Tuesday, 16 February 2010
Home - new video from Colin MacLeod, the boy who...
Came across this latest offering from Swordale singer-songwriter Colin MacLeod - aka The boy who trapped the sun - yesterday (You can tell that parliament is in recess can't you).
It's a polished version of the hand-knitted video I posted here some months ago.I prefer the hand-knit although the landscape is stunning here - oh, and the song is very good too. Brings on a touch of the cianalas, but not too much.
He's playing in Islington tonight and the Home EP is being launched in Stornoway and London at the end of the month. All the best, Colin.
Poileataigs 's a chanain - a suid 'sa seo
Pìos inntinneach an seo air làrach Slugger, sàr-bhlogger à Èirinn a Tuath, mu dheidhinn poileataigs a' chànain thall an sin.
Tha sinn dualtach dìochuimhneachadh dìreach dè cho duilich 's a tha e adhartas sam bith a dhèanamh nuair a tha poileataigs treubhach nam pàrtaidhean a' tighinn a-steach air leasachadh na Gàidhlig.
Cha dh’fhuair mi cothrom - dè le “piegate” agus a h-uile sgainneal eile an t-seachdain sa chaidh - èisteachd ris an deasbad mu dheidhinn BBC Alba agus Freeview ann a Pàrlamaid na h-Alba. Leugh an t-sàr-sgrìobhaiche an seo.
Bha a h-uile duine aca, na BPAs, ag aontachadh gum bu chòir an t-seiribheis a bhith air Freeview, le glè bheag gearain mu dheidhinn. Bidh e mì-chiatach argamaid sam bith eile a dhèanamh. Buail air, chanainnsa.
Ach tha e inntinneach, nach eil, le uidhear de thaich oifigeil agus poileataigeach aig a' chànan, cho duilich 's a tha e leasachaidhean mar sgoiltean Gàidhlig a chur air adhart sna sgìrean Gàidhealtach fhèin. Tòrr taic, 's beag oidhirp.
Tha sinn dualtach dìochuimhneachadh dìreach dè cho duilich 's a tha e adhartas sam bith a dhèanamh nuair a tha poileataigs treubhach nam pàrtaidhean a' tighinn a-steach air leasachadh na Gàidhlig.
Cha dh’fhuair mi cothrom - dè le “piegate” agus a h-uile sgainneal eile an t-seachdain sa chaidh - èisteachd ris an deasbad mu dheidhinn BBC Alba agus Freeview ann a Pàrlamaid na h-Alba. Leugh an t-sàr-sgrìobhaiche an seo.
Bha a h-uile duine aca, na BPAs, ag aontachadh gum bu chòir an t-seiribheis a bhith air Freeview, le glè bheag gearain mu dheidhinn. Bidh e mì-chiatach argamaid sam bith eile a dhèanamh. Buail air, chanainnsa.
Ach tha e inntinneach, nach eil, le uidhear de thaich oifigeil agus poileataigeach aig a' chànan, cho duilich 's a tha e leasachaidhean mar sgoiltean Gàidhlig a chur air adhart sna sgìrean Gàidhealtach fhèin. Tòrr taic, 's beag oidhirp.
Monday, 15 February 2010
Murphy not moving anywhere
Some cheeky mischief making from SNPTacticalVoting on Jim Murphy's possible future. Basically, given Holyrood boundary changes an opportunity may open up for a certain someone to stand for the Scottish parliament in the East Renfrewshire area 2011. There's about three ifs in the theory which makes it more watering can than watertight. And what do any of us know is in store for us, I ask?
The Secretary of State for Scotland is in a "no sleep until Dover House is safe from grasping Tory hands and Caledonia is free of gnat malaria" mode just now, is the reply, and he can't contemplate life beyond a general election campaign. End of speculation, then.
New Tory poster - new ridicule
They're quick of the mark these photoshop graffiti artists who've already altered the latest Tory poster. Removing David Cameron from the artwork obviously doesn't stop the backlash.
Gordon Brown - unspun by television
I'm being told, unofficially, that 4.2 million people tuned in to see Gordon Brown being interviewed by Piers Morgan on ITV last night. That's 24% of the audience share and a respectable figure for a Sunday night.
For the sake of context there were 6m viewers for the Antiques Road Show earlier in the evening and that Skating on Ice stuff got 7.4m.
