I spent most of yesterday watching the results of the Australian federal election. Some may wonder why such a remote contest would be of interest: my reply is straightforward. The Australians use the Alternative Vote system in electing MPs: their election could be very instructive for countries like Britain which may adopt this method. Furthermore, the election was another opportunity to see the way the wind is blowing through Western democracies.

Neither Australia’s Labor Party nor the Liberal / National Coalition has emerged triumphant: it looks like the result is going to be a mess regardless of who ends up with the largest number of seats. Either Labor or the Liberals will rely upon an awkward squad of 3 to 4 Independent MPs in order to sustain themselves in power. How troublesome these mavericks will be is difficult to say. I saw a campaign ad for the Independent MP for Kennedy, Bob Katter: apart from fixing dangling corks from the brim of his hat, he appeared to be playing at being an Australian stereotype to the hilt. This was not at all comforting. Indeed, the only real bright spot was the triumph of the brilliant Adam Bandt for the Greens in the Division of Melbourne, and the Greens upping their numbers in the Australian Senate from 5 to 9.

Overall, Australia’s electorate seems to have blown a raspberry at their political elites. This follows a series of inconclusive results in a number of important elections: Britain voted in a hung parliament in May, Canada has been operating with minority governments since 2004. America is likely to choose gridlock in its own way: polls indicate that the Republicans are going to win control of one or both of the legislative branches this coming November. Nor is this phenomenon confined to the “Anglo-Saxon” world: Germany’s recent regional election in North Rhine Westphalia was just as inconclusive. We can ascribe this phenomenon to a number of factors: discredited governments earning a good swift kick from the electorate, people wanting change but not sure about the options, disillusionment with the power of politics to change lives. As important as these reasons may be, the word “stupidity” is seldom used. It’s not a word that rolls off an academic’s tongue nor often makes its way to a respectable newspaper column. However, perhaps it is something to be confronted: many political elites, particularly those of the centre-left, are blindly, irretrievably stupid.

Australia’s Labor Party perhaps provides the most pungent example, if only because the stench of its incompetence is the freshest. Let’s review: the Rudd Government was elected with a strong mandate in 2007. Prime Minister Rudd faced up honestly to the economic problems confronting Australia: he confessed early on that the government was going to find it tough going. This contrasted favourably to Gordon Brown who did not want to be so forthcoming. What is more, through Rudd’s stewardship, Australia managed to avoid the worst of the troubles. Furthermore, Rudd managed to re-cast the often-fraught relationship with China, facilitated by his ability to speak Mandarin fluently. Yes, his poll ratings were slipping due to some awful television appearances; however, the Labor leadership’s response was perplexing to say the least. Rather than roll with the punches and run on a record that Britain’s Labour Party would have shed blood to obtain, they decided to dump Rudd in a very uncerimonious manner. His replacement, Julia Gillard, was selected because she was deemed to be popular. Obviously, she wasn’t sufficiently well-liked to override the sense of injustice Australians felt due to Rudd’s removal: indeed, I accuse Australia’s Labor party of being so stupid that they simply didn’t understand the concept of “a fair go” which underpins Australian society. For those who are unfamiliar with this idea: perhaps due to the nation’s troubled origins, it is a commonly-held value that everyone should get a decent chance to prove themselves. Rudd did not get an opportunity to defend his record and that of his government in an election: this sounds unfair even to non-Australians. What Labor did was perceived as a con-trick merely done to stave off disaster, and it destroyed them in places like Queensland, Rudd’s home state.

This should have been obvious. It does not take years of experience to discern this. Yet, as I watched some of Australia Labor’s luminaries struggle to answer questions from journalists, I couldn’t help but think they resembled refugees from some inept marketing department; Senator Penny Wong struck me as being remarkably dreadful in this respect. Other examples of Labor being purely dumb abound: for example, I dug deeper into the altogether wonderful Melbourne result. The contrast between the articulate and lively Adam Bandt and the lacklustre Cath Bowtell couldn’t have been more stark. I am happy about that result, but it’s necessary to be mindful of the overall picture. Labor was running against Tony Abbott, one of the most right wing politicians in the history of Australia, a man who denies climate change and torments the electorate by appearing in Speedos in public. Up until this year, he was something of a joke. Yet, he stands on the verge of becoming Prime Minister. Reflecting upon this, I feel like asking, “Labor, what were you thinking?” and indeed, “Were you thinking?” All in all, from the defenestration of Kevin Rudd, to the selection of Cath Bowtell, to the over-catered victory party at their election night rally, 2010 is a year I am sure most Labor people would rather forget assuming they have the memory capacity to retain it.

However, Australia’s Labor Party is by no means the only stupid party. Britain’s Labour Party seems to be an orchestra in search of a theme: none of the potential conductors has given them a popular tune to play, certainly nothing that sufficiently contrasts the Coalition’s Big Society jazz. In America, Democrats pass behemoth bills, each in excess of 2000 pages, to reform both the finance and health care industries: years will be spent arguing over their meaning, and mostly by lawyers seeking to increase their billable hours. The only argument the Democrats seem to have left is “Don’t vote for the Republicans, they would be worse”, though people tend to vote for the party that promises better. Canada’s Liberal Party does not appear to be faring all that well with Michael Ignatieff in charge; his botched attempt to bring down the Conservative minority government has set them adrift. Overall, the centre-left seems to be dropping IQ points, unable to articulate a coherent programme, formulate wholesome laws, nor is it able to manage a decent campaign. However, help is on the way. The Green parties in Australia, Britain and Canada are on the rise; nevertheless, the rate of progress is slow. In an era of fiscal retrenchment, political idiocy is a luxury that can no longer be afforded: too many will be disadvantaged by the neo-liberal agenda of spending and job cuts. This is the point where bemusement with stupidity should turn to anger and an urgent desire to reform.

Will it happen? The omens are not encouraging; the best option at this point remains building an ever stronger Green movement. Again, Australia has much to teach: like Britain’s Green Party, they matched a candidate to a location and triumphed. There is no doubt that the Australian Green Party has emerged from 2010′s results a strengthened force, definitely the 3rd largest party and certainly one that inspires genuine enthusiasm. It is a long uphill struggle, but the stupid parties can no longer be relied upon to provide even a modicum of protection for progressive interests. As nice as it would be to say otherwise, it may be time to recognise that as they now stand for little, they have little upon which to stand. Time to bid them farewell.

