What Adam Afriyie’s first major interview really meant

Adam Afriyie: Going somewhere? Photo: Roo Reynolds (Flickr)

There’s no doubting the appeal of Adam Afriyie; with a rags to riches personal story he represents the epitome of what the Conservative Party should stand for. But his answers, during his first major interview with Andrew Neil on Sunday, were sketchy, overtly astute, and his political message – essentially business, business, business – somewhat lacking.

By saying very little, he ended up giving away rather a lot. Not only did Afriyie make mention of the ‘efforts of’ a ‘team’ around him, he also categorically refused to support David Cameron’s leadership. Surely even the most rebellious of MPs would have given the PM their backing, at least for now? It’s difficult to say what exactly Afriyie is planning, but here’s my take on what his interview really meant;

Andrew Neil: You’ve already written that you are ‘prepared to be disappointed’ (with George Osborne’s budget)?

Adam Afriyie: Well budget’s are always disappointing, and there’s a lot of hope for different groups within society and I think sometimes not all those hopes can be met. The key thing for this budget in my view is that we must have business friendly measures, and I think it’s really important that any government both likes business but also is business-like in its approach.

Translation: Budgets are usually disappointing, and this one will probably be no exception. We need more tax cuts for businesses, and of course we need to move on from the ‘omnishambles’ delivery of last year’s Budget.

AN: Liam Fox has called for a public spending freeze for the next five years to fund tax cuts, is he right?

AA: A lot of people will be calling for a lot of different things. My focus is on those things, sometimes they’re boring measures, measures which aren’t headline grabbing, sometimes they aren’t politically attractive. The key thing is that we are business-like about this and introduce measures that genuinely boost growth.

Translation: Sounds good to me.

AN: Is it time to means test universal benefits like the free TV licence and the winter fuel allowance?

AA: These are ideas that need to be considered for sure. But I think, overall my view is that we need to simplify for tax system. I think people are uncomfortable that multimillionaires are receiving benefits from the state, that’s something that needs to be look at in the long term. But if we simplify the tax system then some of these problems disappear over time.

Translation: I don’t want to answer that, so I’ll talk about tax instead. But yes, millionaires shouldn’t receive benefits.

AN: Do you think Cameron and Osborne spend enough time listening to what ordinary members think?

AA: I think they’re listening very carefully. There will always be frustration if the economy isn’t doing well and the answers for getting a thriving Britain aren’t forthcoming. I’m hopeful that this budget will have those measures where people begin to feel more confident. The future for the country lies with a wholly Conservative government that has enterprise and economic growth at the heart of everything it does.

Translation: They might be listening, but not enough. The economy is a mess, and the government does not have enough of a focus on creating a thriving economy. Of course, not much helped by having to work with Liberal Democrats.

AN: Is there any doubt in your mind that Mr Cameron will lead the Tories into the 2015 general election?

AA: I don’t want to get into gossip politics. We have a very good chance of winning the 2015 election if we can demonstrate some economic growth before 2015. Government needs to learn to like business.

AN: You don’t answer me. There is some doubt in your mind? Is there or isn’t there?

AA: I’m not prepared to speculate. What people want to see is leadership and a commitment to getting Britain back on top.

AN: There have been many reports that you have leadership ambitions, do you?

AA: I’m ambitious for the country. I chose to come into politics from a business background, and I’m happy to serve the country in any way I see fit. I’m not ambitious for any position in the party or the government.

AN: Let’s put this to bed, do you want to lead your party?

AA: I have no ambition to lead my party. I’m ambitious to get Britain back on top. The effort’s of my team around me are focused on trying to deliver those policies for a better future.

AN: So you wouldn’t rule out being leader?

AA: You’re asking the question in different ways. You’ve had an answer.

Translation: I don’t much rate Cameron personally, so I’m not prepared to back him. What people want to see is leadership and a commitment to getting Britain back on top; Cameron is failing in both regards. At the same time his position is still fairly safe so I’m not going to call for his head either. I’m ambitious, but I’m not about to mount a leadership challenge. In the future though, I’m happy to serve the country in anyway I see fit. Which might mean leader of the party.

Robert Smith is Editor of Politiker. Follow on Twitter @RobertSmithUK

Eastleigh, the late surge of UKIP and Cameron’s balancing act

Nigel Farage and Diane James will be smiling for some time to come. Photo: Jennifer Jane Mills (Flickr)

By-elections often follow a familiar script: a date is announced, we are told how significant the outcome will be on the ‘political landscape’, a leading candidate emerges before then it becomes a tight race where the outcome will be ‘difficult to predict’ as pollsters unconfidently bemoan the ‘margin of error’. Ultimately, the result comes through which is similar to the one initially expected and it has little effect in a wider political context.

All of that might have been the case in Eastleigh had it not been for one factor: the late surge of UKIP. For much of the campaign, the outcome was considered to be a two-horse-race between the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives. The battle was portrayed as the two Coalition partners going ‘head-to-head’.

