After controversial Labour activist Duncan Hothersall blocked me on Twitter a few weeks ago, I thought the days of being able to repost my exchanges with him were well and truly over. But I'm delighted to say that your deadbeat dooraway Daily Duncan is making an unexpected comeback - albeit possibly for one day only. Enjoy it while it lasts.
For what seemed like the seventeen billionth time, Duncan was trying to explain to a sceptical audience why he, as an avowed opponent of nuclear weapons, is voting against independence and thus passing up a golden chance to actually achieve nuclear disarmament. His excuse was that the moving of weapons is not disarmament. The following exchange starts with me pointing out to him that in practice, independence could bring about disarmament throughout the whole UK, and indeed might well be the only realistic method by which that goal can be achieved.
See if you can spot the bit where he gets so tied up in knots with his knee-jerk attack lines that he comes very close to implying that a Labour government in London might yet annex Faslane, and that this makes them superior to the Tories who have set their face against the idea.
Duncan Hothersall : Only on Twitter could the expression of my vocal opposition to my party's policy be criticised as me protecting a "gravy train". :-(
Me : But what are you actually going to do about that opposition, Duncan? Sit on a prayer-mat for the rest of your natural life?
Duncan Hothersall : No. I'll be arguing for my convictions. What else would you suggest?
Me : Well, for starters taking the one step that might actually result in British nuclear disarmament - independence.
Duncan Hothersall : I don't believe it would. As I have set out at some length.
(At this point he directs me to a blogpost claiming that independence would not mean the end of Trident, and that the most likely outcome would be the lease of Faslane to the UK "for as long as it was required".)
Me : What does "lease" mean? I presume you're not suggesting UK sovereign control, as that's already been rejected by Cameron?
Duncan Hothersall : Oddly, I meant "lease" as in the traditional meaning of the word "lease". Let me know if any of the other words confuse you.
Me : Duncan, this is a very simple question. Does "lease" in the context you used it mean UK sovereign control? Yes or no?
Duncan Hothersall : Lease means a contracted arrangement for use of a site for a period of time under an agreed set of conditions. You know, lease.
Me : Like the 99-year British lease of the Hong Kong New Territories? You know, UK sovereign control? Is that what you mean?
Duncan Hothersall : The terms of the lease would be a matter for the lessee and the lessor. I'm not an expert on leases.
Me : But surely you have an opinion? Should that lease give rUK sovereign control over Faslane, or not?
Duncan Hothersall : My opinion? In my opinion Faslane should be shut down! I'm talking there about what is most likely to happen, not what I want!
Me : Yes, so tell us what you think is most likely to happen in the event of independence - UK sovereign control of Faslane, or not?
Duncan Hothersall : I don't know, James. I think a lease is the most likely outcome, I have no view on its likely terms.
Me : But this is the hypothetical you're basing your whole argument on. Could a lease without sovereign control be credible?
Duncan Hothersall : No, it isn't, and the terms aren't critical.
Me : They are. Cameron has ruled out sovereign control. Harvey says lease without sovereign control couldn't work. Other options?
Duncan Hothersall : So one ex minister is enough to rule something out for you? Honestly.
Me : In your view, is it credible for the UK to base its entire nuclear weapons system on the sovereign territory of another state?
Duncan Hothersall : In my view it's not credible for the UK to have a nuclear weapons system.
Me : Your entire argument rests on you thinking it is credible for UK to base its nukes on Scottish-controlled territory. Do you?
Duncan Hothersall : No, my entire argument does not rest on that. Perhaps you should re-read.
Me : You're unwilling to defend the "lease" argument, then. So if Trident leaves Scotland, where would/could it go?
Duncan Hothersall : I'm not unwilling to defend it. I'm unable to agree with your attempt to undermine it.
Duncan Hothersall : Feel free to comment on the blog if you want to ask a series of questions.
Me : Duncan, this is very simple. Your campaign has put sovereign control off the table. A lease must mean Scottish control - yes?
Duncan Hothersall : Lazy attempt to equate Cameron with No campaign. Check.
Me : No, not just Cameron! Darling as well. You agree with Alistair Darling, surely?
Duncan Hothersall : When did Darling rule out a lease under specific terms?
Me : Darling ruled out UK sovereign control of Faslane. Correct?
Duncan Hothersall : Did he rule out a lease? How long do you want to do this? I'm getting pretty tired of it.
Me : About as long as it takes you to answer a simple question, Duncan. He ruled out UK sovereign control. Do you agree?
Duncan Hothersall : I've been entirely clear. No-one's ruled out a lease. The terms of a lease are undefined. Nothing's off the table.
Me : That is simply not true. Darling, just like Cameron, has taken rUK sovereign control of Faslane off the table. Correct?
Duncan Hothersall : The table hasn't even been built. Nobody is making commitments as to what might happen if there's a Yes vote.
Me : That is a straightforward denial of reality. The leaders of your campaign have excluded the possibility of UK sovereign control.
