Comments for

Comment on Bristol Ideas – the 2011 Bristol Ideas Forum – FULLY BOOKED by Mayor or Nightmayor? | Blog

Mayor or Nightmayor? | Blog — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 09:54:59 +0000

[...] one to be outdone, next week Bristol will hold a day long debate on the issue as part of the Festival of Ideas with speakers including local business leaders, academics and even Ken [...]

Comment on Julian Bell by Susan Popham

Susan Popham — Mon, 16 Jan 2012 14:20:19 +0000

Can you let me have an email addressw for Julian Bell?
Susan Popham

Comment on Bristol Ideas – the 2011 Bristol Ideas Forum – FULLY BOOKED by 2012 – the year for a Bristol mayor? « Bristol PR Blog: Latest news & views from Grayling PR agency, Bristol

Tue, 03 Jan 2012 14:30:51 +0000

[...] the political impact of mayors could be debated for hours (and in fact was debated at the recent Ideas Forum event in December). Of all the arguments from either side though, the one claim that seems undisputed is that a [...]

Comment on Tristan Hogg and Jon Simon by What’s happening this week? | We Are Team Rubber

What’s happening this week? | We Are Team Rubber — Tue, 13 Dec 2011 00:22:09 +0000

[...] #1 Pieminister PIES! [...]

Comment on Geoff Dyer, Anna Mansfield, Ben Rogers and P D Smith by Barry Ramshaw

Barry Ramshaw — Mon, 12 Dec 2011 14:38:14 +0000

Further to the above, I have been reading “All Over the Map” by Michael Sorkin.
Sorkin writes approvingly about Jacobs’s successful battle against Robert Moses, and clearly believes that far from being remembered as an “obstructive anachronism”, Jacobs should be acknowledged for her broad, progressive and inclusive analysis.
He also rightly notes that Jacobs’s ideals and fighting spirit still inform grassroots opposition to Big Architecture’s current assault on New York – and, I would suggest, similar campaigns across the globe.
However, Sorkin also points out that Jacobs’s brand of “utopianism” relies heavily on the “good city” being in part “…the outcome of maximised participation by its inhabitants through the medium of a free, but disciplined and caring market.”
I feel that this statement only highlights how Jacob’s vision – admirable and influential as it was – was doomed to distortion from the start. To me, it is analogous to an antelope presenting a manifesto for eternal happiness on the African plains based on free but pacifist and vegetarian lions.
As Sorkin also points out, in New York not only is Big Architecture back with a vengeance, but the “spawn” of preservation – gentrification – “…has become the soft form of urban renewal, still removing the poor but lovingly restoring their former homes.” This process is going on far outside the confines of New York City.
I remain convinced that only root-and-branch reform of the regulatory framework of our current economic model – coupled with a radical rethink of current urban planning laws – would allow the best features of the Jacobsian model to triumph.

Comment on Jeffrey Sachs by David Demery » Blog Archive » Sachs at Bristol

David Demery » Blog Archive » Sachs at Bristol — Fri, 09 Dec 2011 19:02:40 +0000

[...] filled the University of Bristol’s Great Hall when he gave a most impressive talk, hosted by the Bristol Festival of Ideas. The occasion helped promote his latest book, The Price of Civilization: Economics and Ethics [...]

