Posted by
Tom on 30/09/2010 |
No comments
“If you run, I’m telling mum!”
Yes the Miliband’s are grown men, both with the ambition to become leader of the country, but when it comes to sibling rivalry, immaturity completely ignores bounds. Brothers compete, for affection, for reward and for pride, and short of their parents being forced into making some kind of ‘Sophie’s Choice’ decision on TV (a format I pray we never see), a National election was the ultimate competition Edward and David could face. Ed won, even though the result led to him wearing look of terror that brought to mind the first time I saw the Exorcist as an eleven year old, and David lost, offering his brother hug that seemed genuinely warm followed by a peculiarly aggressive head squeeze.
“I’m older, you’ll do what I say!”
David was born first and David rose to prominence first, he likely could have been party leader two years ago if he was brave enough to challenge Gordon, but he sat back playing a safe game. Much like the Hare, who took a nap under the tree, David waited in the shade, he, and assuredly his advisors, thought the keys to Labour Party HQ were waiting for them. They assumed that whoever led the party into the 2010 election would be finished and he banked on the lack of depth at the top of the party, with Alan Johnson disinterested and Darling, despite his excellent Ministerial work, unelectable. He was right about the absence of challengers amongst his immediate contemporaries, he was endorsed by all and sundry while the likes of Harman and Balls gained little traction given how the party faithful were acutely aware of the way they were perceived by the general public, but he was either wrong, or subconsciously dismissive, about his brother.
“Why does he get to go first!”
It is very likely that Ed, or someone close to him, realised that if he wanted to be the Labour leader, this contest was his only realistic shot. As a 40 year old he could still have a long political career ahead of him, but he saw his window of opportunity closing faster than the doors on the last tube home you just missed. If he did not run, David would have had the job sewn up. If David won, then Ed would not be a viable candidate in another Leadership Election for at least decade, if ever, as the odds of the Labour Party voting for the brother of the man who lost them a general election, even if he had already served a full term, were about as strong as the Irish economy. He had to act, and he did.
“It’s not fair, it was mine!”
Even though there was a relatively late swing to the younger Miliband, once Ed put his hat in the ring the outcome had an air of inevitability. It is very possible that David never considered the possibility that Ed would run, particularly against him, and if he did, then it was a serious miscalculation. David failed to shake his association to the previous governments, both as a key Blairite advisor and as a prominent member of Gordon’s cabinet, ironically it was Ed who was the staunch Brown man, while he also failed to connect with the core of the party. It is easy to wave the ‘charisma’ flag, but there is some truth to it as he was clearly seen, whether accurately as the more uptight of the two. He was David, the serious one with the Action Man hair, while Ed was the cheery wonk who brought to mind Michael McIntyre. The result might have been different their parents had named them Dave and Edward (or Karl), and snap judgements about character were less easily made, but it was not to be.
“He hit me!”
That is not to say the outcome was purely a failure on David’s part. His team dealt with the controllables very well, it is only that Ed ran a very good race. The ‘Red Ed’ charges were dealt with efficiently, he artfully attributed previous governmental failings to his brother and Ed Balls even though he was not the real outsider candidate, and he successfully appeased the different factions who make up the core of Labour’s support. The initial criticism levied is that he will be beholden to the Unions who provided a foundation for his victory, but that ignores the fact he did actually hit out at them by indicating towards a need for structural change and acknowledging that some spending cuts were necessary and would be supported. He will obviously need Union support, particularly to keep financial contributions coming, but he will not be any more indebted to them than any Labour leader who has to contest with a strong Tory party.
“I’m not talking to him anymore!”
The fallout from the Miliband battle was primarily a metaphysical one, I’ve had fights with my brother where actual blood was shed, here there will be scars but for the most part they will be concealable. It is a shame that David had to bow out of front-line politics, the gut reaction was that he took his ball home in a response that was tantalisingly childish yet entirely apposite given how brothers act around one another. However it was not that simple, David would indeed have been a thorn in the side of his brother, the disagreements that arose in the contest were not going to disappear, they were going to widen as some reporters dug their claws in like particularly irritating and poorly groomed housecats. The problem is that David will not be able to avoid the spotlight, he will be questioned about policy decisions everywhere he goes and every vote will be highlighted.
“He’s my brother.”
