As the Tony Kushner affair rumbles on, Simon Stephens and Edward Albee have been musing on the art of modern theatre. Apparently it’s all in the rules We begin in the company of the dramatist Simon Stephens, whose latest play, a translation of Jon Fosse’s I Am the Wind , opens at the Young Vic on 10 May. Stephens was recently invited to give the keynote speech at the Stückemarkt Theatre festival in Germany. He based his lecture around five principles he’s learned from his seven-year creative relationship with the German director Sebastian Nübling . These are: 1) Theatre is a physical medium; 2) Theatre is multi-authored; 3) Theatre is art; 4) Language is noise; and 5) The English are polite and arrogant. What emerges is a ferociously brilliant piece of polemic that interrogates in great depth notions of authorship, the role of the director, the influence that commercialism has on the psyche of British theatre-makers, and the limiting scope of so much British theatre criticism. It is an argument that combines Stephens’s own personal humility with an acerbic, unsentimental view of theatre in the UK. If you have any interest at all in our contemporary theatre culture, it’s a must-read. Another playwright making a buzz among bloggers this week is Edward Albee – whose play A Delicate Balance is about to be revived by London’s Almeida . Albee, it seems, can be an intimidating guy. Indeed, Jasper Rees, writing for the Arts Desk , describes his first meeting with the great man as “probably the most bowel-shrivelling experience of my professional life”. However, when not reducing journalists to jelly, Albee can provide some penetrating insights into his craft. The Playgoer , for instance, was particularly stuck by his comments in this interview , in which he says: “If you want to know something about the structure of a play, listen to some Bach preludes and fugues … I think I learnt something about the nature of dramatic structure from the nature of the music I was listening to.” Given that Simon Stephens argues in his lecture that critics often choose to ignore a play’s structure, they might do well to heed this advice. Of course, the playwright who’s found himself most in the headlines recently – for all the wrong reasons – is Tony Kushner . As Michael Billington writes , Kushner was due to receive an honorary degree from the City University of New York (CUNY), but the award was vetoed by Jeffrey S Weisenfeld, one of CUNY’s trustees, because of what he saw as Kushner’s anti-Zionist political stance. The affair has caused uproar among bloggers. Isaac Butler takes Weisenfeld to task for saying of the Palestinians, in the New York Times : “People who worship death for their children are not human … They have developed a culture which is unprecedented in human history”. Others might be more offended by this article , in which he compares Kushner to the white supremacist David Duke . For critic Aleks Sierz , it’s simply depressing that no other CUNY trustee appears to have challenged Weisenfeld over the veto. As a result, Sierz argues, they have all “distinguished themselves by a truly irritating show of ignorance, indifference and bad faith”. As George Hunka points out, the controversy has been severely embarrassing for CUNY – drawing criticism from such luminaries as Harold Bloom and Barbara Ehrenreich. Latest news is that the university board have voted unanimously to overturn the decision, and offer the honorary degree anyway . The question is – will Kushner want to accept? Theatre Edward Albee Blogging Newspapers & magazines Digital media Chris Wilkinson guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Alison Slavin, adopted as a child, realised Sam Davies was her half sister when she discovered the name of her biological father They look and sound alike, have the same job, a similar taste in clothes and jewellery, and over the years have often been mistaken for siblings. But it still came as a huge shock to Alison Slavin and Sam Davies when more than 15 years into their friendship they found out they really are sisters. Slavin was adopted as a child but earlier this year found out who her biological parents were. She realised at once that her father had the same name as her best friend’s dad – and a DNA test later confirmed that he was the same man, making them half sisters. “We had joked in the past we were sisters and people used to always ask us if we were, saying we looked alike,” said Slavin, who was a bridesmaid at Davies’s wedding before they knew of their blood tie. “But I was shocked to find out we were actually half sisters.” The women live a mile apart in Bristol. They met in 1993 through a mutual friend, used to go to karaoke twice a week, and soon became best friends, sharing the same taste in clothes and jewellery. Slavin, 41, told how the colour drained from her face when she found out the name of her biological father because she saw immediately the possible link with her friend. When the relationship was confirmed Slavin could not get through to Davies on the phone so she sent a text message saying: “Hello sis.” Davies, 43, said: “When Alison texted me telling me we were sisters a tiny part of me thought she was joking but a bigger part thought: ‘Oh my God.’ “After the initial shock I spoke to Alison and she explained everything and I thought: ‘Wow.’ I had always wanted a sister, and what better sister could I have than my best friend? “It’s sad we didn’t find out sooner but you can’t change what’s happened. We’re just absolutely thrilled we have found out now.” The women, who are both childminders, have bought matching charms for a bracelet to show they are sisters. Davies said: “The charm is a silver book which has the words ‘once upon a time’ on it because we thought it was relevant because this is such a nice story.” Family Adoption Steven Morris guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Organisers of Hardest Hit march expect between 5,000 and 10,000 people to attend largest event of its kind for decades Thousands of disabled people will demonstrate in Westminster on Wednesday against cuts to benefits and services, in an event that organisers hope will be the largest of its kind for decades. The Hardest Hit march is expected to bring between 5,000-10,000 people to London to voice their anger at the combined effects of changes to welfare eligibility, cuts to disability living allowance (DLA), and local authority reductions in funding for carers and services. Jaspal Dhani, chief executive of the United Kingdom Disabled People’s Council – one of the coordinators of the protest– said cuts meant disabled people feared losing rights that they had fought for decades to acquire. “Disabled people feel they are being attacked and marginalised by the government,” he said. “We’ve expressed our concerns about the impact the spending review is likely to have on the lives of disabled people, but we feel the government has not taken this on board.” Marchers will be addressed by Liam Byrne, the shadow work and pensions secretary. Maria Miller, minister for disabled people, declined an invitation to attend, Dhani said, on the grounds that she needed to be at prime minister’s questions. Despite the strength of unease, organisers said the scale of the protest would be constrained by the difficulties many people with disabilities face in travelling and participating in a march of this sort, and pointed out that a parallel campaign has been organised online for those unable to attend. Online protesters will be able to message their MPs and upload messages of support or videos setting out why they depend on disability benefits. “I will not be going on the march, because like thousands of other people in the UK I have ME. A trip to the local shop costs me two days in bed with severe pain, so a march in London is unthinkable,” Amble Skuse, from Devon, wrote in an email. For those on benefits, the cost of attending a march in London was also a strong disincentive, according to Neil Coyle, director of policy at the Disability Benefits Consortium, which is also an organiser of the demonstration. “One third of working age disabled people live in poverty, but that figure doesn’t account for the higher cost of living they face, so they have a far lower disposable income than most people in England. “If you are on employment and support allowance, the highest level is around £12.50 a day, which means a train ticket to London (bearing in mind that buses and coaches are still not accessible for wheelchair users) is likely to be unaffordable,” Coyle said. “And for people with arthritis or a heart condition, for example, a rally is not necessarily going to be the most appropriate way to campaign. There are a lot of reasons why it could be difficult for people to attend a physical rally like this, which is why the online campaign is so important.” Protesters making arrangements to attend have come up against the everyday accessibility obstacles facing people with disabilities when they travel. One group travelling from a Leonard Cheshire care home north of Cambridge has been forced to stagger the journey times, after it emerged that the train service could only accommodate two wheelchair users on each train. After the demonstration, many protesters will meet their MPs to explain what the impact of changes to disability benefits and local authority cuts to services has been. Richard Wickerson, chief executive of Mind in Stockport, will be travelling with a dozen protesters by minibus to register their anger at funding cuts which have forced them to reduce the services they can provide. “We have had to create a waiting list, which is a bit ridiculous when we’re meant to be providing a crisis service,” he said. Shane Roberts, 23, will be travelling from Leicester to participate in a march for the first time. “I want the government to understand how important it is not to cut services and benefits for disabled people, and in particular deafblind people like me. I need specialised communications support