Shopping....Fu***ng Shopping – Solving the Debt Crisis

Hi, Both (or All, depending on whether you see three makes a crowd and I've had a 50% increase in readership)You’ll be aware by now that there's a somewhat parlous time ahead for the majority of the populace vis-a-vis the present monetary crisis that is hitting all developed countries; the populace in undeveloped countries have had this situation since, well, forever really, so I guess they don’t know the difference and thereby don’t count...so that’s alright then ("Ha, Doris! We'll make a Conservative voter out of you yet!"). One of my comforters that has taken the place of the thumb I suck at night in order to get to sleep in my present concerned state as to where the next penny is coming from, has been the knowledge, in the words of our past Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, that those in power ‘feel our pain’; that and the considered words of our present Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osbourne, when he told us....in all seriousness mind.... that we were, ‘all in this together’; bless.... I’ll bet all of the present government as well as all those millionaire supporters of theirs and the self-styled ‘captains of industry’ on wrecking bonuses all lie awake nights fretting over whether to use their remaining money to pay the gas bill, the rent or for the kids school meals.


So, it may come as surprise to some that the retailers, those folk who own the shops on our high street, had a bit of a moan about the drop in sales over Christmas and how they'd been hoping that the January/February sales might have allowed them to recoup a little of this ‘lost revenue’. This is, of course, a yearly bleat that we hear; never enough sold; never enough profit made; "Oh, woe, woe, thrice woe....! etc..."...move on.... Now, there are several things that come out of this and are worthy of comment (don’t worry, I’m only going to address three of them; relax) and they are below, however I would just like to say that our illustrious and gently scented Chancellor (he of the name Osbourne) confirmed much about his ability to be in his present post, together with his level of understanding of the people of this country and their plight, when he announced not long ago that a significant factor, in fact the overriding factor he quoted in the interview he gave, was that the British people had not spent so much money at Christmas ‘because of the weather’. So the fact that the money they'd put away into pension funds had been squandered by the city boys (that fuckin' arch bastard 'Cap'n Bob for one) that the banks were guilty of a level of robbery that would put the Brinks Mat gang to shame, that the level of unemployment was over 2 million and was set to rise significantly after the full impact of the shit we were in as a country was spelled out in the budget, and just how deep the cuts allied to that were going to be (and we all knew that wrist-slashing depth wasn’t even in it) that besides the fact their savings were reduced in value overnight and that every and all cost of living, food, water, gas, electric, VAT, fuel.....that it was ‘the weather’ which had stopped them spending. Hmmmm…..thanks for that, Georgie-Boy....

Disregarding the lunatic Osbourne’s statement just for a moment, with all my listed poo hitting the propeller at one-and-the-same-time, you’d think that shopping would be the last thing on most people’s minds, as indeed it was. Over the Christmas period, folk sort of cut back on the expenditure and, ergo, the shopkeepers complained about the lack of sales... Now, and as with every Christmastime (which starts in about September here in the good ole’ U of K...just as, when I went into the local M&S in January – 20th to be exact – they had the hanging boards, pop-up-cardboard cut-outs and frippery in place and pushing Easter) after the glut of gimmickry thrust at the populace is deemed to have sold insufficiently to fill-the till, the 'SALES' started, only this year there was an edge to it as the pre-sales-sales were pissy according to the sellers and manufacturers, and this (at last) brings me to the thrust of this chat.

What I fail to work out, just as I’ve yet to understand how a 250,000 ton steel warship can float or a 200 ton metal airplane can fly, is why the article in the shop, which before Christmas was worth £250, can, in the space of three days, now only be worth £75? OK, OK, I’m confused; let’s break it down.

The price is irrelevant, as is the article’s pedigree. It can be anything; a dress, a pair of shoes, a board game, a car, whatever. In all these things there’s either a fair price to pay for it or not. I mean, c’mon, EVERYONE involved in this article’s manufacture, sales, advertising, packaging, ALL of them will have costed in their profit margin; that’s the first thing they do. So, when VAT, the various profit levels, transport, shipping and storage costs have been worked out, accounted for and added together to give a retail price and the seller can offer that article, which they originally offered for £250, for £75 and, seemingly, still make a profit (a fair profit 'cos let's face it they never sell anything and not make a profit) then what's £250; daylight robbery, possibly? Is £250 a fair price to pay for this article and everyone make a reasonable living off'f its manufacture and sale or is the article overpriced and are you all a bunch of greedy buggers? Discuss. If and article priced at £250 can be sold for £75 and a profit still made then don't charge two-hundred-and-fifty quid for it; charge seventy-fuckin'-five!

I’m sure that no one involved in this article’s construction and eventual sale, in its elements of design and eventual arrival on the shelf, I’m sure none of them lost out, so how come, when it was £250 two days ago (one of which, Christmas Day no less, was not a day that calculations could have been gone in to and a realistic price arrived at for the 'SALE', so that means the 'SALE' price had been agreed several days before this....so...?...why wasn't it sold at that price then....? I'm getting confused.....sorry) I mean, how can a £250 article now be off the shelf, after just two days, for £75? That’s a loss of £175 on the original price! Now, I’m not a retail expert (“You don’t say, Doris?!”) but I don’t know of a high street shop, manufacturer or shipper that could withstand that sort of percentage loss for more than a week before going out of business. So, what this boils down to is that someone, somewhere is making a killing on everything we buy...ah, I'm catching on.....so that’s as in ‘everything’...so, taking the ‘SALE’ ideology to its natural conclusion, everything is overpriced and could be sold at a far more realistic price if only (as with most things in life) if there weren’t a queue of greedy fuckers in the line that is. In a fair democracy this would be the way forward...but we aren’t in a fair democracy in the UK; haven’t been for what seems like forever. The interviewed factory owners try and fool us into believing that they are all "just" making a living, "scraping by" and asking a fair price for their goods but, as with you, I guess, my sense of cynicism gallops to the fore with a “Yeah? Fair for who? Who’s making the profit on gold mined, cloth woven, steel manufactured…? Not the poor sods at the arse-end of the chain, that’s for sure."

Fairness would say; OK. People shied away from it when it was at its full price yet queue up to buy it in the sale...erm... Thinks; "This must give everyone involved in the article’s lifeline a very good idea of the article’s worth that would still allow us to make a fair profit. So, if we price the article at this sale level at the outset then we’d shift more ‘units’ wouldn’t we...and so our turnover would be the greater and we’d make more money, wouldn’t we? Then the manufacturing industries involved in the article’s creation (mine) would boast fuller employment because more units were being sold at a fair profit, wouldn’t they? The people that work in these industries (my workers) would have safer employment futures, wouldn’t they? So, they could earn more money than if they were having to be supported by the state or go on the streets begging or selling their bodies; they'd be making me more profit through the number of fair-priced articles I'd be selling....and if they were making more money they too would go out and buy other articles produced by other manufacturers, me included, as long as the price was fair....!!!!!!!"

Fuck me, I've solved the problems of the manufacturing world, unemployment and global poverty in one go; pay people a fair and living wage for their work and charge the people a fair price for the goods they buy......wha-hey!!!!................... Or am I missing something?

Bugger; yup, I am. First up is those involved at the final profit end of the mark-up chain i.e. US, the high street folk, together with the councils who charge the rent and rates for the premises being willing to take less in profit...(you know, buying only three bottles of scotch for the week rather than four; that sort of deprivation...?)Yup, the aggravating section from this, admittedly over simplification of the way manufacturing and fiscal policies are run globally at present, is our good old 21st century friend; greed. Gotta have the yacht, the speedboat, the seats at Monaco, the tickets to the…whatever, and so it goes on. Amazing the number of people who make money from just having money and fuckin' the rest of us over, aint it……….?

No resolution to problems here, folks, just a general confusion as to the status quo and how the riots in London over the week-end ain’t gonna change a thing; really, trust me, I know ‘bout these things. Anarchy is just another way of grabbing an unfair share of what’s available, trashing it and scrubbing out anyone else that gets in the way of that goal; greed and capitalism by another name; definitely not democracy. Be very afraid of stupid people in large numbers, folks.

Byee…..!

