r e a l r e v i e w . i e

This week, Hodder Children’s Books announced that they would be releasing ten Famous Five books in contemporary language. These aren’t updates insofar as the Five will talk to each other on Facebook, but some of the more awkward turns of phrase have been tweaked. No more lashings of ginger beer, then, or housemistresses standing in for teachers.

So bloody what, I imagine most people in the world will respond, and in a sense they’re right. This is The Famous Five we’re talking about, not Moonfleet or I, Claudius, and it’s hardly the case that we’re tampering with the greatest prose ever written. Far better books have been released in a thousand-and-one abridged or updated versions – I’m pretty sure most people have read some shortened version of Frankenstein, or retellings of Theseus and the Minotaur – and it’s more or less the same process that had characters in Deadwood referring to each other as cocksuckers. Language changes, new contemporary audience, blah-de-blah you know how it goes.

Besides all that, Famous Five books aren’t all that well-regarded by a large swathe of people, and not without reason. By today’s standards they’re certainly sexist, possibly racist, and feature four priggish kids who aren’t all that likeable (even fans of the books generally accept that Anne’s a weed and Julian’s a pompous tosser). Plus naff-all happens in the first three quarters of most of the books anyway.

Well, yes. And yet this might well be the most fetidly offensive thing I’ve read about all week. Not because I’m a Blyton fan, but because it’s an entirely regressive thing to do.

It’s hard to talk about this without getting autobiographical, so here goes. The Famous Five books were published in the forties, and have been knocking around ever since. They’ve always been weirdly anachronistic – certainly it’s difficult to identify that they’re set in World War II, and it never occurred to me when I read them even though there was the odd mention of spies – and even when I was a reader, much of the content was just strange. They didn’t wear uniforms, they wore school tunics. They drank something called ginger beer, which I’d never heard of but had “beer” in the title. They ate something called “tongue” and they referred to their parents in oddly formal ways. In short, the world in which they lived was plain weird, and the way they behaved was nothing like anyone I knew.

With hindsight, though, that was almost exactly what I liked about them. I didn’t know what a “school tunic” was, but it didn’t take much to work out the meaning from context, and I was pretty certain that ginger beer wasn’t the same thing as grown-up beer. I knew I was being presented with a take on reality set some non-specific time in the past, and most things were slightly different while some things were pretty much the same. I should really be careful about talking of the educational impact on this, but… working out the rules of something that wasn’t immediately familiar to me was a useful skill to learn, even if “educational” is a bit of a stretch when used in connection with Enid sodding Blyton.

I’m channelling a blog post by Lawrence Miles here – now no longer online, sadly – in which he talked about how contestants on University Challenge stopped “reading” English and were suddenly “studying” English. Miles’ take on it was that, while it wasn’t massively important, the world had just got fractionally less unusual and interesting, and that was a bad thing. I’m sure Hodder researched this decision meticulously, insofar as they asked a bunch of kids whether they thought the language was odd, and then ticked a box when they said “yes”. But in removing the oddness from The Famous Five, they’ve removed more or less the only thing the books have going for them, and (probably) the only thing about them which is good.

This extends to the politics of The Famous Five, incidentally. Certainly Blyton’s worldview is sexist, insofar as Julian and Dick often tell Anne she’s “only a girl”. But again – I knew this was weird when I read the books, and applied a hefty discount to anything the characters said about sexual politics. An awful lot of censorship is predicated on the belief that children are stupid, and they aren’t. Criticising Blyton for not having a contemporary view of gender is as stupid as criticising HG Wells for not having a post-war view of eugenics; people’s views are a product of their culture, and cultures change slowly. What the Famous Five’s portrayal of women taught me – again, in hindsight – was that people may hold views I find wholly appalling, and still not be bad people; that people can say something racist without actually being one; that different cultures have different priorities, basically. Blyton could do gosh-golly dialogue well, and as a result drew me into a world which – ideologically – I knew was not one I recognised or agreed with. But if my parents wanted to equip me to deal with other cultures on their own terms, they couldn’t really give me anything better to read. Apart from Doctor Who novelisations, natch.

It’s a bit of a leap from Blyton to burqas, but the republishing of Blyton is just the latest instalment in the story of how we have progressively knocked any awkward, unfamiliar corners off our stories in case they alienate a target demographic. The result of removing the odd and unusual is the creation of a culture that doesn’t know how to deal with the Other, and there’s no better summary of what we have done in the last fifteen years. The paradox is that, while globalisation has lead to a more open planet than ever before – and travel has become a norm rather than a luxury – we have increasingly seen other cultures as theme-parks to be pointed at. The first time I ever saw a full-on burqa (as opposed to a hijab) was in a Tintin book – a series not exactly brilliant with racial politics itself, of course – and I just accepted it as something a certain type of foreign woman wore. The debate currently being had in Western Europe is the unconscious product of a society that thinks “third world” and “somewhere without a branch of Starbucks” are interchangeable terms; a woman in a burqa can’t just be a woman from an alien culture with its own frame of reference, it’s a woman who’s yet to discover the joys of McDonald’s.

Just for the record, and I can’t believe I have to iterate what should be stinkingly obvious to anyone; the burqa is symptomatic (and a tool) of misogynist thinking; it’s an unpleasant convention which many of its wearers are forced to wear, and I find it unpalatable. However, people calling for veils to be banned (and the countries who have already banned it) are fundamentally wrong-headed. It really isn’t acceptable for a state to legislate about what people should or shouldn’t wear; social behaviour is something that evolves through societal approval (or disapproval), while legislation just entrenches views rather than softening them. There has been some talk that burqas are indicative of a culture that oppresses women, and should be banned to combat that oppression, but this is like combatting domestic violence by banning bandages. We already have laws that prevent women from being forced to wear something they have no wish to wear. Many of those who wear burqas have been conditioned or brainwashed into doing so, but you don’t change that mindset by forcing them to give up what they believe to be important, any more than we’ve created a love of democracy in the Middle East by forcing countries to have it. And those who genuinely want to wear one… well, I think they’re plain wrong, but if we criminalised everyone I thought was wrong then the jails would be full of fans of Mad Men.

What’s telling isn’t the rights and wrongs of the face-veil debate, it’s the seeming inability to have the discussion without resorting to “why can’t I walk down the street in a balaclava?”. Certainly, society is more permissive now than it was at any time in the last century, but it’s also a society that’s not being confronted by difference. Foreigners can wear things that are as odd as they like if they live in Faraway and it’s all ethnic-like, but we don’t expect or want that strangeness to turn up on our doorstep. The burqa “debate” strikes me as the conversation of a society that instinctively wants things to be the same; that’s threatened by something that once have simply been curious, that parrots the doctrine of “freedom” but only if it’s a form of freedom that doesn’t look too different.

We should really have left that behind by now. We should be better than this. But hey, we’re all a product of our culture. This might be tedious, and thoroughly depressing, but it’s also exactly what you’d expect from a society that castigates sixty year-old books for having different values to its own. A society that rewrites those books and removes anything awkward and unfamiliar. A society that takes out all the strange words.

Dark Night Of The Soul – Dangermouse and Sparklehorse
featuring The Flaming Lips, David Lynch, Vic Chesnutt, and many more

Behind this release is the crafty producer Danger Mouse, and rather than tell you how good it is (better than alright…*pause*…but…*sigh*), let me ask you this: What the france do producers actually do? In the old days, producers got praise only when live acts sounded a bit shit without them, or when pop divas spent millions to work with them on oversung R’n'B rubbish. However, the last decade has been dominated (thankfully) by multi-instrumentalists, and that includes production. Neither super sound engineers like Rudy Van Gelder nor evil svengalis like Pete Waterman, the new breed – Timbaland,  Dilla, Madlib – are  a species of very talented knob twiddlers, loop-diggers and beat conductors. But how much of the sound – and what parts of it – are they actually responsible for?

Danger Mouse is on my radar for finally getting Beck to record a proper coherent album, but Beck is an experienced producer in his own right and the soundscapes on Modern Guilt are recognisably his progressions from The Information and Sea Change… except it’s a bit choppy. And there’s a few more drums. Um, is that it?

