Continuing the Theme of Sea Change
My previous blog dealt with the use of Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA), and, more specifically, the failure to use this in a situation where it would seem to be required (by the European Union Directive).
There is currently tremendous hot air (ie talk) around the subject of global warming. It should be said that the earth has been hotter (and colder) in the not so distant past (ie since the Middle Ages), and sea levels considerably higher in the same period.
However, in these earlier times of warmer weather and higher sea levels, Britain had a fraction of the population and "settlement" that it does today. People could move relatively easily to new locations in both this country and abroad, without the problems such migrations would have now
The prospect of global warming (or cooling) and rising sea levels at the present time, and the role of "man-made pollution" in this, carries enormous challenges because of the scale of human population and the technological lifestyles/aspirations of (over)developed/developing nations.
The fact is that despite enormous talk since the late 1980s when the prospect of global warming was acknowledged as a potentially serious threat to world economic stability, with momentous social as well as environmental consequences, "greenhouse emissions" have continued to rise.
In my own areas of work, the problem of rising emissions is both surprising and not. With regard to building and power generation, for instance, we have had the technology (but alas not the will !) since the 1980s to considerably reduce the production of green house gases at source.
Taxation and other fiscal measures to "make the polluter pay" have also received immense attention in the same period, but with some exceptions, the polluter hasn't paid enough in most cases, especially in the area of transport, where people and goods traffic has continued to grow.
Periods, in the UK anyway, when green house gases have gone down or stabilised have co-incided with recessions and post-recessions. This happened between 1990-1996, after which emissions rose again. Many therefore regard economic "growth" as the core problem.
However, this view is anathema to most governments around the world, including our own. For these a "technical fix" must be available to enable economies to continue to grow and greenhouse gases to decline. This would indeed be a "sea change", but can we really "fix" one ?
Proper use of SEA might be one good place to start !
Monday, October 30, 2006
Thursday, October 26, 2006
A SEA Change - The Use of Strategic Environmental Assessment
I "launched" this blog on 1 June 2006 with a post entitled "East London/Thames Gateway Road-based River Crossings", promising further blogs on these subjects, so here we go again....
Incidentally, this post is going to provide the basis of correspondence with government departments next week. Re-Use, Re-Cycle if you can and Save Energy in such endeavours !
In my evidence to the Thames Gateway Bridge (TGB) Public Inquiry about this time last year, I argued that Transport for London (TfL) should have provided a Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) for their proposal in order to demonstrate, amongst other things, that a full "Options Appraisal" (including appropriate public consultations) had been undertaken.
The best explanation that I've found of how the European Union Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive takes effect in member states is in an article in the August 2004 edition of the Journal of Planning Law (JPL). I mention this because, although the British government has produced its own guidance on the implementation of the SEA Directive, it seems that use of SEA to date has been somewhat "optional".
Thus TfL, for instance, have incorporated SEA into their work on behalf of the Mayor of London into the proposed introduction of a "Low Emissions Zone" for the Greater London area (published in July 2006), but not in relation to a road-based river crossing in East London which, on their own evidence, would add significantly to local air pollution.
Returning to the JPL article, this excellent account of "The Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes" by Jonathan Robinson and David Elvin QC states in its opening paragraph that SEA :
"....fills the gap not covered by the environmental impact directive 85/337/EEC in requiring the transparent assessment of the likely environmental effects of the hierarchy of plans and programmes which have a strategic role in directing not only development but other interventions in the environment".
The potential application of SEA is therefore very wide indeed. Moreover, just because SEA has been conducted at one level of plan development, does not preclude its use at a "lower" level of specificity.
With regard to the TGB, SEA is a statutory requirement for the East London Sub-Regional Development Framework, the planning context most relevant to the assessment of options for improving cross-river transport access. However, at the time of the TGB Public Inquiry, progress on the development framework (not yet subject to SEA) lagged behind that of the proposal before the inquiry : one reason for arguing that promotion of the TGB is premature.
In this type of situation, it is usual for the promoter of a particular scheme to argue that this cannot be delayed because the planning context is evolving, and this is what happened. Equally, it could be argued that TfL's case for the TGB was also evolving : one of the main reasons an inquiry predicted to last 4-6 weeks went on for nearly a year.
I understand that the TGB Inquiry Planning Inspectors are to submit their report to the Department for the Communities and Local Government (DCLG) very soon. DCLG is now the "custodian" of planning and, therefore, the use of Strategic Environmental Assessment. My recommendation, which I put to the Inquiry, is that TfL return to the "Options Stage" in considering additional cross-river transport access in East London. In other words, I'm looking for a SEA change from these proceedings !
I "launched" this blog on 1 June 2006 with a post entitled "East London/Thames Gateway Road-based River Crossings", promising further blogs on these subjects, so here we go again....
Incidentally, this post is going to provide the basis of correspondence with government departments next week. Re-Use, Re-Cycle if you can and Save Energy in such endeavours !
In my evidence to the Thames Gateway Bridge (TGB) Public Inquiry about this time last year, I argued that Transport for London (TfL) should have provided a Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) for their proposal in order to demonstrate, amongst other things, that a full "Options Appraisal" (including appropriate public consultations) had been undertaken.
The best explanation that I've found of how the European Union Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive takes effect in member states is in an article in the August 2004 edition of the Journal of Planning Law (JPL). I mention this because, although the British government has produced its own guidance on the implementation of the SEA Directive, it seems that use of SEA to date has been somewhat "optional".
Thus TfL, for instance, have incorporated SEA into their work on behalf of the Mayor of London into the proposed introduction of a "Low Emissions Zone" for the Greater London area (published in July 2006), but not in relation to a road-based river crossing in East London which, on their own evidence, would add significantly to local air pollution.
Returning to the JPL article, this excellent account of "The Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes" by Jonathan Robinson and David Elvin QC states in its opening paragraph that SEA :
"....fills the gap not covered by the environmental impact directive 85/337/EEC in requiring the transparent assessment of the likely environmental effects of the hierarchy of plans and programmes which have a strategic role in directing not only development but other interventions in the environment".
The potential application of SEA is therefore very wide indeed. Moreover, just because SEA has been conducted at one level of plan development, does not preclude its use at a "lower" level of specificity.
With regard to the TGB, SEA is a statutory requirement for the East London Sub-Regional Development Framework, the planning context most relevant to the assessment of options for improving cross-river transport access. However, at the time of the TGB Public Inquiry, progress on the development framework (not yet subject to SEA) lagged behind that of the proposal before the inquiry : one reason for arguing that promotion of the TGB is premature.
In this type of situation, it is usual for the promoter of a particular scheme to argue that this cannot be delayed because the planning context is evolving, and this is what happened. Equally, it could be argued that TfL's case for the TGB was also evolving : one of the main reasons an inquiry predicted to last 4-6 weeks went on for nearly a year.
I understand that the TGB Inquiry Planning Inspectors are to submit their report to the Department for the Communities and Local Government (DCLG) very soon. DCLG is now the "custodian" of planning and, therefore, the use of Strategic Environmental Assessment. My recommendation, which I put to the Inquiry, is that TfL return to the "Options Stage" in considering additional cross-river transport access in East London. In other words, I'm looking for a SEA change from these proceedings !
Tuesday, October 24, 2006
Left Soft on Solutions
There is rather a good piece in the Comment Section of today's Guardian entitled "A cloistered metropolitan elite is in denial about Britain" by John Harris, whose photograph shows a young man who looks a bit like the singer Paul Weller (later of Red Wedge) during the early 1980s. I'm largely in agreement with what Mr Harris has to say, with one exception, his presumption(?) that only the centre-left is really interested in the subject matter of his article : "inequality".
Whilst organisations like the Institute of Public Policy Research (IPPR), Demos and the Young Foundation will I'm sure be sympathetic to Mr Harris's message (even if "a former editor of a tabloid newpaper" was not), one problem with these manifestations of the centre-left is that they have been soft on real solutions, or at least ones that have taken root in the body politic. Indeed, I would argue that the John Major government was stronger on solutions than this one.
There have been some excellent analyses of inequality by "the soft left", including Professor Robert Macdonald's study of "Disconnected Youth" in Middlesbrough, published last year by Palgrave. However, these analyses have not led to the development of coherent policies by the present government to tackle the sort of problem "indicators" identified in Mr Harris's article , and perhaps most of all that "abiding sense that the good life was happening somewhere else".
So why has the centre-left been soft on solutions to tackle inequality ? This might well provide the subject for another article by Mr Harris. One reason, I would suggest, is the tendency for the soft left, however well intentioned, to inhabit a rather cloistered world of its own, all be this rather less grand that that inhabited by New Labour and its adherents in the media etc.