Last night, I had one of the most horrific nightmares I’ve ever experienced. I dreamed I was in some sort of a control room in which earnest looking operators tended to flickering computer terminals. Beyond them lay a panoramic window which overlooked an open landscape which was mostly sand, interspersed with a few trees. Suddenly, there was a large nuclear detonation: the sky turned blood red, a large white mushroom cloud rose up in all its terrible majesty, and as the shockwave visibly built up, I shouted, “That’s it, we’re dead.”

The force of the blast then rolled out towards me. I dreamed that I crouched down behind a chair, and as the wave hit, I felt my body dissolve. A grey mist was all I could see. One minute I was there, the next, I didn’t exist at all. It was at that point, thankfully, I woke up.

It took a few minutes for me to regain my composure in the darkness. I found that I was breathing quickly and had to slow my heart rate. No, I hadn’t died, I reassured myself; I was lying in my comfortable bed. A few plaintive cries of birds could be heard in the distance, a small gust of wind touched the blind covering the open bedroom window. My respiration slowed. All was well in my bed and in my quiet town. Eventually, I shut my eyes and I fell back asleep.

I can only assume that the nightmare was triggered by the shenanigans associated with Iran’s nuclear programme; as has been widely reported, their new reactor is about to come onstream, and cranks like John Bolton have given Israel only a matter of days in order to stop it from going live. But if we think about it, the nightmare I described is not a mere matter of nocturnal fiction, an invention of a mind that has overdosed on too many news programmes. Nuclear weapons are there to literally make enemies disappear: cities, homes and people can all be scattered into the ether in a matter of moments. Perhaps one of the most horrific aspects of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs were the human “shadows” which outlined where a human being once stood; worse were some of the deformities to children which resulted as well. The Cold War world was one in which an even more terrifying scenario of nuclear annihilation was a very real possibility. It was bad enough to think of Soviet missiles exploding over London or New York; the world rightly breathed a sigh of relief when Gorbachev ended the stalemate. But rather than having learned from the experience, now nations of all kinds want in on the same club. Following the fearful example provided by America and the Soviet Union, the new entrants to the nuclear gang want to be able to tell other countries in the manner of a hoodlum, “Mess with us, and we’ll wipe you out.” Even Britain, a medium sized power with a very limited budget, wants to continue to hold this ace up their sleeve.

Yet, we secure nothing by retaining these nightmare devices. The terrorists who took control of the planes on September 11th were not at all deterred by America’s ability to blow up half the earth. The problems in Darfur, Afghanistan, and Iraq cannot be solved through using such a crude and devastating weapon: how can one use them to destroy bad ideas? All the expense and posturing has no real purpose behind it; it is solely an irrational measurement of national virility. At best, the weapons will sit in their silos, costing billions, cold metal and hot uranium resting quietly within concrete walls, never to be disturbed nor even aimed in anger. At worst, there are those with apocalyptic visions who want use these devices to bring about Judgement Day. This basic calculus is the clearest indicator as to why they need to be gotten rid of immediately; it used to be that the balance between America and the Soviet Union was represented by the acronym “MAD”, as in Mutually Assured Destruction. Now holding on to them can be called nothing other than “mad” in the non-acronym sense.

However, I don’t have a terrible amount of faith in us as species. We seem to want to believe in easy solutions to our problems whenever possible: we like the idea that we’re not causing climate change, we want to think that the free market will solve all our problems, we seem to just want to watch television and eat fast food and not think too much. In this context, being able to make any enemy turn into a pile of incoherent goo or a shadow sounds attractively simple. Press a button, bang, he’s dead. You won’t even have to clean up the bones, not that you could go anywhere near them. If he gets the same weapon, fine, then you’ll both keep your hands at your sides, so long as you’re both not insane; fortunately, the Communists weren’t. But the more that nuclear weapons proliferate, the more likely it is that someone insane will get them. “Containment” is not enough: there needs to be a commitment from all those who presently have nuclear weapons that they will be eliminated. With that firm promise, those who aspire to such weapons will be the ones caught on the wrong side of world opinion. Economic and political sanctions then become that much simpler to implement as nations like Iran are that much more easily turned into pariahs. North Korea is a good example of how a nation behaving aberrantly can be punished: the regime is slowly suffocating, despite its retention and flaunting of a crude nuclear capacity.

But we won’t abandon nuclear weapons. It’s far too easy to retain the balance of terror; we may be too set in our ways and have too little faith in our ability to make civilisation mean something, even if it is merely the prevention of suicide. While nightmares like mine are thankfully rare, they still have the capacity to persist. Worse, they still have the potential to come true.

Red Plenty

Francis Spufford. Faber and Faber 2010, Hardcover, 448 pages, £9.00

It’s rare to see anything brave or daring emerge from a mainstream publisher these days. For the most part, they are inhibited by those who cling more dearly to accounts ledgers than fine literature and as a result are perpetually unprepared to take a risk on anything new. Truly, they seem to be more willing to look for the next Dan Brown or Dick Francis than for something genuinely extraordinary. How refreshing it is to see Faber & Faber willing to invest in this new work by Francis Spufford, a work which isn’t quite fiction, isn’t quite history, and whose first sentence assures us that it isn’t a novel.

I find it difficult to describe “Red Plenty” in a few words; it could accurately be called a series of vignettes interspersed by history essays. It could be also be characterised as a series of interlocking short stories which are partitioned by explanatory notes (I prefer this option, but neither explanation is totally accurate). In any event, Spufford may have invented a new means by which history is told; he tried to not only to capture the substance of events but also the gist of them in the lives of both the great and the humble. Even more courageously, he chose a period in the history of the Soviet Union during which there was a widely-held determination that Communism was going to match and surpass the capitalist west in economic terms, a prospect which seems utterly ridiculous to those of us living after the fall of the Berlin Wall. Writing this book was a brave endeavour. What made the task almost ludicrously valorous was Spufford’s admission that he neither speaks nor reads Russian.

