2013-05-24T02:33:12-04:00 Mat Morrisroe http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/author/index.php?author=mat-morrisroe Copyright 2008, HuffingtonPost.com, Inc. HuffingtonPost Blogger Feed for Mat Morrisroe Good old fashioned elbow grease. tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1954424 2012-10-10T10:43:37-04:00 2012-12-10T05:12:02-05:00

Mat Morrisroe http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mat-morrisroe/
I shared a platform with Graham Smith - Chief Executive of Republic, Professor Robert Hazell
- Professor of Government and the Constitution at UCL and founder and director of the UCL Constitution Unit and Robert Jobson - The official royal commentator for US network NBC, ITN News and Daybreak.

The motion to abolish the monarchy won the vote in the end and sense won out.

As this platform was afforded to me through the opportunity The Huffington Post has given me to share my thoughts with an audience, I thought it'd be nice to share my speech to the UCL Debating Society with through The Huffington Post. So you can read it below:

"Good evening everyone, and thank you for having me here today. I'd like to take a moment to thank my esteemed and knowledgeable colleagues sharing the platform with me here and to pay special thanks to the UCL debating society for inviting me.

Firstly, I'd like to ask if you'd indulge me a small, special dispensation if I may? This is my first formal debate so, whilst the rules allow for interjections I'd be grateful if I'm allowed to make it through and then deal with your points once the debate is open. I know right, bloody amateurs!

There's some pretty horrible things happening in the world right now. We're in the midst of a double-dip recession, Europe looks increasingly unstable and tensions in the middle east are increasing to such a level to turn one's hair even more grey.

Let's not pretend that there's not genuine human suffering happening abroad and here in Britain and also in fact just a short walk from this very room.

It therefore seems almost perverse that all of us are here in this room having a debate about something that seemingly has such little impact on our lives, such as the monarchy.
However, the reason this debate is important for me, is that whilst increasingly conversations about what kind of society we want are put on the back burner behind what kind of society we can afford, principles remain important.

On top of that, we've been subject to a three year PR assault from the royal family and their supporters, they've been putting their case forward unfettered and without press or media scrutiny since the engagement was announced, so if this debate is so unimportant well I can only respond with the rather grown up answer of 'they started it'.

I'm not going to lie, as a republican it has been a tough couple of years. With the wedding and the jubilee and the double-edged sword of our incredibly successful Olympic and Paralympic team meaning that celebrating the achievements of our fellow Britons was followed each time with a celebration in song of a monarchy, let me tell you even by my own boundless capacity for grumpiness, it's not been easy.

So, you'd think that when I sat down to think about what I'd say tonight it would be easy, all those arguments that have formed with every unbalanced hour of BBC broadcasting, with every article that dehumanises a newly married young woman as nothing more than an incubator, with every apology from a journalist who accidentally did his job for a change and actually reported how an un-elected Elizabeth seeks to influence our elected representatives. It should be a doddle. However, it hasn't been, I simply didn't know where to start. There are just too many arguments against monarchy for me to make within my seven minutes, so today I have decided to focus on just two of those arguments.
Firstly that monarchy is in practical terms a poor system for choosing a Head of State, but most importantly my argument and indeed, my entire view of the monarchy is based on principle, and on principle having a monarchy is just bloody wrong.

Now I stand here before you realising my own place in society, it's a little bit rich for a man who makes a living as a music consultant to criticise anyone's value to society. However, it is my conviction that without the need for people to be uniform, every human should be treated as equal.

Some monarchists will argue that the royal family don't have any power, that their power is symbolic and I'd like to borrow that argument. Yes, much of the point of monarchy is its symbols: the crown, the throne, referring to a perfectly run-of-the-mill flesh-and-bone human as 'Her Majesty', genuflecting, throwing a couple of massive expensive parties that have actually been blamed for slowing the economy down even further, all of these things are important symbols.

So if symbols can be used to signify monarchy's place in society then surely monarchy is a symbol of society itself? For me it is a symbol of inequality, it is a symbol of an hereditary principle that blights our nation and holds back not only our people but many of our industries, it is a symbol of a class system that not only restricts opportunities for millions of people, but that actually has real world impact on health and life expectancy.

Do I think that abolishing the monarchy would somehow bring about a utopia? If only the world was that simple. However, the very existence of a system for choosing an important part of our state that relies on the hereditary principle is a validation for those inequalities.

How can we really state that we're working to a society of increased social mobility when the way we choose our Head of State is rooted in one of society's worst prejudices, that some people are simply born better than others.

We all know that in reality some are born into more privilege, and that some people's lot in life means that personal fulfilment is more difficult for them. Much as my argument is about principle. I'm a realist, and I know that this isn't going to change any time soon.

However, that doesn't mean we have to shrug our shoulders and accept it. Maybe it's time for a bit of trickle-down equality, let's make the symbolic move of changing how our Head of State is chosen so it's more in line with the type of society we want.

