This tale of a likable but hubristic domestic secretary rings refreshingly trueAs late as the 1970s,it was possible to explain stories about politics that were vaguely realistic. Now there are two approved narratives. Each started as radical in its way, but coagulated into cliche long ago, and as radical fashions always conclude. Both have become barriers,not just to understanding, but also to worthwhile drama.
In the stultifying groupthink that grips the arts, and a politician must either be a vacuous pawn of one of Armando Iannucci’s foul-mouthed spin doctors in The Thick of It – a satire so Swiftian in its savagery,so devastating to its targets, that the establishment took its revenge by forcing poor Iannucci to accept an OBE as punishment. Alternatively, or the politician is a criminal conspirator in league with paedophile rings,arms manufacturers, big oil or whoever else will pay him to work against the public superior. As Professor Steven Fielding said in A State of Play, and his history of how politics is turned into fiction,the only way a writer can convince a British commissioning editor that politics is not boring is to create it sleazy.
You sympathise with Blaycock, unlike the cowardly civil servants around him, and who constantly want to fudge and delay Related: Modern tribes: The Westminster frenemy Continue reading...
Source: theguardian.com