Monday Moan 9

 Intellectual indolence

And there I was, thinking that the i-paper (mini Independent) must be as uninteresting as its grown-up brother.  But I was wrong.  A train journey to Leeds was the catalyst for purchasing the i-paper on Friday and I'm not sure if reading it did much more than suggest to me that it resembles nothing other than a Daily Mail-like publication for people who think they are too clever and refined to read the Daily Mail.

I could put forward any number of examples to demonstrate my point, but two should be sufficient.

Amol Rajan writes in the column 'FreeView from the editors at i'.  In an otherwise interesting article broadly about Mitt Romney and his visit to London (see elsewhere in this week's Moan) he fails quite miserably to make the leap for the moral and intellectual high-ground when he argues that headlines describing Romney's comments as 'gaffes' are written by stupid people. Gratuitous insults are not the mark of intelligence. And his repetition of the tortuous explanation from "the excellent Mark Ferguson" which purports to show why failing to call Ed Miliband by his name was actually a sign of respect is something that will have many reaching for the sick-bags.  But save some space in those receptacles for your reaction to his parting shot that people who see gaffes in what Romney said are guilty of "intellectual indolence".  My, my, it would be hard to come up with a better example of the intellectual indolence he so decries in others.  

And then we have a letter from Val Gaize, apparently one who has not succumbed to the general feeling of goodwill towards the Olympics.  Instead, this reader suggests that we have turned London into a police state ruled by Mammon and that this has been done to allow a middle-aged former Olympic gold medallist to fulfil his ambition.

What a ridiculous and unfounded collection of accusations.  Poor old Val.  Maybe she could hibernate for the next two weeks in order to avoid the possibility that she might explode, Mr Creosote-like, as her righteous indignation ferments relentlessly whilst wall-to-wall coverage of the Games dominates all of our lives? 

Thanks for the advice, Buddy?

A long train journey provides a good opportunity to catch up on a bit of reading - once you have selected your seat from amongst those still unreserved.  Why is it that if two individuals, unknown to each other, reserve seats then the train company will place them next to each other, rather than giving them some space?  Hence the need to select your seat even if you have gone to the trouble of reserving one.

Anyway, on my way back from Leeds last week I had time to read The Economist. I read the leader on the American Presidential campaign and it got me wondering who writes these things, since they are never attributed.  What expertise and knowledge do leader writers have on the topics they write about? Should we take them as serious and authoritative contributions to debates on the topics concerned, or are they no more worthy of note than the thoughts of that lonely and rather sad bloke who props up one corner of the bar in your local pub most nights of the week?

This particular leader in The Economist was telling America what it needed to be debating about the role of Government, suggesting that at the moment neither President Obama nor Mitt Romney seemed "to understand the central domestic challenge of the next presidency".

Pretty damning stuff.  However, I can't help wondering whether we would be universally delighted and grateful if the boot was on the other foot and we received similar strictures from some American magazine.

Maybe we would. Or maybe we would suggest that they butt out of matters they don't understand.

Britain at its best?

 

So, the Opening Ceremony.  That's a tough one.  Do you want to join in with the general applause for all that is good about Britain and it's wonderful imagery that was admired all over the world?  Or do you feel compelled to say that, actually, you thought that the few good bits in the show that never seemed to end did not make up for the boredom and embarrassment of the rest of it?

According to the Daily Express,  Wayne Hemingway (fashion designer and tv personality) said: "The musical bit was perfection from the wit and the guts to put Tiger Feet among the Beatles and the Who and then to give pretty much the whole of Pretty Vacant. Normally it would be brushed over, but the punk spirit which is in Britain was written through the ceremony. Anyone cynical about this has no lust for life, it's just bloody brilliant. I don't think anyone could find a fault. He deserves a knighthood."

