MADONNA: THE EMPRESS OF MATERIAL GIRLS

The Queen of Pop - here riding a horse in her own video - has just returned to New York after another supremely successful world tour in which she reclaimed the title of highest-grossing solo touring artist Needless to say, the tour has not been without controversies, otherwise it wouldn't have been "Bitch, I'm "still" Madonna", the title of her latest single.

I haven't bought an album by Madonna since "Ray of Light" Her music of the 21st millennium doesn't much appeal to me, although I still love the early stuff. Madonna has always been a performance artist par excellence and, like the Empress Cleopatra, age has not withered her in this regard.* In other respects, her achievements are more mixed, and it may be argued that Madonna has played a significant role in creating - or at least facilitating - the modern shallow narcissistic social media culture in which appearance is everything. Discuss!

Yet that would be to sell Madonna, undoubtedly one of the world's most successful businesswomen, short. One might, alternatively, make a comparison with the visual artist Tracey Emin, another material girl but not in the same league as Madonna. I find Emin's art uninteresting, but what she says about her work is often thought-provoking. In Madonna's case, I can't recall her having said anything memorable, but what she does is interesting.

Whatever Madonna does, she does well. This includes horse riding, which the "Queen of Pop" only took up in middle age. Yet, having been out of the saddle for some time, here she is riding out in the style recommended by the great equine performance coach, and mentor of Victoria Pendleton, Yogi Breisner: " in balance, forward, with rhythm." That's how we all should try to live!

*"Age cannot wither her, nor custom stale
Her infinite variety: other women cloy
The appetites they feed: but she makes hungry
Where most she satisfies.." (Shakespeare)

Correction:  the quotation assigned to Yogi Breisner actually came from his mentor Lars Sederholm.

LINKEDIN IS A RATHER HUMOURLESS PLACE

The recent spat between a young woman barrister and older male lawyer about his comment on her profile picture has reminded me that the online professional network LinkedIn is a rather humourless place. I can't recall having read one memorably amusing post on the site, although it's possible that I'm just in the wrong sort of networks. Having said this, the people in my Google+ and Facebook communities display no shortage of humour, even it they have very serious points to make.

Doing very little these days, I wonder if contemporary face-to-face business networking is equally po-faced, and if so, I'm glad to be out of it. Modern professional self-marketing, at which some people are undoubtedly very good, reminds me of New Labour, right down to the fake sincerity. You also seem to need a touched-up (or even air-brushed) image for your online profile - particularly if you are a middle aged woman - which I don't have.

I note that Cherie Blair CBE has a profile on LinkedIn in which she also appears as Clerie Booth QC. Amongst her experience is listed that of Downing Street "Spouse" 1997-2007. I wonder what a younger Ms Booth, also a human rights barrister like the young woman mentioned  previously, would have done had a male lawyer commended her profile picture on LinkedIn, or indeed, what she would have done to her husband, also a lawyer, had he complimented an attractive younger woman online.

As a non-lawyer, I tend to regard the profession as something of a "conspiracy against the laity", to quote George Bernard Shaw. In my experience, lawyers tend to take themselves rather too seriously (although I'm sure this is a professional requisite). Indeed, I wonder if at the core of many a legal dispute is a sense of humour failure. It is also not without irony that much of the self-importance that attaches to such disputes is widely regarded as a joke by outside lay observers.

Therefore I'm surprised that many people apparently seem to take LinkedIn and what goes on there so seriously. It also seems to me that young women should worry less about whether men find them too attractive, because they will all too soon find that this ceases to be an issue in life and that the main problem for many older women becomes one of feeling a need to look younger and more attractive. Such is life, and the best way to get through it is not take places like LinkedIn too seriously.

SOME POSSIBLE LESSONS FROM KIDS COMPANY

It seems difficult to escape the downfall of Kids Company, although many people might wish to. However, as I suspect something will emerge phoenix-like from the ashes, here are some possible lessons for the future from a detached observer:

1. There may be considerable social capital in having complementary health/education centres, run by charities, the state (if Jeremy Corbyn becomes prime minister) or a combination of both in deprived neighbourhoods which offer a range of free services for vulnerable children and their families. In addition to therapies and support such as meals, these might provide lessons in practical areas like nutrition, cookery and financial management.

2. Such centres should be subject to appropriate forms of assessment so that their impact upon users and the wider community can be understood. If state-funded, value for money criteria should be applied.

3. Ministers and civil servants should be more aware that whilst celebrity figures may be good at attracting media attention and funding to their causes, they are sometimes poor managers and administrators. Having said this, the state and its agents, including the National Health Service, have also shown themselves to be frequently deficient in administrative and management capability, as well as poor custodians of public funds.

