Can you please stop making post-credits scenes?

We've all seen them; the nerds who stay seated, eyes glued to the cinema screen, while the closing credits roll. While the smart guys - us - get out pronto to get to the front of the taxi queue. 

Occasionally, though, we get caught out. It happened to me last night as I switched off (this was on TV not at the cinema) at the end of a very unsatisfying Wonder Woman 84 - not a patch on the original. I rarely read reviews of films before watching them; I don't want to be influenced by critics whose motivations are very different from mine. But I often read them afterwards. To see what others thought and occasionally, usually in spy movies, to figure out what on earth just happened.

That's how I found out that Wonder Woman 84 has a post-credits scene. If I had been in the cinema I'd have completely missed the opportunity to view the scene but I just re-viewed the film from where I had switched off and there it was. And frankly a scene of no consequence whatsoever (which actually sums up the movie anyway). Unlike the most meaningful case I encountered: the final episode of the excellent TV series Sharp Objects. Oops - I missed the reveal of the "what happened?" answer. I had just thought that not being absolutely certain of the who and how of the killing was a good ending, leaving the viewer to figure out their own solution.

Post-credits scenes were common to all seasons of Westworld but I can't think of another TV series example. It happens with a lot of Marvel movies but mostly they are teasers for the sequels.

It's my belief that it's the Moviemakers Union of Plumbers, Property Masters, Editors, Technicians and Set Decorators (MUPPETS) who insist on their members being named in the credits, as part of their contracts. Coincidentally The Muppet Movie of 1979 was one the earliest examples of a post-credits scene, when Animal

yells "Go home" at the audience.

I don't like it. I'm gonna have to train myself to watch the closing credits of everything now. Please stop!

How to win an election

The Conservative party in the UK has a single purpose: to gain, and hold on to, power. Without power, the party cannot pursue its fundamental ideologies: small government, sound national finances, free market economics and the like. The only other UK political party that comes anywhere close in terms of the ruthless lust for power are the Scottish Nationalists, whose almost single issue ideology means they need power in order to create the circumstances in which Scotland can secede from the United Kingdom.

In order to gain and regain power, the Conservatives play what they believe to be their strong cards: law and order provides a safe society, strong security provides a safe country, control of public finances and critically "don't rock the boat with risky projects". Most of all, they elect a leader who can win elections. Deviate from those tried and tested parameters and they lose elections. Check out the titles of recent Conservative party manifestos:

2017 Theresa May: "Forward, Together: Our Plan for a Stronger Britain and a Prosperous Future". WIN

2015 David Cameron: "Strong Leadership. A Clear Economic Plan. A Brighter, More Secure Future." WIN

2006 Michael Howard: "Are You Thinking What We're Thinking?" LOSS [Is this the worst political slogan ever?]

2001 William Hague: "Time for Common Sense". LOSS

(I'm ignoring "Get Brexit Done" in 2019, as a special case)

In 2019, the party elected Boris Johnson as leader - the candidate who could win an election - over Jeremy Hunt - the candidate who would probably have created and led a more effective government. (Again, Brexit was a strong issue which can't be ignored).

And so to the Labour Party. How to return to power? Rather than wait for the current government to implode, Labour needs a plan; one which:

• represents its ideologies
• plays their strong cards
• acknowledges the fundamental requirements of any government
• envisages a leader who can win an election.

The closest Labour has come to winning an election recently was in 2017 when Jeremy Corbyn, with his "For the Many, Not the Few" manifesto, almost toppled Theresa May. That manifesto met probably just two of the above requirements.

Labour's ideologies are based on fairness: the redistribution of wealth, opportunity for all, government using its economic power to serve the disadvantaged, internationalism.

Their strong cards include vigorous public services, the limitations of unfettered capitalism, empathy with the disadvantaged and vulnerable.

Labour is traditionally characterised as being weak on law and order, strong national and international security and economic competence. These are areas which need to be addressed. Ruthlessness would dictate that the shadow ministers for these areas need to be the best thinkers, reformers and performers. Politicians who can drive policy and can consistently defeat and deride their opposite numbers in the Cabinet. Let's see who we have here:

• shadow home secretary (shadowing Home Secretary Priti Patel): Nick Thomas-Symonds. No offence Nick, but you are too invisible. Patel is one of the Government's worst ministers, she should have been sacked over bullying civil servants, her immigration policies are repulsive and ineffectual and you need to be out there with humane and workable policies and challenging her every step of the way. No holds barred.
• shadow foreign secretary (shadowing Foreign Secretary LIz Truss, who has only been in post for a few weeks so it's not really possible to judge her yet): Lisa Nandy, whose background in women's and children's issues closely matches that of Truss; both of them seem ill suited to the roles they have been given. Maybe foreign affairs, post Brexit, is not the big brief it used to be. 
• shadow defence secretary (shadowing Defence Secretary Ben Wallace): John Healey. Wallace is a military man with service in Northern Ireland, Germany, Cyprus and Central America. Healey is a career politician with stints in finance, local government and housing. No offence John but this is a mis-match
• shadow chancellor (shadowing Chancellor of the Exchequer Rishi Sunak): Rachel Reeves has a strong background in finance and is a strong performer in public and the House of Commons. She gets out and about, meeting people and promoting her ideas on the green economy and high street regeneration. She gives as good as she gets at the dispatch box. A square peg in a square hole.