There is rather a good piece in the Comment Section of today's Guardian entitled "A cloistered metropolitan elite is in denial about Britain" by John Harris, whose photograph shows a young man who looks a bit like the singer Paul Weller (later of Red Wedge) during the early 1980s. I'm largely in agreement with what Mr Harris has to say, with one exception, his presumption(?) that only the centre-left is really interested in the subject matter of his article : "inequality".
Whilst organisations like the Institute of Public Policy Research (IPPR), Demos and the Young Foundation will I'm sure be sympathetic to Mr Harris's message (even if "a former editor of a tabloid newpaper" was not), one problem with these manifestations of the centre-left is that they have been soft on real solutions, or at least ones that have taken root in the body politic. Indeed, I would argue that the John Major government was stronger on solutions than this one.
There have been some excellent analyses of inequality by "the soft left", including Professor Robert Macdonald's study of "Disconnected Youth" in Middlesbrough, published last year by Palgrave. However, these analyses have not led to the development of coherent policies by the present government to tackle the sort of problem "indicators" identified in Mr Harris's article , and perhaps most of all that "abiding sense that the good life was happening somewhere else".
So why has the centre-left been soft on solutions to tackle inequality ? This might well provide the subject for another article by Mr Harris. One reason, I would suggest, is the tendency for the soft left, however well intentioned, to inhabit a rather cloistered world of its own, all be this rather less grand that that inhabited by New Labour and its adherents in the media etc.
Monday, October 23, 2006
Know the Difference between Objectivity and Aspiration
I often wonder why organisations and individuals willingly submit themselves to being mercilessly ripped off. My guess is that their abililty to distinguish objectivity and aspiration is temporarily, and in some cases permanently, suspended. The phrase "willing suspension of disbelief" comes to mind.
To explore my theory, I'm going to use two "case studies" : the Private Finance Initiative (PFI); and horse purchase.
The word "aspirational" first properly entered my psyche when I had an unplanned meeting with a senior army officer - unplanned because he'd planned to be elsewhere but bad weather prevented this - regarding a project in which the army took an interest. This gentleman's use of the word "aspirational" had a particular resonance for me on two counts. Firstly, it was clear that aspiration was a core value for him, personally and professionally, and, secondly, I intimated that my own proposals (and person !) might be insufficiently aspirational.
A few years passed and I had occasion to "revisit" the same army establishment, which in the meantime had recieved substantial investment under a PFI scheme. In my opinion, this scheme had all the hallmarks of a typical PFI project. There had indeed been substantial capital investment ie new construction. However, this had brought with it new and equally substantial operating costs. Various new initiatives were now being contemplated to cover these costs, and additional funds sought for further capital works.
This kind of situation is familiar to (?) the majority of local health trusts who have embarked upon major new hospital (re)construction using the PFI in recent years. The Worcestershire Royal Hospital, a new facility on the outskirts of the city of Worcester, is a classic example of what can go wrong.
PFI is now widely regarded as a "bad deal" for the public sector, and particularly for the National Health Service. It was conceived under the previous Conservative administration to "get around" public spending constraints. However, under New Labour it has been a key component of "the building boom" on which the wider ecomony is now so dependent. We have a construction industry which is hungry for more PFI projects, regardless of whether these are in the best interests of potential "clients" for such projects, or the general tax payer.
Yet PFI has fulfilled the aspirations of the public sector for new infrastructure, and the new hospitals, schools etc that have sprung up, notwithstanding their frequently poor design (for purpose), are hailed as one of the great successes of aspirational New Labour.
The zeitgeist of the present time is aspirational, and there is a Mephistopheles around every corner, or so it seems, with whom to enter into a Faustian pact.
Horse purchase is another case in point. There is nothing new in the tendency for new (or newer) comers to horse purchase to acquire animals which are too energetic and/or big for them, and to find that the ongoing resources (time, money etc) required to maintain a horse are more burdensome than the capital outlay. The horse world, like that of PFI, also has a plentiful supply of professionals to complicate matters, and - although some do provide a genuine good service - many "trade" on the aspirations of their clients, sometimes with serious consequences.
So my message to potential horsebuyers and procurers of other major capital projects is know the difference between objectivity (including objectives) and aspirations, it may save you alot of money (and possibly your life). Also know that - as someone once said - "there are as many certified charlatans as uncertified ones" out there to part fools from their money.
I often wonder why organisations and individuals willingly submit themselves to being mercilessly ripped off. My guess is that their abililty to distinguish objectivity and aspiration is temporarily, and in some cases permanently, suspended. The phrase "willing suspension of disbelief" comes to mind.
To explore my theory, I'm going to use two "case studies" : the Private Finance Initiative (PFI); and horse purchase.
The word "aspirational" first properly entered my psyche when I had an unplanned meeting with a senior army officer - unplanned because he'd planned to be elsewhere but bad weather prevented this - regarding a project in which the army took an interest. This gentleman's use of the word "aspirational" had a particular resonance for me on two counts. Firstly, it was clear that aspiration was a core value for him, personally and professionally, and, secondly, I intimated that my own proposals (and person !) might be insufficiently aspirational.
A few years passed and I had occasion to "revisit" the same army establishment, which in the meantime had recieved substantial investment under a PFI scheme. In my opinion, this scheme had all the hallmarks of a typical PFI project. There had indeed been substantial capital investment ie new construction. However, this had brought with it new and equally substantial operating costs. Various new initiatives were now being contemplated to cover these costs, and additional funds sought for further capital works.
This kind of situation is familiar to (?) the majority of local health trusts who have embarked upon major new hospital (re)construction using the PFI in recent years. The Worcestershire Royal Hospital, a new facility on the outskirts of the city of Worcester, is a classic example of what can go wrong.
PFI is now widely regarded as a "bad deal" for the public sector, and particularly for the National Health Service. It was conceived under the previous Conservative administration to "get around" public spending constraints. However, under New Labour it has been a key component of "the building boom" on which the wider ecomony is now so dependent. We have a construction industry which is hungry for more PFI projects, regardless of whether these are in the best interests of potential "clients" for such projects, or the general tax payer.
Yet PFI has fulfilled the aspirations of the public sector for new infrastructure, and the new hospitals, schools etc that have sprung up, notwithstanding their frequently poor design (for purpose), are hailed as one of the great successes of aspirational New Labour.
The zeitgeist of the present time is aspirational, and there is a Mephistopheles around every corner, or so it seems, with whom to enter into a Faustian pact.
Horse purchase is another case in point. There is nothing new in the tendency for new (or newer) comers to horse purchase to acquire animals which are too energetic and/or big for them, and to find that the ongoing resources (time, money etc) required to maintain a horse are more burdensome than the capital outlay. The horse world, like that of PFI, also has a plentiful supply of professionals to complicate matters, and - although some do provide a genuine good service - many "trade" on the aspirations of their clients, sometimes with serious consequences.
So my message to potential horsebuyers and procurers of other major capital projects is know the difference between objectivity (including objectives) and aspirations, it may save you alot of money (and possibly your life). Also know that - as someone once said - "there are as many certified charlatans as uncertified ones" out there to part fools from their money.
Friday, October 20, 2006
On Being Advised to Set Myself Up in Business as a Witch
When I was a relatively young woman in about 1991, a "mentor" of sorts suggested to me that I set myself up in business as a witch "before anyone does".
I should explain that my mentor was a well-known transport consultant, someone both accomplished in the creative thinking (or "ideas") department, and in the implementation process. He was, in short, a bit of a wizard himself.
Nevertheless, as someone who took herself a bit more seriously then than now, I was not sure how to take his comments, other than with a slightly uneasy laugh.
Like all good mentors, mine had obviously spotted some professional potential of which I was not yet aware, and also an emerging market for a new type of service.
In the meantime, of course, an increasing number of women (and some men) have set themselves up as witches. It should be said that, although this is by no means a new profession,
its public acceptance has grown in recent years, almost to the point of respectability.
But not quite ! Being a witch does still not carry the same "position" of, say, a transport planner, as my mentor well knew.
Now, where's my broomstick ?
When I was a relatively young woman in about 1991, a "mentor" of sorts suggested to me that I set myself up in business as a witch "before anyone does".
I should explain that my mentor was a well-known transport consultant, someone both accomplished in the creative thinking (or "ideas") department, and in the implementation process. He was, in short, a bit of a wizard himself.
Nevertheless, as someone who took herself a bit more seriously then than now, I was not sure how to take his comments, other than with a slightly uneasy laugh.
Like all good mentors, mine had obviously spotted some professional potential of which I was not yet aware, and also an emerging market for a new type of service.
In the meantime, of course, an increasing number of women (and some men) have set themselves up as witches. It should be said that, although this is by no means a new profession,
its public acceptance has grown in recent years, almost to the point of respectability.