4. Unfortunately, the availability of relatively large sums of money for good causes, when perceived to be incompetently run, will attract people who have less than altruistic motives and others who see an opportunity to exploit.

5. The state and charitable sectors are as much - if not more - prone to cronyism than commercial business. This needs to be widely recognised and measures put in place to ensure that people from outside the insidious public-funded networks which increasing dominate British society are involved in how money is spent. Charitable governance needs to be reviewed and some organisations should consider whether they are best served by being a charity, social enterprise or both.

6. No organisation seeking to be sustainable over the long-term should become so dependent on a single source of funding that the withdrawal of this is likely to result in its demise. Kids Company is not alone in finding that the end of public money also means curtains for the charitable recipient.

Media reports indicate that the fate of Kids Company will be subject to inquiries by both the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee - http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/82397fae-3dd8-11e5-b98b-87c7270955cf.html#axzz3iJVF60F7 Lets hope lessons are learnt by all those involved.

ALL THE WORLD'S A SHOW JUMPING ARENA

The UK's Scott Brash and Ben Maher on the international show jumping circuit

The recent case of a British doctor struck off for moonlighting as an international show jumping commentator - having taken repeated sick leave from his NHS hospital employer (1) - has caused me to reflect on the apparent rude health of UK show jumping as reflected on the global circuit.

Scotsman Scott Brash is currently Number 1 in the Longlines International Equestrian Federation (FEI) world rankings, having been preceded in this position by fellow Briton Ben Maher. Both are pictured above with large cheques at Florida's Palm Beach International Equestrian Center (2).

Horse and Hound magazine recently gave 17 reasons why "the flying Scotsman" is the world number 1 show jumper "for the 12th consecutive month, making him the first show jumper since Germany’s Marcus Ehning in 2006" to achieve this feat (3).

Meanwhile, off course, Scott Brash earlier this year purchased the Essex house of ex-glamour model  businesswoman and fellow equestrian Katie Price, whilst she bought Conservative Party grandee Francis Maud's former home (4).

The disgraced NHS urologist might want to consider retraining as a plastic surgeon and seek a private sector employer more sympathetic to his pursuing a second business. After all, a former GP and now health care entrepreneur was the winning horse trainer in this year's Grand National (5).

Notes
1. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2803787/Junior-doctor-struck-taking-sick-leave-work-jumping-TV-coverage-Urologist-caught-colleague-recognised-voice-commentary.html

2. http://www.ijrc.org/scott-brash-hello-sanctos-steal-show-500000-fti-consulting-finale-grand-prix-csi-5

3.  http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/features/scott-brash-world-number-one-pictures/

4.  http://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/katie-price-buys-new-mansion-4463372

5.  http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/sport/national-sport/pineau-de-re-wins-grand-6925172

Postscript - Equestrian enthusiasts may find these Coursera Moocs of interest: https://www.coursera.org/course/equinenutrition and https://www.coursera.org/course/thehorsecourse

MOOCS: NEW CHANNELS FOR BIG CONVERSATIONS

Mooc = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massive_open_online_course

Like UKIP, the Mooc is a so-called "challenger brand" - http://www.campaignlive.co.uk/news/1296571/ - of the kind described in a Campaign magazine article on the former. UKIP seems to be having a more real "Big Conservation" with the British public than New Labour achieved a decade ago. This is because the latter party and, indeed, the current political ruling coalition, treat a conversation with the electorate as a consultation. In many ways, UKIP has emerged as the antidote to managed politics of the kind most associated with the old New Labour brand.

The Massive Open Online Course model could now be used to facilitate a moderated big conversation around key issues facing individual countries, such as Britain, or geopolitical regions like Europe. Whilst I am a fan of Moocs and have completed a wide range of courses, one of their main shortcoming for me tends to be the dominance of a single viewpoint: ie the host instructor or institution has a particular narrative which is then supported or challenged in the discussion fora. Whilst some subjects lend themselves to this approach, where issues are clearly contested it would be preferable for two or more points of view to be represented by those running the course.

An obvious case is that of migration to the UK and within the European Union. Fact-based arguments for and against the present situation can be made. However, much of the big conversation is unsatisfactory, whatever your view on the issue. A good - or bad! - example of the poor quality of discourse is provided by the Secretary of State for Defence's comments of yesterday and the subsequent reaction to these - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29784486 Rather than such ad hoc outbursts and counter-blasts, far better to have a structured national debate on migration and population change hosted by a reputable institution. A mooc would provide a good starting-point.