which enables me to live independently – go shopping, reading the post, and book doctors appointments over the phone. I currently only get seven hours of this support a week, which is just enough for me to do the bare minimum. “The government needs to understand that if they cut benefits and support for disabled people a lot of us won’t be able to get by,” he said. A report published this week by the thinktank Demos, and the disability charity Scope, the Disability in Austerity study , showed that rather than being protected from the cuts, disabled families across the country faced dramatic reductions in their household incomes, as a result of changes in the way benefits are uprated in line with inflation, and reforms of the way claimants are assessed for incapacity benefit and DLA. Disabled people were quickly identified as likely to be among those hardest hit by the coalition’s reforms, the report states, because this group is at “substantially greater risk of living in poverty than non-disabled people, [and] disproportionately more reliant on welfare benefits than other low income groups”. “We estimated that disabled people would lose £9bn in welfare support overall in the next five years,” the paper said. “We questioned whether the government had intended the budgetary axe to fall so heavily on this group and whether by attempting to ‘incentivise work’ for the majority, they had overlooked the disproportionate effect welfare cuts would have on those who were less able to join the labour market.” Disability Public sector cuts Social exclusion Welfare London Amelia Gentleman guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Cameron and Cable insist rich students won’t be able to buy university places, but critics warn of ‘serious blow’ to social mobility Universities minister David Willetts has defended proposals to create extra places on degree courses that would not be publicly funded after critics warned that the plans could deal a “serious blow” to social mobility. British students who take the extra places could be charged the same fees as overseas undergraduates. Employers and charities will also be encouraged to sponsor places outside the quota that English universities are set every year. The government was engulfed in a row over the plans after critics claimed it would allow the rich to “buy advantage”. Willetts said: “We will only consider allowing off-quota places where it contributes to the coalition commitment to improve social mobility and increase fair access. There is no question of wealthy students being able to buy a place at university. Access to a university must be based on ability to learn, not ability to pay.” Ministers have insisted that off-quota students would still have to meet entry requirements for their course and there is no question of the rich being able to “buy their way” into university. Willetts says an overall expansion of places would increase social mobility by freeing up more spaces for students from poorer homes. Despite the furore, Whitehall sources confirmed that a version of the proposal, first outlined in the Guardian on Tuesday , will still appear in the universities white paper, due to be published in June. Speaking during a series of TV interviews, the prime minister David Cameron insisted that the proposal would not create a privileged route of access to universities for rich students. “University access is about being able to learn, not about being able to pay,” he said. “There is no question of people being able to buy their way into university.” Number 10 stressed no proposal would be backed if it reduced social mobility. Vince Cable, the business secretary, said he was willing to look at how to expand off-quota places through company sponsorships, but he did not support children of the rich being given priority access to university. In a sign of the Liberal Democrats’ determination to assert more directly their differences with the Tories following the election debacle, Tim Farron, the party’s president and Liberal Democrat MP for Westmorland and Lonsdale, said higher education should be “free at the point of use” for everyone who can benefit from a university education. Farron, whose party took a hit at the polls last Thursday for their U-turn on tuition fee rises, told BBC News any proposal that looked like increasing university access for the rich would not get his backing: “I hugely regret that there are tuition fees at all, never mind the higher ones we currently have. It’s right that we should explore ways that people from less well-off backgrounds have the best possible access to higher education.” The proposal was welcomed by some university representatives, which said it could lead to more innovative ways of paying for a degree. Off-quota places could be provided for undergraduates who do not wish to take out government loans but need a flexible way to finance their studies. Andy Westwood, chief executive of GuildHE, which represents smaller and specialist institutions, said universities