Student accommodation. Second homes.

Mention housing to almost anyone in the UK and the conversation will inevitably, it seems, turn to the question of affordability – in particular how young people are ever meant to get on the housing ladder.

Surveys have shown how over 40% of young people believe they will be renting all of their lives.

The causes are many, but mainly around the expansion of credit boosting demand way beyond supply.

That sounds a straight forward explanation.  But it covers a whole host of contradictions.  Firstly: demand and supply of what? Dwellings? Or accommodation? It’s a fine point, but essentially it boils down to bedrooms.  Danny Dorling makes the point in All That is Solid: there are more spare bedrooms in London than individuals on housing waiting lists across the country.

That doesn’t mean that everyone could happily move to London and rent a box room in an elderly woman’s house in Wandsworth.  But the point is that under-occupation is chronic in the UK, largely due to increasing life-expectancy and those couples staying on in their family houses well after their adult children leave home.  They stay there for a whole host of reasons – one of which is “just in case”.  Just in case sudden unemployment, relationship breakdown, illness or some other emergency means those adult children return.  To be fair to those elderly parents, the risks of those things happening are high.

But there’s a similar push that ends up in a far more concrete (literally) impact on the housing market.  Whereas the construction of care homes or retirement villages incentivizes those elderly residents to sell-up and downsize, the construction of purpose-built student accommodation removes developable land from the housing market and reduces supply of other forms of housing.  Why?  Because students usually live somewhere else as well, and have a bedroom ready waiting for them.  In other words, student homes are pretty much second homes.

And yet, a key villain of the “housing crisis” in the eyes of those same young people is the second home owner: the well-paid city-based professional who heads to his or her pad in the countryside at weekends.  It’s ironic that students joining the clamour for “something to be done” about housing affordability in the UK are highly likely to be directly contributing to the problem by living in two places at once.


“I’m too old for this”


Every day, this man and around three others sit at the computers in my local library.  They are searching online for jobs, and sending off applications.

Every day I go to the library, they are there.  They are waiting promptly outside, waiting for the doors to open.  They know each other well – joking to each other about jobs they’ve seen, computer issues, the ordeal they’re going through.

This week a different woman was sat at a computer in the library.  She was in her 60s.  Within seconds of me sitting down at a table with a book, she approached me.

“Excuse me – you’re good at computers.  Can you help me?”

The scale of the issue quickly became apparent: she could not even understand the simple message, in point 28 font, stating that she’d been sent a verification email from the job site some other kind soul had registered her with.

Whilst I struggled to simply explain without intimating that this was merely the very, very beginning of her pain, she said “I’m too old for this”.

Eligible recipients need to be 65 in order to receive the state pension, currently.  That has been increased to 67, and then to 68 for people born after certain dates.  This is an inevitable response to a declining birth rate, increasing life expectancy, flatlining productivity increases and an ever-increasing range of demands and their costs.  The unmentionable taboo is that we are living longer, whilst working conditions have changed completely.  The problem the library job-seeker crew has is that they are Sleepers, waking up in a completely alien planet several decades into the future.  Yet they didn’t fall asleep – instead they lived in a deprived corner of a dying country, working in dying occupations in dying industries, hubris and arrogance making them ignorant to the revolution going on in the world beyond their immediate environment (incidentally, the Brexit vote in the UK is probably their response to how they feel about that).

Woody Allen in Sleeper (1973).  Image courtesy of

This taboo co-exists somehow with double-standards over “the price of human life”.  News broke this week of a poor quality investigation into a case where a doctor at a hospital in Gosport in the 1990s had over-proscribed opioids to elderly patients.  An inquiry said there was a culture of “disregard for human life” at the hospital.

Quite.  And yet no similar charge is made against MPs who “drag their feet” over action against criminally high air-pollution levels in the UK which annually contribute to an estimated 40,000 premature deaths.  Or voting to contribute to military engagements in far away countries, knowing that there will be civilian deaths, for obscure objectives.  Or against managers who decide to install cheaper cladding as part of refurbishment of housing, directly resulting in the horrible deaths at Grenfell Tower (instead of disregard for human life, we call it reverse engineering – or best practice in financial management).

