The report on Newsnight yesterday about the Red Road estate in Glasgow was fascinating - but far too short.

One of them has committed perjury

Watching Newsnight, at the Leveson enquiry Rupert Murdoch and Gordon Brown have both made statements on oath that contradict each other.

One of them has committed perjury and deserves to go to gaol for ten years (the average sentence for this crime).

A court should now summon them both to stand trial together and the court then decide which of them is telling the truth.

This must happen.

I am currently watching Usher live http://www.youtube.com/user/UsherVEVO/unstaged?feature=inp-lt-UKG

Paloma Faith's "chav" accent

Above:  complaints about the BBC's coverage of the Diamond Jubilee event last Sunday are reported to be influencing the choice of the next Director General of the media organisation.  Different parts of the BBC are reported to be briefing against each other.  It is possible that the political outlook of the future Director General (whether left-leaning or right-leaning) will depend on his/her attitude to spoof "sick bags".

Above:  the main focus of the complaints seems to have been the Ferne Cotton interview of singer Paloma Faith.  Ferne Cotton and Paloma Faith are seen examining various odd-ball items of kitsch, including what appear to be some stuff-the-Jubilee "sick bags".  It is a relatively harmless piece, especially as demonstrators against the Jubilee only amounted to "dozens" (report in the left-wing Guardian newspaper) and the anti-Jubilee satire in this little sequence is extremely mild.

It seems particularly unfair on Paloma Faith as presumably she is a royalist and appears to have dressed-up to feature as a guest on the BBC's Diamond Jubilee broadcast.  Is it possible that prejudice against the "sick-bag" item is in part generated by hatred of Paloma Faith's "chav" Hackney accent (this is not to denigrate the accent - I spoke with a Kentish Town accent myself until I went to university and realised I would get nowhere in life until I changed).  Criticism of the BBC's Diamond Jubilee coverage has been led by fruity-voiced Oxbridge-educated inverted snob Stephen Fry (there is nothing lefties hate so much as working-class support for the monarchy).

You can see the sick-bag interview: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ImoDL5DkAWM

Above:  you might ask who is Paloma Faith?  Although she has had modest success since her debut in 2009 she has only really begun to have an impact on popular consciousness since the release of her single Picking Up the Pieces on 18th May (last month).  The video for the song was directed by Emil Nava and is already regarded as a significant art work. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ijel4Vcqd9g

Above:  the video, which was filmed at West Wycombe Park, is wonderfully subtle and crammed with references, influences and counter-points (Twin Peaks, 2046, The Shining, David Lynch etc).  These two maids for instance.  They could have come out of the 1968 BBC ghost drama Whistle and I'll Come to You or the photography of Bill Brandt.

Above:  Whistle and I'll Come to You is an adaption of a MR James ghost story.  The film is notable for the sense of menace conveyed through the tiny details and routines of an old-fashioned hotel in the country.  Although nothing is ever portrayed explicitly, the terror is both real and convincing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DyMAqI5qyi0

Above:  the photography of Bill Brandt is internationally acclaimed, and although born in Germany he is perhaps the most accomplished British photographer of the 20th century.  His status as an outsider probably allowed him to see British society in ways not ordinarily perceived.  His social realist images are remarkable.

A "renting way of life"

Front page article in today's Observer by Toby Helm and Tegan Rogers examining a report on housing carried out by Cambridge University for the Resolution Foundation.  The mildly sensational way in which the newspaper reports the study presumably indicates that they think a "renting way of life" a deleterious development and that they would prefer a property-owning democracy.  I thought we had too much national capital tied up in property ownership?

The article's emphasis upon exploitative landlords is also sensationalist and belies the truth.  Obviously there are bad landlords who need to be legally admonished, but they are a minority (as are bad tenants).  The vast majority of landlords want stable long-term lettings and are prepared to invest in rental properties to achieve that - no normal landlord would want the hassle of evictions and finding new tenants.

However I think there should be more regulation of lettings agents, and also perhaps a legal requirement for properties to be only available via regulated lettings agents.

Commenting on the article Owen Jones (a writer for the Independent, although this was on his Twitter account) called for more social housing.  This is not practical while "emergency cases" can leap-frog the social housing waiting lists.  The construction of social housing can only resume when taxpayers support the concept of council housing - and this will only be when most taxpayers see the benefits applied to their extended families and acquaintances rather than a class of social tenants chosen on the highly-politicised basis of "need".

Owen Jones as a single person without children would probably have to wait his entire life on a council waiting list without being allocated social housing, and even if by some fluke a property did get offered to him it would not be the "high quality" accommodation he is calling for.

Zoffany exhibition at the Royal Academy

Friday afternoon I went to see the Zoffany exhibition at the Royal Academy.  The show closes today, so I only just managed to see it.  Previously to the Royal Academy the exhibition had been at the Yale Center (Centre) of British Art in America.

It was a fabulous show, not just for the number and quality of the paintings but also for the insights Zoffany gives you on how to look at the world.  Great art is all about noticing the details that illuminate the central narrative.  Society Observed not only told you how Zoffany looked at 18th century society, it also gave you a template on how to look at society today.

Excellent 300-page guidebook.

Paintings I particularly liked (from notes I made as I went round):

David and Goliath - the severed head of Goliath looks alive, a baleful eye watching the exhibition-goers.


Venus Marina - in the middle of all the knowing titillation is the erotic delicacy of a red twig of coral.


Allegory of Time Clipping the Wings of Love.

Mr and Mrs Garrick by the Shakespeare Temple at Hampton - serene and lovely Thames with a boatload of hay.

A porter with a hare - the hare is magnificent.


The Dutton family - I could look at this painting for hours, there is so much truth and life in the characters, the expressions are so compelling.

The Tribuna of the Uffizi - you might think an over-familiar work like this would seem banal, but the impact of the original artwork is tremendous, especially his depiction of Raphael's St John the Baptist.


Archduke Francis - the pale blue eyes are both fascinating and unsettling.

The Impey Family - indifferent to the Indian exoticism around them.


The Auriol and Dashwood Families - this tells you everything you need to know about the English abroad.

