16 January 2008
10 January 2008
02 October 2007
06 September 2007
28 July 2007
Phil Kay
As the Edinburgh Fringe gets under way, Kevin Gildea gives a comic's perspective on the best comedy he's seen there over the past decade
Phil Kay
I have seen Phil perform many times in Edinburgh. In the early 1990s I was in a group called Mr Trellis (with Barry Murphy and Ardal O'Hanlon) and we did a whole Edinburgh run on a double bill with Phil Kay. We were sore from laughter for the first 10 nights and still laughing at the end of the run (27 nights later). The improvisational nature of Phil's act makes this possible and I can think of no other comic who could have that effect.
Most comedians go on stage with a certain armour (an exaggerated version of the social armour we all carry in everyday life - one that provides protection in front of hundreds of strangers). What I love about Phil is that he takes to the stage without this, seeking to reclaim a childlike state where the whole thing is a game intending to have fun. His determination to play in front of adult audiences this way is a measure of his bravery.
The last show I saw summed up all that Phil is about. He stormed from the beginning: his show included a brilliant piece about how many stars his show was worth (reviewed shows in Edinburgh are assigned stars - one to five). He had photocopies of stars on stage and when a bit of his show did not go as well as others he would rip off a star to indicate that it had become only a four-star show. Then, when the show was firing again, he picked it up and proclaimed his show, once more, a five-star one: it was a really funny commentary on the competitive nature of the Edinburgh Festival and the absurdity of "marking" comedy.
The format of the show seemed to be Phil talking about what had happened to him the previous night and day. He had been on a big anti-war march and talked about the impossibility of protesting against war within an architecture that stood as a memorial to war: the statues, the government buildings, the institutions. It was a brilliant observation about the world we inhabit and he delivered the point with hilarity.
Then some guys he had got in on his guest list - a bit the worse for wear - started chatting to him and heckling and disrupting the performance. At one stage he told them to stop because he felt that "tonight" he was really going to be able to say some good stuff.
About 40 to 45 minutes into the set, he asked the audience what time it was. When told, he said "Oh no - I've got to relieve the babysitter" and he left. The lights went up and the audience couldn't believe what had happened. I exited the venue amid much disgruntlement and complaint. I met Phil the next night and I said it was a pity he didn't get to access all that he wanted to say because of the disruptive influence of his drunken guests. He said that it didn't matter - it was what it was. It is this perspective that makes him such a treasure.
He always seeks to give his best to an audience but his "work" does not lend itself to consistency. He is a national treasure (for a world of no nations). He should be celebrated - just don't build a statue.
10 July 2007
08 July 2007
Protectionism is not taboo?
Mr Sarkozy claims that the word 'protection' is no longer taboo.
Yet as this French government website points out:
"Protectionism is not only contrary to our interests, it is unimaginable in the context of our commitments within the European Union and internationally. "
Funny how extremist nuts fall back on that old rhetorical straw man, claiming that an idea is "taboo" when it is simply wrong.
07 July 2007
The most important columnist in Ireland?
Garret FitzGerald. Important because he writes so intelligently about matters of vital importance which are completely ignored by everyone else. This man is documenting a changing Ireland, writing a first draft of history that in all likelihood will need no editing. He makes Census data seem like essential summer reading and he is au fait with the Northcote-Trevelyan recommendations of 1854.
Brown's reforms may influence Irish system
I have been quite surprised at the limited attention paid by our media to the very significant reforms of the British constitutional system announced by prime minister Gordon Brown at Westminster last Tuesday - some at least of which seem to me to raise issues that could be relevant to our State, writes Garret FitzGerald .
It should be said that, quite separately from these reforms, it appears that the British cabinet is to be restored as a decision-making body. Over the years its role had been largely whittled away by several prime ministers who effectively arrogated to themselves presidential powers, transferring decision-making functions to cabinet committees, the membership of which they determined, in order to get the decisions they wanted to emerge.
By contrast we in Ireland have continued to operate the cabinet system that we inherited from the period of British rule. We have not, I believe, used cabinet committees to subvert cabinet government.
A number of Gordon Brown's initiatives would simply bring the British constitutional system more closely into line with ours.