But not quite ! Being a witch does still not carry the same "position" of, say, a transport planner, as my mentor well knew.
Now, where's my broomstick ?
The Power of Pissed-off People
From time to time it occurs to me that I haven't had as much to say on "business and management consulting" as on certain other topics, so it's time to rectify this.
One of the world's best known business and management gurus, Tom Peters, wrote in his book "Re-Imagine" (published 2003) : "I happen to believe that all innovation comes, not from market research or carefully-crafted focus groups, but from pissed-off people". I don't agree with everything Tom Peters has to say by any means, but on the role of pissed-off people in innovation I'm largely in agreement with him. Others, of course, may disagree.
It was this feeling of being "pissed-off" that first led me to take a serious interest in "management" in the mid-1980s. The big issue for me then, as now, was the failure of government agencies planning new infrastructure to adopt a process whereby project options, including alternative development scenarios (eg more environmetally appropriate), could be properly assessed.
Fortunately, alot of other people were also very pissed-off about this, and it has been precisely "the power of pissed-off people" which has, I'm pleased to say, led to some improvements in the appraisal process. However, in my experience if those with a vested interest in the construction of a certain project can find a way around having to go through a full options appraisal, including proper public consultation, they will.
So "Power to the Pissed-off People", I say, for without this I beleive it would be very much a permanent "business as usual scenario" for government agencies and consulting companies.
From time to time it occurs to me that I haven't had as much to say on "business and management consulting" as on certain other topics, so it's time to rectify this.
One of the world's best known business and management gurus, Tom Peters, wrote in his book "Re-Imagine" (published 2003) : "I happen to believe that all innovation comes, not from market research or carefully-crafted focus groups, but from pissed-off people". I don't agree with everything Tom Peters has to say by any means, but on the role of pissed-off people in innovation I'm largely in agreement with him. Others, of course, may disagree.
It was this feeling of being "pissed-off" that first led me to take a serious interest in "management" in the mid-1980s. The big issue for me then, as now, was the failure of government agencies planning new infrastructure to adopt a process whereby project options, including alternative development scenarios (eg more environmetally appropriate), could be properly assessed.
Fortunately, alot of other people were also very pissed-off about this, and it has been precisely "the power of pissed-off people" which has, I'm pleased to say, led to some improvements in the appraisal process. However, in my experience if those with a vested interest in the construction of a certain project can find a way around having to go through a full options appraisal, including proper public consultation, they will.
So "Power to the Pissed-off People", I say, for without this I beleive it would be very much a permanent "business as usual scenario" for government agencies and consulting companies.
Wednesday, October 18, 2006
Treasury more User-Friendly than Communities Department ?
As mentioned in my earlier blog "Globalisation and Discontent", the Treasury and the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) are conducting parallel reviews broadly covering the areas of regeneration and economic development. The DCLG review was instigated when these matters came under the authority of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, and an extension of the review was announced last Summer after the creation of the new department. No report has yet emerged. The Treasury, after one unacknowledged email, have now told me that there is 3 weeks to submit material to their review, with a further opportunity for comment at a later stage. After several unacknowledged emails to the DCLG, I have now received a reply from a human being. I had electronic replies to a couple of my emails to the effect that the intended human recipient was on "Annual Leave", but the alternative email address provided did not respond. However, I have now received a rather snooty reply from DCLG stating that the deadline for submissions to their review passed in May. My understanding is, nevertheless, that the review is still ongoing, and I shall submit "comments" anyway (ie a copy of those I send to the Treasury).
As mentioned in my earlier blog "Globalisation and Discontent", the Treasury and the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) are conducting parallel reviews broadly covering the areas of regeneration and economic development. The DCLG review was instigated when these matters came under the authority of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, and an extension of the review was announced last Summer after the creation of the new department. No report has yet emerged. The Treasury, after one unacknowledged email, have now told me that there is 3 weeks to submit material to their review, with a further opportunity for comment at a later stage. After several unacknowledged emails to the DCLG, I have now received a reply from a human being. I had electronic replies to a couple of my emails to the effect that the intended human recipient was on "Annual Leave", but the alternative email address provided did not respond. However, I have now received a rather snooty reply from DCLG stating that the deadline for submissions to their review passed in May. My understanding is, nevertheless, that the review is still ongoing, and I shall submit "comments" anyway (ie a copy of those I send to the Treasury).
Thursday, October 12, 2006
On Keeping Up Appearances and The Tribes of Worcester
During the summer in Worcester I met with two guys from the US on the trail of the British TV sitcom "Keeping up Appearances". I'm usually quite good with accents, both placing and understanding. However, it was a while before I could catch what these two were talking about. They were brothers and looked liked two people from the Cohen Brothers film Fargo. Anyway, it transpired that they were great fans of "Keeping Up Appearances", and as Hyacinth Bucket, the heroine of the show, collected Royal Worcester (or so they told me) they wanted to check some out. They also told me that many American men strongly identified with Hyacinth's husband, Richard. Apparently, "Keeping Up Appearances" was an unexpected succes in the US, and indeed a sequel was brought out for the "market" there.
One reason I took to these brothers was that their rather curious accents and appearance made me feel quite uneccentric myself. There's nothing better than feeling a bit superior to other people, as Hyacinth Bucket would tell us. These sentiments are going to lead me into some reflections on "The Tribes of Worcester", where I may well touch on the politically incorrect and for which I offer no apology. Before this let me put my reflections into context. The "Big People Problems" (which I could count on one hand) that I've experienced in life have always been with other white middle class people. I've had few problems with people of other religions, races, nationalities, or, for that matter, social class. This may well be the case for most people : your own "social group" is probably the most troublesome to you, even if you aren't yet aware of it.
Last week, whilst in the "Ladies" of a major retailer in Worcester, I overheard a young well-spoken woman say : "I don't want to live in England". This was said in a loud voice, with something of a histrionic gesture. I was curious but resisted asking her why. Nevertheless, the opportunity to do so arose when I found myself next to her on the "down" escalator. She seemed very open to giving her reasons (I like this in people) and identified a number of issues which I would describe as "planning-related", but won't deal with these now. The "reason" for which she seemed to have most passion, was "having to dress like a chav" in order to prevent herself from being "beaten up". In other words, she had to "conform" to a certain "popular culture" in order to fit in, and she didn't feel comfortable about this.
Now it did occur to me during our conversation that I might be dressed like a chav. I'm not really sure what a "chav" is, or how they dress, but felt it might have something to do with wearing a kind of leisure outfit (cargo pants etc) which, as a cyclist, I mostly do. However, I also realised from my manner of speech (and possibly because I'm too old) this young woman did not consider me to be a "chav". In response to her analysis of the pressure of "popular culture", I acknowledged my feeling that there does seem to be some"inverted snobbery" in Worcester. Silently, I also acknowledged to myself that, in certain situations, in might be appropriate for a young well-spoke middle class woman to "unveil" herself as a "chav", for instance by wearing trousers well down her bottom cleavage (which I don't).
Having covered "inverted snobbery", I now want to deal with snobbery of the good-old fashioned sort. Walking along a Worcester street just now, I noticed a lawyer of my acquaintance coming towards me. The people with him looked like local farmers, and I vaguely recognised one man. I could see that the lawyer did not want to speak to me, and he attempted to pass me with the barest of acknowledgement, although there seemed no great urgency about his business, given the manner of his converstion. Its fair to say that I've had some past and prospective horse business with this man, and was I somewhat annoyed by his attitude so I seized the moment. As the "gentleman" passed me I asked him how his horse was, and, when he tried to snub me, asked him whether he'd sold him yet.
The response was negative and by now the man was trying to escape, so in my good loud horsey voice I shouted after him that I'd like to have a look at the horse again, and that I'd give him a call (which I might do). From my perspective, whilst this man thinks of himself as a "horseman", I think of him as a "competitor" (see my earlier blog "On the Importance of Being a Good Punter"). Thus whilst I like the look, and temperament, of the horse he has for sale (which has also won some major show classes), I'm not convinced that this has the robustness of the "worker" for which I'm currently looking. Incidentally, the saying goes that there are three kinds of horses : working horses, show horses, and horses's arses. The other thing is that this man is a lawyer, and I have some acquired prejudice for his "tribe".
During the summer in Worcester I met with two guys from the US on the trail of the British TV sitcom "Keeping up Appearances". I'm usually quite good with accents, both placing and understanding. However, it was a while before I could catch what these two were talking about. They were brothers and looked liked two people from the Cohen Brothers film Fargo. Anyway, it transpired that they were great fans of "Keeping Up Appearances", and as Hyacinth Bucket, the heroine of the show, collected Royal Worcester (or so they told me) they wanted to check some out. They also told me that many American men strongly identified with Hyacinth's husband, Richard. Apparently, "Keeping Up Appearances" was an unexpected succes in the US, and indeed a sequel was brought out for the "market" there.