BENEFITS STREET OUTPERFORMS JOHN LEWIS STREET

 

White Dee from Benefits Street and Andy Street from John Lewis

Two British public figures have been in the headlines recently for making speeches. John Lewis man - aka managing director Andy Street - upset the French with his comments on their national decline: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2783273/John-Lewis-boss-drunk-beer-wrote-France-finished-says-country-s-prime-minister.html White Dee - real name Deidre Kelly - of Channel 4's "Benefits Street" attended a fringe meeting at the Conservative Party conference -  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2773553/Now-White-Dee-threatens-defect-UKIP-Benefits-Street-star-tells-Tory-conference-IDS-touch-real-world.html - to express support for UKIP. Ms Kelly's public speaking engagements seem to be going better than those of Mr Street, with the lady reporting that business is booming - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2779195/Benefits-Street-star-White-Dee-makes-1-500-just-TWO-HOURS-partying-students-personal-appearance-nightclubs.html  Meanwhile, French prime minister Manuel Valls has suggested that Mr Street was drunk when he made the derogatory comments - purportedly in jest and for which he has since apologised - at the World Retail Congress. Perhaps John Lewis need to engage White Dee to carry out a charm offensive and restore some entente cordial: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entente_cordiale

Meanwhile, people concerned about national decline closer to home might like to look at this report on the British High Street - http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/oct/09/national-retail-chains-quitting-high-street-rate-doubles - or read about how Britain is viewed by some of China's Big Men: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/10908008/Britain-a-petty-and-declining-empire-argues-Chinese-paper.html The expression "small government, big society" is Chinese, I believe: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S147474641200036X

REVISITING NEW LABOUR AND THE BIG SOCIETY

Headline after UK "Big Society" minister quits following "Sexting Sting"

The resignation of Britain's Minister for Civil Society, following a media sting which saw him reveal his "Big Society" to an apparent young female Twitter supporter, provides a good opportunity to reflect on what is meant by "Big Society", an idea which was supposed to succeed that of "New Labour".

Brooks Newmark, the former minister and a keen supporter of women in politics (particularly attractive blonds of ample bosom it appears) only took up the appointment in July when the Big Society project - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Society - had fallen in to some disarray: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/exclusive-camerons-big-society-in-tatters-as-charity-watchdog-launches-investigation-into-claims-of-government-funding-misuse-9629848.html

However, the fundamental problem with this concept of civil society, aside from brand failure, is the rather narrow view it takes of the original proposition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_society  The term first really came to my notice during the anti-communist uprisings in Central and Eastern Europe of the1980s, and later in the former Soviet Union, and is identified in this context with "the elements such as freedom of speech, an independent judiciary, etc, that make up a democratic society" (Collins English Dictionary). As far as I'm concerned, civil society is not primarily about so-called voluntary or third sector organisations which are increasingly funded, and directed, by the state, and known as Gongos (government organised non-government organisations) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GONGO Although such organisations can make a limited contribution to civic values, particularly where these have previously been undermined by the state itself. This is clearly the way David Cameron's "Big Society" construed itself : http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:MOknpBbt8cgJ:www.thebigsociety.co.uk/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk The question now is whether this political construction, like that of New Labour, still really exists. My judgement is that like the earlier political ideology - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Labour - the "Big Society" is an idea whose time has already passed.

BRITISH POLITICS IS NOT A FAMILY BUSINESS

"I would be heartbroken if this family of nations that we've put together - and we've done such amazing things together - if this family of nations was torn apart." David Cameron.

There is a long article in the lifestyle (Life&Arts) section of this weekend's FT by James Meek, based on his recently published book, "Private Island: Why Britain now belongs to someone else". Entitled "Power from the people", there is much to agree with in the article's description of the British malaise, although the diagnosis seems weak in places.

Meek maintains that Britain has undergone "some grand existential alteration" in the past 20 years ago, and I have to agree that the country is an increasingly peculiar place.

Take, for instance, the recent hounding of the Ashya King family across Europe by agents of the British state with the help of an EU arrest warrant. The family have now taken their child to Prague for medical treatment, a fitting conclusion to a particularly Kafkaesque narrative.

David Cameron and his colleagues appear to have intervened on behalf of the family, and rightly so. However, he is wrong to invoke mawkish comparisons of this and the modern nation state.

There is, quite frankly, a rather daft headline in today's Mail  newspaper about "Childless SNP chiefs 'who have no feel for UK family': Leaders of Scottish National Party 'want to break up Union because they do not understand families' which might have emanated from some Westminster spin-doctor, although the quote appears to come from a rugby player.

Modern politics is fundamentally about neither sport nor some ideal of family, and the sooner senior British politicians grow up and realise this, the better. As the Governor of the Bank of England said recently, Britain is a country with "deep, deep structural problems". Scotland and the rest of the country need a government capable of tackling these, separately or together.