might adopt a “mix-and-match” approach in which students who were debt-averse could study part-time for part of their degree then opt for the full student experience in their final year. “Providing off-quota places can be socially progressive. GuildHE institutions recruit many students who might be worried about the new [fee] arrangements, such as those from lower income backgrounds, those based at home, part-time and mature students. “With the right incentives, this could lead to more innovative and flexible choices such as part-time, intensive and modular courses, with ‘pay as you go’ options.” Westwood said that GuildHE institutions, which include the Royal Agricultural College and Norwich University College of the Arts, had seen a 9% increase in student numbers in 2009/10, while demand for places continues to grow. “Off-quota flexibilities could ease the pressure on university places and allow more qualified people of every background to go to higher education.” Les Ebdon, vice-chancellor of Bedforshire University and chair of the university thinktank Million+, said: “There is one very obvious pro, and that is, it’s a source of additional money at a time when the sector is being squeezed very hard. “We’ve been very successful in this university in recruiting full-fee international students, and because you can recruit for the full fee you can create another place for them. It’s a tragedy, when there are people who are qualified and want to go to university that they can’t do it here.” However, the proposal was criticised by the NUS, and the University and College Union, which represents lecturers. Shadow business secretary John Denham said: “Ability and ambition should be the only factors that determine which students can get into the most sought-after universities. This Tory government believes that access to wealth and privilege should trump ability. “Middle-class, middle-income families whose children don’t get into selective universities at first shot are going to feel terrible pressure to raise private finance, to take out bank loans, to remortgage their homes or feel that they’ve betrayed their children.” Sir Peter Lampl, chairman of the Sutton Trust, the charity which campaigns to improve social mobility, said that the proposal would deal “a serious blow to social mobility”. “Students from privileged backgrounds are already way overrepresented at our top universities and this will make matters worse,” he said. Richard Taylor, director of corporate affairs at Leicester University, said that allowing wealthy British students to pay high fees for off-quota places threatened to create a two-tier system. “How you make an admissions process needs-blind is incredibly challenging if you introduce the concept of off-quota. You assume that the selection process ends at the point the offer is made. It doesn’t – it ends at the point that a student turns up and registers. If you’re only going to find a student is off-quota after they arrive, I’m OK with that. If you’re going to know before, then it’s going to influence your thinking. “The one advantage is that if you had a really needs-blind process, you would release additional places. That’s the main advantage both for the sector and for students.” Education policy Tuition fees Higher education David Willetts Students University funding David Cameron Jeevan Vasagar Hélène Mulholland Patrick Wintour guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Libyan leader not seen in public since bombing of son Saif al-Arab’s home ten days ago Questions are being asked across the Libyan capital about the leadership of Colonel Gaddafi, who has not been seen since he reportedly escaped the air strike 10 days ago in which his son was killed. Libyan officials at the time confirmed that Gaddafi had been in the home of Saif al-Arab, when at least two bombs dropped by Nato jets hit the family compound. Fighter planes returned to the skies over Tripoli on Monday night for the first time since that attack, hitting six targets in the early hours and hammering home to a tired city that the eight-weekcampaign has not run out of targets. On the streets of the capital that he has ruled for almost 42 years, Gaddafi’s supporters were wondering aloud about their leader’s fate, while at the same time complaining that the UN-imposed siege was taking an increasingly heavy toll. “Yes it’s true that his absence is strange,” said one man in an inner-city coffee shop. He was not at his son’s funeral and I thought he would be.” Gaddafi’s absence from the funerals of Saif al-Arab, and his three grandchildren who were also reportedly killed in the attack, was blamed on security fears, with government officials insisting that the strike on his son’s home had been an assassination attempt on the leader himself. “It’s obvious that they tried to kill him and I imagine his security people have told him to keep a low profile,” said one senior Libyan official. “But it is strange that he has stayed silent since.” Gaddafi has made speeches