Growth falls by 0.5%, credibility follows suit

Well, it's been a while, and a lot has happened, since I last blogged. Where do I start?

The biggest domestic issue is, still, the economy (or at least it is since X Factor and the Ashes have finished). In the last quarter of 2010, growth fell by 0.5%. David Cameron acknowledges this as disappointing, whilst also blaming the weather and the past government entirely for his Government's apparent failure.

The cavalry has quickly rallied around Mr Cameron, with George Osbourne claiming that back-pedalling on his expansive programme of spending cuts and tax hikes would lead to "turmoil." Bit late for that isn't it George?

Osbourne, who I like to think of as a modern day Sheriff of Nottingham-type, reckons that cutting the benefits and raising the taxes for the lower end of society, while relaxing taxes on their bosses and clamping down on worker's rights is the way out of this mess.

And hey, if it isn't, at least the rich stay rich huh?

Not that Labour were doing a great job. They did, after all, leave us with a massive budget-deficit and the mess is theirs to clear up. Maybe it would have been fitting to make them actually do that? Maybe it might have actually worked better?

The Brokeback Coalition came in to being basically on the strength of its constituent parts not being labour and its leaders not being Gordon Brown.

I'm no trade unionist, and I'm no big fan of Labour, or of Gordon Brown, but I would prefer Politics to be about policies, not personalities and not hyperbole and spin.

Labour got us in to this mess - we'll get you out of it!

That's the crux of the message from Cameron & Co. Their strength in the last election was in their opponent's previous failure, not their projected success. British people - many of whom are (staggeringly) not political experts - are inclined, in a crisis, to simply vote for change.

That's the nature of democracy in this country. We vote in one Government during a time of economic strife and pat ourselves on the back as we gradually climb out of the mire. Then the normal business-cycle completes its circuit and, surprise surprise, the economy contracts again. This might take 15 years later, but when it happens we turn on those we lauded so highly and vote them out. It happened in the mid-90s, when the Tories buggered up the country, and Tony Blair's New Labour flew in to the rescue. It has just happened again, in reverse, and it will continue to happen in a never-ending cycle of political nonsense, unless the public actually learn to see through the smoke and mirrors of politics.

Sadly, that will probably never happen. There are devout Tory fundamentalists out there. There are staunch Labour supporters. There are Green voters and there are even some confused folk who pledge allegiance to radical fringe parties, like the Lib Dems and the BNP.

But there are also the mass majority who don't know enough or care enough to form proper valid opinions other than those spoon-fed to them by our relentless media and its 24 hour news culture.

Last year, we saw Brown villified while Cameron and Clegg were put on pedestals. In view of the media representation, it's quite staggering that Labour still gave any competition at all.

How can the Tories be credible when they couldn't win outright, despite the circumstances being weighted heavily in their favour? And how can the Lib Dems be credible when they have back-pedalled on their own manifesto to get in to power?

The problem, as ever in UK politics, is that there is no credible alternative.

Official: The Beeb is ageist. And sexist too!

Miriam O'Reilly: Activist?

Yep. The BBC discriminates against older women.

That's the verdict of the employment tribunal which has ruled that Miriam O'Reilly - the former Countryfile presenter - was unfairly sacked and replaced by a younger model.

It seems pretty black and white, particularly as several other older female presenters were removed at the same time, and replaced in exactly the same manner. The BBC appears to have acted unfairly, and the ruling will be widely celebrated. The journalist and presenter (and apparent spokesperson for the rights of older women) Mariella Frostrup called it a "landmark decision."

The BBC themselves, bound by their forcibly induced political correctness, have unreservedly apologised and even swiftly promised to discuss re-employing Ms O'Reilly.

It was interesting to watch Channel 4's take on events. As a rival firm, you might think that C4 would want to stick the boot in, but instead they produced both sides of the story - it would have been nice to see the BBC do the same, but their response was a limp, cap-in-hand apology:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-12161045

Read (BBC correspondent) Torin Douglas's analysis on the right hand side - he states the company line: the BBC will change it's employment policy on the basis of the O'Reilly case, and he believes the rest of the industry will follow suit.

There's a sub-text here, buried deep in the lower paragraphs of the BBC article. Jay Hunt, their former controller (and a 43 year-old woman) resents the accusations against the BBC. Through this vicarious and carefully gender-marked defence, the writer is hinting at what he really wants to write.... that this tribunal is a bit of a sham.

