Theatre Review: 55 Days @ Hampstead Theatre, London Friday 19 October 2012

So, we're quite keen on political plays over here at Rullsenberg Rules: a play about the English Civil War, the King and Cromwell was definitely something to be intrigued by! I was thus hardly likely to pass the chance to see Mark Gatiss on stage, especially given that Douglas Henshall was also in the cast of 55 Days.

So with a weekend in London already planned, Helen Lisette and I headed to Hampstead Theatre up near Swiss Cottage/Finchley Road on Friday night fresh from arriving in the capital.  The rain lashed down, and then the fire alarm went off and we had to evacuate, and so for 10 minutes or so poor Mark Gatiss in his frilly shirt and 17th century trews was stood under an umbrella gamely chuckling at the fun and games.

It was a fairly starry evening all ways round actually, with Ed Bennett sat in front of us (Leartes to Tennant's Hamlet, and an incredibly fine Hamlet himself - as I noted when I saw Bennett's London performance). Clare Holman also in attendance, inevitably as she is wife to Howard Davies, director of the play.

The play itself
The isolation of King Charles is highlighted by his being the only figure on period costume - everyone else has vaguely modern suits (it's a very male play, though there are a couple of good female performances).  This actually works rather well - even if it did mean there was no 'wart-counting' for Cromwell [shallowly, no complaints from me for that, though I did miss the prospect of high boots and period trews for all concerned].

The script makes canny use of the tone of 17th century discourse (the religious attitudes, the political factions), without getting too bogged down in period diction: again, King Charles is isolated for having more florid speech in keeping with what we know (or rather imply) was typical speech patterns for the period.  It is, by virtue of its nature and topics, a rather densely expositional play, but it isn't unduly overbearing.  It IS an intelligent play, with a lot going on, and worthy of attention for that.  It is also, despite the weight, not without laughter - indeed, the hysteria at the end of the play finely shows how those signing the death warrant for the King probably could hardly believe what they managed to do.  It's an uncomfortable moment - hilarious and horrific for its consequences.

Cromwell takes several scenes to appear - tantalising for me of course, but it really heightens the tension for getting the main characters all present.  And once he does, Cromwell becomes a real pivotal force - both utterly and subtly in control and yet driven into his courses of action by events he cannot quite control. The scene where Cromwell and Charles meet and talk is pretty electric for all that it is entirely fictitious.

Charles is in turns baffled by the threat to his authority, automatically expecting and mostly getting deference from his jailers and challengers. His accent and his stammer are exacerbated as his control over his destiny diminishes: when he realises that the quality of his argument - a divinely annointed King, far more than a man - will not save his neck from the axe, it is quite horrifying how he suddenly tries to get out of the situation.  The bravado of earlier ripostes disappearing, replaced by uncertainty in speech and demeanor.

I mentioned before about the limited female roles: but they are good ones.  Abigail Cruttenden as Lady Fairfax is brilliant - her faith and conflict with her husband is archly portrayed to rich effect.  She is more than equal to her husband who finds events, and Cromwell, going far beyond his own expectations of developments.  Likewise, Laura Rogers as Mary Cooke - wife of the recruited lawyer prosecuting the King, is similarly measured up to her husband and what he needs to do.  And if I need a more female-orientated Civil War narrative, I'll re-watch the excellent Channel 4 drama: The Devil's Whore.

Early days, early responses
I made the mistake of reading a review/comment on the play on Friday before heading to London.  It was pretty damning and I did fear for how the evening would go.  Both myself and HLW were exhausted (work is always pretty knackering this time of year) but as the negative reviewer commented on how high their own expectations had been, it did unnerve me. I shouldn't have worried though.  It was fine.  Press Night is Wednesday 24 October 2012 - but I'm not deterred.  I know I have a vested interest to enjoy the play, but Helen who has far less personal interest felt utterly enthralled and we ran on adrenaline til 1am.

Review - negative
Review - positive

Personal note
Awh, bless you Mr Henshall, you can make the worst of times light up with your friendly smile and affection.  At the end of a long working week, you were a real tonic.  I hope you enjoyed your much desired cigarette after the play.  Thanks to Mr Gatiss who also was kind enough to sign my programme.

"Well, it isn't about Scotland, is it?" - Dunsinane Preview night @ Swan Theatre, Stratford on Avon Wednesday 15 June 2011

Cloud's remark when we came out of this play possibly suggests a harsher review than will follow. Certainly, although the narrative is ostensibly one based on a follow-up to Macbeth (albeit rooted more in actual medieval Scottish history), you'd have to be pretty dim not to spot the analogies to present-day wars and occupations.