Ultimately, however, rather than the Conservatives, it was UKIP who narrowly missed out on taking the seat away from Nick Clegg’s party. Nigel Farage was right to say it was the Conservatives who had split the UKIP vote rather than the other way round. Today there might be a few right-leaning voters in Eastleigh cursing the fact they thought the Tories offered the best prospect of defeating the Liberal Democrats. For a party currently wielding the loudspeaker of protest in British politics, the late surge of UKIP was a surprisingly quiet one. Only until the last remaining days of the campaign did the chance of a victory even come into the picture; a Tory campaign leaflet, designed in the colours of purple and gold, proves how worried of UKIP the Conservatives had become.

So why, at the expense of the Tories, did UKIP perform so well? One thing is clear; voters vote for the eurosceptic party for a number of reasons, eurosceptism often less prominent than you’d expect; as an anti-establishment protest? In support of a more right-wing message? Or simply in support of a straight-talking, common-sense message? Perhaps the strength of the candidate locally swayed the voters? Indeed, the impressive candidate Diane James puts paid to the idea that UKIP are a group of ‘fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists’. The words of David Cameron himself, if anything last night’s result might encourage the Prime Minister to take more seriously what is becoming his party’s most significant threat.

But does that mean tacking back to a core right-wing message to win over lost supporters? Or does it mean continuing with a centre-ground ideology to win over an increasingly liberal society? Ultimately, Cameron will have to do both. Despite Labour’s embarrassingly poor performance in Eastleigh, Ed Miliband will stroll into Number 10 by default if the Tories continue to loose support from both the left of the party and the right.

Eastleigh is a major setback, but David Cameron’s conference speech of last year suggests he understands the task in hand. Yesterday Daniel Boomsma argued that the party could learn from perhaps it’s greatest forefather, Edmund Burke. Embracing liberal laissez-faire economics at the same time as developing a moral critique of pure capitalism ‘may help get rid of the Conservatives’ toxic image’. Today, Tim Montgomerie once again calls for a ‘full spectrum, big orchestral, across-the-stage Conservatism’. To pin the party down on the liberal left or the conservative right would be the incorrect response; but the message must be clearer, more optimistic, and reflective of a ‘common ground’ rather than ‘centre ground’. Finding the right balance will be no easy task. But then why should it be; power, after all, is at stake.

Robert Smith is Editor of Politiker. Follow on Twitter @RobertSmithUK

Film review: Zero Dark Thirty

Photo: Sony/Columbia Pictures

It became one of the most widely circulated images ever. Pete Souza’s capturing of the moment the leading figures of the United States crammed into the White House Situation Room to follow the progress of the hunt for the world’s most wanted man, Osama bin Laden. President Obama, in a white polo shirt and blue jacket, looks small and powerless on the edge of his seat. Secretary of State Hilary Clinton holds her hand to her face in suspense.

But what about the scenes behind the screen they all appear to be watching? Zero Dark Thirty, a documentary-style drama film, aims to recreate a picture of the self-described ‘greatest manhunt in history’ and shed some light onto the events leading up to the assassination. Directed by Kathryn Bigelow, who has form in the field having previously directed The Hurt Locker to six Academy Awards, the film focuses on Maya, a young CIA officer, and her journey of uncovering the intelligence needed to confirm Bin Laden’s whereabouts.

Throughout, Maya (Jessica Chastain) is clinging on to a lead by the name of Abu Ahmed, thought to be a close associate of Bin Laden’s. But when a detainee, after looking at a photograph of Ahmed, claims he is dead, the game appears to be up; that is until it emerges that the man in the photograph is in fact Ahmed’s older brother. From here on in, Maya has the self-belief to follow through on her lead; committed and determined, she is essentially portrayed as locating Bin Laden all by herself. Whether or not, in reality, the character played by Chastain was quite so central to the search is questionable; to this date she remains strictly undercover and lips closed.

That being said, whilst not claiming absolute historical accuracy, Zero Dark Thirty clearly attempts to offer a respectable recreation of what is still a very recent event. At 157 minutes long, it is a challenging watch; the first hour is particularly torturous, quite literally. Featuring uncomfortable scenes of water-boarding and other forms of torture, it has provoked controversy in the US; with Washington insiders claiming it overstates the use of torture, and others claiming it promotes torture as the necessary means to an end.

The film’s highlight, the night US Navy SEALs raided Bin Laden’s compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan, is a worthy climax; part Call of Duty, part Splinter Cell, the scene is tense and personal. Interestingly, Barack Obama, who broke the news of Bin Laden’s assassination to the world on May 2nd 2011 and benefitted politically from the event, hardly features; his face on a screen in the background of a meeting room being the sole reference.

Only the harshest critic would claim Zero Dark Thirty is guilty of hyperbole or excessive American patriotism. Ending with a close-up of an emotional Maya, many questions remain unanswered; was she pleased to have finally caught the man she had been seeking for so long? Had the success of the mission justified the use of torture in the process? Were the benefits of US involvement in the Middle East outweighing the costs? Ultimately, as much as you could wish for from a film of this kind, Zero Dark Thirty allows viewers to decide for themselves.

