Flying the Union flag

click photo to enlarge
I get the impression that the Union flag of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (the UK) is being flown more in recent years than was formerly the case. In January of 2007 I posted a piece about just this subject, noting that it appeared less often than some of the flags of the constituent countries of the UK. Perhaps the referendum on Scotland's independence, that narrowly voted for that country's continuance as part of the UK, has concentrated political minds and a more concerted effort to promote the benefits of unity is under way. One can only hope so.

During my lifetime some nation states, for example West and East Germany, have merged. However, fragmentation has been much more common, and in, for example, eastern Europe, it has at times been very difficult to keep up with the number and names of newly appearing countries. This year the UK's lamentable government, that exercises total power on the back of a mere 36.9% of those who voted, is to invite us to vote on whether to accept a package of changes relating to our membership of the European Community, or to exit from that political grouping. This is being done largely in a (futile) attempt to resolve the ambivalent view of the Conservative Party about being part of Europe. I shall vote for continuing membership for economic and social reasons. I will also be mindful of the fact that wars in Europe are not uncommon, that they usually begin with disputes between near neighbours, and that the people of countries that work together and share common values and aspirations don't, as a rule, try and kill one another.

Today's photograph shows the Union flag flying on the City Hall in Peterborough. My first shot was from the side that was fully lit by the sun. It was fine but relatively uninteresting. I liked this contre jour shot better. It was taken when the sun was behind a cloud. The shadows of the building were much more dramatic and the composition gave greater prominence to the colours of the translucent flag.

photograph and text © Tony Boughen

Photo Title: Union Flag, Peterborough City Hall
Camera: Olympus E-M10
Mode: Aperture Priority
Focal Length: 45mm (90mm - 35mm equiv.)
F No: f7.1
Shutter Speed: 1/1000 sec
ISO:200
Exposure Compensation: -0.3 EV
Image Stabilisation: On

New Year Honours and the Limehouse Link

click photo to enlarge
There's nothing wrong with a society recognising those who make an exceptional, selfless contribution to their community. Unfortunately few societies manage to do this well, and the UK does it exceptionally badly, shrouding the whole process in secrecy and frequently using it as a reward or bribe for politicians and their supporters. This year's New Year Honours List has recently been published and is no different from those of previous years - a mixture of the deserving, the unexceptional who are rewarded with status for doing what they get paid for, and a sickening list of gongs for the establishment's boys (and girls). It's the latter group that the list exists for, and the former are there simply to make the cronyism and paybacks by the government to those who work for it, bankroll it and publicly support it, appear less obnoxious and more legitimate.

The whole system, as I've said before, stinks, and it is only the fact that some principled people turn down the chance to become a Dame, a Lord, a Sir or to have anachronistic letters after their name, that makes the whole thing bearable. So today, rather than despair about the thirty or so members of the Conservative Party who received honours, or Lynton Crosby who "masterminded" the election of the current government and is rewarded with a knighthood (as well as the fat salary he received), or actors, actresses, sports people and the rest who leaven the unsavoury pile with a sprinkling of populism, I await a Freedom of Information Request that lets us know who turned down the baubles of the Queen and the Government in this round of honours giving.

Today's photograph was taken in the Limehouse Link, a 1.1 mile long tunnel that runs from the Tower Bridge approaches to the northern edge of Canary Wharf. It has the distinction of being the most expensive stretch of road in Britain (£50,500 per foot at 2011 prices). Interestingly, this is simply a relief road tunnel constructed, as its rectangular section suggests, by cut-and-cover methods, and not one that passes under the River Thames.

Happy New Year to All.

photograph and text © Tony Boughen

Photo Title: Limehouse Link Tunnel, London - Out of Focus
Camera: Olympus E-M10
Mode: Aperture Priority
Focal Length: 17mm (34mm - 35mm equiv.)
F No: f1.8
Shutter Speed: 1/80 sec
ISO:800
Exposure Compensation: -0.3 EV
Image Stabilisation: On

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

Inequality

click photo to enlarge
Benjamin Disraeli (1804-1881), a man who was on two occasions the prime minister of Great Britain, once said, "There are three types of lies - lies, damned lies and statistics". One of the implications of his remark is that statistics are not only frequently untrue, but are often deliberately used falsely. And yet, statistics can be very revealing because they can quantify, and therefore clarify, that which may be hidden or obscured. When they do this the revelation that they uncover can be startling.

