Levers of Power

I don't know Latin. At school, I (or was it my parents? I don't remember) chose Spanish and German as my two foreign languages to study, abandoning Latin (nobody speaks that) and French (only weird people speak that). It was a good choice in some respects: Spanish is easy, particularly to pronounce, German the way of the future. In the sixth form I added Russian, on the advice of a science teacher following my choice of Maths, Physics and Chemistry at A Level. "If you want to be a future scientist, you need to be able to speak Russian". I didn't really want to be a scientist, I just wanted to leave school as soon as possible; maybe even formal education, although later life choices would seem to contradict that. In any case, that (fellow travelling?) teacher obviously didn't accurately predict the declining cultural and scientific influence of the Soviet Union and subsequently Russia. At the time, however, it felt like the Russians and the Germans would come to rule the world and I preferred to be on their side.

Really the only bit of Latin I know is primus inter pares - first among equals, particularly as applied to the British Prime Minister in our parliamentary democracy.

However, news of a prospective constitutional change which might make the PM primus inter dispares connectantur - which is the best I could come up with to indicate first among unequals. If I knew Latin I'd maybe have understood its equivalent of the 'un' prefix; but bear with me.

The report from the Commission for Smart Government, launched on Monday, has a major recommendation for the creation of a "prime minister's department", in order to give more power to the governmental centre to direct departments of state over policy implementation and monitoring.

It sounds dangerously like a move to a more presidential system of government to me. As an antidote to the apparent inability of prime ministers to work through the departmental system and "get things done", it seems to me to miss many points. One of which is that the model, the White House, famously has a constitutionally inbuilt inability to get things done, as a result of the separation of powers and a President's reliance on (a possibly opposing) Congress to pass legislation.

A British prime minister actually has hugely more power than a US President has over domestic policy, to get legislation passed, as a result of having - by definition of our electoral system - an inbuilt majority in the House of Commons and a constitutionally-impaired House of Lords. The report suggests that the problem, once policy is passed into law, is that the governmental system is ill equipped to put that law into effect. Partially because departmental ministers are often incompetent and sometimes recalcitrant. Well, duh, appoint better ones!

I've been mulling this over for five days, trying to decide whether my opinions are worth sharing. Then I read a comment piece in yesterday's Times on the subject by Anthony Seldon and, since many of his views chimed with mine, I decided to publish.

On the "centralisation of power" issue, Seldon tells us "the proposal for a prime minister's department, an old chestnut, ignores history. The best two PMs since 1945, Clement Attlee and Margaret Thatcher, had very small No 10s but used cabinet and the Whitehall system to stunning effect." He follows with "the last five prime ministers didn't fall short because they lacked firepower ... they came to No 10 not knowing what they wanted to do."

Let's look at the problems for good government to which an administration can give birth: a weak cabinet of ministers appointed as rewards for past endeavours and support, a PM who surrounds himself with only those who are unlikely to contradict him [herself/her], a disdain for parliament by announcing policy in media appearances and ministers sending underlings to answer Urgent Questions in the House of Commons and a willingness to flout the law and challenge the courts. You think I'm referring to our present government? It could apply to every government of the last 24 years.

The report proposes a "solution" of recruiting "expert" ministers - business leaders who can "get things done" - but does not tell us how these unelected people would be accountable to Parliament. James Forsyth in the Times last Friday says "a lack of outside expertise is one of the biggest problems that the British government faces." That's almost certainly an exaggeration but, if it is a problem, there is no reason not to bring in experts from time to time to undertake specific tasks - such as Kate Bingham's excellent management of the vaccine taskforce. But such appointments - and their performance - should be scrutinised by the responsible minister accounting to the House of Commons. Seldon's take on this is "bringing in ministers from outside politics would erode democratic accountability and overlooks the hugely capable potential ministers regularly sitting idle on the back benches." I'm not sure who or where these people are but I guess there are always those who have blotted their copybooks in one way or another, probably by disagreeing with the PM at the time; I think it's true of opposition front benches too.

Despite my scepticism, there clearly are problems of government effectiveness in the UK. Which may be true of all parliamentary democracies, for all I know. The report starts from the premise that the problem is systemic, whereas what I perceive (as an informed citizen) is a lack of quality in our political human resources. In a business context, a company would soon look for better staff to replace those failing to "get things done". If prime ministers and their ministers are not good enough, the question is how to get better ones? It's worth reading Why we get the Wrong Politicians by Isabel Hardman, a very good and interesting book. Its central theme is the cultural and economic barriers to entering politics. She discusses the selection of electoral candidates by parties and the likelihood that those chosen will be "conformers" - "one of us". We subsequently see examples of deselection of those whose views do not chime with their party's.