OK.  First, I guess I have to declare that I have no lust for life - on Wayne's measure of such things.  Second, it is prefectly possible to express a view at odds with those of Wayne, or anyone else wanting to praise Danny Boyle, without being cynical.  It's called having a different view. And third,  whether or not the "musical bit was perfection" is really not an objective issue on which there is a right or wrong answer.  Would I have chosen different music to represent the best of British culture?  Of course I would - and I'd like to think that everybody reading this blog would have come up with their own, different list.  See, that's the beauty of free will and having opinions.  We don't all have to pretend in the Emperor's New Clothes.

Rush to judgement?

All those empty seats over the first couple of days for the Olympics were bound to create a storm of protest.  The media lapped up the opportunity to be indignant and slam the organisation - thank goodness there was something like this, given that transport and security have not turned out to be be problems so far (watch this space though for transport once people return to work and, if all still goes smoothly, once the main stadium is in use during the athletics).

So we had Jeremy Hunt popping up on our screens to say that the problem seemed to be that the sponsors were not using their tickets and something would have to be done about that.  The media duly repeated this and then in interviews with the public we had it played back from them - confirming that the 'message' had been received. 

Trouble is that a bit of further investigation seems to have revealed that the sponsors were not to blame after all, but that the problem lies with the tickets set aside for the 'Olympic family' - national Olympic Associations, competitors and the like.  Moreover, they don't appear to have actual tickets that can be resold to the public if the seats remain empty, since they are merely reserved areas that members of the 'family' can chose to sit in if they wish.

No doubt Jeremy Hunt was briefed that what he said was true - such a shame that he hasn't been back on our screens so far to apologise for his error in pointing the finger in the wrong direction.

 



Monday Moan 8

You might be a professor, but ……

John Kay is one of Britain’s leading economists. He has been chairing the Review of UK Equity Markets and Long-Term Decision-Making which reported today to the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills. He is a visiting Professor of Economics at the London School of Economics, a Fellow of St John’s College, Oxford, a Fellow of the British Academy, a Fellow of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, a director of several public companies, the author of many books, and he writes a weekly column in the Financial Times.

In short, he’s done pretty well for himself based on his intellectual prowess.

But that doesn’t mean he listens to questions.  Asked on the Today programme this morning how confident he was that the Government would take heed of his recommendations, he replied that the questioner would have to ask the Government to answer.  Sounds like a sensible response?  Well no, not really.  The question wasn’t whether the Government would follow his recommendations,  it was what he – John Kay, eminent professor and all round brain-box - thought the Government would do.

Why on earth would we have to ask the Government whether it knew what John Kay’s answer would be to that question?

The Today programme is a wonderful source of irritation, isn’t it? Never fails to come up with something that gets me going in full moaning mode.  Usually it is John Humphreys displaying his usual Grumpy Old Man impression - “I-know-more-than-you-so-let-me-tell-you-what-your-answer-should-be.”

This morning it was James (don’t mention Jeremy Hunt) Naughtie who stepped into Humphreys’ shoes.  He was trying to interview Alistair Leathead about the recent shootings in America and asked “they're getting used to these kind of events aren't they?”  Leathead replied that he didn’t hear the question, but instead of repeating it, Naughtie said “these things come around in a kind of ghastly regular pattern now and Americans have got to accept that every now and again this is going to occur and it seems to produce a kind of element of mystification each time."

That sounds more like a statement for Leathead to support rather than a question seeking an answer.

The pulse of the nation?

So, the Olympics are nearly upon us and the nation is gripped by ……….?  I’m not sure what to put in here.  Are we really excited and enthusiastic about the Olympics, or are we miserable, angry about the cost/disruption/influx of visitors, etc? 

I guess it all depends on what you want to believe.  Turning to that great barometer of the nation’s views that is the Comments section on the  Daily Mail’s website, you might conclude that the citizens of this country are just waiting for everything to go wrong so that they can all leap up as one and shout “we told you so”.  Who are these people that have the time to fill their lives with sending venomous comments to online websites, berating all who have a view that does not coincide with their own?  Do they represent the true face of the UK?  Specifically in relation to the Olympics, do all the people living north of Watford see this as a huge southern conspiracy to spend Northerners’ tax contributions on this extravaganza, in which they (the Northerners) have no interest at all?

