THOSE HANDCARTS LOOKED SO INVITING, DIDN'T THEY?
Any time I've written about the EU referendum I've been careful always refer to the Leave side of the argument, or the Leave result, rather than using the awkward word in common usage. But this time it looks like I'm going to have to give in and utilise an equally clunky portmanteau abomination, because there doesn't appear to be a handy alternative around.
So here it is - Regrexit. The feeling being expressed by who-knows-how-many Leave voters that they want a second chance to vote, and get it right this time. It wasn't a phenomenon that took long to arise. Within the first couple of hours of the result being known journalists were finding Leave voters who weren't just shocked that 'their' side had one, but horrified. And the numbers joining them appear to have increased rapidly as the days have gone on. With the Leave people announcing two major U turns on campaign promises, the lack of any sign of any kind of plan, and the disasters that keep hitting to the UK economy, the reality of what they voted for is hitting home. Suddenly people have started to read the signs of those handcarts they were happy to climb aboard, and they don't like the look of the destination.
And when strongly pro-Leave media organs like the Mail and the Sun started explaining in detail the consequences of a Leave result - more expensive mortgages, dearer food, restrictions on owning property in Europe etc - their readers wondered why they hadn't been told all this before (they had, by Remain, but if you read the Mail or the Sun....).
At the moment nobody has a clue if this is going to turn out to be a ripple or a tidal wave, and it will be a while before there can be anything like reliable polling on the subject. But there is one indicator that might just give a clue.
I feel dirty at the thought of using this man as an example. He's a vile, lying, manipulative, barely human scumbag. He's too often been Rupert Murdoch's lapdog, and was the man was responsible for the Sun not being bought in Liverpool. He's been spouting Leave lies and propaganda in his Sun column for weeks. So when, only four days after the outcome he pushed for had come true, Kelvin Mackenzie announces he has "buyers remorse" about his vote, then something significant might just be happening. If a man who was previously a highly vocal anti-EU fanatic is now saying that leaving would be a mistake, you have to wonder what comes next. As the economic situation gets worse, and it becomes clear that many Leave promises are never going to be realised, it's hard to imagine that there won't be more with a similar change of heart. Especially those who can now see how badly misinformed they have been by their politicians and media.
"May you live in interesting times" goes the old Chinese curse. The times we live in have become much, much too 'interesting', but maybe there's some dullness, and sanity, waiting down the line.
Tuesday, 28 June 2016
Sunday, 26 June 2016
Another referendum? We have to reach the disconnected.
DO REFERENDUMS COME IN THREES?
A few years ago I received an invitation, right out of the blue, to a reunion of my primary school class, on the 50th anniversary of us all meeting for the first time. So I went along, curious to know what more than four decades had done to people I had once known on a daily basis, but were now complete strangers.
It was fun, with most of us being totally unrecognisable from our twelve year old selves, and a couple looking like they'd hardly changed at all. Funny what time does to us. And, in learning a bit about each other, I discovered one thing that took me aback.
My professional background was in IT (or 'working with computers' as it was when I began, the term IT not having appeared yet) so dealing with change and new technology has been a big part of most of my adult life. It came as a bit of shock to realise that, out of the couple of dozen people in that room, about a quarter of them didn't have, didn't even want, an email address. And another quarter only had one because their work provided it. Of the remaining half, only a half of them used social media, basically just Facebook, and I was the only person active on Twitter. I couldn't help wondering how that first few, with no email, no internet access, managed to function in the modern world. Clearly they do, but in ways that would now seem near alien to me - and probably to you since you're reading this on-line.
With last week's big event out of the way, I have now cast a vote in two referendums in less than two years. On both occasions, I have to admit, putting my cross against the losing side. The fallout from Friday morning may yet lead to me having to choose for a third time, so I'm interested in what the differences and similarities were between the two that have been, to inform what might happen in the future.
One clearly related aspect is that both offered a binary choice, ostensibly between maintaining the status quo, and introducing major constitutional change and upheaval. But on the first occasion it was the former that emerged the winner, latterly it was change that came through.