Comment on Terry Eagleton by Barry Ramshaw

Barry Ramshaw — Tue, 06 Dec 2011 16:11:41 +0000

Marxism is dead – fatally wounded by the fall of Communism and put out of its misery by a seemingly triumphant neoliberal economics. Marx and his now irrelevant ideas have been consigned to the dustbin of history.
So some would have us believe. Not Terry Eagleton. Turning Mark Antony on his head, Eagleton was on hand last night to praise Marx – not to bury him.
Marx is not the determinist, reductionist parody of popular misconception. Beginning with Marx’s overriding aim of diminishing the power of economics over people’s lives through the reorganisation of the resources at the disposal of society, Eagleton showed us how both the man and his works have been comprehensively misunderstood.
The harbinger of “1984″? Not so. Marx was no utopian seeking a “perfect” society. He had a passionate faith in both artistic self-expression and the individual, and hoped to see not uniformity but diversity.
The man who laid the groundwork for Stalinism? Actually, Marx saw socialism as being a deepening of democracy and, although not against power per se, “detested” the state, which he saw as a form of repression.
Divisive class warrior? In fact Marx was full of praise for the middle classes, who he considered a source of great revolutionary power in the advanced economies of the world. Materialism was compatible with his deeply held moral and spiritual beliefs.
Dangerous revolutionary? In no way did Marx oppose social reform, and he accepted the possibility of peaceful revolutions.
Furthermore, Eagleton claimed that Marx was “an environmentalist avant la lettre”, and reminded us that his ideas informed and strengthened the struggles for women’s rights and against imperialism.
I could have listened to Eagleton for another couple of hours at least. It was Marx every which way, as Eagleton combined the perceptive analysis of Karl with the laugh count of Groucho.
Whether referencing Hegel (“who thought that history had culminated inside his own head”), comparing history under capitalism to a bad soap opera (nothing of consequence happens for ages, then 3 people jump off a bridge) or explaining that Marx was an anti-philosopher in the style of Jacques Derrida rather than that of Charlie Sheen, Eagleton has a remarkable ability to make one think and laugh simultaneously.
Towards the end of his talk, Eagleton pointed out that if society ensures that its citizens have nothing to lose, trouble will inevitably follow.
Lo and behold – this morning’s Guardian tells me that Rowan Williams is echoing this sentiment almost exactly. In light of Eagleton’s observation that Marxism was no more responsible for Stalin than Jesus was for the Inquisition, this was food for thought indeed.
Perhaps the lesson is that whether one pins one’s hopes to the religious solution or the political one, it is the original message – shorn of the distortions of Church, State and the many past representatives of both who have shamelessly distorted the texts for their own ends – that we should be listening to.

Comment on Iain Sinclair by Barry Ramshaw

Barry Ramshaw — Tue, 06 Dec 2011 11:58:13 +0000

The name Iain Sinclair is a revered one for anyone like myself who is interested in the concept of the city. Not the city of the guide book or the A-Z, I should add, but the city that hovers mirage-like at the margins of and in the interstices of our everyday environment, flickering constantly between the past, the present and a spectral gallery of alternative futures.
Sinclair took us on a mesmerising verbal expedition through his latest book, illuminating the way with his perceptive take on the fragmentation and disintegration of the public realm that is a by-product of the hubristic vision of what he calls the Grand Project.
Leading with the example of what he called that “dubious piece of real estate” Paternoster Square -”a pastiche of its own history” – Sinclair discussed how London is being sanitised, “secured” and ultimately diminished in the name of “progress” and the pursuit of a fat profit.
The Olympic site came under particular scrutiny. Long established allotments (the area was not the wasteland that the “manipulators of history” would have us believe) have been torn up and common land has been eradicated. In their place is a tightly controlled space, surrounded by security fences, policed by airborne drones and where you or I could be arrested for simply taking a photograph.
For me, the way that the Olympic ideal has been perverted by capital is exemplified by the fact that visitors arriving at the Games by rail will be funnelled inexorably through the gigantic Westfield Mall and past a large casino.
With regard to Sinclair’s concern about the erosion of true public space, I brought up Anna Minton’s book “Ground Control”, and asked if he felt that there was anything we can do to counter this deeply undemocratic tendency. Sinclair suggested that a good start would be to keep talking about the issue in public meetings, so that people are made aware of the problem. I am therefore unapologetic about bringing this up again.
Sinclair seems to have turned his back on the term psychogeography, claiming that is has used up its life as a useful label.
However, whether one calls his pedestrian voyages “walking the wrong way”, as an audience member suggested, or (in Sinclair’s own words) “repudiating imposed narratives”, the results of his perambulations are a vital reminder of what we have out there – and how easily it can be lost forever.

