During a seminar last week I was asked about my most important cultural experience during the previous year. The experience which immediately sprung to mind centred around the film "A Perfect Murder" which was screened - some scheduler has a sense of humour - on the same night as programmes about the 1929 Wall Street Crash and the collapse of Lehman Brothers bank last year. However, my actual choice of cultural experience was attending the Matthew Boulton exhibition at the Birmingham Museum and Art Gallery. As an Enlightenment entrepreneur, Boulton is regarded as one of the fathers of Britain's industrial revolution, and I shall come back to him later.
Nevertheless, I've since reflected on why I so much "enjoyed" watching "A Perfect Murder". The "perfect" scheduling was certainly part of the experience. "A Pefect Murder" was made in the late 1990s, and stars Michael Douglas as a Wall Street Financier with Gwyneth Paltrow as his beautiful young wife, who is also a wealthy heiress and multi-lingual translator for the United Nations. She also has Viggo Mortensen as her artist lover, who inhabits a large pre-gentrification warehouse studio used for their amorous assignations. Unfortunately, her husband finds out about these and the plot unfolds from his discovery.
"A Perfect Murder" is an elegantly filmed B Movie-remake of a Hitchcock classic, directed by English costume drama afficianado Andrew Davies, and even stars David Suchet in the role of police detective. However, it isn't generally regarded as a particularly good film, so - scheduling apart - why did it make such an impression on my ? One reason is that I'm a great fan of film noir, and the noir genre more generally, as a vehicle for astute psychological observation, and, in partiular, its portrayals of the relationship - some migth say eternal triangle - of sex, money and gender politics. Thus in "A Perfect Murder", the Michael Douglas character is a classic financial speculator and gambler, up to precisely the kind of tricks that ever threaten to bring about personal, professional and corporate nemesis, and which, more recently, have succeeded in doing just this.
However, the Gwyneth Paltrow character turns out to be more of a gutsy girl than we initially imagine and, in my "cultural studies" view, represents an interesting take on the post-feminist heroine. A even more interesting take on this role is found in the character of Lisbeth Salander in Stieg Larsson's "The Girl with the Dragon Tatoo", Book 1 of the Millennium Trilogy, first published in 2004 - a disturbing piece of "Nordic Noir", which has as its hero an investigative financial journalist. This part, incidentally, could have been written for Viggo Mortensen, although it would take sometone like "Monster" actress Charlize Theron to play Salander.
The reason I mention Larsson's book, aside from it being a very good one, is that its hero, Blomkvist, elegantly distinguishes between the real economy and workings of financial markets in a television interview towards the end of the story :
"... The Swedish Economy is the sum of all goods and services that are produced in this country every day. There are telephones from Ericsson, cars from Volvo, chickens from Scan, and shipments from Kiruna to Skovde. That's the Swedish economy and it's just as strong or weak today as it was a week ago...
...The Stock Exchange is something very different. There is no economy and no production of goods and services. There are only fantasises in which people from one hour to the next decide that this or that company is worth so many billions, more or less. It doesn't have a thing to do with reality or with the Swedish economy".
This description brings me back to the Matthew Boulton, and matters closer to home in space and time. The problem for the UK is that our economy, even more so than that of United States, is highly dependent on financial markets and the management of assets. Thus it has become difficult for economists to distinguish between speculative and real economic performance. Hence the widespread surprise that Britain has not emerged from recession. Therefore - despite my liking for all things noir - what this country country really needs is some more "New Englightenment" enterprises, if we are not all to be plunged in to a New Dark Age.
Friday, October 30, 2009
Thursday, October 29, 2009
THE WAR ON TRAFFIC
Having engaged with my more liberal self yesterday, I'm feeling more justifiably waspish (lower case) again today, so let's quickly get going !
The ease with which most women, young and old, together with other impressionable people, are impressed by men with big cars never ceases to amaze me. However, it comes as no surprise that our geeky Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, should invoke a grand automobile metaphor in his support for Tony Blair's prospective candidature for the European Union Presidency. Mr Miliband clearly presumes that the leaders of new world powers such as China and India would be impressed by a Blair Motorcade adding to traffic congestion, air pollution, and thereby global warming. Miliband, incidentally, was previously UK Environment Secretary, and his brother, Ed, is currently Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change.
