The resuscitation of Gordon Brown

WHY GORDON?

Back in the dim and distant past, when this whole referendum thing first got into gear, the Scottish Government proposed there should be three choices on the voting paper.  For full independence, to retain the status quo, or for an increase of the powers devolved to the Holyrood parliament.  The latter quickly acquiring the daft name of 'Devo Max'.  The Cameron government thought otherwise and next Thursday's simple binary choice was the result.  Devo Max was an option Downing Street thought unnecessary.

Polling at the time suggested that that missing option was the one most likely to have attracted majority support from Scotland's voters, had it been offered.  But Westminster felt confident that if it came to the choice of staying within the UK, or going it alone, the unionists would win comfortably.
And all the evidence at the time suggested they were right.

Fast forward to Spring 2014 when it already it feels like the campaigning has been going on forever.  Yet now starting to ramp up in intensity.  Devo Max has largely been left to rot in the gutter, but the occasional unionist politician has mentioned that when a No vote goes through Westminster may give some consideration to passing on some additional powers.  Crumbs from the table.

How times change.  As the polls have closed up and the underdog Yes campaign has gained momentum, as the day of polling gets ever closer, as arguments and 'experts' get thrown at the electorate from every angle, the polarity of the debating has increased and passions have been raised.  This was going to be closer than almost anyone had imagined.

And then there was one, just one, poll that showed Yes ahead.  By only two points, and other polls still gave No a lead, but it seems to have sent a shudder through the whole Better Together movement, and the leaders of the three main UK parties in particular.  Just days later, backed by Cameron, Clegg and Milliband, an announcement was made proposing that a No vote would result in significantly greater powers being devolved to Edinburgh.  There wasn't a lot of detail, but it did seem reminiscent of something from the past.  It seems Devo Max has been picked up, given a bit of a dust, and presented to us as a fresh new set of ideas.  And it only took one poll....

If you know me in real life you might not be surprised at a teensy-weensy note of cynicism creeping in here.  Poor old Devo.  Cast aside unwanted, she's now back on the scene, slightly faded, slightly jaded, and not quite sure what she's doing any more. But someone seems to need her, urgently.  Good luck old girl.

But it's not the return of Ms Max that concerns me here.  Desperate times bring out desperate measures. And Better Together have been sounding very desperate recently.  No, what intrigues me more is the presentation of this brave new world.  And, more specifically, the choice of presenter.

Gordon Brown emerged as the spokesman for this one, the front man, apparently, for the Westminster establishment.  At first glance he seems a sensible enough choice.  A weel kent face.  Former leader and statesman.  And still retaining some degree of credibility, even affection, in Scotland (despite being a laughing stock to many in England).  A sensible choice.

Really?  If I was a government trying to convince an electorate of the sincerity of my very-late-to-the-party proposals would I really choose Gordon?  A backbench MP, perhaps with some influence, but with no power and no prospect of being in power.  A voice from the past, irrelevant to the future of all three parties.  A voice it might be very easy to disown if the future dictated such a course of action....

If these proposals (and note that's all they are - nothing is, or can be, guaranteed) are being brought forward with genuine sincerity shouldn't they be presented by someone who has real power to take them forward?  Someone, perhaps, from the current government?  A Scot of course, so that rules out the Conservatives (I've met hamsters with more charisma than Scotland's sole Tory MP).  So a credible LibDem then (that's Danny Alexander out of the reckoning).  And who do we have in the post of Scottish Secretary of State?   None other than Alistair Carmichael, one of the few senior unionists to maintain an air of moderation in his pronouncements and with the decency (or career awareness!) to announce that if there's a YES result he'd be available to be a member of the Scotland negotiating team.  That rare beast, a coalition minister it's possible to have some respect for.

And, if you really wanted to give the impression that the three parties were unified behind these proposals why not throw in Margaret Curran, Alistair's shadow?  Wouldn't that demonstrate some commitment to implement the new legislation required (let's for a moment that this will have to be done by a UK parliament that hasn't actually been elected yet)?  Wouldn't it?

But no.  We got Gordon.  Yesterday's man.  Anyone convinced?  Draw your own conclusions.


