Gertsamtkunstwerk

Simon Boccanegra the First

 

I shall write more after the weekend, when I've enjoyed the luxury of a second performance.

A review by bullet points.

A thoroughly enjoyable evening, where everything seemed to work. Naturally, not perfect, but if I nitpicked the fine details, I would diminish my appreciation of a compelling story, and descriptive music performed by top class musicians.

I was surprised at how much I liked a traditional, dated, staid production. There are numerous ways it could have been done entirely differently but I thought it worked as a frame within which the principals did their thing.

The music is beginning to wash over me. I am struggling to become familiar with this work, which hasn't got the instant appeal - for me - of several of Verdi's other works. I couldn't say for certain how the orchestra under Tony Pappano rated, but it sounded good to me, at times - when the music painted a picture - quite exquisite.  (Get back to me in the 3rd week of July when I shall blog more about the actual opera itself).

Vocally, Joseph Calleja was outstanding. From the first moment, his voice hit my 'T' spot; frequently I gasped as I heard yet another sound of beauty. I thought the love duet with Marina Poplavskaya was especially poignant. I've kind of liked Joseph for a good few years, and have a couple of CDs, but I've never really heard him in a role that has made me go wow! This time, yes, definitely, wow! I want more!

I'm a big Ferruccio Furlanetto fan, partly as a result of him being the sole stand-out in 2008 (in the other production). A very understated low-key performance, perhaps all the more powerful for being so.

I am tremendously fond of Marina Poplavskaya, although I can also see why some people don't like her. I was a bit surprised when the unpleasant vicious woman sitting next to me (of whom, more anon) described her as being 'screechy'. I just wouldn't go with that. Perhaps uneven is better.

At the Insight evening, she had reflected that her first outing as Elizabetta hadn't been a total success. I thought it took courage to admit that, although perhaps made easier by the knowledge that eighteen months it won widespread acclaim. I think her Amelia is better than her first Elizabetta, and  I look forward to seeing future outings of it. That isn't intended as a euphemistic criticism, far from it, I enjoyed her portrayal , and although I don't think she could ever be accused of being absolutely true to pitch, there is something attractive in that.

 

However, even though the other principals were enticing and thrilling in their own right, I would not have booked for so many performances, and I doubt there would have been the media attention without Himself, Plácido Domingo, well-known tenor singing the baritone role of Simon Boccanegra. I've heard him on two live broadcasts to cinema, but that isn't the same as live.

You know, there are people on the internet who criticise Plácido for being Plácido. I really do get weary of this. I know everyone's taste differ, and everyone's entitled to express that. But when he gets criticised for not obeying the arbitrary precedent of some random now-dead singer, I don't really care.

When people purse their lips and pronounce prissily that a tenor singing Boccanegra was not what Verdi had intended, I think maybe, just maybe, Verdi would have wished to hear Plácido Domingo, no ordinary tenor, singing the role. Not as the definitive textbook example - he's not singing it as a baritone, but as a tenor - but for its own sake. (And in any case, it seems the naysayers would rather hear a theoretical performance from a longtime retired or even dead baritone. I prefer actual real live performances in my presence than some trainspotter's list of what might possibly be. Call me fussy).

Anyway! I thought he started slowly. I don't especially like the Prologue, although I see it as necessary dramaturgically, and if I'd had to judge after that I would have found it hard to say what the fuss was about. But once he'd warmed up!

One of the many virtues of Plácido is his musicality. It's hard to cite instances of where that was apparent, because it isn't overt and clunky, but instead imbues the entire performance and overall interpretation. I think what I like most about his voice is the complexities of undertones and overtones, and a very distinct timbre. It has actually changed very little (from recordings) from forty-odd years ago. But singing this baritone role, albeit as a tenor, but with a more baritonal colouring, doesn't actually showcase his voice at his brilliant best.

The absolute highlight of the performance was Plácido's dramatic portrayal of the Doge and most particularly in the final act, when he was superbly abetted by a strong Furlanetto performance. When Placido entered as the dying SB, frail and on crutches, a fleeting thought passed through my mind "Tee hee he's practising to be Rigoletto in the ROH production", but I soon got over that.

Another fleeting memory was the poignant and delightfully melodramatic final act from Cyrano de Bergerac, and, of course there are similarities, how can there not  be. But this was a singular portrayal and incredibly moving. Perhaps too much for me fully to appreciate as a one-off. Fortunately, this will be shown on BBC TV on 10 July, and therefore, whetehr formally or informally, will be preserved for posterity and for all to see, one way or another.

After the performance I went to the Stage Door along with many other people. I knew Plácido had gone, he was off to Vienna for Wednesday's Parsifal, but well, whatever, I still hung around. Joseph Calleja came out and of course was surrounded by adoring fans. I hung back, because I do. Then he spotted me and exclaimed "Now I recognise you!" causing me to blush like a school-girl. I think maybe one or two people may have wondered about the context. Yeah, like I'm going to explain on the internet! I am most definitely a Joseph Calleja fan!

PS This blogpost ought to be adorned with pictures for some reason I can't upload them due to the antiquated and restricted functionality of the PC I am currently using, which is not my home laptop.

Simon Boccanegra reviews

 UPDATE: Further links added 3/7/10:

From the Telegraph, where Rupert moans and nitpicks, damns with faint praise, then awards five stars!

From Music OMH

Domingo is perfect both in his paternal role and that of the tormented ruler, his scenes with Amelia on an emotional par with anything you might experience at the RSC, and his singing, whilst it may not please those who prefer a deeper, darker tone, burns with commitment and pathos. ‘Figlia!' of course tugged at the heartstrings, ‘Plebe! Patrizi!' gave us a stirring reminder of just how to dominate a stage, and his death scene was ample proof of the fact that Domingo did not want to sing this role because he wants to become a baritone, but because it is one of the greatest in the repertoire.

Placido Domingo digs deep to return to his roots (From Daily Mail)

his gloriously burnished tones have always had a darkly glinting edge. And it is that lower register that he now explores in this Lear-like journey of self-discovery.

From the youthfully dashing pirate of the opening to the tottering, poisoned old Doge of the immensely moving final scene, Domingo inhabits the role with awesome nobility and majestic power.

And he inspires a terrific Royal Opera cast to rise magnificently to this onceina-lifetime occasion.

From the Guardian

only Domingo could inspire those around him to the point that his personal achievement seems only one part of a memorable ensemble performance.

Domingo projects Boccanegra's music into the audience with a tenor's glinting edge rather than a true baritone's heft, and the Doge is a different man as a result.So this Boccanegra is not really what Verdi had in mind. But does that matter? Not this time. Once again, Domingo creates a convincing character on his own terms. At the end of the first act, as the Council Chamber descends into chaos around him, Domingo does little but stand and sing, but the effect is riveting.

Crowning glory for triumphant Domingo (Independent)

As the plot winds towards its terrible denouement – of retribution, reconciliation, and the passing on of the torch – it is clear that there are three heroes in this production: Calleja, Furlannetto and Domingo – with Domingo wearing the crown. Stumbling and struggling to breathe as the poison in his veins takes hold, his leave-taking wrings the heart, with his last words sounding like a benediction from the grave. Long may he continue to triumph.

From the Financial Times

he bestowed on the Genoese Doge a tragic stature that had nothing to do with vocal categorisation and everything to do with vocal acting, posture, stage presence and Verdian grandezza.

It may indeed be a vanity project for an ageing tenor to prolong his career by singing roles never meant for a tenor. And yes, it was frustrating to listen to Domingo’s caged voice, knowing it was not going to climb those meltingly romantic heights that were for so long his domain.

But if operatic singing is 50 per cent characterisation, I’ll gladly accept Domingo’s Doge. He brings more histrionic intensity to the part than any true baritone. He has aged handsomely, though in his appearance as the young buccaneer, I could have sworn I was watching a singer half Domingo’s 70-plus years (strange innumeracy from the Financial Times...)

Placido’s warm baritone has the tenor of his thrilling past in Simon Boccanegra  (Evening Standard)

From What's on Stage

Domingo doesn’t fully convince as a baritone.  As we’re accustomed to a distinctly  baritonal quality to his voice, for much of the time he sounds little different from his other Verdi roles and when he does force the voice down there’s a slight constriction of his usual expressiveness.  While there’s nothing essentially wrong with the sound, it produces a discomforting effect and moments of tenorial flow come as something of a relief.

What we get, of course, is the singer’s magnificent and irreplaceable stage presence.  As with Olivier’s late, late TV appearance as King Lear, we get a lifetime of experience from the greatest performer of a generation poured into the character; true stateliness, grace and depths of suffering that no-one else can bring to muster.  What Domingo still has, which Olivier had lost by the time of an otherwise heart-wrenching performance, is sheer power.

From The Stage

decently rehearsed

From Musical Criticism

It was as the older Boccanegra that he truly excelled, however. To play the father is something that suits Domingo's appearance now. No longer the dashing lover or young poet, he's able to explore new emotions and aspects to his acting by adopting a parental persona – one which is contrasted with his responsibilities as the Doge, of course. Domingo was absolutely in his element in the Council Chamber Scene: the centre of attention is where he likes to be, and his communication of the character's courage in dealing with the plebeians and patricians in the midst of their violence was impressively compelling. Still, the death scene was (perhaps inevitably) his real tour de force. Here, the portrayal of Boccanegra's physical weakening as the poison takes over his body was subtly done, matched with a high level of expressive nuance in the voice and his unending musicality.

From Intermezzo

What matters is that regardless of theoretical vocal fit, he gave a truly monumental performance by any standard...Burdened by public duty and private regrets, the aging Doge’s wearied yet inexorable progress to his final end was magnetically charted. Cosmetically rejuvenated for the Prologue, his forced sprightliness hinted tellingly at his eventual fate.

Mark Ronan's Theatre Reviews

Placido Domingo as Boccanegra, and Feruccio Furlanetto as Fiesco, formed a powerfully opposing duo, whose meetings in the Prologue and again at the end of the opera remain etched in my memory.

The acting of Domingo, Furlanetto and Poplavskaya was simply wonderful — I cannot imagine better. Add to that the singing of Joseph Calleja as Amelia’s beloved Gabriele Adorno, and this was a terrific cast — Calleja sang like a god.

Curtain call and post-performance photos (thanks to commenter Vera!)

Video (from Reuters): Domingo hits new lows

Simon Boccanegra preview

Unfortunately, the Royal Opera House has been scrupulously rationing tickets for Simon Boccanegra, so I was unable to attend the Friends Open Rehearsal yesterday. Of course, it's fair that they did ration them, but, still...In any case it means that my preview round-up is not too late!

Placido Domingo: one of history's greatest

He may be pushing 70, but tenor Placido Domingo shows little sign of slowing down. Rupert Christiansen looks back over his extraordinary career as he prepares to sing baritone at Covent Garden for the first time

Placido Domingo's finest moments

The high points in the great tenor's career.

Placido Domingo: 'If I rest, I rust'

Placido Domingo is the best-known, and best-loved, tenor in the world. Next week he makes his Covent Garden debut as a baritone. He may sound different but he's still the hottest ticket in town, says Jessica Duchen

Contrary to what has been rumoured round the internet, he did not announce his intention to retire from singing before next January

An artist as complete as Domingo appears once in a generation. And a good part of it is about his personal charisma. Domingo has about him an exceptional atmosphere – call it an aura, if you like – that seems to affect the air of whatever stage or room he's in. It's not only that he looks taller than he really is (he does), or that you can't quite believe you're facing the real McCoy in person; everything near him begins to function with extra intensity and focus.

But with Domingo there's something extra: a warmth, generosity and solidity that suggests not only a great heart but a strong and sensible mind. You don't only admire him; you trust him. What comes first, the artistry or the man? I'd like to think that, indivisibly, they fuel one another.

