Scribblings VI: Old lags, metaphysics, arts funding, pubs and public health

Trying to keep up with assorted Scribblers is challenging and this is a selection that tries to avoid stuff about the US Presidential Elections, Brexit and the leadership of the Labour Party. Not that these things are unimportant but that they've a tendency to crowd out other stuff that's just as interesting (and maybe important).

On the latter point, this post from Anna Raccoon is definitely important - what do we do with elderly and ill (even terminally ill) prisoners?

The number of older prisoners in the UK has more than doubled in the last decade, with the greatest increases amongst those over 70. Around 40% of older prisoners are sex offenders, many of whom are in prison for the first time due to historic abuse. Longer sentences and more stringent release criteria mean that increasing numbers of ‘anticipated deaths’ in prison are predicted.

Fascinating - especially the issues with painkilling drugs (most of which are, from a different angle, narcotics).

Meanwhile the Flaxen Saxon is getting all metaphysical:

Philosophers as far back as Plato (see the allegory of the cave) have reasoned that what we perceive is not reality. With the advent of computers and especially the stupendous increase in computing power, we have to ask ourselves- are we part of a huge computer simulation? Sounds ludicrous, doesn't it? Perhaps, but there are serious professional physicists and philosophers out there who consider the concept not only plausible, but likely. And no, these folk are not inmates of a secure mental health facility, they are, in the main, tenured academics.

As I commented on the blog - all reminds me of Brian Aldiss's 'Report on Probability A'. Which rather takes us to that age old question as to whether we can, in the manner of Azimov's 'psychohistory' break everything down into equations, algorithms and metrics. As Demetrius asks in talking about arts funding:

So many of us ask for the arts to have some funding and support to ensure their survival and continuance in a difficult world. Now it seems that this can only be if extensive management is applied to the distribution and assessment of those which are being assisted.

Having just re-read Yevgeny Zamyatin's 'We' (written in 1921 as a critique of Taylorism but banned by the Soviets as it applies as well to Scientific Marxism) it's clear that this breaking down of everything into numbers and measurements remains a challenge to civilisation.

Indeed there's a part of this problem displayed in the endeavours of public health to use science to promote their rather joyless ideology of wellbeing. And both Frank Davis and Paul Barnes pick up on this. First Paul on Stop Smoking Services (SSS) and e-cigs:

This is where I begin to have a niggly problem with SSS. I don’t knock the work they do, but nine times out of ten when a positive article appears in the press there is always this cessation approach – the “they can help you quit smoking” – type line. Broadly speaking that statement is true, but e-cigarettes are substantially more than just a bloody quit aid.

And Frank on 'junk food':

My conclusion is that “junk food” is perfectly good food, but “disapproved food”. It’s food that’s been labelled as “junk”, and most likely libelled as “junk”. And there is no rhyme or reason for this disapproval, much like there is no rhyme or reason for the disapproval of everything else the disapprovers disapprove.

Only approved pleasures are allowed, citizen!

But we like pubs, of course. Pubs are about community - wholesome, clean, caring community. And we should save them. Old Mudgie takes issue with this simple mantra as promoted by Greg Mulholland MP:

Now, I recognise that pubs can have a value as community resources that transcends narrow financial considerations, and that ACV listings, if properly applied, can give them a valuable stay of execution if they are threatened. I’d also support pubs being given protection from being turned into shops or offices without needing planning permission, subject to a reasonable minimum time limit of trading as pub.

But it has to be accepted that society changes and moves on over time, and that most of the current issues around planning and redevelopment are symptoms of the general decline in the demand for pubs, not its cause.

The idea - as Mulholland has promoted in Otley - that every single pub (there are over 20 in Otley) merits protection is hard to defend. Helping locals save the only village pub is a great idea but using planning and regulation as a stick to beat PubCos really won't work if the pub isn't viable in the first place.

Perhaps, if we're concerned about community, we need to ask about how councils, police and fire services are stopping local events unless they pay up or provide their own security (at great cost). Here's Julia:

So....what's happened here is the council get to shrug their shoulders and say 'Toree cutz, mate, innit?' Because that's easier than changing the event into something more manageable.

....

Disappointment. Or how Bradford Council gave up the fight over the Royal Photography Society collection.

