Class War #3

Most London councils try to move people outside borough

And so it goes on. The story told by the resident of Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea is only to be expected of a borough that thinks if you can't afford to buy your home there or pay for private education for your child, you shouldn't be living there and should send your child to another borough's schools. Nearly 170,000 people live there, a quarter in council or housing association housing yet there are only 5 state secondary schools in the borough, 3 of which are church schools. Not much choice and I guess once they cleanse the borough of so-called 'social housing' tenants they'll probably be even less.

The 70s

BBC2 has been running a 1970s season. This has meant the airing of some classic 70s cinema; One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest; Mean Streets and Cabaret, but also the documentary series by Dominic Sandbrook called 'The 70s'. 

 

As I grew up in the 70s I thought I'd give this 4 part series a go, if just for the nostalgia. There was that aplenty in the soundtrack but other than that it was a deeply unsatisfying in format and content. Made up entirely of archive clips and Sandbrook's voice over and to camera commentary, it gave a broad sweep of the decade under the premise that the 1970s shaped the world we live in today. Well duh! You could say that about any past decade. Society is not static and is forever changing; old traditions and ways of life fall away and new ones take their place. There was certainly some significant shifts in British society in the 70s. 

Consensus politics were on the way out, global economics began to bite, the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and Race Relations Act 1976 were to start to change the lives of millions (though sexism and racism are still with us). Yet there were no interviews with the people involved or affected. The whole series was just Sandbrook's personal view - a view which seemed to come from the middle-class right and say 'no wonder Thatcher came to power in the end'. And that was about the sum of it.

In contrast 'The Lost World of the Seventies' presented by Michael Cockerell, an hour long programme which focused on 4 'characters' of the 1970s, was far more satisfying. Using archive footage and interviews with people involved at the time, these snapshots gave a far more interesting perspective of the times and in a way was more convincing about the changes the 70s made. 

 

Starting with General Walter Walker, who sought to protect Britain from 'the enemy within', the archive interviews show a man with genuine fear of the 'Red Menace' and who was trying to gather around him like-minded individuals that would, if necessary, take over Britain to save us from Marxists. There were many who did fear such a thing. In the end though even the Telegraph undermined him and the old general with his paper army faded away. In Britain we don't go in for coups. 

Next up was Lord Longford aka Lord Porn and notorious visitor of Myra Hindley. Longford headed a campaign against pornography after the Obscene Publications Act had been amended to allow more salacious material to be published. An old school moral campaigner his investigation and report was ignored by government. 

Next was Jimmy Goldsmith, billionaire financier and tycoon, who's business dealings were subject to scrutiny and criticism by the BBC's Money Programme and by Private Eye. Goldsmith went on to try and use the criminal libel law against Private Eye, which though in the end only cost the magazine a full page add apologising and retracting its allegation that Goldsmith had helped old friend Lord Lucan flee after the murder of his children's nanny, all Goldsmith actually achieved was dislike and increasing the sales of Private Eye. 



Last up was Robert Mark, Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police from 1972 to 1977, who came to fight corruption in the CID. Corruption, was rife especially in the Flying Squad and Obscene Publications Squad and Mark was determined to root it out. Several high profile arrests followed. Mark in the end resigned though when government sought to make an independent police complaints authority. He had kept his investigations 'in-house'.

 

The world has changed since these characters were in  the news. You can't image some old general now talking about the need to fight any kind of menace if government fails nor some old lord campaigning on such controversial issues. No, too campaign now and be listened to means you have be a celebrate chef and/or have lots of followers on Twitter and Facebook. Goldsmith's story though perhaps does have more of a parallel today; no doubt now he'd have taken out a super-injunction. Big business men still don't like to be criticised - look at Murdoch. As for Mark's crusade against police corruption, it was long over due and still with us - Murdoch again - though not so rife as failure to make timely investigations (see this)

This post has kind of got away from me a bit but I guess the point of the comparison is that when it come to making programmes about recent history it's the documentary maker not the historian who wins hand down. 