PS If any No voters read this, or perhaps a committed unionist in England, I'd love to hear from you and tell me where, if, my analysis is flawed.  Please do.

Sixty goes by and it's time for normal life

HITTING THE BIG SIX OH

No, not me.  That's still some time off, albeit now more easily reckoned in months than years.

Yesterday, on the last night of the 2014 Edinburgh Festival Fringe, we ended up at a couple more shows to bring our total of events for the period to sixty.  In twenty three days.  Slightly knackered, but elated with seeing so much great entertainment.  This is not the post to go into details of what we've been to, but The Nualas gained a couple of new fans last night.  And we finished with the godmother of Scottish comedy, so a laugh was guaranteed.

But this is more about reflecting on the artificiality of the Fringe-going life, and what is now to come.  If you've read previous posts you'll know that immediately prior to launching into all that comedy, drama, music, radio, TV and sundry other events we were tied up in the house moving process, shifting ourselves and worldly goods from Southport to Edinburgh (even if most of said goods now reside in a warehouse a mile from where I now sit), and trying to squeeze a quart of clothing etc. from a four bed semi into the pint pot of a two bed flat.  Which is a pretty artificial existence in itself, and even more knackering.  So it's been quite a few weeks since we've experienced anything resembling normal and I am looking forward to a quiet night in as much as if I'd been asked round to supper by Sidse Babett Knudsen.  Well, almost as much.  Maybe.

So having, in effect, just arrived, the new kids on the block, we have to contrive to find out what normal now looks like.  If normal can include house hunting, which looks like taking up a lot of our time in the coming weeks.  Viewing properties, getting to know various areas of the city better than we do at the moment, and acquiring Mastermind levels of knowledge of bus timetables.  So it's going to be an odd kind of normal, looking for another life to replace the one we're trying to establish.  And retirement's supposed to be restful?

There's one final block to something like normality.  A little local matter of a referendum, taking place in twenty three days time.  You might have heard about it.  Or even read how I reached my own decision on the subject.  The polls still say there will be a negative result, but three weeks is a long time and much can still happen.  So I'm going to offer my services to Yes.  It won't be much, but at least it's something.

So what is normal?  And can it include moving house, Fringing, seeking out a new home and trying to ensure the future of democracy in your country?  Normal might just be a bit boring.

More Fringe stuff

LOOKING FOR THE BEST?

Aaaargh!  They played that bloody Sting song on the radio this morning.  But, fortunately, I suffered none of the flashbacks I feared when I wrote this post because there have been a few other distractions in the intervening eight days.  Like finally getting the flat into something like a liveable state after our move up here, having guests to stay over the weekend, and seeing a further seventeen Fringe shows.  We're not short of distractions.

If you're coming to The Fringe, or already here, you might read this hoping for some recommendations of what's best to go and see.  And I have a problem with that.  Partly because my tastes are eclectic and almost certainly very different to yours (you weirdo), and also not knowing what 'best' means.  We've seen stand up comedy, science based comedy, physical comedy, music, drama, a full blown musical and a couple of guys having a bit of a chat.  Which 'best' did you want from that lot?

There is one definition of best I could go with.  That's when the thing you're watching ends and you don't applaud because you're thinking "that couldn't have been sixty minutes".  Then you realise it was and you've just been so engrossed that time compressed.  If that's your idea of 'best' then I can give you a clear winner from the stuff we've seen so far.

If you read about my personal Top Ten from Fringe 2013 then the name Jennifer Williams might ring a bell. Wonderful last year, even better this time.  The Cold Clear Elsewhere tells the story of Australian war brides who came to the UK in 1946, a tale Williams makes far more interesting to watch than it might initially sound.  She plays Grace.  And Grace's best friend.  And her mother, and her husband, and his mother, and few others along the way.  With music and ambient sound provided by her brother, Jennifer makes smart use of a big space and carefully chosen props to take the audience through time and on a journey across the world.  She is funny, moving, pathetic, inspiring and coquettish.  It is a compelling performance with scene succeeding scene in rapid succession, but with no confusion as to time and place.  We might even go again when our next visitors turn up.

