Gertsamtkunstwerk

The Royal Opera House accounts

Thnaks to Intermezzo, I have found a copy of the Royal Opera House accounts for the year to the end of August 2009.

To break it down, their total expenditure is £99.5 m, of which £7.5m is the cost of commercial and voluntary activities, leaving £92m to spend on opera and ballet.

Note 7 on page 24 breaks down expenditure into various categories, of which the main ones (in round millions of pounds) are:

Royal Opera 16

Royal Ballet 9

Orchestra 9

Production 10

Stage and Transport 10

Other production and sales costs 5

Management 2

Marketing & publicity 6

Education etc 3

Support costs 20

Staff numbers are

Production 395

Orchestra 114

Ballet 122

Opera 82

£9 million for 114 orchestra players and staff looks *about* right - in actual fact probably includes salaries and on-costs for 114 employed staff and fees for freelancers - £79k probably too much for an full-time orchestra player (please note the costs include Employers' NI & pension contribution as well as salary).

82 opera staff costing £200k each, so I presume that's 82 employed staff - chorus, young artists, and maybe a few assistant assistant conductors/rehearsal pianists, plus the fees paid to any number of visiting freelancers (I say any number, they're listed in the programmes, but I'm not counting now).

It's reasonable to assume that those are the salary and on-cost or fees for instrumentalists, dancers and singers.

395 staff for production at cost of £10 million suggests a cost of £25k, which doesn't strike me as very much (remember, not salary but full cost to employer). Let's hope a significant number are part-time!

£15 million of the support costs are premises related, and the rest are mainly 'management and administration', presumably including  ushers, cleaners, cloakroom attendants etc

Scenery, costumes, animals etc are presumably what comes into Stage and Transport, all £10 million of it. Without seeing the budget/management accounts for a specific production it's difficult to conclude, but it doesn't seem excessive, depending on how many productions it represents and the extent to which the costs are shared with other houses - off the top of my head I can't remember which productions were new in 08/09 season.

I guess to some people, 65 managers and administrators may seem excessive, but it depends what they do. I presume they include people like Stage managers, lighting engineers, as well as HR, Legal, finance, media and all those myriad functions every sizeable organisation needs to have in house. I may of course be wrong.

Income includes £35m from box office sales, and £7 million from membership of the Village Hall Flower Arranging Committee Friends. That's quite striking - membership is a fifth of ticket sales.

It's difficult to know what to conclude.

There doesn't seem to be a great deal of fat in that budget. On the other hand, where I work there is an expectation of 25% reduction in frontline services, and a third in backroom support. Much as I love opera, I do think that most of the frontline services my department provides are far more important to the nation (although one may disagree vehemently about the politics behind the policies that drive the operations - and believe me, one does, although not being frontline, one meekly accepts one's position as low-down the food chain and thus expendable/not socially useful).

On the other hand, the budget is 100 times the size, so arguably has more scope for scaling down and finding efficiency savings - though not 25%!

Personally, I think there is a good argument for protecting small budgets such as Arts and Overseas Aid (the latter, the Coalition agrees with me) because enormous cuts to them make not one jot of difference to the overall national finance). But I always think that the ROH audience may contain a disproportionate number of extreme tax avoiders. (By extreme, I don't mean people who ensure they claim every business expense, use their full ISA allowance, etc, but people who create elaborate arrangements and subsidiaries whose only function is to avoid tax which would otherwise be due).

links 10/27/2010

• La mezzosoprano Nancy Fabiola Herrera recibe el premio Plácido Domingo – Publimetro - Annotated

   

   

  • 

• New in the Gramophone Player | gramophone.co.uk

• Interview with Gerald Finley

  tags: gerald

   

Posted from Diigo. The rest of my favorite links are here.

More Plácido news

Dear Plácido

Please rest. Just sometimes. Cos if you don't, I can't, and *I* need to.

Love Gertxxx

A late reporting review of Il Postino

Domingo was excellent in the role of Neruda, although the lower part of his voice was surprisingly weak, given his recent forays into baritone territory. Catán gives all the main characters aria-like moments, and Domingo’s Neruda starts off with a hymn to his wife’s naked body. In fact, Neruda in the opera comes off as more than a bit self-involved and self-pleased, making Mario’s affection for the famous older man seem just a bit odd and obsessive.

and some reflection on the production when it had finished its run in Los Angeles

Critic's Notebook: L.A. Opera's 'Il Postino' on a Latin American high note

Placido Domingo greets the audience at an outdoor screening of "Il Postino" on Oct. 9.

Placido Domingo introduces 'Il Postino' in Costa Mesa

New York Celebrates Mexico’s Bicentennial

NEW YORK – Celebrities from the worlds of show business, sports and politics gathered in New York for the inauguration of Revealing Mexico Week, one of the events in the bicentennial celebrations of Mexican Independence.

Fotos: Revealing Mexico con Placido Domingo, Edith Gonzalez y mas

Plácido and Marta with Michael Bloomberg, Mayor of New York

More pictures

Opera Great Coming to Stanislaus State

Plácido Domingo, the most famous opera singer in the world, is coming to California State University, Stanislaus, on Nov. 1 to receive an honorary doctoral degree of fine arts.

Plácido Domingo to perform concert in Yerevan

3 December. Armenia (which is also the setting for Radamisto which I went to see last week)

Also concerts in Batumi on 25 November and Bratislava 16 December

And the Latin Grammys MAn of the Year on 10 November

Cyrano de Bergerac in San Francisco

This opened on Sunday just gone, a matinée, and plays again tonight and Saturday, and the 2, 6, and 9 November.

The San Francisco Opera has a nice mini-site for the opera with a swish photo gallery and a video clip of highlights - the photos are also available as bigger picture lower resolution files here

Several previews before the event:

Plácido Domingo perfect to play Cyrano in S.F.

This article points out that he was in rehearsal for Cyrano in between performances of Il Postino - and Le Nozze di Figaro in Los Angeles.

He talks about baritone roles he is looking at:

I have three or five in mind right now, including Di Luna in 'Il Trovatore' and the Doge in 'I Due Foscari.' Maybe Ernani or Nabucco...These roles are hard

(of course, anyone who's read  My Operatic Roles will know that all roles are hard!)