If so, then who are all the people that have, for the last month or so, been seen at roadsides all over the UK having parties, enjoying themselves, getting on with strangers, proudly waving their Union Jacks, waiting for hours on end, just to say they saw the Olympic torch?  There certainly didn’t seem to be any lack of enthusiasm for the Olympics anywhere in the country when the torch passed by.

On your bike

Bradley Wiggins is likely to become the Sports Personality of the Year, unless another British athlete performs amazingly well during the Olympics.  Those touting Andy (cry me a river) Murray for this title are surely mistaken.

Fantastic achievement by Bradley, of course. Becoming the first ever Briton to win the annual cycle trip around France is absolutely brilliant.  But, but ……

We will now have to put up with even more cyclists on the roads, jumping traffic lights, wobbling uncertainly in front of other vehicles, chaining their cycles to street furniture and causing blockages to pedestrians in the process.  Trains will become even more crowded with fold-away bicycles and sweaty cyclists during the rush hour.

Worst of all, there will be an explosion of lycra on our streets as people of all shapes and sizes don the uniform that they assume will make them into better and faster cyclists – unbelievably tight and unflattering clothes that should only be worn by those who are (a) fit and (b) not afraid to display their wares in public.

Bradley – well done on winning, but what have you done to us all?

 

Give it a rest?

 

Politicians have seized upon the Olympics as a guaranteed means of generating publicity.  Select Committee chairs have been quick to spot the endless possibilities for self-promotion.  A previous Monday Moan (number 6 posted 9 July) highlighted some of the deficiencies with the Select Committee system.  This last week has provided further evidence in support of the Moan’s views.

Last week we had Keith Vaz, Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, waffling on about the poor performance in an oral evidence session before the Committee (and it is true that is really was appallingly poor) of the hapless Nick Buckles, apparently (and there is no clue as to how he managed this) Chief Executive of G4S, regarding security at the Olympics.   

So much bad-mouthing of people from the safety of the Parliamentary fortress.  But in the interests of balance, let’s not forget that this is the same Keith Vaz who has what can charitably be described as a chequered history of staying on the side of the angels during his Parliamentary career – having been, for example, investigated on a number of occasions by the Parliamentary standards watchdog over various claims of wrong-doing and having once been suspended from the House of Commons after an investigation by the Committee on Standards and Privileges found him guilty of making false allegations.

Milking of the Olympics for publicity will continue for a long time to come.  Vaz’s Committee has already announced that it will hold at least three further oral sessions in September – including a return (by populist demand?) of Nick Buckles.  Can't wait?  Thought not.

I want that job .....

And finally, we had Philip Barker on this morning’s Breakfast tv on BBC1. Philip has a really important job – he’s an Olympic Sports Historian. As an aside, I can’t help wondering where you can you apply for such a role. Anyway, Philip was being asked whether he thought the UK’s target medal tally was realistic. Summoning all the expertise gathered over his years of hard work as an Olympic Sports Historian, he replied that it was a very difficult question to answer because “a lot of other teams are also trying their best”.

Wow, for this insight into what the Olympics are all about, Philip should be given the knighthood that had probably been reserved for Andy Murray had he won this year’s Wimbledon.

Monday Moan 7

Reform of the Lords

Last week’s debates in the House of Commons over proposals to reform the House of Lords were bewildering to many people – not just those who took part in them.  All the major political parties are in favour of reform. 

The debate last week was impassioned, but the opponents of the Bill were united only in their opposition, not in their reasons for opposition.  Amongst the Tory ‘rebels’ it seemed that behind the various arguments they put forward, the overwhelming mood was of increasing indignation that they are beholden to the Lib Dems for the continuation of their time in Government, and want nothing more than that the Lib Dems should just knuckle-under and accept what the Tory majority wants.   That and a fear that a reformed second chamber would be more powerful than the current version. The Labour Party wants reform – but it wants reform on its terms rather than the Coalition’s.  After all, the Labour Party hardly had time to make any progress on the issue during its own 13 years in power.