It seems to me that the report provides solutions to the wrong problem; it seems to accept that there is nothing to be done about the standard of our elected politicians and to propose ways to get around that - in effect, to take power and influence away from them with the sole exception of the prime minister of the day, who will be shielded from making errors by the "Number 10 machine". To accept a fundamental failure of our democratic system - to bring in good people - and, rather than seeking ways to reform that system, to denude it. It's a depressing analysis. The headline on Forsyth's article is "It's time to give No 10 real levers of power". Which sounds dangerously Stalinist. No thanks, it's not for me. I prefer the humility and collegiality of primus inter pares.

I'll give Seldon the final say:

Prime ministers ... underachieve because they cocoon themselves with like-minded figures. They should celebrate diversity of perspective, background and expertise ... let's fix what is broken or redundant and make work what is proven.

Why is a Raven like a Writing-desk?

Riddles: impossible to dislike. In Alice in Wonderland, the Mad Hatter poses the riddle to Alice: Why is a raven like a writing-desk?

Lewis Carroll doesn't provide an answer in the book and it was never his intention that there should be an answer. However, he later wrote that the answer is, "Because it can produce a few notes, tho they are very flat; and it is never put with the wrong end in front!" Carroll also wrote never as "nevar," which is raven spelled backwards but the clever pun was erased by a proofreader. Frankly it's a pretty weak answer anyway. In my opinion, he should have let it remain unanswered, like the writers responding to "what happened to Tony Soprano at the end?" with "It’s for people to decide for themselves."

Want some more riddles?

I speak without a mouth and hear without ears. I have no body, but I come alive with wind. What am I?

You see a boat filled with people. It has not sunk, but when you look again you don’t see a single person on the boat. Why?

An 18th century classic:

As I was going to St. Ives,
I met a man with seven wives,
Each wife had seven sacks,
Each sack had seven cats,
Each cat had seven kits:

Kits, cats, sacks, and wives,
How many were there going to St. Ives? 

In Sophocles’ Oedipus Rex, Oedipus must answer to the Sphinx to save his own life and continue his journey to Thebes. The Sphinx asks: "What walks on four feet in the morning, two in the afternoon and three at night?" If Oedipus answers incorrectly, she eats him. Fortunately he gets it: “Man: as an infant, he crawls on all fours; as an adult, he walks on two legs and; in old age, he uses a 'walking' stick.” Honestly, that's an unsatisfactory literary trick.

I'm re-reading Alice, as a contrast to some heavy stuff I've been ploughing through recently, such as Mao's Great Famine. A bit like relaxing to a Beatles song after listening to Mahler's 2nd Symphony.

Wait, you want answers? OK:

An Echo.

All the people were married.

One.

Terms of Venery Quiz #1

Following my post about An Exaltation of Larks, here is the first quiz. All these terms of venery originated centuries ago, so no modern examples from the 'game of venery'. We start with some animals. Let me know how many you know or can guess correctly. Answers in a week.

1. A ..... of Corn [the number of dots does not necessarily equate to the number of letters in the word]

2. A ..... of Crows

3. A ..... of Turtle Doves

4. A ..... of Starlings

5. A ..... of Peacocks

6. A ..... of Goats

7. A ..... of Bears

8. A ..... of Thrushes

9. A ..... of Eels

10. A ..... of Lapwings

Good luck.

Shrewdness

How many apes can you see from your bedroom window? More than one? That's a Shrewdness of Apes apparently. No doubt at least some of my readers will know this already but do you know how the term came about?

In the Middle Ages, shrewd was a synonym for depraved or wicked, which evolved first to mischievousness then to benign cleverness. It seems the English aristocracy used flowery language partly to distinguish themselves from the peasants and developed an etymology relating to groups of animals - many of which they hunted. It's not clear how many apes there were in England at the time - my guess would be none - but doubtless there were adventurers who came across some of these beasts somewhere.

In my usual spirit of thorough research of my topics, I purchased a used copy of An Exaltation of Larks; the Ultimate Edition written (the original edition) by James Lipton in 1968. It's an intriguing compendium of such weird and wonderful collective nouns and, more importantly, their origins.