Other recommendations?  Go see the wonderful, hilarious, at-times-confessional, big softie bear that is Mr Aidan Goatley doing 11 Films to Happiness at Ciao Roma.  You will be amused, charmed, entertained and barely educated.  (Did I get that last bit right?)  Molland and Sullivan in the Beehive were laugh-a-second funny with a fine line in instant insults for audience members.  Possibly not the best choice for the shy and retiring.  Finally there is an odd comedy/lecture/art demo hybrid in the National gallery every Thursday.  Phill Jupitus shows off the copies he's made of paintings in the gallery, Hannah Gadsby (art expert and stand up comic) gives her, em, views on his efforts.  Some of his drawings are great.  And some are less than great.  You never know what's coming up next.

And then there was Red Bastard..... but that deserves a post of it's own.

That's it for now, there's another couple of shows awaiting our attention.  Barbara just suggested we have something she calls 'a day off'.  I think she must be talking about September.

There's no such thing as weird on The Fringe

OF A BIG BLUE TENT, A BLONDE WIG AND A VAGINAL LIFT

But not all three at once.

So we've done two days of Fringe going so far and seen three shows.  I'd call that a nice gentle start, easing ourselves in.  

Last night we went to see our favourite local comedian/physiotherapist, Elaine Miller, in her show Gusset Grippers.  Appropriately for a day when the skies crowded in and Edinburgh took on a damp sheen this was an hour dedicated to people who pish themselves.  Part comedy, part education, part science.  But mostly just bloody funny, despite, or maybe because, being shambolic.  How many shows offer you interactive pelvic floor exercises, a mental image of Bruce Willis in a lift inside a vagina, and free fanny wash?  Recommended show?  Absolutely.

Today we went to the BBC's Big Blue Tent which we've visited frequently in the past, and will be doing again this year.  The draw is twofold.  There's a variety of interesting events taking place.  And (better still) it's all free.  But having applied for loads of shows it's in the hands of the licence fee gods as what you actually get tickets for.  This afternoon's offering was towards the more random end of the spectrum.

I haven't consciously chosen to listen to Radio 1 since the eighties.  So the name Greg James registered zilch with me, old fogey that I am proud to be.  His presence on stage might explain why the crowd we were part of felt a good bit younger than is usual for these shows.  Bring back a Radio 4 audience....

Mr (Master?) James was interviewing John Kearns, winner of the best comedy newcomer award at The Fringe 2013.  Talking about how his life had changed as a result (he only gave up the day job last November and is now a full time professional comedian) and why August in Edinburgh matters so much to comedians in general, even those who have been well established for years.  There's simply nothing else like it in the comedy world (which is great for those of us lucky enough to live here) and has been the launch platform for so many of today's laugh making stars.

Kearns described his own act as 'silly', complete with daft wig and comedic false teeth.  We 'do' silly, so we followed him down to town and filed into the Voodoo Rooms (a good place to visit for breakfast even when the Festival has packed up its suitcases and wheeled itself off to Waverley Station).  JK was certainly different, although far less weird/silly than a lot of other acts we've seen (and the lack of a miniature Die Hard star was noticeable), and likes a bit of audience interaction. We were in the front row.  So somehow I ended up being the one perched on a bar stool on stage, ill fitting curly blonde wig affixed to my head.  I was instructed to drain the remains of my pint which was then replaced by a mixture of Lucozade and Tia Maria.  So stroking John's right knee, and swaying with him in time to Sting's rendition of 'Fields of Gold', seemed like the easy option rather than having to take a sip of such a disgusting mixture.

But I wonder what pictures my mind will flash before me next time I hear Any Sting?

Not quite ready to Fringe

ON THE FRINGE OF THE FRINGE

It's day One of the Edinburgh Festival Fringe.  If you read any of my posts from around this time last year you'll know how much that thought excites me.  But today has been about restraint, before we gorge ourselves on the feast.

