I’ve recently acquired the DVDs for the programme, “A Bit of Fry and Laurie”, which is absolutely hilarious. However, their humour can also be razor sharp, as this remake of “It’s a Wonderful Life”, featuring Hugh Laurie as Rupert Murdoch, shows:

Commentators often try to obscure simple truths by utilising the dry vocabulary of economics. Behind all the superfluous talk of deficits and GDP figures, there is one underlying fact: we’re not as rich as we used to be, or rather, not as wealthy as we thought we were. Governments and citizens alike got caught up in the heady pleasures of cheap credit and indulged primal instincts to grab everything they desired. People bought expensive cars, expensive homes, expensive televisions, believing that somehow, some way, the debts would be paid. Governments also spent wildly: on wars, on public works, on bridges to nowhere, even sometimes on worthy things like education and health. They believed that tax revenues would somehow be sustained, and indeed, rise to the point that they would solve deficit problems.

It’s easy to scoff now, but perhaps we should have kept in mind the wisdom of Napoleon III: according to the historian Fenton Bresler, “when he (Napoleon III) was happy, he was afraid”. When things seem good, we should be worried about what might come along and undo it. Euphoria on both a personal and societal level is generally a transitory experience and often followed by a much darker mood.

President Obama now has the melancholy associated with sifting through the wreckage, rather like the owner of a hotel finding the main ballroom after it had been trashed by a wild party the previous night. Drunk people in stained tuxedos and gowns lay on the floor snoozing, there are unidentifiable liquid spills on the carpet, shards of smashed glasses and plates glitter in the light of dawn and there is litter strewn everywhere. The sole sensible reaction is to sigh, pick up the broom, and make a start; to be fair to the President, he is trying. This is preferable to the present situation in Britain. The current government is at least partially responsible for the catastrophe: they are now making desperate attempts to redefine chaos as order, and if their questionable assertions are met with scepticism, they then suggest that only the people who made the mess are qualified to clean it up.

However, both President Obama and the British Government are so caught up with immediate repairs that they are paying less attention to a more difficult task: the hubris of the Anglo-American entente should be punctured. New Labour and Clinton Democrats are just as much to blame as Conservatives and Republicans: thanks to Eighties era policies such as privatisation and deregulation, and subsequent stock market rises, business somehow became more trusted than the state by all parties to run matters effectively. The illusion of managerial competence, however, created a more pernicious idea: Labour and American Democrats alike thought that spending more, in and of itself, would yield to improved services, particularly if the state utilised private consultants such as Halliburton or Perot Systems. There was euphoria when the opportunity to test the theory presented itself, especially when Labour took the reins of power in 1997. The joyous crowds and the simplistic promises of a new dawn should have told us something; rather than happy, we should have been afraid.

The Economist recently spelled out why: in their report on the increasing size of government, they showed a series of interesting statistics which detailed the failures of the Anglo-American model. The government’s share of GDP in Britain is 52%; in the United States, this share is above 40% and rising. Yet, the government’s share of GDP in Germany is much less than that in Britain, and the differential between the United States’ share and Canada’s is only two percentage points.

Step back a moment: Britain is spending more as a percentage of its national output than Germany on its public services, yet by any measure these services are inferior. Take a train ride in Germany, then embark a comparable journey in Britain: the point will be hammered home. Germany also has a modern, progressive programme for encouraging individuals to utilise clean energy; Britain still struggles with getting even the most rudimentary wind farms built. For Americans, the comparisons are just as stark: the United States is spending nearly as much as a percentage of its wealth as Canada, yet doesn’t have its social welfare system, nor has its subsidised education, nor its single payer health care. An even starker comparison comes from the the United Nations Human Development Index: according to this listing, Canada is ranked fourth in the world, the United States is twelfth. Britain is one place ahead of Germany in the same index, but then again, Britain’s figures are not harmed by the incorporation an impoverished post-communist nation with all its resulting difficulties and costs.

What is more, when both Britain and the United States look to trim their spending, they appear unable or unwilling to look at systemic failures: rather, they want to cut meat instead of fat. Yesterday, it was announced that Britain’s universities will have their budgets cut by £449 million, the result of which will be to reduce access to higher education; this is likely to have a detrimental effect on an economy that desperately needs more skilled graduates in order to remain viable.

The purpose of these cuts is as dubious as their effect: the unstated intention is to restore the previous euphoria. If governments cut and the bond markets smile upon them, low interest rates can be maintained. The system, awash with liquidity, will eventually gain sufficient froth to inflate yet another bubble of heightened expectations. Pour out the gin and tonics, put on the party hats, happy days are here again. Most politicians would rather not talk about limits, however we should charge them with cowardice rather than stupidity: after all, their constituents by and large would rather not hear about constraints. We don’t want to go through the difficult, rigourous process of trying to figure out what precisely went wrong and planning for a modest, sustainable future. Being responsible gets in the way of having fun. However, the politics of waste should not be allowed to wither in the bright glare of economic recovery: any respite should give us the space to think and worry about the future. When we are happier, we should be ever afraid, particularly of the opportunities that are being missed.

The economist John Maynard Keynes once famously said to a questioner, “When the facts change, I change my mind – what do you do, sir?” Similarly, I too have been subject to a political evolution since I was a young man, though it is fair to say that this development has been punctuated by particular milestones. The futility of the war in Iraq, and the lack of any evidence of chemical weapons was certainly an important step. Another point of change occurred when the size of government exploded under George W. Bush, which turned his libertarian rhetoric into a lie. Yet another step was taken when I had to face the necessity of readily available birth control and women’s reproductive services, when someone close to me attempted a dangerous procedure on themselves.

What put the seal on my evolution, however, was my experience in the business world. As a young man, I had rather sunny, optimistic views of the possibilities that capitalism had to offer. It made sense to think that the energies of the individual, if left unhindered, would make a better world. After all, efforts at collective endeavours had hitherto failed: I grew up in the shadow of the Cold War, and the grey bureaucratism of the USSR seemed to be an oppressive nightmare. My horrific visions were made flesh during a visit to Berlin; I arrived shortly after the infamous Wall opened. Citizens of all age groups and professions were in front of the Brandenberg Gate with pick axes. I borrowed a hammer and chisel and took a swing: I still have a piece of that hated barricade. Out of curiosity, I crossed the border with my family and wandered through the streets of what was then East Berlin.

