Archway and Highgate 3 - the Girdlestone Estate

On my walk from Archway to Highgate I looked at social housing.

Above:  the Girdlestone Estate was opened in 1971.  No idea who the architect was (Archway library was shut so I couldn't check).  The design of the estate follows the curve of the hill.

Presumably the estate was named after Girdlestone Walk, but where did the path get its name?  "Girdlestone" implies a road that encircles a stone.  Which suggests there was a stone of significance on the hilltop (perhaps put there in paleolithic times?).

Above:  there are several ways into the estate, including via Magdala Avenue.  Magdala commemorates the British invasion of Abyssinia (Ethiopia) in 1868.  Far from being "hidden away" (as some commentators maintain) the British imperial record is in full view here.

Above:  for late-1960s architecture the Girdlestone Estate is attractive.  Use of brick rather than concrete, a cascading design, trees and foliage that give a "hanging gardens" ambiance.  Most important is the "defensive space" elements - the walls and railings that give the residents psychological protection.

Above:  a sequence of elevated piazzas provide a sense of privacy and seclusion.  As I took this photo two young women with a pushchairs came out of one the units and said hello.  They asked why I was taking photos (in a friendly way, they were not the usual busybodies who think all public photography should be banned).  I asked them about the estate and they said it was a nice place to live, there were community parties sometimes (in this very piazza), the bus station made too much noise.

Apologies for all the white skies - I only have a cheap camera.

Above:  I walked with them down to the bus station.  I suppose in terms of socialist planning it makes sense to have a transport hub at the centre of a housing estate (instead of the bourgeois opiate of a church) but there was no denying the noise and fuggy polluted air.  Not sure what sort of buses these are - perhaps Boris buses?

Above:  these undercrofts are not too appealing - not sure I would like to go down there at night.  The 1960s were a generally safer period in terms of crime (most adult men had been through the Second World War or National Service and so would have received ideas about discipline and order, and would not have been afraid to physically enforce their will on young people).  Notice the lichen on the brickwork; the estate is ageing in an attractive way.

Above:  not exactly sure what these are - waste disposal chutes perhaps?  They have a French look to them.  As if they came off the SS Mauritania.

I am bloggin early for a Sunday as I will be watching the football later.

I went 4 - 0 to England in the office sweepstake.

I am just a pawn in all this - the past week at work

Monday

During the morning I wrote a press release, then edited copy for a new publication the Institute is to release.  We have a a general series of 20-page pamphlets (there's nearly eighty of these), plus our publications list, plus once or twice a year we produce a big study.  All these publications need to be kept up to date and in stock - they are stored in the library on the ground floor (which irritates Stan D who is always moaning that I am turning his reading room into a warehouse).

In the afternoon I replied to e-mails.

This work diary is so dull I am considering ending it.

Tuesday

A meeting with the Institute's Director Vijay Singh to update him on communications projects.  Increasingly he is under a lot of pressure from "head office" to get results.  We discussed changing our strategy from mailshots to digital campaigns.

Wednesday

The morning was taken up with a briefing session for Vijay Singh, the two campaign managers (Callum Smith and Keith Chandler) and myself.  The briefing was held in Vijay Singh's big office, and was delivered by Peter Whitgift from the Institute's Birmingham office.  He went through various green papers coming up and asked whether the Institute wanted to make any contribution.

It was a lively and interesting discussion.

Half an hour for lunch, entirely taken up with a visit to the dry cleaners.

In the afternoon Peter Whitgift's briefing continued, but this session was more tedious and I found myself becoming bored and tired.  It was a relief when it finally ended.  In the hour that remained of the working day I tried to get everything up to date.

Thursday

I worked on case studies, which is an area of the Institute's work I am responsible for.  I need to keep a wide portfolio of "evidence" as I can be asked for a case study on almost any topic the Institute has a view on.  Vijay Singh has banned using any of the case studies held at head office as he suspects many of them are made up.

Even so, I did a lot of liaising with Kathy W in the PR department at head office - by 'phone and by e-mail.  As one cannot predict who will win the tussle between Vijay Singh and Alec Nussbaum it seems wise to build contacts with the head office team.  Kathy W is in her early twenties, and does not appear to play office politics, which is a relief.

Friday

Fierce wind and a startlingly bright morning, the sky vivid blue between the moving clouds.

Campaign Manager Keith Chandler left the Institute today - he is going to work for a government department.  I asked for his Newcastle FC calendar and to my surprise he gave it to me.  I also got his filing cabinet.

