Saturday 25 June 2011

Mumford and Sons

Liar :
I know that things are broken
I know there’s too many words left unsaid
You say you have spoken, like the coward I am, I hang my head
You lay careless, your head on my chest
And don’t even look at me looking my best
And all these things I can’t describe, you would rather I didn’t try
But please, don’t cry you liar
Oh please, don’t cry you liar
Oh please, don’t cry you liar
Oh please, don’t cry you liar
Oh please, don’t cry you liar
And you lean in for your last kiss,
Who in this world can ask me to resist?
Your hands cold as they find my neck,
Oh this love I have found, I detest

(Thanks to Regan for these lyrics)

I know that things are broken
I know there’s too many words left unsaid
You say you have spoken, like the coward I am, I hang my head
You lay careless, your head on my chest
And don’t even look at me looking my best
And all these things I can’t describe, you would rather I didn’t try
But please, don’t cry you liar
Oh please, don’t cry you liar
Oh please, don’t cry you liar
Oh please, don’t cry you liar
Oh please, don’t cry you liar
And you lean in for your last kiss,
Who in this world can ask me to resist?
Your hands cold as they find my neck,
Oh this love I have found, I detest


 

In the moral leper colony

The Sunset - Directed by and starring Tommy Lee Jones with Samuel L Jackson
Just the two of them one called black and one called white. That's it. Black calls white the professor.


Having tried to kill himself, the film starts and remains within the one room of black's apartment in a ghetto area of New York. The sense of the bigger world is felt through sounds of vehicles or neighbours - they are mere suggestions that fade when the intensity of the discussion between life and death conversations.
It's a debate about the reasons to live life or choose death. God versus the devil perhaps?
The intracacies of the discussion are compelling. Especially coming from a very dark mood today.


Black enquires "Is this the life you planned to have?"
 It's certainly not but I no longer know what I would have had planned. It's not this.

"I don't think death is ever about nothing."
Wanting to die is not so much about want to be dead but more about giving up on living.

"I have become the accomplice to my own anihilation. Every door closes as we come across it until there is only one door left. I long for the darkness. I pray for death, real death. Nothing ness, no people. Kafka on wheels"

"Evolution has brought intelligence to life - so unless a dumbass - those that are enlightened should wish to die as as soon as possible"
I really think this too. The more aware I become the more disillusioned with everything I become. I am sort of half in and half out. Nothing matters anymore yet I cannot sit without having things or going places. Then there is the need to finance any visits to galleries or places. And yet it really is of little value.

white says "You give up the world line by line....everything you do closes a door somewhere ahead of you. And finally there is only one door left".

Everything ends in loss, pain, suffereing, indignity - everything ends in death.



White asks "why would Jesus try to salvage what is unsalvageable? Why one has to be in a building that is spiritually and morally vacant rather than a building that is just vacant. Just to be there in the hope of saving someone from their plight. Yes I can relate to that - when someone says to me that I have been through what I have been through and can now help others to recover. Is that reason enough? Is it reason enough to know that another child is being abuse as I write and you read this>?

Black posits that "Jesus said you could have life everlasting - see it hold it in your hands it gives off a light - warm to the touch and it's forever. You can have it now today.
To get it you got to take your brother in your arms and hold him whatever and whoever he is ...."
Well I can forgive. I am more forgiving of my dad, other people who I have felt hurt by. I can. Does it make any difference? Yes I suppose there is some degree of peace. But it is disappointing that it has to be this way. I try to emabrace every client despite the difficulty I might have. I see beyond their denial and love them anyway. I hope for them. Yet I come home and want to be able to leave this world. It's disappointing that they have to learn through so much suffering and others suffer along side too.

I don't understand you see. Speaking with my auntie and hearing how very ill my cousin is, yet living with hope and looking towards her recovery. She is having a colostomy bag fitted so that they can opeate on the tumor which is pushing on her bowel. By operating on the Cancer they are likely to destroy some of her bowel. My auntied said she is really very unwell. And very thin, she cannot really eat. Yet she still wants to go to see Take That next week. Her husband is running around trying to sort out anything she has a whim to do. Auntie O says my uncle is very tearful and that is very unlike him. My cousin is not thinking negatively. This is very serious.

All I could think of was how I want to be dead and she wants to be alive. My mum is dead so it just makes sense that somehow it could be switched over. I could be thin then too and not need to worry about being so fat and ugly. It would soon be over. Why not? Because it doesn't seem to happen like that.