The BBC can't say it, but those outside of the corporation can.

Nick Ross: Pragmatist?

In Channel 4's report, Nick Ross (a man who also was replaced by the BBC when he passed his sell-by date) said that this was something TV Presenters just had to accept. He pointed out that most presenters work on what is effectively a freelance basis and, as a result, they have little job security. He spoke of his time presenting Crimewatch as a privelege which he missed, and was disappointed to have lost, but also said that he accepted it was the nature of the business.

These views are not the company line. They are not politically correct - they also happen to be true. Television and other media are driven by consumption. Decisions about programming, including presenters, are made to ensure that stations get as much of the viewing figures as they can. That is the nature of the beast.

Even more controversially, Ross turned the gender-debate tables on younger women, brazenly stating that "not many mingers" get the prime jobs. Attractive younger women, he argues, are actually advantaged over their male counterparts, and no-one is complaining about that.

Good on you Nick - another politically incorrect comment, and another one that is spot on. Try watching Sky Sports News, and tell me that attractive young women don't get prime jobs in television.  

Jackson, Sawyer and Thompson: "Not mingers"

Sky, of course, know that their target audience would rather see Charlotte Jackson, Natalie Sawyer or Georgie Thompson telling them about football than an.... erm.... Miriam O'Reilly-type. Your average Sky Sports News viewer might not be that fussed about the quality of the journalism (which is usually pretty slick, as it happens).

Of course this is wrong. Reward should be based on merit, not on superficiality. But TV isn't the only culprit here - it happens in all walks of life. Attractive people (yes, women and men) do have an advantage in any recruitment process. That, unfortunately, is human nature.

You can but hope that, in the real world, looks wouldn't be a defining factor in giving someone a job. But TV isn't the real world. It's a visual medium. Like cinema, photography and any visual art it depends, by its most basic nature, on what it looks like. That's what it is and that's why I think the BBC have been hard done by.

Sky, on the other hand, are a commercial business, privileged to not be bound by the same public-service code as the BBC. Would they change their recruitment policy in the name of equality? No chance. Maybe they could follow another course of action though. Perhaps they could scapegoat some high-profile presenters in some sort of stand against sexism? Surely they wouldn't stoop so low. Oh, hang on.....

Gray and Keys: Sexist?

Yep, the Andy Gray and Richard Keys scandal. The pair shared a conversation expressing some politically incorrect, sexist views. Perhaps they thought the conversation was private, and that their microphones were switched off. Perhaps they are, like anyone else, entitled to their opinions? But unfortunately for them, a media circus and moral panic ensued. Both presenters were warned about their conduct.

Then, footage emerged of some 'sexist' banter, in which Gray asked Charlotte Jackson to help him attach his microphone pack down his trousers. Now I must say that if this was a sackable offence in my office, we would all (men and women alike) be heading for the Job Centre. Innuendo at work is commonplace and, in most cases, harmless. But, in the context of the media storm, it was enough to get Gray sacked. Immediately. Without review.


Charlotte Jackson: Sex object?

Other Sky presenters might be nervously wondering what a cursory glance through the archives might find them being accused of. There's an inevitable laddish culture on shows like Soccer Saturday - and the likes of Paul Merson are hardly angels. Soccer AM features a weekly Soccerette. Is it not sexist when the presenter flirts with her, or when the whole studio celebrate or commiserate depending on whether she has a boyfriend or not? Perhaps the female presenters who bolster their careers by posing in Lads Mags, including Miss Jackson, should be sacked for reinforcing the view of women as sex objects?

Of course, this won't happen. There is no agenda for sacking Paul Merson and co. The Soccerette feature and the Lads Mag shoots are considered a bit of fun (whether this is right or wrong is another debate in itself).

Paul Merson: Not sexist?

There's no £1.7m contract to consider, as there was apparently in the Andy Gray case. And why should Sky address institutionalised or culturally embedded sexism when it can get away with vilifying one or two presenters? Gray and Keys were getting long in the tooth anyway - like Miriam O'Reilly - but with their reputations in tatters there will be no employment tribunal for them. They can match O'Reilly's just claim that 20 years of loyal (not to mention pioneering and award-winning in Gray and Keys' case) service demands better treatment. But it is a futile argument for them. Their careers are over, but Sky Sports will come through all of this unscathed and move on, with its artistic license and editorial discretion in tact.