Robert Smith is Editor of Politiker. Follow on Twitter @RobertSmithUK

Boris: The True Tory Poster Boy

Photo: Mark Auer (Flickr)

Whatever reasons may be used to explain the London Mayoral election result it’s hard to deny it was a remarkable victory for Boris Johnson. Labour may not have fielded the ideal candidate, but it would be presumptive to suggest that ‘anyone but Ken’ would have simply strolled into City Hall. Livingstone might have been a tired choice, but he was a true London heavyweight with much appeal to traditional Labour voters; particularly those who have abandoned the party since the New Labour direction imposed by Tony Blair. As a result, Ken’s polling was barely a percentage point behind that of the Labour Assembly vote.

It’s not hard to put the finger on what really won Boris the keys back to City Hall for another four years. In the main, it was Boris himself. So what is so attractive about Boris and what did his campaign have that others didn’t? Some of his supporters and commentators have been quick to highlight the role played by proficient Australian campaign director Lynton Crosby, even recommending he be parachuted into Number 10 to try and replicate his success achieved with Boris Johnson at the General Election in 2015.

Without doubt, the BackBoris campaign was well-run, intense on the ground and the use of technologies like the tele-town hall telephone canvassing system which reached around 50,000 voters in an hour was innovative. But it doesn’t account for Boris’ wider appeal. Indeed, Boris’ election strategy, based mainly on his 9-point plan, was sensible, but not entirely inspiring. Arguably, Ken’s Fare Deal, regardless of its questionable budgetary foundations, was more successful at connecting with the voters. Furthermore, despite recent calls from Tory MPs that Boris’ more traditional conservative policies show Cameron the way to win votes, I doubt that Boris’ position on issues such as Europe, and even lower taxes, won him the election. Some of the MPs making noise on this issue may have exaggerated Boris’ traditional conservative leanings; conveniently forgetting his commitment to green politics and his liberal social attitudes.

It’s not the most satisfying conclusion for politics, but it would be naive to suggest that anything other than Boris’ personality brought him across the line. This was a Boris, rather than a Conservative, victory. A number of factors contribute to his appeal. He’s perceived in the eyes of the public as being willing to speak his mind. By showing a sense of vulnerability, lacking the slick quality seemingly demanded of the modern day politician, he seems more genuine. And despite his Eton and Oxford educated ‘posh boy’ background, identical to that of David Cameron, he’s far more ready to embrace it and use it to his advantage.

The likability of Boris’ personality is well documented, but it would be unwise to ignore his political message, even it does follow less of the small ‘c’ conservative line that some have tried to claim, and even if it wasn’t the be all and end all of his success. Indeed, there are lessons for Cameron to learn from Boris, who struck the right chord by emphasising core issues during his campaign such as the council tax freeze, getting more police out on the beat and upgrading crucial infrastructure.

Let’s not forget that the Prime Minister does have to deal with maintaining a Coalition by keeping his Liberal Democrat partners content. It certainly does make it harder for him to communicate a traditional conservative message, and in light of the electoral drubbing suffered by Clegg’s party recently, the Liberal Democrats are only going to become more resistant. But the party leadership do need to try and connect with what matters to the likes of voters in Harlow, symbolic of ‘Blair country’, who last night switched to Labour after placing their faith in Cameron in 2010.

The London Mayoral contest was by no means a referendum on what the Daily Mail have dubbed ‘wind turbine conservatism’, but it’s true, voters care little for issues such as House of Lords reform, elected mayors, and even gay marriage. Additionally, Boris’ may have succeeded with a sustainability message under the mask of projects such as the ‘Boris Bikes’, but the majority are unlikely to react fondly to environmental policies which lower living standards in such tough economic times. George Osborne’s interview with Andrew Marr on Sunday morning, in which he said he would “focus 100% on the economy” and not get “distracted” by other issues, suggests the local election results have encouraged the government to sit up and concentrate on the issues which matter – don’t expect to hear much of the ‘Big Society’ for a while – but whether this shift of focus results in a significant policy departure remains to be seen.

Just as important that the government are seen to be focussing on the issues that matter, is the issue that they are seen as competent. As Chuka Umuna rightly points out, Tories are seen by some as heartless, unfair and out-of touch, but voters have been willing to accept this in return for efficiency, professionalism and results. The party therefore has a real problem when it’s seen as incompetent. Negative headlines on pasties and grannies might be reduced to communication errors, but the panic caused at the petrol pumps by Francis Maude, and by allowing a reduction in the top rate of tax to overshadow a significant increase of the personal allowance indicates a simple lack of Number 10 to think things through.

Ironically, despite Boris’ much talked about disheveled character, he has struck a remarkably competent figure as Mayor of London. As I say, one of the appeals of his campaign was its responsible and conscientious tone; unwilling to offer an unrealistic promises to attract votes. Critics, Ken Livingstone for one, have argued that Boris has become a ‘do nothing mayor’, but his performance in City Hall has greatly improved his chances of ever making it to the job which he’d really like, that of leader of his party. If the past years teach us anything, it’s that he can no longer simply be dismissed as a harmless joker shouting from the edges.

