My eye was caught by a tweet from SF author David Brin, linking to a map of political shifts in European governments generated by the Guardian during the summer. Brin's comment was that it showed a "Solid shift to the right", no doubt struck by the preponderance of blue on the map at the end of the timeline with only four countries – Denmark, Austria, Slovenia and Cyprus – out of 27 marked in red. (Note for American readers – for most of the world, blue means right-wing and red means left-wing, rather than the other way round.)
While it's a fascinating visualisation, the whole thing is of course a profound and not always helpful simplification. In some countries (including Belgium), dominant parties tagged by the Guardian as right-wing are in fact pretty centrist, believing in social cohesion and strong welfare systems, just without the historical or ideological baggage that parties with the word 'socialist' or 'social democrat' in the name may have; the stark blue/red distinction is not really appropriate. In some cases (Austria in particular) there may have been a strong left-wing party in a junior coalition role at various times, but the Guardian's colour scheme would paint the whole country blue. In some cases (not to give any recent examples), one can seriously question whether a supposedly left-wing party actually behaves that way when in government.
Be that as it may, I don't think Brin's "solid shift to the right" is really correct. At the very start of the timeline, 1972, only one of the original six members of the EEC is marked in red (Germany). Throughout 1980, of the then nine member states, only two (Germany and Denmark) are marked in red. From mid-1987 to early 1988, it's only two out of twelve (Spain and Greece). The map for today includes also technical governments in Belgium, Italy and Greece, so the tally for the right is really 20 out of 27, which is proportionally less than 1987’s 10 out of 12, or 1980's 7 out of 9, or 1972's 5 out of 6.
Probably the reason it looks so striking is that none of the red countries of today is big; and also for the casual viewer, today's map contrasts more recently with that of 1999, when 10 out of 15 member states had leftish governments (the exceptions, apart from Spain, being small and/or marginal – Ireland, Finland, Belgium and Luxembourg). So while Brin does have a point in suggesting that the left are at a historically weak point in EU politics right now, and that's certainly true if compared with twelve years ago, it's not really the first time that this is the case.
think the absolute worst and least forgivable mistake RTD has ever made was to make the first primary black companion on TV Doctor Who the first (and I really hope only ever) companion to be consciously conceived and written as “the one the Doctor didn’t like as much as the previous one”. Ditto. I think even Davies feels this now.
Very thoughtful summary, thank you for sharing it with us.
When I think of the relationship between the Doctor and his Companion established for the novel, I prefer the novel version of Human Nature more than adaptation, although I agree with you on the villains and Joan. The Novel’s Joan seems more an opportunist, and she is racist, while I feel the teleplay’s Joan fell truly in love, and with Martha she seemed more class conscious and protective of her relationship with Smith than a racist. In all fairness to source material, although racism appears briefly in the novel, it was not an element of that Joan’s relationship with Smith. Joan’s statement to Martha about complexion and class were not about Martha’s abilities but about the opportunities for women of this class and complexion in her society, and the realization that Martha had a real relationship with John/The Doctor, while Joan’s relationship was part of Smith’s masquerade. As to Martha’s demotion from underappreciated companion to disposable servant, we will never know why Davies and Cornell decided to present Martha as a servant rather than John Smith niece and guardian. Other “white” Post Edwardian men and women, because they belonged to blended families, often confronted racial prejudice in fellow Britons, but how Doctor Who approaches human complexion based folly is another discussion. However, from his statements Cornell felt he had written a script that allowed Martha to shine, as she has to have far more courage than the Doctor here, and is facing three times the adversity as the Doctor. Do you feel he failed?
In Human Nature the unrequited love scenario becomes cringe worthy, robbing Martha of dignity at one point.
Although it would have been out of character for Seven to act as such, Seven would not have run as Ten did from the initial confrontation. He had not yet destroyed his people. It was, however, on key for Ten to run from confrontation in which he might have to kill a species, and then have to deal with their end anyway.
she kisses the Doctor in her first episode,
The Doctor kisses Martha. Russell Davies thought this was significant enough that he stresses it.
she felt Martha’s unrequited love for the Doctor went too far to be entertaining or comfortable I am happy to learn that Freema speaks frankly about this. I wish I could have heard the session. Did anyone record it for You Tube? Nice Photo of you and Freema by the way. The writer of The Story of Martha was quite taken with Freema’s brand of perfume—in the novel he describes it “expensive, classy, and sexy…” . Any observations?