The Great British Forest Sell-Off

Ha! Just when you thought it was safe to come out the toilet.......or to come out....? Yes, yes, I know, "My God, Doris, where the hell have you been?!" I'd just like to say, in my defence, that I've been really, really, really busy; honest; I have. I've published my first novel (Ladies of the Shire) completed the second draft of my next (The Quarry) productiona managed two theatre shows and performed in one, so I'd be grateful for a little leeway on this....thank you....
As you, all my many millions of readers (?) know, I tend to make infrequent visits to this blog-site, but only because it usually takes a significant event to rally me to comment. I'm like the majority of 'ordinary joe's' out in the normal world; I get on with what I have to do and, providing I don't, "Bump into the set and dressing or wave to anyone in the audience" I reckon the day has been a success. However, there have been a couple of things going on that have rattled the bars of my particular cage. One is to do with things 'theatrical' and will be the subject of a second blog in the next week..."Oy-vey! Lie down, take a Seltzer,Peter!" The other is one of urgency and I felt the need to share it with you in the hope that it'll, a) amuse you. b) feed you with information. c) cause you to follow it  up and respond too. OK. Background.
The British Government is on the verge of selling off large tracts of forest to "interested parties" and 38Degrees (website) is opposing this and organising a petition. Things are moving apace and the signing of the petition is well into the 5m. There has also been a larger than average postbag at the local MP's office and I thought I'd share my correspondence with my MP (Andrew George - Lib-Dem) so that you can see BRITISH DEMOCRACY AT WORK! Read on, have patience and I'll keepyou all (?) informed as to the progress......


My first E-mail: -

We are writing to you to register our displeasure and to say how disappointed we were to discover you had not supported the vote against selling off English forests. You have no mandate from the people to take this step but it is now seemingly a "policy", a policy not mentioned in either the election manifesto or the coalition agreement made by either the Conservative or Liberal Democrat parties; this smacks of a buy-off for support granted.
The forests are not one of the government's personal assets to be traded and sold to the highest bidder, and you have no right to sell off our country by the slice to the interested few; a few who's only interest is how much they can make on the deal. Conglomerates, large institutions and foreign investors will be the main purchasers and we will be presented with a list of companies who wish to control large tracts of land for their own, often questionable ends; selling the woodland off as building plots (already happened in Surrey and Norfolk) closing off access with spurious "health and safety" orders placed on them (which is another word for allowing the woodland free-reign to choke off bridle and footpaths). The management of woodland takes time and expertise, something that is already available in the present system (talk about re-inventing the wheel). It also takes money of which we are sure the vast majority of English people would be happy to part with (in fact already do) in order to maintain the status-quo....but of course, your government, not having had the courtesy to consult the people about this major step...well, you wouldn't know, would you? It would also seem the present thinking on the cost-benefits of the sell-off would cost more than it would accrue (and in these 'straitened times' that seems very much like poor fiscal-management skills).
We therefore register our feelings on this matter in the strongest possible fashion that democracy allows by assuring you that, should this measure go through it will be the very last time we will register support for your party through the ballot box. We look forward to reading your response and seeing it matched by action.

Doris

Short-Concise-To-The-Point....huh?
Andrew George's secretary's reply: -

Dear Friend,
Thank you for contacting me about the Government's recently published proposals which are out for consultation until Thursday 21st April this year. You also asked about an Opposition debate put forward by the Labour Party in Parliament on 2nd February 2011.
That debate didn't end in a vote to decide whether or not to sell off the Forestry Estate. It was merely an ill timed (though politically opportunistic) debate on whether a Government consultation should continue until its conclusion in a couple of months time.
In fact, I was surprised that neither the Labour Party, nor those who had been campaigning about the consultation proposals said much about Government plans announced last autumn to sell off approximately one fifth of its Estate (40,000 hectares of the 200,000 hectares it owns (the Forestry Commission also leases 58,000 hectares)) on the same basis - i.e. with fewer restrictions - as the Labour Government had sold off parts of the Estate throughout the period of the last Government.
As you are so concerned about the Government's proposals, I attach a copy of the consultation document (in case you have not already obtained one). You can respond to the consultation online by going to http://www.forestry.gov.uk/england-pfeconsultation. I would very much appreciate it if you were kind enough to send me a copy of the response which you prepare by the deadline. I will also prepare a response which reflects the views which are put to me by constituents regarding the consultation.
I should also point out that although the Liberal Democrats are in Coalition Government, there are no Liberal Democrat MPs appointed to Ministerial positions in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. However, I am the Liberal Democrat's lead on DEFRA matters and therefore seek to work with DEFRA Ministers as closely as possible, and in order to seek a more acceptable approach to policy coming from this Department.
In respect of the consultation proposals I thought it might help if I set out some background to the policy. I am sure that you will have read that the Government believes that the Forestry Commission are 'conflicted' because it is both the regulator of as well as a major producer of timber in this country.
To reduce that potential conflict of interest, the Government is consulting on proposals to lease parcels of the whole Estate, where such a model would maintain the management of the woodland whilst protecting the public interest. Where possible charities and local communities or enterprises with innovative ideas to make best use of the nation’s woodland will be given an opportunity to take on the role of managing local woodland. This will give individuals, organisations and local authorities a much bigger role in protecting and enhancing their local forests.
Around 70% of the Country's woodland is privately owned. The Forestry Commission controls 18%. The Government's consultation proposes a long-term managed programme of reform enabling the Forestry Commission to make better use of its extensive experience and allowing those who live closest to our forests greater powers to protect them.
As proposed in the consultation document, the forests owned by the Forestry Commission will not be sold off to the highest bidder but leased. Community and charitable ownership will be encouraged. Where that is impractical the Estate would remain in public ownership. Leases would contain robust access, public benefit, historic rights and biodiversity conditions, including access rights for cyclists and horse-riders. Heritage forests, like the New Forest and the Forest of Dean will be protected, for example, by permitting their transfer to charitable trusts, if that proves feasible.
The bottom line must be, as many suggest, that the essential role that forests play in British life is retained. Ministers have sought to emphasise that these plans would not lead to a free-for-all of golf courses and housing developments. If the Government presses ahead with this after the consultation, priority should be given to environmental trusts and local communities to secure these forests and then work to protect their local environment, and not private companies making irreparable changes.
It is also important to note that the proposals include measures to prevent any diluting of the current safeguards protecting forest and woodland; including the protection of biodiversity and laws relating to replanting. Proposals for development would of course still require planning permission and licenses will still be required from the Forestry Commission when planning to fell more than five cubic metres of growing trees.
Following a number of inaccurate reports in the media, the Labour Party chose to call a debate on the Government's policy on forestry on a date when they knew the Government had only just launched its proposals for consultation which it could not bring to an abrupt halt. Whilst they were taking the full opportunity to criticise the Government for its consultation, by contrast, over the last thirteen years Labour sold off 25,000 acres of woodland with barely any protection and sought to go even further in finding ways to exploit the forestry estate for commercial gain as recently as 2009.
The vote taken was therefore inconsequential. The consultation should continue and I strongly advise you to respond, but to also use it as an opportunity to raise questions about the 40,000 hectares of forest announced for sale last autumn and which, as you will see on page 13, is not part of the consultation!
Finally, as you may already be aware, the Government has announced a significant tree planting campaign which will see one million extra trees planted across England - especially in urban and suburban areas - in the next four years; the first of its kind since the 1970s. The campaign will be carried out by the Government and the Forestry Commission and will bring together charities and conservation organisations, such as The Tree Council, Woodland Trust and Trees for Cities.
Thank you for raising this matter with me and I look forward to receiving your comments and response to the consultation.
With good wishes.