Thanks John

Last night as I was adding my latest post I noticed there was a comment on my Chronicle film review post. This is what it says:

‘You're an idiot... The movie was horrible. Your article is a contrived tribute to your "I think I'm a good writer" wanna be persona. However, looking past the fact that you can't string together letters to form coherent sentences, I still find your article to be a hot heaping mess of, well, mess... Have fun blocking this so others can't see truth... ‘

It was left by someone calling himself John Titor. Obviously John did not enjoy Chronicle and apparently according to John anyone who likes something he doesn’t is an idiot. Well everyone’s entitled to their opinion and it would be a boring world if we all liked the same things. As for the criticism of my writing, well I don’t claim to be a professional writer or a good one. John doesn’t care for the way I write and again that’s his opinion. I’m not complaining. After all anyone who posts anything on the internet is open to criticism. I often add remarks to other people’s posts, although my comments tend to be either to agree or disagree with what has been written and rather less personal.

John got me thinking though about why I blog at all. I can’t even remember why I decided to blog. Must have had a reason at the time and as my earlier posts are generally moaning about the petty inconveniences of life and things that annoy me I guess I began just to have a vent for my own frustrations. Then for ages I didn’t blog at all until I did one post in 2010 about a couple of TV programmes I’d watched. An even longer gap followed and at the end of 2011 I did a film review post and decided to carry on blogging mainly about TV and film because I like TV and film.

This doesn’t really answer the question though of why I, or anyone else for that matter, blogs if you’re just a nobody. I mean I never assumed that anyone outside my friends and family would ever look at my blog. I think, in the end, I write my blog because I enjoy writing about things that interest me.

So thanks John for giving me another subject to write about.

BTW I have left John’s comment up and invited him to say what he didn’t like about Chronicle but I guess as he loathes my writing so much he won’t be viewing my blog again.

Avengers Assemble

Mate of mine went to see Avengers Assemble this weekend after reading good reviews, and my recommendation. She enjoyed it but said the film had been over-hyped. I said that's why I don't really take too much notice of reviews. Thing is as individuals we pretty much know what kind of films we'll enjoy and unless we hear something very bad about a film our own judgement is usually pretty sound.

So what made me go and see Avengers Assemble then? Well firstly I really enjoyed Iron Man and like Robert Downey Jr.and then when I read that Joss Whedon, creator of one of my all-time favourite TV series, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, was the director and wrote the script I was hopeful that the film would be great entertainment. And it is.

I saw it in 3D, a format I still think is over-rated, and in my opinion it didn't add the visual effects, which were very good. Like all good comic-book adaptations the visuals and stunts are excellent. But it's the characters and the brilliant dialogue that raises Avengers Assemble above the majority of such films. Of course it could be said that the film benefits from the familiarity of  the main characters. Iron Man (aka Tony Stark played by Robert Downey Jr), Captain America (aka Steve Rogers played by Chris Evans), Thor (played by Chris Hemsworth) and The Incredible Hulk (aka Bruce Banner played for the first time by Mark Ruffalo) have all had previous screen time yet this is not necessarily a good thing. Ensemble pieces do not always work and if the viewer is not familiar with the characters it can be difficult to relate. This is overcome in Avengers Assemble; enough back story is given to make the story line make sense.

The story is basic - The Earth is in danger from Loki (Thor's adopted brother, excellently played by Tom Hiddleston, in the perfect villain blend of sinister and camp) who plans to open a vortex and lead an army to subjugate the human race. Desperate to save the world, especially as he is in part to blame for Loki's being able to pose this danger, Nick Fury of SHIELD (played by Samuel L. Jackson), gathers together a force to take on the threat.

As well as the characters already mentioned there are 2 additional members of the Avengers Initiative; Agent Natasha Romanoff aka The Black Widow (played by Scarlett Johansson), a former assassin with a dark past, and  Agent Clint Barton aka Hawkeye (played by Jeremy Renner and is not on screen nearly enough for my liking!). As you would expect from Joss Whedon, Agent Romanoff is more than just eye-candy for the boys - she is smart and kicks ass as good as the next man.