"Tell the men we'll be in Scotland a little longer than we expected"

Nevertheless, this is not a one-dimensional sledgehammer of a play about the problems of Iraq/Afghanistan, particularly given its lively, sharp and incredibly funny dialogue and the excellent performances. This new revival of David Greig's 2010 RSC Hampstead theatre new play is ending a short tour from the National Theatre of Scotland in Stratford, having been on in Edinburgh and Glasgow earlier in spring/summer 2011.



Since this year is proving to be a rather expensive year for theatre-deficits induced by hot actors treading the boards in abundance, I also felt I should treat Cloud to some pleasure for himself. Having carried a torch for Siobhan Redmond since her days in Bulman and then Between the Lines, I couldn't deny Cloud the chance to have his own Scottish heaven (no, I don't know what it is about our house and its love of Scottish actors!)

Redmond is glorious as the Queen, Gruach, particularly when she plays opposite Jonny Phillips as the English Siward. The latter's eventual collapse into violent vengeance for his own succumbing to Gruach's clever use of power, and his own weak inability to ultimately overcome her, is sparkling to watch. Brian Ferguson's Malcolm - uncannily resembling Slinger's Macbeth actually, but a far more weasily King - is hysterical. A very sharp humour indeed. It always feels harsh to pick out specific members of the cast, but these three especially turn in spectacularly good performances.

The structure of the play, working around a 'letter to mother' from one of the young English soldiers, eventually permits an overall questioning of what we have seen through his eyes. The bawdy humour, the casual violence, the swearing, are as one may imagine a young boy soldier's view on life stuck occupying a seemingly desolate land far from home. The use of music is also astute, mixing a near pop sensibility of dischordant cello, with lively guitar and drums, with unaccompanied Gaelic singing by Gruach's maids.

Overall, a very engaging production - both as a follow-on to Macbeth and in its own right as a contemporary play commenting on the nature of power and occupation. It may not be (entirely) about Scotland, but it is no less worthy for all that.

"To secure for the workers": Theatre Review "The Pitmen Painters" @ Nottingham Theatre Royal, Tuesday 14 June 2011

Sentimental? Oh most certainly. But in the best possible way.

The Pitmen Painters has been capturing audiences since it was first performed at the Live Theatre in Newcastle back in 2007. As a co-production with the National Theatre in London it then transferred there, before later moving to Broadway, and now The Pitmen Painters is back out on tour around the UK. I would definitely urge anyone who hasn't already seen it to go.

Why should you go? Because it's such an entertaining but also moving portrayal of working-class life from the early 20th century. It is incredibly funny, and - from the perspective of an art historian - it is also remarkably sharp about the class and economic relationships that underpin art practice, art theorising, art history, art education, galleries and patronage. William Feaver's book on The Pitmen Painters was the inspiration for Lee Hall's vibrant play, and I do remember reading this book when I was studying art history --- although I am astonished that given the play's success it is necessary to ask why this book is not more readily available...

The small group of actors in this play are a delight to watch (and listen to); the miners portrayed are fearsomely articulate, even where they struggle to express and comprehend the educated elites around them. They speak from passion and experience, even where they lack formal training, learning or even practice; there was an audible gasp from the (all-too-small) audience when we first saw one of their works produced for their art class discussions - because there is something stunning and beautiful and truthful about what their artworks communicated. An honesty.

By Hall's own admission, the play uses some artistic licence to articulate its narrative - limiting the number of players, amalgamating characters, eliding timelines and source texts (even the most dedicated of socialists was unlikely to be quoting Marx's writing from texts scarcely available, let alone in English). But this does not diminish the play's potency. And whilst some have complained at the heavy-handedness of the ending, for me it was deeply moving.

As the cast sing - and boy does choral singing like this move me - the backdrop displays the captions outlining what happened next: the University of Ashington that never happened, the closure of the pit and the hut, and ultimately, the loss in 1995 of the poetry and struggle that was the Labour Party's Clause 4:

To secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service.

Yes, reader: I let a tear fall for what was lost in that change of language. For what it symbolised as part of not just the Pitmen Painters' narrative but also of the bigger struggle for working class people. It made for a moving end to the evening, and I only wish that there had been more people there to appreciate the committed performances of this production.

The tour of Pitmen Painters continues on around the UK until 1 October.

Helped by a beard - why the Tories have not been demolished in the current UK elections

Blimey, the facial hair that is the Liberal Democrat party must be feeling pretty hard done by: they're effectively taking all the cuts aimed at the gormless fizzog that is the smug Tory party. There are scarcely any hairs left unscathed amongst the LibDems. Punished only partly covers what has happened.

