Showing posts with label a little bit of politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label a little bit of politics. Show all posts

Wednesday, 13 July 2016

Mad Cyril in 'Full of Sound and Fury, Signifying Nothing'

Sorry, son, I've gotta get this off my chest. All you Facebook
socialists wonderin' why Labour can't get it together like it's a mystery: sit down and listen. Better than that, read The Prince and get a clue.

You want to know why the Conservatives are in power so often, even though their policies have the compassion of a orangutan with his penis caught in a zip? Check the way they dealt with their leadership contest. Give them a week, and most of the candidates have withdrawn, leaving the alpha in place. They make like gangsters, and I'm not saying that the withdrawals were precipitated by a word in the shell-like. 

Except I totally am. I'd just love to see the pictures they showed Gove to get him out the race. They must have been tasty.

Labour, meanwhile, can't run a palace coup without letting the papers in on the act. If you want to assassinate a leader, even metaphorically, don't announce it. Even Professor X had files on his X-Men 'case they needed taking down. If there isn't a file in the whip's office with a picture of Corbyn doing something to shame him - like wearing a properly tailored suit, son - then Labour needs some new enforcers. 

I reckon Corbyn's got too many principles to have his own protocols for Mutually Assured Destruction. Not saying it'd be nice if his boy Seamus Milne was strolling round Parliament remindin' the rebels of that time they pumped a donkey, but it might have shut the chaos down. 

So, the papers have it that Labour is going to split in two. Good. Fuck them. The Tories were on the fucking ropes, and they decided that was the perfect moment to have a domestic. We've seen in the last two referendums that the political class have not been listening to the populace. Maybe a pair of parties would have to pay attention instead of relying on brand loyalty.

Too long, didn't read? Try this: The Tories win because they are ruthless. This is moronic political commentary, written by a moron, because that is all politics deserves. 



Sunday, 5 April 2015

What the hell is up with The Daily Telegraph?

Regular readers of Private Eye might be aware that The Daily
Telegraph is having a few internal issues: in order not to upset advertisers, they ignored a story about the HSBC, and have trouble telling the difference between advertising and editorial. The Independent has recently forgotten that it is a newspaper and not an on-line click bait service, and The Guardian remains the home of half-baked leftist columnist who imagine that condemning the burial of Richard III is a valuable political statement in the age of food banks and the NHS being sold off to the mates of the government.

But The Torygraph  is really going for it. It's like watching an elderly colonel have a public nervous breakdown, jibbering and paranoid. Before the last election, they did a piece that tried to undermine Nick Clegg  - if they'd waited, Clegg was going to do that all  by himself - and this time, they are having a bash at Nicola Sturgeon. However, when they went after Clegg, they kept it ad hominem. For some reason, they've decided that it is necessary to take down the entire Scottish electorate.

I am not an SNP supporter, nor do I welcome the triumphalism that greeted Sturgeon's success in the leader's debate  - my wariness of politicians reminds me that the last leader who did well on telly was the Lib-Dem boss, and his clegacy is a generation of disenchanted ex-students. But, seriously, the intemperate language used by Bruce Anderson suggests that he wrote his article for future generations to learn from his mistakes.

Let's  start with the personal attacks.

La Sturgeon was effective: clear, confident, combative without being shrill. One could add a fourth “c” word: cold.

It is less a question of a splinter of ice in her heart, as a few scraps of heart tissue clinging to an icicle. She has all the human warmth of a tricoteuse waiting for a tumbril.

Oh come, everyone knows that shrill is a word that is only used of women - if she wasn't shrill, why mention it? She didn't have shit all down her trousers either: unless Brucie expects a woman to be shrill? And who cares if she is cold? David Cameron was all 'call me Dave' in opposition, a warm, smiling clown. His attitude towards the poor is pretty fucking callous, despite his 'warmth.' 

Also: the metaphor? Bit of the old body horror, there. I'm all for describing politicians like monsters out of a horror film, but picking for attention in this way is like... giving out speeding tickets at the Indy 500?

And the 'c' word? Really? 

Her down-to-earth tone will help to hide the fact that the underlying economics are nonsense. “Our Lassie showed the English what for,” the Nats will be saying this weekend. There may not be time for the hysteria to subside.

Unlike readers of newspapers, I don't actually know what the 'underlying economics' here are. But, if they are nonsense, Bruce could explain why. Instead, he launches into a remarkable rant about The Scots.

Meanwhile - 'our lassie' and 'hysteria': has Bruce not been to the the feminism 101 class? A wee bit patronising, both to the notional Nats and Sturgeon - not to mention bringing up a condition that was long associated with women. 

At this point, a troll may wish to suggest that I am pushing my luck by calling Bruce on 'hysteria'. Hopefully, there is a feminist psychologist who can explain why hysteria is a contaminated word.

But let's see how he describes 'the Scottish public mood'.


Over the past few months, millions of Scots have been baying at the moon. The most bizarre fantasies have not only circulated; otherwise sane people have given them credence. There are supposed to be massively valuable oilfields whose existence the English are concealing...(this) is now part of everyday discourse.