In the afternoon two hostile e-mails sent to me by people at head office.  I retaliated as aggressively as I dared without risking an incident.  I realise I am just a pawn in all this, and that the real target is Vijay Singh.

Ed Miliband on the key subject of immigration

Very courageous speech and tentative policy development by Labour Leader Ed Miliband on the key subject of immigration.  It has already generated an editorial in the Guardian (above).  The speech was courageous because immigration is such an important national issue.

Labour party narrative (both the external narrative it tells the country and the internal narrative it tells itself) has for over forty years been the message that British society is both racist and discriminatory and that only the Labour party can protect immigrants from "unfairness" (or in stronger but less publicly expressed terms "oppression").  Anyone who opposes this view must be a "racist".  There must be no toleration of, or platform for, racists.

This narrative story also appealed to the romantic view Labour had of itself - internationalist, caring for the dispossessed, anti-racist (and to be anti-racist you need to create "racists" to be anti against).

Until the turn of the century this narrative worked.  Post war immigrants, who tended to be Black or Asian, overwhelmingly saw Labour as their natural home (even now very few BME people vote Conservative, and the Liberal Democrat party is probably the whitest mainstream party in the western world).  The accusation "racist" immediately silenced anyone to tried to discuss immigration.

This Labour narrative has become entirely out of date following the arrival of millions of white eastern Europeans over the last ten years.  Because this latest wave of immigrants has been white is has been possible to discuss immigration without being called a racist, or if the racist accusation is made it just looks silly.  Only within the Labour party itself does the "racist" accusation have the power to silence debate (most famously with Lord Glasman although there are many other examples - even Phil Woolas had the condemnation flung at him).

Labour now finds that its previous unassailable position of defender of the immigrant communities has become a liability, alienating the working class communities opposed to immigration (and who are now able to express their opposition without fear of being called "bigot").

The Labour party has a number of choices:

• Continue to position itself as the natural champion of immigrants and immigration and risk continued erosion of the white working class vote (which has reached acute levels).

• Change direction and policy on immigration and risk desertion of the BME votes (as happened in the Bradford by-election) as well as anguish among Labour activists who will see their core self-identity as "anti-racist" evaporating, with the consequent development of an internal party-wide identity-crisis.

• Attempt to change policy on immigration while keeping the immigrant communities on-side as natural Labour voters - with the risk that these two objectives are irreconcilable and the Labour party will appear ineffectual.

On the whole I think Ed Miliband has no option but to follow the course he has.

Whatever the arguments in favour of immigration, the ordinary people do not want it.

Text of the speech (not sure if it is complete - it seems to end very abruptly:  http://www.politicshome.com/uk/article/56155/ed_milibands_speech_on_immigration.html

Update

In a piece on the Independent website columnist Owen Jones gives a critique of Ed Miliband's speech.

http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2012/06/22/ed-miliband-and-britains-anti-immigrant-backlash/

Although he is absolutely right to call for a German-style re-industrialisation policy (preferably based on exports), and morally right to want more social housing (although there is no chance of that happening without taxpayer support), he misses the wider and more profound point that probably the era of immigration without consent is coming to an end or has already come to an end. 

Therefore the Labour party cannot look for an ever-expanding rainbow coalition of migrants to top up votes lost as a result of the breakup of traditional working class communities (due to a variety of causes including upward social mobility, emigration of blue collar workers overseas, or simply the "old" Labour party members getting elderly and dying - Marks & Spencer faltered due to their traditional customer base simply getting old and dying; the Conservative party almost collapsed because so many of their traditional supporters got old and died; it is possible Labour is now facing the same prospect).

What is to be done? (to quote Lenin).

The Labour party must either acknowledge popular opposition to immigration and offer polices designed to bring it to an end.  Or the Labour party must actively sell the benefits of immigration to the electorate (and good luck to the politician who tries to do that!).  Or ignore the issue and hope that on Election day in 2015 the voters have other things to worry about and if they get back in things can go on the same.

Next week's Question Time will be in Luton!

One to watch.

I wonder if I will recognise anyone.

The Culture Show came on, with an interview with Martin Amis

Earlier this evening I watched The Secret History of Our Streets on BBC2 and left the television running while I waited for Newsnight.  The Culture Show came on, with an interview with Martin Amis talking about his new novel Lionel Asbo.  Dessicated in appearance, the author said dry spiteful things like "I don't think intellectual snobbery is too reprehensible" at the same time as boasting about his skill at writing tabloidese (as a spoof).  An actor performing a scene from his novel used the words "chav chic", a phrase I have never heard before.

