Monday, August 14, 2017

Cropredy 2017 Review: Day 1

This was my second visit to the legendary Cropredy festival, and I'm running the serious risk of being labelled a folkie. My only answer to that is that the line-up of 2016 and 2017 have been much more diverse than the reputation might suggest. As we approached and saw people walking through the village, we recalled my friend Bob's comment last year that "some of them don't even try to look like muggles." We were again lucky enough to have Bob and Ann's home to stay in and commute, as they live nearby, and are brilliant hosts.

It's a gentler festival - one stage, everyone is friendly (and quite a few - but not all - are a bit older). The arena field slopes gently down, and most people bring chairs, cold boxes of drink and food and we get to know each other between sets. I even sat near someone who I knew from over 20 years ago when I was his curate!

Fairport always start and finish the gig - playing an acoustic set at the beginning of the programme. This was the current line-up, all of whom are great musicians and honour the Fairport sound. The first day was quite a mixed bag in itself. Feast of Fiddles includes members of Fairport, Steeleye Span, Show of Hands and more. All great musicians and an enjoyable set, but perhaps not my top pick for genre.

Dogs are also welcome. These two were near us - complete with trolley

Phil Beer had a busy afternoon, as he reappeared alongside Steve Knightley and Miranda Sykes with Show of Hands. For me, this was a great set - superb musicianship, with challenging songs that have a conscience. Catch them on their tour of cathedrals this autumn.

I didn't know what to expect of the Trevor Horn Band. Lol Creme from 10cc had joined him, alongside some great younger musicians and vocalists. We were treated to a live set of songs that he had produced or been involved with performing, along with a couple of 10cc hits. We had the full range - Kiss From A Rose, Video Killed the Radio Star, 3 Frankie Goes to Hollywood hits, Cry, Owner of a Lonely Heart (vocals: Matt Cardle) and he even managed to find someone to sing Slave to the Rhythm. Plus we got Rubber Bullets and I'm Not in Love. The production of the original records was really important in most cases, and yet the band managed tight, complex arrangements without the need of backing tracks. Probably the set of the day.

Following that was always going to be a tough one, and the lot fell to the Divine Comedy. Somewhere I have a CD of Fin de Siècle, featuring the hit single National Express. However, I have to confess we slipped away after a few songs - at that stage in the day I think we needed something more engaging. In fact if the order had been reversed, I think Trevor Horn would have held the audience much better. But it was a good day, and we got a slightly earlier night than we expected.


Monday, August 07, 2017

Immigration

As a nation we are now in the thick of the process to negotiate the United Kingdom's exit from the European Union. Personally I still believe our nation's best future would be to remain a member, but I accept the odds of that happening are slim, despite the fact that the cost and complexity of brexit is now becoming abundantly clear. Questions about the 'divorce' bill, the Irish border and the many new institutions we will need to replace the European ones we are leaving fill the agenda.

Our government (or at least most of the cabinet) seems to be committed to a 'hard' brexit - leaving the customs union and single market. This is despite the free trade area having been seen by a previous generation of Conservatives (including Margaret Thatcher) as a major achievement of the EU. The decision to leave the single market is a political decision that a key reason for people voting 'leave' was immigration, and that it can't be controlled by staying in.

So I thought it would be interesting to revisit the issue of immigration to check the facts. Concerns about immigration are often dismissed as xenophobia or racism. There is no doubt people with those prejudices strongly object to immigration, and tabloids have done much to encourage very negative views of those who have come to our country for work or refuge. 

Personally I'm not convinced all of the 51.9% who voted 'leave' did so for concerns about immigration. Several left-leaning friends of mine voted that way for very different reasons. But the issue needs to be addressed in the current context, so I thought it would be more useful and interesting to look at the facts, as far as that is possible, and see what conclusion could be drawn. Is immigration uncontrolled, and is that the EU's fault?

Just before the June 2016 referendum, the Office for National Statistics (ONS) published statistics which fed into the brexit debate. You can find the official data here. It showed the net long-term migration figure to be 333,000. A concern regularly raised was that this level was seen as unsustainable in the medium and long term, and the blame was laid at the feet of the EU, as free movement is part of the deal for being in the single market.

