Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Switchboard >

Sod off Geldof?

18:46 / 03.07.02

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk_politics/newsid_2080000/2080930.stm

In the advert, the former Boomtown Rats singer condemns the euro as "hugely undemocratic".

Does he live in a Britain inwhich the control of the pound is democratic?

This is almost as dreadfully irksome as Frederick Forsyth lording it up paying practically zero tax on the Isle of Man and then having the cheek to write opinion columns on British politics as if he's in it with the rest of us.

Celebrities and politics, yuck.

19:42 / 03.07.02

But, oddly enough, it's Rik Mayall's 'comedy Hitler' turn that's hitting the headlines...

20:36 / 03.07.02

I think that the issue is a complex one which both sides try to simplify and distort. I'm broadly pro euro, but I don't think I've really understood all the issues involved.

For instance, some of the strongest arguments for the euro are essentially to do with free market economics. That doesn't have to be a bad thing, but its not a side I usually find myself on.

The critics say that there will be loss of "sovereignty" and as far as I can tell, they aren't completely wrong as there will be a loss of control of interest rates (and borrowing levels?). Of course, these are now controlled by the independent Bank of England, but could easily be brought back into the chancellor's hands. The counter is that in a global economy, national control is worth less than pooled resources. I'm just not qualified to judge that.

Many pro europeans argue that being closer to europe will be the progressive move. One could even argue that, as the social policies of many european countries are "better" than ours, the uk will benefit politically from closer ties. This is quite different from the capatalist arguments.

The thing is, that while I do find this convincing I think it is also the reason for much of the considered opposition. I find it quite plausible that closer economic union leads to closer political union. While I might think that this is desirable now, I might not if europe took a political turn to the right. In any case, even if that doesn't seem likely, I think that there is a valid concern about the dilution of our domestic power. I think that on balance it will be worthwhile, but it is a hefty decision to make.

So...while I haven't seen the ad, I can be charitable and say that there is a point worth making here. Even if I disagree with the "No" campaign. Im not sure about the use of Hitler. Is it tasteless or apposite? probably tasteless, but less so than the hysteria which will follow it.

Will it be counter productive? Thats harder. I gather that they are going for the young vote, where the comedians might play well. We'll just have to see.

07:26 / 04.07.02

The critics say that there will be loss of "sovereignty" and as far as I can tell, they aren't completely wrong as there will be a loss of control of interest rates (and borrowing levels?). Of course, these are now controlled by the independent Bank of England, but could easily be brought back into the chancellor's hands. The counter is that in a global economy, national control is worth less than pooled resources. I'm just not qualified to judge that.

I don't think ideas of sovereignty as regards monetary policy are just a nationalism issue. What we should really be concerned with is the most efficient place to control currency. If that is at the European Central Bank level then great. If that is at a regional level (perhaps we need policy instruments to counter asymetric shocks) then that is great too. The important thing is to get away from the idea of sovereignity and national prestige and start thinking in terms of utility. I suppose the problem there is utility for who. Everyone in the same region as you, the same state, the same continent, the same culture, the same planet?

The thing is, that while I do find this convincing I think it is also the reason for much of the considered opposition. I find it quite plausible that closer economic union leads to closer political union. While I might think that this is desirable now, I might not if europe took a political turn to the right. In any case, even if that doesn't seem likely, I think that there is a valid concern about the dilution of our domestic power. I think that on balance it will be worthwhile, but it is a hefty decision to make.

As far as the EU is concerned all economic union type things have always been followed by political union. It has never been the other way round. Is that a good way to build a community? Possibly not, but it seems the only practical one. When you talk about the dilution of "our" domestic power it kind of highlights the problem with nationalism. What to you mean by our? Why should our power be protected? What is so special about it? If I think about the different communities I am part of, or concerned about, or value then I realise that domestic power, laws enforced by national boundaries are something I would gladly vote against.

08:59 / 04.07.02

If I think about the different communities I am part of, or concerned about, or value then I realise that domestic power, laws enforced by national boundaries are something I would gladly vote against. - Buk

And of course that is perfectly reasonable. The point is that this is a choice to make. By joining the Euro, the UK would lose some control of its economic policy - thats what I mean by dilution of our domestic power.

The point is that I also think it quite reasonable to not want to join in closer political union with the EU. It is quite reasonable not to want to cede some monetary decisions to a central european bank. Its true that much anti-euro opinion is nationalist and perhaps a touch xenophobic, I don't think that it has to be. The idea that this is a purely practical economic issue is misleading, IMO.

As for

Why should our power be protected? What is so special about it?

The special thing about our domestic power - and I mean UK citizens here - is that we have the largest say in it. We have existing power structures and if we want to change their flavour this should be discussed. Buk, you seem to be arguing as if it is both inevitable and unquestionably desirable to head towards some kind of federal europe. I probably agree that it would be, broadly speaking, desirable. But it does require some justification. Utility is not simply defined in terms of economics and there are democratic advantages to decisions being made over nations rather than continents. There is a lot to be balanced, and Im not sure its at all clear what is "best". Its as much a matter of what you want.