Conversely, Broken Bells, his collaboration with James Mercer is a logical if achingly unfortunate step further away from the rocking glory of Oh Inverted World, towards vocals-driven pop with a bit of a nice background. Except it’s very smooth.

Of course DM (as Penfold might call him) will always be best known as one half of Gnarls Barkley and all that that entails, both in terms of – ahem – talent, and commercial success. Interestingly, while a lot of it sounds like Diana Ross on steroids, there are songs like Who’s Gonna Save My Soul? that could lift directly onto Dark Night – angst, beats, Hammond organ and, as with Modern Guilt, acoustic guitars lifted effortlessly to the front of the mix. This is the meat and potatoes of Dark Night, the undercurrent that holds so many artists coherently in one album, and it’s none too shabby a sound. It’s possible to see its limits in the context of MF Doom, whose collaborations with Madlib and Clutchy Hopkins are just so rich and joyous that they make Danger Doom, good as it is, sound flat and unadventurous by comparison.

*pause*…but…*sigh*

I’m going to weasel out of reviewing the individual contributions by saying this bit is about producers, but ultimately this is likely to be one of those albums that the cool people force down our ears for the rest of the year in studenty places, wanky bars and clothes shops. So rather than go out and buy the thing, one might have to hole up and actively hide from it. If it does break, it won’t necessarily be on the radio like Mumford and Sons or Norah bleedin’ Jones. No, this one is set to go off like Dummy or White Blood Cells, in your cool friends’ flats, presumably after they heard it in the shops buying yet another pair of multi-coloured trainers. I’m going to be cynical for this paragraph at least and say it’s commercial stuff (any producers greatest trick) and the dial is set at ‘a little bit wuuh!’. Studenty types looking for something a bit more edgy than, say, Keane, are going to be fodder for this record. Others are going to have to ride out the storm, thankful at least that it will drown out the XX for as long as it plays.

All in all, though? Hats off to DM for fashioning such a strong sound – maybe having a midas touch isn’t a crime after all.

You have to love it when Britain goes a bit mental. This week it’s transpired that a head teacher in England has an annual salary in the region of €180,000, and lo there was much affrontery. Tory Education minister Michael Gove rushed to clarify that he would ensure this would never happen again (while strategically ignoring the fact that the school was free to spend its budget however it damn well wanted, and this “freedom” is exactly what his big plan promises more of), while most of the parents, students and teachers from the school in question rather spoiled things by not being in the least bit bothered and taking pains to stress how wondifulous Mark Elms was at his job. That’s not the point, countered some; that’s a ludicrous salary to pay anyone, and that’s not why we pay our taxes. Nobody has yet had the temerity to reply “Well, apparently it is.”

Of the people sticking up for Mark Elms, a curious number have used the line that “Well, it’s a lot of money and probably a bit much, but I’d rather see it go to a good Head Teacher than to an Assistant Head of Compliance in the local council.” There’s certainly a logic to this – teachers are pretty important, let’s face it, and nobody likes or gives a shit about administrators. Still, what’s most interesting about this line is that, in the same week, the ConDem Government have released a Government White Paper about how they want to dismantle the NHS. Sorry, “liberate” the NHS. Of the many slices of what-they’re-calling-reform, the most instructive is the plans is to get rid of the Primary Care Trusts and make GPs directly responsible for commissioning. Or, in short, “getting rid of the bureaucracy and protecting front line staff,” as Francis Maude described it on Question Time.

Bureaucracy is a great word. Nobody likes bureaucracy. And yet, the administration hasn’t been cut; it’s just that the doctors will now have to do it instead of PCTs. The end result will be that companies will be hired to do the admin for the doctors, and the PCTs will wind up being replaced by private healthcare companies instead. It may save a small amount of money, but it will replace bodies motivated by fairness with companies motivated by profit. That isn’t to criticise these companies, whom I’m sure are run by fine human beings that feed puppies and visit their grandmothers et cetera et cetera, it’s just a statement of fact.

So what’s the motivation?

It’s easy to say “individualist ideology”, or “doing favours for their rich business friends”, or “knee-jerk belief that the private sector always does things better and state services are always shit”, but I’d say it’s a slightly more slippery anxiety. Government decisions have to be carefully documented and desperately accountable, whereas private companies don’t. What was characterised by Francis Maude as “bureaucracy” was described by Andy Burnham on the same Question Time as “accountability”, and accountability costs oodles of money*. Just to be razorblade-clear, I’ll say that the money we spend on accountability is well worth it; I could say more about the importance of transparency in public provisions at this point, but I’ll just say “Golden Circle” and let you work out the rest yourselves. Can private companies do things more efficiently? Yes, of course, because we don’t expect their standards of neutrality and fairness to be so high, and we’re not bothered if a private healthcare company employ dozens of people earning more than any of the Mark Elmses or Assistant Heads of Compliance of this world.

The annoying thing about the prurient fad for cost-cutting is how self-contradictory it is. The Tories criticise Labour’s waste, and bin schools-building projects because they represent bad value for money; but, in bringing “private sector enterprise” funded by the state, they’re embracing exactly the same Public-Private Partnership models that made the schools projects so ruinously expensive in the first place. David Cameron trumpets loudly about freeing up schools from central control, but when a school choose to go to the market and spend a chunk of cash getting the man they need, they’re censured for doing so. The Tories talk about the need for a Big Society, but clearly believe that anyone who serves that society should operate under more stringent limitations than someone who decides Society Can Get Fucked and sets out to make as much money as they possibly can.

This isn’t to defend huge pay-packets for public servants; the sooner we get to a point where people do what they do without being motivated by enormous swathes of money, the better. However, that doesn’t explain why public bodies decisions on pay have to operate by different rules to everyone else, or why we demand “fair” salaries for any state servant but don’t give a toss what someone working for Microsoft earns. Ultimately, my reaction to Paul Elms is exactly the same as to the oh-so-moral rubbernecking about what a FÁS administrator earns, or breathless stories about someone on the dole going on holiday to Thailand; I don’t really know what these people do, or understand their job, so what they earn or do isn’t really any of my fucking business. I’m sure there are some people  exploiting the system, but I’m also sure those people will always exist. Pay an individual half-a-million if you want, then we can tax the shit out of them; but nitpicking the actions of individuals is a boring, conservative and self-righteous thing to do, and reforming a system isn’t the same as pointing at the nearest banker and shouting “arsehole”.

Whereas we, in Ireland, have no idea how to handle systemic reform – to the extent that politicians use the word to describe blanket cuts to the pay of all public servants, and nobody just laughs in their stupid ugly faces – our neighbours are embracing it, even if what’s being proposed amounts to cultural vandalism. In terms of money saved or wasted, and/or patient welfare, my suspicion is that this will make very little overall difference to the bottom line in either direction – even if it leads one to expect the NHS to slowly become little more than a brand-name, concealing private companies who will inevitably behave in ever more inequitable ways, simply because “equitability” isn’t part of their mission statement.

From an onlooker’s perspective, my reaction is more one of… social aesthetics, if that’s not too pretentious a term. The National Health Service is a collective statement of which UK people of all persuasions can be hugely, unequivocally, justifiably proud. The notion that people from all walks of life can expect exactly the same level of care, that anyone is entitled to excellence, makes it an instititution that bespeaks… well, just a fundamental decency. Living in Ireland, with its unapologetically two-tier system, the NHS has always struck me as the subtle watermark of a civilised society. Watching the relish with which these reforms have been flagged – by the party of Daniel Hannan**, who went on to US television to describe the NHS as “a sixty-year mistake” – as private companies spread their napkins over their laps and start to salivate, is far more grotesque and sickening than any one individual’s pay-packet. Many people described Paul Elms’ salary as “obscene”, but the White Paper is so culturally ugly that it shows up the Elms business as the shop-gossip it is. This is a what an obscenity looks like; suited and coiffured, staring glassily at one of the few great things about Britain from official stationery. Smiling. Taking aim.