UK PROPERTY AND THE NEW GLOBAL ORDER

Household Cavalry pass "world's most expensive apartments" (Telegraph)

"We could view the threats and challenges we face today as the difficult birth-pangs of a new global order – and our task now as nothing less than making the transition through a new internationalism to the benefits of an expanding global society...." Gordon - "how I saved the world" - Brown 2009

I enjoyed the benefits of lunch with the FT today and, in particular, a front-page article entitled "Tax haven buyers set off property alarm". According to research by the newspaper based on Land Registry data: "At least £122 billion of property in England and Wales is held through companies in off-shore tax havens". To put this in context, the figure is "more than the total value of all housing stock in Westminster and the City of London". Just under two thirds of the property is in London, with centres like Liverpool, Manchester and Leeds also targets for this type of investment. Land Registry data do not allow a breakdown between residential and commercial property. The full article can be found at http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/6cb11114-18aa-11e4-a51a-00144feabdc0.html?siteedition=uk#axzz398lMX18s

The government is currently in the process of privatising the Land Registry - http://civitas.org.uk/newblog/2014/06/why-is-the-government-privatising-the-land-registry/ - which may make it more difficult to unravel UK real estate ownership by off-shore vehicles in the future. However, even under present arrangements records show "only the owner or entity holding a property, not the ultimate owner of the company through which the asset is held" according to the FT. This is despite existing anti-money laundering regulations, and an announcement by the Prime Minister earlier this year that full ownership information about UK-based companies would be made publicly available.

The FT analysis cites the example of "One Hyde Park, London's most expensive block of flats" which "epitomises how the rich stash their money through off-shore companies in luxurious property that can remain empty for much of the year". A global market for this type of investment is the main reason why the near-by home of the Household Cavalry, Hyde Park Barracks, is up for sale with a price tag of £600m and prospective buyers lined up -  http://www.arabianbusiness.com/abu-dhabi-s-mubadala-considers-purchase-of-historic-london-property-report-556845.html  as reported in Arabian Business. Although one commentator on this article asks perceptively:"Aren't experts warning about London property bubble????"

Meanwhile, the FT's Philip Stephens - a Rip Van Winkle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rip_Van_Winkle) type columnist who seems to live in a prelapsarian Blair world*, rather than the alternative universe of Gordon Brown - complains of Britain's increasing hostility to capitalists and immigrants (possibly because of our dysfuctional economy ????)

*According to another FT columnist Blair "ruled in a prelapsarian age, when faith in public figures (and, I would argue, policy) was yet to be blown apart by financial meltdown" - http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/bedfb93c-10c5-11e4-812b-00144feabdc0.html#axzz398lMX18s

BATTLES LOST ON THE PLAYING FIELDS OF ETON

Although "the famous quote attributed to Wellington" - "the battle of Waterloo was won on the playing fields of Eton" - "was probably apocryphal" according to Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterloo_in_popular_culture - David Cameron might like to reflect on whether his defeat in Europe yesterday was lost in the same place.

For our prime minister seems to lack a fundamental grasp of the history of the so-called European Project, which his predecessor Margaret Thatcher actually understood much better. As I pointed out in a post of last year - http://janetmackinnon.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/the-iron-ladies-thatcher-and-merkel.html - whilst Mr Cameron "may privately regard himself as "the Heir to Blair", it is surely the German Chancellor who is heiress of the original "Iron Lady's" drive for democratic liberation of the former Communist Europe where Angela Merkel spent her earlier life..." 

Thus the most significant event in Europe yesterday was not the UK's failure to influence the appointment of the next President of the European Commission, but the signing of a trade agreement between the European Union, Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova; http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-28052645 Moreover, without wishing to appear politically incorrect or incite old enmities, the concept of so-called "Lebensraum" or "Living Space" - http://www.historytoday.com/martyn-housden/lebensraum-policy-or-rhetoric - has always been an important aspect of Greater European Politics, something Russian President Vladimir Putin knows only too well.

Yet the prime minister and his government seem to have no grasp of wider European geo-politics at all. The fact is that the EU can well afford to lose Britain in the long term because the Ukraine - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine - as the largest country in Europe, and one of the few places in the world with surplus agricultural land resources, represents "Lebensraum". Although use of this expression  may be construed as anti-German, British colonial expansion was also strongly motivated by the political aim of increasing land and other natural resources available to a small nation state.

With this in mind, Mr Cameron might like to reflect on last week's figures from the Office of National Statistics which saw the UK population increase by the size of Scotland's, or about 5 million people, in the period between 2001-2013 - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2670751/Number-people-UK-smashes-64million-one-biggest-population-increases-Europe.html?ITO=1490&ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490 - together with a report by the University of Cambridge and the National Farmer's union which identifies a "significant" shortage of UK farmland by 2030: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-28003435

When I attended a Welsh comprehensive school in the 1970s, both "Lebensraum" (which I studied for my history O level) and Malthus - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Robert_Malthus - whom I studied as part of my geography A level, were fairly key curriculum subjects. I do sometimes wonder what Mr Cameron and his friends learnt at school, apart from how to advance their own careers. However, this problem of the British elite is not new, as George Orwell, also an Eton school boy, wrote: "Probably the battle of Waterloo was won on the playing-fields of Eton, but the opening battles of all subsequent wars have been lost there."

