Enron @ The Birmingham Rep
Lucy Prebble
One of my major, personal dissapointments of the last year was that I didn’t make it down to London to catch Enron, the much acclaimed dramatisaztion of the american financial scandal by dramatist of the moment Lucy Prebble. So, of course, I was filled with anticipation and delight when, flicking through my regularly posted Birmingham Rep brochure, I found Enron was not only going on tour but visiting my beloved hometown. I quickly booked myself a ticket and counted the days until I would finally see the theatrical experience everyone is talking about. Then, the nerves started to kick in. So hyped is Enron, that I felt I must be setting myself up for some sort of let down; it couldn’t possibly match up to the ridiculous expectations that broad sheets of all stripes had instilled in me. So happy am I, then, that I can report with glee that Lucy Prebble’s master stroke of a play did just that.
What Prebble does so well, other than share Sorkin’s knack for making issues of finance and politics actually entertaining aswell as informative, is build a true dramatic momentum. This, of course, you could say is the job of any playwright, surely? Yes, but many’s the time I’ve sat in a Theatre (or Cinema) during a play meant to be tackling the issues of our time and, whilst the observations have been acute and sometimes profound, found them to be didactic and boring. What makes this play so great is not simply its deep understanding of corparate greed but it’s use of the theatrical form to its full potential. This is a play presented as a song and dance show, with quick dialogue, physical comedy and audience asides combined, steeped in the vaudevillian tradition. Make no mistake, Enron couldn’t have taken place anywhere other than the Theatre. That been said, its fast pace and quick changing scenes no doubt take some influence from Lucy Prebble’s time spent in television and certainly add to the dramatic momentum I mentioned earlier. The cast are excellent too, Corey Johnson perfectly captures the growing arrogance of Jeffery Skilling, Paul Chahidi’s knack for physical comedy makes the slimy, intelligent, awkward, anti social CFO Andy Fastow a treat whenever he’s onstage and Sara Stewart, who plays Skilling’s rival and sometimes sex partner Claudia Roe, always delivers whenever I see her.
Of course, one can’t ignore how Prebble has managed to take a financial scandal that has baffled many a top economic analyst and break it down to surprisingly simple levels for her audience. No one will leave this Theatre without some understanding of what went on. What makes her critique of Capitalism so scathing is that this isn’t some left wing rant from the sidelines, no, Prebble observes precisely how human it all is and how intrinsically linked to human nature it’s more morally dubious practices are. She also examines, particularly through Skilling’s philosophical outlook, how powerful self delusion can be. Most importantly, in my opinion, and perhaps others would disagree, she isn’t all that judgmental in her observations. Enron is certainly a play that will remind you why the Theatre is still the greatest medium.
100 Days of Coalition: The Liberal concern
100 hundred days of coalition. This seems to be the inpsiring slogan enticing politically motivated journalists of all stripes to their laptops this august. It is sort of catchy, I guess. Of course we’re in quite a weird position; the government has moved quite rapidly in mapping out their plans to dismantle everything they percieve as the problem, and in the process set out policies that could completely change the nature of our society, and yet… we’re still caught in this awkward moment where nothing has actually happened, a sort of calm before the storm, if you will. The question I am most asked is, am I, as a liberal, happy with the direction the coalition is taking? And the answer always, rather frustratingly I’m sure, is… I don’t know.
There are many potentially very liberal things that could be acheived by the coalition. They have set out, quite well, ways to move forward on issues that are very liberal; this is in terms of personal, economic and maybe even political liberalism but the worry, of course, is will social liberalism be left behind? The great moves forward on the issue of civil liberties (personal liberalism. Almost forgotten by the Labour government) should be appreciated and not swept aside and almost forgotten like they seem to be by many in the media and public. This isn’t to say the coalition itself will never come into conflict on issues of civil liberty (The nature of government acting for its own benefit can lead any administration down this road, which is why it’s up to us the people and groups like liberty to defend our basic rights) but we should at least be grateful that we have a Prime Minister and a Deputy Prime Minister who, at least appear,to sincerly rcognize it as an issue of imortance unlike Labour, who even now seem to view the erosion of our liberties as a secondary little kink they can sort out as opposed to the awful social injustice it actually is. Also, I do think the coalition are right in wanting to give the people more choice over their public services and in giving local government more control. In fact, I often supported Blair over Brown on these very issues but the difference is that blairites at least acknowledged that to do this actually needs government support and not the sink or swim approach the coalition are taking. That been said, I’m not ignoring that annoying issue the left would rather forget, that of the structural deficit. We are in something of a financial pickle aren’t we? This is what makes it hard for labour to oppose the government when it’s not giving support; where is the money for this support supposed to come from? This, obviously, doesn’t mean I’ll blindly follow wherever the coalition takes us but it does mean I have to accept that many things I’d like government to do, right now, we simply can’t afford.