'But I don't care about equality' I hear some of you say, and indeed not everyone does agree that a more equal society is a good one. So let's look at things on a practical level. Not even thinking about what an affront to democracy monarchy is, in what other than 'the top job' would you select the ideal candidate for the following reasons:

1) They're born in a certain family,
2) That they didn't happen to have any brothers
3) Because their Nazi-sympathising uncle just happened to fancy a woman who had been married before?

Is that really the most sensible way of choosing a Head of State? I know the rules relating to gender have changed but it's no less ludicrous now.

I know Elizabeth is popular at the moment, but imagine what kind of wildly inappropriate individual one could end up lumped with by employing this system. Still, I guess we don't have to worry about this what with the heir being both oh so popular and wise. I think I've made my point.

So these are just a couple of reasons why today I make the argument that monarchy should be abolished. Because we should reject the notion that some people are born better than others and because we should reject this slip-shod anti-democratic system for selecting a head of state.
We live in the 21st century and it's time we took positive, pro-active steps to make a better, more democratic society. For those of you here who are staunch monarchists I offer you this olive branch, I think you're as ace as your queen, now how can that be a bad thing? So please, I put it to you, my equals, it is time we abolished the monarchy."]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1830666 2012-08-25T19:02:44-04:00 2012-10-25T05:12:06-04:00

Mat Morrisroe http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mat-morrisroe/
I've railed against MPs presenting themselves like cats on heat to them. I have argued that if we can't cut them off we should at least make them generate real profits for the state. I've also argued against the sycophancy that turns our media from an important device check and balance in a democracy into an infantile, wet-Y-fronted, and unquestioning propaganda tool for an organisation that sits on billions-upon-billions of pounds worth of assets and holds theoretical power over our government and their subjects.

You'd think I'd be laughing my arse off with all of this ridicule of a man who is third in line to become Head of State for a country of 60 million people for no good reason, that I'd revel in the fact that the country's biggest newspaper, the Sun, published nudey photos of him gallivanting around Las Vegas. You'd think I'd see this as a great opportunity to undermine the monarchy and bring about a glorious day when we were able to elect a Head of State.

Well you might think that but you'd be wrong.

See, much as I don't recognise the title of Prince, much as what snippets I've garnered about the over-privileged man don't paint a picture of an appealing human being (he'd have his art teacher paint that picture were this going towards his exam grades) my opposition to monarchy is based on the fact they're just normal unremarkable people like you and I.

Harry's just a human being and as such I believe he should have no more or less rights than everyone else and human beings deserve the right to privacy and to reveal their naked bodies to people on terms they agree. The taking and sharing of naked pictures without permission is to me a form of abuse, and for me, Harry is a victim.

Of course many have sought to confuse the issue, conflating an individual's body privacy with the right of the press to hold the monarchy to account - resulting in the Sun printing pictures they had no right or public interest reason to print. The argument that the naked body of a single man who's never moralised about the behaviour of others is somehow public interest is junk. The argument that because people have already seen it on the web they had to print it is entirely specious. The internet's full of stuff unfit for distribution by mainstream media outlets. However, much as once again the Murdoch press play fast and loose with the privacy of individuals with no interest beyond selling papers to people dressed up as press freedom, the rest of the media have played their part too.

Do we really think Newsnight's debate was about press freedom or was it yet another chance for the BBC to talk about their favourite subject, the royal family? The increasingly not-as-brilliant-as-it-used-to-be Channel 4 News also managed to find time in its reduced length show to cover this salacious royal claptrap dressed as a story on press freedom whilst campaigners across the country are screaming to know why no-one is covering a privatisation of our NHS.

You see, if these media channels really cared about press freedom in relation to monarchy they'd be insisting that the royal family's absurd exemption from the Freedom of Information act be terminated. Then they could start asking questions that really are in the public interest like what's the real cost of the monarchy, what do they do with their time, how do they seek to use their position to influence (especially Charles), who do they seek to influence, how much do they spend on what and the myriad of more important questions properly trained journalists would know better to ask than a cheerful drummer playing at being a blogger.

Even when it comes to Harry there are important questions that a media who really cared about the public interest would be asking instead of showing these pictures. Such as:

- Who paid for his trip to Las Vegas

- How much did security cost and who's paying for it

- Why do Harry and his brother seemingly never spend any time doing their jobs and spend all their time on leave when the British forces are active and stretched around the world and facing cuts

- Why didn't they help their colleagues who had the leave they actually deserved cut short in the wake of the G4S debacle by donning uniforms and doing their bit as they were seemingly at every Olympic event

- And similarly, how much did it cost to train Harry to fly an Apache helicopter and how many active service hours has he put in since qualifying

All these questions can be answered without a single pube being shown. So please British media, trade in gossip and tittle-tattle by all means, but don't dress it up as public interest.

