Articles Comments

David Porter » Articles at Suite 101

Stress Could Be the Next Key Factor in British Politics

Work patterns changed beyond recognition in a decade, occupational stress the norm, few benefit from technology’s ease: can Britain ever take it easy again? This article first published on Suite 101, 8 November 2011.

With the pressure of few shopping days till Christmas, financial worries and frantic lifestyles of expectation, social-media and the ‘now’, all ages feel under stress. In-Deed, an online conveyancing company published a November 2011 survey saying that selling or buying a house ages people by two years. They didn’t find how much stress people suffer who can’t sell their homes.

How much is healthy, creative stress and how much is destructive? More of the latter has far-reaching consequences for our legislation, legal/educational/welfare/employment/transport systems. In short, for our whole way of life.

Most employed accept some occupational stress. When a social worker’s stress is classified as ‘industrial injury’, there’s a view that pressure on caring professions may be greater than others. Or that it wasn’t recognised before.

The Prime Minister or cabinet colleagues taking a break causes criticism, as if they have abandoned their macho-credentials by having a holiday. Others think they are better at their jobs if they take regular rests. Will Britain be better for a seasonal respite from politics?

Clearly, the 24-hour world doesn’t slow, issues don’t stop piling, cries for government ‘to do something’ don’t diminish. But all things in perspective is the way to better government at home and abroad.

Pay Not Necessarily the Issue

There was widespread amazement (early November 2011) that Lloyds Banking Group chief executive Antonio Horta-Osario was taking time off, suffering ‘extreme fatigue’. People thought an £8 million salary package and only eight months into the job would mitigate his stress.

When incoming chief of Ofsted, the government’s education watchdog, Sir Michael Wilshaw, announced that teachers should be allowed sabbaticals to ‘return to the classroom refreshed’, many people outside education assumed that 13 weeks annual holiday, reasonable salary and pension would be refreshment enough.

Eyebrows were raised when Robin Henry wrote in the Sunday Times (Nov 2011) that stress was ‘soaring among young City workers’. Medics expect to diagnose burnout in midlife, now ‘twentysomethings, the cream, of the crop in top-paid jobs’ find stress levels ‘wrecking their lives’.

Salary aside, stress is a problematic issue of our times. Anhedonia is the condition that prevents, according to Henry, ‘sufferers deriving any pleasure from their lives’. Insomnia, drug abuse, anxiety and depression are increasing.

Robert Colvile highlighted the growing problem of British stress in the Daily Telegraph (November 2011), asking ‘how much more can we take?’ He showed that more than half state-sector teachers take an annual average 9 days sick: ‘they can’t all be faking it’. It was a problem he felt can’t be ‘brushed under the carpet’.

The Climate

Colvile and others cited the ‘excuse’ of the economic climate. Banking isn’t the only sector suffering uncertainties, cutbacks, media hostility and stressed staff. The Eurozone crisis, the general global economic outlook, shortage of resources, price pressures and constant demands from a data/social media/instant culture affect everybody.

Psychology Today defines stress as: ‘reaction to a stimulus that disturbs our physical or mental equilibrium’. They say it’s an omnipresent part of life. A stressful event can trigger the ‘fight-or-flight’ response, causing hormones like adrenalin and cortisol to surge through the body. ‘A little bit of stress is exciting—it keeps us active and alert. But chronic stress can have detrimental effects on health’.

Individual and family financial stress is also increasing, further affecting health. Worries about rising winter energy bills, paying mortgages/rent and job/pension insecurities increase drinking, smoking, overeating and encourage unhealthy ‘coping’ activities.

With less money, people cut corners on personal care, healthy food and quality personal/family time and may borrow beyond their means. Anxiety and sleep loss exacerbates poor cognitive abilities and immune functioning, so stress is part of a truly vicious circle. This in turn leads to more public money needed for symptom treatment.

Policy Issues

Therefore, stress is not only an economic or behavioural indicator, it’s political. More people are depressed during the darker days of winter, (Seasonal Affected Disorder), and the mood of the nation is not only an opinion poll influencing elections, but a pointer for government priorities.

The quantity of assessing/testing children and teenagers (school and national tests, exams and regular target-driven monitoring) sets some off with stress and anxiety. For most, the joys of learning for learning sake without justification by assessment, are a historical quirk.

Searching for work in a shrinking economy where employers demand the sort of experience young people neither have nor can acquire without a job, is also stressful. The classification of thousands of young people into ‘NEETS’ (not in education, employment or training) is damning and glib, if technically accurate.

When business leaders and politicians show signs of stress-influenced behaviour and extreme emotional and physical fatigue, what can be done? Film of haggard, drained leaders emerging punch-drunk from marathon summits to solve impossible problems, do nobody any favours. Indeed, the world is suffering ‘summit fatigue’ now.

If stress is part of life and a fast-moving, constantly changing world is where we live, there’s surely a limit to antidotes politicos can convincingly offer?

Stress Relievers

The internet is awash with sites offering methods/potions as the panacea for stress. BootsMD offer tips including: maintain a positive attitude, accept events beyond anybody’s control, be assertive instead of aggressive, express feelings/opinions/beliefs rather than become angry or defensive.

They urge people to exercise regularly, try meditation/yoga/tai-chi, eat healthily, mange time effectively, set limits, make time for interests and social support and seek mental health treatment as needed.

The government has set in motion a well-being stocktake. Fine, but well-being raises ‘health and safety; (as benign nanny or malign fascist, according to viewpoint) in Britain, and a rational debate has yet to be had.

In the meantime, government dreams policies for every conceivable angle of life, even a government who planned the opposite. It’s part of the DNA of politics, practitioners and advisers and their media hangers-on.

Today’s Big Idea, press release, photo-opportunity becomes tomorrow’s stress. Unavoidable?

Sources:

  • Daily Telegraph, Robert Colvile, The stress of life takes its toll. 2 November 2011. Web 3 Nov 2011.
  • Sunday Times, Robin Henry, Boom time for therapists as stress soars. 6 November 2011.
  • BootswebMD. August 2009. Web 3 November 2011.
  • Stress Management Society. Web 4 November 2011.
  • Psychology Today. Web 7 November 2011.
  • Television news report on teacher stress, April 2010. Web 7 November 2011.

Filed under: Articles at Suite 101

Advertising, Television, Web and Film Are the Entertainment Now

As social media, the web and television become interlinked, advertising/shopping/retailing looks set to be the cement that holds it all together. This first published on Suite 101, 31 October 2011

Product Placement in TV and Movies Now Widespread - Captain USA (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:USA_snack_Nestl%C3%A9_Crunch_%E7%BE%8E%E5%9C%8B%E5%8E%9F%E7%94%A2_Chocolate_bars_%E9%9B%80%E5%B7%A2_%E6%9C%B1%E5%8F%A4%E5%8A%9B_%E5%B7%A7%E5%85%8B%E5%8A%9B_001_Packaging.jpg)

Research studies, commentators and various net and commercial pundits are busy jumping on bandwagons as the advertising industry ensures its prosperity in all media. Advertising, love it or hate it, is going to get ever more intrusive as technology evolves.