Of course, what Miliband and his colleagues are really out for is the prospect of a Jobs-4-The-Boyz-R-Us Bonanza that future unemployed New Labour Cabinet Ministers would reap if Blair became EU President.
What we really need is for more British, European, and, for that matter, Asian, African, American and other Antipodean political leaders to get on their bikes ! For, notwithstanding the many casualties of international conflicts, at the present time more people are killed and injured in traffic accidents around the world; not to mention those less directly affected by the other damaging impacts of road transport. In short, the car is more dangerous than the gun. However, this is quite acceptable because of the social status conferred by the automobile, and the so-called Great Car Economy. In others words, cars are more important than people, as those many ladies who endanger the lives of other children whilst driving their own offspring around clearly demonstrate.
Thus I always find it surprising when the Milibands and Blairs - not to mention the Mrs Blairs - of this world criticise people like me for putting the environment before people !
The ease with which most women, young and old, together with other impressionable people, are impressed by men with big cars never ceases to amaze me. However, it comes as no surprise that our geeky Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, should invoke a grand automobile metaphor in his support for Tony Blair's prospective candidature for the European Union Presidency. Mr Miliband clearly presumes that the leaders of new world powers such as China and India would be impressed by a Blair Motorcade adding to traffic congestion, air pollution, and thereby global warming. Miliband, incidentally, was previously UK Environment Secretary, and his brother, Ed, is currently Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change.
Of course, what Miliband and his colleagues are really out for is the prospect of a Jobs-4-The-Boyz-R-Us Bonanza that future unemployed New Labour Cabinet Ministers would reap if Blair became EU President.
What we really need is for more British, European, and, for that matter, Asian, African, American and other Antipodean political leaders to get on their bikes ! For, notwithstanding the many casualties of international conflicts, at the present time more people are killed and injured in traffic accidents around the world; not to mention those less directly affected by the other damaging impacts of road transport. In short, the car is more dangerous than the gun. However, this is quite acceptable because of the social status conferred by the automobile, and the so-called Great Car Economy. In others words, cars are more important than people, as those many ladies who endanger the lives of other children whilst driving their own offspring around clearly demonstrate.
Thus I always find it surprising when the Milibands and Blairs - not to mention the Mrs Blairs - of this world criticise people like me for putting the environment before people !
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
It's Not About Me, Nor Is It About We...
Even as I was writing my post of yesterday, my more liberal (small 'l'!) self reproached me for sounding so WASPish (more Pagan that Protestant in my case however) !
So I want to give some more personal context to my previous post, but let me say first that I'm always suspicious of the "We" Brigade. Remember Mrs Thatcher's comment : "We are now a grandmother" - We were amused ! The individual counts and I (not being a wee person) don't need to hide behind "We".
Thus in 1983, shortly after Mrs T had secured a second term, and with a few month's work in London under my belt, I decided to migrate to Australia under pretext of a short-term publishing assignment and 12 (or it may have been a renewable 6) month working holiday visa. I purchased a one way ticket to Sydney, with a stop-over in Manila (an experience in itself !).
Arriving in January 1984, I lived near Bondi Beach for a few months before going walk-about up the east coast to see relatives and find casual work of the kind Australian citizens were reluctant to undertake. One job took me into the Queensland Outback (just north of Laura in the Cape York Peninsula) for some months. At that point in time this was both the most secure and well paid employment I'd had, even after "contributions" deducted.
Eventually returning to the coast, I arranged to help crew a yacht to the Solomon Islands, but the skipper turned out to a rather disreputable sort - an ex-pat Brit incidentally ! - and set me ashore in Milne Bay, Papua New Guinea, where I had a most gracious welcome and very much benefited - spiritually that is as these were good Christian people - from my unplanned stay !
However, when after some time I endeavoured to return to Queensland, Australian border officials prevented leaving Port Moresby on the grounds that my visa did not permit me to re-enter their country. When I did get back and headed to Melbourne, I worked as a tea-lady at the "Institute for Multi-Cultural Affairs" : a rather pleasant job, as I recall.