What I found difficult to understand was why Duncan even bothered trying to dodge the key question in such excruciatingly obvious fashion. There's no doubt - no doubt whatever - that every part of the No campaign has categorically ruled out the possibility of UK sovereign control of Faslane after independence. Duncan therefore has nowhere else to go with his "lease" wheeze other than an arrangement that respects Scottish sovereignty - so why on earth didn't he just say "yes, of course Scotland would retain sovereignty over Faslane, and here are the reasons why such an agreement would work"? Could it be that he just can't conceive of any plausible way of making that case, and thus has to fudge the issue by implying there is some kind of unspecified middle way available that transcends the issue of sovereignty - you know, in much the same way that women can be half-pregnant?
The reality is that UK sovereign control of Faslane isn't a runner because Cameron and Darling have ruled it out, and a lease that falls short of sovereign control isn't a runner because it isn't credible for a nuclear weapons system to be based on the sovereign territory of an anti-nuclear weapons state (which is what Scotland would be, unless of course pro-nuclear Labour were in power at Holyrood - Duncan must be so proud). In other words, Trident would have to leave Scotland after independence, and as there's no alternative base for it south of the border, that could very well lead to the UK relinquishing its nuclear capability altogether - precisely the outcome Duncan is supposed to want. He wills the end, but he also wills the means never to come about.
It's very, very hard to escape the conclusion that Duncan's starting-point is that independence is a Bad Thing, and he then works out how all of his other political beliefs can be reconciled with that starting-point, no matter what contortions of logic (or even of the laws of physics) are required to do so.
Friday, August 16, 2013
Wednesday, August 14, 2013
McDougall veracity-watch
Has someone had a quiet word in the ear of Blair McDougall, and suggested to him that even the Campaign Director of an outfit as cynical as 'Better Together' needs occasionally to look like an actual, grown-up Campaign Director rather than an internet troll? Whatever the reason, Blair was behaving in a suspiciously un-McDougall-like fashion last night on Scotland Tonight, appearing to be the voice of sweetness and reason. You won't be surprised to hear there were still a few points he needs to be picked up on, though -
1) After Blair Jenkins pointed out that the voters who consider themselves to be well-informed are split 50/50 on independence (thus giving hope for what will happen once the rest of the electorate become better-informed, as will inevitably happen as the campaign progresses), McDougall jumped in and said something like "we have to be very careful about blaming voters for being ignorant, if they don't have enough information it's the fault of the campaigns". This was clearly (albeit deniably) intended to imply that Jenkins was saying to voters "you're ignorant and it's all your own fault" - which bears about as much resemblance to what Jenkins was actually saying as a giraffe does to a game of Stratego.
2) After being challenged about the potential adverse effect on his campaign of an impending Tory general election victory, McDougall claimed that public opinion on independence had been "remarkably stable" over the years, irrespective of the party in power at Westminster. The truth of course could hardly be more different - there was a sustained spell a few years back when established pollsters such as YouGov and ICM were showing pro-independence pluralities. Counter-intuitively, that spell coincided with a Labour rather than Tory government at Westminster, although my guess is that it probably had more to do with the public's despair at the feebleness of the Lib/Lab government at Holyrood.
3) McDougall tried to have his cake and eat it by claiming that the referendum isn't about political parties and politicians, but is nevertheless somehow all about Alex Salmond and his nefarious deeds anyway. Small hint, Blair - if a Yes vote is about Alex Salmond, then a No vote is about David Cameron, and keeping him and his ilk in 10 Downing Street. The referendum is about both leaders, or it's about neither. It can't be about one of them and not the other.
1) After Blair Jenkins pointed out that the voters who consider themselves to be well-informed are split 50/50 on independence (thus giving hope for what will happen once the rest of the electorate become better-informed, as will inevitably happen as the campaign progresses), McDougall jumped in and said something like "we have to be very careful about blaming voters for being ignorant, if they don't have enough information it's the fault of the campaigns". This was clearly (albeit deniably) intended to imply that Jenkins was saying to voters "you're ignorant and it's all your own fault" - which bears about as much resemblance to what Jenkins was actually saying as a giraffe does to a game of Stratego.
2) After being challenged about the potential adverse effect on his campaign of an impending Tory general election victory, McDougall claimed that public opinion on independence had been "remarkably stable" over the years, irrespective of the party in power at Westminster. The truth of course could hardly be more different - there was a sustained spell a few years back when established pollsters such as YouGov and ICM were showing pro-independence pluralities. Counter-intuitively, that spell coincided with a Labour rather than Tory government at Westminster, although my guess is that it probably had more to do with the public's despair at the feebleness of the Lib/Lab government at Holyrood.
3) McDougall tried to have his cake and eat it by claiming that the referendum isn't about political parties and politicians, but is nevertheless somehow all about Alex Salmond and his nefarious deeds anyway. Small hint, Blair - if a Yes vote is about Alex Salmond, then a No vote is about David Cameron, and keeping him and his ilk in 10 Downing Street. The referendum is about both leaders, or it's about neither. It can't be about one of them and not the other.