Many people away - the past week at work

Monday

Jubilee holiday - big family dinner (roast lamb); several bottles of Gigondas 2001 and two Sauternes 1996; the afternoon passed in an alcoholic haze.

Tuesday

Jubilee holiday - in the evening there was live music and a sing-song on the village playing field (half a mile away but I could see and hear it perfectly from the house).  I went over for the lighting of the beacon.  Everyone very happy and inebriated.

Wednesday

Arriving at the office I sent briefings by e-mail to the Admin team although they sit only a few feet away (if I just ask them to do things they often forget).

Many people away this week, so that the offices were quiet.

Printing a new briefing paper has gone wrong and I requested a meeting with the printer.  They asked me to their premises to show me the state of the documents already printed, and when I got there I found they had arranged a lunch for me - sandwiches and orange juice.  They were very apologetic and anxious to try to rebuild their reputation (I was polite to them but also cool, and not at all keen to give them any more work).

Thursday

All I really did today was reply to e-mails.

Friday

At the station this morning I met Tim Watts (who is Development Manager for the Institute) and we caught a train to London.  Tim Watts is in his late twenties, orange hair, face covered in pale freckles.  All he seems to want to talk about are his young children (both toddlers) so it was a boring hour and a half.

We arrived in London and made our way to Head Office.  Everyone warns that the place is a nest of vipers, even people who work there.  Institute Director Vijay Singh had told Tim and myself to be very careful about who we talked to and what we revealed about the Institute's work.

Having been to Head Office several times I am beginning to appreciate the culture of the place, in particular the ritualistic kafkaesque way in which nothing is ever done.

We were taken to a meeting room in the basement, a bare room with utilitarian tables and chairs and on one wall two large oil paintings in elaborate gilt frames - former panjandrums in the organisation, presumably relegated to this room because their ideas have fallen from favour.

Kevin B and James T met us.  They are researchers who work for Alec Nussbaum (who is supposedly scheming to take over the Institute and eject Vijay Singh - just as Vijay Singh is supposed to be scheming to take over the Nussbaum empire at Head Office).  They were both vapid and ineffectual.

The meeting ended with no definite decisions being made and no real outcomes being decided upon.

I took the afternoon as holiday and stayed in London while Tim W returned to the office.

The subject deserves more serious analysis

Yesterday's Newsnight also had one of Steve Smith's quirky-humourous items.  Sometimes they work, sometimes they don't.  Last night he was looking at how the Diamond Jubilee has been reported around the world, concentrating on satirical coverage rather than the ubiquitous adulation (the satire was a bit thin, and he was reduced to quoting Russian state propaganda from the RT channel - also known as SMERSH TV).

The subject deserves more serious analysis than a Steve Smith slot.

The reaction of people throughout the world to the Diamond Jubilee was more than just unthinking patriotism, royalist enthusiasm, or clever PR by an office in the Royal Household.  Even Barak Obama felt obliged to make an effusive video tribute and post it (perhaps a little belatedly) on the White House website - and he is not someone who would fall for PR spin or feel any affinity with "Britishness".  So what can politicians learn from the four-day Jubilee event?

I think the main message to emerge from the statements of ordinary people is the importance of longevity and permanence.  The near-universal exaltation (I could almost write adoration) of the British monarch and the institution of the British monarchy represents a subconscious longing for stability.  People are tired of uncontrolable economic turmoil, continuous "reform" of state provisions (including Blair's fatuous constitutional reforms), endless "globalised" lecturing about becoming more competitive, unstoppable expansion and rebuilding of towns and cities, incessant flows of migrants, eternal Orwellian wars etc.

You might dismiss this as just backward-looking conservativism (small "c").

But I think the message is plain for those willing to see it.

People want institutions that don't change from decade to decade, represent qualities of high-minded service and duty, do not contain corrupt individuals, do not become partisan, are not monetised, have a very long-term outlook.

So misleading as to count as an untruth

On Newsnight yesterday Menzies Campbell MP said that the European Union had been the basis of "stability" in Europe since the Second World War.

This is a misleading statement - so misleading as to count as an untruth.

NATO has been the basis of stability in Europe.

When peace in Europe was challenged by the breakup of Yugoslavia the European Union failed lamentably to do anything other than dithering and hand-wringing of the most negligent kind.

It was NATO that had to sort the mess out.

The vox populi may have been contrived

There is a collection of vox populi assembled by Owen Jones and published on the Independent website:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/view-from-n17-i-do-respect-the-queen-but-what-has-she-really-done-for-the-people-7818044.html

The impression given by these quotes is that the young people of Tottenham are either indifferent or hostile to the monarchy.

There is no mention on the Independent webpage that the vox populi may have been contrived.

However on the Owen Jones Twitter page is the tweet:

This suggests that the people interviewed were not a random selection of passers-by.

Was there any need for Owen Jones to have gone to McDonalds in Tottenham if all he wanted was a few of his Twitter followers who agreed with him?

Obviously this sort of skewed "survey" goes on all the time. 

But seldom is it so blatant.

And I thought the Independent was a reasonably reputable organisation.

Anti-royalist Owen Jones has just appeared on Channel 4 News

Independent columnist and anti-royalist Owen Jones has just appeared on Channel 4 News in a badly managed (several times everyone talking at once) discussion on the validity of the monarchy.

Given the large number of royalty-themed advertisements carried in the Independent this week presumably he will experience a crisis of conscience about whether he can accept his Independent salary for this month?

Above: - ad on page 28 of the Independent - many other examples in the Independent, Observer and Guardian over the last few days.

David Starkey broke down in tears while being interviewed on live television

Who would have thought it!

Ferocious, hard-as-nails academic David Starkey broke down in tears while being interviewed on live television.

(I think this was on the ITN coverage of the Diamond Jubilee).

Mention in today's Independent of Stephen Fry's attack on the BBC's coverage of the Diamond Jubilee pageant.

This is surprising as Stephen Fry is normally a lickspittle apologist for the BBC.

Personally I thought the coverage was OK.

Update Tuesday 5th June

Above:  Stephen Fry jeered at in today's Independent in an article by David Thomas about national treasures. 

I knew he would not be allowed to criticise the BBC.

