The Land Of Might-Have-Been

Samuel HooperLeave a comment

They just don’t write them like they used to. “The Land Of Might-Have-Been” by Ivor Novello.

This particular performance is a recording by Jeremy Northam, from the soundtrack to the excellent film “Gosford Park”, directed by Robert Altman. If you have not seen it, you really must.

Somewhere there’s another land different from this world below,
far more mercifully planned than the cruel place we know.
Innocence and peace are there— all is good that is desired.
Faces there are always fair; love grows never old nor tired.

We shall never find that lovely land of might-have-been.
I can never be your king nor you can be my queen.
Days may pass and years may pass and seas may lie between—
We shall never find that lovely land of might-have-been.

Sometimes on the rarest nights comes the vision calm and clear,
gleaming with unearthly lights on our path of doubt and fear.
Winds from that far land are blown, whispering with secret breath—
hope that plays a tune alone, love that conquers pain and death.

Shall we ever find that lovely land of might-have-been?
Will I ever be your king or you at last my queen?
Days may pass and years may pass and seas may lie between—
Shall we ever find that lovely land of might-have-been?

Tuesday Music Club

Samuel HooperLeave a comment

Instituting a new category for the blog, just because I can – the Tuesday Music Club.

And for our first installment: The Crash Test Dummies, appearing on the David Letterman show in 1994, sing their hit “Afternoons And Coffeespoons”:

 

Times when the day is like a play by Sartre

When it seems a bookburning’s in perfect order

I gave the doctor my description

I’ve tried to stick to my prescription

Someday I’ll have a disappearing hairline

Someday I’ll wear pyjamas in the daytime

Oh, afternoons will be measured out

Measured out, measured with coffeespoons

And T.S. Eliot

 

London Doesn’t Have Enough Airports, Apparently

Samuel Hooper5 Comments

Well done for sticking with this blog post past the inspiring title. If you are reading this far, you must be a true fan, a transportation policy anorak or my mother. In any case, thank you very much!

This post is in response to a piece in the Daily Telegraph entitled “David Cameron says Britain needs bigger airport for London”:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/9153324/David-Cameron-says-Britain-needs-bigger-airport-for-London.html

The Prime Minister said he had “an open mind” about all possible proposals, even though the Coalition has previously ruled out building a third runway at Heathrow.

In particular, ministers will carefully consider the proposal by Boris Johnson, the London Mayor, to build a completely new airport in the Thames estuary.

However, Mr Cameron said there were still “a range of options and possibilities”, raising speculation an expansion of Heathrow could come back on to the table in the next parliament.

“I’m not blind to the need to increase airport capacity, particularly in the south-east,” he said. “”We need to retain our status as a key global hub for air travel, not just a feeder route to bigger airports elsewhere, in Frankfurt, Amsterdam or Dubai.

Now hold on just one second.

The Conservative party campaigned at the last election on a manifesto commitment to oppose the building of an additional runway at Heathrow Airport, the capital’s main hub airport. I thought that was a stupid, counterproductive idea designed to pander to the less thinking green vote then, and I think it’s a stupid, counterproductive idea designed to pander to the less thinking green vote now.

So imagine my surprise to learn that ministers are seriously considering the even more hare-brained idea by London Mayor Boris Johnson to build an entirely new, huge airport in the Thames estuary. Seriously? After goodness knows how much time and effort and money (both public and private) was pumped into building Terminal 5 at Heathrow, and sprucing up the remaining terminals in time for the London Olympics? You are seriously telling me that you now want to build a new airport for London.

Well, London is of course chronically underserved in terms of locations where you can jump on a plane. I mean, basically commercial passengers are limited to:

London Heathrow

London Gatwick

London City

London Stansted

London Luton

London Oxford (apparently that’s what they call it now)

London Torquay

London Shetland Islands

Okay, so the last two were made up. But seriously? Another airport?

Sometimes I read the news and I actually think that maybe I’m just irretrievably stupid, that maybe the government sees the world rationally and clearly and that my brain is just not developed enough to comprehend the logical, simple beauty behind their policy proposals. Because how else could such a seemingly dumb idea be suggested?

