst us could see that these things are not the clearly attributable fault of any political party (although there is a lot to be made of the fact that a lot of these violent youths grew up in the Conservative era) and it becomes tiresome discussing them. However, this has not stopped the Tory sleaze machine, Rupert Murdoch et al. slinging the mud around and creating our so called ‘climate of fear’ and it seems to have paid off for them.

After a refreshingly pleasant thirteen year break, we once again have a Conservative ruler and it seems like his first port of call is to step on all those without gold bullion reserves. We are seeing cuts to social benefits, the NHS, the public sector and perhaps most worryingly, the future of our prospective students. This is not to say that those students are in a worse position than those who desperately need the benefits money, but that we are effectively destroying our ability to recover from the debts we are being piled with.

Unless we continue to give young people a high class university education, we are not going to have a skilled work force. Already immigration has given us a huge unskilled work force, creating mass competition for jobs that don’t require degrees and we are risking increasing this unskilled work force on a huge scale. The more unskilled workers, the less jobs available and so unemployment will rise. This is obvious and is barely worth stating but to highlight my key points; it is not the upper tier that will suffer. Those with wealth will continue being wealthy, their children will continue to be able to get a first-rate education, occupy the highest paying jobs and then vote Conservative. The rich will get richer, the poor will get poorer and Britain will continue to decline.

But this is not the only effect it may have. As long as companies, both British and foreign, require highly skilled workers then they will continue to hire them and if the British educational system is not able to supply them then they will import them. For all the Conservatives huffing and puffing about immigration, they are not doing their utmost to stop it. Indeed, they may fuel the engines of those who wish to live and work in Britain.

Make no mistake about it; the Conservatives are selling us down the river to preserve their hegemony. Their loyalties are to themselves and to those with money, not to Britain, and by distracting the public with horror stories of immigration, benefits cultures and knife crime they are cutting the throats of everyone beneath them. No group of people will feel the strain of this more than the young people, as we are going to have to carry the debt we are being saddled with and it looks like we are going to live without the benefit of an affordable education.

But this doesn’t faze the Conservatives. After all, they’re the ones with the money, the nous and now, the power. So long as they can create smokescreens to hide their real agenda and trick the masses into thinking they’re working for them, then they will continue to do. The divide between the tiers will continue to grow and the working class will continue to struggle. The ‘nasty party’ will always be the nasty party, smiling as they rob the public they claim to serve. As former Tory Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli said, “A Conservative Government is an organized hypocrisy.”

Him and Him; where are all the men?

Quite recently, I took exception to someone cracking a joke about another person. The epithet ‘fag’ was used, in description of someone who, whilst not openly gay, had that familiar camp attitude. Upon confrontation, the homophobe in question denied that he was spitefully homophobic, only that he had been “put off” by “a gay” in his secondary school. Naturally, this didn’t sit right with me either, and I continued to press the issue. Unsurprisingly, there were claims of exaggeration and excessive flirting from the secondary school gentleman which left a bad taste in the mouth.

This wasn’t a surprise to me, and whilst I resented his view that that was representative of all gay people, I was sympathetic that such behaviour would grate. I had met similar people- those who flirt incessantly, repeatedly offer sexual favours, and offer to ‘change’ people’s sexuality. We live in a society where all sexualities are accepted and so this behaviour is unacceptable and boorish regardless of whom the perpetrator is. I would be, and have been equally offended when heterosexual females throw themselves at homosexual males, so why was this person so deeply offended by one bad egg that they tarred all gay men with the same brush? Why did they pick up on this relatively rare personality trait and apply it to all people with a certain camp flamboyancy?

It is undeniable that the stereotypical gay man will be limp-wristed, flamboyant, and fashion conscious- this has been embraced by both detractors and those who celebrate homosexuality- and certainly all of those terms could be applied to the target of the original joke, but not every gay man fits that mould and I daresay that I’ve met many who hate the stereotype as much as any true-blooded homophobe. Years of Will and Grace, Queer Eye and other camp-indulgent medias have lathered this stereotype and made it a rare sight to see a gay man who doesn’t squeal or flap on screen.

There have been exceptions, of course. The first one that springs to mind is a bit part character from Friends (S01E08 – The One Where Nana Dies Twice) whom appeared to be perfectly restrained and comfortable discussing his sexuality. Fair enough. Professor Dumbledore also came to mind, but his apparent outing could be cynically viewed as a publicity stunt. For every Will we see, there are a thousand Jacks, and while I wish to stress that this isn’t a negative for the gay culture, it may be a negative for the gay men who don’t identify with them. What about the gay men who like sports, drink beer and build furniture?

America’s Modern Family is making decent headway into changing the stereotype. Whilst both Mitchell and Cameron are softer spoken, perhaps a little more effeminate than more macho characters in other shows, they are a departure from the histrionics and squealing so often found in mainstream media. They are a refreshingly realistic look at homosexual men and especially homosexual couples and anyone seeking to portray any aspects of gay relationships would do well to review how Modern Family handles it.

