Labour Party Leadership

I would watch more telly if it wasn't for the background music. Everything has it. Even interesting nature documentaries and science programmes. My ears soon weary of the diddle diddle boom boom dinkety plonk of background music. Unfortunately, if you turn off the soundtrack, you miss the voice narrating and explaining things.

At some time in the future when the human race wearies of background music, science may come up with a way of removing it from old tv programmes, leaving the voice and the real and genuine sounds intact.

A button on the zapper, background music on or off would do the trick.

There is an idea around that some international musical standards setup changed the old standard of note A= 432 hertz to 440 hertz in the early twentieth century, and all the other notes accordingly, and music based on that new standard, the one we hear all the time now, is harsher on the ear, and on the mind.

Certainly music you don't want is a pain. More so to some than others apparently, a lot of people seem to be immune to it.

My first introductions to film and music came by way of a lady playing a piano to a Charlie Chaplin film of the 1920's. That would have been late 1940's Rochdale. Pavillion cinema situated on what is known now as College Bank. Musical backgrounds to films and radio were prevalent in the 1950's and seem as a consequence to be obligatory with anything and everything both film and radio these days. Natural sound is difficult because of the background noises which can detract or sometimes obliterate the narration or dialogue and are 'added' by 'sound men' in order as to complete the event without pause or interruptions to enable the listener/viewer to appreciate the 'scene' properly. The background music is 'meant' to be an aside other than in certain circumstances where it is used to enhance the scene/dialogue.
If you were to take any 'live' jungle scene without audio interference you would be unable to appreciate the spoken narrative for the mass of natural noise blasting forth around the scene.
Therefore - one has to make a choice - either go with the flow or read a book.
Most writers will tell you that they cannot write easily without something going on in the background, usually music of some sort. Why? Is that a consequence of 'conditioning'? Or. Is it to block out the 'natural' sounds in order for them to concentrate on the written words formulating in their brains -to pen-to paper/computer screen? A conundrum it is!!

They say a lot of kids can't do homework without music playing. Adults can feel awkward if there is no background music, background music has become the norm. Natural sounds and silences, like the starry sky or nature have vanished from many peoples' lives, they never knew it, and the artificial is what they feel comfortable and familiar with.

Background music is different to music you choose to listen to, someone else has chosen it, and for the purpouse of manipulating your frame of mind. Music to shop by, music to emphasise a drama or story, music to calm you, music to annoy you, all calculated.

Best way to protect an area against vandalism is to play classical music. Ever visited a hospice? They even play background music to people as they die.

Background music is sound pollution, but no point in complaining, everyone is used to, expects it, wants it. Taking it from them would be like taking donuts from the obese, they would not be happy about it.

So, there it is, it's when otherwise excellent and interesting tv programmes are ruined by it that is irritates me. Background music in pubs stopped me from becoming a regular beer drinker, and now stops me from becoming a tv addict, so maybe it's good stuff really.

You must have heard that cheerful tune that goes dinkle dinkle wingy bing doodle, woopy doopy doopy, tinkertinkerty doo. They play that quite a lot.

I have to admit that 'particular' one eludes me. Is it the 'Wobbly tune' perhaps?
What I found most disconcerting was the change given to the Skye menu last Christmas. They obviously commission someone to make up a series of four tunes which they play whenever one goes onto the menu site to choose a programme. These are continuous throughout until one makes a selection and presses the 'Enter' button. They have become so ingrained in my brain I find myself humming them (and they are atrocious) even when they go off. This could be construed as subliminal brain washing which in itself is quite alarming.

However - as said. We are used to this encroachment of our faculties to the point of blithe acceptance and as such there is little one can do to change things for the better (or worse depending upon your position).

If music be the food of love - play on. Thus I cannot say that removing it by 'diktat' would in any way make our lives better although when one plays 'Life is just a bowl of cherries' at a funeral and cannot see the 'problem' it makes one wonder - - -!