NEW PARLIAMENT OF THE EUROPEAN PEOPLES

Awakening towards the end of 2013, I realised that a certain political correctness had afflicted me in recent months, repressing my spirits and satirical proclivities. To set me to rights, I was later visited by the spirit of the seasonal e-pantomine who advised me to set down the following synopsis.

The events of this tale occur at an unspecified time in the future. Former British prime minister Tony Blair and Lord Peter Mandelson have acquired a mysterious life-prolonging elixir and now co-habit the Palace of the Parliament http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palace_of_the_Parliament - in Bucharest. Formerly the seat of Romania's Soviet-era president Nicolae Ceaușescu, the world's largest civilian building now accommodates the eastern head quarters of the European Union, including a unified presidency that has taken over the role of EU Parliament supremo. To add to this, President Blair is also a cardinal of the Roman Catholic church with ambitions to de-secularise the European Project and create a new Holy Roman Empire. Fortunately, however, these aspirations are beyond the scope of this particular synopsis.

Readers are no doubt wondering how the events I have described came about, and the story is marvellously straightforward. Awakening one morning a British prime minister of the near future took it upon herself to transform the country's unsustainable welfare state and wider public sector. Her government went, somewhat like the Starship Enterprise, where no recent British administration had dared go before and dismissed vast swathes of the kleptocracy, including those on the payroll of the state media, which had grown obese at the public expense. In short, the nation's finances were radically over-hauled, along with the benefits system. The effects of this were nothing short of miraculous. Seeing their mistress and her comrades living within their means, the British public soon followed suit. Those unaccustomed to such a lifestyle started to migrate in vast numbers - a subject I shall deal with later - and the country assumed a state of good governance never before experienced in its history. In short, a London banker's word was his bond, and not someone else's.

Unfortunately whilst Albion was liberated from financial repression and the other ills of a nation living beyond its means, the so-called "New British Problem" was exported to other parts of Europe as the engine of the unreal economy, with its propensities for public maladministration, property speculation, booms and busts, and labour market distortions relentlessly moved eastwards. Soon the citizens of Eastern Europe were complaining of similar evils to those their British counterparts had once done, including mass migration by Western Europeans, particularly from over-crowded areas in Southern England, and accompanying benefits tourism. Meanwhile, a Campaign to Protect Rural Eastern Europe, or CPREE, was established amidst clamorous support for wholesale importation of the early 21st century British planning system.

At this point, a spiritually ascended cadre of enlightened European leaders, including Vaclav Havel http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V%C3%A1clav_Havel , took it upon themselves to instigate the second coming of Angela Merkel, who restored order and admitted Ukraine to the greater EU family.

CO-OP DEBACLE: THE FIFTH LABOUR OF MILIBAND

In the good old days, financial scandals mostly happened to Labour whereas the Conservatives were prone to sexual improprieties. Enter the larger than life figure of former Reverend Paul Flowers, doyen of ethical banking, amongst other things, and a man able to bestride this traditional political divide like a colossus, whilst bringing the Methodist Church in to disrepute at the same time. Please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Flowers_%28banker%29 Naturally, British media of all political persuasions have enjoyed a field day and foreign journalists have flocked to our shores to share this spectacle of ethical deflowerment around the globe. Britain is widely regarded abroad as a nation of hypocrites, although most of our politicians and wider governing elite, including the prime minister, seem blissfully unaware of this for much of the time, and for many foreigners the Flowers debacle story will have shown our country in what they believe to be its true colours.

However, whilst the role of the former Reverend Flowers, assisted it has to be said by many others from ruling elite, in the downfall of the Co-operative Bank may be a national embarrassment - whilst some have liked his antics off-stage to the US crime drama "Breaking Bad" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breaking_Bad  - the real lessons of this particular episode in British public life must be learnt most of all by Labour Party Leader Ed Miliband. Mr Miliband inherited what can only be described as "The Labours of Hercules" when he took over leadership of the party in 2010 and the task of cleaning-up after Paul Flowers, as well as other notables like Ed Balls, may be likened to "the Fifth Labour" or the cleansing of the Augean stables - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augeas  This is a chance for the Leader of the Opposition to demonstrate that he can rid himself of the legacy of financial incompetence inherited from the Blair-Brown Labour governments by appointing a new Treasury team. Failure to seize the opportunity could well spell an end to Mr Miliband's ambitions to be prime minister.

