Monday, October 08, 2007
Welcome to Pynchon's Political Corner, where the hot political questions of the day are asked and answered.
Today's question.
By deciding not to go for an early election, did Gordon Brown bottle it?
Today's answer.
Yes. Er... I mean No. I don't know. Maybe. If David Cameron (or Tony Blair or John Major or The Witch or James Callaghan or Harold Wilson, et al) had been Prime Minister, they would have made exactly the same decision. Only an insane Prime Minister would call an election when they didn't have to, if the polls showed a chance that their party might lose. Why risk it now?
So, bottling it? Maybe only making the only decision that could be made at the time.
Thanks for visiting. Pynchon's Political Corner will return... er... sometime.
******
Yesterday I saw "Michael Clayton" starring big (allegedly) George Clooney. Here is a nice picture of him, just for Katy. Poor guy. He's looking a bit tired, isn't he?
I liked "Michael Clayton" a great deal. It is a good, old fashioned, corporate conspiracy thriller that, 30 years ago, would have been headlined by someone like Robert Redford or Warren Beatty. Crucially neither gentleman would have been any better than George Clooney is in the starring role. I think that this is a tribute to how far George Clooney has come. He is now a bona fide movie actor as well as being a bona fide movie star. My lord, whisper it... He might even get an Oscar nomination for "Michael Clayton".
George Clooney plays Michael Clayton, shadowy fixer for a high powered law firm. You got a messy problem? You got an awkward situation? You need a cool head in your corner, and the problem tidied up quickly and smartly? Clayton is your man.
When a senior lawyer at the firm, Arthur Edens (Tom Wilkinson), working on a several billion dollar lawsuit, goes into serious mental meltdown, Clayton is called in to sort out the situation. What Clayton doesn't know is that Edens has been disturbed by certain evidence he has found while working on the case. Certain evidence that other interested parties most definitely do not want to come to light...
"Michael Clayton" is a great thriller. Smart, intelligent script and direction by Tony Gilroy (as tight and claustrophobic as the "Bourne" films). Great, multi-layered performance by George Clooney, and just brilliant support from Tom Wilkinson and Tilda Swinton.
A proper grown up film. They do not make them like that anymore. You must see it.
******
I am now reading Philip Pullman's first novel in the "His Dark Materials" trilogy, "Northern Lights". I have been desperate to start it for weeks, as the movie adaptation "The Golden Compass" opens on 5th December 2007, and I never like to watch a movie adaptation of a book I have only just finished reading. Months ago, Lorraine had lent the whole trilogy to a girl at work and she only returned it last week. She said she had never got around to reading it.
Silly girl.
I am about 100 pages into "Northern Lights". So far I think it is a great book. I am off now to read some more of it.
Later.
Today's question.
By deciding not to go for an early election, did Gordon Brown bottle it?
Today's answer.
Yes. Er... I mean No. I don't know. Maybe. If David Cameron (or Tony Blair or John Major or The Witch or James Callaghan or Harold Wilson, et al) had been Prime Minister, they would have made exactly the same decision. Only an insane Prime Minister would call an election when they didn't have to, if the polls showed a chance that their party might lose. Why risk it now?
So, bottling it? Maybe only making the only decision that could be made at the time.
Thanks for visiting. Pynchon's Political Corner will return... er... sometime.
******
Yesterday I saw "Michael Clayton" starring big (allegedly) George Clooney. Here is a nice picture of him, just for Katy. Poor guy. He's looking a bit tired, isn't he?
I liked "Michael Clayton" a great deal. It is a good, old fashioned, corporate conspiracy thriller that, 30 years ago, would have been headlined by someone like Robert Redford or Warren Beatty. Crucially neither gentleman would have been any better than George Clooney is in the starring role. I think that this is a tribute to how far George Clooney has come. He is now a bona fide movie actor as well as being a bona fide movie star. My lord, whisper it... He might even get an Oscar nomination for "Michael Clayton".
George Clooney plays Michael Clayton, shadowy fixer for a high powered law firm. You got a messy problem? You got an awkward situation? You need a cool head in your corner, and the problem tidied up quickly and smartly? Clayton is your man.
When a senior lawyer at the firm, Arthur Edens (Tom Wilkinson), working on a several billion dollar lawsuit, goes into serious mental meltdown, Clayton is called in to sort out the situation. What Clayton doesn't know is that Edens has been disturbed by certain evidence he has found while working on the case. Certain evidence that other interested parties most definitely do not want to come to light...
"Michael Clayton" is a great thriller. Smart, intelligent script and direction by Tony Gilroy (as tight and claustrophobic as the "Bourne" films). Great, multi-layered performance by George Clooney, and just brilliant support from Tom Wilkinson and Tilda Swinton.
A proper grown up film. They do not make them like that anymore. You must see it.
******
I am now reading Philip Pullman's first novel in the "His Dark Materials" trilogy, "Northern Lights". I have been desperate to start it for weeks, as the movie adaptation "The Golden Compass" opens on 5th December 2007, and I never like to watch a movie adaptation of a book I have only just finished reading. Months ago, Lorraine had lent the whole trilogy to a girl at work and she only returned it last week. She said she had never got around to reading it.
Silly girl.
I am about 100 pages into "Northern Lights". So far I think it is a great book. I am off now to read some more of it.
Later.
Labels: Movies, Politics, Reading
# posted by Pynchon @ 9:42 pm 
Comments:
<< Home
This whole election thing was always nonsense. The bizarre argument that a new Prime Minister somehow needs a mandate of their own is a red herring fueled entirely by the press and Brown's political opponents.
We didn't elect Gordon Brown in the same way we didn't elect Tony Blair. Or John Major. Or Margaret Thatcher. Or, indeed, any Prime Minister before them.
We (last time I checked) elect a local Member of Parliament of a political persuasion and the majority party form a Government and elect a leader who, coincidentally, also assumes the title of Prime Minister.
It follows, therefore, that as the majority party decided to change their leader, they are well within their rights to do that. I don't recall John Major calling an election in 1990 (the Tories let their 5 year term run its course). I don't remember James Callaghan calling an election in 1976 either.
Gordon Brown (or, more likely, his advisors) have dropped a bollock of the highest order here. Not only did float the idea of something completely constitutionally unnecessary (there has only ever been one election called for a similar reason and that was in 1923 when the sitting Tory government changed its plans on tariff reform and felt duty bound to go back to the electorate for a mandate for this policy) but also (as has happened) the failure to call an election is fantastic ammunition for Brown's political opponents.
Did Brown bottle it? Yes he did. The giant mistake he made, though, was to float the notion in the first place when there is no basis in history, precedent or constitution for such an idea.
(hurrah. My Politics degree finally counts for something, 12 years later).
We didn't elect Gordon Brown in the same way we didn't elect Tony Blair. Or John Major. Or Margaret Thatcher. Or, indeed, any Prime Minister before them.
We (last time I checked) elect a local Member of Parliament of a political persuasion and the majority party form a Government and elect a leader who, coincidentally, also assumes the title of Prime Minister.
It follows, therefore, that as the majority party decided to change their leader, they are well within their rights to do that. I don't recall John Major calling an election in 1990 (the Tories let their 5 year term run its course). I don't remember James Callaghan calling an election in 1976 either.
Gordon Brown (or, more likely, his advisors) have dropped a bollock of the highest order here. Not only did float the idea of something completely constitutionally unnecessary (there has only ever been one election called for a similar reason and that was in 1923 when the sitting Tory government changed its plans on tariff reform and felt duty bound to go back to the electorate for a mandate for this policy) but also (as has happened) the failure to call an election is fantastic ammunition for Brown's political opponents.
Did Brown bottle it? Yes he did. The giant mistake he made, though, was to float the notion in the first place when there is no basis in history, precedent or constitution for such an idea.
(hurrah. My Politics degree finally counts for something, 12 years later).
Ah, it's Concerned George. Glad to hear you think the movie is good — besides Mr. Clooney, I'm a big fan of Tilda Swinton and Tom Wilkinson (if you haven't seen it, check out "In the Bedroom").
LB - I had a slightly less well-informed version of that discussion with C. the other day when we were listening to the radio. We agree! We elect an MP to represent us. Who they choose to lead their party (and thus, the country) has got bugger all to do with it. It irks me to see the Tories making such hay out of Brown's cock up, when they have hardly been covering themselves in glory for decades, but I suppose it's nice to see them putting up a fight instead of just being supine morons as usual.
JP - "His Dark Materials" is brilliant. I was weeping at the end. I hope they don't fuck it up in the film, because it's a masterpiece. Not as successful as JK Rowling, but a million times more of an artistic achievement.
ST
JP - "His Dark Materials" is brilliant. I was weeping at the end. I hope they don't fuck it up in the film, because it's a masterpiece. Not as successful as JK Rowling, but a million times more of an artistic achievement.
ST
LB & Swiss: Well... Yes and No.
Of course you are absolutely correct. We elect our local MP, they elect the leader of their party, and if their party gets a majority of the seats in the House of Commons at the General Election, that leader becomes Prime Minister.
But, I truly believe that during a General Election, when voting for the party that they want to govern the country, the general population are more influenced by the individuals who lead that party, rather than the individual standing in the local constituency. Do those people who voted for Blair, liked Blair and wanted Blair to stay as Prime Minister have a right to feel shortchanged now that Blair has gone and they have got Brown? They didn't vote for Brown. They voted for Blair.
Maybe they have, but I don't think so.
Anyway, as you said, there is no precedence in recent history for a new Prime Minister coming to power during a term of office to call an election immediately to obtain a 'mandate'.
(John Major, became PM 1990. Won the election in 1992.
James Callaghan, became PM 1976. Lost the election in 1979.
Alec Douglas-Hume, became PM 1963. Lost the election in 1964.)
As far as I am concerned the real mistake here, by whoever you want to blame (New Labour, the press, the Tories), was in the whipping up of election fever. Don't you get the impression that people are faintly disappointed?
Katy: I've never seen "In The Bedroom", but I have been told that it is truly excellent.
I agree with what you say about Tilda Swinton and Tom Wilkinson. I have been a fan of Tom Wilkinson since the TV series "First Among Equals", over 20 years ago. It was a political potboiler, written by Jeffery Archer, but a good political potboiler, despite the fact it was written by Jeffery Archer.
Swiss: "Northern Lights" really is very good. I cannot wait for the film. The trailer is online at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vK6MDIEQjMg
Post a Comment
Of course you are absolutely correct. We elect our local MP, they elect the leader of their party, and if their party gets a majority of the seats in the House of Commons at the General Election, that leader becomes Prime Minister.
But, I truly believe that during a General Election, when voting for the party that they want to govern the country, the general population are more influenced by the individuals who lead that party, rather than the individual standing in the local constituency. Do those people who voted for Blair, liked Blair and wanted Blair to stay as Prime Minister have a right to feel shortchanged now that Blair has gone and they have got Brown? They didn't vote for Brown. They voted for Blair.
Maybe they have, but I don't think so.
Anyway, as you said, there is no precedence in recent history for a new Prime Minister coming to power during a term of office to call an election immediately to obtain a 'mandate'.
(John Major, became PM 1990. Won the election in 1992.
James Callaghan, became PM 1976. Lost the election in 1979.
Alec Douglas-Hume, became PM 1963. Lost the election in 1964.)
As far as I am concerned the real mistake here, by whoever you want to blame (New Labour, the press, the Tories), was in the whipping up of election fever. Don't you get the impression that people are faintly disappointed?
Katy: I've never seen "In The Bedroom", but I have been told that it is truly excellent.
I agree with what you say about Tilda Swinton and Tom Wilkinson. I have been a fan of Tom Wilkinson since the TV series "First Among Equals", over 20 years ago. It was a political potboiler, written by Jeffery Archer, but a good political potboiler, despite the fact it was written by Jeffery Archer.
Swiss: "Northern Lights" really is very good. I cannot wait for the film. The trailer is online at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vK6MDIEQjMg
<< Home