For the BBC though, there has now come a point where political correctness and self-denial begin to overlap. The corporation will follow a course of action which it would not have done before. O'Reilly will probably find herself back on prime-time TV, and some other, equally innocent and perhaps equally competent presenter, who might be a bit younger and/or more attractive, will find themselves out of a job as a result.

If the Beeb's interpretation of their audience's needs were correct, then viewers who are turned off by O'Reilly will literally turn off. They'll watch something else instead, and the BBC will be powerless to stop them.

The commercial channels will be rubbing their hands with glee - enjoying their freedom and profit while the BBC continues to be hamstrung by their enforced sense of diplomacy.

Perhaps the BBC would be able to produce a better standard of show to compete with the commercial channels if it didn't have to ensure all age, gender, race and religious aspect of multi-cultural Britain are "fairly" represented (the truth being tokenism rather than fairness).

But we do live in a country where even Nick Ross' comments immediately provoked anger - God help the man for having an opinion.

John Snow: Sexist?

John Snow closed the Channel 4 News coverage by reading out an e-mail deriding his own presenting ability and his alleged sexist banter with Ross.

"Sack Snow," read the e-mail.

Not because of his age. Not because of his gender. No. Sack him because he presided over a balanced analysis of a controversial subject, including points of views both for (Frostrup) and against (Ross) the verdict. Sack him because he dared to allow Ross to question the view that someone our society categorises as marginalised must automatically be in the right.

Were it to happen, I wonder what an employment tribunal might make of that sacking? Would Snow be backed? Would he win a "landmark" case?

Sadly, I doubt it.

Published with Blogger-droid v1.6.5

Crucial Third Day

I'll be staying up for at least a while tonight, mainly because England and Australia are as interestingly poised as they have been in any of these Ashes Tests. Will we push on and rack up a big lead tonight? Or will we pay the price for having surrendered too many runs to the Aussie tail last night?

We may have already retained the Ashes but, of course, our goal is to win the series. Winning it 3-1 would be very satisfactory indeed. Whether we achieve that, or a drawn series and a slightly tainted sense of celebration, could well be decided on tonight's events.

Anyway, earlier on in the series, I questioned whether winning the Ashes in Australia would be a 'great' achievement. With the series drawing to a close, I guess its an ideal time to reflect on that same idea. Let's assume for argument's sake that we go on and win this final test. Will it be a 'great' victory? Has it been a 'great' series? Have we proven ourselves to be a 'great' team?

I'm sad to say that the answer is no to all of those questions. I'm as pleased as the next Englishman to see us retain the Ashes on Australian soil. I'd be delighted to see us seal that 3-1 victory. But, crucially, I'm realistic enough to not get carried away about it.

Too often we English get carried away with our sporting success. Already the noises from the England dressing room are about becoming the top-ranked team in Test cricket. That is fine as an ambition - so long as no-one thinks that we are anywhere near there yet.

The signs are good. Our established bowlers continue to impress. The less established ones - Steven Finn, Chris Tremlett and Tim Bresnan - have each grasped their opportunities with both hands, and the selectors will have some difficult, but welcome, selection posers in the summer. We have bowled well - although it would be denying the patently obvious to say that the profligacy of the Australian batsmen hasn't helped us out. How many Australian wickets have fallen to catches from deliveries which could (or should) have been left well alone?

Can our bowlers put together the sustained spells of aggression and accuracy required to snare patient, world-class batsmen - the likes of Sachin Tendulkar and Rahul Dravid - who make you get them out?

After this series, our batsmen will mostly come away with their reputations enhanced by some big scores. Admittedly, that has to be taken in the context of Australia's bowling attack which has, predominantly, been very ordinary.

Against a more experienced, better-balanced bowling unit featuring a genuine, Test-standard spinner, would our batters have been so comfortable?

Well, later this year those questions will be answered. We play India at home and then in the sub-continent.

Now those should be 'great' contests, between two better-matched foes, and they might just be the ones which define whether this England team is truly 'great.'

X Factor too X-Rated?

I suppose this is exactly what I set this blog up for – to give me a soapbox on which to whinge about the accepted public opinion and the media at large. Earlier this week, the feminist wing of said public and media were in a moral panic about X Factor.