Communism was a perverse way of life. One need not visit the prisons of the Stasi to get a hint of this: a look inside a parked Trabant was sufficient. It was as if the society and its accoutrements had reached a certain point of development and then froze up. Buildings around me were crumbling; the scent of an open sewer was in evidence. Perhaps strangely, my father thought it would be interesting if we had dinner in a Chinese restaurant in the East. I ordered a diet cola and was rewarded with a sludgy, bitter drink that burned my throat on the way down. The meat that accompanied dinner came from animals that were apparently starved, and the ingredients, though reasonably well prepared, were obviously sub-par. Even the money was odd: the coins were made of aluminium and felt as if they would bend in my hands, provided I exerted enough effort. My later studies indicated that this was about as far as Communism got; a subsequent visit to Russia several years later showed me living conditions that were much, much worse.

However, it must be said that if collectivist endeavours failed, then the opposite hasn’t been a roaring success either. It took me longer to come to terms with the failure of the capitalist dream, but over time, I became acquainted with its ethos and was worn down by it during my 14 years in the business world.

If I were to use a fictional character to summarise the attitude of many businessmen I’ve encountered, it would be Harry Lime, the antagonist from the 1949 British film, “The Third Man”. For those who are unfamiliar with this movie, Lime is a racketeer who made a profit in post-war Vienna by stealing pencillin from military hospitals, diluting it, and then selling on the lesser-strength medicine to other clinics, including those treating children. When asked by a friend whilst standing at the top of a Ferris Wheel how he could be so callous towards innocent people, Lime, brilliantly played by Orson Welles, gave the following response:

Don’t be melodramatic. Look down there. Tell me. Would you really feel any pity if one of those dots stopped moving forever? If I offered you twenty thousand pounds for every dot that stopped, would you really, old man, tell me to keep my money, or would you calculate how many dots you could afford to spare? Free of income tax, old man. Free of income tax – the only way you can save money nowadays.

Furthermore, Lime believes that his activities are achieving some sort of moral good by contributing to the chaos of the time. He stated:

Like the fella says, in Italy for 30 years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder, and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and the Renaissance. In Switzerland they had brotherly love: they had 500 years of democracy and peace, and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock.

One can argue with the accuracy of the statement, as the Germans invented the cuckoo clock, and the Swiss invented the internal combustion engine, the breech-loading rifle, the chemical theory of electricity and velcro among other things. However, I found that Lime’s attitude was prevalent among many of my superiors. The emphasis was always on making profits, right now, ignoring the short-term and long-term consequences, and usually, ethics was a secondary consideration, if it entered the managerial mind at all. Often, it was only paid lip service.

This callousness was particularly evident in how my employees were treated. I have worked in companies in which my teams had their jobs outsourced, and I had to be strident in order to ensure they received a just settlement. I have worked in other firms in which promises of promotion and pay rises were not met in spite of superlative performance. Each and every time, I have seen corners being cut, quality trimmed, efficiency put aside, so long as there was a perception that it would generate more cash in a brief timescale, even if the result in a longer context would be to diminish the viability and the reputation of the firm. Perhaps the most blatant example of “Lime-ism” in operation occurred whilst I was working in the travel industry; on the website for which I was responsible, one could book a rental car along with a flight. The default for renting a car was ticked, sensibly, “no”. At that point in time, the profit margins on flights was in decline, and the company was having difficulty trying to generate other forms of revenue.

The Managing Director, who was notorious for his somewhat “hands on” relationship with female employees, asked me to change the default on the car rental option to “yes”. He reasoned that this would increase rentals in a short amount of time; I disagreed as logically it would only increase the amount of accidental rentals. What made the situation even more perplexing was that I soon discovered it had been tried before, and a great many refunds had to be processed as a result. But this didn’t matter to my boss, as it would boost his sales figures, albeit temporarily. Furthermore, he tried to argue that this was providing a better service indicating a logic that could best be called convoluted.

It was the “touch of Lime” that plagued my former boss and his counterparts which perhaps answers the great question of our age: how did we get here? Why are things so bad? It may be because we were so busy thinking about today and not mindful of its consequences, we forgot about tomorrow. The future arrived and laid us low. We have gigantic bills to pay for our lack of vision and absence of consideration. But an iron law remains: the cheque always comes due, and it is always paid.

Communism failed because it thought that gigantic solutions imposed by a dictatorial government would lead to human happiness; what it led to was East German diet cola, Trabants, murder and a bloated secret police. Capitalism has failed because it turned into a mess of short term gains for the rapacious which chewed up the requirements of the future.

So the facts have changed, and I changed my mind; I believe more than ever that what we need is to think long-term first, short-term second. Our societies need to emphasise education in order to achieve this change in individual thinking, and also to reverse the damage that the present business culture is inflicting on the world. We need sensible regulation, and we need to be sceptical of any solution that does not emphasise locality. Ideally, people should be allowed to use democratic means to decide the fate and direction of their communities. Finally, in order to shame and disgrace the Harry Limes of this world, we need to emphasise human rights and the dignity of the individual, which is not always achieved through less regulation: on the contrary, a strong referee saying “no” can be more effective.

I still remain a sceptic, overall. I recall the wise words of a former German Communist in a BBC documentary about the rise of the Nazis, that there is always a danger in a crisis, that someone will come along stating they have all the answers. Fortunately, our era is sufficiently cynical that demagogues are not widely believed: this is progress. However, the Harry Limes still prosper, and as a world, we have not yet made up our mind how best to rein them in. This conversation and resulting action, still needs to take place.

Movies about the apocalypse are commonplace. Late last year, audiences were “treated” to the latest in a long line of films which contemplated the end of the world, namely “2012”, which was based on a ridiculous misinterpretation of the Mayan calendar. Like many of its ilk, it was little more than a demonstration of advanced digital effects and as a result was thoroughly unmemorable.

In contrast, it is much rarer for films to address the “world after the end of the world”: i.e., what would be it be like to live after an earth shattering disaster, assuming any sort of life is possible? How would people interact? What would they do? “The Road”, a new film based on the book of the same title by Cormac McCarthy, tries to address these questions and does so with a grim, determined realism.