As for the public, well I wonder if many have thought of the implications of sharing and viewing images of people when they haven't given their permission. Would they like it if they happened to them, or a loved one? Harry's just an unremarkable person and it seems the unremarkable people in his family aren't happy about this intrusion and for once I agree with them.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1565865 2012-06-03T19:00:00-04:00 2012-08-03T05:12:17-04:00

Mat Morrisroe http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mat-morrisroe/
What a joke. Whilst the British public are sick with worry over their jobs, a higher cost of living and whether they can keep a roof over their heads our elected representatives are busying themselves organising in order to rename the tower. Of course, this won't just be a renaming of the tower as apparently this Jubilee weekend isn't enough to sate Ms. Windor's appetite for fawning blind sycophancy. No, there'll have to be another ceremony and another celebration to go with it.

However, being a massive waste of time (and let's not even think about the costs involved) is not the reason I am livid at this forelock tugging stupidity. Nor is it that this has been announced without a debate or a vote. The reason this is so galling is because it is a genuine affront to the principle of democracy.

Why this tower? Why not something else like Trafalgar Square, Westminster Abbey, another bloody part of the Palace of Westminster.

The clock tower, sometimes named St. Stephen's tower, or by those a little less up on their London knowledge, Big Ben ("that's the bell, that's the bloody bell", I can hear you shout) is a global symbol of democracy. Renaming this strong, much-loved, memorable, easily identifiable and globally famous emblem of democracy after an institution that is anti-democratic is an affront. It's a good job that the statue of Cromwell isn't facing the tower. As someone with Irish roots I know he was far from perfect, but give the man his due, he had the right idea about monarchy.

I'm not alone in this belief. Though apparently this has been decided, it hasn't been debated in the house, there has been no vote in the house, merely some MPs have signed a letter. Perhaps those MPs should pay a bit more attention to the wishes of those who put them there than she they are forced to swear an oath of allegiance to. Nationally 44% of those polled are against the idea (with only 30% in favour), in London this increases to 53% against - there just is not the will nor the support of the public to do this. Source:

What could be less democratic than changing the name of a global-brand for democracy without a debate or a vote when it wasn't in any manifesto and it's against the will of the public? They may as well defecate on the magna carta and give black rod a massive snog when he drifts up and be done with it.

And whilst it's galling that MPs should sign up for this assault on the fundamental point of their jobs, and even more distressing that Ed Miliband, who leads a party whose mission is to build a "community in which power, wealth and opportunity are in the hands of the many, not the few" should hop on board quicker than one can say "did we get the right brother".

Ms. Windsor herself actually has a responsibility to decline this offer. Her role is 'defender of the faith' and as such it would be both immoral and direct opposition to this role for Liz to usurp St. Stephen, whom to many has lent this tower its name.

However, regardless, haven't we done enough? Each year she and her ragtag bunch of various incompetents and hangers on are paid millions, they've recently been given a new deal which will see them receiving much higher income, she's waited on hand and foot, people are expected to bow to her and call her ma'am and we're currently in the middle of a party in her honour so costly that it will slow down our economy, no doubt leading to many more of her subjects finding themselves on the dole queue.

What more does she need? Isn't it about time she started showing a bit more gratitude back than this constant drone of one-way sycophancy? Will she be naming wings of the palaces we pay for after great parliamentarians like Attlee or Churchill or even just great Britons like the Pankhursts or Darwin?

What else are we expected to do? Build a structure depicting her visage so large it's visible from space so any visiting aliens can see just how grateful 60 million plebs are that someone's managed to shake a few hands (with her gloves on) whilst having people kneel or bow before her and happily spunk millions, nay billions of quids keeping her in the lap of luxury for 60 WHOLE YEARS?!

Imagine, 60 years of wandering around a few civic centres a week - poor love deserves every ounce of gratitude and then some. Maybe renaming this symbol of democracy (which let's face it, democracy is an insult to her abilities as a leader we may as well do away with it) isn't enough, maybe we need to change the name of our country. All stand for the national anthem of Elizaland!

Sounds crazy doesn't it? Well so is renaming that tower, that tower that houses Big Ben, it is ours, it's a symbol of British democracy and it must not be renamed for Elizabeth or anything else that is a direct challenge to the concept to democracy, an ideal so powerful our forebears fought and died for it. This madness must end here.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1559025 2012-05-31T19:00:00-04:00 2012-07-31T05:12:17-04:00

Mat Morrisroe http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mat-morrisroe/
You see, we don't all have fond memories, some of us don't have fond memories at all. Depending on which poll you read anywhere between 20 and 40% of the British public are republican, for many of those people the residing memory of 60 years of the Queen is basically that for 60 years we've had an unelected Head of State

I mean, in what other than 'the top job' would you select the ideal candidate for no other reason than being the first born in a certain family who didn't happen to have any brothers and whose actually proper Nazi uncle just happened to fancy a woman who had been married before?

Putting aside the clear absurdity of our system, my main problem with monarchy is that it is a symbol, nay the very apex of the unfairness that blights our society. When discussing this recently a friend chided that it's "not a symbol of anything, it's just a party for a nice old woman". However the whole point of monarchy is its symbols, the crown, the thrown, referring to what is just a human being as 'her majesty', genuflecting, throwing a massive expensive party that will slow our economy even further, all of these things are of course important symbols. So if symbols can be used to signify monarchy's place in society then surely monarchy is a symbol in itself.