PLÁCIDO DOMINGO – An Interview with the Tenor turned Baritone for “Cyrano”

(a headline which makes it seem that Cyrano is a baritone part. It isn't)

But, to be the man who takes the girl – you have to be young and handsome – you know?”

(Erm, actually, no, Plácido, not necessarily young, y'know) 

  Feature: Plácido Domingo meets the Californian press before his Cyrano de Bergerac

Plácido Domingo's SF Opera Press Event

Placido Domingo delights SF with surprise appearance at Cyrano panel

 He twiddled his fingers.  He clasped his fingers together.  He fidgeted.  The hands kept moving.  He literally twiddled his thumbs.  He touched the matching finger tips together, then intertwined.

Yeah, we know, he's a fidget!

Placido Domingo: world’s most famous opera singer, in conversation

Saturday, he finished his run singing the role of poet Pablo Neruda in composer Daniel Catan’s “Il Postino” at Los Angeles Opera. Sunday, he finished conducting “Figaro” at Los Angeles Opera. Flying to San Francisco for “Cyrano” rehearsals amid this whirlwind has been exhausting, to be sure. How, Gockley asked Domingo, does he maintain this sort of schedule? To be a singer, a conductor, a general director and a restaurateur, as well: How does he do it? “You re-charge,” Domingo said, “by the results of what you are doing — when you see the public being happy.”

Placido Domingo explains Cyrano to David Gockley at the Opera

In the long, narrow room, his warmth and sense of humor projected intimately as he spoke in a mellifluous voice without affectation...

...At his advanced age some clueless critics suggest he should give up singing and stick to directing at Los Angeles Opera. The operatic world's chronic over-achiever said “I am not going to retire one day earlier than I can sing.”

Domingo: Comfortable as an ageless ‘loser’

and reviews after Sunday's premiere:

Domingo’s Great Cyrano de Bergerac

he sounded wonderful at Sunday’s opening matinee...

Despite General Director David Gockley’s announcement after Act 1 that the tenor was feeling indisposed, Domingo carried on. The bit of a hard edge that I could detect from Row H soon vanished, leaving Domingo’s prized, darkly shining tone unblemished by illness or age. I know it sounds as though I’m respectfully overlooking inevitable signs of vocal decline, but in this role, I didn’t hear them. Domingo sang magnificently through the opera’s conclusion, with no signs of fatigue or pushing.

'Cyrano': Domingo and more

As for the star, there was a potential crisis that might have stopped the show at Sunday’s matinee opening. About 50 minutes into the opera, Domingo’s voice turned slightly raspy; until that point, he had been singing beautifully.

After a long pause following Act 2, Scene 1, General Director David Gockley addressed the audience, announcing that Domingo had become “indisposed after the beginning of the performance," but that he decided to continue, asking for the audience's indulgence.

As Domingo returned, the roughness in the voice was gone, he finished the performance without any noticeable difference, except for a small reduction in volume, producing a less ringing tone. But the sheen of the voice, the ever-thrilling element of Domingo's singing, was gorgeous as ever.

  Review: Even when 'indisposed,' Plácido Domingo shines in 'Cyrano de Bergerac' at San Francisco Opera

A bizarre-beyond-belief article that states:

"Cyrano de Bergerac," by composer Franco Alfano, amounts to only half a show. Its first half is a voluptuously scored spectacle, its second half pure tedium...The final two acts are loaded up with sword fighting, gunshots, cannons and bells. But it's all so much window dressing as "Cyrano" has lost its interest.

So go for the first half. It's worth every penny.

And yet everybody I have ever spoken to who has  reservations about the earlier acts is in agreement that the final act is something special - indeed, Plácido has introduced the final act into a gala menu with the final acts of Otello and Carmen.

Still, the reviewer also writes:

In a strong cast Domingo was a cut above. Even at the tail end of his career, he sings with such ease, almost conversationally and without a hint of the self-consciousness that affects many good singers.

Sunday, there was a hint of a rasp in a handful of Domingo's spoken lines, but his singing rolled along, his voice warm, darkly colored and nimble. Moments after Gockley's announcement, Domingo caught a delicate high note, dropped down an octave and drove on to one more passionate exclamation of love for Roxane.

Cyrano de Bergerac, War Memorial Opera House, San Francisco

The writing for Cyrano plays to his strengths, in a still potent mid-range, though the swashbuckling element was muted. Despite the pleading of indisposition at the opening, the artistry was undeniable, especially in the soaring duet that concludes the first part.

Opera review: Domingo in 'Cyrano de Bergerac'

Domingo's mellifluous, full-throated tenor - still thrillingly beautiful, even at 69 and in the face of an announced indisposition...as a lover he is second to none. His aura of rueful dignity in the last act was heartbreaking to witness.

Domingo Still Soars

If his voice has been stronger, the highest registers more brilliant, c’e niente. Domingo’s voice is a wonder of sonic architecture and in this first performance of the season’s Cyrano, he showed why he can’t leave the stage just yet...Domingo unfurled his vocal sumptuousness...The power of Domingo’s still beautiful voice convinced us that he was not a 70-year-old veteran whose tenor is mellowing into baritone. He was instead an ardent, vigorous and full-throated suitor. It was frankly surprising to hear just how good he sounded, and how convincingly he enacted the role of a lover wooing the lady for someone else.

SFist Reviews: Cyrano at SF Opera

Domingo still delivers big time. He's front and center in the opera, and if the voice has lost some of its heft, it still brings out pure emotions

Domingo returns as Cyrano De Bergerac

This is as much an acting as it is a singing star turn for Domingo and he makes the most of it. The balcony scene, where Cyrano takes Roxane (the gorgeous, glorious Ainhoa Arteta) in his arms from behind, still maintaining she is being serenaded by Christian, was as beautiful to watch as it was to hear. The other magnificent moment on both counts is the final scene, where Cyrano comes to see her one last time before dying. Domingo is incredibly real in these moments- and while this is consistent throughout, it is the acting and the quality of the singing in these two scenes which will stay in one's memory long after the music has faded away.

