julius caesar

Over the past couple of years, Moira+I seem to have been acting as if we were pair of RSC groupies… we’ve seen seven of its plays, so perhaps this description is becoming pretty accurate!

Yesterday, we travelled to Cardiff to see the RSC “on tour” with this rather wonderful all-black British cast giving a fresh take on Shakespeare’s “Julius Caesar”. I have to say that, before seeing the play, I thought that the idea of an all-black cast was just something of a director’s gimmick. In the event, this proved to be far from the case and, actually, transposing the action to modern Africa was an inspired decision. Perhaps there really is a much closer correlation between Shakespeare’s “world of poetry and metaphor” (to quote the programme notes) and the hard reality of Africa – where political life is fierce; where “dictators rise and fall like Shakespearian kings and lords”; and where “tribalism is instantly recognisable”. Added to this, the soothsayer becomes a magical force in the form of the shaman.
It’s all a remarkably close fit.
The vibrant music (by Akintayo Akinbode) also contributed, and fitted, wonderfully well to the atmosphere of the production. The whole cast is excellent and there are really impressive individual performances from all the principal characters: Caesar (Jeffery Kissoon), Mark Antony (Ray Fearon), Brutus (Paterson Joseph) and Cassius (Cyril Nri).
Another stunning piece of theatre.
Photo: Paterson Joseph as Brutus, with the soothsayer (Theo Ogundipe). 

dignity of difference

I’ve just finished Jonathan Sacks’ book entitled “The Dignity of Difference: How to Avoid the Clash of Civilisations” – written in 2002 as a response to the 9/11 tragedy. It’s a brave, radical, intelligent and hopeful book from an orthodox Jewish leader (and someone who, I think, is often regarded as a conservative thinker)… he wants to celebrate the differences among religious traditions and use them to enlarge, not stunt, our humanity.

The book is full of thought-provoking comments and quotes – and, I kept having to remind myself that it was written TEN years ago. I’m afraid I’m one of those annoying people who often underlines memorable passages in pencil and the first half of the book, in particular, is full of marked sentences! Here are just a few examples… (most of you will, no doubt, stop reading at this point - which would be a shame as they provided me with MUCH food for thought):
·   “Television, with its emphasis on the visual, creates a culture of sight rather than sound – the image speaks louder than the word. Images invoke emotion. They do not , of themselves, generate understanding. The result is that the most visual protest, the angriest voice and the most extreme slogan. If confrontation is news and conciliation is not, we will have a culture of confrontation”.
·     “On the one hand, globalisation is bringing us closer together than ever before, interweaving our lives, nationally and internationally, in complex and inextricable ways. On the other, a new tribalism – a regression to older and more fractious loyalties – is driving us ever more angrily apart”.
·     “Society depends on the existence of certain relationships that stand outside economic calculation: among them, families, communities, congregations and voluntary associations. These are the institutions of civil society, and they have become seriously eroded in consumption-driven cultures”.
·     “Globalisation has immensely differential and destabilising effects. Its benefits are not spread evenly. There are winners and losers, within and between countries. The ‘digital divide’ has heightened inequalities. The average North American consumes five times more than a Mexican, ten times more than a Chinese, 30 times more than an Indian…”.
·     “One way or another, the two most influential actors – states and markets – have effectively marginalised ethical considerations from their decision-making procedures. The same is true about the most important newcomer to the international stage: the global corporation. Today, the large multinationals wield enormous power. Of the hundred largest economies today, 51 are corporations and only 49 are nation-states”.
·     “A consumer society is kept going by an endless process of stimulating, satisfying, and re-stimulating desire. It is more like an addiction than a quest for fulfilment”.
·     “We will need to understand that just as the natural environment depends on biodiversity, so the human environment depends on cultural diversity, because no one creed has a monopoly on spiritual truth; no one civilisation encompasses all the spiritual, ethical and artistic expressions of mankind”.
·     “Morality has had a hard time of it in the past half-century. It has come to represent everything we believe ourselves to have been liberated from: authority, repression, the delay of instinctual gratification, all that went with the religious, puritanical, Victorian culture of our grandparents. Virtues once thought admirable – modesty, humility, discretion, restraint – are now dusty exhibits in a museum of the cultural curiosities. Words like ‘duty’, ‘obligation’, ‘judgement’, ‘wisdom’ either carry a negative charge or no meaning at all”.
·     “In 1968, 75% of college freshmen listed ‘developing a meaningful philosophy of life’ as very important, while only 41% said the same for ‘being well off financially’. Three decades later, the percentages had been reversed”.
·     “International trade and global financial markets are very good at generating wealth, but they cannot take care of other social needs, such as the preservation of peace, alleviation of poverty, protection of the environment, labour conditions, or human rights – what are generally known as ‘public goods’” (George Soros).
·     “There is a real and present danger that the market, left to its own devices, will continue to concentrate wealth in fewer and fewer hands, leaving whole nations destitute and significant numbers of people, even within advanced economies, without stable employment, income or prospects. Envy, anger and the sheer sense of injustice are fertile soil for the growth of protest, violence and terror from which, given the openness on which globalisation depends, none of us are immune”.
PS: well done if you made it to the end!

beasts of the southern wild

Benh Zeitlin’s film is set at the time of the Katrina devastation and features a community of mixed-race eccentrics living on floating huts or primitive dwellings raised on stilts in a fictional bayou – on the water-side of the levee. The film is seen through the eyes of its central character, 6 year-old Hushpuppy (wonderfully played by Quvenzhané Wallis), who lives with her ailing, hard-drinking, fisherman father Wink (played by Dwight Henry who, in real life, ran the local bakery next to the studio!).