If Cameron doesn’t turn around the ship rather soon – a ship whose fortunes lie in the hands of a struggling economy – a possible election defeat in 2015 looks ever more likely. Ed Miliband may just become Prime Minister by default. In which case, the Conservatives might be in the position of looking for a new leader. With George Osborne lacking the common touch and Jeremy Hunt’s reputation forever tarnished in light of the ongoing Murdoch scandal, is there really a candidate waiting in the wings with more appeal than Boris? Some commentators, much like Boris must do himself at the moment, may laugh off the suggestion that he might one day become Prime Minister, but it is now distinctly plausible. Of course the fact that Boris’ term at City Hall finishes a year after the next General Election is awkward timing. But where there’s a will, there’s a way, and one thing is for certain: with Boris Johnson, beneath the playful persona, there’s plenty of will.

Robert Smith is Editor of Politiker. Follow on Twitter @RobertSmithUK

* This article was first published at the now defunct Dale & Co.

Book review: Why It’s Kicking Off Everywhere by Paul Mason

It will long be remembered as the year of ‘the protestor’; as uprisings originating in the Arab world swept across the globe like a wild bushfire. Paul Mason, the economics editor of Newsnight, is therefore well placed to draw on his wide-ranging reportage in 2011 to answer the key question; how has this happened?

The global economy, troubled by a ‘shortfall between stagnating wages and increased consumption met by credit’, was bound to ‘explode’ Mason argues. Thus the influence of economics on the protests of today draws parallels to those in history; inflation correlates ‘closely with revolt: the higher the cost of bread, the more revolutionary the outcome’. Indeed, economic concern was so widespread in 2011 that the protests were populated by an unprecedented range of participants. Mason proposes three distinct socio-economic groups; the ‘graduate without a future’ of the discontented middle class, organized labour and the urban poor.

However, Mason argues that we cannot rely on economics as an explanation alone. If the uprisings are rampant flames, then technology rather than economics is the fuel spreading the fire. Social media, Mason argues, helped the movements ‘grow with dizzying rapidity’, observing the events in Tahrir Square as ‘a revolution planned on Facebook, organized on Twitter and broadcast to the world via YouTube’. As such, technophobes may find themselves horrified at the prevalence of social media references – certain protesters are referred to by their Twitter names for example – but despite the fact that ‘there is no quantitative research’ on the impact of social media ‘on politics and political campaigns’ Mason is by no means guilty of hyperbole.

Influenced by sociologist Barry Wellman, who ‘long before Facebook’ noticed that ‘people preferred to live with multiple networks, flat hierarchies and weak commitments’, Mason argues that a ‘networked individualism’ allows groups to form with the aim of completing only a single task. In many ways, this poses an interesting paradox to the ideas of Robert Putnam, who in Bowling Alone (1975) argued that a breakdown of ‘social capital’ had caused a disconnect between people and forms of social organization. Perhaps then, we’re still bowling alone, but online we’re in the company of millions.

The book loses momentum in the latter half, as Mason travels through the mid-west of the United States and the slums of Manila, describing, at odds with the general theme of the book, people who rather than ‘kicking off’, are tolerant, if not satisfied, with the troubled lives they live.

Notwithstanding the value of such first-hand experience of humanity, the downfall of Mason’s connection with the grass-roots is that he is occasionally guilty of failing to take into account a wider picture. Despite his BBC connections, he is unashamedly Neo-Marxist in his critique of the global system whereby the root problem is ‘globalization, and the resulting monopolization of wealth by a global elite’. A theme throughout the book is that amidst ‘the near collapse of free-market capitalism’ a ‘desire for individual freedom’ is fundamental to the uprisings. However, if Mason is so dissatisfied with the former then surely his attitude fails to accommodate the desires of his subjects; for if Mason knows of a global system which provides individual freedom in greater abundance than liberal democratic capitalism, he is yet to reveal it.

The book, and the movements it explores alike, can therefore be credited for raising logical points and intriguing questions, but denounced for failing to suggest valuable answers or alternatives. ‘The future hangs in the balance’ warns Mason. Perhaps then, the forthcoming ‘Reflections on Why It’s Kicking Off Everywhere’, will provide more evidence of the way in which Mason believes the balance should tilt.

Why It’s Kicking Off Everywhere: The New Global Revolutions
Verso, 244pp, £12.99
Published January 2012, London

Robert Smith is Editor of Politiker. Follow on Twitter @RobertSmithUK

I Bid a Sad Farewell to Roger Helmer

Robert Smith explains why he is sorry to see Roger Helmer MEP leave the Conservative Party.

Amidst a modest meeting of young conservatives in a sparsely populated lecture theatre I ask a simple question to Roger Helmer, the controversial Conservative MEP for the East Midlands; ‘Have you ever considered joining UKIP?’. In response Roger expectedly bemoaned the escalating ideological gap between the Conservative leadership and its membership, and stated that on many issues, if not most, he was increasingly more aligned to those of the party led by Nigel Farage. Despite this, Helmer appeared as though he was content with remaining in a party where if he did not see eye-to-eye with its leadership, at least he did with a significant proportion of its members. His key argument being that ‘If all the conservatives left to join UKIP, where would that leave the Conservative Party?’