The Avengers big egos as well as alter-egos and this gives for tension in the ranks and snappy dialogue.  Get a taste of the dialogue here There are also questions of honesty to overcome. In the end though through the death of another character (no spoilers here) the Avengers come together to fight the good fight. And no doubt line up for a sequel.



My Hero

Class War #2

'Social cleansing' housing benefit cap row
And so it goes on.
Already in the school where I work a student has had to leave after her family's private landlord in Westminster told them as the new housing benefit cap wouldn't cover the rent they would have to leave - Westminster Council moved the family to Uxbridge, 17 miles away from the school.

Class War

http://www.islingtontribune.com/news/2012/mar/cost-living-islington-report-says-families-need-least-%C2%A372000-year-rent-two-bedroom-hom

London, like all major cities, is a mix of rich and poor living often side by side - but for how much longer? It would be easy to blame the current government policy on capping Housing Benefit on driving the working classes out of city centres but there is much more to this story than meets the eye.

Class War is a term that seems archaic in the post-Thatcher world of a so-called classless society. Truth is Britain is more divided than ever. These divisions are as class based as at any time in history. But the war is not from the working class against the middle and upper classes but the reverse.

There has been much comment about the demonization of the working class in recent years, especially the 'White British Working Class'. At best this group (of which I would be considered a member) is seen as a forgotten group my mainstream politics and politicians; at worst we are seen as work-shy, benefit living, racists, uneducated, violent and a blight on cities. We are mocked in the media, the butt of endless caricatures, the only group, it seems, that can be without fear of being brought to book by the PC brigade. Do we deserve this? No, we do not. But this is not the issue. Race and ethnicity have little to do with Class War. Delusion is everything.

My mum used to say there are only 2 classes of people - those that have to work for a living, and those who do not. Why do people do the lottery? To be in the position of the latter group that's why. If you have to work for a living you are Working Class. So why do some people define themselves as middle class? How does this group define itself? Seems to me it doesn't. Perhaps once it was defined by being in a profession or by level of education. Not anymore. I'd say the middle class define themselves as not being working class and that's it. And anyone who is not the same as them is working class. Like I say, delusional.
Of course this delusion wouldn't matter if it didn't mean that we have to suffer not only derision, being feared and despised, but now we are being pushed out of our homes and our cities.

Once upon a time successive governments pushed forward policies to build homes for the working class of Britain. Why was this housing needed? I'll tell you why, slums and slum-landlords. 1000s of people lived in overcrowded hovels, with insecure tenancies and the fear that at any time the landlord could kick them out. Slum clearance began between the First & Second World Wars but really took off out of necessity after WW2 because of bombing of British cities meant a housing crisis. Even so it took many years for people to be moved out of the slums and into what was seen as palaces by many, with electricity, heating and indoor plumbing, and families not having to share accommodation and facilities with other families. These council houses and flats offered good accommodation and secure tenancy - but at a price. The rents were often far higher that people were used to paying. I remember my parents telling me of the interview they had with the housing officer when offered their council flat; they were questioned about their ability to pay the rent and reminded that they would lose their tenancy if they got into arrears.

These council houses and flats were more than just good accommodation and secure tenancy though - they were (and are) people's homes. Home is where the heart, is so the saying goes; but it seems that if you don't own your home then you can't possibly have pride in your home or a stake in the area in which you live. Really? If some estates are in a state it's because the councils have let them run down and they have become filled with tenants who have social problems. Let me explain that last point. For many years now to stand any chance of getting tenancy of a council or housing association property you have to be a person in need, which often equals a person with any one of a number social problems such as mental illness, drug or alcohol addiction, release from prison etc. Now I'm not saying that people with these problems should not be entitled to housing but what I am saying is that when these people are given no other support and are just dumped on an estate that estate will begin to decline to the point that only the truly desperate will live there. And many people are desperate for the security of a home.