They reckon Saturday night’s final was too sexy. Christina Aguilera and Rihanna sang, and danced, in skimpy outfits, with provocative dancers. Cue a frenzy of disapproval: it sexualised women; it wasn’t suitable for screening pre-watershed; it will corrupt our children.

Dirrrty

But is it that bad? What’s the implication of such performances?

Have a look for yourself on this handy blog-site:

soulculture blog

So, what to make of it?

Sex sells. We know that. Should we shun that old mantra? Should men not be attracted to women any more? Should men look on scantily clad women with scorn? No, we shouldn’t.

It is largely seen as a triumph of modernity that men and women can both enjoy their sexuality, without fear of recrimination. And yet, if a famous girl dances exotically on TV, suddenly we want to censor ourselves back to the 19^th Century? Cover your ankles, ladies!

It’s not only overly sensitive, it’s hypocritical. Around twenty years ago, a feminist icon broke new ground by recording an album, filming several videos and even releasing a photographic diary, all of which exploited her sexuality. Madonna has since been hailed as a trail-blazer. But Rihanna and Christina perform what are actually less sexualised routines, to a supposedly more liberated audience, and we condemn them?

I realise that young girls may emulate what they see on the X Factor. But did they not emulate Madonna on Top of the Pops? Was that not shown before the watershed?

Trail-blazer?

I’m not saying Madonna was right. I’m not saying Christina and Rihanna are right. Maybe, if pop-culture was less sex-orientated, society would be better for it. I’m just saying there is a lack of consistency here.

And it’s not just a lack of consistency in how the censor-brigade treats women. It’s a lack of consistency in how they treat the two genders.

Why should we question the ethics of the two female guest stars’ performances and use them to condemn sexualisation of women when, three weeks ago, eventual winner Matt Cardle was thrown on stage in a vest to please the lady viewers?

A vest, you might say, is not quite the same as a bra and a pair of hot-pants. But I doubt girls would have been drooling over Mr Cardle quite so much if he had been wearing those items. Men and women are different, wear different clothes, and are attracted to different things. Just because a male performer has less flesh on display does not mean he is not being treated as a sex-object. And that’s not to say that there aren’t examples of male celebrities being ‘exploited’ semi-naked in the media – David Beckham’s package-displaying pants advert springs to mind.



Porn culture?



Ironically, in this series of X Factor, which stands accused of this most heinous crime of sexploitation, the most successful female contestants – Rebecca, Cher, Mary and Katie – were actually not sexualised at all. Katie’s mid-series restyling from blonde bombshell to cropped-haired brunette actually represented the exact opposite. The raunchier female acts were filtered out in the formative stages of the show.



On the other hand, the male contestants, Matt and One Direction, were raved about by female viewers purely for their looks. My female Facebook friends’ posts read “Matt Cardle – yes please!”, “One Direction – Cute, Cute, Cute!” and so on. Disgusting. Or, at least, it would be considered disgusting if it was directed at women, wouldn’t it? Or would it? Isn’t it just human nature to enjoy attractive members of the opposite sex?

I understand feminism as a cause, and I admire the principles of promoting the rights, interests and opinions of a group. But I wish that the pro-women’s rights argument could be contextualised better. For example, why must the sexualisation of women be viewed as an aggressive, vulgar male act while the sexualisation of men by women passes by unnoticed?

I do understand the argument that performances like Rihanna’s and Christina’s aren’t great viewing for our kids. I agree that ‘porn-culture’ is not a healthy contributor to society (for men or women).

But let’s face it - men are not solely at fault and women are not wholly innocent. Sex sells both ways.

How great would winning the Ashes in Australia be? No, really, how great would it be?

The 2010-2011 Ashes series always promised much for England and, so far, it is living up to the billing. After the elation of regaining the urn in 2005 – for the first time in a generation – only one question remained. Can we win it on Australian soil?

Surely, if we could achieve that most elusive of feats then the redemption of English cricket would be complete. This breed of England stars would go down in history as the greatest in living memory – the team which might finally prove themselves to be, beyond doubt, better than their Aussie counterparts.

But something’s missing isn’t it?

I was discussing the matter with a fellow cricket enthusiast, and we both agreed that it was a good feeling, as an England fan, to see such misery on Ricky Ponting’s face. To see him arguing with Umpire Aleem Dar in last week's First Test over a catch-that-never-was decision was ugly. It was wrong. And, from an English point of view, it was immensely satisfying. Not a very sporting sentiment, I suppose, but true nevertheless.