Brand Loyalty

Since 2010 in the UK, it’s been legal to place products within both television shows and films. This goes way beyond mere sponsorship and focusses on simple messages: this hero drinks this particular beverage; that attractive girl is into those named shoes.

Now, with simple technology and high motivation, media and advertising are teaming up to retro-fit products into programmes and movies made long ago. That it questions artistic integrity, that it seeks to distort if not rewrite history is of no consequence. Product promotion is king.

This technological advance has come about partly through adoption of another technology device. Now it’s possible to record television programmes and start watching even before the recording is done, so all adverts can be skipped fast forward. Advertisers hate that.

If the ad is effectively placed within a scene, it must be watched. A can of Tresemme hairspray was imposed into a 2011 episode of Britain and Ireland’s Next Top Model after the programme was made. It looked as if it had been there all along.

The USA is well ahead of the UK in this. Product placement is an industry worth over two billion dollars a year. As many as 6000 brands may appearance in a single series. The danger is that a drama or crime programme may soon look like a supermarket documentary.

Questions and Issues

Few ask if there is an inherent right for advertisers (who fund programmes) to force viewers to note their products. Is product placement worse than a normal ad break or sponsorship announcement at the start? Indeed, should placement do away with ad breaks altogether?

In movies that have no commercial breaks (so far), will the enjoyment, the drama, the emotion be ruined by viewers unavoidably spotting/counting/namechecking products? Does it matter if they insert into an old classic/favourite, say The Godfather (1972), a shot of the name of the undertakers, or the makers of the guns they use?

Morgan Spurlock’s The Greatest Movie Ever Sold (2011) is: ‘a documentary about branding, advertising and product placement that is financed and made possible by brands, advertising and product placement’. While deals are being struck to finance a movie, the movie is being made.

Spurlock made Supersize Me (2004), and in this one too, he seeks to poke fun in the hope of generating some consumer resistance. People may laugh, but that alone will not slow the rise of the towering edifice of advertising.

Personalised Targetting

The days of universal advertising hoardings or display cabinets in supermarkets that instantly speak directly to consumers via face-recognition technology linked to huge databases of preferences and shopping habits, are approaching rapidly.

Kraft Foods and Adidas are already using this technology in its first phase. If somebody glances at a hoarding within 20 feet, details of that person’s height, distance between the eyes, nose and hair lengths are transmitted to a database that calculates his/her age.

Instantly, the ad is changed to suit a person of that age and gender, in the hope that will prompt specific spending. Of course people shop for others and many object to this kind of manipulation, so they are using about 30% of the ads for entirely random products. Either way, truly, every journey is now a retailing opportunity for suppliers.

Multi-tasking, Multi-shopping

Consultancy Deloitte published an August 2011 survey that found half of British TV viewers simultaneously surfed the net. They were internet shopping. Fewer were emailing and social networking while watching. Most consumers seem happy, shopping having become such a part of their lives.

Deloitte found 13% plan to buy a tablet computer in the year ahead, the same as aim to buy a new HD TV; half of all women who surf say they are likely to shop online and 20% of the 18-24s ‘discovered and then purchased a new product or service after seeing it on TV’. So, TV and internet advertising works.

They concluded ‘the relationship between watching television and shopping online will get even closer in 2011’. That television, internet devices/mobile technology and joy of shopping will become inseparable, seems natural. It also knocks down the old business premise, that one sector like web adverts can only expand at the expense of traditional ads, like TV breaks.

All technology is an arm of advertising now. According to management consultancy McKinsey (August 2011), the internet alone made up 21% of GDP growth in mature economies since 2006. Advertising in general and retailing in particular is the giant element of that growth.

Go a step further, and the old fear that social media and television are mutually destructive competitors, has evaporated. They are complimentary. Social media is another weapon in the advertisers’ e-commerce armoury.

Laurence Green, writing in the Sunday Telegraph in August 2011, reckoned that it’ll take years before ‘Facebook accounts for 10% of the time spent watching television’. But as people do more of everything with their technology, it doesn’t have to be a straight race between the two media.

He quoted marketing academic Byron Sharp’s book How Brands Grow (2010): ‘prioritise reach, get noticed, use distinctive assets, build memory structures, be consistent yet fresh’. Good advice for all sectors of commerce, but particularly those swimming in digital waters.

Sources:

  • Deloitte report, Increased sales of tablet computers drive shopping in advertising breaks. 22 August 2011. Web 31 October 2011.
  • McKinsey and Company, Internet Matters: The net’s sweeping impact on growth, jobs and prosperity, May 2011. Web 31 October 2011.
  • Sunday Telegraph, Laurence Green, Social media and TV need not be enemies, 28 August 2011. Web 31 October 2011.

Filed under: Articles at Suite 101

The Concept of International Justice On Trial

Gaddafi’s non-judicial ‘execution’ polarised world opinion, from those appalled at the circumstances to those just delighted by the dictator’s demise. This article first published on Suite 101, 27th October 2011.

Gaddafi's Death Polarised World Opinion - US Navy (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Muammar_al-Gaddafi_at_the_AU_summit.jpg)

In the wake of the death of Libya’s Muammar al-Gaddafi, the airwaves were thick with calls for ‘justice’ for his killers. They received short shrift from the National Transition Council and Libyans sickened by four decades of brutality at the hands of the Gaddafi regime.

British Defence Secretary Philip Hammond said Gaddafi was ‘subjected to summary justice’. US Secretary of State Hilary Clinton demanded an investigation saying: ‘The new Libya needs to start with accountability, the rule of law, a sense of unity and reconciliation in order to build an inclusive democracy’.

Some commentators were quick to point out that the US showed no such compunction in ordering and carrying out the execution of Osama bin Laden in Pakistan in May 2011. Indeed, few Americans had time for those who felt bin Laden should have been captured and tried.

The long-term issue from Libya is not how such things happen in a civil war, nor how nobody will now find out why Gaddafi abused his power, but what is this concept of ‘international justice’ that has been denied by his hasty death?

International Criminal Court (ICC)

The ICC is the first permanent, treaty-based independent international court with powers to investigate and try alleged perpetrators of ‘the most serious crimes’ of concern to the ‘international community’. Such crimes include genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and the crime of aggression.

Not all of these are fully understood and accepted. Nonetheless, this court follows consensus on all but ‘crime of aggression’. Crimes (genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes) committed during the Second World War were addressed in the Nuremberg and Tokyo trials which also judged ‘crimes against peace’, but there was demand for agreed international legal structures.

The ICC, not part of the United Nations, then arose from tribunals set up to judge crimes in Rwanda and Yugoslavia which only were for specific places and time-frames. It was established by the 1998 Rome Statute, which came into force in July 2002, ratified by 60 nations. It has yet to be fully endorsed by all countries.

