Daniel displaying his hard-nosed business skills. Photo: BBC/The Apprentice
Show Hide image

Welcome to The Apprentice blog: series 10, episode 1

The Apprentice is back for its 10th year. “You’re tired!” sums up the format, but dedicated viewers of the show won’t mind a bit.

WARNING: This blog is for people watching The Apprentice. Contains spoilers!

It’s the 10th year of The Apprentice. And all through that sweaty, starchy, 110 per cent-executive-decision-making decade, it’s clear the producers have judged its loyal fans correctly. Hardly anything about the format has changed. “You’re tired!” will be the judgment of many snarky viewers as they switch over with a sigh to something more rewarding and less brimming with hollow pastiches of turgid Foxtons estate agents, but for those who love it regardless, there are 12 weeks ahead of pure, idiotic bliss.

The phrase “one hundred per cent” is heard after just nine minutes of watching the first episode, closely followed by “skill-set” at a competitive 17 minutes. “Dog-eat-dog” comes in at a disappointing 58 minutes, but we can forgive the programme makers, because everything else comfortingly follows exactly the premise of all previous series.

Except one thing.

That wicked grizzly business bear Alan Sugar has played a wildcard this year. We now have 20 candidates to mock and despair of, rather than 16 – so there could be more than one firing in each episode.

Dedicated viewers will have witnessed the gibbering drama of a double firing before, of course, but this new factor is intended to spice up the next 12 weeks of the 10th series. As if the show needs it, with the first episode hurtling head-on into classic Apprentice pathos with lines like, “There’s no ‘I’ in ‘team’, but there’s five in ‘individual brilliance’” and “I’m going to make a fundamental decision here – we’re going to the balloon shop.”

Meat and greet. Photo: BBC/The Apprentice

As with every opening episode of an Apprentice series, the men and women are separated into teams, welcomed into a lovely London townhouse where they will stay for the duration, woken up the next morning at 4am by a shrill telephone hurriedly answered by someone unconvincingly semi-clothed clearly with a pair of buffed brogues on out of shot, given 15 minutes to shriek playfully and deploy barbed teambuilding-related asides at each other, and then herded into power-taxis to somewhere gleaming in central London.

There’s a lot of gleaming going on in this episode. Every shot panning London is a series of the capital’s most glistening, vaguely phallic edifices, until the camera reluctantly lands on the Bridge Café ­– the losers’ suburban haunt, which gives away what everyone knows anyway: real business is executed in a hangar in West Acton.

This episode’s task is to do what is apparently “10 years of selling” – I think this is a nod to the sales tasks of the past decade on the Apprentice but I was too excited at this stage to be concentrating in one day.

But first, the girls and boys have to choose a project manager and a team name – a pair of tasks equal in their controversy and hilarity.

When Apprentice candidates choose team names, it’s a bit like watching a circle of intensely competitive apes in tailored suits playing Articulate. They just say words. Wrong words. With conviction. The boys go for “Summit”. “It’s never been done!” cries the man who came up with it. I didn’t note down his name, as I’m pretty sure he’s likely to be tumbling off the summit soon.

Then the girls seem to inadvertently invent the branding for a pre-crash Tory online dating site by going for “Decadence”. “Playing on the word ‘decade’”, says one, hopefully. In an unprecedented intervention, Lord Sugar tells them to come up with another name for the next episode.

This follows Nick Hewer – who spends the episode looking like a quiet voice in his head is asking him what he’s doing with his life and why he hasn’t found a mild, steady slot on Radio 4 to bed into until retirement – telling the girls “decadence” smacks of “decay, decline, moral turpitude and self-indulgence”. Surely an Apprentice hopeful’s ultimate pitch for appearing on the show, amiright?

Bitter lemons. Photo: BBC/The Apprentice

The boys’ team leader is Felipe – a former lawyer at a magic circle firm, hapless but well-meaning. It’s much worse for the girls, who opt for Sarah, who has depressingly offensive ideas about women in the workplace and chopping up citrus fruit for profit.

There follows a frenzy of suits scampering up and down the nonplussed markets of London, attempting to sell potatoes, spruce up sausages (some ill-conceived Planet Organic guacamole-purchasing occurs, pioneered by the candidate Robert who whacks out some sock-free business loafers and a boating blazer on day one), and print slogan t-shirts (“but ‘Positive Impact’ doesn’t mean anything to people!”).

The girls make a disastrous mistake by forgetting to send their sub-team (ie. group of side-lined and potentially mutinous women) off with the seed capital (ie. some cash) to the t-shirt printers. But the boys do one worse and leave their t-shirts at the printers altogether, throwing £500 away.