Firstly. Cities reap the biggest benefit from air transport when they have a single big, hub airport. Having lots of semi-hub airports jockeying for position doesn’t do nearly so much good. If I’m coming from the United States and flying to India, it is awkward enough to have to stop over at London Heathrow and enjoy their hospitality while I wait for my connection. If I now have to clear customs at Heathrow and then take an airport shuttle bus or rail link to London Thames Estuary or London Middle Of Nowhere to make my connection, I will be even less inclined to transit through Heathrow. The airport loses potential revenue, and the government loses the criminal levels of air passenger duty that they charge whenever you try to flee this rainy island.

Secondly. Environmentalists didn’t want an additional runway at Heathrow Airport, even though that airport is stretched to capacity. How much happier will they be with an entirely new airport and the additional footprint that it would require with scare land available? The answer – less happy, believe it or not! As the Telegraph article states:

“In a letter to The Daily Telegraph on Monday, a group of Conservatives joined forces with Professor Germaine Greer and politicians from all parties to claim the airport would destroy an area used by 300,000 migrating birds every year.”

So having pandered to the environmentalists at the last election despite their doubts about your sincerity, you are now going to prove them right by not only reneging on your pledge about the new runway, but rubbing a whole new massive hub airport in their faces instead? Smart move!

Thirdly. Does this airport replace Heathrow, or Gatwick? Or Stansted? Or any of the others? If not, how do we build links to connect this new hub airport with the seventeen existing ones, and handle the fact that passengers will be cris-crossing the capital trying to make distant flight connections even more than they have to already? If yes, what do we do with vast amount of capital and buildings and equipment and land at the existing sites? Turn them into museums? Shared housing for low-income families? Huge skate parks? Desolate, crime-ridden brownfield sites? (Yes). And how do we convince the owners of these airports, all of whom are in the private sector, to sell out and close down operations against their interests to allow the new airport to flourish?

In short: did anyone, anyone at all think through the implications of this eye-blisteringly stupid idea for even one milisecond before calling a press conference, opening their smug, greasy cakeholes and proclaiming this policy reversal? Anyone?

These same people have control of our national economic and foreign policies, and have their fingers on our nuclear trigger. Am I the only one who is disturbed by this?

That is all.

Norman Tebbit on Gay Marriage

Samuel Hooper4 Comments

With a heavy heart and a deep sigh I noticed that Norman Tebbit has written a piece for the Telegraph on the issue of gay marriage. I was, of course, compelled to read it at once:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/normantebbit/100144912/gay-marriage-wont-win-cameron-the-next-election/

Let’s dispense with the foolishness of the title – “Gay Marriage Won’t Win Cameron The Next Election” – right away. Just as basic civil rights (and no, living in a country where everyone else is forced to abide by select teachings from your particular holy book is not a civil right) should never be granted or taken away by popular vote, neither should they be used to try to win or lose elections, often though that may happen.

This article really is the very worst of old-school conservatism fighting a rear-guard retreat against inevitable and welcome change, but the sheer patheticness of the new arguments that Lord Tebbit raises to slow the march toward marriage equality are so ludicrous that I felt I must deconstruct them one by one.

“Was anyone asked to check in how many pieces of legislation the words “husband” or “wife” appear? Are they to be replaced by some suitable non-discriminatory new word or words? Then what about the grounds for divorce? How will adultery be redefined? Exactly what kind of sexual acts outside marriage will constitute grounds for divorce? What will amount to the consummation of a marriage?”

The word you are groping for is “spouse”, Lord Tebbit. I know, it was a tricky one. Do we need to replace the words “husband” and “wife” in every bit of legislation ever written? I’m not a student of law, but I would hope that this is not necessary and that judges up and down the land would not be so pedantic as to fight their own personal mini-wars against gay marriage by issuing contrary rulings until the letter of the law was changed. But even if this were the case, is that a good enough reason to deny a civil right to someone?

How will adultery be defined? Having sexual relations with someone other than your spouse, same as it is now. No need to worry there either, Lord Tebbit. Simples.

