Voyeurism of the rich, untalented and unjustifiably famous

With the digital age and the accompanying proliferation of social media, we’ve seen the cult of the celebrity expand. Media outlets such as E!, TMZ and a plethora of celebrity bloggers, have met an increasing demand for celebrity news with often sensationalist but digestible entertainment. However, with this, the scope of who constitutes a celebrity has also broadened. Where celebrity status previously referred to those whose fame was derived from their talent or skill within areas such as entertainment or sport, an apparent skill set of any kind is increasingly less of a prerequisite. Rather, these individuals have been allowed to rise to the heights of celebrity in making a career of fame derived from… well, nothing.

With the rise of reality television, television audiences have been exposed to the goldfish bowl of on-air people watching. With what initially started with shows like The Real World and Big Brother, the genre offered an intriguing premise for shows of social and behavioural observation and analysis. Although they quickly created celebrities of their respective casts and began to shape the world of reality television. The notion of watching a show that wasn’t actually about anything but insignificant people’s lives was then taken further. What if we watched people whose lives were so farfetched and materialistically distanced from our own, that our intrigue is instead moved to the ostentatiousness of their lives? This would be in spite of how banal their lives and personalities might actually be once stripped away of the so-called glamour of what appeared to be their reality. And with that, a cornucopia of such shows were born.

The Hills, The Real Housewives of… franchise, The Only Way is Essex, Made in Chelsea and arguably the biggest, Keeping up With the Kardashians, and their various spinoffs, have all followed the same template. Watching rich people who appear to spend their days socialising at high-end establishments, shopping and living lives that would appear to be unattainable for most. It hardly sounds like riveting television but it’s a hugely successful format that doesn’t look like it’s ready to disappear just yet. Consequently, we’ve created celebrities out of individuals who already have the money; we’ve just given them the fame to boot. But why? Are they not just simple players in a trite observation? Why have these people gained our attention and our acclaim for effectively not doing anything remotely notable?

Consider the Kardashians. Hugely popular, they have converted their celebrity into spinoff shows, clothing lines and a variety of merchandise. Although what is their talent? Media personality Charlamagne tha God rightly said that the Kardashians’ talent is being able to keep our attention. And I’d be inclined to agree. Kim, Khloe and Kourtney are certainly easy on the eye but that should only get one so far without any discernible talent. Kim, the most famous of the Kardashian sisters, is known more for her sex tape with Ray J than the fact that her father was on OJ Simpson’s legal team or that her stepfather was an Olympic athlete. The latter shouldn’t be reasons for her celebrity status either. But the fact that even they are overlooked when awarding her and her sisters with their fame, demonstrates just how baseless the Kardashian family’s celebrity status actually is. Nonetheless, they are instantly recognisable and international household names.

The Kardashians are also, at face value, not the sharpest tools in the box (I say at face value as they’re obviously savvy enough to have built a brand based on no talent so perhaps it’s more fool me). I’ve watched their show aghast with their foolishness and bizarre life decisions. Furthermore, there seems to be a trend of stupidity as the hallmarks of personalities within said shows.

In his Never Scared show, Chris Rock spoke of magician David Blaine’s then recent ‘challenge’ to go without food for 44 days while living in a suspended perspex box. In referring to Blaine’s efforts, Rock mockingly poses the rhetorical question “are we so desperate that we fall for a trick-less magician?” Similarly, have we become so thirsty for entertainment that we’ve effectively reduced ourselves to people watching of morons? It would appear so.

The rationale for our attraction to this new type of celebrity is not immediately apparent. Could it be escapism to watch uncomplicated lives that appear to be perfect without the stresses of everyday life? Conversely, perhaps we see these individuals as a reflection of our own materialistic aspirations but without the graft and hard work in achieving it. Essentially, if we were to be gifted with the fame, the money and success, without any effort whatsoever, our lives would likely mirror theirs. It’s a departure from the traditional notion of a celebrity where to achieve the fame, a significant talent and accompanying work ethic would be required. As a result, the lives of the Kardashians et al represent a utopia of the highs without the lows of the celebrity lifestyle. In addition, there is also a fascination with the lives of others that are so far removed from our own.