Yesterday my newspaper reported a statistic that not only brought me up short, but made me feel extremely uncomfortable: in fact, made me feel ashamed to be part of our society. The charity, Oxfam*, has calculated that the total wealth of the five richest British families exceeds that of the poorest 20% of the population. In other words this, handful of rich people have more money and assets than the least well-off 12.6 million Britons. Could the starkness of that contrast, the iniquity of that inequality, the shame that it brings to every politician and law maker, and to every individual voter, be made without the force of that statistic? I would encourage anyone who reads that statistic and is as appalled by it as I am, to at the very least, remember it when elections come along; to cast their vote for the party that pledges to reduce inequality; to vote for those who will ensure the rich pay a greater share of their wealth to achieve that goal; and only endorse those determined that the poor and less well-off will receive a larger share of the national income.

I was recently in Canary Wharf. Along with the City of London (the financial district not the greater metropolitan area) this is one of the two centres of finance in the UK. It exudes wealth. From the up-market eateries to the private security guards, manicured gardens and spotless streets it speaks of money. What better to represent today's post than the gleaming steel and glistening glass of two of the many banks to be found there.

* In January 2014 Oxfam also reported that the 85 richest people in the world had more wealth and assets than the poorest half of the world's population!

photograph and text © Tony Boughen

Camera: Sony RX100
Mode: Aperture Priority
Focal Length: 10.4mm (28mm - 35mm equiv.)
F No: f5.6
Shutter Speed: 1/400 sec
ISO:125
Exposure Compensation: -0.3 EV
Image Stabilisation: On

The blame game and rain drops

click photo to enlarge
Am I cynical in thinking that our prime minister's exhortation to stop playing the "blame game" concerning the responsibility for, and handling of, the current flooding in England, is simply to prevent people examining the degree to which his government's policies are responsible for the extent of the flooding and the poverty of the response to it? Has he really forgotten that he was only recently blaming the flooding on the previous government's deficiencies. Moreover, I seem to recall him telling us, when he was first elected, that his would be a government that eschewed "Punch and Judy politics", that abandoned the usual name-calling and knock about; that he would usher in a new, responsible approach that raised the standard of political discourse. How soon all that was forgotten. How quickly did business as usual assert itself as U-turns, ministerial resignations, botched policies, missed targets and political embarrassments mounted. Unattributed briefings, back-biting, smears, statistical manipulation - the whole range of dark political arts - was deployed in double quick time, and very soon we were exactly where we have always been, with the public rating politicians among the lowest of the low, somewhere alongside journalists. Now, having said that he has no choice but to make deep cuts in public spending, exhorting us to tighten our belts and chopping services with a relish that borders on the fanatical, he suddenly announces "money is no object" in dealing with the flooding. Worse yet, instead of letting the responsible minister and the professionals who know how to deal with flooding get on with their jobs he announces that he is taking charge. I don't know whether to feel blessed that we are led by this Renaissance man or to despair that we (though not me!) have elected someone so prone to knee-jerk reactions, someone whose every action seems driven by whether or not it plays well in the media and to voters.

That despairing note was prompted by the confluence of the political news and the continuing rain, some of which I noticed on a window as the light started to fail. With my naked eye I could just make out colours in some of the drops on the glass. So, with the aim of revealing it, I mounted my 100mm macro lens on the camera and took this angled shot. I made sure the point of focus was off the left edge of the frame so that all the reflected highlights were out of focus to a greater or lesser degree. Recently I was speaking of how the camera often sees what the eye doesn't. That's especially true when you use a macro lens as some of the patterns in the highlights above show.

* The piece above was written on 11 February 2014
From The New Statesman, 12 February 2014: "After the session (Prime Minister's Questions) had ended, No. 10 briefed that there would be no new money made available and that any extra funding would come from contigency budgets, a clear reversal of Cameron's pledge yesterday."

photograph and text © Tony Boughen

Camera: Canon 5DMk2
Mode: Aperture Priority
Focal Length: 100mm Macro
F No: f7.1
Shutter Speed: 1/125
ISO: 100
Exposure Compensation:  -0.33 EV
Image Stabilisation: On

The Thames Cable Car

click photo to enlarge
There has been something of a kerfuffle in the UK because a supposedly independent body has suggested that members of parliament should receive an 11% pay rise and the great majority of MPs think they deserve it. On the face of it the suggestion is reasonable since the parliamentarians haven't taken the pay awards that have been offered in past years and their pay is relatively less than it was. However, the proposal comes at a time when public sector workers are in the middle of a multiple years pay freeze (imposed by MPs), and when the pay of other sectors (the City, directors of companies, senior management excepted) is either declining, stagnant or barely rising. Opponents of the MPs' pay rise rightly point out that they are public sector workers and that unlike most other state employees they are able to take on a second job -  say, a nice non-executive directorship or "adviser" to a company - and that they are in a line of work for which there is no shortage of applicants.

