Way of the World Michael Deacon

The Oscars has a longstanding tradition of awarding the prize for Best Picture to the most boring film of the year. From now on, however, the judges’ picks will be even more achingly worthy than ever. Because, as of this year, a film will be shortlisted for Best Picture only if it conforms to strict new rules on “diversity”. So, for example, at least one of its lead actors, or a “significant” supporting actor, must come from a list of “under-represented” minorities.

In their desperation to win, directors are bound to comply. As a result, all films will henceforth give the impression that every society since the dawn of civilisation has been as diverse as 21st-century New York.

For scriptwriters, the rule is likely to be suffocatingly restrictive. Imagine if it had applied in Shakespeare’s time.

SCENE: a meeting room at the Globe, 1606.

Director: “Terribly sorry, Wills darling, but I’m afraid we have one or two small issues with your new play,

Macbeth. Judging from the script, all the characters appear to be white, straight and cisgender.”

Shakespeare: “Well, yes. It’s set in 11th-century Scotland.”

Director: “Hmm. That’s really going to cost us on awards night. Any chance you could make King Duncan a trans lesbian of colour?”

As if the new Oscars rule weren’t silly enough, though, it seems there’s been a glaring oversight. This week, more than

260 actors and directors signed an open letter, protesting that the list of specified minority groups doesn’t include Jews.

Which means, presumably, that a masterpiece about the Holocaust could be denied the Best Picture award for being insufficiently diverse. Unless, say, it cast Denzel Washington as Anne

Frank.

Voting Tory, Boris Johnson once promised, “will cause your wife to have bigger breasts”. Disappointingly, Whitehall has yet to collate sufficient data to determine whether or not the Government has delivered on this pledge. Either way, it seems that Labour has now been inspired to make a similar pledge of its own. Because apparently, voting Labour will cause your children to grow taller.

According to Wes Streeting, Labour’s health spokesman, Britain is “slipping down” a global league table of children’s height – and it’s all the Tories’ fault. “We’re literally not standing as tall as we did on the world stage,” he fumed on Radio 4. “I think this is embarrassing, and also it is a failure to kids.”

I must confess that, prior to Mr Streeting’s intervention,

I had no idea that governments were responsible for their citizens’ heights. But it’s interesting that Labour should promote this notion, given that its own leader, Sir Keir Starmer, is himself well below average height. Is it the Tories’ fault that Sir Keir is so short? And if so, will he grow taller under a Labour government? Will architects be forced to raise the ceilings at Chequers, in order to prevent our newly towering prime minister from bumping his head against the chandeliers?

Mr Streeting seems to think that British children have fallen down the global rankings because, under the Tories, their parents can’t afford to feed them a nutritious diet. Personally, though, I don’t see what money has to do with height. After all, another politician who is significantly below average height is Rishi Sunak, whose parents were far from impoverished. Indeed, they were well-off enough to send him to Winchester, one of Britain’s most elite public schools.

Yet, despite this background of wealth and plenty, Mr Sunak is absolutely minute. As John Peel once said of Noel Edmonds: “He could walk under a table with an umbrella up.”

Then again, Mr Sunak was born in 1980. Which means that the Tories were in power for the entirety of his childhood. Perhaps that would explain it.

Young people today deeply resent being portrayed as cossetted snowflakes. Sometimes, though, they really don’t help themselves. Consider, for example, the results of a new survey of American employers. Incredibly, a fifth of them reported that young college graduates have taken to bringing their parents along to job interviews.

What a bizarre phenomenon. Why anyone would want their parents to be present during a job interview, I can’t imagine. Think how embarrassing it would be. Especially if your parents kept butting in every time you tried to answer a question.

Employer: “What would you say is your greatest weakness?”

Candidate: “Well, I’d say I’m probably too much of a perfection—”

Candidate’s mother: “It’s leaving dirty socks and underwear all over his bedroom floor. And forgetting to put the lavatory seat back down.

I’ve told him a thousand times, but will he listen?”

Employer: “And, er, where do you see yourself in five years?”

Candidate: “Well, I—”

Candidate’s father: “Not still playing Xbox in our spare bloody room all day, I hope.”

As it happens, almost 40 per cent of the employers in the survey said that young job candidates today are so unimpressive that they prefer to hire older people. So that’s another reason not to bring your mother to a job interview. They’ll probably hire her instead.