Fast forward twenty-four hours and the news comes through that Roger had done just that; left the Conservative Party and defected to UKIP. In this case though, it appears that he felt obliged to leave the party due to an internal tension with the leadership over his successor more so than with regards to policy. Last year, Helmer had revealed his plans to retire, only to then withdraw them at a later date. He had wanted his friend and fellow Eurosceptic Rupert Matthews to follow in his footsteps, yet on finding that this conflicted with the wishes of the Party Co-Chairman Baroness Warsi, Helmer withdrew his resignation stating that he was ‘not prepared to stand aside for some A-List Cameron protege from St. Johns Wood’.

The whole situation presents a common relationship whereby the tight-knit party leadership stand further and further at odds with the wider party. Roger clearly sees his politics as a purer form of conservatism. Admittedly, this does injustice to the views of the wider party, as you could most certainly argue that the Cameroon’s of the party are conservatives too, albeit of a different kind. However, Helmer’s defection to UKIP gives the impression that there is becoming an increasingly narrow definition of what it means to be a Conservative; something which does nothing to favour the party. The historical success of the Conservative Party owes much to the fact that it has traditionally acted as a big tent; absorbing opinion from the inside left and the inside right, and dismissing a narrowly formed vision of what it stands for.

Roger Helmer might not be the most diplomatic kind of politician. Many might deplore his views. Indeed, he stands further to the right than I would say the majority of the Conservative Party membership do. Be that as it may, anyone listening to him speak to the group of students on Thursday evening would agree that it is foolish to disregard the value which his input can have. Democracies and political parties alike work best not when a confined range of opinion is accepted as gospel, but when a sphere of views are presented and the populous decide on which they most agree with. Many Tories view the offloading of Helmer, often seen as a loose cannon, as a blessing, but because of the reasons stated above, it’s hard for me to see it as anything other than a loss.

Robert Smith is Editor of Politiker. Follow on Twitter @RobertSmithUK

* This article was first published at the now defunct Dale & Co.

Coldplay With a New Spring in Their Step

Photo: Sarah Lee

Robert Smith reviews Mylo Xyloto, the latest offering from Coldplay which looks set to take the world by storm.

Bono once said during the promotion for All That You Can’t Leave Behind at the turn of the century that U2 were “reapplying for the job of the best band in the world”. To the same extent, Coldplay, the apparent heirs to the Irish rockers, seem to have been justifying a similar position with every output since X&Y in 2005. This time, with the release of the mysteriously named Mylo Xyloto, they certainly explore different musical approaches, but retain an underlying desire to go big.

According to the band, while the naming of the title is entirely frivolous – the criteria being that “it couldn’t be found in a Google search” – essentially it documents “loosely a kind of romance [between two protagonists, Mylo and Xyloto] in an oppressive environment”. Originally planned as a stripped back and acoustic record, the final result is the polar opposite; washes of colour, dance beats, synths and electronics show the band moving out of their comfort zone, though the guitar hooks, piano solo’s and heartfelt lyrics which are so synonymous with Coldplay remain.

Brian Eno, this time “more a collaborative writer than a producer”, stamps his mark of so called “Enoxification” on the record from the outset with the opening title track, one of three instrumentals on the album, which according to lead singer Chris Martin involves all four members of the band trying to “play their instruments as fast as they can” in order to “shake off any nerves” at the start of live shows. However, as it blends into ‘Hurts Like Heaven’ it’s hard to comprehend how even the famously self-depreciating Martin could possibly be apprehensive. The upbeat nature of the track suggests the band have a newfound spring in their step as jumpy guitars, energetic beats and talk of “spray can soul” liken it to the post-punk of Echo & the Bunnymen and The Cure.

On reflection, it’s now difficult to believe how the second single, ‘Paradise’, was so divisive among fans upon it’s release. With it’s epic strings, R&B influences, piano jigs and ultra-singable lyrics, it now seems to fit comfortably within the repertoire. However, despite its’ obviously lofty pop ambitions, the next track, ‘Charlie Brown’ is more likely to provide Xyloto’s ‘Viva La Vida moment’. Buckland’s guitar hook throughout is instantly recognizable to the extent that you begin to seriously question whether you’ve heard it before. It’s certainly hard to comprehend how it was once the focal point of the early acoustic LP initially planned by the band in their North London studios ‘The Bakery’ and ‘The Beehive’, and that it originally “featured an organ”. Thankfully, the version we are presented with today is less of a church hymn, and more of a hallucinogenic licence for stadium crowds to spring into action. “Took a car down town and took what they offered me, to set me free, I’ll be glowing in the dark” exclaims Martin rather uncharacteristically considering this is the rock band who are known for having a self-imposed policy which strictly prohibits the use of hard drugs. That being said, the recently released music video for ‘Paradise’ may suggest the rule is less stringent now that it once was…

‘Us Against The World’ brings Coldplay back to their musical roots, and thus would not feel out of place on their debut album Parachutes. Nevertheless, as the band have pointed out in numerous interviews, it’s appropriate in describing the band’s current mindset. “We felt so many people had already made their minds up about us, both good and bad” admits drummer Will Champion “[so we decided to] sort of start again from scratch and try to reflect all the music we listen to and love’”. The cringe-worthily named lead single ‘Every Teardrop Is a Waterfall’ confirms this by showing that they have no issue with breaking away from the mould in which people might like to fit them in. The now familiar synth-led song, with its’ youthful lyrics and high pitched guitar riff remind us of how long Xyloto has been in the pipeline. However, unlike with the taster EP released in June earlier this year, the song is greatly enhanced by the preceding simplistic instrumental ‘MMIX’.

