Thursday, 6 March 2014

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.

....

It was either this or a red nose...


Via the brilliant Pop-up City we discover that the Finnish Reindeer Herders Association is trying out a new way to reduce the estimated 2000 plus reindeer-related road accidents:

A new experiment involving the protection of free-roaming reindeer may just be inspired by Rudolph’s most virtuous characteristic. The project involves coating reindeer antlers with a specially formulated glow-in-the-dark liquid that aims to reduce reindeer-related traffic accidents.

Does make Rudolf's nose redundant though!

....

Wednesday, 5 March 2014

On the popularity of politics

****

Us politicians like to think that what we do is grabbing the attention of the masses. We kid ourselves that people are actually interested in out rants, ramblings and petty spats. The truth is that people aren't interested - only about 1% of the population joins a political party and perhaps less than 10% is actually interested in politics.

An illustration of this comes from election news aggregator, Electionista, who tweeted the top seven most followed political parties in Europe:
What is interesting here isn't the order but the number of followers - the 'Five Star' movement in Italy is the most followed with 270,000 followers, not surprising for a web-savvy populist movement. For the UK, the two big parties have far fewer - 125,000 for Labour and 104,000 for the Conservatives. To put this in a bit of context here are the seven most followed premier league football teams:

Arsenal 3.56m
Chelsea 3.46m
Liverpool 2.40m
Man United 2.01m
Man City 1.55m
Spurs 775k
Everton 376k

Only two premier league teams have fewer followers than the Conservatives (Crystal Palace and Hull since you ask) add Cardiff City and you have the three teams with fewer followers than Labour. This might not be an entirely fair comparison but it does suggest politics has something of a problem. Or maybe we are a mature enough society not to be all that fussed about the antics of us politicians?

 ....

Tuesday, 4 March 2014

The Chief Medical Officer misleads parliament about sugar and obesity...again

****

This is 'normal service':

She said she believes "the research will find sugar is addictive" and that "we may need to introduce a sugar tax".

I sorry but it simply is not true - not even a tiny little bit - that sugar is addictive. Except in the 'it's very nice and we like to eat it' sense of addiction.  The 'research' as the Chief Medical Officer is already there - lots of it - and it says that sugar isn't addictive. Here's Jan Ulbrecht, associate professor in biobehavioral health and medicine in the College of Health and Human Development at Penn State University arguing that sugar isn't addictive:

"Since the human body does not become physically dependent on sugar the way it does on opiates like morphine and heroin, sugar is not addictive," 

The idea - commonplace amongst the purveyors of New Puritan junk science - is that, because sugar stimulates the brain to produce dopamine in the same way as cocaine therefore it is addictive.

The central issue here, however, isn't about addiction but about obesity - firstly whether we have increasing levels of obesity and secondly whether that obesity is caused by our increasing dependence on sugar.

Both of these things are false.

On the growth in obesity - here's a chart of mean BMI (body mass index) for the UK 1993-2007:

On average we really haven't got much fatter. And we know that childhood obesity is falling something that probably reflects the other unhelpful fact for anti-sugar campaigners - children are consuming less sugar (in every form).

Indeed sugar consumption has fallen - all forms of sugar not merely the white stuff in the sugar bowl but the scary 'hidden sugar' the campaigners keep telling us about. Our consumption of 'non-milk extrinsic sugars' has fallen by more than half since the 1970s and by 10% over the past decade. Sugars now represent about 16% of our total energy intake compare to about a third three decades ago. If there's a single culprit for the increased levels of obesity it isn't sugar. Indeed nothing other than fruit and fruit juices has increased compared to 1970.


So why, given the availability of this real information - that there isn't an 'obesity epidemic' and that sugar consumption has halved - does the Chief Medical Officer make out to MPs that sugar is a problem that requires regulation or a new tax?

....


On being trade...a memory of Penge

****

My mum used to deliver meals-on-wheels in Penge - delivering hot dinners to lots of old people who might otherwise have missed out on a decent meal.

Now, as older residents will know, near the centre of Penge there used to be set of alms houses called the William IV Naval Asylum (know back then as simply 'the naval cottages'). They are described here:

Forming three sides of a forecourt garden, the red-brick and stone almshouses were built in 1847 by Hayward & Nixon to a design by Philip Hardwick, designer of Euston Arch. The style was Tudor Gothic with many gables and clusters of tall octagonal chimneys, the three groups unified with horizontal string courses and parapets. The almshouses were opened in 1849 and living accommodation was generous with living room, dining room, three bedrooms and a tiny maid's room approached by its own winding staircase.