****


Yesterday Bradford Council met and, amongst some other stuff, debated what has gone on with the National Media Museum through a motion I proposed asking the Council to, in effect, keep up the pressure on assorted London-based government agencies and ministers over the transfer of the Royal Photography Society collection from Bradford to the Victoria & Albert Museum. Our motion was amended by the Council's Portfolio Holder for (amongst other things) culture, Susan Hinchcliffe, and this amendment was passed.

In the end the debate was a little ill-tempered - not because of my speech but because of Cllr Hinchcliffe's attempt to turn it into a piece of party political yah boo. In summary I argued that the anger in Bradford - and elsewhere - over the manner of the Science Museum Group's decision needs channelling to the wider subject of how it is assumed that any new national institution has to be in London. And that it's our duty as the ninety people elected to represent the half million Bradford residents to lead the charge - however quixotic that charge might be. Oh, and that there are a lot of pretty angry folk out there.

Cllr Hinchcliffe saw things differently. She said she had acted - mostly by writing a letter and having a meeting. The museum was saved. Visitor numbers were up. And who wants a bunch of silly photographs anyway when we'll have lots of lovely sciencey stuff. Then came the crass party politics - apparently I hadn't done anything really and 'the Tories' probably had an ulterior motive about doing down the Council. Bear in mind that this ridiculous attack came after I'd praised one of Bradford's Labour MPs for her efforts and criticised the Secretary of State for Culture for describing the National Media Museum as a 'satellite'.

The result of all this - plus the tribal nature of voting on Council - means that the Council has made an expression of regret at the Science Museum's decision, committed itself to support the museum's new focus and undertaken to write a stern letter to the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport saying how jolly bad it is that so much arts funding goes to London. The idea of a cross-party campaign to persuade the V&A to base a new centre for art in photography here in Bradford was lost. And it was lost because of a crass piece of party politics - plus a huge piece of self-justification - by Cllr Hinchcliffe.

Perhaps I was a little bit naive in believing that the Council - which sort of knew about the possible RPS decision a year ago - would commit itself to a campaign that set it at loggerheads with the Science Museum Group. But I still think I was right to make the noise I made - as Councillors we're not elected to act as local agents for national government, even the cuddly bits like the national museum groups. Yet this is how Bradford Council seems to want to behave.

I am, as they say, disappointed.

....

Migrants on benefits, mosquitoes, arts funding and other links you'll like

Spooky Bradford

"I didn't even know I could get benefits" - a reality check on migrants and the benefits system

“And actually it doesn’t bother me, all this immigration debate. I’m too busy. I work full time; I have three kids. But nobody I know came here for benefits and I don’t think not getting them will stop anyone coming. Maybe one or two. There’s always someone. But I know many, many more British people who live on benefits than east Europeans.”

****

Kill all the mosquitoes

"Mosquitoes spread Malaria, Chikungunya, Dengue Fever, Yellow Fever, a variety of forms of encephalitis (Eastern Equine Encephalitis, St. Louis Encephalitis, LaCrosse Encephalitis, Japanese encephalitis, Western Equine Encephalitis, and others), West Nile virus, Rift Valley Fever, Elephantiasis, Epidemic Polyarthritis, Ross River Fever, Bwamba fever, and dozens more."

So exterminate them - all of them

****

So you don't do politics? Think again.

"Politics is omnipresent wherever humans negotiate over power and governance. We speak of “office politics” or “university politics,” and those phrases are not mere metaphors. Our negotiations with friends are a form of politics as well, as we figure out where to go out to eat or what show to see. Our romantic and familial relationships are full of similar negotiations about language, persuasion, power, and mutual consent. To say we “don’t do politics” is to have a narrow notion, in Ostrom’s view, of what constitutes being a citizen in a society where democracy is a feature of so many institutions."

****

Virtue signalling as conspicuous consumption.

"Rather than trying to one-up one another by buying Bentleys, Rolexes and fur coats, the modern social climber is more likely to try and show their ‘authenticity’ with virtue signalling by having the correct opinions on music and politics and making sure their coffee is sourced ethically, the research says."

...interesting and challenging

****

Nothing new about retailing as performance (ask any market trader) - and it's back...