White says "...my own reasons centre around the gradual loss of make believe, a gradual enlightenment as to the nature of reality." This I can relate to. The reality or the enlightenment means the road gets narrower and it makes it more and more difficult to have a reason to stay and live in it.
"The world s a forced labour camp ... the be led forth to be executed. It's the way it is"
For example, I ralise that so many people are unable to cahllenge their demons. So for example in relationships with men. I know today I would like to be someone who is respectful and loving. Someone that can be loved and wants to be giving. I also want someone who is monogamous and in the true sense of the word, challengeing any temptation or desires outside of the relationship. Not needing to lie because actually he is honest and open and dependable. He would also be spntaneous and be able to be transparent about everything. Within that we would be able to hold each other in all emotions and not be frightened off by anger or fear or sadness. It woud be working towards unconditionality (if thats a word). Supportive,fun, reliable, spontaneous, adventurer, sensible with money but not mean, creative and intelligent, open to learning and growing.
The thing is this seems to be impossible. And then there is me within this. I am bi-polar in many sesnes of that. So to meet someone  who would be willing and able to manage with me. ... well the road narrows you see. As today I do not want to just try and tolerate things that don;t match only to eventually end and hurt etc. I know there is experimenting with relationships to learn what is important but ...
It's the same with everything really. You know here I am opening talks with my dad but unable to tell him how dreaful I am feelng today. That stinks. So I know how fragile I feel about the contact. And it all seesm so alte. I feel dreadful for the shit that has been the past and there is nothing that can be done about it today. I am changing every day but it all seems too late really.
I want less things. Studd means less yet I am ensconced in this society of more more more. It all seems very usnatisfactory especially knowing more and more that it all matters less and less. So I am beginning to let go just as white said in the film.
The more I let go the easier it is to let go completely and leave this world. I do not want to stop letting go otherwise I will have to stay and be in the pain of disatisfaction. "the one thing I won't give up is giving up".
I say that I do feel passion at times. I have felt intense emotions looking at someone's art or listening to music written and played so incredibly. But these things are transient therefore the moment is frail.
What I get is this ..... the things that I value really have no value. So to go out and appreciate some works of art, or see an illustrated letter that was so exquisite, to listen to a piece of music that raises goosepimples, to speak to my dad fanlly but still not be able to tell him how I really am, yet it doesn't matter I have forgiveness. All these thigns seem so valuable but actually they are nothingness in the grander scheme.

A review of the play rather than the filmed play I have just watched .....

The Sunset Limited
by Cormac McCarthy

This book is described as 'a novel in dramatic form'. I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean but if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it's a duck. By which I mean: it's a play. Now, I'm a firm believer that plays should be performed rather than just read, which is why I have only ever reviewed productions of plays rather than the texts themselves. Picador's presentation of this play as a novel invites me to do just that however and in fact the structure and content of the play mean that whilst it would certainly be nice to see it performed there's plenty to say about the text itself.

Originally performed by Steppenwolf Theatre Company back in 2006 the play is a duologue, and a dialogue in the classical sense between two men, Black and White, an African-American and a Caucasian. It seems that White has been rescued by Black from a suicide attempt in front of the train of the title and in Black's apartment the two men talk, Black attempting to extricate from White the reasons for his leap into oblivion whilst he also discusses his own life and faith in the Bible. We could accept the play at face value; Black an ex-convict with a violent past, who has made his room open to junkies in need of help, has another project in White, a man he doesn't want to let go until he's sure that he won't throw himself in front of the next train that happens along. But the character names and didactic structure invite us to see the apartment as a kind of limbo with Black fighting to save the soul of White from damnation. The two men wrestle with the big themes, Black using the Bible as his touchstone ('If it aint in here then I don't know it') and his faith in humanity, despite his own violent past, as the main force to try and help others. White, who had placed his own faith in Culture, if anything, has been left bereft - 'The things I believed in dont exist anymore. It's foolish to pretend that they do. Western Civilization finally went up in smoke in the chimneys at Dachau but I was too infatuated to see it. I see it now.'

For much of the play Black holds sway, dominating with his conviction and calmness in the face of White's rationalism. But there is a volte face near the end where White suddenly steps up to the mark and flattens all that has come before with his own conviction that 'You give up the world line by line....everything you do closes a door somewhere ahead of you. And finally there is only one door left'. This makes for pretty bleak reading of course but bleakness never stopped Beckett from being a theatrical genius. There are obvious comparisons with plays like Waiting For Godot, but you're always going to struggle when sitting alongside one of the greatest plays ever written (IMHO). Having said that the play lends itself to textual appreciation I can't help but wonder whether a live performance would be able to lift it beyond a mere recitation of arguments. There is no action to speak of - Black does get up from his chair at one point to make some food (never has soul food been so literal) but other than that it's just two men sat at a table. Again, there's no action in Godot beyond the entrance of Pozzo and Lucky, but the play's language is so rich in metaphor, symbolism and meaning - poetic and enigmatic - that it provides not just an evening's 'entertainment' but enough keep you going for a long time afterwards. The rather balder back and forth of argument in this play leaves you wishing for something a little more theatrical or dramatic, something with a little more character (perhaps this is what is meant by a novel merely in dramatic form).

There is McCarthian violence as you might expect although this is only reported rather than depicted. This play is all about what's on the page and to be fair there are some smart exchanges between the two men. The humanity of Black also has a curious effect on a play so bleak. He is gentle and warm, confident in his own faith and presumably in his ability to turn the situation around so that there is almost a smile, some humour, behind what he has to say to White. But the crushing weight of White's world view has a huge impact on the play. 'The one thing I won't give up is giving up', he says, and this because he has been left no alternative by his awakening to the real world around him.


I don't believe in God. Can you understand that? Look around you man. Can't you see? The clamor and din of those in torment has to be the sound most pleasing to his ear.

The most difficult thing he thinks for Black to hear is his view of what those with faith look to as their reward.


I yearn for the darkness. I pray for death. Real death. If I thought that in death I would meet the people I've known in life I don't know what I'd do. That would be the ultimate horror. The ultimate despair. If I had to meet my mother again and start all of that all over, only this time without the prospect of death to look forward to? Well. That would be the final nightmare. Kafka on wheels.

So I'm going to revert to my former opinion. Plays have to be seen, not just read. There is plenty to chew over in this book but it never really lifts off the page and at the end of the day, for all its dramatic form, it remains the articulation of argument rather than character and too far away from the humanity it seeks to explore.
 Written by William Rycroft

Bliss

The shadow of the axe hangs over every joy

I feel very deathly today.