It’s a bizarre mixture of mysterious fable and apocalypse – featuring strange prehistoric creatures and the search of the absent mother who, according to family legend, was so pretty she could light the gas stove just by walking past it.
I came away with mixed feelings about the film – both impressed and perplexed perhaps? It’ll probably receive plaudits from most critics and, no doubt, calls for Wallis to be given an Oscar. I’m not so sure.

we are most certainly not amused

It started so well.

I found myself applauding (in a virtual sense, you understand) the UK Government TWICE on Monday. First, the Home Secretary halted the extradition of Gary McKinnon and then the Attorney General decided to apply to quash the original Hillsborough verdict.
BUT then Dominic Grieve (the AG) made an announcement which seems to indicate that the Prince of Wales has every right – even a duty – to lobby government ministers demanding something or other. My initial reaction was disappointment and disbelief and, two days on, my views haven’t changed.
Apparently, the Queen has a “constitutional duty to consult, encourage and warn ministers” and, on this basis, then so too should her successor. What some see as unconstitutional meddling or even inappropriate lobbying, Mr Grieve sees as training for kingship and a constitutional duty. The Guardian newspaper, perhaps somewhat predictably (as they’re now in the process of taking the government to the high court), sees it rather differently: “It seems all too clear that the disturbing prospect of a systemic and fundamental abuse of the essentially passive role of the crown in our constitutional monarchical system was too dangerous to contemplate”.
Grieve has seen fit to block the publication of 27 letters written by Prince Charles in 2004/2005; he said these letters revealed the Prince's "most deeply held views", they were "particularly frank" and "would potentially have undermined his position of political neutrality"… and "They also contain remarks about public affairs which would in my view, if revealed, have had a material effect upon the willingness of the government to engage in correspondence with the Prince of Wales, and would potentially have undermined his position of political neutrality."
That’s simply outrageous in my view.
This appears to give the Prince of Wales carte blanche when it comes to lobbying ministers and, as we DO know, there have been several matters on which he has imposed undue influence – in the field of architecture, for example (a field in which I have little sympathy with his views, I’m afraid)! See my 2009 blog for just one instance.
If I write a letter of objection or support in connection with a planning application (for example), then it is available for other members of the public to read. If Prince Charles does the same thing, we aren’t allowed to see what he wrote.
That just cannot be right.
Architect (Lord) Richard Rogers views the situation in the following terms: "It is either a democracy or it is not. I don't think anybody, be it a king, prince or poor man, has a right to undermine decisions by private interventions which have a public impact. The only way for Charles to be a public figure is for him to act publicly. It is not democratic to cover up his interventions."
The judges on the information tribunal had ruled in favour of releasing the letters, stating: "The essential reason is that it will generally be in the overall public interest for there to be transparency as to how and when Prince Charles seeks to influence government."
They decided "it was fundamental" that the lobbying by the heir "cannot have constitutional status" and cannot be protected from disclosure. The evidence, they said, showed "Prince Charles using his access to government ministers, and no doubt considering himself entitled to use that access, in order to set up and drive forward charities and promote views, but not as part of his preparation for kingship … Ministers responded, and no doubt felt themselves obliged to respond, but again not as part of Prince Charles's preparation for kingship."
Yesterday’s Leader in the Guardian described the situation thus: “It seems all too clear that the disturbing prospect of a systemic and fundamental abuse of the essentially passive role of the crown in our constitutional monarchical system was too dangerous to contemplate”.
I agree.
Unfortunately, it would appear that the Prince has rather more influence with government ministers than you or I have.
My impression is that the Queen has undertaken this aspect of her duties in an entirely appropriate, low-key fashion (ie. when it comes to “consulting”, “encouraging” and “warning”). I don’t think the same thing can or would be said for the Prince’s dabbling… and it really worries me.
It just shouldn’t be like this!
Photo: The only positive aspect of this shameful affair is this brilliant cartoon from The Guardian’s Steve Bell. Absolutely wonderful!

karine polwart

I went to another Karine Polwart concert on Saturday night – at Colston Hall. I think this was the fifth time I’ve seen her perform. Predictably, she was quite brilliant (performing alongside her brother Steven Polwart and Inge Thomson).