‘Major Minus’ shows Coldplay at their edgiest, darkest best, and is perhaps more representative of their rockier live experience. Muffled vocals become entirely justifiable when considering the ‘Big Brother’ context of the song as “They’ve got one eye watching you, so be careful what you do” makes Chris Martin’s description of Mylo Xyloto as a “schizophrenic” album clearer. It also provides an insight into where Coldplay could take their sound post-MX era. Contrastingly, ‘UFO’ is a song which, despite its cosmic name, has its feet firmly on the ground. Just like ‘Us Against The World’, it’s the sound of Coldplay when they were more often described as “just a bunch of geography teachers” than the dinner friends of Beyonce and Jay-Z. That’s not to say it’s any less worthwhile; it proves that they can still relate to their roots despite coming an extremely long way over a relatively short period of time.

The much deliberated ‘Princess of China’ fits more comfortably into the track-listing than one might think it would; but fundamentally the vocal input of Rihanna’s still seems slightly false. Indeed, it might be the one moment on the album where Coldplay take one step too far out of their natural comfort zone. Unfortunately, despite it being believable that the band are fans of the Barbadian diva, it inevitably comes across as a marketing stunt. For one of the most “Marmite” of bands, this offering will only continue to divide opinion. But expect it to become a guilty pleasure, do well in the charts and introduce Coldplay to a new audience. Still, Chris Martin’s “Hugh Grant moment” when approaching Rihanna to sing in the song shows his inability to act like the frontman of the world’s biggest rock band. But arguably, his modest, self-effacing personality is principally what defines his knack for emotional, often troubled songwriting; a style which is displayed perfectly by the following track ‘Up in Flames’, which initially appears, with its repetitive beat and ultra-simple structure, to be a rare example of a Coldplay filler, but after a few plays grows on the listener to become the album’s unexpected gem.

‘A Hopeful Transmission’, in effect a remake of the instrumental opener, leads into ‘Don’t Let It Break Your Heart’, which more or less serves as a microcosm for the band; lyrically poetic and heartfelt, if perhaps sometimes a little shallow, but packing a distinctly melodic punch created by the layering of flourishing instrumentals. ‘Up With The Birds’ is a song of two halves; initially appearing to provide a cloudy, dreamy end to the record, before Buckland’s input of noticeably Edge-like strumming finishes the 45 minutes on a high.

It’s not often that an album fundamentally consisting of pop tunes satisfies the need to be experimental, but Mylo Xyloto seems to do just that. It manages to easily please those who demand a continuous supply of stadium-ready anthems, yet at the same time provides enough progression that it doesn’t make us feel as if we’ve heard it all before. It might not stand the test of time like their magnum opus A Rush of Blood to the Head will – in thirty years time that will still be the piece of work which will define them as a band – but Mylo Xyloto is an album immersed in the present. It’s more modern, urban and expansive offerings may indeed satisfy those who up till now have not felt a likening to the “nobody said it was easy” and “I never meant to cause you trouble” nature of Coldplay songs past, but essentially it’s still the same four-piece at heart. As Martin wails “It’s Us Against The World” it’s hard to see how the “nice guys of rock”, with a new spring in their step and armed with new ammunition, will not come to “rule the world once” again.

Robert Smith is Editor of Politiker. Follow on Twitter @RobertSmithUK

* This article first featured on Dale & Co.

Let’s not blame the BBC for the crisis at News International

Photo: Kyle Cheung (Flickr)

Robert Smith thinks that instead of trying to portray the BBC as an equally guilty partner, the Right should acknowledge that ‘hackgate’ exposes downsides of an unconstrained media.

The sudden crisis at News International has been a welcome sight for those on the Left who have rejoiced in the collapse of an empire which they believe stands for all the things they oppose. They’ve reveled in the manner by which Rupert Murdoch, through their eyes a detestable symbol of capitalism, has fallen from his once untouchable position to the seat of a parliamentary committee room answering to MPs and having to endure the embarrassment of a face full of foam pie. In addition, even the previously loyal customers of the Sun or the News of the World have all of a sudden started to question whether they feel comfortable with the political power which the titles, especially those from News International, have had on themselves, the nation and the political system over the last many decades.

However, the fact remains still that a sizable quantity of politicians and commentators on the Right still feel a sense of connection with the Murdoch empire; by convention they detest the phone hacking activities of the News of the World, but they can’t quite bring themselves to go on the all out attack towards a media brand which they feel has been on their side, helping their argument, in recent history.

The easy thing to do therefore is to portion some of the blame towards a similarly large media organisation; the BBC being the most obvious target. I would particularly highlight the recent tone of Tim Montgomerie, the respectable co-editor of the influential Tory grassroots website ConservativeHome, who at best could only be described as mutedly critical of News International. Writing on Saturday for the Telegraph, he argues that rather than News International, it is the BBC which is the unhealthy protagonist in the British media.