What is International ‘Justice’?

According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, there has always been debate about the morality of warfare and international relations, but since the 1980s there has been ‘sustained effort to develop ethical analyses of international politics drawing upon the traditional concerns of domestic justice’.

Domestic justice is, of course, a variable, continent by continent. New strands like human rights, constitutionalism, toleration, distribution of scarce resources are now on the table. The Encyclopedia argues that liberal political philosophy begins ‘with the premise of moral egalitarianism’.

Political justice, therefore, cannot rest on arbitrary facts about people; luck cannot be the basis for distinction in equality of treatment. Till recently, political justice has been interpreted within territorial boundaries except on occasions like the last world war. That there’s now more of a collective, global response to perceived injustices is where the international justice concept begins.

Where one is born, with what gender, wealth and advantage is something none of us has control over. How far moral treatment and values should reach beyond national, communal boundaries is still the source of discussion. Is there such a thing as ‘universal morality’?

Justice to Tyrants

In 2006, Gregory Elich asked on Global Research about the trial and execution of Iraq’s Saddam Hussein, ‘who will pass judgment on those who judge?’ US President George Bush hailed the guilty verdict on the former Iraqi leader for ‘crimes against humanity’ as a ‘major achievement’.

Elrich said that in the western world, the trial found favour, ‘a mark of success of US policy’, but little was ‘fair and legal about the proceedings’. Three of Hussein’s lawyers were murdered, some defence witnesses were intimidated into silence. Elich felt ‘tyrants are in the eye of the beholder’. Actions that win praise from one man, may be condemned by another.

The implication of this observation is that his crimes were tolerated/encouraged when ‘allied with Western interests’, but there was a ‘transformation in perception’ about Saddam Hussein, so ‘international justice’ became selective.

The Nazis

News in History summarised the trial of the leaders of the Nazi regime, ‘one of the cruelest in the history of humankind … the Nazis committed crimes on a scale that shocked the modern world’. At the end of war, someone had to be held accountable and the Nuremberg Trials were the place.

The question of whether soldiers carrying out orders could be tried was a thorny one. The Nuremberg Tribunal (comprising the victors, Great Britain, France, the Soviet Union and the USA) ruled it no defence to be ordered to kill or torture.

The international justice problem was that Nazis were being tried for crimes not defined as such when they were committed. Nonetheless, twelve men were sentenced to death, seven to jail, three acquitted. Others followed, with 200 defendants at Nuremberg, and 1600 tried in military courts.

So Many Criminals

Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Mugabe are but a handful of names in the annals of tyranny, dictators and mass murderers, tried or untried by any national/international legal standards. Admired by some, loathed by many, such people challenge what others think is acceptable, rewardable and punishable.

Now Gaddafi and his son Muatassim, are buried in an Islamic ceremony in a secret location in the desert, where their last resting place will be neither defaced nor a shrine for loyalists. Bin Laden was buried at sea for the same reasons.

That is unlikely to close the argument about international justice. Whenever a new dictator rises in a different part of the world, he/she will be a hero to some, a villain to others. A single international/global view is as impossible as everybody on earth agreeing about everything.

Sources:

Filed under: Articles at Suite 101

Ministerial Resignations Are Often Political Theatre At Its Best

This article was first published on Suite 101, 21 October 2011. Now, a year on, in the wake of the resignation of the Government Chief Whip, Andrew Mitchell, over an issue that raises all sorts of questions about integrity, the arrogance of office, police records, hidden police agendas and the judgement of senior politicians… it is timely to republish it.

Fox: Ill-Judged Resignation Speech - USAF (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Liam_Fox_with_Air_Marshal_Stuart_Peach.jpg)

Shakespeare wrote: ‘Nothing in his life became him like the leaving of it’. (Macbeth). If only the same could be said of many who leave ministerial life.

The Ministerial Code is issued at the start of each administration by the new Prime Minister. It’s not formalised in the constitution, but has evolved through precedence and guidance. By convention, Ministers inform and explain, apologise, take remedial action and resign in ministerial responsibility. Each is responsible for his/her private conduct.

October 2011’s resignation of Dr Liam Fox, Defence Secretary, for ‘mistakes in blurring the distinction between personal friendship and ministerial responsibility’ was in a long line of losses from public office that governments endure, human failings and political warfare being what they are.

Fox finally resigned (a gift to headline writers: ‘Fox hounded out’) after it became obvious that Westminster’s sleaze watchdog was probing deep into his relationship with his close friend Adam Werrity. Not only had the Ministerial Code of Conduct been broken, his job had become untenable. He had become a liability.

He took the route of others before and made an early personal statement to the House of Commons. Commentators were broadly critical of his performance. ‘Badly judged’, ‘insult to injury’, ‘bitter’ and as he was ‘the author of his own misfortune’, it was palpably wrong to blame the media, or anybody else.

Sometimes press and public delight when ministers quit, either ‘voluntarily’ or are pushed. But the fact remains, most ministerial departures arise through failings of the incumbent, not any third party. To seek self-vindication in Parliament is a privilege that does few any good.

Honourable Resignations?

The Coalition government was just three weeks old when Liberal-Democrat David Laws, treasury minister, fell on his metaphorical sword and made history. He was the first post-war Lib-Dem Cabinet minister to resign, the first to go over financial impropriety and the shortest-serving Cabinet member in modern history.

Principle drove then-Leader of the House, Robin Cook, to step down over the invasion of Iraq, 2003. Estelle Morris,Education Secretary honourably resigned in 2002 as she was ‘not as good at the job as she was in her previous position’. Harold Wilson resigned twice, first as junior minister protesting NHS health charges in April 1951, and then as Labour Prime Minister in 1976 when he reached 60.

Resignations in Perspective

The London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE) did a study when Tony Blair resigned as Prime Minister which showed that a lower percentage of ministers resigned during Blair’s period of power than during the terms of Major, Thatcher or Callaghan. Professor Keith Dowding and Dr Gita Subrahmanyam categorised calls for and actual resignations under 28 administrations since 1906.

They discovered that overall Labour governments saw fewer ministers resign than Conservative; Blair sacrificed under 30% of his ministers subject to public criticism, as did Churchill, Macmillan, Wilson and Thatcher. Major lost about 40% as did Eden, Heath and Callaghan. Since 1906 more Conservatives than Labour have gone for sexual or financial scandals, but Blair lost more Cabinet members than junior ministers.

The academics concluded that while sleaze is assumed to have defeated Major’s government, Blair had as many guilty in his own ranks, but enjoyed ‘a greater capacity than Major to ride out conflict’.

Notable Individuals

Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, Cecil Parkinson, was forced to resign in 1983 when it became known he had fathered a daughter by his Commons’ secretary. He took criticism for the fact that the child had special needs, and he’d never seen her, although had supported her financially. He came back into government in 1987 at Energy, followed by a move to Transport in 1989.