Thus it is proposed for the first time to examine whether Britain should, like Ireland, have a written constitution, or a Bill of Rights. Some of Brown's proposed reforms would simply extend to Britain provisions that are already incorporated in our Constitution, eg the exclusive right of the Oireachtas to declare war (Article 28.3 of our Constitution), and to have a role in international treaties (Art. 29.5).
Moreover, through starting the process of reviewing the role of the attorney-general by withdrawing from that semi-political officer of state the power to decide for or against criminal prosecutions - thus making the director of public prosecutions independent - the British will be copying a feature of our system that was introduced more than 30 years ago.
But some of Brown's proposals will be new to both our states, and are likely to evoke echoes here when they come to be implemented. So we should at least be aware of what is coming down the British tracks in relation to these matters.
First of all, Britain's parliament is to be given a role in approving major public appointments, checking the suitability, method of appointment and priorities of such people as the governor of the Bank of England, the chief inspector of prisons, the local government ombudsman, civil service commissioner, commissioner for public appointments, and, more dubiously in my view, perhaps even "top" judges.
This will also be applied to the chairmanship of a new independent statistics board. Since Margaret Thatcher's time there has been concern about the independence of the British statistics system from political influence, a distortion that this proposal will eliminate.
There was a rumour 40 years ago that the taoiseach of the day had sought to delay the publication of a census of population volume for three weeks, in order to avoid having to revise the Dáil constituencies, and that a threat of resignation of the director of the office blocked this move. It is believed that this stance ensured no further attempt was ever made to influence politically the presentation of our statistics.
To make doubly sure of this, and also to secure adequate support for the CSO, on the proposal of my economic adviser Dr Patrick Honohan I established a National Statistics Board. I am glad that on this as on other issues the British are now moving in a similar direction.
Brown's proposal for parliamentary vetting of key public appointments could create pressure here for similar parliamentary vetting - perhaps even of the appointment of chairmen of State bodies.
Brown has also committed himself to the somewhat belated implementation of the Northcote-Trevelyan recommendations of 1854 "to make a legal reality of the historic principle of appointment on merit, following fair and open competition", with a view to ensuring that the British civil service is not vulnerable to the whims of the government of the day. Some of Margaret Thatcher's appointments of permanent secretaries were felt to have politicised the British civil service in a way that has not happened here.
From the early days of the State our Civil Service appointment system was free from politicisation, and under a system that I introduced in 1984, recommendations for appointment to secretary-general and assistant secretary-general posts are made, after interview, by a top-level appointments committee of four secretaries-general and one person from the private sector. I believe that Ministers invariably make appointments on the basis of these.
Brown has also said that he will ban special advisers giving orders to civil servants, an objectionable feature of the Blair government, which I do not think has ever been allowed to happen here.
Another of his proposals, the implementation of which will certainly provoke debate here if it is implemented, is that elections be held on Sundays. Out of deference to the sabbatarian concerns of some Protestant denominations, not only the UK but also Ireland and, I think, the Netherlands have not hitherto followed the continental practice of Sunday elections. But if the UK decides to make such a change, our recent controversy about midweek elections suggests that there could be pressure for us to follow suit.
Another important British innovation is the proposal that in future ministers taking up lucrative jobs after leaving government will need to have such appointments vetted by an anti-sleaze watchdog. This already applies to senior civil servants in Britain, but I believe it has been suggested, on grounds that I do not understand, that it would be unconstitutional here to apply such a control for longer than two years after cessation of public office.
Brown is also going to give up the power to appoint members of the intelligence and security committee of parliament, which is to have its own secretariat and independent investigator, and the right to meet in public. This clearly reflects a recognition of public concern at the politicisation of British Intelligence prior to the Iraq War.
Two other British proposals would give a majority of MPs power to recall parliament, subject to the Speaker's approval, and would also give parliament a say in its own dissolution. I have to say that I don't understand the rationale of this latter proposal. Finally, powers that Gordon Brown does not propose to give up include initiating any inquiry into allegations of sleaze against a minister; and control over the system of awarding honours and peerages.
© 2007 The Irish Times
05 July 2007
Je suis un flic.
Can a policeman be an artist?
Recent Comments