Report from the post-performance party

And, a bonus article The allure of the tenor

Radamisto at ENO

I went to see this last week but for some reason haven't got round to writing it up yet. It's not as though my life is filled with excitement and busy-ness!

I was amused to see a comment, I think it was on Facebook. Someone said they were going, and someone else commented "Enjoy, I saw this and really enjoyed it!"

I thought that that's a bit of a daft statement. There are lots of reasons not to like a Handel opera: some of them can be about oneself - if you're not well, or have a lot on your mind, it can be difficult to sit back and relax. A singer in a key role can really let you down. I don't just mean dull, I mean aurally painful.

But, unlike many other composers - Verdi, Wagner, Mozart, Donizetti - I am not aware of people who like *some* Handel operas and dislike others.

In fairness to the person who left the comment, she actually said she had seen it in Santa Fe, and this production was a co-production with the SFO, so it wasn't a random comment. With Handel operas, the production can make a big contribution to one's enjoyment of the work. I do like the directors that 'get' it, that understand that there is so much scope for invention in creating a staging of the operas. The stories are so lame and the characters so incomplete that a good director can work marvels.

I had absolutelky loved Christopher Alden's Partenope a couple of years back - this demonstrated how much the director can play fast and loose with the actual story and yet retain a coherence with the plot. And I'd liked David Alden's Lucia di Lammermoor (they're twin brothers), so I might as well say that I was dreadfully disappointed with the production.

It was really quite dull, nothing much happened at all. It was basically a wallcovering fetishist's paradise, but not a lot there for those of us who are indifferent to wall-coverings.

The first act was papered in William Morris's Thistle

In the second act, the wallpaper reminded me of News from Nowhere, but as I can find no images online, I'm none the wiser, The final act was papered in silver foil. I shrugged.

In lieu of scenery there was a curved wall across the stage. What can I say, it was a wall. It was boring. To make matters worse, the lighting was appalling. Perhaps it was an apposite comment on the Comprehensive Spending Review and Arts cuts (echoed by the reduction in the quality of loo paper and hand towels in the Ladies), but whatever the reason, it was very difficult to see what was happening on stage. I suspect that I didn't miss much action. Maybe it looked really good from the stalls, but most of the audience doesn't sit in the stalls. Oh dear. There were also some wooden and stuffed big-game animals, which was all a bit perplexing because it was, supposedly, set in Armenia, and it's news to me that elephants and tigers roam free in Armenia.

I haven't a clue what the opera was about, and frankly, I'm not really bothered. Anyone who goes to a Handel opera in the hopes of finding insightful social commentary anywhere outside the stage lighting scheme is on a fool's errand. Something happened, and then something else, which led to another thing, then someone was in disguise, and someone else arrived in a rolled up carpet. But there wasn't any dancing or fun like that. And it was probably the first time I have encountered cultural reference to Armenia since Swallows and Amazons.

So it's a good thing that there were some jolly fine singing. I simply cannot imagine going to a Handel opera and not enjoying the music. But it can be ruined by dodgy singing, and I've certainly experienced that on occasion.

Fortunately, ENO once again managed to assemble a fine ensemble of Handel singers. Ryan McKinny (bass-baritone) as Tiridate, Sophie Bevan (soprano) as Polissena, Ailish Tynan (soprano) as Tigrane and Henry Waddington (bass) were all good enough.

I may have noticed flaws here and there but not enough to detract from my enjoyment. I found Ryan's voice to be interesting - I would like to hear him in a more interesting role, because I suspect there is quite some beauty there which wasn't really given the opportunity to shine.

I've heard Sophie Bevan sound better and I'm sure I will again. At times, Ailish Tynan sounded a bit shrill. But let me emphasise, I'm just noting these things as an alternative to writing "It was all very nice" or "Quite splendid!", the sort of empty inane comment one overhears far too often.

The two leads really were quite splendid, though. I am not a counter-tenor fan, on the whole, but it seems that there is a second counter-tenor that doesn't lead me to stick my fingers in my ears or alternatively fall asleep in boredom. Lawrence Zazzo was lovely as Radamisto. I'd definitely love to hear him again. Nice voice, with all the sweetness one expects from a decent c-t, and lots of colour and heft, too. Seemed to move well around stage.

I particularly liked Christine Rice as Zenobia. Her voice seems to get richer and richer every time I hear it, and she always seems such a natural on stage.

I didn't actually know any of the numbers sung, although nothing in the music sounded unfamiliar.

The orchestra under Laurence Cummings gave a fine performance, as can be expected from the ENO playing Handel.

Altogether a pleasant evening, and certainly worth the £20 plus booking fee I paid for my ticket in the Upper Circle (reduced from £49)*. But, at the end of the day, I never come away from Handel feeling that I have learnt anything of the human condition, nor am I ever moved beyond words by the music. I love his works, but don't really know why. Bring on the next one - which is currently planned as Tamerlano in Barca, but maybe others will crop up before then!

*I took advantage of an offer in Metro. There were better offers available, and I am pretty sure that throughout this season there will be some very good ticket offers available at both opera houses.

I see it as a games of brinksmanship: how desperately do you want to see the opera and how long do you have the nerve to hang on in the hopes of getting a really good deal. If you really want to see something, and especially if you suspect that it will be popular, you have to book when it opens. Otherwise, I forecast great opportunities for lots of great opera on the cheap!

Les pêcheurs de perles @ROH

This is of course regularly voted one of the most popular opera by Classic FM listeners*

I booked this ages ago, largely because it had Gerald Finley in the cast. Gerald is my favourite not-tenor singer, and amongst my very favourite singers of all.

I book to see a staged production at ENO in the summer, but then we decided to go on holiday instead, so I returned my ticket - and still have the credit voucher, unspent.

I had never previously heard this in its entirety. In some ways that doesn't bother me. I know there are people who say you must study the score and listen to numerous recordings before you go, and others who disagree. I don't tend to read the script before going to a film and I don't insist on seeing a facsimilie before seeing a painting.