Exactly what kind of sexual acts outside marriage will constitute grounds for divorce? What will amount to the consummation of a marriage? Ah yes, the old-school conservative hangup with exactly what goes on in the bedrooms of the same-sex couple. Well, first of all, Lord Tebbit, it is stupid to have a list of certain sexual acts that constitute grounds for divorce and ones that don’t. If we have such a list now in this country, it too is stupid, and we should get rid of it. Secondly, such a “list” would include all of those ghastly goings-on, the thoughts of which keep you awake at night in a cold sweat. Intercourse, oral sex, all kinds of naughty things that should only ever take place missionary-style, for five minutes, between a married man and wife, for the express purpose of having a baby. With the lights off. Sorry, old chap.

“What fun will be had amongst our legislators as they grapple with the question of the appropriate titles for the “partners” of those who receive the honour of knighthoods, or are made Dames, Barons or Baronesses. At present we live happily with the inequity of husbands receiving no title when their wives are honoured, but surely that cannot continues under the politically correct new order.”

Norman Tebbit proposing this argument against gay marriage is like me being tied to the rail tracks as an express train hurtles towards me, and me throwing a feather in its path hoping to stop its progress. Nonetheless, let’s engage. Firstly, I would say that the existing honours and title system in this country is stupid, vastly outdated, not understood by the majority of the population, and should be replaced by a single honour, the “Order of the United Kingdom” or something like that. But if we must keep the existing system then I’m sure we can pay a panel of retired, betitled judges to form an official enquiry into the new name that should be given to the husband of a man who has himself been titled. We like enquiries like that in this country. Maybe you could draw the new official coat of arms to be used by the gay spouses of honourees, Lord Tebbit, wouldn’t that be fun? We’ll get you a sheet of paper and some crayons.

“Within the can of worms that Mr Cameron is determined to open there are several nests of snakes. Why should a marriage be confined to just two persons? What is the barrier to the marriage of sisters, brothers or even parents and children?”

Well, one thing at a time, Lord Tebbit, eh? While the objective of those who push for marriage equality is obviously to use it as a mere stepping stone on the path toward their long-cherished dream of marrying their horse, we understand that progress comes slowly in this world.

Oh. And a nest of snakes in a can of worms? How does that work?

“Perhaps it is another contagion from his Lib Dem partners.  Surely it cannot be to gain votes. Not only would that be unworthy, but he must know that the pink vote is substantially less than the UKIP vote. Indeed most of the homosexuals that I know cast their votes on very much the same issues as the rest of us. They are not a separate species. They pay taxes, have mortgages, battle with EU laws which destroy jobs, have concerns about the price of petrol, crime, immigration, the cruel delusion of multi culturalism and  the dangers of instability in the Middle East, just like heterosexuals.”

Ah yes, there is always a line in these articles affirming that the author actually knows many homosexuals him or herself, and gets on very well with them and considers them great chums, and that to a person they all quite agree that they don’t need all this equality nonsense. Check.

And again – seriously, Lord Tebbit, are you saying that because there are more people who vote for a eurosceptic party than vote for marriage equality, the Conservative party should ignore the “pink vote” and chase the eurosceptic one? Firstly, I’m not so sure as you seem to be that the two are mutually exclusive, and secondly, yes of course gay people are concerned about all of the same issues as the rest of us, it’s just that they have that one additional cause to worry about – that of not currently being equal under the law with a married heterosexual couple.

In all seriousness now. It doesn’t please me at all to belittle Norman Tebbit, who has served this country admirably both in the armed forces, the private sector and in government. I believe that he has done many great things to help this country, especially during his tenure in PM Thatcher’s cabinet. But the fact that such a distinguished man can make such petty rhetorical arguments – “we can’t allow gay marriage because then we would have to decide what to call the husband of a Duke” – in the path of progress is beneath him as a man of intellect, and is only further evidence that the argument against gay marriage has been comprehensively lost by the old guard. If this is the best that they’ve got, marriage equality in Britain may be even closer than we think.