Spufford sets the scene by fictionalising Khrushchev’s visit to America in 1959, in which he makes a wild, if well-intentioned boast to his hosts that the USSR would overtake the USA. That same year, the Americans brought an exhibition to Moscow; we are introduced to two (fictional) young Communists who heckle the American tour guide about race relations in the United States out of a misplaced, if strong sense of duty. Through another story, we are introduced to a mathematical genius who is going to introduce a pricing system which will help the centrally planned economy become more efficient. Computers of the old kind filled with glowing vacuum tubes, are introduced as a solution to achieving the mighty mathematical feat. We are also told about how the Soviet Union intended to gather its best minds in a remote Siberian town just for academics (a real place entitled Akademgorodok); we are shown that it was a haven for scientists in fields as badly regarded by the Communist leadership as genetics. Jazz and skinnydipping are also allowed. At this point in the book, the future looks relatively bright if almost too blinding; Spufford not only introduced the raw facts about the period, but he captured the optimistic mindset which prevailed from the top down.

But then it starts to go sour, mostly due to incompetence. We are introduced to the managers of a viscose fibres factory who destroy their own machine as they cannot fulfill the requirements of the Five Year Plan; they hope to get a new, more efficient machine which will enable them to meet their targets. Not that it’s particularly good that they’re producing anything in the first place: the reader is informed the factory’s effluent is poisonous. Be that as it may, because of another wrinkle in the Plan, the manufacturer is obliged to send them a machine of the old design. It would seem that the price of machines is based upon their weight, and since the new machine was less hefty than the old one, it cost less. In order to meet their sales target, they needed to sell the older, more obese product.

In the real world, as well as Spufford’s fictional universe, a class of white collar criminals was created to overcome such obtacles. Spufford introduces us to a character named Cherkuskin who is one such “entrepreneur”, in perhaps what is the most brilliantly told story in the book. Cherkuskin is introduced as a man who enjoys Spanish dancing, and his love of “fancy footwork” extends to his employment. He deals with party officials, factory managers, thieves; his presence is the lubricant in the system, he makes its rusty, badly designed gears turn. He uses charm, vodka, threats and bribery in order to shift resources and people so that everyone gets to live yet another day. While we are not fully told about the results of his efforts on behalf of the viscose fibre factory managers, based on the display of his prodigious talents, we can only assume that his work will yield results.

Optimism falls over after Khrushchev is removed in 1964; his frustration with inability to change the Soviet Union quickly enough led to rash decisions, such as the attempt to split the Communist Party into two divisions, one dedicated to agricultural concerns, the other focused on industry. Fed up with such ill thought-out wheezes, his colleagues removed him; afterwards, rather than matching the West, the new leadership is merely content with things just the way they are. Repression seeps in; we are told the tale of an academic banished from the intelligensia’s Siberian enclave because of signing an inopportune letter. The ideas on rational pricing are shelved; old controls are re-imposed. Torpor seeps in; the dream dies, in the end the Soviet Union is set for its collapse, the curtain falls. Spufford’s talent lay in keeping the reader’s attention throughout; both fiction and history bubble together in a stew which has a peculiar flavour, but it works. The narrative is coherent, the stories interesting, even the historical interludes are charmingly told. Perhaps this may prove to be an object lesson to the likes of Faber & Faber; it’s not always wrong to take risks, indeed, as the book perhaps ironically proves, organisations which refuse to take chances on something new can seal their own doom.

A lengthy but illuminating exposition of Zizek’s latest batch of ideas:

It has been nearly a month since I graduated. My life is slowly returning to its normal rhythms, and typical work weeks and work days lay ahead for the foreseeable future. My initial thoughts about moving to America have faded, lost in the incessant drone of talk radio, which I perhaps misguidedly tuned into in order to get a handle on the present passions gripping the body politic. Furthermore, I recently attended a party at my sister’s home; her future father in law, who is of Chinese derivation but has spent most of his life in Vietnam, summarised matters best. He said that he liked Britain because he felt safe and nothing ever became too extreme here. On that gentle evening, with the orange streetlights visible through the window illuminating soft summer breezes swaying the sycamore trees, I could see the point. Yet back at work, I do see that while the extremes may not fully prevail, what is happening is bad enough.

I keep thinking about my fellow graduates, particularly those who had just finished their BA degrees; the thoughts are particularly strong and poignant whenever I cross the same courtyard where we celebrated after the ceremony. While my university has a good reputation, how many of them are now in their parents’ homes, their smiles of yesterday faded into hard grimaces while scanning websites for jobs? How many have just had the bill come due for their student loans and face years of repayment? How long will it be before they can even consider getting on the property ladder and settling down? I know too that these scenes are being repeated throughout the country and the situation may get even more strained. Lord Browne’s report on student fees is due soon; given cuts in government funding, these charges are likely to rise. Youth’s struggle to emerge and prosper will become all the more difficult as a result.

Unemployment blights the experienced as well. A friend of mine has been unemployed for as long as I’ve known her; while full of energy and ability, and even though she has an impressive CV from having worked as an administrator for investment banks, she cannot seem to get a break. The latest economic statistics suggest that the fragile shoots of new growth are hesitant and even wilting. We are lost in a miasma of uncertainty; while the majority are still thankfully employed, enforced idleness and resentment is being entrenched within the system. Furthermore, it does not appear that the government understands precisely how to fix it; all they know how to do is cut spending. The hope is that by reducing the role of the state, that this will create more space for the private sector to grow. As business increases, the theory continues, employment should rise. However there is a flaw in this idea: the incentives of private industry are geared towards maximising profit, not increasing employment. The last businessman who realised that he needed to improve pay and conditions in order to create a new market for himself was Henry Ford; he was right. However, his ideas have largely been forgotten. The people now serve the economy, rather than the other way around.