She studied politics and philosophy at university and later worked in the area of women’s and children’s rights and now, through her songwriting, she provides a powerful commentary on people’s lives and the world in general (that sounds VERY grand doesn’t it, but her songs definitely work for me in this respect). 
I’m not sure who wrote this about her, but I think they’ve got it absolutely right:  
“Her songs deal with humanity in all its many guises: there is tenderness, triumph and sorrow, raised flags of rebellion and independence, flashes of anger at power abused and misused. Perhaps most frequently she deals in spare, unsentimental empathy, often with those who have been dealt the least playable hands in the game of life”.
Eloquent, intelligent, political, lyrical, funny, rebellious, humble and inspirational.
PS: Travelling in their van from gig to gig, they apparently try to think up (and sing) cover songs they might be able perform with a ukulele accompaniment… and they’ve now begun to ask their audiences for suggestions too! On Saturday night, they sang Billy Bragg’s “A New England” in this format (which was quite brilliant – and the full house joined in very enthusiastically). They promised to post a version on YouTube. I can’t now remember what our audience suggested but, again, they’ve promised a YouTube posting! I’ll endeavour to remember to add the links in due course.
PPS: Her latest CD “Traces” is excellent (possibly her best yet?) and I was delighted to see that, as well as the song lyrics, the notes provide background information to each of the songs (in the same way as she does when she introduces them at her gigs). I like this!

on the road

I don’t normally read a review before seeing a film, but I HAD seen Peter Bradshaw’s two-star review in this week’s Guardian. So I went along to the Watershed yesterday afternoon with relatively low expectations. In the event, I really quite enjoyed it. Walter Salles’s “On The Road” film adaptation of Jack Kerouac’s 1957 book of the same name is a predictably heady blur of sex and drugs. It’s set in 1949 (the year of my birth!) and captures a thrill-seeking, free spirit of post-war America. Strangely, throughout the film, I kept comparing it with another road-movie “Easy Rider” (set in the America of the mid-1960s) and felt that the characters were much more like hippies of the 60s than beatniks of the late 40s/early 50s.

Nevertheless, and despite the film’s length (it’s 2hrs 17mins long!), I enjoyed it. The acting - featuring Garrett Hedlund (who plays Dean Moriarty), Sam Riley (Sal Paradise) and Kristen Stewart (Marylou) - is consistently impressive and the period details are excellent.
Photo: Sal, Marlou and Dean.

energy-sapping

So, yet again, our “poor” (interpret this however you wish!) energy providers are “having” to increase their prices to its customers.

Npower will increase the price of gas by an average of 8.8% and electricity by 9.1% from 26 November. Earlier, British Gas, the UK's biggest energy supplier, raised its charges for both types of fuel by an average of 6%, adding £80 a year to the average dual fuel bill. SSE (which trades as Scottish Hydro, Swalec and Southern Electric) has already said it will raise its prices by an average of 9% from Monday.
The firms blame the government's energy policies as well as wholesale prices – but the fact remains that they’re all making comfortable profits, thank you very much!
In July, Centrica (the owner of British Gas) reported a 15% rise in first-half adjusted operating profits to £1.45BILLION. In May, SSE reported first-half adjusted profit for the year ended March 2012 at £1.34BILLION. In March, Npower announced a 34% leap in annual profits. We have yet to hear anything from E.On, EDF and Scottish Power, but I have a sneaking feeling we might hear “more of the same” (of course).
Richard Lloyd of consumer group Which? criticised the lack of competition in the energy market: "What we need to see is action from the government and more pressure on... these very big lazy companies who think it's OK to clobber people with above-inflation price rises at the very time when they can least afford it”.
Although I’ve not written posts EVERY time energy price have been raised, I’m conscious that I’m in danger of becoming an “energy bore” (eg. click here and here for stuff I posted in February and March last year – nothing has changed!).
But, it seems to me that the BIG SIX energy providers have what amounts to a monopolistic control over the prices they charge their customers while, AT THE SAME TIME, ensure that they themselves make ENORMOUS profits. Of course(!), they have to pay their executives massive salaries/pay the market rate (and bonuses) to stop them taking jobs with rival companies (what utter “tosh”) and, once again, it’s also all about their shareholders’ profits (surely, that can’t be right either?).
We, the poor consumers, have absolutely no choice in the matter.
There seems little point in constantly changing suppliers because they ALL increase their prices on a regular basis and, frankly, we’ve all become totally disillusioned by the process anyway.
We just don’t trust the energy providers and Ofgem seems to be completely ineffective… and we can do absolutely nothing about it.
It’s frankly scandalous and government intervention seems the only option. But, of course, it’s global market and the consumer is a mere “bit player”.  
Surely, it shouldn’t be like this?

september/october books

More books:

