I don’t know what it means but Brooker is a very credible source and the title sounds very Curtis-like. The title is the same as a poem by Richard Brautigan, which begins:

I like to think (and
the sooner the better!)
of a cybernetic meadow
where mammals and computers
live together in mutually
programming harmony
like pure water
touching clear sky.

So it’s almost certainly going to be something about how computers are impacting upon – and perhaps dominating – the human experience (I’m guessing not in a good way). Brooker also mentions that Twitter will feature in the series, which perhaps points to themes around the broadening of the private life into the public/digital sphere. I’m betting Jeremy Bentham’s theory of the Panoptican crops up somewhere.

Brautigan committed suicide in 1984, at the age of 49, by shooting himself in the head. This tends towards the sort of mysterious characters and violent events Curtis favours as a way into his films. Most recently, It Felt Like A Kiss exhibited a fascination with both Rock Hudson and the assassination of JFK. It also used a literary work to suggest an underlying tone – in that case Philip K Dick’s 1959 novel Time Out of Joint.

The concept of ubiquitous computing (ubicomp), meaning an integration of human-computer interaction into everyday objects and activities, perceived by some as a natural evolution of the world wide web, would seem to be at the centre of the series. The same title crops up on this article on the concept of ubicomp from 2004.

Admittedly this is all pure speculation until Curtis says more on his website, which is probably worth keeping an eye on.

Imagine my surprise, then, when I received a leaflet today from the local LibDems, who call themselves “FOCUS” for some reason, saying: “FOCUS goes from strength to strength as another new campaigner joins the team!” Apparently a new leaflet hander-outer called John Reid (no, not that one) is now helping “the new-look FOCUS Team” hand out leaflets. (Click on photo, left, to enlarge.)

You can sort of understand why Davenport and Cale Green’s remaining LibDem councillor, Ann Smith, would decline to mention the fate of her two former colleagues but to dress it up as some kind of triumph, or re-branding exercise, in a direct reversal of the truth, takes some brass balls.

I’m no political expert but would it not have been a better idea to admit in the leaflet that two local councillors and former colleagues had left the party, rather than attempt such a laughable rewriting of history? Councillor Smith might then have built up her message from a position of honesty and credibility. From there, a measure of authority could have been re-established.

But for some reason politicians don’t tend to think this way. Instead, the councillor and her advisers prefer to treat constituents – at least the ones who don’t read the local paper – like idiots in the hope of short-term political gain.

Aside from being a fairly depressing example of the depths to which local politics has sunk, this kind of leaflet is also a good example of  why local newspapers need support. You simply can’t trust councillors – and, although this leaflet isn’t one of them, that includes so-called council “newspapers” – to talk truthfully about the world as any normal person would understand it.

However, I couldn’t help noticing this morning’s effort, which manages to juggle tragedy, absurdity, bad taste and utter irrelevance with a startling clarity of intent. What strikes me first here is the juxtaposition of image and headline. So, while the top third of the page carries an image of utter devastation and a woman wrapped in a blanket who has clearly lost everything she ever loved, the bottom two-thirds blares “TAX AND PENSION JOY FOR MILLIONS”. And what better place to position a teaser for a competition to “WIN A PEUGEOT MOTORHOME WORTH OVER £30,000″ than in between the two?

Simultaneously, the phrase “Nuclear nightmare looms” is virtually hidden. Indeed, an equal amount of space on the front page is devoted to the fact that Amanda Holden has produced a “brave smile”.

Just look at it. It really is a startlingly odd jumble of words and pictures.

It strikes me that banter has changed. It once involved elements of wit and intelligence, perhaps the odd pun and vague bit of innuendo. You can sort of imagine Oscar Wilde engaging in it. But banter has recently been adopted by a sub-class of moron and appropriated to cover anything groups of men talk about that could loosely be described as mean-spirited, heavy-handed, dull, obvious, bullying, narrow-minded and/or any combination of the above.

This week banter has lost all sense of itself as a concept. Banter now exists solely as an excuse; a defence wheeled out by apologists to cover for the misguided utterances of twats. I’m not thinking of anyone in particular and certainly wouldn’t name them here. But the outpourings of hairy-handed balls enthusiast Richard Keys appeal to this definition.

Poor Richard. If you watch the clip it seems perfectly obvious he is the weakling in the group. The non-sportsman, reduced to impressing the jocks with what he imagines to be “tough talk”, referring to a woman as “it” and espousing bizarre sexual imagery. (Although when he refers to Jamie Redknapp “hanging out the back of it”, I can’t help but envision of some kind of slapstick encounter involving a faulty catch on the rear doors of a Transit van.) Perhaps in a pub or a private setting such comments, although grim and offensive, should not have been enough to cost him his job. But in the workplace, there can be very little sympathy for Keys’ fate.

