tag:theconversation.com,2011:/fr/topics/general-election-2015-13950/articles
General election 2015 – The Conversation
2022-10-25T15:32:33Z
tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/193003
2022-10-25T15:32:33Z
2022-10-25T15:32:33Z
Rishi Sunak: is it legitimate for the Conservatives to continue in government without an election? A constitutional scholar explains
<blockquote>
<p>It is only right to explain why I’m standing here as your new prime minister.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>These were some of the first words spoken by Rishi Sunak as he made a speech outside Downing Street shortly after coming to office. </p>
<p>Sunak is the fifth prime minister since 2016 and the third since the last election. So his assessment that his presence needs an explanation is correct. Recent polling shows <a href="https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2022/10/20/adc3c/3">many people feel</a> he should call an early election.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1583075156733620224"}"></div></p>
<p>The last election was held in 2019 and although Boris Johnson secured a large parliamentary majority back then, he resigned in disgrace in the summer of 2022. Even before his departure, the Conservative majority had been eroded by multiple by-election losses and the Tories were plummeting in the polls. Their popularity hit rock bottom during <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tory-poll-liz-truss-labour-starmer-b2204553.html">Truss’s tenure</a>.</p>
<p>Yet the party now presumes to be in the position to appoint another prime minister without seeking the views of the voting public. </p>
<p>In truth, they are <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2022/11/enacted">legally permitted</a> to govern for a further two years without calling a public vote. Sunak indicated in his speech that he sees the <a href="https://www.conservatives.com/our-plan">Conservatives’ 2019 manifesto</a> as his mandate and explicitly stated that the electoral mandate secured that year under Johnson “is not the sole property of one individual”. </p>
<p>Nevertheless, the Conservative Party presided over economic chaos during Liz Truss’s short tenure. They may have the legal right to govern without an election – but does that mean they should? </p>
<h2>What is a ‘legitimate’ government?</h2>
<p>The UK does not have a <a href="https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/commentary-and-opinion/a-codified-constitution/5042521.article">written constitution</a> so it’s difficult to say definitively when a government does or doesn’t have legitimacy. </p>
<p>Rather than being codified, the <a href="https://www.britannica.com/topic/constitutionalism/Political-and-legal-constitutionalism-compared">British constitution</a> rests on the Westminster model of government, whereby the party that <a href="https://members.parliament.uk/parties/Commons#:%7E:text=If%20an%20MP%20is%20not%20a%20member%20of,majority%20government.%20Their%20current%20working%20majority%20is%2071.">commands a majority</a> in the House of Commons forms the government. The prime minister is not directly elected by the people. The job simply goes to whoever is the leader of the party of government. That’s why neither Truss nor Sunak had to hold a public vote to secure the top job and why Sunak referred to the 2019 mandate in his speech. </p>
<p>In legal terms, the constitution rests on political principles, which the law protects. These include democratic accountability and scrutiny, freedom of the press and freedom of information. There are also seven specific moral principles of government (known as the <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-7-principles-of-public-life/the-7-principles-of-public-life--2">Nolan principles</a>) which include things like honesty, integrity and selflessness. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/mKJCwgMQRVQ?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Sunak’s first speech.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p><a href="https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/legitimacy-and-politics/what-is-political-legitimacy/C3AD5C3FB8D24A86D84FAFECDB9ABF90">Political thinkers</a>, however, have long proposed that a government is only legitimate when it has the popular and implicit <a href="https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke-political/">consent of the governed</a>. In other words a government can only exist when citizens freely allow it to, and have given their popular consent (via a vote) in favour of it. </p>
<p>American political scientist <a href="https://www.britannica.com/biography/Seymour-Martin-Lipset">Seymour Martin Lipset</a> said legitimacy “involves the capacity of a political system to … maintain the belief that existing political institutions are the most appropriate and proper ones for the society.” </p>
<p>Legitimacy also has a <a href="https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-1-4020-9160-5_333">moral meaning</a>. It is linked to the belief that a government’s actions should be appropriate and legally constituted. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/liz-truss-resigns-so-why-isnt-the-uk-having-an-election-192984">Liz Truss resigns: so why isn't the UK having an election?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>So, even though Sunak can claim to have a legal right to be prime minister, can he claim to have political (democratic) and moral legitimacy to continue? </p>
<p>In respect of <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/1951731#metadata_info_tab_contents">Lipset’s test</a>, time will tell. Sunak’s ability to unite his party and end the political and economic uncertainty the UK has experienced over the past month will be the deciding factor on whether he is the appropriate person to govern. </p>
<p>In relation to the <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-7-principles-of-public-life/the-7-principles-of-public-life--2">Nolan principles</a> of integrity, openness and honesty, it is also important to note that Sunak does not represent an entirely fresh start from the <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-62150409">Johnson administration</a>. He served under Johnson and was fined for <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-61079172">breaking lockdown rules</a> alongside him.</p>
<p>Nor should it be forgotten that Sunak lost to Truss in <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/sep/05/rishi-sunak-wait-in-wings-liz-truss-lose-election">a vote among party members</a> just a few months ago. Even though he stood unopposed this time, he in fact only had just over half the total number of Tory MPs publicly <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2022/oct/24/uk-politics-live-rishi-sunak-penny-mordaunt-boris-johnson-withdrawal-nominations-deadline-tory-leadership-contest-race?page=with:block-635686238f08ff8bc54cfc19">backing his nomination</a>. He will therefore need to stabilise his party in these conditions to achieve moral legitimacy to continue to serve as prime minister. These are, after all, the mechanisms via which a leader comes to power within the Westminster system. </p>
<p>If Sunak cannot give evidence of his legitimacy to govern early on in his tenure, it will add to calls for a general election before 2025.</p>
<h2>But will he call an election?</h2>
<p>The constitution does allow Sunak to call an early election since, under Johnson, parliament <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2022/11/enacted">reinstated the previous constitutional position</a> in respect of general elections. He can use <a href="https://constitutionallawmatters.org/2021/10/prerogative-powers-what-are-they-and-where-do-they-come-from/">prerogative powers</a> to advise the monarch to dissolve parliament in order to call an election.</p>
<p>But <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tory-poll-liz-truss-labour-starmer-b2204553.html">current polling</a> would make it unlikely for the new PM to want to do this. Nor are his MPs likely to vote to hold one. </p>
<p>That said, given how much has changed since 2019 and the unprecedented political events of the last couple of months, calling an early election could be the most effective way to restore a sense of political and moral legitimacy at the heart of the system. It’s a huge gamble for the Conservatives but it would at least produce a new (or renewed) mandate for Sunak.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/193003/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Stephen Clear does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>
He’s the third prime minister to take office since the last election and
Stephen Clear, Lecturer in Constitutional and Administrative Law, and Public Procurement, Bangor University
Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.
tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/42372
2015-05-28T12:28:05Z
2015-05-28T12:28:05Z
Opportunity knocks for the Tories to boost gender equality in science
<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/83098/original/image-20150527-4857-mo6srt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Inspiring role models can help more girls consider a career in science.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/wwworks/3058182308/in/photolist-5EeZ4b-pwXxhP-aC4thv-7MHw2c-ei1Weu-3tEAPw-dSE67-nLuPZ-8rU6Cf-8GYqss-qtHwNH-qtEgKE-aYq8xk-qyeqic-qs3Qhc-7NVd6E-gsbvVa-5G7y9S-4DgdN4-r88Cz5-pwXrDp-azHS41-bTU7FK-5G7xDs-6XN7KH-53fHVh-5M3ikd-cztY1y-6EY3zN-seAW5K-crLycj-crPobC-dupwpS-crLxUN-sey4Eg-qcaa2m-qcgkEx-68kqhA-rVgQV4-qtx6j2-crKWef-crJg7u-crP7NQ-83Ps6w-crN4HJ-7NRfyZ-4v29tN-rixJvh-phCkkD-crLQHm">woodleywonderworks/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>It’s no secret that there is a lack of women in science-related careers. And it’s bad for the economy. While the Conservatives launched <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/news/400-million-will-help-science-and-engineering-students-get-ahead-in-the-global-race-and-encourage-more-women-to-study-these-subjects">some good initiatives</a> to address this problem in the last coalition government, their polices were disjointed and did not result in any significant progress. The party should now grasp the opportunity to tackle the problem properly – linking policies on education, career progression and childcare. </p>
<p>The UK <a href="http://www.elsevier.com/about/press-releases/science-and-technology/uk-continues-to-punch-above-its-weight-in-the-research-arena">punches above its weight</a> when it comes to science. Despite this, we are missing out on a huge amount of talent, as 50% of the population is heavily under-represented in the discipline. The statistics are horrific: <a href="https://www.wisecampaign.org.uk/resources/2012/12/uk-statistics-2012">only 13%</a> of all science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) jobs in the UK are occupied by women despite equal gender representations at A level and undergraduate level for many STEM disciplines.</p>
<p>Across the whole of academia, women occupy <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/research/science-society/document_library/pdf_06/she-figures-2012_en.pdf">only 17.5% of the top academic positions</a> in the UK, which is below the average proportion for the EU. <a href="http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/news/gender-survey-of-uk-professoriate-2013/2004766.article">Several universities</a> are falling well short of that already low benchmark. The situation is even worse in the UK’s natural sciences and engineering and technology, where <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/research/science-society/document_library/pdf_06/she-figures-2012_en.pdf">only 7-9% of professors are women</a>. </p>
<p>Recent research shows that a diverse scientific workforce is <a href="http://www.royalsoced.org.uk/1027_Report.html">more creative and better performing</a> than a homogeneous one. Such diverse organisations <a href="http://sciencecampaign.org.uk/CaSEDiversityinSTEMreport2014.pdf">perform better</a> financially, recruit from a wider talent pool, suffer lower staff turnover and increase creativity and problem solving capability. </p>
<h2>Linking policies</h2>
<p>There are three key areas that the next government will need to tackle to make progress on this. </p>
<p>Arguably the most important one is education. As highlighted by the former, Conservative science minister Greg Clark, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmPffZ6izpY&list=PLWxZBtZEMeZBg7pNrIgKV-W_qTCaFrdw7&index=7">bringing the next generation onboard</a> is a key priority for UK science to prosper in the future. However, what was missed by the Conservatives is that we need to boost support for girls not only to consider an education in STEM subjects, but also to persist in the pursuit of a career. </p>
<p>One of the most important factors here is the low level of confidence among girls when it comes to science and maths, which has been recorded in a number of <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-31733742">studies</a>. Targeted action in schools is therefore needed to provide girls with inspirational role models and to boost their confidence, which is especially important in mixed gender schools. </p>
<p>Another crucial area is career progression. While some women may leave science for perfectly good reasons, there is no doubt that others leave because they don’t feel valued and think they’re not good enough. <a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/109/41/16474.full.pdf">Research has shown</a> that universities presented with two equally good CVs – one from a man and one from a woman – were more likely to want to hire the man. Most scientists are horrified to learn of their own personal bias; raising awareness of unconscious bias and providing training to employers and managers is a quick-fix way to help scientists get over such prejudice. </p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/83100/original/image-20150527-4840-11wnmh3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/83100/original/image-20150527-4840-11wnmh3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=859&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/83100/original/image-20150527-4840-11wnmh3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=859&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/83100/original/image-20150527-4840-11wnmh3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=859&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/83100/original/image-20150527-4840-11wnmh3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1080&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/83100/original/image-20150527-4840-11wnmh3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1080&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/83100/original/image-20150527-4840-11wnmh3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1080&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Marie Curie made it - against the oods.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/tekniskamuseet/12835367815/in/photolist-kydBF6-dhm6Vq-oZNza8-8ysXkL-fyjRFb-fyjRuu-pYYki-fyjRJm-oZNLap-eiWpN3-eiWpMY-eiWpPC-eiQFrR-ek23cd-ek23do-9HsZot-oSNULi-cLuB6G-g9eZ2N-fHXyeQ-acpTgB-x6WQB-pYYkg-egFvvr-kp2WBC-cLuzUE-4dvCFE-cLuzML-bmXXaC-51b5Tp-F4Dtu-ggqW7-dAo97d-bzSNmr-6fLhVi-6fQtaY-54gu8p-dhmdmp-8H8P9U-fyjRCq-fyjRyq-9NSLqr-8tbgT3-moJPgw-moH6dX-moH4Hx-8t8fFe-8tbfaf-8t8dMp-8t8d26">Tekniska museet/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The third area that the next government can have a big impact on is by providing better support for scientists who take career breaks to accommodate caring responsibilities such as parental leave. Scientific careers are in many ways more accommodating of personal commitments than other demanding jobs. The next government should embrace this, by supporting more affordable and on-site childcare for scientists. More funding opportunities should also be provided for parents returning to science after taking a few years out to raise a family. </p>
<p>But why stop there? The fact remains that women are still far more likely to take out parental leave than men, despite the fact that many men would appreciate spending more time with their children. To really boost gender equality across all careers, the government should put policies in place to encourage more men to share parental leave. </p>
<h2>Obstacles to success</h2>
<p>The next government will need to work with universities, funding agencies and research institutes to ensure women are better supported through their career path. But getting to grips with the problem will not be easy. While we know that role models, mentoring, and personal development programmes all have positive impacts on women’s careers in science – particularly on junior women – implementation will not be straightforward. </p>
<p>For example, the extra demand that mentoring puts on the diminishing number of women that are senior scientists earns them no recognition in the established programme for assessing university performance (Research Excellence Framework). In short – if academics invest in mentoring the next generation, their research “credentials” suffer. But the new government has the power to shift this imbalance. </p>
<p>A subtle, re-emphasis towards valuing mentorship and investment in the scientific workforce will help promote a more positive environment for all. One step in this direction is the implementation of the <a href="http://www.ecu.ac.uk/equality-charters/athena-swan/">Athena SWAN awards</a> – essentially badges of equality for university departments and research institutes. These awards encourage departments to set new standards for themselves to achieve in their promotion and support of equality and diversity. Mentoring is a key part of this. But we need an official way of recognising the contributions of those who invest in mentorship. </p>
<p>Perhaps the biggest challenge of all is overcoming the stereotypes and prejudices that are embedded in our culture and put women off science. The sooner we realise that women make equally good scientists as men and that men that men make equally good parents as women, the easier it will be to change things. </p>
<p>While such cultural change can take time, having the right policies in place can certainly speed things up. The next government has the power to prevent financial and intellectual loss from the UK’s scientific community, but to achieve this they will need to properly connect policies on science, education and wider societal and welfare issues.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/42372/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Nathalie Pettorelli receives funding from the Science & Technology Facilities Council. She is the co-founder of Soapbox Science.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Seirian Sumner receives funding from the Science & Technology Facilities Council. She is the co-founder of Soapbox Science.</span></em></p>
The new government should link policies on education, career progression and welfare to tackle the lack of women in science.
Nathalie Pettorelli, Research Fellow, Zoological Society of London
Seirian Sumner, Senior Lecturer in Behavioural Biology, University of Bristol
Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.
tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/41622
2015-05-14T13:03:02Z
2015-05-14T13:03:02Z
Five years of the Tories creates uncertainty for British science
<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/81201/original/image-20150511-10248-1fj88ka.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Thousands of people protested against planned cuts to science in 2010. </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/neutronboy/5065448180/in/photolist-3Y6PJW-8HNPkU-8HBKgs-8HyAan-8HBKF7-8HyC46">Mark Ramsay/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The election of the new Conservative <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk-election-2015-david-cameron-back-in-no-10-as-the-conservatives-win-41409">government</a> generates uncertainty about the future of UK science. While the party’s record in government shows that it recognises the value of research, its commitment to a referendum on EU membership, and lack of commitment to ringfencing spending is worrying. On the other hand, the appointment of the new Science minister may suggest that research will have an increasingly important economic role. </p>
<p>The Conservative manifesto made a number of welcome commitments to research, including plans to “invest in science, back our industrial strategies and make Britain the technology centre of Europe”. It also pledged to continue the former coalition government’s <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/our-plan-for-growth-science-and-innovation">Science and Innovation Strategy</a>, which includes investing £1.1 billion in capital each year until 2010-20. However, it did not commit to protecting non-capital spending on research in the forthcoming spending review. </p>
<p>To understand the changes that might take place, it is important to recognise that continuity, rather than radical change, has been the main feature of UK science policy since <a href="http://www.davidsainsbury.org.uk/biography">David Sainsbury</a> laid the ground work for a cross-party consensus on avoiding the damaging policy flip-flopping of the past. </p>
<p>It is unlikely <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-32698484#?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter">that the new science and universities minister</a> <a href="http://www.jo-johnson.com/">Jo Johnson</a>, the head of the <a href="http://www.csap.cam.ac.uk/organisations/10-downing-street/">Number 10 Policy Unit</a> and London mayor Boris Johnson’s brother, will have a radically different view from his predecessor Greg Clark. While not a scientist, Johnson has a reputation for valuing research. If this is maintained, it is likely we will see a continuing, and possibly increased, emphasis on the economic impact of research, as well as additional devolution of powers to cities and regions – both of which could change how and where the money is spent. </p>
<h2>Funding and free flow of talent</h2>
<p>That said, the commitment to a referendum on membership of the European Union should be a real concern for scientists. The UK is a major scientific player in Europe; <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/jan/27/europe-science-funding-paul-nurse">80 of the 302 senior research awards</a> from the European Research Council go to the UK. Research is increasingly international and constraints on the free movement of scientists after an “out vote” would be very damaging. </p>
<p>Just the fact that a referendum is taking place is likely to send a worrying message to the world about the UK’s international commitments. Even incorrect perceptions could influence researchers and students’ willingness to come to the UK, constraining our ability to recruit the best staff and students. Encouragingly the new science minister <a href="http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/cdec9fa0-9d1b-11e1-aa39-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3ZrW7YRgd">recognises the importance of international students</a> to the health of the UK university system and its ability to contribute to society. </p>
<p>The uncertainty surrounding the outcome of the vote may mean firms are tempted to relocate their research and development programmes to guarantee long-term access to EU markets, damaging the wider UK research system. Given these risks, universities and scientists are already active in pressing for a pro-EU vote. </p>
<p>At present a vote to leave looks unlikely – but Cameron may not get much from his <a href="http://www.channel4.com/news/david-cameron-eu-renegotiation-is-underway">renegotiations</a> on the terms of the UK’s membership, as any big changes may require referendums in other member states. But a vote for a Brexit would have a serious negative impact on industrial and academic science as it might cut us off from full participation in EU research networks. </p>
<p>Budgets are also uncertain. The last coalition government <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/science/2010/oct/19/spending-review-science-budget-spared">protected science against cuts under a so-called “budget ringfence”</a>. The Conservative party’s manifesto has not, however, committed to maintain this arrangement. This is a concern, given <a href="https://theconversation.com/osborne-hacks-away-at-working-poor-without-explaining-details-21817">the emphasis on economic austerity</a>. </p>
<p>Planned <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25617844">cuts to public spending</a> are probably too severe to be politically viable. Cuts to research spending may therefore be tempting – there is talk in Westminster that the universities have had it relatively easy. This is worrying for science, as the co-ordinated lobbying to protect the research budget by learned societies, grassroots pressure groups and others that existed five years ago, is less visible today.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/81205/original/image-20150511-10239-1bi6k5d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/81205/original/image-20150511-10239-1bi6k5d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/81205/original/image-20150511-10239-1bi6k5d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/81205/original/image-20150511-10239-1bi6k5d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/81205/original/image-20150511-10239-1bi6k5d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/81205/original/image-20150511-10239-1bi6k5d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/81205/original/image-20150511-10239-1bi6k5d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">George Osborne will have to think outside the box to protect science when making cuts to public spending.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/phototoday2008/13297560655/in/photolist-mg4tva-5Y8tjx-9t9tPe-akGvK9-akDG9n-7qVqpL-5BZReL-9RLUbp-eXWMjd-eXKnHg-jb3pGV-khfVRf-khdugH-khedig-kheegD-sdVKtK-7PdZ8H-9pvkf4-9RFfnK-8HCY2U-hE5oza-815tL5-by89Qd-8eQdP6-9fT3iA-f12uJL-cs3vVw-8daUrG-dqjtUh-qNq2Wn-bs9zxW-7UFhBM-e51hGR-aNZM7K-gokfXF-dfXT1j-dnR7Bf-qNcGzw-qNpTTt-7PdXYP-7PhYoj-rqSLSD-aKiTZc-cwZLKG-rsKxa2-dp1W6L-smQrQ-smQs1-smQe7-smQrD">See Li</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Even continuing the ringfence is having a damaging effect as inflation takes its toll and causes research councils’ budgets to fall by approximately 15% in real terms since 2010. The other major concern is that other areas of spending move inside the ringfence, potentially diluting the overall pot of money available for research. The diagnosis in BIS (not in academic science policy) that the UK’s solid research performance, but weak R&D spending, indicates a problem with commercialisation, may see more money spent there. </p>
<p>Luckily, a number of factors may counter this risk. Science has strong political and public support – and politicians are aware of the cost of the Liberal Democrats’ broken promise on student loans. Moreover, politicians increasingly recognise how much science contributes to economic growth. This is important as <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/apr/01/uk-productivity-growth-is-weakest-since-wwii-says-ons">UK productivity growth has been dire</a> and, while this huge problem was largely ignored in the election, the Treasury is worried. The Science Minister is a close friend of the Chancellor, suggesting policies might be introduced to improve the impact of research on productivity and economic growth. </p>
<p>Finally, the science budget may be saved by a seemingly small-scale change to accountancy rules. As of September 2014, research and development has been moved from “current spending” to “capital investment” in the <a href="http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/naa1-rd/united-kingdom-national-accounts/index.html">national accounts</a>. Spending on science now has less impact on the deficit. </p>
<p>Even if funding and the UK’s position in the EU are maintained, there are changes underway in UK innovation policy. The government’s commitment to devolving economic powers to cities and regions is likely to continue given Greg Clark’s promotion to Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. </p>
<p>Local economic policy making is increasingly extending to cover local innovation policy – and this, in turn will influence research. Universities are probably going to increasing be expected to focus more on generating local economic impact and providing support to local firms. This devolution of economic power may, in the long term, help change the geographic distribution of funding, currently heavily concentrated in London and south-east England. This could be good news for the universities driving the Northern Powerhouse. </p>
<p>So overall, the science system may well be subject to considerable changes. Research is now recognised to be more important when it comes to delivering the productivity increases needed to improve the UK’s economic performance, but this may not be enough to avoid a continuing bumpy ride if significant cuts are made.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/41622/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Paul Nightingale currently receives funding from the EPSRC, and ESRC. In the past he has consulted and worked for a range of research intensive private and public sector organisations. </span></em></p>
The UK’s commitment to a referendum on EU membership could already be harming the UK’s reputation in science.