Letters to my Grandchildren (Tony Benn): An encouraging book – idealistic and affectionate – comprising 39 letters to his grandchildren (together with a lovely postscript “The Daddy Shop” – an invented story of his). Even if you don’t altogether agree with his political views, you can’t help but appreciate his constant curiosity and zest for life. He seems to have been around forever and, when he eventually goes, he’s going to be much-missed.
On Bard Duty (Nicholas Day): Nick Day has been performing alongside our son-in-law Felix at the RSC for the past two years. This is essentially intended to be a short book that provides useful insights to young actors (especially those on the Shakespearian stage) plus extracts from his blog covering this year’s “Shipwreck Trilogy” of plays. It’s informative and entertaining and, at times, a little precious!
Crome Yellow (Aldous Huxley): Our latest book group book. I’m afraid I found it a little boring! It revolves about a small gathering of people at Crome manor house in 1922 and is essentially a philosophical novel about romance and sex – but that rather gives the impression that it be exciting (it isn’t!). Well written+observed and, at times, provides an interesting insight into the upper-/middle-class world of the 1920s. Very disappointing.   
Once in Europa (John Berger+Patricia MacDonald): This is the second in Berger’s “Into Their Labours” trilogy (my hardback copy – bought for just £2 instead of £20 - is also accompanied by Patricia MacDonald’s stunning photographs). It’s essentially a love story, set in a French alpine village, which celebrates life despite the shameful things we’re doing to the planet due to greed, exploitation, over-development, industrialisation and power. I found this short book really rather captivating.
Everyday God (Paula Gooder): I’ve been using Gooder’s commentaries as a daily focus for reflection. She reckons that “we need the ordinary in order to help us fully to encounter the extraordinary” and I wouldn’t argue with that. It’s a well-written, straightforward and encouraging book.

spicer+cole: new cafe of choice!

I seem to spend quite a lot of my time in cafes these days!

It’s something I’ve really been enjoying since retirement last year (and cafes DO seem to feature rather regularly in my recent determination to produce “a drawing or a photograph for each day”!).
We’re spoilt for choice here in Bristol - No.1 Harbourside and the Mud Dock Deli are two of my favourites.
BUT, I’ve now got a new “café of choice” – it’s called Spicer+Cole.
It’s located on Queen Square Avenue - just off Queen Square and opposite the Welsh Back Health Club/Gym. It might not have a harbourside view (although the water is a mere 30m away), but it DOES have an awful lot of other things going for it as far as I’m concerned. It’s a beautiful, elegant, light and airy place serving truly EXCELLENT coffee (crucial for me!)… plus a wide variety of food for breakfasts, brunches, lunches and beyond. The staff are great too.
Simple, vitally-important pleasures!
Photo: taken from Spicer+Cole’s facebook page (sorry/thanks!).

matti braun at the arnolfini

I love art and like to think I’ve got quite eclectic tastes.

Unfortunately, however, when it comes to art exhibitions at the Arnolfini, I frankly just don’t get them.
That’s not entirely true… there have been perhaps THREE exhibitions over the past nine years (ie. since we came to live in Bristol) that have struck some sort of chord with me. As far as the rest are concerned, I’m afraid it’s been a case of the “Emperor’s new clothes”. Perhaps I’m in a minority, but I yearn for a time when the Arnofini showcases more “accessible art” (maybe there’s something in its constitution that it insists on them focusing on the more obscure stuff?).
Well, I’m pleased to say (in my humble view!) that the latest exhibition IS worth seeing!
It’s called “Gost Log” and the exhibition opened yesterday (it runs until 6 January). It features a selection of work by Cologne-based artist Matti Braun from the last 15 years. Actually, for me, the key part of the exhibition features a “dark and shimmering lake” which takes over the whole of the central exhibition space and “can be crossed over by a meandering path of wooden logs, which invites the audience to become part of the scene”. It’s impressive and seems to provide a sense of wonder to all who experience the space. I’m afraid that most of the remainder of the exhibition “didn’t do it for me” (although some of the silk paintings were rather beguiling).
I’ll leave you with this extract from the Arnolfini’s exhibition guide – which might prove helpful in explaining a little more about the exhibition (or then again, if you’re anything like me, it’ll go completely “over your head”!):
"His delicate paintings on silk, prints, objects and installations are often based on stories and histories of specific people or ideas, but abstracts away from these into his own formal and conceptual explorations. Referring to different craft traditions, contemporary aesthetics, design and fashion, Braun’s work focuses on moments of intense exchange between global cultures.
His practice explores cultural misunderstandings and their impact on forms and ideas, elucidating social and aesthetic developments that may have been overlooked or buried. Following his research interests, Braun develops an eclectic and elaborate mesh of concepts that challenges conventional interpretations of Modernity.”
I hope that clarifies things!
Photo: Braun’s “dark and shimmering lake”.
PS: But it WAS brilliant to meet up with Dave+Tamsie(+Oscar+Hector)!

rich man’s toys*

So, it appears that Richard Branson was right. The west coast mainline franchising process was fundamentally “flawed” (a slight under-statement?) and the government has decided that it should be re-tendered. Of course, it’s all going to cost the tax payer - compensation figure of £40million has been banded about, but some observers reckon that this will look like “small change” when the true cost has been established.