Increasingly, the Tories must feel it's almost a good thing they didn't win an outright majority, for the all the grumblings some felt at allowing the LDs to sit at the high table of pointlessness (aka the Cabinet). Tories have been able to get pretty much ALL their 'slash, burn and privatise' agenda through, AND have found a convenient 'beard' to draw the ire of voters disgruntled at that agenda. It's all in the name of 'balancing the deficit' but by their own admission the Tories have said they would always have wanted a smaller state regardless of the economic situation....

In effectively abandoning several of the most high profile Liberal Democrat policies - and assenting to some that didn't seem to be on anyone's manifesto - the LDs have successfully pissed off their core voters, alienated the waverers who had been attracted by the promises (how empty do they seem now?), and proven their irrelevance to the Tory majority.

Only if the LDs actually find some metal and start voting down Tory legislation will anyone think they are in the coalition as anything more than a beard.

In Praise of .... May Day (and other Public Holidays)

May Day has a long historical significance as a festival; pagan celebration and marker of workers' rights are just two.

The Government is proposing to 'move' May Day - or rather REmove May Day - so that, ostensibly, the tourist season is extended.

There are a number of arguments to be had around this: others, far more articulate than I, will make a case about protecting the one rare day that acknowledges the struggle of workers to unionise and protect workers' rights against exploitation.

I'd like to take a slightly different approach and look at how the Public Holidays work in the UK - and especially England - at the moment.

Why has May Day come under attack again? Simplistically, May Day isn't popular amongst Tories, but it's more to do with the accident of how Easter has fallen this year that has highlighted the perceived problem.

Easter is 'late' this year: this, combined with TBRW* holiday, means that there are FOUR public holidays within 11 days (effectively FOUR within 7 working days). Given the long gap between New Year and Easter, one can understand that this isn't really a very even spread of Public Holidays. Equally, it is a LONG time between the August Public Holiday and Christmas.

But is it really fair to lay the blame at the door of May Day?

How come NO-ONE wants to bite the bullet of fixing Easter? It can wander around anywhere between the third week in March and the start of the final week in April.

In that context, how the hell would offering St George's Day (23rd April) in England possibly help alleviate that mad glutch of Public Holidays in the spring? In that respect, offering a date in October for a Public Holiday is far more sensible (though I feel a little iffy about Trafalgar Day).

To my mind, the issue is more one about Public Holidays per se than 'moving' one (or 'fixing' Easter). The UK has a bad rep for having so few Public Holidays - why not ADD an October date to the calendar?! (I mean, next year 2012 we get a Public Holiday for the Queenie's Diamond Jubilee --- not an extra one, but just shufting the Spring Bank Holiday aka poor old Whitsun).

I'm not especially thrilled with the reasons why certain days are deemed Public Holidays for sure: I'm not religious, I'm not a Royalist, and I'm pretty ambivalent about celebrating 'victory' over other countries in wars. That's probably why preserving May Day, Worker's Day, Labour Day, DOES mean a lot to me.

But we need Public Holidays: I'd like there to be a campaign to fix Easter for Holiday purposes, and by all means bang in national holidays (I'd be celebrating Shakespeare personally, rather than St George, but that's me), but let's instead think about the logic of what Public Holidays can do for worker energy and moral by ADDING in one for later in the year.

I'll be controversial and suggest Halloween :)

*aka The Bloody Royal Wedding

Live Music Review: Thursday 2 December 2010 - Bill Bragg, Rock City Nottingham

Swiss Toni got in ahead of me with a great review of Billy Bragg from last night (hello! sorry I was not confident enough to say hi!)

Good job that I read ST's first, or I would have been spitting even more feathers for reading the miserable f***ing review from This is Nottingham. Thanks for nothing Mr Belbin.

I mean, come on: we walk in as Billy Bragg takes the stage and he does 'The World Turned Upside Down' (a song which always brings a tear to my eye) and he ends on the mass Rock City choral version of 'A New England' (the guy never has to sing the words to that ever again: it is truly a modern standard, sung with passion and verve by every Bragg audience I have ever been in).

Because to criticise Bragg for talking is to miss the point: he's a political and social raconteur as much as a musician/songwriter. Those who go expecting 'only the songs' have probably largely missed the point OF those songs. Bragg teased us for being "softies", for responding so fondly to his more romantic balladeering (and he is indeed a fine balladeer), but Bragg is what he is in all his guises because of his politics, his opinions, his talking --- and that means that his love songs reflect the anguish of trying to reconcile social realities with ideals.