The film begins by showing a father and son proceeding along a deserted road; we are told that the weather is getting colder, and the washed out greys and browns of the scene speak of a perpetual winter. Somehow, the planet has been made uninhabitable. No birds sing nor disturb the background scenery. Plants and trees are withered. A father, played by Viggo Mortensen, and son, portrayed by Kodi Smit-McPhee, cling desperately to an old shopping trolley which carries the sum of their worldly possessions.

This is a world in which survivors can take two routes in order to prolong their existence: the first is to try and live off of the detritus of the civilisation which has just collapsed. The second is a descent into cannibalism. The father and son, who are living off of the withered carcass of the world, are living in fear of the cannibals. Theirs is a journey born out of the last words of the boy’s mother (expertly portrayed by Charlize Theron), to head south and towards the coast.

Flashbacks are used wisely to explain the plot; we see that the father and mother had an almost idyllic existence in a rural home. Small reminders of this life pop up in the bleak present: the presence of a piano spurs the father’s memory of playing a duet with his wife, for example. We see the fallout of the disaster through the prism of his memory, the increasingly desperate conditions as demonstrated by Ms. Theron eating the contents of canned food hungrily, and the subsequent birth of the son amidst pain and candlelight.

The film is very believable as it shows civilisation’s fragility: small touches assist in the process. The father and son raid an abandoned shopping mall: an open cash register stuffed with $100 dollar bills is not valuable, a can of Coke fished out of the wreckage of a vending machine is a precious treat. A shower, made possible by finding supplies in a hidden bunker, is a luxury, as is discovering a hoard of canned goods. Furthermore, the father’s sense of paranoia is palpable as demonstrated by his willingness to perk up his ears at the slightest sound, his hand constantly on his near-empty revolver, and his determination to shoot first and ask questions later. He is not some hero of the apocalypse, rather, he is a very ordinary man with no training or preparation trying to survive as best he can.

Perhaps the film is made all the more believable because the disaster itself is not explained. Thanks to a cameo by Robert Duvall as an aged wanderer named Ely, we are given a hint that it was ecological in nature: he states that he believed “it” was coming when others did not. There are no markers of nuclear war either: the sole hints as to the nature of the calamity are provided by an earthquake which fells a group of rotten trees. It may not have been the director’s intent, but I interpreted it as the earth trying to shake off parasites, rather like a dog would try to rid itself of gnawing insects. That said, the lack of specificity is key: had it been explained, it is likely that the audience’s attention would have been fixed on the cause rather than the result.

It is disturbing to say this, but the work perhaps also contains an air of truth because of its no-holds-barred view of humanity. Yes, in this scenario, some have kept their morals in spite of the world coming to an end: the father urges his son to keep “the fire burning”. However, we see that more people have degenerated into cannibalism: the father’s discovery of a makeshift prison for human “food” was one of the most terrifying scenes I’ve ever seen, the father and son hearing the distant screams of “dinner” being “processed” later on was just as brilliantly dreadful.

It may not have been the intent of the film makers nor the author, but “The Road” makes a great many philosophical points that are central to Green thinking: human beings have the capacity to destroy themselves both by debauching the physical world and by not having a strong community which solves problems rather than descends into a mad free-for-all. Indeed, are we not engaged in a form of cannibalism now, in which predators, albeit it in pinstripe suits and wielding laptops as opposed to axes, eat out the substance of their neighbours? Are we conditioned, on a subtle level, to exist in the world that “The Road” shows us?

While the post-apocalyptic nightmare shown in this film is a distant possibility, a possibility it remains: no one I saw emerged from the cinema laughing at the absurdity of its plot. When I stepped out, I was walking amidst the snow and ice of a winter’s day: teenagers were talking on mobile phones and children were walking hand in hand with their parents to the local bowling alley. The establishments were brightly lit, the scents of freshly cooked food were in the air, people were warm, safe and dry: it’s easy to take such a state of affairs for granted and ignore the currents in human affairs that lie beneath. The Road is an unpleasant masterpiece because precisely it reminds how lucky we are and that there are possibilities for change…for the moment.

A new year, a new Doctor: I suppose that was the motto the programme planners at the BBC had in mind when they scheduled the new Doctor Who to take over on January 2. I must confess that I was worried about the change: David Tennant has become a television icon over the past four years and almost as much a living symbol of the Doctor as Tom Baker. His replacement, Matt Smith, is 26 years old: for much of his life, the Doctor wasn’t in production. As a result, it may have been barely a speck on the fringe of his cultural awareness. Given this, how well will he perform in the role? I remain uncertain.

However, a change was inevitable. It is this process which has allowed the series to continue for over forty years as it eliminates reliance on any one actor; as much as fans wanted to echo David Tennant’s mournful “I don’t want to go” with laments of their own, it had to be. The blazing light of complicated special effects enveloped his body, his face changed, and Matt Smith emerged with a loud yelp. After a moment’s panic that he might have become a girl and checking to see that he still had all his limbs, he concluded his entrance with a loud “Geronimo!” as the TARDIS hurtled towards Earth.

It’s not an exaggeration to say that this was one of the most highly anticipated events on British holiday television. The viewing figures suggest that 10.4 million viewers tuned in for the transformation. While David Tennant is popular, and the marketing was effective, I have to wonder if that’s the entire story: is there something that we inherently like about regeneration?

Believe it or not, we regenerate as a matter of course. According to a colleague of mine who holds a PhD in biochemistry, every cell that one has in one’s body is replaced within seven years. As such, we are actually not at all of the same flesh with which we were born: perhaps it is a latent awareness of this process which makes the Doctor’s much more dramatic transformation interesting to audiences.

Perhaps we are also intrigued by the idea of starting afresh abruptly; obligingly, the script writers have generally made regeneration a part of the previous form suddenly becoming unviable. The First Doctor said “this body is wearing a bit thin” before turning into Patrick Troughton. The Third Doctor was poisoned before becoming Tom Baker. David Tennant succumbed to a massive dose of radiation poisoning, in a faint echo of the Third Doctor’s end, before his change. A situation becomes unbearable: we don’t like how things are turning out, we are plagued with aches, pains, illnesses, even self-loathing: how wonderful it would be to cast aside all that we are right now, and to have a fresh start in a blaze of glory. We can revel in the delciousness of the new, feeling the shackles of the past drop off like heavy weight, explore new capabilities and view the world through a refreshed set of eyes.

