Daily Archives: May 30, 2009

Groundhog Day In Downing Street, As Structural Problems In British Politics Destroy Yet Another Government- Column 30.5.09

_______________________________________

JOYCE MCMILLAN for The Scotsman, 30.5.09
_______________________________________

THE GENERAL ELECTION is almost a year away; and yet the government seems so obviously weak, divided, and burned out that many can scarcely imagine it  lasting that long.  Those in power stand accused of abusing Britain’s traditional constitutional settlement in ways that have over-centralised decision-making, reduced the power and autonomy of MP’s, and turned the once-mighty Westminster Parliament into a mere rubber stamp for government.

Worse, there is an atmosphere of sleaze around; many MP’s stand accused of using their positions for personal enrichment, rather than for the good of their constituents.  Leading media personalities are talking of standing for Parliament, against some of the worst offenders.  Senior members of the Shadow Cabinet are writing persuasively, in the more serious newspapers, about the urgent need for constitutional reform.  And in the meantime, major issues of war and peace, social exclusion and environmental degradation, are largely neglected, as Westminster fiddles, and parts of society are left to burn.

Yes, it’s a familiar and depressing picture, after the political upheavals of the past few weeks.  Yet what I’m describing is not the political situation today, but the one back in the summer of 1996, when John Major’s failing government was struggling against the inevitability of its own demise; and it’s the similarity between these two moments in UK political history that makes me increasingly wary of the opposition parties’ strident calls for a general election, as the one-stroke solution to the current mood of public disgust with politics and parliament.

For what history tells us is this: that the structural problems in the organisation of British politics are now so deep that if a general election were held now – on the basis of an unreformed electoral system, and an unreformed system for the nomination and selection of candidates – then for those of us with vivid memories of 1997,  the day after that election would seem pretty much like Groundhog Day.  The new young leader, his wife and family would walk up Downing Street to declare a brave new dawn of decency and accountability in British politics; a few constitutional reform measures would be written into the first Queen’s Speech, although nothing radical enough to entail serious change at Westminster.

Then the gates would swing shut, and it would soon be business as usual.   Lobbying  and media pressures would dictate the re-emergence of the normal pattern of politics, with MP’s whipped into a dull appearance of unanimity, central government making shows of strength on issues supposed to be decided elsewhere, and any chance of real people-power undermined by powerful vested interests.  And thirteen or fourteen years down the road, we would find ourselves back in the same position, with a raddled and exhausted Cameron defending the indefensible, and some bright young leader from the opposition benches portraying himself – or even herself – as the people’s friend, and the one-vote remedy for all our political ills.

And that, in the end, is the crux of the matter: that if the moral and intellectual quality of British politics is to improve, then all those of us outside the professional political game are going to have to do much more, in future, than make that single Westminster cross on a ballot paper, once every five years.  In the first place, we need to reconcile ourselves to voting more often and more subtly, as we already do in Scottish national and local elections.  We need to use a range of different electoral systems, to exert a series of balancing pressures on our politicians; and we need fully to embrace the idea of coalition and minority government, as preferable to the large “false majorities”, and hundreds of safe seats, generated by the Westminster system.

And then secondly, we also need to think about re-engaging with the party system through which our parliamentarians are nominated and selected, either by rejoining and reforming existing parties, or by creating completely new ones, better fitted to the political landscape of our time.  Of course, to many people, that just sounds too time-consuming to be a serious option; too much like hard work, too boring compared with an evening watching Britain’s Got Talent.

But let’s suppose, just for a moment, that the current economic downturn is more than a mere blip in an endlessly self-mending market system.  Let us imagine that we might – as all the numbers suggest – be facing a real energy and resource crunch, and a long term need to live by a different scale of values.  And let’s assume, just for a moment, that in that new world, we find ourselves both with more time on our hands – millions of us will be unemployed, after all – and with a much stronger sense of how bad government could severely damage our lives; then that could be the moment when poltical reform really begins.

For as we have learned in Scotland these last ten years, new structures – from transparent expenses systems to proportional representation – can help protect political institutions from the worst excesses of arrogance and sleaze.   But in the end, if citizens remain disengaged and cynical, the effect of such change tends to be marginal.   It only begins to make a decisive difference at the point where some profound social shock, driving up from the grassroots of politics, starts to generate completely new political forces.  Now, a change of that kind is beginning to test the old Westminster system to destruction.  And although a swift general election now might ease the pressure of public disdain for a year or two, we need to recognise that it will take more than a set of new faces at the top to rescue British democracy from the cycle of disrepute into which it now tends to fall; and to rebuild its living connection with the ordinary voters of this country, in a form that can withstand the pressures of the age.

ENDS ENDS

Imaginate 2: Under The Carpet, Lava, Brilliant

_________________________________________________________

JOYCE MCMILLAN on IMAGINATE II: UNDER THE CARPET (Theatr Iolo at the Lyceum Studio), LAVA (Studio Orka at the Botanic Gardens), and BRILLIANT (Fevered Sleep at the North Edinburgh Arts Centre), for The Scotsman 30.5.09
_________________________________________________________

Under The Carpet  4 stars ****
Lava    4 stars ****
Brilliant  2 stars **

AT A CHILDREN’S THEATRE festival, the audience is often almost as entertaining as the shows; and the younger they are, the less they are likely to be constrained by the grown-up idea that audiences are only there to watch.

Theatr Iolo of Wales’s latest show Under the Carpet, for example, at the Lyceum Studio until Monday, is actually based on stories told to the company by nursery-school children in the 3-5 age-range for which it’s designed; and from an adult point of view, the situation it describes is not too interesting.  Nonno and Lol are a kind of Vladimir and Estragon of nursery theatre, beautifully played by Stephen Hickman and Jak Poore; they have lived together for a long time, and annoy one another a bit.  But they join together in searching for the stories they find hidden around their house – in the cupboard, under the table, on the ironing board, in the button-box.  Their timing and performance style is subtly perfect, full of unobtrusive skill.  And the response of the little children to their quiet physical comedy of fallouts, surprises, and small reconciliations is simply a joy to hear; roars of laughter, little helpful comments, gasps of surprise, and deep throaty chuckles of recognition.

Lava, by Orka Studio of Belgium, is aimed at older children, around 6-10; but it, too, produces a memorably complex response.  Staged in a spartan laboratory tent in the Botanic Gardens (until Sunday), Lava features three soil scientists – a man, a woman, and their student Catherine – who are deeply disturbed by an amazing discovery they have made in the earth beneath Edinburgh.  The two senior scientists want to prod, slice, dissect and experiment; Catherine has the feeling that the little underground dwellers they have found should be treated as equals and friends.  The show makes brilliant use of fibre-optic cameras combined with film, of tiny objects, and of serious interaction between the three characters.  And at the end, the junior audience are left shaken and stirred outside the tent; full of a sense of unresolved responsibility towards a newfound group of “others” whose future, in the hands of human beings, seems scarily uncertain.

Fevered Sleep’s Brilliant, at North Edinburgh Arts until Sunday, also gets a giggly response from its 3-5 year-old audience; but partly, I fear, for the wrong reasons.  Brilliant is a show about light, which features some lovely visual effects involving mirrors, glitter-balls, rolling moons and veils of mist; but it also boasts one of the most coy and incoherent scripts I’ve ever come across in children’s theatre, all saccharine cries of “goodnight light! goodnight moon!”, repeated ad absurdum.  The look of this show is promising, in other words; but those responsible for the script need to get out more, particularly to wonderful international children’s theatre festivals, like Imaginate.

ENDS ENDS ENDS