David Mellor held a range of junior jobs, including Treasury and then Secretary of State at National Heritage, where he was nicknamed ‘minister for fun’. He had a relationship with an actress who allegedly sucked his toes while he wore a Chelsea FC shirt, which gave the press a field day. He was the most prominent politician to pose with his wife and children for a ‘happy family’ photo call.

Peter Mandelson was another quitter who returned. He left being Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in 1998 about irregularities over a loan for a house; returned in 1999 as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, only to resign again in 2001 over accusations he had abused his position over a passport application. He became EU Commissioner.

Perhaps the most memorable was that of Sir Geoffrey Howe in 1990, because his speech to the Commons is widely agreed to have triggered the downfall of Margaret Thatcher from Downing Street, just three weeks later. Howe was her longest serving Cabinet member (sharing 700 meetings and 30 international summits with her) holding the offices of Chancellor, Foreign Secretary, Commons’ Leader and Deputy Prime Minister.

Britain’s part in a tightening EU-structure was what divided them, though it was mixed up with Conservative leadership, trust and a long-surviving government. James Purnell, Blairite Labour Work and Pensions Secretary called on his premier, Gordon Brown, to ‘stand aside’, as his leadership made ‘a Conservative victory more likely, not less’.

In a week of political gamemanship in June 2009 that saw Tom Watson, Beverley Hughes, Jacqui Smith, Hazel Blears leave the government for scandal reasons, Purnell’s resignation was presumed part of a wider campaign to oust Brown. It simply added fuel to the flames of Labour’s unrest, ahead of election defeat a year later.

The Usual Patterns

Most ministers in trouble instinctively follow a script, as if they are caught up in a drama. They open by claiming to have done nothing wrong; some get the notional/lukewarm support of their Prime Minister. As things hot up they clutch any scapegoat (officials, colleagues, the media).

Next, the one in the spotlight admits to wrong-doing, enough perhaps to resign, but for the good of the country/party. The leader offers thanks for a job well done before a self-validating personal appearance in the House. If it’s been sufficiently serious, there may be further performances before Commons Select Committees or a court of law.

If he/she survives that, there’ll be a place on the back-benches to sit and stew, or become a focal point for rebellion. There will be a pay-off for ceasing to be a minister, and the continuing job of being an MP to carry out. And in due course, there’ll be an advance for the memoirs, to ‘set the story straight’.

Sources:

  • London School of Economics and Political Science, Dr Gita Subrahmanyam, Ministerial Resignations – how did Blair fare? June 2007. Web 21 October 2011.
  • BBC News, PM told to go as minister quits, 5 June 2009. Web 21 October 2011.
Image: Dr Liam Fox Before His Resignation
Check Out: this article and others about where politics and the arts (politicarts) meet, at The Performer.

Filed under: Articles at Suite 101

Whips Mean Business in Parliamentary Proceedings

Whips Know Every Nook and Cranny  - Christine Bortes (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pinnacles,_Palace_of_Westminster.jpg)

Periodically, Government whips hit the news and people ask, who are they? What do they do? Why do they have such power?

The Parliamentary website gives a succinct definition: ‘whips are MPs or Lords appointed by each party in Parliament to help organise their party’s contribution to parliamentary business’. They ensure that most party members vote, and vote according to party wishes.

It’s thought ‘whip’ stems from 18th century hunting, where a ‘whipper-in’ was an assistant who drove straying hounds to the main pack by use of a whip. It’s an apt analogy for what a Parliamentary whip does.

The Usual Channels

When either House divides (takes a vote), whips are ‘tellers’, or counters. They stand by lobby entrance doors, so MPs or Lords are in doubt as to which side to vote, ‘ayes to the right, noes to the left’. They plan, arrange and implement Parliament’s daily business.

They agree pairing arrangements, to allow approved members not to vote in a particular division, one absentee cancelling an absence from the other side. The Government of the day usually enjoys a majority over all other parties combined, so everybody cannot be paired.

To carry out their functions, they know the quirks, preferences, weaknesses and strengths of their members. When promotion is in the air, their advice is sought, since the Prime Minister will not have seen many of his side in action in the House.

When a Member is disinclined to support a party line, whips are first to know, quick to take persuasive action, and in the end, are final resort of strong-arm tactics. The discipline of the rank and file troops at their command is their unofficial role. To be invited to have a drink with a whip is not necessarily social pleasure.

They are known as ‘the usual channels’. They are the anonymous, shadowy powers that be, on whose side it is better to stay. They have been likened to sewers, unpleasant but necessary.

The Three-Line Whip

A weekly notice – ‘the whip’ – is dispatched to Members when Parliament is sitting outlining the business for the week ahead. Some matters are noted with a one-line underscore (attendance is entirely voluntary); others get a two-line notation, which means attendance is required unless a member is paired by prior approval.

The three-line underlining is for important votes on policy, confidence, finance, opposition debates, and Second and Third Reading stages of Bills that are contested. For this, attendance is absolute. To defy a three-line whip is frequently career death. Death itself is no excuse.

The Labour Government of 1974-79 had no overall majority, but they were the biggest party. In the dying days, with ‘the Winter of Discontent’ gripping the country, they defended a vote of no confidence. Sick and dying members were brought to Westminster, seen by whips of both sides, then ‘nodded through’ as they couldn’t physically get through the lobby. But they had to be there in person.

Withdrawing the Whip

Sometimes Members are effectively sacked from their party in Parliament (although they stay as elected Members); the whip is withdrawn. Some Conservatives in the Major government (1992-97), called by him in an unguarded moment, ‘The Bastards”, who refused to support Britain’s ratification of the European Union Maastricht Treaty, were expelled.

They were rehabilitated rapidly, as Major’s majority was small. For many habitual rebels, it’s almost a badge of honour to lose the whip. It supports the independent-minded thinking Members should display.

In this time of Coalition government, both Conservative and Lib-Dem parties keep separate whips, responsible for their own members. Senior whips meet as required to plan tactics for getting the agreed business through, and ensure the Coalition Government is not defeated through lack of numbers attending.

Titles and Patronage

The Government Chief Whip is officially appointed Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury, to give him/her a seat at the Cabinet table (and a salary) and an office in Downing Street. Deputies and assistants are officers (Treasurer, Comptroller and Vice Chamberlain) of HM Household or junior Lords of the Treasury.

The Lord’s Government Chief Whip is styled Captain of the Honourable Corps of the Gentlemen at Arms. The Deputy is Captain of the Queen’s Bodyguard of the Yeomen of the Guard (Beefeaters), and assistants are called Lords and Baronesses in Waiting. The titles speak of cultural tradition and history; or Gilbert and Sullivan, according to taste.

In the case of whips, it’s the trappings with the actuality of power. A government whip stays at Buckingham Palace while the Queen does the honours at The State Opening of Parliament every year, as a hostage in case a hostile Parliament attempts to take the Queen prisoner. This dates from the 17th century civil war!