One of the key themes emerging from the presentations was that creating face-to-face customer experiences is vital to retailers not only because of the value to audiences in-store but also because of the huge value of customers sharing their experience across social media platforms. Sophie Turton from eConsultancy, who spoke at one of the learning talks, noted that:

“Instead of creating content, retailers should be creating opportunities for content creation – instagrammable moments, inspiring experiences.”

****

The Urbanophile on Charles Taylor's 'A Secular Age'

"The creation of the buffered self had consequences, however. By disconnecting us from the world, and draining the world of meanings, the buffered self creates a sense of improverished existence. That is to say, it produces the pervasive modern sense of malaise long commented on by Freud and others. But whereas Freud saw malaise as the inevitable byproduct of the sense of guilt necessary to make civilization possible, for Taylor it is rooted specifically in Western modernity’s sense of the buffered self."

Fabulous stuff.

****

And how all the arts funding still goes to London:

The report also highlights that Arts Council England’s decision to move an extra 5% of Lottery funds outside London amounts only to an “improvement outside London of 25p per head”.

Its Rebalancing Our Cultural Capital report in 2013 also claimed that ACE was allocating more than five times as much spending per resident to London organisations as those outside the capital in 2012/13.

Enjoy!!

Brass bands or opera? The tale of arts funding

****

Shipley's MP Phil Davies has highlighted a concern that many of us have raised before - the way in which arts funding is dominated by a limited number of elite arts including opera:

Philip Davies, who sits on Parliament’s Culture, Media and Sport select committee, says he shares concerns that the north is being overlooked for arts funding.

He uncovered figures which show that opera is getting £347.4 million during the five years of the current Parliament, compared to just £1.8 million for brass bands. 

Now much though I like opera, I find this a shockingly disproportionate distribution - assuming we support the idea of government funding for the arts (not everyone does, I know), surely art forms like brass band music deserve a fairer share?

What is more dispiriting is that the Director North for Arts Council England (I note the pretentious styling of the organisation's titles and name) can only parrot the official line from their London press office:

There are valuable and varied accounts of the arts and culture landscape across the country and we hope that the Committee receives a range of submissions that show this diversity of experience and opinion

Wibble. The truth is that the Royal Opera House alone will receive £77.5m in Arts Council grant between 2012 and 2015. As far as I can tell this is significantly more that the entire amount of grant funding given by the Arts Council to Bradford organisations. And it dwarfs support for traditional working class arts like brass band music.

It has long seemed to me that we subsidise art for the wealthy while allowing genuine community arts to wither away for lack of support.

....

Michael Dugher is right - arts funding is elitist

****

Barnsley MP, Michael Dugher has focused our attention on the plight of the Grimethrope Colliery Band - one of the superstars of the brass band world:

Labour MP Michael Dugher said it was “snobbery” that the British Federation of Brass Bands, which supports bands such as Grimethorpe, got just £23,000 last year while the Royal Opera House in London got more than £26million and the English National Ballet was handed more than £6million.

Dugher is right - traditional English arts are a poor relation next to elite international arts. Even when we look at arts funding in the north, we see that it is still skewed towards those same dominating areas: classical music, opera, ballet and theatre.

The problem is that these traditions - and if Dugher thinks brass bands are hard done by take a peek at Morris dancing - are disliked by the arts establishment. In their song 'Roots', Show of Hands make this point:

And a minister said his vision of hell
Is three folk singers in a pub near Wells
Well, I've got a vision of urban sprawl
There's pubs where no-one ever sings at all

Folk music and other arts traditions are disdained by the arts elite. Funding goes to grand and exclusive establishments that make no mark on most of the population. Bands are to be tucked away out of sight brought out only when we want some sort of Northern 'authenticity' - in Bradford we built a new City Centre park. And, in a City that's home to two of the world's best brass bands, we didn't include a bandstand.

While millionaire actors and opera singers strut the subsidised stages of London, the traditional arts of England - choirs, brass bands, dance troupe, folk music - live a hand-to-mouth existence. Arts funding is overwhelmingly spent in London and directed to the preferences and interests of an arts elite rather than the mass of the population.

Michael Dugher is right - arts funding is elitist.

....

The slow death of political parties - perhaps they should try some marketing?

The BBC finally cottoned on to something that some of us have known for ages – political parties are dying out:

Political party membership appears to be in terminal decline in the UK - so can anything be done to reverse the trend? And does it matter?

It was once a source of cultural identity and pride for millions of British people.

