» Nick ¦ What You Can Get Away With

According to Teads, I’m currently the 177th most influential blog in the UK. (And at the dizzying heights of 11th amongst ‘other’ blogs) I say this purely to gloat about my massive power, which is as real and absolute as those massive amounts of cash that someone just emailed you about.

I shall of course be leveraging this influence into a series of books about how to be one of the Big 200 Bloggers. Each book will contain exactly the same advice as the last, but will have a slightly different picture of a smug hipster at a laptop on the cover and will have been put through a thesaurus to ensure it at least looks slightly different each time. Those of you really dedicated to wasting your money may want to come to one of my exclusive blogging seminars where I will lay out my Fundamental Laws Of Successful Blogging and much else besides in a bizarrely long PowerPoint presentation. I intend to thoroughly blur the lines between ‘exploitative seminar aimed at the gullible’ and ‘hostage situation’.

With the tens of pounds I’ve earned from this sitting nicely in my bank account, I’ll then go on to become a multimedia presence, launching a podcast (those are still a thing, right?) in which I read out my blog posts in an attempt at an amusing voice, and for wacky hijinks, occasionally read out other people’s and claim they’re mine. It’s only plagiarism if you’re not doing it ironically. The YouTube channel to follow that up is inevitable, and I’ll definitely be coming up with an interesting concept for that after I’ve inflicted a few dozen videos on you all.

So, it’s entirely onwards and upwards from here, or at least until such time as they revise their methodology and place me back in 1836th place.

, ,

350x350.fitandcropIt’s been a while since I’ve done a review of anything here, but I wanted to spread the word about this production, in the hope that it might spur some of you into going to see it.

The Fitzrovia Radio Hour are a company that have been producing live versions of 40s and 50s style radio broadcasts – complete with traditional sound effects produced on stage – since 2008. They’ve come together with Colchester’s Mercury Theatre to produce a version of Dracula that’s a fantastic piece of stage comedy.

We’re invited in as the studio audience to watch a BBC radio production of Dracula. The company’s lead performer, Mr Starkey (perhaps better known to my readers as Doctor Who‘s Strax) helps set the scene for us. Some of the regular repertory company’s finest performers will be presenting us with a dramatic presentation of Bran Stoker’s Dracula, and to add some verisimilitude to the performance a real-life Romanian aristocrat, Count Alucard, will be playing the part of Dracula. Meanwhile, outside the studio, Britain is about to be battered by violent storms accompanied by thunder and lightning, and a number of mysterious deaths have been occurring in the vicinity of Broadcasting House…

What follows is two stories in one: the adaptation of Dracula being performed with all the plum tones and ham acting one expects from early radio drama; and the events going on inside the studio as members of the company renew old feuds and start new flirtations, cues are missed, sound effects are generated, and Count Alucard’s behaviour becomes increasingly harder to explain as method acting.

The whole thing comes together to produce a wonderfully funny performance and the cast are all superb in their roles, bringing some perfect comic timing (including some wonderfully comedic pauses in the delivery) and interaction with the audience. My only complaint would be that there are so many different things happening on stage at various times it’s hard to be sure that you’re experiencing everything that’s going on – while your attention is focused on the performers at the main microphone, something else could be going on at the effects table at one side of the stage and with the piano player at the other. It’s all expertly put together, and the escalating level of farce is carefully managed to not overwhelm the story.

I’d definitely recommend going to see this if you can – it’s on at the Mercury until the 15th November (go here to book tickets and find out more) and I don’t know if it will have performances anywhere else afterwards, or if it will just be a little theatrical gem for us in the East to tell you all about.

, ,

An election that UKIP should have won? – Matthew Goodwin looks at the South Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner election and questions why they didn’t win it.
Lez Miserable – A personal account of how every public high-profile coming out helps to make the world a better place. “Of course, it is getting easier almost by the day for (especially) a certain kind of white, middle-class person to come out. But let’s be very clear; that doesn’t make it easy.”
On the Party Presidential Elections, and why I still haven’t sent off my ballot – Jennie Rigg sums up my dilemma in the current Lib Dem elections.
This Is How ISIS Smuggles Oil – How the black market works to get it across the Syria-Turkey border.
Don’t mock Norman Baker – he accomplished more than most ministers do in a lifetime – Ian Dunt points out what many people (including some in Baker’s own party) don’t want to acknowledge. “And therein lies the key to media treatment of politicians: Look vaguely presentable and don’t rock the boat – they’ll treat you like a sage. But fight for radical policy and they consider you an embarrassment.”

, , , , , , ,

Have_I_Got_News_For_You_titlescreenComing next, I’ll have articles about how water is wet, and an exclusive reveal of just what bears are getting up to in forested areas so I can have equally shocking headlines for you.

