I have a particular interest in the John Sergeant case because his wife attempted to teach me Latin at school (it was a valiant effort, but I’m no linguist). I say this to defend the Sergeant name against Behr’s accusations of brute popularism! Anyway, check it out, it illustrates exactly how I believe that popular culture and democratic politcs can illuminate one another, despite Behr’s contradictory disavowal of this in his concluding words (‘Well, I don’t care that much. It’s only TV.’)

 However watching the new Boyzone video today made me smile, and not just because I’m a recovering boyzone fan (they were the primary focus of my teenage years). Because their video for ‘Better’ features a boyband member in a gay coupling for the first time:

The video seems to be getting a good reaction from fans and critics alike.

This is the second major First for Stephen Gately. He was the first openly gay boyband member in the UK in the 90s. Since then others have followed, but the sexuality of their sexuality (as it were), has always been discretely brushed to one side, much in the way that gay TV characters have often been sidekicks rather than romantic leads. Even in Will Young’s video for ‘Switch it On’, his gayness was only referenced with jokey innuendo. But in ‘Better’ two gay men are put side-by-side, seriously, and without comment, with straight couples.

 Against the backdrop of the crushing constitutional entrenchment of Prop 8, it is easy to feel that a Boyzone video is a drop in the ocean (and I admit that I have been known to overestimate the cultural significance of boyzone!). Nevertheless, it is the cultural drip drip of acceptance and inclusion that can end up eroding away even the biggest mountains of prejudice.

 So let’s celebrate every time anyone sends out the message ‘some people are gay. get over it’.

This move was sold as a sign of a new politics, where politicians would reach out and engage with voters, particularly those hard-to-reach 18-30 year olds. Unfortunately it seems as though the same old top-down politics has been replicated in a new medium.

My friend Anita, in her role as an Amnesty International intern, posted a question for Gordon on the issue of detention without charge (the limit was recently raised to a staggering 6 weeks in the UK).

So far, so good. A young voter gets the chance to talk directly to the Prime Minister about an issue of great national importance. Unfortunately that’s where this promising example of open democracy ends. Take a look at Brown’s response, and tell me how it is different to any standard press-conference spiel:

Worst of all, Gordon commits the ultimate web-2.0 crime: the comments facility on the video is disabled. The Prime Minister speaks, we listen, and that’s the end of it. All of the potential of the youtube as an accessible forum for debate has been ignored.

I’m don’t expect Gordon to spend all day engaging in video flame-wars, but he should at least let the youtube community comment on his video!

Of course, Brown’s censorship of his own channel won’t stop anyone posting videos in response, or prevent debate elsewhere on the net about his civil liberties record, but it does demonstrate his fundamental misunderstanding of the structure and appeal of the internet.

I’m quite a fan of Gordon Brown, but given recent speculation about his position in the party, and the Labour party’s standing in the country it is interesting to note that both David Miliband and David Cameron do have comments enabled on their personal blogs. Their sites are hardly hot-beds of a new democratic order, but they do suggest that it is too early to discount the potential of the internet to have a significant impact on political life. The real question is whether a truly interactive web-relationship with our democratic representatives is possible, how long it will take, and what impact it will have. That’s something no-one has the answer to yet.

Apparently, according to the IPPR, the only place in the UK where you won’t be subjected to unrelenting metropolitan media bias is Scotland, where apparently you won’t hear any news that comes from south of the border.

So, is the media governed with an iron fist from within the citadel of the M25, or is the nation’s news gathering dangerously fragmented? I have more sympathy with the first theory.

That the IPPR should view the Scottish case as a problem is strange, for it seems to me to be a shining example of local media in action. With their devolved government and thriving newspaper sector, the Scots are in a better position to be informed and engaged in the political issues affecting them than their English sisters. If this means that they don’t know the scoop on the latest English crime statistics, or educational policy changes, then does that really matter? After all, no-one seems to mind that the UK media almost never report the domestic politics of our European neighbours.