The late James Lipton is best known as the host of Inside The Actors' Studio, a TV show where he interviewed actors, directors and producers of movies for 23 years. He was Dean at the Studio for 12 years and wrote books, lyrics and screenplays.

This book is the most exquisite you could imagine. Witty writing and charming engravings. As soon as page one, The Beginning, the author acquaints us with the subject, quoting from Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's historical novel Sir Nigel: an old knight tells Sir Nigel, as he instructs him on manners and etiquette "it is sooth for every collection of beasts of the forest, and for every gathering of birds of the air, there is their own private name so that none be confused with another." And: "no man of gentle birth would speak of a herd of swine; that is the peasant speech. If you drive them it is a herd. If you hunt them it is ... a sounder of swine." In 1486 The Book of St. Albans, printed by the St Albans Press in England and also known by titles such as "The Book of Hawking, Hunting, and Blasing of Arms" had a section on hunting, which contained many such collective nouns and thus has served as source material for this and many other books.

The chapters are organised by context. So Low Life gives us a Phalanx of Flashers; Sports - a Cuss of Coaches. To find Shrewdness, I needed the excellent index, which provides all 1,182 examples organised by descending alphabetical order of group, from Aardvarks (an Aamory) to Yuppies (a Trip). The entry for Apes leads us to pages 5 and 61, where we find Shrewdness, with the etymology referred to above. Lipton groups the examples into six families:

• Onomatopoeia, for example a Gaggle of Geese
• Characteristic: a Leap of Leopards
• Appearance: a Parliament of Owls
• Habitat: a Nest of Rabbits
• Comment: a Cowardice of Curs
• Error (e.g. from transcription): a School (originally shoal) of Fish

The eponymous Exaltation of Larks occurs in a list of such terms in the Egerton Manuscript of 1450, a source of 106 such examples.

The author clearly loves language and I learned words I had never (as far I can remember) come across, let alone used: belletristic, historiology, venery, logophobia, antilexic, synechdochic, quiddity, solatium .......most of which exceeded the ability of my spellcheck too. He invites us to engage in the "game of venery" and invent our own collectionments (there, I decided enough of static language, I'll increase the dictionary content by one [it should have a French pronunciation] - the author uses 'terms of venery' rather than 'collective nouns'). He himself played the 'game' and many of the examples are his or from others who responded to a request in previous editions of the book.

I discovered there is no index entry for Bloggers, so I invite your first entry in the game of venery to be just that.

Meanwhile for cat lovers the book offers us a Pounce of Cats, with no derivation (one of the modern ones, I imagine); I'd offer a Cuddle of Cats. For writers, a Worship of Writers, a reference to the reverence shown by writers for their patrons; I'll offer a Wrestler of Writers, in honour of our struggles to string more than two words together.

This is the most marvellous of books. It will sit on my bedside table and give me (possibly literally) endless pleasure. I wouldn't be surprised if I shared some of it with you from time to time. A quiz, maybe?

All or Nothing

Amazon have announced the latest in their All or Nothing sports documentary series. These series follow a sports team through a season, with substantial behind the scenes access. They began with a number of NFL teams in the US - Arizona Cardinals, Dallas Cowboys, Carolina Panthers, Philadelphia Eagles, Los Angeles Rams - from 2015 through 2019. The New Zealand rugby union team - the All Blacks - followed in 2018 then they switched to football (soccer). I watched the series on Manchester City and, most recently, Tottenham Hotspur; today Amazon announced that Tottenham's North London rivals, Arsenal, will be the next subject. Filming will begin shortly, continue through the 2021-22 Premier League season and launch probably in late August 2022.

I don't know whether flies sit on walls and ceilings watching human behaviour but the phrase 'fly on the wall' is ubiquitous. phrases.org.uk tells me "This is an American phrase that originated there in the 1920s. The first citation of it that I can find is from The Oakland Tribune, February 1921: 'I'd just love to be a fly on the wall when the Right Man comes along.'" I do remember Eye in the Sky, an excellent movie starring Helen Mirren in which an insectothopter drone (disguised as a dragonfly) is used for surveillance. Now, a dragonfly is not technically a fly but note the following from Clegg's Termite and Pest Control:

In old Romanian folklore, the dragonfly was actually a horse ridden by Saint George. St. George rid the mythical town of Silence of the dragon that lived in the town’s pond and poisoned the town. After wounding the dragon, he leashed the dragon and gave it to the town’s princess. Saint George’s horse became a giant flying insect when cursed by the devil. In the Romanian language, the word for dragonfly translates into Devil’s Horse or Devil’s fly. The Romanian word for devil is drac, which can also indicate dragon. In English, it translated to dragonfly.