I have a lot of sympathy with the opponents of the pay hike. To their persuasive arguments I would add that the MPs' suggestion that their pay should mirror and be linked to the pay rates of "other professionals" such as GPs (family doctors) is risible: our elected representatives are not professionals. They have no formal training for the job, need no qualifications to secure it and are not subject to regular scrutiny by a professional body, factors that distinguish most professional occupations from others. The government and opposition leaders who are rejecting the advice for the pay rise are doing so for public relations reasons, worrying how it would play with the electorate; it would be better if they refused as a matter of principle. I was reflecting on this when I rode on the Thames Cable Car recently. This £60 million plaything, subsidised by the budget under the authority of the mayor of London is a colossal waste of money, the most expensive cable car system in the world, and the sort of vanity project that you might expect from amateurs - which is what most politicians are. The current incumbent of the mayor's post is famous for his extra-mural jobs, and is reported to have little of the detailed knowledge needed by someone in his position. Moreover, he is widely believed to want the job of prime minister. It was a disaster for the capital when he became mayor of London; it would be a catastrophe for the country were he to achieve his greater ambition.

So, did I enjoy my ride on the cable car. I did! I'd rather it had never been built, but I'm not immune to the delights of being transported over the River Thames at maximum height of 295 feet (90 metres). Not least because it offers opportunities for some great photographs. It's just a pity that money was spent on this fairground project that currently runs at 10% or so of capacity, rather than the much needed pedestrian and cyclist bridge between Rotherhithe and Canary Wharf that has been suggested by Sustrans.

photograph and text © Tony Boughen

Photo 1
Camera: Sony RX100
Mode: Aperture Priority
Focal Length: 21.5mm (58mm - 35mm equiv.)
F No: f8
Shutter Speed: 1/1250 sec
ISO:125
Exposure Compensation: 0 EV
Image Stabilisation: On

Price, value and Oscar Wilde

click photo to enlarge
"Nowadays people know the price of everything and the value of nothing." (from "The Picture of Dorian Grey")
Oscar Wilde (1854-1900), Irish writer and poet

The quotation above is delivered by Oscar Wilde's character, Lord Henry, in the course of an apology for lateness - "I went to look after a piece of old brocade in Wardour Street and had to bargain for hours for it. Nowadays people know the price of everything and the value of nothing." However, it seems to me that for many years it has accurately summarised the attitude of British politicians, both national and local. Our coalition government is cutting state spending, particularly that by local government with a barely disguised zeal. Under the pretext of "balancing the books" and "clearing up the mess left by the previous government" they are doing what their political philosophy of "shrinking the state" would have led them to do in any circumstances.

The effect of this in the wider country, particularly where the political complexion is the same as that at national level, is that services are being hacked to pieces. Lincolnshire County Council wants to reduce the spending on its library service by one third, closing many libraries, and hoping that volunteers will step in to fill the void created. In Boston the council is seeking to attract businesses to the town and at the same time is selling off public buildings in order to generate income and reduce outgoings. The glass fronted building in today's photograph used to be an art gallery and community space. For the past few years it has been empty, the only thing on display being a sign advertising its suitability for offices. There have been no takers. What the local council don't seem to realise is that companies looking to locate in an area, and attract workers to their businesses, are influenced by the cultural services available. Many new industries will only establish themselves in a place that offers their workforce theatres, galleries, public parks and facilities that give a buzz to the area. Politicians who close galleries and libraries whilst at the same time working to increase jobs in their area epitomise Wilde's quotation to perfection. It also brings to mind E. M. Forster in "Howard's End" - "Only connect!"

photograph and text © Tony Boughen

Camera: Sony RX100
Mode: Aperture Priority
Focal Length: 10.4mm (28mm - 35mm equiv.)
F No: f5.6
Shutter Speed: 1/200
ISO: 125
Exposure Compensation:  -0.3 EV
Image Stabilisation: On

Democratic responsibilities

click photo to enlarge
Living under the benefits of a democracy confers rights as well as responsibilities. One of the duties, it seems to me, is to remain informed about politics and take part in it from a position of knowledge and principle. Sadly, our most recent county council elections demonstrate that quite a few electors show scant sign of such engagement. Moreover, these and other elections have shown that we are unable to expect it even from some of those who seek public office. As those from these islands might realise, I am thinking about the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) who garnered a significant number of councillors at the expense of all of the other parties, but from the Conservatives in particular.

