Politicians and limestone scenery

click photo to enlarge
It increasingly seems to me that anyone who puts themselves forward to be a politician, through that very act, demonstrates their unsuitability for the job. It could be the ageing process taking its toll on me or perhaps it's the filter of the press distorting my perception of politics, but I get the distinct impression that few people today go into politics because they are serious people who have deeply held convictions and because they want to change the world for the better, improving the lives of all. And those that do rarely make it to the important posts. All too often going into politics appears to be an entirely self-serving act where egotism and personal aggrandisement come before principle.

Two of the most prominent politicians in Britain today are the prime minister, David Cameron, and the mayor of London, Boris Johnson, neither of whom are appropriate for the job that they hold, and both of whom daily broadcast that fact through their utterances. At the recent Conservative Party conference Johnson is quoted as saying that if he can run London he can run Britain. The implication is that he is an effective mayor of London who has the skills to run the country. Neither is true, as anyone who has watched Johnson's actions and, more importantly, lack of action in recent years will realise. That he is a clever publicist capable of making himself liked and elected through careful management of his public persona is undoubtedly true. However, he appears to have few of the essential qualities of an effective politician. Unfortunately, as David Cameron has demonstrated, today these are not necessary to secure the top job.

At the same conference that Johnson made his remarkable assertion David Cameron trotted out a line that is deeply revealing of the public relations based muddle-headedness at the heart of many of his speeches, statements that have a baleful influence on government policy or, more often, are simply forgotten once they are deemed to have completed their "sound-bite" purpose. He said, "I'm not here to defend privilege, I'm here to spread it." This half-baked line is more revealing than he thought. Through it he wanted us to ignore his privileged upbringing (and perhaps the fact that he never needed to strive) and suggest that the opportunities he had in life can and should be made widely available. Despite being the recipient of what some consider the best education that money can buy he doesn't seem to have realised that, by definition, privilege ceases to exist if it extends widely. As an aim it is absurd because it is impossible. However, the meaning I took from it was that he is determined, at a time when the majority of society is having to tighten its collective belt, to spread the largesse that he enjoys to "his" social group. And, through the government's policies this is precisely what he is doing.

I sometimes think that my views about our present leadership are too coloured by my own political beliefs. However, I was encouraged to think otherwise today when I read Max Hastings' occasional column in The Guardian. I normally have few views that coincide with his, but as someone who knows Boris Johnson well (having been his editor) it was revealing to hear him say: "He is not a man to believe in, to trust or respect, save as a superlative exhibitionist. He is bereft of judgment, loyalty and discretion. Only in the star-crazed, frivolous Britain of the 21st century could such a man have risen so high, and he is utterly unfit to go higher still." Perhaps he'll now give us his views on David Cameron.

All of which has nothing much to do with this photograph of the carboniferous limestone landscape of Warrendale Knotts and Attermire Scar above Settle in North Yorkshire. The pictured cliffs, caves, boulders and scree were my childhood playground. When I crave release from the cares and woes of the world a walk through these hills accompanied by only my wife and the cry of the jackdaw and curlew soon puts me right.

photograph and text © Tony Boughen

Camera: Canon
Mode: Aperture Priority
Focal Length: 32mm
F No: f8
Shutter Speed: 1/400
ISO: 100
Exposure Compensation:  -0.33 EV
Image Stabilisation: On

Perceptions

click photo to enlarge

Sometimes things aren't what they seem, our perceptions are distorted, and a changing viewpoint or a close inspection is required to reveal the underlying reality. Take UK politics and government. Most British people grow up thinking they live in a parliamentary democracy run by politicians who, to a greater or lesser extent, subscribe to a political agenda that is distinct from that of the other politicians who form an opposition. However, the current coalition government has disabused a lot of people of this rather naive idea, supplying a different perspective that has provoked this insight. Seeing politicians of different parties working together has hardened the cynicism of many and made them realise that a lot of those who seek public office are simply chancers looking to enrich themselves and their social group at the expense of the rest of the populace. Our prime minister and deputy prime minister come across as a pair of "Blair wannabes", both distinctly "Blair-lite", frantically adopting the former Labour PM's earnest, direct, "personal" approach to winning the electorate's support, both spouting drivel about us all being "in this together" whilst carrying out the same old "bash and demonise the poor" and "favour the rich" policies of old. Whether enough of the electorate see through this to make a difference when it comes to the next election (or when the coalition crumbles) is open to doubt. But, the sight of politicians grubbily ditching their principles in order to grab power must surely cause many voters to think more deeply about what they themselves believe in, and to try and cast their ballot accordingly.