Of course, there are always people who go to any gig expecting to simply hear albums/songs - bizarrely, there are also people who seem to want to talk all the time, AND complain about Bragg talking.* I'm a bit baffled by such people: why are they at a gig? Why not play your selected tracks/preferences at home? Talking is part of the Bragg package: love it or loath it, he ain't going to do it differently. He's notorious for it, and as he noted last night, he can't help himself - especially when he's enjoying a gig so much. And frankly, you do have to wonder about people attending who are not only anti-Bragg talking, but especially about WHAT he talks about: how have they missed noticing/appreciating Bragg's political standpoint. Again, as noted, they're integral to him as a performer. But it is important to note that any complainants appeared to be a very small number last night.

And Bragg can stir a crowd so effectively: on topics as connected as the Nottingham University sit-in to campaign against student fee rises, to the problems of cynicism on challenging social problems (and on that note: all hail the dense pedantry of Belbin for sticking to the ancient Greek - and now scarcely comprehended - definition of Cynicism rather than the widely accepted and understood modern definition. We get you can wiki google the original concept: very impressive. Not.)

Members of the audience may have worried about getting buses home due to the weather, and may have urged Bragg to "talk less, sing more!" but I never got the sense that this was delivered with anger: Bragg instead acknowledged it was a reasonable request in light of the context (after all, he started at 8.20pm - and not just because there was a disco immediately afterwards) and then Bragg moved on. There was still talking from the Braggmeister, but I didn't get the sense of a rising tide of anger at him still talking. He was taken to task for his own errors - to which he freely admitted ("I supported Tony Blair in 1997 and voted Lib-Dem in the last election to keep the Conservatives out: if anyone has a right to be cynical..."). But this was an audience that sang with gusto to 'There is a Power in a Union' - for surely in the current climate it has never been more vital to support collective action and challenges to rampant Conservative cuts. It wasn't just about the love songs and wearied reactions to Bragg's polemic exhortations: 'To have and have not' was equally rapturously received.

Anyway, it was as ever a delightful and uplifting gig and I was personally delighted that Bragg performed several of the songs from Pressure Drop, the performance event that ran in London (but which we unfortunately missed). I'm looking forward to playing that CD soon.

It's always worth seeing Bragg: and given how much he likes Nottingham, he's sure to be back soon. We need him more than ever.






* I did my bit to challenge the 'coming to gigs to talk' mentality and kindly asked a couple of guys who had failed to read all our intensive disapproving glaring to please be quiet so we could hear what Bragg was singing/talking about. They at least didn't get worse or throw beer at me... A small triumph.

Return of the Poor Law

According to Iain Duncan-Smith on the Today programme, benefit levels could be set locally.

Has IDS been reading 19th century novels again? Did he not grasp that these novels - such as Oliver Twist were (by and large) pointing out the iniquities of 'Poor Relief'?

Truly, the another Victorian age is upon us.

The Racist Fringe of the Tea Party

Thanks be to Shakespeare's Sister - and specifically Melissa McEwan - for this gem of a line:

Racism, they [the founders of the Tea Party] claim, exists only on the fringe of the Tea Party movement. Sure it does. The Tea Party movement just has more fringe than the costume department for a community theater production of Hair.

BWAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

NO: we are NOT "all in this together". Moreover, the cuts will not "affect everyone"

Can we just nip this utter cobblers in the bud please?

We are NOT all in this together. And frankly the only way canyone can state "cuts will affect everyone" is if you finish it by adding "... but some rather more so than others".

Millionaires: unless you are going to start getting taxed at 95% on your income and assets holding, and the loopholes get closed, AND you get prosecuted for not paying up, then quite honestly your 'fair share' of the burden of spending cuts and tax rises going to hit you negligably - if at all.

So SHUT UP and FUCK OFF.

Proportionately, those least well-off will always pay a higher price for reductions in the state and increased costs.

A message to the Liberal Democrats

If David Cameron is C3PO made of ham, then surely Nick Clegg is now revealed as C3PO made of SPAM.

Not exactly the same as 'Dave' but bearing all the trademarks of Posh Boy mark II, just not even made of the real thing.

Shabby.

And I am sure that Nick Clegg's ambitions were always that he wanted to be John Prescott.

Disappointing.

Power, yes: but at what price?