There will surely come a time in the next couple of years when David will be back in frontline politics, bar a particularly bloody coup, that will be in his brother’s cabinet, and he will be needed as he is an impressive and well traveled politician. At that time Ed and David will have to pursue a show of solidarity that lasts, not least because they are now the most prominent Labour politicians not named Balls.
Posted by
Tom on 07/03/2010 |
No comments
We have a long tradition of great satire in this country, from Punch to Python and Private Eye to Brass Eye, but we have fallen far behind the United States when it comes to up to date political television satire, and they’re not even supposed get irony. Why do we not have a British Daily Show?
Comedy Central and More4’s ‘The Daily Show with Jon Stewart’ is nominally a comedy show, but it punches well above its weight, winning awards and critical raves at an unprecedented level. The host, and executive producer, Jon Stewart, was recently voted “America’s most trusted newscaster” in a Time magazine online poll, while a study at Indiana University found that the half-hour comedy show provided as much substance as traditional terrestrial news coverage. Despite American ratings barely reaching two million viewers, it is a cultural cornerstone underpinning US socio-political discourse, particularly amongst the young and well educated. It is the first port of call for politicians, on both sides of the spectrum, to appeal to younger constituents, and it has been found to better inform the audience than the so-called ‘real’ news.
The two heaviest criticisms levied at The Daily Show, are that it is ideologically biased towards the left, and it is both breeding and appealing to a newly cynical generation predisposed to political apathy. Now I don’t think either of those accusations are true, but even if they were, as a nation of cynics with an ever increasing number of liberal twentysomethings, it would seem the Daily Show would be right up our alley, even more so that those idealistic and crazy right-wing Yanks. Indeed the success of shows like ‘Have I Got News for You’ and, to a lesser extent, ‘Mock The Week’, indicate that there is an audience for topical comedy on TV, however they are the successful few that have survived.
Do you remember the ‘Armistice’? Even the genius of Armando Iannucci could not turn a weekly satirical news show into a success (though the 1997 election night special is well worth watching if you are able to nefariously acquire it on the interwebs) and the less said about his ‘Gash’ the better. Similarly shows on Channel 4 like the awful ‘Tonightly’ and slightly-less awful ‘TNT Show’, which were barely able to subsist by pursuing pop-culture jokes as well as thoroughly base ‘news’ satire. I have tried to forget the one episode of ‘Not Tonight with John Sergeant’ that aired on ITV, but as the internet saying goes, I saw it and I can’t unsee it, now matter how hard I try.
Though there have been some admirable attempts in recent times. ‘Russell Howard’s Good News’ has been a commercial success (as commercial a success as something can be on BBC3 anyway) and it succeeds, rather effortlessly, in farming humour out of news coverage, but it is whimsical, rather than biting, and despite the weekly format it often turned to footage and memes that had been dissected online for months or years. ‘Charlie Brooker’s Newswipe’ was, and is, a brilliant and acutely observed dissection of national and international news coverage. However, though the show was quick to absolutely destroy targets such as FOX News and the domestic tabloid news culture, it was essentially an introverted think piece on news in the media and it took a surprisingly neutral editorial stance on political issues (something Brooker is certainly not afraid of based on his published musings), while the audience is probably confined to the same subset that is getting 6 Music shut down. Even now with the second series completed, encompassing only 10 original episodes, you see the same themes repeated time and time again. The Daily Show does this too, most notably with its use of correspondents, but also through great editing as seen the early-2009 campaign against the monetary analysis at CNBC, but there is more substance there, particularly in the way they uncover footage of politicians delivering statements and speeches from years gone by which highlight particularly unashamed partisanship and hypocrisy.
Most tellingly on the other end of the spectrum was the ambitious ‘The Late Edition’, which effectively repurposed The Daily Show format, and failed. The show was unabashedly left-wing in its world-view, and too often the show tried to make ideological points at the expense of humour. Ideology in comedy is tricky because attempting to rationalise a viewpoint is vary rarely funny, and in ‘The Late Edition’ Marcus Brigstocke and his associates went after targets whose markers were varying shades of grey. As a consequence only those on that particular wavelength were able to appreciate the unsubtle barbs, not to mention that a lot of the writing was sloppy. Similarly Mark Thomas has a number of fans, but he has a clearly defined audience, and his lecturing approach to comedy only really works only for that audience.