I learned a few things from the report:
  1. The net migration figure is the difference between those coming into the country to stay and those leaving to live abroad. That means even if the figures balanced, there would still be immigration, assuming other people were still emigrating. Xenophobes and racists would still have to encounter new people from other countries in their communities, even at a net figure of zero. [Nigel Farage wanted a net figure in the 10s of thousands].
  2. The figures are estimates, not actually recorded entries and departures.
  3. Net migration from the EU was 184,000, non-EU was 188,000. totalling 372,000. Net migration of British citizens was -39,000, making the total 333,000. 
  4. Long-term immigration for study was 167,000. Overseas students pay substantial university fees, and make a significant contribution to the economy.
  5. Immigration from the EU (270,000) and immigration from outside the EU (277,000) are very similar. We'll come back to EU immigration, but the UK has full control over non-EU immigration and could stop it tomorrow. However, that would impact our relationships with the US, China, Canada, Australia, India etc. (Future trade deals may require the UK to be more generous with visas for these countries). The EU therefore contributes about 50% of total immigration, and about half of that comes from the original western European member states, such as Ireland, France and Germany.
The other thing I learned, which was remarkably low-key in the referendum debate was that EU immigration is not completely unrestricted as the Dailys Mail, Express, etc would suggest. After 3 months, an EU citizen in another EU country who is not working has to fulfil certain criteria, or they can be requested to leave or even deported. The UK has never implemented measures to register people to track this (including during Theresa May's time as Home Secretary). Ironically, the UK may need systems to track EU migration in future so that exceptions for free movement of labour can be made for certain professions under whatever new rules will apply.

On that latter point, it's becoming clear that the UK will continue to need workers from overseas - skilled and unskilled. Unemployment is the lowest it has been since the mid-1970s, so the crude prejudice often stated as "they are taking our jobs" just doesn't hold water. However, it may well be the case that to find work, UK-born people will need to retrain and move area - not always easy, especially with national variations in house prices. Meanwhile employers ranging from the NHS to car companies, from builders to fruit and vegetable farmers still rely on migrant workers for the foreseeable future. 

None of this has even begun to address the very real need of refugees and asylum seekers. The rhetoric would suggest this is a large figure, but for the period in this report, it was 41,563. For comparison that's less than half the figure for 2002. Even the politicians with the most benign view of immigration tend to focus on what the UK gets out of it - skills, economic activity, etc. However, the other dimension is that there are people who need somewhere to go and to live. No country has limitless capacity, but we can all play our part in offering compassion, hospitality and refuge. And if politicians are frightened of this flow of people becoming overwhelming, then their task is to build peace, provide generous aid and development budgets, and challenge all the other wealthier countries of the globe to take their share of the responsibility and burden.

I grew up in an era when older relatives said things along the lines of "Enoch Powell was right" and various degrees of racist terms were openly used in conversations everywhere. I still remember taking someone on when I was a teenager because they had described their doctor as "Indian, [pause] but he was good." We'll need to set aside the important question of which specific nation from the subcontinent the doctor actually came from (the speaker didn't know). The note of surprise that this fully qualified doctor was perfectly able to do his job revealed all about that person's prejudices with regard to Asian heritage medical professionals. 

In my lifetime, I've seen those prejudices expressed less and less, although I have always suspected that plenty lurked under the surface of white British society. In the turmoil of the last year or so politically, they seem to be alive and thriving, and surfacing in political discourse. It is too much to hope that xenophobia and even racism won't infect debates about immigration policy - social media is already full of that poison. However, I can still hope that politicians might be brave enough ignore those shrill and sometimes angry voices, and might instead weigh carefully what it means to be an open, free and generous spirited nation in our world today.

For an analysis of the most current migration figures, see BBC Reality Check for a breakdown of EU / non-EU migration and the reasons people come to the UK.






Friday, July 28, 2017

Musing on orthodoxy

A long time ago in another universe (actually Dec 2006), I blogged about a letter signed by some church leaders of an evangelical persuasion relating to homosexuality and the standpoint Christians should adopt. I'd rephrase it now, but it made the point.

If you didn't click the link, I questioned the use of the term "orthodox" to describe a conservative ethical standpoint with regard to homosexual relationships. My point was that orthodoxy has historically been used to describe agreement with the historic Christian creeds - especially their definition of the Trinity and of how Jesus was human and divine - the Incarnation. In contrast, ethical issues have been matters of debate throughout the history of the church, and a key current debate centres around how we should understand same-sex relationships. Ironically, at the New Wine conference in the summer of 2006, I had noted that the speaker had talked about Jesus in terms that (at best) were perilously close to adoptionism without any comparable furore about a lack of orthodoxy.