Musak generally serves as a brain wooze medium for dumbing down, that's just the way the world is. What annoys me is when boomy boomy tinkley plonk background music is put into otherwise useful TV documentaries about natural history, astronomy, geology etc. Do people who take an interest in such subjects really need amusing diddly tunes and boomy dramatic orchestras to help them understand what is being said? Reduces the whole thing to the level of an advert for yoghurt.

To quite a number of people it is an advert for yoghurt. You must remember that 80% of the population wouldn't want to watch a 'educational' programme unless their lives depended upon it. But the music is put there just in case they do as a form of titillation to keep them amused.
It really goes back to the 'piano' accompaniment to the silent film to raise the dramatic atmosphere for the audience to give a feeling of complete entertainment to what would otherwise have been a less enthralling experience. And that's about it really. A really good documentary tones down the musical accompaniment whilst the narrative is being spoken and raises it to fill in the silent voids. There are good directors of the genre and bad - just as in most things. Meanwhile we sieve the 'menus' for what we find desirable and hope that sufficient of those are available for viewing.

Dianne Abbot was talking on the radio this morning. Background music to entirely drown out her voice would have been appreciated, where is the background music when you need it?

Haven't heard the 1812 overture for a while.

She reminds me of a headmistress I once met. Had an answer for everything and acted on nothing.

Dianne has always sat in the safest position - and drawn her money.

The 1812 signifies the lamentable end results of a megalomaniacs desires. The poorest and the deluded always pay the price whilst the rich and educated strip the spoils. It was ever thus.

Dianne Abbot is quite a well known character. She has been around for a long time. Her personality trademark has always been to not answer the question and to talk about something else, with an over-confident, hectoring, obstinate, self important manner. As she ages, the content of what she has to say becomes ever more unrealistic, her appearance and manner more eccentric and unkempt. As a comic figure, she has an appeal, if she starts to wear funny hats, or be more tongue in cheek about herself, may have a future yet as some sort of television personality. Irritating personalities seem to do well in that.

Dianne explains how she was motivated by her cultural background to seek "clean indoor work with no heavy lifting."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02trhdz

A chap callled Jeremy Corbyn seems to be the latest contender for leadership of the Labour party. Don't know anything about him really, he seems to be a charismatic socialist. Has a shakesperean 'lean and hungry- could be dangerous', look about him that is quite appealing. Much will depend on the facial hair, any decorative shaving could spell disaster.

Ann Widdecombe the second you mean??

Jeremy Corbyn. Well - if the Labour Party go down that route or any other route appertaining to the Far-Left it will be the end of them. This is not Greece. Our system of voting precludes the looney-tooney extremes from gaining power and that won't change unless we go to PR or some other more democratic system.

The Labour Party doesn't have a clue what to do next. Hardly surprising seeing as how the other parties have been consistently cutting the grass from under their feet by adopting / manipulating many of their core policies. How one finds a route through that to emerge as a credible worthwhile opposition or leading party is one hell of a conundrum.

They must start - as I have said before - with a credible leader. They haven't got one. Therefore the game-plan is already scuppered before they begin. I'm glad it's not my problem.

If party members are interviewed and asked a comprehensive series of questions to describe the sort of leader they want, an identikit type picture and personality profile could be built up, and persons resembling it quizzed to see if they might be interested in the job.

I see where you are coming from - however -. Not Party members. They already have a 'fixed' idea of what constitutes a 'leader' and unfortunately it comes from that persons personal policies. Politics is not a good starting point. That's how they came up with Ed Millstone - sorry Milliband.

A leader has to be a man for all seasons. He has to appeal to everyone of every political persuasion and he must have charisma. He should be sought out and found then put away in a little box out of the reach of the public whilst an educated, intelligent think tank gets to grips with an agenda suitably arranged for mass appeal. He should then be slowly introduced, like a good wine, to the table of public approval suitably primed for not answering questions but smiling a lot. And the rest (professionally run)will be ' the happy time'.