Not that I dismiss the benefits of study and familiarisation, and occasionally, I do think - maybe I'd have got more out of that if I had been more familiar beforehand. But it often takes a live performance to turn me onto a work, especially ones that aren't masterpieces.

I was chatting with a friend beforehand. She and her husband had been to the pre-performance talk. I confessed I didn't know the plot - she assured me there wasn't one - and that I only knew two tunes - she assured me there are only two tunes.

In the interval I tweeted that it had the lamest plot ever, and was going to continue with 'I love the music', when I was joined by another friend, so my 'Makes Pelleas look fast-paced and action-packed' hung in the air like an unresolved chord whilst most of my Tweetstream was focusing on the Shadow Cabinet Elections, anyway!

As the overture began I thought, 'Oh no, lots of 19th century over-egged strings, schmaltz alert....hold on, I like that percussion, sounds a bit like Carmen. Oh, yeah, it was written by Bizet!" I think I was knitting with only one needle anyway, because when the opening singers and the conductor walked onto the stage, I thought "Gosh, that conductor looks a lot like Tony Pappano". Funny that!

Maybe I was a bit disoriented by it being a concert performance. I think I have only been to one other concert performance at ROH - although numerous concert operas at other venues, notably Barbican, Festival Hall and Albert Hall.

So, all that is a prelude to me saying: everything I write should be caveated by my total lack of familiarity with the work and it being performed in concert, with no attempts made even half-heartedly to act.

Most of the action consists of people standing around talking about what happened in the past, which doesn't strike me as being very active. Ironic, because the book on which Carmen is based in written entirely in flashback, as is Wuthering Heights, and neither of them suffer as a result. I never started to care about any of the characters nor their reasons for renouncing each other, indeed I rapidly came to the conclusion that the greatest love affair is actually between the two men, as demonstrated in the famous duet Au font du temple saint.

I had read Rupert Christiansen's review beforehand

it was a particular delight to hear the great tenor-baritone duet “Au fond du temple saint” sung with musing intimacy and quiet dignity rather than the rugby-club virility made fashionable by the dear old Jussi Bjørling and Robert Merrill recording.

And I would agree.

I thought it was a special treat having the orchestra and choir on stage. Occasionally, they swamped solo singers, but there was a greater gain from the wall-of-sound especially evident in the storm scene (which doesn't begin the work, so disqualifying it from being a great opera - that and the incredibly lame plot).

I thoroughly enjoyed Gerald Finley's singing, although it served more to confirm that he is my second-favourite singer rather than to reveal any new insights into his vocal technique. His voice doesn't make me shake at the knees but nevertheless it has a virile beauty and a purity of tone that never fails to please me.

I thought John Osborn was pleasing overall, though he did seem patchy, and although the voice has beauty, ultimately it lacks dramatic characterisation, and he had very little stage charisma. Raymond Aceto was the fourth member of the ensemble and was fine in a fairly small part.

The revelation for me was Nicole Cabell (if she has a child one day, will it be a cabelletta?). I hadn't heard her live before. When she won Cardiff, and as Musetta in the Netrebko/Villazón Bohème, she hadn't impressed me. Which is not to say I had negative feelings, simply I was indifferent.

Despite it being a concert performance, I warmed to her sensuality. It wasn't overstated and she didn't resort to hammy vamping. I really did like her voice, a warm velvety feel without ever sounding inappropriately mezzo-ish.

Regular readers will know my distaste of sopranos who consider screeching an acceptable method of reaching the high notes. Nicole got perilously close on one occasion but absolutely did not cross the line, seeming to know just how far to strain to reach the devilish high note. Although the result was a less beautiful note than the rest of her output, that in itself won her over to me.

She's 33 next week, which suggests she is entering the peak of her career. On this showing I'd love to hear and see her in more interesting roles than have so far been offered to her locally - several decent ones already in her repertoire.

I enjoyed the evening as a performance of music but I'm afraid the opera left me unmoved. I have no great desire to see it staged, although if it was done again locally I would probably go unless I had good reason not to (such as being holiday, or it being cast with detestd voices).

It is supposedly set in Ceylon (now Sri Lanka) without any evidence of it being based upon accurate ethnographic research. I'm not one for banning such operas because they offend modern sensibilities: quite the opposite, I don't think we should forget the casual but persisten racism of our forebears.

But, ultimately, I thought it a weak uninteresting story. Slightly in jest, I tweeted

they all spend two acts standing around talking about it. Think what Pagliacco had done in that time!

and

Cavaradossi's harboured a refugee, shagged Tosca, & been tortured. Even Parsifal gets to kill a goose!

And unlike Canio, Cavaradossi, Tosca and Parsifal, I felt no sympathy with any of the characters. And that's before even mentioning Bizet's masterwork, Carmen - The Pearlfishers doesn't stand comparison against it.

* bullshit, of course, the voting is on the most favourite standalone number from any opera and extrapolated to imply a love of the entire work, although I feel sure that most of the electorate, like me until this week, have not heard the entire opera

The pub business

I got a bit riled this week by someone, who in some attempt to be friendly (I'd rather he didn't) asked how the pub business is doing. I said 'Awful, of course' and he went into some long spiel about how a pub near him is doing well, because they've appointed a chef and serve two meals for £30.

I replied rather curtly that a pub isn't going to prosper on doing 2 meals for £30. Actually that's an over-simplification, which I'll explain later. It annoys me when people who ought to know use one occasionally-observed anecdote as evidence to disprove hard data collected systematically and widely - an average of 40 pubs are closing each week.

In these economic times, I am not sure whether the pub industry is hit harder than other retail sectors, but from everything I know, having studied the subject for several years, there are several factors.

The '40 pubs closing every week' does not take into account that licensed-trade premises are also opening and flourishing, typically in High Street locations or in out-of-town 'retail villages'.

Here are just some of the reasons that pubs are closing.