In any case, the IPPR focus on newspapers (the primary news source for about a dozen people these days), is woefully outdated.

We should celebrate the availability of local news sources, while recognising that they do not play an exclusive role in the news-consumption habits of most people.

However their gig at the Millennium Dome last night (I refuse to call it the O2 – I dread the day when all London’s buildings are named after corporations) proved that they had nothing to worry about.

Now, as a veteran of their 90s tours, I can say that according to any standard their show is better than anything they’ve put on before. Their concerts always used to be a little slapdash, but they’ve clearly put a lot of time, effort and money into this venture.

The audience was treated to pyrotechnics, glistening abs, and a stage that by turns span, flew, and dropped away.

Of course I’m no neutral observer: I was there to spend a couple of hours regressing into naive teenage hysteria, and to see the band that was such an important part of my awkward adolescent years. For any Boyzone fan it was a delight to see the band so clearly enjoying being on stage, especially compared with their obvious boredom during the dying months before their split.

I also enjoyed the fact that the concert wasn’t just the Ronan show – all of the band got their chance in the spotlight, without it ever feeling forced – No more Good Conversation (you know what I’m talking about Boyzone fans). They were always more than the sum of their parts, a fact that was proved by Ronan’s lacklustre solo career. The biggest surprise was Shane Lynch singing Michael Jackson’s Bad – where that voice came from I have no idea, but I liked it! Also impressive was Mike’s turn on the piano during words. They’ve all really upped their game.

Highlights were the retro gym rendering of When the Going Gets Tough (pictured above for your enjoyment), their first performance of And I, and Stephen Gately’s irrepressible enthusiasm.

They also unveiled their new single Can’t Stop Thinking About You, an excerpt of which I managed to shakily record (I think it’ll demonstrate Stephen’s aforementioned performance zeal). It’s catchy I think:

Only two minor complaints: Father and Son was accompanied by a really creepy animation, and they didn’t play either of their best up-tempo tracks – So Good, and Together – the latter being particularly fitting for a reunion tour. Other than that, I’m looking forward to seeing the show again later in the tour: after eight years of absence once just isn’t enough!

It was a strange experience watching the BBC’s tribute to an 80 year old Bruce Forsyth this evening.

The programme was a kind of one-off variety show version of This is Your Life, complete with singing, dancing, and cake-decorating contests.

(Unfortunately Vernon Kay made an appearance)

Self-indulgent it might have been, but it was nice to see the life of a national treasure celebrated while he’s alive, rather than in a glowing obituary that he’ll never get to see.

My personal favourite Brucie moment is his small role in the vastly underrated Disney film Bedknobs and Broomsticks.

Still, what was brought home was that Bruce Forsyth’s era of personalities who entertain a nation of millions for decades, is nearing its end. And that’s no bad thing – yes, tens of millions of people tuned in to Sunday Night at the Palladium, but that’s because there was literally nothing else on TV.

So yes, celebrate Brucie’s life in entertainment, but ditch the rose-tinted spectacles and be glad that we can watch vintage episodes of Play Your Cards Right, or chose to watch the latest series of Curb Your Enthusiasm on cable TV, or download a classic Louis Theroux doco.

An open question is that of the future fate of the all-round singing, dancing entertainer in the Brucie mould. Is there a space for the next Brucie on youtube? Or are we in an era of niche entertainers?

‘Oh my god’, I thought, ‘He’s Tony Blair!’

I don’t know where this thought came from – I’ll admit it was purely gut instinct.

When I started thinking about it, though, I realised it isn’t so far fetched. Consider the evidence -

A moribund, deeply unpopular government, racked by sleaze allegations in power (George W. Bush/ The Conservative Party).

A new, inspiring leader emerges onto the national political scene in the space of just a few years. He’s relatively young and good looking (for a politician), with an ear-to-ear grin, and for the first time people have hope that things can be better.

He makes great speeches (Hope! Yes, We Can!/ Education, Education, Education), but the policies are rather thin on the ground.