Yours sincerely,

Hm.....Long-Rambling-And-Sometime-Difficult-To-Follow
My Second E-mail reply: -

Dear Ms. ,
Thank you for your prompt reply to my E-mail which covered my deep concern over your Government’s arbitrary decision to sell off the nation’s forests; I trust I can reply in detail as you have done?
Contrary to your information, though not, seemingly, to your electronically generated reply’s information, I did not ask about an Opposition debate put forward by the Labour Party in Parliament on 2nd February 2011; mainly because I had no knowledge of it; thank you for that. I, too, was surprised that neither the Labour Party, nor those who had been campaigning about the consultation proposals, said much about Government plans announced last autumn to sell off approximately one fifth of its Estate on the same basis as the present incumbents’; secrecy and lack of disseminated information to the people is not the sole preserve of the present coalition methinks. I would guess the reason you introduced this subject was to be able to take an uninvited stab at the Opposition, as if, because I'm calling into question your motives and mandate that I'm somehow a Labour supporter. That's very ‘opportunistic’ of you...and wrong as it happens; after many years of watching all colours of government in action, I have a very, very jaundiced view of them all.
That the Labour Government has sold off parts of ‘our’ estate throughout the period of their last period in Government is beside the point. ANY government seeking to sell off large areas of woodland to outside, private interests, woodland that is welded to this country’s history and its people, would have received the same response from me, and I suspect from the vast majority of right-thinking people, as your policy suggestion has done...but only after we were informed of it. As intimated above, I was unaware of this fact (thank you once again for bringing it to my attention) and can only requote my feelings about the operation of secrecy and subterfuge that all governments operate under as the reason for my laxity in following it up. I can only comment on what I am informed of; my not responding until now only advertises that fact....oh, and “two wrongs....” etc probably apply here too). I would also add that you are seeking to make illusion (talking about the best way to proceed with a policy that has no mandate) seem more real than reality by this subterfuge.
Your phrase, “I should also point out that although the Liberal Democrats are in Coalition Government, there are no Liberal Democrat MPs appointed to Ministerial positions in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs” is also beside the point. You cannot evade the issue with such childish approaches as “it’s not my fault, they told me to do it”; you are IN GOVERMENT and no amount of sidestepping and wriggling will disassociate you from that fact nor stop you from being welded to the decisions taken. As far as I am aware from your published manifesto, and that of the Conservative party too, there is no mandate, no consultation and no policy announced in these documents concerning this opportunistic and underhand effort to ‘make a few quid’ by flogging off the nation’s woodland. Furthermore, were I a believer in political dishonesty, it would seem to look like payback for ‘services rendered’ to the rich and powerful who supported your ascent up the greasy pole. You were voted into office on your manifesto, as was the Conservative party and this woodland sell-off was not on it so, enough of the bleating, please.
Your paragraph about possible conflict of interest is as interesting as it is duplicitous. The Forestry Commission has been the regulator of, as well as a major producer of, timber in this country for YEARS. How come, all of a sudden it has become such a "pressing case"? Explanation, please. Conflict over what? The Forestry Commission is a government body; are we implying that there is a possible conflict of interest with the Ministers and Civil Servants involved in the running of this organisation? And if here, of other organisations too...? Surely not... Furthermore, your saying there is a conflict of interest doesn't mean that there is one. Why was it that the diligence, research and foresight to uncover this “conflict of interest” you flag up now, after only a few months in office, was sadly lacking for twenty years and was only uncovered after diligence, research and foresight by the ‘Daily Telegraph’ and resulted in the “Expenses Scandal.”? There is no need to re-invent the wheel by the ‘Government consulting on proposals to lease parcels of the whole Estate, where such model would maintain the management of the woodland whilst protecting the public interest’. The public interest is served now, with the forests belonging to the country, and ipso-fact its people as a whole, and not to selected parties. How it is run and operated may have some room for improvement, but much of what you propose will be to throw out the baby with the bath-water and doing it without a mandate from the people.
You say that ‘Where possible, charities and local communities or enterprises with innovative ideas’ will be given an opportunity to take on the role of managing local woodland.’ The proviso here is that statement’s opener; ‘Where possible...’ Who decides this? Ministers? Not acceptable, not if you want to avoid a 'conflict of interest'. And why do we need innovative ideas for what is already a rich environment? Why can't something just be wonderful for its naturalness? This constant striving for everything to be innovative, exciting, thrilling.... The very beauty and pleasure is in the woodland’s history and connection with the land and its people, in its very naturalness if you like; pleasure does not need the word "park" after it to become wonderful. Our woodland is rich because it is real, not bent, twisted and manufactured to become a parody of reality; reality is OK, trust me on that. All you have to do is put in the correct funds (that’s your job as a government) stop tinkering with it; leave it to those who understand it and our woodland will continue to be in fine fettle. They may not house the serried ranks of timber that those in Whitehall want to see (one of the reasons they cannot be trusted with its management) the rows of timber whose 'value' can be assessed, ready-reckoned, have a price put on it per capita hour of human input required to gain the best price for it; turned into pleasure parks where the natural environment (emphasis on 'natural' here) instead of being a catalyst for reflection and personal development becomes a fractured and twisted reflection of reality. Our woodland environment and its diversity is the very reason why it should be allowed, wherever possible and suitable, to grow at its own pace so that change within it is gradual and not enforced; that the species living within it also get time to adapt to changes and develop at a pace to suit them, their surroundings and so guarantee their continued survival. Where this is not possible, sensitive felling and replanting should be undertaken....oh...er...much like we have now, in fact. Nature thrives in a level of chaos, this is what gives its inhabitants the space and place to grow, diversify and develop and along with that, the people of this country have an historic affinity with their forests and woodland. Your ill-thought-out 'policy with no mandate' gives us a direct line through to the enclosures act of 1750 and onward where the division of land was in favour of the rich and powerful and denied the people of this country a fair share of its bounty.
To your statement, ‘Around 70% of the Country's woodland is privately owned. The Forestry Commission controls 18%. The Government's consultation proposes a long-term managed programme of reform enabling the Forestry Commission to make better use of its extensive experience and allowing those who live closest to our forests greater powers to protect them.’ I can only say; “What are you talking about?” Explanation please.
All of the facts in your statement about ‘leases containing robust access, public benefit, historic rights and biodiversity conditions, including access rights for cyclists and horse-riders’ we have in place already...so, we’re now proposing to re-invent the reinvention of the wheel, an excellent use of government time and money; our woodlands play an essential role in British life as it is. That you truly and honestly believe that, ‘Ministers have sought to emphasise that these plans would not lead to a free-for-all of golf courses and housing developments’ is also a deeply troubling statement. If you honestly believe that, then you should not be in government. Do you honestly mean to tell me that, if an owner of a tract of land, an owner who had supported the Conservative or Lib-Dem government to the tune of millions to get them into government in the first place and who wanted to fell areas of woodland, or shut them up to general access and build log cabins for holiday-makers, do you honestly think that government would step in and stop them? On past record (education, health, pensions, the Conservative Government's treatment of the miners, votes for sale, Lords for sale, ministers second-jobbing and acting as 'consultants' and 'lobbyists' for the very people who have a vested interest in the passing of certain laws and the delaying of others, the expenses scandal) you are not to be trusted with the care of our major institutions. And you have no need to ‘press ahead with this after the consultation’ as you have no mandate from the people, so this begs the question; “Why do you want to change it? There's something rotten in the state of Denmark, methinks. So far you have proved one thing only; that you are spending tax-payers money on re-inventing the re-invention of the re-invention of the wheel and I also repeat, whenever this 'policy' had come to light and in whatever political party guise, it would have been resisted vigorously. Yes, your tree-planting ‘announcement’ is OK; we’ll give it credence when it’s actually achieved, but, so? What do you want, a round of applause? Just for doing your job? OK, well, well-done, but don't think this is anything special. This is what you should be doing; safeguarding our nation, its people, their history and their legacy. You are our government and should be the guardians of our heritage and well-being, not preparing to sell off these precious national assets to the highest bidder as you have done and are doing with health and education.
Thank you for offering me the opportunity to respond to the consultation. I will, rest assured. What you have to understand is that the people can only respond to information given them. The subterfuge and smoke-screen diplomacy that has gone on in this move to sell forests only gives credence to the belief that ALL politicians are deceitful and untrustworthy, not true, I'm sure but the feeling is that they hide the truth behind a false reality and only allow sifted information to get through, that they speak of half-conversations as fact; and I think I may not be alone in this belief...?
Thank you again for your interest in my E-mail. I await your considered reply to this one with interest and anticipation.

Yours sincerely,

Doris

Let them send an electronically produced reply to that little sucker....

See you soon......Byeeee!

The Beautiful Game

I, like most others in our country I guess, have found it hard to escape from the revelations, tearful partings and kiss-and-tell rumours (and a level of panic akin to an impending invasion by a superior force) concerning the alleged sexual antics, hedonism and alleged greed of the England Captain (now ex-) John Terry.


