I Now Do Politics

I rather doggedly decided to stay up as the election results came in, managing to last until about 6am before conceding to the forces of exhaustion.

I don't make a habit of watching rolling news, as I am not a masochist, and putting myself through 8 hours of it was quite a strange experience. For example, I now have an affinity to Huw Edwards which didn't exist before. The jumps from rushed excitement to periods of slow nothing was disconcerting and unusual in a medium which prides itself on being slick and constant. Huw's steady hand on the tiller of the juddering schizophrenic coverage was very welcome, especially as the actual results coming in were nauseating enough, even with steady presenting.

There was an odd mix of genuine sincerity and PR arseguff all sloshing together last night, and certain juxtapositions as results came in illuminated hypocrisies fairly clearly. One of the reasons I feel a large number of people are so apathetic when it comes to politics is the way in which candidates are allowed to make vast pronouncements that are complete horseshit.

One such moment for me came during Cameron's speech as he was re-elected in his constituency, claiming that they had run a positive campaign, focused on what they could do, rather than on smearing the other parties. This rang hollow with me, as I drive past a full-size side-of-the-road billboards which either contain mock-ups of Gordon Brown's face with 'Neener-neener-neener' scribbled all over it or Cameron's smug laminated gurn with 'Laber ere crapp' alongside it. It is such a blatant lie, and it frustrates me that we can't paddle his oleaginous hide everytime such straight lies are peddled. I found the scenes where Ed Balls was re-elected similarly distasteful, there'd clearly been a slightly mucky battle happening there.

On the complete other side of the scale, I was genuinely impressed by the sincerity of both Lembit Opik and the new MP Glyn Davies. The former's disappointment at not being re-elected, for me, came sincerely because he would not be able to continue serving the constituency, rather than from a more dubious source. His honesty in claiming that he thought he would win and was surprised, along with Glyn Davies admitting that he also hadn't expected to be voted in, was very endearing, and was again, for me, the first time in the night where some straight up honesty had been shown all night. The respect that the two later professed for each other also seemed warm and honest.

A similar situation cropped up in Cardiff North, where Julie Morgan was very narrowly beaten by a Tory MP, Jonathan Evans. When interviewed afterwards, Julie Morgan was visibly shaken, similarly to Lembit Opik, she had clearly slogged for her constituency. Differently to the Montgomeryshire seat, however, I felt that Jonathan Evans gushing praise of Morgan came across as being limp and arbitrary, but perhaps a lot of that is based on my on gut instinct and a general dislike of Conservatism in general. To my understanding, Glyn Davies is local to Montgomeryshire, and therefore in a good position to represent the area, whereas the takeover in Cardiff North felt as though the Tories had drafted in a fairly prominent Tory in order to oust a respected Labour candidate, and as good a Parliamentarian (ooh, Gilder's learnt a new word) Jonathan Evans might be, I feel his effectiveness must be dulled by a lack of knowledge of the area.

In the constituency where I live, Labour were voted back in comfortably. In fact, it was one of the most comfortable margins I saw all night, though my mother later commented that Labour could field a monkey in a suit and the Rhondda would still vote him in. It is probably out of turn for me to comment on Chris Bryant as my overt interest in politics (and local politics specifically) is very newfound and I have very little knowledge of what he has done for the area, but I would have to say that he has done his level best on occasion to live up to the monkey in a suit description. That is likely slightly unfair, as my only real knowledge of him is that he lives somewhere in England, not ideally located to be hands-on in the valleys, and he also once appeared on webcam wearing pants on his head. Hay, nothing wrong with that, right? I am proud to live in a country where politicians are free to wear underwear on their heads and the People can see past that and support their policies. I mean, at the end of our last sketch Sampson appeared only in his pants, and that is preserved for all to see at their whim on our youtube channel. He's not an MP, though. And he has a CRB check. He has 3, actually. THAT'S BUREAUCRACY!

I was quite pleased that although Labour won through with a landslide majority in the Rhondda, the second and third candidates were Plaid Cymru and the Lib Dems, with no real presence for Tories or the Embarrassing Racist Parties (UKIP, BNP). It seems that the stereotypical portrayal of valleys folk as having narrow minded homophobic and racist tendencies doesn't play out in practice. I suppose its a case of empty vessels make most noise, and though there are vocal proponents of ignorance to be found, there is a vast majority looking on in pity and quietly tutting. I will have to reassess my own prejudices.