This fascination has led to shows that seek to show the contrast of how the rich live against our own lives. Why are we therefore entertaining projections of lives that indirectly and audaciously seek to belittle ours as inadequate because they do not live up to the standards we see on screen?

Made in Chelsea follows a group of rich twentysomethings residing and socialising amidst juvenile ‘he said, she said’ squabbles in the expensive London area of Chelsea and its wider vicinity. It epitomises the images of rich people who show no sign of having worked for their lifestyles or any intention of doing so. There’s also a somewhat incestuous circle of romantic liaisons within the same circle of friends. Had this been a programme about the working classes, they’d all surely be branded as highly promiscuous for sleeping their way through the friendship group and workshy for not having a job. Though with money and their social class, the cast of Made in Chelsea are free of judgement. Indeed, aside from seeking to show its audience how glamourous the lives of the cast are, it also exudes class prejudice. Yet it’s given a warm reception as it dumps on the lives of the very people who comprise its audience.

Being a celebrity is no longer defined as it once was. Airtime is freely given to those without a backstory or a talent and society seemingly endorses this. Nevertheless, it’s another erroneous measure of success that society is placing upon itself in putting such individuals on the pedestal once reserved for celebrities. For many, the Kardashians et al represent a lifestyle of success and glamour achieved through nothing but privilege and status. And as for celebrities in the traditional sense of the word, with trifling attributes such as talent, they’ve been relegated to make way for the illogical obsession of those who really don’t deserve celebrity status at all.

Mayweather vs Pacquiao II - the only fight that makes sense for Mayweather

With the exception of Manny Pacquiao, the consensus of his fight with Floyd Mayweather was that the judges were right to award Mayweather the W. Even with Pacquiao's seemingly retrospective complaint of a shoulder injury (which he failed to disclose beforehand), there wasn't any controversy surrounding the result. While I expected Pacquiao's work rate to be higher, I still predicted a chess-like victory for Mayweather (admittedly I thought it would be via a split rather than unanimous decision). Overall, it was a clear win for Mayweather, successfully taking him to 48-0.

So what now for Money? Mayweather has one more fight under his contract with Showtime after which he's claimed he'll retire. But of more interest is who his 49th opponent will be. And there is no one other than Pacquiao who makes sense for Mayweather to fight in what would be a money-spinner (no pun intended) rematch.

Mayweather initially seemed open to the idea of a rematch but he’s since gone back on that, claiming he has no interest on account of Pacquiao using his shoulder injury as an excuse for defeat and being a sore loser. Nevertheless, despite his utterances (which I suspect could just be hyperbole), a rematch is the sensible route for Mayweather.

Mayweather vs Pacquiao was billed as the fight of our generation. It was never going to be akin to the ferocious, epic battle that was Hagler vs Hearns – arguably the most exhilarating three rounds in contemporary boxing history. Rather, it was always going to be a defensive masterclass from Mayweather that would be appreciated by boxing purists but perhaps leaving more casual fans with their thirst for a legendary barnstormer unquenched. Though would that stop the rematch generating huge amounts of revenue? Absolutely not.

Commercially and for credibility, Mayweather has few options if he wants another huge fight. Imagine the press conference for a subsequent fight that isn't against Pacquiao. Mayweather's sat at the dais flanked by his father/trainer Floyd Mayweather Sr and Leonard Ellerbe. Then, the inevitable question from a journalist: "is this fight harder than your fight with Pacquiao?". Whatever his response, Mayweather will know the answer is no. Fighting a lesser opponent for his swansong fight provides little credibility for Mayweather and will merely add to the common assertion that he cherry picks his opponents to fight on his terms when and how it suits him. That isn't to say there aren't top draw opponents for Mayweather as there are. Nonetheless, if there's a risk they might take his '0', he'll undoubtedly give them a wide berth.