Short clip from Floral Street yesterday after the Dress Rehearsal: Plácido Domingo's busy days.

Interview with Joseph Calleja, who sings Gabriele Adorno.

 

Siegmund in Los Angeles

Apologies for this very belated round-up of links. I have lots of excuses for being a lazy blogger, but, whatever!

'Die Walküre' and the shifting sands of dramatic restraint

Plácido Domingo’s Siegmund and Linda Watson’s Brünnhilde surged magnificently

OVERNIGHT REVIEW: Los Angeles Opera's "Die Walküre" at the Dorothy Chandler Pavilion

For many in attendance last night, part of the attraction of this Die Walküre was that that the role of Siegmund was being sung by Plácido Domingo and he didn’t disappoint. Although there were a few moments of strain, he gave a remarkably sensitive and powerful portrayal, especially notable given that (a) he’s 69 years old and (b) less than three months ago underwent surgery for a localized malignant polyp in his colon. Domingo seemed to gather strength as the evening wore on; he was particularly impressive during the lengthy second act.

Whilst Los Angeles Opera was staging the Ring, they were also hosting the annual conference of 'Opera America'

Pearls from Placido

one of the general sessions at the Opera America Conference was "A Conversation with Placido Domingo."

On the future:

"I still feel that I can sing, so I don't want to retire." (This received hearty applause from the audience.)

The secret to longevity:

"Always searching for new roles...it has been the itch to keep searching that has made my career very interesting."

Photograph from El Museo del Barrio gala on 27 May

 

(I much prefer him with beard)

Brief report (in Spanish): Plácido Domingo homenajeado en Nueva York

Fete Accompli | El Museo del Barrio Gala

“Marta and I have been married 48 years now. When I ask her how it’s been, she says, ‘It was like 5 minutes … underwater.’ “  — Plácido Domingo deadpanned.

(Lovely though he is, he must be a nightmare to be married to!)

Simon Boccanegra Insight Evening

Insight evenings are really ace. They are a really good way to learn more about an opera you've booked to see. I must admit, when I first learned of their existence, I was sceptical as to whether they were for me. I have an aversion to formal learning these days, and often feel myself coming over all teenagery as soon as I'm cooped up in an overheated lecture theatre ballet studio. But I've been to a few now at the ROH, and have always come away feeling I have been entertained and educated. What really strikes me is the relaxed informal atmosphere, the evening punctuated by much laughter.

They follow a fairly set formula although no two are alike. Lecture by an academic expert, a round-table of key personnel, singers, sometimes the conductor or the director, and a short demonstration of one musical motif.

Last night the lecturer was Sarah Lenton. She gave an excellent talk about the history behind the composition of Simon Boccanegra, or, rather, about its 1881 revision by Verdi. Actors read excerpts from letters of Verdi himself, Giuseppina Mrs Verdi and other important characters such as Boito and Ricordi. This was assisted by a slide show, including photographs. She rounded off the lecture by drawing some parallels with Shakespeare. To some extent I could see the point she was trying to make, but perhaps the less I say about my incapacity to embrace Shakespeare, the better. Nevertheless, my knowledge advanced.

The round-table is always a popular item. It can be a good opportunity to see the singers etc in a more informal setting, to hear about their understanding of their characters and how the production is developing in rehearsal. They don't announce in advance who is due to appear, obviously it depends who is available - for example, Tony Pappano, who'll be conducting Simon Boccanegra was otherwise engaged conducting the opening night of Manon.

A programme was handed out beforehand. I took a quick look and saw that the panel was due to consist of Elijah Moshinsky, the director, and singers Marina Poplavskaya, Ferruccio Furlanetto and Joseph Calleja (aka @MalteseTenor).

Okay, I have to admit it, I was a tad disappointed. I had hoped that possibly Plácido Doming might also be there, although of course I knew I had no right to expect him. I would be a very sad person to book these evenings solely on the off-chance that a favourite singer would appear. And in any case, look at that roll-call of names  - talk about star-studded! 

Once we were all settled in the Clore Studio Upstairs, the chap who was hosting/moderating explained that there would be a change in the usual running order, but he was sure that we would understand. He asked us to welcome the panel, listing them by name as I listed above. And then he said "And...Plácido Domingo..."

As you can imagine, several people in the room erupted with expressions of delight. I didn't, actually. I think I didn't quite believe my ears. And even when I saw him, I had to pinch myself that I wasn't dreaming! It took me a couple of minutes to really appreciate that he was there, sitting directly in front of me (I was in the third row but with clear uninterrupted view to the front).

The evening started at 7.30 pm and he left just after eight. Had to be somewhere, I assume.

I thought he was looking good. I've seen some photos recently when he didn't look so good, but there, in the flesh, in front of me, he looked rugged and relaxed. He seemed on good form, being expansive in his answers.

He started by saying that it was good to be back in London after two years - that he had intended to be here in March, "sorry". He explained that he had intended to sing Simon as a farewell role at the end of his career, and that he doesn't pretend to be a baritone - he is a tenor and sung Siegmund (on Sunday) in Los Angeles. And he made it perfectly clear he has no plans to retire just yet.

Much of the discussion was about What makes a good Verdi singer? and very much about the motivation behind the characters in the opera. Plácido was fulsome in his praise for his fellow cast members and for Tony Pappano, and Joseph Calleja was full of praise for Plácido, remarking that, as a tenor, when he was in Operalia, he never dreamed that he would perform alongside Plácido.

The discussion continued after Plácido left, and there were a few questions from the audience. One woman said that, after listening to a recording of Simon Boccanegra she found it impossible to sleep, and how did the singers switch off. Marina Poplavskaya said it was much the same for the singers, which is why they like to have the next day off. She then clarified "We drrrrink" (bear in mind she has a noticeable Russian accent), "and we go to bed at 7 and wake up at 1, unless we're Plácido, who'll be in New York by 3". To considerable laughter!

I have to say that, overall, it wasn't the most interesting Insight Evening I've been to. For me, the highlight was seeing Plácido. Even so, I don't think he said much I haven't heard or read him say before. He did explain that, as a tenor, the first thing he does in the morning is make sure his voice is sounding light, but because he's singing this role, he has to make sure he has the darker colours in the voice - and he demonstrated what he meant, by singing, briefly. So that was nice.

But it's just a prelude to the performances, which I'm looking forward to, although I haven't managed to score tickets for every performance - for example, I have decided to take the attitude that attending the Friends' Rehearsal on Saturday would merely be slumming it!

On being patronised

I have a major bugbear. I hate being patronised. It's mildly irritating when it's done by someone who genuinely knows more about the subject than I do. It is very irritating when it comes from someone who mistakes levity/humour for seriousness of intent (obviously, I do question whether my humour actually comes over as funny as I thought it did).

But what really annoys me is when somebody with very little experience where I have some experience and/or expertise takes it upon themself to tell me what to do.

And I really want to get something off my chest that has been bugging me since Election Day.

In the evening, I'm going round 'knocking up' people who have previously said they are Labour supporters. It's an age-old election day practice of all parties. The main purpose is to persuade people to actually go out and cast their vote. Like all doorstep activity, it's important not to waste arguing the toss or pushing against an immoveable object. On the other hand, it's my time freely given, and it's something I'm doing to my neighbours, people I have to live alongside on a daily basis perhaps for many years. And it's a common courtesy not to be rude.

So I knocked up a man who had actually voted whilst I was on Polling station duty in the morning. He said he had voted Labour and was by habit a Labour supporter, but he hadn't been entirely happy by some aspects of the Labour Government, for example the Iraq War. I commented that he wasn't alone. Suddenly a 'comrade', young and wet behind the ears, appeared alongside me and produced a spiel of campaigning spin, ignoring what the man had actually said, and then took me to task for expressing my personal opinions with an elector.

A bit later, we were working one road (so close to my house we're in the same Resident's Association) and some bloke - half-cut or half-deranged - starts yelling out of an upstairs window how we're bullying people to vote, we ought to be ashamed etc. This young man again tells me what to do - ignore him, which is exactly what I was doing, because, like, I have some life experience in dealing with random street ranters.

I quietly explained to the said young man that I was pretty experienced at campaigning, even though I had not been active in recent years, I had even served for eight years as a councillor, and I enjoy engaging with voters ie my neighbours person to person. To give the young chap his due, he listened and apologised, and I admire him for what he said.

But it's illustrative of a bigger point. I fully understand that teenagers know 'everything' and I make full allowance for that. But past teens, I expect people to be more circumspect and open-minded. I particularly dislike being dismissed or assumed to be ignorant.

Sometimes it happens benignly but more often it comes across as a sort of arrogance. I feel like I am being judged and diminished. It seems particularly to come from younger men. Certainly not all younger men, not by any means. I think it is a curious mixture of sexism, ageism and sizeism. I have this annoying, impossible-to-shift layer of fat and retained water round my stomach which makes me look very fat from front and side view. Particularly when tired, I show lines below my eyes and from the edge of my mouth. I'm female and not very tall, and find it difficult to wear heeled shoes for a long time.

And it annoys me like hell when young men talk to me assuming I am a complete ditz when it comes to politics and IT in particular, without having any evidence to support that. 

I know we all make snap judgements based on appearance, and if it's just on a passer-by, there's no harm done. But when people make lazy assumptions it's bloody annoying. It would be arch in the extreme to say "Don't you know I have qualifications in this and experience in that?" It's like a poster I saw when I used to attend KCH Rheumatology. A picture of an elderly woman saying 'My students used to call me Professor, please don't call me 'Dear'" or some such. I'm only 42 and it's already getting to me. Can't imagine how I'll feel in 20, 30 or 40 years time. 

I suppose it's an age-old cry that the young don't appreciate the wisdom of older people. No doubt I was guilty when I was younger and still am to almost half the population who are older than me. But it's incredibly important for young men to learn that 'middle-aged women' are often mentally acute, highly intelligent and very knowledgeable. When they show lack of interest in matters that are greatly important to you it might just be because they have 'been there and done it', or have different interests and priorities and are really not obliged to follow an agenda set by others.

Tiles

Going through my holiday photos from Costa Blanca last September - photo album available - I remembered how I had been enchanted by the decorative tiles I found on so many streets, especially in Denia. I photographed a lot. They're not especially interesting or good photos in themselves, but I thought it worthwhile blogging a selection of them as a sort of collection!

   

David Laws and the £40,000

I do have a certain amount of sympathy for David Laws, given the circumstances which led him into this mess.

There is no precise analogy with a straight or indeed out gay MP. I am a bit irritated at the claims that he is an intensely 'private' person; 'private' people don't tend to put themselves up for public office. But I feel a bit uncomfortable writing that, because there's obviously a very good reason for him wishing to be 'private'.

That having been said, it's not the sole domain of gay people to value their privacy above office - I can't think of any minister (past or present) and doubt there are many, if any, women MPs who have children by 'father unknown' or 'father did a runner pronto', even though, reportedly, it's rife throughout the nation¹.

My instincts tell me that this case is unlikely to meet the requirements of 'beyond reasonable doubt' required by Criminal Justice, but an employee breaking the rules of expenses claims in such a way would be subject to an internal disciplinary to be decided 'on the balance of probabilities'. Even though the charge would be the euphemistic '(Gross) misconduct', the nub of the matter would be fraud.

I don't feel any great need to defend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury who will be implementing a massive cuts programme, even though that wasn't in his party's manifesto and would be going ahead irrespective of which personality happened to be holding the job. (I also feel disinclined to defend a rich banker who appears also to be greedy). I was attacked by a Lib Dem supporter who stated:

Hey, Labour women, gloat about Laws in your homophobic way. When Tory anti-abortionists get overall majority, you may be sorry.