This was nearly a year into my stay in Australia, which I actually managed to get extended as a consequence of the time out in PNG, and by now it had clicked that whilst my "hard labour" - and it was hard ! - was welcome in the Outback where few Aussies actually venture, sub-urban down under had not really taken to me, nor I to it, which is just as well because it has subsequently been impossible for me to obtain the right to work there !
Now - to get back to the point I wanted to make - "it's not about me, nor is it about we" - in general terms, I actually support the more stringent immigration policies adopted by Australia, compared to this country for instance, although these have actually worked against me. The reason for this is simple : the environment. Although a large country, Australia does not have an environment which can support a high population density, although the government might be more welcoming to people who want to work in rural and outback areas.
The UK also has an environmental capacity, and I, for one, don't want to see any more spread of so-called Middle England in Southern Britain. However, other parts of the country, notably Scotland, but also areas of England, Wales and Northern Ireland have room for more people.
Thus we need more spatial planning at a national, rather than sub-national, level and, strangely enough, I recently heard Lord Heseltine - who was not regarded as "One of Us" by Mrs T - talking about just this subject.
So I want to give some more personal context to my previous post, but let me say first that I'm always suspicious of the "We" Brigade. Remember Mrs Thatcher's comment : "We are now a grandmother" - We were amused ! The individual counts and I (not being a wee person) don't need to hide behind "We".
Thus in 1983, shortly after Mrs T had secured a second term, and with a few month's work in London under my belt, I decided to migrate to Australia under pretext of a short-term publishing assignment and 12 (or it may have been a renewable 6) month working holiday visa. I purchased a one way ticket to Sydney, with a stop-over in Manila (an experience in itself !).
Arriving in January 1984, I lived near Bondi Beach for a few months before going walk-about up the east coast to see relatives and find casual work of the kind Australian citizens were reluctant to undertake. One job took me into the Queensland Outback (just north of Laura in the Cape York Peninsula) for some months. At that point in time this was both the most secure and well paid employment I'd had, even after "contributions" deducted.
Eventually returning to the coast, I arranged to help crew a yacht to the Solomon Islands, but the skipper turned out to a rather disreputable sort - an ex-pat Brit incidentally ! - and set me ashore in Milne Bay, Papua New Guinea, where I had a most gracious welcome and very much benefited - spiritually that is as these were good Christian people - from my unplanned stay !
However, when after some time I endeavoured to return to Queensland, Australian border officials prevented leaving Port Moresby on the grounds that my visa did not permit me to re-enter their country. When I did get back and headed to Melbourne, I worked as a tea-lady at the "Institute for Multi-Cultural Affairs" : a rather pleasant job, as I recall.
This was nearly a year into my stay in Australia, which I actually managed to get extended as a consequence of the time out in PNG, and by now it had clicked that whilst my "hard labour" - and it was hard ! - was welcome in the Outback where few Aussies actually venture, sub-urban down under had not really taken to me, nor I to it, which is just as well because it has subsequently been impossible for me to obtain the right to work there !
Now - to get back to the point I wanted to make - "it's not about me, nor is it about we" - in general terms, I actually support the more stringent immigration policies adopted by Australia, compared to this country for instance, although these have actually worked against me. The reason for this is simple : the environment. Although a large country, Australia does not have an environment which can support a high population density, although the government might be more welcoming to people who want to work in rural and outback areas.
The UK also has an environmental capacity, and I, for one, don't want to see any more spread of so-called Middle England in Southern Britain. However, other parts of the country, notably Scotland, but also areas of England, Wales and Northern Ireland have room for more people.
Thus we need more spatial planning at a national, rather than sub-national, level and, strangely enough, I recently heard Lord Heseltine - who was not regarded as "One of Us" by Mrs T - talking about just this subject.
Monday, October 26, 2009
The Real Meaning Of "New Labour" and Why It Isn't Working
My post of 21 October asked why there should be apparent censorship of the Migration Watch organisation's website though access "Denial" on the computer system of the local library. Needless to say, I've had some unhelpful email correspondence with the Department of Media, Culture and Sport on this matter. I should point out, however, that access to the British National Party's website and other material of that ilk is available on the same public library computer system.
Since last week, a former Downing Street speech writer, Andrew Neather, has stated that unrestricted migration to the UK, with the aim of socially engineering a more diverse and multi-cultural population, has been a deliberate policy of New Labour.