“South Park” perhaps summarised this system of belief best: in an episode entitled “Margaritaville”, the characters are seen almost worshipping the economy as if it was a living but elusive entity. All effort and austerity was intended to appease the almighty beast, in the hopes that it would restore prosperity of its own accord. In the end, the situation is saved because one of the young boys has access to a credit card with an unlimited balance, with which he uses to pay the entire town’s debts. The quasi-mystical rhetoric and the humourously messianic treatment of the boy with the credit card struck home because of the reality within the fiction. We want the economy to bestow grace and favour upon us again; we want 3% growth, we want to be employed, but we feel powerless to do anything except lay sacrifices at the altar. This is perhaps the most pernicious belief to which we cling at the moment: our inability to conceive of doing anything directly leads to inaction. Our horizons of the possible are shrinking, not expanding. The Left can protest the cuts, but seems unable to find the rhetoric which will get people to believe that the way things are now is fundamentally wrong and that radical change is possible.

Lest we forget, the way that the world is now is not how it has been, nor is a determinant of how it will be. This morning on Radio 4, a gentleman stated that Roman charioteers were proportionately wealthier than sports stars of today. His comparisons were interesting, but what was really noteworthy was his statement that such analogies were difficult to make, as the economy of the Roman world was much different to that of the present day. The changes which led to our modern system are of human creation; it is possible to take those changes back into human hands, rather than letting them be the aggregate of individual desires which have collectively run out of control.

If we refuse to do this, then the shadows which linger over our period will only lengthen. It was a feature of the French economy in the 1990′s that graduates would work without pay in order to get experience and hopefully gain a job later on. It is with some distaste that I see this practice now emerging in post-recession Britain. A generation is being lost, whole groups of people are slipping through the cracks into a vortex of economic exclusion all because we want to breathe life into something that is neither sentient nor respires, yet coils around us like a temperamental dragon, ready to expel devastating fire the moment we disturb it, but is also unwilling to move when we need it to do so.

No doubt the economy will eventually improve; I suspect that weak growth will be, to borrow a phrase from the famed bond trader Bill Gross, the “new normal”. There will likely be sufficient improvement in employment to prevent this safe country becoming too unsafe. An adequate number of graduates will get into work and get on an upward track. However, if we accept this as a good result, we are probably setting ourselves up for another eventual fall, another lost generation. We simply shouldn’t live like this; far too many good people cannot achieve either dignity or prosperity. But most of us are safe, and we don’t want to challenge lest our own lives be disrupted: it’s a pity, and in terms of wasted lives, it’s a tragedy.

I think it was while we were on Avenue Franklin D. Roosevelt in Paris that my father told me that he and my mother wouldn’t be visiting Europe in 2011. We were taking a stroll after visiting an exhibition of Spanish art at the Musée Jacquemart-André; they were going to have a wander, I was headed back to my hotel in order to drop off a jacket which had seemed sensible to wear in the early morning, but was entirely superfluous in the midday sun.

“We’re going to take a cross-country tour,” my father explained. I found out later they were planning to buy a new car, even going so far as visiting a car dealer in London to see if they could find out what precisely “metallic umber” looked like as the purveyor at home didn’t have a sample. Although they haven’t told me the details of the trip yet, I presume it involves travelling to the great cities of Boston and Chicago, swinging south to imbibe the multitude of pleasures in New Orleans, then perhaps proceeding to the Rocky Mountains, and finally touring the vineyards of California. While this is ambitious, it is somewhat less so than trips of previous years. Looking at my father, thankfully healthy, dressed in a blue blazer, perfectly pressed jeans and clean black loafers, I realised he was getting on a bit. My mother is as well. The travels they undertake will likely be less adventurous as the years pass, the soujourns they undertake less far from home. It will be a slow, gradual process, but at some point, they won’t stroll down Avenue Franklin D. Roosevelt any longer. If I want to see them, I will have to go to them in their quiet house amidst a leafy New York suburb.

A refrain from T.S. Eliot’s “The Waste Land” has occurred to me in recent days:

HURRY UP PLEASE IT’S TIME
HURRY UP PLEASE IT’S TIME
Good night Bill. Good night Lou. Good night May. Good night.
Ta ta. Good night. Good night.
Good night, ladies, good night, sweet ladies, good night, good night.

Graduation was an purging exercise, whereby all my ambitions, hopes and yes, fears, were capped off by the donning of robes. Perhaps it’s time, hurry up, good night. My parents are getting on a bit, and it may be time to leave these shores back for America.

There are other elements to consider. Back in London, I went to visit my parents in their timeshare flat along with my sister and her fiancee. We ate Chinese and Malaysian food out of takeaway boxes and drank fine Rioja. My father turned to my sister and I and said, “I don’t know how you guys do it. Everything is so expensive, how do you survive; the cost of living in the United States is so much lower!” And he’s right: yesterday, I filled up my car and my eyes watered as the digital display ticked over the £30 mark. My wages are stagnant, prices go up, the quality of life gets squeezed. The austerity era policies flowing out of Whitehall mean this will be our fate for half a decade at least.

Hurry up please, it’s time. It’s not like I couldn’t make a success of going back; after all, I have excellent qualifications, a good resume, and international experience which could be quite valuable. My relatives are scattered throughout the United States, so it wouldn’t be like I was without help.

Good night, sweet ladies, good night, good night. Furthermore, I’m selling my car and my house anyway. Debts are being paid and a conclusion of sorts is being reached. If not now, when?

There is a catch to saying “ta ta” and “good night”. I try not to read American newspapers or watch American news these days, because what I’ll find will usually offend me somehow. It’s not just the antics of Glenn Beck, whose programme is too bizarre to be believed, nor is it the dreary monotony of Congress, nor is it even the grinning inanity of American breakfast news programmes. Rather, it is the feeling that there is a pervasive mess in American affairs, a destructive untidiness, which has yet to be resolved. I would draw the reader’s attention to the opening lines of the American Constitution:

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

However, is the union becoming more perfect or more frayed? Is justice established or increasingly distant? Is there domestic tranqulity or are there tea parties? Is the common defence failing as an offence in Afghanistan? Has the general welfare been promoted as of late? Are the blessings of liberty secure? Or has it all degenerated into a swamp of paperwork and nonsense, as exemplified by Health Care and Finance Reform bills which each exceed 2000 pages?