Of course there are a huge number of differences between the two, and the circumstances under which they were conducted. I don't pretend I can even think of, let alone discuss, all of these, for it's a complex subject, so I'm going to be reduced to doing some things I generally dislike - picking on a particular aspect I feel is important for the future, and talking in sweeping generalisations because there's no way not to on this occasion.
In 2014 IndyRef saw the incumbent Scottish Government, and the wider Yes campaign, push for independence. Ranged against them was the full force of the British establishment. Every one of the three main established political parties. And, more crucially for my purposes, almost the entire mainstream media. Only one national newspaper, and that a relatively small circulation Sunday paper, editorialised for a Yes vote. The TV and radio, particularly the BBC, were at best neutral, sometimes appeared to give the No a bit more leeway, and on at least one occasion the BBC deliberately lied in an effort to smear Alex Salmond.
In contrast the the EURef has been the British Establishment fighting itself. Forget all this nonsense of leave representing the common man - this was two Bullingdon boys slugging it out and the only reason it came to happen at all was down to Tory party infighting. This time the challengers to the crown had much of the traditional media on their side. The Sun, the Fail, the Excess, the Torygraph, all spouted Leave propaganda throughout. (I haven't been able to find the latest figures, but these from May last year give a fair indication of what that means in terms of relative numbers) And the TV and radio failed in their public service duty by doing little to emphasise that much of the Leave campaign was based on outright lies (we've already had two major U turns on campaign promises within two days of the result).
So what has all this got to do with that reunion? One of the most salient factors in both referendums was the split across the age groups. In both cases the side that one did so with most support coming from older generations, while the losing side appealed more to the young (see what I mean about sweeping generalisations!). If you were under forty you were much, much more likely to vote Yes or Remain, if you were over fifty you were probably for No and Leave (younger readers please note - I'm sixty but voted Yes and Remain, so please don't blame all of us!).
OK, my reunion sample wasn't of valid statistical significance, but I still think it gives us some indication of why this age split was so noticeable. If you're connected to the world digitally you have access to news and information sources far beyond the traditional media. You can fact check quickly, you can look for other sources to confirm or deny stories you come across. You are better informed. You are not at the mercy of the editorial line of whatever rag you might choose to subscribe to.
But if you're not connected? Who else are you going to believe if the only source of information you have is the likes of the Mail - Britain's most complained about "news"paper on account of the number of totally fabricated stories they publish. And the state broadcaster is failing you by not explaining why this information you're being fed isn't worth the paper it's printed on. What hope is there of making an informed and rational decision? No, I'm not suggesting this is the case for all No or Leave voters - many will have reached their decision for perfectly valid reasons having looked at the options. But there are still going to have been a lot of people who decided in a state of ignorance. There are already enough leave voters admitting they didn't know what they were really voting for, and are shocked by what they've let us in for, to make that a certainty.
So what does this mean for the next referendum, whenever it comes? I very much doubt that that's going to be a rerun of the last week's vote, however many leave voters wish for a chance to change their minds. Or indeed because of this petition which is meaningless in reality, but utterly hilarious because it was set up a far right Leave supporter before the 23rd in an effort to subvert democracy when his side lost, and has now been hijacked by the Remain side. As right wingers are so fond of saying, you couldn't make it up....
That probably means another IndyRef, unless some EU solution akin to the Denmark/Greenland position can be achieved, although our having a land border with England could make that tricky. If a Yes vote is to win this time around then it will need to reach older voters, and to do that it has to ensure fair treatment from the traditional media. I doubt that the likes of the Fail, Sun etc could be anything other than against, but it was amazing to see the Daily Record, Scotland's second biggest selling tabloid, come out with pro Indy front page the other day. In the past it has been firmly aligned to Labour and unionism. Whether or not this represents a blip or a permanent change remains to be seen. And as for the BBC....?
We do know that second IndyRef will be fought on very different grounds. This time around the Yes vote could be one, in part, for the status quo - to retain our EU membership and citizenship. That makes for a very different starting point, especially after such a decisive Remain vote across the country on Thursday. But the mainstream media may continue to be the biggest obstacle to getting the case for Indy across. We have to find ways to reach the disconnected, or the over sixties could let down their grandchildren once again.