However, I do somewhat share that worry of many on the left; that for the Tories this isn’t about necessity but ideology. The review of the BBC license fee and where that might lead to literally reeks of right wing political dogma , and if a cut in the license fee is proposed it is something I’ll strongly oppose. Also, some of the reforms of benefits; I was always skeptical of the idea we simply reduce someones’s benefits if they turn down one job offer, simply because I always feared it would be coupled with traveling to find work. Of course, if someone wants to travel across the country to find work this should be made easier for them but the idea that anyone should be forced, by the threat of benefit reduction, to uproot themselves from their family and community is scandalous. What, if someone who lives in Coventry refuses to take a job in Plymouth we should take away some of their support? All this talk of social mobility is great and I wish Alan Millburn well but at the end of the day this won’t be sorted simply by ‘ getting people into work’ if you have a single father with two teenage sons, even if he works a full time, how will our current minimum wage be enough to support them? And finally, the idea we rob people of counsel houses for life by risky means testing… don’t get me started.
So yeah, this brings me back to my worry about social liberalism being left behind, coupled with my Liam Burne like acceptance that there is no money left. The loss of social liberalism doesn’t worry me in terms of the damage it could do the lib dems future electoral potential but for the damage it could do to our society. Honestly, I could see myself falling out with the coalition at some point but the trouble is, I don’t see myself running into the arms of labour. They haven’t yet sincerly distanced themselves from the parental style of government that made them, in my opinion, illiberal. They still seem to cling to the idea, not that the state should support society but that the state is society. There are a few, such as James Purnell, making some interesting observations and left leaning bloggers such as Dan Hartland over at thestoryandthetruth always give some food for thought but I still don’t view the Labour party as liberal enough to secure my vote. Funny the Liberals are in power but I still find myself stuck in the middle somewhat…
Burnham Strikes!
Sorry, I have been rather busy of late. Periodically, the day to day of a struggling writer can actually be time consuming, so sadly I have temporarily been kept away from my beloved blog. In the coming weeks I should be able to come back here for regular posts (In fact if I don’t have the time, I’ll find the time).
Recently, I’ve been on a bit of a Ryan Adams kick. Enjoying the unadultarated Americana of Heartbreaker , the sad, indie British pop of Love is hell and the box ticking, all roundness of the underated Cold Roses. I sometimes forget what brilliant music this man has produced; if anyone out there hasn’t checked out these albums they should. Immediately. As for recent releases; I’ve been enjoying offering’s from the likes of Johnny Flynn and Eminem. Funnily enough, considering the drastic sonic difference between these artists both albums explore similar themes; the loss of one’s self after drifting perhaps a little too far from home, and the tumultuous journey back. It’s weird how a bluesy, electric tinged folk album and a record that, at times, almost reinvents rap as stadium rock can strike such similar chords with me. Also, both feature some quite remarkable wordsmithery.
I watched question time last night. The debate on the health service is much needed. Andy Burnham actually put in, shock horror, a decent performance last night. After many years as just another cardboard cut out Labour jobsworth it was quite a remarkable thing to see. Thing is, the same appraoch the government is taking to education (where I think it might work) does concern me when it comes to the health service. Even after my little outburst in the previous blog it’ll be interesting to see what happens when Labour finally get a proper leader settled in.
Also saw the brilliant film Greenberg recently. Greta Gerwig is astonishing in the female lead. It’s been a while since I’ve seen an actress reinvent the wheel quite like that.
Labour Hypocrisy? Here we go again…
"Who are the sellouts, again?
I am by no means a natural hater of the Labour party. I may have become rather vocal in my dislike of their authoritarian style of government (something which manifested itself in various areas. Attacking both personal and sometimes even social freedom) but I always made it clear where I supported them. Ideas of fairness and social justice were how I first became politically inspired in my teenage years and the Labour party, at least traditionally, are supposed to be the natural home of such values. I even accepted that the spin led, devious and flat out disgusting manner in which some of its leading politicians (two of these practitioners now vying for leadership…ahem… Mr. Balls and Mr. Burnham) behaved in the last few years were an unfortunate result of a long time spent trying to hold on to power, perhaps not…?