All very interesting, of course, but after all these years of talking about real reform, the UK still remains the only major country in the world apart from Canada to have a wholly unelected second chamber – and even theirs has no hereditary element.

Emperor's New Clothes?

The opening night of the BBC Proms is an occasion to which music lovers look forward with growing excitement as the day approaches.  Sometimes the day provides a concert and a performance that lifts the heart and sets the whole lengthy Prom season off on just the right foot.  But not always. 

This year's Prom season got under way last Friday with the world premiere of a piece by Mark-Anthony Turnage called 'Canon Fever'.  The Guardian's reporter described it as  “a saucy piece, instantly likeable and utterly appropriate to the occasion.”   Hmm.  That certainly wasn’t my reaction.  Call me a Philistine if you like, but it sounded to me as though it had been composed by means of the ‘give 100 monkeys 100 typewriters’ principle.  You can judge for yourself by listening to the whole concert on i-Player for the next few days.  But if life is too short and you just want the buzz of the three minutes the piece lasts  then this is the place for you. 

On the other hand, if you want to know what I really thought then try this instead.

A Quiet Sunday Morning?

My neighbour’s house has been unoccupied for five months following a major water leak earlier this year.  The reinstatement of her house is being covered by insurance. 

My house was damaged by the water leak.  My insurance company has very generously estimated the cost of repair at around one quarter of the true cost.  I cannot claim on my neighbour’s insurance because to be successful I would have to prove that she had been negligent in not preventing the leak.

My neighbour is being accommodated elsewhere whilst the rebuilding work takes place.  I have to listen to the drilling and banging from the empty house next door.  The builders have also now taken to working  from 8am on both Saturdays and Sundays. 

Enjoying a lie-in on a Sunday morning?  Yep, that’s something I used to do L

Big Girl's Blouse - part 2

I came in for some stick after last week’s piece on Andy ‘big-girl’s-blouse’ Murray’s blubbing performance at Wimbledon.  Apparently, there are those who think he has become more human through this lachrymose behaviour, and that we have seen a different and more lovable side of him. 

I saw Andy on last week's 'Mock the Week'.  He looked like he was enjoying himself, which was great.  But the comedians were treading on eggshells so as not to offend him, which is not how they behaved on other topics during the rest of the show.  And the audience got to their feet to applaud our Andy - hopefully for his gallant performance during the match rather than his abject one afterwards.

But surely most Scots would say he has to ‘man-up’ wouldn’t they?  After all, if they can listen to bagpipes in public without crying then losing a game of tennis shouldn’t be a problem.

Monday Moan 6

Just in time

I had been assuming I'd be able to write a piece about Andy Murray and the annual mascochistic festival that is Wimbledon.  Seventy-six years and counting ......

But things started to go wrong.  First Andy Murray failed to play his role of over-hyped loser and not only kept going and made it to the final, but played some great matches along the way.  Then we were distracted and a little confused by headlines about Marray becoming the first British winner for seventy-six years ................ had I missed this momentous laying of the Fred Perry ghost?  Turned out that I hadn't but that some imposter had tried to cash in on Andy's fame by winning the doubles under an almost identical name.

Then we had the final itself and Andy Murray again failed to meet our expectations of crumbling when it mattered. Instead, he won the first set and then produced some great tennis.  He lost, of course, but then it's probable that every other tennis player who has ever appeared at Wimbledon would also have lost to Roger Federer is that form.

But, thank goodness, Andy came through in the end with what can only be described as a major 'big girl's blouse' moment. Not for him the stiff upper lip. Not for him the quiet acknowledgment that he had simply been beaten by the better man.  True, he eventually managed to utter the right words of congratulations to Federer, but his inability to avoid blubbing like a baby was either heart-rending or cringeworthy, depending on your own emotional persuasions. 

