the brilliantly leaping gazelle

The received wisdom, which the results of the local election would seem to confirm, is that the Conservative Party have played a blinder by neutralizing UKIP as a political force so effectively, that they are in danger of becoming a political farce.

In a weird way, I feel sorry for UKIP. Not because their views they espouse are ones I necessarily agree with.  But more that the frustration and cynicism of people with the established political parties that they gave voice to, has in turn been cynically watered down by the Conservative Party.

UKIP forced the issue of a European referendum. Without sustained political pressure from UKIP and media pressure from sections of the most of the press, one wouldn’t have happened. UKIP got 12.6% votes cast in the general election of 2015 remember? To everyone’s surprise, we voted for Brexit. Certainly to Teresa Mays surprise, because she was a Remainer! Therefore it seems plausible, if not certain, that Teresa May might well have been advised to make it seem that she was seeking a strong negotiating position, sending out the right ‘mood music’ and signaling her willingness to walk away from any deal that she though wasn’t in the nation’s best interest. Of course, appealing to those voters that had been lost to UKIP played absolutely no part whatsoever in her decision.

But if it did, was it that much of a shock? Remember the European Elections of 1989? Like it was yesterday I’ll wager. When the Green Party took 14.9% of the vote, causing both the Labour and Conservative parties to confront the truth that the Greens had a message that voters liked? And not just voters, but a significant amount of voters, so significant in fact, that both parties sought to reposition themselves in the minds of the voter as more environmentally aware. So successful were both parties at doing this, that at next European elections in 1994, the Greens only got 3.2% of the vote. Rendering the threat to the political environment nullified and ensuring business as usual.

Another day, another poll suggesting that something might happen to someone, whereas something else might happen if that someone does something different because some people are feeling something that they could well change their minds about.  Or something.

Yup, there’s another poll in today’s Observer, carried out by Opinium, which states;

The Tories have dropped one point to 46% since last week, while Labour is unchanged on 30%. The Liberal Democrats are up one point on 9% and Ukip is unchanged on 7%.

While Labour has succeeded in clawing back some of the Tory lead, which stood at 19 points two weeks ago, Theresa May’s party would still win a majority of 100.

Oh dear. Someone, somewhere is doing something – but hang on! There’s a caveat here. A small glimmer of hope! The report adds, in something akin to what I imagine would be a schoolboy’s voice when offering a grudgingly mumbled apology, whilst looking downward and kicking his shoes;

if this weekend’s figures are an accurate prediction of what happens on polling day.

What! You mean to say this poll could be wrong? Next thing is you’ll be telling me that they base their findings from a survey of only 20005 people. Oh that’s in the small print is it? Along with the fact that respondents took part online. Well that’s fair enough, I suppose, everything’s done online nowadays. What with it being more modern than a bloke with a clipboard. At least they weren’t paid to take part – oh they were?

But that wasn’t mentioned anywhere in the story. I had to go their website to discover that rather salient fact.

You get cash rewards for each survey that you complete. The average payment is 50p and we pay you when your account reaches twenty five pounds.

Admittedly, one doesn’t get much but that isn’t the point. The point is that not just a only a sad sack like me would think it worth asking to question the survey’s methodology, but also that for a newspaper that frequently takes the moral high ground, isn’t this just a tiny bit something?

I was watching BBC2’s ‘Newsnight’ yesterday and there’re was a discussion about the local election results, their impact on the parties strategy and the results might be indicative of voting behaviour on June 8^th. In the midst of all this they discussed Teresa May; more specifically how she was perceived by voters. One of the panelists, a presenter on a London talk radio station observed that a lot of his callers – regardless of their political affiliation – expressed admiration for Teresa May. Others, he added considered her strong, capable or a combination of all three.

But crucially, when asked to explain why they felt this way, they hadn’t a reason. It was more a feeling, an impression that they got. Another panelist then jumped in. He too had heard the same thing repeatedly on the doorstep. A feeling that she was somehow good without knowing why they thought it.