Paul Nightingale, Professor of Strategy, SPRU, University of Sussex Business School, University of Sussex
Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.
tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/41628
2015-05-11T15:08:21Z
2015-05-11T15:08:21Z
What to expect from Tory cultural policy: where the axe will fall
<p>John Whittingdale, the former chair of the Commons culture committee, has been made the new culture secretary, taking over from <a href="https://theconversation.com/what-is-a-banker-doing-as-the-new-minister-of-fun-25620">Sajid Javid</a>. He will be in charge of renegotiating the BBC’s charter, a process that will be vitally important for the cultural landscape of the UK. </p>
<p>As chair of the previous parliament’s culture, media and sport select committee he is distinguished as being a culture secretary who undoubtedly knows his brief. However, he faces a cultural sector fraught with uncertainty. </p>
<p>Whittingdale’s focus will probably be on English culture, as Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland have different systems for cultural policy. It won’t surprise anyone to learn that we’re facing further cuts over the next five years, so the most realistic question to begin with is to ask where the axe will fall.</p>
<p>The reshaping of Whitehall will see reductions in spending on areas that are not ring-fenced. It’s clear that culture is vulnerable. It’s not unreasonable to say that we may even see the abolition of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS). Cutting the size and cost of central government is a clear part of a Conservative agenda, and so even if it’s not abolished, we will likely see major changes to it. </p>
<p>Arts Council England’s funds will also be reduced further. However, abolition of the Arts Council would be symbolically difficult and would undermine the capacity of government to shape and deliver cultural agendas. So an (even further) reduced Arts Council is on the cards. This means that arts organisations will all have to expect funding cuts. Where these funding cuts happen will be a major question, as Arts Council England seek to balance accusations of London bias with the sustainability of smaller regional organisations. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/81217/original/image-20150511-10239-m76dg2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/81217/original/image-20150511-10239-m76dg2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/81217/original/image-20150511-10239-m76dg2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/81217/original/image-20150511-10239-m76dg2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/81217/original/image-20150511-10239-m76dg2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/81217/original/image-20150511-10239-m76dg2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/81217/original/image-20150511-10239-m76dg2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">All arts organisations can expect further cuts.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">IR Stone / Shutterstock.com</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Local arts in peril?</h2>
<p>The decline of funding from central government will be nothing compared with the collapse of local support. The Department for Communities and Local Government, if it survives in a reshaped Whitehall, will be given vastly reduced sums to offer local authorities. These authorities have a range of statutory duties to deliver, none of which include the arts. </p>
<p>So the gamble for arts organisations outside of London is where philanthropic and market, rather than state, forms of funding will come from. This, in turn, raises questions about programming and artistic focus. Outside of central London a turn to a model of more community focused, democratic, arts organisations may be on the cards. And in communities with high levels of social exclusion it’s difficult to see where the money will come from.</p>
<p>At the same time there are opportunities. The pre-election budget focused on creating and developing a <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-31942291">Northern Powerhouse</a> around Manchester, with some leeway given around using local business rates and health budgets. Along with new buildings and investment in tech industries, Manchester might point the way for an integrated cultural, media and creative industries policy.</p>
<p>Because of these inevitable cuts, working across policy agendas for funds is likely to be important. Arts and health will be a crucial area of work for many regional cultural organisations, based on extra funding and the belief in the <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/ccut20/24/1">power of the arts to impact on wellbeing</a>. Research is needed to make the cultural case to those making health-spending decisions.</p>
<p>Education policy will be important and influential. This is not only as a result of continued worries about the place of culture and creative subjects across the various curricula in England’s educational system. It is also reflected in higher education and from there into the workforce for the creative industries. </p>
<p>Ensuring economic competitiveness through creative graduates will be part of Conservative policy discourses. How this is achieved remains to be seen. It is, therefore, another opportunity for cultural organisations, particularly those in areas with comparatively well-funded universities struggling to attract international students to the English regions.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/81220/original/image-20150511-19566-c98460.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/81220/original/image-20150511-19566-c98460.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/81220/original/image-20150511-19566-c98460.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/81220/original/image-20150511-19566-c98460.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/81220/original/image-20150511-19566-c98460.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/81220/original/image-20150511-19566-c98460.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/81220/original/image-20150511-19566-c98460.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Up for grabs?</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/dantaylor/4660618/in/photolist-pTru-6Koaq-2jkCL1-4ACzWS-9Fud3b-P21X7-P227j-oAbUfD-4BRT15-4mAx1z-2LsJpG-9sX37E-7d4pmt-eELQh-7VrtHf-nLX6Y-6fsMrN-9pMtsf-7d8erN-k1St4-9x34Fm-oB2Tq7-8W1jQY-c4LP1y-8ka2LX-c4LSW9-7tQia9-4ZQ746-5KXTTu-6zSjqp-a2MfkJ-ejPmV-izj4PB-iziNY7-6Csr7-Hvnkh-izipg6-c5Mfcd-5Q99w-7mBpNk-P2yDK-7AJS2G-8o244i-9oUYwE-82dJSn-gFjw2s-8Rv1BT-5WDdz7-BE84a-kBQieg">dantaylor/flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>BBC on the market</h2>
<p>Finally, the major cultural policy event for the Conservative administration will be the renewal of the BBC’s charter. Although we operate in an age of <a href="https://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/westminster-university-debates-public-service-media-in-digital-age">public service media</a> rather than just broadcasting, questions of competition, costs and politics have been ever present in right wing discussions of the BBC. </p>
<p>A BBC subject to further marketisation may open up opportunities for freelancers across a range of creative sectors, along with The Conservative’s commitment to local TV. How the BBC commissions the same levels of content across the same platforms with reduced funding and stricter competition controls is much less certain, as is the development of local television stations outside London.</p>
<p>The example of <a href="http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/polis/2013/08/22/from-fee-to-mutual-what-kind-of-bbc-do-you-want-to-emerge-from-charter-renewal/">BBC charter renewal is one of many individual battles</a> that will see headlines. Others will include <a href="https://twitter.com/mauricewdavies/status/596952026501804032">national museums coping with free admission</a> alongside reduced funding levels and the inevitable closures of local authority run libraries.</p>
<p>We are also likely to see little movement on the inequalities underpinning how the cultural sector functions, including low (and sometimes no) pay and poor working conditions. The <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/only-one-in-10-actors-comes-from-workingclass-background-says-research-10230330.html">headlines worrying over the lack of diverse voices</a> in the arts are likely to continue, as an absence of political will to intervene in cultural and creative labour markets, reduced funds for new commissions, alongside the exacerbation of inequalities in the higher education system coincide.</p>
<p>Of course, the more culture depends on markets and philanthropy the less any democratic political agendas can be influential. For some voices this will be a delightful prospect. However, given the role of arts and culture in sustaining and supporting social inequality, from educational opportunities, through the makeup of the cultural labour force, through to what is depicted on stage and screen, we should be cautious about welcoming the withdrawal of the state.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/41628/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Dave O'Brien receives funding from the Arts and Humanities Research Council.</span></em></p>
Conservative cultural policy is likely to be defined by severe cuts – possibly even the abolition of the department itself.
Dave O'Brien, Senior Lecturer in Cultural Policy, Goldsmiths, University of London
Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.
tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/41569
2015-05-09T14:45:57Z
2015-05-09T14:45:57Z
Election coverage: sweet victory or a new low for UK press?
<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/81093/original/image-20150509-22722-1a0083j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Morning after: how the nationals covered the election.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Paperboy</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>So that’s that, then. The pollsters got it <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/08/polls-wrong-pre-election-results">wildly wrong</a> and the UK did not wake up on Friday to endless debates about coalitions, minority governments and who would deal with whom. Instead a startled “national” press rushed out <a href="http://www.jomec.co.uk/blog/wp-admin/%C2%A0http:/www.pressgazette.co.uk/national-newspapers-go-press-late-6am-carry-surprise-election-news-front-page-round">early editions </a> which either greeted the Conservative victory with smug, euphoric glee (The Daily Mail and The Sun) or stunned resignation at the prospect of the bleak years ahead (the Daily Mirror and The Guardian).</p>
<p>Pretty much every serious political commentator had predicted days, may be even weeks of manoeuvring, right up until the exit poll landed moments after the polls closed at 10pm. Very quickly – and very eloquently — some journalists turned to analyse the unexpected. </p>
<p>In The Guardian online <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/08/labour-vote-party%20">Rafael Behr</a> coolly analysed the scale of the catastrophe that had befallen Labour which extended far beyond Miliband’s difficulty in performing with easy aplomb in front of a camera. In The Independent, meanwhile, <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/election-2015-results-a-brutal-night-that-laid-bare-the-disunity-of-the-united-kingdom-10234566.html">Rosie Millard</a> reflected on a “brutal” night resulting in an SNP “tsunami” and the destruction of the Liberal Democrats.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/81089/original/image-20150509-22773-p9un66.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/81089/original/image-20150509-22773-p9un66.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/81089/original/image-20150509-22773-p9un66.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=800&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/81089/original/image-20150509-22773-p9un66.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=800&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/81089/original/image-20150509-22773-p9un66.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=800&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/81089/original/image-20150509-22773-p9un66.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1005&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/81089/original/image-20150509-22773-p9un66.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1005&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/81089/original/image-20150509-22773-p9un66.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1005&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Mail in excelsis.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Daily Mail</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>By Friday lunchtime the online editions of all the major titles were straining to adequately cover the continuing fall-out from what the <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3072723/Ed-Miliband-resign-leading-Labour-disastrous-election-defeat.html">Daily Mail</a> accurately described as an incredible night of political drama.</p>
<p>Balls was out, Clegg had quit and Farage had failed in South Thanet. Then Miliband was gone and Cameron – enjoying his “sweetest victory” – was on his way to see the Queen. The Daily Mail was erupting with schadenfruede and triumphalism. </p>
<h2>Character assassination</h2>
<p>This was a sweet victory for the Daily Mail and The Sun which will undoubtedly and repeatedly tell us that it was them wot won it. And this is very bad news for those who us who are appalled by the character assassinations endured by Ed Miliband at the hands of the Tory press. </p>
<p>Cameron’s victory will embolden these titles to resort to such tactics again. The Sun will claim this victory as its own and the sadly iconic image of Miliband eating a bacon sandwich will be as much a feature of future election coverage as the Neil Kinnock “light bulb” image of 1992, when <a href="http://www.bl.uk/learning/histcitizen/fpage/elections/election.html">The Sun asked</a> the last person leaving Britain to “please turn out the lights”.</p>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/81090/original/image-20150509-22773-a8jnwu.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/81090/original/image-20150509-22773-a8jnwu.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/81090/original/image-20150509-22773-a8jnwu.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=851&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/81090/original/image-20150509-22773-a8jnwu.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=851&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/81090/original/image-20150509-22773-a8jnwu.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=851&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/81090/original/image-20150509-22773-a8jnwu.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1069&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/81090/original/image-20150509-22773-a8jnwu.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1069&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/81090/original/image-20150509-22773-a8jnwu.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1069&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Singing from the same songsheet.</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Indeed, for seasoned critics of The Sun and Daily Mail, the vindictive lies and slurs directed at Miliband during the final week of campaigning represented another occasion for them to lament a new low. After the wet bank holiday Monday and the two-day diversion of the royal baby, Wednesday saw the gloves well and truly off as far as the right wing press were concerned.</p>
<p>Headlines such those above drew widespread criticism and not solely from the traditional left-wing quarters. Having seen the papers in advance, Andrew Neil, former editor of the Sunday Times and now presenter of the BBC’s Daily Politics, tweeted:</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"595720878979186689"}"></div></p>
<p>Some saw a “whiff” of <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/06/sun-front-page-antisemitic-save-our-bacon-ed-miliband">anti-Semitism on the front page</a> of Wednesday’s Sun. In the Guardian, Keith Kahn Harris wrote that Miliband could be the first Jewish-born prime minister since Disraeli and that:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Damning Miliband with porcine satire seems – like the <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2435751/Red-Eds-pledge-bring-socialism-homage-Marxist-father-Ralph-Miliband-says-GEOFFREY-LEVY.html">Daily Mail’s exposé</a> of his ‘Britain-hating’ Jewish émigré father – to radiate some nasty connotations.</p>
</blockquote>
<h2>No balance</h2>
<p>Aside from the impressionistic, research conducted by the <a href="http://www.jomec.co.uk/blog/wp-admin/%20http:/www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2015/may/06/national-newspapers-labour-sun-daily-mail-telegraph">Media Standards Trust</a> found that The Sun had gone after Miliband in a more ferocious manner than it went after Neil Kinnock in 1992. In its analysis of leader columns from March 26 to May 3 this year their research found that 95% of the leader columns in the paper were anti-Labour compared with 79% in 1992. </p>
<p>Over the whole the period the trust examined, The Sun ran 102 leader articles considered to be anti-Labour compared with just four that were critical of the Conservatives. Similarly, Loughborough University’s <a href="http://blog.lboro.ac.uk/general-election/the-knives-are-out-in-closing-days-of-election-campaign/">Communication Research Centre</a> found that across the press, over the whole of the campaign, Labour experienced “extensive negative coverage”.</p>
<p>That we have such a Conservative (and conservative) newspaper industry is not news. But it doesn’t harm to be reminded of that fact now and gain. As Dominic Ponsford and William Turvill said in the <a href="http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/uk-daily-newspaper-market-backs-tories-over-labour-margin-five-one">Press Gazette</a>, in this election the UK daily newspaper market backed the Tories over Labour by a margin of five to one. In terms of the Sundays, five out the 11 main newspapers backed the Tories working out at 66% of all the titles.</p>
<p>So Cameron is back in Downing Street and Miliband, the would-be scourge of Murdoch and the only party leader in generations to openly challenge the press barons, finds his career (for the time being) in tatters. And, whether or not we believe that <a href="http://www.jomec.co.uk/blog/wp-admin/%20https:/theconversation.com/the-suns-snp-tory-split-shows-newspaper-endorsements-arent-what-they-used-to-be-38256">newspapers influence their readers</a> we are unlikely to see his successor behave anywhere near as pugnaciously. </p>
<p>It’s my guess that the analysts and advisers to the new leader will point to the sustained and co-ordinated negative coverage that Miliband has received and reason that therein lies part of the reason for his failure. It won’t at all matter if the evidence doesn’t support that theory.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/41569/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
So that’s that, then. The pollsters got it wildly wrong and the UK did not wake up on Friday to endless debates about coalitions, minority governments and who would deal with whom. Instead a startled “national…
John Jewell, Director of Undergraduate Studies, School of Journalism, Media and Cultural Studies, Cardiff University
Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.
tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/41565
2015-05-09T11:17:38Z
2015-05-09T11:17:38Z
An old media election, but at least we got a few good gags
<p>The secret ballot gives voters the chance to pulp punditry and polls on a scale which we see only very rarely. As the scale of the Conservative victory became clear, thousands of tons of paper, millions of words and many hours of talking heads onscreen were trashed and forgotten as those speculations collided with facts.</p>
<p>The media makes two rapid adjustments. The language of permanent coalition politics and all its complexities goes back into cold storage, to be replaced by a more usual discussion of cabinet-making on the weekend after voting. And perhaps for the next election or two, “neck-and-neck” polls will not dominate horse-race coverage as it has this time.</p>
<p>Politicians and journalists should recall their own biases as they make fun of the poor pollsters. Politicians like “neck-and-neck” because it gets out the vote; editors love a close race because it makes a better story. Both groups over-invested in a convenient description.</p>
<p>A miserably dull and rigidly-controlled campaign which never tested economic pretences and evasions nevertheless produced a surprising and decisive outcome. British politics will now be dominated – until the next general election in 2020 and most probably beyond – by the transformed politics of Scotland. The prediction that the SNP would wipe out the Scottish Labour Party at Westminster did turn out to be right.</p>
<p>During the campaign, many metropolitan reporters travelled north of the border and were surprised to discover what an interesting place Scotland is. Other reporters will now tread the same path, whether there is a second independence referendum or not. As this parliament unrolls, Scotland’s position inside the United Kingdom will become entangled with the now inevitable EU referendum in 2017.</p>
<p>One prediction about the media’s election can be made with complete confidence: the argument about malign media influence working against Labour will revive. A large majority of national newspapers came out in favour of either the Tories or the coalition. Some of the slants and omissions were inexcusable.</p>
<p>The Sun will be slated for both cynical hypocrisy (<a href="https://theconversation.com/two-faced-sun-shows-rupert-can-swing-both-ways-if-theres-something-in-it-for-him-41111">coming out for Cameron in the south and for the SNP north of the border</a>) and bias. On the bias charge, it should be noted that the Mirror was no better in its anti-Tory stories which, <a href="http://electionunspun.net/?select-categories%5B%5D=partisanship-unspun">the Media Standards Trust noted</a>, were slightly more numerous than The Sun’s in the other direction. In truth, each one was as bad as the other.</p>
<p>When the old and familiar arguments about the press barons ricochet, bear the following facts in mind. By any measure – total viewers, reach, time spent – the largest single source of news on elections or anything else is the BBC, whose political neutrality is one of the most strictly regulated in the world. Labour governments have managed in the past to be elected despite the “Tory press”. And while online and printed newspapers may provide broadcasters with agenda and tone, the circulation and clout of national newspapers is in steep decline.</p>
<p>But despite the fading influence of “the press”, the election campaign was not marked out as the “digital”, “online” or “social media” election. Online media enlivened coverage and produced graphics which explained the intricacies of minority governments, but they did so alongside television. Party leaders debates began with a huge chorus of leaders which produced a stiff and incoherent discussion and finished with party leaders being roasted by voters.</p>
<h2>All passion spent</h2>
<p>That last television debate actually produced the “passion” which party leaders talked about and failed to generate. The passion felt by those voters in the studio was mistrust and dislike of the political class. At a late point in the campaign, YouGov <a href="https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/04/24/ranking-coalitions/">was reporting</a> net negative ratings for all plausible government coalitions.</p>
<p>In one important respect, online media have added to the gaiety of the nation at election time. Fast visual jokes are now shared in huge volumes at great speed. Ed Miliband both enjoyed and suffered from this new pastime. Anyone <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3072859/Ed-Miliband-wrote-epitaph-8-foot-tombstone-writes-JAMES-SLACK.html">producing a large tablet</a> on the campaign trail should expect to be mocked up as Moses.</p>
<p>The fact that Labour did not extend its appeal beyond its heartlands and core vote was a strategic mistake for which Miliband is responsible; but his own campaigning improved his image. The <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3032823/Red-Ed-s-tangled-love-life-Miliband-s-wife-tells-fury-meeting-unattached-Ed-learn-seeing-hostess-just-one-number-relationships-women-clique.html">Daily Mail “revealed”</a> that Miliband had gone out with a number of glamorous, high-profile women before he married. This boost from an unexpected quarter for “Red Ed’s” rather earnest style started a social media “Milifandom” meme. My personal favourite was the Labour leader as James Dean.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/81081/original/image-20150509-22782-1jepgut.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/81081/original/image-20150509-22782-1jepgut.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=300&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/81081/original/image-20150509-22782-1jepgut.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=300&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/81081/original/image-20150509-22782-1jepgut.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=300&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/81081/original/image-20150509-22782-1jepgut.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=377&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/81081/original/image-20150509-22782-1jepgut.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=377&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/81081/original/image-20150509-22782-1jepgut.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=377&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Rebel without a party.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">via cooledmiliband.tumblr.com</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Twitter and other instant social media perhaps featured less than expected because there was no big gaffe to go viral. They say that army generals are always fighting the last war; politicians are the same. Campaign bosses were terrified by a re-run of a catastrophic moment of unintended authenticity. In 2010 the worst of those was Gordon Brown’s “bigot” moment; whatever divided the big parties, they all wanted to eliminate that risk. Live encounters with unscreened voters were left to minor parties with neither the wish nor the resources to handpick audiences.</p>
<h2>And the winners are…</h2>
<p>The laurels for the best media coverage go to the sites and publications which steered round the national horse-race preoccupations which are the default options for lazy newsrooms. Bored by motionless poll numbers, small teams could zoom in on local struggles as pavement level. On many occasions, news media newcomers thought more imaginatively and reported in more detail than the older newsrooms more inclined to think in familiar templates and formulas.</p>
<p>Politico, which only began publishing in Europe as the campaign began, ran a <a href="http://www.politico.eu/article/galloway-bradford-elections-uk-ge2015/">terrifying piece by Ben Judah</a> on being roughed up by heavies at a meeting run by George Galloway’s campaign in Bradford West. The New Statesman ran excellent blogs and began detailed profiles of individual constituencies impressively early. No one who had read any of this material from a site and magazine which came out for Labour could have been surprised by the inroads which Ukip made into the Labour vote.</p>
<p>A campaign which generated so little news, drama or facts was a severe test for writers with the thankless task of summarising it. The Financial Times made a very smart move by giving that task to their <a href="http://www.ft.com/comment/columnists/janan-ganesh">commentator Janan Ganesh</a>, who managed day after day, to say something worth reading in a very few words.</p>
<p>The best raw material for reporters who wanted to do something original was in Scotland. There was tragedy: the long narrative arc of the Labour Party neglecting and taking for granted the loyalty of its voters over many years and the vengeance of those same voters in 2015.</p>
<p>Scotland produced some fine analytic reporting: the actual spending figures from the SNP’s period in power in Scotland showed a prudent, perhaps even austere, party in government. Pointing this out made not a dent in the SNP’s entirely successful claim to be the only hope of defence against the villainous architects of austerity in London. Fact-checking does not always puncture rhetoric or fantasy.</p>
<p>And Scotland generated a majority of the best gags. A Scottish Labour MP on the mood: “It’s like the last days of Rome. Without sex. Or wine. In fact, with none of the fun bits.”</p>
<p>We may soon regret the passing such indiscretions. In a world of driverless cars and share trading conducted by algorithms, will politicians get a technological upgrade? “One day soon,” wrote Simon Kuper of the FT, “robots will write politicians’ lines for them. It won’t be hard.”</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/41565/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>George Brock does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>
This was supposed to be the “social media election” but in the end it was those who moved beyond horse-race journalism, on whatever platform, who excelled.
George Brock, Professor of Journalism, City, University of London
Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.
tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/41481
2015-05-08T11:50:16Z
2015-05-08T11:50:16Z
The Vote: fictional polling station provides comic relief but is a missed opportunity
<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/80989/original/image-20150508-22785-38isq5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Politics lite.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Phil Fisk</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>As the last voters frequented their respective polling stations in the 2015 general election, the goings on in the last 90 minutes of polling at another station were broadcast to many as they waited for the results to start coming in. But this was a polling station in a fictional constituency in Lambeth, south London, actually located in London’s Donmar theatre. The play broadcast was called The Vote, and its final performance was on May 7 at 8.25pm. </p>
<p>The Vote is a situation comedy, or farce (appropriate when light relief is needed). The main jokes revolve around the accident of elderly Fred Norris (Timothy West) receiving two voting papers. Catherine Tate’s cockney mum, Kirsty, and polite, middle class, dried fruit-eating Laura, played by W1A’s Nina Sosanya, are the poll clerks who struggle to resolve their mistake by perpetuating a cascading series of minor electoral frauds. Even Mark Gatiss’s upstanding if uptight presiding officer Steven is eventually drawn into their bumbling double-dealing. </p>
<h2>Comic calamities</h2>
<p>Throughout the play’s 90 minutes, dozens of other voters come and go and myriads of other minor comic calamities occur. Judi Dench and her actual daughter, Finty Williams, play a mother and daughter with the same name living at the same address who arrive to find they’re only registered for a single vote. Independent candidate Howard (Paul Chahidi) is running on the single issue of the local one-way system with the slogan, “One way? No way!”. Two first-time voters in school uniforms ask their genie-in-a-phone Siri who they should vote for. Several characters comment on the quaint antiquity of a democratic system operated with pencils and paper. </p>
<p>Tate’s Kirsty is proudly digital age, delighted she’s become the meme known as Axe Woman, having been videoed axing the door to the primary school in order to break in and set up the polling station. It turns out the Scottish school janitor had been called away to help his pregnant daughter. Near the end of the play we learn she has given birth to her daughter of the Scottish diaspora … named Nicola. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/fv27bdjLnT0?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>There is a lot that’s pleasurable in the play, created by writer James Graham and Donmar Artistic Director Josie Rourke. Tate is often guffaw-out-loud funny playing a canny-naive Haribo-quaffing schemer. Chahidi’s anti-one-way Independent is delightfully single-track in his thinking, claiming the Yellow Brick Road is a one-way system even though its whole point is that it leads to Oz. </p>
<p>The 40-strong cast offers a breathtaking display of age and ethnic diversity. The realistic primary school gymnasium set designed by Robert Jones is achingly accurate, complete with small stacked chairs, vaulting horse, upright piano, basketball and hula hoops, and, as Dench’s character observes, the familiar smell of feet and cabbages. </p>
<p>The play poses a sentimental but persuasive fondness for the polling station and its arcane practices. It also stages a gentle, teasing affection for British voters of all kinds – young and old, immigrants and natives, black and white, straight and queer, English and Scottish. Admirably, The Vote’s televising extends its reach for no price of admission to viewers who would not otherwise get to see it. That is politics in action. </p>
<h2>Foreboding end</h2>
<p>What most moved me about the show was its ending. After 85 minutes of jollity, the play concludes with presiding officer Steven and poll clerk Kirsty admitting fraud. For Gatiss’s Steven, the voting irregularities are catastrophic. “It has to mean something, right?”, he demands. “It has to matter!” Gatiss delivers the lines fiercely, like they are important. And they are. </p>
<p>However banal, local and familiar the polling station practices of voting may be, voting has consequences, consequences which are massive and enduring. Big Ben strikes ten o’clock and polling station closing time. The lights fade on the remaining characters, caught in rictuses of shock, bewilderment, fear, and terror. The play’s final minutes are dark and miserable. How prescient.</p>
<p>The Vote was mostly light, but this ending offered a political punch. Admittedly, the play raised other political issues. A wealthy man’s wife accuses him of benefiting from the financial crisis. Dench’s retired nurse pours scorn on her NHS “suit” daughter. A youngish drunk man blames older generations for ruining things for his generation, who can afford neither homes nor pensions.</p>
<p>But I couldn’t help feeling this was a missed opportunity. Right now, do we need light jokes about slightly potty old Blighty? Do we need plays with no explicit reference to any specific candidate or party policy, with no developed critique of any current issues such as the deep and devastating effects of austerity cuts, the creeping privatisation of the NHS, the normalisation of zero-hours contracts, the appalling housing crisis, and the march of ever-widening inequality, not to mention cuts to public funding for education and the arts? </p>
<p>I welcome The Vote’s dark, foreboding ending, and its democratic act of going to broadcast. But I feel now is the time for more vicious Orton-esque farce and more assertive, detailed, committed political critique. And I feel this even more as I write this, the morning after the night before.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/41481/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jen Harvie does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>
Right now, do we need light jokes about slightly potty old Blighty?
Jen Harvie, Professor of Contemporary Theatre and Performance, Queen Mary University of London
Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.
tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/41127
2015-05-08T08:01:16Z
2015-05-08T08:01:16Z
The aftershocks of the SNP’s success will be felt throughout the next parliament
<p>The Conservative Party looks set to do even better than the <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/may/07/exit-poll-conservatives-win-david-cameron-general-election-labour">surprising exit polls predicted</a>, but the real glory in this election lies with the small parties. The SNP have virtually wiped the main parties off the political map in Scotland, except for a couple of MPs who have managed to cling on for dear life.</p>
<p>The <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/generalelection/general-election-2015-snp-delighted-at-prediction-as-exit-poll-forecasts-party-winning-all-but-one-seat-in-scotland-10233949.html">tectonic plates</a> of Scottish politics may well have shifted, but what will be even more interesting are the aftershocks that could be felt at Westminster. </p>
<p>Clearly Sturgeon’s party will be a strong force in Westminster, with greater representation on bill committees and select committees. They may fail in their aim to lock David Cameron out of Downing Street, but they could still try to work with Labour, the Greens and Plaid Cymru on the floor of the House and in the committee rooms to frustrate the Conservative leader’s legislative ambitions. </p>
<p>After all, the government’s majority just got a whole lot smaller thanks to the <a href="https://theconversation.com/lib-dem-wipeout-prompts-clegg-to-hint-he-will-step-down-41512">Liberal Democrats’ abysmal performance</a>. The SNP leader has said her party will vote “<a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/feb/08/scottish-mps-vote-english-laws-nicola-sturgeon">at each and every opportunity</a>” in the Commons, including on bills or budgets which predominantly affect England. </p>
<p>But there will be a learning process too. The transition from a small to a sizeable party in the Commons could be tough. Large numbers of SNP MPs who don’t yet know the ropes may hinder their ability to play the parliamentary game as well as the more established parties. They need to get to grips with parliamentary procedure. And quickly. Because once they do – they have the potential to be a thorn in the side of the new government. </p>
<p>UKIP has also massively increased its share of the vote, pushing the Liberal Democrats into fourth place. But the quirks of the much-maligned first-past-the-post electoral system means that their presence will barely be felt in the Commons. The size of Cameron’s Commons majority means he will need to keep other parties on side, but the DUP and the remaining Lib Dems are likely to hold the greater bargaining power. </p>
<p>So the weeks, months and years ahead are likely to be filled with yet more uncertainty. The Conservatives have a majority, but their policy programme will be vulnerable. Cameron will want to avoid comparisons with John Major where possible, but with difficult legislation ahead – and no avoiding further discussions on Europe – every vote will be under the microscope.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/41127/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
The Conservative Party looks set to do even better than the surprising exit polls predicted, but the real glory in this election lies with the small parties. The SNP have virtually wiped the main parties…
Louise Thompson, Lecturer in British Politics, University of Surrey
Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.
tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/41512
2015-05-08T05:59:38Z
2015-05-08T05:59:38Z
Lib Dem wipeout prompts Clegg to hint he will step down
<p>We knew this would be a bad night for the Lib Dems but few predicted it’d be this bad. Vince Cable, Danny Alexander, Simon Hughes, Jo Swinson, Ed Davey, Lynne Featherstone and many others have lost their seats. Nick Clegg saw his share of the vote shrink by 13.4% (now having just <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/politics/constituencies/E14000922">2,353 votes more</a> than Labour when he previously had 19,096 more). And the party have (so far) lost their deposit in 234 constituencies at a cost of £117,000. We knew that the party would suffer from their decision to enter government, but the cost they are paying is turning out to be incredibly high.</p>
<p>Not only will the party have a tiny number of MPs (only six have been returned on current results), the party’s support has well and truly collapsed. Again and again voters have rejected the party – as Nick Clegg said, “it has been a cruel and punishing night for the Liberal Democrats”.</p>
<p>With Nick Clegg indicating that he will be stepping down in his <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/may/08/lib-dems-bad-night-share-of-vote-plummets-election">speech</a> at the Sheffield Count it seems that the search for new leadership and a new direction will soon begin. There will be significant soul searching within the party as they reassess their position in British politics and rethink the offer they are making to British voters. </p>
<p>Given the loss of so many prominent Lib Dems it is not, however, clear who can lead the party forward. Tim Farron (who <a href="http://www.nwemail.co.uk/home/breaking-tim-farron-retains-seat-with-reduced-majority-1.1210623">secured 51%</a> of the vote in his Westmorland and Lonsdale constituency) is the most obvious candidate, but who else could mount a challenge? With so few MPs to pick from it may be that the party has to look beyond Westminster for a new leader who can start the long process of rebuilding the party’s standing in British politics.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/41512/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
We knew this would be a bad night for the Lib Dems but few predicted it’d be this bad. Vince Cable, Danny Alexander, Simon Hughes, Jo Swinson, Ed Davey, Lynne Featherstone and many others have lost their…
Katharine Dommett, Lecturer in the Public Understanding of Politics, University of Sheffield
Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.
tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/40935
2015-05-06T13:15:13Z
2015-05-06T13:15:13Z
Fictional seven-party politics: who would win a battle of the best on-screen leaders?
<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/80656/original/image-20150506-22665-1uumnqc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">How would you feel about Frank Underwood as your next Prime Minister?</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">David Giesbrecht for Netflix</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Politicians themselves may have their faults, but recently we’ve been thinking that perhaps wickedly inventive screenwriters should shoulder some of the blame for disillusioned, apathetic voters. It’s possible that they’ve raised public expectations by creating characters that we prefer to watch – leaving us underwhelmed by the banal and predictable platitudes of the real life party mouthpieces.</p>
<p>After all – who would you rather listen to in a political debate – Jed Bartlet (<a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0200276/">The West Wing</a>) or Jeb Bush? Or in Number 10 would Ed Miliband or Hugh Grant (<a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0314331/">Love Actually</a>) be more likely to get the public’s attention?</p>
<p>For the past century the entertainment industry has created political characters with guile and gusto, who speak their minds and damn the consequences. The more you think about it, the more you realise how many great charismatic, dramatic and sometimes hilarious characters have been created by top notch screenwriters. </p>
<p>Think Malcolm Tucker (Peter Capaldi) – the foul-mouthed spin-doctor and kingmaker in the BBC’s <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006qgrd">The Thick of It</a> or poor old Jim Hacker (Paul Eddington) of <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0080306/">Yes Minister</a> fame – bullied and cajoled by his manipulative permanent secretary Sir Humphrey (Nigel Hawthorne).</p>
<p>Here are seven of the best – an election between these formidable opponents would certainly be something to sit up and pay attention to. Who would you vote for?</p>
<h2>Birgitte Nyborg (Borgen)</h2>
<p>This <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1526318/">drama</a> about Danish coalition politics features Birgitte Nyborg, a strong but conflicted female prime minister (Sidse Babett Knudsen). A 2013 <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2013/nov/10/borgen-new-series-returns-british-tv">survey</a> by the Copenhagen Business School suggested that the show had helped viewers become more engaged with real life politics. With just the right amount of personal baggage to make her “relatable” to the public but with enough material to be “monstered” by the tabloids on a daily basis, riding on her campaign bus would be a blast.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/4uKgsYEGI0M?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<h2>President Jed Bartlet (The West Wing)</h2>
<p>Martin Sheen’s performance as the Democratic White House incumbent Bartlet captured the hearts and minds of American and UK viewers. A <a href="http://www.overthinkingit.com/2013/01/24/west-wing-president-bartlet-approval-rating/">poll</a> saw the fictional president with a popularity rating of 81%, compared with that of the real life President Obama at 48%. </p>
<p>Campaign in poetry, govern in prose is the adage. But Bartlet is so principled he wants to govern in poetry also. Such strong principles are certainly attractive in today’s climate of rampant mistrust – he would never have to resort to erecting an 8ft <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32580534">stone tablet</a> engraved with six “commandments” in the rose garden to try to convince.</p>
<h2>The Amazing Mrs Pritchard</h2>
<p>Enough of these professional politicians. How about if an ordinary Northern housewife took it upon herself to be prime minister? Screenwriter Sally Wainwright imagines just this in <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0807980/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1">The Amazing Mrs Pritchard</a>, starring Jane Horrocks. Fed up with the same tired old party politics Mrs Pritchard’s refreshingly honest no-nonsense talk grabs the public’s imagination and projects her straight into Number 10. </p>
<p>There’s a great scene where she’s confronted in the toilets prior to a crucial TV debate by Janet McTeer’s hardened Tory MP who hopes to psych out her inexperienced opponent – but Mrs Pritchard manages to turn the tables and unsettles her rival just before they go on air (by offering her a top job in her new government). Great fun, and an appealing prospect, but I’m not sure she’d see such success amongst this formidable bunch.</p>
<h2>Francis Urquhart (House of Cards 1990)</h2>
<p>Ian Richardson plays the unscrupulous Francis Urquhart in this <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0098825/?ref_=fn_al_tt_2">classic political tale</a>. He’s a silky, smooth, duplicitous civil servant who enters politics and climbs the greasy pole inch by murderous inch until he becomes prime minister. </p>
<p>Adapted by the soon to be doyen of the TV adaptation Andrew Davies, this is politics as we dread it, decisions made behind doors, the public good subservient to individual political desires and ambitions. Urquhart — a devious, manipulative individual – addresses the audience directly and honestly, recognising and relishing his own evil irresistible ambition. No thanks.</p>
<h2>Frank Underwood (House of Cards 2013)</h2>
<p>Or what about the more recent reimagining of <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1856010/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1">House of Cards</a> for a US audience? Starring Kevin Spacey as the ruthless president, he’s a sophisticated and dangerous creation whose political double-dealings would put Machiavelli to shame. This is a brilliant show that reaches a new generation of potential voters, asking awkward questions about the motivation of politicians. The ultimate backstage, behind closed doors ruler-ship – somewhat reminiscent of Mandelson. </p>
<p>It seems probable that Underwood would trample all these others underfoot – we’d reach the ballot box and find that his was the only name there.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/sU9QTLXYCCc?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<h2>Senator Bill McKay</h2>
<p>Ed Miliband might now have his own fan club but he’s unlikely to be able to compete with 1970s heart throb Robert Redford when it comes to attracting female followers. Redford stars as Bill McKay in <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0068334/">The Candidate</a>, a wet-behind-the-ears US senatorial contender for the Democrats who is expected to lose by a landslide and therefore feels free to speak his mind. </p>
<p>He’s funny and smart and resists the urges of his safety-first spin doctors –- and in doing so convinces the electorate that there is another way. He’s also wonderfully human, as illustrated in the scene where he gets the giggles half way through a vital political broadcast.</p>
<h2>Coriolanus</h2>
<p>None of these appeal? Then how about a Roman general, transposed into the modern world. Skillful, ruthless, slightly foolhardy soldier turned reluctant politician Caius Marcius Coriolanus won’t bow down to his public any more than he would his enemies.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/bsYrGIQnmxo?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>The inner life of politician is so often hidden to voters that those who seem natural are anomalies. Coriolanus’s explicit disdain for politicking separates him not only from other politicians, his mentor, his powerful mother, but ultimately from the people he seeks to rule. How he’d react to the amplified political wrangling of our world is a scary thing to contemplate.</p>
<p>So who’d get your ballot paper cross? Birgitte would be a good bet for those favouring a coalition; Barlet if you like tough but fair; Pritchard for the romantic dreamers; Underwood and Urquhart for the ruthless pragmatists; Coriolanus for those in favour of the iron fist. But it’s Redford’s Bill McKay who would seem best to capture the mood of the moment – a population desperate for something fresh, honest and unscripted. </p>
<p>So don’t ever let anyone tell you that politics can’t be invigorating and dramatic. It can: in the world of make-believe at least.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/40935/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>
Fictional politicians may have spoilt the party for the real ones – they’re much more charismatic, dramatic and funny. What would happen if seven of the best competed?