Can't imagine that kind of behaviour would have been acceptable the last time a British man was in the Final in the 1930s, when men were men and nothing could detract from the masculinity of the players ............  if you could ignore their names, that is. 'Bunny' Austin?  How did he ever allow that one to catch on? 

I'm furious ...... I think

Diamond Bob's appearance at the Treasury Select Committee last week did not go quite the way he would have hoped. That's to say, nobody seemed impressed with what he had to say or with the man himself.

Even his admission that there had been 'reprehensible behaviour' cut very little ice. Sincerity was not the most plausible interpretation of his stance.

I like the approach of Chris Addison on last week's 'Mock the Week' - something along the lines of "we are all furious about this scandal, but nobody knows why".  Precisely.  Most of us have only a vague idea about the City, the financial system, the way everything works.  But we all know bankers and people who work in the City are bad. They are out for themselves, they make huge amounts of money at our expense, they maniuplate things to help them bolster their gains - and when we get an opportunity they should be put in the stocks and we should all be allowed to throw whatever we like at them (see also Robin van Persie, below). 

That's so much easier than having to work out why manipulating interest rates so that they stay low is a bad thing for the rest of us.

Toothless Committees?

If Diamond Bob was unimpressive then so was the Treasury Select Committee.  A series of statements rather than probing questioning, set piece and rehearsed 'anger' rather than insight and pursuit of the truth.

But then why should we have expected this Committee to be any different from the rest?  These Committees are either good at self-publicity or the media (particularly the BBC) has decided to bestow upon them an importance far greater than has previously been the case.  How often these days to we find out on the 'Today' programme that a Committee of MPs has reported that ...... blah, blah, blah.  We then get to hear from the Chair of whichever Committee it might be - these days quite often Margaret Hodge (Public Accounts) or John Whittingdale (Culture Media and Sport).  Do these people fill us with a quiet, calm satisfaction that they are able to get to the bottom of whatever issue it is that they choose to investigate and that their repots will contain penetrating and vital analysis and conclusions? 

Er, no, not really.  Their reports are mainly written by the clerks and 'special advisors' they employ. The oral evidence sessions usually manage to reveal not much more than that most MPs are reasonably competent at reading aloud questions written out for them to ask. The Chairs rarely say anything more than a superficial soundbite or two and never seem to be asked any difficult questions by their interviewers. And whilst Ministers do have to respond in due course, nothing much happens beyond the Committee getting on with its next damp squib of a report.

I love you - now where's the money?

Nobody should be surprised that Robin van Persie has decided to move on from Arsenal in pursuit of more money.  But he treats everyone with contempt when he says he is going, despite his love of the club and its fans, because he disagrees with the strategy of the Manager and Board.  Why do players (or is it their agents) come up with kind of rubbish all the time? 

Conventional 'wisdom' has it that Arsenal are not prepared to invest money in proven players because of the cost of doing so , and would rather find a few promising youngsters who might develop into stars.  According to the 'logic' of this 'wisdom' any club could buy success if it had a mind to do so and the owners of Arsenal are simply being pig-headed in not following this path.

Let's leave aside questions around the imminent introduction of new rules that will (ok, should) require clubs to become financially viable. Let's ignore awkward issues like only one team can win the League even if they all spend huge amounts of money. Let's park for now any discussion of whether van Persie is anything more than a reasonable player who has had his one season of everything falling into place. Let's put aside any questions about whether he should have shown more gratitude for the support given to him by all at the club through some serious personal problems and persistent injuries.  Let's not ask whether anybody seriously doubts the ambition of a club that has followed up improving its league position to third last season by strengthening its squad since then with the addition of two proven internationals. 

Instead, let's just ask whether this isn't really just about the money.  And whilst we are thinking about that, let's ask ourselves whether wages in excess of £200,000 a week are really necessary - even for inflated and ungrateful egos.