A few years ago I received an invitation, right out of the blue, to a reunion of my primary school class, on the 50th anniversary of us all meeting for the first time. So I went along, curious to know what more than four decades had done to people I had once known on a daily basis, but were now complete strangers.
It was fun, with most of us being totally unrecognisable from our twelve year old selves, and a couple looking like they'd hardly changed at all. Funny what time does to us. And, in learning a bit about each other, I discovered one thing that took me aback.
My professional background was in IT (or 'working with computers' as it was when I began, the term IT not having appeared yet) so dealing with change and new technology has been a big part of most of my adult life. It came as a bit of shock to realise that, out of the couple of dozen people in that room, about a quarter of them didn't have, didn't even want, an email address. And another quarter only had one because their work provided it. Of the remaining half, only a half of them used social media, basically just Facebook, and I was the only person active on Twitter. I couldn't help wondering how that first few, with no email, no internet access, managed to function in the modern world. Clearly they do, but in ways that would now seem near alien to me - and probably to you since you're reading this on-line.
With last week's big event out of the way, I have now cast a vote in two referendums in less than two years. On both occasions, I have to admit, putting my cross against the losing side. The fallout from Friday morning may yet lead to me having to choose for a third time, so I'm interested in what the differences and similarities were between the two that have been, to inform what might happen in the future.
One clearly related aspect is that both offered a binary choice, ostensibly between maintaining the status quo, and introducing major constitutional change and upheaval. But on the first occasion it was the former that emerged the winner, latterly it was change that came through.
Of course there are a huge number of differences between the two, and the circumstances under which they were conducted. I don't pretend I can even think of, let alone discuss, all of these, for it's a complex subject, so I'm going to be reduced to doing some things I generally dislike - picking on a particular aspect I feel is important for the future, and talking in sweeping generalisations because there's no way not to on this occasion.
In 2014 IndyRef saw the incumbent Scottish Government, and the wider Yes campaign, push for independence. Ranged against them was the full force of the British establishment. Every one of the three main established political parties. And, more crucially for my purposes, almost the entire mainstream media. Only one national newspaper, and that a relatively small circulation Sunday paper, editorialised for a Yes vote. The TV and radio, particularly the BBC, were at best neutral, sometimes appeared to give the No a bit more leeway, and on at least one occasion the BBC deliberately lied in an effort to smear Alex Salmond.
In contrast the the EURef has been the British Establishment fighting itself. Forget all this nonsense of leave representing the common man - this was two Bullingdon boys slugging it out and the only reason it came to happen at all was down to Tory party infighting. This time the challengers to the crown had much of the traditional media on their side. The Sun, the Fail, the Excess, the Torygraph, all spouted Leave propaganda throughout. (I haven't been able to find the latest figures, but these from May last year give a fair indication of what that means in terms of relative numbers) And the TV and radio failed in their public service duty by doing little to emphasise that much of the Leave campaign was based on outright lies (we've already had two major U turns on campaign promises within two days of the result).
So what has all this got to do with that reunion? One of the most salient factors in both referendums was the split across the age groups. In both cases the side that one did so with most support coming from older generations, while the losing side appealed more to the young (see what I mean about sweeping generalisations!). If you were under forty you were much, much more likely to vote Yes or Remain, if you were over fifty you were probably for No and Leave (younger readers please note - I'm sixty but voted Yes and Remain, so please don't blame all of us!).
OK, my reunion sample wasn't of valid statistical significance, but I still think it gives us some indication of why this age split was so noticeable. If you're connected to the world digitally you have access to news and information sources far beyond the traditional media. You can fact check quickly, you can look for other sources to confirm or deny stories you come across. You are better informed. You are not at the mercy of the editorial line of whatever rag you might choose to subscribe to.