I heard Paddy Ashdown this morning saying his reaction to the coalition was 'hooray'. Yes, that was exactly what he was saying to the idea on Thursday night/Friday morning. (I wish I could find the exact quote he used, but it was along the lines of 'we could not go into a coalition with the Conservative party'. Yes, right. Well, you stuck with that didn't you?)

Don't get me wrong: I'm grateful that the presence of the LDs in office will at least delay everyone on David Cameron's Xmas card list not getting their inheritance tax break. And if the tax threshold is raised to £10,000 that is great.

But caps on immigration is not what you campaigned on.
Neither was hopping into coalition with a party that in Europe is aligned to some very nasty parties indeed.
Neither was keeping Trident on your priority list.

All I can say to LD voters is that you need to REALLY mobilise supporters to come out when you get that referendum on electoral reform. And that you get a phrasing of question to the electorate that makes the very limited AV that the Tories will stretch themselves to offer seem positive.

If your don't manage to make the electoral reform thing pay off big time, and soon, then frankly I'm not sure the price of hooking up with the Tories will be worth the crap you will be eating in big policy terms.

UPDATE:
Phil puts it SO well... thank you. The poster itself you include says it all.

Profoundly depressed

Boo.

And hiss

How many captions?: that debate picture of the hopping and hopeful politicians

Hard to know who looks sillier: the politicians or the audience for thinking these 'Prime-ministerial candidates debates' have any real meaning.

For the millionth time people, we do NOT have a US presidential election system. We do not vote for parties as such but rather for the election of the local representative of a particular party. To be perfectly honest the LDs could come a close second to the winning party in terms of the popular vote but this won't translate into a proportional allocation of seats because that isn't how the UK General Election system currently works. Unfair? Quite probably, but all parties would have to agree to some significantly impacting changes to the electoral system to see a real change in the political dynamics created by the 'First past the post' system. Vested interests etc will make such a change very difficult to implement.

Is it about making a protest then? Is that what this current election is about, given that Labour have alienated many of their core voters over their recent years in office? Should we be voting for what we believe in rather than 'least worst' options or pragmatic selection based on how the votes will actually count? (and what we could end up with representing us at a local level)

I don't know. All I know is that I don't feel able in all truth to allow my vote to even indirectly elect a Conservative MP for our area. Councils are another matter because councillors work on a much more direct local representation basis (although our current Labour MP is very good at engaging with the local community in terms of informing constituents and dealing with their queries, large and small, national and local issues).

Anyway.

This picture is still ripe for captioning as Norm so rightly notes.

Things to note: Elections, BAAS and Friends

Election: god I want to hit things already. Look, the country is NOT broken, NI increases will NOT mean lost jobs, and the LIberal Democrats could promise the moon on a stick - they're STILL NOT going to be in power (at the very best, and it all depends on the vagaries of our voting system, they will have some roll to play to prop up whichever ailing government elected by a minority gets in). Am heartily sick of the slanging matches. I'll be voting Labour, okay. We have a good local MP who is responsive and fair - Nick Palmer - and I would like him back representing us come the day after the election. We're a straight Labour v Conservative seat at the national elections and there are a lot of small parties standing: not good. So I'm not going to faff about 'protest voting'. There are plenty of things I'm not wild about in terms of current policy, but ancestors died for my right to vote and I will use it as I see fit.

BAAS: away in Norwich for the next few days. This means I miss the next episode of Burn Notice on Fiver, the next Red John episode of The Mentalist on Five, AND 'The Beast Below' (aka the next great episode of the Moff-era of Doctor Who). Boo bloody hiss and thank heavens for catch-up TV. However, on the upside I hopefully will enjoy socialising with colleagues and listening to some fancy academic speak for 4 days. Woo!

Friends in need: I owe Helen L for her lovely gift of a new iPod cover, I owe George and Sonia a LONG overdue box of goodies, and I owe my precious friend Chrissie my endless affection for keeping in touch despite things being tough.

I'll get on the case on my return, honest.

Love ya guys.

Student Loans Company: what happens next

The report released today by the Audit Commission doesn't seem very hopeful does it? The news coverage is all over this like a rash at present - C4, BBC, Times Higher, etc etc. The Student Loans Company and Student Finance England are in a pickle it would appear. The news reports have not unreasonably focused on the horrendous backlogs of unprocessed applications and the problems of answering phone enquiries (87% at one point not getting through: nice).

Anyway.

