Which of the two “Invasion of the Body Snatchers” endings is in store for Britain?

Don Siegel’s 1956 masterpiece, Invasion of the Body Snatchers was meant to end with the doctor played by Kevin McCarthy running along the highway out of Santa Mira screaming “You’re next!” at the drivers in the passing cars. The studio thought that was altogether too downbeat, so they tacked on a sequence where the FBI realise the doc is telling the truth, and the authorities roll into action against the alien invaders who are busy replacing human beings with replicant “pod people”.

The strange thing about Siegel’s film is that you can seemingly interpret it any damn way you like. Was it anti-Macarthyite or anti-communist or just a scary thriller? One critic even claimed that altering the ending changed it from an anti-Soclaist to a pro-authoritarian Republican tract. But Jack Finney, who wrote the original book, and everyone involved in making the film, including Siegel, have always maintained that politics never entered their heads.

Inevitably, given my views, I’ve always taken it as an anti-communist film. And that has nothing to do with the ending. Like communist agents, the aliens arrive from abroad (another planet, to be exact – and you don’t get much more abroad than that), they brainwash people without asking their permission, they operate secretly, and illegally, and the desired result is that human beings lose their individual identities to become part of one mass consciousness. Whatever you think of McCarthyism, it was a distinctly home-grown movement, and they made as much noise as they could about what they were up to. Case closed.

When I feel my blood pressure rising as I take in the news of a morning, I often wonder whether it would be easier to go back to sleep for a bit, and wake up as a sort of liberal pod person, fully in tune with the prevailing politic-media zeitgeist. Life would be so much easier!

Liberal spots a Tory

For a start, this morning, I’d have nodded approvingly regarding the Chancellor’s decision to pour another £140Bn of money we don’t have into the banking system – very Keynesian. My only worry would have been that, as Ed Balls, possibly the chief architect of our economic woes, put it on the BBC this morning (no, he really must have a camp bed at the news studios), the Chancellor isn’t squandering enough money. “Quite right, Ed,” I’d have muttered “What a pity you and Gordon aren’t still running things – you’d soon have this mess sorted out.” The fact that the economy is stuck so far down the crapper that no one actually wants to borrow this money wouldn’t have worried me in the least – because, as a liberal, I would have no interest whatsoever in outcomes.

And I would have been delighted to hear that the Libdem equalities minister, Lynne Featherstone (no, this isn’t a Peter Simple-style spoof), has decided that any firm which loses a sex discrimination tribunal case will be forced (how liberals love that word) to review the wages of all their staff. This makes perfect sense, of course, because British businesses are doing so incredibly well right now that they can afford to waste even more time and money trying to comply with the ridiculous obsessions of every silly, Guardian-reading woman at Westminster. (Still, as long as Lynne feels really, really good about herself, it’ll have been worth it.)

And I’d have felt secretly pleased that, at the age of sixteen, working-class white boys perform worse at school than any other racial group – that’ll teach them to be indigenous! Besides, the white working class is, like, so passé, yah?

My heart would have bled for the former Labour defence minister who has demanded that more “resources” (i.e. our money) be allocated to help MPs with mental health issues (that's pretty much all of them, I should have thought).

I would have approved of the demand from Cristina Kirchner that Britain negotiate with Argentina over the sovereignty of the Falklands – after all, any reminder of the British Empire is shameing - as well as her attack on Britian for flying the Falkland Islands flag at No.10. “I felt shame from afar for them because wars are not to be celebrated nor are they to be commemorated. Do you know why? Because many people lost their lives.” Right on, Cristina, I’d have thought. Wars are always inexcusable, and the blame for those lost lives lies firmly with the most evil woman in history – Mrs. Thatcher – and not with the ridiculous, strutting, South American fascist military dictator who ordered his troops to attack an undefended island which belonged - and still belongs - to another country.

The only blip this morning would have been the report showing that the £20,000 annual cap on housing support, which many – including our own dear London leader – warned would lead to poor people being “ethnically cleansed” from expensive parts of the city, has merely led to more claimants looking for work. These Tories are such fascists! It’s only fair that taxpayers who live in small houses in poor areas should have to pay over £100,000 so that a poor person can live in a large house in an expensive part of the city. Where’s the problem?

But, on the whole, it must be rather relaxing to be able to read about completely mad, destructive, illogical political and economic plans and experience a warm glow of satisfaction rather than thrombosis-inducing rage.

As for which of the two endings Britain is heading for – unfortunately, the authorities we hoped would step in and put things right appear to have fallen asleep and turned into pod people years ago.

“You’re next!”