There is also a harrowing image, accompanied by the uniquely ominous minor chords reserved on this programme for inadequate entrepreneurs, of a solitary sponge the boys accidentally drop in the road. This doesn’t come up in the boardroom later but it still gave me chills. The girls, in contrast, inexplicably try to sell their sponges, a bucket and some toilet brushes for £250 to some hassled penguin minders at London Zoo.

Felipe’s team loses, but only by about £50. This leads to much soul-searching among the boys, with the perpetually outraged Stephen scapegoated for being a disruptive character. He’s the one who tries to sell spuds with the pitch: “It’s not going to be just a potato, it’s going to be an experience”, and is therefore inevitably saved from the boardroom, probably at the behest of some ratings-racked producers.

In the end, Chiles – the sub-team leader who left the t-shirts behind – is given Lord Sugar’s pointy finger of doom. It was a close one though, with Robert nearly getting the chop for his “arty farty” ideas about dressing up frankfurters. But he was saved too, probably because of the endless material Lord Sugar’s incessant iteration of the word “hotdog” is sure to provide Cassetteboy.

Chiles (right) is the first to be sacrificed on the altar of show-business. Photo: BBC/The Apprentice

The girls, in turn, got to spend half an hour slowly rotating in a claustrophobic pod full of 20 strangers who hate one another, as a treat for winning. Yes, Sir Al in characteristic munificence had “laid on” the London Eye’s VIP capsule for them.

With just the right cocktail of the obnoxious and talentless, and a frantic, meaningless task for them to attempt, this first episode is a reassuringly ridiculous sign of things to come. Let’s just thank Lord Sugar, poor old Nick and top TV Tory Karren Brady for laying on another series for us.

 

Candidates to watch:

Stephen

“If we went to Mars right now, I’d find a way to be excellent”.

He’s an “irritant”, according to Lord Sugar, who saved him. He was also rather unfairly scapegoated by his team. He’s sure to provide further drama, and perhaps even more florid pitches than his potato plea, in weeks to come.

Sarah

She can, inevitably, sell “ice to an eskimo”.

The girls didn’t like her leadership, possibly because she kept telling them to put make-up on and hike their skirts up for the sales task, but she’s likely to cling on for a while because of the morbid fascination factor.

Scott

Who?

 

I'll be blogging The Apprentice each week. Click here to follow it. The next episode is tomorrow evening, so check back on Thursday morning for the next instalment.

Anoosh Chakelian is senior writer at the New Statesman.

Getty
Show Hide image

Celebrate Labour's electoral success - but don't forget the working class

The shutting down of genuine, constructive debate on the left is the great danger we face. 

In the moment when the exit poll was released on 8 June, after seven weeks of slogging up and down the streets of Britain, dealing with scepticism, doubt and sometimes downright hostility, we felt a combination of relief, optimism, even euphoria.
 
This election broke wide open some assumptions that have constrained us on the left for too long; that the young won’t vote, that any one individual or political party is “unelectable”, that perceptions of both individuals, parties and even policies cannot change suddenly and dramatically. It reminded us that courage, ambition and hope are what’s needed and what have been missing from our politics, too often, for too long.
 
We have learnt to tread carefully and wear our values lightly. But in recent weeks we have remembered that our convictions can, as Jonathan Freedland once wrote, “bring hope flickering back to life” and meet the growing appetite for a politics that doesn’t simply rail against what is but aspires to build a world that is better.
 
In this election at least, it seems the final, anticipated fracture of Labour from its working-class base after Brexit did not materialise. Shortly before the snap election was called I wrote that while Brexit appeared to be Labour’s greatest weakness, it could just be our biggest strength, because: “consider what remain voting Tottenham and leave voting Wigan have in common: Labour… We will succeed if we seek the common ground shared by the decent, sensible majority, and more importantly, so will Britain.”
 
But consider this too. The Tories ran a terrible campaign. It was, without any doubt,the most inept, counter-productive campaign I’ve ever seen in British politics. The day their manifesto hit the headlines, even in our toughest neighbourhoods, we could feel change in the air. Arrogance is never rewarded by the British people and Theresa May has paid a price for it. Yet, despite a Tory manifesto that was a full, square attack on older people, the majority of over 65s still came out for the Tories.
 
And despite the growing relevance of freedom, internationalism and tolerance in an era characterised by Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin, the Liberal Democrats managed to become bystanders in the political debate. They stood on a platform that aimed to capture the support of those remain voters for whom Brexit is the major question, but neglected the rest. And they quite spectacularly failed to foresee that those who were intensely angered by May’s conversion to a little England, hard Brexit stance would vote tactically against the Tories. Over those seven weeks, they all but disappeared as a political force.
 
As Bob Dylan once said, "the times, they are a-changin" – and they will change again. The recent past has moved at extraordinary speed. The Brexit Referendum, the rise and retreat of nationalism, the election of Trump and his crushing unpopularity just a few months later, the reversal in fortunes for May and Jeremy Corbyn, the astonishing phenomenon of Emmanuel Macron and pro-European centrism, and the dramatic rise and sudden collapse of Ukip. Politics, as John Harris wrote last week, is now more fluid than ever. So now is the time, for hope yes, and for conviction too, but not for jubilation. We need some serious thinking. 
 
We should be cautious to rush to judgment. It is only two weeks since the exit poll sent shockwaves across the country. There is no comprehensive explanation for the multitude of motivations that delivered this election result and will not be for some time. But there are some early indictors that must make us think. 
 
After seven years of austerity, as John Curtice observes, the Tories made some of their biggest gains in some of the poorest areas of Britain. It is something I felt in all of the eight constituencies I campaigned in during the election. While the Labour vote rose significantly in towns like Wigan, so too did the Tory vote, despite little or no campaigning activity on the ground. As Rob Ford puts it, “Labour, founded as the party of the working class, and focused on redistributing resources from the rich to the poor, gained the most ground in 2017 in seats with the largest concentrations of middle-class professionals and the rich. The Conservatives, long the party of capital and the middle class, made their largest gains in the poorest seats of England and Wales… Britain’s class politics has been turned completely upside down in 2017”.
 
To acknowledge the growing, longstanding scepticism of many working-class men, and women, towards Labour in towns across England is not to take away from the hard work and drive of the activists, advisers and politicians that helped to fuel such a dramatic turnaround for Labour during the short campaign. To have won considerable gains in wealthier suburbs is no small achievement. 
 
But if the future of Labour lies in a coalition between middle-class young professionals and the working class, what is the glue that binds? While there is shared agreement about investment in public services, how are those interests to be squared on areas like national security and immigration? I believe it can and must be done, but – as I said to conference when I was first elected seven years ago - it will demand that we begin with the difficult questions, not the easy ones.  
 
Just a few days before the election, statistics were released that pointed to a collapse in trade union membership. What does the decline of an organised Labour movement mean for who we are and what we can achieve? These are not new questions. They were posed by Eric Hobsbawm in his brilliant lecture, "The Forward March of Labour Halted" in 1979 - a challenge laid down in the year I was born. Now, 37 years on, we are no further down the road to answering it. 
 
The most dramatic finding from this election was the support Corbyn’s Labour party appears to have won from middle-class, young professionals. They said he couldn’t do it and quite stunningly it seems they were wrong. But a ComRes poll last week caught my eye – by a large margin those 30-44 year olds would favour a new centre-ground political party over the current political settlement. In an election where we returned strongly to two-party politics, it appears they moved to us. But what would a dynamic and renewed Liberal Democrat Party, or a British En Marche do to our support base?
 
After a hellish two years we have learnt in Labour, I hope, that unity matters. The public and private anger directed towards each other, whether the Labour leadership, the parliamentary Labour party or elected councillors, is desperately damaging and its (relative) absence in the campaign was important.
 
But unity is not the same as uniformity, and while two weeks ago I felt there was a real danger of historic fracture, now I believe the shutting down of genuine, constructive debate on the left is the great danger we face, and must avoid. No one person, faction or party has ever had the monopoly on wisdom. The breadth of the Labour movement was and remains our greatest strength. 
 
Consider the Labour manifesto, which drew on every tradition across our movement and demanded that every part of the party had to compromise. Those broad traditions still matter and are still relevant because they hear and are attuned to different parts of Britain. Our country is changing and politics must catch up. The future will be negotiated, not imposed.
 
As we witness the age of "strong man" politics across the world, here in Britain our political culture has become angrier and more illiberal than at any time I can remember. The Brexit debate was characterised by rage, misinformation and a macho political culture that demanded that we abandon nuance and complexity, an understanding of one another and tolerance of different points of view.
 
But this is not where the future of Britain lies: it lies in pluralism. It lies in a politics that is nimbler, more fleet of foot, less constrained; a return to the great tradition of debate, evidence, experience and argument as a way to build broad coalitions and convince people; not shouting one another down, nor believing any of us are always right; an arena in which we listen as much as we speak; a political culture in which we are capable of forming alliances within and across party lines to achieve real, lasting change.
 
And ultimately that’s the prize: not just seek power but, to paraphrase a philosopher whose work inspired millions, in the end “the point is to change it”. We could sit tight in Labour and hope to see the current government fall apart. We might even inherit power, we could temporarily reverse some of the worst of the last seven years, but what then? If we have learnt anything from 13 years of Labour government it should be this: that to build lasting change is the hardest political task of all, and it requires now that we do not turn to the political culture, the tools or even the ideas of the past, but that we think hard about where the future of our movement and our country really lies. Now is not the time to sit back and celebrate. Now is the time to think.

 

Lisa Nandy is the MP for Wigan. She was formerly Shadow Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change.

0800 7318496