"Dozens"

The Guardian newspaper on its website reports a demonstration against the monarchy in which "dozens" of protesters waved placards.

Use of the word "dozens" presumably means the protesters were less than a hundred.

This is such a tiny proportion of the people lining the Thames this afternoon that statistically the demonstration did not take place in any meaningful way.

In which case we should question the Guardian's decision to run it as a news story.

Are they not concerned at the Guardian that they may look just a little bit silly?

Does it not undermine their claim to be taken seriously as a news organisation?

If the demonstration had mustered a thousand or so it might just rate as a counter-point to the huge crowds who stood for hours in the rain to cheer the Royal Family.

But "dozens"?

I was interested in the Henry Chu article in the LA Times (Henry Chu is a regular contributor to Dateline London).

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-britain-queen-jubilee-20120602,0,1915500.story

Interesting article by  Matthew Paris in today's (2nd June) Times.

"Things aren’t all that brilliant, no; but there is a merciful absence of crisis."

As Elizabeth Bowen said:  there are worse things in life than choosing safety. 


Edited later - I wrote the original draft when I was drunk.

Not sure how much bloggin I will be able to do over the Jubilee holiday.

It depends how sober I am .

It has taken ages (in my inebriated state) to do the last post and I am conscious that it is a very poor effort.

I can never really relax - the past week at work

Monday

I awoke at 5.30 and could not get back to sleep - it was an extremely hot night although when I finally got up at 7am the morning felt chilly.

During the morning I wrote my report for the management meeting due to be held at 2pm, working through lunch and only just managing to get it done in time.

At the meeting Director Vijay Singh praised the publication (The Publication) in his opening remarks.

Then Stan D (Manager of the Institute's Library) apologised to me for remarks he had made about my handling of the publication process.  I was astonished by this.  Stan D has not said a friendly word to me since I have arrived at the Institute.

When I got home I read The Independent.

 

Tuesday

A day off because of various appointments.

But I also did a lot of work, logging onto my work e-mails and proof reading a document.

In this new job I am conscious that I can never really relax.

Wednesday

A meeting with Vijay Singh during the morning to discuss problems with the publication.  I was heavily criticised.  Perhaps the criticisms were valid.

The rest of the day passed in a mix of hurried projects.

Liaison with a satellite TV channel.

Thursday

During the morning I drafted a questionnaire.

Some good PR concerning the publication.  It is already making an impact.  So much of our work is "below the radar" that it is nice to have something that people are talking about.

Friday

It hardly felt like Friday, I suppose because I had Tuesday off.

How cold it has suddenly become.

When I got to work temp Kyla made me a cup of coffee.

Most of the morning spent preparing a presentation on new policy development.

A big party of visitors from Head Office arrived on a day-long familiarisation with the Institute.  They had basically invited themselves down.  I gave them my new presentation on new policy development - it was a good rehearsal for me.

The Review Show (BBC2) this evening

An unexpected outburst at the end of The Review Show (BBC2) this evening when all three cultural pundits (Paul Morley, art historian James Fox and Natalie Haynes ) railed against the Diamond Jubilee.

You could see that the Jubilee celebrations was really getting to them.

And it occurred to me that one of the beneficial functions of the British monarchy is to irritate the life out of po-faced self-important intellectual wind-bags.

According to the Investors Chronicle

Economies with monarchies outperform republics according to the Investors Chronicle.

I have to admit I have not read the article.

But it's an interesting idea.

News on Sky which included a discussion about the monarchy

During a rushed lunch I watched the news on Sky which included a discussion about the monarchy.

Polly Toynbee was saying that social mobility in the United Kingdom is held back by the symbolism of the monarchy.

No acknowledgement that Polly Toynbee only has a position as a commentator because she is her father's daughter, and grandfather's grand-daughter.

And how did she get into St Anne's College Oxford with only one A-level if the family name did not magically open doors?

Almost all the complaints about "undeserved" privilege Polly Toynbee makes about the Royal Family in her Guardian article today (which I have skim read on the web - I will read it more carefully tonight) could be made about the Toynbee family.

But double standards and double speak are not really the issue.

We are all human and we are all hypocrites because to be human includes being hypocritical to a greater or lesser extent.

To understand the hostility of the "left" towards the Royal Family we need to understand that socialism is a totalitarian system encompassing every single facet of life (cradle to grave).  No institution, however popular, can survive socialist scrutiny unless it subscribes to socialist ideals.  Therefore ultimately there is no place in socialism for monarchy, religion, private capital, private property, even distinction by merit or individual expression.

This is one of the great dividing lines in British politics - Socialism as a philosophical system depends entirely on logic; Conservatism and Liberalism both rely on common sense.

Therefore logic tells us an hereditary monarchy is indefensible whereas common sense tells us it works (and works superbly well).

That is why on the approach to the Jubilee holiday (2nd to 5th June) this blog is enthusiastically royalist, the Jubilee bells are metaphorically ringing, and the Jubilee beacons are being metaphorically lit up.

We should not forget who started it

I am at work and so not able to listen to this discussion on 5 Live, but I would be interested to know the reasons why Independent columnist Owen Jones thinks private sector pensions are currently lower than public sector ones.

The reverse was the case in the 1990s - British private sector pensions had a good reputation around the world and the United Kingdom was cited as one of the few western nations to get their long-term pension provision on a sound footing.

This changed with the Gordon Brown on-going tax raids on private pensions.  He seems to have made a cynical decision that there were relatively few votes for New Labour among people relying on private pension funds.  And so people with private pensions became a target and the sector was decimated.

Now the Coalition seems to have decided that there are few votes for them among public sector workers and so they can safely target them for cuts without any electoral repercussions.

Both strategies are reprehensible, but we should not forget who started it.

For the Labour party to complain about Coalition attacks on the public sector is a bit like the city of Leipzig complaining about Bomber Harris.

David Cameron’s legacy

Interesting discussion on the Today programme this morning between James Naughtie, Lord Falconer and Lord Fowler discussing the Leveson enquiry.


Recent Prime Minister’s have become obsessed with their “legacy” as if they can decide in advance what posterity will decide about them.