It cannot be argued with that the BBC does dominate the process of news communication in the country; almost three quarters of the public get the majority of their news from the television, and the BBC provides a parallel percentage of that television news. However, the underlying dislike of the BBC by similar commentators is not just a result of the dominance the Corporation has, but more often by the fact that in general, those on the Right feel that the BBC operates a liberal political bias, sometimes even a left-wing agenda.

I’ve always felt that this is an unfair overstatement which is a far too simple characteristic to pin onto a widely respected national organisation. The neutralism of the BBC, I believe, sometimes leads it towards the liberal side not deliberately but naturally. Liberal is, by definition, the stance of being open towards new behaviour or opinions, regardless of traditional standpoints. For the BBC ever to be illiberal, or even conservative, would be to the detriment of its neutralism.

That’s not to say that all criticism of the organisation is unwarranted. The observation that more employees within the BBC have a liberal rather than conservative mindset, as argued by Peter Sissons earlier in the year, is a fair one. This arguably may lead to the downplaying of certain issues such as immigration, and the slight magnification of concerns such as budget cuts. But to say that its day to day coverage of news and politics is agenda driven is completely inappropriate. Indeed, any biases are usually insignificant and are often only found by those trying to find them.

As a counterargument, the political background of Nick Robinson, most probably the BBC’s most well known and respected commentator, includes the position as President of the Oxford University Conservative Association. Similarly, if you were to look at the background of Andrew Neil, who as anchorman of the BBC’s Daily Politics and This Week enjoys unrivaled political broadcasting time, then you would find on his CV the role of a Conservative research assistant, the editorship of the Times and now the Chairmanship of Spectator magazines. They may not like to advertise it publicly but they clearly have, or have had, affiliations with the centre-right. Sure, there will be those who can pick out BBC employees who have had more left leaning political backgrounds, but there are just as many examples to prove that the BBC is far from the broadcasting arm of the Guardian, as it is popular within right leaning circles to claim.

To take time criticising the BBC just deflects attention away from the real problems which have existed within the print media; notably News International, but now conceivably other organisatons as well. Capitalists, conservatives and those on the centre-right all need to realise that the Murdoch empire got too big, too powerful, and was able to pull too many strings within the political process. It thought it held a hierarchical position above that of the state; ignoring its laws, and dictating the terms of play by which politicians followed. To the same extent, those on the Left should realise that the newspapers which held small-c conservative positions towards issues of crime, immigration and Europe were popular not just because they had the best news scoops, but because such positions are, believe it or not, rather popular with the general public.

The aim of those on the Right trying to balance News International scrutiny with criticism of the BBC unfortunately comes across as sour grapes. There is a general feeling, whether rightly or wrongly, that with the government’s NHS reforms, Conservatives have attacked the favourite public three letter acronym this year; it would therefore be unwise to be seen as drawing the sword against the nation’s close second.

Robert Smith is Editor of Politiker. Follow on Twitter @RobertSmithUK

* This article was first published at the now defunct Dale & Co.

Which is the greatest Major in Golf?

Photo: Keith Allison (Flickr)

The Open Championship just about crosses the line for me as the greatest Major in the world of Golf, but that’s probably something to do with being British, writes Robert Smith.

A sporting event needs to tick a variety of boxes in order to be considered great. From the history and traditions of the tournament to the professionalism of the modern day competitors taking part. A number of these factors contribute to giving an event a certain special aurora or atmosphere. In this regard, there is a clear front runner when it comes to Tennis, a sport which just like Golf, has four tournaments which are classified above the rest in terms of importance. The US Open may be big, the Australian Open may be sunny, the French Open may be chic, but Wimbledon stands out as truly special. The history, the tradition, the grass courts, the strawberries and cream, the legends on the honours board, even the famous green and purple stripes of the All England Club found on the ties of the dignitaries in the Royal Box.

It is, however, perhaps harder to pick out the outstanding candidate when it comes to Golf’s Majors. With the exception of the PGA Championship, a tournament which is unfortunately regarded by many as a US Open Part II, each of the other Majors hold a worthwhile claim to being the one to beat.

Lets start with the US Open, a tournament which was established in 1895 and is therefore the oldest of the three Majors which take place in arguably the world’s greatest Golfing nation. One thing always said about this tournament is that it is the hardest of the four Majors to win due to the sheer difficulty of the way in which the USGA prepares the courses. Navigating the lengthy holes with slim fairways often proves to be a challenge. Indeed, Rory McIlroy’s dominant 16 under win earlier in the year at Congressional is most certainly an anomaly against the records of past years where level par would prove to be competitive. But can there really be such a thing as the most difficult Major to win when they all feature a field which consists of the world’s best Golfers? Whether or not the difficulty of the course is high or low, the conditions are the same for everyone.

