I don’t believe there is no desire for adventure, no ambition, no courage, no politics, no spirituality, in our theatre. We must acknowledge that no art form can live with inertia; like everything else in life the theatre has to evolve.. Billy Bragg has been in fine voice recently. Occupying the thoughtful-celebrity spot on the Any Questions? panel, he spoke out boldly on the various crises that beset rural communities. He expressed sympathy to farmers and the difficulties in which they now find themselves

Billy Bragg has been in fine voice recently. Occupying the thoughtful-celebrity spot on the Any Questions? panel, he spoke out boldly on the various crises that beset rural communities. He expressed sympathy to farmers and the difficulties in which they now find themselves.
But, he added, he would be much more prepared to support government action and aid if those who lived in the country gave up their ridiculous opposition to the will of the majority, which has decreed that hunting with dogs should be banned.The programme’s West Country audience seemed a little stunned by this lordly pronouncement which, with cunning worthy of a politician, disguised its bullying message in the clothes of reasonableness, but I imagine it reflected the views of many urban and suburban listeners.

It is time, they believe, for country people to modernise, bring their attitudes into line with people like them. Otherwise, rural communities could only blame themselves if they were abandoned.A tiny advantage of a crisis like today’s is that it helps one to see wider issues more clearly. Bragg’s politics have always been refreshingly old Labour, representing a bracing, if sentimental, view of England and its working people. But such is the gaping divide between town and country that he now finds himself in very peculiar company indeed.In a Newsnight debate this week, a besuited economist from something called the Cranfield School of Management – as far from the Bragg world-view as can be imagined – plumply offered a businessman’s view of the foot-and-mouth epidemic. Its significance was hugely exaggerated, he seemed to be arguing.

The country’s larger agribusinesses would survive and, as for the rest, they were uneconomical, anyway; 48 per cent of all farms were what he termed “hobby farms” – presumably a reference to the fact that many who work on the land now have to take outside jobs to survive.These attitudes, which cross the political spectrum, are revealing in a way that the hunting debate never was. Those on the Bragg side of the debate, who take a briskly prescriptive view to the countryside, stand shoulder to shoulder with hard-eyed business types who put the interests of supermarkets before any tiresome environmental, social or aesthetic concerns.One sees the landscape developing into a well-ordered and smoothly run theme park that ramblers from Hampstead can safely visit. The other will happily see the countryside’s uneconomic aspects – its hedgerows, ponds and unprofitably small meadows – destroyed to make way for a viable, food-producing factory stretching across the land.Reaction to the crisis away from large towns has been intriguingly different, proving that, at times like this, country people have a sense of community that sneering metropolitans cannot begin to understand. Within hours of the foot-and-mouth epidemic being confirmed, the Countryside Alliance postponed the march that has been the focus of their efforts for the past 12 months. The horse-racing industry, without any prompting from government, effectively closed down at huge financial loss.

In all rural areas, there has been none of the bossy attitudinising evident elsewhere, but a powerful sense that the only way to defeat a crisis of this type is to act together.It would probably be facile, if not entirely inaccurate, to say that those who live in the countryside, who are in touch with the seasons and work with animals, have a more secure idea of neighbourliness and are generally more generous than town-dwellers. On the other hand, it is worth asking a simple, basic question. Would you prefer them to be in charge of the rural landscape – or those who this week are carping and criticising from the sidelines?terblacker aol
More from Terence Blacker. Is the Iron Chancellor getting metal fatigue? He sounds as though his underpinnings are giving out A rod has been thrown The clutch is jumping. This is clear from yesterday’s series of rhetorical questions entitled: What Have We Achieved?

Is the Iron Chancellor getting metal fatigue? He sounds as though his underpinnings are giving out A rod has been thrown The clutch is jumping. This is clear from yesterday’s series of rhetorical questions entitled: What Have We Achieved?
“What have we achieved?” he asked the House. “What have we achieved? What? What have we achieved? What have we achieved? What?” One achievement was to have spent less than the Tories on health, education and pensions.

You might have thought a Tory would have pointed that out, but it fell to nice young Simon Hughes from the Lib Dems.Michael Portillo, the chancellor’s shadow, was less charitable. Absolutely no achievements at all, he said, not even in employment It was a bold idea, but he rather carried it off Excuse the note of surprise in the remark. It’s almost as if Mr Portillo were suddenly making an effort, actually trying, for once, not to slump around the front bench like a vacuum pack of pork livers.Yes, it was almost as if, after four fleeting years, Mr Portillo had discovered how the chancellor treats hostile questions, and then deduced a way to react And people say the Tories are no good at opposition. “Isn’t it the truth,” Mr Portillo asked, “that the rate of unemployment is falling more slowly than it was under the last government?” Would the chancellor admit that “there were more jobs created in the last three years of the Conservative government than in the first three years of this government?”The answer to that factual question was no! Absolutely not! No way! Of course I’m not going to admit that!Or, in other words, yes.Mr Brown’s actual response went: “If the shadow Chancellor denies the existence of rising employment and falling unemployment the country are no longer going to listen to him.”As we see, this is very far from what was being suggested, but instead of making weary “What A Plonker” faces to his colleagues, Mr Portillo returned two and three times to his central fact, saying “The Chancellor is unable to deny what I say.”And for once, it worked. If youth unemployment had been falling faster under the Tories’ last three years, then the £5bn New Deal has been a Horlicks.As a supine, power-worshipper, I yield to no one in my admiration of Gordon Brown, but – or so – the Sketch must warn him, he’s been rumbled. If Mr Portillo is going to ask questions that sound as if they need an answer, Mr Brown and his more stupid colleagues must adjust their game plan.