HORSE MEAT: DAVID STARKEY ON PRINCESS ANNE

The Duchess of York and Sir David Starkey in The Tatler magazine

Let me preface this post by saying that I love horses and good satire in that order. I also rather like Sir David Starkey, have some respect for Princess Anne and no particular objection to the Duchess of York (of whom nor more shall be written here). Nevertheless, it's fair to say that all three royals - Starkey, after all, is a historian of the monarchy - bring some controversy to the table.

So it was last week when Princess Anne used her speech at a World Horse Welfare event to suggest that eating horses may be good for their health. Now horse welfare is a complex subject which I do not propose to discuss in detail here, save to say that management of the equine population through appropriate breeding (including its prevention) practices is fundamental to this. End of life management is also a key issue and Princess Anne has done no harm in drawing attention to this. It should also be said that World Horse Welfare and similar charities do some excellent work in dealing with a range of problems facing equine populations in the UK, as well as in less developed countries where many animals labour and die in the most difficult of circumstances.

It was in to this uncomfortable discourse that Sir David Starkey too lept last week, when he suggested on the BBC Radio 4 panel show "Any Questions?" that Princess Anne looked like a horse - a comment that I'm sure the good lady would take as a compliment - and, with more than a touch of irony, that her advocacy of horse meat consumption revealed an unexpected "satirist".

Of course, it was Sir David and not Her Royal Highness who had spotted a satirical opportunity and chose to exploit this to the discomfiture of his more politically correct panel contestants and their audience. Likening Princess Ann's comments to Jonathan Swift's famous satire "A Modest Proposal for Preventing the Children of Poor People From Being a Burthen to Their Parents or Country, and for Making Them Beneficial to the Publick"*, Starkey went on to debunk her suggestion. In doing so, he returned the issue of horse meat consumption to a wider welfare context, thereby displaying some deft satirical footwork, which was unfortunately lost on his companions from across the politically correct spectrum.

Instead, Sir David Starkey brought ire upon himself from those who missed his ironic analogy and interpreted his comments as sexist. Although the subsequent media indignation was not so great as that sparked by Princess Anne herself, it was nonetheless significant, with the Huffington Post and its followers on Twitter getting into a considerable huff over the matter.

What all this reveals is that rational debate around challenging issues is increasingly difficult in an age of so-called emotional intelligence, and that it is no longer just North Americans who lack a sense of irony. With contemporary sensibilities so easily offended on these and a whole range of other matters it is hardly surprising that public discourse in Britain is in such a parlous state.

*  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Modest_Proposal

WHO'S HOLDING UP THE CHILCOT REPORT?

In some respects the circumstances leading to and surrounding the ongoing Chilcot Inquiry into the Iraq War are the opposite of those associated with more recent investigations into security leaks and media hacking. For at the heart of the Chilcot deliberations is not an explosive release of intelligence through illegitimate channels but rather an absence of information, currently reflected in the withholding, for reasons which are far from clear, of the inquiry's long overdue final report.

In a letter to the Prime Minister of 4th November this year, the official Chilcot website - www.iraqinquiry.org.uk - leads us to believe that the cause of the report's delay is due to the "Maxwellisation process". According to Wikipedia this "is a procedure in British governance where individuals due to be criticised in an official report are sent details of the criticism in advance and permitted to respond prior to publication. The process takes its name from the newspaper owner Robert Maxwell. In 1969, Maxwell was criticised in a report by the Department of Trade and Industry as "unfit to hold the stewardship of a public company". Maxwell took the matter to court where the DTI were said by the judge to have "virtually committed the business murder" of Maxwell. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwellisation

However, for those who might infer from the above reference that it is the deceased newspaper mogul who is responsible for holding up publication of the Chilcot report, I can say quite categorically that this is not the case. Instead blame has been cast upon Cabinet Secretary Sir Jeremy Heywood - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Heywood - who has apparently vetoed publication of documents supporting the main report.

Sir Jeremy's apparent action has led to a flurry of media coverage and a former Labour Foreign Secretary Lord Owen has requested that the Lord Chancellor Chris Grayling - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Grayling - take charge of the matter. Meanwhile, the Independent newspaper claims in an exclusive today that it is the United States government who are now holding up publication of the long-awaited Chilcot report, although this has subsequently been denied by sources there.

NATION IN GRIP OF NEW WITCH HYSTERIA

No doubt I'm not alone in starting to feel sorry for Rebekah Brooks; even if  I don't regard the latest cover of Private Eye to be in bad taste. The idea that the police should try to prevent its sale by a street vendor near the Old Bailey, where Mrs Brooks in currently on trial for phone hacking and corruption amongst other things, seems ridiculous. Nevertheless, I do think the nation has become gripped by a sort of witch hysteria, and what better day than Halloween to discuss this subject.