One reason I took to these brothers was that their rather curious accents and appearance made me feel quite uneccentric myself. There's nothing better than feeling a bit superior to other people, as Hyacinth Bucket would tell us. These sentiments are going to lead me into some reflections on "The Tribes of Worcester", where I may well touch on the politically incorrect and for which I offer no apology. Before this let me put my reflections into context. The "Big People Problems" (which I could count on one hand) that I've experienced in life have always been with other white middle class people. I've had few problems with people of other religions, races, nationalities, or, for that matter, social class. This may well be the case for most people : your own "social group" is probably the most troublesome to you, even if you aren't yet aware of it.
Last week, whilst in the "Ladies" of a major retailer in Worcester, I overheard a young well-spoken woman say : "I don't want to live in England". This was said in a loud voice, with something of a histrionic gesture. I was curious but resisted asking her why. Nevertheless, the opportunity to do so arose when I found myself next to her on the "down" escalator. She seemed very open to giving her reasons (I like this in people) and identified a number of issues which I would describe as "planning-related", but won't deal with these now. The "reason" for which she seemed to have most passion, was "having to dress like a chav" in order to prevent herself from being "beaten up". In other words, she had to "conform" to a certain "popular culture" in order to fit in, and she didn't feel comfortable about this.
Now it did occur to me during our conversation that I might be dressed like a chav. I'm not really sure what a "chav" is, or how they dress, but felt it might have something to do with wearing a kind of leisure outfit (cargo pants etc) which, as a cyclist, I mostly do. However, I also realised from my manner of speech (and possibly because I'm too old) this young woman did not consider me to be a "chav". In response to her analysis of the pressure of "popular culture", I acknowledged my feeling that there does seem to be some"inverted snobbery" in Worcester. Silently, I also acknowledged to myself that, in certain situations, in might be appropriate for a young well-spoke middle class woman to "unveil" herself as a "chav", for instance by wearing trousers well down her bottom cleavage (which I don't).
Having covered "inverted snobbery", I now want to deal with snobbery of the good-old fashioned sort. Walking along a Worcester street just now, I noticed a lawyer of my acquaintance coming towards me. The people with him looked like local farmers, and I vaguely recognised one man. I could see that the lawyer did not want to speak to me, and he attempted to pass me with the barest of acknowledgement, although there seemed no great urgency about his business, given the manner of his converstion. Its fair to say that I've had some past and prospective horse business with this man, and was I somewhat annoyed by his attitude so I seized the moment. As the "gentleman" passed me I asked him how his horse was, and, when he tried to snub me, asked him whether he'd sold him yet.
The response was negative and by now the man was trying to escape, so in my good loud horsey voice I shouted after him that I'd like to have a look at the horse again, and that I'd give him a call (which I might do). From my perspective, whilst this man thinks of himself as a "horseman", I think of him as a "competitor" (see my earlier blog "On the Importance of Being a Good Punter"). Thus whilst I like the look, and temperament, of the horse he has for sale (which has also won some major show classes), I'm not convinced that this has the robustness of the "worker" for which I'm currently looking. Incidentally, the saying goes that there are three kinds of horses : working horses, show horses, and horses's arses. The other thing is that this man is a lawyer, and I have some acquired prejudice for his "tribe".
Wednesday, October 11, 2006
Why Cycling 4 me Beats Driving a 4x4 (or "On Yer Bikes Ladies" !)
I've noticed an increasing tendency, which seems to me to be particularly strong in Worcester/shire, for people to "judge" others on fairly superficial criteria. For instance, I do not own or have access to a car, something which has been the case for most of my adult life, yet this does not greatly inhibit my enjoyment of outdoor pursuits, including horse riding, in the semi-rural parts of the County. However, I am aware that others regard my carlessness as "odd".
To illustrate this, last year I travelled regularly to "Archers Country" near Hanbury in North Worcestershire. This involved a short train journey with my bicyle from Worcester to Droitwich, followed by a cycle ride of 6-7 miles, and back, of course. No big deal ! I managed this trip, which involved crossing a ford using a footbridge, on a twice weekly basis throughout the winter months. The purpose of my journey was to ride a horse, which I enjoyed very much.
Yet I knew that my bike marked me out as "different", at best a fitness fanatic (certainly not !) but more probably eccentric (possibly !). It was difficult to establish much rapport with people at the yard where I rode. Experience has taught me that when such rapport cannot be built up, it is best to withdraw from the situation. Otherwise, a small incident or disagreement can become a a very big deal. So I stopped visiting "Archers Country" on a regular basis.
Some while later, whilst cyling along a semi-rural road in South East Worcestershire from another yard, I saw ahead of me a woman on a horse who had been at the other livery yard. She and her friend had now moved into the area. We had quite a long roadside conversation, although I still felt my bike marked me out for her as someone "different". The funny thing is, one of the reasons she had moved from the other yard was the ford, which could be fast flowing in the winter, even for her 4x4 (which she had been worried about). Ho ! Ho !
& Putting this Blog in the Context of My Othe Blogs
I've noticed an increasing tendency, which seems to me to be particularly strong in Worcester/shire, for people to "judge" others on fairly superficial criteria. For instance, I do not own or have access to a car, something which has been the case for most of my adult life, yet this does not greatly inhibit my enjoyment of outdoor pursuits, including horse riding, in the semi-rural parts of the County. However, I am aware that others regard my carlessness as "odd".
To illustrate this, last year I travelled regularly to "Archers Country" near Hanbury in North Worcestershire. This involved a short train journey with my bicyle from Worcester to Droitwich, followed by a cycle ride of 6-7 miles, and back, of course. No big deal ! I managed this trip, which involved crossing a ford using a footbridge, on a twice weekly basis throughout the winter months. The purpose of my journey was to ride a horse, which I enjoyed very much.
Yet I knew that my bike marked me out as "different", at best a fitness fanatic (certainly not !) but more probably eccentric (possibly !). It was difficult to establish much rapport with people at the yard where I rode. Experience has taught me that when such rapport cannot be built up, it is best to withdraw from the situation. Otherwise, a small incident or disagreement can become a a very big deal. So I stopped visiting "Archers Country" on a regular basis.
Some while later, whilst cyling along a semi-rural road in South East Worcestershire from another yard, I saw ahead of me a woman on a horse who had been at the other livery yard. She and her friend had now moved into the area. We had quite a long roadside conversation, although I still felt my bike marked me out for her as someone "different". The funny thing is, one of the reasons she had moved from the other yard was the ford, which could be fast flowing in the winter, even for her 4x4 (which she had been worried about). Ho ! Ho !
& Putting this Blog in the Context of My Othe Blogs
Given this increasing preference, which I suspect goes much wider than Worcester/shire, to use fairly superficial criteria to "get the measure" of other people, I want to "give some context" to my "Janet Mackinnon" blog. In fact, I am in the process of developing a number of blogs, 3 of which I'll mention now :
- The Edge of Town
- Janet Stone &
- The Green Man Project
Here's a little more detail :
The Edge of Town
The psychiatrist and metaphysician Carl Jung identified a "shadow" side of the human psyche. "The Edge of Town" explores the transferrence of this shadow into our environments, whether in the form of pollution, destruction of the countryside and rural communities, or the darker side of urban life and human existence. "The Edge of Town" is, therefore, a physical, psychological and, perhaps, metaphysical "place".
Janet Stone
Reflections on "New Paradigm" (including so-called "New Age") themes and trends in science, health, education, spirituality, and thinking on "human potential". Janet "Stone" is the alias of Janet Mackinnon in her quest for "the Philosopher's Stone".
The Green Man Project
Exploration of the links between local history and wildlife, landscape, archaeology, craft industry and folk culture, including animal husbandry and equestrian heritage. References to good practice in local conservation from around the world, and to other practical, creative and therapeutic initiatives which evoke the spirit of The Green Man and Woman.
Another way of looking at these blogs is as follows :
- Janet Mackinnon (my real world/everyday concerns)
- The Edge of Town (in which I confront the "shadow" of everyday things)
- Janet Stone (the potential for human development with "paradigm shift")
- The Green Man Project (integrating the everyday, the "dark" and the "light")
I hope no one will find all this strange or threatening. It will be an interesting ride.
The Difference between "Alright" and "All Right"
As a child when asked how I was my reply of choice was "Alright", meaning "OK", although I was encouraged to say "Very well, thank you" by some people. However, "Alright" suited me better. I think most people would describe their general state of being as "OK". Some things in life may be good or even great, but other things are generally less so. "Alright" covers this centre ground between the good and the less good, or bad.