Amir Khan would be a big name opponent who Mayweather could KO with his reckless defence when drawn into a scrap and on account of him being notoriously chinny. Although his speed could cause Mayweather manageable yet unwanted problems. Despite being solidly legitimate opponents, Kell Brook and Keith Thurman aren't quite big enough names internationally and beyond boxing circles. And neither is another mooted fighter, Gennady Golovkin (it's a match-up I find highly unlikely). In the case of the latter, Mayweather would only take that fight if GGG dropped to a disadvantageous catch weight and even then GGG would be an incredibly dangerous opponent which we know Mayweather is averse to. Who else provides a fight that provides credibility and a reduced risk (in the knowledge that he’s already defeated him)? Only Pacquiao himself. Furthermore, he also provides the most commercially sensible option which is a huge factor for Mayweather.

Throughout his career, Mayweather has earned gargantuan amounts of money from his fights; none more so than his fight against Pacquiao. Mayweather has an often crass penchant for money that gave rise to his moniker ‘Money’ and his spending habits match that. After his return to the sport in 2009 following his ‘retirement’, it was rumoured that Mayweather had racked up huge gambling debts and by his own admission, he has a penchant to 'bet heavy' on sports. Like any gambler, he’s sustained some loses – and Mayweather’s gambling loses aren’t going to be insignificant with the way he gambles. After all, that wouldn’t be The Money Team way.

Based on his ostentatious and extravagant spending, and his gambling to boot, Mayweather needs to maximise his income before retirement. Beyond boxing, he has no apparent revenue streams that even come close to his fight income. Mayweather Promotions, like many vanity promotion outfits that went before them, may struggle to garner the same attention once Mayweather has retired. Despite his huge popularity amongst boxing fans, Mayweather’s history of domestic violence and his crass materialism doesn’t make him an obvious choice for big brand family friendly endorsements either. And given his spending habits, prudence seemingly isn’t an attribute he possesses either.

Mayweather needs to decelerate his haemorrhaging of cash to at least stave off financial problems in retirement. And if Mayweather’s final fight in his contract with Showtime will indeed be his final fight, he therefore needs an epic payday. Commercially, no fight can top his fight with Pacquiao.

Admittedly, a rematch wouldn’t bring much new to the table in terms of the fight and probably the result. Nor would it necessarily generate the same levels of interest given the first fight was a masterclass rather than a tear-up. But any other fight for both Mayweather and Pacquiao would be a retrograde step in terms of opponent and revenue.

Pacquiao recently had his surgery for his shoulder injury and is reported to be out of the ring until mid-2016. By then, he will not have fought for the best part of a year and may want a warm up fight to lose any ring rust. That’d mean a fight with Mayweather might not be for up to 18 months and Mayweather may not be willing to wait that long. However, if Mayweather fights on, a rematch with Pacquiao is the fight that makes the most sense before he finally hangs up his gloves.

How did that happen and what next? A reflection on the general election result

In a result that few, if any, foresaw, the Conservatives won the 2015 general election with a majority of 12 seats. David Cameron will now remain as Prime Minister and form a Conservative government, free of constraints and cabinet ministers from a coalition partner. It’s a result that even Cameron would not have envisaged prior to the exit polls.

When the exit polls suggested a Conservative majority was possible, I was initially incredulous – so was Lord Ashdown. Although as the night progressed, what I, the pollsters and others had predicted of a hung parliament became less and less likely. By the morning, it become apparent that the Conservatives would form a government with a majority.

Labour took a drubbing in Scotland and elsewhere their successes were modest. However, it was the Liberal Democrats who took an absolute shellacking with high profile scalps such as Vince Cable. Given their reneging on key policies such as the increase of tuition fees, and their alliance in what initially seemed an unnatural coalition partner with the Conservatives, the opprobrium they received was always likely to manifest itself in the election result. Consequently, they have effectively been decimated in the British political landscape. As a result, we now have a government void of any representation from the centre-left and the equality and fairness that it can espouse.