Despondancy - Ponting lambasts Aleem Dar

There have been so few occasions during the Australian captain’s long reign in which his side has looked second-best that he has had little opportunity to hone that peculiar, but necessary, skill of being graceful in adversity. It’s almost possible to feel sorry for Ponting, until you remember the years of unbridled, remorseless glory he has had in the past. As top sportsmen go, perhaps no-one is more overdue a little patch of adversity.

For England there is no room for remorse or sympathy. There will quite possibly never be a better chance of victory, or a weaker Australian line up, in an away Ashes series than there is now. England should focus on the Australian failings, exploit them, and obliterate them. And they should take consummate pleasure in the process.

Unfortunately, if England do this, and go on and win this series it will always be a little bit tainted. The Australians aren’t up to it. The look on Ponting’s face isn’t just evidence of him being a bad loser. At times, in the early part of this series, it has appeared to be a look of despondency. As Ponting watches his bowlers spray loose balls for England’s in-form batsmen to nonchalantly dispatch, his stony grimace may even reflect resignation to the fact that his current team just isn’t very good. And that’s what is missing.

Without the excellence of the opposition, any victory will always be at least a touch on the hollow side and, unfortunately, that is what we have in Australia right now. Many of the key Australian institutions are gone. Their replacements are pale comparisons.

The new breed of bowlers have the most unenviable task of all. How do you follow Glenn McGrath, Brett Lee and Shane Warne? For Doug Bollinger, Ben Hilfenhaus and Xavier Doherty it’s just a challenge too far. They aren’t of the same class. Even Peter Siddle’s sensational hat-trick of wickets in the First Test has been swiftly forgotten. Instead, people will remember England’s unprecedented second innings score of 517-1, which has sharply focused Australian media attention on the short-comings of an impotent bowling attack. The Aussie selectors have been left red-faced, trying to re-jig the attack mid-series in a move that looks rather similar to blind panic.

In contrast, the 2005 series on English soil was truly exceptional – an England side in its pomp against an Australian side at its best, and England won! That will be forever remembered as a mesmerizing battle of excellence facing off against excellence. McGrath, Warne and Lee were all still playing and all still firing. As were non-bowling greats, like Matthew Hayden and Adam Gilchrist. For England, the series made Kevin Pietersen and Andrew Flintoff in to genuine superstars of the game.

The squaring off of two great, and very similar, players – England's Flintoff and Australia’s Lee – epitomized the gladiatorial nature of the contest. Both bowled with blistering pace. Both contributed with the bat. Both inspired their team-mates with their pride, passion and patriotism.

True Greatness - Brett Lee is consoled by Andrew Flintoff in 2005

Throughout the series, they each bared their teeth at one another, like attack-dogs ready for the kill, thirsty for blood. But, in the ferocious heat of victory, the single most enduring image of the whole series was captured on film – Flintoff suddenly changed from growling warrior to humble sportsman, to console the beaten man.

There is no doubt that the 2005 series is the stuff of legends. It is an epic case-study of all that is great in sport – the greatness of individuals, the greatness of teams, the greatness of the moment and, crucially, the greatness of the contest.

The England players of 2010-2011 may well achieve a great landmark by winning the Ashes in Australia. To be honest, it would have to go down as a great failure if they don’t.

But could they have beaten the Australian side of 2005? The current England side does look good, with a host of in-form batsmen and a young but well-balanced bowling attack, so it’s not beyond belief. 

As it is though, this side has sadly been denied a chance to prove themselves against great opposition. As a result, unbelievably, even winning an Ashes series in Australia – as enjoyable and as momentous as that would be - is probably not enough for them to achieve true greatness for themselves.

E-mail to the council, sent today

Good afternoon,

 

I have received a Final Notice relating to the service charges payable on my flat. I will pay this. In fact, I have tried to do so today, by phone and on-line. I have not been able to by either method. Why? Because I would like to go down the Direct Debit route, and this is not offered on either of your automated services. So, I will take the time out of my working day on Monday to call your main line. Presumably I will be able to arrange the simple direct debit payments then. I hope.

 

At this stage, I would like to complain on a number of points:

 

1) The shortcomings of your automated services, outlined above.