When I worked at the Royal Ballet School, many years ago, we were once approached by a TV company (I don't recall which one) with a request to do one of these documentaries. Once we realised that we would have zero editorial control, it was an easy No Thanks. The classic "stern ballet teacher bullies pupils" meme could be too much of a temptation for a producer to manipulate. It was pitched as "this will help your recruitment of young dancers". Our reply "we don't have any problem recruiting dancers and it's possible [not necessarily likely] that whatever you come up with would make that worse rather than better" made our case. Why take a risk when you don't need to?

And that's the dilemma for these football clubs - what exactly do they gain and what might they lose? Manchester City's Abu Dhabi owners probably thought it was a perfect fit for their reason for owning a football club - image burnishing to counteract the poor human rights image of the emirate. Tottenham's Chairman, Daniel Levy, never shies away from an opportunity for publicity - and, indeed, is a major actor in the drama [in his contract?]. The Spurs manager at the time, Mauricio Pochettino was apparently not particularly enamoured with the idea - and got himself sacked in episode 1.

I couldn't find any viewing/streaming figures for any of these but critical response to the Tottenham series was generally uncomplimentary: "show ends in a no score bore" (Financial Times), "boringly sanitised" (The Guardian"), "almost a glorified puff piece" (The Daily Telegraph). I do remember enjoying watching it although that was very much as an Arsenal fan watching a car crash.

So to Arsenal. As with Spurs, it's unclear whether rookie manager Mikel Arteta had an input into the decision. Probably not; it's hard to imagine any manager being happy for all his decisions and conversations to be scrutinised and preserved for posterity, and this coming season will almost certainly be 'make or break' for Arteta as manager as he rebuilds the squad and attempts to reverse recent decline; his future career may well be influenced by it. Money? Tottenham were apparently paid £10 million, so for post-pandemic cash-strapped clubs that might be a reason to go ahead but Arsenal's search for a new right back is unlikely to be influenced by such a trivial sum.

One of the questions is whether the presence of cameras (many of them remote controlled, so perhaps the players are supposed to forget they are there), influences behaviour. The "performances" of Pep Guardiola, manager of Manchester City, and Jose Mourinho, the new manager [at the time - since sacked] of Tottenham Hotspur, were certainly characterised by almost continuous foul-mouthed tirades. I don't think we'll be getting such behaviour from Arteta but you never know. As an Arsenal fan, I hate the idea but the current demand for "reality TV" is huge and, who knows, it could be a great success if the Gunners win the Premier League. And I'll be watching it in a year's time.

The next time I see a fly on my wall, I'll chase it away before it reports back to base.

Will I never go bald?

I'm 77 with a bald spot and receding hairline. Although not receding fast enough to predict any ultimate baldness. In fact maybe receded rather than receding.

I quite like the idea of going completely bald although it's obviously out of my hands; genetics have to take their course. It would mean a saving on hairdresser appointments and shampoo but more than that it would look cool.

Patrick Stewart is the iconic bald guy.

Ryan Reynolds (he of Wrexham F.C. ownership fame, as previously recorded in this column) has claimed that Stewart (Professor X), even at 80, is the 'real sexiest man', although that may be an attempt to monopolise the annual award by the X-Men cast, having been a winner himself (Deadpool) as well as Hugh Jackman (Wolverine).

Someone once asked Gene Roddenberry, creator of Star Trek, why Stewart's Captain Picard character was bald, as "surely by the 24th century they will have cured baldness". Roddenberry replied "in the 24th century no-one will care".

I think the man I am closest to in the degree of hairline recedence is Vladimir Putin.

He comes from a long line of bald or balding leaders, including Lenin, Khrushchev, Andropov and Gorbachev. Interestingly the alternating leaders - Stalin, Brezhnev, Chernenko and Yeltsin - has good heads of hair. If you are interested in betting on the identity of the next Russian President, make sure he or she is hairy.

The most recent leaders of UK political parties who were bald are Conservative leaders William Hague and Ian Duncan Smith. The former lost a general election to Tony Blair; the latter resigned before he could do so. Which may explain why we currently have a Conservative Prime Minister who looks like an upside down mop.

I'll post an update in a year's time, if you remind me. And if you care.

UPDATE from valued commenters (see Comments):