In reality there can be no guarantee of a good reputation in history. Tony Blair’s legacy is already decided as British involvement in the Iraq war. John Major and Gordon Brown both have legacies of catastrophic economic failure and incompetence.

David Cameron’s legacy may well be the ending of the 30-year Murdoch hegemony over the British political process.

Perhaps he intended this, perhaps he didn’t. But he was the leader who ordered the Leveson inquiry into existence, bringing about the public “humbling” and legal taming of the Murdochs and their satraps. No other senior politician had the inclination or the courage to do this (apart from Vince Cable, and he lacked the self-control and effectiveness).

For this one act David Cameron deserves the gratitude of all of us.

Tra-la-la quips

Marina Hyde (who is perhaps the thinking person's Carole Malone) insinuated that the Rothschilds were giant lizards in an article in yesterday's Guardian.  In conspiracy theories (taken seriously by a surprisingly large number of people throughout history, including the German government 1933-45) "the Rothschilds" is code for Jewish world finance, "giant lizards" is a euphemism for Jewish world conspiracy.  It was all dressed up with her usual tra-la-la quips to imply she is actually trying to be ironic and satirising the conspiracy theorists.

Interestingly the giant lizards sentence has been deleted from the version of the article on the Guardian's website - an Orwellian example of "unspeak"?

Or an indication that the Guardian is beginning to realise this stuff is not funny?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/may/29/marina-hyde-olympics-kim-jong-un

I will dig out yesterday's newspaper from the wheelibin and photograph the article as it appeared in the newspaper complete with ironic anti-semiticism (assuming the paper is not smeared with food debris and other rubbish).

Update - 31st May

Have just pulled the newspaper out of the dustbin and reread it and there is no mention of giant lizards.   So I was wrong.  How stupid of me. 

Thank goodness no-one reads this blog.

Urtica dioica

In the enervating heat of the early evening urtica dioica or the common stinging nettle.

An untouchable plant.

Bluebells in the back ground.

Hereditary privilege

In a piece critical of the Diamond Jubilee on the Independent's website Rob Williams makes a repetitive call for the ending of hereditary privilege http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2012/05/29/a-jubilee-letter-from-a-republican-to-royalists/

Perhaps he would be more effective addressing the hereditary privilege in the Labour party?

As well as the Benn family (Tony Benn followed by son Hilary Benn), Stockton MP Dari Taylor’s father Daniel Jones was MP for Burnley from 1959 to 1983. Former chief whip Hilary Armstrong succeeded her father Ernest as MP for North West Durham. Ex-education secretary Estelle Morris is the daughter of former Manchester Openshaw MP Charles Morris and niece of former Manchester Wythenshawe MP Alf Morris. Greville Janner, MP for Leicester West from 1970 to 1997 is the son of Sir Barnett Janner, who was a Leicester MP from 1945 to 1970. Chorley MP Lindsay Hoyle is son of Doug, the former Warrington MP (these examples from http://labourlist.org/2009/08/its-time-to-end-labours-dynasties/ ).  This article was written before the last election but I am sure the current position is much the same.

Added 30th May:

We ought to add to this list Peter Mandelson whose grandfather was a Cabinet minister.

More generally, it is ironic that the small minority currently sounding off about a hereditary monarchy are perfectly happy to accept an increasingly hereditary Labour party.

Tony Blair appeared at the Leveson inquiry yesterday, provoking caustic comments in today's newspapers (and bilious invective on yesterday's social media).

The Labour Party in general and "the left" in particular seem keen to distance themselves from Tony Blair, forgetting that he was their creation and they must take ownership for everything he did.

How can the current Labour party disown Tony Blair and pretend he was nothing to do with them?

You often find Labour party members now referring to Tony Blair as a "tory".

This is itself a Tony Blair trick - he used to call the hard-line communists in Yeltsin's Russia "conservatives".

I hardly need to point out that Russian communists are not "conservatives" in the normal way we understand the word, nor can Tony Blair possibly be called a "tory" - except in an attempt by the left to deliberately obscure things and evade responsibility.

And when Tony Blair was in power the very people at the time urging us to vote Labour are the ones who are now pretending they were never really Blairites.

Lies upon lies upon lies.

Marmite

When I opened up one of my e-mail accounts this morning I saw this ad for Marmite.

On a golden throne the Marmite product displays the Union Jack while the national anthem "plays" in the background.

Yasmin Alibhai-Brown might dismiss this as mere sycophancy, but brands do not change themselves in this way (even the product name has been changed!) unless there are sound commercial reasons to do so.  This creative would have been tested and retested against a range of alternatives - including, possibly, some "stuff the Jubilee" versions.  The number of people involved, on both the client side and the agency side, in a campaign of this kind is huge.

18 million pots of Marmite are sold each year.

Marmite tends to be purchased by C2 families with children.

Yasmin Alibhai-Brown writes an anti-Royal piece in today's Independent

Spluttering with indignation, Yasmin Alibhai-Brown writes an anti-Royal piece in today's Independent.

She refers to democracy, but does not acknowledge the overwhelming democratic wish of the people to keep the present system intact.

Possibly she is out of touch on this subject, has not researched it properly, and is just voicing her prejudices.

The comments section below her article shows worrying examples of chav-hate ("Only the ignorant and under-educated part of the masses like royalty. But only because they're on TV and in the papers all the time. Just look at Peter Andre, an uneducated twit with an IQ that struggles to get into double figures. Very similar attributes as the royal family. That's why they like them.")

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/yasmin-alibhai-brown/yasmin-alibhaibrown-the-case-for-a-republic-is-as-strong-now-as-it-has-always-been-7792583.html?origin=internalSearch

Have just watched Press Preview on Sky News.

Agnes Poirier, in her usual self-important way, tells us she is a republican (as if anyone is interested).

If she is so in favour of a republic why has she moved to the United Kingdom?

Working class Co-Op customers plan to celebrate the Royal event

Over the summer I thought I would keep a digital scrapbook of the way the Diamond Jubilee and the Olympics are being used in the media.

I will label these "Jubilympics" (from one of the funniest episodes of the comedy Twenty-Twelve).