at regular intervals over the past three months and has used the occasional public appearance, often at the gates of an ancient fort on Tripoli’s Green Square, to rally support. The messages had come to be seen as morale boosters for loyalists in the west of the country and for an army that is engaged in a bitter fight with rebel forces in central and eastern Libya. With many government buildings destroyed and no sign of an end to the bombing, officials over the past week have put forward alternative figures to speak on behalf of the regime . Libya’s prime minister, Al-Baghdadi Ali al-Mahmoudi, spoke last week and said he would be addressing the international media weekly from now on. Tribal chiefs have also been given a more prominent role. A national conference of members from 850 tribes from all parts of Libya was held in Tripoli last week. As a result, tribal chiefs have been given more authority to arbitrate national disputes. Mahmoudi denied there was anything odd in Colonel Gaddafi’s low profile. “He has lost a son and he is mourning,” he said. “He will be back with us soon.” Another official denied speculation that the 69-year-old Gaddafi had been wounded in the strike that killed Saif al-Arab. At least one European diplomat agreed. “Our understanding is that he is still about and that he is very upset about the death of his son,” he said yesterday. Whatever the reality, Gaddafi loyalists are becoming conditioned to a future without their leader solely commandeering centre stage. “Libya has to change and everyone knows this,” said the senior Libyan official. “If reforms were announced when the people demanded them, we would not have been betrayed by the Arab League and by Europe and we would not be in this mess. It is a stalemate and something has to give. It has already changed actually, but no-one can admit that yet.” Muammar Gaddafi Libya Nato Arab and Middle East unrest Africa Martin Chulov guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Bodies found on Gilgo beach indicate secluded shoreline has been used as a dumping ground for human remains Detectives investigating the discovery of eight bodies along a beach on Long Island are working on the presumption that as many as four separate killers may have been involved. The Suffolk County district attorney, Thomas Spota, revealed that the eight deaths appeared to divide into four seemingly unrelated groups. His disclosure raises the bewildering prospect that a stretch of secluded shoreline used by 6 million beachgoers each summer has been used as a dumping ground for human remains. Spota said many of the victims had yet to be identified and the precise nature of their killing was not yet known. “But what we do know for certain and what is now very clear is that the area in and around Gilgo beach has been used to discard human remains for some period of time,” he said. “As distasteful and disturbing as that is, there is no evidence that all these remains are those of a single killer.” The investigation has involved hundreds of officers from Long Island and New York. Four bodies found in December wrapped in hessian were those of women in their 20s who had worked as prostitutes and picked up clients through Craigslist. Police are convinced that all four were the victims of a serial killer, but can find no evidence that the murders were related in any way to the other cases. The other four bodies or parts of bodies were discovered about a mile away last month. Police believe these fall under three separate groups. Two of the four remains were the head and hands of women. One of the victims has been identified as Jessica Taylor, 20, who worked as prostitute in Washington and New York; the other is being referred to as Jane Doe no 6. Detectives have matched the parts to torsos found in 2000 and 2003 respectively in Manorville, about 45 miles east of Gilgo beach. The nature of their dismemberment, and the proximity of the remains in two locations, suggests to police that these killings were related. They have reopened two other cold cases, dating from 1997 and 2007, in which a similar form of dismemberment took place, on the assumption that another serial killer might have been at work. The third, potentially separate discovery was of an Asian man, referred to as John Doe no 8, who met a “violent” death. His body was found close to that of the dismembered women, but there is no evidence to connect them. The fourth body was of a toddler, aged between 18 and 24 months, probably a girl, wrapped in a blanket. The body displayed no signs of trauma and police have not yet declared it a murder case. Detectives have been struck by the difference in technique of the disposal of the child and the dismembered women. “It does not make sense to us that the person would go to such great lengths to prevent Jane Doe no 6 from being identified, then lay the body of a related toddler so close by. There is no evidence at all of any attempt to conceal the identity of the child,” Spota said. Joseph Pollini, a