Or against shareholders and regulators who continue to allow excessive remuneration, aggressive tax avoidance and the endless consolidation of monopolistic corporations, whilst eroding employment rights and working conditions – creating environments where the desperate need help from strangers simply to search for, let alone apply for, let alone be shortlisted for and let alone secure a new job paying minimum wage, with no guarantee of any hours, on a temporary contract, tied to a stick.

Mental health and inequality.

1 in 4 people in the UK will experience a mental health problem each year, according to Mind.   How we cope with those problems is changing: incidents of suicide and self harm are increasing.  Rates of violent crime are also increasing.

Of course how these are reported will skew the figures from one year to the next; and rising awareness will also raise the figures.  But all things being equal, let’s assume the trend is upwards.  What could be causing it?

Is it because of cuts to those agencies that would otherwise be policing external factors affecting our mental health?  I’m thinking of Local Authority noise pollution and environmental protection teams, social workers, support workers in schools and housing, community policing, even support offered by employers.

Or is it more to do with technology that creates more of those external factors?  Online banking is incredibly frustrating, but add to that the fickleness of broadband, the hassle of customer support, the built-in obsolescence and dependency that drives our use of technology.

Then consider how much of that technology also undermines our ability to cope: the endless distractions, the corner of your brain that’s permanently listening out for the pings from your smartphone, the other corner of your brain that’s scanning for great Instagram posts.  Our addiction to dopamine hits seems to be inhibiting our ability to deal with a lot of modern life.

Or is it because the gap between rich and poor is now so great that it’s more and more noticeable, and the risks of failure that much more serious?

Most probably it’s a combination of all of those, and other factors.  Austerity, growing inequality, less regulation, more technology, greater competition, more serious implications of poverty and greater visibility of the lifestyles of the rich and famous – they’re all making us ill, and we’re less able to cope.

Choose Life. Choose unit sales.

Trainspotting is one of the few films that I’ve bothered to watch twice at the cinema because I enjoyed it so much.  It’s a great film.  So much so that everyone seems to forgive the surreal sequence tucked away in the middle that could be straight out of a “GREAT Britain” marketing campaign.  You may have forgotten it (or removed it from your memory).  It’s a series of short clips of people in Edinburgh, set to music.  It may only last 30 seconds or so.  It’s to set the context (as far as I can remember) for the scene in which Begbie mugs the American tourist after he stumbles into the wrong bar and opens his mouth in a loud sports jacket.  Perhaps it’s ironic – showing the difference between tourist Edinburgh and the grim toilet-bowl reality experienced by Renton and co.  But if it is, then there is no shred of irony whatsoever in the sequence: it really could be straight from an advert.

And 20 or so years later, Trainspotting has probably done its own fair share of contributing to Britain’s “image” – the reputation, the imagery, the modern mythology, the material for posters and the milieu that Lonely Planet writers and newspaper travel columnists get invited to feature.  That sounds like a more interesting irony – that the ironic “Visit Britain” sequence turns out to have been far more effective at attracting visitors than shit-stained toilets, dead babies and heroin addicts were at putting them off.

This “soft power” explains the rush for selfies in front of the Hollywood sign, and the clamour from politicians for new concert venues or to attract the cameras for the next Game of Thrones.  The steps before – the market research, the visioning, the planning for the infrastructure and attracting the finance, is called “boosterism” – bigging up London more than Paris to win the right to host the Olympic games, for example.  Boosterism is almost the opposite of market forces: investors and capitalists are meant to interpret signals to make predictions, from which they take risks and then reap the rewards of success.  But where there is no data, they’re vulnerable to boosterism – also known as bullshit.

Some of the biggest boosters were in Soviet Russia, or modern-day China.  It’s not simply a Capitalism con.  And the boosters appear everywhere: the BBC runs the New Generation Artists scheme, supporting talented young musicians from across the world.  One of those previous artists is the Iranian harpsichordist Mahan Esfahani – and I listened to a radio programme where he discusses the different musical traditions between Armenia (European-influenced) and Iran (not European-influenced), formed by the creation of a new border in 1828.

It made sense – Armenians looked towards Russia and possibly France for their cultural influences.   Or rather bourgeois Armenians with pretentions at government positions, university educations and emigration.   I’m sure there are bourgeois Iranians with the same pretentions but maybe not so many.  Or they were persecuted or fled.

