Alastair Campbell asked an interesting (if not altogether original) question on Twitter this morning:
Success of Borgen (currently trending) and West Wing (which I have not seen) a sign of gap in market for essentially pro politics TV?
— Alastair Campbell (@campbellclaret) January 20, 2013
As a massive fan of The West Wing, and an avid viewer of Borgen, it is a question I have also thought about. Britain is the world leader in political satire, yet we must be close to bottom of the league when it comes to political drama.
It is worth highlighting, I think, a difference between The West Wing and Borgen. The former is absolutely (and self-consciously) not a portrayal of what politics is, but what many think politics should be. The same is true of Aaron Sorkin’s other works, particularly The Newsroom.
And while Borgen is not a fly-on-the-wall documentary, it certainly shows both the gritty messiness of (in this case) continental-style coalitions and the toll that life in politics can take on individuals in a way that The West Wing only ever really hinted at.
In one sense it is rather surprising that no enterprising British broadcaster has yet had the foresight to try a British political drama having witnessed the success of these two shows. I suspect that the fear is that the audience would be limited to those interested, and perhaps involved, in politics in some way. And we all know how limited an audience that would be.
I think, though, that that fear is misplaced. The key point about dramas like these is that politics provides the backdrop on which interesting stories can be layered. In the case of The West Wing it is true that political intrigue and governmental wrangling was the main attraction, but in Borgen those aspects play second fiddle to the developing personal lives of the show’s main characters.
If British producers think it necessary, they can follow Borgen’s style and emphasise the personal. That would be fine by me as long as the politics is not only there as a background. What unites both Borgen and The West Wing is an attention to detail, and a political knowledge, that allows the programmes to appeal to politicos as well as those to whom that aspect is just a foundation.
It is sometimes suggested that the British are just too cynical to enjoy any attempt to portray politicians as anything other than self-interested partisan megalomaniacs. Again, I think that is profoundly wrong. Even if that is many people’s perception of politicians, surely the whole point about fiction is that it can change those perceptions? After all, those perceptions were themselves conditioned by the medium through which the majority of people know about politics: journalism. While we all want our journalists to be of the sceptical, power-questioning variety, the British lobby too often goes beyond this to cynicism and incredulity which then clouds much of the public’s opinion of politics.
The more I think about it, the more I think that Alastair Campbell is right in the sense that there is a gap in the market, not necessarily for “pro-politics” drama, but for realistic political drama. Just as The West Wing could only have been made in the US and Borgen is quintessential Scandinavia, we could, with a deft touch, impeccable knowledge and the right angle, have a successful British political TV drama to match them both.
* Nick Thornsby is a day editor at Lib Dem Voice.
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Weirdstone (for Alan Garner)
Is Western democracy a nut to be squeezed between Trump and Putin?
Ian Sharpe selected by the Liberal Democrats in Loughborough
Penric's Fox, by Lois McMaster Bujold
The C word
World Cup 2018: Thoughts on England v Tunisia
Extended closure of rural maternity units is an excuse to close them permanently - it's wrong
JoeB
Glenn
Martin
17 Comments
BBC4 had the impressive “Party Animals” a couple of years back (starring the then-unknown Matt “Doctor Who” Smith”), and there was “The Amazing Mrs Pritchard” with Jane Horrocks as the idealistic leader of a party swept to power who found out that politics was about compromise.
So it’s not as if Britain doesn’t do pro-political dramas. Just not as the same time as other nations do them.
House of Cards, State of Play, GBH, Our Friends In The North, Edge of Darkness – all top quality political dramas – and at least two of which have been remade in the US.
House of Cards – about a murdering manipulative politician
State of Play – about serious political corruption
GBH – about the security service intervening in politics
Our Friends in the North – also about serious political corruption
Edge of Darkness – about a military conspiracy
Which of those is ‘pro-politics’ then?
Liberal Neil, all those dramas are about corruption or Machiavellian self-interest, therefore relentlessly negative towards politics.
I was absolutely gripped all the way through 2 hours of Borgen last night (and I hate subtitles normally) and likewise last week and all the first series. Sadly (some might think) I found the politics even more interesting than the also very good personal story lines. Apart from excellent script/casting etc I like it because it shows the real, mostly decent and sincere people, involved in the reality of politics as opposed to the almost entirely corrupt and/or incompetent characters that usually populate those British depictions of politics that are not just played entirely for comedy.
Even the ‘opposition’ (including the Liberals!) in Borgen are largely shown as sincere politicians in the light of their own beliefs and policies rather than as entirely corrupt, venal, incompetents. And do you know – over 9 years in Parliament that is how I found most MP’s at Westminster. However much I disagreed with many of them. The same for 12 years experience in Council Chambers too.
