The film is full of cracking one-liners. Plus lots of silly dialogue that, for some reason, makes one glad to be alive
Oil companies stand accused of cheating London motorists out of £1.50 a tank after the price slumped again on world markets
More...
Getting closer to Orwell's Britain
By Tim Lott, Evening Standard Last updated at 00:00am on 12.12.02So, the Home Office has announced that there is "growing support" for the idea of a national identity card, remarketed as an "entitlement card". This nasty idea plays to the deepest part of the Right-wing soul. The sense that people are getting things they're not "entitled" to. God forbid, an illegal immigrant might go to one of our hospitals and get cured of a terrible illness - free! That would be a disgrace.
Furthermore, it panders to the paranoia of the insecure, ie, the Government and those suburban curtain-twitchers who lap up every last pronouncement of the Daily Mail as if it were gospel. This mind-set declares that it wants everyone to have a certain "identity" - perhaps because their own identity, as it were, is in doubt.
It is this symbolic quality of the identity card that is the most profound thing about it. Its practicalities are neither here nor there - certainly anyone unscrupulous enough to want to abuse the system in the first place would have no hesitation in obtaining forged identity cards anyway.
But, symbolically, what it does is make the Government and the more paranoid sectors of middle England "feel" that everything is accounted for. People are wrapped up in their little parcels of identity, all logged on computer and with their justification for existing protruding from their wallet.
The more insecure the government, the greater the need for these reassurances. It is pathetic, but not merely pathetic. It is also potentially very dangerous.
The Russian Tsars, I believe, invented the idea of the identity card. It was taken up by the Bolsheviks, and by the Nazis. In South Africa, it was called a "passbook". In fact, it was an internal passport.
I can see no reason why this "entitlement card" should not be merely the thin end of the wedge of "identification". With a few more terror attacks from al Qaeda, it could, once introduced, end up as a kind of internal passport. This may seem far-fetched, but there is little I would put past the Government when it comes to issues of "control".
Taken with the burgeoning use of CCTV cameras, an increasingly Orwellian state suggests itself. The giant eye always watching - "Where are you? Where are you? Ah, there you are.î Š
This is a vision that disgusts me. Many otherwise liberal people I talk to seem reasonably insouciant about identity cards. They shouldn't be. It is one of our deepest rights in this country, with a tradition of freedom from tyranny and foreign occupation, to walk the streets without some uniformed goon stopping you and asking you who you are.
If identity cards are introduced and that ends up happening to me, this would be my response: "It is none of your business who I am or what I am doing. I am free to come and go as I please, so long as I am doing so peaceably. I am not your subject. I am a citizen."
Small pizzas, bigger profits
The Pizza Express chain has shamefacedly admitted what I have long suspected - their pizzas have been getting smaller.
Although I do not like the duplicity of the shrinking-pizza affair, I am in favour of the principles behind it. The covert miniaturisation of food is an excellent principle.
Anyone who has been to America will doubtless have noticed that they are very fat people. This is at least partly due to the fact that whenever you eat out in that strange country, you get twice as much as you want. Sandwiches are unfeasibly large. Fast-food chains produce "super-sized" meals for a few cents more than the standard ones, which in themselves are formidable.
This promotes gluttony and obesity. Good for you, Pizza Express, for standing up for Small Food. Even if you only did it in the cause of Big Profits.
Love single life? Oh, come off it
The New Singletons, with their increasing demand for single-occupancy homes, are pushing up property prices, says the Halifax. Meanwhile, their penchant for sports cars, gadgets and consumer durables in general is overheating the economy. The Bridget Joneses out there (and their male counterpart, who seems to be unchristened) are celebrating single life, it seems. To love being single and "in control" is a mark of liberation and joy.
What a load of nonsense. What there is out there is a massive amount of loneliness. The sufferers deal with it either by working themselves stupid or by denying that it exists. Or by claiming that it is a good and positive thing.
For most people being single is an oppressive and undesirable state. I have met very few people who haven't wanted to be part of a couple. And for good reason - a loving relationship with another adult is just about the best thing life has to offer.
There are a few extraordinarily self-sufficient exceptions to this rule, of course. But for most people, in the long run, to end up completely alone - without a partner, without children - is not a triumph of personal emancipation. It is more likely to result in a long, slow dessication of the soul.
If only we vetted our friends' lovers
Of all the ethical and public-interest issues raised by the Cheriegate affair, the one that looms largest in my mind is this: what do you do when one of your best friends starts going out with a prat?
"I can't choose my friend's friends," says Cherie, referring to the dubious Mr Foster. This statement is true for all of us - but it's a terrible pity. I have lost more than one friend because their chosen partner has turned out to be an enormous pain.
In a rational world one would be able to separate the friend from the relationship. In reality, when people get a new lover, they expect some kind of tribute. "She/he seems nice/ interesting/challenging" etc. "What the hell do you see in that idiot?" is not acceptable.
But surely there has to be a less selfish way of choosing partners than simply personal preference? I feel that it would be sensible if all potential mates had to go through a vetting process attended by a panel of close buddies.
They could sit a written test, or undergo psychological evaluation. Then the carefully selected jury would vote - and unless a majority approved, out the newcomer would go. A positive verdict could be reviewed at six-monthly intervals.
Individuals - as societies with arranged marriages recognise - often don't have a clue what is in their interests.
Let's have arranged "friendships". It sounds harsh, but it could save no end of heartache, not to mention agonising for hours on end when you have to pretend to like someone you don't.
16°c
18°c