Buried in the report, was this particular paragraph that caught my eye:

Organisations representing disabled students have expressed concerns that due 2.21 to delays and changes to assessments in 2009 there have been adverse impacts on students, suppliers and assessment centres. The Company says that while it may have handled cases differently from some local authorities, it is applying existing rules correctly and uniformly; and its requirement for assessment centres to obtain more than one quotation before paying for services has been welcomed by some groups. It remains clear, however, that the Company underestimated the volume of work required to process these applications and did not allocate enough staff to the task. While it increased staffing, from 14 to 25 in August, then to 36 in November, we consider that this is likely to be fewer than the number of experienced processing staff that worked within 130 local authorities. [My emphasis added]

Hmmmmm... 36 staff versus 130 individual local authority departments staffed by individuals who probably had several years experience of dealing with Disabled Students Allowances queries.

Nope, cannot think why the Audit Commission may "consider that this is likely to be fewer than the number of experienced processing staff that worked within 130 local authorities"....

Politics, the economy and bringing in the votes/money

Shuggy, as reliably ever, makes an excellent case about who has been most politically damaged by the current economic situation in the UK.

Are we heading to a hung parliament in the ever-approaching UK election? I really do not know. But the economy is clearly screwed and our options are limited.

Loved Shuggy's proposed election slogan (lots more on the Guardian site) and the call to drop some of the shit that Labour are proposing.

Regarding the forthcoming election, I think the turnout will be interesting - both nationally and in specific seats/regions. Additionally, as yet none of the parties really seem to have nailed what will actually pull in the votes - as opposed to what policies they should adopt because they are just good/morally right, or the fairy-tale beliefs some have of what pushes voters buttons.

And to do anything, there still needs to be money. Money being spent (the government can't just stop spending) and money being generated (yes, that does mean taxes). I'm still hooting/despairing of the weekend proposal that shares in the 'state-owned banks' would be made available to the public at a cut down price to buy. Really?! We've paid once (collectively) by bailing out capitalism's finest attempt to screw-over the global economy and to make it work we get the chance to pay again (individually) to potentially - but maybe not - make a personal profit out of that collective payment. I honestly do not get that sort of crap.*

And I still do not get the public (and government) obsession with benefit 'cheats'. Most on benefits struggle to have enough to exist on, plenty goes unclaimed, and at the top various forms of tax avoidance take far too much 'benefit' out of the system and government income.

Everyone needs to get their act together on these points.


Sorry. I may be rambling. Could be the codeine. Could be the pain. Could be I'm just politically incoherent.



*then again I'm the person who warned and railed against the 1980s penchant for share-buying in utilities etc, including vociferously challenging my BTEC Business Studies tutors who were actively advising the students to borrow on creditcards to pay for shares and then sell them immediately on for profit (undermining even the semblance of the share sales being about giving individual ownership to users). I laughed like a drain when the BP share fiasco happened.

Editorial language: coverage of the Ray Gosling 'mercy killing'

Something really interesting has been going on in reporting about the Ray Gosling story over the last 24 hours (actually over the last 12).

Not having watched the East Midlands regional news/current affairs programme 'Inside Out' concerned, I only heard about Ray Gosling's confession when it was on the local news headlines after the 10pm national news last night.

There, the story was introduced as 'documentary filmmaker and journalist Ray Gosling has confessed on BBC East Midlands 'Inside Out' that he had killed a man in a mercy killing'. It went on say that he did not identify the man, although a brief extract from the programme broadcast earlier on Monday evening was included in the short East Midlands news bulletin.

When I went to bed a few minutes later, and was listening to the radio, I caught the Radio 4 news (and possibly even the World Service news mentioned the story once I switched over...?) who included the same story in their headlines and news coverage. They introduced the story by describing Gosling as a 'documentary filmmaker and gay rights activist' who had confessed to 'killing his lover who was dying from AIDS'.

None of those other phrases had appeared in the introductory comments to the East Midlands 10.30pm news coverage of the story which had included the Inside Out extract of Gosling talking about his actions....

By this morning, the 7am news was still describing Gosling as a 'gay rights activist' who had confessed to 'killing his lover who was dying from AIDS'. But by 8am, the news had changed the latter phrase to 'a friend who was dying from AIDS'.

By 8.24am, Sarah Montague this morning on Radio 4's Today programme described him as confessing to having 'suffocated his lover' which Gosling quickly clarified in the interview by saying "he wasn't my partner, he was my bit on the side".

Now, here are my thoughts:

1) why did East Midlands news in their coverage of their own programme omit/editorially exclude/forget to mention Gosling's position as a 'gay rights activist' and that the person he had killed was (in any way) emotionally connected to Gosling? Did they feel that Gosling's own words, in the extract included from the 'Inside Out' broadcast, were sufficient to make the context clear?