18:47 / 04.07.02

As a Geldof-related aside, I'm getting mightily sick of his presence in the wacky world of advertising - presumably because he still signals 'integrity' to a nostalgically twisted few. I particularly dislike the one for the Police where he's musing, somewhat stupidly, on how difficult it'd be to prise a child away from its (possibly) abusive parents. Reminds me somehow of Harry Enfield's Self-Righteous Brothers ("... but if Cliff Richard was shafting a teenager on my front lawn, in broad daylight, I'd say 'OI! RICHARDS! NOOO!!")

I just think, "Fuck off, pop star".

19:38 / 04.07.02

Thats part of a series of ads isnt it? To support the police?

I dunno, some people like to be spoken to by celebs, although gedof is probably a stretch these days. He's not that bad. It just doesn't compare to the Dennis Hopper car ad....

05:57 / 05.07.02

Yeah, it's a Police ad. It just strikes me as rather irrelevant and patronising: I think "well, you're never gonna be in that situation, are you?" They might as well film a Police officer musing on how difficult it must be to organise Live Aid or live with Paula Yates...

The Natural Way

07:46 / 05.07.02

That Rik Mayall thing: very bad and stupid. Yes, yes Mayall, I know you think it's undemocratic, but dressing as Hitler? People might get the wrong idea. Sorry: WILL GET THE WRONG IDEA. I hope he's enjoying fending off all those fun National Front types who're all lining up to slap 'im on the back for "sticking it to those bloody Kraut bastards..."

10:33 / 05.07.02

"It just strikes me as rather irrelevant and patronising: I think "well, you're never gonna be in that situation, are you?" They might as well film a Police officer musing on how difficult it must be to organise Live Aid or live with Paula Yates.."

(pointless bickering) Yeah, but that would be entirely relevant if they were advertising for people to organise Live Aid or live with Paula Yates. The relevance of him being used is down to something you noted yourself - he and all the other celebs used are people who have been publicly lauded for Being Hard or Doing Something Quite Difficult, which is something we are meant to assume is required of the police. The fact that Geldof is not actually going to be in the situation he's pondering is itself irrelevent. Still a wanky ad, mind, and I'm fed up of him sticking jhis bloody oar in too.(pointless bickering)

STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK

12:30 / 05.07.02

I'm reminded of something I once heard John Peel say in an interview (long time ago, so no sources, so trust me on this one, 'kay?) to the effect that just because someone plays very good, for example, bass guitar, doesn't mean they understand politics.
I, for one, would not particularly want to hear a pop single by Wim Duisenberg. OR Alan fucking Greenspan.

STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK

12:45 / 05.07.02

Oh yeah. And of course, Chris Morris has already told us all we need to know on the subject- celebs will endorse/disagree with absolutely anything they're asked to, just to get their "being in the public eye" fix. Or small amounts of money. Whichever the channel deem to be cheaper.

13:04 / 05.07.02

Saveloy: it still presupposes that we're all gagging to know exactly what Geldof thinks on the subject - and, I suspect, panders to the notion that the views of celebrities (however unrelated the subject) are somehow worth more than those of 'civilians' (copyright, Liz Hurley). Tosspot.

13:37 / 05.07.02

Ganesh:

"it still presupposes that we're all gagging to know exactly what Geldof thinks on the subject"

Nah, I don't think it does. Where do you get the "gagging to know" bit from?

"and, I suspect, panders to the notion that the views of celebrities (however unrelated the subject) are somehow worth more than those of 'civilians'"

Yes, there is a bit of that, but it's tempered by the fact that it's not just a random selection of celebs from sit-coms and gardening make-over progs. Again, it is people who are - rightly or wrongly - famous for doing things that we, the viewers, are likely to think of as big, difficult or impressive things (there's yer presupposition).

Thinking about it, each celeb chosen has had at least a vague link to the particular scenario they talk about - Lennox Lewis was talking about dealing with someone who harmed women (geddit?) and Geldof was famous for being massively pissed off about losing custody of his nippers to Yates and spent a good hour whinging about his lack of access to them to Rosie Boycott in a televised interview shown a couple of months ago.

Again, I don't like the ads, I'm just disagreeing with your analysis of them for the sake of argument.

19:21 / 05.07.02

Okay, "gagging" is an overstatement, but I couldn't really think of any particularly relevant reason why Bob Geldof was chosen for this other than his celebrity - and 'integrity' - in general, so I assumed that some advertising executive somewhere must reckon that we, the public are interested in his opinion.