The wholly indecent way in which Ed Balls directed his attacks at Vince Cable- for some misconceived notion that Cable had sold out his principles-on question time last night, were literally enough to make any person of sense vomit. It’s this recent, frustrating Labour line of ‘The Lib Dem’s sellout’ which really inspires this nausea, especially because in some circles it appears to be working. When the Labour party messed up on the 10p tax rate, The Gurkhas, 42 days etc… these mistakes were genuinely symptoms of a government selling out to appease a right wing media and these gaffs took place so recently that the idea we should all now have our minds erased blank and, out of some sort of denial and need to hear a message somewhat pleasing to our ears, sit there letting Ed Balls accuse anyone- true or not- of selling out is laughable. Where the Labour party actually did sell out for power back in ’97 the Lib Dem’s have naturally had to make concessions in a C-O-A-L-I-T-I-O-N government and this is exactly the point; we do not have a Lib Dem government we have a coalition, listing where the Lib Dems have given ground is simply pointing out the obvious nature of such arrangements, isn’t it? Didn’t many on the left used to argue that coalition government, that politcians working together and compromising instead of participating in childish tribalism was the way forward? Of course the likes of Green party leader Caroline Lucas (whom I actually admire) only beleive in this as long as you don’t compromise on anything important to the left and when they say they beleive in coalition they don’t mean in its rawest sense; they mean between parties that have no real significant difference.
Of course the Labour party are going to have an easy ride if they simply get to sit there and oppose every tough measure the government have to make, with no one asking the likes of Ball’s what they would have done and where they would have made the percentage of cuts that they specified (this is a party that before the election made it clear that they also would have to cut harsher than Thatcher. Forgot that, have we?). I, of course am not going to allow myself to be led up the garden path by such obvious and ridiculous spin (still at it aren’t they? And there was I sincerely hoping they would refresh themselves in opposition) and thats not to say the government aren’t overdoing the whole ‘its worse than we thought’ line but… I don’t know… there’s something about the current Labour trend that I find quite unlikable. I will still wait and see what happens when Labour finally gets its new leader but for now I vaguely support the coalition and am willing to continue that support through these perhaps necessary but equally unpopular measures. If, as the cynics say, the new politics cannot last long, it is quite obvious who’s trying their best to make it revert quickly back to the politics of old.
The task ahead: Protecting the Political centre ground
I am, unashamedly a centrist. I have had many debates with friends over the years, of both left and right leanings, about the merits of a more centrist approach. Personally, I find it the more progressive and certainly more rational and common sensical way of doing things. When the financial crisis happened I feared we were going to see a return to the old dividing lines, to the outdated battles of far left and far right ideologues; those who are more commited to proving their near extinct philosophies right than they are to the national interest. A few months ago there was an interesting article in Prospect magazine about the new political climate making it hard for the true liberals of both left and right; people like James Purnell leaving the Labour party and the far right gaining influence in political territory the Cameroonian project found itself feeling uneasy entering. I, someone who was opposed to Tony Blair on many issues, was certainly worried that perhaps the one good legacy of the Blair years was to be quickly wiped away and be another casualty of many in theae harder economic times.
This is why I am pleased that we have now entered a period of Coalition Government and I hope that at the very least, the formation of a new Liberal Conservative coalition has made sure that the centre ground is the arena where the political bouts of the next five years are held. As I pointed out in my previous blog the new coalition means that Cameron won’t have to be as concerned about the right wing of his party, allowing him to complete the modernization process that was at the forefront of his leadership in opposition (Of course Cameron will still have to keep the right of his party happy from time to time, as will Clegg with the left of his party). The other positive is that hopefully, with Cameron seemingly gaining the centre ground, this will stop the Labour party, whoever the eventual leader, from making that disatrous run to the left many of us feared they might (It must be pointed out that ‘running to the left’ and reconnecting with the concerns of their core vote are not the same thing and shouldn’t be viewed as such).
I’m sure there are many out there who would rather enjoy a return to the regressive views of the old political dinosaurs and will continue to espouse the idea that ‘they’re all the same… there’s no difference between the parties anymore’ a notion that is, to be quite frank, utter bollocks. In my opinion centre politics hasn’t destroyed the defining lines between left and right at all; Labour are still strong beleivers in the state and Conservatives still passionately believe in reducing state power, no amount of centrism is ever going to change that. The debate that is inevitably going to take place on the subject of free schools is a prime example of the significant difference in emphasis between the centre left and centre right of our politics; and prove how healthy our level of debate still is. However, I think it’s right, and a recognition of changing times, that certain arguments- both economic and social- have been won and accepted across the political spectrum.