Current Brouhaha

In October 2011, the Commons Backbench Business Committee in response to public expression of concern about Europe, scheduled a debate on a referendum on continuing British membership. This issue has been a hot one for successive governments for forty years.

The fact that Prime Minister Cameron in opposition promised just such a referendum and then Prime Minister Brown refused one, added fuel to the fire. In a cleverly worded motion, MPs will consider whether the UK should stay in the EU, leave it or renegotiate terms of membership.

Guaranteed to open both old wounds of Conservative Party civil wars over Europe and natural divides within the coalition partners, the whips were said to be ‘frantic’ to whip in Conservative MPs to oppose the referendum. Mark D’Arcy on the BBC News site recommended the government should ‘argue its case’. He said to ‘squash the debate by some procedural fix… would be crass and self-defeating’.

Whips therefore will have to resort to amending the motion, which requires all Conservatives to back the amendment, despite at least 50 being Euro-realists, opposed to European membership. These MPs argue that the seemingly endless financial crisis threatening meltdown in the Eurozone strengthens their hands.

What the opposition Labour party do has a profound effect on the outcome. The result of one vote in the Commons is not the be-all-and-end-all, but can be symbolic, a harbinger of future unrest. Whipping, deals behind closed doors, arm twisting will be as they have been, the real order-order of the day.

But that’s politics.

Sources:

  • Parliament UK. Whips. Web 20 October 2011.
  • BBC News, Mark D’Arcy, Government whips frantic over EU referendum bid, 18 October, 2011. Web 20 October 2011.

Filed under: Articles at Suite 101

Westminster and Public Services Suffer Crime Waves

 Everything ‘owned’ by government is really owned by the taxpayers. However, some take it quite literally and think they can walk away with public assets.
Laptops Most Stolen Items from Government

People have long stolen from work places. They take stationery, use computers and phones free, and steal time too. Many regard it as harmless, ‘victimless’ crime. Have we crossed a line into a belief that public theft is somehow acceptable?

The 2011 English riots saw organised gangs of criminals stealing and damaging. Schools, hospitals, council offices and depots regularly suffer pilfering from a minority of staff and visitors. When the 2008 recession began there were reports of school students recharging their mobiles in classroom sockets, at taxpayers’ expense.

It’s not a new phenomenon. By the end of the last world war, thousands of troops took souvenirs from places they were liberating, bodies they were passing. Organisations and companies today are plagued with regular petty pilfering with occasional outbursts on an industrial scale.

Losses from Government

In March 2011, Tom McTague reported in the Daily Mirror, that ‘dozens of laptops, mobile phones and even an official vehicle have gone missing from Whitehall departments’. He said the Health Department had things valued at £13,00 stolen from £100,000 worth of missing items.

The Ministry of Defence had £700,000 worth of items taken, including a clarinet, an anchor, body armour, ration packs, pistols, boots, £50,000 night-vision glasses and a plane fuselage. These figures were expanded by Nick Hopkins in The Guardian in April 2011, where he quoted Luciana Berger the MP who’d demanded the figures in Parliament saying: ‘enough military equipment was stolen to launch a small coup’.

A silver statue valued at £25,000 walked from Household Cavalry barracks in Knightsbridge, £7000 of cutlery from Edinburgh’s Redford barracks along with a Bedford truck, an industrial washing machine, an inflatable boat and a £50,000 helicopter rotor tuner.

All this despite military police, security and the open eyes of thousands of personnel on bases. Police have had some success in catching perpetrators and retrieving resources. Thieves include servicemen and women, civil servants, outsiders and civilian contractors. All sorts of people are at it.

Losses from Agencies

A summary of recent losses from and by politicians, spies, office staff and military officials was published by Andy Bloxham in the Daily Telegraph, October 2011. They ranged from the 1990 loss of a laptop from a car boot in London with plans for first Gulf War; the 2000 theft of a laptop from home of Armed Forces Minister John Spellar responsible for nuclear secrets and Northern Ireland and the MI6 officer who left a laptop in a taxi.

An MI5 staffer saw his laptop snatched at Paddington station when he helped someone buy a ticket; Army laptop with 500 people’s data was stolen in 2005 and a Royal Navy one in 2006. HMRC (2007) losing two unencrypted computer disks in the ordinary post with personal details of 25 million citizens is possibly the worst case.

And so it’s gone on. Laptops, disks missing, forgotten, laid down in stupid places. Names, addresses, sensitive details of millions vanished, their potential value to criminals, drug dealers, blackmailers and terrorists, billions of pounds.

In October 2011, it was announced that GCHQ, the government listening department, has lost £1 million worth of sensitive equipment. They announced a tightening of security working closely with the National Audit Office to ‘eliminate waste’. Observers remarked on horses, bolting and stable doors coming to mind.

Losses from Westminster

Parliament’s own website publishes losses. They include cash, computers and laptops, stationery, keys, phones and a passport. These thefts are running at the rate of two computers a month in the past year, with ten in May alone.

The Palace of Westminster is the most guarded public building in London, but it seems that the brass neck of thieves is what wins the day. Villains who walk into places dressed as workers/repairers carrying clipboards, smooth-talking con-artists with plausible explanations have successfully lifted paintings from galleries, trailers from trucks, fittings from palaces and possessions from people all over the world.

For example beyond Westminster, Nick Lavigueur reported in September that thieves in Huddersfield took a break while ripping copper wire from Costa Coffee’s air conditioning to enjoy McDonalds’ burgers. It isn’t known if they took them in or went over the road for them. In 2009 in the same town, brazen thieves stole lead in broad daylight from shops just 100 yards from the Police Station.

The audacious theft of copper and other precious metals from live installations has now reached epidemic levels because of the value of metals. Risking life and limb and inconveniencing thousands in power cuts, makes no difference.

It’s more than simply using expense-abuse MPs as role-model public purse thieves; it’s more than opportunism when an official is careless. Thieves seem to think they have a right to take from what is owned publically.

Interestingly, security at Westminster is better at stopping things entering than goods leaving. It didn’t stop a purple powder-filled condom getting in for throwing at Tony Blair, nor a foam pie to push on Rupert Murdoch. But figures reveal that between January 2009 and September 2011, they found and seized knuckledusters, a cosh, a truncheon, an imitation gun and a meat cleaver!

Sources:

  • Daily Mirror, Tom McTague, Thousands of pounds of gear stolen from the Government. 26 March 2011. Web 14 October 2011.
  • The Guardian, Nick Hopkins, 10 April 2011. Stolen MoD equipment enough for small coup, says MP. Web 14 October 2011.
  • Parliament, Items reported stolen in the House of Commons 2011. Web 14 October 2011.
  • The Daily Telegraph, Andy Bloxham, History of recent data blunders by government, 14 October 2011. Web 15 October 2011.
  • Huddersfield Daily Examiner, NIck Lavigueuer, 15 September 2011. Web 15 October 2011.
First published on Suite 101, 16 October 2011

Filed under: Articles at Suite 101

Impressionists Have Had Their Day in the Spotlight of UK Stand-Up

Satirising politicians has lost its appeal as they are so bland and because political reality parodies itself. You can no longer make it up.