Ah, NAMA. Just when you think it’s out of the picture, the latest news report comes along and takes the thing apart yet again. Recently, it’s transpired that NAMA isn’t actually going to make the country loads and loads of money, as originally thought (well, I say “thought”, what I actually mean is “sort-of-vaguely-hoped-and-told-to-a-public-who-didn’t-believe-it-anyway”); in fact, we stand to lose hundreds of millions. Cue much anger from those who still have the energy to be outraged by more tales of fiscal incompetence, even if it’s increasingly like getting angry about the rain -  yeah, it’s a bit rubbish, but we get a lot of it in Ireland and you just have to accept it.

Fact of the matter is, if NAMA does end up costing us – say – five hundred million, it’s really not that much in the overall scheme of things – particularly for a project as long-term as NAMA. €300 million, for example, is what the confiscation of pensioners’ medical cards was expected to cost, and one of the points made at the time was that you can recoup that much money anywhere. It was a question of 300 million versus something that looked unseemly, and the government decided that appearances mattered. The victimised people were voters, after all.

The retort’s obvious; it isn’t about the money, it’s about the principle. We were told one thing to justify the NAMA mechanism, the reality looks like being quite another. The NAMA thing hurts, partially because of the lack of transparency and the non-stop fudging of the figures, but mostly because of the narrative it presents; the law changed to bail out a financial system, it also happens to bail out the people primarily responsible for all the trouble in the first place, and meanwhile social welfare gets cut and the rest of us are plunged into austerity-

Ah, “austerity”. There’s a loaded word. It might – particularly for those from the UK – conjur up images of post-war poverty endured by a willing populace, but it’s interesting to note that austerity is an aesthetic word rather than a quantative one. “Frugal” means making most of meagre resources; “austerity” is making something look unapologetically frugal. It’s the glamourisation of scarcity, if you like. This is why it’s a gloriously appropriate word to describe the sudden fashion for severity that’s swept through Europe since Greece came within a ball-hair of going tits-up, and it’s become firmly embedded in the mentality of both sides of the argument; those in favour of cuts retreat to the belt-tightening meme, while those who loudly oppose NAMA make noise about spotting bankrupt property-developers going on holiday and travelling first class.

When those who oppose the relentless cutting of public provisions mention – say – Keynesian economics, they miss the point of what government does. Governments don’t deal in economics, they deal in aesthetics, and the aesthetic of austerity has taken firm root in our culture. It’s hardly surprising, given the story of the last few years. A bunch of ultra-competitive quasi-masonic posh male gits gambled colossal amounts of money they didn’t have, paid profliglate salaries that bounced around the domestic economy, and the government started spending based on tax-receipts that didn’t have any basis in reality. The moral is obvious; profligacy is bad, saving is good, and debt is evil. A few years ago, it was generally accepted that debt was a healthy, virtuous way of making your money work. Now it’s the height of irresponsibility, particularly collective debt, hence it’s all right to cut the salaries of a low-paid while talking about how ooh it’s tough for everyone.

In a sense, this isn’t entirely unwelcome. One of the most noxious trends of the last few years was that of the collector – the thinking that one of the average human’s raison d’etre was to acquire stuff, that a trip to HMV to buy the latest box-set of a TV series you’d never actually scene was natural and normal behaviour, that you could measure the depth of your cultural knowledge by the amount of shelf-space taken up by your DVD collection, that anyone with less than a hundred CDs was living more or less the same life as St Augustine of Hippo. Selfridges once had a campaign that went “See it, want it, buy it, forget it,” for fuck’s sake. That isn’t to say that this isn’t still the case – one of the most celebrated ad campaigns of late shows a woman going living a life that’s indistinguishable from her taste for consumer hardware – but any sort of acceptance that it’s not actually necessary to own the entire Planet of the Apes series on DVD is arguably a good thing. This is happening, which is why the latest Sex and the City film seemed so grotesquely out of step, even to fans of the series; I’d argue that it isn’t that the writing is appreciably worse, it’s that the cultural background against which we understand the story is massively changed.

(Having said that, I’d rather drink my own feet dissolved in peroxide than actually go and watch the SatC films, so there’s a very real possibility here that I don’t actually know what the hell I’m talking about.)

The problem, then, isn’t so much the sudden preaching of austerity; it’s the brand of austerity that’s being pushed. For all the lip-service paid to “we’re all in this together,” it’s implied to everyone that the real money is being haemorhagged by Someone Else.  Before the UK Budget (which they thought was severe, bless them), David Cameron stated that “There is no way of dealing with an 11% budget deficit just by hitting either the rich or the welfare scrounger.” Well then, why go to the trouble of naming them? The implication, just by mentioning welfare scroungers, is that the financial crisis is their fault – convenient, as almost nobody in the country actually classes themselves as a welfare scrounger (or as rich, for that matter). Ergo, it’s down to someone else. In Ireland, almost everybody knows who should be ahead of them in the cuts queue. It’s public servants, or civil servant, or welfare cheats, or bankers, or developers, or single mothers, or dem bastards in Leinster House. That isn’t to say there isn’t a dollop of truth in some of the above; it’s just that, if you have a string of besuited dickheads in secure incomes singling out sectors who still have pots of money, then you end up with a bitter society that’s preoccupied with scapegoating.

Meanwhile, “austerity” continues to embraced as if it’s a question of manners, a rhetoric double-dipped in words like “appropriate”. In fact, if you want to see a perfect example of what austerity means in its current context, the best possible example appeared on the Late Late Show a couple of years ago (skip to 4m25s or so):

This is someone who’s suggesting that people should be paid (the minimum wage, presumably, unless of course you subscribe to the theory of “workfare”) to clear weeds from the roads, while at the same time saying that it’s no longer appropriate to travel by helicopter. Well, we all have to make sacrifices, don’t we? Now, if Jackie Lavin can give up helicopters, surely those on the dole can give up a tenner a week?

The interesting thing isn’t that what Lavin said was unforgivably warped, it’s that it was – economically – plain wrong; it would be far better for a stagnant economy if the Cullens flew by helicopter as much as they possibly could. However, Lavin is governed by a vaguely-formed sense of manners. That’s ultimately not such a terrible thing, really – “rich idiots have a bizarre sense of entitlement and warped priorities” isn’t exactly a shock headline.

That’s all very well, but governments shouldn’t operate on the same basis. Even leaving aside the question of public sector pay, we have a situation where welfare has been cut… even though all social welfare is spent by its recipients, and so ends up heading back to the exchequer in VAT and tax receipts anyway; we’ve seen capital expenditure on education and health slashed, even though the net cost to the exchequer of capital expenditure at this time is practically zero. We may have cut expenditure, but the deficit hasn’t even wobbled. We aren’t doing this for deficit reasons, really; we’re doing it because it’s “appropriate”. Welfare and wages are cut, not because of economics or even ideology, but because of decorum – the skewed, privileged cousin of politeness.

Well, a polite society isn’t one where people can froth at the money spent on its least fortunate, even if the complainant makes ten times as much. That, ultimately, is why the NAMA news rankles. NAMA is a purely economic measure – it isn’t about society, it’s about numbers so big that they’re barely comprehensible, and a few hundred million really isn’t that much. But while the wealthy and the privileged get the economic theory, and four billion’s worth of projected shortfall is shrugged off as part of the accounts, the poor and the vulnerable are crushed by an aesthetic decision that was taken by the wealthy on their behalf. That’s what’s needed. That’s what’s appropriate.

Ah, just when you thought it had gone away, suddenly we’re talking about the Civil Partnership Bill again. I’m fairly sure that merits of the Civil Partnership Bill had already been discussed to death, and frankly I wasn’t particularly interested the first time round-

…okay, that needs elaboration. Obviously, the Bill is important, and obviously it doesn’t go far enough. However, I don’t / didn’t really feel the need to say anything beyond “great, pass it, then drive on for full equality*.” People who argue that it should be opposed because it doesn’t recognise the rights of gay families vis-a-vis their children – well this is obviously a fair position, but it does smack of refusing half a cake because you want the whole thing.