The hereditary principle blights our nation. Kids lucky enough to be born into wealthy families don't just get the best jobs, the best chances, but they also on average live longer. For me the Queen is a symbol of this unfairness, yes she's lasted 60 years in her job but how many millions of her subjects have literally worked themselves to death because what they do is actually hard work? This is why when we live in hard times I find it so frustrating that people will happily chomp into their cake without Lizzie even having to say "let them eat" it.

The principle of monarchy is inherently wrong, unfair and absurd and this is why I won't be partying this weekend, I'm sure many will call it being obtuse, I'd probably more charitably call it principled (well I would). I'll also suggest that for a figure of "x people showed their support" will be used by monarchists to show support for years. However what galls me most isn't the jubilee, the mindless bloody flag waving, the people happily debasing themselves or even the monarchy itself, it's those who complain about republicans, like we're not putting up with enough already.

Put yourself in my shoes. The reason I abhor racism, homophobia, misogyny, transphobia and well, pretty much any prejudice going is because I believe with all of my heart that all are born equal. Whether you agree with me or not, to me this Jubilee is a party that celebrates and condones the fact that we are not all born equal, a party that celebrates saying that this tiny group of people are better than us. Well monarchy, whilst perhaps not as dangerous practically, is as ridiculous and offensive as any other prejudice and if you value the right to form an opinion, to have ideals, then surely you can understand and accept the feelings this jubilee engenders and support the right of republicans to express themselves and for a group that comprises millions of Britons to be catered for by the British media.

Even for the most staunchly monarchist amongst you, surely you can accept that no institution or human being is above criticism, yet can you point to a single television programme, amongst the blanket coverage across all channels, that has been even the remotest bit critical of the Queen or indeed or the principle of monarchy itself? Whilst the BBC may have broadcast Andrew Marr's masterpiece of royal proctological hygiene, a programme so massively sycophantic they're facing legal action, has there been one critical show? Has there even been a balanced one showing good and bad things that have happened during 60 years in the job? Are we expected to believe Liz is perfect? Well Abdul 'Michael X' Malik may not agree. For a while back there neither indeed would Anthony Eden or supporters of Rab Butler and indeed the Spencer family haven't always been massive fans. No, no human is perfect and Liz is only human.

And here's the thing, the thing that is making it so difficult is that whilst I detest the idea of monarchy, whilst I don't want to celebrate the jubilee, it's entirely unavoidable. For those of my friends who have patiently sat through my complaints I can only assure them I've had to sit through hundreds more hours and reams upon reams of unabashed sycophancy. I can't just hide away, it's impossible and even if I could, why should I have to? Then to add insult to injury, republicans are told that unless they go along with it all entire towns are out of bounds to them and indeed, we can't even have a joke at the Queen's expense to let off a bit of steam without censorship, just ask Cassette Boy who had one of their brilliant splice edit creations taken down on YouTube as the topic was Liz.

So no, I won't be partying this weekend. That's not to say I'm a party pooper as some who believe the Queen is magic have labelled republicans, or that I'm some dowdy Roundhead as the BBC would have you believe, my challenge to those people is to keep up with me on an evening out and then call me a party pooper. Neither is it to say there aren't some elements of patriotism which I think can be quite healthy. However, if I'm going to be patriotic at all I'd like it to be about you lot, the British people, the hotch-potch bunch that manages to do such great things and is, by and large a liberal and accepting lot.

I don't need to big up a billionaire to feel British and I'm pretty sure someone who pays someone to soften up her shoes doesn't need me to big her up either. If anything Ms. Windsor's a distraction from what we should be patriotic about, great British people and great British institutions. I'd happily throw street parties for many great Britons such as Alan Turing or someone like the Pankhursts, and how's about this, the NHS is 65 next year, let's throw it, and those millions of people who have saved and improved countless lives, a massive celebration in 2013?

However in the meantime, it's bad enough putting up with this jubilee without being told to we're bloody killjoys as well. It's bad enough not wanting to eat Antionettian cake without being told to shut our cake-holes too. So please, I implore you, if you see a republican looking grumpy over the weekend don't hate them or berate them, they do after all think you're just as good as your Queen, just give them a hug*, value a Britain that's supposed to hold many different beliefs and political views dear, then tell them this horrible time will all be over soon.

(*ask permission before hugging, I'm quite discerning regarding who I hug) ]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.1077182 2011-11-04T19:00:00-04:00 2012-01-04T05:12:01-05:00

Mat Morrisroe http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mat-morrisroe/
It was therefore with great trepidation that I decided to participate in Movember. For those of you who have been wandering around asking yourself why there's so much bumfluff sitting atop the lips of passing gents, Movember is a campaign to raise awareness and money for men's health.

Movember have their own mission, 'to change the face of men's health' which you can read about here. However, this blog is about my very personal take on that.