Even acknowledging that that was a 'Friday night special', it was still bizarre, to say the least. I don't really see the connection between alleged expense fiddling - or indeed economic liberalism - and abortion rights.

I find extremely objectionable the implication that the only area of public policy women should concern themselves with is abortion; and in any case, abortion bills are customarily on a free vote because the pro-choice/anti-abortion split goes right across party lines.

When this rant was followed up by a comment including the words 'Your pin-up Hazel Blears' I knew that enough was enough and I blocked that person. You see, there is political debate and then there is personal attack. And the great thing about Twitter, as opposed to newsgroups, it's possible to ignore someone entirely without then having to tolerate disjointed conversations.

The Lib Dems really have to wake up to the realities of being in power. It does take time to adjust, I remember that from 1997. It probably is true that the Telegraph was motivated to release this story because of its dislike of the proposed rise in Capital Gains Tax.

I happen to support the rise in CGT and am bewildered it has been so low for so long², but I think it is entirely legitimate for the Telegraph to campaign against it.

It isn't exactly noble to do so by unearthing this story³ but there is a harmony in exposing how someone is profiting from a second home whilst reducing the rights of many others to profit from their second homes.

And, in general, it is correct for the Press to scrutinise the actions of politicians - as politicians - even if I believe they often go too far in invading personal lives: I felt it entirely unnecessary for downmarket newspapers to publish photos of the Cameron's stuff being carried into a removal van, including a mattress for crying out loud, and I have argued repeatedly that extra-maritals or unusual 'arrangements' are not in themselves subject to scrutiny or cause for resignation.

I'm inclined to feel that if this situation had ceased after last Spring and the Great Expenses Scandal, I would have been fairly relaxed. It was an opportunity to stop claiming with no fuss. When I read that Laws was putting out propaganda highlighting how squeaky clean he had been over expenses, I felt weary. And I think it is entirely disingenuous for LibDems to state that if he had rented a flat commercially, it would have cost the taxpayer more. That is almost certainly true, but it's never a valid defence, not for benefit claimants nor for employees caught being creative with their expense claims.

By the way, a couple of years ago when Jimmy was unemployed we had a conversation about whether he should claim benefit on account of being my 'lodger' rather than be entitled to nothing as a result of sharing his life with me. The answer was no, not least because I dread the 11th Commandment (thou shall not be found out). I expect we could have got away with it and been a few thousand pounds better off. But we didn't. We don't share bank accounts either and arguably have very different social lives.

It's unusual for a CSttT to be so under scrutiny, in a way that hasn't been so since the Thatcherite cuts in the 80s. I know that the 'second homes' issue is a thorny one and I certainly wouldn't wish to return to the bad very old days when MPs were expected to meet out of their private income or personal fortune the necessary costs of being in both London and the constituency. I also recognise that David Laws chose not to be out and I'm glad we no longer have malicious outing for its own sake. But the message after last Spring is that people really resent some others enriching themselves while others are losing their jobs or having to suffer paycuts.

As for Hazel Blears, I've only ever said one nice thing about her, and that was about her stepping aside to let me pass when I was carrying a coffee. Her practices were dodgy and unethical, to say the least, but as far as I know she didn't break the rules at the time (which we all know were crap). Furthermore, she stood before an electorate who were in knowledge of the facts, and even though it's very difficult to imagine Salford being anything other than Labour, safer seats have fallen. And in any case, one could argue that Hazel is fully representing the spirit of Salford by being on the make⁴.

1 I may be wrong; I haven't studied the circumstances of every single woman MP, especially not the new ones, but even if I am wrong and there are women MPs like that, I don't think it invalidates the point

2 I expect a decision was made that the political cost of sustained attacks from the right-wing Press on the rights of middle-classes to make easy profits was disproportionate to the financial gain; I happen to think that's wrong.

3 by the way, some people have questioned why now, others have suggested it would have been 'ethical' to keep it under wraps because of the ramifications. It's possible - though unlikely - that maybe they did keep it until now for precisely those ethical reasons.

4 I'm kidding, right; there are plenty of honest people in Salford.

Plácido in Doha, Azerbaijan & California

I've been a bit remiss in keeping up with this blog recently. (Not enough hours in the day!)

Spanish tenor Placido Domingo performs the anthology of zarzuela (Spanish operetta) with members of the Qatar Philharmonic Orchestra in Doha on May 13, 2010. (From Getty Images: used without permission)

Placido Domingo wows crowd

Eleven-time Grammy Award winner Placido Domingo delivered yet another solid performance before 3,500 adoring fans on Thursday night at The Pearl-Qatar featuring in a new spectacular production of ‘Antologia de la Zarzuela’.

The world-renowned tenor brought the audience to the height of their emotions with his versatile and strong voice possessing a ringing and dramatic tone throughout the two-hour show.

Placido Domingo Says in Good Health After Surgery

"For me, this music is my life. It's the first music I ever heard in my life. Wherever I go in the world, I always bring the Zarzuela repertoire in my concerts. When I can do a program like this of just Zarzuela, it is even more special."

The 69-year-old was back at work within weeks of surgery in New York to remove a malignant polyp from his colon.

Cantar con Plácido fue un placer

Sobre Plácido Domingo afirma que «sólo tengo palabras de elogio,  es una leyenda andante, y como persona tiene una calidad humana que nos sorprendió a todos. Compartió las felicitaciones con nosotros y siempre se prestó a posar con una sonrisa para que nosotros tuviéramos una fotografía», explica la soprano. «Lo que más me ha sorprendido es su fuerza, tanto encima del escenario como fuera. Prácticamente le acaban de operar y  nadie lo diría», añade.

PRESIDENT ILHAM ALIYEV PARTICIPATES IN CEREMONY MARKING 87TH BIRTHDAY OF NATIONAL LEADER HEYDAR ALIYEV AND 6TH ANNIVERSARY OF HEYDAR ALIYEV FOUNDATION

World-known Spanish tenor and conductor José Plácido Domingo Embil sang at the concert and met President Ilham Aliyev.

Music review: Plácido Domingo conducts young singers at the Broad Stage

Elephant in the room

On Wednesday, I popped out of the office to take photos of elephants in Victoria Tower Gardens. I got better pictures than this of the actual elephants but they can wait.

As I was close to College Green, the epicentre of the media circus surrounding the formation of the new coalition government, I thought I would linger and shoot there, too.

The elephant in the room may well be that no one seems to have mentioned that Simon Hughes may not be entirely overjoyed at having to work closely with the Conservatives

NB: Anyone who posts a confrontational comment arguing on the basis of serious political points will be deleted; this isn't supposed to be taken seriously as Political Commentary. And yes, I know it's lame opportunistic attempt at stretching a metaphor/chiché to breaking point.

Also, in retrospect, I should have changed the angle to get the full glory of the clock face.

You are what you eat?

A trifling little Tweet:

Interview with JDF Says he's a vegetarian. Somehow, I could never imagine a heldentenor being veggie;-)

brought forth this response from Ruth:

I see that from the other angle - can't imagine a veggie becoming a Heldentenor...

and made me ponder the correlation between voice-type and diet, or favoured food. Plácido Domingo's voice has been described as 'chocolate', Gerald Finley is a connoisseur of fine wines. I'm the sort of off-pitch mezzo or alto who falsely claims to be a vegetarian* whilst capriciously ignoring the likelihood of meat stock in my leek soup, a phenomenon also spotted in Neath.

I expect that Jonas Kaufmann eats steak for breakfast, and Dmitri Hvorostovsky regularly snacks on Beluga Caviar. I am sure we can all think of singers who, surely, feast on broken glass on toast.

Does the food cause the voice-type or the voice-type the food preference?

*I don't actually, but please don't let facts interrupt when I'm on a roll!

Traviata

A very quick and almost instant review of Tuesday evening performance at the Royal Opera house

Basicaly, a routine revival with a largely unstarry cast. I had a thoroughly enjoyable evening, luxuriating in this great great work. Because the tunes are so familiar and so hummable, it's so easy to dismiss it as fluffy. An opera you'd suggest as a possible 'First' for a newbie. Being familiar and accessible does not diminish its greatness.

The conductor Yves Abel led the orchestra in an unusually intimate interpretation. His pacing was relaxed, never quite falling into langour, with passages of light, and some delicate touches and beautiful arching phrases.

Dmitri Hvorostovsky was as expected as Giorgio Germont, exemplary as a performer and delightfully stiff and stuffy as a character. He sounded a bit gruff to begin with, but he soon warmed up and settled in, and at times sounded utterly gorgeous. He is, of course, a superstar name, so I'm not quite right in saying it wasn't a starry cast. And 70-year old Robert Lloyd was luxury cast in the tiny role of Doctor Grenvil.

I had very mixed feelings about Ermonela Jaho. When she was good she was very good, and was physically convincing as Violetta. When she wasn't so good she squawked. She seemed vulnerable when she had those wonderful solo passages with minimal orchestration that Verdi so lovingly gave to singers, but she flourished against the heavier orchestration and in ensemble. Never a beautiful voice, she seems to have made a career out of singing Violetta when it is quite possible that she would be a much better Tosca.

In an unusual Albanian double (these Eastern Europeans, where are they flocking from?) Saimir Pirgu was a sensational Alfredo. He's been on my radar for a while - I loved him in the one-aria tenor role in Gianni Schicchi, three years ago, and last year he didn't disappoint as Christian in Cyrano de Bergerac in Paris, despite it being a thankless part.

And frankly, as soon as he caressed the word 'palpito' soon after his entrance in Act 1, he was mine. And he just got better and better. A bit wayward of pitch once or twice, but not in some painful straining way - in exuberance and passion. Still in his 20s, he was a credible and sympathetic Alfredo, and, actually, young enough to be Dima's son (!).

What a voice! I love him. I love him so much I would go and see Boheme if he was in it. His voice moved me to tears. It also worked so well with Dima's in ensemble; I have never realised before how emotional the finale of Act II is, how complex and expressive the music. I hope that he 's got someone looking after his interests, not persuading him into roles too heavy too soon - I suspect he will emerge as a  very exciting spinto in time. 

He looked good on stage and moved with confidence. Through the binoculars, he looked very easy on the eye, too, which is no bad thing for a romantic tenor: not entirely sure how impressive he'd look on TV.

It was Traviata, which every opera fan knows well, and it was the old old Richard Eyre production which every London opera fan knows (and was immortalised on DVD with Angela Gheorghiu). No point in analaysing the story or the production, enough to say it didn't nnoy me too much. There were elements in it I didn't recognise; whether they're new or I've just not noticed them before, I can't say!

My most favourite moment is when Violetta is singing Sempre Libera and Alfredo's voice is heard from off-stage. So, I'd just like to say to the stupid laughing woman behind me - that was one of the occasions when you shouldn't have laughed. How completely stupid or hard do you have to be to think that that is funny? How many clues do you need, such as over 2,000 other people aren't laughing?

Recent photos

Pirate Ship, in the playground of my local Primary School/Polling Station

Brixton Windmill

Brixton Elephant

3 Contenders

Electoral Reform

Suddenly, after 27 years of near-silence people other than political geeks are talking about a need for electoral reform.

It's a subject I have views on, of course I do, but I've never felt a passion for it. I haven't perceived any great desire for it in all the time I've been politically active. It doesn't come up on doorsteps or in pubs, when people are more concerned about public services, the economy and social justice

Anybody with an A-Level in politics can write an essay outlining all the various different systems and the textbook pros and cons of them all. Essentially, they boil down to whether you want your representatives to be closely identifiable with and accountable to a defined geographical area or whether you want your party of choice to have a share of people elected that reflects, at least broadly, the share of votes cast for them.

It's really important to emphasise how much many people value the perception that they 'know' their MP and councillors. This is probably not important to people whose community is virtual or have few ties to the area they happen to live. But it's vitally important to people who care - often passionately - about their area and who use services, many of which are area based.