Tuesday, August 13, 2013
Why Nate Silver is wrong
It's a brave man who uses a headline like that given the accuracy of Silver's predictions in last year's US presidential contest, but nevertheless I am going to confidently take issue with his claims reported in the Scotsman that the Yes side have "almost no chance" in the independence referendum. The main reason is that there are ample signs that his opinion is based on a fairly cursory look at the polling data - by contrast he would never put his neck on the line with a US political prediction without being totally immersed in every available statistic and variable.
1) He claims that the polling evidence is "pretty definitive" in putting the Yes side at 40% (give him his due here, he's at least not making the all-too-common schoolboy error of assuming that Don't Knows can be lumped in with Nos). But this ignores the Panelbase polls, which inconveniently and consistently diverge from the "definitive" pattern. Is Silver even aware of those polls? We don't know, but we do know that Panelbase is a credible polling company that adheres to British Polling Council rules, and we also know that no less a figure than Professor John Curtice has cautioned that for as long as one polling company is diverging from the others, it would be wrong not to at least consider the possibility that they are getting it right and that the others are getting it wrong.
2) He claims that the "No side is even more dominant with younger voters, so there's not going to be any generational thing going on". That's an utterly extraordinary claim given the number of polls - and not just Panelbase polls this time - that have suggested the complete opposite is true. For example, an Ipsos-Mori poll earlier this year showed that no fewer than 58% of 18-24 year olds were planning to vote Yes. Is Silver even aware of polls like that? Or did he just look at the MRUK youth poll that was so widely reported by our impeccably neutral media, and assume that must represent the "definitive" picture?
As Marcia has pointed out in the comments section at Wings, a further problem with Silver's remarks is one that is not specific to Scotland - namely the idea that No campaigns usually gain ground rather than lose it in referendums. (Again, to be fair, he at least doesn't make a prize idiot of himself in the way that Peter Kellner did by pretending that this represents some kind of unbreakable "iron law".) Matt Qvortrup made a similar grandiose claim recently, before backtracking somewhat on Twitter and conceding that the Yes campaign in the Montenegrin independence referendum did indeed gain ground as the campaign progressed - which they needed to do, because they looked likely to fall short of the artificial 55% threshold. But as Marcia has noted, a much better example is the monumental gains that the Yes campaign made over the course of the 1995 Quebec independence referendum campaign. Qvortrup apparently thinks that he can completely dismiss that example because Yes ultimately still lost by a whisker, but that's incredibly woolly thinking from an academic. The salient point is that huge numbers of Quebec voters who initially told pollsters they were planning to vote against independence ultimately walked into a polling station and voted in favour of it - and moreover they did so knowing that there was a severe "risk" that their votes could swing the balance. It was no protest vote.
That was something that simply shouldn't have happened if you believe Silver, Qvortrup and Kellner - so why did it? My guess is that, paradoxically, the more important a referendum is, the less likely voters are to swing to No by default. The supposed tendency that Silver talks about is largely a side-effect of electorates so often being faced with relatively trivial matters in plebiscites. Take the AV referendum, for example - the prevailing attitude among the public seemed to be "I don't give a monkey's about this, it's irritating to even have to think about it, so unless someone can give me a very good reason I'll just vote to keep what we already have". That kind of lazy thinking clearly went out of the window for Quebec voters when they were faced with the most important choice of their lives, and I'm confident it will go out of the window for Scottish voters next year. We will be dealing with an electorate that is engaged like never before - and as recent research has shown, the better informed that voters consider themselves to be, the more likely they are to vote Yes.
1) He claims that the polling evidence is "pretty definitive" in putting the Yes side at 40% (give him his due here, he's at least not making the all-too-common schoolboy error of assuming that Don't Knows can be lumped in with Nos). But this ignores the Panelbase polls, which inconveniently and consistently diverge from the "definitive" pattern. Is Silver even aware of those polls? We don't know, but we do know that Panelbase is a credible polling company that adheres to British Polling Council rules, and we also know that no less a figure than Professor John Curtice has cautioned that for as long as one polling company is diverging from the others, it would be wrong not to at least consider the possibility that they are getting it right and that the others are getting it wrong.
2) He claims that the "No side is even more dominant with younger voters, so there's not going to be any generational thing going on". That's an utterly extraordinary claim given the number of polls - and not just Panelbase polls this time - that have suggested the complete opposite is true. For example, an Ipsos-Mori poll earlier this year showed that no fewer than 58% of 18-24 year olds were planning to vote Yes. Is Silver even aware of polls like that? Or did he just look at the MRUK youth poll that was so widely reported by our impeccably neutral media, and assume that must represent the "definitive" picture?
As Marcia has pointed out in the comments section at Wings, a further problem with Silver's remarks is one that is not specific to Scotland - namely the idea that No campaigns usually gain ground rather than lose it in referendums. (Again, to be fair, he at least doesn't make a prize idiot of himself in the way that Peter Kellner did by pretending that this represents some kind of unbreakable "iron law".) Matt Qvortrup made a similar grandiose claim recently, before backtracking somewhat on Twitter and conceding that the Yes campaign in the Montenegrin independence referendum did indeed gain ground as the campaign progressed - which they needed to do, because they looked likely to fall short of the artificial 55% threshold. But as Marcia has noted, a much better example is the monumental gains that the Yes campaign made over the course of the 1995 Quebec independence referendum campaign. Qvortrup apparently thinks that he can completely dismiss that example because Yes ultimately still lost by a whisker, but that's incredibly woolly thinking from an academic. The salient point is that huge numbers of Quebec voters who initially told pollsters they were planning to vote against independence ultimately walked into a polling station and voted in favour of it - and moreover they did so knowing that there was a severe "risk" that their votes could swing the balance. It was no protest vote.