Previous over-provision, especially on estates and urban back-streets, relying on a white male working class population in areas which are now inhabited by people from more diverse cultural backgrounds with no pub tradition and in some cases no alcohol-consuming tradition; also by those, influenced by education and aspiration have a leisure life that extends beyond the geographically closest pub;

A general deprecation of lunchtime drinking in most workplaces (a sharp contrast even to when I entered the workplace 20 years ago);

Large numbers of people (but by no means all)  not wishing to drink-and-drive coupled with an ever-increasing reliance on the car;

Lack of innovation and complacency in pub management at both the company and local level - this can include stocking of poor quality wine, for example, or disregard for decor, or women's loos without dispensing machines/disposal bins/mirrors etc;

The smoking ban, which has deterred many people from popping into the pub eg on the way home, and hasn't attracted large numbers of people who previously stayed away - except for parents of small children, which then deters other customers!

A business model built upon an assumption of local pubs being run by married couples who therefore only need one-and-a-bit salaries!

Assumption that licensees don't need a living wage because of the accommodation provided;

Market domination of big chains that can buy beer etc in large quantities just before expiration date confident that they can turn it over quickly (Wetherspoons are notorious for this).

The tied-lease which means that the leaseholder is obliged to buy products from the brewery/management company at a premium rate - £70 a barrel six years ago! (A standard barrel holds 288 pints).

Also, typically, if a leaseholder invests in refurbishing the premises, or works hard to increase turnover, the breweries/pubcos tend to increase the rent to reflect the higher value of the business!

The obvious price differentials in drinking at home as opposed to drinking out (although this isn't a new phenomenom);

A greater tendency for people to eat out, even if it's only at the Indian or a pizza place, which diverts.

The pub my acquantaince referred to may be in a good position to buck several of these trends. Successful pubs are often run on the back of a decent catering operation. But that won't survive on occasional Sunday lunch alone. And a pub has to decide whether it is in effect a restaurant serving up 'Modern British Cuisine' - at a price, or a place where people know they can get a decent if unexciting freeze-and-nuke prepackaged meal. Either approach has risks.

Location helps, a lot. Being on a High Street in a not too rundown area. Or being in a 'tourist' spot. Not necessarily the famous international tourist places, but perhaps a place that attracts people from the region or sub-region.

Competition is interesting. If you're the only pub in the village, people will go there because of the lack of alternatives. Alternatively, when there is a critical mass of good places close to each other, people will go to the town/village/parade and then decide which of several establishments to go to.

But most pubs depend heavily either on a core set of regulars or on a changing-but-predictable crowd. A local pub that attracts about ten people who drink 5-10 pints most nights, or one near a cinema or railway station that gets a steady stream of changing people. However many prosperous couples go to a country pub once a month for a '2 for £30' meal, two pints for the bloke and a glass of wine for the lady, it isn't going to survice on that trade alone.

Child benefit and statistics

I don't have any personal interest in child benefit because I don't have children.

There is a strong argument that well-off people shouldn't get child-benefit - which of course is paid for partly by people who never have had and never will have children.

There are also strong arguments for having a universal child benefit - being universal makes it easy to administer, and perhaps more importantly, it is the one source of income, however small, that a parent has immediate access to in all sorts of circumstances, including abandonment by the wage-earner or sudden loss of income, perhaps because an employer or customer has failed to pay.

But given that child benefit has always been universal, the recently announced change should be judged as a change, not in some abstract way, but how it will impact upon actual people in reality.

The change is patently unfair in that households with children, where one parent only is in paid work, lose it at £44k a year, whereas a household with two parents earning could have an income of nearly £90k before losing the benefit.

(This has been characterised as picking on the 'SAHM's - the Stay-at-Home-Mother households, who, no doubt are far more attractive or deemed worthy than the single-parent household...a nice subtle reminder that single parents deserve all they don't get, irrespective of the fact that they are actually doing the parenting.)

Just as unfortunate is the fact that it represents a massive marginal tax rate. A modest pay-rise of a few hundred pounds could mean someone loses several thousand pounds in CB. It will also be interesting to see how they intend to administer it for people with varying income, where overtime or commission may push them over the limit, but without any guarantees.A real disincentive not to work - although conversely, perhaps it will encourage the sharing of earning and childcare more equally between both parents. Hmm, probably not a policy many in the Tory party actually want to encourage

I was really annoyed by Philip Hammond on the TV last night. He declared that 'the median income for one income households in the 40% bracket is £75k'. Clever use of the word 'median', there. It sounds impressive and technical. But look again what it actually means.

Half of the people affected earn less than £75k. As that covers a range of £30k, it's probably fair to say that nearly another sixth earn between £75k and £87k. So, about 2/3 of single-income households who will lose CB, earn less than the maximum joint income where people remain eligible for CB.

George Osborne has claimed that this unfairness is nothing new, because income is taxed on the individual not on the household, so what are people moaning about?

He is of course talking nonsense, because Child Benefit is not a payment to households - else people like me would get it - it's a payment based on the number of children. And he's trying to cover up his gaffe by announcing an extra tax allowance for married couples - irrespective of whether they have children or are caring for dependent adults. Just, anyone really.

The other aspect is a consideration of what is a 'high earner'. I've seen some interesting comments on the internet ranging from 'I couldn't support a partner and two kids on less than £50k' to 'why should I subsidise rich people to breed'.

I found an interesting article last week which said

The median wage in Britain last year was £20,800. If you take home more than £40,000 a year, you are in the richest 10 per cent.

The figures chime with what I've read elsewhere, except that I would take issue with the word 'richest' and also question the word 'wage'.

A wage isn't the same as income, especially when you consider the people who have unearned income, from investments, including rental property. I am also not convinced it covers people whose main income is from the profits of a limited company. It doesn't seem to include people on 'out-of-work' benefits, including pensions, but it is also reduced by the large number of people who work part-time. So the stated figures are distorted beyond any usefulness and it's guesswork what earnings flow into a 'typical' household.

I have read a figure that says about 15% of people who currently have children are in one-income-households above the 40% threshold. That's actually rather a lot of people (over a million households, so nearly two million adults); even more if you add in the people who are close to the threshold and expect to rise above it soon.

Lost in the small-print is the withdrawal of child-benefit for 16-18 year-olds still in full-time education. I don't know how that chimes with the raising of the school-leaving age to 18 in 2013, but I suspect that this announced cut, and the abandonment of the Building Schools for the Future, means that it won't happen - the Tories will keep school leaving age at 16. And is an across-the-board attack on all people with future 16-19 year-olds, including  - especially - the poorest.