An effective councillor knows every street and tower block in their ward, and is well acquainted with the chair of every residents' association and school governors. Similarly with MPs although with less detail. Irrespective of party, a good constituency MP is known throughout the constituency and on balance is liked and/or respected irrespective of party allegiances.

This isn't just about wanting councillors and MPs to be Super-Caseworkers, because both have a duty to scrutinise and be strategic. I want my representatives to think beyond potholes, but I also want them to be acutely aware of the impact of their policies on the wide range of people they represent. Politicians are often accused of being out of touch, often by journalists who wouldn't dream of visiting the estates and day centres, or don't have the opportunities to hear how ordinary people are struggling, be it with anti-social behaviour, access to services, benefits trap and childcare, or any of the other myriad commonplace problems people raise with their representatives. It's not good enough merely to know the theoretical textbook says.

A local connection is the biggest advantage of First Past the Post and would be preserved with an AV system (and weakened with AV+).

For European Elections and for the London Assembly, the 'fair share' system works reasonably well. It's important to have MEPs that understand and represent the interest of my region on a wider stage. It allows for smaller parties to get elected. In the case of the Greens, this is undoubtedly a Good Thing (I am currently writing as a student of politics rather than a tribalist); in the case of the BNP it appears to be a bad thing, but I'm relaxed about them: the more scrutiny they get, the more odious they appear. Their annihilation in Barking and Dagenham reflects previous results nationwide - they get elected by mobilising the support of people whose racism is passive and lazy, who feel hopeless and need to blame the poor sod one step higher or lower on the relative ladder of life. Once these people become aware of the BNP's active violent racism and their incompetence in office, they turn away from them.

I have read a lot of people complaining that their views or preferences go unrepresented. Someone was shown on the TV yesterday saying that not getting the MP of your choice is akin to getting apple pie when you order cheesecake. It's not: there is a difference between individual and collective choice.

However, that doesn't deny the broader point that for many people going out to vote seems like a waste of time. People who live in safe seats held continuously by a party they dislike intensely are often forced to choose between the party they prefer or the one they dislike but perceive as being the best placed to defeat the incumbent. They often feel they might as well stay at home. If they guess wrongly who is challenger, that feels even worse.

I don't think that the Alternative Vote system would really address that.

Suppose I lived in a constituency which was Tory held, reasonably safe but not impregnable, with Lib Dems generally well behind in second place and Labour in third. I would have voted Labour on Thursday but would have found it difficult to persuade others not to vote LibDem: I guess I would have put my campaigning efforts into a neighbouring area.

Under AV, I would happily have voted Labour, and guessed that my first vote would be eliminated. So I suppose I would have lent my alternative vote to the Lib Dems (unless I had several alternative votes, in which case Greens would have got my second). If the plan worked as predicted, there would be a good chance that the Lib Dems would have got elected as being the second preference of Labour, Green etc voters in addition to their actual supporters.

But I would still be left with an MP who doesn't support my views. And if the electorate behaved differently, the Tory MP who under FPTP gets say 40% of votes, could end up being elected with 60 or 70% of ultimate votes, reinforcing the Big Majority. This system would probably mean more LibDems elected, but I don't think it would actually make any great difference to parties such as the Greens (or UKIP, BNP etc).

The other extreme is to go for a party list system. You can dress it up with endless variations and fancy names but ultimately you vote for the party. It would be conducted on a much wider geographical basis than FPTP or AV. I reckon local to me the smallest area that could be sustained is about four Boroughs - say Lambeth, Southwark, Wandsworth and Lewisham, roughly one eighth of London. This would mean we elect about ten MPs in "Inner Sarf London". Perhaps a quarter of London would be preferable, so 20 MPs (roughly, I haven't actually totted up the precise numbers, I'm trying to make the arithmetic easier).In Inner Sarf, I would expect 4-6 Labour MPs, perhaps they could have one or more that 'specialises' in Lambeth, but I couldn't realistically demand they have instinctive intimate knowledge of local concerns.

Any party getting 10% of the vote would be guaranteed an MP in Inner Sarf London. For South West quadrant it would mean only 5%. This would mean that Parliament would approximately reflect the political preferences by party of votes cast. It would change voting behaviour. People would feel happier to vote for the Greens, for example, and probably most importantly would stop voting 'anti'.

Psychologically, that is a massive change - and I have no idea how it will play out. I suspect in time it will lead to far more smaller parties, as the artificial coalitions within the Big Three are no longer relevant pre-election. At the moment, you have to accept the coalition and ensuing compromises put forward by the party that most closely echoes your views; under a system more proportional you'd have to gird yourself for surprise coalitions and compromises you don't envisage or desire (which could never happen under FPTP, /sarcasm).

I suspect a plethora of smaller parties would have some unforeseen consequences because they would probably lack the expertise and sheer numbers to run an effective campaign. A well-oiled campaigning machine, with bodies running round the streets on a Thursday evening can make a big difference currently in marginal seats and potentially to vote share, but there is a risk of poorly targeted and under-resourced campaigns leading to lower turn-out. On the other hand, more people might get involved with a party which is a closer match than the loose unsatisfactory coalition they end up supporting at elections. Alternatively, there is the risk of endless fragmenting like the Judean People's Front!

I don't think it's enough to offer 'electoral reform' and hope that *everyone* agrees. Constitutional reform is messy and takes time - Parliamentary (and thus that of officials) time to process the legislation, plus it's one of those areas where I think it best to establish a broad consensus rather than forcing through legislation on a Three Line Whip.

I have always felt, right back to Sixth Form, that 'Lords Reform' should go hand-in-hand in with changing the way votes are counted (that's a way to solve the dilemma between local and proportional).

I also believe it makes little sense to do all that without considering the Monarchy. I suppose we could do nothing till the Old Dear pops her clogs, but if Charles had a scrap of decency in him, he'd indicate his willingness to submit to a referendum. Or if not him, William, who is rumoured to have no desire for the job so long as he can keep his wealth. But as was illustrated in Australia, a referendum has to be worded right. Also, the wrong result would end up legitimising the monarchy and closing the question off.

Five years ago I wrote about Electoral Fraud, and yet despite my blogpost, nothing has changed. There are questions to be asked about whether Thursday is the right day - although I also feel there are strong arguments against Sunday voting. I have mixed feelings about Fixed Term Parliaments, and I strongly oppose cutting back on the number of MPs, unless it could be accompanied by a similar restriction on the number of ministers and shadows - otherwise it would be a cull of potentially independent-minded backbenchers vital for scrutiny.

Vote Early Vote Often

 

Gordon Brown's speech to Citizens UK

Gordon Brown triumphs in unofficial fourth TV leadership debate

 Prime minister puts in extraordinary performance when the three party leaders addressed community groups

Gordon Brown today put in one of the most extraordinary performances of his tenure as prime minister when the three party leaders took part in an unofficial fourth debate – addressing community groups in the largest live audience of the election campaign.

Brown appeared to find an emotional range and vocabulary previously unheard from him. Prompting repeated standing ovations, he told the audience: "As you fight for fairness, you will always find in me a friend, a partner and a brother." The speech, before 2,500 voters in a large church hall, may end up having been the most electrifying event of the campaign. Critics of the prime minister described it as one of the best speeches they have seen by a politician.

Simon Boccanegra, Milano - in the cinema

It's such a splendid idea of having live performances transmitted (live or otherwise) into cinemas. I would also quite like a TV-Channel (Pay Per View if necessary) that did similar. But it's rather nice to treat an evening at the cinema as a bit of a night out, walking into the foyer and spotting so many familiar faces (it's not actually true that I knew everybody in the cinema, but I did recognise about two-thirds of faces!)

First of all, I must talk about the production. It wasn't the direst production I have seen but it was pretty lame. That having been said, I have seen at least four different production of Simon Boccanegra and have found them all a bit risible. Perhaps there is something inherent in the work - it doesn't lend itself to updating, and there isn't a lot of scope for anything but confrontations within tableaux.

Some aspects of the camera work were a bit dubious; perhaps worse was the direction that seemed to introduce transitions in the style of Powerpoint presentations circa 1996, often at the most poignant moments.

My greatest criticism was for the ludicrous decision to have a corps of ballet boys being sailors. I could see the point, but the way they were choreographed as a bad borderline-homophobic 1970s mincing joke. I also could not understand why a crowd of men in 19th century coats and hats suddenly emerged as background in the final scene, when the whole of the rest of the opera had been costumed in generic 'old' costumes (the opera is supposedly set in the 14th century).

Some of the scenery was very stupid. Not least in the garden scene, where there was a heap of rubble in the background. It was basically a pile of slabs arranged in a triangular or pyramidical pile; this was later reflected in a painting in the Council Chamber of rocks at sea in the pile. Why, who knows? But in among the almost plausible pile of slabs was something that strongly resembled a section of track from a model railway. Shrug. Three trees were suspended above the stage and I just kept looking at them thinking 'Why?' I would have been prepared to believe it was an attempt at perspective and distance except that they had a mass of roots clearly visible at the bottom. At some point they descended to ground level; instead of highly visible roots we had conspicuous wires holding them up.

I don't think there was much production except for scenery and crowd scenes. Very unimaginative. I felt that the singers were basically told to get on with it and act. Which was largely fine for these principals but I'm not sure it would work with singers less able to act.

I have to admit that I like the story and characters of Simon Boccanegra much more than I like the music. I don't dislike the music but for some reason it refuses to lodge in my sub-conscious, in the way that many Verdi operas do so easily (And I don't just mean the obviously hummable ones like Rig and Trav). But even with that caveat I don't really understand the booing of Daniel Barenboim (the live coverage stopped strategically before he took a bow). I don't actually rate Barenboim as that great a conductor, but I have heard a lot worse. I suspect this booing lark is as much about disturbed or insecure wankers needing the attention as an informed rational objective music judgement. My feelings about the music was that there were some good bits - most notably the sound of the sea - no obviously dreadful bits, and it seemed reasonably sympathetic an accompaniment of the singers.

Ah, the singers! What a splendid cast! Really first class. It comes into my category of operas with 'too many indistinguishable men in comprimario roles' but the leading players were excellent. Massimo Cavalletti as Paolo and Fabio Sartori as Gabriele Adorni were more than satisfactory. 

But the real luxury lay in the three main roles. Ferruccio Furlanetto was superb as Fiesco. He must be my favourite bass, admittedly just on the basis of three fabulous Verdi roles. I love his voice and I love his stage presence.

I was really impressed by Anja Harteros as Amelia.I don't think I've ever heard her live. I made the mistake a couple of years ago of going to a Boccanegra at Covent Garden in which she wasn't Amelia. She's a bit odd-looking, and the camera close-ups of her rather odd facial expressions doesn't do her any favours. But vocally she was superb and I was happy at her portrayal.

But as you know full well, the only reason I was actually at the cinema as opposed to, say, watching The Leaders' Debate live on the TV was for Simon Boccanegra, the man himself - a sixty-nine year old tenor doing a passable impression of a fifty year old baritone!

I know the debate goes on: does he has the right voice for this role? My answer, no, probably not. But I actually can't think of any baritone singing now who'd I really wish to hear in this role, except for Dmitri Hvorostovsky, about whom it has also be said is vocally unsuitable! And the next question - should Plácido have retired as a consequence of his recent surgery? On this evidence, no absolutely not.

He was a bit shaky in the Prologue, but after that he was absolutely fine. I had been prepared for him being less active on the stage, mentally preparing myself for a lack of dramatic falling to the ground. Again, no problem there. He wasn't exactly leaping around the stage - the sword fight in the Prologue was pathetic (maybe because of the 'direction'?) and he looked quite awkward towards the end - but that might have been because he was playing the role of someone dying from slow-working poison. His final deathly collapse was suitably dramatic: not his finest example of falling-to-and-rolling-around-the-ground, but more than satisfactory.