"All Right" has differtent connotations altogether. "He's doing All Right" is generally taken to mean he's doing very well indeed. However, this expression can be taken to extremes. Wasn't there an aspirant US presidential candidate in the last elections who chanted "All Right" in a rather embarrassing fashion, only to get knocked out of the race. He had been doing "Alright" before, and then things went "pear-shaped" (an expression I'll cover in the future).
In the context of "I'm All Right Jack" (my previous blog), there is a further play on words. Not only is the hero of that film apt to do "All Right" for himself. His views are also "All Right", or he is always right (in his own opinion). The word play is highly relevant to the mores of "The Ruling Classes" just now. There is a strong tendency to view people who do "All Right" for themselves, (ie make alot of money) as somehow "All Right" in other respects.
This is a great mistake, particularly for political parties in receipt of large loans and donations.
As a child when asked how I was my reply of choice was "Alright", meaning "OK", although I was encouraged to say "Very well, thank you" by some people. However, "Alright" suited me better. I think most people would describe their general state of being as "OK". Some things in life may be good or even great, but other things are generally less so. "Alright" covers this centre ground between the good and the less good, or bad.
"All Right" has differtent connotations altogether. "He's doing All Right" is generally taken to mean he's doing very well indeed. However, this expression can be taken to extremes. Wasn't there an aspirant US presidential candidate in the last elections who chanted "All Right" in a rather embarrassing fashion, only to get knocked out of the race. He had been doing "Alright" before, and then things went "pear-shaped" (an expression I'll cover in the future).
In the context of "I'm All Right Jack" (my previous blog), there is a further play on words. Not only is the hero of that film apt to do "All Right" for himself. His views are also "All Right", or he is always right (in his own opinion). The word play is highly relevant to the mores of "The Ruling Classes" just now. There is a strong tendency to view people who do "All Right" for themselves, (ie make alot of money) as somehow "All Right" in other respects.
This is a great mistake, particularly for political parties in receipt of large loans and donations.
Monday, October 09, 2006
"I'm All Right Jack" (and John)
Yesterday, on on BBC Radio 4's "Broadcasting House" the male presenter asked a woman journalist from an Asian newspaper, who was a guest on the programme, a question in words to the effect of : "Have Moslems become the new Fox Hunting ?". The woman was rather taken aback - and so was I - but she replied "No, we haven't". This was rather a surreal question I thought - these may be rather surreal times - but the point the presenter was raising is : Why has a "minority issue" like wearing a veil become such a major distraction for politicians and media, when there are many and much more important matters for both to cover ?
One of these impostant issues - which affects a great many people in Britain - is the ongoing relationship between labour and capital, or New Labour and the Trade Unions. Incidentally, I am not a Marxist, but do think that Marx has some interesting and even relevant ideas. However, the relationship between labour and capital seems rather overlooked, or at least not given the attention it deserves, by politicians and the media today, so I'm going to deal with it here.
There is a brilliant "study" of this theme in the 1959 classic British comedy "I'm All Right Jack". In this, the great actor Peter Sellars plays a canny trade unionist, Fred Kite, and is the "hero" of the show. The film has been interpreted as primarily a swipe at the union movement in post-war Britain, but is in fact a much broader satire of the machinations of management, government, the media, trade unions and the class system. On the latter theme, Fred Kite memorably "converts" the engaging "toff" Stanley Windrush to his class war, something which finally leaves Stanley disillusioned, and he retreats to a nudist colony at the end of the film.
Incidentally, I am toying with the idea of re-writing "I'm Alright Jack" as "I'm All Right John".
John Prescott would play the Fred Kite character, and David Cameron, Stanley. Although on reflection, the latter role might be better suited to Jack Straw : no problems with veiled women in a nudist colony after all. If anyone would like to commission this "work", please do get in touch and I'll send them my synopsis (written under the veil of a pseudonym of course !).
Now, to return to New Labour and the modern British trade unions. Some people will have been following the cash for peerages "story". I haven't really, but I vaguely remember that near the beginning of this the Labour Party Treasurer (Jack somebody or other, a Union boss of which one I dont' know, and husband of Ms Harriet Harman MP, Government Minister for something of other) announced that he had only just become aware (? via the media) of certain loans being made to the Party, and of these possibly having links to the granting of peerages. All I can hope is that Gordon Brown's management of the Treasury is a bit better. Time will tell.
Although Mrs Thatcher has been widely blamed for the decline in the role of trade unions, with "live wires" (I'm being ironic) like "Jack", as I'm going to call him, in charge, it comes as no surprise at all that many, if not most, British people now regard the unions as irrelevent, something which is actually a great shame ! For in other European countries, such as Germany, and even in the United States, they continue to play an important role in their country's commerce and industry, influencing government policy on the impact of globalisation, for instance (see my previous blog "Globalisation and Discontent"), and, in the case of Europe, playing an effective role in the continued development of high quality public services.
It has to be said that there are a few trade unionists and unions in Britain who still play a highly effective role their areas of operation. However, these are in a minority, and one of the main reasons for this - aside from people like "Jack" - is that senior politicians and the media are less interested these days in serious issues like the future of manufacturing in this country, than they are in "minority issues" like the wearing of veils. I'm not sure why this is the case. It may have something to do with the obsession of New Labour and wider society with "appearance", and with who controls the media (ie the likes of the Murdoch Dynasty). It may be that one of the few places where these serious issues can be tackled is in the "unsensored" and "dramatic" form available to the satirist.
Alright Jack/John !
Yesterday, on on BBC Radio 4's "Broadcasting House" the male presenter asked a woman journalist from an Asian newspaper, who was a guest on the programme, a question in words to the effect of : "Have Moslems become the new Fox Hunting ?". The woman was rather taken aback - and so was I - but she replied "No, we haven't". This was rather a surreal question I thought - these may be rather surreal times - but the point the presenter was raising is : Why has a "minority issue" like wearing a veil become such a major distraction for politicians and media, when there are many and much more important matters for both to cover ?
One of these impostant issues - which affects a great many people in Britain - is the ongoing relationship between labour and capital, or New Labour and the Trade Unions. Incidentally, I am not a Marxist, but do think that Marx has some interesting and even relevant ideas. However, the relationship between labour and capital seems rather overlooked, or at least not given the attention it deserves, by politicians and the media today, so I'm going to deal with it here.
There is a brilliant "study" of this theme in the 1959 classic British comedy "I'm All Right Jack". In this, the great actor Peter Sellars plays a canny trade unionist, Fred Kite, and is the "hero" of the show. The film has been interpreted as primarily a swipe at the union movement in post-war Britain, but is in fact a much broader satire of the machinations of management, government, the media, trade unions and the class system. On the latter theme, Fred Kite memorably "converts" the engaging "toff" Stanley Windrush to his class war, something which finally leaves Stanley disillusioned, and he retreats to a nudist colony at the end of the film.
Incidentally, I am toying with the idea of re-writing "I'm Alright Jack" as "I'm All Right John".
John Prescott would play the Fred Kite character, and David Cameron, Stanley. Although on reflection, the latter role might be better suited to Jack Straw : no problems with veiled women in a nudist colony after all. If anyone would like to commission this "work", please do get in touch and I'll send them my synopsis (written under the veil of a pseudonym of course !).
Now, to return to New Labour and the modern British trade unions. Some people will have been following the cash for peerages "story". I haven't really, but I vaguely remember that near the beginning of this the Labour Party Treasurer (Jack somebody or other, a Union boss of which one I dont' know, and husband of Ms Harriet Harman MP, Government Minister for something of other) announced that he had only just become aware (? via the media) of certain loans being made to the Party, and of these possibly having links to the granting of peerages. All I can hope is that Gordon Brown's management of the Treasury is a bit better. Time will tell.
Although Mrs Thatcher has been widely blamed for the decline in the role of trade unions, with "live wires" (I'm being ironic) like "Jack", as I'm going to call him, in charge, it comes as no surprise at all that many, if not most, British people now regard the unions as irrelevent, something which is actually a great shame ! For in other European countries, such as Germany, and even in the United States, they continue to play an important role in their country's commerce and industry, influencing government policy on the impact of globalisation, for instance (see my previous blog "Globalisation and Discontent"), and, in the case of Europe, playing an effective role in the continued development of high quality public services.
It has to be said that there are a few trade unionists and unions in Britain who still play a highly effective role their areas of operation. However, these are in a minority, and one of the main reasons for this - aside from people like "Jack" - is that senior politicians and the media are less interested these days in serious issues like the future of manufacturing in this country, than they are in "minority issues" like the wearing of veils. I'm not sure why this is the case. It may have something to do with the obsession of New Labour and wider society with "appearance", and with who controls the media (ie the likes of the Murdoch Dynasty). It may be that one of the few places where these serious issues can be tackled is in the "unsensored" and "dramatic" form available to the satirist.