In a short critique of Martin Amis the Independent columnist Owen Jones said the characters in Lionel Asbo were cardboard cutouts.  He then placed Martin Amis in a tradition of snooty intellectuals who abuse the working classes and reeled off a list of authors (Virginia Woolf, HG Wells, George Bernard Shaw) who were guilty of this chav hate (I know I am using the description anachronistically).  He failed to mention that all three examples he quoted were socialists.

You can see the programme:  http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01k78vz

Talk sense about “Europe"

At last a leading politician is beginning to talk sense about “Europe” and how our entanglements with that undemocratic charybdis have brought us to the brink of economic disaster.

There is no mention from the pro-EU apologists about how their policies have almost sucked the United Kingdom into economic catastrophe.  They go on and on about how half of Britain’s trade is with the EU – of course trade has been skewed towards the EU when you stop to consider the Aurelian wall of tariffs, directives and restrictions that surround the bloc and compel EU member states to trade with each other no matter how crazy and expensive the resulting trade patterns become.  Has any study been done on how food prices would fall if we were able to buy food freely from around the world?

Rupert Murdoch was urging Tony Blair to join in the invasion of Iraq

The Leveson Inquiry trundles on, and seems to be bogged down in party politics.

Who cares who rode a horse in the company of Rebecca Brookes and whether Jeremy Hunt might have done something bad if he could have gotten away with it.

Given the venal and corrupt nature of ninety per cent of the House of Commons, hundreds and hundreds of MPs would do bad things if they thought no-one was watching (as they proved with the Expenses Scandal).

The important issue is to bring to account politicians who HAVE done bad things.

Bearing in mind that Alastair Campbell is a prince of lies, we can disregard his gloss and look at the simple fact that even an arch-dissimulator such as Mr Campbell is unable to obscure: Rupert Murdoch was urging Tony Blair to join in the invasion of Iraq.

Why?

Was it because Rupert Murdoch genuinely believed in the right to democracy of the Iraqi people?

Or was it because there was a deal in place - Rupert Murdoch gets concessions from the Bush administration in return for delivering British participation in the Iraq war while Tony Blair gets News International support in return for joining in the invasion?

Sorry if this seems suspicious.

But there are too many unexplained questions about the Iraq war to get diverted over party politics, however tempting that might be.

A defence of the established order

Poet Simon Armitage sneers at Education Secretary Michael Gove's suggestion that the established canon of English poets should be taught in schools, identifying Tennyson for especial ridicule.

In last Thursday's Question Time, in a discussion on Michael Gove's proposals (a discussion in which Tennyson was mentioned by Peter Hitchens) a teacher in the audience said her class would be bored to tears if they had to read traditional poets and she would much rather they wrote poetry of their own (which presumably she would award top marks for, whatever the quality, and everyone would feel good and no-one would have to do any real work least of all the teachers).

The Band Perry had a quadruple-platinum US and UK sales of their 2010 single If I Die Young.  In the video for the single Kimberly Perry is seen reading the poetry of Tennyson and dreaming about The Lady of Shallot.  Quadruple-platinum sales means four million teenagers, and presumably they had no problem connecting to Tennyson.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7NJqUN9TClM

Is it possible that Simon Armitage and the Tennyson nay-sayers in the teaching profession are the ones who have got things wrong? 

Simon Armitage started his career as anti-establishment, then became new establishment, and is now just part of the establishment.  There's nothing wrong with being establishment.  But we need to see this for what it is - a defence of the established order.

From that perspective it is Michael Gove that looks revolutionary.

Archway and Highgate 2

Above:  on my walk from Archway into Highgate I went into Highgate cemetery.  There are in fact two cemeteries - the West one, which I went into; and the East one which I will have to return to see.  Actually I will have to return to see the West cemetery more thoroughly as all I had time for was a walk around the circuit path.

Highgate was one of the great Victorian cemeteries of London and contains a huge number of graves - ordinary Victorians, famous Victorians, Victorians who used to be famous but are now forgotten ("long in Kensal Green and Highgate silent under soot and stone" if you will forgive a Govean lapse into poetry learned by heart).  And not just Victorians.  The West cemetery is still in use, although you get the impression that people are being squeezed into gaps and soon the elysian field will be complete.

Above:  the circuit path is about a mile in circumference (I am guessing) and is well kept.  Away from the path the graves are jumbled and overgrown.  Some of the monuments are fabulous, although not to be compared with those in the East cemetery.