That was something that simply shouldn't have happened if you believe Silver, Qvortrup and Kellner - so why did it? My guess is that, paradoxically, the more important a referendum is, the less likely voters are to swing to No by default. The supposed tendency that Silver talks about is largely a side-effect of electorates so often being faced with relatively trivial matters in plebiscites. Take the AV referendum, for example - the prevailing attitude among the public seemed to be "I don't give a monkey's about this, it's irritating to even have to think about it, so unless someone can give me a very good reason I'll just vote to keep what we already have". That kind of lazy thinking clearly went out of the window for Quebec voters when they were faced with the most important choice of their lives, and I'm confident it will go out of the window for Scottish voters next year. We will be dealing with an electorate that is engaged like never before - and as recent research has shown, the better informed that voters consider themselves to be, the more likely they are to vote Yes.
Monday, August 12, 2013
David McLetchie
I'm absolutely stunned to discover that David McLetchie has died at such a tragically young age. I think the greatest compliment I can pay him is that he was just about the only senior Scottish Tory you could listen to in the 1990s without knowing instantly which party he belonged to - he came across as remarkably normal, and you could easily have imagined him in any of the main parties.
From memory, he also championed a number of surprisingly progressive causes during his tenure as leader, such as the abolition of tuition fees and free personal care for the elderly.
From memory, he also championed a number of surprisingly progressive causes during his tenure as leader, such as the abolition of tuition fees and free personal care for the elderly.
Friday, August 9, 2013
Pro-independence campaign closes the gap to just two points?
There has been some more excitement about the WoS/Panelbase survey this afternoon, because it can be inferred from the answers to one of the questions that current voting intentions in the referendum are as follows -
Yes 34%
No 36%
Taken at face value, that would be the lowest No lead in any poll since 2011. The problem, though, is not so much that the question asked wasn't directly comparable to standard referendum polls, but that it was asked in a way that might have proved problematical for some respondents. People were asked if their own voting intention differed from the stance of the party they voted for in 2010. However, there wasn't an option to say "I plan to vote Yes/No, but I do not know the view on independence of the party I supported", which may well have led anyone who was uncertain about their party's stance to give a response of 'don't know'. So these figures need to be treated with caution, but they're certainly heartening.
Incidentally, the poll was conducted among an online panel - that won't have made any difference to the outcome on most questions, but it may have slightly inflated the numbers who reported having heard of specific Scottish political websites.
Yes 34%
No 36%
Taken at face value, that would be the lowest No lead in any poll since 2011. The problem, though, is not so much that the question asked wasn't directly comparable to standard referendum polls, but that it was asked in a way that might have proved problematical for some respondents. People were asked if their own voting intention differed from the stance of the party they voted for in 2010. However, there wasn't an option to say "I plan to vote Yes/No, but I do not know the view on independence of the party I supported", which may well have led anyone who was uncertain about their party's stance to give a response of 'don't know'. So these figures need to be treated with caution, but they're certainly heartening.
Incidentally, the poll was conducted among an online panel - that won't have made any difference to the outcome on most questions, but it may have slightly inflated the numbers who reported having heard of specific Scottish political websites.
Thursday, August 8, 2013
Panelbase poll : Scots overwhelmingly reject the 'Better Together' belief system
(I know most of you will already have seen this on Wings over Scotland, but as this is the first ever opinion poll that I 'co-financed', I thought I might as well get my money's worth by reporting it here as well!)
Gavin Hastings said it best - it "beggars belief" that some of his fellow countrymen and women (I think he's looking at us, guys) think Scotland would be better off as an independent country. "If we were independent," he asked, "would we not be doing everything in our power to find the benefits of joining up with England, Wales and Northern Ireland? Why, if we have that, would we be looking to divide it?"
That, in a nutshell, is the belief system of the No campaign. But is it actually shared by the majority of the Scottish population, that the No campaign seem so convinced that they speak for? We now know from the Panelbase poll that the answer to that question is a resounding No (how ironic).
If Scotland was currently an independent country, would you vote to surrender control of taxation, welfare, defence and oil revenues in order to join the Union?
Yes 18%
No 55%
It beggars belief that Gavin Hastings could get something so badly wrong (notwithstanding that crucial missed penalty in the 1991 World Cup semi-final). But in all honesty, his notion that we would all be tripping over ourselves to give up our independence if we had it always seemed highly fanciful. The story of the modern world has been of ever-greater independence and self-determination, not of small countries desperately seeking to be swallowed up by larger neighbours.