 

2) The threat of CCJs against me. I pay my council tax. I pay my mortgage. I pay all of my bills. It's hard. And I work hard to do it. I made an error in this instance, thinking that, like all my other bills, there was a DD already set up for this small bill. I was obviously wrong, for which I apologise. But threatening CCJs? That's over-kill surely.

 

3) What is this service charge for? I'd like to think it goes towards the upkeep of the block of flats in which I am a leaseholder. However, living here, I realise there IS NO upkeep of this block of flats.

The stairwells are disgusting, partly because the contractors YOU hired to install the security system never cleared up after themselves when they had finished. There is still a layer of pink dust throughtout the block from where they drilled in to the brickwork. Also because YOUR tenants do not look after them.

Why would they? I spoke to one of our tenants recently, and he told me he "can't be bothered going to work because he's better off staying in smoking weed all day and claiming benefits." Now that is tragic, isn't it? And what does the council do about folk in that situation? Nothing.

My entire block, including my actual flat, smells of marijuana. I don't touch drugs myself, so I'd quite like to live somewhere without that particular scent. In fact, as I pay a mortgage to live here, which the anti-social-smokers downstairs don't, I find the whole thing really quite offensive. I certainly would struggle to sell the flat, or even rent it out, when it smells and looks like a drug-den. Could the council do anything about this? I suppose you can't, or you would, wouldn't you?

 

4) Why do I get charged for everything? I get letters from you telling me I have to pay for the new security system. I get letters from you telling me that my (recently burglarized and therefore open for all to see) shed contains flammable materials which you will charge me to remove. Presumably your tenants are not eligible to pay for these things? It seems to me that they flount the rules to which I am obliged to adhere. For example, the lobby downstairs is currently full of scrap wood and other waste items. It resembles a city dump. Are these not flammable items? Is the lobby downstairs (the only access route to the whole block) not a bit more of a risk than the exterior sheds? It'd only take one of the tokers downstairs to flick his spliff-end in the wrong direction and we're all goners. Surely some of my 300 quid service charge could be allocated to this menace? In fact, give me a tenner back, I'll go and knock on their doors and tell them myself.

 

5) All in all this service charge just seems to be you milking what money you can out of good, honest working folk. I can understand that, it's what governments do. But do you really have to be so brazen as to itemize it as such on the invoice? "Sundry Income". Now that is offensive.

 

Yours, expecting a full detailed justification for the above detailed atrocities and, preferably, some form of compensation,

 

Dan Donovan

What is X Factor? It's magic!

Look, there comes a time in every blogger's life when he has to face up to the big issues. So here it is, the single biggest issue of the day - X Factor.

Of course, my barometer of the world's hot topics is, essentially, based on what everyone in my office talks about on a Monday morning. By this test X Factor is peerless. Indeed, I almost lost a limb once for mentioning that I prefer Strictly, such is the vehemence of feeling for Simon Cowell's evil little brain-child. I'll never make that mistake again.

As it happens, I have been watching X Factor with some interest over the last series or two. Partly because I want to see what everyone else sees in it, partly just because I've grown up a bit and don't really go out on Saturday nights any more. And there's nothing else on really, is there? Although, I regret to add, that I have recently put it on Series Link. You know, just in case.

So what is it? It's a TV show, obviously. But it's more than that too. It's a phenomenon, which pervades our culture - with off-shoots in to magazines, TV, radio and, of course, water-cooler gossip.

Paije Richardson - pretending to be a pop-star

At its most basic level, it's a karaoke competition featuring a range of quality similar to that which you might actually find in a pub karaoke competition. Sure, there is the occasional performer who can really belt out a good song (and some who really can't), but there are far more who are just decent singers pretending, briefly, to be pop-stars. So, at that basic level, for X Factor to have become such a success is a triumph for the mediocrity of the masses. "Look! They're doing something pretty unspectacular! That could be me!"

At its highest level though, X Factor is not a triumph of mediocrity: it's a triumph of media.

Cowell is, at heart, an opportunist. He has seized on the death of conventional Saturday night programming and turned talent-show TV in to the variety show of our generation. You have, in effect, all the same elements: performance, competition and celebrity cameos. It's simply been repackaged, with the clever merging of various proven successful formulae.

These include:

1. The Kylie Factor - The Simon Cowells of this world used to feed off the soaps - "People love Kylie and Jason, let's make them sing a saccharin duet - it's a guaranteed hit record."

And it was. X Factor simulates this by building in the back-stories of the contestants, cajoling the audience in to a relationship with them and giving them a place in our hearts. It is not a difficult concept to realise that a record released by a young lad everyone has watched on TV for 3 months, will sell more copies that the exact same song released by 'a nobody' would. In this way, X Factor is the modern equivalent of the old Stock Aitken and Waterman Hit Factory.

Panto star of the future? He's the villain of X Factor

2. The Pantomime Factor - we have always known
Simon Cowell as TV's Mr Nasty, but he has actually noticeably softened recently. Why? Well, because he has realised he doesn't need to be the pantomime villain any more. The Jedward phenomenon, and the John Sargeant furore on Strictly, has proven that it's better to have a contestant that fans love to hate, than a judge. Wagner certainly didn't get in to the competition based on his ability - there was at least one better singer available in Louis Walsh's allocation of hopefuls. And that's even after the category had been deprived of some of it's more plausible talent by the (at the time unexplained) change from Over 25s to Over 28s.

3. The Underdog Factor - SuBo, Stacey Solomon, Rebecca Ferguson, Mary Byrne. Four very different women, one common theme - they all have a story; something which you might think would preclude them from becoming a pop-star. But they can all - to varying degrees - sing pretty well. So in these cases, X Factor (and BGT in SuBo's case) is altruistic, almost charitable. Everyone loves an underdog.

There are more parts to it, but I don't want to dwell on the make up of the show. I wanted to consider another key element instead. What is X Factor for?

Is it, like fine art, intended to enrich our lives? I think not. No. It is to make the rich richer, isn't it? Mr Cowell in particular. And this makes me wonder about its authenticity. I suggested this doubt at work the other day, and almost lost a limb. Again.

Would Cowell sacrifice the artistic integrity of his show for money? The words of Edmund Blackadder spring to mind, something about selling his own mother for a bucket full of cash and a stash of French porn, I think. Somehow appropriate here? Yes, probably.

But it's regulated, isn't it? If the British public decided collectively to get rid of Matt Cardle or Rebecca Ferguson, who are probably the two most likely cash-generating stars to come out of the show, they'd be gone wouldn't they? Wagner could win it - and therefore be entitled to a deal with Cowell's record label - couldn't he?

Unless they had some way of rigging it. Well we know that TV phone-ins have been subject to scrutiny recently. It would be too risky wouldn't it? Maybe. Although I'm sure not every rigged phone-in has been eliminated from the world of TV. In actual fact, I imagine it would be very easy to rig, and pretty difficult to spot. Who regulates it anyway, and how?

But then it dawned on me - it definitely is rigged, at least until the final. And it's not even secretly rigged. The judges - the people who make the money out of the show - have the option to save their prefered act. So, even if it is 100% bona fide, the public vote is actually almost worthless.

Cowell and co send home the act least likely to make them money each week. Sometimes they even cleverly keep in the controversial acts early in the series to keep up that all important water-cooler gossip. Katie Waissel - who has had the most column inches of any contestant - has been saved twice this series. Even Jedward were saved from the bottom two last series, on Cowell's say-so.



Identikit pop-star?

Towards the final stages, of course, they are more likely to favour the ones who might actually be worth a record deal. Or, for the cynics among us, the one they have already placed in the competition for the record deal. But by that stage the pantomime villain will probably have been thwarted anyway, the underdog's uplifting story will have wound to its natural conclusion. And, finally, all that will remain is the new X Factor Winner - most likely a good-looking, vaguely talented, mouldable pop-star.

It's like the old 'magic' card trick. Get the audience to pick a card. Place it in the pack - shuffle it. Deal the cards out. Let the audience pick a set of cards. Get rid of that set. Do it again. Keep the set they pick. Whittle down the cards. Get them to pick on from the remaining two and show them it - it's their card, isn't it?

Well of course it is, because you knew all along where the card was, and every time the audience made their choice you just got rid of the cards you knew weren't theirs. You showed the audience what you were going to give them, distracted them with some showmanship, and showed them what they wanted. You're happy, they're happy.

The televised auditions are merely the shuffling of the pack. Boot camp is dealing the cards out. Gathering up the remaining ones and dealing them out again is the judges' houses. Let's face it, X Factor has months of auditions before it even gets to TV. This pre-production phase is where the magician marks his deck and lays out his trick. The rest is easy - it's just staging, showmanship and performance.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the magic of the X Factor.