Of course there still maybe trouble ahead; the unpopularity of severe spending cuts are likely to rock the centrist boat, it will certainly make that Labour party run to the left seem very easy and tempting (and very misguided). Anyway, I suppose it all remains to be seen…
It’s a new dawn, it’s a new day… The Liberal Conservative coalition
I suppose there will be many Lib Dem supporter’s dissappointed that the centre left party they voted for are forming a coalition with the conservative party; I, a Lib Dem supporter myself, am not and here’s why:
Let’s be honest, it was the only real option. A Lib Lab pact, whilst for some the dream, wouldn’t have worked for many reasons, most of them accurately observed by Dan Hartland over at The story and the truth in a recent blog. The other option- to do a deal with neither and let the Tories form a minority government- would have been disastrous for our country’s stability- and – as a progressive, I must admit I’d rather have a Tory government influenced by Liberal’s than a Conservative government where the right of the party would have more sway.
Here’s the most important reason; Liberal policy, policies I voted for on education, tax and the enviroment, are to be implemented. Am I to oppose that simply because they’re been made by the blue team instead of the red team? I’m sure the Labour party are about to wage a war on the Lib Dems accusing them of selling out their progressive ideals for power; who are they to talk? The past Labour government wanted 92 day’s detention without trial, arrested protesters for merely listing the names of dead Iraqi civillians and in fact made it hard to protest outside parliment full stop, supported compulsory ID cards, increased databases and surveillance to frightening proportions and escorted elderly Labour mps out of their conference for simply refferring to a Jack Straw speech on Iraq as nonsense; no selling out of progressive ideals there then! Let’s be frank; the New Labour project itself was almost wholly based on the philosophy of selling out, they have no right to lecture anyone on abandoning ideals.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not looking at the Tories with rose tinted glasses nor am I forgetting all that Labour has done. The Labour government acheived some great things that shouldn’t be forgotten; the minimum wage, the human rights act, civil partnerships, NHS funding… However, I became bitterly opposed to Labour on issues of Civil Liberties and admittedly, as a commited civil libertarian, I am excited about some of the talk Chris Huhne gave on telivision this morning about the consensus reached between cons and libs on civil liberties and a ‘liberty’ bill; something which, with Liberal influence, might not be the worrying human rights act replacement I thought it might be.
I am still worried about some Tory policies and this will cetainly be a tough coalition to keep up. The Tory right and Lib Dem left will be hard to keep in check for such a long period of time and the issue of Europe is bound to be tumultuous. I have to honest though, I was surprised the Tories were willing to sacrifice policies such as the inheritance tax cut for the very wealthy in order to help tax cuts to the lower paid. Nick Robinson said it best this morning when he stated that things are changed by leaders with nerve, both Cameron and Clegg have proved they have the ‘ nerve’ that Gordon Brown clearly lacked. Whatever happens with this coalition no one can deny the courage it took to make this deal.
As for the Labour party; well, with the right leader they could do well out of being in opposition. My personal favourite Alan Johnson has ruled himself out to back David Milliband, someone who I’m certainly not a fan of, although. he would probably fair reasonably well with the public. I would like the Labour party to completely refresh itself from the mistakes of the Blair/Brown years; trouble is I’ve yet to find anyone high up in the Labour party acknowledge precisely what those mistakes were. I am still concerned about the far right of the Tory party, a wing filled with people I passionately disagree with and am sometimes appalled by. That been said, I do get along, and can find agreement, with socially liberal Conservatives; I, myself, tend to lean to the Nick Clegg, David Laws Liberal wing of the Lib Dems. Anyway, it’s certainly exciting political times right now.
Problem Solved!
" There's a certain blogger I'd like to thank..."
So, the much anticipated debates were last night and I’m sure cyber space will be filled with opinionated bloggers eager to suffocate us in a sea of last minute analysis. I, of course, am not one to disappoint so here’s my two penny’s. It’s interesting that I started the week with a blog about the Liberal communication problem and finish it writing about Clegg’s clear win last night. It’s almost as if some Lib Dem activist, by chance, caught a glimpse of my blog- copied and saved it- than emailed it throughout the party; only for those close to Clegg to get hold of it, pass it on to Nick and for him to then find it as inspiring as the Shook ones pt2 instrumental is to B Rabbit in 8 Mile; Although, to be honest, that’s unlikely.