2) was it even relevant for the national news to mention Gosling's position as a gay rights activist, or that there was some emotional connection to the person who was 'killed' by Gosling?

3) why any change from 'lover' to 'friend'? (so euphemistic!)


I'm not passing judgment on Gosling, or his actions, but the editorial choices of language in this current news cycle have been fascinating to track.

East Midlands coverage of Gosling's confession
Police to investigate Gosling
More on Ray Gosling at his own site

Decisions, decisions: Airbrushed Cameron

Genius range of posters at mydavidcameron.com

I'm just not going to dirty my blogsite with his airbrushed face.

Go have a laugh and then work out what the F you are going to personally do to try and make sure these destructive airbrushed ****s don't get in to power this year (or any other year).

Hat tip to Mars Hill because I'm clearly some weeks behind the times on finding out about such things myself.

As far as things stand, regardless of everything that has happened since 1997, I'm with David Tennant. I cannot, could never, bring myself to vote Conservative.

Questions, Strikes and Benefits: a Rullsenberg Rant

Three areas to exercise my political muscles this evening. The inevitable Question Time debacle; the current postal strike; and the think-tank proposals to scrap universal benefits.

Question Time

QT is many things but it is not a rational interrogative forum for unpicking political party policies, ideologies or public attitudes. It is an arena, not unlike the Coliseum for spectator sport mouthing-off by participants and audiences for the usually non-edification of the viewing public. A sense of legitimacy is lent to all manner of opinion in this faux-serious programme (as Neil Postman discussed, TV is never so dangerous as when it thinks it is being serious). More lightweight panelists are perhaps unlikely to take certain opinions to task enough, whilst simultaneously including more heavyweight participants would lend further legitimacy. Unless I feel happy at throwing things at my TV I suspect I will not be watching this evening, pretty much the same as any other week.

For latecomers to this discussion: a bunch of racist fascist exploiters of white-working class poverty are participating in Question Time. Support 'Hope not Hate'.

Postal Strikes

The UK is a small place. We need and benefit from a national postal system for letters and packages. The Post Office is a fine institution which knows it needs to update its structures, technology and processes.

Unfortunately, it is ostensibly owned by the government (we, the taxpayers) but systematic failures to defend it properly have left it and its employees ragged and bruised. Shifts are too long, involve too much work and place workers under enormous stress. Post Offices are closing, deemed to be economically unviable with little heed to their broader social purpose. One of the failings overseen by consecutive governments was the way in which the company was allowed to plunder its pension pot by reducing employer contributions during the 'good times'. Guess what? We now have 'bad times' and the pension pot is screwed.

I support the strikes, despite the impact it has on individuals because the workforce has been left with few other options. I wouldn't trust Adam Crozier to take care of a pet for 5 minutes for fear he'd be 'modernising' how it looks by losing a few limbs (hat tip to Steve Bell who nails this mentality).

Plus, courier services are SHITE. Whenever a mail-order supplier DOESN'T use Royal Mail, I get a note through saying the parcel is in a safe place. So far these have included in my bin (on a bin-day) and thrown over my garden gate. If you too have had crap service from Home Delivery Network Ltd then do write to them at Customer Services, Home Delivery Network Ltd, Phoenix House, Moorgate Road, Knowsley L33 7RX.

Benefits

Universal benefits may not target those in greatest need, but they are easy to deliver for everyone involved. Means-testing places the responsibility to get what you are entitled to on the most vulnerable of society. It costs to decide whether people meet the criteria or do not. It depends on usually fairly arbitrary boundaries as to what marks a person out as poor enough to deserve the benefit. Sliding scales to avoid immediate loss of a benefit when they earn above a limit only succeed in making the system more complex and costly to operate. And anyway, since when has middle-class been just about income? (That's even before you get to the figures proposed as being a 'middle-class income').

I would argue for the abolition of all targeted benefits - universal or means tested. Instead let us have a guaranteed income, sufficient to cover the sorts of income benefits, housing benefits, child benefits etc etc, and set up alongside it a proper and rigorous tax system. There would be little to gain from 'fiddling' the benefits system - the figures scarcely acknowledge the millions that are not taken up from benefits by those who would probably need them most.

Additionally, any attempts to dodge paying tax on all income above the guaranteed income would be easily visible - loopholes would be highlighted more quickly (and it would be hoped could be closed more swiftly and diligently than any recent governments have attempted).

Think tanks such as Reform look at the cost savings, but I don't think they look enough at the big picture. At the social picture. At how we live alongside each other paying fair taxes on fair earnings. We need to stop ignoring the widening gap between the haves and have-nots and look at makes the situation more even-handed for all. More universality, not less.