A former colleague of mine provided a partial answer. She was a Democrat activist who helped draft health care legislation for the state of California. She stated that the Health Care bill was too complex and wouldn’t work. And it doesn’t even now: my father told me that he had to get my mother off Medicare as quickly as she was put on it. As it turned out the additional premiums were the same or higher than if she was off Medicare. So: a government benefit intended to provide health care for those over the age of 65 doesn’t actually provide health care for those over the age of 65, and indeed costs some of those receiving it a great deal of money. The bureaucratic complexity described by my father was also tedious in the extreme. The health care bill doesn’t assist in clarifying matters, rather, it adds to the burdens.

I have encountered similar issues when I’ve filled out my tax returns; even though I don’t earn enough to be of interest to the IRS, in order to be compliant with the law, I have to fill out several forms every year. Even now, I’m not sure if all of them are entirely correct. However, as I’ve received no warnings and I’ve filled out true and faithful returns, I assume all is well. But maybe not. After all, according to the Economist, it is extremely easy to be locked up for a fair amount of time for offenses as inoccuous as not having proper paperwork when importing orchids. Can one be secure in one’s person there?

And indeed, how did this situation come about? My personal theory is that too many politicians have been looking after themselves or rather their congressional districts or states instead of the national interest. Having to satisfy this unbridled greed leads to 2000 page bills with provisions to pay off each Representative and Senator; rather than work for the public good, they serve personal ambition. This leads to bad law which is enforced badly. Republican or Democrat, it makes no difference, it is the quality of the system and the lack of public ethics which has created the problem. Say what you will about Britain, but at least self-serving politicians, as exemplified by those caught up in the expenses scandal, tend to be roasted alive by the press.

And yet, the refrain occurs to me, “hurry up please, it’s time”. Maybe things will get better: America has an enormous capacity for renewal. Maybe I can be part of it. Or maybe America will become a vast version of Italy, in which the government can pass what laws it likes, but the citizenry will become selective about which rules they will obey. I kind of like the latter idea, particularly if it involves fine California wines and the building of vast art and history museums, in which citizens can take pride in the glories of the past while coping with a sordid present. Perhaps the storied boulevards of Chicago and New York will become as laced with tourist sentimentality as Avenue Franklin D. Roosevelt; if I go back, no doubt in years to come I will see a Chinese or Indian father tell his son or daughter that this will be their last tour of America for some time. Good night.

I am lucky in that my future is open. I can make a choice whether to stick with Britain or risk America, and reverse the decision if need be. I haven’t yet made up my mind: at this point, I am knocking on all doors to see which ones will open. If indeed it is a portal to the States that unlocks, while I’m realistic about what I’ll find, at the same time, I realise a mess can be glorious too. Yes, it would be a sadness to say farewell to my university, the summers that never quite happen, the rail that never quite works, the comedies on Radio 4. Yet I believe progress sometimes is achieved by reaching for the next horizon, an American sentiment which has never quite let me be.

As I write this, I am sitting on a futon in Rotherhithe. Just outside my window, the sun is up, and powerful breezes are gusting through the yard. A bird sings a cacophonous tune. To my left, my suitcase, prone on the floor, awaits being refilled with what I’ve taken out of it before I head off to Paris on the Eurostar. Opposite is a green plastic bag which contains a larger garment bag which holds my doctoral robes.

It’s been twenty four hours since I awoke to graduation day, and all of it seems a bit like a dream: everything from the loping down the stair in the early morning light, to making the coffee, to checking the news. Then there was finishing packing, picking up my freshly repaired shoes and taking a shower. This was followed by putting on a dress shirt, my cufflinks, my dark grey suit. I wore a red tie which had both British and American flags as a pattern: I thought it was a suitable reflection of my hybrid origins. Once everything was packed, I proceeded down to the train station, and then to my university.

I met up with my family. I drank a Diet Coke. We then went to the campus and I proceeded to pick up my robes: it was at that moment that it really hit me. The maroon and sky blue robes were in a plain cardboard box, and came with a black hat tied with a maroon silk cord which is unflatteringly called a bonnet. A young fellow with a Superman symbol belt buckle helped me put them on. There was a matter of some debate: there’s the robe, and a loop which goes over the shoulders. I was under the impression that the loop was part of the ritual: the officer at the ceremony called the Esquire Bedell, I thought, was supposed to put that on me as I knelt in front of the presiding official. The young man had no idea. The people at the ticket tent said I was going to get a second loop. Such small matters kept me perplexed and occupied up until I got to the theatre in which the ceremony was held.

My family and I went our separate ways. Two nice young ladies explained to me at the graduate entrance that I did indeed have to take off the loop. Furthermore, I should hold the loop in a rather uncomfortable position so that the Esquire Bedell could pick it up easily. Oh and by the way, the bonnet needed to be kept tucked under my left arm until I left the ceremony. So I sat, loop held in place, bonnet tucked under my arm, and felt how heavy the robes were: made of satin and wool, they added gravity to the proceedings.

As I waited, I thought of all the things which had led to that moment. I thought of the long weekends spent locked in writing; the studying and research, the arguing with myself. I thought of my Norwegian grandfather, the colourful storyteller, who probably gave me the traits that led to this moment. I had found out the previous day that I was the first PhD in Creative Writing to graduate from my university. My colleagues were kind enough to put up a press release announcing this and the forthcoming release of my novel; my grandfather would have been so proud. All of that hard work and determination had led to here. What would happen next? Where would I go? The funny thing about graduation missives is their repeated insistence that everyone in the cohort is leaving, as if we are compelled to instantly proceed out to the far corners of the earth. Oh, and by the way, the marketing materials also say, don’t forget to tell everyone how great the university is! I did not need reminding.

Is that the expectation now, I wondered, that I should go. Will the next phase of my life begin upon departure? What should I do? My life for the past 5 years had been focused on achieving first my master’s then my doctorate, so what next? Another novel, certainly. But like the bird outside my window now, do I insist on singing from the same tree, or do I flit to another one?

I cast a look at the audience: my father, mother, sister and her fiancee were there. They waved; I waved back. At that point, I looked a bit lonely, as I was the only doctor of philosophy in the room. Three others eventually came along, though they were seated in another area: this was partially due to the way the ceremony had been organised, and it was also due to the fact that my doctoral colleagues were archaeologists. Not only first, but in terms of English, I was alone.