Clearly(!), this is nothing to do with the Transport Secretary (Justine Greening has conveniently swapped jobs recently) and, inevitably, civil servants are being blamed. But, according to The Times, WS Atkins and law firm Eversheds were hired in January to give technical advice on the franchise process!
Perhaps it REALLY is time the railways were returned to public ownership?

In a letter in today’s Guardian, Green MP Caroline Lucas calls for exactly that and points out the following:
“Since privatisation in the 1990s, the cost of train travel in the UK has risen by 17% in real terms – compared with a 7% drop in the cost of motoring…  Thanks to higher interest payments to keep debts off the government balance sheet, and costs arising from fragmentation and the complex network of subcontractors, the cost to the public purse of running the railways has risen by 2 to 3 times since privatisation…
Bringing the railways back into public hands could save over £1bn a year of taxpayers' money – some of which could be spent on reducing fares…”
Despite the fact that none of the three major parties is calling for renationalisation of the railways, it appears that the public very definitely DO want the railways to be returned to public ownership (93% in a Guardian website poll; 75% in a MSN poll and a similar number in a GfKNOP poll).
In its last year before privatisation, our railways apparently required just £431m in public subsidy. By 2006, the figure had reached over £6 BILLION. Economists at UBS found British fares are now the most expensive in the world.  The Labour government commissioned a review by Roy McNulty into the railways. It was published under the coalition and found that the costs of our fragmented system (note: there are apparently over 2,000 firms who operate UK trains!) had created a 40% "efficiency gap" over our continental neighbours and their mostly nationalised railways.
Oliver Huitson wrote this in The Guardian in March this year:
"For so-called ‘choice’, if you arrive at Victoria and you need a train to Brighton, there is one company and one price (£24.10). In Europe, the same fare would cost an average £11. If we paid the same fares as the French with their nationalised service, it is estimated we would save over £4bn a year. Yes, if you dig around three years in advance and have a small team of analysts at your disposal, you might just find a bargain. But woe betide the swaggering Johnny who turns up at a British station and expects to just stroll onto a train at a fair price; that braggadocio is a thing of the past”.
Don’t you just LOVE it!
Note: *words used by the Conservative former transport minister, Philip Hammond, to describe the railway system in September last year.

barbara

I saw this film this afternoon at the Watershed with Moira, Gareth+Alan almost by default.

I’d originally been hoping to see “Anna Karenina” but, for some reason, it only lasted for one week at the Watershed and so we missed our chance (yes, I know it’s on elsewhere in Bristol – but it just wouldn’t be the same)… and so, to me at least,  “Barbara” seemed very much second best.
How wrong I was!
Directed by Christian Petzold, the film is set in the East Germany of 1980 and tells the story of a doctor (quite brilliantly played by Nina Hoss) who has been moved from a prestigious position in Berlin to work in a provincial hospital as a punishment for submitting an application to emigrate to the west (and political insubordination?). The storyline is quite compelling: she’s planning escape with her lover to the west; she’s continually harassed by a Stasi official; she doesn’t really seem to fit in with her provincial colleagues but she appears captivated by an idealistic sense of “what’s right” and professional responsibility to duty (and by one of her fellow doctors?)(played by Ronald Zehrfeld). 
A really lovely, delicate, dramatic film.

mad about the boy

Moira+I went to The Studio at the Bristol Old Vic last night to see this impressive, short play (only 50 minutes long) by Gbolahan Obisesan. It was the winner of an Edinburgh Fringe First Award 2011 and, on last night’s showing, deservedly so. Just three characters: Boy (Bayo Gbadamosi), Dad (Jason Barnett) and Man (Simon Darwen). The boy is black, bright and feisty, but attracted by the lure of being bad ; Dad wants the best for his son, but is at a bit of a loss; the Man (a school counsellor) wants the boy to make the right choices, but is up against the boy’s perceived peer pressures.

Powerful drama, made even more so by the simple, effective stage direction and the direct rat-tat-tat dialogue.
Feel lucky to have caught this as it’s only in Bristol for three days (tonight’s the last night).

old school song (oh good grief!)

Inexplicitly, a couple of days ago, the words of my old school song (Handsworth Grammar, Birmingham) suddenly came into my head! It must be some 45 years since I last heard it.