So we are now 'doomed' to a hung parliament on this occasion, although I think it'll be a good thing, we've had a hung, or to use the more positively-charged phrase, balanced parliament in the Assembly for awhile now, and Wales hasn't imploded as of yet. Ideally I am hoping for a Lib-Lab mix, bringing in some reform, then we can look forward to a slightly fairer process next time around, hopefully sooner rather than later, that's probably all we can ever hope for, that we follow through on our good intentions and aim to always be making things better.

That's right, I have deprived myself of sleep, become more politicised and I am now expounding positive and hopeful pronouncements for the future.

Huw Edwards has brainwashed me.

Also, Betsan Powys was the head girl at my mother's school. I just thought I should say as my mother felt it was necessary to remind me of this fact every time Betsan Powys came on the screen. Which was often, because Betsan Powys is the political editor for BBC Wales. Since we were watching BBC Wales, and the nature of the broadcast was explicitly political (the election is pretty political) then Betsan Powys appeared frequently. She was head girl at my mother's school, you know.

If you are reading this and David Cameron has become the Prime Minister, meet me at the agreed place and engage Contingency Plan #KDC1066.

Let us consume the Jellybaby Man.

Assorted Insecurity

It has been an odd day today.

I spent the morning in a strained state of mind as I was attempting to complete an impossible number of tasks before I had to leave for work.

Forefront in my mind was uploading the new podcast and the new sketch so that I would be able to steamroller through endless plugging throughout the day. Though it can be dispiriting to feel as though the our efforts are merely being uploaded into the void, we are attempting to keep up a constant flow of creativity and content, and the uploading on a specific time is more to adhere to deadlines that we have set ourselves, rather than to placate readers/listeners/viewers.

My reaction when people get in touch out of the blue saying they enjoy the blog/podcasts/sketches is one of surprise, which probably doesn't inspire confidence, and is probably informed by my feeling that all this is in some way a big hypothetical practice run for something more serious. When people do get in touch, it brings home that our inane ideas are getting put completely into the public domain, into the gargantuan pool of creative offerings. The thought that our podcasts could be judged alongside podcasts that I listen to and see as solid, unassaiable recordings it is daunting. The thought that they could possibly be as good is alien to me. I think I need to become more assured, but I also need to try harder.

In other 'I-am-completely-out-of-my-depth' news, polling day is tomorrow, and I have realised that I don't have enough time to actually investigate any policies in any real depth. As much as I have engaged in the run-up to the election, following the various 'game-changers' and 'gaffes' that are far removed from any real focus on politics at all, I haven't really learnt anything of substance. I am pleased that the seemingly inevitable duopoly at least feels as though it no longer holds sway, but I am conscious that serious electoral reform needs to take place before the Lib Dems have any real chance to heavily influence matters.

From what I gather, the constituency where I live is something of a stronghold for a specific party, and it would be hugely unlikely that any other party would get in. It is disappointing that in a country which styles itself as one of the pioneers of democracy that my vote will be effectively shit up a wall in the bigger picture. I feel as though I should be repeatedly pasting the phrase 'ELECTORAL REFORM' for the rest of this blog, but I will now digress.

I have recently become invested in re-watching early episodes of South Park. Their most recent output seems to have attracted so much controversy and praise in equal measure, I thought I'd revisit the show, having not watched it for years. I remember being surprised recently when I saw new episodes, for as a kid watching it when it first came out, it is the childishness and the crudity that I remember. I was really excited by how ideologically strong the show was, and how eloquently and aptly it was able to deal with heavyweight, touchy subjects.

I was delighted, watching back the first series, to find that this wasn't something that developed later, and that the show has actually been touching on sensitive topics from the very beginning, with a deft touch and insightfulness that is packaged in a misleadingly crass package. Needless to say, I am very much enjoying this revisitation, as well as being pleased that there are so many series of this show for me to catch up with.

So, having spent a rambling entry detailing my creative insecurities, my political insecurities and my enjoyment of a show with a scope that is awe-inspiring, I will end this with a limp plug. Our newest sketch is up on our youtube channel, I am uncertain whether I should be sincere and implore you to check it out and hope that you enjoy it, or whether I should be obscenely over the top about it.

I will just be sincere and say that this one sketch is our best piece of work to date, it is better than the entirety of South Park added-up and distilled into a nugget form and that the sketch agrees with Nick.

And being serious for a second, I hope you enjoy it.

@adamgilder
www.theacre.net
acrecomedy@gmail.com

Fiction of a Political and Scientific Nature

The title of ‘most annoying news article of the day’ is shared between articles from the BBC and the Guardian today, though it seems self-defeating to award this prize, as they are the only news sources I habitually check.