Vocally, he was superb. I'm not sure there's a lot more to say. His voice never fails to thrill me. He is convincing and sympathetic in the role, especially in the one-to-one interactions with Amelia. I have no problem taking him for a baritone, although I concede that in another baritone role that I'm more instinctively familiar with, say Rigoletto, I may be better placed to notice the difference. He certainly didn't sound like a tenor.

And for the most part he looked good. Ruggedly handsome as ever, of course, even though there were odd moments when I thought 'he's looking old'. I guess when he's tired he tends to look older than when he's bouncing around, there again, refer back to my earlier comments on 'character affected by slow-working poison'

I doubt that I shall ever love Simon Boccanegra as an opera, even though I find the Garden recognition scene and the final death scene intensely moving. I am looking forward tremendously to seeing it in London  - so far, only two performances booked:-(, and I salivate at the all round superbly good cast assembled.  I enjoyed it in the cinema but other than it being the best cast I've seen in it, I don't think it will otherwise figure as a 'best ever'.

There were no sub-titles on the transmission. I don't know whether there was supposed to be, even though they were promised on the cast-list/synopsis sheet handed out beforehand. On the way out the manager handed each of us a complimentary ticket for a future performance of anything in any Odeon, which I consider a gracious gesture. 

Bizarre sightings

Last night, as I briefly Twittered, I was at the Odeon Covent Garden for a live screening of Simon Boccanegra from Milan. I didn't Twitter much about it because a) my phone battery was running low* and b) I figured that it was pointless to tweet during the Leaders' Debate^†

There was an interval after Act 1, so, being me, I slipped out the front door of the cinema to have a quick smoke break in the street. There were quite a few people outside, including a group of munchkins holding clipboards.

I suppose it's cruel to say 'munchkins' but these were a remarkable group of men. Not excessively short - I think they were all taller than me. But all of them seemed to have exceptionally short legs, making their rotund bodies seem disproportionately long. They all wore the same 'NHS' specs with bottle lenses and they moved in unison as if choreographed.

Two taxis drew up; they moved like a shoal of fish to the first one, realised it was the wrong one, and moved to the second one. A strangely dressed man got out, and he slipped to the side of the pavement; my friend informed me he was Kim Newman. The munchkins gathered round the other man, to have their photos taken and to get his autograph on pieces of paper attached to their clipboards. By perusal of posters in the cinema foyer, my friend deduced this other man to be Joe Dante - it seemed there was some event connected with the London Independent Film Festival.

I shouldn't really mock,  because I don't see any problem with people having niche interests and I certainly don't see a problem with celebrity-worshipping someone who has an impressive list of achievements on his CV; surely better than celebrity-worshipping on the instructions of the tabloidese. The sort of person that trainspotters would sneer at for being geeks and dorks is far too easy a target to mock.

Hypocritical, too, because even as I write this, I'm engaged in a dialogue on Twitter, part of a bigger campaign I'm waging about how the mainstream media marginalises and mocks older people and non-glamorous women, with the tacit acceptance of otherwise liberal younger people (especially but not exclusively male) in a way that would not be acceptable if the marginalisation and mocking was aimed at gay and BME people (of course I know there are many racist and/or homophobic attacks from the illiberal media, but that's not my point). And in any case, an auditor mocking Aspies is on very shaky ground.

Later in the evening I was on the Tube. Looking around, about half the people in my carriage were using a phone (interesting considering the absence of a signal!). All sorts of shapes and makes and models, all used un-self-consciously and unostentatiously. Except for one man, who gave me the creeps even though there was nothing inherently creepy about him. His particular gadget was a touch-screen one. He stood in the space between the doors in an overtly masculine pose, even thrusting his groin out, as he looked around to make sure everyone could see how cool he was.

He jabbed and jabbed his touchscreen gadget and simultaneously checked that we were all looking on admiringly. A woman opposite me caught my eye and smirked, which set me off, which set her off. He saw us, his shoulders slumped, his gadget went in his pocket, his legs closed, his posture shrunk, his face fell and he shrivelled up in a proverbial corner.

It was just so funny because you simply wouldn't have noticed him if he hadn't been behaving like such a pratt. He looked ordinary and nondescript in the same way as most people do. But he was so determined to show off that he had chosen to spend his disposable income differently from the rest of us - presumably lesser beings -  it was just so funny!

* it has been suggested to me that these batteries only last about six months: ie can't cope with an entire day's data download on one charge**
** I can recharge it at work, but the sockets are well underneath the desk; I'm bored of crawling around on the floor with H&S implications; I do leave it charged in halfway across the office, but then it's not next to me and not mobile!
^† The previous two weeks showed that Twitter was entirely devoted to the Leaders' Debate: people not interested in the debate would tune out of Twitter; for people interested in the debate, their Twitter stream is moving so fast on debate posts, any extraneous material would just complicate matters

Lies, damn lies and newspaper statistics

I find the statistics of elections endlessly fascinating.

I have found a story on the internet. I was alerted to it by a satirically fake David Cameron on Twitter, and have seen no other references to it, so I assume that everybody else is ignoring it with the derision it deserves. Except for Witney LibDems, who, without a hint of shame, blazen it on their website as:

Oxford Mail poll puts Lib Dems in lead for Witney

I voted in the poll, merely to access the results for the sake of this blog. At 1440 on 26 April, the 'results' read as:

Conservative     12%
Green                29%
Labour                3%
LibDems            52%
Other                  5%

The obviously not-very-bright LibDem candidate says:

Seeing this poll is a huge boost to the campaign

(although in fairness, she also says she's not planning to hand in her resignation at work any time soon)

If David Cameron were to be unseated next week, there would be huge glee nationwide, not least in some sections of the Tory party, but it's simply not going to happen. Or, in the unlikely event that it does, there is no way that the Oxford Mail can claim to have predicted this.

The simple fact that it allowed to me vote is enough totally to discredit it. I'm not registered to vote in Witney, I haven't even been there! It hasn't allowed me to vote a second time, probably because of cookies, but it would, I assume, allow me to vote from a different machine.

Although it gives the latest picture in terms of percentage, it does not say how many people, registered in Witney or not, have voted. Is it tens of thousands or just a few dozen?

Any such poll or survey which invites people to participate is susceptible to manipulation. Over the years I lose track of the number of times I have been contacted by someone organising a mass-vote in any number of 'polls' from the frivolous to the very serious. They tend to demonstrate who is the most organised partisan.

It is more likely to attract people who regularly interact online. Approximately half the electorate is over 50 and about a quarter of the adult population is of retirement age. A rural Home-Counties constituency such as Witney is probably older on average than, say, where I live, urban Streatham (unless RAF Brize Norton provides an unusual counter to the general rule).

Although I don't have statistics to hand, I think we all know that internet use is much less amongst older people; I'm not sure whether they are more or less likely than younger people to access the local paper proportionate to internet usage. Again, everybody knows older people are much more likely to vote. I would hazard a guess that Witney Conservative Association is very organised at ferrying their elderly supporters to poll**

The only poll that actually matters is the one on 6 May. But, obviously, there are lots of Opinion Polls around that attempt to predict the outcome.

There is a Code of Conduct governing these. Furthermore, they are conducted on the basis of what they believe to be a statistically valid sample. Typically the sample size is about 1,000, and I have problems with this, even though I understand perfectly that this is absolutely valid (+/- 3%) if the sample is random.

Often, they try and get a stratified sample, attempting to reflect the demographic make-up of society.  I find it difficult to believe that, considering how much more diverse society has become even since I first studied this subject,let alone since 1945.

I just cannot accept that a sample size of about 1,000 is equally accurate for a larger electorate, with a wider age span, that is generally much better educated, that has so much more ethnic diversity, in a society where women are (generally) less likely to vote as their husband instructs them to, where people are less likely to vote the same way as their parents for that reason, where there is greater access to news, which has faster reaction/ turn-around times, where people's community is less local and more widespread, be it online or with fellow workers who live miles away, and where people are less deferential.

Although I do recognise that irrespective of the population size and individual characteristics, everyone can be grouped into one of a very small group of options - but even then, the options are more numerous than ever before - some commentators proclaiming the move from a two to a three party system fail to see that we are close to a multi-party system: the London Assembly has members from 5 parties, the European Parliament has 8 from Britain, including SNP and Plaid Cymru but excluding Northern Ireland

I can see that a newspaper runs an online poll, hoping that it will attract and keep readers by being interactive and user-driven although I think it.

I realise that I am in danger of disappearing up my own geekiness in this election. A stranger reading this should challenge me to cite sources. I am not writing as an academic; I'm not even writing as a  political activist*. I just know this stuff, to me it's common sense and self-evident (but that's because I have specialised over the years, not putting down people whose expert knowledge lies elsewhere)

* I was very active in the Labour Party between 1984 and 2004, was a Labour Councillor in Lambeth 1994-2002, remain a Labour Party member and (small) donor, and have given some time to Streatham CLP in this election

** My partner's late father and my colleague's elderly mother, both Labour voters, habitually got/get lifts to polling stations from Tory workers

Touching too much fruit or veg in the supermarket

I have read the Liberal Democrat manifesto and I bet they are kicking themselves that they haven't pledged to end the 'carrying of small dogs when they can clearly walk' or 'clapping when the plane lands'

There's nothing in the manifesto to make my blood boil; I can't really see that overall it would make anyone's blood boil, although inevitably there are bound to be things that any individual tends to disagree with.

I've even found I was mistaken on the one policy that I found attractive. I admit that this is down to my own stupidity and naivety. I thought that their pledge not to renew Trident was in fact a pledge to move towards unilateral nuclear disarmament. It turns out it's just a technicality; they do want Britain to continue having a supposed 'independent' nuclear deterrent. I don't. It matters to me, but isn't an issue that in itself would determine my voting behaviour. But I did ask myself - can I in all conscience not support a unilateralist party? Is there any issue that is so big that it trumps that in itself it trumps the overall balance of the Big Picture?

Problem over, the LibDems aren't planning on Ban The Bomb. I think even the Tories are multilateralists nowadays. The LibDems oppose the like-for-like replacement, but they word it suitably ambiguously to kid you into thinking that they would actually divert the nuclear budget to conventional weapons and equipment and civilian purposes - that's what I would do.But, it seems, not what they want.

Most other pledges cause a so-what reaction. It seems to be a disjointed reaction to a variety of unconnected grumbles, some of it blatant opportunism.

They pledge to make airlines reveal the actual full cost of tickets (rather than the base figure plus so-called 'optional extras' such as making the payment!). We all know it annoying, but for heaven's sake, we do have the opportunity to review the actual total before you click 'Pay' ; surely, by now everyone knows what the deal is.  It doesn't stop us grumbling, but is this really the role of government? In any case, I'm sure Michael O'Leary would find a way - such as being based in a different sovereign nation, Ireland  - to circumvent this. There are numerous other pledges of this nature, including some which I won't talk about for obvious reasons, where the reaction is - so what!

Many of the things they propose are already being done or at least in development, again, some in areas where I dare not speak. It seems pretty easy to promise to deliver something that is halfway complete. I fail to understand the point of some of their pledges. For example, to 'regulate CCTV' - what does this actually mean? CCTV is already regulated under the Data Protection Act. If they propose further measures, such as setting up a body to license all operators, or some appeal process, or what - it doesn't spell it out.

Some of their proposals are to scrap things - such as Home Improvement Packs - which I know little about, but were introduced to meet a recognised problem. There is nothing in there that proposes how they will address that pre-existing problem. It's not an area that interests me: I haven't moved house for years and have no intention of doing so in the foreseeable future, but it seems to be a headline-grabbing proposal with no substance.