Banter, in its modern form, seems to have found a particular home among footballers and goes hand-in-hand with conversational narcissism. I recently followed Darren Huckerby on Twitter (he followed me first and curiosity got the better of me) and was thrilled to receive an auto-DM from the erstwhile Norwich City forward expressing his hope that I would “enjoy his banter”. This confused me, since I always thought banter was supposed to be a two-way street. The implication that banter can be owned by a single person perhaps sums up what has gone so very terribly wrong.

Since everyone seems to “enjoy banter” except me, it’s tempting to conclude that I’m humourless, wussy, or both. So I was gratified to find that another adult male I mentioned the Huckerby thing to respond with the phrase “banter my arse”. Another chum suggested that banter is “always used by people who aren’t funny”. So, you see, it’s not just me who thinks banter is bollocks.

Apparently Keys and Andy Gray are now being lined up for jobs in Qatar – a country that is well known for its progressive approach to women’s rights. May they, and banter, rest in peace.

Albums

1. Hot Chip – One Life Stand

2.Mount Kimbie – Crooks and Lovers

3. Arcade Fire – The Suburbs

4. Brian Eno – Small Craft on a Milk Sea

5. Four Tet – There is Love in You

The Hot Chip album is easily their most cohesive effort to date and takes the winner’s medal for being chock full of stuff that is catchy, clever and, occasionally, wildly romantic. In case you hadn’t realised, these things, in the right combination, almost always make for great pop music and Hot Chip have lined everything up quite majestically. The Mount Kimbie record got me really quite excited for its dislocated bumpy beats (I’ll avoid the word dubstep) – Fat Roland does a better job than I ever could of explaining why it’s great here. Arcade Fire’s The Suburbs is a similarly coherent album that contains, as usual, a couple of outstanding songs (Sprawl II is vigorously excellent) as well as a lot of very good ones. Eno not only because it’s Eno but also because it’s good and Four Tet for being nicely, and surprisingly, housey.

Books

1. Jonathan Franzen – Freedom

2. Dave Eggers – Zeitoun

I didn’t read that many books that were released this year, hence only a top two. Freedom is outstanding and you can see how it took Franzen about 400 years to write it. I can’t remember reading a novel where each sentence is so carefully thought out and each page is so densely packed with brilliant prose. Zeitoun is incredibly moving and is easily as engrossing a work of narrative non-fiction as Capote’s In Cold Blood. I’m just starting Paul Auster’s Sunset Park, which might get better but at the moment I can’t imagine it will top these two.

Films

1. Inception

2. Monsters

3. The Social Network

4. Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans

5. Rec 2

I know it’s a bit low-brow and predictable to select a massive blockbuster as my favourite film of the year but Inception is an exquisite movie, executed brilliantly, that manages to retain a completely satisfying narrative logic and is hugely entertaining for the entirety of its 142 minutes. The conclusion, in particular, is beautifully economical while managing to be emotionally and intellectually rich. Monsters, an ultra-low budget (£500k) semi-improvised road movie – with aliens – really surprised me and is a genuinely remarkable filmmaking achievement. The Social Network is Aaron Sorkin at the absolute peak of his powers, managing to create an engrossing drama from what, on the surface, looks like the most meagre of real-life material. Bad Lieutenant, narratively a fairly bog standard, hard-boiled police caper, benefits hugely from rampant Herzogian hysterics, while Rec 2 was inventively shot and constructed, elegantly concise… and full of demonic zombies.

Television

1. Mad Men (Season Four)

2. Wounded

3. The Trip

4. Welcome to Lagos

Mad Men continues to be extremely enthralling for all the reasons it always has been. The writing is as sharp as ever, the characters continue to evolve in interesting ways and there’s still that ever-present, darkly tense undercurrent, which makes the outcome of each episode pretty much impossible to predict. Wounded was a stunning one-off documentary about the rehabilitation of soldiers who had lost limbs in combat and is as moving a TV programme as I can ever remember. The Trip started a bit shakily but evolved into something rather deep, poetic and manly, as well as looking stunning. The three-part Welcome To Lagos was a true feat of documentary access that opened your eyes to a hidden world.

I’ve probably missed something obvious. Feel free to comment below.

At the end of last season I felt it was the right time for Rafael Benitez to go. He seemed to have lost the confidence of the dressing room (particularly Steven Gerrard), his relationship with the owners had broken down and, overall, his performance in the transfer market had not been especially great (the bizarre Robbie Keane incident and vastly overpaying for average players like Glen Johnson being the main crimes). In Roy Hodgson I foresaw a manager who could steady the ship, satisfy the players’ desire for change and perhaps take us back into a Champions League position.