I ought to declare an interest (or lack of) from the outset: - I’m not a football lover; there, I’ve said it....whew, what a relief...!...although I used to be a very keen follower, so not quite outside the loop, I guess. I’m a Wolverhampton boy, born-and-bred (“So what did you have to be ‘a very keen follower’ of then, Doris?”) and like so many of my council-house pals, I was a regular attendee at the Molineux football ground, home of Wolverhampton Wanderers....yes, I know, “There on your own then were you?” Thank you, heard it all before, thank you... I was a scaff-bar-leaner in the Cow Shed end, took my first girl-friend there to watch a match....romantic or what....and you wonder why the relationship never lasted? That Cow Shed end is now, I believe, the away supporters end, the end near the ring-road, dual carriageway, oh; you probably all know where I mean far better than I do.

Anyway, my time was during the careers of folk like Stan Cullis, Billy Wright, Malcolm Finlayson, the irrepressible Eddie “Chopper” Clamp and games against Spartak Moscow and Honved of Hungary (was Puskas in that team? Would be happy for folk to tell me) and the winning of the league in 58. A move away from Wolves in the early 60’s (63 I think, to Brum of all places, home of arch rivals Birmingham City and West Bromwich!) when I was about 13 or so sort of curtailed my ability to attend Wolves matches as often as I used to. Then rock-and-roll bands (I was a pro-drummer, so now you can work out why I was mad enough to support Wolves) and “girls” came onto the horizon and my footie attendance rate dropped in direct relation to my rising libido. I did pick it up again at the turn of the decade (football, not my libido, you understand) but stopped going when the thugs and tossers took over in the mid 70’s, and although I’ve held an interest in Wolves’ fame and fortune over the passing years (often mis-fortune it has to be said, but, good or bad seasons, you take your home team on warts and all in my view) I have to say that I’m less than their number-one fan and indeed of football in general. My other great sporting love is cricket and you only have to have followed the roller-coaster ride that is supporting the England cricket team over the past ten years to fully understand how I could possibly still be willing to raise a shout for Wolves!

Well, to cut to the chase, I read, with interest, a couple of articles, both in the Independent, one of them by a chap who is a Crystal Palace supporter (I apologise profusely for not being able to recall your name but suffice to say that you’ll know who you are and it was a really well-written article...unlike this rambling discourse; oh, and belated (very) congrats on the game against Wolves that figured prominently in your article by the way. By all descriptions it was a top game and, win or lose, I massage my defeat-face with the knowledge that it takes two teams to make a memorable fixture...and there’s always the next time). Your article discussed, amongst other things, the merits of what football is to the people who follow a team and how the John Terry debacle has skewed the landscape somewhat.

I differ from the thrust of your article here for, in my opinion, football’s landscape has been on a severe tilt for the past 40 years and the concomitant loss of direction and integrity is and was totally and entirely predictable. I can remember all too well the late Danny Blanchflower saying in a radio interview, “The day they take the ceiling off player’s wages will spell the end of football as we know it.” Funny how those inconsequential statements stick in the memory and come back to haunt you, aint it? Anyhow, I reckon he got it just about right and we’re not just talking wages here....although, come to think, it’s a good place to start, but you have to detach yourself, stand outside of it all in order to see the obscenity of such largesse.

I think that was the one thing that startled me in the C.P. article I’m discussing, and I mean ‘genuinely startled me’, and yet the line was written with such innocence;

“The average weekly wage of a Premier League footballer is £23,000”.

I’m showing my naivety here, I know, but I had to go back and read that line another twice and then I still didn’t get it (I can hear the chants of “Who are you?” ringing out now). Even after two re-reads I still thought it was a misprint.....honestly, I did. I even texted a friend (I work in theatre, on the technical side, touring and such) and, if I remember right, I texted the quote then added something along the lines of, “...Even with 35 years theatre experience I can still only make just above the national minimum wage...fucking hell; how could I have got it so wrong?” It’s not that I begrudge them the pay-packet, honest, I don’t, and I, much like you I guess, would take the money and run, but... £23,000.... per week... average pay!!!!!! Jesus! And then we learn that Mr. Terry was making X million in sponsorship deals AND prepared to let his V.I.P. box at the ground out for a price... It’s an old song of mine, as those of you who read my irregular blog (who am I kidding?) will recognise, but I’ll sing it again; how much more than everything can you possibly want? Anyhow, back to more cerebral things.

What I am sure of is that John Terry isn’t an intrinsically bad man (I bet he’ll be so pleased to realise that I think so well of him, make his day, I’ll bet?!?!) just as George Best, Paul Gascoine, Eric Cantona, Zidane Zinadine or Maradonna weren’t intrinsically bad men.......oh, ok, stretching it a bit with that last one; sorry, but the rest still stand, and the reasons are known to us all. What footballers have is levels of expectation resting on their shoulders that would crush mere mortals such as us, much of it self-sought and self-inflicted I have to say.

They kick off with the thousands of fans that follow both them and the team, and who expect a win at every game...that’s ‘every game’. They have a level of pay that far outweighs their worth, and in many cases the ability to manage such sums ‘well’ and ‘sensibly’ is lacking too (yes, I know, ‘a cliché, Doris’; still a fact though by ANY measure and if you can’t see that then it’s about time you averted your eyes from the mirror and took a look around). They have a gang of corporate fucktresses (a sponsor by any other name) leaning on their every word, milking and bleeding them to remain corporately on-message, and which the individual players willingly go along with because, after all, £23,000 a week is so little to manage on, isn’t it? They have a posse of whoremongers (PR people) who monitor their every facial expression, nuanced comment and social observance and are ready with cover-up story, excuse and reason at the drop of every bollock, and a gang of hangers-on to fetch drinks, girls, coke, cars, whatever, and a group of calques who laugh loudest, “WOW” with most gusto and who, under normal circumstances, would drive anybody of even average intellect to distraction (am I the only person to believe that, the moment some arse in the audience begins to whoop out loud, the event switches from “wonderful artistic/sporting endeavour” to “ALL ABOUT ME!”?). These players are followed at every twist and turn of their lives by an army of reporters, spenders, hookers, tossers, pushers, pullers, good-timers, coke-liners, freeloaders, miscreants, sycophants, gofers, echo-chambers, whiners, chimers, chanters and wankers, all of them watching this individual walk the tightrope of THEIR dreams but the vast majority of them unwilling to hold the safety net too tight...because that’s what we want isn’t it? We want our heroes to be fallible and fall otherwise we can never aspire to be them; they are what we made them and that’s how it’ll continue.......unless we change it...?

With that as the challenge, I’d like to offer below my “Ten Solutions to Sorting out English League Football” with explanations (some of these options are more radical than others; forgive me if I wax on the dictatorially brutal side). What I am sure of is that what follows should in no way reduce the thrill of what everyone keeps telling me is “the beautiful game”. If what the players, managers, supporters and general hangers-on say is true and it’s not about the money then here are a few ways for us to prove it, and I also believe that English players of the calibre of Wayne Rooney, Paul Gasciogne and George Best would still have happened even with my draconian rules in place! What just might happen is we will stop the headlong rush into oblivion that money, big business and all-round greed that football is diving into: - (my prediction - by 2012 Manchester United will carry a sponsor’s name in their title and by 2015 will be playing out of Dubai.). OK, here we go:

1) All clubs allowed only one (1) overseas player at any one time on their first team and only a maximum of two overseas players in the squad. These overseas players can only be on contract for two years maximum before they have to be released and replaced.

Don’t know about you, but I’m sick of watching a football team from, well, anywhere really, that professes to be the team of some Town-City-Wanderers- Albion-Palace but where I can’t pronounce a quarter of the names of the team.

2) The rest of the squad to be made up of players drawn only from the county in which the club’s home ground is situated. If there are more than two clubs in any one county, then a player who is desired by more than one club has to go to the club closest to his home address for the first three years of his contract. After this he can choose which “county” team he plays for.

This will be a real step forward in encouraging English talent, of giving local youngsters a real opportunity to play first-class football for their team.