I don't see any big picture or vision in this manifesto. It seems to be a lot of clutching at disparate 'good ideas', each of which could achieve a broad consensus. I suppose they wrote this in a frame of mind of being the ultimate pressure group, and good luck to them, but it's not really a manifesto for government!

A large number of people have flagged up the contrast between the promises made by the LibDems locally and their performance in local councils. I know certainly in Lambeth, their record in coalition with the Tories between 2002 and 2006, that the people of Lambeth voted for a majority Labour Council against the trend of national voting where there was a massive anti-Labour swing - some of it opposition to the Iraq War, which isn't a local government responsibility. I have read that Social Care for the Elderly is in dire straits in Sheffield. I know that locally the LibDems opposed new secondary schools for Brixton; indeed, have a tendency to oppose anything that spells progress. There us a rumour that they are planning again for coalition with the Tories and intend to close the Sure Start Children's Centres*.

There are a few things said by leading Liberal Democrat politicians recently. One is this stupid slogan Clegg keeps using of not being an 'old party'. One can split hairs and point out that the actual legal entity of the Liberal Democrats was formed in 1988; this was as the Social and Liberal Democrats,  a merger of the previously allied Social Democratic Party and Liberal Party. The Liberal Party came about after the Great Reform Act out of the Whigs and Radicals. So it's disingenuous verging on the dishonest to persist with this.

Similarly dishonest is the attempt to portray Clegg as some political outsider who had an ordinary normal job before he went into politics. I rushed to his biography to read about his days down the mine followed by his nights as a trawlerman and his sabbatical as a teacher of special needs. But no, it turns out he did a political wonk job and worked for a lobbying company. He did also work as a journalist, and I will concede not one dependent on the Westminster rumour mill. But, really, I don't think the majority of people would really consider that as being a 'normal'. And if the normal jobs include his gap year jobs, then that's really pathetic.

What has annoyed me profoundly is the suggestion that the last 65 years of British history has been a failure. That is outrageous. My life is very different now than if I had been born in 1903, and thus my current age in 1945. I wouldn't have gone to University, probably wouldn't have been able to pursue a career, would certainly not be able to get a mortgage to buy a house in my own name. I am very proud of the National Health Service. I am proud that life expectancy has risen and neo-natal and maternal mortality has fallen.

I am proud that in the last 65 years we have abolished judicial murder and legalised homosexual acts, to the point where discrimination against lesbian women, gay men, bisexuals (and also transgendered people who tend to get lumped in with LGB) is illegal, as is sexual and racial discrimination and that based on disability. I can think of few areas of British life that, however flawed it is now, isn't a massive improvement on how it was in 1945. A lot of this is down to Labour Governments, much of it is merely in keeping with similar developments throughout the Western world, and some of it did happen as a result of action under the Conservatives, too (it's kind of like naming ten famous Belgians, if you screw your eyes up and think hard you can probably name ten decent Tory initiatives).

I am also incredibly bored of the bandwagon-jumping commentarati repeatedly portraying the Liberal Democrats as 'left of centre'. I suppose it all boils down to whether you consider Ken Clarke, say, to be centrist. The official LibDem national/Parliamentary policy ticks all the right boxes on any number of touchstone issues. My concern is more about the 'Orange Book' economic liberals and their support for free market economics.

*That having been said, I don't think that the 'competence' of often bumbling amateurs (of any party) is an indicator of the competence of full-time national politicians; I also think that with the LibDems, who have a track record of saying anything they think will get them elected, specific policies in any given area are no guide to what they'd do elsewhere

Cutting waste

This appears to be the mantra of this Election. Surely, no one can disagree with the imperative of cutting waste - unless, perhaps you take the Keynesian view that it is better to pay a man (or woman) to dig a hole in the road and fill it in again than for them to languish in idleness.

You could say 'cutting waste' is a subject close to my heart, being that it has been a major part of my job for twenty years. Obviously, I am not going to talk directly about the specifics of my job or how my employer arranges things.

Whoever is charged with making economies must understand what waste is, what they are doing and what its consequences are. I shall follow with a few illustrations which spell caution!

Every year, there is a series of questions in Parliament asking how much has been spent on taxis, which is followed by an outcry in the tabloids as it is revealed that Civil Servants spend several millions on taxis*. Throughout twenty years with several employers in the public and private sector, I have often used taxis for the final leg of a journey otherwise travelled by train. I travelled many times to Llandrindod Wells as a passenger, either in someone's private car or in a hire car, and, of course, I never claimed anything for doing so. On other occasions I have travelled by train to rural town councils and ports which are 2 - 10 miles from the nearest station and have finished off the journey by car. If there was a blanket ban on public servants using taxis, there would be a rise in the cost of private and hire cars; often, taxi and train (especially a cheap advance ticket) is cheaper than hire car (or allows there and back in one day, thus saving on a hotel bill.

It seems to make sense that if you want to make savings, you cut 'unnecessary' admin jobs rather than direct front line service providers. It depends to some extent what you call admin: as I quipped on Twitter, I have seen NHS positions such as hospital porters and 999 call-takers described as 'admin', and even in some instances occupational therapists, physiotherapists and phlebotomists. 

Even without this silliness, it's still important to understand what the admin person does. Many years ago I was on a Social Services Appeal Panel. One of the witnesses observed that some time before that, a round of spending cuts had led to all the filing clerks being made redundant with the expectation that social worker do their own, despite costing two or three times more and already snowed under with caseload. The result  - many 'Serious Case Reviews' highlight the poor quality of record-keeping.

Other frontline public services are attacked because expensive highly trained professionals are forced to do paperwork rather than being out at the chalkface doing what they do. Ironically, of course, when steps are taken to bring in cheaper admin staff to take over some duties, that also gets attacked as a watering down of public services.

Incidentally, many years ago I was in the pub with someone who I think was then the chair of Lambeth School Governors. He was of the opinion that the fixation on class-sizes might prove an irrelevance - that it was far more important to maintain a high ratio between trained adults and children. I understand that nowadays many classrooms have several adults in them, not just the class teacher but assistants for various SEN children, and assistants to prepare materials and support the teacher.

Another thing to be cautious of when 'cutting waste' is to be aware that all accounting is double-entry. I saw something recently, and I can't for the life of me think what and if it was at work I wouldn't tell you anyway, but it referred to a saving made in a fee to another branch of Government. Indeed, if savings are to be made by abandoning or not-renewing contracts with private sector suppliers, or by re-negotiating more stringent terms, it isn't a pure economic win. Nor is making staff redundant (or ceasing to recruit). It will look good in the books of the individual body that does it, and monitoring and controlling public expenditure would be impossible if there weren't sub-divisions created for convenience. Every saving made, unless it is reinvested directly into services, means that someone loses their job or stays unemployed, collecting benefits and not buying goods and services or paying taxes. It might mean a supplier going bust: it's good practice not to place a contract if it would make up more than 25% of the contractor's turnover. But it wouldn't entirely surprise me if, now, there are firms entirely dependent upon contracts from just two or three government departments.

I think Inspectorate and Audit, like every other function needs to be reviewed from time to time, with a few basic questions: Does it do what it's supposed to do (outcomes, not inputs)? Do we want it to do this? Is there another (better or cheaper) way to achieve the same outcome? Are there perverse or unintended consequences that negate the (assumed) benefits? The trend in local government is to adopt a shared service approach, and I have to admit to being shocked that it has taken small district councils in particular so long to do so. It is self-evident that there are savings to be made in Shared Services; there are also dangers that they can become big self-perpetuating bureaucracies in themselves. Ironically, the early years of my career witnessed the disbanding of Property Services Agency; I am sure there used to be a Government Department devoted to buying supplies for other government departments, which, I guess, aimed to achieve economies of scale but eventually imploded.

But Inspectorates are just too easy a target. I am sure people could write whole Ph.D theories on the danger of managing solely to meet targets and ignoring that which isn't scrutinised. At their best, Inspectorates act as a conduit of Best Practice and enable organisations to be transparent. Where organisations are failing to serve their public, the Inspectorate regime exposes this; failure to improve has further consequences, rather than a laissez-faire which allows inadequate councils, prisons, schools and other public sector organisations to bumble along in incompetency and failure.

So, all I'm saying, if someone knocks on your door promising to cut waste, ask them what they mean by this. Hope that the journalists will ask the politicians the same question. Try and work out if the politicians even understand what they are talking about, or are they just promising this because they know that every reasonable and intelligent person abhors waste.

* Like the recent outcry in the tabloids at the news that council employees use corporate credit cards in toy shops - it's not like any council has any responsibility for looking after or educating children, is it!

Clapham Common

We went there for a picnic yesterday. I don't work Fridays, and Jimmy is free between 3 and 8 so we try and do something together most weeks. We were determined to enjoy the sunshine and hit on the splendid idea of a picnic. Clapham Common was chosen because Jimmy would spend less time getting there (and back) from work, because it's handy for shops from which to buy picnic food, and because there are plenty of bars and coffee shops handy for when the temperature drops.

It has its disadvantages, too. Chiefly that being flat and surrounded by a network of busy roads, without boundary trees, it's impossible to feel you've escaped from the urban jungle. But we knew that, and adjusted our expectations accordingly.

We sat down on a bench on the edge of large open field and began to eat our 'starter'. People passed by and there was a constant hum of traffic from the roads; we were barely aware of them. We looked out across a field and laughed hilariously as a dog chased after a child's football and pushed the child (aged about 8) to the ground. Our laughter turned to "What!" when we realised that the dog was no relation to the child, but happened to be passing him as he played with a teenager, perhaps an older brother, and just randomly forced him to the ground.

As it happens, the child didn't seem very bothered; nor for that matter did the dog's owner. Didn't seem to check whether the child was all right, and didn't put the dog on a lead. They continued on their walk, approaching in our direction, but I assumed the angle they were taking would take them well out of our way. Until the dog bounded over to where we were sitting, threw itself at Jimmy and then stuck its nose into the empty prawn tray he had carefully placed on the ground to separate rubbish out from from good stuff*. The owner followed and laughing said

"Oh, she eats anything she sees..."

I think this was our cue to say "Oh gagaga itchywitchy cudgie coo what a darling dog, can I please please pretty please lick her cutey wutey stomach". We didn't.

The owner tried again mouthing some platitude which didn't include the word 'sorry'. Sharply, Jimmy told her to take it away whilst I sat motionless glaring at her (I was rewarded with the sight of her shrinking and slinking away, cowed by my fearsome glare).

When we finished our starter we walked to another field on the Common, this much closer to Northside. We chose our spot carefully. Sufficiently far away from the two men focused on their ball skills as they quietly and unostentatiously kicked a football between them; and  sufficiently far away from two other parties lying down or picnicking in the glorious afternoon sun. We weren't encroaching on anyone and no one was encroaching on us. Ideal. Well, apart from the police helicopter that hovered and circled for about 15 minutes; again, in theory an irritation, in practice something you accept as an inevitability of urban life.

Until PoodleWoman came along. I wasn't best chuffed when said Poodle took a dump barely ten feet from where we were sitting. I was even less chuffed when it immediately ran over to us and stuck its nose in our food bag. Followed by Poodle Woman herself in no great rush to extricate her dog. Indeed she stood there waiting for us to say "Oodle doodle be my baby gagagagaga ickle cuteywootey." We didn't.

Jimmy told her to take it away. She started saying something resentfully, so I told her to keep her dog under control. Scornfully, she said "I'm supposed to control where the dog goes to the toilet?" I'm sorry I didn't ask her why she wasn't scooping it up - there are bins for that purpose on the Common. Today, someone was probably playing a ball game or letting their child run around in that dog poo (by the way, dogs don't 'go to the toilet'). 