And the connection with today's photograph of wind turbines and electricity pylons? Wind farms have a way of seeming to be both relatively small and quite big. From several miles away the towers can seem enormous. Get a bit closer and the huge towers tend to shrink. Get very close and they appear both big and not so big at one and the same time. I still haven't worked out why my perceptions change in this way. A few days ago, however, I took this photograph which, to my mind, does say something about their size. I came upon this, for me, different view as I scanned them with my lens. I liked the way the very big pylon (about as big as they get in the UK) is dwarfed by the pair of turbines that sandwich it.

photograph and text (c) T. Boughen

Camera: Olympus E510
Mode: Aperture Priority
Focal Length: 119mm (238mm/35mm equiv.)
F No: f6.3
Shutter Speed: 1/1000
ISO: 100
Exposure Compensation: 0 EV
Image Stabilisation: On

Chives, cutting and principles

click photo to enlarge

Our chives look a picture at the moment. However, there are those who say they shouldn't. Their argument is that if you want plenty of leaves for chopping up to use in your culinary dishes, then you need to cut the flowers hard as they appear. But then, of course, you don't get the display of purple pom-poms as seen in today's photograph. I think there's another argument about what and when to cut. This says that if you don't use that much in the way of chives then leave the flowers alone and enjoy their fulsome beauty, cut the leaves you need, and when the flowers have finished take the lot off with the shears to stimulate further leaf growth.

Politicians in the UK at the moment are also discussing two different methods of cutting. But it's in connection with the altogether tougher problem of reducing the budget deficit. There are those who say cut hard and cut soon, and others who advocate cutting less deeply, but steadily. Our coalition government looks like it is going to follow the first course, and in arriving at that judgement it has been fun (of a macabre kind) to watch the junior partners (the Liberal Democrats) fall into line with the Tories having campaigned vociferously in the election against cutting deeply and quickly because (as they then saw it) it was too damaging and wrong in principle. The Liberal Democrats' Vince Cable is reported as saying he has changed his mind on this, and furthermore that he "is not a socialist". He may not be a socialist and he doesn't appear to be a left-leaning or Keynsian liberal either. And he may be sincere about his change of heart, but unfortunately a volte face of this order makes him look like a Marxist. A Marxist, that is, of the Groucho persuasion rather than a follower of Karl. I can't remember in what context it was, but I do recall Groucho saying, "Those are my principles, and if you don't like them...well, I have others." I can't help but think that many people who supported the Liberal Democrats in the election will feel that they have been duped when they look at U-turns of this sort.

photograph & text (c) T. Boughen

Camera: Olympus E510
Mode: Aperture Priority
Focal Length: 35mm macro (70mm/35mm equiv.)
F No: f5.6
Shutter Speed: 1/400
ISO: 100
Exposure Compensation: 0 EV
Image Stabilisation: On

Power, politics and PR

click photo to enlarge
A long time ago I heard Tony Benn, a Labour MP, remark that in politics it should be policies, not personalities, that are important. As the UK's general election campaign has followed its course over the past few weeks that thought has resounded in my head more than once.

The US-style TV "debates" featuring the leaders of the three largest parties have, in my view, been an unmitigated disaster for British politics. They have trivialised it in an entirely predictable way. The news media's headlines after each of the three events were all the same,"Who won last night's debate?" Why any rational, intelligent person should think that a matter of any importance is beyond me. The qualities necessary to make a presentation and to answer questions on TV are not those required by people whose job it is to formulate and implement policies that will take a country forward. There are those who believe that the character of the person leading a country is important. It is, but we are never going to know very much at all about the true character of our leaders. On TV and elsewhere we will only see that which the PR people, "handlers", managers and others show us (gaffes excepted). One would think that the example of Winston Churchill would resonate for the British. He has been variously described by biographers and historians as a drunkard, a mysoginist, a racist and much more. He was excellent with a prepared speech, but would have found a TV debate much more difficult. Yet, for all his failings, he clearly had the personal and political qualities necessary to steer the country in its darkest hour.