Blokes, we're not always great at talking about issues that effect us. There are some great campaigns out there that such as 'check 'em lads' which do a great job of asking us men to check our 'nads for lumps, but I know I've always been a bit coy about even going to the doctor, let alone chatting with mates or with family.

To be honest, one of the biggest cancers affecting men had never even entered my consciousness until a couple of Christmasses ago when I got a phone call telling me my dad was going for tests, which ended up with me going with him for his first treatment on that Christmas eve.

All of a sudden prostate cancer seemed very, very important. One in nine of us blokes will be diagnosed with it, 10,000 of us die as a result of it each year in the UK. It's the most common cancer for men but I frankly knew bugger all about it.

I didn't know of the flags, I didn't even really consider that he was at an elevated risk thanks to his age and despite us setting the world to rights, talking politics and coming up with improvements on Arsene Wenger's management, we didn't really talk about this type of thing, and I wish we had.

Now I'm going to talk about a man issue, but don't worry, I will not be scaling the Palace of Westminster wearing an Aquaman costume (like I could look any more ridiculous than sporting this 'tache). Men lead lives that are on average four years shorter than women. I'm sure there's some genetic or socio-economic reasons behind this, but I also reckon our reticence to go to the bloody doctor or even think about our health plays a role. Boys don't cry, and we definitely don't make a fuss if we're worried about our physical well-being.

My dad didn't make it, the cancer spread and he ended up fighting on too many fronts. I try not to wonder if there was anything that could have been different and instead am grateful. You don't always appreciate your family (oh Christ, I must have been a particularly ungrateful teenager) but he was a good dad and I have a lot to thank him for - indeed I'm massively grateful for my mum and my sisters too, who are frankly amazing.

So this is the reason I'm doing Movember, because I want everyone who reads this to have a think about men's health, or the health of a man, or men (you kinky lot) around them. Guys, how old are you? Are you at risk? Have you had a check-up of late? Is there some curmudgeonly so-and-so in your family who needs a bit of encouragement to get down the GP?

I am scared shitless of GPs, GP receptionists and indeed the awkward and embarrassing checks GPs carry out, and would rather lie in a sick bed than face one (this is absolutely true). I can't be the only one who's a bit daft about these things so when it comes to health I'm asking you to un-man up. Let's look out for each other a bit and show a bit of encouragement.

We don't have to live in fear or become hypochondriacs, but have a word. Who knows, you might be able to identify a problem before it gets out of hand and if there's no problem, well there's no harm done - why not turn it into a funny anecdote? Lads, talk to your dads. In fact, everyone talk to any older guys in their lives about men's health, or any younger guys, or similar aged ones. Talk to dads, talk to sons, talk to brothers, friends, boyfriends, husbands, just talk about men's health so maybe we can change attitudes just that tiny little bit and get rid of that awkwardness that gets in the way.

Listen, I'm walking around with a furry edifice atop my lip which makes me look like everything ranging from a 'pervert' to a 'sleaze', so if I can walk around publicly humiliating myself like this then the least you lot can do is suffer the slight embarrassment of asking a man you care about if he's had a check-up. Please, just talk to each other.

You can follow my 'tache's progress here and donate there, or even better donate to a friend who is taking part. Either way, and even if you do not donate (money is tight these days, there's no judgment there), just have a think about men's health and look out for one and other a bit. I really, really want people to do this, to talk to each other -- that costs nothing but can help you keep something beyond value.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.1063855 2011-10-28T19:00:00-04:00 2011-12-28T05:12:01-05:00

Mat Morrisroe http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mat-morrisroe/
Now before I go on I need to state that I am a republican. On principle I reject the notion that any human is better than any other human, more so when it comes to people being 'born better' than others. However, this is not an anti-monarchy column, merely it's a pragmatist's view on how we can best be inclusive of a monarchy in a way that is of most benefit to, and best represents, our society.

Rather than rail against the arguments that monarchists put forward, I'm proposing a compromise that both meets the principles of those who are pro-monarchy with those who don't believe in it as a concept.

I also make this case in a climate of economic distress, at a time when we must, for the good of the nation, think the unthinkable. We now live in a society where the profit motive exists in schools, where the true jewel in the British Crown, something the entire world looks to as a shining star, the NHS, is being treated to the unthinkable thinking of privatisation, and a climate where we have to make sure every aspect of society delivers financially.

It is time to privatise the monarchy.

There are many arguments for its privatisation, so firstly let's look at some of the arguments for keeping a monarchy at all, and how they dovetail into the case for privatisation.

Tradition; the monarchy is a British tradition. However, in the current climate we can't be sentimental. The welfare state is a British tradition, as is the NHS. However, isn't it also a British tradition that we're enterprising? Come on, there's nothing more British than being a bit industrious and turning a few quid, sometimes just for being British. Hugh Grant manages it, and he's as British as jam tarts and visiting prostitute. So come on Queenie, get with the industrial revolution and make some dough in that age old British tradition.