Above:  today I am going to look at the latest Co-Op magazine which features bunting on the cover, a promise of recipes for the "Jubilee party feast" and, in the lower left-hand corner, an illustration of "fun Union Jack cupcakes".

Note the subtle red white and blue colours of the cover - very subliminal.

The Co-Op is, as the name implies, a working-class co-operative.  More than just a retail organisation it is a social force with fair-trade policies, cradle to grave services (including farms, banks and undertakers), significant donations to charities.  It is also a political movement, sponsoring 29 Members of Parliament (they sit on the Labour benches although they are not obliged to).

So you would think that the Co-Op would join the republican miserablists in boycotting the Diamond Jubilee (Miranda Sawyer sneered at bunting in today's Observer; there are plans for a "significant" anti-monarchy demonstration on the side of the Thames next Sunday as the Queen sails past; teachers are reported to be disapproving about children bringing flags to school etc).

Like any major retail organisation the Co-Op must have tested its customers on attitudes to the Diamond Jubilee.  And presumably they have received back data that shows the working class Co-Op customers plan to celebrate the Royal event.  Hence this celebratory issue of the Co-Op magazine.

Above:  double-page spread in the magazine.  Look carefully at the right-hand page (you may need to click on the image to enlarge it).  It makes a number of assumptions about Co-Op customers.  In a fortnight when former Sunday Mirror columnist Carole Malone said that benefits claimants deserve to be burned alive, and Kerry McCarthy MP joked that chav-people should be exterminated, the Co-Op is showing us that working-class families will have access to embroidered table-cloths, cake stands and souvenir Coronation mugs (these mugs are often sneered at by the middle classes).  Photoshoots like this are not just thrown together, they are carefully researched and the details matched to the lifestyles of the target audience.  Co-Op stores are often located near council estates or in deprived areas - but even the most deprived families will often have items "kept for best" such as a hand-embroidered tablecloth or a Coronation mug kept since 1953.

Above:  I have to admit to being rather mystified by the KitKat (or "BritKat" advertisement).  The ad tells us it is exclusive to the Co-Op.  You would think that if they wanted an exclusive tie-in they would go with one of the big four supermarket chains which would offer them much more sales (does their research tell them they will sell more "royal" chocolate through the C2 and D Co-Op than through the C1 and B Tescos?).  Also I was not aware that Nestle used Fairtrade chocolate.  Nor was I aware that KitKat held a Royal Warrant, which presumably means the Queen likes them.  I would love to see the brief for this ad.

Above:  page 20 of the Co-Op magazine caused me a little shock of recognition.  Alongside a recipe for Jubilee jam tarts was an illustration of the tarts in a 1953 Coronation biscuit tin.  The sight made me go upstairs to a cupboard and bring down our own identical 1953 Coronation tin.

And although my present income takes me way outside the C2 category, not for the first time I thought about the Co-Op:  these people are my people.

Sixty years the tin has been in my family, representing sixty years of working-class royalism.

Socialists assume that the working classes are foolish dupes to celebrate the "class and privilege" of the Royal Family.  What they overlook is that families living in poverty are often starving.  Perhaps not literally starving (although in the early 1950s food was still rationed).  But starved of romance, starved of colour, starved of kindly words and gestures and fellow feelings that come from frivolous communal events.  Starved of belonging to a wider community.  And perhaps overwhelmed that anyone in the elite should promise to devote their whole life to the service of the ordinary people.

A near-perfect essay

The newspaper article I most enjoyed this weekend was Sarah Churchwell's piece on Scott Fitzgerald in yesterday's Guardian.

In a near-perfect essay the only flaw I could find was the use of the word "probably" in parenthesis in a paragraph discussing a Vanity Fair article.

But that is a tiny detail in an important article that I intend to keep (I file articles like this in the books they are relevant to, so I will fold this page up and tuck it into my copy of The Great Gatzby).

How mundane the work really is - the past week at work

Monday

First thing in my mind when I arrived at the office was the delay in delivery of the publication.  I was very cool to Larry F, MD of the printing company, when he arrived to apologise in person.  Reading between the lines I gathered that the first printing had gone horribly wrong and had to be junked.

Otherwise the day was quiet.

In the afternoon an internal discussion about the future of the Post Office.

News that Alec Nussbaum at Head Office had "resigned" on a matter of principle but had been persuaded to withdraw his resignation.  This was dispiriting for the Institute's Director Vijay Singh as it means that our "sister organisation" regards Alec Nussbaum as indispensable.  As Alec Nussbaum intends to add the Institute to his empire this is an indication that he may well win the battle.

Tuesday

Rather fruitless morning spent searching for information on Google.

Then organising name badges for an exhibition, a tedious task that involved many e-mails and telephone calls.  The Institute is often accused of masterminding nefarious campaigns.  If only our critics could see how mundane the work really is!

One cannot help but notice (however much one is determined not to notice) the office romance that has developed between IT & Accounts clerk John Johnson and temp Kayla.  They spend the whole day talking to each other, John J leaning up against the Reception desk where Kayla sits.  The 'phone now rings for ages before Kayla answers it (at one point Vijay Singh came out of his office and looked pointedly at the Reception desk).

When I got back from lunch I found that the publication had been delivered.  However an insert that is to go with them was so poorly printed that it will have to be done again.  More delays.

Wednesday

To Head Office in London.  I was early and went to an Italian cafe for half an hour, tall dusky waiters in white aprons and white shirts milling around as I wrote up notes over a cup of coffee.  Lovely warm day.

At Head Office I represented the Institute as Kathy W from the Head Office PR department presented the overall PR plan for the combined organisation.  Other departments sat in on the presentation and a number of vicious remarks were made about Kathy W's pedestrian reliance on case studies and lack of imagination.  When called upon to speak I made a point of saying that the plan was thorough and professional.

Afterwards I went along with most of the others to lunch at a local pub.  Dull conversation and indigestible sandwiches.  I left as soon as I could.

Thursday

Horrible intractable day spent sorting out problems with the publication.  Sections that Lois Cooper had written were inaccurate, but as Lois Cooper is ill with cancer it seems unacceptable to publicly blame her.  Other inaccuracies are in sections written by Vijay Singh, but it is impossible to publicly blame our Director, although privately I made sure he knew what he had done. 