There is, we are constantly told, a chronic shortage of housing in Britain, especially what is referred to as 'affordable housing'. But who defines what is affordable? How much should we pay for a home, whether it is our own or rented? Property prices are market driven, dependent on supply and demand, and let's not forget, the whims of those who decide that one area is more 'up-and-coming' than another. In cities this means that, just like in the country villages, local people are priced out of any opportunity to buy a property in their area. Private rents are likewise driven by the same, meaning that for example, to rent a property privately in my area will cost as much per week as a council or housing association tenant might pay in a month.

Whose fault is that? Not the council tenants, yet we are going to be the ones that have to pay.
http://www.homesandcommunities.co.uk/ourwork/affordable-rent
Councils will be allowed to charge up to 80% of the cost of private rents to their tenants. Why do we have to pay for the fact that people with more money than sense are willing to pay stupid amounts in rent to live in a 'trendy' area?

The article at the start of this post describes what is happening in housing in my area as 'social cleansing' and that doesn't feel like an exaggeration.

It is war, sisters and brothers, Class War.

Monsters – or can a TV series go on too long?

Last week Being Human series 4 ended on BBC3 and Dexter series 6 started on FX and I asked myself can any long running TV series really keep fresh?

Of course there have been and are long running TV series but generally they tend to be soaps or soap like dramas like Coronation Street on ITV or Casualty on BBC1 and these are popular and successful programmes, although not my personal cup of tea anymore I watched them and others like them in the past. Likewise I watched the hugely successful US imports like CSI and House – for a while. But in my opinion they got stale several series back. I don’t bother with them anymore.

The trouble with any successful TV programme is that those that commission and broadcast them want to milk that success for all its worth and care not if the standard falls as long as people keep watching. And of course if a series keeps going long enough it becomes a habit to watch for some people, which is why soaps generally do so well.

I was surprised when a new series of Being Human was commissioned. At the end of series 3 arguably the main character, the vampire Mitchell, was killed off and although the future was uncertain for the remaining characters as well as an introduction to a new threat, the Old Ones, I couldn’t see where the story was going to go next. This however was quickly answered in the opening episodes of series 4, killing off the next major character, the werewolf, George, leaving only one of the original cast, the ghost, Annie, and this was swiftly followed by replacements for the characters, Hal, the vampire and Tom, the werewolf (who had featured in series 3) and the story line of George and Nina’s baby, Eve, who may or may not be the saviour of humankind in the face of the vampire hoards.

This story line, with its prophesy element, reminded me of the excellent Buffy the Vampire Slayer (a programme that ran for 7 series by the way). There was also a bit of Blade going on with the vamps trying to take over the world. But as ever at the heart of Being Human was the struggle of the characters to live in the human world while being outsiders, monsters even. Annie has to become mother to Eve; Tom still has to find his way without his werewolf father McNair and Hal, who is an Old One, who has fight the urge to drink blood and kill by being OCD. Practicalities have to be dealt with while hiding their true nature and fighting off threats from their own kind.

But how long can a series run of one underlying theme?

Dexter is a very different kind of monster and as series 6 begins everyone’s favourite serial killer is also still learning to live in the human world. His issues are similar to the characters in Being Human; he has to hide what he really is, live in a world he is not really a part of but he has to also sate his ‘dark passenger’, that part of him that has to kill.

Of course Dexter has an advantage over Being Human; it’s also a cop-show. There’s a race between Dexter and his colleagues in Miami homicide to catch a killer. And his colleagues give another dimension to the story line in each series outside of Dexter’s world. Even so can we keep going along with Dexter in his seemingly unending task to learn how to live in the world? There has to be an ending sometime before we tire of his world view.

I believe the reason that Being Human and Dexter are successful is because the characters speak to us about our own isolation, our own difficulties sometimes in connecting with those around us, of living in the world where other people can seem unfathomable, different from us. I just hope these programmes end on a high and not dragged out till no one cares about the monsters anymore.