But at just over 1% of the population - low by European standards - party membership is fast becoming a minority pursuit.

There are more members of the Caravan Club, or the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, than of all Britain's political parties put together.

The BBC reporter goes on to speculate as to the reasons for this calamitous situation – politics is boring, the rise in ‘individualism’ (pointing oddly at twitter and facebook as evidence of this trend) and the decline of political clubs. What the reporter doesn’t ask – choosing instead to report on the latest round of frantic efforts to get more folk involved from Labour and Conservative Parties - is why?

The problem is pretty simple – only anoraks and the politically ambitious join political parties because these are the only people who get something from membership. When I pay my subscription to the Royal Horticultural Society, I don’t do so in order to attend meetings but in order to get privileged entry to the Society’s gardens and events. This isn’t noble any more that joining the National Trust or RSPB is sold to us as a selfless act.

The problem with political parties is that there is no offer. In times past there was an offer – essentially a well-connected social life. People joined the Conservative Party because it provided a round of dances, parties and sherry mornings. The Young Conservatives (a much better name than the current ultra-naff “Conservative Future”) thrived – becoming Europe’s biggest youth organisation – on this basis.

At a family event a while back – sadly a funeral – I was taken by the extent to which all those attending has made friends, met wives or husbands and developed business contacts through the YCs. The vicar who led the eulogies spoke of being a YC, of borrowing the Mission to Seamen’s van for boozy nights out and of the lasting connections made in those few years. All – or nearly all – this has now gone.

And I’m sure the same goes for the Labour Party.

Despite not having an offer – a reason for someone to pay a chunk of cash to join – the political parties continue to dream that the volunteer-driven, inconsistent and fractious structures of meetings, committees and contradictory bureaucracy will serve to create what Ed Miliband calls (I so love this):

...a modern, outward-looking organisation

While at the same time Ed – seeing the payments to councillors – takes an easy route to raising cash. Introducing a tithe:

A leaked report shows that the Opposition leader plans to force more than 5,000 Labour councillors to hand over seven per cent of their town hall ‘wages’ to stop party coffers running dry.

And Labour’s frontbench team has called for increases in wages paid to councillors, which would benefit the party by resulting in an increase in the value of the new levy.

But before all the Tories out there get excited, we do this too. I pay a proportion of my basic councillor’s allowance to my local association. This is a requirement demanded of me for being permitted to stand as a Conservative and amounts to around £1,000 per year. In addition, I’m expected to pay my own election expenses if I am successful.

And this is the problem. Not that I have to pay but that the leadership of our political parties see public funding as the salvation to the financial woes of those parties and to escaping from the curse of the billionaire – the appearance that very rich men can, and did, effectively buy political parties.

The first front in the desire of political parties to become institutions of the state was the introduction of “Short Money” in the mid 1970s. This seemed a jolly idea – let’s help the opposition work better by giving it, as a political institution, some public money for that purpose. And it is not an insignificant sum of money – in 2009/10 in amounted to nearly £7m. But it acted to show the parties that they could turn to the state to solve their financial woes rather than rasie money the hard way.

And many – building on the creation of a protected legal status for political parties – now argue for direct state funding for political parties. Most notably Sir Hayden Phillips in his 2007 report that followed the “cash for honours” scandal:

In a complex formula to give state aid to parties, which would give a major boost to smaller parties from the Greens to the BNP, the report suggests that funding should be linked to general election votes in order to establish that fringe or new parties have a "base of support in the community". 

It recommends that eligible parties should receive 50p each year for every vote cast for them in the most recent general election and 25p for every vote in the most recent ballots for the Scottish parliament, Welsh assembly and European parliament. 

In addition, Sir Hayden suggests an internet-based system for parties to attract subscribing "supporters", who would pay £5 which would be matched by the same amount from public funds - up to a cap of £5m. 

In return for such public funding - which would replace the small policy grants currently available to parties - political parties would have to produce an annual report showing how the money had been spent. 

Such a system – however much the ‘great and good’ may like it – would represent the death of politics and create parties as clients of state bureaucrats rather than as private, campaigning organisations. Yet that seems the only solution – there isn’t a look across to successful membership organisations asking how they achieve that success.