As for those who claim that gay couples shouldn’t get the same rights afforded to heterosexual couples… bluntly, the only way I see anyone making a consistent argument on this basis is if it’s based on: -

a: the belief that homosexuality is wrong or evil, and

b: the belief that an individual’s idea of private morality can or should be imposed on the entire population.

So I’m not sure I even have to go to the bother of stating the obvious here, but anyone who can accept those two axioms can just Fuck Right Off.

The only reason to linger on this, then, is that there are attempts to paint these arguments as non-judgemental and empirical. The Frontline had a programme about “the family” on Monday night, which quickly became about the Civil Partnership Bill and, even more quickly, about a gay couple’s right to adopt. ‘Course, the Frontline has “discussions” on all sorts of blindingly obvious questions, if you can class “unrepresentative groups of extremists shouting slogans at each other” as “discussion”; this, however, was different. David Quinn was on it.

Quinn… bothers me. He’s able to coat his obnoxious rhetoric in a varnish of spurious reason; last night, his arguments were full of words like “evidence-based”, giving the notion that his views are neutral rather than desperately prejudiced. The Frontline is generally full of ignorant backbenchers spouting gibberish, of which there was a top-notch example last night – stand up Jim Walsh, the new poster-child for Stupidity In A Suit – but Quinn is different. Bluntly, he’s a slick operator, and that makes him… well, dangerous is too melodramatic a word, but he’s certainly worrying. Ivana Bacik failed to land a serious punch on him, and that’s not a good thing*. Particularly since Quinn’s techniques are, uniformly, nonsensical.

Here’s a smattering of his quotes. Have fun.

“One in four kids is not being raised by their true married parents. The logic of the family diversity point of view is that it doesn’t really matter if that number climbs to fifty percent or sixty or seventy percent, that we shouldn’t really mind if ever more children don’t have the benefit of their own two married parents.”

“Are you indifferent to whether kids get raised by their mother or father? …The implication of your position is that it doesn’t matter if you’re raised by your own mother and father… that it doesn’t matter if a child is raised by the two people who bring them into the world.”

“Some people want to nullify and write out of the social script the idea that it is ideal to have a mother and father… and to condemn the notion that a child should have a mother and father as bigotry, so basically everybody watching this programme tonight who believes in traditional morality and a child’s right to a mother and father is a bigot, and increasingly the law is going to be brought against them… that was just what was said.”

“You must recognise [a] child’s right to be raised by a mother and father who are going to love them. If you have a lesbian couple and a heterosexual couple, both there to adopt the child, I would have thought that if you were looking at it from the child’s point of view, you must give the child to the loving mother and father… otherwise what you’re saying is that the child doesn’t have a right to be raised by a mother and father.”

All those statements are utter horseshit for a variety of reasons, but what’s most interesting is what they have in common. All the above are based on extrapolation – taking an argument and extending it to breaking point, then using the extremes to discredit the argument in the first place. So, if your reasoned opinion is that a gay couple should have equal rights to a same-sex couple, then by extension you think that anyone who believes a child should be entitled to stay with their birth parents is a bigot. It’s a brand of reductio ad absurdum, if you like. Note the words used above – “the logic of this point of view,” “the implication of your position.”

There’s a vague sheen of rigour here (reduction ad absurdum is how the drafting of legislation is tested, and it does require a form of logical thinking) that might seem persuasive to stupid people. Subtly, it also implies that every move towards equality is part of a creeping, wider agenda – this equality thing might start with Civil Partnership, but it ends with mothers and fathers have no rights over their children. Incrementally, if you accept that every move made is part of an agenda to fashion the world in anothers’ image (and, if you’re David Quinn, you might genuinely think this way), each step is quite logical. Marriage is important, and it’s between a woman and a man. Therefore, recognising other forms of relationship in any way makes marriage less important; therefore, it’s an attack on marriage; therefore it’s an attack on the relationship of a woman and a man; and so on, until Dem Gays are stealing kids away from their mother and father, and straight kids are being tortured on pink crosses.

This argument-by-twelve-step-syllogism is a particularly adolescent form of discussion. When we’re young, and trying to figure out a system of ethics while full of contradictory hormones, we tend to do this – leastways, I know I did, god help me. Take as few basic principles as possible, systematically apply them to all ethical questions, and then smile smugly at how intellectual you are. Sooner or later, most of us realise that this doesn’t work – perfect solutions require perfect societies, and we don’t live in one of those. So we legislate differently in different circumstances, we apply whatever principles seems fairest for the case in question.

(What’s remarkable about Quinn’s tirades, in this instance, is that they’re based on an entirely false premise – what all LGBT groups are after is equality, and “denying the child a right to their mother and father” is nothing to do with equality. Equality is the endgame, not a stepping stone to some totalitarian gay state. If you entirely accept that a child is always best off with its birth parents it makes no difference at all, since children being put up for adoption either don’t have living parents, or have been given up for a variety reasons.  “Mother” and “father” don’t come into it; there is no “mother” and “father” in the only cases that matter. Accepting that a random gay couple can do as good a job with those children as a random straight couple is the conclusion of the process. Not that I’ve ever met David Quinn in my life, but I can’t but it feels like we’re looking at a man who doesn’t realise how skewed his views are – he wants to be tolerant, but finds gay people a bit wuuuh, and has post-rationalised some spurious reason around his knee-jerk reaction.)

Dogmatists are essentially people who never leave the one-size fits all mindset behind, and that’s why they’re so uniformly boring. A mature person recognises that the big social questions – individualism v collectivism, say – are an ongoing debate, a balancing act, and tries to mediate between the two. A dogmatist decides they’re on one side or the other, and then systematically applies the logic of their position everywhere; interestingly, they also assume that everyone else shares their thought processes – therefore it’s natural to a dogmatist to conduct argument by extrapolation. To borrow from Alan Bleasdale, they’re people who’ve only read one book.

(There’s a clear if trivial example here, from one of Ireland’s right-wing bores bloggers, John McGuirk, where he claims that asking the HSE to avoid gender stereotyping is the same as** vilifying parents who let their daugher wear pink or that noting the unhealthy consequences of advertising is actually identifying a “sinister plot.”)

This is just… fucking moronic. It’s the same technique as saying that anyone who supports the NHS is a Marxist, or that anyone who claims to love their country is a Nazi, and it’s only marginally more sophisticated. What it is, in fact, is a variation on the “where do you draw the line?” argument, and the answer is cock-obvious to anyone who doesn’t come from a dogmatic mindset; you draw the line at the appropriate point. That’s why we have laws, and judges, and even politicians. Line-drawing is what our body of legislature is set up to do.

The outcomes are important, but I tend to find the tone of discussion more interesting than whether legislation gets passed or not, and I suspect I have a reason for this; there’s always another argument coming up about some other new law or budget or public lynching, and the most important new development is always the next one. The problem isn’t that people come up with Quinn’s brand of tripe – there are always going to be arseholes in the world – it’s that they’re allowed to say it without a serious challenge. Quinn is a grubby little man, a smooth-talking mass of nonsense glistening with false logic and irrelevant facts. He managed to look vaguely reasonable on Monday night, and for all the crapness of The Frontline’s format, it isn’t Fox News – it is ultimately a programme that at least pretends to be balanced, even if its the same form of “balance” you get when two equally fat blokes jump up and down at either end of a see-saw. There was a single grain of truth in Quinn’s arguments; “progessives”, for want of a better word, have grown so used to the central tenets of tolerance and equality that, when challenged, they tend to resort to name-calling and taunts of bigotry. This is understandable, but it’s sometimes necessary to engage with reactionaries on their own pseudo-logical ground – if we don’t, then Quinn and his ilk can maintain the illusion of reason, crushed by the bias of the establishment. Maybe he is a bigot, but more importantly, he’s an idiot – a man whose logic is terminally warped. If even that can’t be exposed, then those of us who value equality and fairness will never win any of the important arguments at all.