And then it struck me! Teresa May is copying the techniques first perfected by Harold Saxon, Doctor Who’s nemesis ‘The Master’, who finding himself on earth creates an identity for himself as Harold Saxon, an emerging political force. Bear with me. One way he does this is by launching the Archangel network of telecommunication satellites. Only there is embedded in the signal that every user gets is a subliminal message that he is good, he is to be trusted, that he is kind and so on. They don’t know why they think it, they just know he is.

Only he isn’t. And it’s only when it’s too late and becomes Prime Minister that people realise that.

But hey, ‘Doctor Who’ is only voguish science fiction, rooted in far-fetched implausibility populated with robotic villains who screech terrifying stock phrases repeatedly.

Yeah, only make believe.

This morning I woke up to the first results from the local elections and they were either very good or very bad, depending on your political allegiance. The Conservatives had their best results in over a decade, the Lib Dems did badly but nowhere near as badly as Labour whilst some in the media have judged UKIP to have been obliterated, having lost all of their seats.

Thinking about UKIP being obliterated,  I thought of last night, specifically me watching ‘The War Game’ again for the first time since I was fifteen. For those of you who don’t know what ‘The War Game ‘is, it was made by the BBC in 1965, and shows the effects on ordinary civilians of a nuclear war. Immediately banned. and never broadcast at the time and only screened over 20 years later, it nonetheless won the Academy Award for best documentary.

One of the pitfalls one exposes oneself when watching something one remembered fondly from ones youth is that it can all too often be a disappointing experience, as one is judging it with a more critical eye. Sometimes things are best enjoyed as memories.

This wasn’t one of those occasions.

Watching it again after so many years,  I was struck by the fact that not only has it stood the test of time remarkably well, but that at fifteen I thought it worth seeing in the first place. I had somehow persuaded my mum to drive quite a way me to a screening of it organised was by C.N.D in a church hall. It was almost like watching ‘A Clockwork Orange’ when it was banned. Both had achieved a near mythical status, but ‘The War Game’s shocking power came from it’s matter of fact approach.

So when Jeremy Corbyn is criticized in the press for saying that if Prime Minister he wouldn’t launch a nuclear weapons is that such a shock. I mean here’s man who when he didn’t have power saying the same thing when he does. I know I’ve got brain damage and everything, but how is that a bad thing? The press would brand him a traitor to his ideals if he suddenly recanted them and use it as evidence of his untrustworthiness. And those politicians who are lauded in the press for being somehow strong for saying they oppose his principled decision, are they not aware that in a nuclear exchange, the effects of the resulting nuclear winter, the radiation sickness affecting billions, the collapse of civil society would not differentiate between who had or hadn’t fired them?

As if to neatly underline how much general election coverage has dominated the news agenda these past few days, on the day on which there are local elections and by convention no reporting of political news, there is the shocking news that a 95 year old man will stop doing something.

Never mind that that something often consisted of him making some very ill advised comments, which at the time the press castigated him for.  But now that he’s to stop making them, those very same newspapers can publish them again as a sort of something.

And I don’t mind that. I wouldn’t expect anything else. In the same way I wasn’t surprised by Teresa Mays toadying sycophancy in response to this. The Conservative love the royal family. What I was taken aback by was this:

The Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn, said: “I would like to pay tribute to Prince Philip following his decision to retire from public service. He has dedicated his life to supporting the Queen and our country with a clear sense of public duty.

“His Duke of Edinburgh’s Award scheme has inspired young people for more than 60 years in over 140 nations. We thank Prince Philip for his service to the country and wish him all the best in his well-earned retirement.”

Because in what way exactly is his retirement well earned? I mean, a teacher earns their retirement. They’ve put the hours in, performed thankless tasks, for poor pay and frequent abuse from politician’s. Same as social workers and countless millions of others who just soldier on from day to day. These are the people for whom whose retirement is well earned. His isn’t.