Now there's an important note to make here. Ethics is related to theology, and theology has ethical consequences. The distinction is not as sharp as my opening gambit might suggest. However, it is indisputable that Christians have differed on a variety of pretty important ethical issues without necessarily resorting to labelling each other heretics / unorthodox.

Take, for example, the question of the use of force. Pacifists would argue from Biblical texts such as the prohibitions to kill in the ten commandments (Ex 20:13, Deut 5:17) and Jesus' injunctions to turn the other cheek and love our enemies (Matthew 5:39,44). Others would draw on other texts to assert that military service is accepted (e.g. no criticism is offered in Mt 8:9, and soldier is used as an image in 2 Tim 2:3-4) It is deduced from other principles that defending the innocent and order of the state is a common good. There is a long track record of Christians concluding that where necessary, the use of force and taking of life can be justified. This was developed into what is often called just war theory. 

My question is this: would we refer to someone on one side of the argument or the other as a heretic? Each is considering Scripture very carefully and thoughtfully, but they have drawn different conclusions.

Some would say to me that this issue is different from questions of sexuality. They would assert that the clear view of Scripture is that same-sex relationships are a no-go area, and those who say they could be are just swayed by the times. It's worth noting that early Christians were essentially pacifists until Constantine took power, but as emperors, kings (and later presidents!) claimed Christian faith, the use of force became not only accepted, but even actively encouraged. There is a case for saying that politics and power had a role in changing that ethical standpoint too.

Whether you're a pacifist or not, or whether you are socially conservative or liberal, I have a simple plea. There are people on both sides of these debates who are sincere, thoughtful, conscientious people trying to discern the will of God. All kinds of factors bear down on all of us to read our Bibles with some degree of selectivity. We set aside some texts, because we see principles from other texts as overriding them. Why else do some Christians allow divorcees to remarry, why don't we sell all our possessions, and why do we allow women to lead - let alone preach in church? The answer is that we bring other factors to bear to set those commands and prohibitions aside - the context of the passage in the wider text, the people it was written for, the issue it was addressing and so on. It's all about the delicate and complex art of interpretation or hermeneutics.

So by all means disagree over same-sex relationships, just as Christians have disagreed over other matters - including life and death for centuries. My plea is simply that we should avoid describing those with whom we disagree as unorthodox or heretical. To do so is to make a claim of authority that I, for one, am not prepared to own.





Monday, February 06, 2017

What is a green car?

I'm a car owner and driver, so that already limits how environmentally friendly I can claim to be. However, given that I am already in that group of polluting people, I've tried to take some steps to limit the damage.

For example, the the last couple of times I changed my car, I always chose a car with better mpg. Currently I've got a Vauxhall Mokka which is averaging about 57, which is significantly better than the Ford Focus I had before. Both are diesel engined (this becomes important later), but the Mokka has stop/start that means it doesn't just sit ticking over in queues. Obviously, I'd prefer an electric vehicle, but at the time of changing, max range was a little over 100 miles, and journeys need careful planning. Can't afford a PHEV yet, but things are changing fast in that area.

Recently, there has been a lot of concern about air quality and pollution, especially in cities. That has pointed the finger at diesel engines, which are responsible for more particulates and nitrogen oxide (NOX) pollution than petrol engines. 

You can see my problem. Having chosen a car that does more mpg, and emits less CO2, am I now responsible for other damage?

I can't resist looking at the technical stuff, so I thought I'd look at the emissions standards, which are controlled via EU regulations, which have progressively become tighter. My old car had a Euro 5 engine, which undoubtedly put out more NOX than an equivalent petrol engine. What was interesting was to see what the Euro 6 specification looked like.

As you can see in the table from Wikipedia below, the requirement for diesels is 0.08 g/km, down from 0.18, and for petrol it's 0.06 g/km, so the gap has significantly narrowed.

THC & HC = hydrocarbon. NMHC = non-methane hydrocarbon PM = particulate matter

It seems pretty clear to me that the problem lies with the older diesels that are still on our roads (and diesel engines tend to last). It may be that I will end up at the rough end of some blanket measures to discourage diesel, and that's fair enough. However, I hope some thought might go into how current owners of older more polluting models might be helped to modernise and upgrade, so that the vehicles doing the most damage are removed from our roads more quickly.


Wednesday, November 02, 2016

FIFA and poppies

Theresa May has said that it is "utterly outrageous" that FIFA have ruled that poppy logos may not be used on the shirts of the players in the forthcoming England v Scotland qualifier. I know this is a delicate and controversial subject, so I just want to share the questions that it prompted as I reflected upon it.