But if you're not connected? Who else are you going to believe if the only source of information you have is the likes of the Mail - Britain's most complained about "news"paper on account of the number of totally fabricated stories they publish. And the state broadcaster is failing you by not explaining why this information you're being fed isn't worth the paper it's printed on. What hope is there of making an informed and rational decision? No, I'm not suggesting this is the case for all No or Leave voters - many will have reached their decision for perfectly valid reasons having looked at the options. But there are still going to have been a lot of people who decided in a state of ignorance. There are already enough leave voters admitting they didn't know what they were really voting for, and are shocked by what they've let us in for, to make that a certainty.
So what does this mean for the next referendum, whenever it comes? I very much doubt that that's going to be a rerun of the last week's vote, however many leave voters wish for a chance to change their minds. Or indeed because of this petition which is meaningless in reality, but utterly hilarious because it was set up a far right Leave supporter before the 23rd in an effort to subvert democracy when his side lost, and has now been hijacked by the Remain side. As right wingers are so fond of saying, you couldn't make it up....
That probably means another IndyRef, unless some EU solution akin to the Denmark/Greenland position can be achieved, although our having a land border with England could make that tricky. If a Yes vote is to win this time around then it will need to reach older voters, and to do that it has to ensure fair treatment from the traditional media. I doubt that the likes of the Fail, Sun etc could be anything other than against, but it was amazing to see the Daily Record, Scotland's second biggest selling tabloid, come out with pro Indy front page the other day. In the past it has been firmly aligned to Labour and unionism. Whether or not this represents a blip or a permanent change remains to be seen. And as for the BBC....?
We do know that second IndyRef will be fought on very different grounds. This time around the Yes vote could be one, in part, for the status quo - to retain our EU membership and citizenship. That makes for a very different starting point, especially after such a decisive Remain vote across the country on Thursday. But the mainstream media may continue to be the biggest obstacle to getting the case for Indy across. We have to find ways to reach the disconnected, or the over sixties could let down their grandchildren once again.
Wednesday, 22 June 2016
The most fun you can have supporting Remain.
WHY CAN'T ALL ACTIVISM BE LIKE THAT?
What a brilliant idea. With the crucial EU referendum vote taking place tomorrow, a couple of days ago musician Aidan O'Rourke announced plans to stage a mass Strip the Willow outside the Holyrood parliament, as a means of demonstrating support for a Remain vote. And so we decided to take part. As Lau fans, as music fans, as convinced Remainers and, we hoped, as something vaguely resembling dancers.
Considering this event didn't exist forty eight hours before, the turn out was impressive. There must have been about forty musicians. Fiddles, accordions, guitars, banjos, bagpipes, whistles, bouzoukis, bhodrans, drums and even a clarsach. And close on two hundred dancers formed two lines and stripped that willow bare. Young and old, women and men, experienced and clueless, and everything in between. There were heavily pregnant women, and women with babies strapped to them. All joining in. Plenty of bystanders too but, more importantly, journalists and even a couple of TV crews. Both the BBC and Sky showed up to record short pieces, showing people having a great time, and the big support for Remain in Scotland. That's the important bit.
Other than receiving a salient reminder of just how unfit I am right now, it was great fun, and the atmosphere was one of enthusiastic joy. Enthusiasm for the music, for the dancing, for the company, and, most of all, for wanting to stay in the EU. Activist organisers take note - this is definitely how it's done!
What a brilliant idea. With the crucial EU referendum vote taking place tomorrow, a couple of days ago musician Aidan O'Rourke announced plans to stage a mass Strip the Willow outside the Holyrood parliament, as a means of demonstrating support for a Remain vote. And so we decided to take part. As Lau fans, as music fans, as convinced Remainers and, we hoped, as something vaguely resembling dancers.
Considering this event didn't exist forty eight hours before, the turn out was impressive. There must have been about forty musicians. Fiddles, accordions, guitars, banjos, bagpipes, whistles, bouzoukis, bhodrans, drums and even a clarsach. And close on two hundred dancers formed two lines and stripped that willow bare. Young and old, women and men, experienced and clueless, and everything in between. There were heavily pregnant women, and women with babies strapped to them. All joining in. Plenty of bystanders too but, more importantly, journalists and even a couple of TV crews. Both the BBC and Sky showed up to record short pieces, showing people having a great time, and the big support for Remain in Scotland. That's the important bit.