I am not sure of the reason if there even has to be one.
I just cannot see purpose.

I feel sad about JH. I miss what had seemed really lovely. I know it wasn't the whole truth though and that just makes me feel that no one is real.
I feel dreadful about my dad. He called and we chatted and it's great. He is old and it's so late in our life to be starting to be friendly.
I can't be bothered to do anything at all.
Music is not helping
Looking for pictures of myself and realising how much I hate the way I look but it's all I have got. I feel sad that I barely have any photos of me
I feel dreadful with my body image
I could not get my arse into gear to go to the auction this morning even if just for the experience
And I haven't done any studying either
I cannot feel safe telling my dad how I really feel
I cannot tell anyone how I really feel - wretched and wanting to be dead
I do not like here
It feels like I am sat here and the rest of the world is living and life

I don;t want to exist anymore

Bliss


Fantasy otherworlds

Gregory Euclide and 3D paintings
It's not actually my cuppa yet I am attracted to it so in some way it must be appealing to some part of me. I think it's the idea of fantastical. Like th epossibility of being able to get into the painting. Instead of the painting be a capture of something that was real and my size. I get get into the surreal. A smaller fantasy world, where everything is topsy turvy from the norm. LIke the Lion the witch and the wardrobe. The going into alternative, otherworlds. There's something fascinating and magical to behold in there. Mmm so it's more about the ida than his actual work. Are there any others doing this that I would appreciate more?




Gregory Euclide

moves from LPs to

art galleries

From Paul Simonon smashing

his bass to smithereens on

the cover of London Calling to

Nevermind ’s dollar bill-chasing

baby, great albums and iconic

artwork tend to go hand in

hand. And in the age of iClouds,

boarded-up record shops

and dwindling physical CD

collections, it’s good to see

musician Bon Iver and artist

Gregory Euclide keeping this

particular rock tradition alive.

For the cover to his band’s

long-awaited and critically

acclaimed second album, folkie

phenomenon Justin Vernon

enlisted Euclide to create a

unique piece of art that worked

perfectly with the music.

The result of their lengthy

discussions is a subtly striking

work that conveys Euclide’s

unique style of ‘sculptural

painting’. A tranquil painted

landscape has been artfully

ripped, folded and peppered

with miniature tree structures

and found objects (including

real snow and leaves) that give

a 3D effect without the need for

ludicrous specs.

But Euclide’s work with

Vernon is just the tip of a

fascinating iceberg. He’s

recently unveiled a high-profile

exhibition at New York’s

trailblazing Museum Of Arts &

Design. ‘Otherworldly: Optical

Delusions And Small Realities’

is a sprawling show in which

Euclide has taken over an entire

room. The centrepiece is a

5ft-high painting that spills out

on to the gallery floor via a

waterfall of confetti (above).

The artist told us: “I was

thinking about the history of

landscape painting and the way

we frame land to fit our world

view. The work starts off with

a traditional landscape painting

that falls to the floor into a

diorama. It then lifts up toward

the window that overlooks

Central Park, which was a

swamp before Frederick Law

Olmsted moved earth around to

create the park we know now.”

Euclide’s dazzlingly realistic

installations — which incorporate

bits of moss and stones — may

bring to mind meticulous

model-makers, but this is about

as far as you could possibly get

from a middle-aged trainspotter.

With even more ambitious

pieces of art planned, don’t be

surprised if other musicians

soon jab this talented artist’s

name into Google




Emptied our seeing in the difficulty of our enjoyment



Bliss
xx


Abundance and angles

I made an enquiry if anyone has an anglepoise lamp I could have. Two people have said that I can have an old one that's in their loft. One definitely but not sure if it's working. The other definitely if they haven't thrown it away.
I wonder if either might be a Herbert Terry design and make ...
Original designs for the Anglepoise 1209, 1933
© Hebert Terry Ltd