Comment on Baroness Susan Greenfield by Barry Ramshaw

Barry Ramshaw — Mon, 05 Dec 2011 13:31:30 +0000

Susan Greenfield’s talk not only looked at the brain’s role in the creation of identity but strayed into more controversial territory by sounding a warning about the potentially negative impact that new technology may be having on our very nature.
Greenfield identified what she considers to be the key factors in the building of identity. The first of these was consciousness, and Greenfield sounded hopeful that if science can accurately quantify the various levels of consciousness then the door could be opened to understanding the mechanisms behind the phenomenon itself.
My initial enthusiasm for this idea waned as I realised it was probably only a matter of time before the usual suspects begin announcing that discrimination against, say, women or ethnic minorities is justified on the basis of spurious differences in measured levels of consciousness.
Greenfield’s second factor was what she termed mind. In the absence of underlying neurological dysfunction or brain damage our neural plasticity ensures that from the moment of our birth every experience we undergo stimulates a growth in the connections between our brain cells. The abstract world we initially perceive as children is given a “face” – and meaning.
Finally, Greenfield explained that the mind thus created is essentially passive, and as such needs to interact with both values and roles for identity to be brought into being.
In the second half of her presentation, Greenfield considered how technological developments such as social networking and interactive gaming have created a situation where we are living more and more in the “atomised moment”. She went on to cite reported declines in empathy, “trolling”, and increased levels of low grade violence as evidence that we are facing what chair Julian Baggini quoted Greenfield as calling a “serious and persuasive” problem, and no less than a possible “annihilation of identity”.
Although Greenfield repeatedly conceded that “anecdote is not evidence”, and that more research needs to be done, remarking that social network users are crying “Look at me, mummy!” is guaranteed to provoke both defensive and hostile reactions to her theories.
Although I am grateful for the many advantages to be gained from new technology, being of a certain age I share some of Greenfield’s concerns about the possible negative impacts of our immersion in Cyberworld.
However, Greenfield’s claims that she is merely urging caution were undermined by an approach which seemed at times to veer between derision and predictions of the apocalypse, and I feel that a lot more research will have to be done before I accept that the end is nigh.

Comment on Bristol Ideas – the 2011 Bristol Ideas Forum – FULLY BOOKED by Barry Ramshaw

Barry Ramshaw — Sun, 04 Dec 2011 21:29:03 +0000

The question of whether Bristol should have an elected mayor will soon be dominating the city’s political discourse, and the answer could have a significant impact on all of our lives.
With an impressive range of speakers and an audience which included a rich mix of figures from Bristol’s public life, the issue was examined from every possible angle with the ensuing discussions shedding heat and light in roughly equal proportions.
Professor Robin Hambleton spoke about the global challenges facing cities today, and suggested possible ways forward for Bristol in the future. Joanna Averley provided a detailed analysis showing how economic development is related to a myriad of complex interrelated factors, stressing that an elected mayor would be advised to concentrate on strategic decisions rather than get sucked into attempting micro-management.
Lord Adonis restated this latter point, and reminded us of the “soft power” that an elected mayor can bring to bear as a leader of the whole community. Sir Steve Bullock spoke to Ben Rogers about the realities of leadership in inner-city London, a challenge he clearly relishes.
There were also three panels – Bristol City Councillors, MPs and one consisting of local business and community figures – which wrangled over the many controversial issues raised and demonstrated that the “mayor question” is one that ignites passionate personal and political responses.
The chair of the first two of the above panels, the BBC’s Dave Harvey, was particularly good value for money. Harvey combined dry humour with an unerring eye for cutting through the verbal undergrowth to the right question to great effect, and he was an asset to the proceedings.
The undoubted star of the show, of course, was Ken Livingstone. In his trademark deadpan style, he fed a number of our political leaders into his merciless – and often very funny – reputational shredder. But Livingstone’s serious side is never far away, and three strands stood out for me – his passionate love of our capital city, his dim view of the British press, and his unequivocal views on electing police commissioners – which he warned would lead to a “carnival of reaction”.
I do however have one big caveat about this event. As was constantly recognised during the day, Bristol is a “divided city” and this event was unrepresentative of the silent – if not overlooked – majority of native Bristolians. I am a “Bristalien” myself, and accept that Bristol has benefitted enormously from the presence of a number of talented incomers. But if ways cannot be found to truly engage and include vast swathes of the city outside the usual influential enclaves, I predict that Bristol will continue to be doomed to dissatisfaction and the lack of a cohesive forward momentum – elected mayor or not.
However, overall this was a timely and broadly successful event which shed light on an important topic, and one which the Festival of Ideas can be justifiably proud.
My own views? I came as an “agnostic”, aware of the possible advantages to having an elected mayor, but vaguely concerned that the process could be hijacked by a D-list chancer with just enough superficial populist charisma to win through and then drop us all in the mire. However, after witnessing the seeming inability of our councillors to raise the debate out of the muddy backyard of local rivalry, I can only say I might be willing to give Del Boy Trotter a run out.