Whether by design or accident, it was apropos that the New Year was chosen for the debut of the new Doctor; the holiday is a flamboyant symbol of regeneration. By the time December 31 comes, the year has exhausted its opportunities and pleasures, its joys and regrets, its pain and its triumphs. Vast crowds of people cling together at Times Square, watching the lighted crystal ball drop, as if its perigee will represent the moment when the door is shut on the past, the slate is wiped clean, and in many cases, couples punctuate the moment with a tender kiss. Of course, there is no such thing as perfect renewal, even on Doctor Who. The Daleks and Cybermen follow the Doctor from body to body, still intent on his death. We may want to push the door shut on the past, but any victory is only partial: regardless of which form he inhabits the Doctor retains hundreds of years of memories, i.e., the narrative suggests that we are obliged to recognise the limits of renewal. However, the urge to begin again is a positive force because at its core is an idea that things can and should be better. One can start over, cognisant of mistakes made, wiser, but with fresh hope. When things become unbearable, or unviable, there is this chance so long as life is preserved: one can stop, breathe, be resolved, and start again.

We are at this point in the political process as well: for example, the Copenhagen summit, to put it bluntly, was a failure. Theoretically there was a formal undertaking by America, South Africa, China and India to reduce emissions, but it has all the meaning of an adolescent boy promising to clean up his room. The dirty socks still remain on the middle of the floor, the comic books lay strewn on the night table, the bed is still a dishevelled mess which reeks after not having been laundered for weeks, carbon belches out as China’s heaving industry continues its rapid expansion. However, there is time, albeit a brief amount: the world’s leaders need to breathe in, learn, and try again.

Health care reform in the United States is another case in point: it suffered from a massive dose of political radiation poisoning, dished out to it by an opaque process and transparent bribery such as Nebraska’s exemption from having to pay health care costs in perpetuity. The resulting bill, over 2500 pages, is a dense swamp of legislation whose true meaning would elude even the most ardent students of government. For the purposes of comparison, the original National Heath Service Act of 1946, which set up universal care in Britain, was approximately 400 pages when published in book form by His Majesty’s Stationery Office. In other words, the verbiage in “ObamaCare” says a great deal more, but does less. Worse, it may facilitate a new growth industry in its interpretation rather than its application. It is no wonder the public feared it even in bastions as liberal-minded as Massachusetts. The recent by-election in the Bay State and subsequent rejection of Martha Coakley was not entirely a referendum on this bill, but it would be foolish to dismiss this as a contributing factor to the result. With Scott Brown in place, the legislation is likely dead in its present form: hopefully this will create a space in which the Administration can refresh, regenerate, breathe in, and try again. There is still time. Yes, the process of “regeneration” could result in yet another dog’s breakfast: there are no guarantees that a fresh start won’t end any better than its predecessor. However, we hope, we try again, and sometimes, we succeed.

I have been struggling to come up with a suitable metaphor for the state of the economy at present; however, I literally fell into one this morning.

It’s my habit to awaken at 5 AM on weekdays to go running; as pedestrians and passing motorists tend to be unkind to joggers, this is an ideal time to avoid meeting anyone in particular. The late night drunks have usually passed out, are drooling on park benches whilst clutching empty cans of cheap lager or are recovering at home. Also, it’s generally too early for morning deliveries and the odd stares of van drivers. Today, after the first few steps, my shoe caught on a fissure in the tarmac and I fell over flat on my face. My glasses were knocked off and landed a yard askew, and my hands and left knee received some minor scrapes. The injuries themselves were relatively insignificant; it was the shock that hurt most of all. After a couple of seconds lying prone on the cold surface of the street, I gathered up my wits and my eyesight and pulled myself up. I felt a thin trickle of blood ooze out of my wounds. I cast a quick look at my front door: should I go back in and wait till tomorrow? Should I carry on? Too dazed, perhaps, to think straight, I proceeded.

The jog itself was slow and painful; my left knee let me know that there was a bigger problem than a scrape, and my hands were sore. However, I managed to complete the run with something of a sprint to the finish. At the moment, however, the knee is still bothering me, and my scrapes, while having been treated, still ache slightly: it’s likely going to be a while before I feel like I’m fully back to normal. I will go out there tomorrow with much more trepidation and care. I will probably again be sluggish in my efforts too. Indeed, I imagine I will be more wary from here on in. In the blink of an eye, things changed.

While the comparison is not direct, the present recession has been for most people like a sudden fall; those who warned that a boom based on a credit expansion was unsustainable were in a distinct minority. Most people believed the assurances of leaders like Gordon Brown, who insisted that the cycle of boom and bust had been abolished. If the economy showed any signs of trembling, people heeded the advice of George W. Bush after 9/11: go shopping. The good times were not supposed to end: politicians, central bankers, economists, financial journalists, academics, and the demi-gods of Wall Street were supposed to be looking out for us.

But here we are with the economy flat on its face. Its capacity to run fast and free has been hobbled by the injuries it has sustained: credit is not flowing as easily as it once was, and the banks are using the spread between their interest rates and central bank rates to make a killing. Unemployment means that consumers neither have the capacity, nor the will to spend their way out of recession. Furthermore, the burden of government and personal debt remains a subtle portent of doom lingering in the back of everyone’s mind.

Yet, the economy runs on. Most essential goods and services are still being provided: one can go into the shops and buy milk, bread, toasters, a new pair of shoes and a garden shovel. Some of the prices are being slashed in order to attract customers, some of the shops have been forced to close. A Woolworths near where I live was a prominent example: yet the economy continues to function, in a way. The building has been bought out by Boots the pharmaceuticals and cosmetics retailer, who will turn it into a “mega-outlet”, thus closing two smaller stores. Is this good? Probably not; the renovators have put together a makeshift airlock sealing off the site, which makes me suspect asbestos is involved. More pertinently, I’m not convinced the energy use of one “mega-outlet” will be less than two smaller ones.

What is truly sad is that policy makers didn’t use the opportunity to stop and think. In retrospect, I should have stopped, tested the knee, perhaps washed off the scrapes, before I continued running. However, at that moment, the greatest priority for me was to get back up and to carry on as normal. I didn’t analyse what made me fall until later, and I endured more hurt as a result of running in spite of what had happened; my left knee is arguing with me as I type this. Thoughts that occur in retrospect include: perhaps I should do exercise that’s more low impact, I am getting older after all. Perhaps I ought to get a treadmill. Perhaps I should avail myself of my university’s facilities. Perhaps I should invest in a better pair of running shoes, or wear elastic braces around my knees. At the time I stubbornly just got back up and tried to be normal. Policy makers want us to do the same: their present emphasis sounds rather like a Warren G. Harding campaign slogan, a “return to normalcy”. But “normal” turned out to lead to the state we’re in. While all falls are not avoidable, it’s a function of sanity to take rational steps to evade them.