Jools Ayodeji, Lecturer/Senior Lecturer, Nottingham Trent University
Philip Nodding, Lecturer/Senior Lecturer in Film, Nottingham Trent University
Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.
tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/40588
2015-05-06T12:53:48Z
2015-05-06T12:53:48Z
What does the next government hold for higher education?
<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/80652/original/image-20150506-22684-dsy50l.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">What is best for graduates?</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/pamhule/5752742624/">'pamhule/flickr'</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/">CC BY-NC</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>In the area of higher education, there is one key issue which divides the UK’s political parties: funding. All the party manifestos take distinct approaches to funding, and to the autonomy of universities and colleges.</p>
<p>University tuition fees were introduced by Labour in 1998, at a <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7923093.stm">low starting point of £1,000</a>, which the coalition government has now pushed up to £9,000 a year. This has expanded access to student loans to “alternative” private providers and has severely reduced the levels of governmental operating grants to institutions. </p>
<p>Labour – now critical of its previous policies – is promising to lower the maximum charge to £6,000 a year. This is to help reduce both individual debt, and the increasing national debt that the taxpayer picks up from deliberate “debt forgiveness” policies or unpaid loans.</p>
<p>Yet it is not clear whether Labour proposals to compensate institutions for the “lost” £3,000 can be sustained for long, in the face of competing fiscal demands. The fiscal constraint to whittle away at the UK’s annual and accumulating deficit is a component of both Conservative and Labour policies. And university vice-chancellors tend to think that government-supported student fees and loans come with fewer strings attached than government grants.</p>
<h2>Moving towards a graduate tax?</h2>
<p>In the wake of a hung parliament, the manifestos may be regarded more as opening bids for post-election coalition haggling. For instance, it is not difficult to see a move towards a <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/miliband-announces-tax-relief-reductions-on-higher-earner-pensions-to-pay-for-tuition-fee-cuts-10075181.html">graduate tax</a> in a possible Labour-Liberal Democrat coalition. There are strong elements within both parties for such a development, which would helping to avoid squabbling over tuition fee levels. </p>
<p>But the prospect of a graduate tax would alarm institution leaders even more than a reduction in tuition fee levels. Such a change which would amplify concerns about institutional autonomy, and uncertainties over the levels of grants and their conditions in the years ahead. <a href="http://policy.greenparty.org.uk/ed.html">The Green Party’s proposals</a> to abolish tuition fees and to cancel all student debt, would further heighten concerns within institutions.</p>
<p>This prospect of a move towards a graduate tax has been reinforced by the findings from the non-partisan <a href="http://www.if.org.uk/archives/6348/higher-education-would-a-graduate-tax-be-fairer-than-income-contingent-loans">Institute for Fiscal Studies</a>, which question the equity claims made for reducing fee levels. It argues that Labour’s proposal to reduce tuition fees – supported by the SNP – actually harms the worse off in favour of high earners. </p>
<p>High earners tend to pay off their student debts relatively quickly, so a reduction in tuition fees helps them considerably. However, those who earn relatively modest amounts either face longer-lasting payments, or do not earn enough to be paying loan debts at all. They will have them written off (that is, paid by the taxpayer), regardless of whether fees are at £6,000 or £9,000. Meanwhile, the SNP may favour low or no tuition fee levels but still uses loans rather than grants for student maintenance purposes, which also disproportionally harms the less well-off. Perhaps a graduate tax would help both Labour and the SNP solving the equity issues in their funding policies.</p>
<h2>Lifetime earning potential</h2>
<p>The value of degrees remains remarkably high and stable in terms of <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2011/aug/24/earnings-by-qualification-degree-level">lifetime earnings potential</a>, compared to those without such a qualification. Despite the tuition fee increases of recent years, they do not seem to have dissuaded those from less well-off backgrounds <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/education/2015/jan/30/low-income-students-likely-apply-university-ucas">from applying</a>. </p>
<p>Nonetheless, there are still difficulties of outstanding levels of overall debt, which are likely to go unpaid in the years to come. A Conservative government, for example, would surely have to reduce numbers exempted by current policy from repaying debts, perhaps by lowering the income threshold levels.</p>
<p>The leaders of strong, research-based universities may also be worrying about the lack of commitment by Labour to protect the science budget. Meanwhile, other university and college heads may be concerned that access funds will be redirected to the schools sector – also promised by Labour.</p>
<h2>Teaching REF</h2>
<p><a href="https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/manifesto2015/ConservativeManifesto2015.pdf">The Conservative manifesto</a> also contains <a href="http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/news/tory-manifesto-promises-framework-on-teaching-quality/2019670.article">an aspiration</a> to create a “teaching Research Excellence Framework”, to “recognise universities offering the highest teaching quality”. The Research Excellence framework is a device for allocating research monies from funding councils to institutions on the basis of peer-judged performance over the recent past. It is competitive and attempts to reward research success. A “Teaching REF” presumably would be similarly competitive and aim to reward those institutions that have the best teachers (although how such judgements would be reached are not yet clear). This would reinforce the Conservative’s longstanding coalition commitment to help re-balance the focus between teaching and learning, and research. </p>
<p>The Conservative manifesto calls for more information on student employment outcomes, although it remains silent as to how such data might be used for new policy initiatives.</p>
<p>It is hard to think why more data on student employment and learning outcomes would be a problem for universities and colleges, in this age of increased transparency and consumerism. Although nobody has much control over how this data may be chopped and diced, and utilised by university rankers, more output data on students’ disciplinary and skills outcomes would arguably be useful for all stakeholders. </p>
<p>If rewarding institutions’ learning and employment outcomes is what is meant by the Conservative manifesto commitments on a “Teaching REF”, then fine. However, if it is a glorified attempt at highlighting “excellent teachers”, then it is not clear that the data obtained would actually help to counterbalance the Research Excellence Framework by awarding funds to those who excel in the classroom. The methodologies would be even more problematic and controversial than those used for the real REF. </p>
<p>This is because it is far too difficult to describe how one judges a “good teacher” in universities. Do poor student scores reflect the hardship of the particular discipline and the scholastic rigour of the teacher, or indicate poor teaching practices? The closed classroom world of the university teacher – mostly free from peer observation – hardly helps such endeavours.</p>
<h2>Digital revolution</h2>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/80653/original/image-20150506-22652-9znpj4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/80653/original/image-20150506-22652-9znpj4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=360&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/80653/original/image-20150506-22652-9znpj4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=360&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/80653/original/image-20150506-22652-9znpj4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=360&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/80653/original/image-20150506-22652-9znpj4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=453&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/80653/original/image-20150506-22652-9znpj4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=453&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/80653/original/image-20150506-22652-9znpj4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=453&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Are online learning spaces really improving grades?</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/yourdon/2681686220/">'Ed Yourdon/flickr'</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/">CC BY-NC-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The ongoing digital revolution in higher education indicates that any REF for teaching is best focused on student outcomes, rather than on the “teaching performance"indicated in the Conservative Manifesto. Online learning has the advantage of being team-based, interactive, and recordable.</p>
<p>The fingerprints of classroom activity – what works and what does not – are all over the scene, unlike the individual teaching performance in lecture theatres. Far better to reward and incentivise institutions for innovation in learning processes and improved student outcomes than bother with finding "teaching heroes”.</p>
<h2>Immigration and international students</h2>
<p>Conservative sympathies in the higher education sector are likely to be constrained by the continuing clampdown on international students, through further tightening of the visa rules. Yet <a href="https://theconversation.com/manifesto-check-labours-immigration-policies-are-led-by-public-opinion-not-evidence-40109">Labour</a> and the <a href="https://theconversation.com/manifesto-check-lib-dems-take-a-more-liberal-approach-to-immigration-40259">Liberal Democrats</a> appear much more relaxed about net immigration targets, and are willing to exempt international students from immigration figures. </p>
<p>Despite Conservative support for the alternative private sector, it is not clear why such colleges would benefit from increasingly tight constrictions on the recruitment of non-EU students. An underpinning (though mostly unstated) theme in the Conservative manifesto is that the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills will disappear as a government department. This will leave the Home Office to be become the most influential regulator of higher education. </p>
<p>Any additional funding for improving the quality and standards of university teaching should focus on facilitating innovation and better student outcomes. There is a question to be raised, however: should we leave innovation in learning and teaching to the competitive rigours of the more supercharged markets in higher education? Or is there a role for stronger guidance and funding from government? On this point, the manifestos are silent.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/40588/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Roger King is affiliated with the Higher Education Commission</span></em></p>
Every party is promising changes to the running of universities, from tuition fees to teaching methods. What will this do to higher education?
Roger King, Visiting Professor, School of Management, University of Bath
Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.
tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/41050
2015-05-05T05:20:26Z
2015-05-05T05:20:26Z
The British talk about cake 50 times as much as the deficit – politicians should cotton on
<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/80088/original/image-20150501-23877-29ejjn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Britain's true colours.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Matthew Bechelli/shutterstock.com</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>In the run-up to the UK election, we’ve heard an awful lot from the leaders of the rival political parties. You might have noticed that politicians like to return to the same concepts over and over again. This is particularly true when it comes to the economy. Words such as “austerity”, “debt” and “deficit” have defined the central debates of this election.</p>
<p>In the seven-way ITV leaders’ debate on April 2, the word “austerity” was said a lot – the equivalent of 1,030 times per million words. “Debt” was said 1,254 times per million words, and “deficit” an incredible 1,567 times per million words. This might not mean much to you, so let’s put this into perspective. Normally, we’d expect very frequent words such as “these” or “your” to occur this much.</p>
<p>But words like “deficit” aren’t normally used at all in everyday conversation, let alone with these high frequencies. There’s a considerable language gap between the way that politicians speak to the public and how people in the UK speak in everyday situations. Our current research on spoken British English, the <a href="http://languageresearch.cambridge.org/index.php/spoken-british-national-corpus">Spoken British National Corpus 2014</a>, shows this.</p>
<p>From data we’ve collected over the past year from thousands of people, we’ve been able to see how people actually speak day to day. In our project, which is ongoing, participants use the recording device in their smartphones to record conversations with their friends and families.</p>
<p>So far in this large national sample of informal chit-chat, the word “debt” is found 13 times per million words. “Deficit” is said only three times per million words, and “austerity” only once in five million words. The word “austerity” just doesn’t figure in everyday conversation. </p>
<p>We also don’t often read or write it. In 1.1 billion words of contemporary written UK English, we find “austerity” only 0.63 times per million words. Because we hardly ever encounter this word, the likelihood of many people knowing its meaning isn’t high. This probably explains why, during the debate, the <a href="http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/leaders-debate-questions-answered-google-5533735">most frequent question asked of Google</a> was: “What is austerity?”.</p>
<p>Unsurprisingly, we don’t talk about issues such as economics in the ways that the politicians do. The word “cake” occurs 50 times as much as “deficit”. Our everyday conversations are dominated by far more mundane matters (or perhaps for some, more important). </p>
<p>In fact, while this may surprise some political commentators, people don’t appear to talk about politics much at all. The name “David Cameron” can be found only six times per million words of British conversation. “Ed Miliband” appears only twice per million, and “Nick Clegg” only once per million.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/80077/original/image-20150501-23838-gt5sku.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/80077/original/image-20150501-23838-gt5sku.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=374&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/80077/original/image-20150501-23838-gt5sku.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=374&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/80077/original/image-20150501-23838-gt5sku.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=374&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/80077/original/image-20150501-23838-gt5sku.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=470&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/80077/original/image-20150501-23838-gt5sku.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=470&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/80077/original/image-20150501-23838-gt5sku.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=470&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Austerity heavy.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">ITV</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Political register</h2>
<p>It’s clear that politicians have their own “register” – a way of speaking that sets them apart and places them within a particular social group – that of “politician”. To acquire this way of speaking they start using words which are very uncommon in normal everyday language, and so demonstrate their membership of this group.</p>
<p>But this strategy has a significant cost – the potential for being misunderstood by those who they are appealing to – voters. So when talking to voters, politicians may want to consider using alternatives that voters encounter more frequently and would therefore more readily understand. </p>
<p>In the ITV debate, Nigel Farage said the word “brownfield” three times. This word does not occur even once in five million words of British conversation. So he might consider replacing it with “former industrial site”. This phrase is more likely to be understood immediately by more people – “industrial” occurs at least seven times per million in our spoken data and 68.19 times per million in our 1.1 billion word written data collection.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, David Cameron might want to drop “bureaucrats” from his arsenal. He said it four times in the ITV debate, but this also fails to occur in our sample of everyday British speech. And it only occurs 1.71 times per million in our written material.</p>
<p>And what about “austerity”? The politicians who said the word most in the ITV debate were Nicola Sturgeon and Leanne Wood (nine times each), followed by Natalie Bennett (five times). Considering how little it’s used in day-to-day conversation and writing, it might be time to find another way to talk about not spending money.</p>
<p>The battle for parties to distinguish themselves from each other continues. As this goes on, one thing is clear: there is a real deficit in language between how politicians speak and how the nation speaks. If politicians want to communicate effectively with voters, then maybe they should pay more attention to the way the voters communicate themselves.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/41050/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Tony McEnery receives funding from the Economic and Social Research Council for The Spoken British National Corpus 2014 project, which is led by Lancaster University and Cambridge University Press. The views expressed in this article are his own.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Robbie Love receives funding from the Economic and Social Research Council for The Spoken British National Corpus 2014 project, which is led by Lancaster University and Cambridge University Press. The views expressed in this article are his own.</span></em></p>
Politicians should cut the language deficit for the sake of voters.
Tony McEnery, Distinguished Professor, Lancaster University
Robbie Love, PhD Candidate in Corpus Linguistics, Lancaster University
Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.
tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/40874
2015-04-28T12:45:15Z
2015-04-28T12:45:15Z
Celebrity twat or man of the people? Russell Brand is both in The Emperor’s New Clothes
<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/79579/original/image-20150428-3067-bmcl5p.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">An interview sparked rumours that he may be about to endorse Ed Miliband.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">STUDIOCANAL</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>A few moments from the end of <a href="http://www.theemperorsnewclothesfilm.co.uk/">The Emperor’s New Clothes</a>, the new documentary made by the prolific <a href="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0935863/">Michael Winterbottom</a> in collaboration with Russell Brand, the celebrity anarchist pretends to receive a phone call as he puts forward a proposal that the top 1% of the UK’s population should be more greatly taxed.</p>
<p>Yes, the top 1% would include him, Brand says, as if repeating the words of some invisible agent at the other end of the line. He then turns to the camera/audience and jests that perhaps this is one policy that might not be rushed into.</p>
<p>The moment, I assume, is a joke – although I am not apprised of Brand’s earnings such that I could know whether he is in the top 1% of UK earners or not. Either way, the moment for me deflated much of what had preceded it. Suddenly, I was faced with the possibility that the whole of the film is equally a joke – and that Brand, who had been riffing for the previous 90+ minutes about the institutionalised theft that is the contemporary banking system and about the need for citizens to take control of their lives by getting involved in politics, did not mean any of it.</p>
<p>In some senses, this is an interesting editorial trick for Winterbottom to pull off. It is a sleight of hand that finally distances him somewhat from Brand, who otherwise is the mouthpiece of the film.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/U4Geq8dM13k?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<h2>Celebrity twats</h2>
<p>Winterbottom’s penchant for looking at length at celebrity twats is well known, as is made clear by one of the <a href="http://www.jigsawlounge.co.uk/film/wp-content/uploads/2004/03/24HPP.jpg">posters</a> for his film <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0274309/">24 Hour Party People</a>, in which Tony Wilson (Steve Coogan) is described using precisely that term. And so that Winterbottom would work with Brand, who is perceived as just such a celebrity twat by various circles of genteel (bourgeois) British society, is perhaps unsurprising.</p>
<p>It’s also unsurprising that in Winterbottom’s hands, Brand actually comes across very well, much as Wilson becomes a heroic – if comic – figure in 24 Hour Party People and much as the equally troubled Steve Coogan acquits himself beautifully in <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0423409/">A Cock And Bull Story</a> and <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1740047/">The Trip</a>.</p>
<p>This isn’t to say that Brand will be to everyone’s tastes as he marches into HSBC demanding a meeting with chief executive Stuart Gulliver in order to explain his salary, or as he manipulatively asks a bunch of eight-year olds whether it’s fair that one person gets paid dozens of times more money than someone else.</p>
<p>Indeed, these <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/film/2015/apr/27/tribeca-political-films-russell-brand-roseanne-barr">sub-Michael Moore stunts</a> come across both as a bit laboured and a bit borrowed. Equally an issue is the sound of Brand’s voice as he gets excited – he knows he is about to say something clever, funny (or a combination of the two) but telegraphs it through a quickening of tempo and a slight raising of tone, which in turn undermines the power of what he is about to say.</p>
<p>However, Brand is also clearly a popular man. It’s fascinating to watch him wander around his hometown of Grays in Essex, explaining how it has gone from being quite an interesting place to a bookie-filled crap town overrun with pound shops. People approach him and chat, take selfies and basically love him.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/79582/original/image-20150428-3048-1kw1c4s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/79582/original/image-20150428-3048-1kw1c4s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=252&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/79582/original/image-20150428-3048-1kw1c4s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=252&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/79582/original/image-20150428-3048-1kw1c4s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=252&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/79582/original/image-20150428-3048-1kw1c4s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=316&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/79582/original/image-20150428-3048-1kw1c4s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=316&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/79582/original/image-20150428-3048-1kw1c4s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=316&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">On the campaign trail.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">STUDIOCANAL</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Man of the people?</h2>
<p>In other words, Brand clearly has what I guess is called the common touch – and it’s admirable to behold. What’s more, it surely is a worthy tool for getting people engaged in the political fate of this country. You have to organise and you have to protest, he tells us. Coming from anyone too clever, this might just seem insincere.</p>
<p>Coming from Brand, one wonders that people might well be mobilised to vote on May 7 in greater numbers, and more generally become engaged in political debate than would were this film not in existence – despite Brand’s own <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24648651">widely publicised calls</a> for people to register their protest by not voting. And if we are to believe the <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/28/ed-miliband-spotted-leaving-russell-brand-london-home">rumours</a> of Brand endorsing Ed Miliband after the Labour leader was spotted leaving his house, perhaps this is all to change.</p>
<p>The Emperor’s New Clothes bombards us with archive footage (often framed within glitch art-style graphics to convey that this is the age of YouTube), with stunts, with interviews (such as with Channel 4 economics editor Paul Mason) and with direct address. In this way it involves a panoply of techniques that aims to recall the political cinema of something like Fernando Solanas and Octavio Getino’s masterpiece, the Latin American 1960s activist film <a href="http://www.bfi.org.uk/news-opinion/sight-sound-magazine/features/greatest-films-all-time-essays/light-my-fire-hour-furnaces">The Hour of the Furnaces</a>.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/vbLGG5UGEKw?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>As such, it’s a timely and vibrant film, with a fantastic sequence about the history of the Cadbury factory in Bourneville. It’s also funny at times, with a hilarious final montage-rap by Cassetteboy.</p>
<p>But Winterbottom, his cards as ever close to his chest, just finally nudges some distance between himself and Brand with the 1% joke. Is it Brand who stands naked before us, in addition to the banks that have fuelled his ire for the duration of the film? It’s a very Winterbottom trait to float this as a final possibility, thereby folding the viewer’s thought in on itself.</p>
<p>This film won’t tell you anything you don’t already know, says Brand at the film’s outset. True. But then it’s always good to keep mulling over what we believe we know, including about the film’s star. It’s only in reconsidering and ever-more-deeply comprehending (rather than blindly accepting) that we might find ourselves drawn into action.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/40874/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>William Brown does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>
This is a timely and vibrant film, funny at times – and not without a hint of editorial distance from director Winterbottom.