The houses weren't intended for able seamen or even petty officers but for the relicts of senior naval officers and, back in the early 1970s, those naval widows were getting meals-on-wheels. I can vaguely recall the place - in particular the chimneys which were so different from the predominantly late Victorian housing in the rest of Penge (or that part of the town not bombed by that nice Mr Hitler).

So mum delivered the dinners to these very posh ladies, so posh that, for one, mum had to go through the kitchen door. The front door was only opened for visitors and mum, for all that she was bringing the only hot meal that lady would get that day, didn't qualify as a visitor. Mum was trade. And trade used the kitchen door.

Sadly the naval cottages are no more (although the architecturally more interesting Watermen & Lightermen Almshouses still remain) but remembering that my mum's act of care was viewed as trade always brings a smile to my face. Indeed the idea that posh folk shouldn't sully their hands, let alone open the front door, seems somehow foreign and distant these days (even though we still privilege some jobs as better and special - the law and medicine in particular).

Back then the vestiges of that older world lingered on in Penge. Many of the women mum took dinners to had been in service up to getting married and there were still bits of that old wealthy Penge too. As well as the naval widows there was Dr Arnott, retired university professor and communist, and his wife (a former union general secretary) where three dinners were delivered, the third being for their maid. There were couples in houses too big for them on the grand Cator estate and there were old ladies on Belvedere Road in mansion flats filled with fading glory.

Even back then most Penge residents were cramming onto trains every day to London, working in banks, insurance companies and the other engines of commerce in town. Mostly these workers weren't the ones in suits but the others, the sort of City of London trade - janitors, repair men, receptionists, lift operators, boilermen and post boys. They joined, in that egalitarian way of the commuter train, managers from Bromley or Beckenham and grand folk from further into Kent, out Sevenoaks way where the stockbrokers and merchant bankers reside.

It's a long while since I was last in Penge but this picture of a place that changed as the grand houses around Crystal Palace declined and the town joined the London commuter world sticks with me. And the mild offence that making my mum go round that back to do someone a favour of taking a hot meal also remains. I will have been guilty of judging someone by what they do but I hope I've never given the impression that somehow another person isn't 'our sort' just because of the job they're doing.

....




Leaving Bradford? Your views please

****

OK, I most of you aren't from (or especially interested in) Bradford but for those who are there's a blog post at the Bingley Rural Conservatives website about whether Shipley, Bingley and Keighley should leave Bradford:

There are undoubtedly differing views about this idea – some feel that replacing rule from Bradford with rule from Keighley isn’t necessarily an improvement while others feel that the dominance of the old City over the wider District leads to misplaced priorities. Phil Davies is very concerned about planning decisions but there must be equal concern about the manner in which Bradford Labour has implemented its cuts to services.

Just recently, during the budget discussions, Labour proposed closing five children’s centres – every one in the Shipley and Keighley constituencies and every one in a ward with Conservative councillors. The same goes for spending on highways, on youth services and on regeneration – the focus is on the City and especially the City centre.

Happy to accept views from anywhere - politeness is, as always, urged on you!

....

Monday, 3 March 2014

Middle class bureaucrat attacks the working class for...er....being working class

****
 

Peter Brant who is head of policy at the Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission (perhaps one of the more patronising job titles I've read recently) seems to think that working class parents are bringing up their children to be too working class.


He highlighted barriers to children from less well-off backgrounds being able to achieve their potential, including a lack of shared cultural experiences such as watching plays and taking up hobbies, and a lack of ‘cultural reference points’.

The working classes also have different attitudes towards people and relationships’, including more ‘subtext, nuance and casualness’ in middle class relationships.

The working and middle class also enjoy different food, restaurants, and clothes, he said.


There you have it folks. Nothing to do with working class children being dumped into the worst schools. Nothing about 'like selecting like'. Zilch about the expectations of parents, teachers and peers. Nope.

This man believes the problem poorer kids fail is not looking like middle class kids. And presumably liking a kebab after six pints of Carling. So we must send them to special classes where they can learn how to be like the middle class kids, so they can 'fit in'.

Perhaps, rather than running down working class pleasures and choices, people like Peter Brant need to think about challenging the sneering dismissal of those working class pastimes - whether it's the 'different restaurants', a different choice in drink or a liking for baseline, tattoos and the wearing of baseball caps the wrong way round.

Social mobility isn't about 'fitting in', about conforming to someone elses average. Social mobility is about opportunity, about giving people the chance to succeed, about education and about celebrating the passions that bring achievement. To say that the way someone talks, walks, dresses, drinks or eats is the problem is not just wrong but an insult to all those working class men and women who succeed in their lives.

....

....