criminologist at John Jay College in New York and a former New York homicide detective, said the possibility that the shoreline had been used as a dumping ground for human remains would fit the secluded nature of the area. “This is the optimal place to dump a body,” he said. “There are no cameras or surveillance of any kind and you can see people coming in either direction along the long straight road.” United States Ed Pilkington guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Activists dressed as doctors and nurses plan to occupy banks in action against public sector cuts Anti-cuts campaigners who have closed scores of high street stores with a string of direct action demonstrations are launching a new campaign against the government’s proposed shakeup of the NHS. Hundreds of activists dressed as doctors and nurses are planning to occupy banks around the country on 28 May, transforming them into mocked-up hospitals, GPs’ surgeries and operating theatres. The campaign – described as the “emergency operation” – is being organised by UK Uncut and aims to highlight the banks’ role in the financial crisis and the impact of the government’s NHS plans on patient care. “The banks are back paying lavish bonuses and raking in billions in profit, yet the government tells us there is no alternative to unprecedented public sector cuts,” a UK Uncut supporter, who gave his name as Jack Davies, said. The day of action, which activists hope will close down scores of high street banks across the UK, is the first major protest UK Uncut has called since 145 of its supporters were arrested for occupying the Fortnum & Mason food store during the TUC’s anti-cuts rally in March . Campaigners claim senior police “tricked” them into a mass arrest after an entirely peaceful protest. Earlier this week, supporters held a demonstration outside Westminster magistrates court, where the cases against 138 people – mostly charged with criminal trespass – were adjourned. A spokesman for UK Uncut said it had been a difficult time for the organisation, with several of its key activists arrested and widespread criticism of the group. “A lot of people who have been involved wanted to take stock, especially in regard to the legal implications, and there was a lot of firefighting to do because there was a lot of mud being thrown at us,” he said. “But now we are back on course and determined to continue our campaign.” UK Uncut started in October when a group of friends decided to target Vodafone, claiming it had avoided £6bn in tax – an allegation denied by the mobile phone company. The protest, organised through Twitter, went viral and, since then, hundreds of protests have been organised, targeting a range of high street names accused of tax avoidance, from Topshop and Boots to Tesco. The campaign saw UK Uncut activists force the issue of corporate tax avoidance into the mainstream political debate, with its members appearing on BBC2′s Newsnight, before the group widened its focus to become an “anti-cuts” campaign. Its success has inspired the creation of similar organisations in countries around the world, from the US to Portugal, France and Ireland . Last month, US Uncut staged hundreds of occupations against corporations accused of avoiding tax. Portugal Uncut is due to hold its first demonstrations later this month. UK Uncut’s last nationwide day of action, at the end of February, saw more than 40 high street bank branches turned into creches, libraries and hospitals. Organisers say they have worked closely with local anti-cuts groups and trade unions ahead of the next set of protests to ensure that they are a success. “The government should be cutting subsidies to banks, not the NHS and other essential public services. The £100bn claimed in benefits by banks could pay for the entire NHS budget,” said UK Uncut supporter Sophie Healey. “And if they want to introduce far-reaching reform, how about starting with our broken banking system? Whilst the government is busy privatising the NHS, we still have a banking sector that’s ‘too big to fail’.” NHS UK Uncut Public sector cuts Public services policy Public finance Banking Economic policy Health policy Health Matthew Taylor guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Breitbart gets pwned by ‘Pigford’ attorney, targeted in his latest smear campaign
May 10, 2011 No Comment