What I did say was that it had stuck its nose in our food bag. She retorted that she had every right. I told her to keep her dog on the lead. As she walked away I said "That's probably what counts for hygiene in her household, letting the dog shit anywhere even when she's preparing food. That's really disgusting. Dirty woman." I did have the satisfaction of watching her shoulders slump as she slinked away; hopefully she felt shame.

Dog poo is disgusting. Indeed any poo from any meat-eating mammal is disgusting. I don't mind horse manure and accept sheep droppings as an inevitable part of the countryside. But dog poo. Eugh. Of course dog owners have the right to exercise their dogs on the Common, I don't dispute that. But rights only exist to the extent they don't interfere with other people's rights - or, to put it bluntly, my right to stick out my arm stops just before my fist hits your face. It is disgraceful when a dog attacks a child; it's disgraceful but inevitable when a dog shits in the open grass - and it's disgusting if the owner fails to pick it up. And it's utterly intolerable that, apparently, we have to put up with other people's dirty animals going through our food. 

I do stop and think - is it something I said, is it something I am doing wrong? Am I sitting in the wrong place, breaking some local unwritten custom-and-practice?

I know we all want our own way all of the time and I have been known to sulk or throw a tantrum when I don't (less so now I'm an adult). But surely, if you use your brain you must realise that it simply isn't possible and it's extremely inconsiderate. Perhaps my problem is that I am a follower of the creed of Deferred Gratification: in other words, by acting in a way that appears to be selfless, I later reap rewards. Obviously, this works best in a fairly closed group: eg if I help someone with a problem say at work, they are likely to help me when I need them maybe two years later, or, at the very least, they speak positively of me to others; that doesn't work so well in wider society. I do firmly believe that if everybody behaved in a fairly considerate way almost all of the time, we would all benefit from society being more harmonious. But that is a big IF because I am having to compete with people who want instant gratification or pursue rational selfishness.

Ironically - and  cross-refer to my post on Streatham Common  - this touches on the theory of The Tragedy of the Commons.

* when we had finished our picnic all the rubbish went in the bin

Breath-taking stupidity

"We got Rage Against the Machine to #1, we can get the Lib Dems into office!"

The Facebook Group which campaigned to get Killing in the Name to number one had 750,000 members; the record sold 500,000 copies (I'm not sure if that was in that one week or over that slightly longer period).

I know Facebook Groups are an easy target, but I this one has to win some special award for a special mix of stupidity, naivety and arrogance.

I would bet that of those 500,000 - note merely 2/3 of those who joined the group -  a significant number will either be too young to vote, not registered, or, on Election Day, too preoccupied or CBA to vote.

Another set will be already loyal (or loyal-ish) to the LibDems, and, therefore, any campaign to persuade them to vote Lib-Dem because of the RATM effect is wasted.

Another set will have strong reasons to vote for one of the other parties standing, be it a loyalty (ish) to that party, a personal connection with their local Parliamentary candidate, or a calculation of which 'least worst' party is best poised to defeat the most worst (in their opinion).

Some of them will be in Northern Ireland and thus divorced from the British electoral system.

Amongst that 500k, or 750k, will be an incalculable number who actually believe in voting for a candidate or party on the basis of the policies either laid out in the manifesto or espoused over the previous Parliament and longer.

I read that there are 46 million people registered to vote. Even allowing for duplicates and, again, removing Northern Ireland, it still means that the RATM/Facebook people are less than 2% of the electorate.

As a campaigning tactic, it's unbelievably stupid. Not just because the numbers don't compute; not just because it's political illiteracy to base one's vote on the notion of being part of a crowd (I recall John Cole on eve-of-poll 1992 commenting that many people vote like they back horses - wanting to be aligned with the favourite/predicted winner), but because it betrays an insular ignorance of the world around them.

I have this notion in my head of students believing that just because their mates, their mates' mates and even their mates' mates' mates all think the same, then it stands to reason that everybody does. Point out to them that people's attitudes change as they get older and they're likely to think about people over say 30 or 40 as irrelevant and marginal.

The median age of the UK adult population is 48. That means that nearly half of UK electorate is over 50; it's a given that turnout is much higher amongst older people than amongst the young. And of course, most people over the age of, what, don't actually give a shit what's number one, especially if a mere 500,000 sales (at 39p!) can make a Christmas number one!

Perhaps I am missing the point and this group is set up in an ironic post-modern way. But I don't think I am and I don't think it was.

Perhaps some young person, studenty type will come back wailing about how difficult it is to find out about politics, or how much it interferes with their substance abuse to get out and engage with other people, to find out what matters to them. To which I shrug, because it isn't difficult. It wasn't difficult before the internet; it ought to be even easier with it, providing you know how to use it (oh, but but but, my parents are, like, way too old, yeah, and school was, like, crap, so, like, how I'm supposed to, like, use the internet if no one shows me, like, yeah, man, cool)

For generations, young people have begged to be taken seriously. Yes, this is the way to go about it. Hmm.

Streatham Common

But despite the kids from hell - or rather the childminders from hell - we managed to get something out of our visit to Streatham Common.

I am still getting used to my new camera; also I knew straightaway that the light was never going to do me favours (both are just excuses!)

I love it when in the middle of somewhere built up you get a brief glimpse of something that could theoretically be somewhere completely different - this brief stretch of Streatham Common North could easily be in the country

This is me in the Rookery



This is a cherry tree (or so it said on the label!)

This is a bit of a view of the terraced garden, cunningly taken to disguise the skyscrapers of Croydon otherwise visible on the horizon through the blue haze

And this is the bottom end of a fallen tree which has been left to rot away

On Streatham Common

The plan today had been to picnic on Streatham Common. The weather was not in our favour, so instead we had a rather indifferent pub lunch. We decided to walk on the Common, anyway, even if just to avoid the horrendous traffic queues on the High Road and catch a bus home.

For those of you that don't know, Streatham Common is a fairly large piece of green space. It's not massive, but it's certainly not a pocket park. It's certainly plenty big enough for kids to run around, especially on a weekday more-or-less in school term

View Larger Map

We stopped at the café halfway up and went to drink our coffees at the outside tables. I suppose there's about a dozen tables in a fenced-in space, just enough space in between them and no space for any more.

It was fairly busy, a party of five over there, a Mum and baby there, man and dog there, Mum with two quiet sitting children, woman with a book, us, and That Lot. Specifically two women of my age and eight girls age about 7 or 8, running around, screeching, yelling at each other. Perfectly legitimate play, and of course, it's healthy for children to run around. But in totally the wrong place. I had to keep interrupting what I was saying as another brat ran past screaming down my ear-hole.

Jimmy went to the loo, as I turned round yet again to glare at the screaming kids, I realised Woman-With-A-Book was looking exasperated. She turned to me and said "Can't they shut them up, they're completely ignoring them." Emboldened I went up to the women supposedly in charge of them, and said "There's a whole great big Common, do they have run around screaming in here, when people are trying to sit down quietly?"

One of them laughed. Not quite in my face, but clearly she thought it an absolute hoot that these children she was supposedly looking after (but was in fact ignoring) were being pains. So I mimicked her laugh back in her face, and she didn't like that. However, they  decided they were going. "Than God for that!" I exclaimed in a stage whisper. "We get the message," said the other arsehole bitch. But I didn't think they had, because there was no attempt to say to the kids "This isn't the best place to be running around screaming"

In time we finished our coffees and left the café and headed for the Rookery. I love The Rookery, a delightful secret. I don't go often because it's not so close to home; sadly I didn't go often either when it was much closer.

On Been There it says:

A beautiful Victorian garden in the middle of Streatham Common. Queen Victoria visited for the now gone spa waters  Tranquil even at the height of summer, an oasis in the middle of south London.

Indeed, outside is a sign saying in big letters "This is a quiet garden" and lists the activities that aren't permitted. It doesn't actually say 'No Noisy Brats' or even 'All children should be kept on leads' but *everyone* knows that people go there to read or contemplate.

But not this lot, oh no. The ghastly women sat on a bench on the terrace and the kids ran amok screaming their heads off as they chased round, their noise echoing round the natural bowl or amphitheatre. We tried to get away from them, not entirely possible because they were so loud, and when we returned to the main drag, we saw several independent adults looking at them, in annoyance or bewilderment; something was said, and suddenly, they cleared off again. 

This makes me really angry. As I say, I do think kids should get out and run around. There's a large well-equipped children's playground, there is a large open green space, so why they hell are they doing their running around specifically in areas not designed for it.

I am sick and tired of going out to places and having what should be a relaxing walk or sit-down ruined by out-of-control, atrociously parented children. I know I am not alone in this. I only had to look at the faces of the other café customers and the body-language of the other people in the Rookery that I am very much not alone in this.

It was abundantly clear to me that the ridiculous bints supposedly in charge of these children did not have the slightest clue what the matter was. These were women who knew each other via NCT classes and were dressed very presentably in clothes from shops such as Next, M&S: almost certainly educated and seemingly fairly prosperous.

Exactly the sort of people who complain loudly at how child-unfriendly Britain is. These ghastly women have probably ended up at home moaning to their husbands (who probably don't get home until after the children have gone to bed!) at how hostile everybody is to us 'just because we've got children'.

These two women were supposed to be looking after other people's children. I am not sure whether they were doing it for pay, or as part of a reciprocal arrangement, or as a favour (perhaps the school has failed to open, unexpectedly). But they were failing in their duty. These children encouraged to behave as if the world revolves around them grow up into teenagers and then adults who retain a sense of entitlement and are utterly bewildered as the rest of the world turns against them in hostility and disgust.

I think it's extremely unfair that these people behave like this. Not surprisingly, there were several elderly people in the Rookery; don't they have as much right to their relaxation as these kids?

It's very unfair to the children whose parents do know how to parent - the two sat quietly in the  café, or the little boy walking round the gardens with his nanny. It's unfair to anybody who has gone to the Rookery specifically for its advertised 'quiet' and its reputation for tranquillity.

And, actually, it's very unfair to the children themselves. They are not being taught about boundaries, about how we co-exist in a crowded city on a small island, or about consideration for others. It's all very well being right-on and going to NCT classes, but parenting doesn't stop there. I suspect that the children get a very clear message of being marginal to the lives of the adults who couldn't care less about them, who refuse to communicate or engage with them.

 

Return of the King

Plácido Domingo returns as Simon Boccanegra. It almost seems irrelevant to surf round the worldwide web looking for critiques of the performance in many languages. The most important thing that he is back.

The news broke on 22 February that he was withdrawing from Tamerlano in London in order to have abdominal surgery and would be out for six weeks, also cancelling performances of Simon Boccanegra in Berlin and Zurich. And immediately the speculation started.

I wasn't quite sure what to think of all the speculation. I suppose I am a natural optimist and have to recognise that other people's natural pessimism is no more inherently wrong than my approach. Nevertheless, I was upset and angry to overhear conversations at the ROH and to read them on the internet from people who seemed almost to take delight in writing him off and declaring that that was his singing career over. As I say, I think some were doing it merely because it's their nature to be prophets of doom, but I think there were others who were doing so out of malice, or because they are attention-seeking, and wanted to be 'FIRST' & 'I told you so'.

You read enough of the prophets of doom and you start thinking, what do I know, anyway, maybe they're right. You read stuff such as 'malignant polyp, caught early enough' and I think, 'euw, sounds nasty, glad it was caught early enough'. Then you read words like 'cancer' and 'tumour' and the thoughts turn to "OMG, that's just awful..!"

Of course I was desperately disappointed that he had to miss Tamerlano, but I am so pleased as well, for pretty obvious reasons. And I am delighted and proud that he is back so soon. I had toyed with the idea of booking to go to Milan for Simon Boccanegra, but knowing that it would coincide with the UK General Election and because of my large expenditure for his London performances, I decided against doing so. With the volcano ash, I am so glad that I didn't and I have every sympathy for anyone who did book to go but was/will be unable to get there.