The other key finding from the segment of the poll that has been released so far is that Scots seem to know (albeit perhaps only at a subconscious level so far) that if they vote No they will be voting for something far short of their preferred constitutional settlement. For example, 60% of Scots think that welfare should be devolved, but only 21% actually believe the unionist parties will deliver that in the event of a No vote. It's not necessarily irrational to vote No in those circumstances - after all, elections and referenda are often a choice of the least worst option. But for a No to be rational, people would have to think it was worth sacrificing the powers that they want in return for getting...well, what? The warm fuzzy feeling of embracing Hothersall-style "internationalism" (the type that only extends to certain English-speaking peoples and comes to an abrupt stop at the English Channel and the Irish border)? Helping people to find clarity on that point ought to be one of the key goals of the Yes campaign, because frankly I think a lot of people who are currently telling pollsters they are minded to vote No wouldn't be able to articulate what it is they think they are actually gaining through the huge sacrifice of a No vote.
Gavin Hastings said it best - it "beggars belief" that some of his fellow countrymen and women (I think he's looking at us, guys) think Scotland would be better off as an independent country. "If we were independent," he asked, "would we not be doing everything in our power to find the benefits of joining up with England, Wales and Northern Ireland? Why, if we have that, would we be looking to divide it?"
That, in a nutshell, is the belief system of the No campaign. But is it actually shared by the majority of the Scottish population, that the No campaign seem so convinced that they speak for? We now know from the Panelbase poll that the answer to that question is a resounding No (how ironic).
If Scotland was currently an independent country, would you vote to surrender control of taxation, welfare, defence and oil revenues in order to join the Union?
Yes 18%
No 55%
It beggars belief that Gavin Hastings could get something so badly wrong (notwithstanding that crucial missed penalty in the 1991 World Cup semi-final). But in all honesty, his notion that we would all be tripping over ourselves to give up our independence if we had it always seemed highly fanciful. The story of the modern world has been of ever-greater independence and self-determination, not of small countries desperately seeking to be swallowed up by larger neighbours.
The other key finding from the segment of the poll that has been released so far is that Scots seem to know (albeit perhaps only at a subconscious level so far) that if they vote No they will be voting for something far short of their preferred constitutional settlement. For example, 60% of Scots think that welfare should be devolved, but only 21% actually believe the unionist parties will deliver that in the event of a No vote. It's not necessarily irrational to vote No in those circumstances - after all, elections and referenda are often a choice of the least worst option. But for a No to be rational, people would have to think it was worth sacrificing the powers that they want in return for getting...well, what? The warm fuzzy feeling of embracing Hothersall-style "internationalism" (the type that only extends to certain English-speaking peoples and comes to an abrupt stop at the English Channel and the Irish border)? Helping people to find clarity on that point ought to be one of the key goals of the Yes campaign, because frankly I think a lot of people who are currently telling pollsters they are minded to vote No wouldn't be able to articulate what it is they think they are actually gaining through the huge sacrifice of a No vote.
Wednesday, August 7, 2013
A few quick Edinburgh Fringe reviews
I've come to the conclusion that a visit to the Edinburgh Fringe is a metaphor for life - you start by thinking about what you really want to do, but then you work out what is actually available and practically possible, settle for that instead, and ultimately come to the conclusion that it was probably just as well it worked out that way after all.
Here are my very quick impressions of the four shows I've ended up seeing so far, in a couple of cases more or less by accident -
EUGENIE GRANDET : Just getting into the room for this one was a bit of an ordeal, because I had to make a wild stab at guessing how 'Eugenie Grandet' is actually pronounced in order to buy the tickets. I was absolutely gutted to discover that I had pronounced it perfectly, only for the woman at the box office to still look utterly baffled. "Are you sure it's on at this venue?" she asked, before eventually sheepishly telling me "I thought you said Jenny!" Still, French pronunciation is one thing - it's beyond me how anyone ever plucks up the courage to buy tickets for shows with sexually-explicit titles (and it's not as if those are in short supply).
I've never read the novel by Balzac, so I've no idea how faithful this adaptation is, but I would imagine it's reasonably close. Jo Hartland is superb as the title character, although the real star of the show is a remarkably versatile table which does all manner of things that a table really shouldn't be doing. It had me severely worried at one point when it was precariously balanced against a chair, and carefree acting was carrying on underneath it. I reassured myself with the thought that it was probably a lightweight 'stunt' table, but Hartland later walked on top of it and it supported her weight. In a nutshell, this is not a show that health and safety inspectors will appreciate. RATING : 8/10
FOREST : Well, this is an oddity. A girl who is scared of tomorrow wakes up in a forest, and is comforted by an assortment of men (and one woman) unconvincingly dressed up as animals. The basic idea is vaguely reminiscent of last year's utterly brilliant The Girl With No Heart, but unfortunately this production just isn't in the same class. I'm not even entirely clear what the allegory is supposed to be - my best guess is that it's something to do with the cyclical process of children who are afraid of growing up and of being abandoned eventually becoming parents and protectors themselves. But it might just as easily be an allegory about ketchup.