The BBC article that has caused some annoyance to me is one that states:

“The Electoral Commission has said it will not be able to police the expected explosion in spoof internet videos at the next general election.”

What throws me slightly about this claim is that it is based on the presumption that spoof videos should be ‘policed’, as surely that would be quite a shocking example of censorship. The article doesn’t really go into details with regards to what constitutes a ‘spoof video’. This interests me quite a lot as I have written a sketch that is essentially a mock party political broadcast, and it intrigues me that if they could, the Electoral Commission would attempt to pull it. I could of course be misunderstanding exactly what sort of policing they had in mind, and it doesn’t really affect me directly as the sketch doesn’t exist as yet, but I reserve the right to follow in the proud British tradition of grossly overreacting to nothing in particular.

“complaints about potentially defamatory material, under electoral laws, remain a matter for the police and that cases will be investigated”.

The article fails to define the term ‘defamatory’, whose synonyms range from ‘insulting’ to ‘libellous’. While I agree that genuinely libellous claims are damaging, surely merely insulting videos are hardly a ‘matter for the police’? Or maybe I am just a desensitised cynic. We’ll take my sketch as a case in point.

Regardless of whether you believe the sketch would be funny, I am interested in whether it could be considered ‘defamatory’. It was meant to be a short sketch, opening on a shot of a chubby man sitting behind a desk, looking pristine in a suit. Without saying anything the man would then begin to growl softly, slowly building up to a crescendo where he starts barking, jumps onto the desk and eventually attacks the camera. The sketch would then end with a voice over disclaiming “this was a party political broadcast for the ”. I was wondering whether this sketch, which is clearly meant to be comedic in nature (whether you would be amused by it or not) would be considered ‘defamatory’ and removed. I hope not, otherwise I’d have to become righteously indignant along lines of free speech, harrumph.

The other article which rubbed me up the wrong way is one in which the Booker Prize, and more specifically its perceived bias toward historical or ‘worthy’ novels, was discussed. The article retold the opinions of one Kim Stanley Robinson, who I am told (by the article) is a well famous sci-fi author all up. He believes that the genre of sci-fi is tragically overlooked by people who are predisposed to judge sci-fi as being of no artistic merit. He believes that “the best British literature of our time” is based in sci-fi, and believes that there are “very brilliant writers doing excellent work who are never in the running at all, for no reason except their genre”.

I am not a huge fan of sci-fi, having grown up reading more fantasy-based swords and sorcery novels, and taken quite a sharp turn into straight fiction as an ‘adult’, but the sci-fi novels that I have read have all been utterly wonderful, however they have all been classics. So while I think that ‘I am Legend’ and ‘Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep’ are magnificent and thought provoking works, I’m not really in a position to comment on more contemporary sci-fi works, which is why I shall be reacquainting myself with the genre in the near-future. Whether or not Kim Stanley Robinson has a point, though I would argue he does, what aggravates me the most is the reply from Booker judge and all-around-numpty John Mullan.

Now what is particularly worth bearing in mind when you read the quotation I am about to provide, is that John Mullan is a Professor of English at University College London, and, therefore, should know better. In regards to why sci-fi isn’t better represented he says:

"When I was 18 it was a genre as accepted as other genres," he said, but now "it is in a special room in book shops, bought by a special kind of person who has special weird things they go to and meet each other."

Now the words I would pick out of that sentence as being of note are ‘special’ and in particular ‘weird’. People who read sci-fi are, apparently, “a special kind of person who has special weird things they go to”. I’d say that statement is hardly more intelligent than the childish labeling of people as ‘nerds’ and ‘freaks’ whilst in school. He is essentially saying “Oh of course there’s no sci-fi in the Booker, sci-fi is for weirdos”. What a knob.

If it was less depressing it would be amusing that someone holding a position at a University, who I would hope to be slightly less close-minded, would view a section of the public in that way. The way in which he describes readers of sci-fi sounds as though they have some kind of dubious sexual fetish. Of course I have fallen into my own trap there, by marginalizing individuals with a colourful sexual preference, which I have only done so that I am able to highlight this mistake in this sentence you are reading here. Huzzah, I am the King of self-referential meta-bloggery.

John Mullan seals his fate by denouncing the complaints as “absolute bullshit” at the end. I have no problem with University Professors swearing, but it hardly lends credence to your opinions, and makes you look like a reactionary dunce, cloaking the fact that you have no real evidence to back up your claims with aggressive language.

Schaa~ I am tempted to end this on a hilariously ironic fit of swearing to send up my own conclusion, but I like my last sentence so much, I shan’t.

You twonk.