1. Is is a "poppy ban"?
No - it's a blanket ban. The ban is against all symbols which have a political or religious connotation. When the question about poppies was put to FIFA, it ruled them out on this basis (as it did in Nov 2011) - hence the row. FIFA has to deal with all kinds of sensitivities over symbols and logos all over the world, and in many situations (just think of the Middle East, or even the Balkans, for example) a symbol or logo can be highly inflammatory. Nearer to home, the poppy has become identified with one side in the divisions of Northern Ireland, and has a political connotation there, even if it hasn't in the rest of the UK. And we have to bear in mind that just because something hasn't a political or religious connotation for me, it doesn't mean it doesn't for anyone.

For an England v Scotland game, all players have roots in the respective nations, both of which observe the remembrance ceremonies. In such a context, blanket rules can appear harsh. But might it not be safer to abide by them, rather than risk setting a precedent which could lead to something much more controversial elsewhere? That is the kind of question FIFA has to wrestle with.

This was all expressed very well by Rory Smith on Radio 5 Live

2. Surely wearing a poppy is voluntary?
Wearing poppy logos on football kits is a fairly recent initiative as far as I am aware. It now routinely happens for league games on the weekend of Remembrance Sunday. I have sometimes wondered what players from other nations make of it, and I also noted that it effectively makes wearing a poppy compulsory. There was considerable controversy when James McClean refused to wear a logo shirt in 2014. Regardless of what we make of his particular reasons, we should at least note that this has effectively made poppy wearing compulsory for footballers.

Likewise, there is considerable pressure on those appearing on TV over this period to wear a poppy, and not doing so generates controversy. Looking at some of the ostentatious poppies that have been worn on X-Factor, etc, I have wondered whether we are beginning to miss the underlying meaning. The simplicity of the original poppy was surely part of the point, and the value was that is was a voluntary act, expressing support for the families of the fallen, and those who were injured in conflict.

As the Royal British Legion themselves say:

"Wearing a poppy is a personal choice and reflects individual and personal memories. It is not compulsory but is greatly appreciated by those it helps – our beneficiaries: those currently serving in our Armed Forces, veterans, and their families and dependants."

Obliging people to wear a poppy under pressure is no way to generate the respect and observance which the most vocal proponents desire. Indeed it can be very counter-productive, as Dominic Sandbrook noted last year in (of all things) the Daily Mail!

3. Why Now, and Why This?
Back in the 1940s and perhaps even in the early 50s, some active players would have served in the forces. Some died, others were injured, and all would have had clear memories of the war - whether from home, or from active service. What is curious is that the same pressure to have logo shirts doesn't seem to have been around. I can only speculate that for them, the civic and church ceremonies of remembrance were a sufficient expression of loss, sadness and respect. I expect most wore poppies on the clothes they wore on the way to the match, but not on the pitch. It made me wonder why it wasn't enough to mark remembrance in other ways - e.g. laying a wreath and/or a silence before the match starts. Why does the poppy have to be on the football shirt itself for respect to be properly expressed?

Perhaps it tells us something about where people find and express meaning, now that only a small proportion of the population do so in church. Perhaps these civic signs and symbols express and convey what religious symbols used to do, and that is why they become loaded with such emotion. I also wonder whether in this context of brexit, it reveals that (at least some) Brits want to assert themselves against another international organisation perceived as telling them what to do. Given FIFA's recent track record, it's not surprising they're getting criticised.

I'll finish with what I wrote 6 years ago on the subject of poppies, in the context of the Scottish Premier League insisting on poppies for all SPL football kits that weekend:

"If the controversy focuses on the external symbols of remembrance, then we're missing the point. Wearing a poppy doesn't create respect for those who have died - respect is something that has to come from somewhere deeper than that. For others, remembrance is something they wish to keep discreet and internal, and not be forced into expressing it in a fixed form dictated by society at large. 
So I won't judge anyone on whether they happen to be wearing a poppy or not. I will be wearing one today and on Sunday as I remember the tragedy and loss of war, with so much potential and possibility cut short and as I pray that wars on such scale are never seen again. 
My grandfather survived the trenches. I think he only ever spoke 5 or 6 sentences about it in all the time I knew him. He remembered, and I got the impression that he would have been all too happy to forget most of what he had witnessed. We remember his companions who didn't return, and their suffering and sacrifice in the hope that it will inspire future generations to seek justice and peace in a troubled world." Nov 11 2010

Friday, October 14, 2016

So, Brexit, how is it going?