It seems to me that too many of the voting and non-voting public come to their decisions on the basis of flim-flam - "it's time for a change", "I don't like what this government has done for the last 5 years", " I like the sound of him". How many, one wonders, have read the election manifestos of the contending parties? How many have compared the policy proposals? How many realise that the best we can ever do is cast our vote for the least worst option! Perhaps my condemnation of these debates is excessive. As I write this piece most of the votes have been counted, and the party of the person widely judged to have done best on TV hasn't improved its standing. Maybe the British public treated them like "The X Factor" except that they didn't flock to the stores and buy the records!

What has any of this to do with my photograph of a London office block? The answer is "power." Looking at the image it reminded me of the cinematic cliche whereby a director wishing to emphasise the powerful, aloof nature of characters in business or politics, has the camera swing upwards to a gleaming, sun-lit office block with a grid of faceless windows. "But", you might be saying, "this block is in shadows". Yes it is, but that reflects my downcast demeanour at the probable outcome of the election. They say that people get the government they deserve. Well, I'm not aware of having done anything so awful that I deserve a government led by an ex-PR man who appears to be a political naif, and so lightweight as to be in danger of floating away in a cloud of his own hot air.

photograph & text (c) T. Boughen

Camera: Olympus E510
Mode: Aperture Priority
Focal Length: 11mm (22mm/35mm equiv.)
F No: f6.3
Shutter Speed: 1/250
ISO: 100
Exposure Compensation: -0.7 EV
Image Stabilisation: On

Political and architectural revelations

click photo to enlarge
There was great interest, general approval, and the sound of hands rubbing together at the TV networks' headquarters when it was announced that the leaders of the UK's main political parties would engage in three TV debates in the campaign run-up to the general election. From my house came a moan, followed by a groan. It seems to me that TV debates, where the politicians field questions thrown at them by a television pundit, is more akin to bear-baiting than serious politics. The capacity of a prospective prime minister to answer questions in such an arena, his ability to project an "image" that appeals to the public, and the extent to which he fails or succeeds relative to the others, says absolutely nothing about his fitness to hold the highest office in the land.

You can guarantee that a journalist, somewhere, will rate the politicians' TV peformances on the "is he the sort of man you'd like to have a drink with at the pub" scale of 1 to 10. As though that has a bearing on whether or not you should vote for him, or on how he might prepare a programme to take the nation forward over the next five years. Others, regrettably, will cast their vote according to how they come across on TV. Are they authoritative? Are they confident? Do they look the part? Can they speak in language that the man in the street understands? Do I like them? I've heard people say that they want politicians of integrity, dynamism, honesty, etc, and that these debates will help them make that judgement. Rubbish! We delude ourselves if we think that we can judge the character of a person through the distorting lens of television. No, the only thing that we can make a judgement on is the party manifesto - what they say they will do if elected - and then how they perform once in office. My feeling is that many people don't want to engage with politics sufficiently deeply to make a judgement of that sort, and will vote on the basis of "It's time for a change" or "I like him".

What has this to do with a house facade of 1691 in Hallaton, Leicestershire? Well, just as politicians' real motives and character are hidden beneath a veneer that they project to the world, so too are many houses. The first time I saw this building it was under a layer of foliage. However, I later came upon it in March when the thin veil of branches of Virginia creeper(?) only partly masked its simple, symmetrical face, and its true age was revealed . The main elevation is of a time when the seventeenth century had begun to turn towards Georgian. Its windows, in particular the single mullion dividing each into two "lights" betrays its pre-Georgian status, but the absence of transoms hints at a later date. However, the strict symmetry and stone window and door surrounds point to the next century. Beneath the creeper branches is not stone, but a layer of stucco, and under that the construction is brick. Another instance of a building hiding its true character.