Other than receiving a salient reminder of just how unfit I am right now, it was great fun, and the atmosphere was one of enthusiastic joy. Enthusiasm for the music, for the dancing, for the company, and, most of all, for wanting to stay in the EU. Activist organisers take note - this is definitely how it's done!
You have until tomorrow to sober up
FROM A CONCERNED NEIGHBOUR
Dear England,
We're getting quite worried about you. You're clearly not well, but maybe if you have a quiet lie down in a dark room you'll start to feel better. Just do it by Thursday please....
When I first started thinking about writing this post my intention was to highlight what a gift to comedy this whole EU Referendum nonsense was proving to be. But it's getting harder to find it all so funny now. Recent polls have shown Leave ahead, and the real possibility that they might actually win. Despite every sane independent commentator pointing out the disastrous consequences. What on earth is England thinking? Scotland looks on in horror.
Part of the comedy potential came from the styles of campaigning. having been through Indyref a couple of years ago we know exactly what Project Fear looks like. But now we have the spectacle of Project Fear taking on..... Project Fear. And no principle is too sacrosanct not to be dragged down into the sewers and regurgitated as hyperbolic spume. We've had Johnson telling us remaining will be like living under Hitler, farage telling us we'll all be raped in our beds, and Cameron forecasting the outbreak of World War Three if we leave. (In which case Dave, why did you call this stupid referendum? Oh yes, Tory party infighting....) And now, with just days to go, a pro Remain MP is murdered in the street by a far right Leave fanatic. Makes Jim Murphy's egg look a bit tame now, doesn't it?
OK, I know the EU is awful. I've seen how they shafted the Greeks. And yes, there is a lack of democracy in the governance. But when you compare it with Westminster it doesn't really look so bad. I'm not aware of anyone in the EU structure holding their post on account of being especially friendly with their imaginary friend, nor where their sole 'qualification' is managing to fall out of the 'right' vagina. The EU parliamentary electoral system doesn't allow a faction to win just 37% of the vote and end up with a majority. And as for the House of Lords....
Supporting the Westminster system and decrying the EU's lack of democracy is like Murdoch accusing Dacre of telling porkies.
There are several decent, reasonable arguments in favour of leaving the EU. But few of them get heard, the pro-Leave arguments being dominated by the right. And that matters, as I'll mention later.
Commentators are saying that there are two major issues dominating the voters minds. Number one is the economy. We know from experience that nobody can predict the economic future, but pretty much every independent thinker is saying that the impact is likely to be seriously detrimental. Even Leave have been forced to admit it. So how come so few people seem to be listening? Personally, as with Indyref, I don't think this should be about money. Nobody doubts that the UK would survive leaving the EU, and there might be benefits that outweigh the short or medium time financial problems that leaving would clearly cause. Anyway, if anyone is trashing the UK economy it's wee Georgie, with his austerity madness, and a Leave vistory won't change that insanity.
As for the second issue, immigration, this isn't a problem, it's a benefit. It's a non-issue created by a xenophobic right wing media, and the far right, like ukip. The latter are keen to blame everything on 'uncontrolled' immigration, and behind it all the dastardly EU. But every study shows that Britain is better off for immigration, and in many places, and certainly in Scotland, they are essential to the economy for demographic reasons. Most immigrants are younger, make little use of public services (and are rarely in receipt of benefits, despite the Daily Fail style myths being peddled), but contribute significantly with their taxes. They create jobs, they don't steal them.
Alongside this is the cry to 'take control of our borders'. Another myth. If you come in to Britain you have to show your passport. If you don't, as at the Irish border, it's because the British government has decided it should be that way. Or because they are failing to put the resources into the Border Agency. But it has nothing to do with the EU. There's this fantasy idea that anyone from the EU can walk in without any barriers. But the reality is that there are many regulations which can be applied to prevent entry, should that be necessary. We already have 'control' of borders. I would hate to see immigration being limited. Freedom is freedom.
If there is a bit of a problem it's with illegal immigration. So how is leaving the EU going to help that? By reducing cooperation between countries?
