On the Numinosity of "Stalin's Russia"

For once, I can sympathise with Jeremy Paxman, sometimes a rather bullying interviewer of recalcitrant politicians, as he likens the increasing "management" of British television media - Paxman works as a presenter for BBC television - to "life in Stalin's Russia".

The metaphor of "Stalinism", generally used humorously - Stalin may have appreciated this as he apparently had a sense of humour, albeit a rather dark one - has been used increasingly widely to highlight certain tendencies in British politics and the administration of the "public interest".

An article by Professor Robert Service, an Oxford academic and Russian specialist, in The New Statesman a couple of years ago, in which then Prime Minister Tony Blair was likened to Stalin, seems to have fired a wide range of imaginations, for instance that of a former Cabinet Secretary (this time with reference Gordon Brown) and now Jeremy Paxman.

Paxton notes certain Stalinist tendencies in British TV, notably the BBC, including an obsession with new technology, with the Media increasingly technology rather than content driven, and ultra-sensitivity to the opinion/reactions of Jo Public. However, what he really seems to be annoyed about is the heavy-handed administration of the BBC.

Now it seems to me that whilst the BBC, and British broadcast media generally, still has many great things going for it, there are certain issues which are now rarely covered, or acknowledged as having a important role in other social trends which have a very high profile coverage indeed.

One of these trends, for instance, is increasing gang-related violence amongst young people, which has recently led to a number of tragic deaths amongst teenagers, and even children, in the major urban areas of England.

This gang-related violence is typically ascribed to one major cause : the breakdown of the traditional family. This may be a important factor, but another issue - the fact that many young people have no expectation of ever securing work sufficiently rewarding to enable them to live a normal life - is another factor which receives virtually no media coverage at all.

For the "labour dimension" of the British economy is virtually a no-go area for the Media today, notwithstanding that we have, in name at least, a Labour Government in England (but no longer in Scotland, Wales - except in coalition - and Northern Ireland).

The increasing political "dis-integration" of the United Kingdom is also an issue which is under-reported in the broadcast media, which remains London, and to a lesser extent South East England, focussed in the extreme : something noted by the present government of Scotland.

This brings me to what Josef Stalin would have regarded as one of his greatest successes : the creation of a largely artificial reality in the former Soviet Union, which the public bought (and were coerced) in to, and which was administered by the professional classes, with frequent (Stalin-instigated) resort to largescale gang violence, and occasional foreign military escapades.

Stalin's Soviet Union was the ultimate shadow reality. He understood profoundly the darker side of human nature (perhaps even the human soul) and manipulated this masterfully for many years. He was, himself, the ultimate gang leader.

Perhaps it is the case that "gang culture" has infiltrated wider English society to such an extent that it is now running our country. All Hail, Gordon's Gang ! The professional classes do indeed seem to have rallyed to its ranks, at least until they are safely (or perhaps not so safely unless they work in the public sector) drawing their pensions.

And, yes, every now and then someone, like Jeremy Paxman, from The Establishment raises their head above the parapet. I wonder what Stalin would have made of that particular "Cloud-Dweller"* ! Of course, I'm just referring to Mr Paxman's physical stature.

* A term which Stalin might have used for media types whom he didn't regard as "dangerous" to his regime.

London : Avoiding Apocalypse through Timely Action

I've just caught the Internet trailer for a new British disaster movie called Flood, which opens on 24 August. This film appears to offer a fairly apocalyptic vision of the impact of major flooding on London. Let's hope that is doesn't herald some catastropic event in 2012 (no I'm not referring to the London Olympics !), which is widely predicted to be a year of profound global transformation or "The Great Change". This "Change" sounds fairly apocalyptic in some accounts, but forecasting the end of the world has proved unpredictable to date. Nevertheless, there would seem to be a real probability of a major tidal surge in the direction of London by 2030. So instead of faffing around with projects like the Thames Gateway Bridge (if the project still goes by this name), I would suggest that organisations with a key role in the future of London look to better flood risk management in the Thames Gateway.....and get a move on !

Planners and Politicians Please Read "Why New Orleans Still Isn't Safe" in Time

The cover story in this month's Time magazine revisits New Orleans 2 years after Hurricane Katrina where "...big money, inept engineering and environmental ignorance are...", according to article author Michael Grunwald, "...combining to to lay the groundwork for another catastrophe".

UK politicians and planners, particularly in areas like the Thames Gateway, please read this article !

On Gender and Other Re-Assignments

By chance, I found myself listening to an episode of BBC Radio 4's very good programme "Hecklers" the other evening. This programme seems to replace "The Moral Maze", about which I'm somewhat luke warm, during the off-peak summer season.

The subject of last week's programme was "Gender Re-Assignment" and a female journalist from The Guardian was advocating that this, when major surgery is increasingly involved, reflects an equally major social dysfunction around the rigid assignment of gender roles.

Some "Trans-People" who had received sex-change operations strongly disagreed with the journalist's argument, whilst others supported her contention and regretted having embarked upon surgery.

One issue which seemed to be absent from the discussion was the fact that some people welcome major surgery (which may or may not reflect wider social dysfunction), whether this is medical or cosmetic.

Speaking personally, I like to avoid any form of hospitalisation and when I was offered a hysterectomy several years ago, and having no symptoms to warrant such an operation, politely turned down the charming young doctor who made the offer.

Nevertheless, I can see a case for "gender-reassignment", whether or not this involves major surgery. I also acknowledge that there are very real social pressures around gender roles, and this may be one reason people choose to be single (even it they have children).

Now children's comprehension of gender tends to be conservative. So when I temporarily re-assigned the gender of the gentlemen's toilet at Cheltenham railway station the other day - the "Ladies" being "Out-of-Order" - one small boy looked most perplexed.

The subject of railway stations logically leads me on to the wider one of transport, where social dysfunction, amongst other reasons, encourages many people into excessive car dependence, both physical and psychological.

I'm still surprised by the simplistic way in which most people, including professional planners, perceive transport problems. Recommending major new road infrastructure comes all too easily, never mind that this will re-assign large amounts of traffic where it isn't wanted.

Much better that more of these people used the train more often. However, for people to re-assign their journeys to rail and other forms of public transport, some major surgery, and in some cases new infrastructure, will inevitably be required.

Finally, changes in social attitudes (to gender roles and transport) will be equally important.