The ceremony began; Handel was piped in, and the officials and academics filed up the stairs to their seats. The Dean of Humanities read out name after name of Bachelor’s Degree students. I noticed that the Health Secretary, Andrew Lansley, was in the crowd. The names almost became a litany: I felt sorry for the presiding official, in this case, the pro-Vice Chancellor, as she had to shake the hands and greet every last one of us.

Then it finally came to me. I got on stage, smiled at the people I knew among the dignitaries, knelt on a cushioned stool and lowered my head, clasping my hands together. The loop was placed over my head and around my shoulders. The pro-Vice Chancellor took my hands in hers and urged me to stand. We chatted for less than a minute in a hushed whisper: she congratulated me on completing such an ardous course of study, I pointed out that I worked full time as well, and she said “My goodness”. One more congratulations, then off.

I stepped into the hall outside the theatre so I could go to my original place via the back way, as per the organiser’s instructions. I believe my feelings were best summarised by what I said to the young lady guiding wayward graduates like myself: “Help?” She pointed the way. I went back to my seat.

After a few words from the pro-vice chancellor and more Handel, I went outside into the breeze and sunshine. I put on the hat; it was one of the few days in which it won’t be out of place. Many excited graduates surrounded me: they were clinging to each other or to their families and friends. I smiled. “I’ve made it,” I thought. It was all over. The Head of Education for English shook my hand on his way past me. After a while, my family emerged from the depths of the theatre; I met with several dear friends and colleagues en route to getting photos sorted. I got an unexpected card which touched me. Then my family and I went to dinner, at which point the robes were put into the garment bag in which they now reside.

The rest of the day sustained a dreamlike quality: I went up to London with my sister and her fiancee. The route we took was almost a personal history tour. We went through Richmond, where I did my BA. We went through neighbourhoods I knew and loved, past places where I used to work: London seemed full to bursting with life, with people sitting in outdoor cafes in Knightsbridge, and the lights twinkling throughout. My sister’s fiancee said he’d have problems if he’d ever have to leave London, and from the vantage point of driving past Buckingham Palace, I could see why. There is a grandeur in some parts which can be quite addictive. Eventually we arrived at Rotherhithe, and now I’m here on this futon, after a restful night’s sleep and thinking of the promise of Paris ahead of me. Graduation stupefies, leaves one in a daze for a time afterwards: I know that life has irrevocably changed. It is so odd to have that event condensed into a single day; for the moment, there is no onus on me to figure out what follows. I know that I have a book launch to do; but beyond that, there are no more questions to be answered insofar as my programme of study is concerned. The daze will pass, how this achievement is to be integrated into my life will become clear over time. For now though, at this moment, there is quiet except for the birds and the breeze.

Yesterday, I became aware of a horrific case in Peterborough. The local primary care trust, in its infinite wisdom, had left a man (named Terence Burch) who is paralysed from the neck down due to a spinal infection, without the care to which the trust had said he was entitled. His wife Angela, exasperated by the inaction of the authorities, decided to go on hunger strike, stating that she was prepared to die in order to force the trust’s hand. In her opinion, this had come about due to cost-cutting measures; it is entirely possible that some faceless bean-counter had somehow decided that Mrs. Burch could act as a carer and thus save the organisation some money for an extended period.

Personally, I wince at this particular episode, as my father was struck down with a similar infection last October. When he went to a NHS hospital, the doctors showed the same cavalier attitude towards his condition that Mr. Burch received from those entrusted with his care. My father was fortunate enough to have the wherewithal to get the assistance of a private doctor and clinic, which means that he has been pain-free for a number of months and is now fully mobile; had he not had this treatment, it is entirely possible his fate would have been similar to the unfortunate gentleman in Peterborough.

However, I suggest that Burches’ case will have a satisfactory ending; to be sure, Peterborough would rather not have its reputation tarnished by the spectacle of a grieving wife starving herself. However, the incident is suggestive of a pattern which is emerging: far from “cuts that care”, what is happening is entirely haphazard and it is already having disastrous consequences.

In addition to my normal work at my university, I am a trade union activist; as a result, I am constantly up to my eyes in information about what “savings” are being proposed by management. It has already been announced that 200 jobs are to go; the local unions showed their displeasure by cutting out 200 silhouettes and placing them on the common late last month. Union members were also invited to have their lunch alongside the shadows. The message was clear: the “200 cuts” are people with homes, families and obligations. These people have been performing essential services hitherto; not even management has been so crass as to say otherwise. They have been caught up in what is essentially a deck-chair shifting exercise which is intended to cut budgets while increasing workloads for those who remain. The rhetoric may speak of efficiency and providing “more for less”, the reality is trying to squeeze less people for more. What is even more worrisome is that like most re-organisations I have experienced in private industry, it seems unlikely that it will achieve its stated objectives. Furthermore, quality of provision is destined suffer as a result.

What makes the overall situation even more intolerable is that in the case of both health and higher education, the average citizen pays a great deal for those services already. If one considers how taxation follows an individual from the corner shop to the petrol pump to the high street bank, it becomes apparent that government is constantly reaching its grubby hands into our pockets to grab any loose coppers that may be available, or rather, any money it can conceivably take. This would be considered a social compact if everyone paid their fair share and the public services provided in exchange were consistent, reliable and well managed. This last sentence, however, is more readily considered a joke than a reality.

Worse, it is clear that the government intends to take still more and provide still less: VAT will rise to 20% shortly, which will affect every citizen. Every reputable analysis suggests that while the rich will pay more in raw cash amounts due to this increase, in terms of percentage of income, this rise will mostly hurt those on modest or low incomes. At the same time, school building programmes are being cut, the NHS is under pressure to reallocate its resources “more efficiently”, cuts to welfare, disability benefit, and child benefit are all in train. The Browne review on university funding is likely to take the cap off of university fees, albeit in stages. Meanwhile, the elites in both government and finance which created this unbearable situation rest beneath the tide and they are neither rolled nor roiled by it. One need only go to Mayfair and see the pristine glory of boutiques like Asprey, or go to lunch at Harvey Nichols in Knightsbridge and look around at the perfumed and the coiffed. Their lives have been apparently untouched; perhaps they took a bit of a dunking in the recent stock market turmoil, but nothing too serious. Job losses and hunger strikes to get basic services are as far from their lives as the moon is from Earth: visible, sometimes glaring, but overall irrelevant. And while it may be dangerous to generalise, the impression I get is that they don’t care. Raw figures do provide some confirmation of this perception: according to Philanthropy UK, charitable giving fell by 11% in 2009, in particular there was a “noticeable fall in average donations by higher income earners and those in professional occupations”.