I feel some distaste for finding myself on the same side as Cameron. But this about much more than personalities. And anyway, it would upset me even more to be aligned with the power hungry Johnson, failed minister Gove or the corrupt and discredited Fox. Not to mention that far right band of ukip loons. So I'll vote Remain for three reasons.
The EU may be corrupt in places. But nothing like Westminster, as this terrifying quote from Murdoch makes clear. The EU, for all it's faults, retains some respect for human rights, workers rights, women's rights. A Johnson government would have none of it.
Advances in science have been of huge benefit to our society. The politicians running the Leave and remain campaigns both lie and exaggerate. Now Michael Gove is telling us we shouldn't pay any attention to experts, aka 'People who know what they're talking about'. But I'd have much more faith in the views of the people who spend their lives dispassionately reaching conclusions for the analysis of real data, than a man who's been a disaster as Education Secretary who thought that it would be a good idea to teach creationism to children. So when Stephen Hawking and the majority of his colleagues tell us that leaving the EU would be bad for science, and therefore our future, don't you think you should listen?
My third reason will see me accused of the hyperbole I condemn in others, but I can't see any way round it.
Quick question. When was the last time we had over seventy years pass without a war between any of the major powers of Europe? Answers on a postcard....
We are living in a time when the notion of a shooting war between France and Germany, or Britain and Spain, or Austria and Italy, has become virtually unthinkable. And that has never happened before. Of course that is isn't entirely down to the EU, but it's certainly been, and continues to be, a major contributor to peace.
Leave supporters will tell you that it's NATO should take the credit. But a military alliance can only keep the peace - it can't make it. A lasting peace comes when states bind together, working on their common interests and ensuring that the idea of prosperity is one of mutual dependency and cooperation.
Although there are some on the left and in the centre of politics who have their reasons for supporting Leave, the greatest thrust for Out has come from the far right. It's noticeable that ofttimes it's been hard to distinguish between the statements of Johnson, Gove and IDS, and the bigoted bile coming from Farage and co. Ukip are your far right (and near enough non existent in Scotland). If anyone disputes that I suggest you check out the company they choose to ally themselves to in the European Parliament; or the endorsements they received last year from Nick Griffin, 'Tommy Robinson', Britain First and Hatie Plopkins; or just one glance at Farage's nakedly racist poster a few days ago - Goebbels or Shepilov would have been proud of that one.
A win for Leave would be seen as a victory by the far right. Not just in the UK , but across Europe. And that's an ominous thought. Similar far right nationalist groups are already exploiting discontent and lies in many countries across the continent. In France the appalling Le Pen is seriously talked about as a possible president. In Austria, Sweden, Denmark and Greece the fascists have grown their support. The openly racist Pegida began in Germany and has since spread like a fungus.
And, that, for me, is the greatest danger of all. An EU that collapses into rival right wing states run by rabble rousing nationalists. You don't need to have all that much knowledge of history to see the alarm bells that rings.
But I did say there was comedy in all of this, so let's close on the funniest possible outcome. If, on Friday morning, we wake to find the UK has voted narrowly to remain, but England voted narrowly to Leave, wouldn't that be hilarious? You can imagine Nigel 'frog face' Farage turning a more vibrant shade than even his most ridiculous pair of trousers, and Paul 'Eddie Hitler' Nuttall's head exploding as the walnut that sits where his brain should be fails to comprehend what's happening. How we'd laugh....
We are living in a time when the notion of a shooting war between France and Germany, or Britain and Spain, or Austria and Italy, has become virtually unthinkable. And that has never happened before. Of course that is isn't entirely down to the EU, but it's certainly been, and continues to be, a major contributor to peace.
Leave supporters will tell you that it's NATO should take the credit. But a military alliance can only keep the peace - it can't make it. A lasting peace comes when states bind together, working on their common interests and ensuring that the idea of prosperity is one of mutual dependency and cooperation.