Policy makers should be using this chance to realise that no, we can’t trust the bankers, the economists, the semi-dieties of the financial services industry: in pursuit of their own interest, they nearly destroyed us. Furthermore, many of them are still collecting outlandish bonuses; this was an ugly fact of life when the bonuses came from private hands. It is totally unacceptable in an era in which the financial industry owes its ability to draw breath to the taxpayer. In return, we are not being helped to our feet: while much of the press lately suggests that the worst of the recession is over, unemployment is still rising; we are still bleeding, hobbling along, trying to convince ourselves that we are what we once were. Symptoms scream at us and we ignore them.

I should add that we could have tried to re-cast the economy in a more environmentally friendly way. While much verbiage has been wasted on hailing the dawn of the new “Green” economy, there is little evidence of that happening. The only wind turbine factory in the United Kingdom has been allowed to close, in a period of rising demand for new energy and particularly the clean sort. Indeed, if nothing is done about power generation, Britain may run short on its electricity supplies within the next few years. In America, the “Cap and Trade” scheme proposed by the Obama Administration appears to be in the process of dilution by Congress. At the core of our global economy there is still a caveman equation: we burn stuff to light, to heat, to cook or to do much of anything else.

The best hope is perhaps that the individual citizen has learned something; maybe the pain of the present period will increase wariness. No, the future is not necessarily a march of progress, and economic growth isn’t always a good measure of how we are doing. Numbers, which look so clear and hard when printed on paper or the computer screen, can seem as if they are an immutable calculus of our well-being. However, it may be that how little they actually tell us is now becoming apparent.

Personally, it’s my intent to continue to solider through the rest of the day; I’ll perhaps leave early, and later, take a hot bath sprinkled with Dead Sea Salts. I’ll extend the knee and tend the wounds, and relax by reading Anna Karenina. I’ll be fine. It’s a pity that the subject of my metaphor can’t find respite so easily, for all of our sakes.

Apart from “I love you”, perhaps the most dangerous statement in the English language is “Things couldn’t get worse”. In my experience, uttering this phrase is an invitation for evil to arrive. Indeed, I have wondered if the present Prime Minister has said it more than a few times. Faced with a teetering economy, he might have let fly with a “things couldn’t get worse”: then Northern Rock collapsed. Perhaps after having (sort of) cleared up that mess, he then may have tried to comfort himself with a “well, at least things couldn’t get worse”. Presumably this was followed by the financial obliteration of Halifax Bank of Scotland and the Royal Bank of Scotland plus the massive bailouts this entailed. If my assumption is correct, then perhaps his advisors would be well advised to grab a parcel full of duct tape and proceed to seal their master’s mouth shut, lest his curse strike again.

The point being, things can always be worse than what they are. Yes, increasing unemployment is a terrible blight which is afflicting most of the Western world: this morning the BBC showed a film of jobless individuals in New York, waiting in an office to collect a welfare cheque. The sheer hopelessness in their eyes suggests that this is not a recession which affects mainly the shiftless, rather, it is harming the productive and ambitious, who now have no means to contribute their efforts to the nation’s revival nor to better themselves.

However, it could be worse. Whether by coincidence or luck, the Chichester Festival Theatre has been running a series of plays which inform the audience of times which were much more harrowing and precarious; for example, a new play entitled “The House of Special Purpose” has been running for much of the summer. This tells the tale of the last days of the Russian Royal Family before they were killed by the Bolsheviks in 1918. The confined atmosphere of the aforementioned “house” within which the royals were detained, is made all the more poignant by the use of a small stage. While there are oddities, such as the Princess Anastasia awkwardly gliding around the set on roller skates, the play is able to convey the impression of a country in a state of violent collapse. Things are bad at the moment, but at least they’re not that awful.

Additionally, the management of the Chichester Festival Theatre decided to run a production of Steinbeck’s “The Grapes of Wrath”. Before continuing, I should mention that I have a special relationship with this particular novel: as a teenager, I read Steinbeck out of my own interest. I was perplexed as to why his novels were not part of the curriculum and made my teachers aware of my frustration. “The Grapes of Wrath” was my particular favourite, largely because it elevated the Depression and the Dust Bowl out of the dry pages of history and into living emotion; a dog eared copy was at the bottom of my school backpack, often thumbed through the dull moments which seemed to plague my teenage years. So it was with an affectionate heart that I booked my ticket and it was with a critical eye with which I viewed the play. Was this particular production going to live up to the high standards set by the author?

The most important element, in my opinion, was going to be its realism. Steinbeck had first hand experience of the Dust Bowl refugees which arrived in California: he saw how bedraggled yet hopeful they were, and how their dreams were shattered upon seeing the reality of California in contrast to the promises of it being a “golden state”. The audience needs to have hope and despair churned up from the very beginning, in which a freshly paroled Tom Joad (portrayed by Damian O’Hare) is making his way home to his parents’ farm.

It’s difficult for a stage to convey hot, dry weather, but the Chichester Festival Theatre does its best with rough hewn floor boards on the stage and harsh orange lights. The actors do their bit as well, making gestures and wiping of foreheads speak of intense heat. However, the production ran into its first difficulty once the actors began to speak. That said, it may be a problem only for an American: it was very clear the actors are British and trying to speak in an accent which is not natural to them. As a result, they sound more South than South West, more Tennessee than Oklahoma. Fortunately, however, they were able to push through this barrier and make the narrative flow.

Innovative touches also helped; it was clear that a lot of time and effort was put into the Joads’ car, for example. It was a rusted heap of a jalopy: sound and lights were used appropriately to suggest movement as the family makes the trek to California. Other successful ideas included the use of “projected” billboards: a screen at the top of the stage displayed ads for everything from Chevrolet to the American way of life. Also, the use of a barbershop quartet added a bit of light relief, particularly when the crooners sang a ballad of car salesmen who were trying to unload the lemon that eventually became the Joads’ main form of transportation.