Mike has secured an exclusive interview with Brexit, to try and get some insight into the process triggered by the vote on June 23.

MP: So, Brexit, how is it going?

Brexit: To be honest, I'm a bit confused.

MP: Why is that?

Brexit: Well, I know more people voted for me than didn't, so that's why I'm here.

MP: Actually only 37.4% of the electorate voted for you. That's just over 62% opposed or couldn't be bothered to vote.

Brexit: Yes, OK, but within the rules set before the referendum, the vote to leave won.

MP: Indeed it did. I didn't vote for you, but please don't rush off in a, er...Brexit.

Brexit: No - it's OK. I want to remain to talk, if you pardon the irony of me using that word. My problem is that I don't know who I am.

MP: Well Mrs May says 'Brexit means Brexit', so what's your issue?

Brexit: Well that's no more use than saying Mike means Mike. What sort of Mike? Mike Tyson? Mike Phelan? Mike Myers or even... Mike Peatman?

MP: Yes - I see your problem.

Brexit: I could be all kinds of Brexit, but I don't know which one. I could be a really hard Brexit - you know, the one that says he doesn't want any of this EU nonsense at all. No single market, no freedom of movement, negotiate all your own trade deals, and take the economic hit.

MP: But I sense you're a bit scared of that?

Brexit: It does get the Daily Express excited, which is always a bit embarrassing when you're in my position. And it also tends to attract the sort of people who just want to bash foreigners at the first opportunity, especially ones who don't have English as their first language. People just voted to leave the EU, the ballot paper didn't mention that nasty stuff.

MP: Very true. So what are the alternatives?

Brexit: I could be a Norwegian Brexit.

MP: Sounds like Monty Python's dead parrot sketch.

Brexit: No that was the Norwegian Blue - the one that was pining for the fjords. Anyway you're distracting me. I hope you're not trying to remain by the back door.

MP: Not at all - I'm trying to remain through the front door. But I want to understand you, so please continue.

Brexit: Well with Norway, it's a bit like pay and play golf. You pay a sub to take part, but you don't have all the obligations of being a member.

MP: You'd still have to wear funny clothes.

Brexit: Well there are still rules to keep, but you wouldn't be so tied in to things. You avoid having to go to the AGM and the dreadful dinner dance.

MP: There is a plus side to that, I suppose. You don't seem convinced.

Brexit: Well, I would get a lot of hassle from the Dailys Mail and Express, and some would say it would make it hardly worth leaving the EU. All the paperwork, but no power to change it.

MP: What about Scotland and Northern Ireland? They didn't vote for you.

Brexit: That's another thing. When I accepted this job, I was told this was a simple task. But they're adding all sorts of things to my job description without any vote - in Parliament or a referendum. I'm being accused of triggering another Scottish independence referendum, and I could reignite trouble in Ireland, if they have to reinstate a solid border. And the pound's sliding, and Gibraltar is scared for its future. And now I'm being blamed for proposals to register foreign workers, passports at childbirth and xenophobic violence. I never intended all of this - all Brexit should mean is...

MP: ...Brexit?

Brexit: ..leave the EU.

MP: You sound like a Remain voter.

Brexit: I'm just saying be careful what you wish for.

Wednesday, August 17, 2016

Cropredy 2016 Review - Day 3

There's an old joke about a favourite broom (or axe) where the owner won't use anything else, and it's the best one he's ever had - he's only changed the handle once and the head twice. It did make me wonder whether a band can survive in any meaningful way, having none of its original line-up in place. Fortunately, that's not (yet) an issue for Fairport Convention. Simon Nicol is the only remaining founding member in the band, although Dave Pegg has been in the band since 1969, and seems an institution in his own right. Also at this festival the original Fairport singer, Judy Dyble, was on-site for a signing session, although she didn't perform.

Comedian and singer-songwriter Richard Digance got Saturday underway. A clear favourite of Cropredy regulars, his set included witty and poignant songs and also a traditional ritual of waving hankies / tissues during one song of his set. All slightly bizarre, but clearly an established tradition for the Cropredy faithful.



Maia were next. Sci-fi folk, apparently (or possibly alt folk) - and from the North West. A band featuring two guys who could easily audition for an adult Harry Potter part. Again a band where they were clearly able musicians, but it just didn't connect with me. But that might be my fault. Gilmore and Roberts are a folk/acoustic duo, who came with supporting musicians. Kat Gilmore has a great clear folk voice and got their songs across well. Current album is Conflict Tourism.