I must admit, a part of me is rather pleased with last night’s turn of events. I have loyally defended Clegg’s position as Lib Dem leader against many a cynically toned voice. I always knew that, while the political class treated him as some sort of joke, if you put him on a platform where the general public could really get the chance to hear him speak, they’d take to him. What I’m interested in is what this means. Was it simply a case that Clegg is a voice that may have never been truly heard before by most people and he benefited from that or is it precisely because Cameron and Brown are the realistic options for Prime Minister that they were treated with more cynicism and Clegg more optimistically? Maybe people simply think his performance was better; with his personal relationship to members of the audience and instinctive knowledge of how to play to the camera or was it a genuine win by Clegg of the intellectual argument? What does a Nick Clegg debate victory really mean?
Whilst pretty much all of the papers and commentators agree on a clear Clegg win, it’s unsurprising perhaps they differ slightly on who bested the other when it comes to Brown and Cameron. The polls generally suggest that Cameron slightly edged Brown but many spectators disagree. Personally, I don’t think Cameron was as weak as his critics made him out to be, in fact I think he was quite good; I just think his ‘charm’ doesn’t work’s like it used to. Brown pretty much held his own but failed to change anyone’s mind; everyone I know has given precisely the opinion I would’ve expected them to when it came to Brown’s performance and that opinion is very much based on their political persuasion.
To be honest, I have been quite surprised by the Tory campaign. Through all my debates and prediction’s I never thought that Cameron and his party may just mess this up. I don’t think this whole ‘volunteer’ ‘ you be the goverment’ campaign is really going to wash with the public. That’s not to say there isn’t a real argument to be made by Conservatives for small goverment; it’s just they really couldn’t be more misguided in the way they’re putting that argument. As for Labour, well my opinion still hasn’t changed. The public are scrutinizing the Tories in a way they haven’t before but, even when they don’t like what they see, I don’t sense a move back towards Brown. So here we are, at the beggining of an Election campaign where it’s so easy for Labour to lose, yet extraordinarily difficult for the Tories to win outright and the Lib Dem’s just won the first debate. I can’t help but feel, whatever the result, we’re going to spend a lot of time analyzing exactly what this all meant come Election day.
Trouble Communicating?
We’re living in a time where cynicism of the political ‘class’ is higher than it has ever been in post war politics. People are sick of it. People may have their political persuasions but the message that seems to be coming forth from the electorate is that of a plague on both your houses. With such distrust of both of the main two political parties you would think now was the time for the Liberal Democrats to present themselves as a genuine alternative. So why has Nick Clegg struggled to make a connection with the British public?
Some of the problem may come, funnily enough, from the size of the Lib Dems. Whilst they are often laughed at by political rivals for their apparent lack of significance, they are also considered too much a part of the political establishment to truly be an alternative to it. This means that much smaller, issue focused parties of both left and right seem to be the ones benefitting from so called ‘protest’ votes. When people see the occasional glimpse of Clegg tagged on to the end of a news segment, instead of taking in what he is actually saying there is a danger they merely see another political talking head lost in the mix of sound bites and over expressive hand movements.
To be fair to Clegg, after a rocky start he has managed to set the Lib Dem’s on somewhat of a straight course. Getting rid of policies that, whilst popular and idealist, were rather unrealistic; policies that helped the Lib Dems get the unfortunate reputation of practising fantasy politics. Also, after a time where leader after leader seemed to be rooted in the social democratic wing of the party it was a refreshing change to get a truly ‘Liberal’ political voice at the top. This refocus is probably what’s needed for the change of political climate. The Lib Dems, under Clegg, were the first party to be truly honest about the tough spending choices that will need to be taken as a result of the economic situation. Whilst Vince Cable could have gone further, I think his blunt honesty in answering some of the questions put forth in the recent Chancellor Debates was appreciated by the audience. Whether Cables individual popularity will transfer into Lib Dem votes is yet to be seen.
There is some truth in the theory that a Lib Dem leader needs to go through an election campaign to truly become a recognizable figure to the public; which is why, if the Lib Dems don’t get the votes they’d like, they shouldn’t rush to replace Clegg. Part of the reason Paddy Ashdown managed to become something of a significant political figure was because of the time taken to form a relationship with the electorate. It was a smart move for Clegg to start the campaign interviewed side by side with Cable, however damaging to his pride it may be.
For the first time in British political history we’re to have leadership debates. This provides Clegg with his best opurtunity yet, the sort of opportunity the Lib Dems have seldom had, to score points and win votes from the two main parties. I mean, he has nothing to lose and everything to gain. It’s an open goal, Clegg has to score at least once, doesn’t he?
Sebastianclarke's Blog 