William Brown, Senior Lecturer in Film, University of Roehampton
Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.
tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/40791
2015-04-27T12:23:57Z
2015-04-27T12:23:57Z
Ancient brainfade: politicians of the past also had trouble trying to be ‘just like us’
<p>David Cameron prompted considerable amusement over the weekend after indicating he <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/25/david-cameron-blames-brain-fade-for-getting-his-football-team-wrong">supported West Ham United</a> – supposedly, he’s an Aston Villa fan. The incident joins a litany of other inevitable stories of politicians trying to pretend they’re just like the rest of us. The more they come across as “ordinary blokes”, the belief seems to be, the more we’ll trust them to put our interests first. </p>
<p>Meanwhile, the media has fun spotting cracks in the facade. It’s an impossible game to win at, as shown by the story of Ed Miliband’s kitchens. Having been filmed in his kitchen (because what could be more “normal” than drinking tea with your wife in the kitchen?), he then gets criticised for having a <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2990810/Why-kitchen-tells-need-know-mirthless-Milibands-s-suggest-Ed-Justine-not-fact-aliens.html">shabby kitchen</a>, and then mocked when it emerges that he in fact has <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ed-miliband/11472863/Ed-Miliband-doesnt-have-two-kitchens-one-is-for-the-live-in-nanny.html">two kitchens</a>, and the other one is much nicer.</p>
<p>Similarly, we recently <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/generalelection/british-politics-really-is-like-the-thick-of-it-nick-clegg-gets-briefed-on-who-people-like-ellie-goulding-are-10165981.html">learned</a> that Nick Clegg gets briefed on who’s who in the pop music world. If he doesn’t know who Ellie Goulding is, we’re encouraged to think he’s out of touch, but if he’s briefed, he’s desperate for approval. The irony is that the most “ordinary” position for a middle-aged man would be to have no clue about who their kids are listening to. </p>
<p>The only one with any skill at pretending to be “normal” is Nigel Farage, whose persona as a pint-drinking straight-talker greatly contributes to his popular appeal.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/sK0ucdfmjuE?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<h2>Classical counterparts</h2>
<p>These stories reveal a lot about our expectations of politicians: we want them to be down-to-earth, but we’re suspicious if it goes too far (what sort of person doesn’t aspire to a nice kitchen if they’re on a good salary?). This tension as to whether politicians should be “like us” or not isn’t new. In classical Athens, the birthplace of democracy, we find the same issues.</p>
<p>Athenian politicians didn’t have to run for office, since public appointments in Athens (with the exception of military generals) were made by lottery rather than election. However, in a direct democracy where politicians put proposals directly to the people, popular appeal was of enormous importance. Indeed, the masses could vote to exile any politician who became too unpopular, a process known as <a href="http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/434423/ostracism">ostracism</a>. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"585348057123921920"}"></div></p>
<p>Ancient conservatives like the historian Thucydides complain about the rise of demagoguery during the fifth century BC, and point the finger in particular at the politician <a href="http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/121210/Cleon">Cleon</a>. Cleon was an Athenian Nigel Farage: someone who based his success on playing the popular card. He presented himself as a straight-talking man of the people, and gave <a href="http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A2008.01.0051%3Achapter%3D8%3Asection%3D3">crowd-pleasing speeches</a>. He <a href="http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0200%3Abook%3D3%3Achapter%3D37">criticised</a> intellectuals and other politicians for being too clever by half, and claimed he represented the views of the man in the street. </p>
<p>But like Farage, who is privately educated and made his money as a city trader, Cleon’s “humble background” was part of his political persona. Although his family made its money in trade rather than being “old money”, he nevertheless came from an extremely wealthy background, and was by no means representative of the typical Athenian. We’re told that he was bullish and played to the crowd: the later historian Plutarch describes him as making rabble-rousing speeches where he shouted and slapped his thigh. The ancient sources mostly present Cleon as unpleasant and dangerous, but we need to take this with some scepticism, since it probably reveals more about the extent to which, like Farage, he threatened the establishment. </p>
<h2>The Athenian Boris</h2>
<p>At the other end of the scale was the politician <a href="http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/13306/Alcibiades">Alcibiades</a>. Unlike Cleon, Alcibiades came from one of the oldest aristocratic families in Athens: in modern terms, he’d have been born on a country estate and gone to Eton and Oxford – where he would certainly have been a member of the <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/education/2008/may/09/oxbridgeandelitism.highereducation">Bullingdon Club</a>. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/79439/original/image-20150427-18136-gatehs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/79439/original/image-20150427-18136-gatehs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=433&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/79439/original/image-20150427-18136-gatehs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=433&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/79439/original/image-20150427-18136-gatehs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=433&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/79439/original/image-20150427-18136-gatehs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=544&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/79439/original/image-20150427-18136-gatehs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=544&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/79439/original/image-20150427-18136-gatehs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=544&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Jean-Baptiste Regnault, Socrates Tears Alcibiades from the Embrace of Sensual Pleasure, 1791.</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Yet unlike Cleon, Alcibiades made no attempt to pretend to be an “ordinary guy”. In fact, he took the opposite strategy and liked to draw attention to himself with flamboyant displays of wealth. We’re told of his <a href="http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A2008.01.0006%3Achapter%3D16%3Asection%3D1">luxurious lifestyle</a> and his sense of entitlement: for example, when he wanted some interior decorating done, he allegedly <a href="http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A2008.01.0006%3Achapter%3D16%3Asection%3D4">imprisoned a famous painter</a> inside his house until he’d done the job. </p>
<p>You might think that in a radical democracy, this would be a dangerous strategy, but the Athenians were <a href="http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A2008.01.0006%3Achapter%3D16%3Asection%3D3">fascinated</a> by him. Alcibiades was attractive precisely because he didn’t pretend to be “like us”. He offered a flamboyant alternative to the run-of-the mill politicians and a sense of authenticity – you might not like him, but at least he wasn’t trying to pander to public opinion.</p>
<p>Perhaps the best modern analogy for Alcibiades would be Boris Johnson. Unlike Cameron, who unsuccessfully tries to act like an ordinary “Dave”, Boris makes no attempt to hide his privileged background and loves to use Latin tags. He cultivates an air of eccentricity and is famously prone to gaffes. The result is that people find him refreshing – and he has surprising appeal among voters who don’t normally vote Conservative. Recently there’s been talk about Boris being the Tories’ “<a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/21/boris-johnson-tory-election-weapon">secret weapon</a>” and building on his popularity to gear up for a leadership challenge. But Boris needs to be careful, since Alcibiades came undone in the end. His maverick persona meant the Athenians didn’t trust him and he died in exile.</p>
<p>As these ancient examples show, the personae adopted by modern politicians are nothing new, as they tread a fine line between appearing more-or-less convincingly “ordinary” and maverick and out of touch. None of these personae (“ordinary Dave”, “man of the people” or “posh twit”) is without its risks, but we’ll see on May 8 which one convinces most this time.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/40791/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
Ordinary bloke or posh twit? Meet the ancient Greek David Cameron.
Laura Swift, Lecturer in Classical Studies, The Open University
Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.
tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/40772
2015-04-24T13:24:17Z
2015-04-24T13:24:17Z
Manifesto Check: SNP fails to recognise the potential of sport
<p>It is worth noting that sport in Scotland, as in Wales, is a devolved function. At the heart of the <a href="http://example.com/">Scottish National Party’s election manifesto</a> is the relationship between the Scottish Parliament and the Westminster Parliament. Sport is only mentioned twice in the 40 page document, dedicating it two sentences in total. And yet there are so many places where it could, and should, have been mentioned.</p>
<p>One of the two things that the SNP argues for in its manifesto is that Scotland should have a greater say in the sports events that are included on the list of sport content which is free to view in Scotland. This is part of a bigger struggle to <a href="http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/mediapolicyproject/2014/11/10/could-scotlands-broadcasting-be-devolved/">move responsibility for broadcasting</a> in Scotland from Westminster to the Scottish parliament. </p>
<p>The manifesto also promises to promote a more active lifestyle through sport. This they should be commended upon, as health remains a <a href="http://www.scotsman.com/news/health/health-inequality-scotland-s-greatest-challenge-1-3586642">significant challenge</a> in Scotland. And we know that running, recreational football and swimming have a particularly <a href="http://bjsm.bmj.com/content/early/2015/01/07/bjsports-2014-093885">positive impact</a> on health.</p>
<h2>Sport’s crucial role</h2>
<p>In comparison to <a href="https://www.partyof.wales/uploads/Plaid_Cymru_2015_Westminster_Manifesto.pdf">Plaid Cymru’s manifesto</a> which specifically states that they will promote sport for all groups, genders, and abilities, the SNP says nothing on sporting inequalities in Scotland. In a specific section on inequality in their manifesto, it mentions only women and the need for <a href="http://www.bbench.co.uk/#!The-Women-5050-campaign-has-the-power-to-change-Scottish-politics/crhk/FD061E17-7651-4D6E-9BE3-4517F0E8B3BC">50:50 quotas</a> on boards, but leaves out other potentially marginalised groups in society. </p>
<p>The manifesto also commits to narrowing the educational attainment gap, but omits to mention the <a href="http://bjsm.bmj.com/content/48/3/265">link between physical activity and educational attainment</a>. And nowhere does the manifesto mention tackling two prominent sources of inequality in participation; namely <a href="http://irs.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/07/05/1012690214541101.abstract">class and geography</a>. Without tackling these issues, there is a real risk of masking the growing polarisation in the consumption of sport between the classes.</p>
<p>The manifesto could also have mentioned that the sport and related industries sector in Scotland accounted for 35,880 jobs, making it <a href="http://www.davidhumeinstitute.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Inequality-in-Scotland-New-Perspectives-Bell-et-al.pdf">a significant employer</a> in 2013, ahead of civil engineering and the legal profession. The minimum or living wage remains a very important issue for the SNP, yet nothing is forthcoming in the manifesto in relation to sport. Yet, a precedent has been set by Heart of Midlothian, who were the first football club in Scotland and one of the few in the UK to <a href="http://nationalcollective.com/2014/12/11/heart-of-midlothian-introduce-living-wage/">commit to a living wage</a>.</p>
<h2>Lack of acknowledgement</h2>
<p>Perhaps the Minister for Sport and the Minister for International Development should talk to each other, to harness the soft power of sport far beyond Scotland’s shores. Sport for development which only focuses upon development in Scotland and not international development is only a job half done.</p>
<p>In a country that helped to bring the <a href="https://www.homelessworldcup.org/">Homeless World Cup</a> into being, it would be unfortunate to forget the historical link between sport, poverty and social mobility in Scotland and create more pathways.</p>
<p>The SNP also pleas for safer streets and communities, but fails to acknowledge the place of sport in contributing to social cohesion, crime reduction and the conditions necessary to support higher levels of sports participation, especially amongst girls.</p>
<p>On the question of sport and physical activity, Stronger for Scotland fails to reinforce many of the arguments that were seen to be so important to the 53-page long <a href="http://news.scotland.gov.uk/News/Scotland-s-Sporting-Future-c5f.aspx">McLeish Report</a> into sport in an independent Scotland. In a manifesto that wanted to place such an emphasis on reaching out to communities, there is a silence on the now recognised international role that sport know has in relation to humanitarian aid, peace and conflict resolution. This is indeed worrying, but perhaps these concerns will be addressed ahead of the Scottish elections in 2016.</p>
<p><em>The Conversation’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/manifesto-check-2015">Manifesto Check</a> deploys academic expertise to scrutinise the parties’ plans.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/40772/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Grant Jarvie receives funding from charities and research councils. He currently sits on the board of sportscotland and has provided independent advice on sports policy to governments both within and external to the UK. This article does not reflect the views of the research councils.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Paul Widdop receives funding from charities and research councils. He has previously provided independent advice and consultation services to the Scottish Government on sport and leisure consumption. This article does not reflect the views of the research councils.</span></em></p>
The SNP should acknowledge the role sport could have in many of their manifesto pledges.
Grant Jarvie, Chair of Sport, The University of Edinburgh
Paul Widdop, Research Fellow in Cultural and Sport Sociology , Leeds Beckett University
Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.
tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/40665
2015-04-24T05:09:12Z
2015-04-24T05:09:12Z
Manifesto Check: SNP is full of energy, but gives and takes on climate change
<p>In government at Holyrood, the Scottish National Party has set <a href="http://www.gov.scot/Resource/Doc/917/0118802.pdf">ambitious targets for renewable energy</a>, and the <a href="http://www.scottishrenewables.com/scottish-renewable-energy-statistics-glance/">spectacular expansion</a> of onshore and offshore wind in Scotland since the SNP came to power in 2007 certainly supports the party’s capacity to deliver. In 2014, renewables achieved a 49.6% share of Scottish gross electricity production, just 0.4% short of the SNP’s 2015 target of 50%. </p>
<p>But the <a href="http://votesnp.com/docs/manifesto.pdf">SNP’s manifesto</a> goes a crucial step further, promising that the party will use its influence at Westminster “to ensure the UK matches, and supports, Scotland’s ambitious commitments to carbon reduction”, namely 30% of energy from renewables by 2020, and 100% of electricity. And the SNP isn’t shy about the policy reforms it would seek:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>Changes to the UK’s <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/electricity-market-reform-contracts-for-difference">Contracts for Difference price mechanism</a> for renewables so that it prioritises Scottish projects and encourages the manufacturing of renewables, as well as the generation of renewable energy.</p></li>
<li><p>Reform of transmission arrangements to prevent remote Scottish communities and renewables from being penalised by their distance from UK energy markets. </p></li>
</ul>
<p>This doubtlessly reflects frustrations over <a href="http://www.shetlandtimes.co.uk/2014/08/15/sounding-off-drew-ratter-on-the-future-of-viking-energy">delays in constructing</a> the Shetland <a href="http://www.vikingenergy.co.uk/interconnector">interconnector</a> – an under-sea high-voltage cable – needed to bring Shetland’s 103-turbine <a href="http://www.vikingenergy.co.uk/the-project">Viking wind farm</a> into operation.</p>
<p>Other aspects of the Scottish government’s track record also suggest that the rest of the UK could learn from the SNP on renewables. One of its most applauded schemes is its streamlined system for consenting to offshore renewables developments, which <a href="http://www.sowfia.eu/fileadmin/sowfia_docs/documents/D4.6_SOWFIA_recommendations_final.A4.web_version.pdf">compares favourably</a> with the more unwieldy English and Welsh licensing systems. The SNP further demonstrates its environmental credentials by maintaining its <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/energy/fracking/11375332/SNP-announces-indefinite-fracking-ban-in-Scotland.html">opposition to fracking</a> and its support for onshore wind, and calling for greater assistance for hydro power. </p>
<p>So far so good, but the SNP also proposes to “keep the pressure on the UK Treasury to do all it can to protect jobs and investment in the oil and gas industry”, which means continued oil and gas extraction and greenhouse gases. The SNP gives with one hand, but to an extent, it takes with the other.</p>
<p>As for the rest, the SNP is pledging to reduce energy bills by funding <a href="https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/environmental-programmes/energy-company-obligation-eco">Ofgem’s Energy Company Obligation</a> from general taxes. But while this might be good politics, given the general public’s sensitivity toward energy prices, it may limit action on energy efficiency, by making it subject to budget constraints.</p>
<p>It also promises to create new powers to force energy companies to pass on savings to consumers, provide greater support for community energy, and establish a UK <a href="http://wwf.panda.org/wwf_news/?205057/Scotland-launches-climate-justice-fund">Climate Justice Fund</a> to help communities in developing countries adapt to climate change. </p>
<p>However, while there’s little doubting the SNP’s convictions and leadership within Scotland, whether it can achieve comparable successes at Westminster depends on whether Labour needs the SNP for a majority in parliament. Controversy has already flared around giving a pro-independence party a major say over UK policy. The manifesto stresses that this election is about strengthening Scotland, not independence – but it’s an act of faith to believe that the two agendas can remain disentangled. The other parties might well prefer to take the lessons, but not the teacher – unless they can’t avoid it.</p>
<p><em>The Conversation’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/manifesto-check-2015">Manifesto Check</a> deploys academic expertise to scrutinise the parties’ plans.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/40665/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ian Bailey does not work for, consult to, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has no relevant affiliations. The Conversation's Manifesto Checks are produced in partnership with Nesta and the Alliance for Useful Evidence.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Hugh Compston does not work for, consult to, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has no relevant affiliations. The Conversation's Manifesto Checks are produced in partnership with Nesta and the Alliance for Useful Evidence.</span></em></p>
The SNP wants the UK to match Scotland’s commitments to carbon reduction.