I feel it’s worth stressing that I have nothing against flamboyancy and campness- quite the opposite. For years homosexuals have been persecuted and people have been forced to hide who they are for fear of reprisal and repercussions beyond contemplation. We are finally living in a society where homosexuality is celebrated and not reviled and if people want to be exuberant in their actions and mannerisms then more power to them. My issue is that there is not a wide enough spectrum of gay men is being portrayed; instead producers and creative types are flooding any gay roles with the same cookie-cutter, fabulous and eventually tiresome characters. Perhaps directors think that audiences will fail to identify with these characters, or fail to recognise them as gay, so diluted have their perceptions become. Perhaps audiences need that sort of marker- after all, how can you praise someone for their forthcoming attitude to sexuality if they’re not demonstrably open about it?

What does continue to puzzle me is the casting of gay actors in heterosexual roles, and how these same gay actors don’t act in more gay roles. I am fully sympathetic to actors not wanting to be typecast consistently based on something as oblique as their sexual preference, but on the opposing side of the coin, I think that they have an obligation of sorts to try and expand the gay horizon- I can’t have been the only person to notice the narrow spectrum of gay roles on television and film. Neil Patrick-Harris, for example, has done no sizable gay roles, and even when parodying himself was portrayed as a drug taking womanizer.

Perhaps the lack of notable contra-gay roles is because there have been very few butch, macho gay icons. Think of gay icons, and you’re instantly drawn to think of Andy Warhol, Liberace, even Gok Wan. Their careers speak for themselves, but they are undeniably camp. The less exuberant but more famous, the more likely you seem to draw criticism and controversy- Freddie Mercury is a man’s man, but was struck down by HIV, James Dean was a Rebel Without a Cause, and the less said of George Michael, the better. Russell Tovey, of Him and Her and Being Human fame summed the issue up nicely; “The only thing I can give to young gay people is that when I was growing up there were no role models that were blokey, that were men. Everybody was flamboyant and camp”

So whatever the cause for this masculine bottleneck, it is only a matter of time before it is broken open. Until directors realise the broader spectrum of homosexuality that is available, it seems like we’ll be stuck with the fabulous stylists that are so omnipresent. Until then, one question still remains; there are plenty of gay males on our screens, but where are all the men?

This is England '86 should've stayed there.

To preface this review, I want to say that I loved This Is England. I thought it was an endearing, charming and ultimately heart-breaking look at Thatcher's British North. It tackled a changing social climate, racial tensions and the misappropriation of youths drawn in to the bigotry of the National Front. Whilst I was born in 1990 and raised in an affluent South West London suburb, watching This Is England felt like I was peering in a window through time. I smiled at mentions of shoes frum Lundun, recoiled as the young Shawn was sucked into Combo's propaganda and silently wished for Woody et al. to rescue him. When Milky ultimately (apparently) paid the price for Shawn's redemption, I was legitimately upset. I had become endeared to him and his plight- being a British-Jamaican forced to identify with his country rather than his culture, and thought that (what I thought was) his death was touching, moving and heroic. A man, who smiled in the face of the hateful and deranged Combo, smiled in the face of a depressed and misguided North, smiled and ultimately martyred himself.

So imagine how I felt when Shane Meadows decided he would shit all over that and bring him back for this dire, dire, TV-quel.

Apparently not pleased with the success of TIE, both culturally and financially, Meadows decided that he would remove all the things that were great about the film, replace them with even more terrible haircuts, add a few totally unnecessary characters into the mix and excrete this tragedy. Maybe Meadows felt that some of the themes and ideas would be relevant to people today, maybe he thought that the British populace would flock to another viewfinder of 1980s England, maybe he had knocked back a few too many Special Brews whilst masturbating to the third series of Skins. Maybe, and this seems most likely to me, Channel 4 offered him a big fuck-off cheque in exchange for this big fuck-off to his credibility and integrity. Whatever his reasons for agreeing to this, none seems worthy enough to justify just what a train-wreck ‘86 is.

The first episode started promisingly enough. We catch up with the lads and the ladies and find that Shawn has become estranged from the gang. Seems logical enough, given that he was at least involved partially with the brutal beating of one of their comrades. I was surprised to see that Banjo and Meggy, two characters who decided they wouldn't stop Combo battering Milky, featuring as full-fledged parts of the group, but stranger things have happened on screen. It looks as though Woody and Lol are set to be married and immediately it becomes clear that there will be some sort of tragedy to prevent it... at least, it would have if the trailers hadn't clearly revealed that they weren't going to get married after all.

It's important to note that this is a recurring problem in TIE '86. It rolls about as subtly as a nine-iron to the temple. Not a single thing is implied- whether it's revealed in the trailer, blatantly spoken about, or shown on screen. There is no subtlety, no implicature, no class, no style, only painstakingly welcome-overstayed and totally over-indulgent eyesores.

