I've just watched Death of a President, the much hyped Film Four 'documentary' on the assassination of George W Bush.

I was uneasy about the idea but thought that I should give it a go, because the publicity had stressed that it was not about the assassination as such, but rather about the policy implications and impact of such a crime. And I could see that there might indeed be some interesting thoughts prompted by such a serious drama.

Serious? About the issues? Yeah, right.

Really, this has to be one of the sickest films I've ever seen. There was not one second, not one character, and not one thought given over to the impact on the US and the world of the assassination of a President, or even of this particular President. The first half of the near two hour film was given over to a 'reconstruction' of the shooting, with full on action effects. What made it sick were the images of President Bush's picture in a wreath, the funeral oration (using doctored tape of real Cheney speeches) and sheer wallowing in the murder of President Bush. You could feel the producer and director positively drooling over the idea of a dead Bush.

The rest was pure - and not very good - drama about the investigation, with mock FBI agents telling how they went about things.

And guess what the film's main story was. You got it. An innocent Muslim was falsely convicted on the basis of weak forensic evidence, while the real culprit, a veteran, was ignored by the FBI. The innocent man languishes on death row because politically the Cheney administration wants to have a Muslim locked up, even though the FBI knows who really did it.

How very original.

Cheap, exploitative, nasty, ignorant and plain sick. Everyone involved in The Death of a President should hang their heads in shame. Not least because by making such a tawdry piece of schlock out of such an interesting idea, they have almost certainly prevented anyone else from taking it on and making something thought provoking and worthwhile.

(5)

Daniel Finkelstein has just posted something on exactly the lines I was about write:

Clare Short's decision to campaign for a hung parliament...has left me confused. How exactly does she want voters to behave?

Obviously, you can't vote for a hung parliament, you have to vote for one of the party candidates in your constituency. But how do you know which one to vote for in order to help Ms Short's campaign? You would have to be able to guess how the election was going to end up (nationally and in your constituency) in order to make sure you cast your ballot correctly.

When I heard her on the radio this morning, her argument was unintelligible. It is literally impossible to vote for a hung parliament. One can vote for a party or against a party. But unless Ms Short intends to draw up for herself the dispensation of seats across the country which would lead to a hung parliament, and then issue specific instructions every voter in the country so that their votes would lead to such an outcome, she is talking complete nonsense. And since she cannot do what I have just suggested she needs to do, she is...talking complete nonsense.

All one can do is guess that one's vote, directed in a particular way (differently in each constituency) might contribute to that outcome.

(1)

A banner at the top of the Guardian website, this morning (it has disappeared now, but there is still an ad at Money Guardian):

MONEY: TIPS TO MAKE SURE THAT INHERITANCE TAX DOESN'T WIPE OUT YOUR ESTATE

Funny, isn't it, that the Guardian leader on the subject describes Stephen Byers' recent call for its abolition as "absurd".

As a friend of mine put it to me this morning: "Obviously the Camden liberal brigade is even wealthier than we imagined - no doubt legal aid for defending the jihad-loving classes being one of its primary sources of income."

The explanation can't be, of course, that the Guardian is being hypocritical. Or that there's one tax law for those who are wealthy enough to afford a good tax accountant and another for the poor sods who are suddenly stuck paying the tax on their parents' death. And, in the Guardian's mind, they can be safely ignored.

(1)