There's been mutterings that the chattering classes have ignored the restricting of benefit to £26k per year. I know that sounds quite a lot of money for not working, but of course, most of it isn't 'money'. The amount of benefit paid out is dependent on the amount of rent that is being charged, especially by private landlords.

The internet tells me that the average monthly rent in my postcode is £600 for a studio flat or £1300 for a two bedroomed house. Granted these are nice places, to rent to young professionals rather than claimants, but even so, it's not 'benefit scroungers' who are getting rich, but the buy-to-let brigade, and the other property speculators.

The same people who are pushing up house-prices, which leads to someone saying they couldn't imagine supporting a partner and two kids on less than £50k in London. Hmm, good luck in finding a £200k property.

So, she's right, but then, why should she be subsidised by someone earning half that, and still living in their parental home?

People are angry, knowing that the benefit cap will force people out of their rented homes. Instead they suggest rental caps, as used to exist. I'm inclined to favour that. However, it will lead to these rapacious landlords withdrawing from the market, and the poor people will still be homeless, even though it will allow Ms £50k to afford a decent family home, and Mr £23k to move out of his teenage bedroom.

The Scouser on the bus goes round and round, round and round

First of all, apologies to all nice people from Liverpool, I really don't have anything against you, other than that I'm from Manchester, so I guess the feeling's mutual.

This morning, on the bus. Nearly empty, because it had just started its long journey from Clapham Park to Kings Cross. A Scouse woman follows me upstairs, sits down a few seats away and continues her phone conversation, loudly and in a very pronounced Scouse accent.

It was really boring. She's going to work in Manchester for six months and then maybe travel for a month. Maybe she'll visit you in Cardiff next week, or if you're coming to London, she'll sit with you for the day in hospital (Gert does 'sad face', no need to make fun of that situation, which I wouldn't wish on anyone).

She needs a new suitcase because hers is broken, the bit at the bottom, maybe she can borrow yours, because they cost forty pounds. She's got no belongings as such, just clothes and that. She'll put it on the coach because it's cheaper.

And then, as the bus is sat at the traffic lights outside Lambeth Town Hall, she comes out with:

"Her text said she'd come and pick him up, so I asked him if he was going out with her, but he denied it, so I looked at all the photos and I asked him if he'd been with these girls. I told him I loved him and would forgive him if he told me the truth, and he said, yeah, he'd been with all of them. It was a right surprise, I didn't expect him to say that. So I asked him when he'd been with them, and there was one he'd been with at Uni before me, but all the rest, he's been cheating on me all this time

"I couldn't believe it, everyone said he was perfect, such a neat player, just right for me, I knew when I met him that he was mine, everyone said, no one could believe I'd got such a perfect bloke.

She went down the stairs; I followed her, not because I'm nosey, but because the bus had arrived at the Tube station.

"But I just hate him now for what he's done. I did exactly the same to Buddy, but I don't want anyone to feel like that, so I don't think I'm going to play around and cheat on anyone in the future!"

I was so annoyed: all that time down the hill, she'd bored me stupid about a bloody suitcase. Then we get to Brixton, and suddenly, oh yeah, she's coughing the juicy bits now.

Things that piss me off and are too long to rant about in 140 characters

A bloke came up to me in Sainsburys and said "You've bought too much, hahahaha!"

Yeah, my trolley was full, but it was a small trolley, and it was full mainly with three bulky items. And I only had one more thing to get and then I'd be finished.

Of course, now I'm the bitch who tells a sweet old man to mind his own bloody business and fuck off.

How can anyone possibly judge someone else's shopping to be *too much*. There are just too many variables: you don't know a stranger's household size, you don't know if they're expecting company, or in my case, you don't know how long it's been since they've done a round-up of household goods. Oh crikey, I'm so profligate, me and my washing-up liquid, baked beans, teabags and, yeah, okay, 2 for £1 on Mr Kipling Viennese Whirls.

Oh I know, I guess he's lonely, he was only trying to be friendly, blah-de-blah. Big fucking deal. Why did he pick on me, a lone woman trying to whizz round after work rather than one of the numerous couples with bigger and just as full trolleys. Creepy sod. I'm sick of being the nice person who nods and smiles at men who think that women exist just for their amusement.

I give up, I really do

Stuff your pompoms. This isn't sport

According to this report, over a third of schools offer 'cheerleading' as a sport. I would hazard a guess that this doesn't include boys' schools. I see no mention it on the website for my old school, or for the prestigious St Paul's Girls School.

I can't think anything more pointless than cheerleading. People are trying to prove it's a 'sport' but their arguments are unconvincing. Being - allegedly - strenuous doesn't make it a sport, but it's not an art, either. There are so many different types of dancing a child can pursue, from classical ballet to Capoeira. All of them worth pursuing for their own sake, but also for fitness, poise, self-confidence, goals to work towards, the chance to shine in exams and competitions. Elite dancers are no less fit than elite athletes; a child or teen that dances is fit, hard-working.

And then there is cheerleading. I had a discussion with someone just a few years ago who was giving up ballet/tap/modern for 'cheerleading'. She was getting sick of ballet/tap/modern, which is fair enough having done then since she was a toddler. I just remarked, is that what she wanted from life, to be there on sidelines cheering on the boys as they set out to achieve things. She said something like 'You would say that, wouldn't you'.

I do find it depressing that even before puberty, girls are being hammered with a message that their identity is all about supporting and nurturing boys to achieve. Don't get me wrong, good relationships - partners, friends, family -  are built upon mutual support, and there is nothing intrinsically wrong in cheering on someone on their big day. But to make that an activity in itself is beneath contempt. I suppose the girls get to cheerlead the boys on in 'their' activity whilst the boys ignore the girls activities, extending the myth that boys matters and girls don't.