Therefore there was no option but to allow people to think I was responsible.

Friday

I sent an e-mail to the Head of Media Relations at Head Office praising Kathy W's presentation on Wednesday (she might be a useful ally in the future). 

The rest of the morning spent raising purchase orders.

The admin team put up bunting in the office, £3 for five metres from the Co-Op.

Starbucks has been heavily criticised

Advertisement for Starbucks in the Great Workplaces supplement given away free in yesterday's Guardian (but not a Guardian publication - it is published by an organisation with the unsettling name Redactive Publishing).

The advertisement celebrates the Starbucks "blend" of employees.  A range of Starbucks paper cups is displayed, most of them with a name written on the side - the implication is that these are the names of Starbucks employees.  The names are:  Bob, Gemma, Liz, Daniel, Laura, Dave, Ben, Katie, Hayley, Amy, Sophia, Jonathan, Matt, Rich, Mark, Sarah, Tom.

These are all English names.  There are no names such as Lukas, or Jolanta, or Svetlana, or Aminah, or Sharik, or Ohin, or Zahire, or Cheng, or Suhrita.  The implication of this advertisement is that Starbucks in the United Kingdom only employs English people.

Unfortunately this is a lie.  Starbucks has been heavily criticised for employing a migrants - to the point where it is very unusual to find a non-migrant Starbucks employee.  The correct PR response to this criticism is to apologise publicly and say what steps are being taken to put things right.

The absolutely wrong thing to do is to issue an advertisement telling lies.

The Advertising Standards Authority requires all advertisements to be legal, honest, truthful and decent.

Complaints about untruthful advertisements can be made to the ASA on-line here:  http://www.asa.org.uk/Complaints/How-to-complain/Online-Form/Step1.aspx

The Starbucks marketing director is listed as Brian Waring.

Not sure who did this ad.  Their agency is listed as Kitcatt Nohr Digitas but I am not sure they were responsible.  The ad is so amateur they could have done it in-house.

Edward Hopper

Recently read this book on the paintings of Edward Hopper.

I've had the book for ages - no idea why I bought it (probably it was discounted).

Edward Hopper had an ability to capture one of the essential truths about life - ultimately we are all on our own.

Hopper said:  "The self-conscious internationalists, no less than the self-conscious nationalists, generally achieve nothing but sterility".

A bleak but beautiful vision of the world.

It appears that Kerry McCarthy MP is advocating euthanasia and eugenics for the politically-incorrect "chav" class

Although Kerry McCarthy MP subsequently said her Twitter comments were just a flippant reaction to a T-shirt slogan, the reaction of the Labour MP for Bristol East (Tony Benn's old seat?) perhaps illustrates how far the party has moved from its traditional supporters.

And personally I think Kerry McCarthy is being disingenuous in her defence of the two Twitter comments.

As I read the two Tweets, it appears that Kerry McCarthy MP is advocating euthanasia and eugenics for the politically-incorrect "chav" class - albeit expressing this in a light-hearted and flippant way.

In case there is any doubt about the "context" of the remarks the person is described by Kerry McCarthy as being an oaf, a lager-drinker, an anti-social person and someone who boasts about being sexually incontinent.

Freud told us that if you let people talk for long enough eventually they tell you the truth about their core beliefs.

Twitter certainly allows public figures to talk extensively in public.

Update 21.40 Saturday evening.

Since making these "kill the chavs" Tweets yesterday afternoon Kerry McCarthy's Twitter site has fallen silent ( https://twitter.com/#!/kerrymp ).   This is unusual as she is the Labour party's "Twitter Tsar" and generally issues many hundreds of Tweets on a daily basis.  Has she been silenced, and if so by whom?

What this statistic tells us about the economy

On last night's This Week Alan Johnson chose as his "political moment of the week" the publication of the immigration figures which show net immigration into the United Kingdom of 251,000 in 2011.

A discussion followed on whether the government would achieve its immigration targets with this level of immigration.

No-one was interested in what this statistic tells us about the economy.

If massive immigration into the United Kingdom is occurring, it must mean that our economy is doing reasonably well.  Failed economies such as Greece, southern Ireland and Portugal are experiencing massive emigration and "lost generations" without a future.  The fact that many of these "lost generations" are voting with their feet and moving to the United Kingdom must mean that they are optimistic about the economic future of this country and are willing to relocate here to share that future.

Socialism

Earlier this week Coalition Minister Vince Cable was called a socialist.

As socialism is the nationalisation of the means of production, distribution and exchange he cannot by any stretch of the imagination be a socialist.

With the abandonment of Clause IV the Labour Party gave up the reason for their existence and they have yet to find a new role (currently their economic policy seems to be "we would be less Tory than the Tories").

I am not by any means a socialist, but I would like to see a socialist Labour Party - and as an example, arguing for nationalisation of the railways (not as an economic measure but as a way of providing full employment for the long-term unemployed).

Unfortunately once the Labour Party gets into power it does not concentrate on socialising the economy - instead it brings in a whole slew of spiteful bullying ideological garbage that makes them intolerable to most normal people (health & safety gone mad, political correctness gone mad, calling people "bigots" because they are worried about their grandchildren, putting spy-chips in dustbins, waging pointless foreign wars, "constitutional" reform of institutions that were not in need of reform etc).

It has just been confirmed that staff at the Institute where I work will get 4th and 5th June as paid leave to celebrate the Diamond Jubilee.

As the two days are "National Holidays" and not "Bank Holidays" the Institute was trying to argue that there was no contractual requirement to give staff the time off (our contracts say 21 days paid holiday plus bank holidays - no mention of national holidays).

How many other employers are trying to deny their staff the time off?

The Eurozone crisis from a PR perspective

I think it is a mistake to regard the Eurozone crisis as a purely economic issue that can be rationally analysed in economic terms.

As well as a political project and an economic project "Europe" is also a PR project.

Therefore it makes sense to look at the Eurozone crisis from a PR perspective.