Comment on Geoff Dyer, Anna Mansfield, Ben Rogers and P D Smith by Barry Ramshaw

Barry Ramshaw — Sun, 04 Dec 2011 15:32:32 +0000

This was a very rewarding session. After Ben Rogers provided an introduction and overview of Jacobs’ work, the other speakers all brought their individual – but always informative and relevant – perspectives to bear on the subject.
Geoff Dyer based his approach on his interest in photography, appropriate indeed given the pivotal role that Jacobs assigned to the concept of “eyes on the street”. Anna Mansfield from Publica gave an account of her valiant struggle against London’s “nowhere spaces”. Finally, PD Smith engaged us with a short talk on the challenges facing cities in the 21st century, and some of the proposed solutions to these problems.
I have long accepted the importance of Jacobs’ work, and feel that it is of continued relevance today.
However, I put it to the panel that Jacobs’ idealistic and well-meaning reaction to the tendency of monolithic modernism to redevelop communities out of existence inadvertently contributed to some of the worst excesses of the urban development we see around us today.
Miles Glendinning, in his book “Architecture’s Evil Empire?”, argues that Jacobs’ idea of “mixed use” has been essentially perverted by global capital’s insistence on branding, leisure, tourism and consumption, so that “…as they try to become more mixed and individualistic, cities become homogenized into a uniformly “rich” and “vibrant” pattern.”
History, culture and heritage are blended into what Glendinning calls a “homogeneous soup”. But then again, as he points out, it was Jacobs herself who predicted that mixed use could generate a healthy profit!
Jacobs may have further inadvertently primed the current model of what I call “zombie zones” (they look like they’re living – but they’re dead) by basing her theories almost entirely around buildings themselves as the determinant of the success or otherwise of urban spaces.
In her book “Naked City”, Sharon Zukin accuses Jacobs of “…fail(ing) to look at how people use capital and culture to view, and to shape, the urban spaces they inhabit.”, and quotes Herbert Gans as criticizing Jacobs for falling victim to the “fallacy of physical determinism” and “ignor(ing) the social, cultural and economic factors that contribute to vitality or dullness.”
This fatal flaw has come to infect and dominate what Glendinning calls todays “New Modernism” – “A modernism stripped of the ideal of social progress, a modernism emptied of the strong collective decorum of planned community life.”
Furthermore, it informs the way capitalist “regeneration” focuses on a superficial facade of interchangeable parts – interspersed with the odd “icon” or two – at the expense of both community cohesion and true, unfettered public access.
Jacobs stand against the modernist dystopia was sincere. However, the flaws in her approach have been magnified by capitalism’s skill in appropriating anything worthwhile and selling it back to us as a twisted, profitable parody. Welcome to the resulting neoliberal urban hell.