One of the arguments always put forward for the monarchy is that 'the tourists come here for them' and that they 'make money'. Good. That should set them up perfectly to run HRH as a brand. All those people stood gormlessly outside Buckingham Palace, they'd pay a tonne to see Prince Philip's crapper. On a serious note, as someone working on opening a London-based visitor attraction, I have seen the kind of visitor numbers and turnover that these sites can generate. They should be able to generate revenue from their property portfolio without the need for a state handout.

Instead of sitting in a helicopter whilst someone else flies it and other people rescue people, Willie would be more useful if he got himself out there as a brand. If Beckham can still make fortunes in the States for not being that great at football anymore, then how much could William make? Just think of the endorsements. Though, like Beckham, Willie's earning potential would be based on looks so he'd better get at it quick before the facial transformation into his father is complete.

Speaking of people looking like their father, I can see a fantastic Head and Shoulders ad featuring Harry. He could also be Gavin Henson's replacement on The Bachelor, they strike me as having quite similar personalities, so it'll be a great fit.

Zara Philips is an international sports personality. I mean, duh, what is her manager doing? She should be endorsing horseboxes and Landies by now.

Seriously though, and my 'humour' (or attempts at it) aside, the HRH brand, and their likenesses should be a billion-dollar brand. They should be getting an, 'ahem', royalty on a whole range of officially licensed products as well as seriously considering some high class endorsements. This, combined with their property portfolio, should mean that not only are they not taking money from the state, but that they're actually putting money back in.

Think of the tax revenue for starters. However, I'd set up the deal so that the HRH brand and properties associated with it were leased to them and that the state take an override on every penny earned. This lease agreement would also include a set number of state jobs that each of them had in order to continue utilising the brand.

It's modern, a PFI for the 21st century. If the profit motive can be applied to state-owned (or formerly state-owned) energy, rail, healthcare etc., then why can't it apply to the monarchy? Indeed, how can it not? If they can't turn it into a money-making concern they'd have to be some kind of inbreeds or something.

Actually, so convinced am I that they can generate revenue that this blog is in fact an offer to manage their transition into a global, monetised brand for no pay - just a 10% stake and an MBE for me to turn down.

So, come on Liz, give me a tinkle, I've got the brains, Will's just about still got the looks, let's make lots of money!]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.977668 2011-09-23T19:00:00-04:00 2011-11-23T05:12:02-05:00

Mat Morrisroe http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mat-morrisroe/
What Bill Hicks actually said was 'let me tell you something right now, you can print this in stone and don't you ever forget it, any performer who ever sells a product on television is for now and all eternity removed from the artistic world'.

In fact, I know everyone's excited about the news from CERN but physics is just catching up with what I knew all along, that Einstein was wrong too, because there are in fact two things that travel faster than the speed of light, one are neutrinos as they discovered in their lab under the mountains of Switzerland. The other thing that travels faster than the speed of light are the cries of 'Bill Hicks, Bill Hicks' every time an artist has music in an ad, every time there's a sponsorship, or an endorsement, every time a brand is mentioned in any way associated with an artist.

Be it someone in the pub, a talking head on some TV show or a journalist in a music mag or a newspaper it is a certainty that someone will pipe up with the Hicks thing. It's like a Godwin's law for the marketing age (for Luddites and other MySpace users, Godwin's law states that "as an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1"). It's the Hicks law, or shall we call it the Hicks Boson; "in the event of any music artist having any association with a brand the probability of someone quoting Bill Hicks is 1, from the get go".

Well you know what, after 15 years of hearing the same thing I'm going on record and airing what may be heresy to the many millions* of people reading this... (* give or take a few zeros)

Bill Hicks was wrong.

There, I said it, that's much better (I'm not being charged by the hour for this therapy session right?).

There are so many reasons this rather glib and predictable response is wrong, on many different levels, and lucky for you I'm going to take you through every single one of them. In detail.

The first thing that people forget is that making music costs a lot of money. Just go ask your friend in a band who you keep promising to see but always have something better to do when they're playing at the Toilet & Graffiti on Upper Street and 'oh I thought it was NEXT Monday' or 'oh sorry I lost one of my grandparents... Oh you've been keeping count, yes funny story I do actually have 5 grandparents... Well I did obviously... OH LOOK A BADGER BYE'. Go ask them when you're not avoiding their endless Facebook event invites (sorry) and they'll tell you that even being in a pub level band, if they sat down and did a P&L (the P in P&L being hopelessly optimistic there) they'd tell you they're spending thousands of pounds each year. Rehearsals, instruments and instrument upkeep, skinny jeans, transport (those cabs you see drum kits falling out of in Shoreditch cost money you know), I could go on, and that's just for crappy toilet circuit bands. How much do you think it costs to make an album or put on a proper tour?

You see, the thing people always forget is that creativity costs. Creativity takes time, creativity takes effort, creativity requires skill (in the most part) and creativity normally requires all of these things from a whole load of people.