One only has to read what pass for the policies (main UKIP website unavailable at time of writing!) of this party to realise that its position is broadly right-wing and populist, that its underlying principles are not developed in the way that we have a right to expect from serious politicians and that its national profile rests almost exclusively on the shoulders of its leader. According to a news report some senior UKIP figures recognise that the absence of policies is a failing and have considered buying them from right-leaning think tanks!

Those who voted for UKIP seem to have done so for a variety of reasons, few of which I find defensible. Some are attracted by all or individual policies - fair enough - but many are so undeveloped as to be no more than items on a wish-list. Many say they are fed up with the indistinguishable metropolitan elite who head the other parties, an argument I have some sympathy with but one that fatally and naively concentrates on personalities rather than policies. Others say it was to send the main parties a message that they are not giving enough attention to the matters that concern them. Perhaps such people should have been assiduously lobbying their MPs and government rather than relying on a single trip to the ballot box to express their concerns. Then there are those who voted for the UKIP leader because he is "different" from the other party leaders, more "human", more forthright, not part of the establishment. Anyone holding this view simply hasn't been paying attention. I find it hard to see much difference between the backgrounds of the present prime minister and the leader of UKIP. The latter is, apparently, the son of a stockbroker, someone who attended Dulwich College, a private, fee-paying school, and who worked as a commodity broker in the City before entering politics. That is a background, it seems to me, with more than a hint of the establishment and the metropolitan elite about it. As one observer humorously and perceptively noted, the UKIP leader's appeal and approach share a lot in common with that of the current mayor of London. To my mind that is not an endorsement but an indictment.

All this has little to do with today's photograph of a part of London on the south bank, in Southwark, called English Grounds. If I were to try and establish some sort of connection I would do it by saying that this view, like the political party discussed above, isn't entirely what it seems.

photo and text © Tony Boughen

Camera: Sony RX100
Mode: Aperture Priority
Focal Length: 18.9mm (51mm - 35mm equiv.)
F No: f6.3
Shutter Speed: 1/60
ISO: 160
Exposure Compensation:  -0.3 EV
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

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

Social climbing and The Old Custom House

click photo to enlarge

When Margaret "there is no such thing as society" Thatcher was prime minister the Conservative Party came up with a wheeze to increase the number of people who voted for them. The idea was to sell off local authority housing at a very generous discount to the tenants who currently rented them. The theory was that once such people became property owners they would transfer their political allegiance from Labour to the Conservatives and, if they didn't currently vote, they would begin doing so, favouring the Conservatives out of gratitude and because they now saw themselves as one of "our people". Forgetting the political ramifications for now, the policy had  a number of unintended consequences, one of which was to change the visual appearance of local authority housing.

Britain's local councils were given permission to build housing for rent in the early part of the twentieth century because the low cost housing erected by the private sector was so indaequate in almost every respect. Councils often hired socially aware architects and built some of the better properties in this sector of the market. They were, for their time, well designed and relatively spacious. The building density was reasonable and the layout was well considered. A downside that some people saw was that individual developments tended to be quite uniform in appearance. Others thought this often gave areas a better appearance than if deliberate differences had been incorporated. However, when from the 1980s onwards, they were sold to tenants one of the first steps some new home owners took was to replace the front door with something different that signified their possession of the property. It seemed that intuitively people knew of the importance of the front door in making a statement about a building, and a proclamation of the change of ownership was needed. Over the years windows were replaced, porches and extensions - all different - were added, as were fences, hedges and much else. The result was that the modest but agreeable style of the individual house was usually lost, and so too was the visually satisfying homogeneity of the area. In an attempt to elevate the building, quite often the reverse resulted produced by a jarring heterogeneity.