The question being chewed over this morning at a near empty Westminster is did Gordon Brown do himself any favours on television? There wasn't a dry eye in the house when he spoke about losing his daughter and, with his wife Sarah giving visible support, viewers must have felt some empathy for him.
The professional cynics accused him this morning of parading his dead child to garner a few votes but these are the hired girns, the paid attack dogs of the Tory press. Over at Radio 5, the "bloke radio" phone-in format that Downing Street constantly monitors to see how politics plays in the real world, sympathy outweighed cynicism on the speed dial.
But I felt, as I have for some time, that some people have stopped listening to Brown regardless of what he is saying. I was watching him close up a few months ago in committee, giving evidence to the Speaker's conference on parliamentary representation. He spoke first, had more to say, and made a better case but many of the cross-party MPs he was invited to talk to seemed to be doodling in their notebooks.
Next into the same seat was David Cameron, whose party's record on gender and minority representation is woeful. But Dave managed to use his charm, his new boy wattage, to make himself sound interesting and sincere in his desire to do better. The contrast, in the persuasiveness of the message, and in the body language of the listeners, was marked. They paid attention these MPs and they are the most cynical audience on the block.
Brown last night described himself as someone whose life has been a series of setbacks - sporting accident, thwarted leadership, family tragedy - from which he has always fallen forward, learning all the time. In one of the clips, when his family spoke about how he lost his eye, how that was a turning point for the young man, crystallised a few thoughts for me about why people don't connect to Brown.
Until the cruel attack on the Prime Minister over his clumsily scripted letters of condolence to the families of fallen soldiers, few people outside politics realised that Gordon Brown is blind in one eye. Those inside the Whitehall beltway rarely comment on it but it is something we've all aware of even though we might not realise.
Being deaf on one ear I'm always carefully positioning myself around people, shuffling around the room, re-arranging chairs, so that I can listen in properly. On stage I see the partially sighted Prime Minister doing much the same thing, checking himself and others spatially, constantly moving his head left and right, working hard to make sure he misses none of the visual cues most of us pick up without noticing.
Sitting in the stalls at a Downing Street press conferences, watching Brown talk with a foreign leader say, all that behaviour seems perfectly natural and understandable. Watch the same press conference again on television, with the Prime Minister's small movements framed and exaggerated by the confines of a camera and it has a totally different effect.
On television compensating for the eye loss creates a barely perceptible impression of someone who is not entirely comfortable in the situation he is. His posture makes the viewer feel uncomfortable themselves and it breaks that crucial thread of connection all television performers strive for with their audience.
It's not something anyone can do anything about, least of all Mr Brown, and not anything he should apologise for. He can only carry on being the least televisual politician of the age.
How this play out in the election television debates we're promised will be intriguing. Labour strategists are convinced that they can unspin Cameron on television, that his shallowness and the lack of experience will be exposed by the gravitas and driller killer knowledge of the Prime Minister.
Unfortunately for Brown people do more than just listen to television, they take all kinds of messages from the image as well as the words. Cameron has the light touch the medium requires, Brown has an intensity suited for radio.
For the sake of context there were 6m viewers for the Antiques Road Show earlier in the evening and that Skating on Ice stuff got 7.4m.
The question being chewed over this morning at a near empty Westminster is did Gordon Brown do himself any favours on television? There wasn't a dry eye in the house when he spoke about losing his daughter and, with his wife Sarah giving visible support, viewers must have felt some empathy for him.
The professional cynics accused him this morning of parading his dead child to garner a few votes but these are the hired girns, the paid attack dogs of the Tory press. Over at Radio 5, the "bloke radio" phone-in format that Downing Street constantly monitors to see how politics plays in the real world, sympathy outweighed cynicism on the speed dial.
But I felt, as I have for some time, that some people have stopped listening to Brown regardless of what he is saying. I was watching him close up a few months ago in committee, giving evidence to the Speaker's conference on parliamentary representation. He spoke first, had more to say, and made a better case but many of the cross-party MPs he was invited to talk to seemed to be doodling in their notebooks.
Next into the same seat was David Cameron, whose party's record on gender and minority representation is woeful. But Dave managed to use his charm, his new boy wattage, to make himself sound interesting and sincere in his desire to do better. The contrast, in the persuasiveness of the message, and in the body language of the listeners, was marked. They paid attention these MPs and they are the most cynical audience on the block.
