I've been visiting London and the north of England for the past few days. Since I moved to the US in 2005, I've neglected British politics somewhat. I look at the news now and then, but it all seems increasingly strange. The saga of Gordon Brown is completely bewildering to me--his popularity now restored by the worst financial crisis in the country's history? Whatever happened to "no more boom and bust"? Whatever happened to "prudence with a purpose"? (Allow me to mention a headline I once wrote for The Economist: "Gordon and Prudence--It's So Over." Little did I know.) It all seems such a long time ago.
And yet, in other respects, the more things change, the more they stay the same. Mohamed Fayed is on the front page of the Evening Standard still, this time questioned over an alleged sexual assault--which he vehemently denies. Peter Mandelson is back in government, and "Tory sleaze" is a resurgent theme: these stories seem to have the same Russian oligarch in common, which is a new twist, but still. When Mandelson left office for the second time, and the papers were saying his political career was over, I bet my friend and FT colleague Gideon Rachman a fiver that he would be back for a third spell in due course. And so it proved. However, Gideon now denies all knowledge of this wager. Did I dream it? I think not. I am searching for documentary support. Had blogs existed back then, I feel I would be in the money.
Private Eye is the fixed point around which the country revolves. Could anything be more English? The current issue has a disappointingly indulgent review of three new television programs about America: travelogues looking at the United States as though it were another (much more vulgar) planet, narrated with effortless superiority by Stephen Fry, Simon Schama and Griff Rhys-Jones. I sampled all three, as it happens, and could not stand to watch more than five minutes of any of them. Simon Schama, striving for intellectual depth as well as flattering visuals, was worried about the water shortage out west. Driving through the Nevada desert, he talked about "paradise lost". Was it a green and pleasant land before the gluttonous appetites of Las Vegas stripped it bare? Who'd have thunk? Never mind, I am very fond of the Nevada desert.
Also from the current Private Eye, a feature called "Dumb Britain" compiles idiotic answers from TV quiz shows. It has this:
The Weakest Link
Anne Robinson: In education, what is a formal cap worn by academics and also a piece of equipment used by bricklayers?
Contestant: Trowel
As a friend said when I read that out to her, "Aw." But really, "The Weakest Link" is still in business? And Anne Robinson, I imagine, is still very stern and rude to her guests--who, if they prevail against her scorn and all odds, stand to win as much as Gideon owes me, or even a little more. How come she hasn't died of boredom?
Back to the Standard, and another very British story. A 16-year old is stabbed to death for no reason. The killer is sentenced to 12 years. He should be out for his 30th birthday. The judge is quoted: "This was an unprovoked attack, but I accept that your intention was not to kill when you used [the knife] to inflict that fatal wound and that you have behavioral and learning difficulties."
Yes, I dare say stabbing people falls under the heading of "behavioral difficulties". Calling Theodore Dalrymple. Get me back to the land of the sane.
Oh great, another dismayed expat...that is so English...
But would locking up the 16 year old youth for longer solve anything?
There is no evidence to suggest that locking people up for longer would reduce crime. Prison's are expensive. While society rightly demands a degree of retribution from criminals, if we want to reduce re-offending rates it would be more effective to focus the money on shorter sentences combined with a greater emphasis on rehabilitation.
While I love America, from my European perspective sentencing and penal policy in the States is barbaric.
I agree with Laurence. While I have not followed the murder trial mentioned in the article, it's a bit rich for an American (or at least an American resident) to be criticizing the British judicial system over lenient sentencing.
The US has over *five* times (per capita) the number of people in prison than in the UK (or anywhere else in Europe, outside Russia), and yet America cannot be called any safer for its sky-rocketing prison population, not by a long shot. Just compare the stats for violent crime in the two countries and you will see immediately that the UK is a much safer place to live.
American politicians of all political parties are too scared to speak out on this issue. After all, nobody lost an election by being too tough on crime. The result is an unseemly rush to impose longer and tougher sentences and mandatory minimums without any real thought to the long term consequences.
Are we really expected to believe that Americans are such bad people that they deserve to be languishing in jail in numbers far beyond any comparable western democracy? Even if you remove illegal immigrants from the stats, Americans are still being jailed at least four times as often as in countries Americans like to compare themselves to. Even the despots of China and Russia don't have to imprison as many people as the US does.
So less faux outrage about one teenage stabbing case in the UK, please, and let's see something constructive written about the growing unspoken shame of what's becoming of the American justice system instead, please.
Clive, I'm happy to be vindicated by you, in a sense.
Here in Holland we can receive a few BBC channels. Great fun, usually. British television is very, very good, esp. when they get all serious about current affairs.
I saw two editions of the Stephen Fry travel program and one part of Simon Schama. I had looked forward to these programs, cause - well who does not like Fry, and who does not like Schama?
Both programs are totally dull and uninspired. Stephen Fry travels - in a black London cab, for crying out loud - parts of the country, and jumps from one not particularly interesting location, where he ponders over a piece of trivial information, to the next. It is skin deep, and does not do him proud. The cab thing is excruciating.
Schama is trying to get to a theory of everything that is American, in five minute segments.
I shudder to think what they made Griff Rhys-Jones do.
However, Schama's series on great art works was absolutely wonderful, and his series on landscapes was groundbreaking. And I really liked the Stephen Fry edition of Who do you think you are? the show on genaeology. Best in the series bar none. So it's not that I do not appreciate these people's efforts to produce good television. What is the matter with them? Or is it America?
It's "Who'da thunk", not "who'd have thunk", Mr. Crook.