Ian Bailey, Professor of Environmental Politics, University of Plymouth
Hugh Compston, Professor of Climate Politics, Cardiff University
Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.
tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/40497
2015-04-21T12:20:18Z
2015-04-21T12:20:18Z
Cartoon politics: the literary ghosts of elections past and present
<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/78632/original/image-20150420-25701-16t3x4e.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Wherefore art thou Romeo?</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Peter Schrank</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>With claims and accusations flying left, right and centre during the election period, many of us are looking to cartoonists for much needed daily doses of satire – and sanity. Political cartoons have been a vital part of British political culture for a good 300 years, and it’s striking how often they make sense of the inevitable tangle of issues, interests and personalities by alluding to well-known characters and scenes from literature.</p>
<p>Just last week a <a href="http://www.schrankartoons.com/image/116302577365">cartoon</a> by Peter Schrank cast Ed Miliband and Nicola Sturgeon as the “star-cross’d lovers” of Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet. In a parody of the famous <a href="http://www.opensourceshakespeare.org/views/plays/play_view.php?WorkID=romeojuliet&Act=2&Scene=2&Scope=scene">balcony scene</a>, Sturgeon leans from the balcony of her Scottish castle to address Miliband, who stands below proffering a bouquet of flowers in one hand and a Trident missile in the other. Unimpressed, Sturgeon points to the weapon and tells Miliband: “You dinnae come anywhere near me with that thing.” The cartoon turns Shakespeare’s drama on its head. A tragedy of passion and illicit love becomes a comedy of awkward political courtship. Miliband, in need of a partner, is but a poor Romeo. Sturgeon, meanwhile, is certainly no pining Juliet.</p>
<p>Shakespearean parody enables the cartoonist to say a great deal in just a single image. Rewind 14 years and we can see Schrank using Shakespeare to much the same effect in <a href="http://www.cartoons.ac.uk/record/SC0146">a cartoon of Tony Blair as Hamlet</a>, which was published in the Independent just a few months before the 2001 general election. Blair was known to be keen for Britain to join the euro but remained publicly cautious on the issue. Schrank’s cartoon, responding to news that two steelworks in Wales were to be closed by their Dutch owners, attacks the prime minister for his vacillation. Gazing at the skull not of “poor Yorick” but rather of British manufacturing, the baffled Blair asks: “To euro or nor to euro?”</p>
<p>Through this use of Hamlet Schrank calls up the whole drama of indecision and – presuming we know how the play ends – gestures towards the damaging political consequences that will attend such paralysis of action. Indeed, so effective is this allusion as a satirical strategy that Schrank repeated it in 2013, when he depicted <a href="http://www.cartoons.ac.uk/record/SCD0122">Barack Obama as Hamlet</a> as a means of scolding him for his failure to act decisively in Syria.</p>
<p>Literature brings to the messy, sometimes senseless world of politics a narrative structure (and often a moral one too) with which we – the readers, the voters – can engage.</p>
<h2>Of monsters and men</h2>
<p>This use of canonical texts, what we tend to call “classics”, isn’t new. Cartoonists have been turning to our favourite books for material since the 18th century. And certain texts become political myths. Works such as Hamlet, Macbeth, <a href="http://images.library.yale.edu/walpoleweb/oneitem.asp?imageId=lwlpr05421">Paradise Lost</a>, and Gulliver’s Travels are now ingrained in the way we think and talk about parliamentary politics. </p>
<p>Frankenstein remains an especially popular text with satirists. In 2012, a <a href="http://www.cartoons.ac.uk/record/97502">cartoon by Scott Clissold</a> showed David Cameron, in the role of Victor Frankenstein, triumphantly exclaiming “It’s alive!” as his monster, “Economic Recovery”, awakens on the operating table. Revival, Clissold seems to be suggesting, has been achieved by unnatural means. Rather than breathing new life into the nation’s economy, the government has merely reanimated dead matter. </p>
<p>And a cartoon of 1996 takes up the same scene to make a different point. In Richard Willson’s <a href="http://www.cartoons.ac.uk/record/PC0254">“Dr. Mandelstein’s Monster”</a> Tony Blair, then a fresh-faced leader of the opposition, is depicted as the diabolical creation of a devious Peter Mandelson. Here, the story is one of political puppetry.</p>
<p>These cartoons testify to Frankenstein’s enduring power as a modern cautionary tale. But they also reveal how a text’s elevation to the status of cultural myth often uncouples its characters and narrative from their original iteration. Clissold and Willson take up the iconic scene of James Whale’s <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0021884/">1931 film</a> but it doesn’t appear in Mary Shelley’s 1818 novel. There, Victor’s reaction to the Creature’s awakening is one of horror, not triumph. Physically disgusted by his work, he runs from the room.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/78754/original/image-20150421-9032-1usxp2q.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/78754/original/image-20150421-9032-1usxp2q.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/78754/original/image-20150421-9032-1usxp2q.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=461&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/78754/original/image-20150421-9032-1usxp2q.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=461&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/78754/original/image-20150421-9032-1usxp2q.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=461&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/78754/original/image-20150421-9032-1usxp2q.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=579&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/78754/original/image-20150421-9032-1usxp2q.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=579&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/78754/original/image-20150421-9032-1usxp2q.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=579&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">‘A new illustration of the story of Frankenstein’, John Doyle, 1843.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">© Tabley House Collection Trust / University of Manchester</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Much closer to Shelley’s novel is 19th-century cartoonist John Doyle’s <a href="http://www.cartoons.ac.uk/record/mudyxg0">“A New Illustration of the Story of Frankenstein!”</a> of 1843. Doyle depicts Irish nationalist leader Daniel O’Connell as Frankenstein. O’Connell flees in alarm from the monster of his own creation, the demonic personification of a radical politics that has got out of control. “I have been your slave long enough”, the Creature insists.</p>
<h2>Unsavoury ends</h2>
<p>But sometimes we would do well to treat such narratives with caution. The use of Macbeth is a case in point. In 1821 the <a href="http://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/portraitLarge/mw66762/The-whole-Truth-or-John-Bull-with-his-eyes-opened-Caroline-Amelia-Elizabeth-of-Brunswick">cartoonist Theodore Lane imagined Queen Caroline</a>, the estranged wife of George IV, as Lady Macbeth. In a parody of Act 5 Scene 1, his cartoon shows a sleepwalking Caroline revealing her troubled, guilty conscience to the nation. The King and government accused the Queen of serial infidelity and Lane rather unsubtly suggests this “brazen” nature by placing her before the shopfront of a “Wholesale Dealers in Brass”.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/78735/original/image-20150421-9017-kx2a4y.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/78735/original/image-20150421-9017-kx2a4y.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/78735/original/image-20150421-9017-kx2a4y.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=780&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/78735/original/image-20150421-9017-kx2a4y.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=780&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/78735/original/image-20150421-9017-kx2a4y.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=780&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/78735/original/image-20150421-9017-kx2a4y.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=981&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/78735/original/image-20150421-9017-kx2a4y.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=981&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/78735/original/image-20150421-9017-kx2a4y.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=981&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The whole Truth, or John Bull with his eyes opened (Caroline Amelia Elizabeth of Brunswick), attributed to Theodore Lane, published by George Humphrey, 1 February 1821.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">© National Portrait Gallery, London</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Lane hammers his point home by doubling the Shakespearean reference. While Caroline exclaims “Out damned spots”, John Bull, personification of England, tells the Queen: “To a nunnery go!” (quoting Hamlet 3.1). Lane may also conjure Ophelia – another of Shakespeare’s “mad” women – here, but his satirical jibe hinges on the figure of Lady Macbeth. His cartoon established the character as <em>the</em> image of the political woman. And this image is far from a pleasant one.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.cartoons.ac.uk/record/30024">Margaret Thatcher</a> and, more recently, <a href="http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/oliphant/images/vc009303.jpg">Hillary Clinton</a> and <a href="http://www.cartoons.ac.uk/record/74464">Cherie Blair</a> have all been cast in the same role. The implication, of course, is not just that these women are dangerously ruthless but that they have willingly “unsexed” themselves, jettisoned their femininity, in pursuit of power. The way these images demonise public women is incredibly uncomfortable – surely there are other, better ways of representing them?</p>
<p>As in the 18th and 19th centuries, today’s political cartoons use literary works to plot complex political problems and policies. But we need to remain critically alert to how these narratives are being appropriated and transformed – to the structures and values they impose on events and people.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/40497/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>David Francis Taylor does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>
Books and the ballot box have a long and winding history.
David Francis Taylor, Assistant Professor of English, University of Warwick
Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.
tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/39537
2015-04-16T10:56:15Z
2015-04-16T10:56:15Z
Aid raid shows how badly UKIP understands defence
<p>UKIP has launched what it calls a <a href="http://www.ukip.org/manifesto2015">fully costed election manifesto</a>, pledging to introduce generous tax benefits and take better care of the elderly and veterans. To pay for all this, it plans to make massive cuts in areas it deems frivolous.</p>
<p>While the defence budget would be steadily increased, adding an extra £4bn to the budget by 2020, overseas aid spending would be drastically cut. The Department for International Development would also be shut down.</p>
<p>But cutting aid while purporting to be dedicated to defence shows how naïve the party is about what it takes to keep the country safe. It is spending on development that keeps the UK safe in the long-term, not weapons.</p>
<p>Presenting the manifesto, deputy chair Suzanne Evans said aid was turning into a “fat-cat industry” that supports corruption. The manifesto sets out an aim to cut the aid budget from 0.7% of gross national income to 0.2%, which would take it from £11.4bn to an unspecified sum. UKIP has been <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2015/apr/15/ukip-manifesto-cut-foreign-aid-abolish-department-for-international-development">clear</a> that it would not spend less than £4bn a year, but with plans to save £11bn per year by 2019-2020, it seems unlikely that it would be very much more.</p>
<h2>The defence debate</h2>
<p>UKIP has pledged to increase defence spending to 2% of GDP in 2015-16 in order to meet its NATO commitment. It would then exceed that commitment “substantially” in the years to come.</p>
<p>It has criticised the government for failing to meet the commitment in the past and indeed, it is not the only party or politician to do so.</p>
<p>Labour shadow chancellor Ed Balls has said Conservative spending plans would leave the UK with the “<a href="http://press.labour.org.uk/post/113156118794/70-billion-of-tory-spending-cuts-will-put-nhs-at">the smallest army since Cromwell</a>”.</p>
<p>And former Conservative defence minister Liam Fox has expressed similar anxieties, warning that the defence of the realm is any government’s <a href="http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/radio4/wpr/wpr_20150307-1130a.mp3">first duty</a>. He argued spending must be based on “the realities we find around us, not short-term considerations”.</p>
<p>Former Tory MP Peter Luff also laid on the pressure in a recent parliamentary debate by <a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201415/cmhansrd/cm150312/debtext/150312-0002.htm#15031223000001">claiming</a> that “there is no more important role than to keep those who elect us safe from our enemies” – again referring to military spending.</p>
<p>This all sounds very reasonable. Voices on all sides of the election campaign are reeling off warnings about the threat posed by Islamic State and transnational terrorism. They are implying as much about Russia and countless unknown unknowns.</p>
<p>They say we need to ensure that we have the military capacity to resolve these issues, and that we need to be ready to intervene in order to protect our people. But they are arguing on a false premise.</p>
<h2>The real threat</h2>
<p>It is certainly the case that the <a href="https://www.rusi.org/downloads/assets/201409_BP_Financial_Context_of_the_2015_SDSR.pdf">armed forces</a> have been stung by budget cuts and are likely to face more in the near future. But it’s important to question the nature of the threats at hand. </p>
<p>It’s easy to imagine the UK as facing an imminent and existential attack from either Russia or radical Islam. But the increased emphasis on these issues in the media and the election campaign doesn’t necessarily mean there is an increase in activity, or that the UK is the intended target. </p>
<p>Many people have an unfortunate habit of conflating military and defence – and UKIP has fallen into the trap. The antics of IS make for shocking headlines but they don’t necessarily pose a threat to the UK and it’s important to question how best to fight this extremism. When facing the likes of <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/topics/islamic-state">IS</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/topics/boko-haram">Boko Haram</a> it is questionable whether military action is likely to offer long term solutions.</p>
<p>The failure to deploy a military solution to tackle this issue is not solely down to a lack of capacity or capability. It may be a signal that other means are more appropriate, or even that the military option is the wrong one.</p>
<p>Governments need to move away from narrow, military-focused readings of security. That’s why the coalition’s continued commitment to <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/403381/SID-2014-revised-UNDP-figure-feb15.pdf">international development expenditure</a> is so important.</p>
<p>A modern nation state must navigate all kinds of problems to be truly secure. Investing development money in education and other infrastructure will directly challenge the root cause of insecurity, whereas the military will at best only tackle the symptoms. It could even make matters worse. </p>
<p>The US fears a decline in UK defence spending in part because the American approach is to see the military as the primary tool at their disposal to fix the world’s problems. And in fact UKIP specifically attempts to align the UK and the US in its manifesto by suggesting that cutting UK aid would bring spending down to a level similar to the US budget.</p>
<p>But the UK doesn’t have the military capacity of the US, so other avenues need to be explored. Some might see it as weakness, but a non-military approach to security in the UK is more sustainable and breaks the cycle of violence and extremism of the post-9/11 world.</p>
<p>The money spent on aid and development is as much a part of defence expenditure as that spent on weapons and armies. Money spent in this way enables a government to use a carrot rather than a stick. It is important that it should be argued as defence spending too, alongside other non-military spending like intelligence.</p>
<h2>Vested interests</h2>
<p>The clamour to spend more on defence is unsurprising when one examines those doing the clamouring. It should not come as a surprise that military personnel, former defence ministers, and their counterparts overseas, would be calling for more spending on “defence”.</p>
<p>And UKIP has much to gain by taking a similar stance. It is positioning itself as the new <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ukip/11536164/Ukip-will-keep-defence-spending-at-2-per-cent-of-GDP.html">party of defence</a>, appealing to veterans and staking a claim to being a safe pair of hands to defend the realm. It seems to think that in order to appear strong on defence one needs to provide, <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b05rcncd">or at least promise to provide</a>, a powerful military.</p>
<p>As voters decide on the next government, it is more important than ever that worst-case thinking and scare mongering do not exaggerate the strategic situation or create threats where there are none.</p>
<p>It is interesting to see international relations being so passionately discussed in the lead up to the election but it is concerning that the discussion is so uncritical. The decisions made now about development and defence will have ramifications for years to come.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/39537/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Liam McCarthy does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>
Overseas aid plays a huge role in defence, which makes cutting it a dangerous mistake.
Liam McCarthy, Lecturer in International Relations and Security Studies, Nottingham Trent University
Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.
tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/39818
2015-04-10T13:13:15Z
2015-04-10T13:13:15Z
Meet the artist running for election with absolutely no policies
<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/77544/original/image-20150409-15236-1rdkvzi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Small party politics just got smaller.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Gordon Shrigley</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Art and politics have long been bed-mates – perhaps most notoriously from a perspective of protest, but also through visionary modes as well. Art is a vehicle through which “what is” can be replaced by “what could be”, whether through an angry violent voice or an optimistically utopian one. </p>
<p>But more recently art has developed a more nebulous relationship to politics. This May, there are two artists running in the general election. One, known as <a href="http://bobandrobertasmith.co.uk/why-im-standing-against-michael-gove/">Bob & Roberta Smith</a> (Patrick Brill) has a clear message: he wants art and art education to be recognised and promoted as a valuable part of society. Artists in the constituency of Surrey Heath will no doubt vote for him for obvious reasons. </p>
<p>But the artist/architect <a href="http://gordon-shrigley.com/campaign/">Gordon Shrigley</a> is also running in Hackney South and Shoreditch. And Shrigley, in his own words, has nothing to offer but offer itself. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/77531/original/image-20150409-15223-gt53ae.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/77531/original/image-20150409-15223-gt53ae.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=415&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/77531/original/image-20150409-15223-gt53ae.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=415&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/77531/original/image-20150409-15223-gt53ae.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=415&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/77531/original/image-20150409-15223-gt53ae.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=522&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/77531/original/image-20150409-15223-gt53ae.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=522&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/77531/original/image-20150409-15223-gt53ae.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=522&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The candidate.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Gordon Shrigley</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>So who would vote for a candidate that admits he has absolutely nothing to offer? What is enticing about a candidate with nothing to say? Is this about some gloomy comment being made about the state of our society? I caught up with Shrigley at Hackney’s The Laundry (his choice) and asked him why now is the moment for an artist to be running a content-less campaign. </p>
<hr>
<p><strong>Lois Rowe</strong>: Why now? Is there something about this moment that feels timely for an artist to be running?</p>
<p><strong>Gordon Shrigley</strong>: Well it was a reaction to the amazing energy and creativity of all the different protest movements that came out of the banking crisis. Apart from the obvious ones like Occupy there were lots of sub-groups. There was a group coming out of Greenwich University that used to give lectures on economy in bank foyers on an ad hoc basis. There was so much going on. It was noticed by commentators at the time that a lot of alternative narratives being used were coming from the 19th century. So, you know, the sales of Das Kapital went through the roof. I speak as a former member of the Communist Party.</p>
<p><strong>Rowe</strong>: And how did your reaction to those movements and their concerns lead to your current campaign?</p>
<p><strong>Shrigley</strong>: Obviously I don’t have any policies because I’m not a politician. And also there is a history of the independent maniac standing up and thinking they have all the answers for the world and they either go and live in a shed and write some long manifesto and start blowing people up or they stand as some crack-pot in the election. And obviously there is a history of that which you could fall into, but that would be to limit the possibilities in a way. The idea with the campaign is to create a clearing where the possibility for new narratives is open. It creates a question really. Because the question is not really there. It is and it isn’t in a sense.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/77556/original/image-20150409-15219-1tfifoj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/77556/original/image-20150409-15219-1tfifoj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/77556/original/image-20150409-15219-1tfifoj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/77556/original/image-20150409-15219-1tfifoj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/77556/original/image-20150409-15219-1tfifoj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=533&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/77556/original/image-20150409-15219-1tfifoj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=533&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/77556/original/image-20150409-15219-1tfifoj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=533&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Something to vote for?</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Gordon Shrigley</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><strong>Rowe</strong>: Are you sincere about this desire to create or provoke new narratives or is the campaign ironic? The reason I ask is that for me there is a confusion for me around the agenda of the campaign. I know that Jonathon Jones <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/2015/jan/13/gordon-shrigley-art-uk-election-2015-hogarth-ukip">took a swipe at it</a> and said if you were to win it would mean one less Labour MP and one more expression of nihilism … And I can see where he’s getting that from because one of your campaign slogans is “I have seen the future and it doesn’t exist”.</p>
<p><strong>Shrigley</strong>: I mean that in the sense that the future has not yet been written …</p>
<p><strong>Rowe</strong>: Well that statement for me says “there is no future” … which is nihilistic.</p>
<p><strong>Shrigley</strong>: That isn’t a problem. And I know people will read and misread things and that is part of the discourse.</p>
<p><strong>Rowe</strong>: So you don’t really have a strategy or ambition towards actually having a seat per se. I mean, what would you do if you won? Would you be interested in getting more funding for the arts? That would make me vote for you because I could say here is someone who is going to stand our corner.</p>
<p><strong>Shrigley</strong>: Patrick Brill is standing on a classic arts left-wing ticket. And I think that’s totally fine but I think it’s very archaic in a way. And I think it would be very shortsighted of me just to promote my own social group. In a way that would be a very simple way of deconstructing the whole thing. So I’m not standing for artists.</p>
<p><strong>Rowe</strong>: So you’re standing for “the people”?</p>
<p><strong>Shrigley</strong>: No, I’m standing for the potentiality of the space of the imagination that we all have … So let’s just say that I’m shot to fame on a whirlwind of whatever and I find myself in parliament. What would I do? I think I’d do exactly what I’ve done all the time. I think I’d just practice art. Because art – well good art – is the production of new possibilities, new ways of thinking. I think that would be what I would do.</p>
<hr>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/77558/original/image-20150409-15219-al3tbb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/77558/original/image-20150409-15219-al3tbb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/77558/original/image-20150409-15219-al3tbb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/77558/original/image-20150409-15219-al3tbb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/77558/original/image-20150409-15219-al3tbb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=533&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/77558/original/image-20150409-15219-al3tbb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=533&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/77558/original/image-20150409-15219-al3tbb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=533&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Gets you thinking.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Gordon Shrigley</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>I left the interview somewhat bewildered as to who will understand enough of the Shrigley <a href="https://www.academia.edu/9923762/Campaign_Project_for_an_Unidentified_Political_Object">manifesto</a> to care about his political intentions. How will phrases like the “potentiality of the space of the imagination” appeal to potential voters? Surely it’s better to cast your vote on a candidate that promises something rather than the certainty of nothing at all?</p>
<p>For Shrigley it is the form of the campaign – the form which is his mere status as a contender occupying a place in which conversation can happen – that is of greater value than filling that space with agendas or policies. Like protests such as Occupy it is the facilitation of dialogue and the promotion of new possibilities that activate the work. </p>
<p>But who will vote for him? What would he do about the real problems in politics like immigration and education funding? I asked Shrigley directly what he would say to a mother asking him about childcare reforms and he said he would predict a reply along the lines of: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>I don’t want to answer that question but have you thought about this … Your question is motivated by a structural narrative that we all fall into. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>I don’t think dialogue gets much more political than that. The audience for Shrigley’s campaign therefore is questionable. I expect him to alienate the most patient of potential voters. He is interested in facilitating a space for new narratives. Good art – and I agree with him – does this. It provokes viewers to question assumptions and produces new possibilities. It provokes its audience to do so. But whether an artist can do so with an empty campaign? I’m not convinced.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/39818/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Lois Rowe does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>
Gordon Shrigley is running for election with nothing to offer ‘but offer itself’ – Lois Rowe met up him to discuss.