The Pierce Brothers turned out to be a real highlight of the day. Australian acoustic with terrific energy, some pretty acrobatic percussion and using a didgeridoo without sounding naff ought to commend them to anyone. At the end of the set, the whole arena were on their feet applauding, and it was well-deserved. The Cropredy photo is already on their website. Usually one on guitar and one percussion and sharing vocals, they had compelling energy and likeability. One moment one brother was drumming on the other one's acoustic guitar whilst he was singing and playing; the next moment he is holding his brother's harmonica, whilst facing in the opposite direction, playing the didgeridoo. This was the last date before returning to Oz, and it was the biggest audience they had ever performed to. It was a lovely moment as they took their ovation and were genuinely overcome.

Demon Barbers XL were up next. Folk with street dance. Are you confused? I was a bit. It was a tough call following the brilliant Pierce Brothers, so maybe my memory is distorted by that, but apart from the fact that they featured dancers, I'm afraid I don't remember a lot about the set. Babylon Circus (from Lyon) followed with a very upbeat French take on folk, influenced by reggae, and ska. Some nice comic touches with energy and great musicianship.

What can I say about Ralph McTell that adds anything meaningful? Lots of people know he wrote that song, but his story goes back much further than that. Without any sense of showiness he dropped in a mention of sharing a bill with Paul Simon in the early 60s. I've seen him on a stories and songs tour here in Morecambe, and his connections and pedigree in folk and blues is extraordinary. Catch him if you can. His set at Cropredy had a few restrictions, as Fairport wanted to play one or two of his songs! But we were in the company of a genuine legend of the acoustic scene and it was great to see him again.

By the time Fairport came on to give their finale, the sun was setting, so we were treated to a great sunset over to our right, whilst on stage the band treated us to a full set. The set featured songs by Richard Thompson, and also the late Sandy Denny who is still clearly missed by the band. There was also a tribute to Fairport violinist Dave Swarbrick, who died in June.



At the end of the set, they followed their usual Cropredy pattern of marking the close of the concert with Meet on the Ledge, again a Thompson song.

It was great to be there, and such a friendly group of people. My clothes may have been more conventional than most as a 'Cropredy virgin', but there was no real sense of an 'in' crowd, just a field full of people looking forward to sharing the experience of some great live music.

I'm a convert.





Tuesday, August 16, 2016

Cropredy 2016 Review - Day 2

I loved the way the whole village seemed to embrace the festival. There may be some objectors, but it's so well established that buying a house in the village must require accepting that there will be a lot of extra people around for a few days each year. The primary school and the church raise funds providing breakfasts for campers, and the pub clearly does rather well out of it too. Meanwhile in the arena field, there were lots of food stalls - including a few old friends from Greenbelt. I finally had a Goan fish curry.

We got on site in good time to find a decent spot to set up our seats and 12 hours of music followed in mainly sunshine. Anthony John Clarke (the festival compere) and Fairport veteran Dave Pegg got us underway, followed by talented piper from Edinburgh, Brìghde Chaimbeul, who recently won the BBC Radio 2 young folk award.

The excellent duo Sound of the Sirens followed, providing a more upbeat folk/rock set of songs which was definitely the highlight for me of the first half of the day. Great songs and energy well-performed. Lifesigns, a prog rock band, who have supported Marillion were on next. The musicianship was certainly there, but the music didn't grab me.

However, the next band were a real treat. To be a good 3-piece band needs everyone to pull their weight, and that was certainly the case with Wille and the Bandits, who may be familiar to Greenbelt regulars. Hard to pigeon-hole, they can play blues, folk-rock and even Latin-influenced music. There was some terrific guitar work, but none of it played on a 'conventional' electric guitar. Although effects were definitely in play, all guitar was played on an acoustic, or on a Weissenborn type lap slide guitar. I've never seen or heard anything quite like it, but the overall sound was very impressive.

Wille and the Bandits at Cropredy 2016
The problem with such a well-received quality set, is that someone has to follow it, and that job fell to Headspace. Sadly, it didn't go so well for them. Again, the instruments were played well, but their rock set just lacked something in its musicality and also rapport with the audience. It felt like they were just trying a bit too hard, and it ended up being counter-productive. The rather muted applause at the end of the set indicated to me that my friends and I were not alone in having that opinion. Maybe it was just the wrong setting and context for them.

All I can remember of Steeleye Span are their two hit singles from the 70s - Gaudete, and All Around My Hat. I do own a Christmas album by Maddy Prior, and I have always admired her voice, so I was intrigued to see if they could still deliver the goods. Although much more 'folky' than other bands in the line-up, they certainly showed their instrumental and vocal quality, and although Maddy Prior's voice sounds older, it still had that distinctive tone and clarity. I'm glad I got the chance to see them.