Live Music Review: Jeffrey Lewis at Bodega Social, Nottingham Wednesday 2 September 2009

It was incredibly pleasing to see a healthily substantial crowd attending the latest Jeffrey Lewis gig. It's out of term-time so it possibly wasn't as crowded as it could have been (it wasn't the sardine experience that was Camera Obscura at the gig in 2006) but was all the better for that. Heck, some people even danced!

Anyway: we were a little later than usual arriving so didn't catch the entire set of The Fishermen Three, and completely missed the first support (was there a first support? I think I grasped he was from Derby. Sorry for missing you). Still, we were so swept up with hearing The Fishermen Three, with Jack Lewis (yes, brother of Jeffrey and equally wonderful) that we felt very well treated in terms of a support act. As you will know from other reviews here, support acts can be variable. Some, like Broken Records supporting Twilight Sad can blow the main act away somewhat; others are The Displacements (*spit*).

It was also nice to see some familiar faces in the audience: there was a good Nottingham Uni American Studies contingent which was very reassuring as I do like to see young people with good taste in music. I should have known I could trust them.

Anyone who has seen Jeffrey Lewis perform live will know that his shows are a mix of songs, chat and multi-media activity. In this case we got a couple of 'films' (his illustrations with commentary for narratives and/or history): one was as yet incomplete on the early years of European settlers in the USA, focusing on the Mayflower, and one (clearly well thumbed) noir tale of disguises and deception. Both utterly brilliant. Both hugely difficult to convey in writing (I hope to add Neil's pictures to help, but check out Lewis's site for further visuals

Quirky, funny, sincere, heart-rending: listening to Lewis is a wonderful and unique experience. It seems hard to believe that a folk (anti-folk?) artiste could produce a musical set where one of the highlights is a rap about being a mass murderer of mosquitos in Maine, but with Lewis, anything is possible!

One final note: you really REALLY have to hand it to an act whose merchandise stall not only has CDs and T-shirts but gives space to promote the IWW (Industrial Workers of the World, aka the Wobblies). A local IWW branch has been set up in Notts. Very pleasing. It also provided a nice reminder that Lewis contributed artwork to the graphic comix book history of the Wobblies that I had picked up in New Zealand a few years ago! This seems to be pretty rare in the UK now and not exactly easily accessible in the US, which is a real shame. It's a great text about the great Union.

The future for Nottinghamshire and the tram

After 28 years of Labour in power in Nottinghamshire, the Tories have gained hold, with the final votes coming in from Hucknall to give them victory.

To say this is profoundly depressing - albeit under current circumstances utterly unsurprising - would be a mild interpretation events.

Since 1973, the Tories have only controlled Nottinghamshire for one 4 year period: 1977-1981, that great period of the tumultuous end days of the Callaghan government into the we-can-make-unemployment-figures-even-worse early days of Thatcher. That, despite everything, Labour held onto the council after that point til now says a great deal.

First amongst the likely casualties as the Tories take power and slash costs - should they stick to their manifesto - will be the demise of the Nottingham tram extension.

I know these projects divide opinion, but I really cannot see how holding up this project - or drastically changing it after numerous consultations - is a feasible and reasonable action (with all the expense and waste that will create with it having gone so far already). The Tories argue that the costs so far are precisely the reason they want to call a halt to the expansion, but in a period of declining employment the loss/delay of any major civil engineering project like this is surely short-sighted at the very least.

They particularly claim that the routes are not right, but Nottingham is cornered by a number a limited factors affecting tram expansion that sooner or later have to be tackled and which aren't resolved by mere road amendments and more 4-wheel transport (either cars or buses). The impossible-to-widen A52 as it runs along Wollaton Park and the university is one; the residential and shopping areas of Beeston along the other side of the University an inevitable other.

I'm also desperately concerned about the effect of the Tories slash and burn cost-cutting on local government jobs: and not just because I have people I care about who work for the council. There has been quite enough 'efficiency savings' in the region so far. Can services - and people's jobs - cope with more? I don't think so.

Whatever council leader Kathy Cutts may say, this election was chiefly about political disenchantment with politics in general and the Labour Party as the party of Government at a national level being seen as, well, rubbish frankly. Good individuals at a local level have consequently lost out. It will be interesting to see how the next significant set of local elections turns out in the likely event (oh help us all) that the Cameronites take power after the next General Election. Last time, after their brief flurry of power, the Tories were returned to local exile for 28 years...