In fact, non/de-regulated labour markets of the kind linked to unfettered migration are strongly associated with socio-economic polarisation, which is precisely what has happened in this country. The beneficiaries are people like Attorney-General Baroness Scotland who can engage domestic staff without necessary work permits at less than the going rate of pay. By co-incidence an almost identical case occurred in the United States during the former Clinton administration, and the senior legal figure involved had to resign, as the Baroness should have done.
New Labour's policies on migration were very much an importation from the United States, and have contributed significantly to the property market bumble and associated construction boom of which we are now experiencing the downside. In short, the economies of countries where excessive migration took hold became over-heated to the point of boiling and then melted down. So ultimately migration was not the boon to endless economic growth which its advocates had predicted.
Moreover, it has had a serious social downside. Mass migration has put very substantial pressures on many local communities across the country. Far from creating the a more pluralistic and multi-cultural society - of the kind I happen to support - it has had precisely the opposite effect. Many migrants are people of a narrow economic and social focus, who are not really interested in becoming part of British society, and, indeed, some embrace cultural values which are precisely the opposite of the tolerance with which we like to pride ourselves.
In short, New Labour's policies on migration have been a failure both economically and socially. They have substantially contributed to the rise of the BNP, and created a legacy of problems which future political administrations will be hard put to sort out.
Since last week, a former Downing Street speech writer, Andrew Neather, has stated that unrestricted migration to the UK, with the aim of socially engineering a more diverse and multi-cultural population, has been a deliberate policy of New Labour.
In fact, non/de-regulated labour markets of the kind linked to unfettered migration are strongly associated with socio-economic polarisation, which is precisely what has happened in this country. The beneficiaries are people like Attorney-General Baroness Scotland who can engage domestic staff without necessary work permits at less than the going rate of pay. By co-incidence an almost identical case occurred in the United States during the former Clinton administration, and the senior legal figure involved had to resign, as the Baroness should have done.
New Labour's policies on migration were very much an importation from the United States, and have contributed significantly to the property market bumble and associated construction boom of which we are now experiencing the downside. In short, the economies of countries where excessive migration took hold became over-heated to the point of boiling and then melted down. So ultimately migration was not the boon to endless economic growth which its advocates had predicted.
Moreover, it has had a serious social downside. Mass migration has put very substantial pressures on many local communities across the country. Far from creating the a more pluralistic and multi-cultural society - of the kind I happen to support - it has had precisely the opposite effect. Many migrants are people of a narrow economic and social focus, who are not really interested in becoming part of British society, and, indeed, some embrace cultural values which are precisely the opposite of the tolerance with which we like to pride ourselves.
In short, New Labour's policies on migration have been a failure both economically and socially. They have substantially contributed to the rise of the BNP, and created a legacy of problems which future political administrations will be hard put to sort out.
Saturday, October 24, 2009
It's The Real Economy Again Stupid !
A chance interview with a roving BBC Radio reporter yesterday allowed me to vent my spleen on two matters : the sensationalist side-show created by the appearance of the British National Party's Nick Griffin on "Question Time" (the BNP being the reason for the reporter's roving); and the poor state of Worcester's railway heritage, due to lack of investment by Network Rail (who haven't even bothered to remove a RailTrack sign beneath Foregate Street Bridge).
However, the real issue of the day was the state to the UK economy, now in recession for the longest period since 1955.
Co-incidentally Worcester's two railway stations look like relicts from the 1950s, largely missing out on the ugly make-overs of the 1960s/70s, and, less fortunately, investment in regeneration of the kind which has benefited other areas in more recent years.
However, the stations are a ready reminder of the real world : as distinct from the glitzy one apparently inhabited by most economists, who still seem to confuse the wild speculations of financial markets with the performance of the wider economy.
However, the real issue of the day was the state to the UK economy, now in recession for the longest period since 1955.
Co-incidentally Worcester's two railway stations look like relicts from the 1950s, largely missing out on the ugly make-overs of the 1960s/70s, and, less fortunately, investment in regeneration of the kind which has benefited other areas in more recent years.