I have always had a tendency to melancholia, and walking alone around the circuit path made me feel very philosophical about my life, how little I have achieved, how brief our lives are compared to the eternity of the grave.

Above:  as a dog-lover I was cheered by this monument to "Emperor".  Fidelity even unto death.  Often I wonder if dogs have souls and whether I will see my long-gone dogs again.

Above:  Anna Mahler's grave.  Who would have thought that London would have a connection to the great composer?  His daughter fled to England in 1939.

Above:  on a corner you suddenly come across Karl Marx.  Obviously I knew he was in Highgate, but I was expecting more of a setting than just a roadside grave.  There was something about this squat monument that seemed to suggest all the dead historical weight of communism.

One thing that surprised me was how many "lefties" have been buried around Karl Marx in a sort of marxist valhalla.  Presumably these people are all atheists, so why would they be concerned about the final location of their remains rather than having them tipped into a utilitarian socialist compost heap?  Do they expect to follow their philosopher into some kind of utopian communist after-life?

I continued walking and was approached by four young men in jeans and t-shirts, dark Mediterranean appearance (or were they South Americans?).  They asked me where Karl Marx was, and after I had given them directions I asked on impulse whether they were communists.  "No, we are humans" one of them replied.

Above:  one of the last mausoleums before I left the West cemetery, pink granite and classical.  Eventually we will all have to pass through our own equivalent of those verdigris bronze doors.  Who knows what will await us ("We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come").

I stayed out of it - the past week at work

Monday 

Dull morning spent dealing with e-mails.  As soon as I respond to someone, thinking "that's done", they reply with yet more work to do.  Alec Nussbaum is a master of this.

Dull afternoon writing brochure copy.

There is an infection going through the offices and I am concerned I do not get this (a persistent cough).

Tuesday

So cold in the office I asked for the heating to be turned back on.

I finished the brochure copy and spent the rest of the morning choosing illustrations.

In the afternoon the Institute's Director, Vijay Singh, called a management meeting to discuss finances.  We are dependent for our funding on our "sister organisation" and this funding is controlled by Alec Nussbaum (a senior Director at "head office").  Vijay Singh wants us to have other sponsors so we can develop a more independent line.  We talked about various options.  Accounts Manager (and Acting Deputy Director) Marcia Walsh was tasked with approaching a professional fund-raiser who is to be offered a percentage of all money raised.   This intitative is to be kept secret from Alec Nussbaum.

Wednesday

Finance and Admin clashed this morning, with heated words shouted across the general office.  I stayed out of it and just got on with my work.  Vijay Singh was out when it happened, otherwise he would have intervened.

E-mails to deal with, including one from Membership at head office, attacking me ("what have I ever done to them?" I thought).

I planned a new publication and researched a suitable database.

My lunchbreak curtailed because of a meeting that started at 1.30.  Attendees were myself, Vijay Singh, Peter Whitgift from the tiny Birmingham office, Campaign Manager Callum Smith, and Carol Reynolds from head office representing Alec Nussbaum.  It was a good meeting from my point of view, mainly because I was so well prepared and my ideas were positively received.

 

Thursday

It was extremely quiet in the offices, and I was inclined to be idle.

A long telephone call from Carol Reynolds about yesterday's meeting and some literature she wants written and produced.

Friday

Another visit to Head Office in London. 

The meeting only lasted an hour and did not really require my presence.  I had taken the afternoon as holiday, so emerging from the building I had the rest of the day to myself.  The weather still very bad for June.

A debate on Newsnight this evening on whether the Conservative Party can retain support in working class segments of the electorate.

It was an interesting discussion, and certainly the Conservative Party needs to recruit more members.

However there are three flaws in Owen Jones's argument:

Working class people do not tend to vote according to class interests - other factors are often more important.

Genuinely disadvantaged groups do not tend to vote.

In a two-party system if you do not want to vote Labour the only alternative is the Conservatives (the Liberal Democrats are now seen as Tory-lite).

Archway and Highgate 1

Inspired by the Secret History of Our Streets I have decided to resume my wanderings around the less fashionable suburbs of London.  This is the first of three posts about my Friday afternoon walk from Archway tube across parts of Highgate.  I had a vague idea of walking as far as Kentish Town, but that was too ambitious.

Above:  the area round Archway tube station seems at first glance to be a nothing sort of place.  Archway is dominated by the Archway Tower, a nondescript structure in the modernist style, notable only for the glowering way it intimidates and dominates the surrounding buildings.  There is currently a debate on whether to demolish or refurbish the tower.