Despite claims of ideological activism, The Daily Show has always set its sights on easy targets, whichever zoo animal badge or colour tie they might wear, and has rarely tackled anything particularly controversial. An old man stupidly, and forcefully, talking about a ‘series of tubes’ or a taxpayer funded duck pond is much more ripe for comedy than a ‘bit’ about the strings attached to George W Bush’s African Aid programme. That is not to say The Daily Show is editorially balanced, but it attacks clear displays of stupidity, cynicism and hypocrisy as opposed to creed, something notable in Stewart’s occasionally heated, but always respectful interviews with subjects whom he obviously disagrees. In a recent interview with Bill O’Reilly, a man whose default decibel level surely brings with it a lifetime ban from libraries worldwide, Stewart said that he viewed something as worthwhile comedically so long as it was a “valid piece of absurdity”. That simple and elegant phrase encompasses so much of what The Daily Show is about. It does not seek to lecture, to pander or unduly criticise. It seems to me that the goal of the show is to help facilitate a collective cathartic release amongst the writers, the producers and the audience when we are faced with something that has inspired an acute sense of disbelief and incredulity.
That is not to say the absence of a British Daily Show is due entirely to faults in context or tone. One common thread is an absence of great writing and resources. The UK has a number of great satirists and there are some excellent political comedians working in this country, but The Daily Show writers’ room is be the cream of the crop, akin to the kind of staff that changed comedy with their work on ‘The Simpsons’ from ‘89 to ’94. It is full of some of the funniest and smartest people in America, with the current writing staff numbering close to twenty, not to mention the vast production staff, including those who are tasked solely with the vital research role of uncovering that aforementioned footage. The show does go four nights a week, but that is still only eighty minutes of programming, whereas at one stage The Late Edition aired twice a week, totalling close to sixty minutes of programming, and the writers’ room likely contained no more than five or six people at a time, with what was likely a relative dearth of support staff.
The lack of resources is something seen across the British television spectrum. It is the reason scripted series run, on average, for six episode seasons, and though it allows for very talented people to deliver projects that have unparalleled consistency of voice and quality, it is also limiting and bloody hard work. Sam Bain and Jesse Armstrong take more than six months to write six episodes of ‘Peep Show’ before production even starts. ‘The Thick of It’ works as great satire, but it does so with a sense of timelessness built around a cynical response to the suspicion of politicians by the public, rather than as a direct reaction to real-world events, even if they can plan in advance to run an episode in line with Conference season.
In Radio that lack of resource is less of a limiting factor. I would argue that ‘The Now Show’ is not actually very good, and is symptomatic of Radio 4’s main problem, the reliance on an older generation of unfunny ‘comedians’ (that means you Jeremy Hardy), but it is inarguably a laudable attempt to provide up to date satire, at least for the six months of the year it is on. Along those lines, and far more successful, is The Bugle, the excellent podcast presented by Timesonline, hosted and written by the ridiculously coiffed Andy Zaltzman and The Daily Show correspondent John Oliver. It is pun heavy and Zaltzman’s absurd monologues can at times be as exasperating as they are humorous, but it is exceedingly funny and quite biting. The format lends itself to a more freeform conversational discussion of international politics, and is clearly edited in order to remain fairly taught (or more accurately slightly less flabby), but the two of them come armed with a substantial amount of excellent pre-written material that they are able to use as a jumping off point. That kind of quality is also seen in Radio 5 Live’s ‘Seven Days of Sunday’ programme, which Zaltzman is also a contributor to, alongside host Chris Addison.
In fact you can get a lot of excellent satire via the radio and new media platforms. ‘The Daily Mash’ lacks polish compared to ‘The Onion’, but it is funny and it is ours, while Radio 4 does have some excellent programming when it decides to give some very talented people a little bit of money and a lot of freedom. The main problem seems to be transferring that talent to the television, which ultimately comes down to the lack of a ‘late-night’ tradition in the UK and the absence of investment in the format. It may be our equivalent of American ‘late-night’ television is the comedy panel show (which is not a particularly prevalent format over there), but they really do lack substance. It is just another one of those ways we cannot match the best of US television.
Check out:
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart/4od
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/thebugle
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/
http://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewTVSeason?id=129458911&s=143444
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/brass-9eye/4od
http://www.youtube.com/user/xthemusic#p/u (for Newswipe)