Click here to view this media John Stossel devoted his show this past weekend to an attempt to defend his report on “freeloaders” — which not only was riddled throughout with false “facts,” outright falsehoods, gross distortions, and misleading sound bytes, it was nakedly racist in its depiction of minorities who are the beneficiaries of government largesse as cheaters and chiselers. So who did he invite on to help make this case? Why, Andrew Breitbart — liar, prevaricator, and misleader extraordinaire — of course. Breitbart, you see, was Stossel’s chief source for the segment on black farmers who are supposedly ripping off the government in the Pigford case — the non-story that Breitbart has been assiduously, obsessively pursuing as a way of trying to cover his tracks for his grotesque performance in the Shirley Sherrod matter . He also invited on Al Pires, one of the lead attorneys for those same farmers, to serve as their pinata for the segment. Except it turned out that this pinata had his own big stick — and went right after Breitbart for the fact that his reportage on the Pigford case has been a wanton exercise in legal (and agricultural ignorance: PIRES: I don’t know who Mr. Breitbart is. He’s obviously not a farmer and he’s not a journalist — none of that’s even remotely true. … Who are you? Making fun of people who have the guts to take cases against the government. You don’t know anything about farming and litigation. You’re some gadfly from Hollywood. I looked you up. You’re some guy who didn’t have a job for ten years. … Yeah, I know who you are. You’re some gadfly from Hollywood. You’re the son of a rich family, you never worked for a living in your life. You go around making fun of poor people, you go making fun of Indians and Blacks and Hispanics and women and I’m not putting up with it. I feel bad for you. You’re a sad, sad person. Why don’t you go get a job? I especially got a kick out of Stossel trying to pretend that no, really, Breitbart is a journalist! Sorry, dude — you actually have to practice journalism — which entails a balanced search of facts and truth — and not thesis-driven propaganda to earn that title. Mind you, Pires could have been far more effective if he had just started listing the times Breitbart and Co. have been caught deceptively editing videos and lying about their subjects. But that’s OK. Sometimes it’s satisfying to just see guys like Breitbart get slapped down on every imaginable basis — and with this particular lying liar, even personal rips like these are fully deserved. Especially when the entire segment is devoted to an ad-hominem smear of their victim as a rich conniver. Can’t blame him for tossing the same game back in their faces.
Continue reading …
John Yorke, who is in charge of the BBC1 soap, describes show as ‘very stylised’ and ‘significantly white’ It may not surprise EastEnders viewers who watched Dirty Den come back from the dead 14 years after he was shot and fell into a canal. But the executive in charge of the BBC1 soap has admitted the show is not entirely realistic in its depiction of life in east London. John Yorke, the BBC’s controller of drama production, said the 26-year-old soap was “very stylised” and “significantly white” compared with the real East End. “Real life changes much more quickly than representations of it on television. Soaps reach a point where they have a really big decision to make: do they stay true to the original vision or do they throw it away and adapt to a changing world? My own feeling is that the truth lies somewhere in between,” Yorke told the new issue of the Radio Times. “EastEnders’ East End and its version of working class life are very stylised. It’s not realistic in that respect, but you look for an emotional truthfulness.” Yorke admitted to “nerves” about introducing more black and Asian faces to the soap but said it was more diverse than it was five years ago. “EastEnders may be significantly white compared with the real East End but it’s considerably more multicultural than it was even five years ago and is easily the most multicultural show on telly now,” he added. “We may have had nerves about that at one stage, but we’re very proud of it now and you have to keep going.” Yorke said he was particularly proud of the New Year’s Day episode of the soap in which a gay Muslim came out at his own wedding. “That the British population will embrace that and aren’t scared of it is a wonderful thing,” he added. Boyd Hilton, the TV editor of Heat magazine, said viewers did not mind if the soap, BBC1′s biggest rating show, was not an authentic depiction of East End life. “EastEnders is at its most entertaining when it has a typically preposterous long-running storyline. When it attempts to be earnest and realistic and look at all sides of an issue, that is where it can go wrong,” he added. “Viewers want to be entertained by soap operas, rather than be educated by them. Every year on any soap opera there are numerous deaths, long-lost relatives turning up, people being buried under concrete, gangsters, marriages with people not turning up at the alter,” Hilton said. “That’s the lifeblood of soaps, and if they stopped doing that people would be annoyed and say it had got boring. But life isn’t like that, thank God.” • To contact the MediaGuardian news desk email editor@mediaguardian.co.uk or phone 020 3353 3857. For all other inquiries please call the main Guardian switchboard on 020 3353 2000. If you are writing a comment for publication, please mark clearly “for publication”. • To get the latest media news to your desktop or mobile, follow MediaGuardian on Twitter and Facebook . BBC1 EastEnders Soap opera BBC