I am buried in disappointment with the result. Not because Labour did not win a majority or were unable to form a coalition. Or even because I had to see Gideon’s smug face lined with glee at the prospect of making the rich richer and the poor even poorer. Instead, my disappointment is because of what a Conservative government represents for the next five years. Five years of a rejection of egalitarianism in favour of the interests of the elite. Five years of the financial sector being brazenly allowed to thrive in making gargantuan profits without any ethics and with aggressive tax avoidance (and in some cases probably tax evasion) as they circumvent or merely ignore existing regulation and compliance. After all, they are effectively the paymasters of the Conservative Party. Five years of continued and heightened demonisation of the working class, public sector and those in receipt of welfare out of need. Five years of wealth being further concentrated in the hands of the privileged few while food banks continue to be a regrettable feature of the United Kingdom in the twenty-first century.

These are not five years that will be built on fairness and equality or compassion and preservation of valuable public services. Yet one can only assume that is what those who voted for the Conservatives sought. Needless to say, this is why my disappointment and disillusionment is extended to the British electorate who voted Tory but also to those who succumbed to their apathy and declined to vote. Though when it came to the Labour Party being deemed an alternative to the Conservatives, perhaps the writing was always on the wall.

The Labour Party led by Ed Milliband simply weren’t seen as a credible party of government with a credible leader as potential prime minister. In a recent post I wrote of the opportunity for Labour to present itself as such being there to be seized yet they had failed to do so for the past five years in opposition. And I was seemingly correct. The electorate didn’t see Labour as worthy of their vote. So much so that many felt the Conservatives, with all their history, were a safer bet. It shows what a low opinion many of electorate actually had of Labour before casting their vote. And that is a painful reality that the Labour Party needs to accept and consider as it undertakes some soul-searching and seeks to rebuild and elect a new leader following Ed Milliband’s resignation.

The electorate, as in any democracy, is of course responsible for the result. And the electorate in this election simply hasn’t held the views I and others thought it might do after five years of austerity. Those five years may just have been a glimpse of what the Conservatives have in store for us now that they have a majority.

From the outset of the previous Parliament, the Conservatives have preached their vilification of the public sector, the working class and lambasted the least fortunate for their reliance on the state and their unfortunate circumstances that typically aren’t by choice. They’ve also told anyone who will listen that the financial crisis, and anything else from the death of Dumbledore to the unattainability of world peace, was caused by the previous Labour government.

To think the financial crisis was caused by the Labour Party is idiotic and uninformed. Only an ignorant fool would believe that and blindly accept it from the right wing media or from equally ill-advised individuals around them. But it’s the adoption of the Conservative Party’s rhetoric of besmirching and often ridiculing the most vulnerable that is telling. It suggests a lack of compassion and empathy that has sadly risen to the surface as a feature of contemporary Britain. Perhaps the election result worryingly tells us more about British society and attitudes than the state of British politics.

It’s not clear if the electorate didn’t want an alternative from the Conservative Party’s message of austerity or if they simply didn’t recognise that the Labour Party was offering one. I suspect it was a case of both. In the instance of the former, I wrote about society’s disinclination to revolt due to jadedness and perhaps this is another example of this being the case. Conversely, a Conservative government, with their brand of harsh austerity and a disregard for everyone but the most privileged may just bring about the inspired response that is needed. Indeed, hopefully the Bullingdon boys shan’t have the last laugh at our expense.

History has shown us what Conservative governments present. Privatisation, disdain for public services, ideologically driven and unwieldy education policy that isn’t to the betterment of children, polarised wealth and a disregard for those in need (not want) of welfare are just some of the hallmarks of the Conservatives. Just how many we shall see over the course of the parliament remains to be seen. They have a slim majority which could hamper their efforts in some instances but they’ll certainly do their best in shaping the country to benefit the privileged few.

As for those who don’t comprise the privileged demographic that benefit from Conservative policies but nonetheless felt the Conservatives were the party for them, they may well soon find that their support will not be reciprocated as they had hoped.