As for an electable and trusted  leader, it's not clear yet - in my opinion - whether Keir Starmer satisfies those requirements. He is still the "not Corbyn" leader, with a large part of the party relieved to be rid of the uncertainties of the previous incumbent. This selection of key shadow cabinet posts suggests to me that Starmer wants his "team" to be nice. I'm not sure of the team thing - I'd go for strong individual performers who feel empowered by the leader to develop strong policies, promote them and challenge their opponents - and in politics "nice" gets you nowhere, frankly.

Starmer's main "attack dog" is Angela Rayner. I'm an unashamed admirer of her. She speaks to "the people" and her back story resonates with those people. An authentic politician, she clearly isn't in the Starmer mould and I'm disappointed he doesn't appear to value her. Is she best utilised as a roving rottweiler, spearing the Prime Minister and his party on corruption? For the moment, she probably does that better than anyone but I think there's a case for giving her a heavyweight shadow ministerial brief such as opposing Priti Patel. Now I'd pay for a ringside seat to that. But please, Sir Keir, don't sideline her and don't hope she'll go away. You have a weak and inexperienced team and she is a big asset.

If Rayner were moved to shadow home secretary, I'd go for Emily Thornberry as the "roving attack dog". She's wasted and invisible at International Trade and she has no experience in that.

There is much to be done to get Labour into a shape to present as a government in waiting. I believe the biggest problem is visibility. All opposition parties suffer from this but somehow the players need to make their voices heard. Do they really believe in themselves? Starmer, of course, has to do without experienced Labour politicians who have "retired" to Mayoralties (Sadiq Khan, Andy Burnham) and Select Committee Chairs (Yvette Cooper, Hilary Benn).

I've said nothing about policy. I have views on that and they will perhaps appear in due course. Meanwhile, Starmer is an inexperienced leader with an inexperienced team, they need to learn quickly. Let's hope there won't be a snap election before 2024.

Fixed-term Parliaments

The Fixed-term Parliaments Act (FTPA) was enacted after the General Election of 2010, which resulted in a hung parliament. As part of the coalition agreement between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats, the purpose of the Act was a short-term one: to prevent either coalition party causing a snap election at a time of its choosing. Under the FTPA the next general election is automatically scheduled for the first Thursday in May of the fifth year after the previous general election—or the fourth year if the date of the previous election was before the first Thursday in May.

The first election called under the Act was that of 2015. In 2019, because the Conservative government of the day could not get its Brexit Bill through the House of Commons, they introduced the Early Parliamentary General Election Bill, to take advantage of one of the exceptions provided for in the FTPA, whereby an election can take place subject to the approval of two-thirds of MPs. In a moment of egregious hubris and stupidity, Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn directed his MPs to vote for the Bill ("bring it on!"), the election resulting in an overall majority of 80 for the Conservative party and the subsequent passing into law of Brexit.

The new government then proposed to repeal the FTPA ("job done; let's get back to the PM doing whatever he wants"); the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 (Repeal) Bill was introduced in December 2020 and a joint Commons-Lords Committee established to consider its provisions. After the Committee reported, the Bill - renamed as Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Bill (DACOP) - was given its first reading on 12 May this year and completed all stages through the House of Commons on 13 September, being given a third reading by 312 votes to 55.

The second reading debate is scheduled for 24 November (SOON - diarise this) in the House of Lords. It's clear that this legislation will be enacted so: does it matter?

The Liberal Democrats, Green Party and Scottish Nationalists were those who voted against the DACOP. I suppose that's understandable: they will never (at least for a while) be in a position to benefit from the restoration of the power of the Prime Minister of the day to request a prorogation from the Monarch. It is clearly in the interest of the two largest parties, who expect to be competing for forming a government, to be able to call an election when they seem best placed to win it. The Labour Party manifesto of 2019 promised to repeal the FTPA on the grounds that it had "stifled democracy and propped up weak governments". They however inexplicably abstained this time round, clearly uncertain whether they supported democracy or not.

At present the FTPA is still in place and the next general election is due on 2 May 2024. Given the present government's travails, it may actually not happen until then - the DACOP still includes the "maximum five year" term limit.

Should we care about this? I guess for some of my readers a return to the old arrangement might seem more likely to result in a "get rid of Boris" moment but it might actually turn out to be the opposite; be careful what you wish for. I'm not sure that Prime Ministers are always smart enough to judge the moment to call an election. Remember Gordon Brown in 2008? Missing the opportunity after taking over from Tony Blair, he "bottled" it. The Guardian called it "the biggest unforced political error in the history of New Labour."