Television industry Television Drama Race & religion London John Plunkett guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Lord Adair Turner meets cabinet ministers to help heal split over new emission targets Lord Adair Turner, the chairman of the government’s independent advisory body on climate change, has met cabinet ministers in a bid to heal a government split threatening to reject ambitious new targets for reducing carbon emissions . The chairman of the Committee on Climate Change (CCC) met the business secretary, Vince Cable, seeking to break down opposition to the new budget . Cable believes the proposed target will harm prospects for jobs and growth. The cabinet is divided on whether or not to back the advice of Lord Turner’s committee and commit to a fourth carbon budget. In 2008, three consecutive carbon budgets were set, up to the year 2023, but a decision has to be made for the next period. The budgets put the government of the day on target to meet a reduction of 80% of carbon emissions compared to 1990 levels by 2050. The CCC recommended that to reach this end target, carbon should be cut by 60% by 2030. Cable’s concerns are apparently supported by the chancellor, George Osborne, and transport secretary, Philip Hammond. All are ranged against the energy secretary Chris Huhne, the cabinet office minister, Oliver Letwin, the foreign secretary, William Hague, and environment secretary, Caroline Spelman. The prime minister is expected to make a decision on Monday. The CCC is independent and the government has not previously rejected its advice. A source said the business secretary respected the work of the CCC and that progress had been made since Cable wrote to his party’s leader, Nick Clegg, and Osborne, saying he was “unable to give clearance to the proposal as it stands”. However, other ministerial sources said Cable was still opposed to supporting the fourth carbon budget. In that letter, dated 19 April, and seen by the Guardian, Cable says the proposed carbon budget is not “cost-effective” and asks for a Treasury impact analysis to be made available to all involved in the decision. He wrote: “Agreeing too aggressive a level risks burdening the UK economy, which would be detrimental to UK, undermining the UK’s competitiveness and our attractiveness as a place to do business. “I have a number of concerns about supporting the CCC’s recommended level at this time. “It is important that we strike the right balance between our pursuit to decarbonise the UK economy whilst ensuring that UK economic growth and employment is sustained.” Cable fears the energy secretary’s plan relies on securing a cap on emissions trading across Europe that may never materialise. If this were not achieved, the UK would be left cutting carbon emissions unilaterally, which would risk putting industry at a disadvantage compared with outside competitors and “could lead to significant fiscal costs”. Instead, Cable argues for a weaker carbon target. “This level keeps us on course to meet our 2050 target and entails a steeper reduction in emissions than the previous government set for carbon budgets, which easily justifies our position as greenest government ever.” The official evidence Cable uses to back his compromise figure is a model that assumes no new investment in low-carbon energy sources until the second half of the 2020s. They are concerned Cable’s solution would mean no new investment in the clean energy industry. Cable also proposed buying “carbon offsets” to help the UK meet its targets in the 2020s, instead of cutting emissions and boosting green industries in the UK. This is opposed by some who believe the UK should change its behaviour rather than pay China or others to cut emissions. On Monday, the CCC’s chief executive, David Kennedy, told the Guardian that a decision to embrace his committee’s fourth carbon budget would be “of crucial importance. It will be the key test of the government’s commitment to the low-carbon agenda.” In another leaked letter, dated 17 April, Hague said he “strongly supports” the fourth carbon budget. He writes: “I agree that we should not reject the fourth carbon budget recommended by the Committee on Climate Change … in order to retain public support for our climate policy at home we need to be able to point to similar effort abroad. If our domestic resolve is seen to be weakening, we will lose traction elsewhere.” John Sauven, the executive director of Greenpeace, said: “The Liberal Democrats’ leadership keep saying they will learn from their kicking in last week’s election by putting clear water between their party and the Conservatives’ rightwing on issues like protecting the environment. But this letter reveals that Vince Cable is trying to water down the measures aimed at protecting the environment and boosting a green economic recovery.” Climate change Carbon emissions Green politics Vince Cable Chris Huhne Liberal-Conservative coalition Allegra Stratton guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …