Show Hide image

Cameron's liberal lie

After two and a half years of working for the Tories, including being press officer and believing in

David Cameron has embraced Barack Obama’s 'plan for change' slogan for this week’s Conservative party conference in Birmingham.

But while I believe the Democratic presidential hopeful's promises are genuine, I find the claim absurd that the Conservative Party under Cameron has changed to such an extent they can now be called “Liberal Conservatives”.

Obama’s life epitomises the American dream. In America they celebrate the individual, the idea that when you grow up you are told that you can do anything.

He is a liberal who transcends party political borders and to most Americans, even those who will never support him, there is agreement that Obama’s candidacy represents real change, even if on the superficial level of his race and family background.

But in Britain, Cameron still has to convince the British public that he’s not just another Tory leader from a privileged background who parachuted into politics from an already comfortable life. Eton smoothes the way and it has done that for Cameron.

For the last two and a half years I have worked in and around the Conservative Party. In particular, I have spent the last 11 months within the press office, serving as a spokesman for the Shadow Minister for the Cabinet Office, Shadow Leader of the House and the Conservative Head of Policy.

Sadly over this time I have become disillusioned with the Tories and I feel on a very personal level that I cannot wholehearted support them, and it didn't work out for me.

When I started working for the Tories I was convinced that because they had no idealistic anchor they could adapt, becoming what they needed to be to suit the age. So when Cameron claimed he is a ‘Liberal Conservative’, like many others I fell for it, and I was so wrong.

I’m sceptical of the idea that you can be both socially liberal and politically conservative. With the economy facing recession, a Tory government will have to rely more on its politically conservative instincts at the expense of any liberal agenda.

The Tories talk about social mobility and opportunity for all. This is hard to believe when the party itself hasn’t changed at the core.

Firstly, the Conservative parliamentary party is unrepresentative of modern Britain. In the two and a half years that I worked in and around Conservative Party Campaign Headquarters, I encountered only a handful of staff from black minority ethnic backgrounds.

Cameron’s top table is even more elitist, looking like something out of a 1960s American boardroom, pre-civil rights movement.

As for Cameron’s credentials as a ‘Liberal Conservative’, it was he who authored the Conservative manifesto at the last election, with its dubious undertones of “are you thinking what we’re thinking?” on immigration.

When David Davis took the principled and liberal stand of resigning over 42 days, Cameron failed to put the full weight of the party behind him. It was not an issue that Cameron thought was important.

Two weeks ago, Theresa May launched a campaign for equal pay for women, but Cameron was not involved in the publicity and there was hardly any coverage.

It was not an issue that resonated with readers of the right-wing press, so it did not get the full backing of Tory high command.

And on the issue of the family, I agree with JK Rowling when she criticises Cameron for excluding single parents from tax breaks for married couples.

In the US, the Democrats are the only genuine home of the liberal and during this American presidential election campaign they are reaching out to young adults like me.

The message of hope from Obama’s nomination as the first black candidate for President, and by the tenacity shown by Hillary Clinton, has re-engaged me with politics.

I can’t identify with any of the three leading parties in Britain with adequate conviction that I would be comfortable knocking on people’s front doors in the hope of convincing them to vote red, yellow or blue.

Neither Labour, the Lib Dems nor the Tories have sparked debate on key controversial issues in the way in which Obama has done - on race and religion in politics.

Bring Hillary into the picture, and the Democrats embrace three of the key issues that I feel most strongly about: social cohesion, cultural integration and women in politics.

By contrast, political correctness in Britain has driven all of these issues into the background where they are neither openly discussed nor openly addressed for the issues that they are.

Young people want to be more politically active but are left with nothing to be politically active about.

In Britain, in place of hope, aspiration or stimulating political debate, we have to endure the protracted death of the current administration in anticipation of the next, which holds little promise of change.

Obama’s rock star persona, however much maligned, would do it for me. He is representative of American society, while Cameron doesn’t represent British society at all.

That is why I am leaving for the US to race across the country and help campaign for Barack Obama to become President, for real change that I can believe in.

Ashish Prashar will be blogging on about his time in the US where he will volunteer in Pennsylvania for the Democrats.

Show Hide image

The Okay Place: the psychological value of mediocre TV

Why do we watch comedies that don’t make us laugh?

I’ve been watching Brooklyn 99 on the train. The comedy cop show makes me laugh roughly once an episode, but nonetheless I watch it compulsively. I watch it on my commute, and I watch it while cooking dinner. It’s in the background when I’m paying my bills. I consumed so many episodes last night, Netflix sent me its most notoriously judgemental pop-up: “Are you still watching?”

Yes, Netflix, I was still watching. The real question was: why?

Brooklyn 99 doesn’t really make me laugh, and it’s far from the most critically-acclaimed show available on the streaming service right now. It’s not technically mediocre – the sitcom has won two Golden Globes – but it is to me*. It provokes the same feelings in me as Netflix’s The Good Place, a kitsch sitcom set in the afterlife. I am compelled to watch at all costs, but on the whole unamused and occasionally frustrated by formulaic storylines. (Sometimes, The Good Place even makes me cringe.)

I enjoy both shows, sure, but I don’t love them. So why am I wasting my time?

(*Because this is the internet, it's a good time to specify that "mediocre" here means in the view of the person being quoted, not objectively.)

“To understand why people are drawn to certain shows, it’s helpful to look at the type of feelings the shows elicit,” says Elizabeth Cohen, a media psychologist and assistant professor at West Virginia University. Cohen says media often has a “mood management function”, in that we use it to make ourselves feel better.

“Sometimes we are looking to be emotionally stimulated, so we might choose to watch something that we think will thrill us,” she says. “But other times we might decide to forego the dark cerebral drama on our DVR and opt for a safe sitcom instead. That could be because we need something that will help us wind down, relax, and boost our mood.”

Photo: Netflix

A desire to unwind is one of the reasons Oliver Savory, a 30-year-old grad student from London, watches The Big Bang Theory, a comedy that has inspired much ire.

“It fills a niche of something to watch while eating, when you can’t focus fully, or you’ve just got in and want to unwind without thinking too hard,” he explains. Oliver says “average” TV comforts him more than “good” TV because he doesn’t have to worry about keeping up to date. “Good TV you have to make time for, average TV can fit around your own schedule without imposing itself.”

Cohen says this is referred to as “comfort food TV”, the entertainment equivalent of eating boxed mac and cheese even if you have the recipe for mum’s spaghetti. “These are shows that people watch not because they are exceptional in quality, but because they are simple, predictable, or nostalgic.”

Sometimes, we watch “okay” shows because we feel they have the potential to be great. Karen Dill-Shackleford is a media psychologist who explains this was her experience with The Good Place.

“I love The Good Place, but there was a stretch when I thought it was poor,” she says. “I kept waiting for it to right itself because I thought it had real potential.”

The potential many of us see in the show is its fresh premise, and its engagement with moral philosophy. As Dill-Shackleford puts it: “[the show] is a palatable way to ponder life’s biggest questions. So, even if the jokes are lame, the potential for real value is still there.”

Charlotte Mullin, a 23-year-old illustrator, says she doesn't laugh at the jokes either. “But what keeps me watching is the premise, and the characters. I’m a sucker for good character development, and The Good Place has it in spades,” she says. (Cohen tells me she does laugh at The Good Place, once again illustrating that mediocrity is in the eye of the beholder.)

Photo: Netflix

Ross McCafferty is a 27-year-old journalist from Glasgow who couldn’t tell you anything about NBC’s Parks and Recreation, even though he’s seen every episode. During a difficult time at work, he consumed the entire show.

“It’s actually quite a derivative, even mediocre show,” he says. “But I still ate it up, because at the time it was oddly comforting to me, self-contained and uncomplicated and unobtrusive, like so little in my life at that time.”

The reasons McCafferty liked the show, he says, is because it was “nice”, “brightly lit”, “nonthreatening” and “so sweet it was cloying”.

Bright lights and pretty colours certainly feel like one of the reasons I keep going back to mediocre sitcoms, but I also find comfort in certain characters: Chidi in The Good Place and Boyle in Brooklyn 99 are comfortingly familiar – I almost switch on to keep up to date with them, as if they were friends.

George Clarke is a 25-year-old management consultant who finds similar comfort in Seinfeld characters, even though the show doesn’t make him laugh much. “Some days I might fancy Netflix’s latest psychological thriller, but most of the time I’d just prefer to sit and watch Kramer doing something ridiculous or George stuff it up with the girl of his dreams for the fourth time that season,” he says.

But couldn’t Clarke and I find our televisual buds in prestige dramas?

“I find the idea of watching prestige shows non-stop to be exhausting,”  says David Renshaw, a 30-year-old news editor, who jokes it can feel like you “need a map” to keep up with Game of Thrones. When he finishes watching something acclaimed, such as Breaking Bad, he “cleanses the palette” with shows like Masterchef or Gogglebox. “They are much lower maintenance… especially if you’re switching between TV and phone as often as I do.”

Photo: Netflix

The comfort of the mediocre is so powerful that it can often override other emotions, such as the cringing I experience during some of The Good Place’s more strained jokes. Lizzie Roberts is a 25-year-old masters student who enjoys Gilmore Girls even though she dislikes the character Lorelai’s “painfully unfunny monologues”.

“It’s my way of letting my brain reset,” she says of the show, as well as reality TV such as Towie and I’m A Celeb. “It’s not taxing, it’s tolerable.”

“Not taxing and tolerable” are perhaps the words that best sum up the complex psychological reasons we continue to watch mediocre TV during the Golden Age of Television. Streaming services like Netflix are also designed to keep us watching, with episodes auto-playing one after the other (plus it's easier to find a show you've essentially already paid for on the Netflix homepage than go out and hunt for something more prestigious).

Although watching mediocre TV can feel like a waste of time, it does seem to have a psychological purpose. When we're stressed, busy, or tired, it can be exactly the entertainment we need. Nothing is more stressful, busy, or tiring than a commute – so I'll be watching Brooklyn 99 on the train home.

Amelia Tait is a technology and digital culture writer at the New Statesman.