Brown last night described himself as someone whose life has been a series of setbacks - sporting accident, thwarted leadership, family tragedy - from which he has always fallen forward, learning all the time. In one of the clips, when his family spoke about how he lost his eye, how that was a turning point for the young man, crystallised a few thoughts for me about why people don't connect to Brown.
Until the cruel attack on the Prime Minister over his clumsily scripted letters of condolence to the families of fallen soldiers, few people outside politics realised that Gordon Brown is blind in one eye. Those inside the Whitehall beltway rarely comment on it but it is something we've all aware of even though we might not realise.
Being deaf on one ear I'm always carefully positioning myself around people, shuffling around the room, re-arranging chairs, so that I can listen in properly. On stage I see the partially sighted Prime Minister doing much the same thing, checking himself and others spatially, constantly moving his head left and right, working hard to make sure he misses none of the visual cues most of us pick up without noticing.
Sitting in the stalls at a Downing Street press conferences, watching Brown talk with a foreign leader say, all that behaviour seems perfectly natural and understandable. Watch the same press conference again on television, with the Prime Minister's small movements framed and exaggerated by the confines of a camera and it has a totally different effect.
On television compensating for the eye loss creates a barely perceptible impression of someone who is not entirely comfortable in the situation he is. His posture makes the viewer feel uncomfortable themselves and it breaks that crucial thread of connection all television performers strive for with their audience.
It's not something anyone can do anything about, least of all Mr Brown, and not anything he should apologise for. He can only carry on being the least televisual politician of the age.
How this play out in the election television debates we're promised will be intriguing. Labour strategists are convinced that they can unspin Cameron on television, that his shallowness and the lack of experience will be exposed by the gravitas and driller killer knowledge of the Prime Minister.
Unfortunately for Brown people do more than just listen to television, they take all kinds of messages from the image as well as the words. Cameron has the light touch the medium requires, Brown has an intensity suited for radio.
Thursday, 11 February 2010
Wednesday, 10 February 2010
The British Museum of the Isles
I'm getting badly addicted to Neil MacGregor's excellent History of the World in 100 objects on Radio 4.
It was the legend of the Minotaur and the Minoan bull leaper today. Why do we quibble about the licence fee?
The Lewis chessmen, now guardians of the British Museum's Medieval section, aren't part of this series. They're using some Walrus ivory pieces found in a sewer in Salisbury instead and they'll be equally impressive I'm sure.
The chessmen have been home to Lewis in the past, quite successfully, and they will be back to the sands of Uig (where they were found in 1831) in the future. But isn't the perennial complaint that the Lewis chessmen, like the Elgin Marbles, be returned to their rightful "home" a very limited ambition?
Instead of moving the Lewis chessmen to Scotland why not bring a branch of the British Museum there instead?
That isn't quite as mad as it sounds. London's Victoria and Albert Museum is proposing to open a branch in Dundee in the future, the Tate has successfully exported to St Ives and Liverpool and the Guggenheim is in Bilbao.
Museum franchising is a growth business. It creates a huge cultural wave for a place and it pushes tourism figures into the stratosphere, according to the Sunday Times. Famous old museums are, quite literally, branching out.
Cities and nations bid for them, effectively buying their names, their curatorial expertise and the right to dip into their collections. Given that most leading national museums have far larger collections than they can ever show, and that they need to pull in as much income and as big an audience as they can, this makes perfect sense.
They're talking about £47m for the Dundee V&A with a return of 900 jobs and 500,000 visitors a year. That's a huge impact on Tayside.
Of course opening a "British" museum in Scotland would be a loaded political challenge for the SNP government in Edinburgh but it would be embraced as a union-salving balm by Labour or the Tories after the election.
Now, I'm not proposing a huge development. A modest display gallery perhaps linked to an high calibre university archaeological department near an existing academic campus would do for starters. Call it boutique museum franchising, call it anything you want.
It would have to be in a place that already has an incredibly rich archaeological and cultural heritage and for plain security and exotic appeal an island location would be best.
A branch of the British Museum on the site of the Lewis Castle in Stornoway - that would kill two birds with one hundred odd artefacts. Anyone got £20m and Neil MacGregor's number?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