We have just completed a house move, and are now full time Edinburgh residents.  The flat isn't quite straight yet, and there's more to be done, so we can't become committed Fringe goers quite yet.  So even though we were up in town today we managed to resist the lure of all the sights and sounds that simply watching the street acts can offer.  Although, inevitably, I did find myself with a pocketful of fliers, despite skirting around the edges of the main areas of activity and performance.  The Fringe is unavoidable.

What I did do, and I know how sad this sounds, was sort all our tickets into date order and put them into daily plastic pockets so it's clear each day what we're on our way to see.  Eighteen Fringe shows booked, and tickets for eight of the BBC offerings in the Big Blue Tent.  Plus three plays in one day from the 'proper' festival.  There's comedy, of course, plus drama, interviews, a TV broadcast, music (folk, jazz and classical) and even a stage musical (a genre I would usually avoid).  All of which gives the coming weeks a bit of shape, around which we have to fit in a few of our favourite Free Fringe performers, such as the wonderfully funny Aidan Goatley and the lovely and talented Jennifer Williams.  Plus my personal highlight from last year, The Showhawk Duo.

And a friend has just told me, via Facebook, to go and see her friend in a play.  Will it be any good?  I have no idea, but I'll go anyway.  If there's one word sums up Fringe time it's serendipity.

Watch this space....

I'm feeling moved

LITTLE BOXES, LITTLE BOXES

If you are of a certain age the above four words will almost certainly have brought to mind the phrase "and they're all made out of ticky-tacky".  You might even have started singing this song.

It's been on my mind a lot recently, because we're about to exchange one box for another (and probably a further box to follow, but that's a tale for another day).  Not sure if they're both made out of ticky-tacky, but the place we're moving to, built in 2002, probably meets the description better than the 1876 crumbly we're leaving.  I don't think they knew what ticky-tacky was in them days.

But we've certainly experienced plenty of boxes looking the same, as this photo proves.

I have made up boxes, filled boxes, sealed boxes, carried boxes, stacked boxes, for days on end.  I hate boxes.  I am boxed out.  I crave box rehab.  Box me no more, don't cry for me argent boxes.  It's probably for the best that I didn't have enough time to watch the Grand Prix today because if I'd heard one driver being told to "box, box, box" I'd have punched the television (which I can't do because it's in a box).

But the end is in sight.  Here's the same view after two nice gentlemen, one of them a red headed Orcadian ( you felt the need to know that, didn't you?), picked up all of our boxes and stacked them in a very large and very dark blue, and very box shaped, lorry.

And.........

Relax

Until we have to start unpacking those bloody boxes again.....

Work? Life? Balance....?

ILLEGITIMI NON CARBORUNDUM

A curse upon my feeble memory.  Last year there was giant billboard, looking down upon the people of Edinburgh, which truly irritated me every time I saw it.  Which is where my feeble powers of recall fail me, for I have no idea which company was being advertised, and the exact wording escapes me too.  So this is my poor effort to recreate that sight.

There was a head and shoulders shot of a smiling, white, middle aged man, the owner of the business being plugged.  The wording was supposedly a quote from this guy, which I paraphrase thus : "I ask my employees to give 100%.  And if they want to give more then that's fine by me."  This was the sales pitch, because there's nothing makes me want to give a company some of my money more than knowing that they treat their staff like enslaved chattels.  It's what we look for in a business, isn't it?  A total lack of morality or humanity.

Progressive employment practices have brought us the concepts of work-life balance and flexible working hours.  The notion that you shouldn't live to work, but only work to live.  It's the living bit that should get our priority, not the work.  This guy appeared to fly in the face of such modernity, no doubt seeking a return to those good old Victorian values of exploitation and monotony.  Or maybe he just hadn't thought it through?

Either way I felt, each time I saw the words, that this was sending out the wrong message to any and every person who read it.  And it was a reminder that the UK already has the longest working hours in Western Europe and some of the most restiveness and unnecessary anti-trades union legislation.

I recalled that reaction when I read this excellent article advising a reduction in working hours.  An idea that goes so much against conventional 'wisdom', as dictated by The Establishment whose interests must be gratified at all costs, that it demands a giant shift in our culture.  One that might take a long time to bring about, but would, eventually, greatly benefit most people.  The idea that sharing the available work around is the best use of  human beings.  Those already in work get more time to actually get something out of life, and the unemployed have more opportunities to work.  We no longer pay taxes to support people who have no job to go to, and spread the wealth of our society more evenly.