I think we used to have to sing the school song at the end of each term and, perhaps a little worryingly, I can still recall most of the words… and the tune!
The entire school was “made” to sing the song (the words were absolutely hilarious back then, so what today’s pupils would make of them is best left to the imagination - it seems that they had “public school illusions”!). This was painfully embarrassing for all concerned and, of course, the older boys (me included, obviously) put their own words to the chorus – much to the absolute fury of the headmaster! People were duly caned if detected… (not me, of course!).
This is the “proper” chorus:
It’s a goal to the School, Hurrah! Hurrah! It’s a goal to the School, Hurrah!
Scored by each man fulfilling God’s plan,
Three cheers for the School,
Three cheers for the School,
Three cheers for the School.
Hurrah!
But, of course, every time the word “hurrah”(!) was sung, we used to add “sole” on to the end to make “arsehole” and, somewhat predictably, “three cheers” became “free beers” (talk about schoolboy humour - oh how we laughed!)!
Not quite sure why I feel the need to share all this, but hey!
Photo: Handsworth Grammar School (taken in 1966).
PS: I’ve just checked out the school’s website and discovered that they’ve been celebrating its 150^th anniversary this year (I can remember the century celebrations of 1962!).
PPS: They don’t write school songs like this these days… here are the first two verses (there were FIVE in all!):
“To the old Bridge Trust we sing this song,
To the Staffordshire knot as we pass along,
The Black and Gold in an endless throng,
The sons of the school go FORWARD.
It’s a goal to the School….
Let us stand on the Bridge and stretch a hand,
One to the School and one to our Land,
For both we love, for both we stand;
And make the password FORWARD.
It’s a goal to the School….”

goodbye rowan, hello uncertainty…

Very sad to see that Rowan Williams is standing down as Archbishop of Canterbury (no, that's NOT him in the photograph). I think he’s been an excellent archbishop whose quiet humility, intellect and leadership have been an important anchor for the Anglican Church in these difficult times – with the growing schism in the worldwide Anglican Church on issues such as homosexuality and women bishops. In many ways, it’s a thankless and very difficult job and, sadly, I fear that the coming years will deepen the divisions within the Anglican communion and, ultimately, split the Church of England (in the same way the Episcopal Church has in the US). There is much to be fought for over the intervening years leading up to the next Lambeth Conference (worldwide gathering of Anglican bishops) in 2018.

I have to say, I worry about the massive task his replacement (whoever he is)(and, of course, it HAS to be a bloke!) faces. I’ve been checking through the list of contenders and, frankly, no one stands out (for me) – although some do rather worry me.  
Personally, I just hope that we don’t see a future Archbishop of Canterbury backed by the Evangelical Alliance (although one or two friends have suggested that it’s the “evangelicals’ turn” after what they see as Williams’s “liberal” reign!).
I tried out The Guardian’s “Interactive Guide – Pick your own Archbishop” and it seems that Stephen Cottrell, aged 54 (current Bishop of Chelmsford)(betting anything between 16-1 and 50-1), is my preferred candidate – although I know virtually nothing about him. However, he doesn’t feature on the BBC website of runners and riders! Apparently, he is sympathetic towards gay people; opposes the renewal of Trident; has specific plans for re-organising the church financially; and really cares about falling church attendances… but he probably also has views that might quite frighten me, for all I know!
Obviously, it stands to reason that “my man” won’t feature at all.
Photo: Stephen Cottrell, current Bishop of Chelmsford.   

social superiority?

According to Ken Clarke, Andrew Mitchell is apparently a “reasonable and courteous man”. I actually thought he’d made a pretty good Secretary of State for International Development (whilst still in Opposition, he visited countries throughout the developing world to establish in detail how aid could be most effectively and fairly delivered and visited a number of countries in Africa and Asia containing some of the worst poverty in the world and, when he became a Cabinet member, even Jon Snow reckoned that Mitchell was “unquestionably the best prepared Secretary of State — nobody has waited longer in the wings and everyone in the sector knows of his commitment to the sector") and so I was disappointed to learn that he’d been made Chief Whip in Cameron’s recent re-shuffle.

I don’t really know an awful lot about the man, but the sad thing is that he’s yet another rather typical Tory minister (am I being a little unfair?): double millionaire; public school educated; father was a junior Conservative minister; president of the Cambridge Union; allegations of him lobbying on behalf of party donors; allegations of tax avoidance; and forged a “lucrative” career as a merchant banker… and, according to the Telegraph, Mitchell is also known for his naked ambition and earned the nickname 'Thrasher' at school!
As I’m sure you’re aware, it seems that Mitchell had a row with some police officers a few days ago. He was apparently told by them to get off his bicycle as he left Downing Street and go through the smaller pedestrian gate instead of the main entrance used by cars. He was reported in The Sun newspaper(?!) to have used foul language and told the officer at the gates to "learn your… place" and "you don't run this… government". The precise details seem a little hazy, but even Mitchell admits that he “lost it”. As The Times leader put it: “Losing your temper with a police officer is bad enough, losing your temper because you view yourself to be the social superior of that officer is contemptible”.
The police officer involved in the recent allegations might well have been a bit of a “jobsworth” for all I know. But, to my mind, whatever the circumstances (and it seems that the crux of the reported incident is correct and that Mitchell has been a little economic with the truth in his reporting of the matter to Cameron), Mitchell should resign immediately or, if he refuses, he should be sacked by the PM.
No argument.
But, of course, this won’t happen… because that’s no longer the way things are done at Westminster.
PS: there is a glorious irony in all this, of course, as one of the Chief Whip’s roles is concerned with the discipline of their own party's MPs!

bristol pound

Yesterday saw the launch of Bristol’s own currency (Bristol Pound) - culminating in an evening of local festivities in a night market in the Old City/St Nicholas Market. Lots of people attended, plus an assortment of journalists and television crews from near and far (eg. Russia, China, Ukraine, Belize and Singapore if “The Independent” newspaper is to be believed!).

