Delusions from on high

click photo to enlarge
When it was suggested that Tony Blair should have a prime ministerial jet for international travel - popularly dubbed at the time "Blairforce One" - his chancellor, Gordon Brown, wisely scotched the idea. He judged, quite correctly, that it wouldn't play well with the British people. George Osborne, quite typically, doesn't appear to be showing the same good judgement, and I read that an RAF Airbus is to be converted for travel by senior ministers. The justification for the expenditure is that it will cost less than chartering aircraft or using scheduled flights, which is, again, quite typical of a government that knows the price of everything but the value of nothing.

It seems to me that it is salutary for a government composed largely of millionaires from wealthy families, who are privately educated and do not have to use many of the public services that those they govern must use, to use a more humble form of air travel, to know something of what the electorate experiences. However, I've come to expect double standards from people who can agree to their their own public sector salaries increasing by 10% while holding down those of lesser mortals in the the public sector to 1%. I'm sure that as they jet off on important business, by-passing the herds of plebeians shuffling through security checks and squeezing into their economy class seats, ministers will delude themselves that their luxury in saving the country money is the only motivation for their cossetted travel. And I'm sure we'll all agree that it is. Not.

Today's photograph shows a view of the Bay of Biscay from 37,000 feet. It includes four ships, the largest of which, a container vessel, is near the bottom right of the frame.

photograph and text © Tony Boughen

Camera: Sony RX100
Mode: Aperture Priority
Focal Length: 12.2mm (33mm - 35mm equiv.)
F No: f3.5
Shutter Speed: 1/1000
ISO: 125
Exposure Compensation:  0 EV
Image Stabilisation: On

Scarecrows and Victorian values

click photo to enlarge
Scarecrows are a common sight in Lincolnshire, particularly on the Fens where vegetables are grown. Predation by wood pigeons is quite significant, and farmers have turned to methods old and new to keep the birds off the crops. Researchers tell us that the most common method, propane-powered bird scaring "gunshots" - a single report shortly followed by two more - is actually the most effective. However, a wide variety of other devices are used.

Hawk kites flying from a cord at the top of a tall pole are frequently seen and seem to be ineffective. Cut up plastic bags fixed to the top of softwood stakes to make flags that fill a field and crackle in the wind are also popular and equally useless. Spinning, shiny propellers or balls with faces appear to be less common that a few years ago, perhaps an indication that they don't work either. The most annoying bird scarer, and mercifully only infrequently seen, is a day-glo scarecrow that periodically inflates and stands up to the accompaniment of flashing lights and a siren. As far as I can see that device is about as ineffective as the traditional scarecrow of the type seen in today's photograph.

Given our government's fixation with market economics and its desire to push youth and the unemployed into a job, any job, no matter how low paid or worthwhile the work is, it can only be a matter of time before we see the return of the Victorian method of bird scaring. So look out for boys walking the fields, throwing stones at the crows and pigeons, in exchange for their daily pittance.

photograph and text © Tony Boughen

Camera: Olympus E-M10
Mode: Aperture Priority
Focal Length: 90mm (180mm - 35mm equiv.)
F No: f6.3
Shutter Speed: 1/200 sec
ISO:500
Exposure Compensation: 0
Image Stabilisation: On

The masks slip further

click photo to enlarge
The UK's feeble coalition government is currently basking in a warm glow after months of limping along from one piece of bad news to another. They feel that George Osborne's Autumn Statement on the economy went much better than expected, that the Labour Party's response was poor, and that they can feel more confident about the public accepting the prospect of a triple dip recession and the fact that the government has missed virtually every economic target it set for itself. Moreover, in planning to introduce an unnecessary piece of legislation, the purpose of which is to further cut the state benefits received by what they call "shirkers" - the unemployed, low paid workers and the disabled - they feel that they have put Labour in the awkward position of having to vote against something that has quite a bit of popular support.

However, I think they have seriously misread the British people. In fact, such was the effect of the performance of David Cameron, George Osborne and Danny Alexander, I'd like to see an Autumn Statement every week. Why? Because Cameron and Osborne seem to have forgotten what they learnt from Tony Blair, namely that presentation is as important as content in these days of mass media coverage. What I saw in their delivery of the Autumn Statement was so much more than "two posh boys who don't know the price of milk", as one of their own MPs described the prime minister and chancellor. Certainly that remoteness from everyday life was evident in their policy proposals, but it was overlaid with what came across to me as sneering, scornful, guffawing contempt for everyone who opposed their programme and for the "shirkers" on the receiving end of it. The mask that they adopted before the election, and which remained in place for a few months afterwards, has been slowly slipping with every policy statement, every piece of legislation, every prime minister's question time and in every TV appearance. Last week it fell away almost completely and what was displayed came across as ugly, ignorant, spiteful and un-British. I seem to recall that this coalition promised a new kind of politics focused on what was best for the country, that eschewed the old "yah boo" slanging matches. How quickly that was forgotten and business as usual took its place. However, I have a strong feeling that the unedifying sight of the smirking coalition front bench fully revealing themselves (including Danny Alexander's "do I laugh out loud or don't I" equivocation) will linger long in the minds of the British public.