Without wanting to reopen the whole piracy debate, we do live in a time when the old model, where a large chunk of the investment in a music artist would come from record labels (and publishers for those who write) has gone the way of the dodo and shark fin haircuts. The rights and wrongs of this are a moot point, the world has changed, but the need for investment in creativity has not. The irony is of course, that those who are most critical of the music industry not keeping up with the times and adapting are the bore-ons who most shrilly scream 'sell out' when an artist seeks alternative investment in the shape of a brand. However, I digress yet again, maybe the Pirate Party (tsssk what a twonkish name) will be the subject of a future diatribe.

The Bill Hicks line is often associated with people calling artists sell out. I think Andy Cato of Groove Armada dealt with this very well when we shared a stage at Midem to discuss the partnership between the duo and Bacardi which I was responsible for engineering. During our session someone held their arm aloft during the Q&A and asked Tom and Andy if they were sell outs, this is someone at a conference in Cannes for the global music industry I might add, asking about selling out... Andy's response was brilliant; he asked the question 'why is one major corporation any better than another one'? The band had been signed to Sony and had moved on to a partnership with Bacardi. Is there any more merit in being signed to Sony than another multinational corporation and if so why? Because they have the word 'music' in their name?

This is why people who bemoan sell outs are wrong; because there's an arbitrary decision being made between what is an acceptable type of investment and what is not. How far down that path do we go? Should artists only accept investment from people who never forget their mum's birthday (sorry mum)? Do we need to do background checks, maybe a 'fit and proper test', because that works so well in newspapers and football. If someone can come up with a fair and practical definition for what constitutes and acceptable then I'd love to hear it. Well I say that I'd love to hear it but essentially I reject the notion entirely that there's a some virtuous model for artists to get the investment and support they need so don't bother.

I think the Groove Armada/Bacardi partnership counters yet another of the criticisms of those who are always so quick to shout yet slow to consider, and that is that somehow working with brands restricts creativity. Do you know what; working with anyone can either restrict or inspire creativity. Record labels openly influence an artist's output, often looking for singles, and encouraging talent to continue with a sound that works or adopt new sounds based on what's happening in the market place. One of the results of that partnership was that if anything GA had more, not less freedom than working in the label system. There's nothing wrong with it but labels are looking for artists to deliver records that will do certain things, a single for x, y and z radio station, something for the clubs, increasingly something that will synch well for TV commercials. All totally understandable, but these can put restrictions on where an artist can go creatively.

With the partnership, the music brief was pretty simple, make something with a fiesta spirit. However, we'd worked hard identifying an artist to work with who already embodied that spirit already so really the brief was 'do what you do'.

Without the pressure of standard label release cycle the band ended up recording with a fully live band for the first time, something they'd long wanted to do, we then released the music using a legalised sharing mechanic we devised (based on a conversation I had with Tom from the band, where he said he wanted to give something back and my belief in the concept of 'social value') and for them, the ultimate outcome was a few months after the deal had concluded, when they released their self-funded Black Light album to a fanfare of critical acclaim. All of this made possible because the time and space that was afforded them by working with a brand, and without wanting to be crass, I'm sure the fees helped too, as we established earlier, albums aren't inexpensive to make, even if you do have your own studio - technicians, musicians and logistics all need to earn a living too.

That's not to deny that many, maybe most partnerships are shit, most do reek of an artist simply taking the money and running, but most people I know do that in their jobs whatever the field anyway. I'm not denying that when a Geordie-voiced nation's sweetheart advertises hair products whilst clearly investing thousands in time-travelling a top hair stylist from the 80s to buff up her bouffant that no-one believes for one second that she actually uses the product. But is that the concept of a brand partnership that's to blame, or is it the execution of it?

And here's the rub, because much as your average chin-stroking amateur critic quoting Bill Hicks is wrong, most partnerships between artists and brands do their bit to promote this view by being crap, by being ill-considered and badly executed. Most partnerships forget that authenticity is at the very heart of a successful and believable partnership. That if you don't match an artist to a brand where their personalities work well together, where they have mutually beneficial objectives and indeed, where one can believe that the brand are fans of the artist and the artist are fans of, or at least enjoy the brand, then it's going to look rubbish and crass and nasty.

This doesn't just come down to brands getting it right with their artist selection strategy (and if you're a brand or agency reading this who is working with talent you should have one but I suspect you don't... Call me), it also comes down to artists and their representatives turning down cash when the brand doesn't 'feel' right. A bit of homework I always ask managers to do is to sit with their artists and actually ask them what do they like to eat, drink, wear, do they have any hobbies when they're not making music? If you want an abject lesson in how it can damage your artist's reputation when it's inauthentic and reeks of taking the money and running just Google Justin Timberlake and McDonalds.

My point is that artists and brands aren't helping when it comes to me not having to face down the incessant quoting of Hicks.