3) All wages to be level and equal across the board in all clubs and should reflect the wage levels present year-on-year in the country

We are striving to get the same level playing field system as far as pay and conditions are concerned in all aspects of work. The usual measure is equal pay for equal work. Well, they all play football, don’t they? At present the average weekly wage is £489. Not satisfied with the wage? Don’t play then. I am constantly told that the opportunity to play for your home team is payment enough and a real privilege; well, you now have that opportunity to prove it, and the wage level of £489 is a very decent weekly pay-packet too.

4) All advertising in and around football grounds to be stopped. No rolling signs, scrolling signs, billboard signs, or flags with signs on either in or around the bloody pitch.

Trying to watch a football on the T.V. is now an ocular challenge as the ball and players are continually lost in the fog of revolving adverts around the boards at pitch level.

5) No player to receive any pay for any product endorsement, direct or indirect. No walls of advertising behind T.V. interviews and definitely an immediate end to the wearing of those stupid baseball caps with a peak the size of a pelican’s bill and carrying an advert for some electronics company, Viagra manufacturer or alcohol brand. (Cricket and motor racing will also be included in this blanket-ban.....oh, and tennis players too; let it be known, THEY DO NOT DRINK CUPS OF COCA-COLA IN BETWEEN GAMES OR SETS; TRUST ME, I KNOW THIS FOR A FACT).

Responsible, truthful, honest, selected product endorsement will be allowed, but only such products as are used by the club in the pursuit of their business. 70% of the paid money for such advertising is to be ploughed straight back into the club and its facilities. The other 30% of all such monies is to be used to train and nurture young talent through the setting up of a Schools Training Scheme and out-of-school clubs and practice pitches. All such money spent this way is not subject to any tax.

6) A blanket ban on individual ownership of any club in any division.

Football club ownership to be divided 5 ways; 1) 50% to registered fans distributed through the registered supporters club by means of a subscription that gains the supporter a given number of shares and voting rights and an opportunity to buy further shares should they be released for sale in order to raise further funds. These shares are owned by the named individual and will be listed as “Family Shareholdings” and, as such are the total amount allowed to be held by any one family. No “Family” to hold more than 5% of the whole share issue available to that group; 2) 25% owned by playing/ground staff but no individual player or ground staffer to hold more than 5% of the whole share issue available to that group: 3) 10% owned by local business but no individual business to hold more than 5% of the whole share issue available to that group; 4) 10% to single individual ownership outside of the above categories but no individual to hold more than 5% of the whole share issue available to that group: 5) 5% to local schools but no individual school to hold more than 5% of the whole share issue available to that group.


Anyone found in breach of these share division rulings to be banned for life from the home ground and to be placed in the stocks every Saturday afternoon for a month, then, on completion of their stock-locking ordeal, be dragged by ten horses through the city streets, tied to a gun carriage wheel, have sixteen lashes with a bullwhip and have raw salt rubbed into the wounds.


n.b. All shareholders must return their share holding back to the club if they leave or are dismissed from the club and these shares are then offered for sale to interested club parties (subject to the above levels of holding). Any money made on these shares is to be given over to the individual who placed them in the “for sale” box, whether they leave of their own volition or not, unless criminal proceedings ensue, in which case the club gets all profits and such profit is added to the “Football Educational Funding” kitty.

7) Football strips to revert to the original strip that the various clubs first started out with when they joined a league. Home and away football strip to be exactly the same and remain unchanged throughout the team’s existence. If there is sufficient similarity between strips of competing teams then the oldest club will be allowed to maintain their strip and the other team required to find a new strip that is different to all others.

These strips will only be allowed to carry the player’s name and number on the back and the name of the club they play for on the front. No “Sponsor’s Message” allowed to adorn the chests of any player or official and none of those stupid fuckin’ baseball caps with a peak the size of a pelican’s bill...oh, I’ve done that before; sorry...

8) All areas of the ground to be seated and mixed in gender, age and supporter use.

As in our House of Commons pairing system for votes, all away supporters attending a ground will be required to have a home supporter vouch and sign for them to ensure good behaviour on both sides, and that home supporter be responsible for that away fan throughout the away fan’s time in the city or town of the football ground they are attending. This will be a requirement before a ticket for an away game can be purchased by an away fan.

9) Behaviour of a violent, insulting or socially obnoxious nature will be dealt with by the authorities in charge of the town, city or other urban environment where the game takes place.

Each town/city will supply and build a one acre, metal-fence-surrounded, holding pen at some point within the city/town limits (funds for this construction cost divided four ways: 30% from the club, 25% from the Police, 25% from the local council and 20% from local business). Any violence, racist behaviour, obscene chanting or the selling of weak Bovril will cause the match to be halted whilst those perpetrators are removed from the ground. All fans removed for such behaviour, along with the home or away supporter paired with them (see 8 above) will be incarcerated in the holding pen until they are claimed by their parents or other family member who will have to pay a fine of £200 before release can be effected. If no one comes forward to claim the miscreant then they become the property of the city/town to use as they see fit until such collection and fine payment has been made. After a period of six months, any unclaimed miscreant can be sold on the open market to the highest bidder.


n.b. If, due to bad behaviour, any match runs more than four hours long then that match will be deemed abandoned, no points given to either club, and a fine/levy of 50% of that match’s gate receipts, split 50/50 and to go direct to the council and police force taken.

10) On payment of an agreed fee to the given club, all football clubs will have at least one match televised during the season and no team shall be allowed to have more than two matches televised in any one season (not including international matches).

All money gathered from the televising of any football match will go into a central pool and be divided as follows: 50% to go direct to the participating clubs and split 50/50. 40% to pay for a newly formed, football ruling body (all twelve members of such ruling body to be on an “unpaid-expenses only” 2 year contract and selected by ballot and in equal parts from players, supporters and ground staff). 10% to be added to a “National Football Programme” for the promotion of fairness and sportsmanship within the game.

That’s it. Problem solved....along with how to gather Unicorn sweat and how to educate Leprechauns......... Oh, and whoever invented round shoe-laces should be strangled with a pair of them. Byee!

Education, Education, Education.....

Now there’s a revelation; that those people from better off families and schools stand a greater chance of getting a job in the upper echelons of employment (banker, lawyer, doctor, etc) and thereby better pay and conditions because of ‘who’ and not ‘what’ they know! Well, bugger me! Who’d’ve thought it, eh? This has been reported as a lead article on the national radio and press bulletins on 21st/22nd July (OK, OK, I'm late; so sue me) and I’m left wondering, “Where the hell have you lot been for the last millennia?” I knew this, and I’ll bet a pound-to-pinch-of-cow-poo that you did to, so how come those folk who are supposed to be on the cutting edge of social comment think this is news? Any village idiot, discharged because they broke the regulation brain-cell quota of one by fifty percent could have told them that this is how the world works, has done, indeed, since Humgph-the-Thug, that well known Cro-Magnon cheerleader who, from the doorstep of his rain-soaked, shit-stained cave, championed the demand for what passed as civic amenities in those days to include larger clubs for anyone whose name began with a grunt, but a cessation of the supply of these said ‘persuaders’ to anyone outside of his own family unit.
For those who need further help in deciphering this seemingly revelatory statement, let’s try and spell it out with a series of statements and a few non-rhetorical questions, shall we?

1) Education: - The reason there is a two-tier education system in this country is so that the “gentleman’s club” ethos that so pervades much of our upper class adult groupings can be instilled at an early age. It allows the children (whether they are gifted or as thick as a Norman fort wall) of the upper classes to mix with those of a similar background. It is here that friendships are forged (some being forged with more questionable methods than others) so that when, in later years, these young gentlemen seek gainful employment, they will be able to go to those who were “in the class of 69” and, through their reminiscences, rekindle the ties that bind all the members of the ruling class (i.e. ‘them’….). This education system lays the foundations for the “right sort” to be included in the right ranks and continuation of the status quo by the right sort of people.

1a) The reason there is no official inspection of public schools (there’s a misnomer if ever there was one; the first example of successful spin right there, my friend) I repeat, the reason there is no official inspection of public schools is because they are beyond and above the laws laid down for the proletariat. Whoever could even consider a less than perfect education being doled out by an establishment whose pupils had been drawn from the highest in the land; only a fool, and there are no fools in the upper societal echelons, are there? How dare anyone even suggest they should be inspected? These are your betters being educated here, and they know that a degree in classics is the ideal preparation for a lifetime in government in charge of the Work and Pensions Department or the Department for the Environment. Knowing that Gaia and Uranos “got it together” to give us Zeus, Poseidon, Hades and all those other gods is an excellent grounding for being able to decide what is a liveable income for ‘the workers’…..and when you are expected to survive on the parlous wage of £45k p.a., well, one has an ideal understanding of what deprivation is, hm?