I suppose these schools are just responding to the parents who want their girls to be 'girlie girls', whose only skill in life is getting dressed up and parading before a selection of young men. Young men who are seen as the meal ticket and the guarantor of wealth from their semi- or no-skilled job. Never mind the fact that many of those mothers are the main wage earner because they were abandoned by their perceived meal-ticket, or semi-skilled work abandoned the dutiful father.

A while ago I was perusing the websites of some of the new schools in my area. They all have a similar message: it is no longer acceptable for any child to leave school unequipped to enter the workplace, that the age of unskilled work is long gone. Their stated goals seem unobtainable - good luck in keeping some kids in school beyond 14, let alone up to 18 - but it beggars belief that there are schools who don't share those goals. And parents who want their schools actively to perpetuate disadvantage.

Victoria Coren says

Even if you don't think it's sexual – and I do; I think these girls might as well be bent over a rock, waiting to be mounted by whichever caveman gets back first with a rabbit in his hand

and several commentators respond, look, healthy teenagers are very sexual, and it's normal/natural for mating games to happen, so we might as well put it on the curriculum.

Isn't that a bit like saying, teenagers like computer games and junk food, so we might as make them a fundamental part of school life? Or saying that healthy adults are very sexual, so mating games should be an intrinsic part of work life, maybe we should have a job-code and a budget for it, objectives, and an assessment in our appraisal, perhaps dismissal - or extra coaching  - for poor performance?

Schools can do far more to assist the natural mating games by building the self-esteem of children by encouraging them to be themselves, and then encouraging them to work together for a common goal, rather than pigeon-holing people crudely into 'active' and 'supportive'.

Someone needs to do a study of under-age pregnancy rates in schools where cheerleading is part of the curriculum compared with other schools. Of course, you'd have to adjust for other contributing factors, and would end up in some self-perpetuating cycle which would show cheer-leading is more likely where the prevailing culture is that girls are the sexual toys of boys, and doesn't happen where girls are encouraged to develop skills and autonomy.

I can see the attractions of being married to some fabulously rich man and never having to get up in the morning to board a crowded train, or sit in a traffic jam; never having to worry about budgeting, getting every material good or experience you could reasonably want. Most people I know, irrespective of whether they actually do the lottery, have a narrative of what they'd do if they won the jackpot.

But it's not just some abstract theoretical dogma that makes me question whether there would be any joy in being married to Wayne Rooney, Peter Crouch or Frank Lampard. Fun while it lasts. Well, if you could bear their lack of scintillating conversation. Or gird yourself for the repulsiveness (I exclude Lampard from that) as they mount you. But imagine how humiliating it must be to read that your Wayne or Peter has deemed you inadequate. Or that once you've done the breeding you get traded in for an uglier alternative, Frank-style.

What's in a name!

I admit that this post is going to be half-meaningless if you don't know my name, but nevertheless I'm going to write this post and not write my name!

This week a famous film actor died who shared my surname. In his most famous cross-dressing film, his cross-dressing mate initially takes my first name  as a pseudonym before changing it. That and the Vicar of Dibley often used to dominate my Vanity Googling.

For some reason I fell upon 192.com and searched my name. Gratifyingly I feature neither in the 'free' or 'premium' results, which I count as a privacy win. Although I am in the phonebook!

I like to think of myself as singular, although there is someone who shares my name (but only by marriage) who publishes a lot of photos on the web - she's their at entry 22, I recognise her husband's, son's and daughter's names -  and someone else who shares my name and was under the same consultant at Kings College Hospital, as I discovered in a major patient confidentiality fail.

I have very few relatives with my surname: my mother, my brother, sister-in-law, Nephew #2, Niece #2 and Aunt #4 (in Florida). And that's it. No cousins, second cousins, and as far as I know, no third cousins.

There are 26 Premium entries, which I'm not going to pay see in more detail, but:

• Entry #4 lives with someone with the same name my grandfather's twin sister had before she married;
• Entry #6, who shares my middle initial, lives with someone who has my father's second name;
• Entry #7, who also has my middle initial, lives with someone who has the same name as my sister-in-law, and someone's whose first name is shortened the same way as Nephew #2's name;
• Entry 25 lives with someone who shares my brother's name;
• Entry 26 also shares my middle initial.

So I'm a bit disappointed to find I'm far from singular. but also rather pleased that I am quite hard to find on the internet!

Although, apparently, someone with my name owns the copyright to a song written in 1931 by someone with my initials, and the song is called When Me and My Sweetie Step Out. To think we had to wait another quarter of a century until Rock n Roll came along. You don't have to know the song, just the title and the era, and you can imagine it, just before you hurl!

The Women vs Erin Brockovich

A few weeks ago I watched some films on a Saturday night and promised you, the reader, my thoughts on The Women. But you know what I'm like, a flibbertygibbet a will o' the wisp a clown, I never got round to it.

Last night, I watched Erin Brokovich. I looked at the listings of available TV, and thought - I don't actually remember watching Erin Brokovich, so it can't be that good. I then thought, well, there's nothing else on, and I am feeling listless and demotivated, I might as well watch it and craft a blog post on how forgettable it is. After a couple of minutes, I realised I had never actually seen it.

So, eschewing all thoughts of being trendy and cutting-edge I bring you a review of a ten year old film! Still, it could be worse, I realised far too late that Some Like It Hot was being shown, and that's over 50 years old!

What I liked about Erin Brokovich is that it contains a real story. By that, I don't particularly refer to the fact that it's based on a real person fighting a real legal case, but that it takes place in the world outside the inner life of the character.

It wasn't until I read up about The Women after seeing it that I realised that it contained no men whatsoever. I find it sad that in 2008, this is what counts as female autonomy. I know it's based on a 1939 film; I also recognise that it is potentially an interesting device.

Unfortunately, I found a lot lacking in the film. Not least the absence of any real story. Sure, there was a linear narrative. I just found it so vain and self-absorbed. These women, supposedly intelligent, educated, high-achieving, were interested only in their relationships and in fashion. Making one of the peripheral characters lesbian didn't do much to diminish the notion that women should be defined purely by who their men are and what they wear.

Sure, the Meg Ryan character finally found fulfilment away from the husband, by magically setting up her own business which was an overnight success thanks to her fashion products being bought by Sacs of Fifth Avenue, who, clunkily awkwardly, obviously paid a lot of money for frequent name checks and product placement.