That said, I'm not so sure my counterparts in other fields have it quite so bad. Hicks was a comedian, but when Alan Partridge was revived, brilliantly I feel, to advertise booze I didn't hear the usual chorus of 'sell out'. It was well executed, but there's a definite double standard when it comes to music artists. In the same way, I doubt Michael Angelo had to put up with some dweeb in a check shirt buttoned all the way up and no tie (it's always THAT person) shouting 'sell out' at him because the Sistine Chapel's roof painting was actually a brand communication for what was the world's biggest and most powerful brand at the time, the Roman Catholic Church. I know most people don't think of it this way, but if you do take a moment to consider it, this was a work created to promote the brand of the church, to a brief, for money.

It's these double standards that really boil my piss. It's all very well Charlie Brooker making a very broad attack on artists who work with brands in his piece which quite rightfully attacks the (unbelievably unethical) use of children as brand ambassadors, but why's an artist getting brand dosh any worse than a hack writing in a newspaper that makes millions every year from advertising? It isn't any worse, or indeed any better, that's why - IT JUST IS.

So please, for the good of my blood pressure, can we please move on from the Bill Hicks thing as the longer it goes on so the probability of it being met with a percussive response increases to 1. You know he was a comedian, right? You know he said things for comic effect without always being sincere, right? Or do you think he really believed everyone on trailer parks should be sterilised, and if he really meant it you think he was right, right?

No, he was a fantastically funny man who went before his time (though Hendrix went too soon, and before he ended up having to promote dodgy covers albums on Later with Jools), and he was a comedian. Can we please, oh have mercy please, stop using his quotes to decide what is and what is not an appropriate model of funding for the arts and can we please stop childishly calling people sell outs just because they work with a brand before I get a stress headache and have to reach for the FAST ACTING NEUROFEN PLUS (tm), which me and millions like me find goes straight to the source of the pain. Available at Boots, Lloyds Chemists and all good Pharmacists.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.945588 2011-09-01T19:00:00-04:00 2011-11-01T05:12:01-04:00

Mat Morrisroe http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mat-morrisroe/
It's an extreme emotional response, I think we can all agree. However, there's an ongoing trend that I think is starting to stir the same level of emotional response in me so my opening blog for Huffington Post is going to be a full pelt moan about this continuing trend for lifeless, soulless, bland and non-differentiating folk covers sound-tracking nearly every advertisement on television.

It seems that whether one is advertising mouth wash, nappies, cars, pretty much everything, the soundbed will be a folkey or acoustic cover of some hit we all know and love, and it's not just a current trend, it's been going on for going on for several years.

Having worked as a music consultant for brands, agencies and even your commonal garden international sports events as well as managed and A&Red artists for much longer than I care to admit, I know how important a role recognition can play in aiding a piece of music, and the clip its associated with into the punter's brain . In simple terms, a tune that is already known can cut its way past several cognitive defences much quicker than something unknown, than something new. That's why so many artists release covers as singles, people like what they already know (and as a result covers tend to research well for radio stations who then are more likely to playlist a track and so on and so forth). In this game where we're all trying to grab attention quickly, trying to make sure our message needs to be seen and heard by the consumer the least number of times possible before it breaks into their conscious mind is the key. So surely something that's nice and warm and fuzzy and cuddly and unthreatening as well as being recognisable is going to work its way in even quicker right?

Wrong.

These are the key criteria of folkey-kokey ad music:

• Whispy voiced maiden

• Cover version

• Ukelele

• Glockenspiel

• Record label looking to launch female singer-songwriter's career off the back of it

If the music you're looking to use in your commercial is ticking all of the boxes above guess what, so is everyone else's. Now call me old fashioned but I like music that grabs attention. This doesn't have to mean that the music must steal the show in every commercial, but even when it's meant to be lower down the attention hierarchy, if it's carefully chosen it can do a hell of a lot in helping ease the advert into consumer's attention.

There's nothing better than getting the right piece of music to the right piece of film. It's an incredible buzz for me and to be honest, great advertising gives me a buzz anyway. One of the reasons I got into music was because I could (and still can) hum pretty much every piece of advert music from about 1979-1989 (playing drums and girls started taking all my attention from that point onwards in case you're wondering why the 1989 cut off).

On top of that there's no reason we can't utilise the recognisability of tracks we all know and love whilst not tearing out their soul with cutesy, slightly off key fiddle playing the melody, Kronenbourg managed it brilliant and they didn't even need a new singer when Lemmy covered his own Ace of Spades in a way that made us pay attention. Admittedly, the music was the basis of the advert, as it was back when I worked the Coca-Cola I Wish Campaign with Mother. However, the Skoda Fabia RS ad manages to parody a song used in their own advertising to communicate the difference between the Fabia and the Fabia RS really effectively.

If you're using a jingle-jangle cover version of an old track you're not going to stand out. It's not quite as bad as using a soundalike, but commercials are an audio visual medium and you're painting an audio backdrop of magnolia.

Personally I don't participate in folkey-kokey covers of tracks for my clients as I strongly believe that it is not an effective use of music for them and on a personal level it's completely unsatisfying for me. However, even so it's impossible to escape them so please, agencies and clients this is an intervention - please, for the love of all that is holy, I beg you, stop with the folkey-dokey covers in adverts or else the Ukulele gets it.]]>