The young actors are all delightful, though, and it's hard to imagine that they could make much more of the material they are working with. This is also a show in the truest tradition of the Fringe - seven actors and an audience of about a dozen crammed into a room not much bigger than a broom cupboard. RATING : 6/10
LOOK BACK IN ANGER : There are two productions of John Osborne's classic play running at this year's Fringe - I went to the one by a group of Oxford University students, simply because the time of day was more convenient. In almost every respect it's a wonderful version, although it's just ever so slightly spoilt by the fact that the actor playing Jimmy Porter is miscast. The precision of his speech and movement almost makes it seem like a carefully choreographed dance performance, rather than a performance that attempts to capture the spontaneous anger of the quintessential angry young man. The problem is much more noticeable in the earlier part of the play which is so dominated by Jimmy's ranting - the production comes into its own later on when the other characters start to be fleshed out.
As I'm always being told by apologists for the Oxbridge system that you simply can't move in Oxford University for all the state school pupils, I was going to make a snide comment about an Oxford company only being able to find one actor with a working-class accent for a play that requires two. Full disclosure, though - I was taken by surprise at the end when the actress who plays plummy-accented Helena spoke with her own voice, and turned out to be Irish (I think). RATING : 8/10
CHERRY ON TOP : It was a choice of cherries for me - I was veering towards seeing a version of The Cherry Orchard set in 1980s Durham, but when I realised that I might miss my train home I went for the contemporary comedy Cherry on Top instead. One of the fascinations of it is that it stars two leading actresses from the Indian community in South Africa. It dawned on me that, although I've always been aware of that community's existence, I know next to nothing about it.
It's a choice of cherries for the male character in the play as well - although he's not so much a character as a bulge under a blanket. Before ending up in a coma, his term of endearment for both his wife and his mistress had been "cherry", and the story revolves around what happens when the two women encounter each other at his hospital bedside.
The jokes don't really do it for me on the whole, which is probably a culture clash thing - they seem a bit too obvious. Actually, the best ones are those that aren't played solely for laughs, eg. "I poisoned him with this. It's untraceable. I'm joking. It's traceable." But can a comedy work even if you don't find the jokes particularly funny? In this case I think so, because the story works, and is acted out vivaciously and with total conviction. RATING : 8/10
So which of the four would I recommend? I think Cherry on Top has it by a nose over Eugenie Grandet and Look Back in Anger, although you'll have to get your skates on if you want to see it - it's only on until Saturday.
Here are my very quick impressions of the four shows I've ended up seeing so far, in a couple of cases more or less by accident -
EUGENIE GRANDET : Just getting into the room for this one was a bit of an ordeal, because I had to make a wild stab at guessing how 'Eugenie Grandet' is actually pronounced in order to buy the tickets. I was absolutely gutted to discover that I had pronounced it perfectly, only for the woman at the box office to still look utterly baffled. "Are you sure it's on at this venue?" she asked, before eventually sheepishly telling me "I thought you said Jenny!" Still, French pronunciation is one thing - it's beyond me how anyone ever plucks up the courage to buy tickets for shows with sexually-explicit titles (and it's not as if those are in short supply).
I've never read the novel by Balzac, so I've no idea how faithful this adaptation is, but I would imagine it's reasonably close. Jo Hartland is superb as the title character, although the real star of the show is a remarkably versatile table which does all manner of things that a table really shouldn't be doing. It had me severely worried at one point when it was precariously balanced against a chair, and carefree acting was carrying on underneath it. I reassured myself with the thought that it was probably a lightweight 'stunt' table, but Hartland later walked on top of it and it supported her weight. In a nutshell, this is not a show that health and safety inspectors will appreciate. RATING : 8/10
FOREST : Well, this is an oddity. A girl who is scared of tomorrow wakes up in a forest, and is comforted by an assortment of men (and one woman) unconvincingly dressed up as animals. The basic idea is vaguely reminiscent of last year's utterly brilliant The Girl With No Heart, but unfortunately this production just isn't in the same class. I'm not even entirely clear what the allegory is supposed to be - my best guess is that it's something to do with the cyclical process of children who are afraid of growing up and of being abandoned eventually becoming parents and protectors themselves. But it might just as easily be an allegory about ketchup.
The young actors are all delightful, though, and it's hard to imagine that they could make much more of the material they are working with. This is also a show in the truest tradition of the Fringe - seven actors and an audience of about a dozen crammed into a room not much bigger than a broom cupboard. RATING : 6/10
LOOK BACK IN ANGER : There are two productions of John Osborne's classic play running at this year's Fringe - I went to the one by a group of Oxford University students, simply because the time of day was more convenient. In almost every respect it's a wonderful version, although it's just ever so slightly spoilt by the fact that the actor playing Jimmy Porter is miscast. The precision of his speech and movement almost makes it seem like a carefully choreographed dance performance, rather than a performance that attempts to capture the spontaneous anger of the quintessential angry young man. The problem is much more noticeable in the earlier part of the play which is so dominated by Jimmy's ranting - the production comes into its own later on when the other characters start to be fleshed out.