Although there are some on the left and in the centre of politics who have their reasons for supporting Leave, the greatest thrust for Out has come from the far right. It's noticeable that ofttimes it's been hard to distinguish between the statements of Johnson, Gove and IDS, and the bigoted bile coming from Farage and co. Ukip are your far right (and near enough non existent in Scotland). If anyone disputes that I suggest you check out the company they choose to ally themselves to in the European Parliament; or the endorsements they received last year from Nick Griffin, 'Tommy Robinson', Britain First and Hatie Plopkins; or just one glance at Farage's nakedly racist poster a few days ago - Goebbels or Shepilov would have been proud of that one.
A win for Leave would be seen as a victory by the far right. Not just in the UK , but across Europe. And that's an ominous thought. Similar far right nationalist groups are already exploiting discontent and lies in many countries across the continent. In France the appalling Le Pen is seriously talked about as a possible president. In Austria, Sweden, Denmark and Greece the fascists have grown their support. The openly racist Pegida began in Germany and has since spread like a fungus.
And, that, for me, is the greatest danger of all. An EU that collapses into rival right wing states run by rabble rousing nationalists. You don't need to have all that much knowledge of history to see the alarm bells that rings.
But I did say there was comedy in all of this, so let's close on the funniest possible outcome. If, on Friday morning, we wake to find the UK has voted narrowly to remain, but England voted narrowly to Leave, wouldn't that be hilarious? You can imagine Nigel 'frog face' Farage turning a more vibrant shade than even his most ridiculous pair of trousers, and Paul 'Eddie Hitler' Nuttall's head exploding as the walnut that sits where his brain should be fails to comprehend what's happening. How we'd laugh....
Friday, 3 June 2016
The tuk-ing of Lisbon
WHAT THE TUK?
From one capital city of hills to another. But Lisbon has some city centre slopes of a steepness to make even an Edinburgh resident blanch. It also has some wonderful architecture, magnificent squares and a long and fascinating history, so the two have much in common.
When we first visited, four years ago, we returned impressed by the friendliness of the people and the relatively unspoiled character of the place. For a big European capital city it had done well to resist the blight of commonality that the likes of McDonald's and Starbucks impose upon our streets, with the resulting sensation that you could be anywhere. Lisbon had character, charm, individuality. And it was cheap too.
Portugal only rid itself of the deadening weight of fascist rule about forty years ago, but that political fresh start seems to have been of benefit. They have implemented one of the most enlightened, and successful, drugs policies in the world, indicating that they may be a country which the rest of us can learn from in some respects. But it is also country which is being changed by the desire to raise the standard of living. With a greater emphasis on tourism being one facet.
We got to our hotel, settled in, and went for a wander, quickly recalling the general layout and some of the places we had visited last time. It didn't take long to feel at home in that respect. Much is as it was. But there have been big changes, and the most obvious sign of these was a new arrival on the streets, in what we swiftly gathered was huge numbers.
Tuk-tuks. The three wheeled motorised rickshaws you'd more usually associate with India and Thailand. They were everywhere. At first glimpse they look like a charming addition, and there are some stunning paint jobs on show. But once you've seen a couple of dozen or so in quick succession it hits you that this is a sign of just how much Lisbon has changed since we were last here. On our first full day we took in a walking tour to sample local food and drink. I asked our guide about the tuk-tuks, wondering if my memory was faulty, and there had been some last time. Her response was surprisingly vehement. They had first appeared three years ago and had since become an - her word - infestation. And this from someone working in the tourist industry.
And that's what it's on it's way to becoming, an industry like any other. The changes to the buildings and streets aren't great yet, but there were a few more of those American food chain places in evidence than before. And a lot more people, but not always the infrastructure to cope with them. the locals are, by and large, still lovely, friendly people. But you can see signs of some of them getting a bit pissed off with the influx, much like Edinburgh in August. We took a 15 tram out to Belem to see the attractions there, and it was as jam packed as any London tube train. Armpit territory. Sardines (appropriately enough). Squeezed up against us tourists were people who had jobs and appointments to get to, relatives to visit, good works to perform (maybe). This great influx of the ignorant hampers them in their daily routines, and the novelty is wearing off. The visitors might bring money, but there are a lot of negatives too.