The chancellor of the exchequer, George Osborne, has been described as an "economic illiterate", and it is undoubtedly true that his Ayn Rand, Chicago school, "market knows best", "cut the state" prescription is one that has been deliberately ignored by those countries that have most effectively dealt with the current recession. But Osborne is also known as a consummate political plotter, the main strategist within the Conservative Party, who does nothing without measuring its influence on their chances of re-election. After Wednesday's performance perhaps it is also time for a blunt re-appraisal of his status as a master of the dark arts and a latter day Machiavelli.*

All of which has nothing to do with today's photograph of a group of mallards swimming across and spoiling the perfectly reflected trees in a pond at Swineshead, Lincolnshire. Though, in retrospect, it may have a bearing if they are lame ducks.

photograph and text © Tony Boughen

Camera: LX3
Mode: Aperture Priority
Focal Length: 12.8mm (60mm - 35mm equiv.)
F No: 2.8
Shutter Speed: 1/125
ISO: 250
Exposure Compensation:  -0.33 EV
Image Stabilisation: On

Politics, ripples and reflections

click photo to enlarge

The present British coalition government is the most inept that I have known in my lifetime, a period lest I forget, that includes the woeful Conservative government led by John Major. Today we are governed by people who have the best education that money can buy but promote policies that display little evidence of commonplace, basic intelligence, an elite drawn almost exclusively from the rich, with a background of public (i.e. private) schools and Oxbridge, a majority of whom are millionaires. They exhibit a dearth of experience of the people they govern, have an air that suggests they think they are born to rule, and manifest few deep political beliefs or understanding beyond a "private sector good, public sector bad", "the market knows best" dogma.

In the two years they have been in power the coalition has made, at the last count, 29 policy U-turns, converted a modest recovery into a double-dip recession, mis-read the steps necessary to stimulate the economy, made the poor shoulder the the cost of the economic mistakes of the rich, and actively promoted legislation that has increased inequality. Moreover, their policies have reversed the reduction in child poverty achieved by the previous government. Following the inverse Damascene conversion of the Work and Pensions Secretary, Ian Duncan-Smith, they now assert that there is no link between poverty and low wages, that it results from either a conscious choice, fecklessness, or is the consequence of too generous state benefits! Today I read that Duncan-Smith's Centre for Social Justice admits that in arriving at these conclusions it "missed in-work poverty" i.e. didn't take account of the fact that 62% of children living in poverty (under the current definition, that the government wants to change!) are in families where one or more parent is working. What kind of society is it that is unable to pay someone a living wage for a full week's work? Inept doesn't begin to describe people who don't notice this and can't appreciate its consequences.

It seems to me that one of the problems of politics today is that too many politicians are responding to the dominance of consumerism, one of the areas of people's lives over which individuals think they have real control. So, instead of offering us, for example, a national education system, organised, standardised and quality controlled across the country, politicians seek to give us a selection of school types, managed by different bodies, in quasi-competition with each other. In recent years they have imposed this consumerist/market ethic on virtually every public institution, from the utilities of gas, electric, water and telephones to aspects of defence and the civil service. The result has been baleful. Now they want the individual's contract with the health service to resemble buying a can of baked beans - "Would you like Tesco, Sainsburys, Asda or Morrisons to replace your hip sir?" The motivation behind all this is to remove community enterprise and provision and replace it with market-driven, self-serving individuality, to make every social transaction financial, to bring to fruition Margaret Thatcher's pernicious claim that there is no such thing as society. What we must never forget is that when that moment is achieved every government we elect will look like today's, our lives will be ruled by financial transactions, and the inequalities within our society will have returned to Victorian levels.

Isn't it odd what thoughts can be prompted by staring at the colours, reflections and ripples in the water of Lincolnshire's South Forty Foot drain?

photograph and text © Tony Boughen

Camera: Canon
Mode: Aperture Priority
Focal Length: 42mm
F No: f7.1
Shutter Speed: 1/640
ISO: 100
Exposure Compensation:  -1.00 EV
Image Stabilisation: On

The Lynn Ferry

click photo to enlarge
In the UK there has been, for many years, a discernible drift away from the principle of narrowing the gulf in weath between the poorest, least advantaged in society and the well-off by taxing the latter and redistributing the money to the former. This approach was universally supported by all the major political parties for a long period after the Second World War. However, for the past thirty or so years the Conservatives have sought, through their policies, quite the opposite; to transfer resources from the poor and the middle classes to the richer sections of society, business, commerce and the City. The recent financial crisis has allowed them to accelerate what they are doctrinally disposed to favour under the guise of "necessity." The Labour party during its time in government, though making some efforts at redistribution, were so half-hearted that the effect was nowhere near what was possible given their duration in office and the resources that they commanded. Today's Liberal Democrats will have to speak for themselves on this matter because I find it very difficult to discern what, if any, principles they now espouse.