What hard work has he ever done?  And what is he retiring from? And this public duty that he has such a clear sense of? What in the name of sanity is that? Living off the taxpayer and being a benefit scrounger? If anyone can shed any light whatsoever on anything he’s done that means his retirement is well earned, please leave a comment.

Unless Corbyn meant ‘ I would like to pay tribute to Prince Phillip but sadly I can’t. Whilst he will enjoy a retirement that many can only dream of, the reality is that for some people retirement is a living nightmare.’

Today voters go to the polls in the local elections, with councils and some newly created mayoralties – not even sure if that’s a word – up for grabs. But there won’t be a competitive count, where various constituencies race to be the first to call the result. Like it matters.

Anyway, what’s interesting about these local elections, taking place in the midst of a general election campaign, is exactly how much they do and don’t tells us about the electorates voting intention on June 8^th. But thankfully, politicians will be on hand  to interpret the same result in different ways.

For example, if the party with previously the highest number of councilors does badly, we might hear something like ‘These results, whilst disappointing in themselves, and lets not pretend that they’re not, are not indicative of voter intention at the general election.’

Whereas if a party, which had previously fared badly does well, we might hear something like this ‘It’s been a wonderful night, not for us, but for the millions of hard-working people who’ve put their trust in us to deliver quality local services.’

And if it’s a party who’ve always struggled in local elections, and have done so again, we might get a variation on this ‘It’s clear that our message, which is proving to be very popular indeed on the doorstep, hasn’t as yet managed to turn itself into votes.’

Or if it’s one of the smaller parties, who have no realistic chance of doing anything but lose the candidates deposit, expect ‘It wasn’t about winning for us, it was about offering the people a real choice, one that is free of tired political dogma and cliché.’

Welcome to the world of elections where no-one ever loses, because if you spin you win!

The news today that ITV have issued a press release announcing their plans for a televised debate between the party leaders, whilst not addressing contingency plans in the event of multiple no shows to such a debate, is not a huge surprise for a number of reasons.

Firstly, few things happen in any sphere of modern life without a press release or similar to announce it. One gets this a lot in political speeches. Where the text of the speech is given to the press beforehand so it can make the news bulletins and someone can say to camera how someone is expected to say this. And then someone back in the studio can discuss with someone else how something that hasn’t actually happened might affect things.

The benefit in doing this is that if the something is badly received in the media, then it can be claimed to but an exploratory idea or similar and ditched. It’s called doing a ‘reverse ferret’.

Secondly, received political wisdom has it that any meetings with the public are not something that can be carefully controlled by party media managers. Examples of this going wrong and becoming the story are both legion and salutary, as happened today when Tim Notasin was cornered on a walkabout by a pensioner angry at the Lib Dem’s stance on Europe. Although the most shocking example of this was ‘bigotgate’, when the then Prime Minister Gordon Brown was recorded calling someone a ‘bigot’.

Thirdly, this represents a communication echo chamber, made up of the media and the politicians; inasmuch as the media report something and the politicians respond or vice-versa. Crucially, the mainstream media know the rules and will abide by them to ensure continued access.

And whilst I’ve got your undivided attention….

Two more things. It was widely reported today that Teresa May had returned from an audience with the queen to dissolve parliament. Am I alone in thinking that it must’ve been the worst ‘An Audience With….” in ITV’s history? Normally the format of an ‘An Audience With…’ is that of a well loved celebrity who shares anecdotes and generally entertains a celebrity audience. The queen may be many things, but I doubt entertaining is one of them.

And is Teresa May turning in Teresa MayCarthy, seeing dark forces seeking to undermine democracy by exerting undue influence?

If the news that Cornelia Parker is to be the official election artist didn’t take you by surprise, then the chances are that you knew we have we had one for the last five general elections. However I had been wholly unaware of this – like most people I’d wager – and this raises a whole slew of questions; namely why in the name of sanity do we need one and if – IF – we do, then why does she need to be paid £20,000?