Rory Bremner: Hard to Find Work

Long-time stalwart of the British comedy impressionist circuits, Rory Bremner, confessed to the Daily Telegraph (October 2011) that he was experiencing difficulty finding work. Channel 4 (who had employed him for 20 years) had no need of his particular services because ‘people no longer recognise the voices’ of top political players.

He told Bryony Gordon in her interview that a brilliant impression now ‘would be like showing a dog a card trick’. In the next day‘s edition of the Telegraph, Matthew Norman wrote a personal opinion on Bremner being forced to do a turn on Strictly Come Dancing to earn a crust, believing it was because public interest in politics ‘lies in inverse proportion to the magnitude of the political moment’.

So as the global economy begins to wobble dangerously, world leaders appear largely paralysed by the scale of the tasks facing them, the era of poking fun at the pomposity of authority, appears to have left central stage. Clone-like identikit politicos are not as amusing as Wilson and Heath, Callaghan and Thatcher were in the 60s, 70s and 80s, along with sideshows of eccentrics and mavericks: Benn, George Brown, Heseltine, although London Mayor Boris Johnson fits the bill today.

Impressionist-Comedy, Genre In Own Right

British television screen and stage has a distinguished record in satire, bringing the high and mighty down to earth. From That Was The Week That Was (1962-3) onwards, via Not The 9 O’Clock News, Brass Eye, The Day Today, Have I Got News for You, The Late Edition, Mock the Week and Spitting Image, British television has developed a healthy disregard for the political establishment.

These shows have lampooned, ridiculed and made laughing stocks of individual politicians, not to mention judges, journalists, criminals, sports people, ‘celebs’ and the Royal Family. In that sense they are but part of the rich carpet of comic potential upon which the stand-up joker walks.

Bremner was a class act and may still be outstanding, with a real eye and ear for highlighting the quirks, foibles, mannerisms and features of his victims. He is in the same star-turn league as Mike Yarwood, both practitioner/impressionists who caught the mood of their times as well as the faces and voices. Yarwood imitated Robin Day, political commentator and football legend Brian Clough as well.

Bobby Davro, Alistair McGowan and Jon Culshaw are other exemplars of the 20th century art form. Women who succeeded in the genre include Pamela Stephenson, Tracey Ullman, Catherine Tate and Ronni Ancona. There was a limited stage circuit for these kinds of acts as musical hall and variety shows gave ground in the 1970s to television, which is where these performers really made their marks.

However, Norman’s point was that today politicians ‘have shrunk’, becoming like our town centres ‘utterly homogenised’. He argued it’s no wonder public (and thereby television producers’) interest has waned in booking the person who can mimic a party leader or two and come up with some funny things they might or could have said/done.

Politicians Are the Stand-Ups Now

Running alongside this change in the entertainment fabric of Britain, there’s popular political drama on TV (Yes Prime Minister repeats) and on stage (Yes Prime Minister). But, even more significant, is the received wisdom that politicians are often little more than performers themselves.

To take one just example from the late 20th century, Tony Blair. From the moment he emerged on the political stage, commentators described him as actor as much as anything else. He was not the first. Politicians have often been fine orators, dissemblers, jokers. Some have been all those at once. However, as a youngster, Blair wanted to be a rock star.

In January 2006, TV producer Victoria Powell wrote in The Guardian that Blair was an excellent actor. She quoted his English tutor, David MacMurray, who said: ‘He could inhabit a part and showed great command of the audience’. It was demonstrated in his rendition of the Lesson at Princess Diana’s funeral: an old ‘actor who could remember his techniques’. He felt what Blair enjoyed most, was the applause.

It is fair to say that all seekers of the limelight in the political arena must not only love it (and the acclaim), but be reasonably effective at performing. What is new, is that audiences are not drawn in either extreme of emotion towards today’s politicians, their abuses of expenses, apparent impotence to achieve much and their perceived distance from the daily trials of everyday people.

That’s why, at least for now, the comic-impressionist is out of fashion, although nobody should rule out a comeback in another generation. The line between acting and politics, while always a little blurred, has now become totally fused. The boundaries between impressionism and daily normality have totally disappeared.

But that’s life, that’s showbiz. The challenge now is for would-be stand-up performers to respond to it.

First published on Suite 101, 12 October 2011

Image: Rory Bremner, Once-Master Politico Impressionist

Further Reading:

The Great British Love and Tolerance of the Eccentric.

If UK Politics Are Pure Theatre, Politicians Are the Performers.

Sources:

  • The Daily Telegraph, Bryony Gordon, Impressionist and Strictly star Rory Bremner, I’ve lost my confidence, 7 October 2011. Web 12 October 2011.
  • The Daily Telegraph, Matthew Norman, Rory must dance because no one will lead. 8 October 2011.
  • The Guardian, Victoria Powell, Tony Blair absolutely modelled himself on Mick Jagger’, 6 January 2006. Web 12 October 2011.

Filed under: Articles at Suite 101

Is the Clock Ticking for Greenwich Mean Time?

 Should time be called on British ownership of time, along with other old British measurements? Most Brits say ‘hands off our clocks!’
Greenwich Meridian Time Line

Greenwich Mean Time (GMT), also known as Greenwich Meridian Time, is symbolically marked by a line by the old Royal Observatory, Greenwich, London. Visitors walk along and around it, straddling it for fun.

But it’s a serious, acknowledged base for measurement. When clocks change in spring and autumn, GMT remains constant, so time is either + or – GMT. It’s Longitude Zero degrees, and is deemed the mean (average) time the earth takes to revolve from noon to noon. It sets official time, and although there’s now atomic time (UTC), it‘s understood as a global reference point.

It is used on the International Space Station, but there are 25 integer World Time Zones measured East and West of Greenwich. Civilian designations have three letter abbreviations, like EST or DST, while military and aviation designations use letters and are called by phonetic equivalents, so Greenwich is also Z, Zulu.

So, Why Change It?

There is perennial debate about whether Britain should stop clock changing by an hour every autumn and spring. Some argue for double summer time; some want Scotland to be different because of geographical position and to maximise daylight in working hours. That debate is not to be confused with the removal of GMT as time’s standard.

The International Bureau of Weights and Measures want to redefine time, dropping entirely the rotation of the earth and moving fully to atomic time. Based in Sevres, France, they ensure ‘world-wide uniformity of measurements and their traceability to the International System of Units’ by the authority of the Convention of the Metre, a diplomatic treaty of fifty five nations.

Clive Aslet, Editor at Large for Country Life pleaded passionately in the Daily Telegraph to resist the proposal, arguing that ‘Anglo-Saxons are traditionalists’, accepting the world as it is, ‘spinning on its axis’. He said that GMT ‘has a ring to it’ and that ‘time is not only the medium of history, it has a history of its own’.