AnglepoiseLamp (1933)
Design Museum Collection
Great British Design Quest
Designed by the automotive engineer George Carwardine, the ANGLEPOISE lamp is based on the ability of a new type of spring invented by Carwardine in 1932 to remain in position after being moved in every conceivable direction. Efficient and energy-saving, the Anglepoise has remained in production ever since.
Many inventors produce ingenious ideas because they set themselves a goal – such as improving the performance of a particular product or finding a new means of tackling a problem – and set their sights on achieving it. Yet one of the most successful examples of amateur British invention, the Anglepoise lamp, was invented by accident, as a by-product of an earlier invention.
The Anglepoise lamp was designed by George Carwardine (1887-1948), an automotive engineer who owned a factory in Bath which developed vehicle suspension systems. He loved to tinker in his workshop and especially enjoyed developing different types of springs. During these experiments, Carwardine designed a new type of spring which could be moved easily in every direction yet could also remain rigid when held in position. He patented his spring design on 7 July 1932 and set about finding an application for it.
Carwardine eventually found a suitable use for his spring – a lamp which, supported and balanced by a sequence of springs, could be constantly repositioned to focus the light in specific directions. Inspired by the constant tension principle of human limbs, Carwardine developed a lamp which could be both flexible and stable, like a human arm. He designed a heavy base to stabilise the lamp, and a shade which could concentrate the beam on specific points without causing dazzle. This focused beam enabled the lamp to consume less electricity than existing models. Carwardine thought it would be useful for the workmen in his factory to illuminate particular components or parts of suspension systems, but he soon realised that it would be equally suitable for illuminating the papers and books lying on office desks.
Having finalised his design, Carwardine decided to license it to Herbert Terry & Sons, a manufacturer based at Redditch in Worcestershire which supplied springs to his factory. The company was then run by Charles Terry, the eldest son of its founder Herbert. Determined to expand the business, Charles Terry was keen to diversify by applying its expertise in springs to new products. He personally signed the licensing agreement for Carwardine’s lamp.
Carwardine intended to call his lamp the Equipoise but the name was rejected by the Trade Marks Registry at the Patent Office on the grounds that equipoise was an existing word, and they settled on Anglepoise. The first version of the Anglepoise lamp, the 1208, was produced by Terry in 1934 with four springs. It proved so popular that two years later Terry introduced a domestic version, the 1227 with three springs and an Art Deco-inspired three tier base, which looked more stylish than the single tier base of the 1208.
Terry publicised the Anglepoise by emphasising both the precision with which its beam could be focused on a particular area and its energy-saving potential. One of the benefits of the 1227 is that it worked perfectly with an inexpensive 25 watt bulb which, Terry’s advertising claimed, was as efficient in the Anglepoise lamp as a 60 watt bulb would be in another light.
Three years later Terry introduced a new version of the 1227, with a two tier base and a wider shade which was capable of taking a 40 watt bulb. This model remained in production for over 30 years and is still widely regarded as the archetypal Anglepoise, even though the design has since been modified. The 1969 Anglepoise Model 75 sported a round base and a fluted shade held in place by a swivel ball. The 1989 Anglepoise Apex 90 refined the design of the Model 75 by adopting a modular jointing system for easy assembly.
In 2003 Terry commissioned the product designer Kenneth Grange (1929-) to revise the original Anglepoise 1227 into the Anglepoise Type 3, notably by adding a double skin shade that can take a 100 watt bulb. The following year Terry invited Grange to revise the design of the Model 75, which he did in the Anglepoise Type 75, a lamp which still bears a distinct resemblance to the prototype designed by George Carawardine over 70 years before.
© Design Museum, 2004
BIOGRAPHY
1932 George Carwardine registers the patent for a new type of spring.
1934 After searching for a use for his new spring, Carwardine uses it to produce a lamp with a focused beam. He licenses his design to Herbert Terry Ltd, which launches the Anglepoise 1209, initially for industrial use.
1935 Terry introduces a domestic version of Carwardine’s lamp - the Anglepoise 1227 - with a three tier base and 25 watt bulb.
1938 The original Anglepoise 1227 is withdrawn and replaced by a new 1227 with a two tier base and 40 watt bulb. It remains in production for over 30 years.
1947 The word Anglepoise® is registered as a trade mark at the Patents Office.
1969 Terry replaces the 1227 with the Anglepoise Model 75 which includes a round base and fluted shade held in place by a swivel ball.
1989 The Anglepoise Apex 90 refines the design of the Model 75 by adopting a modular jointing system for easy assembly.
2003 Introduction of the Anglepoise Type 3, the contemporary version of the original 1227, designed by Kenneth Grange with a double skin shade and 100 watt bulb.
2004 Kenneth Grange updates the Anglepoise Model 75 into the Type75.
2006 Anglepoise ‘Fifty’ introduced in 2006, a polycarbonate lamp by Anthony Perkins

Taking the public for a walk

This may sound very remiss of me and I do judge myself harshly and ignorant as well as lazy. I know little of the politics of my country and how it all works. I get to know and comprehend bits and pieces. But overall I am clueless. I do not feel at all proud of this fact. I try to learn as I go along and get involved in things as they come to the fore as with the recent referendum on the voting system for the UK. This took place on 5th May and the result was for no change. Disappointing in a way I think as the people in this country are so scared for change. If it didn't work then it could be changed? But ooh no. So we continue with first past the post system. The alternative wasn't ideal either and the greater conscience won.

I enjoyed finding out different people's points of views which helped to inform me.
Now Ed Miliband is proposing to abolish elections to Labour's shadow cabinet. I think I like Ed's underlying principles. I wonder though if he is finding himself compromised trying to be leader of the Labour party. And so I am not sure really what this proposal really means to us the people.
From what I am reading so far, it seems that Blair had a tight little community. Protected by a system that privileged the people in the "in" group. I am not sure how dramatic I am making it from the one point of view I have read so far. But it seems to me the in group were secured somehow and could not easily be contested. I am very distrusting. I think a little pissed off that I may have been taken in by the propaganda of Blair. He sounded good but things were done that seemed very underhand to me. I think the Conservatives are even worse by the way!! And Liberals are dragging along with it.
That's so feeble an argument as I have little to back it up with right now and of course in reality I do not have the time to actually be researching this - I need to get on with my studying.
Anyway Michael Meacher MP is supporting Ed's proposal to abolish the shadow cabinet elections.....

