Pet Shop Boys Community

Patrick Bateman wrote: Tue 16 Dec 2025, 3:03 amDon't vote for Corbyn though!

“When they write the history of the Tory administration from 2010 to 2024, it will go down as one of the worst in history. Because when you look at what we’ve gone through – for what reason, really? – it’s led us to Brexit, the whole Covid thing, the gap between rich and poor.” The problem with Labour, he says, “is there’s always a row going on – ‘it’s not left enough’, ‘they’ve got to get voted in’. In my opinion, the triumph of Jeremy Corbyn was to get Boris Johnson elected. When you’re of my generation, it just seemed weird, like you were attempting to go back to the politics of the 1970s, whereas what you want to do is take the socialist agenda in a way that leads you forward into a bright future.”

Kneejerk media illiteracy is certainly a thing, though.

NotInvisible wrote: Tue 16 Dec 2025, 3:31 am

markus wrote: Tue 16 Dec 2025, 3:15 amMy point is quite the opposite to what you're hearing: they're more powerful and influential being intellectuals both inside and outside the political arena. Being "political" means they leave ruling the world up to the politicians. Being intellectuals instead they affect peoples core values and help shape the world, they control even the politicans from above.

I'm going to assume this is a translation issue, because they quite clearly write politically.

You think in a chessboard mindset, an either or mentality. The political world is constructed like that, dividing all things in two and then setting them against each other, left or right, red and blue. Not letting that thinking control you puts you above the whole system, that's where you find Neil trolling with his writing machine.

wtf lol

NotInvisible wrote: Tue 16 Dec 2025, 3:34 am
“When they write the history of the Tory administration from 2010 to 2024, it will go down as one of the worst in history. Because when you look at what we’ve gone through – for what reason, really? – it’s led us to Brexit, the whole Covid thing, the gap between rich and poor.” The problem with Labour, he says, “is there’s always a row going on – ‘it’s not left enough’, ‘they’ve got to get voted in’. In my opinion, the triumph of Jeremy Corbyn was to get Boris Johnson elected. When you’re of my generation, it just seemed weird, like you were attempting to go back to the politics of the 1970s, whereas what you want to do is take the socialist agenda in a way that leads you forward into a bright future.”

Kneejerk media illiteracy is certainly a thing, though.

So Neil's a socialist now, is he?

Media illiteracy doesn't mean not having read specific interviews.

That quote starts off sounding radical but ends up...well, here and now, with a Labour govt pursuing a far-right agenda. It wasn't Corbyn that fought to get Boris Johnson elected. It was Peter Mandelson, Morgan McSweeney, Tony Blair and Keir Starmer. Look it up. They fought to make sure Labour would lose, and some of them have been completely open about having done so. Mandelson even boasted that he worked hard all day every day to make sure Labour would lose. From that quote, I suspect that Tennant also wanted them to.

Btw, King's Cross was 40 years ago, a paen to the victims of Thatcherism, but his comments about Corbyn's agenda involving a return to the 70s (he clearly hadn't glanced at the manifesto) can be seen as a refusal to reverse the Thatcherite project. Addressing the growing gap between rich and poor would involve challenging the neoliberal policies that create such inequalities. That's what Corbynism, for all its imperfections, aimed to do. 'What are we going to do about the rich?'...well, nothing, apparently. Which is very handy if, like Neil, you do happen to be extremely wealthy.

richwill wrote: Tue 16 Dec 2025, 7:32 am Media illiteracy doesn't mean not having read specific interviews.

That quote starts off sounding radical but ends up...well, here and now, with a Labour govt pursuing a far-right agenda. It wasn't Corbyn that fought to get Boris Johnson elected. It was Peter Mandelson, Morgan McSweeney, Tony Blair and Keir Starmer. Look it up. They fought to make sure Labour would lose, and some of them have been completely open about having done so. Mandelson even boasted that he worked hard all day every day to make sure Labour would lose. From that quote, I suspect that Tennant also wanted them to.

Yes. Stephen Fry is often cited as a stupid person's idea of a clever person and Neil is similar. Great pop lyricist and Smash Hits! journalist but that's it. That quote does exactly what you say and he is very much a liberal centrist who opposed Thatcher but is reluctant to roll back Thatcherism.

It's not stupidity why Neil acts the way he does, he’s a victim of the useless monstrosity that is the political system and how little it ever does for ordinary people. He has witnessed how much hard work it took just to be acknowledged as a human being, and the endless fight against homophobia.

The real political views of Pet Shop Boys are in songs like “What Keeps Mankind Alive?” and lines such as “you wanna live in this lousy world” from “Somewhere.” Neil simply refuses to lower himself to the political playing field by taking part in it seriously.

Well, neither of those lines were written by Neil.