And it is pretty simple really:

1.  A strong, consistent brand and public offer focused on consumer benefits as well as the wider mission of the organisation.
2. A well-resourced, professional and dedicated marketing operation – not one using the gimmicks of PR but one founded in fundraising, direct marketing and sales
3. Regular and high quality communication with the member, prospective member and supporter – containing offers, incentives and rewards as well as information about the mission and achievements of the organisation

This is why the RSPB, National Trust, Caravan Club and even Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth have succeeded while the political parties decline. It isn’t simply “social change” or other such mumbo-jumbo of an excuse but that political parties in the UK focus on servicing the needs of political elites rather than on developing a public offer giving reason for the ordinary person to join the party.

Nothing will change – the parties will carry on declining, continue to disengage with the public and eventually will take more of the state’s money. At no point will these parties turn to us marketers and ask: “how can we build a membership as big as the RSPBs?”

And that’s a question we can answer.

 ....

If we’re to have bread and circuses – we’ll need some acrobats!

Yesterday two things struck me – as they do sometimes.

The Riverside Studios in Hammersmith and the Derby and Exeter theatres were among the 206 theatre companies, galleries and arts venues who learned yesterday their government grants would dry up in 2012.

Others had their budgets significantly reduced, with the critically acclaimed Almeida Theatre Company in Islington, north London seeing their grant cut from £1 million this year to £700,000 in 2015 – a real terms drop of 39 per cent.

This was amongst announcements about funding from the Arts Council as part of an overall reduction (to £957 million) of 15% in grants to nationally-funded bodies.

At the same time I read this:

“Health experts are trying to see a shift in public eating habits which could add to improved general health. ASK is a unique Greater Manchester initiative to reduce the amount of salt added to food.

“Participating businesses display the ASK logo in their windows and use cards on tables to demonstrate their support. Most food cafes and restaurants already season their food adequately. For customers, reaching for salt has become a habit rather than it being a necessity.”

Now leaving aside the fact that salt does not cause hypertension (it is a risk factor for people who already have hypertension), this encapsulates the priorities of government to me. There may be a case for reducing funding of pleasure, animation and fun in a time of austerity but I am deeply offended when, at the same time as theatres close, art galleries reduce their hours and dance troops fold, we are spending money on scaring people about health risks.

On the back of other attacks on our simple pleasures – fags, booze, red meat, bacon – this speaks to me of a society obsessed with survival at the expense of pleasure. A place where the little tin gods of the medical profession suck up ever larger sums of other peoples’ cash to berate us with their “healthy living” obsessions.

All this while festivals go unfunded, arts groups fold and films aren’t made. A dour, dreary place filled with safety lectures, health concerns and a dread fear of anything that might seem a little untidy.

So here’s a little suggestion – let’s take all the cash we spend on nannying fussbucketry and spend it on having some fun! On plays, paintings, music, country walks, food festivals, markets – on animation and excitement. Surely that would do more to for mental health, for happiness and for health that all these dreary lectures from doctors and their pals.

After all, if we’re to have bread and circuses – we’ll need some acrobats!

....

Some thoughts about arts funding and football

The “cuts” debate has – perhaps unsurprisingly – brought about an agonised response from the arts establishment, the Theatres Trust and an eclectic collection of the cultural great and good who say:

“…to “cut us but don’t kill us,” warning that if belt-tightening was drastic and immediate, museums would cancel blockbuster shows, theaters would go dark, and 200 of 850 state-funded bodies would lose their subsidy.”

The problem is that – unlike other sectors – the lion’s share of arts funding doesn’t go to the grass roots but to the elite establishment run by those whining about how those cuts will damage them. There is no doubt that the way in which we support the arts needs to be changed – elite art should be able to pay its own way, indeed should contribute to the development of new art, the support of emerging artists and the encouragement of audience.

Art – and especially performing art – should learn from another part of our cultural sphere:

The Football Foundation was set up as a partnership to oversee youth development and football at the grassroots. Premier League chairman Dave Richards said: "This is an exciting and important moment for English football. "We have pledged over £7m to the Foundation for the rest of this year and £27.5m each year for three years from 2001 under the terms of the new TV deal - a total investment of almost £90m.”

And that funding continues today backed up by ongoing commitment from the Football Association and the active involvement of individual clubs and players. Without a single penny of taxpayers funding football supports the development and extension of the game.

Why can’t theatre do that? Or opera?

....