"One’s first reaction to Ed Miliband’s abolition of shadow cabinet elections is that this is a step away from party democracy. But on closer reflection this is a shrewd, and radical, break with tradition which makes a lot of sense in current circumstances. Ed is faced with a shadow cabinet in which only 4 of its 19 members voted for him in the leadership election 9 months ago and which has shown itself signally unwilling to accept the message of that leadership campaign that the party wanted a change of direction. A leader voted in on that mandate can be expected to take the necessary steps to deliver what he promised. But there’s more to this than meets the eye.
From year zero in 1994, as Blair and his followers then saw it, the Blairite political machine immediately set about transforming the composition of the PLP into an impregnable stronghold which would support its leader in all circumstances. They succeeded spectacularly. Preferred candidates for the Blairite New Labour faction were given a head start in all parliamentary selections via the network of regional officers, which the machine dominated. They were given advance access to membership lists (the electoral college), they were strongly promoted behind the scenes by discreet pressure from the regional office, they were protected against rival candidates at the shortlisting, and the handling of postal votes often turned out to their advantage.
As a result, of the 350 Labour MPs elected in 1997, perhaps 250 could be broadly described as New Labour devotees. By 2010 that number was reduced to around 150 out of a total of 250. New Labour was greatly attenuated both numerically and ideologically, but crucially still clung on as a bloc able to thwart any significant shift away from the Blairite adherence to privatisation, deregulation, unfettered markets, corporate interests, and inequality. Any leader committed to change course from the disastrous policies that lost 5 million votes between 1997 and 2010 would have no alternative but to break with this cycle of decline. That is exactly what Ed is now doing.
Contrary to the usual media-driven drivel, Ed Miliband is not a proto-leftist nor a Red Ed caricature. He’s a thoroughly decent man with genuinely radical instincts who wants to lead Britain out of the dead-end into which its’s being driven by Osborne stagnation and Cameron market obsession. He has a readiness to listen, a tolerance of factions within the party which he dearly wants to heal, but if need be a steely ruthlessness to cut through blockages which frustrate the party’s advance, as he is now displaying.
The party desperately needs refreshing both structurally – to restore its suppressed internal democracy – and ideologically, both to set out the clear alternative vision to the broken neoliberal capitalism as well as to appeal emotionally and practically to the squeezed middle and abandoned working class base. That is no easy task which cannot be rushed, but EM remains by far the party’s best hope to secure this objective and this latest move will bring it a lot closer."  As per his Blog.

But surely this way, where the party leader would be free to appoint people of his choice to the shadow cabinet removes some party democracy? And doesn't this mean he will be surrounded by personal preferences? Isn't this a closed shop for the "boys"? I don't see how this is any better. In fact I would have thought an elected cabinet is less likely to be a closed shop? What am I missing here?
The Guardian reported "Aides said he had taken the step to end the distraction of elections and to make his top team focus on the task of holding the government to account. They believe repeated internal elections make some shadow cabinet members as concerned by their popularity among their colleagues as with their impact on the general public". Yes I can see the distraction. It's all so flipping corrupt and no one is really getting on with the job. I wonder how the Conservative cabinet is decided upon?
Of course the fact that only 4 of the Shadow cabinet were actually people who voted Ed in as party leader may be influencing his decision. Perhaps? And he will certainly find opposition within that. In my hopefulness I have a fantasy that he is a wonderful man with only the best for the country in his mind. I thought that about Blair but actually now I think differently. He has had such a lot of bad press and I am no doubt influenced by the innuendos of self gain that I think I have picked up.
Now his party opted not to abolish the elections in a vote earlier in the year. Instead they wanted to increase the annual vote to bi-annual. I suppose this would give a constant re-assessment and keep cabinet members on their toes, less complacency. But if this resulted in them spending all their time canvassing, poo it would be costly and time wasting. Imagine if we did that at work all the time. The funny thing I know PD for example is fantastic at his job and a great team leader overall. But if the vote was put to the hospital I am certain he would not be voted in because he is unpopular. He is unpopular because he does not play all the diplomatic games with colleagues and he shows his intolerance with time wasters and incompetent people. Sometimes its merely his impatience. So he would surely not be voted in. People generally like nice people and so I could probably whip up some votes but I know I would be the wrong person of the two of us. It would be for self gain alone!
So imagine if that is happening which  am sure it is, all the time. If only people really were decent and not selfish or even grandiose. Some people believe in themselves and can spin a good line. The spin doctors. I am Joe public who falls for the spin. Grrrr. Why do I not have foresight and see beyond the spin. I am not a good strategist in my opinion.
"But the move will give Miliband freedom from September to recast the shadow cabinet in his own political image, and promote fresh younger talent currently stuck in the relative obscurity of junior shadow ministerial jobs." (Michael White 24June2011 Guardian). Yes I can see this point. Some system has to be in place. I think actually the more I write and read I too think a chosen cabinet would be most efficient. When employing people, I have always selected people that I believe will fit in with the team and working ethics. The ethics of course are usually set by my own standards in my belief of what the client wanted as a service. I was very demanding and exacting as a boss. I always had incredible teams and clients always, always appreciated the service we offered. It worked. I tried to look after my team too to show my appreciation. We partied hard. Now how would that look to the clients? It would like like self gain I suppose.
With the current system in place, White (2011) reports that "Although the leader is free to appoint any elected member to any portfolio he chooses, those who do well in the elections believe they have earned the right to be handed the more senior jobs." This suggests to me, there is a sort of pool of people and from those he can appoint the best suited to the available position. But the last part of this comment suggests that there is a big expectation for those elected and so if they do not get the job they think they deserve there would probably be discontent and which could result is dissent amongst the staff. Eventually such grievances can attenuate collective rapport and affect the ways in which the party is viewed. There needs to be cohesion and an inability to split the team. PD does such a great job of this even when there are disagreements within the team, he has set the practice up to facilitate forums to create cohesion. Admire him his man management skills. A great leader even though I can feel very angry at times and even question specifics. We can talk about it though without deformation of character. He just needs to do the same with AW now :) .
With what I am reading, I am uncertain how Blair selected his cabinet. Was it the same old way, elections and then selecting from that bunch to specific positions? It is really unclear. I am guessing that as reference is made to the "old way" of internal elections and selecting from those elected has been around for some time including during Blair's reign as Prime Minister. Where can I found out? Not sure. Reading the Internet is not answering my question. I seem to be reading that Blair selected but there is no mention of selecting from an elected pool.
If anyone knows then please do inform me. This comment by White (24Jun2011Guardian) suggests to me that Blair picked his cabinet as he desired. "Lovable Labour left winger John McDonnell was on the radio at dawn complaining that Miliband's move, to be announced in a speech on Saturday, explained to MPs on Monday and put to Labour's party conference in September, would be a lurch back to the bad old "patronage of the Blair era"."