On the plus side (?) the city is starting to think more like a tourist destination. The Lisbon Story Centre didn't exist four years ago, and now provides a great way to find out more about the background to your surroundings when you visit. But there's a lot to do too, if it really is to end up as a modern holiday centre. It's not in the least disabled-friendly, and vegetarians don't get many options.
There's only one end to this story and that's an increase in blandness, in homogenity, in changing from a city that welcomes tourists into a tourist city - and the two are definitely not the same. The topography of Lisbon is such that it could never entirely lose it's character. But if we were to return in another four years I wonder how many of the small local businesses will still exist in the city centre? Will the locals shed their charm to become like so many of their counterparts in London and Paris? And will tuk-tuks rule the world, will they be charging even more than the €50 per hour they do now. Lisbon is still a cheap capital to visit. But that's changing. I just hope it isn't too painful a transition for the Lisboners.
From one capital city of hills to another. But Lisbon has some city centre slopes of a steepness to make even an Edinburgh resident blanch. It also has some wonderful architecture, magnificent squares and a long and fascinating history, so the two have much in common.
When we first visited, four years ago, we returned impressed by the friendliness of the people and the relatively unspoiled character of the place. For a big European capital city it had done well to resist the blight of commonality that the likes of McDonald's and Starbucks impose upon our streets, with the resulting sensation that you could be anywhere. Lisbon had character, charm, individuality. And it was cheap too.
Portugal only rid itself of the deadening weight of fascist rule about forty years ago, but that political fresh start seems to have been of benefit. They have implemented one of the most enlightened, and successful, drugs policies in the world, indicating that they may be a country which the rest of us can learn from in some respects. But it is also country which is being changed by the desire to raise the standard of living. With a greater emphasis on tourism being one facet.
We got to our hotel, settled in, and went for a wander, quickly recalling the general layout and some of the places we had visited last time. It didn't take long to feel at home in that respect. Much is as it was. But there have been big changes, and the most obvious sign of these was a new arrival on the streets, in what we swiftly gathered was huge numbers.
Tuk-tuks. The three wheeled motorised rickshaws you'd more usually associate with India and Thailand. They were everywhere. At first glimpse they look like a charming addition, and there are some stunning paint jobs on show. But once you've seen a couple of dozen or so in quick succession it hits you that this is a sign of just how much Lisbon has changed since we were last here. On our first full day we took in a walking tour to sample local food and drink. I asked our guide about the tuk-tuks, wondering if my memory was faulty, and there had been some last time. Her response was surprisingly vehement. They had first appeared three years ago and had since become an - her word - infestation. And this from someone working in the tourist industry.
And that's what it's on it's way to becoming, an industry like any other. The changes to the buildings and streets aren't great yet, but there were a few more of those American food chain places in evidence than before. And a lot more people, but not always the infrastructure to cope with them. the locals are, by and large, still lovely, friendly people. But you can see signs of some of them getting a bit pissed off with the influx, much like Edinburgh in August. We took a 15 tram out to Belem to see the attractions there, and it was as jam packed as any London tube train. Armpit territory. Sardines (appropriately enough). Squeezed up against us tourists were people who had jobs and appointments to get to, relatives to visit, good works to perform (maybe). This great influx of the ignorant hampers them in their daily routines, and the novelty is wearing off. The visitors might bring money, but there are a lot of negatives too.
On the plus side (?) the city is starting to think more like a tourist destination. The Lisbon Story Centre didn't exist four years ago, and now provides a great way to find out more about the background to your surroundings when you visit. But there's a lot to do too, if it really is to end up as a modern holiday centre. It's not in the least disabled-friendly, and vegetarians don't get many options.
There's only one end to this story and that's an increase in blandness, in homogenity, in changing from a city that welcomes tourists into a tourist city - and the two are definitely not the same. The topography of Lisbon is such that it could never entirely lose it's character. But if we were to return in another four years I wonder how many of the small local businesses will still exist in the city centre? Will the locals shed their charm to become like so many of their counterparts in London and Paris? And will tuk-tuks rule the world, will they be charging even more than the €50 per hour they do now. Lisbon is still a cheap capital to visit. But that's changing. I just hope it isn't too painful a transition for the Lisboners.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)