Could anyone make a series like this based on British politics and get any sort of decent audience or avoid a rubbishing from a vitriolic press? Of Liberal Neil’s list the only one approaching Borgen (ie not murder, security service plots or black comedy) was Our Friends in The North. That however was based not around a premise of ordinary everyday politicians at work but of disillusionment with (real) rank corruption loosely based on T Dan Smith and Poulson.
The lack of authentic British TV drama on politics is actually a cultural blind spot, largely due to the arbiters of what gets made being keen not to rock the boat. Indeed, this very lack could itself be the subject of TV drama, when you think about it. And only Alistair Campbell could refer to a crippling cultural blind spot as a ‘gap in the market’.
I think the issue is more that the two most recent dramas about politicians – Party Animals and The Amazing Mrs Pritchard – both did poorly in the ratings, and that was before the expenses scandal. (Though it’s worth noting that political biopic films have been more successful) So, I suspect commissioners don’t spot a ‘gap in the market’ because when they tried to fill one in better times, there wasn’t much of a market there.
Of course, that doesn’t rule out the possibility of a good writer having a good idea for a political drama, but I can’t see them actively going out and looking for one as the evidence shows that political dramas don’t get big ratings.
Plus, most of the series mentioned above are very pro-politics, in that they point out that people with power can affect people’s life. That they’re not pro-politician, or pro-the current British political system might indicate the problem lies there, not with the dramatists.
Paul Holmes “I was absolutely gripped all the way through 2 hours of Borgen last night (and I hate subtitles normally) and likewise last week and all the first series”.
So were we !!! Best thing on TV at the moment!!!
There was Trollope’s Pallisers back in 1974. I remember a Tory MP protesting because the General Election coincided with an episode that had a Liberal victory
Paul Holmes don’t like subtiltles , then don’t lose your hearing you be glad of the subtitles. Sadly ITV and C 5 are allowed to get away with a pitful amount of subtitles on their programmes.
Could one of our caring MP’s take an interest.
I think the scripts and the acting in Borgen is brillant and that it also shows that pretend Danish politicians are nearly corrupt as our real MP’s if doupt just read what MP’s of all parties claimed on their expenses and they have the cheek to call benefits claimants.
That’s why British TV programmes show corruption,
It’s funny that AC moans about the lack pro politics programmes, he must a memory problem about his involvement in British politics
Alistair Campbell has written both fiction and non-fiction (the latter very well) and has experience of politics at the sharp end.
Suggest he takes his own advice, if all this isn’t an elaborate trail for doing just that. But he was right.
Expanded a bit on my earlier comment, and turned it into a blog post here: http://www.nickbarlow.com/blog/?p=2599
I think Thick of It is generally quite sympathetic to politicians and far more “realistic” than the West Wing, which you admit yourself is not intended as a true reflection of politics. As the ToI as gone on it has become less subtle and the politicians more 2D but Hugh Abbot in Series 1 is portrayed as hard-working and well-meaning. Jim Hacker is also generally painted in a positive light in Yes Minister. Not surprised Campbell isn’t a fan given the anti-villian is so clearly based on him!!
As for the West Wing I think its effect on British politics has been quite nauseating – too many MPs think they’re Josaih Bartlett (despite not having a Nobel Prize) and you see too many young men in suits who think they’re Sam Seabourne(despite not having half the intellect).
Suspect it’s because the public is so utterly hacked off with politicians that no TV company will commission such a thing.
David & Duncan – I took the main point of the article to be about the lack of good quality political drama and his point about a positive representation of politics being a secondary point.
Saying that both Borgen and The West Wing show plenty of politicians in a negative light and the dramas I mentioned include many positive role models.
I would welcome a good, accurate political drama made in/about the UK. But what Alistair Campbell is calling for is a “pro politics TV”. That just makes me shudder and would probably turn the audience off – or rather, make them turn off.
There is a reason why we write our political dramas about corrupt politicians, or politicians corrupted. As Geoffrey Brennan and James M. Buchanan put the question in their book The Reason of Rules: ‘If institutions are such as to permit a selected number of persons to exercise discretionary powers over others, what sort of persons should be predicted to occupy these positions?’ (p. 64).
Buchanan won his Nobel Prize for his insights into what drives politicians to act the way they do. His answer to his and Brennan’s question is illuminating in this respect: “positions of political power will tend to attract those persons who place higher values on the possession of such power. These persons will tend to be the highest bidders in the allocation of political offices’”
While it is certainly not the case that who who holds office is of no importance at all, the fact is that no administration is satisfactory and they all end in failure. You can’t hide that fact with “pro politics TV”; your audience will see right through it.
Libby Local: The Series?