However, the stations are a ready reminder of the real world : as distinct from the glitzy one apparently inhabited by most economists, who still seem to confuse the wild speculations of financial markets with the performance of the wider economy.
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
POPULATION POPULATION POPULATION
Today's Press Release announcement by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) that the population of the UK - if present trends continue - will increase to 70 million by 2030 may, at last, have put the issue of population growth firmly on the political and policy agenda.
There have long been calls for the UK, along with other countries, to have a population policy. See the Optimum Population Trust's website - http://www.optimumpopulation.org/ OPT suggest that without this there can be no prospect of meeting targets for reducing green house gas emissions.
However, the subject of population has only started to be seriously aired again by the British media - after being topical in the 1970s - in the last couple of years because of economic growth and political correctness agendas which the New Labour and their supporters have championed.
By way of illustration, it is impossible to access the website of Migration Watch at Worcester City Library, and to attempt this generates the following message : Access Denied: Forbidden, this page (http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/) is categorized as: Extreme. *
Migration Watch have highlighted the problems of mass immigration for this country in recent years in terms of its impact on social and physical infrastructure, and the implications of present trends in planning for the future.
This week the organisation published a report commissioned from consultancy Oxford Economics - who also advise a wide range of government organisations so they can't be regarded as particularly radical - on the growth in migration to the the UK.
However, the issue of migration, which the ONS have identified as the largest direct and indirect - because of higher birth rates amongst migrants - contributor to recent and projected population growth has effectively been censored by the present Government. I wonder why.
* 25. 11.09 This website can now be accessed through the public library computer system
There have long been calls for the UK, along with other countries, to have a population policy. See the Optimum Population Trust's website - http://www.optimumpopulation.org/ OPT suggest that without this there can be no prospect of meeting targets for reducing green house gas emissions.
However, the subject of population has only started to be seriously aired again by the British media - after being topical in the 1970s - in the last couple of years because of economic growth and political correctness agendas which the New Labour and their supporters have championed.
By way of illustration, it is impossible to access the website of Migration Watch at Worcester City Library, and to attempt this generates the following message : Access Denied: Forbidden, this page (http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/) is categorized as: Extreme. *
Migration Watch have highlighted the problems of mass immigration for this country in recent years in terms of its impact on social and physical infrastructure, and the implications of present trends in planning for the future.
This week the organisation published a report commissioned from consultancy Oxford Economics - who also advise a wide range of government organisations so they can't be regarded as particularly radical - on the growth in migration to the the UK.
However, the issue of migration, which the ONS have identified as the largest direct and indirect - because of higher birth rates amongst migrants - contributor to recent and projected population growth has effectively been censored by the present Government. I wonder why.
* 25. 11.09 This website can now be accessed through the public library computer system
Monday, October 12, 2009
NOT QUITE THE GALLOPING MAJOR* ....
...but this this story from The Daily Mail had me laughing out loud !
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1219741/Victim-lying-Major-TA-girl-fell-serial-fantasist-said-hed-Army-medic-fighter-pilot-psychiatrist.html
* A bawdy music hall song circa 1910 by George Henry Bastow, of which the following lines give some flavour...
All the girls declare
He's a grand old stager
Bumpety-bumpety-bumpety-bump
Here comes the Galloping Major....
We Brits may no longer be up to classic stage or film comedy, but it's not for lack of material !
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1219741/Victim-lying-Major-TA-girl-fell-serial-fantasist-said-hed-Army-medic-fighter-pilot-psychiatrist.html
* A bawdy music hall song circa 1910 by George Henry Bastow, of which the following lines give some flavour...
All the girls declare
He's a grand old stager
Bumpety-bumpety-bumpety-bump
Here comes the Galloping Major....
We Brits may no longer be up to classic stage or film comedy, but it's not for lack of material !
Thursday, October 08, 2009
A NEW COMEDY OF ERRORS - OH WHAT A LUVVIE WAR !
As the season of cultural prizes (Booker, Turner etc) comes around again, along with the Party Conferences, it is no surprise to me that the theatre of politics (as distinct from political drama of the kind now on at the National Theatre) remains firmly centre stage.
Enter right : General Sir Richard Dannatt, Constable of the Tower of London, former head of the British Army, and future Tory Peer.