He recited how the Royal Society and the Observatory were founded in the reign of Charles II. Mathematics, astronomy and ocean navigation took giant leaps forward, but not till the Nineteenth Century did the United Kingdom adopt common time, to operate timetables efficiently in the railway age using telegraph lines to transmit a pulse to standardise the hours.

The same principle was adopted in 1884 for an international standard, and with much of the globe part of the British Empire, Greenwich was an inevitable choice for the starting point. The French opposed the Washington treaty then, but to no avail. Aslet’s point was that they were having another go in 2011.

Time Is Contentious

Thinking on time is subject to debate/disagreement like anything else in a changing world. Naturally countries want to be at the centre of world thinking. When Australia first published a southern hemispheric-biased map of the world, it made northerners think.

Some American scientists have claimed that the Magnetic North Pole is a line of longitude passing through North and South America. Islamic scholars have argued Mecca is the true centre of the Earth as a zero magnetism zone in alignment with the Magnetic North.

The Daily Telegraph reported in August 2010, that Greenwich’s supremacy was being challenged by a massive clock in Mecca, by which the world’s 1.5 billion Muslims set their timepieces. It said the clock bears a ‘striking resemblance to Big Ben and the Empire State Building’.

It has four huge faces lit by 2 million LED lights with script reading ‘In the name of Allah’. It runs on Arabia Standard Time (GMT +3). Flashing green and white lights remind the faithful to pray; it can be seen for 18 miles.

Time Stands For No Man

Britain slid towards metric weights and measurements over the latter part of the 20th century. Schools no longer teach Imperial, although it survives in official pints and miles and common parlance, not to mention a treasure trove of literature and history.

The old system evolved over a thousand years, creating terms like: acres, bushels, chains, chalders, chaldrons, crowns, customary measures, drachms, drams, farthings, fathoms, feet, florins, foolscap, furlongs, gallons, gills, grains, groats, guineas, hundredweights, lasts, leagues, miles, minims, nails, ounces, pecks, pennyweights, pints, poles, perchs, pounds, quarts, quarters, rods, roods, sacks, scruples, stones, tods, tons, troy ounces, wire gauges, weys and yards.

This catalogue is described by English Weights and Measures as ‘a defining part of British culture, uniting English-speaking nations’. Most British people happily go along with dual understanding of metric and Imperial in every-day living. To trade with the USA and some other parts of the world, it’s necessary to work in Imperial.

Yet still, some agitate for change and uniformity. This makes it a political issue, that Parliament must address in due course, along with changing BST, school days and terms.

Time to Prioritise?

Another one rising up the agenda of controversies, is the clamour in some quarters (or 25%s) to change the annotation of years, from BC/AD to BCE/CE. This is an attempt to stop the calendar being based on time before or after the Birth of Christ. It’s been condemned by the Vatican. The semi-official paper L’Osservatore Romano described it as ‘enormous nonsense’ and the BBC’s attitude in promoting the concept as ‘senseless hypocrisy’.

Religious Tolerance explains it as CE standing for Common Era being the same as AD (anno domini, the year of the Lord), that is the approximate birth of Jesus of Nazareth, with common based on the Gregorian Calendar. BCE means before the Common Era; BC means before Christ, so, again, BC and BCE have identical values.

The C in both BCE and BC can be interpreted as Christ or Christian, so it’s hard to follow the logic of moving from the designation that most people understand and use. It’s all in the terminology and interpretation, but that is life.

Time flies, and different things matter in different ways to different people.

First published on Suite 101, 6 October 2011

Image: Greenwich Meridian Line by Green Lane

Filed under: Articles at Suite 101

First Official Irish Spontaneous Human Combustion Case

Torso Turns to Ash, Extremities Burn Less - Minervaaa

A Galway coroner has ruled that a man died from no adequate explanation, except that he just caught fire and burned to death.

76 year old Michael Flaherty from Ballybane, Galway was found dead in December 2010, his body burned, but nothing around him damaged. Neither police nor fire officers found obvious cause of ignition. The West Galway coroner, Dr Kieran McLoughlin, said he was left with no option but to declare it (September 2011) the first case of spontaneous human combustion (SHC) in Irish history.

Explanations?

Fortean Times, magazine of paranormal occurrences, thought it the first time a coroner anywhere had officially declared a SHC event, as they usually liked to call it something else to avoid conceding that the phenomena exists.

BBC News explained that such deaths occur when a living human body combusts with no apparent external ignition. Typically the body is burned, the torso more than the extremes, but nothing around is, although floor beneath and ceiling above the body often are damaged a little.

The nearby fire in the grate did not cause it, although in most previous cases, bodies were near an open fireplace or chimney. No accelerant was discovered. Foul play was discounted. The coroner’s verdict was controversial but inevitable in the absence of evidence.

The BBC quoted retired pathology professor Mike Green who felt there had to be ignition somewhere. It was just not found by police, fire or rescue workers. He also personally rejected divine intervention, preferring ‘the practical, mundane explanation’.

Fiction and Fact

The Irish case is the first for some years anywhere in the world, but in 2005 it was a topical issue when the dramatisation of Charles Dickens’ Bleak House was on television. BBC Magazine ran a story following public interest in the character, Krook, who found ‘his gin warming his stomach more than usual’ and he suddenly burst into flames.

Dickens’ fictional account parallels what usually happens. ‘A small burnt patch of flooring, the tinder from a little bundle of burnt paper, but not so light as usual, seeming to be steeped in something; and here is – is it the cinder of a small charred and broken log of wood sprinkled with white ashes, or is it coal? Oh, horror, he IS here!’

On publication in 1852-53 Dickens was criticised for ‘legitimising superstitious nonsense’. He defended himself by saying he had researched thoroughly and knew ‘of about thirty cases’. He may have drawn on a collection of examples, De Incendiis Corporis Humani Spontaneis (1763) published by Jonas Dupont.

It takes temperatures of about 1600 degrees Fahrenheit over two hours to reduce a body to ashes, but that the flame does not consume the entire room is the essential core of the mystery. It’s easy to see why punishment for general sins or alcoholism would have been attributed by people in the past and why novelists relish the details.

BBC Magazine mentioned Mary Reeser, found in Florida in 1951 ‘reduced to a pile of ashes save her shrunken skull and her intact left foot’, and Jean Saffin’s inquest in north London in 1982 was offered SHC as cause of death. The coroner recorded an open verdict, saying there ‘was no such thing as SHC’.

Interest remained high and in 1998 the BBC television programme QED experimented with a dead pig to demonstrate the ‘wick effect’, where clothes are wick and fat is the fuel source. But it still needed a spark, too. Many scientists took ‘wick’, though, as the most credible solution.

Pure Fiction?