There were several sub-texts and asides that no doubt were supposed to show just how 'pro-women' the film makers were - the daughter with body-image problems, for example. But the underlying theme was unashamedly misogynist: Annette Bening's character, a magazine editor, was a cold-hearted bitch until she was relieved of her job, because we don't want to give women the idea they can succeed at a job, let alone a career. Meg Ryan's business succeeded because it was funded by inherited money. Inherited from her mother, yes, but I think we can be pretty clear that Mother inherited it from a man.

There was no sense of struggle in setting up the business. It was all so effortless, and, in the end, the only work it involved was the the staging of a fashion show: no sales or marketing, no budgets, no manufacturing crises. Just fluffy make-believe land

I will freely admit that I enjoyed watching it: the sets were well chosen and well-filmed, the dialogue was crisp and sharp, and all actors succeeded in credible portrayals of their characters. But there was no substance to the characters, and the plot was wafer thin, coming back time and again to the notion that women only have value as clothes-horses and appendages to (successful, rich) men.

Erin Brokovich in contrast seems a product of an earlier age. Although bearing little similarity to my own life, it nevertheless reminds me of the lives of countless women I know and have met over the years (minus the $2 million bonus cheque, of course!).

What resonated was that she was torn between her job and her family. No homespun homilies implying that women are better off as homemakers, or running guilt trips past women who apply themselves to a job, just an acknowledgement that many women, especially lone mothers, are constantly having to juggle the twin responsibilities. There are no easy answers, life isn't easy, it's just real.

Clothes and men weren't avoided as such. Erin dressed inappropriately for a law office, even by California standards. And her love life was turbulent. But these were not the matters that defined her. They were just aspects of fully-rounded character.

I liked that she was no paragon of virtue and warmed to the impetuosity, the ill-judged rudeness. I also liked the fact that she used her 'feminity' where necessary, not least in winning the confidence of the ordinary people involved in the law-suits. She had a natural empathy for the impact on ordinary people of the disastrous hexavalent chromium in the water supply. Yet this wasn't bludgeoned into the plot with big signs saying 'Look if you employ women you benefit from feminine attributes and your business advances!'

I struggle to remember how I thought back in 2000, but I am fairly certain that I would have considered Erin Brokovich as being a fairly unremarkable portrayal of women, a good but not perfect role model for young women.

Fast forward eight years and Hollywood is implying that the only women who matter are ones who conspicuously consume whilst nothing actually goes on in their heads.

I'm sure there's supposed to be some big message there: Women Don't Want to Be Pressurised Into Working. Well, I guess not. I think most men don't either, but sometime we have to grow up and realise that for most of us, paid work is the only option.

Sure, for many women, and some men, there are good reasons to take time out of the workplace for child-rearing, but this is sustainable for very few of the entire 50 years that constitute 'working life'. Not least, the absence of of social contact and 'status' soon becomes difficult for many people.

I've got nothing against the occasional film that serves as pure escapism, but the production-line of shallow flicks peddling the message that women shouldn't have opinions, shouldn't campaign or hold down jobs, that women shouldn't bother their heads with matters in the wide-world, that nothing matters other than your emotional life and your manicure, well, it's depressing and insulting, and ultimately insidiously quite nasty.

A small victory over the Daily Mail

Drawn to the hateful trash like rubber-neckers to a car crash (one involving kittehs, small children and celebrities not wearing make-up) I read an article in the Daily Mail about Kelly McGillis. I was surprised there were only two comments. One said something like:

This isn't a marriage: to call it a marriage is to devalue real marriages.

To which one of my alter egos couldn't resist replying something like:

 Oh yes, two people marrying for love really devalues the centuries old tradition of women being forced to wed men for economic reasons / men forced to wed women to produce an heir.

Still, being gay it won't last. In a real marriage, a man and a woman vow to stay together 'til death us to do part' and all married couples I know wouldn't even contemplate separating before death.

Comments were being moderated in advance, so about 15 minutes later I refreshed to see what was happening. The original comment had been removed.

I refreshed again later and several comments had been published, not my alter ego's. But the original comment also was still 'disappeared'.

I imagine that moderating Daily Mail comments must be one of the most soul-destroying jobs imaginable.

But it has struck me. The first comment being blatantly homophobic was approved in the expectation that it would lead to several more homophobic comments. When that was red arrowed, when several comments came in saying 'Hugs to Kelly, what a brave person, wish you happiness for the future', the comment moderator panicked and remembered that, actually, most people in Britain are pretty relaxed about legal partnerships about gay people.

Also, they don't really like it when people point out the historic reality of marriage.

My feelings about marriage are that: there are clearly good legal reasons why people marry, and even more so if they have children, because the efforts involved to draw up legal arrangements otherwise are tedious and long-drawn out. When two people decide they love each other, want to spend the rest of their lives together and announce this before their families and friends, they really don't care about what 'marriage' meant in previous ages; what matters to them is their feelings, their sense of commitment.*

I just get a little tired of those who portray a theoretical or abstract notion of 'marriage' to be a sine qua non. I personally don't know anyone who actually thinks that other people's social arrangements undermines their own marriage, no one who feels personally threatened by same-sex legal partnerships (whatever they're called), or people who live in a way that resembles marriage but for the legal and ritual process.

But there's a certain Daily Mail-type mentality that characterises marriage through the ages in the way that is now: a lifelong commitment between two equal partners, to enjoy chaste copulation and possibly procreation, in an atmosphere of mutual respect and nurture. Modern-day marriage is no guarantee of that, but until fairly recently it wasn't even the expectation.

* apart from those who think that a wedding is a happy ending involving a white dress, a horse-drawn carriage, flowers and a party, a demonstration to acquaintances of how rich - or in hock - Mummy and Daddy are

* *Don't infer that I belittle or disregard individuals who choose a different model of relationship, but I would imagine if I caught an omnibus to Clapham and enquired of the passengers what they thought of marriage, a good few would come up with ideas pretty similar to that (apart from those who say ' I was well shut of him'!)