Let The Great World Spin, Colum McCann, 2009

Netherland, Joseph O’Neill, 2008

I have nothing against the Leaving Cert – as an exam, it gets you where you need to go. “Points make prizes”, as Bruce Forsyth used to say, and it’s still true. Leaving Cert Irish gets you into the NUI, where you can either forget the language or learn it properly; meanwhile the sciences will get you thinking a certain way, before you go on to study at third level where the first thing you learn is that there are no certainties or nailed down facts. This is even true for boring old accounting – in the real world, liabilities can be transformed into assets through the magic of securitization before you can say “total banking collapse.” What’s black is white; the world needs to be learned anew.

Leaving Cert English, however, seems to be all you need to be a hotshot post-9/11 novelist. That turgid, ploddingly descriptive language that we all employed to get through Paper 1 seems to be all a boy needs to make it big with the book club / reading group crowd on both sides of the Atlantic – clumpy, leaden prose and a depressingly Irish obsession with The Mammy. As in Let The Great World Spin, Book 1, Line 1; “One of the many things my brother, Corrigan, and I loved about our mother was that she was a fine musician.” Jaysus. Books cost money, otherwise there would have been no reading on from here, because this is just shit. Neither of these books is completely without merit, but the reading experience is similar – you have to plough on through gritted teeth, mindful of each error of style, pace and language. As a reader you’re left floundering in school essay-level prose with no trust left in the writer.

A cousin recommended Netherland to me, presumably because of the cricketing theme in it. It soon becomes apparent, however, that while O’Neill may have done some research and faced a few overs in his day, he knows bugger-all about cricket; as a result, he spends much of the book trying to name-check his way out of it. The hero is supposedly Dutch, but any amount of research doesn’t make him so. In my experience, Dutch people like to appear normal – you know, relaxed, tolerant and international – but invariably they’re none of the above. It’s obviously a stereotype to say that the Dutch are like the Germans but often try to hide it, that they’re anally-retentive, nationalistic, humourless and uptight – all this depends on the individual, and Hans has a right to be different. However there’s a core of Dutchness, a strangeness, that’s simply lacking from his character. In much the same way, he’s not a cricketer or even a sportsman.

Ultimately, this is a suspension of disbelief problem, and it’s only aggravated by sentences like this one describing the Hotel Chelsea: “Over half the rooms were occupied by long-term residents who by their furtiveness and ornamental diversity reminded me of the population of the aquarium I’d kept as a child, a murky tanks in which cheap fish hesitated in weeds and an artificial starfish made a firmament of the gravel.” Overladen, quickly followed by overblown.  “Made a firmament”, for fuck’s sake! So much of this book is written in a quick-brown-fox-jumps-over-the-lazy-dog style that it doesn’t just reek of old exams, but there also seems to have been an allotted two-and-a-half hour period to write the thing.

McCann can at least write a character, and that does ultimately save his work. When you read books, though, you just want to hand over power of attorney to the writer and cruise through a new fictional reality with your feet up. Let The Great World Spin had me a nervous back-seat driver throughout, unhappy at having handed over the keys; when McCann described Philippe Petit’s preparations the night before his celebrated tightrope walk between the Twin Towers in 1974, I found myself screaming at the book for not describing how he got the wire across. Turned out this detail had been held back for effect, but the book hadn’t come close to me trusting it enough for this to work, and once again it had lost me to the grim company of indifferent sentences.

Both books seem to operate with the same formula; show a new side to New York, remain suspiciously upbeat about the city, and mention tragic events tangentially. South Park has skewered that brand of 9/11 mawkishness better than I ever can; however, as far as new takes on the city go,  I prefer Joan Didion’s unrepentantly critical essay ‘Sentimental Journeys’ from the early 1990s. That portrays New York as a city that gorges on its own false myths to hide its racism, bureaucracy and uncompetitiveness. That wouldn’t get you any book group royalties, though.

Recently, Stephen Fry made a speech to BAFTA, in which he said that television wasn’t quite as good as it used to be; that it was clearly more aimed at demographics than was once the case; that it didn’t challenge the audience as it should.

Now, this is a pretty uncontroversial statement, albeit one that seems a bit odd coming from Stephen Fry. After all, this is the man who made and starred in Kingdom, and has a nice line in persuading the BBC to film him while he goes on holidays before calling it a documentary. Still, he’s clearly got a point and, even if it’s obvious to most people outside TV-society, there’s not many people within that society bothering to make it. It’s a shame (but drearily predictable) that the press have instead reported it as an attack on Doctor Who, on account of how Stephen Fry had the gall to say it’s not an adult programme - for no better reason than that it, um, happens to be perfectly true. Doctor Who fans across the world were infuriated, apart from the very few millions with a functioning sense of perspective, and of course those who couldn’t give a toss what Stephen Fry says about anything.

The only mistake Stephen Fry made was in not going far enough. When he mentions actors being made to wear seatbelts, or programmes not wishing to offend, he suggests a world where TV is enslaved to a faceless bureaucracy. This may well be true, but it’s not the cause of the problem; the defining obsession of the last fifteen years isn’t a bureaucratic mentality, but a corporate one. I don’t mean this in the sense of Evil Corporations, but something more insidious and subtle; namely that we’ve been quietly encouraged to view society entirely in the same terms as we view a business and, because it’s now so commonplace, many people have stopped noticing just how much this mentality defines almost everything in our culture.

I could produce all sorts of examples at this point: I could talk about how the prevailing view of politicians as people who should run the finances, and society as a thing that just sort-of-happens around the economic framework, a view that would have been unthinkable even in the early 1980s; I could mention the glib references to things such as the “Nanny State”, a two-word objection to the role of government (a body legislating for the public good) that would once have been met with blank incomprehension. The overwhelming majority of our commentariat are so used to thinking about society in corporate terms that they lazily transplant business rules onto entire nations, and very little about current economic debate makes much sense if you don’t bear that in mind. Take Social Welfare, and the low-level resentment with which it’s viewed by many, even as a concept; this comes from an instinctive view that we should be able to somehow fire people who aren’t producing, and moronic ideas like “workfare” come almost entirely from a conditioned, instinctive desire to get the nation’s employees (sorry, citizens) doing something. “Make people work for the dole” isn’t an economic or social idea, it’s a purely aesthetic one.

Aesthetics are defined by culture, so it’s culture that should take centre stage. Over the last fifteen years, popular culture in Britain and Ireland has become increasingly self-absorbed, increasingly unwilling to make any jabs at the establishment or run the risk of making its audience uncomfortable. This has long since been a problem, ever since people like David E. Kelley got their hands on television and started filling it with their warm-milk brand of evil, and it became perfectly acceptable to portray characters in any drama as having an endless stream of money from a non-specific job; however, as the background has changed, it’s now more glaringly obvious than ever before*. This is a time when the political paradigms of the last couple of decades are shifting or imploding, when the economic prosperity shared by all (except the poor, but of course they didn’t really matter) has been exposed as a Visa bill that we kept avoiding by increasing the credit limit, when the truisms peddled by out leaders (The Markets Will Decide, What’s Good For Business Is Good For Ireland, Get On The Ladder, Reward Enterprise) have exploded and spattered everyone with claggy grey shrapnel. Economically and socially, these are times of hardship. But culturally…?

Culturally, this is as exciting a time as anyone could hope to live through. The placid complacency of the last couple of decades that gripped our media-classes has fallen to bits, and nothing is yet taking its place beyond a vague sense of austerity. All in all it’s time for a new aesthetic, a new idiom, some shiny new movement in music or television or cinema or gaming or whatever it is the internet does. So why, given that we’re in a society that’s ripe for reinvention, is it so difficult to remember a time when popular culture was been more banal than it is now?