1b) The disparity between the holiday dates of public schools and the comprehensive scholars wasn’t decided on a whim. It was a deliberate choice so that the children of the chosen wouldn’t have to rub cheeks with the filthy, ragamuffin urchins spawned by the workers. It was so the beaches remained clear of crowds and the seas remained pristine and grubby-knee free. At no time has this become more important than today, when the proletariat have got a little more wealthy (due, no doubt, to them having larger families so they could either sell their offspring or send them out into prostitution). Now the ski-slopes of Canada and the Alps, the beaches of Bora-Bora and the Seychelles are within their reach, heaven forbid, and so the holiday discrepancy is even more important.

1c) Why... (you will have noticed that there are no other numbers but 1 being listed here….I think we know why?) why is there a different, strict dress code for all the many and various get-togethers our ruling elite? Could it be because this is they way they can sort the sheep from the goats, “at a glance”? I mean, how many of you reading this column (?!?!?!?!) own morning dress, white-tie or black-tie? And make no mistake, they can tell “hired” from “owned” at fifty paces, trust me, I know. There’s something in the way a gentleman wears his Gestapo outfit that just shines through, something in their swagger that sets him or her apart from the common herd, and declares “Yes, this is mine. I own it.....and you…..”

1d) Just as street language marks out, in their eyes, the fallen amongst us, so the clipped tones, elongated vowels and chinless guffaw marks out the risen amongst us. Just as street knowledge marks out for the majority of the coal-in-the-bath population, they believe, the easiest car to nick and the easiest mark to hit, so they know instinctively how many glasses of champagne one gets out of a jeroboam and which trader is as bent as them and so will feed them the information they need in order to make a killing on the stocks.

The subtle difference between these seemingly reflective lifestyles, where each is geared up to cope with its own circumstance, is that those of the street-class have it instilled into them from birth that the foundation of second-rate education they enjoy is provided by Ronald McDonald or Cadbury Schweppes or Coca-Cola and is built on the whim of their rulers; and the ruling class have it instilled into them from birth that this is their right. That they can demand sacrifice from all but themselves and that they have the power, through their close-knit and expensive education and their ‘friendship portfolio’, to be able to make, break and preside over the rules that govern us all.

My son repeated to me a line from “Boyz in the ‘Hood”, a film I’ve not yet seen due to the fact that I’ve a list of about five hundred that I know I ought to see, but most of which I know I’ll never get round to because, a) I have to earn a living for most of the hours of the day, b) that I’m 62….or is it 61….?....anyhow, it’s my birthday today and I’m a year older than yesterday and so am even more aware that I have a rapidly diminishing time-span here on this planet, and that c) I’m trying to get the next novel written (and I trust you've all bought your copy of Ladies of the Shire ? If not, why not and see me, 09.00, in my office with a full and detailed, written explanation, and where I'll repeat the website address to you until you fall over with fatigue www.peter-webb.com ) so, I'm trying to get the next novel, The Quarry, written and other things apart from movie-watching are distracting me as it is. Anyhow, for those who’ve seen it (and I guess I’ll get a flood of replies telling me I’ve misquoted it…..) the father says to the two sons,
“Why is there a gun store on the corner of every street in Detroit and not a hospital? I tell you why, because they want us to kill each other.”
Sort of shrinks all that hogwash I’ve written above into a succinct one liner, but I’d just like to say that…well, I agree….. Night X!

Russian Saying - "Where there's a trough there'll be swine"

Well then, here we are then…!...bet you all thought I’d left the country; no? Oh well, I’ve not. I’ve been very busy finishing off that novel I always promised I’d write…….no, honest, I mean I have been writing that novel I always promised to write. It’s called Ladies of the Shire and will available from selected WH Smiths, Waterstone’s, local libraries (for the cheapskates amongst you) and from Amazon, but I’d much rather you purchased it through the website www.peter-webb.com as the profit margin for me is far greater that way! Never one to be backward in coming forward, me. So, you’ll be asking yourselves, what is it that’s dragged this sofa-slopping whinge-box off’f his arse and back into print? Well, bit obvious really. Anyone who’s not been living inside the lower intestine of a whale will be well aware of the tsunami that’s hit our beloved politicians in the good ’ole U of K and, because there’s been a surfeit of bile, invective and vitriol launched their way in the past two weeks, I’d like to offer another angle from which to view the recent events….as if anyone’s interested, Peter.
What’s in store for us is far more than just the resignations of a few dubious spivs in power and I’d like to open up the discussion (Discussion? This is just you spouting off, Peter, with no room for reply….Yes, you’re right; so, sue me or use the reply button) by advancing a belief that I’m sure you all had worked out many days ago. My excuse is that we’ve had a lot on at the theatre where I work recently. We had our hands full with a large in/out of a national drama production (so a gang of thesps doing their best to convince us they really are “so terribly tired doing two shows a day” and how hard they work in their chosen profession…oh yeah? Like, in relation to what? Diamond miners in Africa….swift-nest gatherers in China….rice planters in Vietnam….? Tell me about it, I’m really interested, y’ know?….) then a collaborative opera show with a cast of 200 (so a gaggle of opera singers rushing out of the rehearsal room in a flurry of crinolines and talcum powder ‘Because I can’t possibly concentrate on this VERY demanding role whilst I think I can hear the hum from a fridge two blocks away’…. It’s only thing that’s in tune, pal, trust me) and then, joy-of-joys, ballet (a throng of twirlies wanting the stage to rehearse on 24/7…Have y’ not learnt it yet then?...and every theatre space heated to 500 degrees) so I had enough to occupy my mind (it's a very small one, you understand, so it doesn't take much).
So, back to these thieving rich-folk. We’re all aware that they’ve been on the make (we now have it confirmed) for years, and it’s a given that those who’ve been caught with their hands in the cookie-jar have a level of moral fibre and social conscience that would be put to shame by Cro-Magnon man. We’ve listened to their excuses (there’s not a single one of them that, as far as they’re concerned, has done ANYTHING wrong; like every inmate in every prison in the world - including Shawshanks - they’re all innocent). Now we get the reasons; “I’m doing this to spare my family from the media intrusion.” or “I’m doing this to spend more time with my family”. Trust me, they can see the bullet coming and they want to be able to say to their respective, forthcoming employers (and there’ll be lots, trust me) that they weren’t sacked, they retired with good grace. For these politicians to say these things only makes them look more ridiculous in the eyes of the public, to rob the finances because you’re a dim-wit is one thing, but these are the folk who’re supposed to be intelligent, cutting edge, shaping our world, looking after our interests etc…..Christ, you’ve all heard it so many times before….. So, cut to the chase.
We know that to become a politician opens up all sorts of doors to the undeserving. Do you know the very first thing Duff-Cooper’s best friend said to him when he (Duff-Cooper) told him he was going to become a politician? Was it, 1) “You’ll be able to represent your constituency and improve their lot”? No. 2) “The country needs men like you to fight the battles for those who cannot defend themselves”? Nope. 3) “Excellent idea, Duff, you can make a lot of money in politics, directorships and such”? You betcha! So having had confirmed what we all knew to be true what’s the deal with the fallout? Well, gather round my little ones and I’ll tell y’. The politicians are poorly paid (£64Kp.a. ….shit money, that) and so many of them, in order to make ends meet are forced to systematically plunder the country’s coffers and take on other employment too. Must be a real bugger to have to do all this extra stuff….poor sods. For their pains, they’re the CEO’s, non-executive directors, chairmen, lobbyists, board members of all the multi-nationals, conglomerates and big businesses operating in the world today. Now, we are fully aware that they are without scruple and vision when it comes to operating in their political career, so it stands to reason that this is exactly the way they’ll operate in their business; without honesty, scruple or fairness. So, when it comes to who shall get arms, medicine, food, water, nuclear technology, all the big things that will become more and more important as this world bulges with population and the available land to support it, they’ll be the ones to cast their vote for……?
Don’t know ‘bout you, but there’s no way in this world or the next that I’d want these moral degenerates operating claims of conscience in my name. They’d sell their grannies for a shilling and, as we’ve seen in the behaviour of those who have stood down so far, they’ll stop at nothing to shift the blame and invent excuses for their lamentable consciences. These people, these ex-politicians that gain so much by being of the ruling elite will sign up to anything just so they can open up three bottles of port instead of two, they’ll use up all the earth’s resources and destroy anyone in their path (such a pleasure to hear that, at last, Dutch Shell are being hauled into court to answer the charges surrounding the murder of Ken Saro Wiwa…..but watch them fight it; it’ll not be a pretty sight….and keep a careful eye on the witnesses) they’ll use up all the earth’s resources just so they can have nine homes not eight, they’ll give out the free smokes to third-world peoples, thereby creating a power-base of third-world people with first class cancer, just so they can keep their BAT shares dealing at a high, they’ll invent reasons for a war and prosecute it in defiance off all the truths and public outcry….. The way they’ve behaved in the spotlight of politics will be as nothing to the way they’ll behave in the shadows of big business. Be afraid, be very afraid.