Comment on John Gray and Will Self by Barry Ramshaw

Barry Ramshaw — Sun, 04 Dec 2011 13:02:58 +0000

I would probably turn out to see Will Self and John Gray spend a hour discussing how to boil an egg, but adding JG Ballard to the mix made this event a must see. As Self pointed out, Ballard was the “last great taboo buster” and fully deserved an event dedicated to his life and works.
Self noted that Ballard’s reputation has continued to grow following his death, surely in no little part to the fractured and fragmented dystopias that he envisioned being increasingly mirrored in our own anxious post-everything world.
Gray reminded us that Ballard constantly explored the fact that cities can suddenly implode and disintegrate, revealing the fragility of out existence and dragging us rudely from our cosy “virtual” environments and into the real world – not always a pleasant experience, as the recent riots proved.
There was some discussion about the influence of Ballard’s childhood experiences in Shanghai, which I felt that both speakers could not deny had informed the writer’s later outlook and personality to a great degree, but were reluctant to say so too loudly in case Ballard’s shade appeared before them bellowing “psychobabble!”.
Ballard’s singular and eccentric character – his love of airport hotels, sleeping at home on a camp bed for 50 years – combined with his suspicion of moderism and what Self saw as his conviction that the built environment could “never live up to the Promethean ideals of its creators” all fed into the creation of some of the most startlingly original fiction of the 20th century.
However, for me Ballard’s imaginative brilliance has always been marred by his weak characterisation and a style which I would describe as stilted – although one audience member trumped this with “turgid”. To be fair, both speakers tackled this problem head on, with Self conceding that perhaps “clunky” would be an acceptable term but seeking to defend Ballard by claiming that he saw human personality as a construct and that “characterisation was not important to him”.
Perhaps this is true – but I would counter that as a reader it is not unimportant to me.
At the end of the evening, stylistic comparisons with other authors were being bandied about, with HG Wells and Wyndham among the front runners. But for me, the author Ballard remind me of most in many ways is Asimov – a man of almost limitless imagination who remains justly celebrated for his unique vision but coudn’t create a believable cliche-free character to save his life.

Comment on Bristol Ideas – the 2011 Bristol Ideas Forum – FULLY BOOKED by Shaping the mayoral debate – Alex's Archives

Shaping the mayoral debate – Alex's Archives — Fri, 02 Dec 2011 22:21:28 +0000

[...] spent today at the Watershed at the Should Bristol have an elected mayor? event organised by the Festival of Ideas. There were presentations from academics and researchers, [...]

Comment on FILM: Urbanized by Urbanized Showings « The Wonder

Urbanized Showings « The Wonder — Fri, 02 Dec 2011 16:36:15 +0000

[...] promised, here are the showings for Urbanized in the UK! It will be on tonight in Bristol and for those in London, it will be shown at the Barbican from 16-23 of [...]

Comment on Bristol Ideas – the 2011 Bristol Ideas Forum – FULLY BOOKED by stephen layland

stephen layland — Thu, 01 Dec 2011 14:18:21 +0000

I notice that I had sent the draft version of my earlier comment – unchecked for typos etc.

The same text should read:

I have been awaiting the long promised update giving the latest schedule and timings for the forum on the Directly Elected Major for Bristol options. The list of possible guests/speakers/panellists seems so long that one is left with the suspicion that the inherent constraints of the over-stuffed agenda will serve as a multi-level filibuster – effectively minimising the chances that the discussion will be extend deeper and beyond the level of most familiar ideas rather than left as a matter of persons – i.e. the agenda of power. Those with a hammer view and treat every question as a nail. The model of the day-long event still seems calculated to both pre-frame and pre-anchor the question in ways that would suppress the hope [expectation] of the breakthrough departure that Bristol [and the whole of the South West Region] actual requires – as the up welling of life-bringing substance, as a quality of difference. The former ploys are the tricks of (P)olitics as usual. I notice that the many of the following Festival of Ideas Events seem perfectly timed to anchor those same change but no change expectations – i.e. not only the Madge Dresser and John Savage events but, tellingly, the Pirates & Scientists [Aardman Animation] event. The theme and sheer humanity of The Chicken Run seemed very very different. The other events seem far less calculated – less polemical.