The arguments put up against this will say that it damages our economy, restricts financial growth and makes us uncompetitive in the world.  To which I'd say - So what?  And for us all to do that requires the biggest culture shift of all.  Because we would need to stop seeing ourselves as consumers, the label that big business want us all to identify with, and start to think more as members of a community.  To recognise that simply accumulating more and more 'stuff' is not as self fulfilling as we're being told.  To, maybe, remember that there's a lot more to being human than work and possessions.

Thirty hour week anyone?

PS  Yes, in case you're wondering, I am engaged in a huge downsizing project at home right now.  And it feels so good....

The sadness of the finale

THERE WILL BE TEARS

As I wrote last week, I have found the onset of alzheimers for the fictional character of Kurt Wallander deeply moving.  In a few minutes I will sit to watch the last ever episode of the detective drama, featuring the wonderfully shambolic Krister Henriksson, knowing that I will be experiencing more than just your average thriller or police procedural.  

Sometimes the finale of a favourite TV series leaves a bit of a gap in our lives, a small sense of loss.  There will be that, of course.  But far more will be knowing that character is leaving us for reasons outside the norm, with a condition we all know of and fear.  I will be crying for Kurt, for myself, and for all of us.

Cherish your humanity.

It's all about the football, isn't it?

ARE WE NEARLY THERE YET?

I’m pretty certain this World Cup thingy has been going on for about two and half months now.  So, like a child in the back seat of the car, just as you hit the edge of the town you’re leaving, the only question in my mind is “Is it nearly finished now?”.  From the bits of the news even my selective brain can’t quite blank I’m hearing the English soccer team is out of it.  And I’m guessing from the lack of mentions on the EBC - oops, sorry, BBC - that none of the other British isles teams are involved.  So does that mean it can all go a bit quiet?

I think I read somewhere the whole thing goes on for a month?  A whole month?  Even the Olympics doesn’t take that long.  Are these soccer players particularly lazy?

So, media, can you just pipe down about it now please.  And lets have some proper sport.  Because we don’t want any of the ball kicking nonsense to interfere with Wimbledon, do we?

First the whales, now the planet?

OF WHALES, PLANETS AND GREED

On Monday night I watched the second (and final) part of a documentary about the history of the whaling industry.  I'd originally tuned in to see if there would be any scenes of Leith Docks, which had quite strong whaling connections (there's an old harpoon gun mounted on the river bank next to our block of flats), and there were a few.  But in the end I watched because , in spite of a monotoned presenter, it turned out to be a very interesting story. And I learned the trivia that the biggest British whaling station, on the South Atlantic island of South Georgia, was called Leith Harbour, because the company that established it was Christian Salvesen of Edinburgh, a business I can recall still being prominent in the city during my childhood.

There isn't much whaling being carried out nowadays, and none at all by British ships, which is giving the whale populations a chance to recover, albeit to something far less than the vast numbers which once swam in the oceans.  For several decades during the early to mid twentieth century, when the whaling industry was at its peak, many thousands of these huge animals were being slaughtered every year.  Britain alone had over two hundred whaling vessels, several of them being vast factory ships, covering the Antarctic seas, and it wasn't until the sixties that the industry collapsed, leaving the few remaining whales in peace.

Long before then ecological scientists had identified that over-whaling was rapidly reducing whale numbers below long term sustainable levels. The demise of the industry was long foretold, but ignored as far as possible by those making huge profits from the killing.  Time and again scientists presented a logical case for at least a substantial reduction in the scale of whaling operations, only for the fleet owners to hone in on some small flaw in the data (which was always difficult to collect and interpret) and claim that there was no need to rein in their activities.