Thank God for William Hague!

After a period of time you get immune to it or at least sufficiently anaesthetised so the stuff that flows from the political front washes over you. I guess it’s the upshot of the lethargy you get after a prolonged shout at the radio………or is it just me? There’s every chance I’ve been labouring under the misapprehension that I was just one in a million who practised this activity………? Your silence is deafening; so, just me then. OK, well, after a bout of these lungular exercises, I get to a point where I think, “Oh, fuck it, no one’s listening anyhow. Nothing changes, nothing becomes better; I’ll be off and play with the train-set.” Then just when I’ve lost the will to convince, along comes William Hague, again, and I revisit the reasons why I write these things to cyber-space.

I suppose I was given something of a fillip when I read Howard Jacobson’s column in the Saturday ‘Independent’ last week. He was espousing a level of punishment for car-driving-stupidity that I wrote about in some great detail about two years ago. Admittedly my rant was about those toss-pot, wankers-with-the-tankers who front “Top Gear” and the lifestyle they inveigle us all to join which seems to revolve around cutting up cars, crashing cars, skidding cars around race-tracks and getting something called “A Stick” to drive them at regular intervals as fast as possible………oh, and involving the one thing that Britain leads the world in producing, air-head celebrities, in the highly innovative pastime of driving a saloon car round the same track as fast as possible (opportunity going begging for a brake expert to do some serious fluid tampering, methinks). Anyhow, Mr Jacobson had arrived at a level of punishments that, if he hadn’t read my Blog, then he’d either conversed with someone who had, or I’ve been the victim of telepathic robbery as our thought processes were remarkably similar; but just remember, you read it here first. Well, I thought, so my nocturnal and sporadic scribing is being read by someone, so I’ll continue on then.

So, there I am, channel-hopping, as you do at 22.30 when you’ve just got in from work, have sat down with a mug of tea and are desperately trying to find something, anything, that doesn’t have twenty-two gob-joys booting a pig’s scrotum around a sheet of grass, when I logged on to a discussion concerning a new film, “This Is England”. Don’t know a lot about it as it’s only just been released in t U.K., although there’s been a fair bit of Pre-Release Placement (nice bit of industry jargon for you there) over the last few days. What I can say? Well, from the chat they had with the film’s director on this programme the movie revolves around a Northern-English working town and its resident skinhead population during the late 1970’s early 1980’s. Anyone who knows about this time in our “Green and Pleasant Land” will know this was the time of the Falklands War, Margaret Thatcher and the union problems.

I have to admit that I’m not a big fan of “drama with gritty realism”. We get so much of it on English T.V. these days; soaps (Eastenders, Coronation Street, The Bill) and drama series (Shameless, Sugar Rush and countless other copies) that the palate gets jaded, provided, that is, you could be arsed to watch any of them in the first instance. Those who peddle these programmes will tell us this is real life (not it isn’t, you’re dramatising something from real life; making money off the backs of those who live it) that the great divide between rich and poor is still chasmic (yes, and the money you get from making these series' puts you in which bracket, exactly?) that there are constant and thriving pockets of depravation, brutality, child molestation, prostitution murder and mayhem (yes, I know there are, but I don’t need to be shown these things masking themselves under the cloak of ‘entertainment’. I can read about the real thing, every day, in the newspapers).

I figure the people involved in these programmes all slope off to their Highgate Hovels at the end of a gruelling days filming (gruelling as opposed to……what exactly? Mining for gold in South Africa……no…er……mining for coal in China……er…no…shovelling dung from the desert floor in order to get a fire started before you have to walk the six miles to the nearest well in order to cook the grubs you’ve just dug up which do a poor job of masquerading as this weeks’ “meat meal”…yeah, gruelling, right) and, like eating the testicles of your slain enemy to gain their power and masculinity, they garner their reputations off this dabbling in what they call “the cutting edge” of “gritty drama”…………………sorry, I digress, as usual.

So, there we are discussing this film and who should put in his twopenn’orth but our old mate, William Hague. When asked if he remembers those times (Thatcher, the 70’s and 80’s) he says something along the lines of, “Yes, they were times of great hardship" (not for Hague, Tahtcher and the rewst of her oily government, I'll betcha!) "and Margaret Thatcher was an unpopular leader" (you got that fucker right, Bill!) " but these things had to be changed; we had to improve things………” And that was the tinderbox for this latest tirade.

Only a politician, and probably only a Conservative politician, could brush over that period as “necessary”, try to tell us that what followed was “OK” and that what we have now is “better”. Here was a man allied to a leader who destroyed families, community and hope; a man allied to a government who gifted the Conservative Party business cronies the freedom to take over public companies, run them into the ground, asset-strip them, cut health and safety to the bone, put the public at risk then claim money back from the same government to put the faults they’d created right. A man allied to a government who’s members (forgive the pun) shagged everything that stood still long enough, robbed pension funds, ran insurance fiddles, lied, cheated and bribed their way through the daily business of government, polluted our environment to a degree never before witnessed (all the time making sure that the perpetrators of these deeds – the Conservative Party bank-rollers - went unpunished) and screwed the health service, the fire service, the ambulance service, the coast-guard and the agricultural industry for every cent it could get......... and do you know what, when he came out with this guff, NO-ONE on that panel discussing that film challenged him!!!!!…………

OK, so what’s the conclusion? What’s the message of hope? Well, I think it would be ideal if, two days before the next general election, Margaret Thatcher keels over ‘cos the dancing in the streets that’ll take place when this happens will put paid to ANY chance of a Conservative victory as, like William Hague did to me the other night, it’ll serve as a timely reminder to populace as to just what we unleash when we get any party that has a pedigree like the one mentioned above back into power………Bugger! I think I’ve just spotted the flaw in the plan; that’ll mean the Labour government will get in again……………fuck it!

Arts funding - the level playing field philosphy of the UK

Blogs penned by me are much like constipation really. You spend hours on the word processor, straining and grunting, the rest of the family believing you’re strangling a wart-hog in there but, try as you will, nothing will shift; then you get a shock to the system and, lo and behold, out comes this torrent of calligraphic diarrhoea and although no-one else can stand the smell you feel so relieved to have got it out. Well, figures published recently provided the enema to release the following blockage.................................

For those unfamiliar with this blogsite of mine (Ha! Who am I kidding, that anyone else reads this?) you may not know that I work in theatre here in the UK; that’s not the place where they cut folk open then realise they can’t get back in what they’ve just hauled out you understand, but the place where show-offs gather to entertain the masses (and I use the word “entertain” in its widest possible sense here). In the UK and for many years, the arts in general and theatre in particular have always struggled to gain realistic funding or real fiscal support that would allow them to provide both secure planning and by that end develop centres of artistic excellence in the provinces. To these venues (and as things so often do when you’re living on low-level hand-outs which are coupled with a limited understanding of your plight by those who have the ability to help out..........mainly because these bestowers of largesse all live in London and consider anything north of Watford and west of Guildford to be "foreign") the wolf doesn’t just come padding up to the door but enters through the cat-flap, shits in your wallet and then sets up home in the fridge.