However, perhaps the most extravagant prop was water: at the edge of the stage, there was a small, narrow pool which came in handy when the actors needed to portray swimming in the Colorado River or trying to damn a creek which had burst its banks. This was supplemented by the rain which flowed in a torrent from the ceiling.

These effects are very successful in portraying a world which is harsh, overly commercial and relentless. “The Grapes of Wrath”, in essence, is about how a family is destroyed by this environment: family members die en route, some leave of their own volition, others, like Tom Joad, are forced to run away from the law. But what makes this production a success is not the special effects, nor is it even the acting of many of the characters: its core comes from the character of Ma Joad, portrayed by Sorcha Cusack. It is commonplace to regard Tom Joad as the main hero of “The Grapes of Wrath”; indeed, Bruce Springsteen produced a tribute album entitled “The Ghost of Tom Joad”. It may very well be that this impression was entrenched in the public imagination by Henry Fonda’s sensitive performance as the character in the feature film and his famous speech therein about how we are all vessels of a collective soul. However, in the play, it is Ma Joad who gives the story its soul: she is the one who is ever hopeful, ever purposeful and even when the play reaches its desperate climax and finale, it is she who adds poignancy. The demands of this role are so great they that could wither many actresses, however Ms. Cusak rose to the challenge with grace. It is also worth mentioning that her Oklahoma accent is by far and away the most believable; when she delivered a short monologue towards the end about how men are “jerked” by events and women see the world continuing in spite of what troubles may come, it was perhaps the most moving moment in the play. It may be at that point that the sense of “things could be worse” was most palpable for the spectators: unemployed as no doubt some the audience were, and perhaps lacking in hope, at least we were sitting in a theatre on a comfortable August evening. Our crops had not blown away in the dust, nor had we chased after pipe dreams to a distant place and ended up living in railway box cars, suffering from starvation. We were inside, we were well fed, we were dry. Ma Joad was right, the world continued on and to a better place. But “The Grapes of Wrath” is a success because it invites us to look back: it’s not a perfect production, however, it does open the window on a world which we have thankfully left behind. One can’t emerge from it without feeling blessed; if indeed the planners of Chichester Festival Theatre happened to choose this play for this season out of mere luck, then one can only hope their fortunes continue to hold, and their presently faultless sense of the times in which we live will compel them next year to choose productions which reflect lighter, happier days.

We live in an era that is addicted to communication. I thought about this last night whilst having a chat about talk shows: the person I was conversing with and I were disgusted that certain members of the general public are willing to divulge even the most gross personal details of their daily routine. For example, supposedly, a popular sitcom actress from the Seventies recently revealed not only that she consumed heavy amounts of hormones, also, she injected a cocktail of serum directly into her groin on a daily basis. Supposedly this helps maintain her sexual vitality, despite her having long ago vaulted over the age of fifty.

This incident begs the question: was that really necessary? Would it not have been better if she didn’t say anything at all, and perhaps maintained an air of mystery about what kept her youthful? Under those circumstances, the guesses as to the source of her vigour might have ranged from genetics, to exercise, to proper diet: all of which were more salutary and less cringe-making than the truth. In short, silence and discretion would have better served her dignity, and perhaps would have provided a better example to her presumably dwindling fan base.

However, modern society doesn’t like silence. Perhaps the most oft repeated discussion among today’s couples has the following script:

“What are you thinking?”

“Nothing.”

“Come on, what are you thinking?”

“Nothing!”

The interrogation then proceeds until such time as the individual who has hitherto been lacking a thought has to admit they are thinking about how annoyed they are at being asked such questions, or is forced to invent some inoffensive reason for feeling less than optimal. Conversations of this type are perhaps symptomatic of a problem, namely, our mindset has a problem with a void: absence of communication in a steady flow seems to indicate some sort of repression or pathology. Perhaps we can partially blame psychotherapy for this issue, not beceause it suggests that silence is indeed a form of illness, but because it emphasises “talking cures” for mental dysfunction. This may have been extrapolated by the public imagination into a need to discuss everything even if there is nothing to be discussed. However, silence need not be maladjusted: not every aspect of human existence requires vocalisation, nor is it apropos to vent every last feeling one has.

In a previous era, maintaining silence was considered virtuous. The “Father of the Netherlands”, William of Nassau, a.k.a, William of Orange, had the nickname “William the Silent”. According to legend, this nickname was given to him on the basis of his refusal to speak unless it was absolutely necessary; in his case, keeping quiet was very wise. For example, one story suggests he was able to draw out Spain’s plans to purge Dutch Protestants from the King of France without the latter being aware of William’s true sympathies.

A more famous exemplar of silence may be Sir Thomas More. A staunch Catholic, he resolutely refused to comment on the fallout from Henry VIII’s divorce from Catherine of Aragon and the King’s subsequent marriage to Anne Boleyn; this had led to legislation declaring Henry the head of the Church in England, which More refused to acknowledge or accept, but he also did not deny. This silence was interpreted by the wider world as protest, but at the same time it was legally difficult to assail as outright treason. It was only perjury by More’s former associate which finally gave the government sufficient pretext to have him executed. However, More remains an example of piety and courage that has echoed down the ages. It has been even been memorialised in the classic play, “A Man for All Seasons”.

Beyond William and Sir Thomas, silence has been considered holy at times. Trappist orders still make a virtue out of not speaking; while it’s a myth that they take an actual “vow of silence”, St. Benedict, the founder of their order, made it clear that remaining quiet was preferable and small talk is discouraged among the order to this day. If one performs a simple experiment, one can see the benefit: try writing a letter in a crowded room, and then try writing it in isolation. When one is solitary, there are no distracting voices to which thoughts can attach themselves, thus contemplation is less muddied. If one’s vocation is to explore man’s relationship with God, chit chat about the weather or the latest breakfast cereal to hit the market does seem rather a hindrance.

Most of us, however, appear to live in a crowd: not only do we have twenty four hour a day news and information, we have telephones which we can take to the most remote corners of the planet without the connection to the rest of the world ever being dropped. Furthermore, through these devices we can access microblogging sites like Twitter and inform each other of the most mundane details of every activity we perform. I admittedly subscribe to Twitter, though I could hardly be called an enthusiastic follower: it is not necessary for me to know that the foam on a cup of someone’s cappuccino is substandard. I also do not necessarily want to tell the world about the pedestrian features of my life: with silence, I stand a chance of remaining at least somewhat interesting.