I liked this report from Suzanne Moore - nothing to do with the abolishment but certainly to do with the reforming and re emergence of Labour. I so do not want the Conservatives but I want Labour to shift and grow. Of course I realise that all the talk in the world is not always practical in reality. But surely a good party would be certain they can deliver. I do not trust Conservatives as all they do is blame right now. Blame culture and it starts at the very top of the political system!

I suspect Blue Labour is just another great moving-right show

This new 'blue' ideology seems more conservative than radical, but at least Labour is acknowledging how bad things are for the party


miles davis
Feeling blue … Miles Davis’s soundtrack to Labour reform?
Very shortly now, most of the population – except the class warriors of the Tory party – will take to the streets to demand the overthrow of capitalism. It won't take long. Overnight, the dignity of labour will be restored, and jobs created. Wealth will be understood to be about more than just money, communities will bond, and the world will live as one.
This is a lovely fantasy ruined by the perpetual failure of the bloomin' working class to head up this revolutionary vanguard. But, comrades, it is even worse than that. Many of "them" don't even bother voting Labour. Can you imagine that? I can, actually, as I grew up in a Tory-voting working-class household and can easily rattle off the explanations for their bad behaviour: the evil manifestations of the rightwing media, consumerism, false consciousness. Or I could say, why should people vote for a party that increasingly does not look like them or speak like them, when they can vote for people who just seem to be in charge anyway?
Finally, though, Labour is on the case. The policy vacuum is trying to suck in some ideas. Historically, oppositions may take more than five years to get in gear, but the fallout from the crash is so severe that there is a kind of desperation around at the moment. Simply hoping that growth doesn't happen, in order to prove the coalition wrong, does not constitute an opposition.
Like many, I long ago lost faith with the Labour party – and indeed the bubble in which much "leftwing debate" takes place. Nonetheless, the old question, "What is the Labour party for?" has to be answered yet again if it is to continue. When I worked at Marxism Today in the late 80s, "the project" evolved from an analysis of Thatcherism that understood the "aspirational" voter. The fruition of this was the coalition of different classes that brought in Blair. Recognising that Labour could never have been elected by appealing only to its traditional vote was key, but now something else has gone wrong. In securing the middle-class vote since 1997, nearly five million of its voters, mainly working-class, have drifted away. If the party is to survive, Labour, now more managerial and bourgeois than ever, needs to find a way to win back what it used to consider its "natural" base.
How can it resuscitate the values that brought the Labour party into being, and appeal to "ordinary people"? One way, I suppose, might be not to sneer at such people. The party's tortuous jargon – "direction of travel" etc – gets it nowhere. Some of this will be knocked out in this weekend's Labour policy review. It will be interesting to see how much influence the Blue Labour strand of thinking has had. Ed Miliband is said to be impressed by this small group, which includes James Purnell and Jon Cruddas. While I don't share much of their thinking, I do at least think they are moving Labour out of denial about how bad things really are.
In trying to claim back the word blue from all its nasty Tory connotations, we are told to think of Miles Davis or Picasso. Or how about just the blues itself? I woke up this morning and my core vote had gone?
The prime mover behind Blue Labour, Maurice Glasman, now in the Lords, is right to say it is not enough for the party to appeal to those former Labour voters who went to the Liberal Democrats – it has to go further, but it cannot do so without what Glasman calls "a plausible ideology". Of the party itself, he says, "It had no narrative of the past 13 years that could explain its lacks of transformative power." Renewal, he argues, will come from a seeming paradox. The party must be "radical and conservative". Conservative in the sense of conserving what is good, whether it be forests or families. It starts, therefore, from a set of values rooted in relationships.
This is part of an attempt to reach out to those who left Labour for the Tories. These are the people who probably read papers you don't like. But Blue Labour is saying to them, it's OK to want a sense of belonging, of decency, of stability, of not being blown around by the gusts of globalisation. Rebutting the New Labour obsession with change, cosmopolitanism and individualism, it looks to a pre-1945 tradition of guilds and co-ops. It talks of family and community and seeks to identify itself with those who feel disoriented and insecure. This is code for talking about crime and immigration. It talks up tradition, not modernity.
This refiguring of terrain is an electoral strategy that may repel the left of the party, but what else is on offer right now? Not the smashing of a system, even though that system has been shown to be so fundamentally flawed.
Much of what Glasman preaches strikes me as more conservative than radical, especially in relation to women. I fail to see how we need more socially conservative policies at a time when women, particularly single parents, are bearing the brunt of these cuts. Part of Labour's "tradition" surely includes embracing women's rights.
All the talk of reciprocity, mutuality, solidarity and civic culture could easily be Red Toryism or "big society" waffle. Except for one thing: the talk of limiting the market and the commodification of human beings. The big society discourse is, in contrast, utterly silent on the market.
Whether any of this will translate into vote-winning policies is debatable, but it is a move out of inertia. Yes, it is mired in nostalgia for the radical conservatism of William Morris or Ruskin, but other parts of the left are currently wallowing in daft strike nostalgia, so denial takes different forms. The public sector has still to take the public with it, though it is heresy to say that. The calculation may well be that the coalition does not need public sector votes anyway.
This is the context in which Miliband will seek to reconnect with the so-called conservative working class. Is this anything other than another great moving-right show? Let's see. It is at least a realisation that the third party does not have years to tell us how it is different from the governing parties. The crash seems to have produced not a desire to limit the market, but to limit our vision. And a desire for familiarity. What is meant to be a paradigm shift is an attempt to make Labour electable. It is pragmatic, not revolutionary. This aim is merely to soften the blows of capitalism with an almost spiritual faith in "relationships". It is, as Cruddas told me, an attempt to start a conversation. Some see Miliband tacking to the left, but I don't agree.
In reality, his seeking to change "the common sense of the age" is a form of cultural politics. Genuinely new and radical politics may well spring up from places we don't yet know, but what we are seeing is the return of what was repressed under New Labour: we are once more talking about class and ideology. Labour needs the working classes again as much as it needs to rewrite its own ideology to attract them. That alone makes me feel kind of blue."
Suzanne Moore is an award-winning columnist for the Guardian. She also writes for the Mail on Sunday.