Lois Rowe, Course Leader and Fine Art Programme Director, University of the Arts London
Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.
tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/39674
2015-04-02T16:21:00Z
2015-04-02T16:21:00Z
Can a plug from Martin Freeman make up for Ant and Dec fleeing the Labour fold?
<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/76955/original/image-20150402-9342-mituxr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Just a regular Labour millionaire.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://sk.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%BAbor:Martin_Freeman_filming_Sherlock_cropped2.jpg#/media/File:Martin_Freeman_filming_Sherlock_cropped2.jpg">Fat Les (bellaphon) Licensed under CC BY 2.0 via Wikimedia Commons - http://commons.wik</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Labour’s latest election broadcast is a direct-to-audience address by the actor Martin Freeman, who you might know from The Hobbit, Sherlock and The Office. </p>
<p>It’s a curious affair – as Freeman stands alone, speaking directly to camera in a white studio, we are made aware of the artifice of the situation at once. We see the actor walk on the to the set and respond to the director’s cue amid the babble of the crew on the studio floor.</p>
<p>As he soliloquises in the 2.45 minutes available, the staginess of the enterprise is reinforced with shots of cameramen and lighting engineers. Through these stylistic nods to the conventions of fly-on-the-wall TV, for which Freeman was once known, perhaps we are meant to contrast the contrivance of the situation with the seriousness and reality of the issues of which he speaks. </p>
<p>Or perhaps we are meant to think that this is a break in the actor’s schedule, which he has chosen to fill by telling us that:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>We are in the run up to a general election and you are going to hear loads of claims from people from the left, on the right, all over the place. It’s going to drive you mad. It will probably drive me mad. It boils down to a choice between a Labour government and a Conservative one.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>He ends with: “Really, for me, there’s only one choice, and I choose Labour”.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/JbHNVtsAD2M?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>The video finishes with a voiceover from another actor/celebrity and <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8449895.stm">long-term Labour supporter David Tennant</a>, who intones:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>This election is a choice between the Tories’ failing plan and Labour’s better plan for working families. Britain succeeds when working people succeed. Vote Labour on May 7.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>At the time of writing, the broadcast has clocked up nearly 219,000 YouTube views, which is remarkable if you consider that Labour’s <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TeLjStAH-Hc">previous effort</a>: “Why David Cameron wouldn’t debate Ed Miliband”, which was released a few days before Freeman’s, has garnered only 35,000. </p>
<p>At the very least Freeman’s presence indicates that some people are sufficiently interested enough to go online hear what he has to say – good news for a Labour party which over the past 20 years or so become relaxed about using celebrity endorsements.</p>
<h2>Things can only get hipper</h2>
<p>Blair’s early years gave the impression of a government in coalition with the UK’s arts community. At Downing Street during the first hours of <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/news/vote2001/hi/english/newsid_1319000/1319508.stm">victory in 1997</a> were (among many others) Helena Bonham-Carter, Bob Hoskins, Richard Wilson, Noel Gallagher, Jarvis Cocker, Ross Kemp, Mick Hucknall and Ben Elton.</p>
<p>In the campaign of 2001 they produced arguably the <a href="http://www.politicsresources.net/area/uk/pebs/lab01.htm">sunniest election</a> broadcast ever witnessed as cricket umpire Harold “Dickie” Bird, Welsh athlete Tani Grey and perhaps crucially Geri Halliwell (who was <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2001/may/14/election2001.comment7">number one</a> in the charts at the time) showed us a Britain of community, achievement and prosperity. </p>
<p>On the night of original transmission the <a href="http://www.jomec.co.uk/blog/wp-admin/%C2%A0http:/www.theguardian.com/media/2001/may/15/broadcasting.advertising%20">viewing figures were 12m</a> across the four terrestrial channels. That’s right, 12m. What would any party give now for a fraction of that total?</p>
<h2>Even pop stars get the Blues</h2>
<p>The Tories have been no slouches in the area of celebrity endorsement, either. Recent public supporters have been have included Gary Barlow, Simon Cowell – who, writing in <a href="http://www.jomec.co.uk/blog/wp-admin/%20http:/www.whatispolitics.co.uk/features/18-famous-conservative-party-supporters">the Sun in 2010</a>, described David Cameron as a man of “substance” with “the stomach to navigate us through difficult times” – and Jim Davidson. </p>
<p>The comedian has for decades been vocal in support of the Tories, going as far as to donate £5,000 to Iain Duncan Smith’s successful bid to become party leader in 2001 – the same year, incidentally, that he was <a href="http://www.jomec.co.uk/blog/wp-admin/%20http:/www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/jim-davidson-celebrity-big-brother-3103741">awarded an OBE</a>. At the time, Davidson described Duncan Smith as a <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/1531080.stm">“very, very caring man”.</a></p>
<p>In the interests of balance let’s not forget the Lib Dems who, in 2010, were supported by the likes of Daniel Radcliffe, author Kate Mosse and satirist <a href="http://www.jomec.co.uk/blog/wp-admin/%20http:/www.theguardian.com/media/2010/oct/23/armando-iannucci-interview-coalition-cuts">Armando Ianucci</a> who suggested (presumably not satirically) that he would be, “Voting Lib Dem this election because they represent the best chance in a lifetime to make lasting and fair change to how the UK is governed”.</p>
<p>The current campaign though, like its many predecessors, has its share of various celebrity “un–endorsers”. There have been many in the public eye over the years brave enough to tell us that should Labour/Conservative/Lib Dems win they would leave the country. </p>
<p>The latest to do this is Katie Hopkins whose principal function appears to be offending the fragile sensibilities of twitter users. She <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/katie-hopkins-promises-to-leave-the-uk-if-labour-get-elected-wins-ed-miliband-the-battle-for-number-10-10138526.html%20%C2%A0">tweeted</a> of Miliband:</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"581214496414404609"}"></div></p>
<p>Hopkins joins an elite band of would-be exiles – including Sir Andrew Lloyd Webber, Frank Bruno and magician <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/news/ten-celebrity-tax-exiles-1798098.html?action=gallery&ino=9">Paul Daniels</a> (who said that if Blair won in 1997 he would: “call it a day in Britain, take the money and go and play golf”). </p>
<p>More recently <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11204463/Pay-Labours-mansion-tax-Im-moving-abroad-says-Griff-Rhys-Jones.html">Griff Rhys Jones</a> stated that should Labour prevail in May it would be the proposed mansion tax which would send him to “probably go and live abroad because I could get some massive palace which I could restore there”.</p>
<h2>Ant and Dec overboard</h2>
<p>If that didn’t send Miliband scurrying, the news that Ant and Dec may desert the good ship Labour certainly might. In February the duo told <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/02/16/ant-and-dec-dont-like-ed-miliband_n_6692916.html%20.">The Times</a> they found it difficult to picture Miliband as prime minister and did not know what philosophy Labour stood for</p>
<p>This may turn out to be a significant moment. It was former US president, <a href="http://www.jomec.co.uk/blog/wp-admin/%20https:/mediamythalert.wordpress.com/2010/02/26/recalling-the-mythical-cronkite-moment/%20%C2%A0">Lyndon Johnson</a>, who is quoted as reacting to the news that legendary US newsman Walter Cronkite no longer supported the Vietnam war by saying: “If I’ve lost Cronkite, I’ve lost Middle America.” </p>
<p>Now we must ask of Miliband: if Ed’s lost Ant and Dec, has he lost middle Britain?</p>
<p>To be serious, the answer is mostly no. In 2010 a study of the power of <a href="http://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/10903116.pdf">celebrity endorsement of political parties</a> found that “low political salience” voters were significantly more likely to vote for the political party when a celebrity endorser is used. However, they also found inverse effect is found for high political salience respondents: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>If the voter is engaged with politics and is actively thinking of politics and political issues then the effect of the celebrity endorsement is negated.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>But if the viewing figures on YouTube for Martin Freeman’s broadcast prove anything it’s that celebrity brings the audience to the product. And it was ever thus. Writing in The Guardian, <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/mar/31/joey-essex-nick-clegg-political-system-crisis">Jonathan Jones</a> noted that Nick Clegg’s recent selfie with Joey Essex portrays a political system in crisis. Would Margaret Thatcher or Tony Blair ever have posed with Joey or indulged his daft questions, he asked? He says not – but of course they would. </p>
<p>As Blair makes clear in <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/tony-blair/7975344/Tony-Blair-the-celebrities-who-added-glamour-to-Labour.html">his diaries</a>, he knew from his formative days in politics the importance of popular culture. And as for Mrs Thatcher, didn’t she appear on the kids TV show <a href="http://www.jomec.co.uk/blog/wp-admin/%20https:/www.youtube.com/watch?v=5vcPLwGY-zc">Saturday Superstore</a> while she was PM? She certainly did – that and the late and unlamented <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFEZkoJQ4DA">Jim’ll Fix it</a>, too.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/39674/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
Labour’s latest election broadcast is a direct-to-audience address by the actor Martin Freeman, who you might know from The Hobbit, Sherlock and The Office. It’s a curious affair – as Freeman stands alone…
John Jewell, Director of Undergraduate Studies, School of Journalism, Media and Cultural Studies, Cardiff University
Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.
tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/39599
2015-03-31T14:30:55Z
2015-03-31T14:30:55Z
Channel 4 Coalition drama was far too polished to really shine
<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/76585/original/image-20150331-1245-1klwxxq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">A real missed opportunity.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Rory Mulvey/Channel 4</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Reviews of <a href="http://www.channel4.com/programmes/coalition">Coalition</a>, Channel 4’s drama-documentary which recounted the coalition negotiations that followed the 2010 election “based on extensive research”, have generally been good. Radio Times <a href="http://www.radiotimes.com/news/2015-03-28/channel-4s-coalition-funny-absorbing-and-moving-its-like-the-thick-of-it-on-valium">called it</a> “funny, absorbing and moving”. Writing for the Guardian, Lucy Mangan <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2015/mar/28/coalition-review-the-bloodless-freaks-began-to-swell-with-life-and-humanity">described it as</a> “gripping and moving”, despite being very sceptical at the start. In The Conversation, Steven Fielding produced <a href="https://theconversation.com/nick-clegg-a-hero-watch-this-tv-drama-and-you-may-think-so-39443">a broadly positive review</a>. </p>
<p>I’m afraid my own view was rather less enthusiastic. Coalition was watchable and contained some insights into the May 2010 process which were valuable – notably the recognition that none of the players fully understood the value of the bargaining chips they held or the kinds of deals that might be possible with skillful negotiation. But overall I found it to be an unsatisfying reconstruction for several substantial reasons.</p>
<h2>Not credible</h2>
<p>An initial impression, which never really departed, was the leading actors’ lack of resemblance to the well-known characters they were playing. Of course, the bar has been set high by Michael Sheen’s remarkable Blair in <a href="http://www.channel4.com/programmes/the-deal">The Deal</a> and <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0436697/?ref_=nm_flmg_act_42">The Queen</a>, but several comparable political docudramas have been much more successful than Coalition in producing such credible resemblances. </p>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/76588/original/image-20150331-1266-z26d5g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/76588/original/image-20150331-1266-z26d5g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/76588/original/image-20150331-1266-z26d5g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=901&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/76588/original/image-20150331-1266-z26d5g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=901&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/76588/original/image-20150331-1266-z26d5g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=901&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/76588/original/image-20150331-1266-z26d5g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1133&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/76588/original/image-20150331-1266-z26d5g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1133&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/76588/original/image-20150331-1266-z26d5g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1133&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Nick who?</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Rory Mulvey/Channel 4</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>This is by no means merely a matter of physical appearance. The acting must also feel right. The best examples in other political docudramas inhabit the character, their voice and mannerisms, and this can overcome physical differences. As long ago as 1991, <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0381648/">Thatcher: The Final Days</a> achieved this not only with Sylvia Sims’s Thatcher but with much of her cabinet. </p>
<p>I scarcely ever felt this in watching Coalition – Mark Dexter’s Cameron and Mark Gatiss’s remarkable Mandelson probably came closest. But it was particularly difficult to believe in Bertie Carvel’s Clegg, and having to ask myself “who is that supposed to be again?” throughout became aggravating.</p>
<h2>Polished beyond recognition</h2>
<p>Another reason for dissatisfaction was the approach taken in dramatising these events. Alvin Lee once said that “the news of today will be the movies of tomorrow”. So it proved here. The acting styles were too mannered and the lighting too perfect to generate any sense that we were watching a representation of real life, however “real” the events on which Coalition was based may prove to have been. </p>
<p>This was political negotiation recast as melodrama and, consequently, it was difficult to suspend one’s disbelief. If <a href="https://theconversation.com/nick-clegg-a-hero-watch-this-tv-drama-and-you-may-think-so-39443">Clegg emerged as the “hero”</a> (despite giving away most of his party’s principles), it was because the imposed narrative demanded one. Better, surely, to acknowledge that the real narratives of politics are nowhere near as tidy, just as their actual appearance is nowhere near as slick as was suggested here. </p>
<p>Indeed there were moments which recalled, for me, the Comic Strip’s <a href="http://www.channel4.com/programmes/comic-strip-presents/on-demand/7184-001">Strike!</a>, in which the 1984-85 miners’ strike is retold as if the story had been rewritten to suit the needs of Hollywood. Coalition is far worthier in intent and much more accurate, of course, but its look and acting styles brought the comparison to mind nonetheless.</p>
<h2>The great game</h2>
<p>My final, rather dispiriting, concern was the sealed-off nature of the world depicted in Coalition. In creating a hung parliament, we’re told, “the people have spoken”. But we never saw nor heard from them; they appear to have been written out of this narrative altogether. </p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/76587/original/image-20150331-1274-1rlnpcf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/76587/original/image-20150331-1274-1rlnpcf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/76587/original/image-20150331-1274-1rlnpcf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=902&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/76587/original/image-20150331-1274-1rlnpcf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=902&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/76587/original/image-20150331-1274-1rlnpcf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=902&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/76587/original/image-20150331-1274-1rlnpcf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1133&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/76587/original/image-20150331-1274-1rlnpcf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1133&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/76587/original/image-20150331-1274-1rlnpcf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1133&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Mark Gatiss stealing the show.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Rory Mulvey/Channel 4</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Instead, we were given what appeared to be a great game with no greater consequence for its players than that their team should win or lose. Perhaps this is how many of the <em>dramatis personae</em> viewed it at the time, but the consequences of this parlour game have been played out in the lives of many of the nation’s citizens, sometimes to devastating effect. </p>
<p>It would have been reassuring to see at least one of the characters step beyond the focus on party advantage and reflect on the potentially life-changing issues that are at stake for the rest of the country – the very audience for whom the docudrama was made. Perhaps it was simply safer to avoid actual politics in the name of maintaining a sense of political balance. </p>
<p>Disappointing though it was as a document of those heady post-election days, Coalition was worth watching as a drama, offering plenty of intrigue and careful pacing and, above all, a marvellous performance by Gatiss as Mandelson. Blessed with many of the best lines, he inhabited his character with a credibility which most of the other players lacked, stealing every scene he was in. </p>
<p>But overall, I found Coalition to be one hell of a missed opportunity. It could have offered real insight into politicians and the political process, which would have been invaluable so close to another election. But for a docudrama, it was simply too slickly theatrical to offer much documentary value.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/39599/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Peter Goddard is a rather inactive member of the Green Party.</span></em></p>
The political docudrama missed a huge opportunity to offer real insight so close to another election.
Peter Goddard, Senior Lecturer in the Department of Communication and Media, University of Liverpool
Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.
tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/39443
2015-03-28T09:50:12Z
2015-03-28T09:50:12Z
Nick Clegg a hero? Watch this TV drama and you may think so
<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/76287/original/image-20150327-16130-nnxok3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Guess who!</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Rory Mulvey/Channel 4</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>James Graham is that precious thing: a dramatist who takes politics seriously. Unlike his peers he does not use politics as the excuse for cheap jokes that exploit Britons’ ill-informed cynicism about those we elect to govern in our name. </p>
<p>His 2012 play <a href="http://www.nationaltheatre.org.uk/shows/this-house">This House</a> looked at how Labour and Conservative whips were forced to work together during the minority Wilson and Callaghan governments of the 1970s. It was a great success – at least with National Theatre audiences, an overwhelmingly middle class and mature group.</p>
<p>As in This House, so in his first television drama, <a href="http://www.channel4.com/programmes/coalition">Coalition</a>, broadcast on Channel 4 on Saturday March 28. Here Graham shows how essentially decent men (and a woman) struggle with an almost impossible situation to make representative democracy work. In the case of Coalition he focuses on the five frenetic days between the 2010 election result and the formation of Britain’s first post-war coalition government, the beginning of what was sold as a new kind of politics. </p>
<p>Unusually for a television political drama, there are no villains. Even Mark Gatiss’s portrayal of Peter Mandelson, while archly camp, never degenerates into a pantomime villain – although he does first appear amidst a puff of smoke. The three party leaders are all presented in their best possible light, at times humourous and humble, exhibiting little hubris. Gordon Brown’s infamous temper is never shown: at worst he is no more than a little impetuous. Graham wants the audience to empathise with the political class during a uniquely difficult period, showing them to be just like us: why, some are even shown smoking and swearing. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/76301/original/image-20150327-16090-8mz82p.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/76301/original/image-20150327-16090-8mz82p.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/76301/original/image-20150327-16090-8mz82p.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/76301/original/image-20150327-16090-8mz82p.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/76301/original/image-20150327-16090-8mz82p.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/76301/original/image-20150327-16090-8mz82p.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/76301/original/image-20150327-16090-8mz82p.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Unsung hero.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Rory Mulvey/Channel 4</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Noble Nick</h2>
<p>Graham’s central protagonist is Nick Clegg: “You’re a good man Nick,” Brown repeatedly says at one point. He certainly emerges from Coalition as an admirable character. The drama starts with the Liberal Democrat leader shooting to prominence thanks to the first television debates. But he’s quickly cast into despair when a twisted electoral system gives his party fewer seats than in 2005, until he realises that Cameron’s failure to win a Commons majority has presented his party with a great opportunity to finally exercise power. </p>
<p>The drama generally takes Clegg’s avowed desire to achieve “real reform” in office on trust. “It’s for the greater good” he tells his sceptical party while trying to convince them of the need to enter into what many feel is an unholy alliance with the Tories. We’re meant to think that that is what he actually believes. </p>
<p>As a kind of <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1526318/?ref_=nv_sr_1">Borgen</a> made real and British, Coalition rehearses the argument also made in the 2012 movie <a href="http://example.com/">Lincoln</a>: that in politics good things can come from compromise, from deals and dark business. And while Clegg did not exactly free the slaves in 2010, Graham seems to believe that he did the right thing by entering office. For in so doing, it is claimed at the end of the drama, he made multi-party politics possible, that being – we are induced to think – a vast improvement on the two-party duopoly rejected by the electorate in 2010. </p>
<p>Graham’s positive view of the coalition is highlighted by those he shows opposing the two young men at the centre of its making. There will be few Tory backbenchers happy at being depicted as a bunch of angry old men. When one announces that Margaret Thatcher didn’t like coalitions, I suspect audiences are meant to take it as a point in favour of coalitions. And, if Paddy Ashdown finally supports Clegg, he is throughout most of the drama a wistful oppositional voice from the past, one not in tune with the needs of 2010.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/4A7Bsk5Pxzo?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<h2>Too sympathetic?</h2>
<p>But in his almost revolutionary desire to empathise with our political leaders has Graham gone too far? Certainly, Clegg’s willingness to ditch much of his party’s 2010 manifesto, most infamously the pledge to abolish tuition fees, is dispatched in the blink of an eye. The audience is presumably meant to accept Clegg’s assertion that “there is no money”, a contentious claim then put about by the Conservatives. For, if Graham is right to show our politicians as human beings – and encourages us to feel sorry for Gordon, to sympathise with Nick and to share David’s frustration, he does push their politics to the background. Politicians are human; but they are also politicians. </p>
<p>As in <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0381131/">The Deal</a>, Channel 4’s 2003 dramatisation of the troubled Blair-Brown relationship, at the end of Coalition the actors are replaced by those they portray, cutting to footage of the real Cameron and Clegg in the Downing Street Rose Garden. As with The Deal there will be some viewers who will accept Graham’s account – we know that such drama-documentaries have a special power to convince.</p>
<p>I don’t know how many will watch Coalition but it will be surprising if given the competitive nature of Saturday night schedules many more than a million do. This is of course many times more than saw This House in the National Theatre but very probably such viewers will be already confirmed in their interest in and knowledge of the workings of representative democracy. Those millions glued to Casualty or still chuckling after Ant and Dec’s Saturday Night Takeaway, many of whom consider “politician” a term of abuse, will not have seen Graham’s optimistic interpretation of our recent political past. </p>
<p>This is a pity, because, whatever questions there might be over its take on events, Coalition brings out the emotion, excitement and humour of those few days in May 2010, ones which punctures many of the populist stereotypes about our political class, ones which explain why the nation is currently yawning its way to another general election.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/39443/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Steven Fielding is a member of the Labour party.</span></em></p>
Channel 4’s dramatisation of the five days in May 2010 when the Coalition was formed is almost revolutionarily empathetic with our political leaders.