Alright Jack/John !
Friday, October 06, 2006
On the Importance of Being a Good Punter
I want to continue the theme of instruction and training in this post, but this time with reference to equestrianism.
It's probably fair to say that the horse people of Middle England include individuals whose views, attitudes and behaviours are every bit as daft as some adherents of New Labour. Indeed, when I had a dispute with the owners of an upmarket livery yard a few years ago and recounted the names and other details of the persons involved to a Liberal Democrat friend, and former Labour local councillor, his response was something to the effect of : "This all sounds very New Labour to me".
I have been a horse rider for about forty years, and in that time I've probably ridden in excess of 100 horses. With one or two exceptions, these creatures have caused me very few difficulities and brought me great pleasure and "instruction". The same can not always be said of people who profess to be horsewomen and men , and who call themselves "trainers". There is a tendency to value appearance over substance in present day equitation. No doubt this tendency is ever present but I would suggest that it is stronger today than in the more recent past.
A few weeks ago, I was given a new insight into why this is so. I had just had what can only be described as an excellent jumping lesson. Believe me good jumping instruction for the amateur rider is hard to come by ! The instructor clearly identified my strengths and weaknesses to me, and gave a lesson which was at once challenging and enjoyable, for both rider and horse. Afterwards, he distinguished the "horseman" from the "competitor" : the latter being mainly concerned with "winning", and with finding a horse who can facilitate this; and the "horseman" being someone with a deep understanding of horses, the strengths, weaknesses and aptitudes of different animals, and the ability to get the best from each individual.
However, we live in a very competitive age (in some respects ridiculously so). The U S economist and management guru Michael Porter ("The Competitive Advantage of Nations", "On Competition" etc) has usefully distinguised healthy competition from "mutually destructive rivalry". Understanding the difference between these is very important in horse and other sports, as it is in business and management.
Some years ago, I had the benefit of riding with a talented woman (who was a very good competitor, but perhaps not such a good horsewoman). Nevertheless, from my perspective the relationship was beneficial. I noted some of her techniques, and her competitive spirit re-galvanised the competitive person in me. One outcome of this was that I helped organise 2 teams of horses and riders to attend a "British Riding Clubs" (think adult "Pony Club") competition at the Hickstead All England Show Jumping Ground. Unfortunately, some "mutually destructive rivalry" broke out amongst some potential team members. This made the organisers's job more difficult than anticipated, and our trainer's "values" didn't help matters.
The trainer in question made the mistake of valueing appearance over substance. He singled out the talented lady mentioned above who chose to ride a fine looking horse, the darling of many a lady rider, and quite a few gentleman. This "partnership" could do no wrong in the training sessions. Meanwhile, the horse I had chosen to ride, and particularly myself, could do very little right. Not since primary school had I been singled out for such admonishment. By the end of the sessions, I felt like dismounting and punching the trainer, who incidentally bore some resemblence to James Hewitt (when he was younger), but with a manner more like John Reid's.
Nevertheless, I still felt very much "fit for purpose", and I knew that my horse would be too on the day of the competition. This day duly arrived. The talented lady and her fine looking horse were amongst the first to enter the arena and were promptly eliminated at the second or third fence, after three refusals, causing the rider to have a major tantrum. This and the elimination had some negative impact on other people. However, with the exception of another rider whose pony (smaller than a horse) left the arena midway through the course (I shall come on to him later), everyone else "got round". Barring a small mistake, my round went very well and I thoroughly enjoyed myself, as did most other people who came as competitors and supporters.
The only real downside of the day was the major tantrum. I felt slightly bad about all this. The horse that had caused the outburst had a reputation for being somewhat capricious, not least in his tendency to buck people off, something that had happened on a previous occasion even to the talented lady in the middle of a show ring. "Handsome is as homesome does" as the saying goes, and, personally, I was surprised that she "stuck with him". My feeling was that the trainer had relied too much on his impressions "on the day", paying little regard to what other people told him of the horse's previous form, and re-inforcing the rider's tendency to be "over-confident".
With horses, as with many things in life, it is important to develop the skills of the a good punter. By this I mean, seek out professional advice but don't rely on it overmuch. Develop your own judgement based upon knowledge and experience. Be aware of your strengths and weaknesses. Above all, know when to take risks and when to go for a safe bet.
At the "Riding Clubs" competition I had gone for a horse I knew to be a "safe bet". However, on another occasion, I decided to "take a risk". I was a late entrant to something called "Top Score Jumping", meaning that the most difficult fences carry the most points and the winner has the "top score". The only horse available for me to ride was the pony I mentioned earlier. I should say that I am quite tall but not very heavy, and also that I am good at adjusting my riding to different types of horse, or pony. This time, the talented lady rode the "safe bet" horse. As it happened, she and I were joint second on this occasion.
I was therefore rather annoyed when the judge (a colleague of the trainer previously mentioned) disqualified me for being incorrectly attired. Although, as far as could make out the Show Rules did not specify "correct attire" beyond the requirements which I had fulfilled. However, I did not quarrel with the decision, for in my experience, the chance to give a "Harvey Smith" to this kind of "bureaucracy" always comes around.
I want to continue the theme of instruction and training in this post, but this time with reference to equestrianism.
It's probably fair to say that the horse people of Middle England include individuals whose views, attitudes and behaviours are every bit as daft as some adherents of New Labour. Indeed, when I had a dispute with the owners of an upmarket livery yard a few years ago and recounted the names and other details of the persons involved to a Liberal Democrat friend, and former Labour local councillor, his response was something to the effect of : "This all sounds very New Labour to me".
I have been a horse rider for about forty years, and in that time I've probably ridden in excess of 100 horses. With one or two exceptions, these creatures have caused me very few difficulities and brought me great pleasure and "instruction". The same can not always be said of people who profess to be horsewomen and men , and who call themselves "trainers". There is a tendency to value appearance over substance in present day equitation. No doubt this tendency is ever present but I would suggest that it is stronger today than in the more recent past.
A few weeks ago, I was given a new insight into why this is so. I had just had what can only be described as an excellent jumping lesson. Believe me good jumping instruction for the amateur rider is hard to come by ! The instructor clearly identified my strengths and weaknesses to me, and gave a lesson which was at once challenging and enjoyable, for both rider and horse. Afterwards, he distinguished the "horseman" from the "competitor" : the latter being mainly concerned with "winning", and with finding a horse who can facilitate this; and the "horseman" being someone with a deep understanding of horses, the strengths, weaknesses and aptitudes of different animals, and the ability to get the best from each individual.
However, we live in a very competitive age (in some respects ridiculously so). The U S economist and management guru Michael Porter ("The Competitive Advantage of Nations", "On Competition" etc) has usefully distinguised healthy competition from "mutually destructive rivalry". Understanding the difference between these is very important in horse and other sports, as it is in business and management.
Some years ago, I had the benefit of riding with a talented woman (who was a very good competitor, but perhaps not such a good horsewoman). Nevertheless, from my perspective the relationship was beneficial. I noted some of her techniques, and her competitive spirit re-galvanised the competitive person in me. One outcome of this was that I helped organise 2 teams of horses and riders to attend a "British Riding Clubs" (think adult "Pony Club") competition at the Hickstead All England Show Jumping Ground. Unfortunately, some "mutually destructive rivalry" broke out amongst some potential team members. This made the organisers's job more difficult than anticipated, and our trainer's "values" didn't help matters.
The trainer in question made the mistake of valueing appearance over substance. He singled out the talented lady mentioned above who chose to ride a fine looking horse, the darling of many a lady rider, and quite a few gentleman. This "partnership" could do no wrong in the training sessions. Meanwhile, the horse I had chosen to ride, and particularly myself, could do very little right. Not since primary school had I been singled out for such admonishment. By the end of the sessions, I felt like dismounting and punching the trainer, who incidentally bore some resemblence to James Hewitt (when he was younger), but with a manner more like John Reid's.
Nevertheless, I still felt very much "fit for purpose", and I knew that my horse would be too on the day of the competition. This day duly arrived. The talented lady and her fine looking horse were amongst the first to enter the arena and were promptly eliminated at the second or third fence, after three refusals, causing the rider to have a major tantrum. This and the elimination had some negative impact on other people. However, with the exception of another rider whose pony (smaller than a horse) left the arena midway through the course (I shall come on to him later), everyone else "got round". Barring a small mistake, my round went very well and I thoroughly enjoyed myself, as did most other people who came as competitors and supporters.