The people driving the PR project are the Germans.  The primary force between the EU's ever-closer political and economic union is the unstated (but nevertheless frantic) desire by the Germans to create a benign identity for themselves.  "We are not the monsters who walked the earth 1933 to 1945" is the message they want to project, and they will pay any price to keep the PR campaign going.

Therefore it is reasonable for the members of the Eurozone to ask the German taxpayers to pay for their PR campaign and their transformation from "bad Germans" to "good Europeans".

One can sympathise with the German predicament, but in PR terms I think the Eurozone is a good deal for them.

WSPA

Very unsettling e-mail I received earlier today.

WSPA is one of the charities I support - I am appalled by the way animals are treated.

 

A society that is cruel to animals is a society that is invariably cruel to humans.

 

http://www.wspa.org.uk/

Twitter seems to be utilised by a great many people who like to have the last word.

 

As having the last word is extremely addictive Twitter probably has a therapeutic value for these people.

Wise sane words from Lord Glasman on Newsnight this evening.

All the hawthorn trees had simultaneously flowered

On the drive to work dull grey overcast skies.

In the office we felt the temperatures rising so that the windows had to be opened and the blinds drawn down and the fans switched on.

And on the drive home all the hawthorn trees had simultaneously flowered earlier in the afternoon so that the countryside was dazzlingly beautiful with white may blossom (referring to the May tree, not the month of May).

I stopped in a lane to look more closely at one of the hawthorn trees.  The white flowers glistened in the early evening sunlight.  Delicate honey smell of the blossom.

At my feet the flat green fields stretched to the horizon.

Andrew Pierce from the Daily Mail called British involvement in the Afghanistan war "Blair's folly"

On last night's Sky News Press Preview Andrew Pierce from the Daily Mail called British involvement in the Afghanistan war "Blair's folly", Kevin Maguire from the Daily Mirror not demurring from this view.

Surely it should be called John Reid's folly since he was the Defence Secretary who said in 2006 that British troops were going into Helmand province and would complete their mission "without a shot being fired".

Six years later and approximately four hundred British personnel have been killed in Helmand.

John Reid now sits in the House of Lords and displays an astonishing insouciance towards his responsibility for the war in Helmand.  He now claims he never said the "without a shot being fired" remark (but I saw him on television saying this, so I do not see how he can deny it).  The current Labour party pretend Helmand is nothing to do with them.

Ridiculously overwhelming representation of Oxbridge among current MPs

Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg is due to make a speech later today calling for more social mobility.

Secretary of State for Education Michael Gove has called the currently prevalence of privileged people in public institutions "morally indefensible".

Labour Leader Ed Miliband has said "Tackling social mobility is a huge mountain to climb".

The three main political parties are important institutions within the British establishment.  They each have the power to immediately open their candidates lists up to non-privileged people.  And this does not mean selecting one or two exotic tokens from minorities and saying "there, we've done our bit" (and when you look at those exotic tokens you usually find they come from a privileged background anyway).

I would like to see really radical measures such as a ten-year ban on selection of candidates with an Oxbridge background (given the ridiculously overwhelming representation of Oxbridge among current MPs).

But who am I to voice an opinion? 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18154730

The British Establishment

What do people mean when they refer to the British Establishment?

The phrase describes the formal and informal way in which power and influence is exercised in the United Kingdom.

You could divide it up into three general areas - the old establishment (long-established institutions); the new establishment (influential charities, think tanks, charismatic individuals); the anti-establishment (which ironically is continually being subsumed into the old establishment).

There is a crisis in the British establishment.

The abolition of the grammar schools in the early 1970s meant that few ordinary people were educated to the correct level and in the right format to be recruited into establishment institutions.  This effectively closed-off access to establishment posts for everyone except Privately-educated Oxbridge alumni (in the rare instances where individuals from "bog-standard comps" get to Oxbridge and into the establishment you usually find that one or more of their parents were teachers or academics, effectively meaning they were tutored at home - the Miliband brothers for instance).  After thirty years of this restricted recruitment the resulting gap between the elite and the ordinary people has become so blatant that it is, the words of Michael Gove Conservative Secretary of State for Education "morally indefensible".

Someone needs to write a book on the subject (but not me).

Greater Britain?

Further to yesterday's post, I glanced at the Matalan summer catalogue.  It's just out this week.  Matalan is a fashion retailer. 

I stopped to look at this double-page spread in the Men's section.

On the left you can see "Sam", "Liam" and "Max" in One Directionesque repose.  In this contrived shot the target demographic looks early 20s, probably C2 social group (Matalan is low cost fashion), too cool to be interested in issues of state governance.  On the opposite page is a selection of "Rule Britannia" summerwear aimed at this demographic.

Look carefully at the right-hand page.  You may need to click on the image to see it properly.  Among the Union Jack flip flops, flag tab polo shirts and flag print swim shorts is a t-shirt featuring a lion's head and the slogan Greater Britain.

Greater Britain?

It has been a long time since the concept of Greater Britain has been espoused.  Probably not since the 1951 groundnuts scheme in Tanganyika.  "Wider still and wider" as a conceptual idea has not been popular among young fashion-conscious men since the Delhi Durbar of 1911.

But these things do not happen by accident.  Attitudes to these designs would have been tested and re-tested among focus groups long before they made it into the Matalan summer catalogue.  Especially in these hard times valuable catalogue space will not be allocated unless the product managers are sure the items are going to sell on a large scale.

Which must indicate society is changing.

Not everyone is going to like this.  

On Sky News Press Preview this evening the word "1984ish" used to describe the Blair government's policy of continuous war for its own sake.

The vast majority of people want to live in a monarchy

Above:  the forthcoming Diamond Jubilee celebrations are scheduled for 4th and 5th of June (national holidays although other events are planned throughout the year).  On a local level there is little doubting the popularity of the monarchy.  On a national and international level possibly Elizabeth II is the most popular European head of state of all time - I hope I am not exaggerating here.

I do not mean to add to the general outburst of gush that accompanies events of this kind.

I want to try to understand what a popular monarchy might mean for politics, society, economics etc.

Above:  Tesco has produced a booklet that is packed with Jubilee-themed editorial and photographs.  Whatever one thinks of supermarket giants like Tesco, one cannot fault their attention to research.  If Tesco is investing in the event they must have good reason to anticipate consumer spending around the two national holidays.