So here they all are as of current......

 

The Shadow Cabinet

Leader of the Labour Party
Ed Miliband

Deputy Leader and Shadow Secretary of State for International Development
Harriet Harman

Shadow Chancellor
Ed Balls

Shadow Foreign Secretary
Douglas Alexander

Shadow Chief Whip
Rosie Winterton

Shadow Home Secretary and Minister for Women and Equalities
Rt Hon Yvette Cooper MP

Shadow Chief Secretary
Angela Eagle

Shadow Secretary of State for Business, Innovation & Skills
John Denham

Cabinet Office and Minister for the Olympics
Tessa Jowell

Shadow Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government
Caroline Flint

Shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media & Sport
Ivan Lewis

Shadow Leader of the House of Commons
Hilary Benn

Shadow Secretary of State for Defence
Jim Murphy

Shadow Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Mary Creagh

Shadow Secretary of State for Education and Election Coordinator
Andy Burnham

Shadow Lord Chancellor, Secretary of State for Justice
Sadiq Khan

Shadow Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change
Meg Hillier

Shadow Secretary of State for Health
John Healey

Shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland
Shaun Woodward

Shadow Secretary of State for Scotland
Ann McKechin

Shadow Secretary of State for Transport
Maria Eagle

Shadow Secretary of State for Wales
Peter Hain

Shadow Secretary of State for Work & Pensions
Liam Byrne

Shadow Leader of the House of Lords
Baroness Royall

Shadow Lords Chief Whip
Lord Bassam of Brighton

Shadow Attorney-General
Baroness Scotland of Asthal QC

Also attending Shadow Cabinet meetings:

Shadow Minister of State – Cabinet Office
Jon Trickett

......................................................................................................................

Foreign & Commonwealth
Douglas Alexender
John Spellar
Wayne David
Stephen Twigg
Emma Reynolds
Baroness Symons
Lord Brett

Treasury
Ed Balls
Angela Eagle
David Hanson
Chris Leslie
Kerry McCarthy
Lord Eatwell
Lord Davies of Oldham
Lord Davidson of Glen Clova

Justice
Sadiq Khan
Chris Bryant
Helen Goodman
Andy Slaughter
Rob Flello
Lord Falconer of Thoroton QC
Lord Bach

Home Office
Yvette Cooper
Vernon Coaker
Gerry Sutcliffe
Diana Johnson
Shabana Mahmood
Clive Efford
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath

Defence
Jim Murphy
Kevan Jones
Michael Dugher
Russell Brown
Gemma Doyle
Lord Tunnicliffe

Business, Innovation & Skills
John Denham
Gareth Thomas
Ian Lucas
Chuka Umunna
Gordon Marsden
Nia Griffith
Chi Onwurah
Lord Triesman
Lord Young of Norwood Green

Work & Pensions
Liam Byrne
Stephen Timms
Karen Buck
Margaret Curran
Rachel Reeves
Lord McKenzie of Luton
Lord Knight of Weymouth

Energy and Climate Change
Meg Hillier
Huw Irranca-Davies
Luciana Berger
Baroness Smith of Basildon

Health
John Healey
Diane Abbott
Emily Thornberry
Derek Twigg
Liz Kendall
Baroness Thornton
Lord Beecham

Education
Andy Burnham
Kevin Brennan
Sharon Hodgson
Iain Wright
Toby Perkins
Baroness Morgan of Drefelin

Communities and Local Government
Caroline Flint
Barbara Keeley
Alison Seabeck
Jack Dromey
Chris Williamson
Lord McKenzie of Luton
Lord Patel of Bradford
Lord Beecham

Transport
Maria Eagle
Jim Fitzpatrick
Andrew Gwynne
John Woodcock
Lord Davies of Oldham