As I'm always being told by apologists for the Oxbridge system that you simply can't move in Oxford University for all the state school pupils, I was going to make a snide comment about an Oxford company only being able to find one actor with a working-class accent for a play that requires two. Full disclosure, though - I was taken by surprise at the end when the actress who plays plummy-accented Helena spoke with her own voice, and turned out to be Irish (I think). RATING : 8/10
CHERRY ON TOP : It was a choice of cherries for me - I was veering towards seeing a version of The Cherry Orchard set in 1980s Durham, but when I realised that I might miss my train home I went for the contemporary comedy Cherry on Top instead. One of the fascinations of it is that it stars two leading actresses from the Indian community in South Africa. It dawned on me that, although I've always been aware of that community's existence, I know next to nothing about it.
It's a choice of cherries for the male character in the play as well - although he's not so much a character as a bulge under a blanket. Before ending up in a coma, his term of endearment for both his wife and his mistress had been "cherry", and the story revolves around what happens when the two women encounter each other at his hospital bedside.
The jokes don't really do it for me on the whole, which is probably a culture clash thing - they seem a bit too obvious. Actually, the best ones are those that aren't played solely for laughs, eg. "I poisoned him with this. It's untraceable. I'm joking. It's traceable." But can a comedy work even if you don't find the jokes particularly funny? In this case I think so, because the story works, and is acted out vivaciously and with total conviction. RATING : 8/10
So which of the four would I recommend? I think Cherry on Top has it by a nose over Eugenie Grandet and Look Back in Anger, although you'll have to get your skates on if you want to see it - it's only on until Saturday.
Saturday, August 3, 2013
A plea to Peter Capaldi - if you're the new Doctor, please use your natural accent
I've no idea if the rumours swirling around that Peter Capaldi is the new Doctor Who have any truth to them. Certainly last time round when the bookies got to the point of refusing new bets, it turned out they had settled on the right name (Matt Smith came out of nowhere after Paterson Joseph had been the long-term favourite). But it may be that the BBC have learned from that experience, and that Capaldi's name is being used as a decoy, or is just a spontaneous false rumour. My guess is that the production team might be (wrongly) concerned about choosing someone of Capaldi's age, if only because the audience have become accustomed to younger Doctors since the show's comeback in 2005.
But if by any chance Capaldi is the choice, my fervent hope is that he won't follow in David Tennant's footsteps by ditching his Scottish accent. If it's plausible for a Time Lord from Gallifrey to speak the Queen's English, or to use Christopher Eccleston's Lancashire accent, or even to have a semi-Scottish accent during his seventh incarnation, then there's no good reason why he shouldn't speak like Malcolm Tucker, albeit perhaps without the expletives. Tennant's decision to become the first Doctor in history to abandon his natural accent was the absolute epitome of the Scottish cringe. If this whole 'better together' thing (which it's assumed Tennant is a firm believer in) has any meaning at all, it ought to be about celebrating each other's differences, not about everyone in Britain aspiring to the 'normality' of being a good little Englishman.
But if by any chance Capaldi is the choice, my fervent hope is that he won't follow in David Tennant's footsteps by ditching his Scottish accent. If it's plausible for a Time Lord from Gallifrey to speak the Queen's English, or to use Christopher Eccleston's Lancashire accent, or even to have a semi-Scottish accent during his seventh incarnation, then there's no good reason why he shouldn't speak like Malcolm Tucker, albeit perhaps without the expletives. Tennant's decision to become the first Doctor in history to abandon his natural accent was the absolute epitome of the Scottish cringe. If this whole 'better together' thing (which it's assumed Tennant is a firm believer in) has any meaning at all, it ought to be about celebrating each other's differences, not about everyone in Britain aspiring to the 'normality' of being a good little Englishman.
Friday, August 2, 2013
Jeremy Purvis reaches the light at the end of the tunnel
One of the constant refrains from Neanderthal opponents of electoral reform in the London parties is that it is simply unconscionable to have a system that enables a "loser to win". We heard it endlessly during the AV referendum campaign, but it's also often been raised as an objection to the AMS system used for the Scottish Parliament, which makes it possible for a candidate who has been defeated in a constituency to still be elected on the regional list.
Curiously, though, there seems to be considerable overlap between complaints about the so-called "losers winning" vagaries of PR, and enthusiastic support for the House of Lords as an anachronism that supposedly "works". Chiefly, of course, the anachronism works by allowing "sound chaps" like Jeremy Purvis to carry on legislating for us in spite of having been roundly rejected by the errant electorate of Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale.
Altogether now...
Every loser wins
Once the dream begins
In time you'll see, fate holds the key
And every loser knows
The light the tunnel shows
Will shine on you
Jeremy was so right to keep the faith. Why would a Liberal Democrat need democracy?
* * *
Plaid Cymru seem to be storming to victory in the Ynys Môn by-election - a huge relief, given that it will deprive Labour of an outright majority in the Welsh Assembly. Although it may have looked like a safe seat for Plaid on paper, that was highly deceptive because Labour have held the equivalent Westminster seat since 2001 (a situation eerily reminiscent of the Aberdeen Donside by-election, where of course the incumbent government's parliamentary majority was also hanging in the balance).