The only real downside of the day was the major tantrum. I felt slightly bad about all this. The horse that had caused the outburst had a reputation for being somewhat capricious, not least in his tendency to buck people off, something that had happened on a previous occasion even to the talented lady in the middle of a show ring. "Handsome is as homesome does" as the saying goes, and, personally, I was surprised that she "stuck with him". My feeling was that the trainer had relied too much on his impressions "on the day", paying little regard to what other people told him of the horse's previous form, and re-inforcing the rider's tendency to be "over-confident".
With horses, as with many things in life, it is important to develop the skills of the a good punter. By this I mean, seek out professional advice but don't rely on it overmuch. Develop your own judgement based upon knowledge and experience. Be aware of your strengths and weaknesses. Above all, know when to take risks and when to go for a safe bet.
At the "Riding Clubs" competition I had gone for a horse I knew to be a "safe bet". However, on another occasion, I decided to "take a risk". I was a late entrant to something called "Top Score Jumping", meaning that the most difficult fences carry the most points and the winner has the "top score". The only horse available for me to ride was the pony I mentioned earlier. I should say that I am quite tall but not very heavy, and also that I am good at adjusting my riding to different types of horse, or pony. This time, the talented lady rode the "safe bet" horse. As it happened, she and I were joint second on this occasion.
I was therefore rather annoyed when the judge (a colleague of the trainer previously mentioned) disqualified me for being incorrectly attired. Although, as far as could make out the Show Rules did not specify "correct attire" beyond the requirements which I had fulfilled. However, I did not quarrel with the decision, for in my experience, the chance to give a "Harvey Smith" to this kind of "bureaucracy" always comes around.
Thursday, October 05, 2006
Jungian Psychology, Surrealist Art and Transport Planning
Writing in Christie's (the international auction house) Magazine last Summer, Robert Brown recounts :
"In 1926 the Swiss Psychiatrist Carl Jung had a troubling but ultimately instructive dream about the Great War which awoke in him the realisation that 'the war, which in the outer world had taken place some years before, was not yet over, but was continuing to be fought within the
psyche'".
Brown continues :
"Such a revelation would not have been news to Max Ernst whose art throughout the 1920s is about as clear a manifestation of Jung's psychological discovery as one could wish for. 'La Horde' is one of the finest examples from a small series of strange and powerful paintings made with the newly-discovered grattage technique in which a band of nightmarish and violent struggling creatures emerge, as if in a dream, from a forest-like backgound of painted form and texture".
Jung's dream and Ernst's art may also be very "instructive" to the wars of our present time.
However, I want to focus here on the relevance of Jung's ideas and "La Horde" to the subject of planning, and in particular to transport planning.
I began my professional career in area development and regeneration in the mid-1980s when I was employed to co-ordinate the involvement of a coalition of community-based organisations at a planning inquiry, of nearly 18 months duration, into proposals for what could only be described as a potentially devastating - to built and natural environment - road scheme.
The scheme was never built, although a further planning inquiry took place in the early 1990s. This, and the threat of High Court action by some objectors, eventually led to the suspension of draft compulsory purchase orders for the most destructive stretch of the road proposal. However, the story was not yet over. A "war... was continuing to be fought within the psyche".
For nearly a year between June 2005 and May 2006, a truncated version of the road scheme again went through a planning inquiry. As I submitted evidence and attended this inquiry, I could not fail to be aware of the powerful psychic forces at work, as it were, behind the scenes. For "La Horde" in this case, I would argue, is modern "civilisation's" potentially catastrophic requirement for personal mobility, regardless of cost to the environment and society.
However, there is a further message in all this. Another psyhologist (whose name escapes me just now) spoke of "the dangers of conscious planning without unconscious process". Failure to recognise this is a core shortcoming of many, if not most, planning and planning-related professions. Let me therefore suggest that rather more human psycholgy and "cultural instruction" be included in their training and continuing professional development.
Writing in Christie's (the international auction house) Magazine last Summer, Robert Brown recounts :
"In 1926 the Swiss Psychiatrist Carl Jung had a troubling but ultimately instructive dream about the Great War which awoke in him the realisation that 'the war, which in the outer world had taken place some years before, was not yet over, but was continuing to be fought within the
psyche'".
Brown continues :
"Such a revelation would not have been news to Max Ernst whose art throughout the 1920s is about as clear a manifestation of Jung's psychological discovery as one could wish for. 'La Horde' is one of the finest examples from a small series of strange and powerful paintings made with the newly-discovered grattage technique in which a band of nightmarish and violent struggling creatures emerge, as if in a dream, from a forest-like backgound of painted form and texture".
Jung's dream and Ernst's art may also be very "instructive" to the wars of our present time.
However, I want to focus here on the relevance of Jung's ideas and "La Horde" to the subject of planning, and in particular to transport planning.
I began my professional career in area development and regeneration in the mid-1980s when I was employed to co-ordinate the involvement of a coalition of community-based organisations at a planning inquiry, of nearly 18 months duration, into proposals for what could only be described as a potentially devastating - to built and natural environment - road scheme.
The scheme was never built, although a further planning inquiry took place in the early 1990s. This, and the threat of High Court action by some objectors, eventually led to the suspension of draft compulsory purchase orders for the most destructive stretch of the road proposal. However, the story was not yet over. A "war... was continuing to be fought within the psyche".
For nearly a year between June 2005 and May 2006, a truncated version of the road scheme again went through a planning inquiry. As I submitted evidence and attended this inquiry, I could not fail to be aware of the powerful psychic forces at work, as it were, behind the scenes. For "La Horde" in this case, I would argue, is modern "civilisation's" potentially catastrophic requirement for personal mobility, regardless of cost to the environment and society.
However, there is a further message in all this. Another psyhologist (whose name escapes me just now) spoke of "the dangers of conscious planning without unconscious process". Failure to recognise this is a core shortcoming of many, if not most, planning and planning-related professions. Let me therefore suggest that rather more human psycholgy and "cultural instruction" be included in their training and continuing professional development.
Wednesday, October 04, 2006
Mrs Satan - Biographical Information
I'm just going to add some biographical details for the "Mrs Satan" I mentioned earlier. As I don't have "that book" to hand, I'm taking the information from a very good guide to Bredon Hill, where the lady lived in later life :
"The beautiful manor (in Bredon's Norton) dates from 1585 and in the first two decades of the 21st century housed a very notable woman called Victoria Biddulph Martin, renowned for being the only woman to have run for president of the United States. She ran a newspaper in which she promoted her suffragette views, which must have taken some courage. Her surprisingly modern philosophies on free love, contraception, vegetarianism, magnetic healing, legalised prostitution, and easier devorce laws won her little popular appeal in the USA and eventually led to her being requested to leave the country, which is why she moved to England. She subsequently married John Biddulph Martin. Although she did lecture in Britain about her beliefs, she generally kept a lower profile while she was married to John and living in London. When he died in 1901 she moved to his country home, here on the slopes of Bredon Hill. It is alleged that she performed seances at the manor, an activity which had won her the interest of Cornelius Vanderbilt when she held them in the USA. Her esoteric spiritual beliefs did not in any way affect her ability to improve conditions for her fellow women - she was able to turn her political beliefs into tangible benefits. It is said that she lent out part of the manor so that young women could learn farming techniques, and it is also said that she turned her tithe barn into a village hall...."
From "Bredon Hill - A Guide to its Archaeology, History, Folklore and Villages" by Brian Hoggard and published by the Logaston Press
I'm just going to add some biographical details for the "Mrs Satan" I mentioned earlier. As I don't have "that book" to hand, I'm taking the information from a very good guide to Bredon Hill, where the lady lived in later life :
"The beautiful manor (in Bredon's Norton) dates from 1585 and in the first two decades of the 21st century housed a very notable woman called Victoria Biddulph Martin, renowned for being the only woman to have run for president of the United States. She ran a newspaper in which she promoted her suffragette views, which must have taken some courage. Her surprisingly modern philosophies on free love, contraception, vegetarianism, magnetic healing, legalised prostitution, and easier devorce laws won her little popular appeal in the USA and eventually led to her being requested to leave the country, which is why she moved to England. She subsequently married John Biddulph Martin. Although she did lecture in Britain about her beliefs, she generally kept a lower profile while she was married to John and living in London. When he died in 1901 she moved to his country home, here on the slopes of Bredon Hill. It is alleged that she performed seances at the manor, an activity which had won her the interest of Cornelius Vanderbilt when she held them in the USA. Her esoteric spiritual beliefs did not in any way affect her ability to improve conditions for her fellow women - she was able to turn her political beliefs into tangible benefits. It is said that she lent out part of the manor so that young women could learn farming techniques, and it is also said that she turned her tithe barn into a village hall...."