Lower down the economic scale, a similar pattern also prevails. In 2008, a pay claim made by the employees of my university was rejected by the management, because it threatened the “hard won financial stability” of the organisation. The university had been through several rounds of expenditure and personnel cuts at that point. Yet, as stated, still more are required: apparently financial stability was more an illusion than a reality, and the leadership did not make adequate provision for the vagaries of the future. Yet none of the cuts will fall upon them; to my knowledge, none has taken a salary cut, nor done anything which suggests that they intend to don the hairshirt of austerity which the rest of us now will have as our main garment. Nor have we heard any apologies which clearly stated “We got it wrong.” Any resignations or early retirements have not been for reasons associated with this lapse in strategic planning. Management’s rhetoric suggests that they are paying attention to the staff’s present feelings of pain and uncertainty; however, this is again the kind of caring that may be akin to expressing birthday wishes for a distant and unloved relative. One knows that the forms must be obeyed, but the heart isn’t really in it.

It should be noted that all this is happening prior to the Comprehensive Spending Review, whose full impact will be felt in the autumn. The excessive verbiage that follows will no doubt concentrate on how “front line services” are being protected; the reality is likely to mean many more Terence Burches. There will likely be so many, in fact, that the media’s narrow attention span cannot possibly take in the sheer breadth of the travesty. The bean counters, like those in Peterborough Primary Care Trust, are in the ascendant. As per Oscar Wilde’s definition of a cynic, these are the kind of people who know the price of everything and the value of nothing; no doubt, they believe they are working towards the nation’s books being balanced yet at the same time happily protecting their bosses and themselves. The real costs and the real casualities, however, are unlikely to receive an entry or even a notation in their ledgers.

It is difficult to predict, but my blog posting may become more sporadic for a time. This is not due to a lack of things to write about; no doubt the worrisome news that is presently streaming out of Whitehall and Westminster will continue to flow unabated. However, I have a lot to do over the coming weeks, especially once graduation is behind me; in particular, I am getting to grips with sorting out my residence and putting it up for sale. On Saturday, I rented a carpet cleaner and used it on the front hall. In order to get the best out of it, I had to clear the area of all the accumulated detritus of 3 and 1/2 years: umbrella stands and plastic shoe boxes, gardening equipment and a stepladder, and a small wooden table upon which the unread post, mostly junk mail, had accumulated. After the carpet was clean and dry, I walked upon it with bare feet. The sun was shining through an open window, a fresh breeze swept in. The dust and cobwebs were gone, replaced by the sharp scent of detergent: this is what it will look like, I thought, once I move out. There is a time to say a final farewell to yesterday, and this day is approaching.

Melancholy adds to the mix. I take no pleasure in saying that I ended my relationship with my long-term girlfriend last week; I do not blame her, nor am I angry. Regret and sadness outweigh any other emotion, but the decision was driven by necessity: not least, it is due to the imperatives resulting from my own mistakes. For her part, she moved to London last autumn due to her work and has not lived with me since. People can grow apart as well as together; this is what has happened in the interim so as far as I am concerned. One wishes it to be otherwise, prays for an alternative to having that most painful of talks, explores other options, but there comes a point when one cannot avoid saying farewell. I hope that nothing but happiness follows her once this period passes, once the pain goes, once the sunlight trickles back into her days.

But not everything is in shadow. I was thinking over the weekend that my task now is to make the house a setting for a much happier owner. Perhaps it will be a young couple, as my ex-girlfriend and I once were. I recall with fondness when we bought the house; we received the keys shortly before Christmas 2006. We celebrated the purchase by opening a bottle of Cava in the cellar and toasting to the new residence. We never managed to make all the changes we desired, but in many respects, the property is better than it was. For example, many of the rooms were painted in lurid colours; the bedroom on the first floor was painted a yellow that was so bright that it was headache-inducing. The study was done up in a nauseating aquamarine, a colour scheme which was “enhanced” by a ceramic fish light-pull. These rough edges were softened. Old carpets were removed, floors were sanded and stained. A new boiler was put in; this was a necessity after a first winter spent unduly shivering thanks to the old one which had been there since Harold Wilson was Prime Minister. A small bedroom was turned into a functional dressing room with well-made, built-in cupboards and closets. Someone else will pick up the task and make the house what it should be, and perhaps inject the consistent joy the place has lacked for a long time.

Also, my final days in my present town will not be entirely absent of sweet recollections. I had a great many errands to do on Saturday, and as a result, I walked a good deal through and around the area. I have lived in my current location since 2004, and now at the end, I can recollect what made it so attractive at the beginning: the pedestrian streets, the medieval monument at the town centre, the Cathedral, the green spaces. I passed by the Indian restaurant which my ex-girlfriend and I used to visit; the owner would greet us warmly every time we crossed his threshold and he always offered us a complimentary after-dinner drink, an amaretto with ice for her, a brandy for me. At other times, we would go to the local Marks & Spencer to buy supplies and to the HMV to see what cheap DVDs were available. In the case of a £3 copy of Twilight, we got what we paid for. The sheer attractiveness of this place made it easy to slip into dreams of a semi-rural idyll: visions which sadly never came to fruition. Time to move on. I know now that there will soon come a day when I go down to the train station for the last time. I will roll a suitcase awkwardly behind me. I’ll buy a one way ticket, board the train, and watch my former home town disappear into the distance. Visits will likely be rare. Eventually, it will probably be a small part of a conversation held among friends and acquaintances: when my town is mentioned, I will say, “Why yes, I used to live there!”