Part of the problem is that politics and politicians have eschewed principles and philosophy in favour of managerialism. Dealing with immediate issues has become an end in itself rather than a means of achieving a vision. The problem with most managers, of course, is that they know the price of everything but the value of nothing. So, instead of universal provision and the equalising across the country of the prices of essential items such as utilities, healthcare and transport in the interests of affordability for all, but especially the less well off in society, we are seeing the growth of regional pricing structures, the decline of cross-subsidisation and unitary pricing.

One consequence of all this is that enterprises such as the Lynn Ferry (see photograph) that regularly crosses the River Great Ouse to link the small, relatively deprived community of West Lynn with the large market town of King's Lynn face the possibility of a loss of subsidy at a time when its users face declining incomes. The ferry subsidy is £25,000 per year which allows the operators to charge fares of 80p single and £1.40 return (reduced to 60p and £1.00 for children). There is a need for fares to remain competitive with the cost of either driving round by the nearest bridge and paying for a parking space or using an infrequent bus service. More than that, there is every reason to ensure that the residents of West Lynn remain in regular contact with the major part of their community, one that they can almost reach out and touch. And, there is a need to recognise that West Lynn grew, in part because of the existence of the river ferry and to cause its closure would be iniquitous.

I photographed the ferry landing on the King's Lynn side of the river at low tide. Unfortunately the number of passengers doesn't make my case very well - two young girls heading for town and a woman crossing to West Lynn. I've tried for this silhouette shot before (when passenger numbers have been higher), but this is my best attempt so far.

photograph and text (c) T. Boughen

Camera: Canon
Mode: Aperture Priority
Focal Length: 300mm
F No: f7.1
Shutter Speed: 1/800
ISO: 100
Exposure Compensation:  -0.33 EV
Image Stabilisation: On

Jowetts, speed limits and the big picture

click photos to enlarge

Our dismal government seems consumed with the desire to make almost daily proclamations about policy and legislation. Its febrile activity (and its political inclinations) usually result in bad decisions and frequent U-turns. The latest nonsense involves a proposal to increase the maximum speed limit to 80mph. This announcement - like many - seems to be driven by an unwholesome mixture of wanting to appeal to its voters, an ideological commitment to the individual over the community, and a sop to the "hard-pressed motorists" (copyright the AA, RAC, Daily Mail, Jeremy Clarkson, et al).

You'd think that the hands-off, managerialist style of our prime minister, David Cameron, would allow him to see the big picture that the ministers and "think tanks" who come up with these individual proposals don't. But, no, that seems beyond him. His role-model, Tony Blair, would not have been so careless. So, in the spirit of succouring the needy here are some reasons why he should conclude that it's a bad idea.

The de facto maximum speed on less congested parts of our motorways is already around 80mph. Many motorists seem convinced that they won't be prosecuted unless they go more than 10mph over the limit. There is a great danger that a legal rise to 80mph will increase the actual maximum to 90mph. Then there's the fact that the government is committed to a specific pecentage decrease in carbon emissions: a higher speed limit will burn more fuel and make us miss that by an even bigger margin than currently seems likely. Journey times on many motorways are not governed by the maximum speed limit but by congestion, so in most cases an 80mph limit will simply have the effect of speeding the driver to the next hold-up with no reduction in overall journey time. Britain's relatively good statistics on deaths and injuries involving motor vehicles will inevitably worsen should the proposals come about. Finally, if despite all the above, a higher speed limit does actually result in shorter journey times it would negatively impact on the sustainability of more efficient forms of medium and long distance travel such as buses and trains.

Today's main photograph shows a Jowett Jupiter, a British sports car from a different era when 1500cc and a top speed of 86mph was more than enough to enjoy open-topped motoring. The Bradford-based manufacturer went out of business in 1955 but some of its cars live on in museums and in the hands of enthusiasts. I photographed this example, one of a dozen or so on a club tour to the Isle of Man, when I was photographing the Midland Hotel, Morecambe. More Jowetts can be seen lined up in the smaller photograph.

photographs and text (c) T. Boughen

Main Photo
Camera: Canon
Mode: Aperture Priority
Focal Length: 33mm
F No: f7.1
Shutter Speed: 1/400
ISO: 100
Exposure Compensation:  -0.67 EV
Image Stabilisation: N/A