From "Bredon Hill - A Guide to its Archaeology, History, Folklore and Villages" by Brian Hoggard and published by the Logaston Press
Monday, October 02, 2006
The Avante Garde Society of Worcester and John Reid
Last week in a local bookshop, I noticed a poster inviting people to a performance by "The Avante Garde Society of Worcester".
For a moment I was phased. The juxtaposition of "Avante Garde" and "Worcester" created the kind of reaction in me that would have accompanied John Reid's announcement to the Labour Party Conference that he was going to stand for the leadership and convert to Islam at the same time. Please note this is intended as a joke ! Incidentally, if Mr Reid is considering the latter spiritual option - and even if he isn't - might I suggest a relaxing turn on the "hubble-bubble" from time to time. He might ask Roy Hattersly to accompany him (given the latter's threat to shoot himself if Mr Reid became Labout Party Leader).
Returning to "The Avante Garde Society of Worcester", this offered an interesting programme, and now that I've overcome my own prejudices, I may go along to the next performance.
Last week in a local bookshop, I noticed a poster inviting people to a performance by "The Avante Garde Society of Worcester".
For a moment I was phased. The juxtaposition of "Avante Garde" and "Worcester" created the kind of reaction in me that would have accompanied John Reid's announcement to the Labour Party Conference that he was going to stand for the leadership and convert to Islam at the same time. Please note this is intended as a joke ! Incidentally, if Mr Reid is considering the latter spiritual option - and even if he isn't - might I suggest a relaxing turn on the "hubble-bubble" from time to time. He might ask Roy Hattersly to accompany him (given the latter's threat to shoot himself if Mr Reid became Labout Party Leader).
Returning to "The Avante Garde Society of Worcester", this offered an interesting programme, and now that I've overcome my own prejudices, I may go along to the next performance.
"Mrs Satans" of the Western World
I'm now going to deal with the global and the local, the historical and the present, and to demonstrate how these are extricably linked.
In my local history centre is a black book which in gold lettering bears the title "Mrs Satan". This is not some antiquarian occult treatise, but the true story of a lady who in her earlier life stood for President of the United States on something of a "free love" platform, and in middle age (when things had also got a bit too "hot" back home"), married, and moved to rural Worcestershire. Here, in the first part of the last century, she led the relatively quiet life of an English country lady, punctuated, by all accounts, with regular seances.
I was reminded of "Mrs Satan" by Hilary Clinton's current campaign to become the Democrat candidate for the next United States Presidency. A member of the US "Christian Right" was on BBC Radio 4 a few days ago, with the message - and I paraphrase - that if Mrs Clinton is succesful in standing for president this would galvanise his colleagues as much as if the devil himself had won the nomination. Although in my earlier blog I expressed some scepticism about the affairs of her husband, on this occasion I wish Mrs Clinton every success.
The subject of Hilary Clinton brings me to another Democrat supporter and "Mrs Satan" who also now enjoys the life of an English Country lady, albeit in Wiltshire. I'm thinking of Madonna, whose most recent concert tour, by all acounts, upset quite a number of Christian clerics, notwithstanding that the pop singer and performance artist has herself taken on quite a spiritual turn in recent years. Could it be that she too was a US presidential candidate in a previous incarnation ? One never knows.
For anyone intrigued by the life of the "original Mrs Satan", fear not I shall return to her, and other "Wicked Witches of the West" in future blogs.
I'm now going to deal with the global and the local, the historical and the present, and to demonstrate how these are extricably linked.
In my local history centre is a black book which in gold lettering bears the title "Mrs Satan". This is not some antiquarian occult treatise, but the true story of a lady who in her earlier life stood for President of the United States on something of a "free love" platform, and in middle age (when things had also got a bit too "hot" back home"), married, and moved to rural Worcestershire. Here, in the first part of the last century, she led the relatively quiet life of an English country lady, punctuated, by all accounts, with regular seances.
I was reminded of "Mrs Satan" by Hilary Clinton's current campaign to become the Democrat candidate for the next United States Presidency. A member of the US "Christian Right" was on BBC Radio 4 a few days ago, with the message - and I paraphrase - that if Mrs Clinton is succesful in standing for president this would galvanise his colleagues as much as if the devil himself had won the nomination. Although in my earlier blog I expressed some scepticism about the affairs of her husband, on this occasion I wish Mrs Clinton every success.
The subject of Hilary Clinton brings me to another Democrat supporter and "Mrs Satan" who also now enjoys the life of an English Country lady, albeit in Wiltshire. I'm thinking of Madonna, whose most recent concert tour, by all acounts, upset quite a number of Christian clerics, notwithstanding that the pop singer and performance artist has herself taken on quite a spiritual turn in recent years. Could it be that she too was a US presidential candidate in a previous incarnation ? One never knows.
For anyone intrigued by the life of the "original Mrs Satan", fear not I shall return to her, and other "Wicked Witches of the West" in future blogs.
A Modest Proposal to Re-organise Government Departments
It has struck me for some time that one of the obtacles to government is the structure of the present administration, so I am going to propose some changes in those areas I feel I have some knowledge and experience to offer. Incidentally, if anyone wishes to pay me alot of money to expand upon my "modest proposal", I'd be be delighted. However, I do advise any male politician who likes to surround himself with a harim of yeswoman, that I wouldn't fit in at all.
My proposal covers 3 departments : the Department of (or for) the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) ; the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG); and,
the Home Office (HO). In their stead, I recommend :
DEFRA - A Department for the Environment, Sustainability and Planning : (DESP)
DCLG - A Department for Regional, Urban and Rural Development : (DeRURD)
HO - A Department for Community and Homeland Affairs/Security, or, even Wellbeing (DCHA)
Briefly, the rational for this re-organisation is as follows :
DESP : Experience shows what issues like environmental sustainability tend to be compromised by governments (of all persuasions) because these often involve long-term planning. As a major - if not the major- mechanism of environmental protection, the planning system itself can also be compromised by policy-making which does not respect its full importance. These responsibilities therefore need to come under one Secretary of State who can champion them.
DeRURD : The message here is again : "Tough on Qangos, Tough on the Causes of Qangos." Regeneration of local democracy is what is what is required. Also this Government's habit of saying one thing when it means precisely the opposite (as in the case of Communities) needs to be tackled. Many "real" community-based organisations have lost financial support from local authorities in recent years, in favour of "loads of money" qangos (national, regional and local).
DCHA : There has been alot of attention on the Home Office in recent years and it seems widely accepted that some fundamental re-organisation is in order. Personally, I like the idea of a Department for Community (as in Society) and Homeland Wellbeing (which if achieved could be "exported" to other countries"). However, this is probably a bit too "David Cameron" just now. "Security", on the other hand, sounds too "George Bush". So "Affairs" will have to do.
At least no one can accuse me of not putting forward positive proposals. Incidentally, I'm not proposing that any minister should be re-shuffled (or excluded to the back benches)
It has struck me for some time that one of the obtacles to government is the structure of the present administration, so I am going to propose some changes in those areas I feel I have some knowledge and experience to offer. Incidentally, if anyone wishes to pay me alot of money to expand upon my "modest proposal", I'd be be delighted. However, I do advise any male politician who likes to surround himself with a harim of yeswoman, that I wouldn't fit in at all.
My proposal covers 3 departments : the Department of (or for) the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) ; the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG); and,
the Home Office (HO). In their stead, I recommend :
DEFRA - A Department for the Environment, Sustainability and Planning : (DESP)
DCLG - A Department for Regional, Urban and Rural Development : (DeRURD)
HO - A Department for Community and Homeland Affairs/Security, or, even Wellbeing (DCHA)
Briefly, the rational for this re-organisation is as follows :
DESP : Experience shows what issues like environmental sustainability tend to be compromised by governments (of all persuasions) because these often involve long-term planning. As a major - if not the major- mechanism of environmental protection, the planning system itself can also be compromised by policy-making which does not respect its full importance. These responsibilities therefore need to come under one Secretary of State who can champion them.
DeRURD : The message here is again : "Tough on Qangos, Tough on the Causes of Qangos." Regeneration of local democracy is what is what is required. Also this Government's habit of saying one thing when it means precisely the opposite (as in the case of Communities) needs to be tackled. Many "real" community-based organisations have lost financial support from local authorities in recent years, in favour of "loads of money" qangos (national, regional and local).
DCHA : There has been alot of attention on the Home Office in recent years and it seems widely accepted that some fundamental re-organisation is in order. Personally, I like the idea of a Department for Community (as in Society) and Homeland Wellbeing (which if achieved could be "exported" to other countries"). However, this is probably a bit too "David Cameron" just now. "Security", on the other hand, sounds too "George Bush". So "Affairs" will have to do.
At least no one can accuse me of not putting forward positive proposals. Incidentally, I'm not proposing that any minister should be re-shuffled (or excluded to the back benches)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)