I am aware, however, that I am swimming against the tide. The problem is that not only are we losing the virtues of silence, by not allowing a breathing space in which thought can occur, the words we say may lose much of their potency. A good playwright will insert meaningful pauses in their text; an accomplished composer will insert a “rest” from time to time. The impact of what has been put forward can then be processed through rather than drowned in an onrushing flood of further input; silences may allow for greater complexity in the composition. If an item is allowed to be contemplated from a variety of angles, then perhaps it can mean more: words may say more than words alone can say, for example. If the follow up is just ever more words or notes, then perhaps the richness, depth and tone of what has been produced stands a greater chance of being lost.

I do not expect that silence will make a comeback any time soon. Our world is too bound together in an endless stream of communication for this form of “pollution” to be rapidly dissipated. Relentless exhibitionism remains the fashion. However, there may come a point where we become bored with it, tired of not having the space to think or even to dream. It is this ennui which is slowly killing off “reality television” shows like Big Brother. Furthermore, President Obama recently made a contribution to the cause by being restrained in his comments about Iran: he did not have to say that he supports Mousavi and the students, he let American values which have already been communicated through a variety of means, do that work. Rather, he exercised restraint so as not to give the Iranian regime a pretext to persecute its own people further.

There is a long way to go. But perhaps the day we rediscover the simple pleasures of being quiet may be also be the day that the world just becomes that bit more appealing, more intriguing and more filled with salubrious mystery.

Going to see a Harry Potter film bears a similarity to attending a family reunion, particularly if the relatives live far away. At each event, one expects changes, one sees changes: the kids grow up, the adults get older. There are interesting stories to tell about the intervening period and much to catch up on, before, sadly, it is time to part yet again.

The characters and actors of the Harry Potter films are now quite familiar to the public. However, prior to seeing the latest installment, I made a point of watching the first five films again in order to refresh my memory: it is rather interesting to see how Harry / Daniel Radcliffe has grown up, along with his co-stars Emma Watson and Rupert Grint. These actors have spent their lives in front of the camera, which must make for an interesting family album of sorts. Perhaps this process, however, increases the audience’s emotional engagement with the characters from the get-go.

However, once the lights dimmed, my first strong impression was that the films are growing progressively darker. We are not re-introduced to Harry living in his suburban hell of Little Whingeing with the dreadful Dursley family. Nor are we treated to the comic relief that implies: e.g., there are no “inflatable aunts” who fly away like a wayward helium balloon blasted by a hurricane. Rather, we catch up with Harry on his own in a dingy railway cafe reading a newspaper, a scene that is more Edward Hopper than Walt Disney. The colours are washed out, there is genuine grit and dirt in the station, and rather than charmed by whimsy, we are brought back into the realm of magic by Professor Dumbledore’s sudden, if subtle, appearance out of thin air behind a passing train.

The maturation of the setting is matched by the increasing tension in the plot. There are no gigantic battle scenes in this film as in Order of the Phoenix: however, we can tell this is unhappy time from the very beginning. The sinister Death Eaters destroy a London bridge, killing innocent people in the process. The sun rarely shines; the clouds threaten both magical and non-magical personages alike. People are dressed in darker colours as well: Malfoy dresses entirely in black, even Harry seems be clad in more shaded garb.

The central obsession of Harry and his mentor Professor Dumbledore (once again brilliantly portrayed by Michael Gambon) is to find a means to destroy Lord Voldemort, Harry’s nemesis. Perhaps the most interesting element of this mystery is the fact that the answer doesn’t lie within a set of physical clues, but rather in the memory of the Potions teacher, Horace Slughorn. Slughorn, played expertly by veteran actor Jim Broadbent, conveys a combination of doddering endearment, snobbishness and hidden shame with aplomb. It’s also interesting how Harry manages to convince him to tell the truth: it’s not via intimidation or coercion, rather it’s achieved by persuasion, intelligence and an appeal to emotion.

Plot facets of this type make the film more sophisticated than any of its predecessors; however, there are more conventional themes which also still show there is a way to go for Harry and his cohorts in their process of growing up. While this could not be said to constitute pure comedy, per se, the theme of young love makes a repeated appearance with sometimes humorous consequences. Rupert Grint’s Ron Weasley has to contend with the overbearing attentions of a lovelorn younger girl, Lavender Brown as well as the continuing affections of Emma Watson’s Hermione Granger. Harry discovers he has feelings for Ginny Weasley, Ron’s sister, and finds those difficult to bear at first as her attentions are on other boys. However, as awkward and cringeworthy that these teenage romances can seem, again, it hints that adulthood is coming: the early films were wonderfully childish in their fixation on things. A wand was a wondrous gift, as were magic books, candies that taste like “any flavour” and even wizards’ companions like owls or cats. The wonder now is shifting to relations between people: who loves whom, who cares for whom, a stolen kiss, a tender holding of hands. It also shifts to other kinds of affection, like one has for a mentor, as Harry feels for Professor Dumbledore, and the grieving that death instills. Adults know that such things are more magical than any spell; Harry and his friends’ growing understanding of the concept is a reflection of their increasing maturity.

Is this film perfect? No. It is not high art, partially because it doesn’t stand on its own: its excellence is somewhat reliant on its place in the series. Furthermore, the title itself is not fully explained; in the book, the “Half-Blood Prince” is not just the moniker of an old potion textbook’s former owner. It is a reflection of shame by its previous keeper given his mixed (e.g. magic and non-magic) heritage. This lineage has a significance in the wider series, as “pure blood” is one of Lord Voldemort’s fixations. Furthermore, Harry’s relationship with the textbook in the original novel is rather more intimate: he regards it as an old friend, and whoever the mysterious Half-Blood Prince was, a knowledgeable companion. The film does not convey this particularly well: rather, the book is more like the “Precious” from Lord of the Rings, something inherently evil which requires careful disposal.

Furthermore, I am not sure that the intended audience is going to find this as appealing as I did. The crowds I saw were largely comprised of children who would barely have been a gleam in their parents’ eyes when the first Potter film was released, let alone when the first novel was published. It seems less likely they have the familarity and history with the books and films that older children and adults would have. By the end, some of the audience were making noises at inappropriate junctures. This lack of respect also may reflect the film’s length, which is above average. It seems a pity that people’s attention spans are so limited that they cannot appreciate this film without causing disruption. The ruckus did impinge on the forboding atmosphere at the end, a warning, that as dark as this chapter has been, darker still lay in store. This may not be appreciated by those who were in the same cinema as myself, but personally, after having said good-bye once more, I cannot wait for the next reunion.