After the Second World War governments cooperated to form the International Whaling Commission to try and find a solution that would prevent whale numbers dwindling to the point where whaling would not be feasible (although there was some ecological motivation behind this, it was largely driven by a desire to see whale 'resources' still being available for exploitation for as long as possible).  Of course the company owners fought against any restrictions being imposed upon them.  Quotas were eventually agreed, but were far too high to have the desired impact, never mind that they would frequently be broken.  In the end the decision to abandon Leith Harbour was not made out of decency, or guilt, or concern for the species, but because there were so few whales left that their exploitation was no longer economically viable.  And that there were alternatives to whale oil more readily available for the production of soap and margarine.  Greed remained the driving force throughout, and almost ended in the extinction of the largest animals on earth.

All of which rings a modern day bell in my mind.  Scientists pointing out, over and over again, that current practices are leading to an ecological disaster, while the capitalists refuse to listen, always ready to point out that the evidence isn't 100% conclusive (90% is never good enough....).  Meanwhile the problem continues to get worse, will continue to get worse, and real action will only be taken when it's almost too late.  Or, possibly, when it really is past the point of no return.  Sound familiar?

The current arguments over climate change seem remarkably similar to those that once took place over whaling.  And, as in the past, sides are taken which result in entrenched beliefs, impervious to reasoned argument.  As before, it's the scientific community leading the call for change, based on the evidence they collect and interpret.  As before, the evidence isn't 100% certain.  But the job of science isn't to be certain.  It's to put forward the mostviable theories, based on the available evidence, and project what those could mean for our future.  And almost every scientist working in the field is confident that there are huge changes in our climatic systems taking place, and that man made emissions are in part the cause of this.  Exactly what proportion of this comes down to humans, and how long it will take for the most severe symptoms to become apparent, are subject to disagreement.  Unsurprisingly, given the fluid nature of the subject.  Despite this it is the degree of unanimity which is the more striking.  Few who have genuine knowledge of the matter appear to doubt that change is taking place, that our species is partly responsible, that the changes will likely have disastrous consequences for our ecosystem.  The disputes are over the degree of change, the speed of development, the exact contribution made by emissions.and the argument is not about whether or not something terrible is going to happen - only about when and why.

Those uncertainties are pounced upon by the 'whalers', in this case the big businesses, especially in oil and gas, who do not want to see their profits curtailed.  And governments fearful of telling hard truths to their electorates, of having to say that the days of freely available energy, of cheap flights to holiday destinations, of fruit out of season, might have to come to an end.  That we have been living beyond our ecological means.

And, of course, of those governments not answerable to their populations, who are often driven to keep trying to 'catch up' with the lifestyles of the rich west.  When perhaps it should be us coming closer to them.

This argument has become political, not just at the level of those in power, but for those who aspire to it.  The scientists have the support of the Green movement which has long called for changes in society to reduce waste, to work more in harmony with what is, after all, the only planet we've got.  There are many on the left of political thought who are coming to recognise the wisdom of this approach.

Against them, siding with big business, is the right wing which broadly opposes changes which might go against their god, economic growth.  For elements of the far right, such as UKIP in this country, climate change denial has become some kind of totem, an element of macho posturing which considers anything 'caring', be it for people of planet, as effete.

I don't know who is 'right'.  I'm not even sure there is such a thing as 'right' in this case.  But I do know which makes most sense.

If the scientists have got their interpretations correct, and we are headed towards catastrophic changes later this century, failure to act on their warnings now might leave humanity defenceless, possibly leading to the deaths of billions of people.

If the deniers are correct, and the changes being seen are part of a natural cycle which will eventually sort itself out, but our society has decided to cut back emissions, change to more sustainable food sources and invested heavily in renewable energy, what's the worst that can happen?  Fewer holiday flights, less choice in the supermarkets, a readjustment of the global economy?  Some people will make a lot less money.  Oh, and we might have cleaner air….

What's it to be? The common sense of the whales? Or the greed of the whalers?

Footnote - The deniers make a lot of capital out of renewable energy technology being expensive and inefficient. really?  Well, Doh!  With exception of hydro electric power, all our renewables - wind, solar, wave - are in their infancy.  At about the same stage in their development that the petrol engine was in the 1920s.  Only by investing in research, and using them in the real world, will they improve at a rate which can make them truly useful within the time we may need them.  If you complain about them it's a bit like criticising a five year old for being poor at project management....