I have in mind the broadly similar “nudge techniques” of “auto-suggestion” successfully employed by Darren Brown.

Unless premised on the need for Bristol to effect some breakthrough departure the most that could be achieved by any Directly Elected Mayor would have the form of change but no change extension – while remaining firmly stuck [anchored by some however elastic cable] in the mud of Bristol’s Floating Harbour. So the event is hardly worth attending. Nevertheless I would see like at least the promised option of dipping into the live-feed, and could even send an email. So it would help to have the promised update uploaded. It would be especially helpful for the organisers to themselves double-check that the format [transformations] of the live-feed are diverse enough [from outset] to provide ready access to more than the terminals in the Council House and the BCC libraries – i.e. making the live-feed accessible to most home users.

My experience to date [of trying to access the BCC linked telecasts] has been that I have to content myself with a listening-again to the non-live-feed a few days after some promised event. That would seem to rather restrict the requested emails to those affording the very fastest broadband links – corporate bodies and institutions etc. So the fact that some users were seemingly able to access the live-feed is not proof that enough could. As a member of Bristol’s consultative 2000, I had already emailed a similar concern to the relevant BCC department – yesterday. The purpose of this request is to ask those at BCDP to both provide the timings of the updated schedule in advance, and to themselves double-check and correct the live-feed question beforehand.

Comment on Bristol Ideas – the 2011 Bristol Ideas Forum – FULLY BOOKED by stephen layland

stephen layland — Thu, 01 Dec 2011 14:11:18 +0000

I have been awaiting the long promised update giving the latest schedule and timings for the forum on the Directly Elected Major for Bristol options. The list of possible guests/speakers/panelists seems so long that one is left with the suspicion that the inherent constraints of the over-stuffed agenda will serve as a multi-level fillibuster – effectively minimising the chances that the discussion will be extend deeper and beyond the level of most familar ideas rather than left as a matter of persons – i.e. the agenda of power. Those with a hammer view and treat every question as a nail. The model of the day-long event still seems calculated to both pre-frame and pre-anchor the question in ways that would surpress the hope [expectation] of the breakthrough departure that Bristol [and the whole of the South West Region] actual requires – as the upwelling of life-bringing subtance, as a quality of difference. The former ploys are the tricks of (P)olitics as usual. I notice that the many of the following Festival of Ideas Events seem perfectly timed to anchor those same change but no change expectations – i.e. not only the Madge Dresser and John Savage events but, tellingly, the Pirates & Scientists [Aardman Animation] event. The theme and sheer humanity of The Chicken Run seemed very very different. The other events seem far less calculated – less polemical.

I have in mind the broadly similar “nudge techniques” of “auto-suggestion” sucessfully employed by Darren Brown.

My experience to date [of trying to access the BCC linked telecasts] has been that I have to content myself with a listening-again to the non-live-feed a few days after some promised event. That would seem to rather restrict the requested emails to those affording the very fastest broadband links – corporate bodies and institutions etc. So the fact that some users were seemingly able to access the live-feed is not proof that enough could. As a member of Bristol’s consulative 2000, I had already emailed a similar concern to the relevent BCC department – yesterday. The pupose of this request is to ask those at BCDP to both provide the timings of the updated schedule in advance, and to themselves double-check and correct the live-feed question beforehand.