The early signs from Roy were relatively promising. The purchase of Joe Cole looked, at least in part, to be down to the interpersonal skills that Rafa had been sorely lacking. His initial press conferences displayed a refreshing openness that, again, was a welcome change from the cantankerousness of Benitez.

Since then it has become obvious that Hodgson is simply not up to the job. Here are the problems:

1. Small club mentality; personal outlook and approach out of sync with Liverpool fans

After the Everton game at Goodison Park, which Liverpool lost 2-0, Hodgson said it was Liverpool’s “best performance of the season”. Aside from being completely wrong, asking fans to somehow take solace from a 2-0 defeat in the local derby is not a tactful thing to do. Further evidence of Roy’s peculiar view of the footballing landscape came after the 3-1 loss at Newcastle. Hodgson implied that Newcastle is a difficult place to get a win – despite the fact Blackpool, Stoke City and Blackburn Rovers had somehow managed this apparently Herculean task and Newcastle had only previously won two out of eight at home. It was also the game in which Roy conducted his now legendary face-rub and started to look seriously, monstrously, out of his depth. Then, after the 1-0 defeat at home to Wolves (pictured above), Roy suggested Liverpool fans were showing “disrespect” to league’s bottom-placed club by expecting a win (video, from 2.20). It’s symptomatic of a personal and footballing outlook that simply does not tally with that of the Kop.

Video: “Legendary facerub”

2. Poor tactics; inflexibility/general cluelessness, especially away from home.

Hodgson’s away record with Fulham was incredibly poor but it would be reasonable to expect better performances from Liverpool, given the set of players he has at his disposal. However, the problem is Roy’s tactical approach and failure to instil a game-winning spirit. At Fulham he (and the fans, presumably) were happy to get a draw away from home, even against weaker teams. Indeed, the media and League Managers Association lauded him for his achievements. At Liverpool expectations are much higher, yet Roy still sets his team up in such a way as to contain the opposition rather than go out and win. True, this was sometimes also a problem with Rafa but with Roy it is ten times worse. Even at home, there is a negative vibe about things that has led to defeats by Wolves and Blackpool. A dismal, uninventive long-ball approach and constantly sticking to a rigid and old-fashioned 4-4-2, even when things are going badly, intensifies the problem, as does playing players in bizarre positions (Raul Meireles is not a right-winger, Roy). As a result of all this, Liverpool have now lost eight games and have a goal difference of -2 going into the New Year. It is our lowest points total at this stage of the season in 57 years.

3. Bad decisions in the transfer market

Hodgson was put into a difficult position with Javier Mascherano wanting to leave but Christian Poulsen, to the eyes of anybody with half a footballing brain, is not the man to replace him. Meireles seems like a reasonable purchase in a similar position but it might have made sense to pair him with Alberto Aquilani, who was instead allowed to go on loan to Juventus and is having a superb season. England’s fourth-choice left back, Paul Konchesky, is 28, and should not have been offered a four-year deal. In any case, he is not as pacy or skilful as assists-king Emiliano Insua, who was allowed to go out on loan to Galatasaray (following last night’s match, Paul Tomkins has done a compare and contrast between Insua and Konchesky here). The Joe Cole signing was apparently in motion prior to Hodgson’s arrival and may or may not turn out OK, although I can’t work out how he’s worth a reported £5m a year. Brad Jones still makes no sense to me. The fact that no moves were made to sign a striker before the start of the season is inexplicable.

But…

The players aren’t blameless. Fernando Torres, in particular, seems to have become bigger than the club and looks like he can’t be bothered much of the time. He will no doubt leave at the end of the season and this may be no bad thing – assuming the price is right (somewhere close to £50m should do it), he doesn’t end up at Manchester City or Chelsea and someone other than Hodgson chooses how to spend the incoming fee. Babel continues to under-perform, despite being given every chance to prove himself. Cole has been injured but has failed to show any form when he has played. The defence isn’t working as a unit and even Pepe Reina has been guilty of uncharacteristic errors. So yes, Roy is right when he moans about the players being poor. The question must remain, however, about the extent to which Hodgson’s training methods, tactics, outlook and man management have contributed to the malaise.