So that leaves the Open and the Masters. We are typically lucky in the UK, as the ‘aurora factor’ when it comes to sporting events is usually attributed to those which are staged close to home. Wimbledon’s Centre Court holds a special place in the heart of many of the Tennis greats and Lords is famously known as the Home of Cricket; a place where cricket fans and players alike pay testament to the shrine like status which it holds within the sport. However this trend is not always the reality. Just as the magic atmosphere when it comes to football may have transferred to the likes of the San Siro or the Maracana after the destruction of Wembley’s Twin Towers, it is arguable to say that when it comes to Golf, the true mecca is the Augusta National Club, home of the Masters. Yes, the Old Course at St. Andrews will always be known as the Home of Golf, but it is only able to hold the Open Championship once every five years.

The fact that the Masters is the only Major which is held at the same course year on year is certainly an advantage. Spectators both at the event and watching on Television become familiar with the nooks and crannies of the course; it is possibly the most recognisable Golf course in the world, despite being one of the hardest ever to get near to. Additionally, the Masters has a number of rules and traditions which make it different. Just like Wimbledon requires players to dress in white, the Masters similarly requires caddies to dress in white overalls, alongside its policies of a restricted field in terms of numbers, restricted availability in terms of advertising and even a restriction on television viewing times. Some may believe that Augusta is a backward thinking institution. For sure, it has had problems with racism and sexism in the past, but it’s the pomp and ceremony which make it unique. The presentation of the Green Jacket to the winner at the end in the Butler Cabin may be awkward and undeniably cringeworthy, but it’s something which makes the Masters stand out as quite different. In other words, the ‘Royal Family effect’.

That just leaves the Open Championship. The only Major staged outside the United States and unquestionably the event with the longest history. Founded in 1860, the tournament is clearly the truest link we have in modern times to the origin of the game. Always played on a links Golf course, the Open provides a four day glimpse into the way in which the game was always intended to be played. It may not always be pretty; the recent Open at Royal St Georges has at times appeared to be rather ugly, but it is always real. There are no planted trees, no rose beds and certainly no manufactured waterfalls. Just a battle between the course, often the wind, and the greatest Golfers in the world.

I suppose then, after comparing the merits of each Major, one has to ask which of the four one would most like to win if he were walking up to the 18th green to tap in the winning putt. For me, the answer has to be the Open Championship. Not only is the winning trophy, the Claret Jug, most probably the most beautiful reward in the whole of sport, but the history of the tournament cannot be rivaled. Perhaps if I wasn’t British I may have said the Masters, but the fact that the tournament is named simply just ‘the Open’ and that the winner is known as ‘the Golf Champion’ means that it’s not only the greatest Golf tournament because of what the world thinks, but because we say it is.

Robert Smith is Editor of Politiker. Follow on Twitter @RobertSmithUK

* This article was first published at the now defunct Dale & Co.

PMQs: Ed Miliband shows his funny side (11/05/2011)

More often than not, when it comes to Ed Miliband and comedy, it is usually the case that the laughs fall at the Leader of the Opposition’s expense. However, yesterday at PMQs it was the Labour leader who made fun of the Coalition government’s front bench as he finally showed signs of feeling comfortable at the weekly contest.

Although PMQs started with the very sad news concerning the death of David Cairns, the 44 year old MP for Inverclyde, the tone of the debate soon moved on to the typical politicking which takes place every week. Ed Miliband started, as he has often done, by questioning the PM on the NHS reforms. He criticised the Cameron for shirking responsibility when it comes to troublesome Coalition policies by saying; “This morning we have seen the Universities Minister being dumped on for the tuition fees policy, we see the Schools Secretary being dumped on for his free schools policy and the poor Deputy Prime Minister, he just gets dumped on every day of the week!”.

Very good Ed, that’ll hurt Nick, thought the shadow cabinet. Yet in actual fact, the Deputy PM looked far happier than he had done for weeks (perhaps in reaction to the observation that last week he looked particularly glum) as he mocked the Labour leader for standing up to speak while Cameron was in mid-flow. Maybe Miliband was just eager to let out a few more of his jovial put-downs. Yes; there was more.

Earlier in the week, there were stories which suggested that David Cameron was going to change the tone of his answers at PMQs, after he had been criticised for appearing “too flash”. But Ed was not impressed with the PM’s effort; “the PMQs makeover didn’t last long” he said, “Flashman is back!”. David Cameron’s came back by describing the Labour leader as “Eddie the Eagle”, but by comparison the joked failed miserably. Today was Ed Miliband’s day to appear flash it seemed; he even found time to mock a letter sent by (only) 44 GPs to the Telegraph. You can almost imagine him clapping his hands and sarcastically saying “Oh well done Dave!”. And if that wasn’t enough, he even managed to get a “calm down dear, calm down” in there for effect. Well done Ed, a polished performance.

On a more serious note however, PMQs recently has become a recognisable contest between the accusations of a Tory lead government which, as Labour like to put it, “can’t be trusted on the NHS” compared to an opposition which is just pursuing “empty opportunism”. The Leader of the Opposition may have succeeded at creating a few laughs today in the chamber, but he still leads a party which is struggling to offer an alternative to the government’s radical reforms.

Robert Smith is Editor of Politiker. Follow on Twitter @RobertSmithUK