One of the charges that used to be levelled at TV was “dumbing down”, which has now been superseded by Fry’s charge of demographic blandness. These are all linked to the phenomena know as Political Correctness, which I’ve long since argued doesn’t actually exist at all… however, in a sense it does, it’s just called “political” instead of “Corporate”. The vast majority of popular culture is firmly enslaved to corporate mentality, and one of the key axioms of that belief is that a product should never run the risk of offending anyone. It’s a universal truth that no film should risk having a minority figure as a villain, even though I’d imagine that Lawrence Fishburn and Denzel Washington would be as game for wearing fake scars and putting on an Evil English accent as anyone; this isn’t borne of any political pressure, it’s because films are financed by businesspeople and they don’t want to risk alienating a black demographic. Dumbing Down, Political Correctness and Demographics are all a form of graded blanding-out, a process of removing anything unusual or challenging or eccentric from stories, in case it a particular section of the market objects.

Of course, this is nothing new; it’s just that it has permeated the minds of those who make the films in the first place. The best example was the BBC’s only ambitious drama of the last year, Five Days. It was multi-stranded, and intelligent, and had some cracking characters and a decent cast; then, about half way through, it revealed one of the central figures had been to a terrorist training camp. As soon as this was revealed, the character said he was very sorry and very stupid and shouldn’t have done it… and that was it. Now, seeing a drama do something as crass as introducing a topic like Islamist terrorism and then change the subject before things get too awkward is bad enough. Worse, though, was that it was somehow supposed to be worthy that the issue had been raised at all, even though the programme had fuck-all to say about it. There was a time when raising uncomfortable truths was just the sort of thing that drama should do - programmes like I Claudius, The Boys From The Blackstuff, Our Friends in the North, Prime Suspect and Queer as Folk were all obsessed, in their own very different ways, with showing viewers a view of society they’d never seen before. There’s still the occasional programme doing it – Bodies comes to mind, and the Torchwood mini-series had elements of this - but these are very much the exception.

It’s fashionable to associate the risk-averse nature of modern popular storytelling to patrician voices in the BBC assuming they speak for the people. In fact, it’s just that the maximise-the-target-market mentality has become the default setting for anyone involved in drama. Young creative-types like to imagine they’re on the edge, stifled by The Man, but in fact are so fully a part of the establishment and don’t even realise it. They produce bland programmes for exactly the same reason that a generation of property-development programmes have made everyone paint their walls in neutral colours – the most easily-sold product has become the default aesthetic. The recent, appalling, unforgiveably bowdlerised BBC adaptation of Money got this point across, albeit unintentionally. John Self was a grasping, unpleasant and slightly stupid character making a shit film, but his film also sounded six times as textured as the actual programme we were watching – in much the same way that his gaudy 1980s apartment was far more interesting, and full of character, than any of the houses Sarah Beeney advises people to produce. Everything in our culture aspires to be tasteful – a meaningless word that has somehow acquired meaning, a shorthand for a well-matched ambient atmosphere that alienates no-one and says nothing. The only debates anyone now has about television is how it can compete with the internet. Discussing content is ridiculous.

If all this is sailing pretty close to nostalgia, I might as well add that the vast majority of popular culture has always been crap, and that a fair slice of today’s television is better than what came before it. Documentaries are the things that leap to mind here – Welcome to Lagos and Wonders of the Solar System were tremendous efforts that benefited from the increased budget and exposure documentaries are now given - while “family programming” has enjoyed a renaissance after a long ten years where Ant and Dec were seen as the pinnacle of the genre. It’s interesting that both these break-out successes cut against the grain. Family drama has been lead by Doctor Who, widely forecast to flop when it returned, at a time when viewing-by-appointment was assumed to be dead. The resurgence of the documentary can possibly be traced back to Michael Moore**, who almost single-handedly reinvented it as something that could be shown on a cinema screen and have wide appeal. In the 80s, the thought of a documentary being in the cinema was ludicrous, certainly as ludicrous as we now find the idea that the most popular film of the year could be a romantic comedy about a time-travelling ancient Egyptian woman incarnated in the body of a shop-window dummy.

It’s perhaps interesting to finish off by looking at comedy. Ever since Brand-and-Ross, there has been much talk of comedians being afraid to be “edgy”. But comedy has been in a black hole for years, and there hasn’t been a genuinely “edgy” comedy since The Office. In the late 90s, Pegg, Wright and Stephenson tried to make Spaced about a corner of society nobody had really documented, and it wasn’t their fault that every subsequent comedy began to assume that everyone has an encyclopaedic knowledge of TV and cinema stretching back to 1968. In the last few years, the only British / Irish comedy that tried to document anything was the godawful Pulling; meanwhile, we keep being asked to pretend that The IT Crowd is acceptable, or that Peep Show is anything more than acceptable.

Comedy writers are convinced that British comedy is in a wonderful state. Of course they are; they’re in a monopoly position, where the same few names dominate all the channels that mean anything. Their comedy is selling because there’s no alternative, because we now just expect it to be toothless and vapid and about middle-class people we couldn’t give two shits about; those writing it, of course, are so enslaved to the Mentality Corporate that their work’s existence, the mere fact that it is selling, is all that really matters to them.

Here’s the clincher:-

…this is all sorts of things comedy usually isn’t; it’s silly, and irreverent, and the funniest, most accurate view of Irish politics for years. It came from the RTE sports department, from three guys who have somehow crept under the radar and wangled their way onto television. Meanwhile, the established comedy professionals keep making glib cracks on panel shows and think calling John Prescott fat, or taking the piss out of Willie O’Dea’s moustache, somehow qualifies as satire. There are no real digs about the recession, because someone might take them the wrong way.

Besides, recession is nothing to laugh about. It isn’t appropriate. It isn’t tasteful.

Pointed question number one: Why is Richard Bruton the last man on earth who should be criticising anyone else on the planet for lacking in leadership skills?

Actually, maybe that’s not as pointed as it seems; you could argue that there is no-one in the world better-qualified than Bruton to recognise a lack of charisma when he sees it. After all, Yappy O’Whingebag has been flapping his jaw in the Dáil since 1982 now, and has been in and around the upper echelons of the Fine Gael leadership since the early nineties. He’s always looked like he fancied a crack as a party leader and has always completely failed to manage it; not only was he judged to be less suited to leadership than big brother John, but he’s now lost a leadership contest to Enda Kenny twice – which, as is a pretty open secret by now, is like losing a toe-sucking contest to a pitbull terrier with rabies. Richard Bruton knows all about people who aren’t cut out to be leader, for the best of all possible reasons*.

The problem is that he doesn’t seem to recognise his own shortcomings. Bruton might not be the least charming man on earth, but he’s in and around the bottom five. We’ve been listening to him yipping away on Prime Time and indulging in petty point-scoring for years but until now – to be fair – he always just came across as a smart man who was sadly bestowed with a crippling lack of likeability. There have been a few comments along the lines of “well Kenny is a disaster and Bruton should be leader and his timing is just a bit wrong,” but they’re as misguided as the man himself. It’s just about possible that there’s a better leadership candidate than Kenny in Fine Gael, but Bruton sure as hell isn’t it.

I should say here is that I couldn’t really care less if Fine Gael were being lead by Tom Baker or Kali, Goddess of Destruction, it wouldn’t make me any more likely to vote for them. This, really, is their main problem; it’s not the leader, it’s that the whole party inspires yawning apathy. What are Fine Gael actually for? Unlike any other Irish party, they don’t have any discernible ethos at all. Fianna Fáil’s aesthetic is that of slightly-crooked pragmatists who bend the rules and Get Shtuff Done, something that they’ve built up through local structures over generations. It might be repellent, and entirely fictitious, but it’s done them nicely for years. Fine Gael have always been faceless in comparison; “Like Fianna Fáil but a bit more clean-cut” doesn’t really cut it as a party ethic. They’ve garnered votes by not being Fianna Fáil, but these votes have been siphoned off over decades by Labour, the Shinners, the Greens, and other parties that gave vague hints of believing in something. The result is a party of middle-managers in bland suits. Young, dynamic, aspiring politicos (there’s an oxymoron for you) don’t join FG, and haven’t for years; hence there’s a complete lack of inspiring people at the head of the party. Kenny really is about as good as they’ve got. Richard Bruton would probably be a half-decent Finance Minister. But who else is there? George Lee… oh no, forget that**. So who else? Hayes, maybe. Coveney?? Varadkar????? Erm… That Guy With The Beard??????? It’s not that they lack an incisive leader, they lack any incisive politicians whatsoever.