Archway Library is in a grim sort of undercroft area, right underneath the Archway Tower - as if it is being crushed by the concrete slab overhead.  The library is not open on Friday afternoons, so I was not able to call in there to research the area (I am assuming it has a local history section).  Too much traffic gives the immediate surroundings a hectic atmosphere.

Above:  opposite the Archway Tower is the Archway Tavern pub.  I don't have a Pevsner for this area of London, and the public library was closed, but I would guess this is an 1870s building.  Fine mansard tower.

An album cover for The Kinks was photographed in the main bar of the Archway Tavern.

Above:  less architecturally distinguished than the Archway Tavern is the nearby Whittington Stone pub.  The legend of Dick Whittington and his cat is probably just a picturesque story, but it may overlay a more ancient tradition.  Stones at crossroads, especially in elevated situations, often marked ancient meeting places where leaders were chosen (witenagemots - perhaps the origin of the "whitting stone").

Above:  I think this was once a hospital (if the Archway library had been open I could have checked).  Impressive building, looming over the busy road.  Archway tower, the tower on the Archway Tavern, and this tower - there seems to be a theme here.

Above:  Waterlow Park, one of several parks in the Archway and Highgate area.  Pleasant and well kept.  Given to the public by a wealthy Victorian philanthropist as a "garden for the gardenless".

Martin Amis - Lionel Asbo

Martin Amis appeared on the Today programme yesterday morning and Newsnight yesterday evening promoting his new novel Lionel Asbo. Supposedly a creative and inventive thinker, the author used the same lines in each of the two interviews, which were more or less the same (“when you get to the age of sixty you realise this is not going to end well” etc). Not for the first time I thought the man was a fraud.


I have not read Lionel Asbo, but I have read Dead Babies which was so unpleasant it decided me against reading any more Martin Amis novels (Dead Babies also undermines his claim that he has not written any novels about the middle classes).

Normally with an author I have stopped reading, and a body of work I do not care about, no further comment would be necessary.

However Lionel Asbo has so intruded itself into the media that it is difficult to ignore. Especially as the subject matter seems to be an exercise in chav-hate (chav-hate as satire; chav-hate as sophisticated literary metaphor; chav-hate as hate – these impressions gained via the media). In that respect I feel I need to record my objection to this novel, insofar as I am allowed to object to a book I have not read and do not intend to read.

Part of the problem seems to be the unthinking way in which Martin Amis is accorded a high status by critics and commentators.

Is it unreasonable of me to suggest that Martin Amis only gets attention because his father was Kingsley Amis? Is it possible that without a famous literary father his books would sink without trace and the chav-hating novel Lionel Asbo would never have appeared in print? He condemns people who are “famous for being famous” but is this not the exact same category in which we need to place Martin Amis himself?

Isn’t Martin Amis just another over-privileged person from comfortable family wealth and an Oxbridge education whose mediocre output is taken seriously because of his father’s (deserved) literary reputation?

And is it not possible that Martin Amis realises he is an over-hyped over-privileged Oxbridge waster? That he hates himself for being an over-hyped over-privileged Oxbridge waster? And that he has sublimated his self-hate into hatred of the defenceless “chavs” (possibly suspecting that many of the “asbo” class he satirises would out-class him were they given the right educational opportunities and chances in life)?

Secret History of Our Streets on BBC2

I watched Secret History of Our Streets on BBC2 last night - part of a documentary series looking at the history of London from a micro level (streets, families, houses).


Last night's programme looked at Deptford.

It was a revelation.

I had always previously accepted the line that after the war bomb damage and “slum” clearance was the catalyst for the rebuilding of inner suburbs and the decanting of populations into “modernist” forms of housing (concrete canyons, tower blocks, “Noddy-land” houses in planned communities etc).

Unfortunate perhaps, but necessary.

The Deptford case study examined last night demonstrated that much of this redevelopment and decanting was not necessary at all, but was effectively an ideologically-inspired attempt at collectivisation of the working class.

The way people were treated was appalling.

Was this arrogant incompetence by essentially well-meaning but stupid people? Or was it a deliberate attempt to destroy local identity, destroy the institution of the family, and “rebuild” the working class according to a socialist ideal? Remember that in the post-war period (until 1979) both major parties were socialist – the Conservatives were “slow socialists”, Labour were “urgent socialists” (the reverse of the current position where Labour are “slow Tories” and the Conservatives are “urgent Tories”).

You should watch the programme while you can.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01jt9bv/The_Secret_History_of_Our_Streets_Deptford_High_Street/

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?