But it has rather made me realise that there will come a time when he will retire.

Domingo applauded for 14 minutes at La Scala

A beaming Placido Domingo blew a kiss at the adoring crowd after his heroic portrayal of Verdi's "Simon Boccanegra" Friday night, the Spanish tenor's first performance since cancer surgery 45 days ago.

His 131st role was something to sing about.

"It was a great evening," Domingo said backstage, after greeting the many friends who crowded to congratulate him. "It was very emotional. I was happy to be in front of an audience."

La Republicca Foto Gallery

As a PS, I refuse to link to any review that claims that Boccanegra was Doge of Venice!
 

Making a splash at the Queen Mum

There's a minor crisis in swimming local to me at the moment. It's unfortunate that pending brand new spangly swimming pools in both Clapham and Streatham, there are no public swimming pools there at present. Clapham has been demolished and Streatham is a long and complicated story. Of course, this puts pressure on Brixton, a pressure increased by the current refurbishment of the wetside changing.

So I've been procrastinating and avoiding the issue; always coming up with lame excuses for not going swimming. (If I told you the lame excuses, you'd be appalled). A possible alternative is Balham, whose website is impenetrable and doesn't seem to list the pool opening times (which are very different from the centre opening times) nor restrictions, but a telephone call tells me that basically it's not open in the evenings after work.

There's another one near Victoria Station which has a ghastly name, the Queen Mother Sports Centre, but in future I shall refer to it as the Vauxhall Bridge Road Sports Centre because I see no merit in 'honouring' a Nazi sympathiser who amassed a fortune at the expense of the British taxpayer.

Its opening hours are not much better than Balham and its website just as useless; by phone call I discovered that it closes really rather early most evenings (last admission 7pm), but on Tuesdays it does actually stay open later.

It's only 15 minutes walk from work so I decided to go there this evening. What can I say? The admission cost is half as much again as it is in Lambeth: if you went three times a week that would be an extra £20 per month. I could pay a monthly fee of £30 but I'd have to go just about every working evening when I didn't have other commitments, if it were to be worthwhile. (Being in Zone 1 also increases the cost to me).

And what do you get for that? A cramped and dirty changing room that not only makes Brixton look palatial and clean, but makes even Clapham (pre demolition, obv) look spacious and modern. 

I went into the Pool and into the Slow Lane, which was a pain. Being so crowded it was a case of swimming toe-to-tail, and, by necessity trying to maintain the pace of the fastest person (who, arguably, should have been in the middle lane, although whether middle lane people would agree is another matter). I did spot some people relaxing over the other side of the pool and it dawned on me that these were the relaxation lanes and they were nearly empty, except for a couple of people chilling at the shallow end and one man bombing up and down. As soon as I get space and can focus on technique my speed increases, so I was actually going faster than previously but felt that I was in control.

It seems very cramped in general: no windows and no sense of overhead space. The walls are plastered with adverts for junk food, resulting in information overload. There is a leisure pool with a slide but that is only open to the general public for a couple of hours on Saturday and Sunday mornings

As I say, the changing rooms are pretty cramped, and I decided not to go in the showers, because it seemed to be shoulder-to-shoulder, with more than a hint of St Trinians and no opportunity properly to warm down.  Half the number of cubicles that Brixton has (and Briton additionally has shoulder height booths which I prefer to cubicles); the remaining changing area is just a set of benches by the lockers.

I suppose I shall have to get used to it as the most logical after-work swim for at least 18 months, until Clapham re-opens and takes the pressure off Brixton. I suppose on non-work days I should cycle to Balham. Of course, on hot days,  I also have the luxury of two Lidos close to home. Ha ha ha!

But I like Brixton; it has its faults. Its customary round here to slag everything, but everything, off and Brixton Rec certainly has its faults. But given a straight choice between Brixton Rec and VBR Sports Centre (bearing in mind there as close to the rail-links as each other), I'd choose Brixton any time.

1984 Tweet

There's a silly meme I've just picked up on Twitter - tweeting as if it was 1984. I've done a few, and I could be on a roll, but I've decided to stop, in order to avoid really pissing off my followers.

• I really ought to be revising for my O-Levels
• I've just joined the Labour Party & done some leafletting for Trafford Coucnil* Elections. Solidarity with miners
• Going to watch Top of the Pops tonight. I wonder who else'll be on besides Lionel Richie

Of course it would be dead simple to go upstairs and dig out my diary from this day in 1984, but that wouldn't be as fun as writing as if I almost had a sixth sense and could almost predict the future. (And I'm not bothering too much about 140-character limits)

• Been out to take some photos; I'd love to take loads but wish there was a way to take photos without having to pay for D&P  & film
• Popped into the library to find out the latest MUFC gossip but they only had Times & Express. Frustrating...
  
• Damn, I missed TV prog last night. Even a video wd be no gd if you didn't know it was on. Wonder if they'll repeat it
• Watching Nationwide about Labour Politicians. There's these two blokes elected last year they reckon are future PMs.
• I bet there's some toff of my age at Eton who reckons he'll be next-but-one Tory PM. Prick.
• The brochure came for the Halle Proms. Never get any stars at the Proms, wish we'd get some international superstar singer
• Just been practising for my DS O-Level practical. They ought to have more cookery programmes on TV, but TV's just for blokes & blokes aren't supposed to cook. Typical of patriarchal society
• I wonder if Bryan Robson will be fit for the UEFA semi against Juventus
• I hate Liverpool, they keep winning & winning. I'd just like one Championship, please. Too much to ask?
• It's not fair, I've used the phone 'too much'. How am I supposed to contact my friends in the school holidays?
• I'm the only 'young person' in Altrincham & Sale CLP. It'd be great if I could write letters to other young activists up&down the country, like penpals
  
• Ugh!  Black-pudding, beetroot & mushy peas for tea, followed by rhubarb pie. Old fashioned English cooking, so boring. Wish we could have more lasagne and moussaka, like posh restaurants in Hale

You can see the aggregated efforts of others by clicking on #1984Tweet

* Back in 1984, my spelling was perfect. Then along came computers**
** I had actually used computers before then, but I didn't use them regularly until the 1990s

Six years later

It could be the name of a horror film featuring Zombies, but instead I'm writing about Chronic Fatigue Syndrome. It's just about six years ago I was signed off for four months having attempted a come-back after a month off.

Even now, I am not sure what is wrong with me. Medical professionals and expert websites are contradictory in saying fibromyalgia and CFS are:

• separate conditions with often overlapping symptoms; 
• synonymous; or
• different, but always likely to occur together, one triggering or contributing to the other

Often, I can't describe what is wrong with me. I get incredible bursts of energy, do something, and then I feel tired, but, then, surely, doesn't everyone? Or I have pains and aches and think - I have to live with this every day. I then question, but doesn't everybody, at least by the time they get to my age (which isn't old but is certainly more than fresh-faced youth).

Then there are the knock-on effects. In the early years, doctors used to say things like 'best cure is an hour's daily exercise'. It was impossible then to do that, even a walk locally on chores would tire me out. Now, they say things like 'being overweight doesn't help'. As if I didn't know.

It peeves me that doctors only use the scale weight rather than proportion of fat - I was weighed just before I restarted swimming and bought a bike in 2008 summer, and I was weighed again early September last year, and all the doctor could say 'You've put on weight'. I pointed out how much extra exercise I'd done since the last weighing and how I'd gone down a dress size; in fairness, she acknowledged that this is normal, but it seems to me to be a poor way to measure relative health (for an unfit person I have surprisingly strong muscles especially in my back and my calves; I did have good thigh and upper arm muscles six months ago, they've gone a bit flabby since).

All that aside, it is not really that helpful to say 'being overweight makes your condition worse'. As with many other conditions - eg joints, heart/lungs, depression - the condition contributes to being overweight as much as vice versa in a vicious circle.

It annoys me that there are still people who do not take the condition seriously. 'It's all in the mind,' they say. Yeah sure. Your mind is telling you you desperately want to do something but you know the body lets you down.

Years ago, I fully endorsed the idea that if you were lucky enough to do your hobby as a living, and as long as it didn't interfere with your responsibilities to your children, for example, then do it. (Which is not the same as saying that you prove your capability at a routine job by accepting a macho culture of presenteeism).

In theory, I still believe this, but in practice, I can't see how it's possible - I no longer understand intuitively how people can push themselves for 12, 16 hours a day, 6 or 7 days a week, week upon end. (I could be cynical and say it causes burn-out, and it does for some, but not for all, or most).

I never used to be able simply to relax, to sit and vegetate, to watch TV purely as a pastime. I always had to be multi-tasking; even sitting in a pub was best when conversation was active and stimulating (still can't do small talk, idle chit chat; bores me rigid). Watching TV was justified by a paper sort or ironing, or a fact-finding/educational experience. 

Sometimes I think I am so well recovered that the future is a trajectory. It's possible to look at people who have had CFS and recovered to lead lives uncompromised by it. There are many many other people who live with it and give the impression of living normally, because they are able to manage it, hide the 'bad days' (and so many conditions have bad days), and ration how they apply themselves to tasks.

So I am slowly coming to an acceptance that there will never be a magical time when I return to normal (when 'normal' was working 9-6, followed by a Council meeting, followed by drinking in a late night bar to silly o'clock in order to get up to be in work again the next day, or work could often mean 9-9, or staying up overnight to finish a report). I wouldn't want to return to that, but I wish I could, say, work a full day, and then use the evening to go swimming or to a concert AND get some chores done AND do something constructive on the PC, without feeling there's a price to pay).

And then there's the agoraphobia. But that's a whole different story, for another day!

The house of my dreams

I'm quite into property porn. I don't watch the property porn shows on the TV but I do like browsing the 'For Sale' sites from time to time. Just a few days ago, I was planning to move into a converted barn to where I went on audit the other day, not far (but far enough!) from London Farnborough Airport.

But I've changed my mind. I have never in my life seen a house I want so much. It has so much going for it. It's just over 3 miles from my mother's house, walking distance of Altrincham town centre, close to Dunham Massey park. Close, but not too close to Manchester International Airport.

If I had £2 million (or let's be honest, the way the housing market is now, £1.75 million) I'd be onto the Estate Agent rightaway.

Probably the most daring & innovative house ever built:

The Subterranean Mansion

It has all the usual Estate Agents' guff:

 Entrance hall, cloakroom/WC, lounge, dining room, breakfast kitchen, utility room, laundry room, master bedroom with en suite bathroom, dressing room & shute to pool, 2 further bedroom suites, swimming pool, central Jacuzzi with atrium above, gym, bar area, changing room with shower & WC, plant room, garage, in all approximately 4,300 sq ft. Gardens, approximately 0.3 of an acre.

Wait on! Did I read that correctly: shute to pool? By jingo, I did

Oh my god, you have no idea how much I want this. I really really want it. (If you happen to have £2 million hanging around doing nothing, please please please, you know I deserve this).

Country Life listing - it's described as being in Cheshire, but I know it's Greater Manchester - it's hop ,skip and jump from my old school.

It has its own website, although I can't get the videos to play, but the brochure describes more, including the Architects' Philosophy:

The dialectics of architecture and landscape, light and shade, inside and outside are at their most exhaltant* in this building. They are not separate. Their limits define and celebrate each other.

In listening and enquiring to the site, it has, in its own way, guided how the design should manifest. The radial form of the building carefully and respectfully responds to the embrace of the site’s densely vegetated boundary.

Master bedroom with the entrance to the shute to the pool!

Mind you, once the novelty had worn off, you'd probably get bored of sliding out bed into the pool. But I wouldn't!

* did they mean 'exultant'? If so, it's a shoddy lack of attention to detail!