I was thinking about this after I'd photographed The Old Custom House in Aldeburgh recently. This building from the early nineteenth century is essentially the same as many of the other small, gault brick and pantiled residential houses that line the town's older roads. However, in order to make it imposing and more distinctive, to stress its status as an office of the government's Customs, and to impress upon the seamen visitors that they are dealing with an institution and people of importance, the main door and offices were located on the first floor and reached by a really quite ridiculous, overblown, flight of stone faced stairs. One wonders if, on seeing it for the first time, a ship's skipper smiled at the pretentiousness of it, as I did. Today it is a residential building, probably quite an interesting dwelling to inhabit, and one that poses a few questions to an observer of its exterior. For example: when was the ground floor door to the right of the steps inserted, at what level is the ground floor ceiling/first floor floor, and what happens behind that main door? Is it a narrow corridor, are there further steps? I can't imagine.

photograph and text © Tony Boughen

Camera: Canon
Mode: Aperture Priority
Focal Length: 32mm
F No: f7.1
Shutter Speed: 1/640 sec
ISO: 100
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

Games, money, myopia and heritage

click photo to enlarge

Our government of political pygmies makes much of the need for cuts in public expenditure and the fact that, as far as the current financial crisis goes, "we're all in it together". However, virtually every day they do something that undermines these claims; that demonstrates it's the poor, women, the old, public sector workers, the marginalised and the cultural community who will bear the brunt of the spending cuts.

Last week the government shot themselves in their collective feet once again. Fearing that the opening ceremony of the 2012 Olympic Games might be a touch underwhelming compared with the efforts of previous Games they immediately sanctioned a further £41m taking the budget for this single short spectacle to over £80m. Then, turning their attention to security, decided to almost double that budget too - from £282m to £553m. If, like me, you see the Olympic Games as an optional, low importance expenditure, you can only gaze open-mouthed at the facile way in which sums of this magnitude are found and disbursed. Then wonder turns to anger when you consider what it might have been spent on.

I can think of countless more worthy recipients of £300+m but I'll mention just one. The body that channels public funding into helping to maintain our architectural heritage - including buildings such as the one shown in today's photograph - is called English Heritage. In October 2010 it had its grant cut by 32%. A reduction of that order is not so much a cut as an amputation. Surely, even the most myopic politician is capable of seeing that the few tens of millions it would take to restore the funding would generate revenue year on year from increased tourism. In fact, our politicians don't seem to understand the main reasons why visitors come to Britain and seem to think that the Olympic Games and their increased spending will be repaid by more tourists. Fat chance say I.

Today's image shows the porch on the west range at Castle Acre Priory in Norfolk. This religious site was was closed in 1537 and fell into disrepair and ruin. However it is still possible to see something of what it was from the extant walls, buildings and foundations. Much of the site dates from the late C11 and C12, with additions from each subsequent century until its demise. The porch is a relatively late building with a fine mixture of local styles represented on its facade.

photograph and text (c) T. Boughen

Camera: Canon
Mode: Aperture Priority
Focal Length: 50mm
F No: f7.1
Shutter Speed: 1/100
ISO: 100
Exposure Compensation:  0 EV
Image Stabilisation: On

Votes and buoys

click photo to enlarge

For most of my lifetime the majority of the electorate have voted for left of centre candidates in UK elections. And, for most of my lifetime our first past the post voting system has delivered a right of centre government with a parliamentary majority. As a result of yesterday's vote against the proposed AV system for future elections, this state of affairs looks set to continue.

Is this what those voting "No" wanted? Perhaps, but I find it hard to think so. There are several reasons people rejected change including inertia, a preference for "simplicity" over "complexity", a campaign of bile and lies (from both sides), the desire to punish the Lib-Dems, a disillusionment with politics in general and more. But, at the heart of it is, I think, the fact that a large section of the British public are not terribly interested in politics and still collectively leans towards the "they're all the same" point of view when it comes to political parties. This would account not only for the low turnout but also the tendency to vote for the status quo. However, it never was true in the past that all parties are the same (though under New Labour it was sometimes difficult to discern the difference) and it's not true now. We have many political parties in the UK, but the fact is, of those that are well-supported there is only one whose principal aim is to transfer wealth from the poor and the middle classes to business and the wealthy. Don't know which one? Well, today you can identify their leaders by the grin on their faces, a smirk that has appeared because the "No" vote means their core task will be just as easy as it always was.