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Mary Creagh
Willie Bain
Jamie Reed
Gavin Shuker
Baroness Quin of Gateshead

International Development
Harriet Harman
Mark Lazarowicz
Rushanara Ali
Lord Brett

Cabinet Office and Minister for the Olympics
Tessa Jowell
Jon Trickett
Roberta Blackman-Woods
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon

Equalities Office
Yvette Cooper
Fiona Mactaggart
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
Baroness Thornton

Culture, Olympics, Media & Sport
Ivan Lewis
Ian Austin
Gloria De Piero
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting
Baroness Billingham

Law Officers
Baroness Scotland of Asthal QC
Catherine McKinnell
Lord Davidson of Glen Clova

Leader of the House of Commons
Hilary Benn
Helen Jones

Leader of the House of Lords
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Deputy Leader)

Northern Ireland
Shaun Woodward
Stephen Pound
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon

Scotland
Ann McKechin
Tom Greatrex
Lord Davidson of Glen Clova

Wales
Peter Hain
Owen Smith
Lord Davies of Oldham

......................................................................................................................

House of Commons

Chief Whip
Rosie Winterton

Whips
Alan Campbell
Tony Cunningham
Lyn Brown
Mark Tami
David Wright
Mark Hendrick
David Hamilton
Dave Anderson
Angela C Smith
Phil Wilson
Lillian Greenwood
Jonathan Reynolds
Graham Jones
Greg McClymont

House of Lords

Chief Whip
Lord Bassam of Brighton

Deputy Chief Whips
Lord Tunnicliffe
Baroness Crawley

Whips
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
Baroness Gale
Lord Rosser
Lord Grantchester
Baroness Wheeler
So what do they all do?
I think I could be a whip or certainly a good number 2. I am not wanting to be number 1. No no no. I do not want that. But I can work well as a number 2. It's about knowing your strengths and achieving within that. I used to think it was about getting to the top. It is for the money rewards I suppose and for the special treats that can be creamed off. But a good number 2 is good to get to the top of. So there is a top of everything if you know what I mean and not having to be the top to get a sense of achievement and purpose.
So back to the abolishment. "...most leaders would be autocrats if their colleagues and party constitutions didn't stop them" (White, 2011). I can see that point but at the same time think an effective team comes with clever selection. This I suppose comes down to then believing in what the person is saying they can do, trusting them to pick the right team. No one is going to get it perfectly right and there are lots of ways to skin a cat. Not everyone is going to be happy either. So for Ed to do a good job he has to be able to put across his case, show that he is sincere with a team behind him that also believes in the policy and want to do their best to make it work. There has to be a system by which they can be answerable as well as delivering. This means that things that don't work can be adjsted within the policy or change the policy. Of course that's a delicate operation in itself because any changes have to slot in still with the overall plan ie budgets etc etc.
Wow it's a tricky job and enormous. I used to get stressed just leading the little teams for the companies. And trying to satisfy all when they had different ways of working etc. Phew it was difficult and at times there was the potential to create fractions just to keep the majority happy. This in turn could create a team inbalance and dissent could appear. What a game! Glad not to be in it - I truly am. But at least I think I have some understanding at a very very low level. Poltics is a game really. And the politicians think they have a handle on eerything. Well that's the impression I get. I bet they have doubt and fear too. But they also have a great interest in what theya re doing so would leave them to get on with it but they need "us" along for the ride too. Mmmm and that's interesting too.The Select Committee are voted in. Backbenchers can vote them in rather than whips choosing the committee members. I wonder? I presume they are picked from the party who is in power? Anyway it seems there are systems and systems and sub-systems and no sysytems. It's so complicated. It's a world within a world or a nation within a  nation. Not one size fits all. I wonder if it would be better to have smaller communities yet everything is getting bigger isn't it? I see there would be problems but smaller is surely easier to manager. It's just then finding a way to keep smaller within the larger tool. I see that in our work place. We are pretty autonomous. But that means that we don't always want to be involved with the rest of the teams. We see ourselves set apart and different. There are certain staff that we can easily mix with. We are all departmental. Some of us do mix BUT wehave different agendas etc. And then we are accoutable to department heads who are accountable to the overall leader. So it is possible to have smaller units reporting the bigger. On the other hand AA is reversed. Every group is actually autonomous. Leaders are trusted servants not governors and the centralised service points are actually servants to the autonomous groups. But there is no move to try and achieve anything other than to help the person who wants help and to spread the word. Keeping afloat is also autonomous. BUT there is no profits to be mae or big name to be achieved. Costs are low and there is no image to be maintained etc. Simple living and reliant on the individuals who attend. Having tolerance of those who want to contribute more or less. It's a very gentle, mild-mannered existance. It works for all sorts of people too. The difference is what? There is no desire to be more than it is and to attract not promote.  It works too.
Well an interesting contemplation of things outside of my knowledge really. It's good to stretch the mind, relate to what I do know from experience, and to try and make sense of things worldly. Now of course is to get some knowledge introlduced to the contemplation. Anyone?
No on ever reads or writes to my Blog. Oh not true, Steenie did sometimes. It would be good if more people, people I don't know even would contribute. Expand the knowledge base. Opinions are opinions and do not have to be right or wrong.
Well it is how it is.
Bliss
XX

poised at an odd angle

Herbert Terry
Putting out feelers to acquire one

 





I have been thinking of JH this evening. I am still missing him and still feel sad. There was so much love for him. It doesn't go so easily or quickly. Unrequited,

Bliss
XX