Plaid were helped along by some stardust from their TV personality candidate Rhun ap Iorwerth, a man so famous that even I recognised him straight away. He's already being spoken of as a potential long-term successor to Leanne Wood as party leader, although I was slightly shocked to read this reaction from a Labour source -
"Plaid are getting rather ahead of themselves. Rhun is likely to win the by-election, but talk of him as a future leader is very premature...
Most people in Wales won’t even be able to pronounce his name, and it’s difficult to imagine someone called Rhun ap Iorwerth going down well in Islwyn."
Can you even begin to imagine the outrage if Labour had made that comment about a candidate with a Pakistani or Chinese name? And yet what exactly is the difference?
* * *
UPDATE : The sensational Ynys Môn result in full -
Plaid Cymru 58.2% (+16.8)
Labour 15.9% (-10.3)
UKIP 14.3% (+14.3)
Conservatives 8.5% (-20.7)
Socialist Labour 1.6% (+1.6)
Liberal Democrats 1.4% (-1.8)
Curiously, though, there seems to be considerable overlap between complaints about the so-called "losers winning" vagaries of PR, and enthusiastic support for the House of Lords as an anachronism that supposedly "works". Chiefly, of course, the anachronism works by allowing "sound chaps" like Jeremy Purvis to carry on legislating for us in spite of having been roundly rejected by the errant electorate of Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale.
Altogether now...
Every loser wins
Once the dream begins
In time you'll see, fate holds the key
And every loser knows
The light the tunnel shows
Will shine on you
Jeremy was so right to keep the faith. Why would a Liberal Democrat need democracy?
* * *
Plaid Cymru seem to be storming to victory in the Ynys Môn by-election - a huge relief, given that it will deprive Labour of an outright majority in the Welsh Assembly. Although it may have looked like a safe seat for Plaid on paper, that was highly deceptive because Labour have held the equivalent Westminster seat since 2001 (a situation eerily reminiscent of the Aberdeen Donside by-election, where of course the incumbent government's parliamentary majority was also hanging in the balance).
Plaid were helped along by some stardust from their TV personality candidate Rhun ap Iorwerth, a man so famous that even I recognised him straight away. He's already being spoken of as a potential long-term successor to Leanne Wood as party leader, although I was slightly shocked to read this reaction from a Labour source -
"Plaid are getting rather ahead of themselves. Rhun is likely to win the by-election, but talk of him as a future leader is very premature...
Most people in Wales won’t even be able to pronounce his name, and it’s difficult to imagine someone called Rhun ap Iorwerth going down well in Islwyn."
Can you even begin to imagine the outrage if Labour had made that comment about a candidate with a Pakistani or Chinese name? And yet what exactly is the difference?
* * *
UPDATE : The sensational Ynys Môn result in full -
Plaid Cymru 58.2% (+16.8)
Labour 15.9% (-10.3)
UKIP 14.3% (+14.3)
Conservatives 8.5% (-20.7)
Socialist Labour 1.6% (+1.6)
Liberal Democrats 1.4% (-1.8)
Tuesday, July 30, 2013
Dramatic YouGov poll suggests that Scots are least likely to care whether men wear red trousers or not
Still no sign of that elusive YouGov poll on referendum voting intentions - there hasn't been one since October 2012, which in some ways is just as well, because of course YouGov are notorious for using biased 'explanatory' preambles, and for producing results that are more favourable for No than virtually any other pollster. But what they have come up with instead is something that is even more overdue. At last we have some clarity on the regional breakdown of opinion in the great 'men wearing red trousers' debate. Paradoxically, Scots are both less likely to like the idea of men wearing red trousers AND to dislike the idea. See for yourself...
PERCENTAGE OF PEOPLE WHO LIKE THE IDEA OF MEN WEARING RED TROUSERS:
London 20%
South excluding London 12%
Wales and English Midlands 10%
North of England 12%
Scotland 9%
PERCENTAGE OF PEOPLE WHO DISLIKE THE IDEA OF MEN WEARING RED TROUSERS:
London 46%
South excluding London 48%
Wales and English Midlands 48%
North of England 41%
Scotland 40%
PERCENTAGE OF PEOPLE WHO DON'T CARE WHETHER MEN WEAR RED TROUSERS OR NOT:
London 34%
South excluding London 40%
Wales and English Midlands 42%
North of England 48%
Scotland 51%
I am genuinely not making this up.
PERCENTAGE OF PEOPLE WHO LIKE THE IDEA OF MEN WEARING RED TROUSERS:
London 20%
South excluding London 12%
Wales and English Midlands 10%
North of England 12%
Scotland 9%
PERCENTAGE OF PEOPLE WHO DISLIKE THE IDEA OF MEN WEARING RED TROUSERS:
London 46%
South excluding London 48%
Wales and English Midlands 48%
North of England 41%
Scotland 40%
PERCENTAGE OF PEOPLE WHO DON'T CARE WHETHER MEN WEAR RED TROUSERS OR NOT:
London 34%
South excluding London 40%
Wales and English Midlands 42%
North of England 48%
Scotland 51%
I am genuinely not making this up.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)