I didn't know he'd whinged about losing custody of little ChiChi, Prozac and Falafel to Paula Yates, though. That, I'll concede, makes it at least slightly pertinent to the subject matter. He's still a tosspot, but I'm forced to admit he's not a totally-irrelevant-to-police-recruitment tosspot.

So there.

Morlock - groupie for hire

07:07 / 06.07.02

Hmmm. Alternatively, given that the angle of the ads seems to be to boost recruitment by making the rozzers look more intelligent, sensitive, human and altogether more huggly than most people would give them credit for (rightly or wrongly, I don't intend to get into that one) the idea makes some kind of sense.

Pick a bunch of celebs (because they're easier to trust than rent-a-fucking-expert, that's why), and get them to tell a sob-story about the bits of policing that don't involve standing around looking tough or kicking peoples heads in and you get as close to achieving this as you're likely to get these days.

No, Geldof and the rest of them don't know jack about policing, but then neither do most new police recruits. But unless they've all sold their souls to Satan (bit of a gamble, I know) they do know something about being human and as Saveloy has pointed out they seem to have been chosen for their personal experience, for 'authenticity' no doubt.

07:54 / 06.07.02

Ah well. Perhaps there really are legions of misty-eyed young men out there ready to sign up in order to gain Bob Geldof's respect...

18:55 / 06.07.02

...possibly they believe he's a wise wizard.

20:44 / 06.07.02

Geldof = Gandalf? Possiblement...

00:32 / 07.07.02

Well I was going on his accent and physical appearance, but sure name too I guess.

Morlock - groupie for hire

07:46 / 07.07.02

Looks like I'll need to explain myself, 'cos that's not what I meant.

My idea was that celebrity status is a kind of psuedo-friendship. Celeb A was in that telly program/was in that band/did whatever that we liked, so they have to be OK when they're not in character. People we don't like can't possibly do anything we would like, since that would make life too complicated, so good acts come only from good people. Taken to extremes you end up with stereotypical groupie/stalker behaviour and it would also explain the value of celebrity gossip, since a celebrity acting out of character would be interpreted as some kind of betrayal.

The alternative is some bloke in a suit not many people have heard of, and to whom few people have any emotional attachment. Doesn't look like the hardest choice in the world.

Christ, I'm not arguing the validity of the choice. Just trying to explore the logic behind it a bit. Celebrities have championed various causes for as long as I care to remember, and even the times they care about the cause rather than the paycheck it's doubtful most of them know what they're talking about. Think Live Aid etc, a bug collection of rich people asking less rich people to donate money to countries fucked up as much by politics (internal and external) as anything else.

The scary fact is that it doesn't make sense but it seems to work well enough. Or maybe I'm talking rubbish again, though it would be nice to hear some counter-arguments rather than absurdist comedy (mreow, hisss), funny though it is.

Hrrrr, not a morning person.

10:22 / 07.07.02

I'm not going to argue. I agree with you: it's an extension of the all-encompassing cult of celebrity and, IMHO, a particularly cynical, exploitative one at that. Take up this career because this celebrity (who you like/admire - or can remember liking/admiring, anyway) is impressed by (how he imagines) it. I dislike it intensely. That, as they say, is all.

15:42 / 07.07.02

Global advice from pop stars? No thanks

I read this a few days ago. It has some funny bits about celebrities gettting involved in political causes.

"The Republican senator George Voinovich has boycotted a senate environmental inquiry because he's bored of the parade of witless celebrities called to give evidence. Kevin Richardson, from the Backstreet Boys, was the straw that broke the camel's back. "It is a joke to think he could provide us with information on important geological and water-quality issues," says Voinovich, with refreshing candour."

Morlock - groupie for hire

19:23 / 07.07.02

Ah, fair enough. Claws retracted.

Regrettable Juvenilia

16:29 / 08.07.02

Get your advice on the environment from a member of a pop group or a Republican Senator - it's a tough choice, but ultimately Kevin's got my vote.

What's really galling - and telling - is the way that different parts of the media responds to different interferences by different celebrities in different issues. The Sun, for example, has told us over the past week that there's nothing wrong with Rik Mayall saying "a single currency? that sounds like the sort of thing Hitler would do" (even surreally branding the ad as "part of a great tradition of Jewish humour"), but that George Michael's 'Shoot The Dog' single (admittedly a toothless and moronic attempt at satire) is deeply offensive to the families of the victims of 9/11, and deeply disrespectful to Bush and the Blairs - and all this *even more so* because he is a gay pervert toilet trader.

And the article Barry cites doesn't diss pop and rock stars for making too many concessions to the establishment, but rather for getting involved with politics at all. Note the neat little touches such as the suggestion that John Pilger's journalism is as inane and meaningless as Michael's lyrics...

Further down the page, the author of the piece informs us that's he's glad the Big Issue is facing difficulties, and he hopes it folds. It's the same old reactionary bullshit. Put him on the list.