I turned to Wikipedia for an assessment of how the biggest democracies of the world handled the issue of fixed term parliaments. The most common appear to be fixed or maximum terms with provisions for extreme circumstances such as a deadlock between two chambers, e.g. the House of Representatives and Senate in Australia. The three "absolute", i.e. non-negotiable, fixed term parliaments are in the US, Europe and Norway. In Australia, actually, the Senate has the "fixed except for deadlock" provision but the House of Representatives has only a maximum term. There are so many weird variations that I would need a few years of constant [and sponsored] travel round the world to get you the information you need in order to judge the pros and cons of each different system.

If you don't see Boris or Geoffrey Cox in the House of Commons for the next few months, that's probably what they're doing.

Katsushika Hokusai

More stimulating paintings...I really like these. Katsushika Hokusai was a 19th century Japanese artist who used the wood block technique of ukiyo-e, which translates as "pictures of the floating world".

In the beginning there was the wave. The towering blue-and-white tsunami in the foreground of the most august of mountains in Japan, 'The Great Wave off Kanagawa' was one of Katsushika Hokusai’s series of “Thirty-Six Views of Mount Fuji.”

Hokusai later produced "One Hundred Views of Mount Fuji". Also from the Thirty-Six Views of Mount Fuji, though, I selected the following.

Lake Suwa Shinano Province:

Fine Wind, Clear Morning:

There are many more for you explorers to find. Let me know your favourites and, since I don't think you can insert images in comments, I'll post them for you.

Kamāl ud-Dīn Behzād

Kamāl ud-Dīn Behzād was a 15th/16th century Persian painter, living and working in the tiny city of Herat. A Great Artist in the Civilization VI computer game, we learn:

Behzad lived his life primarily in the city of Herat, in what is today Afghanistan. His miniatures were exceptional in the way that human figures and architecture were arranged on the page, creating a sense of flow that draws viewers’ eyes around the page. These miniatures were testaments to the cosmopolitanism of the time – they drew inspiration from Chinese art, portrayed individuals of all of the different peoples that lived their lives in the globally-connected empire, and focused as much on everyday moments of humanity as well as those of conquering kings. While Persian art did not forbid showing human figures (as much Muslim art did), Behzad also excelled in incorporating Persian love for architecture and geometry, creating dizzying patterns with tiles, roof gables, staircases, etc (as in the miniature Yusef and Zuleykha).

Behzad remains thought of as one of the most notable Muslim artists of the medieval period.

I thought I'd share some images of works attributed to Behzad. Let me know if, like me, you like them.

The construction of castle Khavarnaq

Battleground of Timur and the Mamluk Sultan of Egypt.

Timur granting audience on the occasion of his accession

Credibility Stretch

Man turns up at his wife's memorial and makes a speech in which he accuses her of selfishness in committing suicide.

Man (same man, let's call him Our Man for brevity), a surgeon, hooks up with a dodgy cockney (we'll call him Lee, because that's his name), who is an eco-eccentric and survivalist with a whole suite of 'rooms' deep underground beneath Temple [remember that, you'll need it later] tube station. They run a business providing medical services to those who are unwilling to go through the usual medical channels. Patching up gunshot wounds, for instance.

We discover that Our Man's wife isn't actually dead. She is in a 'hospital ward' in the underground complex, next to a laboratory in which he is continuing her research into a possible cure for her illness.

Lee brings in a mate (we'll call him Jamie) with a gunshot wound. Jamie arrives with £2 million in a brown paper bag (actually a sports bag). He ran away with the cash from a robbery, leaving his fellow robbers at the mercy of the police. Who are now looking for him. The robbers that is. And the police of course.

Jamie needs a blood transfusion but they have run out of the universal O negative. Our Man phones the only person he knows with that blood type - Anna, his wife's co-researcher and his ex lover - and 'invites' her to see his new home, where she is knocked out with chloroform and her blood used on Jamie.

Anna finds Our Man's wife and agrees to help the research.

Jamie's pregnant wife is given a 'burner' phone with which to communicate with Jamie - the underground complex has full WiFi, obviously - and not surprisingly she gets interrogated. By the police. And the mates of the by now incarcerated robbers.

Our Man discovers that his wife is suffering renal failure and needs a kidney transplant. He makes contact with an underworld supplier of kidneys and needs £100,000 to buy one. So he steals the money from Jamie's stash.

Sounds a promising plot for a TV show? It. Does. Not. Unless it's a comedy. Which Sky's Temple is not, being presented as a 'medical crime drama'.

I've watched some dross in my time as an armchair TV critic but this takes the proverbial biscuit. Want a recommendation? Avoid it like the plague. The above summary covers five episodes of this ludicrous show. There are many more but I won't be watching.