Day 2 ended with something I wasn't sure about - The Bootleg Beatles. It seemed a strange choice for Cropredy. Essentially it's a live set of Beatles classics performed by a quartet each playing the part of a member of the band. It was actually much more enjoyable and fun than I expected, with very good performances and arrangements both of the early era material which was played live, and also later tracks which never featured in live sets.

Bootleg Beatles setlist

Supporting musicians enabled an authentic sound for the more complex songs (eg the piccolo trumpet solo on Penny Lane). Obviously, it's not the same as really being there, but for those of us who couldn't, it gave a taste of how good those songs were live, and also what some of the later material might have felt like as part of a concert set. And, of course, most of us there knew all the words. It actually provided a lighter and fun conclusion to a day that had had patches which were pretty heavy going. I would never have chosen to go to a Bootleg Beatles gig, but I'm glad to have experienced one.




Sunday, August 14, 2016

Cropredy 2016 Review - day 1

I'm just back from a great weekend with my friends Bon and Ann at the Cropredy Festival 2016. It was very civilised, as they live nearby, so we did the festival thing, but had proper accommodation and facilities to go home to each night.

I wouldn't count myself a proper 'folkie', although quite a lot of what is normally called acoustic music features in my playlists. However, I had always associated Cropredy with being a bit more full-on as a folk festival. In fact, it turned out to be more varied than that. That's not to say it didn't have its fair share of characters with crazy hats and wild hair and beards in the crowd and on stage (my friend observed that not all of them were very good at disguising themselves as muggles). And, of course, it has Fairport Convention at the heart of it - starting it off, choosing the acts, and providing the grand finale.

There's just the one stage, with a programme running from midday (4pm on Thu) to 11 or midnight. It's very friendly and probably a lot calmer than many music festivals, and the clientele is on average older, although there were younger people and families there too.

Day 1 illustrated the variety well. Fairport kicked off with a short set. Next came Gryphon, who were a folky prog rock outfit in the early 70s and reformed in 2009. Dreamy music that obviously meant a lot to those playing it, but I guess it would have meant more to those who knew the albums first time around. I took the opportunity to browse the excellent range of food stalls, find the beer tent and generally take in the venue. However, they were the first band I have ever seen use a krumhorn, which really ought to be a Harry Potter prop.

Things soon took an upbeat turn, with CoCo and the Butterfields. Any band that includes violin, acoustic guitar, beat box, banjo, bass, and drums as its instrumentation ought to be interesting, and they were. Great energy and rhythm with powerful vocals. Full marks to lead vocalist and violinist Dulcima Showan for carrying on having knocked a piece of wood out her violin playing so vigorously. Even more respect to the violin maker, as it stayed in tune and sounded fine.


One of the highlights for me came next when Hayseed Dixie provided what was, for me, the performance of the day. The basic idea is that they play rock songs with bluegrass instruments - hence their name is a play on AC/DC. But the energy, musicianship, vocals and sheer commitment to live performance is something else. They were absolutely extraordinary, and great fun to watch. I gather the band's line-up has changed a lot over the years; all I can say is that the present team are brilliant. Probably not a band to listen to a lot on CD, but a live must-see.

The first day was rounded off with Madness. They gave us a tour of their career with a setlist of greatest hits, and were very tight as a band. In some ways it was slightly less engaging with the audience than previous acts - they were following the Hayseeds - but if you grew up with the hits, it was a treat.

Saturday, July 16, 2016

Why I oppose the renewal of the Trident nuclear deterrent

As there is a vote coming up about the renewal of the Trident system, I felt it was important to write to my MP, although I anticipate he, along with the majority of MPs, will back renewal. However, regardless of the side one takes, this is a bad time to make a big decision, and I still question how much impartial research has been done into whether this is a cost-effective choice, even for those who are pro-deterrent. With a sinking pound and public finances squeezed, this is an issue which could have very real knock-on effects on our doorsteps. My letter also omitted the very real question of how a deterrent so reliant on US support can be truly independent

Here is my letter with added hyperlinks to sources:



Dear Mr Morris,

I understand that there will be a vote in Parliament as to whether the United Kingdom should renew its Trident nuclear submarine fleet. Regardless of the side one takes, I feel this debate is badly timed, taking place in the turmoil of the formation of a new government and the aftermath of the referendum result. I strongly believe there would be wisdom taking more time, following our nation’s recent trauma.