Mrs Brooks has wielded much power in her day, and many may be surprised that her secret consort was only former Downing Street spin doctor Andy Coulson and not the Prince of Darkness himself. However, her main crime now, it seems to me, is to be a non-establishment figure who has been dropped by former powerful friends as fast as a red hot poker. The lady herself, I suspect, may regret that her talents weren't sort out by the security services where her actions would have been rewarded.

Indeed, had Mrs Brooks made a career of espionage, supervising acts of surveillance and other nefarious activities, she may well have landed a peerage. Instead, in what has been described as "the trial of the century" she stands accused of offences which may have been common practice in the media, and, dare I suggest, other walks of public life. Like earlier witch hunters, the latest ones "protesteth too much", in the hope, no doubt, of hiding their own dark secrets.

SHADES OF GREY AND PEOPLE OVER FIFTY

The launch this week of a Labour Party commission, headed by Miriam O'Reilly and Arlene Phillips, into employment age discrimination against women over fifty comes as BBC news presented Fiona Bruce admits to dying her hair to keep her job. Both O'Reilly and Phillips were cast off by the Corporation from their roles in Country File and Strictly Come Dancing in favour of younger women.

As a woman just turned fifty and with her natural hair colour, including some grey, this is an issue close to my heart. However, the Labour Party's apparent championing of it will not make me renew my membership, lapsed since one Tony Blair became leader in the mid-1990s, because Britain's cult of youth, or rather of a youthful appearance, began with New Labour and the so-called Blair Babes.

For although John Major was only a youthful forty seven when he took up prime ministerial office in 1990, he was already grey and - although we did not know this until much later - the erstwhile possessor of a love life with fellow MP Edwina Currie probably closer to Fifty Shades of Grey than anyone in New Labour, with the possible exception of David Blunkett, would be capable of delivering.

Returning to discrimination against mature women the workplace, the issue, it seems to me, is not so much about age as appearance; although there are those for whom an older person's knowledge and experience are unattractive. However, discrimination on grounds of appearance is not confined to older women or men, and beautiful people may be discriminated against as well as plainer types.

The key issue - and apparent reason why BBC Country File sidelined Miriam O'Reilly, but retained the more mature John Craven - is that one's face fits, not just physically (the requirements of high definition television, for instance), but also, and even more importantly in most cases, metaphorically. Yes, it is fitting in with a younger group of colleagues that employers think older women will not do.

This apparent problem is often ascribed to a belief that older and younger women do not "get on" as well as men of different ages, and tend to replicate domestic roles in the workplace. The female menopause is also cited as an actual or potential risk to workplace equilibrium, although this seems to be able to accommodate the male's midlife changes.

Nevertheless, many men over fifty have been known to experience turbulent mood swings, and possibly even hot flushes exacerbated by spicy food, when challenged by younger, and perhaps more virile colleagues, including uniformed police officers. This fact may throw some light on the case of Andrew Mitchell (see below), and remind us all that, in life, there are indeed many shades of grey.

PLEBS AT THE GATE AND NEW CLASS POLITICS

On one level, I don't know whether to read the "Plebgate" story as a sense of humour failure on the parts of a government minister and the diplomatic police, or a comedy worthy of the Carry On Team.

Mr Andrew Mitchell, or so it is reported, likes to be known as a "Big Swinging D..k", but on this occasion seems to have behaved like a stupid pr..k. So why didn't the police officer in question caution the minister for bad behaviour at the time of the temper tantrum?

Instead, "Plebgate" was written down in the officer's log-book, and then later on the front page of The Sun newspaper. I'm not clear how the story was procured by News International, but I hope that on this occasion the police weren't paid for it.

Enter left Yvette Cooper, shadow Home Secretary, to demand an inquiry which the Cabinet Secretary has declined. Thank goodness, because even morons have more important things to think about!

TEAM GB: PRE-EMINENT MINI-SUPERPOWER?

The success of London 2012 and Britain's Olympic competitors has inevitably allowed politicians, sponsors and the media to bask temporarily in the glory of a role to which this country's elite most aspire: gold membership of a nation with pre-eminent mini-superpower status. However, this role, like hosting the Olympic Games, comes with a heavy price tag and questionable legacy.

One of the defining characteristics of super-power nations, arguably now the United States, China, Russia and India - based on country-size and/or population as well as economic resources - is increasing polarisation between rich and poor, something Britain, and particularly England, also shares. We also share with the US an increasingly multi-ethic society.