Enter left : Shadow Home Secretary Chris Grayling who - "out of the loop" as they say in spin - misheard details of Sir Richard's forthcoming peerage in a television interview.
Grayling thought the General was to be honoured by the present Government. The fact is, of course, that there is really very little difference between Conservative and New Labour policy on military strategy.
However, Grayling is very lucky his kind aren't still sent to the Tower for such faux pas, notwithstanding that the likes of the General still wield too much power and influence.
For, let's face it, the upper strata of the British military and defence establishment are as much to blame as the present government for current problems in Afghanistan, except that they are proving rather better in the PR war at home than our politicians.
Enter right : General Sir Richard Dannatt, Constable of the Tower of London, former head of the British Army, and future Tory Peer.
Enter left : Shadow Home Secretary Chris Grayling who - "out of the loop" as they say in spin - misheard details of Sir Richard's forthcoming peerage in a television interview.
Grayling thought the General was to be honoured by the present Government. The fact is, of course, that there is really very little difference between Conservative and New Labour policy on military strategy.
However, Grayling is very lucky his kind aren't still sent to the Tower for such faux pas, notwithstanding that the likes of the General still wield too much power and influence.
For, let's face it, the upper strata of the British military and defence establishment are as much to blame as the present government for current problems in Afghanistan, except that they are proving rather better in the PR war at home than our politicians.
Tuesday, October 06, 2009
A SENSE OF HUMOUR LOST AND REGAINED ?
The actor and theatre critic Michael Billington laments the apparent demise of classic stage comedy in yesterday's Guardian newspaper. Notwithstanding endless repeats of the likes of "Dad's Army" on television - about which I'm not complaining incidentally - I do wonder whether this is part of a wider sense of humour failure amongst the English people. Political correctness no doubt has played a role. However, there is, I think, a bigger problem. There seems to be a tendency, at least in some of the circles I frequent - particularly bureaucratic, and including "cultural administration" - for people to take comments seriously when these are made partly in jest, and, indeed, to take themselves very seriously indeed.
One of the most effective area regeneration practitioners I have come across in my career - a former director for development at the Government Office for London - was ever alert to a sense of humor failure and, I seem to remember, chastised me on at least once occasion for such shortcomings. I hope that, in recent years, some of these earlier failings have been outgrown, and I have continued to develop my sense of humour, even if this is not always readily appreciated by others, including some "arty" types who, as Janet Street Porter might have said, can be so "f...ing boring !" anyway.
However, ins spite of these cultural and wider social trends, I would suggest that British politics and politicians have provided more genuine comedy in recent years, and hence the great success of satirical shows like Bremner, Bird and Fortune, the stand-up comedy scene. These have, in turn sharpened the comic instincts and observation of many people "out there". Thus I find there is often still plenty of fun to be derived from daily life in general, even if this is lacking in certain cultural quarters. Moreover, the advent of a mass media by the people (as distinct from for) on the Internet has opened up opportunities for user-generated content as never before, so we no longer need, thankfully, to rely upon the cultural establishment for this.
http://janetrocco.wordpress.com/ & http://janetrocco.blogspot.com/
One of the most effective area regeneration practitioners I have come across in my career - a former director for development at the Government Office for London - was ever alert to a sense of humor failure and, I seem to remember, chastised me on at least once occasion for such shortcomings. I hope that, in recent years, some of these earlier failings have been outgrown, and I have continued to develop my sense of humour, even if this is not always readily appreciated by others, including some "arty" types who, as Janet Street Porter might have said, can be so "f...ing boring !" anyway.
However, ins spite of these cultural and wider social trends, I would suggest that British politics and politicians have provided more genuine comedy in recent years, and hence the great success of satirical shows like Bremner, Bird and Fortune, the stand-up comedy scene. These have, in turn sharpened the comic instincts and observation of many people "out there". Thus I find there is often still plenty of fun to be derived from daily life in general, even if this is lacking in certain cultural quarters. Moreover, the advent of a mass media by the people (as distinct from for) on the Internet has opened up opportunities for user-generated content as never before, so we no longer need, thankfully, to rely upon the cultural establishment for this.
http://janetrocco.wordpress.com/ & http://janetrocco.blogspot.com/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)