There are funny moments scattered in the turgidity, though. Shawn's confrontation with the scooter-gang, Gadget and Harvey (last seen mocking Shawn’s dead father) running with the flowers, Meggy's heart-attack (I laughed, at least) but ultimately the episode establishes that it just isn't supposed to be a comedy. Fair enough, the film wasn't a comedy, either. What does become apparent is that Meadows has abandoned everything that was special and challenging about the film and decided to opt for a bizarre mix of Skins, Hollyoaks and Shameless and the resulting concoction wouldn't look out of place on Bravo at 2AM. Whilst the aesthetics and the general anachronism is there, the social, racial and political elements aren't. Mr Sandhu- victim of a racial tirade from Shawn and co. in the film has become something of a Northern emperor, owning a sweet shop, a Blockbusters, a laundrette and brothel... I assume. His success betrays his role in the original film, and his inclusion is presumably only to give Shawn a reason to run away, or possibly just so slack-jawed viewers can point and garp "That's the paki from the first film," secure in the knowledge that the film and the TV-series are inter-connected. Similarly, local whore Trudy has had something of a career upgrade, going from shoe salesperson to receptionist at a rundown... hall of some kind. The inclusion of irrelevant characters from the film only serves to further highlight the pointlessness of the new characters. Maybe the stylist had some extra bad haircuts Meadows liked the look of- I can't think of a better reason why some people have turned up.

The second episode is completely devoid of anything of real substance and can be summed up in a sentence; Lol's dad is a paedophile and Lol shags Milky. Nothing else of note happens.

The third episode is what ultimately spurred me on to write this review, so repulsed was I by its consistent awfulness. After being 'treated' to sights of Lol's pasty, malnourished torso in the previous episodes, we're once again rewarded for our (long, long, long suffering) patience by another glimpse at her breasts. What I found much more gratifying was Paedo-dad choking her. If only Milky and friends had had the same idea.

Obviously, I'm joking- there was absolutely no need for such a violent scene to be included, especially not after the sexually-charged scene prior. Meadows certainly has a fetish for merging violence and sex and on paper this sounds like it could be quite the statement. After all, psychologists have long theorised that lust and violence are very similar emotions, but trust me when I say that Meadows was certainly unaware of any such link, his motives purely to gratify the misogynist audience he was clearly pitching for. The violent child-rape scene at the end offended me on many levels. There was no reason for its inclusion, no motive for its length, and no justification for it whatsoever. There was nothing to be achieved by featuring it. The only message I could garner from it was "People who violently rape children are bad" and this is something that I, and no doubt the British public at large, have known for a very long time. Years of Ian Huntley flooding the Daily Mail has hammered this message in well, so why did Meadows feel it was vital to have it portrayed quite so graphically? As mentioned, the British public is well aware of the horrors of brutal paedophilia, and would very easily discern that that is what the character was going to do if they had had the taste to imply it, even just a little.

Against my better judgement, I stuck it out and watched the fourth and final episode and, now unsurprisingly, finished it feeling desperately like I needed a shower and a lobotomy. We’re treated to the dramatic return of Combo… who gives Shawn a friendly hug and sends him on his way. We’re treated to yet another sight of Lol’s nipples- no doubt the actress foresees her future in lad’s mags or soft-core porn- and yet another totally unnecessary rape scene. As soon as Lol and Paedo-dad are in the same room, you just know that’s where they’re going, so unsubtle and ill-written is this series. It’s justified at least, though. I know whenever I confront violent rapists; I always do it alone, threaten them with hammers and then turn my back on them for a few seconds. Unfortunately for Lol, though, her violent rapist father does something totally out of character and tries to violently rape her. What actually surprised me about this scene is just how sexually charged the dialogue before was, replete with heavy breathing and tender mutterings of “Yeah, look at that, yeah, mm.” When Combo entered to save the day, I was actually fully expecting him to try and have a turn on Lol, too. Instead, he gave Lol a hug and sends her on her way, and so the much hyped (at least a month and a half) return of the most complex character in the film is a total bust.

So why do it? Why sell out the values of the film wholesale and replace it with this muck? This Is England was an 18, but it contained none of the misogyny or sexual content, and certainly not any sexual violence. Why is This Is England ’86 so radically different to its predecessor?

The answer is simple. Shane Meadows is a money-grubbing sell out.

Though, maybe this is unfair. Shane Meadows wrote This is England, which was a great film. He wrote Dead Man's Shoes, which was a great film. He co-wrote TIE '86 with Jack Thorne of Skins notoriety, and whilst it would be similarly unfair to blame the disgusting mess purely on Thorne, it is not a ridiculous assumption that he might have pushed for more of the filth, more of the sleaze, more of the drivel, backed by Channel 4, infatuated by the success of Skins. Regardless, Shane Meadows has sold out wholesale, and should have refused point-blank to be a perpetrator in this muck. Do yourself a favour and do something, anything, other than watch This is England '86.

Note: This was edited for clarity. I removed the words "of a known paedophile" as I was later corrected on this.