Obama is often compared to Kennedy, but JFK was shot before he could disappoint anyone. That’s why he could remain a symbol of hope and optimism in popular culture. Blair might be a better point of comparison with Obama, because in his case we know how the story of hope ended.

Ten years ago, crowds used to cheer for Tony Blair, and reach out in the hope of shaking his hand. Now, after numerous broken promises, and a bloody war in Iraq, the UK is glad to be rid of him, and active campaigns are in motion to prevent him becoming EU President.

I don’t want to write Obama off; I hope he is everything that he appears to be.

However, even if he does have the potential to change America for the better, he should be wary of setting himself up for failure by raising hopes to such a fever pitch. Blair recently admitted that his government had no hope of meeting the high expectations raised in 1997, and a British Prime Minister has much more personal power than an American President can ever hope to wield, given the fragmented nature of the US political system.

So, I guess my point is: don’t trust politicians. Hardly revolutionary, but in the midst of the Obama whirlwind, perhaps worth remembering.

But those making this point seem to forget that there is a fundamental difference between being someone’s child, and being their partner.

Is it any surprise that two young, talented, ambitious people should be attracted to each other in their twenties and then both go on to have great success in their forties and fifties? It shouldn’t be, but when this happens, the woman in the partnership is often singled out for vitriolic abuse, and her success is deemed to be based solely on the talents of her husband.

Such ‘power couples’ include John Lennon and Yoko Ono, Kurt Cobain and Courtney Love, Bill Clinton and Hillary Rodham, and Tony Blair and Cherie Booth.

The women in these couples have not generally been praised for their glass-ceiling-busting achievements in the male-dominated worlds of Rock music, Art, Politics, and Law. Instead they’ve become public hate figures, and are also often blamed for the problems, or even the deaths of their husbands!

Of course, dynasties such as the Bushes, or the Bhuttos in Pakistan, pose a threat to democracy, social mobility and meritocracy. George W was an alcoholic, drink-driving C-student who wouldn’t have a shot and the country’s highest office if he’d been from Anywhere USA. But this shouldn’t be confused with young women who climb the ladder on their own merits, and just happen to be married to successful men.

I paid over a hundred quid for membership to the Union and all I got was a bent spoon from Uri Gellar (I think he mistook my hysterical laughter at his act for awe), so I have sympathy with those who urge us not to give the institution so much respect and attention. As Charlie Beckett has pointed out, it is far from the distinguished forum of national debate that it claims to be. It is a school for future MPs, CEOs and professional gas-bags.

In principle I agree with the liberal defenders of the event, but I think many are missing an important part of this particular case: how do we have a useful and enlightening debate about free speech?

The crux of the issue is the appropriate limits to free speech, particularly when we find what is said abhorrent. But Griffin and Irving don’t believe that their views are unacceptable, so they won’t be engaged with the fundamental question that needs tackling. No doubt the debate will descend into acrimony, with them playing the victim and defending their oddball views.

To really address the issue of free speech, I’d like to hear intelligent speakers who are engaged with the issue. Perhaps the defense lawyer for the ‘lyrical terrorist’ who was recently convicted for owning violent and subversive manuals and poetry, or a leading liberal thinker like Alan Ryan or Nancy Rosenblum.

There might be some sort of a case for inviting Griffin to a debate about immigration, or Irving to a debate about the nature of historical enquiry, but I don’t see that they have very much at all to contribute about the nature of free speech in a modern democracy.

kate s-b

If you liked this post, you might enjoy:

not for girls: how teachers are limiting horizons

phooey to boris johnson

why today is just like yesterday

Plus, their shoddiness was always part of the charm for me.

Anyway, with the awareness that not everyone shares my irrational love for the Dublin quintet, I’ve posted a video that the most hardened pop-cynic will revel in. Even more hysterical than the dancing is the fact that when asked where he comes from on a national TV show, Stephen Gately gives his street name!