Steven Fielding, Professor of Political History, University of Nottingham
Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.
tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/39215
2015-03-23T22:55:47Z
2015-03-23T22:55:47Z
Clegg is out, Cameron in, but the voters still lose as debate plan gets the green light
<p>After weeks of wrangling, British broadcasters have finally agreed on the <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-32001383">format</a> for the TV debates to be aired ahead of the May election. But what has emerged looks something like a table plan for a dysfunctional family gathering. Most of the guests would much rather sit on their own in the car park than have to sit next to the others.</p>
<p>Voters might not have been demonstrating in the streets to demand that the televised debates happen, but they can tell when they’ve been offered a duff package and will draw their own conclusions about what this fiasco says about the extent to which politicians respect them. </p>
<p>Televised election debates don’t change most people’s voting intentions but they have been shown to have important effects upon precisely that minority of the public whose votes will determine the election outcome. Undecided citizens who are unlikely to vote unless they encounter information that stimulates them and people with weak allegiances to a particular party who might see in the debates a reason to shift their preference are particularly good targets. So too are people who have had minimal exposure to the range of parties on offer until they see them in debate and, increasingly, people thinking of voting tactically in the hope of electing a least worst government.</p>
<p>Debates matter because they reach those people that traditional campaigns rarely touch. But looking at the four formats that have emerged from the tortuous negotiations you have to wonder how well democracy will be served. </p>
<p>First up will be a Sky and Channel 4 show on March 26. Jeremy Paxman will interview David Cameron and Ed Miliband in front of a studio audience – but not in a head-to-head debate. Each will appear separately in an interview that will resemble BBC Newsnight circa 1997.</p>
<p>We can easily predict how this will play out. The two leaders will sound like telephone answering machines responding to an angry caller who imagines that there’s a real person at the other end. Paxman will perform as the embodiment of a permanent Opposition, with audience members serving as his loyal backbenchers. </p>
<p>This will not be a debate. At best, it will offer Cameron and Miliband some valuable sparring time in preparation for the real event the following Thursday.</p>
<p>On April 2, ITV will host a live two-hour debate. This will bring together the leaders of the Conservatives, Labour, Liberal Democrats, UKIP, Greens, SNP and Plaid Cymru.</p>
<p>Critics have suggested that a debate with <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-leaders-debates-three-into-seven-might-not-go-37736">seven participants</a> will be shambolic and confusing to viewers. Of course, this could become a shouting match or – worse still – an opportunity for hijacking by whichever leader comes across as the most flamboyantly populist.</p>
<p>But it’s a two-hour debate – a full 30 minutes longer than the ones that took place in 2010. With intelligent moderation, this could be turned into a real opportunity to interrogate ideas and policies rather than leave viewers bamboozled by rhetorical strategies.</p>
<p>Most serious commentators predict that this election will result in a <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-minority-government-might-actually-work-for-labour-39006">minority government</a> or coalition, so having a chance to reflect on the preferable permutations will be a bonus for voters rather than a distraction. Of all the formats on offer to the electorate this year, this is the one that is most likely to make a difference.</p>
<p>Two weeks later, on April 16, the BBC is running a debate involving what it is calling “the challenger parties”. Labour, UKIP, the SNP, Plaid Cymru and the Greens will go head to head.</p>
<p>The most peculiar feature of this final debate is the exclusion of Liberal Democrat leader, Nick Clegg. Rumours abound that Clegg’s exclusion was a <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/mar/21/cameron-blocked-clegg-tv-debate-general-election">dealbreaker</a> for the Conservatives, who didn’t want him to be seen as speaking for the government. The Conservatives say that it was the broadcasters’ decision not to invite Clegg. Whatever the truth, the Liberal Democrats are paying the price yet again for having entered into a coalition with the Conservatives. In this final debate, Miliband will appear as a rather anomalous figure alongside a group of party leaders who cannot hope to lead a government after May 7.</p>
<p>For those in search of even more debate – or, indeed, actual debate -– there will be a BBC Question Time special on April 30. This will feature Cameron, Miliband and Clegg taking questions from a studio audience.</p>
<p>Perhaps the leaders will bump into one another in the green room as they prepare to make their separate entrances; perhaps they will exchange some penetrating critiques of their rivals’ policies; but the millions of people who will cast their votes the following week won’t ever hear any of this.</p>
<p>That is precisely why voters deserve an open leaders’ debate rather than a series of consecutive interviews. Justified by the claim that debates <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2246111/TV-debates-sucked-life-2010-election-says-Cameron-hints-hes-platform.html">suck the life out of elections</a>, we have ended up with a mish-mash of compromised formats. The impact of this might not be upon who wins, but how many bother to vote.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/39215/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Stephen Coleman does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>
The debate shambles has reached its climax and guess who drew the short straw.
Stephen Coleman, Professor of Political Communication, University of Leeds
Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.
tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/38676
2015-03-20T11:05:55Z
2015-03-20T11:05:55Z
NHS deserves politicians who can make and defend hard choices
<p>The future of the NHS will clearly be a key issue for the 2015 General Election. Any institution that costs the country so much, and touches so many people’s lives, cannot avoid being a topic for political debate. </p>
<p>However, this institution is peculiarly ill-suited to the short-term nature of much British politics. Successive governments have focused on being seen to do something, and on generating favourable media coverage across the electoral cycle. This has resulted in a series of reorganisations and patches since the 1980s. </p>
<p>In the policy community, the consequences <a href="https://theconversation.com/aande-crisis-wont-be-fixed-until-politicians-lose-the-taste-for-permanent-revolution-36159">are widely regarded</a> as chaotic, demoralising and wasteful. Unfortunately, unless the election has a clear-cut result, this seems likely to continue as coalition partners bargain for baubles or a minority government offers pork-barrel deals to win support from minor parties on specific votes. </p>
<h2>No primary goal</h2>
<figure class="align-left ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/75242/original/image-20150318-2467-1lu4yg2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/75242/original/image-20150318-2467-1lu4yg2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=800&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/75242/original/image-20150318-2467-1lu4yg2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=800&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/75242/original/image-20150318-2467-1lu4yg2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=800&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/75242/original/image-20150318-2467-1lu4yg2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1005&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/75242/original/image-20150318-2467-1lu4yg2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1005&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/75242/original/image-20150318-2467-1lu4yg2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1005&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Nanny state over lifestyle choices?</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/brostad/4545681619/in/photolist-7VFNM2-7VFNMi-8AjPiM-5YHV2z-ftxdMK-89Ftjp-7vgryh-azbpAf-eEwXMM-eEwX5t-eED4bq-eED2Pm-eED3cU-eEwXzR-eED4Um-drGvWs-5HtYa-ado18v-3W98t8-3W8DnM-eMfyMu-eED3WU-eM4924-eED3x5-bkqXz1-ruE411-qW9xoR-6z5Kgk-7YJqM8-6b6ku9-qDR23P-6sAYFY-9Rr9ry-yNesP-9VSNvV-5wPWSG-9WoFsF-85Y1kk-8LuuWu-6ZPE54-6ZTEa5-3eYyiX-7t2Mbs-cJQTG5-T5Yu8-9SNZxJ-6ytCeJ-4BnmLM-bBH2P6-aFyRYi">Bernt Rostad</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Fundamentally, the problem for the NHS lies in the inability of politicians to settle on its primary goal and on how we should achieve it. Should we have a national health service, focused on preventing people getting ill and minimising their dependency on healthcare? Or should we have a national sickness service, focused on <a href="https://theconversation.com/developed-world-cant-have-it-all-or-health-will-hit-the-buffers-16372">repairing the damage</a> done by everyday life in the modern world? </p>
<p>If we could agree on the primary goal, we then have to balance four concerns about the means for achieving it. We want these to be efficient – not wasting taxpayer’s money; effective – doing what it says on the tin; equitable – equally accessible to all citizens; and humane – nicely giving people what they want. </p>
<p>Unfortunately, any one of these choices can also provoke negative political consequences. If we <a href="http://blogs.plos.org/globalhealth/2013/11/jojewell2/">emphasise the promotion of health</a>, we very quickly come to the detailed regulation of everyday lives and major industries, the “nanny state” that deprives consumers of choices and damages the interests of successful companies. </p>
<p>If we emphasise the repair of damage, we discover that this is a really costly thing to be doing – and those costs are not paid by the people who did the damage. When we come to the means, we find that efficiency, effectiveness and equity are often at odd with humanity. </p>
<h2>Human life does come with a price</h2>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/75240/original/image-20150318-2487-u2ner7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/75240/original/image-20150318-2487-u2ner7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=337&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/75240/original/image-20150318-2487-u2ner7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=337&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/75240/original/image-20150318-2487-u2ner7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=337&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/75240/original/image-20150318-2487-u2ner7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=423&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/75240/original/image-20150318-2487-u2ner7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=423&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/75240/original/image-20150318-2487-u2ner7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=423&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Unless we pay more, there isn’t more.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/howardlake/4550761104/in/photolist-dAu1EJ-9VE8JS-dUUugo-dAt4j3-7W8QJm-cn8LUu-EaAgh-q9P38B-aFAKZi-oBNYCh-aFAw2z-hF8mu-65omQ9-chEejy-9qUDAd-62ovuK-dx8m8Z-cn8N8J-8n4yhv-biaAS2-6JNY6F-7qGj18-5B5sHV-ykzEf-rDMhNP-6YSkyf-qHknFH-pkjbPC-y73QP-769w63-4e5gsE-9qUDLU-bhodoD-cEJfZA-7XGFqk-7qLhkj-9htwEc-6UJW1D-9VB2vZ-8vEuaj-fEK5uJ-eeq5iW-9RMaaV-ngoT1r-f9ZMB-4Z6Fuq-rAG5dm-8nXSkK-99qLaL-68K5KU">Howard Lake</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Our emotions are plucked by calls for the NHS to pay <a href="https://theconversation.com/funding-expensive-treatments-for-some-on-the-nhs-means-less-money-for-everyone-else-36726">for hugely expensive</a> or <a href="http://www.england.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/cp-06.pdf">unproven treatments</a>, often in the US, to save individual lives, especially those of children. These are good stories – but we do not hear about the greater number of anonymous lives that could be saved or improved by allocating those resources in less showy directions. </p>
<p>People sometimes say that you cannot put a price on human life, but this is always essential. Healthcare competes with other desirable services in any society – education, public order, defence, even leisure and private consumption. No-one can write a blank cheque for the sick. </p>
<p>Governments have tried, and failed, to distance themselves from these debates. Although governments <a href="http://www.nhs.uk/NHSEngland/thenhs/about/Pages/nhsstructure.aspx">have created structures</a> that appear to make the NHS more independent, political accountability seems inescapable. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/75496/original/image-20150320-14614-1vsyggk.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/75496/original/image-20150320-14614-1vsyggk.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/75496/original/image-20150320-14614-1vsyggk.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=440&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/75496/original/image-20150320-14614-1vsyggk.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=440&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/75496/original/image-20150320-14614-1vsyggk.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=440&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/75496/original/image-20150320-14614-1vsyggk.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=553&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/75496/original/image-20150320-14614-1vsyggk.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=553&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/75496/original/image-20150320-14614-1vsyggk.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=553&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The NHS’ structure since 2013.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.nhs.uk/NHSEngland/thenhs/about/Pages/nhsstructure.aspx">Department of Health</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/bevan_aneurin.shtml">Aneurin Bevan</a>, the minister who established the NHS, was quite open about this when he declared that a bedpan dropped in a hospital in Tredegar, his constituency, should be heard in his office in Whitehall (when bedpans were made of stainless steel rather than compressed paper). </p>
<p>The present government has created <a href="http://www.kingsfund.org.uk/projects/nhs-in-a-nutshell/how-nhs-england-now-structured">a formal structure of delegation</a>, but, in practice, health ministers have been unable to escape questions in parliament about precisely what is happening to local services. </p>
<p>Insurance-based systems <a href="http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/fund-reports/2015/jan/international-profiles-2014">do not necessarily perform better</a>, because so many resources are used up in checking eligibility, billing, chasing debts and general administration. They also tend to focus on repair, which is measurable, rather than on prevention. If insurers have to decide which patients get what treatment, healthcare providers cannot escape the hard choices about efficiency and effectiveness: insurers have to think about whether customers can afford their premiums as well as about the amount they spend on the beneficiaries.</p>
<p>Nevertheless, politicians still get involved. The US has a patchwork of state laws that force insurers to provide treatments for articulate patient groups that they would not provide on any rational analysis.</p>
<p>The UK gets remarkable value for money from the NHS, and there is a good argument that funding should be raised closer to the level of some of our European neighbours to meet the needs of an ageing population. However, the NHS also deserves politicians with a more strategic vision, who are ready to make, and defend, hard choices rather than blowing with every sad headline or imposing a new re-disorganisation as the fancy takes them.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/38676/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Robert Dingwall provides consulting and serivces to a range of clients including a number of NHS organisations
</span></em></p>
The quest for favourable media coverage is damaging the NHS – and no politician seems immune.
Robert Dingwall, Professor of Sociology, Nottingham Trent University
Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.
tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/38670
2015-03-11T14:46:15Z
2015-03-11T14:46:15Z
It’s ugly politics as usual as the big Scottish beasts of Westminster prepare to exit
<p>If <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/mar/04/snp-set-for-56-of-59-scottish-seats-in-general-election-poll-suggests">as predicted</a> this becomes the first general election in which people vote in much larger numbers for the Scottish National Party (SNP), it will accelerate a major movement away from Scotland’s prominence in Westminster. </p>
<p>This produced many big beasts over the years, including John Smith, Donald Dewar, Charles Kennedy, David Steel and Robin Cook, before reaching its peak when Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling commanded the two most important jobs in British politics. </p>
<p>It also looks like there will be more women MPs in Scotland, although a shift from the current 22% to perhaps as much as 30% seems more of a damp squib than a revolution. It is obviously a long way short of the <a href="http://www.thenationalstudent.com/In_Depth/2014-06-12/The_5050_Parliament_Campaign_why_is_our_government_still_not_equal.html">campaign for 50:50</a>. </p>
<p>This seems a better indicator of the slow rate of change in Scottish politics than the mooted sea change in favour of the SNP. Scottish politics often seems as adversarial and bitter (and in many cases, sexist) as it has ever been. </p>
<h2>Tin hats and country dancing</h2>
<p>Much has been made, for example, of the fact that Labour whip David Hamilton’s description of Nicola Sturgeon as “a wee lassie with a tin helmet on” was made by a <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/03/09/david-hamiltons-sexist-co_n_6830180.html">“dinosaur” MP</a>, about to <a href="http://wingsoverscotland.com/a-hero-of-scottish-labour/">retire from office</a>, and finally free to pursue his dream of performing a Bernard Manning tribute act. </p>
<p>My impression is that the vast majority of criticism has come from SNP/Yes campaign supporters eager to describe it as a problem for Labour, and to put prominent Labour women in the uncomfortable position of having to denounce his speech. In fact, it looks more indicative of the behaviour of men in positions of power – a wider and more important problem that has been lost in the clamour for partisan advantage. </p>
<p>Perhaps this point is clearer when the problematic statements come from media rather than party sources, such as The Sun (England edition) mocking up a picture of Nicola Sturgeon onto the body of Miley Cyrus. This sort of thing can have a much longer-term effect than the short-term use of an image for party-political gain. </p>
<p>The same problem of partisanship clouding important cross-party issues might be identified in the reaction to the use of two misguided references to make political points. One was Guardian cartoonist Steve Bell’s reference to an obscure <a href="http://www.quotes.net/quote/10621">“incest and folk dancing” quotation</a> to (I think) lampoon the SNP’s desire to demand more than Labour can offer in any coalition deal. It was <a href="https://twitter.com/search?q=steve%20bell%20cartoon%20sturgeon&src=typd">heavily attacked</a> on Twitter in Scotland. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/74472/original/image-20150311-24188-1dao9hh.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/74472/original/image-20150311-24188-1dao9hh.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/74472/original/image-20150311-24188-1dao9hh.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=201&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/74472/original/image-20150311-24188-1dao9hh.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=201&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/74472/original/image-20150311-24188-1dao9hh.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=201&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/74472/original/image-20150311-24188-1dao9hh.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=253&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/74472/original/image-20150311-24188-1dao9hh.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=253&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/74472/original/image-20150311-24188-1dao9hh.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=253&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Steve Bell, The Guardian, 9 March 2015.</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Then there was the <a href="http://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2015/03/09/what-if-were-not-stupid/">reference by</a> Robin McAlpine, the director of the leftist Common Weal movement, to kidnap and child rape to describe Scotland’s place within a dysfunctional UK family. It arguably fell into the same sort of category as the Bell cartoon, but received barely any comment. </p>
<p>The contrast creates a sense that any sensible cross-party criticism of these acts tends to be lost in the clamour to gain party political advantage by drumming up opposition to an imaginary foe. </p>
<p>This seems symptomatic of the worst excesses of Westminster politics: while we might be seeing changes in the parties’ fortunes, there is continuity in their electoral practices – a problem exacerbated by the many media outlets putting pressure on party leaders to play that game. </p>
<h2>New faces, old tricks</h2>
<p>Even though first-past-the-post elections are no longer delivering a two-party race, parties are still following the old rules of the two-party system that were the bread and butter of all those big beasts of yesteryear. Tell people to vote tactically rather than according to their preference (“vote X, get Y”). </p>
<p>Deny that you would enter a coalition with any other party, even if you have no chance of being in government on your own. And with the help of supportive media, humiliate your opponents or demonise them when they exhibit the sort of practices that you know fine well go on in your own party. </p>
<p>Many of us hope that the legacy of the independence debate is higher participation and more sophisticated debate among an enlightened and enthusiastic public. It would be a shame if, instead, it reinforces the binary divisions and divisive behaviour of Westminster politics at a time when two-party dominance is under greater pressure than probably ever before.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/38670/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
So much change is coming to Westminster’s Scottish component. Alas so much us also staying the same.
Paul Cairney, Professor of Politics and Public Policy, University of Stirling
Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.