However, I expect the debate and vote will happen, so I feel I must write to you. I must state up front that I have huge moral objections to nuclear weapons, so I'd be glad to see the end of a UK nuclear deterrent. However, even if one doesn’t have that over-riding moral objection, it's hard to see the justification for a new Trident system strategically, financially or militarily. Here are my reasons:

Cost
The official cost estimates in 2010 were £15-20 billion, although many believe it will be much higher. As there is US input, and the pound has devalued against the dollar by around 10% since the referendum, this is bound to rise. Ongoing operational costs and maintenance will take this total much higher.

Over my adult lifetime, there have been many examples where it was believed that our conventional forces on active duty were imperilled by shortages – of ammunition, helicopters, body armour, and using vulnerable Land Rovers due to a lack of armoured personnel carriers. The savings from abandoning Trident could ensure that does not happen again. I’m not a pacifist, so I feel that when our personnel are deployed it’s vital they actually have all the resources they need, decent houses to come home to, and proper support for those injured or traumatised, along with their families.

Military Strategy
The point is often made that Trident is for our security – to make us safe. Is this well-founded?

The British nuclear deterrent was conceived to ensure the UK had the independent means to deter the USSR during the Cold War. We couldn't hope to win a conventional war against the USSR, so it was to ensure the UK could not be intimidated, and an aggressor would pay for using nuclear weapons on the UK, if it ever came to that. As I’m sure you know, the British deterrent (whether Vulcans, Polaris or Trident) was always a 'second strike' weapon. They would be deployed once Britain was about to be devastated by an incoming attack, or after such an attack had done its worst. In the Cold War scenario, it was assumed the USSR would be the aggressor, and it was very hard to imagine circumstances where Trident would be fired in isolation from a US response, or that as a NATO ally, they would simply watch European allies attacked. This is presumably why, apart from France, no other European country has nuclear weapons. The difference 'our' deterrent makes to that overall scenario is more symbolic than significant.

So at most, Polaris and Trident would have been a kind of posthumous revenge. In his old age, Denis Healey once admitted that back in the 60s if he had been in bunker after a Soviet attack, he wouldn't have launched Polaris. What would the point have been in slaughtering millions of Russians after the damage was done?

The same surely applies now with regard to the big nuclear powers. Russia (and China) might have too much at stake to risk such a war with the West, but don't we need a deterrent to protect us from Iran, North Korea et al? The answer is the same: a nuclear strike by any 'rogue state' would certainly get a US response (possibly with support from Russia/China), so if that doesn't deter them, will a couple of Trident submarines? Furthermore, if the UK is seeking to discourage the proliferation of nuclear weapons, it reduces the credibility of that stance by renewing Trident.

Terrorism
Probably the most pressing threat to national security is terrorism. Nuclear deterrence is no use against such a threat. We don't know where they are, and the best hope of stopping them will be through good police and intelligence work. Many terrorists are happy to die in their cause; indeed some actively seek it. The Cold War peace was said to be maintained by the dangerous balance of mutually assured destruction (MAD) between the USA and USSR. However, if one side is happy to die, that balance is destroyed.

Conclusion
I don’t expect you will agree with me, as I know your party seeks Trident renewal. However, it isn’t as simple as a left/right issue. Military chiefs and even Michael Portillo (hardly a lily-livered lefty!) have questioned spending these huge sums of money to maintain a nuclear deterrent, when there are so many other pressing needs on our nation (including other military requirements).

Last night I was at a local public meeting seeking to keep Morecambe Library and 3 Childrens’ Centres open, which are threatened because of the cuts Lancashire County Council must make. Austerity is biting very hard locally, so it’s very hard to understand why such an expensive prestige project remains a priority.

Trident represents a lot of money that could be used to:

a) invest in the towns like Barrow affected by the cancellation. Employment is important, but Trident is a very expensive way to keep people employed.
b) ensure the conventional forces being deployed actually have all they need and decent houses to come home to.
c) contribute to deficit reduction, instead of closing vital local facilities.

Even the lowest estimate of £15bn is a lot of money to spend on something you hope you never use.

I hope you have time to read and weigh these arguments. At the very least, I would ask you to support deferring the decision until things settle down, I think a proper impartial strategic review of the value of a UK deterrent would be very helpful, balancing the different threats we face. Of course I must also ask you to vote against renewal for the reasons I have outlined.


Yours Sincerely


Mike Peatman