Due to consistent under-funding, and so in their continuing straightened circumstances, many theatres have had to ask for cash injections, one-off loans and such only to be told by those who have their hands on the purse-strings that they must be able to compete in this theatrical jungle of ours, to stand on their own two feet without bleating constantly for extra funding and, if they can’t 'get their shit together' then they should go under……and many of them have. Various actors have felt obliged to support or even start up “Save Our (fill in your own theatre name here)” movements in order to gain sufficient cash to continue even in the reduced circumstances they find themselves in. Amongst these campaigns have been appeals for theatres and places of entertainment that are steeped in the history of the theatrical tradition. Theatres designed by Frank Macham, stages that Garrick and Tree walked on, venues where groundbreaking theatrical movments started off; places of high cultural, social and historic importance that serve as an important centre for recreation, social intercourse and action for the area they are situated in but who's mistake is not being situated in the right place; namely the 'circle of fame' that is central London. In their efforts to gain funding for these struggling provincial ventures, the begging of support from private individuals and local councils, running benefit shows, raffles and hosting appeals to the general public in order to scrape together the £250,000 or so the venue needs in order to stay open have all been tried.

The same can be said for theatre companies, particularly those in the small-scale sector and even more particularly those companies run by, with reference to and consisting mainly or wholly of Black or Asian members. I’m sure I’ll get a massive postbag (?!) telling me I’m wrong here (hope so.........s'lonely here in cyber-moan-land) and you’ll have to check for yourself but, apart from Talawa Theatre (London-based and didn’t they go through some deep shit to get where they are at present) Red Ladder (Leeds-based) and Tara Arts (London-based……again) I’m not so sure there are many other fully professional, black or Asian theatre companies operating in the UK at present. Black Theatre Co-operative, Temba, African People’s Theatre; I think they’ve all gone by the wayside in this supportive, multi-culturalism land of ours. In fact, I believe I'm right in saying that, for a goodly time in the early '90's' there was no professional , Black or Asian theatre company operating anywhere in the UK (certainly not in the small-scale sector at least) all the funding having been withdrawn to those innovative companies that were in operation over the preceding four or so years.

Almost without exception, venues or companies that are in dire circumstances are provincial (outside London) venues, but even in London there have been some casualties, and many are still struggling to maintain their staff and output, er, unless you happen to be the Royal Opera House (ROH) English National Opera (ENO) or Saddlers' Wells Ballet………………… For these venues and companies there is, for some reason, always a ready pot of money to be dished out as soon as the accountants squeal loudly enough; and we’re not talking a piddling £250,000 here, we’re talking millions……………and millions………and millions……. The ROH had a grant of £24.9 million in 2003 and the ENO, after a £41 million refit and an annual subsidy of £13 million had to be bailed out in 2005 with a further £10 million; think that’s a lot; read on. The ROH was only saved from bankruptcy with an increase in their subsidy of £5 million and the ENO has been bailed out (again) with a further £20 million emergency grant (and even then they cut 45 jobs) and is hoping that the Arts Council will bail it out yet again this year after a further £4 million was handed over to stop it going into receivership. Add up those figures; look at the state of regional theatre in the UK today................... then re-read ‘em and weep. Now, you may think I'm being too focused in naming the names above, that it should also be pointed out that, with the Barbican as a multi-function venue in the heart of London, the spending of a further £111 million on building the South Bank Centre, a multi function venue in the heart of London (is there an echo in here?) also deserves mention; well there it is, and yes, it does puzzle somewhat........................ Sorry, I digress; you will be forgiven for thinking, “Well, how the hell does this state of affairs whereby a bottomless pit exists for some but not others not only happen but continue to happen?” For this you have to understand how the large arts and cultural institutions are run in this country.

When you or I go for a job, an interview process is undertaken in order to ascertain just what our qualifications are; you know, a process designed to find out whether the all-pervading smell of livestock emanating from your application form really is caused by the fact that you live on farm. So, for argument's sake, let's say you do live on farm and are well qualified in the raising of various stock. Fed up with spending most of your day knee-deep in animal excrement and elbow-deep in the various orifices of sick or pregnant beasts, you've decided on a change of direction. Armed with your lifetime's experience on the farm (which is part of the food industry, it has to be said) your three GCSE's and a letter of commendation from your scoutmaster (which states that you once rubbed two boy-scouts together and started a small blaze) you've answered an advert asking for likely candidates to apply for the post of supermarket manager. On this auspicious day, and for a reason known only to the psychologically sick and which requires a deal of fluke and blindness yet to be encountered since Peter Mandelson or Cecil Parkinson were invited back into goverment following various positions of disgrace, you've been asked for an interview at that said supermarket; what chance do you think you'd stand? For reasons laid out below, I'd venture to suggest a lot less than those in similar circumstances but having one of the three listed requirements who are applying for employment within either a government department or in one of the London-centric bastions of the arts, my friend; lets lay it out simply, huh?

Within our government for instance (and yours too, probably) someone can have absolutley no knowledge of, say, theatre, or dance, or how an art gallery is run, beyond the fact that they once went to a play (well, a pantomime anyhow......when they were three) have seen an Andy Wharhol print of a Marylin Monroe original (not the real thing, you understand, but in a book somewhere or other) and attended tap lessons when they were five or six (but gave up after three weeks because it scuffed their new shoes) and yet, simply because they are in government and have happened to be on the right side of the leader of their party, be promoted to Minister for the Arts and Culture. Clearly stated for the mesmerised amongst you, this gives them overall control of all institutions and centres of artistic endeavour; the true culmination of power without knowledge. Crazy, I know, to all but the most perverted or the most stupid, I mean would you give control of a fully armed fighter jet to someone who lent you fiver when you were broke and once flew model aircraft in the local park? How this happens will be explained a little further below, but bear with me for a little longer in order to gain the fuller picture, OK? Now, back to the running of the arts in this country and of the so-called "flagship" venues (their description, not mine) in the UK.

To gain a position of board membership on any of the aforementioned performance venues or on the national council that handles the cash and decides who should get it, how much and how often, indeed, to gain even just entry into the inner sanctum of these "areas of artistic excellence" (their description, not mine) and through this a chance to move on up to C.E.O. of an arts institution you have to have one of four things. Either, 1) The ability, if you wished to commit suicide, of completing this task by jumping off your wallet, or, 2) A uniform of some sort coupled with an ability to shout at new recruits or, 3) To have no chin but an ancestry that goes back forever or, 4) Be able to dress white tie without hiring in. No expertise needed in any of the arts disciplines, just one of the four above.....this is your job interview.

So how come, in this climate of struggling provincial theatre and theatrical production, and if there are these continued fuck-ups of monumental proportions with monotonous regularity requiring the monumental payouts mentioned above, is there this seemingly bottomless well for these “premier” (their description not mine) arts venues and companies? Jesus, come on, pay attention; in any democracy, those who make the laws that govern us also adminsiter them. Their desire to visit the domiciles of the proletariat who, as far as they are concerned still live in dung huts and think art has a letter missing, is as eagerly sought out as would be their drink of a bucket of warm faeces; strange when most of them live in what many consider to be the arsehole of England but there we are, all things are relative. So, with this as their guiding principle, it's fairly obvious that most provincial theatres will continue to struggle; will continue to have to hold a bring-and-buy sale of second-hand clothes every other week in order to maintain their mission of bringing entertainment to the masses in anything like safe conditions, whilst those who insist on buying their chorus 'Armani' suits for the next production of 'Aida' because, for some twisted reason, they think the production will suffer for it if they don't (on a personal note here, my old adage that, "if the audience are looking at the cut of the cloth then the production's a flop", fits this one as well as many others). These institutions will continue to cream off a casual £10 million whenever the fancy takes them for no other reason than they can, and meanwhile those other purveyors of the arts, the ethnic or groundbreaking, the provincial or small-scale players in the game will have to fight and squabble for the crumbs from the big-boy's table................... Does my working-class mentality show in this? Probably; just put it down to a lifetime of watching our inequalities in the arts keep our challeprovincial theatre in its place and pay it scant attention, after all the Arts Council have made a career out of it………………………Now, just ask yourself again why the ROH, ENO and Saddlers Wells keep getting in to deep shit and why, fortuitoulsy, they manage to keep getting bailed out; all becoming clear now? Good.