I’ve lately taken to referring to Gordon Brown as “Prime Minister Crackpot”. Part of it is due to his mad insistence on clinging to power when no one believes he can actually accomplish any further good. Beyond this, however, he has shown even greater signs of mental disturbance: for example, he has tried to squash any talk of spending cuts by a future Labour government. He stated in one of his latest clashes during Prime Minister’s Question Time that “investment” would continue to grow, year on year, henceforth and forevermore and in contrast, the Tories would cut spending by ten percent.

Meanwhile, in the real world, his own Cabinet has been saying that “tough decisions” are inevitable. Credit must go to both Alistair Darling, the Chancellor and Hillary Benn, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs who have been forthright enough to admit that spending restraint is going to have to be in place by 2011 at the latest. Mr. Benn went so far as to state on a recent episode of BBC Radio 4’s Any Questions that he was going to have to cut his budget. The Bank of England has sounded similar warnings. The cash bonanza for public services is over.

This is not merely a matter of wishful thinking; some 30% of Britain’s GDP is related to financial services. Because of the country’s over-reliance on this sector, Britain has been one of the worst affected nations by the credit crunch. The OECD thinks we won’t escape the recession any time soon, rather, they predict that the economy in 2009 will shrink by a rate of 4.3%, and that growth will be flat in the subsequent year. Yesterday, official figures for the previous quarter confirmed this is the worst slump in 50 years. Tax receipts, as a result, are way down. The idea that Prime Minister Crackpot’s spending plans are anywhere near realistic is delusion at its purest.

Brown is getting it wrong in other areas. One of the latest acronyms to emerge from what remains of the financial services industry is “BAB” – meaning, “Bonuses Are Back“. One would have thought that after all the turmoil and pain that the nation has been through and is continuing to endure, that there would be a greater sense of humility on the part of those who perpetrated it. No: they want to get back to the status quo ante as soon as possible, and damn the consequences. Brown’s inability to turn the screw on such aspirations is a terrible failure.

But perhaps the most displeasing and unnerving thing he’s done is elevate Lord Mandelson to a role which could almost be described as “co-Prime Minister”. Make no mistake, Mandelson is playing the part of Alan B’stard in this government. By this, I don’t mean the conniving, power-mad Tory MP of the ITV comedy programme produced in the late 1980’s and early 1990’s, rather, I mean his New Labour incarnation which made its appearance on stage in 2006. Rik Mayall, as Alan B’Stard, presented himself as the power behind Tony Blair’s throne; he took up residence in the fictional “Number 9 Downing Street” and arranged everything from Britain’s involvement in the Iraq War to the faked kidnapping of Tony Blair, so that by the end he could have himself declared Lord Protector.

I see nothing much different in Mandelson’s present function and job title, which contains 30 words. To recap: he is First Secretary of State, Baron Mandelson of Foy in the County of Herefordshire and Hartlepool in the County of Durham, and Secretary of Business, Innovation and Skills. He has more ministers reporting to him (10) than any other Cabinet member. Oh, and as his baronial title makes clear, no one voted for him. Yet, Brown’s dependence on Mandelson is such that the First Secretary is in the habit of dictating Brown’s bedtimes.

Beyond disliking his anti-democratic impulses, my distaste for Mandelson also arises from his lack of regard for education, in particular, the Humanities. According to an article in the Sunday Times:

“Mandelson will be responsible for setting out the terms of reference for a review of student top-up fees. There will be fears that those studying “irrelevant” arts degrees might be forced to pay more than those studying for vocational qualifications that will help business.

David Willetts, the Tory universities spokesman, said: “It is worrying that universities are going to be seen as merely the instruments of business.”

For once, I agree with the Tories. Education and industry can and should help each other, but to somehow reduce education to a subservient role is thoroughly wrong headed. Education is there to train people to think for themselves and yes, business needs thinkers. However, Education does not solely exist to provide vocational training; it is not there to provide a mass of labour to march out to the factories and offices of the United Kingdom to act as mere functionaries of the almighty economy.

As part of my role at my university, I am often called upon to give talks to academics, encouraging them to engage with the outside world, whether that means involving themselves with local government, primary and secondary schools, museums, charities and yes, private companies. Those in the Humanities sometimes are reluctant to take up such activities as they have difficulty seeing the relevance of what they do in regards to the wider public. However, I like to throw the following statement into my talks:

“The credit crunch was caused by a lack of Humanities. Discuss.”

This statement is generally greeted by a mildly nonplussed reaction. However, I then explain: if there had been more people trained to think about ethical frameworks, such as by studying Philosophy, could this not have put a brake on some of the behaviour we’ve seen in the City? If History had been thoroughly poured over and previous crashes, such as the Panic of 1837, were analysed, would we not have seen how outrageous behaviour on the part of banks could lead to disaster and misery and thus been better able to take preventative action? If people had read literature, engaged with cinema in a thoughtful way, and studied the meaning of language, would they not have had an insight into human behaviour that suggests that unpredictability lies at its heart, and that clear communications is an essential art to master? By this point, the room is usually full of nodding heads, and the discussion then proceeds on how to achieve the link between theory and practice. The problem is that Mandelson has already proven himself incapable of seeing this connection and he is the one who determines policy: his emphasis has always been on business and more business, money and more money, without regard to the humanistic foundations that could strengthen society as well as the economy.

That said, Mandelson and Prime Minister Crackpot may not be there for long; their agenda will hopefully be too driven by immediate, tribal concerns to inflict too much long-term damage. The strange thing is, the more fluff they produce for public consumption, the less popular they become. For example, according to the Independent newspaper, only 21 percent of the public trust Labour to make the spending cuts which reality and every objective observer of the British economy says are necessary. This specific distrust speaks of a larger lack of belief in Labour’s ability to make good and wholesome choices, regardless of what they may say. I have to agree. So too do the academics and union people I encounter, all of whom once would have been inclined towards Labour. Mandelson and his puppet in Downing Street may have brief glimpses of sunlight before being made to retire by force, but that day is still coming. As things stand, I don’t believe this ending, thankfully, can now be averted.