What do you mean by "taking part in it seriously"? They have always written political songs, and been clear about their political views. Do you just mean they don't align with a political party or movement? Because politics isn't just about parties and campaign groups.

Spittingcat wrote: Tue 16 Dec 2025, 11:11 am Well, neither of those lines were written by Neil.

What do you mean by "taking part in it seriously"? They have always written political songs, and been clear about their political views. Do you just mean they don't align with a political party or movement? Because politics isn't just about parties and campaign groups.

I’ve seen what real political engagement looks like in this very forum, so by definition that is being political. I don’t think discussions between Neil and Chris sound anything like that.

Politics has never catered to their needs, and it has never been the only way to have influence in the world. They’ve done what they could in other ways to push for change, and they may have achieved much more precisely because they chose that path.

That's really not an answer. You seem to have a very arbitrary idea of what "real political engagement" means, considering the band have written political songs, made political statements, been involved in political discussions, answered political questions, supported political causes, appeared at political events... etc. That they are not "only political" does not mean they have not been and continue to be political. No one is "only political" anyway, especial artists. Even someone like Billy Bragg will write amazing love songs without a political message.

I’d call it social commentary, not politics. It’s really nothing more than that. Their commitment was never to UK party politics, and if you judge them by those standards, their achievements there are very marginal and weak.

If they believed the politicians were deserving of their full trust and the system works like it should, they'd be Erasure.

I think the issue is that some people want them to be more radical, more militant. They're never going to be that. PSB's politics are very much about changing things within democratic parameters. They're reformists, not revolutionaries. They recognise that meaningful change is incremental, and they don't want to throw any babies out with the bathwater. If you want thick morons spouting empty-headed political slogans (while laughing all the way to the bank) other bands are available.

markus wrote: Tue 16 Dec 2025, 3:42 amYou think in a chessboard mindset, an either or mentality.

No, I just understand that pretty much everything is political, and don't have any interest in semantic ostrich games.

Patrick Bateman wrote: Tue 16 Dec 2025, 6:12 amSo Neil's a socialist now, is he?

What was I saying about media illiteracy?

richwill wrote: Tue 16 Dec 2025, 7:32 am Media illiteracy doesn't mean not having read specific interviews.

That quote starts off sounding radical but ends up...well, here and now, with a Labour govt pursuing a far-right agenda. It wasn't Corbyn that fought to get Boris Johnson elected. It was Peter Mandelson, Morgan McSweeney, Tony Blair and Keir Starmer. Look it up. They fought to make sure Labour would lose, and some of them have been completely open about having done so. Mandelson even boasted that he worked hard all day every day to make sure Labour would lose. From that quote, I suspect that Tennant also wanted them to.

You're right, it doesn't mean not having read specific interviews. It means coming to the conclusion you do here. Or for example:

richwill wrote: Tue 16 Dec 2025, 8:30 am'What are we going to do about the rich?'...well, nothing, apparently. Which is very handy if, like Neil, you do happen to be extremely wealthy.

This is utterly moronic - bizarre both to assume that Neil should have a solution despite identifying the (several) problem(s) or to assume that people like Neil are the problem. You're not buying off politicians when your bank balance is $14 million. What's that quote - rich people don't think people like Neil are rich. He doesn't "put a bank inside a car, inside a plane, inside a boat" as Robbie sings about the oligarchy.

Patrick Bateman wrote: Tue 16 Dec 2025, 8:46 amYes. Stephen Fry is often cited as a stupid person's idea of a clever person and Neil is similar.

I don't think Neil's a towering intellect per se but this kind of comment is basically Dunning-Kruger in action. Fry is a stupid person's idea of a stupid person's idea of a clever person.

markus wrote: Tue 16 Dec 2025, 10:22 amThe real political views of Pet Shop Boys are in songs like “What Keeps Mankind Alive?” and lines such as “you wanna live in this lousy world” from “Somewhere.” Neil simply refuses to lower himself to the political playing field by taking part in it seriously.

Neil didn't write those lyrics, of course. He did, meanwhile, write To Step Aside:

By the cathedral, into the sun
Pilgrims are singing, their journey done
I look at my short life and think
Of all the champagne that I drink
With all the faces that I know
And how much further can one go?
And if I decide to step aside
I will try to reply to the feelings I hide

I look from my window down to the square
At workers still queuing patiently there
For market forces to provide
What history's so far denied
For a different kind of fate
Than to labour long and always wait

...which you will no doubt pretend isn't political.

markus wrote: Tue 16 Dec 2025, 11:31 amThey’ve done what they could in other ways to push for change

This forum needs a facepalm emoji. That is political action!

markus wrote: Tue 16 Dec 2025, 2:34 pmI’d call it social commentary, not politics.

Social commentary is political speech, expressing a political perspective.

You''ve re-invented dogmatic bigotism now applied to the political world. No wait, isn't it called fascism?