The not-for-profit scheme has been launched to encourage residents to buy locally produced goods from the independent retailers which accept them rather than chains and megastores.
Moira+I chatted to our friend Chris Sunderland, one of the organisers, as we queued in the Corn Market to purchase our Bristol Pounds and he was obviously very pleased with the response (they’d had to organise two extra deliveries of notes during the course of the day!).
£B125,000 worth of notes have been printed and it’s hoped that £B500,000 will be in circulation within a year (you can also pay for goods by text message – allowing independent retailers to accept non-cash payments without having to go to the expense of setting up a credit card machine). Around 300 independent businesses have signed up so far, but the organisers hope that more than 1,000 will soon be involved.
As you might imagine, as someone who absolutely detests the takeover of our High Streets by the big supermarkets (I might just have mentioned this in a couple of previous blogs!), I’m a keen supporter!
If you live in Bristol, PLEASE participate... you KNOW it makes sense!
Photo: Bristol Pound notes (including £1P notes!) – designed by local artists.

me and michelangelo...

You might recall(?) that I spent a little time in the Ashmolean Museum last November looking though some of Turner’s Venetian watercolours…

Well, after that wonderful encounter, I returned to Oxford yesterday to check out some 500 year-old drawings by Michelangelo (1475-1564)! Thanks to the brilliantly helpful Katherine in the Western Print Room, I spent just over an hour pouring over nine of Michelangelo’s drawings – a simply amazing experience. Isn’t it just fantastic that we can do this in the UK?… and it’s all free!
The above images show just four of the drawings I was given privileged access to!
And to crown it all, this was followed by a lovely lunch with my great mate Ken (at The Red Lion, Gloucester Green).
A REALLY magical day.
Photo: four of the drawings: Nude Male Torso+another study; Ideal Head (1508-12?); Descent from the Cross (1521?); and Study of Man’s Head (1509?).
PS: a lovely bonus to the day (for me) was being able to get into the courtyard(s) of a graduate housing scheme I designed for Lincoln College in 1976 on an incredibly tight city centre site… just as I was passing the main entrance in Bear Lane (which is kept locked and only accessible to residents), I noticed a workman unlocking the gates. I quickly explained that I’d be the architect for the scheme and he kindly allowed me to have a very quick look round. It was completed 36 years ago and I reckon it had weathered well and still looked pretty good to my eyes! Here are some images from my whistle-stop tour.

labour leadership (oh, and boris!)

I’ve been depressed (and, in some ways, amused) to read the results of the recent YouGov poll.

Somewhat predictably, on the back of his Olympic “surge”, Boris Johnson (not-so-much-a-politician-more-a-showman?) comes out as the UK’s most “respected” politician (plus 25%), compared with David Cameron (minus 18%), Ed Milliband (minus 29%) and Nick Clegg (minus 52%!). You might be encouraged to learn that Michael Gove and George Osborned scored minus 40% and minus 53% respectively!
Are you keeping up with all these figures?
Well, here’s a few more:
Charisma: Johnson 56%, Cameron 21%, Clegg 11% and Milliband 3%.
Strength: Johnson 26%, Cameron 11%, Milliband 5% and Clegg 3%.

Predictably, at this mid-term point and in the light of the dire economic situation, the Labour Party (42%) is well ahead of the Conservatives (31%) in the polls – I don’t think the LibDems will count in the next General Election (but who knows?!). Depressingly, there are signs that the Tories are moving even more to the right, politically (eg. recent cabinet re-shuffle and this article by Polly Toynbee). What worries me about all this is not all the talk about Johnson taking over from Cameron (unlikely in the short-term at least, but I can see it happening); it’s Ed Milliband’s standing in the eyes of the electorate and the prospects of him becoming the next prime minister.

At best, I think even the most charitable critic would describe Milliband’s performances as Leader of the Opposition as “steady”. My own opinion would be rather less generous – “nice bloke but lightweight, ineffective, unconvincing and possessing very few leadership qualities”, perhaps?
As the next General Election approaches, and if Milliband (junior) is still leader, I think there is every likelihood that many of those tempted to vote Labour, might have second thoughts and, hey presto, we’ll have another Tory government (without the “help” of the LibDems this time!)… and probably one with a hard-line right wing agenda.
How depressing would that be?!

english baccalaureate

I have long believed that the GCSE examination needed a vigorous overhaul and so it comes as no surprise that Mr Gove, that font of all educational wisdom, knowledge and hands-on experience, has opted to replace GCSEs with a new English Baccalaureate qualification.

