EastEnders Eating Shirley for Breakfast

I know Moaning Lisa (AKA Siobhan) likes to create her one parallel universe and insist that this is fact, but here is a real fact. This is how Lorraine Newman views the character of Shirley:-

Toast. Simply toast, which means that she's a dead woman walking in terms of character development.

As much as Moaning Lisa would like to believe that (a) Phil really loves Shirley (he doesn't) and that (b) there will be a Shirley-Phil-Sharon love triangle (there won't) or (c) Phil will dump Sharon for Shirley (he won't), the truth is that in the ubiquitous Lorraine Newman interview - where she said a lot of nothing and little of any import - what she did say about Shirley's future development as a character was ... nothing.

What little she said was to reiterate that neither of Shirley's children would be re-joining the cast, after that brief re-acquaintance we made with Carly, meaning that Shirley now is, effectively, a character in isolation - which always means, in EastEnders' terms that she's got a very short shelf life.

So much could have been made by keeping the Wicks kids on after Kevin's death. Even now, bringing them back would not only give Shirley a new direction and a chance for viewers to see her as a mother and grandmother and to explore the reasons behind her abandonment of her children, it would - in Carly and Dean - give the show more cast members in an age demographic (25 and above) which is seriously lacking at the moment.

Instead, Diederick Santer listened to the tween element who thought it would be all kinds of cool to pair Shirley with Phil, a relationship which devolved into nothing less than sick co-dependency on Shirley's part. If we didn't know before, we know now that her friendship with Heather was rendered a sham, simply by the fact that she failed to reveal Phil's part in covering up her murder. As a matter of fact, at the last minute, she was witholding valuable evidence which would have convicted Ben and had to be shamed by the police into releasing the picture frame.

The fact that she comes back to Walford, intent on causing bother for Phil regarding Lexie's custody, has nothing to do with Lexie and everything to do with the fact that Phil is now together with Sharon.

The Digital Spy commentator Louisiana (with whom I often disagree) totally gets the vibe about Shirley:-

I don't think it's as cut and dried as saying Shirley is a bad person for not reporting Phil to the police. It's not like Phil is the actual murderer here but since she has not reported Phil's involvement she does need to let it go now. I don't expect her to forgive Phil and she does have a right to be bitter towards him but it's not good for her to focus so much on "making Phil pay". With her kids and Heather out the picture and her relationship with Phil beyond repair it's vital for the character to put down new roots if she is to remain viable and the mistake EE are making is bringing her back hell-bent on making Phil's life a misery and nothing else.

Shirley for her first few years on the show was generally a well developed character but the show has isolated her and so many others over the last two years that it's difficult to remember that. It doesn't help that her kids have both left the show as her first year on the show pretty much centred around them. I don't think it's fair to say she is underdeveloped as when you compare her with someone like Syed who existed solely for his sexuality she looks like Lou Beale.

Having Shirley return to Walford at all is a mistake. There's nothing left for her here. She's finished with Phil - he made it abundantly clear that he wanted her gone, or else he wouldn't have phoned Carly; Heather is dead and her children are elsewhere. Besides, Carly offered her a home. And coming back to wreak vengeance on Phil makes it totally obvious that justice for Heather was never a part of Shirley's long-term plan.

She simply wants to be with Phil, at any cost. When she coupled with him initially, it was when he was drunk; and she sussed that Phil, a man who'd been accustomed to pretty women at his beck and call, could only sleep with Shirley when he was drunk, contrived to keep Phil, an alcoholic, drunk and drank with him in order to keep him in her bed. She prostrated herself before him in the doormat position, when he intimated that she was merely a convenience in his home - there to care for his son and ward and offer sex in bed at nights - but it in no way implied that he should be faithful to her.

Now, knowing his part in concealing the identity of Heather's killer, she originally hoped to guilt-trip Phil into staying in her life, with Shirley now in the curious control position. But nobody plays Phil Mitchell, and now that the real love of Phil's life is back in town and up close and personal, Shirley's all out to make Phil's life a misery.

I know that the show, itself, is knotted into too many circular storylines where characters are left to fester, undeveloped and self-repeating, until the actors who play them either leave in disgust (Marc Elliott) or seek to tell the real truth about the show's writing and production inadequacies (Jamie Foreman); but having Shirley return to Walford for a few episodes of making Phil sweat is not only an insult to the actress who plays her, but also to the viewers' intelligence.

Shirley is the living dead. She is zombie Shirley with a time limit. She'll try to best Phil, fail and then crawl off to some far-off gutter and drink herself into oblivion.

She could have focused on her kids, but they were never an option. There could have been a friendship with Denise to rival that of Pat and Kathy; it was never considered. She could have been the next Pat. But it wasn't to be.

Farewell, Shirley - for your end is near (after this storyline, I predict). We could have remembered you as a strong woman - one of EastEnders real strong women and not one of these loud-mouthed chavs who think character strength is measured in vocal decibility.

Instead, we'll remember you fondly as this:-