Ten years ago the Golden Jubilee saw a million people in front of Buckingham Palace (taking the Blair government by surprise and prompting a "we'll have to think again" editorial in the republican Guardian newspaper the following day).

Is it possible that the euphoria generated by the Diamond Jubilee will make people feel secure (we are celebrating an institution that has lasted a thousand years) and optimistic about the future?  Will this translate into the famously timid "feel good factor" that politicians and economists prescribe as a preliminary for economic growth?  Difficult to predict as these things only become apparent months afterwards, but certainly we can say that the conditions are in place for an economic "turning point" and early June might possibly be it.

Above:  it is not just Tesco that is making a fuss.  All retail organisations seem to have put up bunting and flags and are running promotions.  Even the quasi-socialist Co-Op.

Above:  double-page spread in yesterday's Guardian magazine featuring a room entirely furnished in Union Jack items and royal memorabilia.  It is an incredible ensemble.  I have read the text carefully and there is no trace of irony. 

What is happening here?

Presumably there must be a calulation that anything in the media with the words "Diamond Jubilee" is going to increase sales.

But I think there is also an acceptance of the obvious.  The vast majority of people want to live in a monarchy.  It is such a profound part of British society that to complain about it is futile.

Above:  there are of course lone voices of protest.  In last week's Observer review section Will Self wrote screeds of curmudgeonly copy about a exhibition of Elizabeth II portraits.  In this week's Observer Nick Cohen wrote a rather splenetic attack on the Prince of Wales.

It is not enough to simply attack an institution.  The republicans must say what they would put in its place.  And in any election for a head of state the political parties would put forward their own candidates.

President Peter Mandelson?  President Michael Howard?  You can see why no-one is keen to go down the republic road.

However to return to Nick Cohen's piece he should pay more attention to detail.  I have been in the Fens  after a thunderstorm many hundreds of times and have not heard the croaking toads he refers to.  Is it possible he just made that up (in which case one has to ask what other "facts" he has made up)?

"It's where I have to keep repeating myself to get things done" - the past week at work

Monday

Most of this morning I drafted the copy for the two new leaflets.  This included the weary job of liaising with Alec Nussbaum at our sister organisation (or "Head Office" as he likes to refer to it).  It has become open knowledge that Alec Nussbaum wants to be director of the Institute, and he is constantly digging for information about current director Vijay Singh.

Is the Institute the most political organisation I have worked for - everyone seems to be manoeuvring and campaigning to advance themselves.

In the afternoon I finally got the copy agreed and e-mailed it to graphic designer Joey to lay out.  Then I researched a possible database for distribution.  The print run is to be twenty thousand, and the change in outlook and opinion will be assessed by a telephone campaign three weeks after the mailing.

Tuesday

The leaflet designs were ready by the time I got to work this morning.  Alec Nussbaum hyper-critical and complaining down the 'phone about the front page.  I got Joey to ring him up directly rather than get involved in all the interminable alterations.

I think I still feel exhausted after all the exertions of last week.  The publication seems to have absorbed all my enthusiasm and left me numb.  Or perhaps I am just being lazy?

In the afternoon a meeting to discuss distribution of the publication.  It will be an immense undertaking.  Vijay Singh talked about introducing some kind of "recognition mark" for individuals who signed up to the programme.

News that Alec Nussbaum had intervened right at the last minute and removed my name and Vijay Singh's name from the publication (we had been listed as joint editors).

Wednesday

Just mundane tasks today.

I rang up Alec Nussbaum to discuss various projects.

"You sound hoarse" I said to him.

"It's where I have to keep repeating myself to get things done" he said testily.

Thursday

Meeting with telephone surveys manger Abi Reed to talk about a questionnaire for social services departments.

Friday

News that the printing of the publication had been delayed.  Vijay Singh did not take this at all well.  I was instructed to send an official complaint to the printers.

After work there was a "team bonding" event of pitch and putt but I managed to excuse myself.

Carole Malone and her (I hope unintentional) oblique suggestion

In all the justified furore over the nastiness of Carole Malone and her (I hope unintentional) oblique suggestion that welfare claimants should be burnt alive it should not be forgotten that she worked for ten years for the left-wing newspaper The Daily Mirror before she had so honed her skills in nastiness that she was able to graduate to the opportunistic News of the World (which as part of News International supported the New Labour government for fourteen years).

By all means let us condemn Carole Malone.

But it would be misleading to link her nastiness to the policies of the Coalition government.

The nastiness of Carole Malone is directly attributable to the culture of vilification towards the "under class" created by the Labour Party post-1993.  This was a cynical move based on the understanding that benefit-dependent social groups had nowhere else to go in voting terms (although some of them subsequently voted for extremists).  If we allow this fact to be forgotten we risk the chav-hate of 1997-2008 happening again if the Labour Party ever gets back into power.

Of course, all political parties rely on scapegoats to some extent.  It is a theme you can see in ALL administrations (and so far does not seem to have been analysed - perhaps I should write the book myself).  However although it might be acceptable to attack strong groups (bankers, lawyers, perhaps even miners since the NUM in their heyday were capable of defending themselves) it is despicable for a government to wage internal war against people who are weak and defenceless (as the Blair administration did against the "chavs" 1997 to 2008).

Question Time

From a press release:

“Brian May comes to Wales this week for Question Time

But apparently not.

So I have switched back to Newsnight.

A position of great responsibility

Writing in today's Guardian Patrick Wintour reported the appointment of Jon Cruddas as the co-ordinator of the Labour Party's policy review.

This is a position of great responsibility, assuming the review is not a cynical exercise and the manifesto junked immediately after they get into office (if they get into office - this is very far from certain).

Jon Cruddas's most notable quote is probably:  "Immigration has been used as a 21st century incomes policy".

Grossly offensive bald-headed Polish person filmed on Newsnight tonight saying "English people is lazy".

And in the studio discussion an overweight Polish woman called Magda Harvey made a series of sneering unpleasant remarks about English people.

Surely these people should be arrested for inciting hatred of people on the basis of national origin?

Or does the Equality Act 2010 not protect English people?