I've photographed the subject of today's image several times and have never been happy with the outcome. It shows the area where buoys are re-painted on Purfleet Quay on the River Great Ouse at King's Lynn, Norfolk. As well as a few old buoys there are paint marks on the ground and a contraption that, in some way, must be used to aid the painting, though quite how I can't imagine. Given that the subject is colourful, with red, green and yellow buoys and rings of paint, it may seem odd that I've chosen a black and white treatment. But, the truth is that light is usually more important than colour in creating a photograph, and here shooting fairly close to the sun gave me a curved composition, made more of the shapes and delivered a shot that I liked.

photograph and text (c) T. Boughen

Camera: Canon
Mode: Aperture Priority
Focal Length: 28mm
F No: f7.1
Shutter Speed: 1/320
ISO: 100
Exposure Compensation:  -0.67 EV
Image Stabilisation: On

None of the above

click photo to enlarge

Today I went to cast my vote in the local elections and did something that I've never done before - I spoiled my ballot paper by writing on it "None of the above". That's something that I never imagined I'd do. It's always been my feeling that you should exercise your democratic right even if it only means voting for the least worst option. Today my problem was that there wasn't a least worst option! They were all completely unpalatable.

Should I have voted for the Conservative Party candidate? Well, let's set aside the host of reasons why I won't, and the fact that I'm congenitally incapable of doing so, and simply consider the fact that if it was between the Mafia and the Conservatives I'd vote Mafia because they exhibit less self-interest. Should I have voted for UKIP? Though they protest otherwise they are essentially a single issue, Little England party, and I find their core policies distasteful. Then there is the party that currently holds power locally, the BBI - another single issue party trying to convince us that they have sound policies across the board and the core competencies necessary for local government when all the evidence shows that they don't. And that was my choice. No Labour, Lib-Dem, or Green Party candidates. I'd have voted for any of those as the least worst option (though I would have needed a peg on my nose to vote Lib-Dem). Incidentally, it's something of a sore point with me that my opinion will not be noted and my ballot paper will simply be counted with all the other spoiled examples. I believe that in some political systems "None of the above" is a choice offered for your "X", and we'd do well to offer it here too. For anyone who is wondering, yes, I did cast my vote in the referendum on AV. Mine was a "Yes" for change.

Today's photograph has nothing at all to do with local politics. It's a photograph of a few rhododendron blooms that I took on a short walk at Woodhall Spa recently. I hopped around the bush until I found this composition that quite pleased me. I liked the foreground bloom with its "ruff" or "necklace" of leaves, and the way the other two fill the frame and become less distinct with distance.

photograph and text (c) T. Boughen

Camera: Canon
Mode: Aperture Priority
Focal Length: 60mm
F No: f4
Shutter Speed: 1/50
ISO: 125
Exposure Compensation:  0 EV
Image Stabilisation: On

Bile, vitriol and politics

click photo to enlarge

A lot of the comment that I have read in the U.K. and U.S. press surrounding the recent shooting of an American Congress woman and her supporters has concentrated on the language that now pervades political discourse in that country, and the way in which, following the rise of the "Tea Party", it has become increasingly aggressive, vitriolic and abusive. Too often honest disagreement has, apparently, been replaced by hate, and the metaphors and imagery used in "debate" are frequently militaristic, violent or intimidatory. Opponents are to be "eradicated" rather than beaten in the polls. Sarah Palin's phrase, "Don't retreat, reload", and the use on her website of what appear to the cross-hairs of a rifle's telescopic sight aimed at political constituencies have been especially singled out for condemnation. One can only deplore this degeneration of politics into vicious, verbal brawling. When it spawns actual violence it needs vigorous, considered action and one hopes that the response of the American people and politicians will be more than a temporary moderation of the flow of invective. From a British perspective, we do not want this kind of savagery to descend on us - we have quite enough problems with our politics already.

What has received less comment in connection with the recent events is the link between the increasing prevalence of vitriolic language in politics and the rise of the internet as a speedy and often anonymous medium of communication and dissemination. For many years I have been concerned about the readiness of people to verbally abuse others on forums and message boards from the safety of an anonymous "handle". This even spread into phototography forums, arenas that aren't the obvious place for vituperation, to the extent that I now rarely visit them. The internet also provides the capacity for widely spread, like-minded individuals to organise, and spread their influence, again often anonymously. This is positive and fine when it involves, say, genealogy, but less so when it helps those who think the state is an enemy to be attacked by all means possible. It's probably true that "talk radio" and the so-called "shock jocks" got there first in this regard, but for me the internet has exacerbated the trend considerably.

What has this to do with a photograph of Tower Bridge, London, reflected in a window of the Assembly building. Not a great deal. Though I suppose I could say that this fractured and warped view of the world is analagous to the distorted view of some of the people discussed above - but I won't!

photograph and text (c) T. Boughen

Camera: Canon
Mode: Aperture Priority
Focal Length: 35mm
F No: 6.3
Shutter Speed: 1/400
ISO: 100
Exposure Compensation: 0 EV
Image Stabilisation: On