In a Telegraph article of 5 August, the historian David Starkey repeats his thesis of last year that 2011's civil unrest in English urban areas, especially London and other major cities, were predominantly "race riots". Although this contention has been hotly challenged, and the general consensus is that there were a number of contributory factors, Starkey's view is significant, as reflected in the volume of comments on his article.

Coming from a decidedly under-privileged background, as well as being homosexual (rather than gay), Starkey is perhaps better equipped than many to reflect on how poverty and minority-status can make life difficult, and how a good education, at least for his generation and the one which immediately followed it, can help overcome such difficulty.

The problem is that a good education, arguably still freely available up to level 3 (A level equivalent) for the majority of Britons under 20, is no longer regarded as a guarantor of the ability to succeed in life by significant sections of young people in our country. This is perhaps especially true of black adolescent males, and also many white working class ones, the primary targets of Starkey's diatribe.

Yet it may be that these young people, coming from the sharp end of Britain's increasing social inequality and feeling this most acutely, are simply presenting some of the clearest symptoms of the underlying disease. Moreover, it could also be that in an unreconstructed intellectual like Starkey, who is unencumbered by political correctness, that the disease may find some hope of a cure.

For the fine thing about Starkey, in my view, is that, like all traditional pedagogues, he appears to talk down to everyone, great and good included; and whilst castigating some lesser groups as misguided, and others criminal, he does not charge them with stupidity, a criticism he reserves for much of the elite and those intent on dumbing down social discourse.

It is for this reason, I would suggest, that David Starkey may be the ideal person to lead a national debate, which should take place at every level of society, on the advantages and disadvantages of Britain's aspirations - or rather those of our country's elite - for gold position in the global league of mini-superpowers. This might start with an appraisal of the main competitor nations, if there are any.

GOD SAVE PUTIN FROM THE PUSSY RIOT

The emasculation of Punk Rock in contemporary Britain is reflected the 2012 Olympic soundtrack, with The Clash's London Calling used by sponsors British Airways and The Sex Pistol's lyric "God save the Queen" (from their song Jubilee) finding its way into the opening ceremony's popular music medley.

In modern Russia, on the other hand, Punk seems to be alive and kicking. I refer, of course, to the girl band Pussy Riot who broke into Moscow's main cathedral earlier in the year wearing coloured balaclavas and called for the Holy Mother to save Russia from then prime minister, and now president, Vladimir Putin in a barrage of obscenities. Unsurprisingly, these actions led to unseemly scuffles with Orthodox nuns and clergy, and the subsequent imprisonment of some band members on charges of blasphemy and other offences. The absence of bail and the prospect of a long prison sentence for these young and, it has to be said, rather demure-looking women has outraged many Russians, leading to street protests by their supporters and one artist stitching his lips together. International media support for their plight is also growing.

However, I wonder what the reaction of Britain's liberal democracy, and, indeed that of the world's media, would be if a group of inappropriately-clad young women were to break into a mosque and engage in behaviour like that of Pussy Riot. The young women might well need to be imprisoned for their own protection.

For this reason, I would suggest, Britain is undergoing its own cultural emasculation, in some ways reflected in the opening ceremony of the London 2012 Olympics. The insidious nature of this process, by contrast with the, arguably, fascist regime of President Putin should be cause for equal concern.

However, the lyrics which perhaps best encapsulate our country's contemporary cultural malaise, expressed most profoundly in the cult of celebrity and the lingering legacy of The Spice Girls, due to perform in the London 2012 closing ceremony, are still those of The Sex Pistol's original Punk song Pretty Vacant:

"There's no point in asking us you'll get no reply
I just steam in but I don't decide
I got no reason it's all too much
you'll always find us
Out to lunch !
We're so pretty oh so pretty
vacant
We're so pretty oh so pretty
vacant"

OLYMPIC TRIUMPH OF FORM OVER CONTENT

The opening ceremony of the London 2012 Olympics was certainly a spectacle. Although I was hoping for something more Ken Russell and The Wicker Man to emerge from the Fields Full of Folk beneath the grassy mound, the transformation of these into Dark Satanic Mills instead was still impressive. Moreover, the heroine of the show for me was not Her Majesty's Bond Girl but the deaf drummer Dame Evelyn Glennie who led the summoning up of the infernal spirits of industrial revolution with Titan relish, stealing the limelight from Sir Kenneth Branagh's Isambard Kingdom Brunel with a positively awesome chthonic beat. Unfortunately, after that I thought the event rather lost its plot. Showcasing the National Health Service and Youth Culture was, I imagine, intended to highlight the role of these, along with the Queen and Our Green and Pleasant Land, in forging Britain's social cohesion. Nevertheless, despite the undoubted technical achievement of Danny Boyle's creation, I was left feeling that this culmination of the so-called Cultural Olympiad was still outdone by another Recent Event where form also triumphed over content: Last Year's Riots.