The Rafa Factor

I don’t buy Hodgson’s argument, and that of the resident Hodgson apologists at Sky Sports, that the players he’s been left with by Rafa are intrinsically bad. OK, so Rafa made some mistakes but he tended to get rid of the worst players relatively quickly. The much-derided Lucas, for example, has applied himself well and at last looks like a sound purchase by Rafa, as does Ngog, who cost just £1.5m. Soto Kyrgiakos has arguably been Liverpool’s best defender this season and was an astute buy at around a quarter of the price of Konchesky. Despite the ridiculous assertions of Andy Gray, Rafa was left with a less impressive squad when he took over from Houllier in 2004 than Hodgson was in 2010 (Dudek v Reina, Cisse v Torres, Traore v Insua, Biscan v Mascherano/Lucas, Smicer v Maxi/Aquilani, etc), yet he made a couple of excellent signings and wrung the best out of his remaining squad players, winning the European Cup in his first season. The simple fact is that while Rafa made some errors during his time at Anfield and subsequently managed to balls things up at Internazionale, he was fifty times the coach Hodgson will ever be at the top level of European football.

So?

Liverpool is not the sort of club that fires managers mid-season, and a lack of other options means Roy will probably be around until May (unless defeats in the next two games against Bolton and Blackpool suddenly tip the balance against him). After that, I simply cannot see how retaining Hodgson’s services would make any sense whatsoever. I’m not convinced that Kenny Dalglish is the right man to take over, even as caretaker, and despite my increasingly warm thoughts towards Rafa, he is not the man to take Liverpool forward. I’m impressed by John W. Henry and New England Sports Ventures, I think their approach to the transfer market is spot-on and the desire to return Liverpool to the top within five years is entirely achievable. We need a forward-thinking, young (-ish) manager to rebuild the team and offer something new to complement that ambition. Hodgson for England, indeed.

But aside from Michael’s apparently fantastical erectile potency, and his belated apology over its effects, what I found most intriguing about the paper’s accompanying interview was the assertion, midway through the second paragraph, that Huckers was present at the Sex Pistols’ gig at Manchester’s Lesser Free Trade Hall in June 1976. One must always take any printed reference to this semi-mythological incident with at least a quarter-ton of salt. Indeed, since Jean Baudrillard hypothesised that the Gulf War did not take place, I can’t personally see why we must accept the testimonies of the ageing punks and Madchester blabbergobs that the Sex Pistols’ gig at the Lesser Free Trade Hall in June 1976 happened at all.

But let’s, for the purposes of this blog post, assume it did happen. Journalist David Nolan, who has written a book about it, reckons there were “35-40″ attendees on the night but the only real suggestion that El Huckerino was one of them comes from this obviously satirical website, which claims he was accompanied by Bruno Brookes and Thora Hird, plus this Facebook page.

The evidence, then, is a little thin. And not being one of these people who believes the Wikipedia, or the newspapers, or, y’know, the books, I decided to settle the matter by tweeting Mick Hucknall thus:

Hey @mjhucknall Guardian says you were at the Sex Pistols’ Free Trade Hall gig in 76. Can you confirm if it’s true? Loving your work BTW

So what’s the truth? Was Hucko really a part of this mythical event? Did Johnny Rotten play some strange, indirect part in the creation of Simply Red’s 1980-something masterpiece Stars? Excitingly, Le Huck responded just a couple of hours later:

@davidquinn yes I can.

So there you have it. A sort of definitive yes, direct from the iPad of Sir Mick. Now, does anyone have Bruno Brookes’ mobile number? There’s something I need to ask him.

But regardless of all of that, I find it difficult to understand why the BBC’s Question Time has decided to include him on the panel tonight for the fourth time this year. MacKenzie was on the programme on January 14, March 11 and June 3. Add in tonight’s appearance and that will be four programmes out of 41 in 2010 – or as near as damn it 10% of all the Question Times so far this year. (This is in addition to his regular appearances on This Week, Newsnight, the Daily Politics and various other BBC news and politics programmes.)

What dirt does MacKenzie have on the makers of Question Time that causes them to keep inviting him back? It can’t be that the viewing figures shoot up whenever he’s on – in addition to pissing off everyone in Liverpool, everyone in Scotland thinks he’s a prick as well. Perhaps his erudition and debating skills make him indispensable. Yes. That must be it.

Of course there has to – and should – be a spread of political views on Question Time. That’s the point of it, and the fact is that Kelvin MacKenzie represents the views of lots of people who read the Sun newspaper. But four times? In a single year? Isn’t that a bit much?

It’s interesting that publishing firms take so long to pay what are relatively piddling sums of money to freelancers. Yes, administrative mistakes happen but this is a pattern of late payment – more than 30 days qualifies as “late”, according to the Late Payment of Commercial Debt Act (1988) – that suggests a general sloppiness caused mainly, perhaps, by the fact that freelancers hardly ever bother to kick up a stink.

What I particularly object to, however, is when the late payment is sent by cheque. Thanks for that Mr Publisher – that’s another week I’ll have to wait until the damn thing has cleared.