Comment on Matteo Pericoli by Barry Ramshaw

Barry Ramshaw — Wed, 30 Nov 2011 14:17:26 +0000

Matteo Pericoli proved to be as engaging as his fascinating hand-drawn cityscapes, and I spent a very enjoyable hour listening to how his astonishingly detailed illustrations are created.
It appears that after arriving in New York from his native Milan, Pericoli focused his attention on Manhattan, a place he understandably saw as the very embodiment of that city. Soon he was involved in an exhaustive – and exhausting – circumnavigation of the island, taking endless photographs which he then used as a basis for the production of his painstaking miniature linear skylines.
A similar process was carried out during his recent London project. Pericoli told us that he felt driven to both understand and develop a relationship with a city he had little previous knowledge of, and judging by the results one can only say that he was very sucessful in these aims.
As Pericoli explained how he created his art on a continuous sheet of delicate architect’s sketch paper, from which errors are “completely un-erasable”, I could only marvel at the levels of concentration and commitment involved in the process. The word “obsessive”, which Pericoli used more than once, seemed entirely appropriate.
This was a rewarding event, and Pericoli described both his inspiration and the technical background to his work with a captivating self-depreciatory humour. He told us that he felt that as an “outsider” in New York it had been necessary for him to “learn” the city from scratch. We should be grateful that Pericoli has not only become adept in his readings, but that he has a remarkable gift for translating them for the benefit of a wider audience.
I only wish that there had been more time to hear Pericoli’s thoughts on the wider world of architecture. In response to a late question, he said that he felt that architects had lost the ability to “tell a story” when designing the built environment, leading to a lack of engagement with society and the creation of “banalities”.
This seems very much in keeping with both Hal Foster’s criticism of the “banal cosmopolitanism” of current global styles, and Miles Glendinning’s dim view of a “global Empire of alienated architecture” – views that I find myself in agreement with.
However, Pericoli provided a silver lining by pointing out that cities, like successful languages, are ever-growing, ever-changing entities. I was reminded that the endlessly complex and interlocking societal, political and economic influences that they are subject to means that they are to a great degree profoundly deaf to the entreaties of Canutes and visionaries alike. Fashions come and fashions go and the juggernaut rolls on.
Pericoli’s response to those who moan about the ruination of a particular skyline is to ask which was the first building that started to ruin it. Indeed. Perhaps the only rational course of action is to buckle up and enjoy the ride.

Comment on Bristol Ideas – the 2011 Bristol Ideas Forum – FULLY BOOKED by This week in Bristol, Nov 28 – Dec 4 « Bristol Culture

This week in Bristol, Nov 28 – Dec 4 « Bristol Culture — Mon, 28 Nov 2011 07:05:01 +0000

[...] Should Bristol have an elected mayor? Friday, Watershed The first annual Ideas Forum from Bristol Festival of Ideas tackles the subject of an elected mayor for Bristol. The one-day conference will include some high profile speakers such as former Mayor of London Ken Livingstone, Lord Adonis, and panels made up of Bristol councillors, MPs and community leaders. http://www.ideasfestival.co.uk [...]