Undermined by ... the end of the British Empire... often a job-creation scheme for Scots... Once a Royal Duke lowered the final Union Flag, it was easier for malcontents to claim that Scotland was England’s last colony. (Those sentiments are expressed in characteristic language during the film Trainspotting, much the most depressing portrait of Scotland ever written or broadcast.)

On any sensible audit of the Thatcher years, Scotland should regard her as a benefactor... Thatcherism created the conditions in which the new industries could flourish... Her voice did not help; it set many Scottish teeth on edge. That was a childish reaction: there was a lot of childishness about, encouraged by both Labour and Nationalist politicians.

So there was a quarter of a century of demonisation, which drove economic common sense out of Scottish public debate. By the end, many young Scots had come to believe that Scots’ values were superior... Mrs Thatcher and her English capitalist friends hated the Scottish ethos, which is why they had set out to destroy the Scottish economy. This brainwashing explains why Nicola Sturgeon will have earned huge applause in Scotland for attacking Ed Miliband from the Left. Scottish Labour helped to sow the dragons’ teeth, never expecting that the dragons would turn on them. They ken the noo.

Not since the Thirties has a once great nation been in the grip of so many delusions. This is malign thraldom, and it is not clear how it can be ended. Nicola Sturgeon and her party are on the side of Trainspotting Scotland, not Enlightenment Scotland. Yet there is no sign of Scotland coming to its senses.

Where do I start with this? The idea that Thatcher was generous to Scotland, but her voice (probably shrill) was the problem - not her policies? That conspiracy theories are the talk of the steamie ( a twee expression Bruce failed to use to enhance his Scottish credentials, aiming for the  full-on Fife dialect instead) is news to me. And Trainspotting is many things, but not a state of the nation address.

It's all nasty, petulant moaning, betraying a negative attitude to women in politics and patronising an entire country - the sort of thing that is a gift to the SNP, consolidating the idea that they are the outsiders in the political game. You'd almost think that The Torygraph wants to see a swing to the SNP in the election, because that might damage Labour's presence in parliament. 

Saturday, 8 November 2014

Carry On, Emanuel

In my various reflections on the value and methodology of political art, I fear I might have missed a subjective point. It isn't necessarily the Brechtian techniques that make the politics effective - it is that difficult to discern quality, 'being good', that matters. Sadly, 'Political Art ought to be good' doesn't say much.

Twitter Inspires Thought Shock
However, Oliver Emanuel, the playwright behind Dragon did make a serious point on twitter.






He's bang on: 'issue plays' (whether political or about mental health) are tedious, pontificating from a pulpit to the choir, and never really do anything more than consolidate the cosy feeling of congregation... they even encourage the idea that political power is located with other people, those bad people on the stage who are deporting immigrants, or cutting benefits. They allow the politicians to lead the agenda, too.

Some 'theatre about politics' I like
In defence of some issue-based places, I really enjoyed Cora Bissett's Glasgow Girls and the bit in Kieran Hurley's Rantin where Julia Taudevin plays a shop assistant ready to revive King Lud's protest strategies on a self-service checkout is passionate, funny and eloquent: moments like these do make me think. And I just saw Philip Dikotla's Skierlik, which reached beyond the headlines for a thoughtful journey into the possibilities of political storytelling theatre. 

But Emanuel's point is trenchant: it suggests that the very action of a theatrical performance can cause political change. Next door to my office in the CCA, Natasha Gilmore is presenting a performance with Maryhill Integration Network, and her work with them has actively created a community through the creation of the company and choreography. The engagement with culture is a political act, albeit not one that expresses a big issue that is easily recognisable as Politics (as defined by the state). 

Russ Wuss Randy Brandy
I am currently reading Russell Brand's Booky-Wooky 2, either just to annoy myself or consider whether Brand's political pronouncements can be taken seriously. As it goes, Brand hits at the heart of this debate: is it enough for Brand to bellow his opinions, reinforcing the idea that we ought to listen to celebrities? Or does he, like, need to consider his action-wackstions as well as his wordy-birdies? Maybe he is right about the necessity for revolution, but getting published by Harper-Collins might just be pissing all over his credibility chips. 

Brand, however, is a perfect target. Right wing journalists can hammer his naivety. Left-wing journalists can get huffy that he is co-opting their issues and dismiss him as a verbose oaf. I can point out that, like many artists, Brand imagines that by saying the right thing, he is acting politically - yet never allowing his opinions to actually impact on his lavish lifestyle. He is the personification of 'theatre about politics,' which is the aestheticization of politics, which allows him to make money out of political opinions, which makes him a politician, which makes him a bell-end.

I'll come back to that equation later, but linking back to Emanuel's tweet, I get the impress that Randy Russ' politics (is he an anarchist? a socialist?) are a bolt on job: attached not to deep reading in philosophy but his egotism. More than the ideas he claims to own, his political posturing is all about him. Offend his political stance, and he doesn't step back and consider the options. He takes it personally, a sure sign that the change he wants is not for the betterment of the world but so he feels better about himself. 

It is the same reason that I am writing this: I am writing a 'blog about politics.' But it is supposed to be a slightly more expansive 'like' to Oliver Emanuel's thoughtful comment. 

Summary
Maryhill Integration Network are making art that engages politically.
Oliver Emanuel is challenging lazy political gesturing.
I am a bit like Russell Brand, except without all the birds, cash and big public platform.