What attracted me to this shot was the light reflected across the narrow street from the buildings behind me. It lifted the shade, put colour into the walls, showed the blue sky in the upstairs windows, and allowed me to position myself so I could be seen in the left window of the door.

photograph & text (c) T. Boughen

Camera: Olympus E510
Mode: Aperture Priority
Focal Length: 16mm (32mm/35mm equiv.)
F No: f6.3
Shutter Speed: 1/80
ISO: 100
Exposure Compensation: -0.3 EV
Image Stabilisation: On

Webs and political families

click photo to enlarge
Is it just me or is there something quite worrying about family members (fathers and sons, husbands and wives, etc) achieving high political office in democracies? Am I right in thinking that where this does occur it is more likely to be due to "connections" and nepotism than the political attributes of the individuals concerned. And that even if these factors aren't at work the very fact that they look like they are should be enough to make those involved search elsewhere for employment.

During my lifetime it has happened in the United States with the Kennedys, the Bush family and the Clintons: there may be others but my knowledge of U.S. politics isn't so extensive. It happens in the U.K. too, though perhaps to a lesser extent than across the pond. We have husband and wife M.P.s and cabinet ministers who are descendants of cabinet ministers. Some would say that the fact that politicians are predominantly drawn from only a few areas of employment, from higher social classes, and from a limited number of academic institutions, is more of a problem. I would agree, but I nonetheless think that the family connections route to high political office is the way of dictatorships, and is a cheapening and corrupting influence on a modern democratic society.

I was reading recently about the aspirations of Jean Sarkozy which many say would be unrealistic were his father not the French president, and recall that Chelsea Clinton may have designs on a political future. To those who say that the sons and daughters of doctors, lawyers, accountants, teachers and plumbers often follow in their parents footsteps so why not politicians, I would remind them that those jobs require a demonstrable and examined level of competence, something that a career in politics can't claim!

I was thinking about offspring following in parents' footsteps the other day when I photographed a spider's web on my drive gates. Early morning fog had hung beads of dew on these delicate constructions, and as I made my images I noticed that some of them had two large drops at the centre. When I took a similar shot last year that web also had these two drops. Was this the work of descendants of last year's web architect? Is it a signature of a particular spider family? I have no idea! Perhaps someone with more knowledge than I have of spiders' webs can throw some light on this. Looking for something to distinguish this year's photograph from last year's I included some sunlit leaves which gave a yellow/green background rather than the green/blue/black of the earlier image.

photograph & text (c) T. Boughen

Camera: Olympus E510
Mode: Aperture Priority
Focal Length: 35mm macro, (70mm/35mm equiv.)
F No: f4.5
Shutter Speed: 1/60
ISO: 400
Exposure Compensation: -0.3 EV
Image Stabilisation: On

Politics and the Cosmos

click photo to enlarge
The UK press has carried a story for the past few days about a couple of politicians, one from each side of the political divide, who have been enjoying the hospitality of a Russian oligarch. More specifically they were seen being entertained on the billionaire's £100 million luxury yacht in the Mediterranean. The suggestion has been made that one of the politicians was soliciting a donation for the party coffers. Whether that's true or not I don't know. However, their presence in the company of this man does represent an unsavoury characteristic of too many who enter politics, namely the way they are dazzled by money and the power and toys that money brings.

Perhaps I was naive in my youth, and maybe an unhealthy scepticism has infected me as I've aged, but I always had the impression that many British politicians were in parliament because they had political principles that they wanted to help to put into practice. Today, it seems, more and more politicians see the well-paid position of a minister or MP as a stepping stone to an income stream beyond the wildest dreams of the man in the street: money from directorships, adviserships, etc that can fund a lifestyle of travel, large houses, fine dining and luxury goods. The "high life" of influence, consumption and pleasure seems to be their ultimate goal.

Well, I've no alternative advice on how to secure influence, and consumption of that sort is beyond my experience. But, I can suggest a path to the achievement of pleasure at minimal cost that doesn't involve keeping the company of Russian billionaires. Buy a packet of flower seeds - I recommend Mexican Aster (Cosmos bipinnatus "Sensation Mixed") - sow them in a sunny spot, water them when it's dry, and enjoy watching as they grow from tiny seedlings to a mass of large, colourful blooms with delicate feathery foliage. Pleasure a-plenty is to be had from this modest past-time, and further pleasure is to be had by photographing them, as I did today!

photograph & text (c) T. Boughen

Camera: Olympus E510
Mode: Aperture Priority
Focal Length: 35mm macro (70mm/35mm equiv.)
F No: f3.5
Shutter Speed: 1/60
ISO: 200
Exposure Compensation: 0 EV
Image Stabilisation: On