Unfortunately, they happen to be the main opposition party in the country, so what they get up to actually matters. No matter what opinion polls are saying now, Labour won’t be the largest party at the next election – call it “The Lib Dem effect” if you will – and we’re going to have to rely on the Blueshirts to get Cowen’s miserable crew out of office. Fine Gael haven’t exactly been overflowing with new ideas, but watching the opposition collapse as we stagger on with the Least Popular Government Ever looks a little bit like an animal called “Democracy” eating its own kidneys.

Listing what’s wrong with Fianna Fáil would use up more memory than Blacknight will give me, but too many people think their collapse in support is due to corruption. It isn’t, although the Golden Circle nature of the current party has damaged their men-of-the-people shtick. Fianna Fáil have always been corrupt, and it doesn’t really affect them. Rather, their problem is that they’ve lost their sheen of competence; Irish people have forgiven Fianna Fáil all manner of bullshit down through the years, but this party is different. As opposed to the well-drilled gombeens of old, we’ve got a bunch of desperate little men, riven by petty jealousies, lurching from shit headline to shit headline. We’ve seen that they’re motivated solely by their own survival, that they couldn’t care less about the country, and that they no more know what’s going on than the England football team would if you made them watch Mulholland Drive.

In other words, just this once, Fine Gael’s selling point of Not Being Fianna Fáil actually seemed… workable. Act like a well-drilled, responsible unit, and they’re miles ahead of their competition. Bruton’s failed rebellion has destroyed that; it smacks of selfishness, and incompetence, and sheer blind panic. Sure, Fine Gael got a slightly disheartening poll result, but they’re still well ahead of Fianna Fáil, and that’s all that really matters to them. This is a time when two reports have damned Fianna Fáil’s management of the banking system, and Cowen’s conduct while Minister in particular. This was something that could actually have brought the government down, if used properly***. Instead it’s been pushed off the newspapers by a banal upheaval, incompetently managed and massively disruptive. The qualities we’ve seen in the party are exactly the qualities that are so hateful about the current lot in charge.

Bruton may have problems, but there’s one thing to say about him; he isn’t stupid. He would have known, more than anyone, that Cowen would be under enormous pressure, and that there were rumblings from his back-benches. He would have known that there was an outside chance – highly unlikely, but just about possible – that Kenny really could have forced an election if he played his cards right. Had that happened, Kenny would have ended up as Taoiseach… and it’s no secret that Bruton fancies himself for that job. Maybe, from his point of view, the timing wasn’t so crazy after all.

Maybe that’s bollocks. What isn’t bollocks is that Bruton put his personal ambitions ahead of any other considerations, and half the Fine Gael front bench followed him for no better reason than self-advancement, and guessing incorrectly what way the wind was blowing****.

What we’re left with is an opposition in tatters. That’s not a great state of affairs. What’s worse, though, is the certain knowledge that the guys across the room are no better than the ones in government. Bruton’s failed rebellion has been a bad joke, with the punchline that incompetence and greed are very bit as healthy on the other side of the table. It’s probably best we know, but it would have been nice if it weren’t true in the first place.

“Collateral” is one of the smartest words ever coined. Its use, like “friendly fire”, was designed to soften the impact of war reports, and it does that job well. You know about this, probably, so I’ll just sweep over all that, you know how it goes – blah blah Newspeak. Yeah, right.

The other thing about the world “collateral” is that it’s entirely accurate in terms of how it reflects the mindset of people who use it. Collateral doesn’t distinguish between people and things; but then, nor do people who run wars, in any real sense. If you work in an environment where you will habitually get people killed, be it deliberate or inadvertent, then you can’t start distinguishing between people and barrels of napalm – if you do, you lose the war. Collateral is a psychopathic word, designed for use in a psychopathic pursuit.

The best way to sum it up is as a Conflict Mentality, and it doesn’t just arise during actual conflict. Israel, as a state, is collectively gripped by it, which is why they can commit a humanitarian atrocity and seem completely unaware of the horror; as far as they’re concerned, any attempt to breach their blockade is de facto a terrorist act intended to aid their enemies, and it gets what it deserves. This isn’t to excuse their (unforgivable) actions, just to understand them. We have our own historical example; the execution of the 1916 rebels is often-cited as a horrific move by the British, but this ignores the fact that they were at war and routinely shooting young men for desertion. There wasn’t a doubt about appropriate action as far as Britain were concerned; Pearse and his crew had committed an act of treason, and they needed to be executed. End of. Any questioning of this wouldn’t just have been dismissed, it would have been met with blank incomprehension.

Adopt a conflict mentality, and any form of moral grotesquery becomes acceptable. “Collateral” is a perfect word, because it’s about people who don’t really count as people, just as a statistic. Now, you can’t use “collateral” when you’re talking about – say – economic policy, so we say “pain” instead. It’s not war, but it is a conflict mentality, in which considering the implications of losing your job or home is an impediment to doing What Must Be Done (assuming we don’t start going mad and trying to tax the wealthy, obviously).

We aren’t at war, though. Not like in 1916, not even like Israel. Let’s put it as baldly as possible; deaths matter. The government being responsible for deaths, be it directly or indirectly, is as close to completely fucking unforgivable as it gets. Officially, we now know that 37 children died in state care in the last ten years (19 of natural causes). But then, that figure was revised upwards from 23 over the space of a day. The HSE don’t seem too certain how many children they lost – yeah, say that again, they don’t seem to know how many children they lost – but there’s plenty of intelligent comment that suggests it’s staggeringly high.

It’s difficult to contextualise – these are children in state care after all, quite literally the most vulnerable strata of society – in terms of the actions of the higher-up, but it’s important to try. By its nature, malpractice in the HSE results in people dying. It’s an organisation where bureaucracy kills. We’re not talking “pain” here.

Mary Harney was appointed Minister for Health in 2004; she has been in the position nearly six years. Since then – if not immediately since she took over the post, then certainly soon afterwards – she has been engaged in a quiet battle with the HSE. Her actions suggest, almost uniformly, that she wants reduce it to irrelevance. When people talk about health care “reform”, they forget that the HSE is an organisation that Mary Harney has never shown any interest in reforming.

Government policy – and I make no apologies for singling this out as a Harney project, since there was a radical shift in emphasis as soon as she took over from Mícheál Martin – is to outflank the HSE by privatising the health system. Now, it would be easy to talk about why this is a terrible thing, but I’ve done that before, and it’s worth looking at the realpolitik for a minute. We might talk about two-tier health as a bad thing, but we’ve been living in a two-tier system for years; the moment that we offered VHI relief, two-tier became a reality. The VHI’s very existence is a tacit acknowledgement that those on a higher wage shouldn’t be expected to live with the service on offer to the clods; the government was prepared to help the middle-classes jump the queue, and that’s pretty much a textbook definition of two-tier. All Harney has tried to do is increase the reach of this two-tier system, by getting private patients out of the leaky buildings with all the inconvenient poor people and into privately-run hospitals. This isn’t creating a two-tier system, it’s just showing up the fact that we already had one.

When Harney (and Bertie Ahern) spoke about the private sector being able to deliver beds, and buildings, “more cheaply and efficiently than the public sector”, what they actually meant was “without involving the HSE”. This is the nub of what they were doing; the co-located hospitals project, and the treatment purchase scheme, were exercises in moving more and more patients to private hospitals. We might put this down to free-market fundamentalism, but in that case… why the hell would Harney introduce risk equalisation into the health insurance market, as anti-free market a move as you can get?