Sometimes tears build up and escape over the walls of reserve. One wonders if things could have been different; I recall the historian Dominic Lieven once saying in a seminar that one should never underestimate the role of contingency. Of course things could have gone an alternative path at an earlier space in time. However, the point had been reached at which no other option was possible for me. Time to put together boxes, separate out items, mark the packaging with the appropriate initials. Take out the trash, sweep the yard. Attack the furniture with lavender-scented polish, wash the towels and the sheets, sweep the floors. At some juncture the next people will arrive: they’ll find the house charming. Deals will be made, money will be transferred, debts will be paid. I will awake in a different bed a year from now, to a bright sunrise in a new town. By then the regrets will have faded; with so much to do, there is a good chance of that they will soon be obscured by lists and labours. Perhaps by then, my ex-girlfriend will have found her way on her road, which has now irrevocably diverged from mine. This farewell to yesterday, as arduous as it is now, should then be consigned to the past, only to slumber gently within the rest of memory.

My grandfather liked to tell the following anecdote: one day, a man is walking down a street, when he spots his friend approaching him. Upon closer inspection, the man notices that his buddy has a rubber band around his head. Upon greeting him, the man asks, “Why do you have a rubber band around your head? Doesn’t that hurt?” The friend replies, “Of course it does, but it will feel real good once I take it off.”

I couldn’t help but recall this tale, and the twinkle in my grandfather’s eyes as he told it, upon hearing about the Coalition Government’s proposals for 40% cuts in public spending. The high figure is the proverbial rubber band, intended to frighten us and shock us, and eventually to make us feel much better when that particular band’s strictures are removed. When we learn about the actual scale of the cuts, which are still likely to be very painful, we are all supposed to say, “Phew, it could have been much worse.”

However, this is just one example of a political landscape which is infested by fear. It seems odd when one considers that there was a period of time in which politics was about limitless ambition. John F. Kennedy’s speech about America’s choice to go to the moon, not because it was easy, but because it was hard, was a good example. Prior to this, Clement Attlee stated proudly, quoting a beloved old hymn, that the “sword shall not sleep in my hand, till we have built Jerusalem in England’s green and pleasant land.” No one sniggered at either of them. With the right leadership, sufficient effort, enough belief, great tasks seemed possible. They proved to be so: America did send a man to the moon, the Attlee government left a legacy which persists to this day, particularly in the form of the National Health Service. Believing in better as opposed to worse was not at all the prerogative of a fool nor perceived to be one.

However, something has shifted within the soul of the populace. Rather than better, we apparently believe in the avoidance of worse. Cuts are unavoidable; let’s choose between unpalatable and totally disgusting. Wars are inescapable; let’s be careful how we fight them, ensure the troops are properly supplied. Poverty, poor health, and unemployment are all facts of life, we just have to do what we can to hurt the fewest amount of people, but in the end we cannot prevent societal pain or social injustice. No grand projects please: we, in the Western democracies, no longer can summon up the faith.

Yet, there are many great endeavours we could undertake. America could build thermosolar plants in the Southwest of the country to supply much of its energy needs; this is a technology that has proven itself in Spain. Europe and America could join hands to build the trans-Atlantic train, in the process revolutionising both cargo and passenger transport. We could continue the spread of digital technologies, perhaps by following Finland, which recently enshrined every citizen’s right to broadband in law. What cripples us is a lack of vision. If both the government and citizenry look not to the horizon but seek solely to avoid “worse”, the best we can do is to bump along the bottom and to muddle through.

A lot of the blame for this situation resides with the politicians. When given hope, the public tends to respond positively, as was seen in New Labour’s 1997 triumph, and more recently, in the election of Barack Obama. However New Labour’s ideals didn’t coalesce around large, clear, comprehensible projects; their illiberal instincts took over, and in the end they became banker-coddling micromanagers. President Obama’s idealism was quickly caught up in the meatgrinder of Congressional politics, smothered by representatives seeking the best possible deal for their constituencies and states. No one can feel entirely comforted by a government that generates 2000 page bills whose full implications are unclear. In light of these failures, and given the large cheque that is coming due, it is no wonder the wider public’s taste for idealism has been blunted: no more dreams, please, they’re too expensive. This may have been the overriding message arising from the 2010 British General Election; the November contest in America may have a similar narrative. No more visions, no more hopes, just managerial competence: let us duck into the blander, safer refuge of tinkering till the storms pass.

The problem with this scenario is that it is an eventual recipe for democratic suicide. Not too long ago, I watched a replay of the February 1974 General Election on BBC Parliament; what astonished me was not only the comparative quality of the coverage but also the turnout figures, many of which were in excess of 80%. The spokesmen for the various parties spoke about clear ideas and policies; Labour was going to repeal the Industrial Relations act, for example. The Liberal Party urged voters to pick something different; in their party political broadcast from that year, Cyril Smith used language which would be considered immoderate even by today’s standards. Turnout rates in of around 60% are more commonplace in Britain now. America is not any better off. Indeed, despite the inspiration provided by Barack Obama and his well-tuned campaign, the 2008 Presidential Election generated a turnout of only 63%, a figure that hadn’t been approached since 1960. If there is no mass participation in democratic politics, then it becomes the purview of a narrow group of the interested; this recipe, by necessity, favours extremists. The effects may have already been seen in the Utah Republican Senate Primary in which the more than right of centre Bob Bennett was dumped for a “Tea Party” backed candidate. The visions that come to the fore in such a scenario are dangerous given their emphasis on simplistic solutions and misplaced nostalgia.

We don’t have a Kennedy nor an Attlee at the moment to guide us and to tap into what Lincoln would call our “better angels”. However, as a trade union activist, I can and do see a potential wellspring of hope: rather than from above, it can come from the grassroots. At the moment, individual movements are focused on individual agendas: whether that is for ending the war in Iraq, or preventing further expansion of Heathrow, or fighting spending cuts. The problem is that each of these movements in and of themselves do not represent a coherent programme. It has been said many times before: the task for a genuinely progressive political party is perhaps to thread the needle, and to stitch these groups together; attempts have been made, progress has been slow. But democracy may depend on this effort continuing, and the eventual success of something far better than worse.