Monday Moan 5

Life in the UK

It appears that the current citizenship test is to be revised.  Not all immigrants have to sit this test, but perhaps it’s a good job that there is no requirement for existing citizens to have to pass the test in order to be allowed to stay here?  Go on, try the practice test and see how you get on.  It’s not as easy as you might think – I’ll bet you have to guess a lot of the answers.  Of course, it doesn’t help that some of the answers in the example test appear to be wrong (see Q19, for example).

It’s so hard to prepare for the test. Have a look at the guidance provided by the Home Office on ‘what you need to know’ and see what answers you would give to the following questions that appear on page 8:-

• What do estate agents do? 
• How and where is rubbish collected?
• What is buildings and household insurance?

Apparently, the correct answers are not:-

• Lie to buyers and sellers alike, in order to boost their own profits
• In most Government departments
• A complicated system to rip off citizens

The Greatest?

For a while yesterday I thought that Spain had taken note of the criticism of their style of play and decided to play football in a more positive way. Their two goals in the first half of the Euro final against Italy were the direct result of someone actually injecting some pace into their play and running towards the opposition's goal instead of indulging in their usual mesmerising passing in the middle of the pitch.

But despite the fawning comments on the tv after the game and in the press today, I do not believe that what I witnessed was a change of heart, still less a peerless display by the best team of all time, as many commentators now suggest. Let’s remember that for most of the second half yesterday the Italians had clearly given up any hope of scoring themselves, perhaps understandably since they were a man short for most of that time and already 2-0 down. During that time the pace of the game slowed to a walk and the Spanish showed precious little inclination to take any risks. Only the introduction of substitutes sparked them into life – allied to some woeful defending by desperately tired Italians. Cue an orgasmic reaction from pundits. But wait a minute, wasn’t this the same Spanish side that bored the world with its 0-0 draw with Portugal only a few days earlier, and had struggled to do anything much in its 4 previous games in the tournament?

That they are the most difficult team in the world to beat at the moment is unarguable, their ability to keep the ball for long periods is unmatched, and when they do rouse themselves to make an incisive attack they are a joy to watch. But the greatest of all time? Not yet, in my opinion. They do not yet have the capacity to excite that the really great teams display. They might develop this, of course, but for the moment much of their play is a kind of intellectual pursuit – about as exciting as watching a chess grandmaster toy with a novice.

Bob's a Banker

Bob Diamond – what a great name, by the way – continues to occupy the CEO post at Barclays. Why? The latest disaster for the bank seems to have made no impact on the man at all.

Remember, it was Diamond Bob who told the Treasury Select Committee that ‘there was a period of remorse and apology for banks but that period now needs to be over’. It was Diamond Bob who ran the investment side of Barclays before being appointed CEO of the whole company, just at the time Government seemed to want banks to separate their investment and retail arms.

So, instead of Diamond Bob doing the decent thing, Chairman Marcus Agius (who?) is to resign. Of course, as Chairman he has to take some responsibility and he is right that this has been a reputational disaster for Barclays. I just wonder if he ever thought of staying on and rescuing the reputation of the bank by showing Diamond Bob the door? I think that might have worked.

 


The Torch

I am struggling to see the excitement in watching someone jog or walk for 300 metres or so with a giant torch that may or may not be alight. I am also confused about why they let someone devise the route when they were so obviously drunk. How else do you explain the apparently haphazard journey of the torch to London? I was in Hertford at the weekend and noticed that the torch would be passing though this coming Saturday. I then went a few miles along the road to Welwyn Garden City and saw that the torch would be there on Sunday. Now, it would take someone perhaps an hour to walk between these two places. Ah, I thought, they must be stopping overnight in Hertford and then setting off again the next day.


Wrong. I checked the route and discovered that rather than the obvious straight road from one place to the other, the torch will travel from Hertford via Bishop’s Stortford, Bury St Edmunds, Cambridge, St Ives, Bedford and Stevenage before ending up three miles down the road in Welwyn.


Perhaps the new citizenship test should require you to know the best way to go from Hertford to Welwyn?