Comment on Jeremy Paxman by Barry Ramshaw

Barry Ramshaw — Fri, 25 Nov 2011 14:04:59 +0000

Jeremy Paxman opened his talk by stating that the educational establishment has judged the British Empire to be an “unalloyed bad thing,” and that therefore there was no need to give it further consideration.
Paxman disagrees. He told us that the legacy of Empire lives on, informing numerous aspects of both the modern world and Britain’s place in it – including the global reach of the English language, the centrality of London in the financial world, and our relationship with the US as a major ally.
Over the next hour, Paxman took us on an engaging journey through the British colonial adventure. He considered many of the standard themes, such as the “accidental” nature of the Empire’s acquisition, the Victorian mission of bringing civilization and Christianity to the world, and Britain’s change of heart over the issue of slavery.
These musings were interspersed with colourful stories involving some of the Empire’s larger-than-life characters. However, after previously telling us that viewing these figures as comic was “silly” and “unfair”, Paxman went on to undermine this somewhat by regaling us with tales of Robert Clive (“who would have had an ASBO if he lived now”), Henry Morgan (“an extremely dodgy Welshman”), Gordon of Khartoum (“who was clearly unhinged”), and British Resident in Delhi David Ochterlony, who paraded around town every evening with each of his 13 wives on their own elephant. This was before he showed us a picture of a colonial overlord being given a pedicure by a servant on the grounds that he found it amusing.
Paxman eventually returned to his opening proposal, explaining that Empire had irrevocably altered our take on the rest of the world and that our current attitudes have been shaped by our subsequent – perhaps false – feelings of familiarity with foreign climes.
A question from the floor seemed ask whether in fact nothing had changed, in that Western interference in other countries continues to this day. Despite having noted earlier how one legacy of Empire was the alacrity with which our recent political leaders have involved themselves in overseas wars, and although he accepted that Western oil companies and banks exert pressure on small nations, Paxman seemed to dismiss any comparison between then and now – it “wasn’t the same”.
Perhaps not. This is the 21st Century, after all. Powerful nations throwing their weight around globally are increasingly being sidelined by the pitiless juggernaut that is “the market”, and in any case we don’t need to keep the rest of the world in check with Maxim guns when we can steamroller them with a long-rigged global trading system. And the old days when emasculated foreign potentates were fobbed off with the fiction that they had some sort of relationship with the British royal family has been turned on its head. These days it is the Americans who are keen to peddle the fanciful idea of a “special relationship” to sweeten the pill as we eagerly fulfill the role of useful idiot.
Although Paxman was clear in condemning some of the worst aspects of Empire – notably slavery – I felt at times his attempt to approach the subject even-handedly led at times to some of the more less palatable ways our outlook has been shaped being overlooked or played down.
For example, as Richard Gott says, we are still “bombing people who we think are not behaving properly”, and our desperate attempts to “punch above our weight” drain the economy at a time the money is needed elsewhere.
The event was a lot of fun, delivered in Paxman’s trademark combative and irreverent style. But to be honest, I am not prepared to totally buy into this version of Pax(man) Britannica.

Comment on Andrew Feinstein by Barry Ramshaw

Barry Ramshaw — Tue, 22 Nov 2011 14:34:44 +0000

I came to Andrew Feinstein’s talk with what now seems like an air of complacency, convinced that I already knew just what A Bad Thing the arms trade was. I left both astonished at how limited my understanding really was, and very concerned at how damaging this “shadow world” is to every aspect of global governance.
Feinstein informed us that arms spending had reached the incredible annual total of $1.6 trillion – the equivalent of $235 for every person on the planet – and that it has been estimated that this business accounts for 40% of the corruption in all global trading.
Any distinction between “legitimate” inter-government arms deals and the more murky “grey” and “black” markets appears to be illlusory. Feinstein alleged that both bribery and corruption are commonplace, and that many arms dealers working for states in an accredited capacity are simultaneously involved in the “dirty” end of the business.
The vast sums involved in many arms deals and the fact that key decisions are made by small government elites behind a veil of secrecy masquerading as “national security” creates a toxic outcome. Wars are enabled and then fuelled, corruption is rampant, both the rule of law and democracy itself are corroded, and global well-being and prosperity is diminished.
Feinstein backed up his arguments with a succession of jaw-dropping horror stories involving nations from all round the globe, and detailed a depressing catalogue of opaque, corrupt, wasteful and even totally unnecessary arms deals.
Sadly one of the results of these practices is that huge amounts of money are being needlessly diverted away from the global fight against poverty and disease.
Although Feinstein tried to end the evening on a positive note, praising the tireless efforts of campaigners pushing for meaningful and enforceable international arms trade treaties, it was difficult to be too optimistic about the situation changing any time soon.
The obscene profits to be made, the virtually impenetrable secrecy, the “revolving door” between the arms companies and the government/military/intelligence nexus – not to mention the relentless efforts to silence whistleblowers and dissenters – all seem to suggest that rapid reform is unlikely. As Feinstein himself pointed out, our current crop of global politicians (and “technocrats”, as I should get used to saying) seem to lack the will and/or courage to tackle the problem.
Feinstein is right when he says that this is an issue that has fallen of the political radar. Let’s hope that his latest book will be the much needed spark that will re-ignite the debate.