In Jules Verne’s Un Capitaine de Quinze Ans, a tribal leader combusted while drinking flaming punch. Jessica Warner in her Craze: Gin and Debauchery In an Age of Reason (2003) published a list of 19th century authors fascinated by SHC. Whisky-sodden Jimmy Flinn in Life on the Mississippi by Mark Twain (1883) and Antoine Macquart, a drunk with a lifetime of imbibing, in Emile Zola’s Docteur Pascal (1893), suffered their marinated bodies spontaneously erupting into flames.

Warner mentioned others: the narrator’s father in Wieland by Charles Brockden Brown (1798); William the Testy in Knickerbocker’s History Of New York by Washington Irving (1809); a woman in Jacob Faithful by Captain Marryat (1834); a blacksmith in Dead Souls by Nikolai Gogol (1842); Sir Polloxfen Tremens in The Glenmutchkin Railway by William Edmondstoune Aytoun (1845) and the sailor Miguel Saveda in Redburn by Herman Melville (1849).

Leaving novels aside, there are sceptics of the spontaneous explanation. Internal chemicals or nuclear fusion don’t satisfy many. Criminal activity may explain some, despite apparent lack of evidence. The Skeptics Dictionary – a collection of strange beliefs, amusing deceptions and dangerous delusions – debunks all theories, including microwave amplification by stimulated emission of radiation (maser), yoga/mystic body heating (kundalini) and stress.

While Irish folklore, legend and culture are rich in imaginative creativity, a case like that of Michael Flaherty is not something to bring the tourists in. But then again, many people have a gruesome curiosity about things, including war.

His family were reported (Daily Telegraph 24 September 2011) as ‘satisfied with the investigation’. Their views on the verdict were not stated. But Irish news website The Journal did report: ‘Spontaneous Human Combustion, was the subject of one Irish doctor’s study as far back as the early 19th century. Dr Edmond Sharkey wrote in the Dublin Journal of Medical and Chemical Science in 1833 that he was surprised his fellow physicians had not taken more note of it’.

Well, perhaps they will now.
First published on Suite 101, 26 September 2011

Image: Torso Turns to Ash, Extremities Burn Less – Minervaaa

Filed under: Articles at Suite 101

Creativity, Technology, Food: Nothing Sacred in the Arts Anymore

The Last Supper Gets a Technological Make-Over - Unknown photo author


A round-up of some recent happy marriages of hot technologies, old arts and imaginations, creating new art forms beyond known boundaries.

As the old certainties melt away that visual and performance arts are clearly in their own defined categories, and technology is something that needn’t trouble pure artists, it’s timely to have a look at some recent developments that confirm how far modern arts not only feed off each other, but feed off themselves.

These are exciting times in the arts world with technology so rapid, so inventive and challenging. Just as good art should be, in whatever format it is dreamed up.

The Media as Performance Art

Writing in The Daily Telegraph, September 2011, Dominic Cavendish described how he, a journalist/theatre critic, was asked to write one of six plays based on voicemails of anonymous, ordinary strangers, as a response to the phone-hacking scandal that engulfed media in the UK and USA in 2011.

As facts were unearthed and some newspapers were found to have eavesdropped phone messages of Royalty, celebrities, politicians, criminals and crime victims, its controversial topicality inspired Theatre503 at Battersea Arts Centre, south London, to create something that ‘pushed against the ethical and legal boundaries’.

He recalled the anonymised material from the voicemails coincided with the August riots, but it was the ‘humdrum chatter that brought home how violated you would feel if your phone were hacked’. This wasn’t simply ‘just retribution’ of a hack being exposed. This brought him into a parallel world where his ‘own profession reflected darkly back’ at him.

So news as theatre, theatre as news, news/media as art. None is new, but they’re becoming increasingly difficult to separate. They are part of the contemporary assault on taboos, mores, old ways of thinking. Technology is both driving and being driven by the arts.

Get a Head Online

The world has long been used to airbrushing and digitally enhancing/altering everything and time- switching to put, for instance, President Obama in a mocked-up picture alongside Martin Luther King, as if they were ever together. Programs that make faces look as if they’re reflected in the funfair Hall of Mirrors are old hat.

There’s weariness with ‘planking’: photos of people lying like a plank, flat on their front in any unlikely place; owling (photographed like an owl) and batmanning (hanging upside down). Horsemanning is a refreshing twist.

It’s the latest web craze. One person’s body and another person’s head are posed to look like one person has been decapitated. It employs clever stagecraft instead of techno-wizardry.

In The Sunday Times (September 2011), Kate Mansey said horsemanning pictures ‘range from the absurd to the gruesome’. She said it’s named from the headless horseman in the story and film The Legend of Sleepy Hollow.

Intel As Art Exhibition

Intel, the world’s main computer chip maker, has opened an exhibition in London: Remastered, A visibly smart production. It ‘reimagines for the digital generation a whole range of traditional artworks’.

Artistic masterpieces like Turner’s Rain, Steam and Speed, Picasso’s Guernica, Dali’s The Persistence of Memory and Munch’s The Scream are among those getting a retelling, a reinterpreting of meaning for a digital, contemporary audience. Through high-range Intel 7 processors, motion-capture, conductive ink and 3D, interactive, interconnective installations are created.

Matt Warman, The Daily Telegraph’s Consumer Technology Editor reviewed the opening on September 22nd, by surmising that Intel needed not only to demonstrate its technology in use in all devices, but that they can expand to other disciplines. They wanted, according to Warman, people to invent and manufacture other devices which harness Intel power.

Food as New Art

As boundaries of creativity disciplines continue to blur, Intel employed ‘food architects’ to use crowd sourcing to mount the food-art recreation of da Vinci’s The Last Supper, which also featured a first class menu from the Titanic and the final meal of death row’s Robert Buell to add ‘social finish’ to the exhibition.

The pair who built a reputation making castles out of jelly were reported by Maria Popova in The Atlantic (April 2011), as British food consultancy, (Sam) Bompas and (Harry) Parr, better known as Jellymongers. They have transposed famous London landmarks from Buckingham Palace to St Paul’s Cathedral in jelly, using their own science ‘cutting edge technology and architecture’.

They challenge the dining experience. Other creative highlights have been Alcoholic Architecture, a bar flooded with vaporised gin and tonic (people had to inhale to enjoy it) and an Artisanal Chewing Gum Factory. For Easter 2011 they offered a two-day Rabbit Cafe (albino rabbits) and a room-sized chocolate waterfall, producing 12,000 litres an hour.

Popova described this ‘cross-pollinating of disciplines as fundamental to creativity’. She’s not wrong. It’s the same relish of fusion and mix as in contemporary internet and movie mash-ups.

It’s arts, science and technology merging in fertile procreation. Yet it’s also the fear of technology killing off the actor and then realising that shouldn’t happen in a truly inventive world.

Jelly as art stands apart, reinterpreting the old and understood into something that looks the same yet is different and, in the end, edible. For these artists, at least, art eats itself.

First published on Suite 101, 23 September 2011

Image: The Last Supper Gets a Technological Make-Over – Unknown photo author

Filed under: Articles at Suite 101