Because, surprising as it may be to anyone who’s heard the woman speak, she seems to have a vision for Irish healthcare; namely, the vast majority of facilities provided by private insurers, a widespread (and, quite probably, mandatory and part-subsidised) health insurance system, in which the state’s direct provision is limited to Accident and Emergency provision at most. A future with no HSE; in which the enormous, fiefdom-riddled, bureaucratic mess has quietly died.

So why reform a body you want to destroy? To Mary Harney, the HSE is the enemy. She’s damned if she’s going to take responsibility for them losing a few hundred kids, since that’s exactly the sort of thing that made her want to wipe the buggers out in the first place.

This isn’t all down to Harney, of course; a fair chunk predates her tenure. Nor is this really about the right or wrong of HSE reform, it’s about the moral horror of the decision to go to ‘war’ with them in the first place. By not even trying to reform the HSE, Harney accepted that there would be collateral. Both sides are aware of the terms, and have adopted the requisit conflict mentality. Because of their unchecked, unchallenged inefficiency, children – and (in other scandals) many more adults, who forgive me for saying so, are no less important – have died or suffered awfully.

The bureaucratic battle, though, has ended up with the grotesque sight of Ministers and leaders refusing to accept responsibility, and the HSE’s many-headed hydras trying to shovel the blame from one mouth to the other. This, more than anything else, is what’s sickening. Not the mistakes, or children going missing, or lives destroyed by foul-ups in the filing system; it’s the blank inability to do anything except mitigate the damage and avoid responsibility. At a time when you’d think anyone would show some semblance of humanity, some tiny hint of awareness of the misery inflicted on families and individuals.

There’s the big picture of the health service, and the ongoing conflict between the HSE and the government. Debating the models of public healthcare, or insurance-based healthcare, is a huge important question, and it shouldn’t be ignored; still this isn’t the sort of war that should ever have casualties or denials. This bespeaks how state and society failed the people who needed them most. It’s a black, rotten spectacle at the heart of our society, and it shames everyone involved.

I write this after the the Sunday Times ran article about Eamon Gilmore, entitled “Mr Popular or Mr Populist”, and perfectly fine it is too; it’s a fairly balanced portrait, even if it doesn’t focus on the most worrying thing about Gilmore – namely, that he looks like a garden gnome that’s lost his hat*. Perhaps the most interesting thing about it, though, is the choice of title;  the main  accusation is that Labour are a touch light in some policy areas, but this is translated as “populist”.

I hate the word populist. Not because it carries with it the implication that people are stupid, and that the political elite only refuse to manipulate them out of a generous sense of altruism, although that’s reason enough; I hate it because it’s almost always misused. It effectively means “telling people what they want to hear”, but most people want to hear the truth, which is the one thing you never get from “populist” politicians. This mindset leads to a situation where you have Populism on one side, and Hard Decisions on the other, which is… oh look, here we are.

However, the meme of Hard Decisions is every bit as devious as anything that any politician has come up with. You can see this clearly by glancing towards the UK. The Tories are happily talking about how they’ll make difficult decisions, but in fact, they’ve carefully manipulated themselves into a position where these decisions will do them the least possible damage. They floated their proposed cuts when they were light-years ahead of Labour in the polls, and were comparatively safe to do so; it was simply an exercise in dampening expectations. Now, they’re cutting early – at a time when Labour’s refusal to cut has been shown to be working – because it puts them in a no-lose situation; if it doesn’t damage the recovery it’s worked, if it does they can blame it on Labour.

Over here, the government’s programme of Difficult Decisions has worked in more or less the same way**. They were in a position where whatever they did would be unpopular, so they chose an approach that would target the sort of people who don’t vote Fianna Fáil anyway. Fianna Fáil steered blatantly clear of touching any of its most sacred cows; most notably it introduced income levies instead of increasing Income Tax, so that it could spin the line that “we’re all in this together”, to minimise alienation of its core electorate (middle class right-wing types who constantly complain about being overtaxed, even though they patently weren’t). The minute any of its voters got annoyed – that’ll be the pensioners, the terrifying actually-going-and-voting demographic – they backed down quicker than Sarah Ferguson accepting ten grand.

In other words, difficult decisions are every bit as “populist” as the alternative; they’ve been selected to vicitimise a  demographic who largely don’t vote, certainly don’t vote for Fianna Fáil or the Green Party, and – this is probably the most important part of the equation – aren’t the sort of people who high-powered politicians ever really have to deal with. The Sunday Independent and its ilk can happily parrot “share the pain”, because – as far as the upper echelons of an institution like the Sindo are concerned – these people don’t really exist anyway. Middle- or upper-income pensioners, on the other hand, are familiar to the Sindo’s powers-that be – they know them, or in many cases, they are them. “Pain” only becomes “injustice” when it’s inflicted on people instead of demographics.

Designing your political policies around people you happen to know isn’t how you might instinctively visualise corruption, but it’s the most endemic form of corruption there is. We’re too quick to ascribe “corruption” to scheming behind-the-scenes behaviour, yet what really burns is its sheer banality. This excellent TASC report on Ireland’s Golden Circle (go on, at least read the summary) perfectly displays how small the ruling class is; if power is vested in a bunch of fine-living, affluent men who have a series of expensive dinners with each other and throw transparent compliments into each others’ fat faces, then as far as they’re concerned, the rest of the world simply stops existing. The shocking thing about our leaders’ ongoing refusal to tax the wealthy is that it literally doesn’t seem to have occurred to anyone as a course of action; the only discussion of the subject has been token, dismissed with one-line statements that show no signs of having been thought through (“we need business”, “the wealth will leave the country”, “it won’t raise significant revenue” – you know the drill). The ruling classes are so firmly absorbed by Ireland’s golden circle that they barely notice it exists.

And so, when we ask the question “why is no-one angry?”, – it’s a recurring question in some sectors these days, not least because it makes people think of Network, and everyone likes thinking of Network – it’s because our anger serves no purpose. Calling for the government’s head is white noise. People are angry, but we aren’t people, we’re “People” – disembodied slogans of fury that don’t understand the realities of government, a morass that the government must try and appease with meaningless concessions.

That, right there, is the real nastiness of populism.

The mistake is in thinking that this attitude is rooted in anything other than a government being thoroughly impotent. The pensions scandal was a perfect example of how little power Cowen and his cronies now exert – Cowen’s protestations that he couldn’t legally compel people to give up their pensions was an attempt to disguise the obvious fact that he was no longer in control of his party. No-one suggested there was a legal compulsion, the real story was that Cowen couldn’t use the party whip to get ex-ministers to give up their pensions – he was too terrified of triggering rebellion to do so. When people march towards the Dáil calling for a change of government, and even the national press start to question the legitimacy of government, ignoring these voices isn’t symptomatic of arrogance so much as it is of fear and desperation, like a kid reacting to being told off by sticking his fingers in his ears and repeatedly shouting “rhubarb.”

The converse example of this is probably the rushed legislation about Head Shops***. This was pandering to conservative hysteria was generally described as “cynical”, but more than that, it was desperate; the actions of a group that would grab any chance to be popular, without any regard to how transparently needy it made them seem. It fooled no-one. Similarly, Eamon Ryan’s recent chit-chat about taking the Heineken Cup matches off of Sky and back onto normal telly where they belong was about as well-received as Shirley Temple Bar at an Orange Lodge march; it was perceived for exactly what it was, a nakedly pathetic attempt to be liked. These aren’t the actions of cynical schemers, but of a boring party-guest who laughs hysterically at everything because he’s got no friends.

Ultimately, when you’ve got a government who are so obviously no longer in control, getting angry isn’t as appropriate a response as just pointing and laughing, and their “populist” decisions tend to be the funniest. Some say economic hardship isn’t an appropriate thing to laugh about, but bullies don’t mind being hated; what they can’t stand is being treated as an irrelevance. An irrelevance is now precisely what these emasculated types in power are, and how we should treat them. They stagger from crisis to crisis, reaching for facile legislation that they hope will be popular with the people they don’t understand, and react to the economy by legislating around the whims of the formerly wealthy to whom they’re so enthralled. Laughter and ridicule are among the most powerful weapons we have.