Indeed, it’s just possible (but highly unlikely, I suspect!) that you might have previously read my blog of January 2011 when the government first launched its “latest education initiative (English Baccalaureate)”.
As I feared, this will initially be in three core subject areas - English, Maths and Sciences… and be extended later to include History, Geography and Languages.
This is what I wrote on the subject 20 months ago:
“My fear is that schools will feel the need to focus on the more traditional subjects and I really don’t think that a narrow academic course is appropriate for ALL students. There will no doubt be a tendency for schools to feel that they should be promoting a curriculum to improve a school’s league table standing rather than adopting a system that would benefit all students – including the less academic.
It would appear that, in the Government’s eyes, Physical Education, Art, Music, Technology, Drama, Dance, Philosophy+Belief and the like are very much second division subjects (continuing the league table jargon!)”.  
As a former architect (and you HAVE to be a VERY gifted academic all-rounder to even stand a chance of becoming an architect, if I say so myself!), the government’s criteria is frankly insulting - clearly art and technology don’t count these days! Schools will now inevitably see sport, music, drama, dance, art, technology etc as secondary subjects.
Was it really only last month that our beloved prime minister was telling us that pupils should be "doing as much sport in schools as possible" and that "as well as the facilities and the money, what we really need is a change in culture in our schools and in society that says sport is good, competitive sport is good, schools games are good"?
In my blog of January 2011, I suggested that a caller on a radio phone-in had a number of salient points for consideration by Mr Gove on the new English Baccalaureate – click here, it’s definitely worth a listen.
The caller said: "Children go to school to work out who they are and what they want to study…. My guess is that this just reflects your own personal, narrow experience of education... I'd just ignore your silly English Baccalaureate."
I stand by what I said then.

wild oats at the bristol old vic

It was very good to be at the Bristol Old Vic last night to experience first-hand the newly-refurbished Grade 1 theatre in action. It’s the country’s oldest working theatre (built in 1766) – and the only example left of its kind.

Our good friend Sam Alexander (actually, he’s VERY good friends of our daughters and Felix from their Thame Youth Theatre days)(blimey, that seems a long time ago!) was playing the lead (Jack Rover) in Mark Rosenblatt’s revival of John O’Keefe’s “Wild Oats” comedy (written in 1791!). It’s a play-within-a-play full of farcical situations and with “Shakespearian” mistaken identities and performed by a fine all-round cast. I wasn’t entirely convinced by Rosenblatt’s decision to give the play a “1940s feel” but, nevertheless, it VERY enjoyable way to spend a Friday evening.
Photo: Emily May Smith as Jane and Sam as Jack Rover.
PS: It was impressive to see that the stage now extends through the proscenium arch and a great relief to experience comfortable seats (compared with the old versions!). It looked as though leg-room and comfort was the order of the day in the “Pit” (ie. stalls); we sat in the front row of the Upper Circle (brilliant view) and I suspect that here (and in the Dress Circle and Gallery too?) leg-room had to be compromised slightly in order to maintain architectural integrity.

tabu

I read the Watershed’s somewhat mysterious/intriguing blurb on this film and decided to “give it a go”. The blurb clearly didn’t have the same effect on the rest of Bristol’s population as it played to an audience of just FIVE (and, until the adverts started, there were only two of us!) when I went along a couple of evenings ago.

I’m still not quite sure what to make of it.
Miguel Gomes’s film is in two parts… and in black+white. The first is set in modern-day Lisbon and recounts exchanges between two neighbours – one a devout Catholic and the other an elderly, cranky and somewhat haughty woman (Aurora); the second part is set in the Portuguese Mozambique of the 1960s and is a flash-back to Aurora’s youth and her relationship with a handsome, free-wheeling young man (it has no dialogue, merely a simple voice-over commentary).
Slow-paced, rather elegant, with a fairly naïve storyline… but I ended up rather liking it!

 

shy fountain

I mentioned on facebook that Rosa+I would be having one our regular playdays today and that, a very brief part of it at least, would involve revisiting Bristol’s “shy fountain”. I have to say that Rosa+I have become quite attached to this lovely, virtually hidden, almost-secret fountain. We frequently walk past it (or through it, if we’re really feeling brave!). Actually, it was a little time before we (ie. me) noticed the “shy fountain” description on the adjoining low wall and it’s really only been since then that we’ve taken the fountain to our hearts (afterall, whoever’s heard of “shy fountain”?). If you’ve got young (grand)children, then I suggest you make a note of this and duly pay it homage… and, of course, it’s free!

Photo: the shy fountain (and Rosa) – suggest you click on the image to enlarge.
PS: The Shy Fountain is located on Anchor Road (just opposite the Cathedral School and on the same side of the road as @ Bristol/it’s also at the end, ie. just before Anchor Road, of the straight pedestrian link between Café Gusto on the Harbourside and the Cathedral.