As you’ll probably know, I’ve been doing my spreadsheet of the gender breakdown of Have I Got News For You guests which paints a pretty bad picture of how women are under-represented on the show, given that they’re not 23% of the population. Thanks to someone on Twitter bringing us together, I’ve now met Stuart of @astronomyblog who’s been looking at how women are represented on other panel shows.

The figures, as you might expect, don’t make for any prettier reading. In fact, they’re uglier than mine because I was looking solely at guests, excluding the regulars. When you include Paul, Ian and Angus’s appearances as well, only approximately 12.8% of the people on screen have been female. Stuart does use a different methodology to me, going to IMDB’s list of appearances, but it appears to deliver similar results from a different direction) The show that actually does best with this approach is ITV2’s Celebrity Juice, getting up to 44.2% of appearances by women, which is impressive compared to the others, but from what I can tell, it’s a show where at least 50% of the regulars are women, so even with that head start, it still manages to fall short.

Not a very good picture all round, really, but I’ll still be monitoring HIGNFY, which has shown some signs that it might be looking to address this trend – representation on series 48 is hovering around parity, and there have been more women hosting shows in it than men so far, but it’s started well and fallen back before, so judgement can wait until December.

, ,

For those in peril on the sea – “This is where British politics is right now. It’s not a departure from the EU that should be worrying, but their trajectory out of humanity.”
The nuclear attack on the UK that never happened – The 1982 war game exercise that was the basis for Threads.
Brands of Nonsense – Crooked Timber’s John Quiggin on the history of branding, and the current trend for turning universities into brands.
The fall and rise of the TV critic – The history of TV criticism in the mainstream press (FT, may require registration)
“Oor Broken Politics” – Flying Rodent wonders if this is the moment at which Scottish politics turns from the mundane into the partisan.

, , , , , , ,

My post earlier reminded me of something I’d read before that was even more illustrative of belief in the One True Party than the article I linked in it.

This piece, in response to the Guardian’s endorsement of the Liberal Democrats in the 2010 election, is a perfect illustration of how some will argue that you must support the One True Party whatever it has done or might do. I really can’t describe the full oddness of it, but if it was about religion instead of politics, you’d be forgiven for thinking it was written by a cult member. It’s that special.

,

I don’t normally read LabourList, but this morning someone on Twitter linked to this article about Labour’s fight against the Greens. It starts out almost sensibly, then descends into such a pit of belligerent tribalism that I began wondering if it was a parody. (Then I noticed it was by arch-Blairite ‘moderate’ Luke Akehurst, and was assured it was serious)

There’s a certain category of politico – and I’ve seen them more in Labour, but they exist in every party – who are convinced that theirs is the One True Party and argue that case with a near-religious zeal. In this world view, anyone who disagrees can only do so because they are evil or misguided. There are only two sides to any political debate – the right side and the wrong side – and the One True Party is invariably on the right side. Anyone who disagrees with the One True Party is obviously evil, and anyone who suggests there might be a way to achieve something that’s not the One True Party’s way is misguided.

This is what lies at the root of Akehurst’s assault on the Greens – that they’re getting in the way of Labour, his One True Party. His arguments aren’t based much on ideology (and when they are, it’s all about how hard it is to triangulate Greens) but purely on the principle that Labour are always right, thus Labour need to be in power, and thus anyone who gets in the way of that is harmful and needs to be stopped. The Greens didn’t actually win a seat in Hackney – in Akehurst’s view, they ‘blocked’ someone from Labour getting their rightful place on the council. Greens aren’t people with different views and arguments, they’re ‘a huge drain on campaigning resources’, because all that matters is how the One True Party does. It’s probably the statement that ‘if you want PR for councils at least let your primary motive be improving Labour representation in rural areas, not giving a free pass to the Greens in councils where we have been fighting for years to stop them getting elected’ that shows the One True Party view most clearly. The idea that PR might be a good thing in itself cannot even be processed, and everything must be judged in terms of how it helps or hinders the party.

One True Party types exist in all parties, though, not just Labour and we shouldn’t pretend that they’ve never served a useful purpose for their parties. In a time of tribal and class-based politics, where voters (and even activists) generally had little information to work on, it was important to build loyalty to the party as an institution, not necessarily the ideas behind it. When most elections were just about two parties, descending into tribalism ‘the One True Party is always right’ partisanship does make a certain kind of sense.

We’re not in those times any more. Obviously, for some people politics still is a predominantly tribal affair, or even just a game between opposing sides where winning is the only important thing, no matter how you get there. However, I’d argue that with the breakdown of strong loyalties to parties amongst the voting public, this sort of approach isn’t likely to attract support in the way it used to. Trading insults back and forth with your opponents might feel good to the One True Party activist, but it’s not likely to attract the voter who knows that there are no true parties, just a group of different parties that might do different things. When offered with ‘you must vote for us because we’re right about everything’ in several different forms, is it any wonder when they go for something entirely different?

, , ,