The BBC stated;

 She will observe the election campaign, which culminates in the vote on 8 June, and produce a piece in response.

The official election artist is chosen by the Speaker’s Advisory Committee on Works of Art, and Parker will have to complete the piece by early September.

However, as expected The Guardian was suitably respectful of this news, clearly thinking it to be A VERY GOOD THING INDEED and not as massive insult from self-proclaimed cultural commissars who pronounce upon whether art is indeed art and not just random bits of stuff given a profound meaning to justify it’s expensive price?

I mean when does a limerick become a poem? When does a child’s finger painting become abstract expressionism? And why, when I think of abstract art so I always think of the following quote . “Abstract art is the product of the untalented, sold by the unprincipled to the utterly bewildered.” Is really all you need copious amounts of elegant chin stroking flannel to convince people that what you produce has meaning?  And do artists visit this site when they can’t think of of seemingly profound nonsense?

Carmella Parker is, the Guardian claims in its puff piece on her appointment, ‘a conceptual artist’? So will the work she produces in response to the election be a room full of thousands of small helium balloons to represent the potentially inflammable nature of words/ Or the ephemeral nature of meaning? Given that once had the army blow up a shed in order for her to make some art, that doesn’t seem too implausible.

Or just a cavernous white room with nothing in it except for a small blower pumping hot air into it?

Today some parents released photographs of their two-year-old daughter. Whilst there’s nothing intrinsically newsworthy about that, the fact that she is the daughter the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge renders it so to some media lickspittles.

The BBC reported that:

In the image, Charlotte is wearing a knitted yellow cardigan with a sheep motif and a navy blue clip in her hair.

Helpfully describing something we could see, mind you, they weren’t alone in this. This is from The Daily Telegraph;

She is pictured at their Norfolk home Anmer Hall, wearing a yellow cardigan, decorated with images of sheep, while she sports a navy clip in her hair.

Not be out-toadied, the BBC thought we might like to know that;

The family is expected to throw a birthday party for the Princess.

I know! Shocking news! Parents expected to throw a birthday party for their child! No parent in the history of ever has done that!

But no newspaper makes so much story of so little fact – especially when it concerns the Royal family – as the Daily Mail.

Children’s party planner Antonia Voss has revealed to FEMAIL what she predicts from the princess’ second birthday celebrations.

Antonia believes the Cambridges may also opt for a teddy bears’ picnic-themed party – weather permitting – with plenty of cakes, jelly and ice cream.

If that doesn’t sound grand enough, her fee for this guesswork demands more conjecture;

But given the little Princess’ love for animals, she might prefer an wildlife-themed party.

‘A professionally-run petting zoo with lambs, chicks and rabbits, tractor rides around the grounds and a puppet theatre complete with hay bale seating could make for a really memorable day,’ says Antonia

Foolishly I’d imagined we’d grown out of all this bowing and scraping to those whom certain sections have deemed more worthy than others. The Daily Mail, along with the Telegraph and the BBC all run stories about benefit cheats, but the right sort of benefit cheats. The poor, the weak and those who exist of the margins of society, convenient scapegoats of press opprobrium. But if you live at the other end of the social spectrum, as do the Royals – themselves living a lavish taxpayer funded lifestyle – then the press offer slavish deference.

This attitude that some are better than others or that some are just born leaders, because of an accident birth – being born to the right person is something I see in my mother and brother when they talk about politics. Or rather, they talk about politics in much the same way toddler given a T.V. remote control will change channels. They see everything as a single issue, unrelated to any other, they don’t join up the dots, because they don’t know there are any dots. Not that I see them all, but I know what I don’t know. And I don’t know what I don’t know.

A bit like Donald Rumsfeld.

As far as they’re concerned the Royal family are just better than everyone else in much the same way asTeresa Mat is just better than Jeremy Corbyn.