With this emphasis on finding a media freindly, charismatic man or woman 'for all seasons' type person as a leader, and no discernable political direction, perhaps the Labour party organisation might do better to re-invent itself as a specialist advertising and theatrical personnel agency, possibly specialising in supplying character actors for historical television dramas.

I had a theatrical agency in the 1960's. I cannot say that you are wrong in the outset of your proposal but would use it ONLY to produce the 'man for all seasons'. They are not structured to remain within the 'acceptable' norms of a modern day society and as such would not be suitable for advices beyond the product and its presentation. Apart from which they would want too much money.

Having got the 'product' it would require a 'team' of rational thinkers to market it and to inspire the populace into 'joining' the 'parade'. After that - easy-peasy - - - .

What would be useful would be a leader of the opposition that's very well informed and asks the right questions concisely at the right time. Being well informed doesn't mean just having good advice, but understanding things in depth. Everyone? would like less boo-ha-ha in parliament, less 'tribalism' and more serious, even politely vicious questions being put and fluffy answers being blown away.

Parliamentary sessions are just gruel for the masses. Nothing gets done in the warm light of the forenoon. It's show-time.

PM's question time and all the rest of the rhetoric are there only to placate the drum-bangers. It's all meaningless. The 'real' work is carried out behind the scenes and through the civil service.

The REAL problem with this country and most others is a modern-day approach to the populace's aspirations which CANNOT, because of humanity's successes, be realised. All one can hope to do is to keep the lid on the problems and salve the majority into believing it cannot be any different. Which is true. It can't.

To maintain the status-quo we need a suitable effective opposition simply to provide some stimulus for the governing party to act and produce workable agendas in a reasonable manner. Nothing else.

Taking on board what you say about parliament being, to a great extent, theatre for the public, that theatre does influence the mood, confidence and behavior of the public.

Indeed it does. One reason why they should show some degree of sanity and reasonable behaviour.
Not that they often do these days.

It tends to resemble a dinner-time playground at the local school. With taunts and sarcasm as the main stay of the proceedings. Like I said - the real business is done elsewhere.

It's a bit like steering a ship in all weathers. Some days it's easy at others - watch out.

I have a steering ticket for up to 20,000 tons. Do you think I would qualify for PM's Question Time?

Might be a problem parking the ship in the Thames, but otherwise, why not.

20,000 tons is quite small - in relative terms - the Thames could take upward of 100,000 tons short of Tower Bridge. I don't think Parking (involving a small pedestrian walk) would be a problem.

I might give it a try. Problem - where do I get a ship from -. Hmm. Oh I know - Greece.!!

Sounds ok as long as you don't lurch to the left, or the right, best not go straight ahead either.

If it isn't broke - why would you try and repair it? Given the past stupidities and the price so far paid I see no merit in opting for the 'quick fix'. I see nothing wrong in planning and exacting that plan in a judicious manner to get to the desired result. As in all battles there will be casualties. The trick is to try and avoid being one of them. As you cannot make an omelette without breaking eggs neither can you re-position yourself without treading on somebody's toes. For a minority it will be painful, devastating even, but for most it will pay dividends later.
We shall have to hope that the 'lunatics' we have ensconced in the 'big house' produce something worthwhile during their 'play' therein and that their antics doesn't detract too much from the serious business of the day.

Everyone is waiting with feverish excitement for Gordon Brown to have his say on the candidates for the Labour leadership. If Gordon points at his fingers and forcefully explains why Corbyn would be a disaster, it will be a landslide victory for him.

Gordon will play the Scottish card. Corbyn is a danger to the Scots Nats in that the 'real' socialists in Scotland would back a Corbyn and Labour would stand a chance of regaining some of its seats up there. But - Does Gordon want a debacle in England or Scotland. He loses which ever way he travels. If I was him. I would keep my big mouth shut. But he isn't me is he -?