Ostensibly the programme was a contrast between disparate musical styles between neighbouring countries.  So why did it feel as if Iran’s lukewarm interest in classical music was as a problem?

I blogged previously about the effect that the drive for unit sales atomises us into thinking our personal relationship to music is unique and special, when in reality it is entirely commonplace.  But if something is commonplace, why bother spending money on it?  Similarly, the need for selling tickets for big-name soloists or conductors, such as Esfahani, drives the format.  Form follows function, after all.

Music that takes a communal and improvisational form can’t be easily sold.  It’s music to dance to, to celebrate to, to pray to.  The “artist”, the auteur, the composer are all irrelevant: or rather, they’re simply the performers, who in turn are the audience.  Maybe that’s what the problem for Esfahani to solve was – exploring a new frontier for cultural imperialists to exploit.

Michael Sandel’s book What Money Can’t Buy expands this idea brilliantly: that money corrupts the way we consume things.  Money is such a powerfully simple idea –  translating the value of everything into currency that it’s one of the key steps of our social evolution, along with fire, story-telling, agriculture and industrialisation, as described by Yuval Noah Harari in the equally brilliant Sapiens.  But it has pernicious effects – it corrupts the motives of those other fundamental parts of the human condition: namely love, birth and death.

Soft power is everywhere.  It funds much of the art (through government subsidy) that apparent “progressives” and bourgeoisie love to enjoy (and to display their enjoyment loudly on social media) in their attempt to escape the gravitational pull of the proletariat.  In turn, our need to belong to tribes and movements fuels that the velocity.  Maybe being truly progressive means we admit our snobbery, and put down our wallets when professing our love of culture.

Music is over-rated

When I was in my early teens it seemed like only me and two similarly awkward friends liked The Cure.  Forever dismissed as “goths” and derided simply for the size of their hair and apparent miserablism of Robert Smith’s lyrics, we knew that they were far more than just a band.  In the early 90s, roundabout the time I saw a packed stadium concert for their Wish album, I realised their influence was becoming more and more apparent: not only musically and lyrically, but how expressing emotions like love, anger and fear in metres usually associated with hyperbole and cliché could be carried off reverentially and imaginatively.  Now the unique sound and imagery of Robert Smith’s (and Simon Gallup’s) oeuvre are widely recognised – NME, Brit Awards and the rest of them have given out their gongs of belated “lifetime achievement” approval.  What does this journey from freakshow to main attraction mean?

I used to think I alone experienced the rapture of the opening drones of Plainsong, or could hear the music between the layers of instrumentation in Lament; Simon Gallup’s pulsing basslines seemed to be singularly tailored to reverberate in my gut – and the relentless monotony of Boris Williams’s drums on Disintegration (and that’s a live recording – the man is a human drum machine!) seemed to make only my spine tingle.  I spoke to more and more people over the years: I discovered that other people could hear those ghost notes, interpreted Smith’s whispers and croaks the same way, and who had more than one tear in their eyes at the end of Faith.  Now, some 30 years later I realise that this ability of music to really move us – and to which we relate our most fundamental experiences – is universal.  It’s not me that has superhuman sensitivities, nor The Cure’s music that’s anything particularly unique.  We all seek emotional earthquakes: Christian suburbanites, graduates, teenage dirtbags and pin stripe suits together.

Which sets the scene for my thoughts about Sebastian Faulk’s book Another Life.  It’s one of five loosely connected chapters, about a folk musician in North America from the late 60s to late 90s.  Her talent is supposedly singular, her audience grows from tiny folk gigs to sell-out crowds after her discovery by the narrator and his co-producer.  The narrator’s engagement with her music is tied up of course in his attraction to her (and of course, she’s beautiful), and vice versa.  “We love you”, cry the audience at her farewell gig (much like the lovestruck cries of “ROBERRRRRRT” from the young women on every single live recording of The Cure).  But talent, and this entwining of soul and song, are not singular and rare, and neither should they be – we trick ourselves into thinking we alone are sufficiently sensitive to hear those hidden notes (spoiler: they don’t actually exist).  Music is universal; the solidarity we feel when singing our lungs out on football terraces is very real and powerful stuff.

Why this rarefication of what should be a universalising force for human solidarity?  Money changes everything, of course.  Unit sales, mainly: tickets, downloads, merch, followers and clicks.  But more than that: our drive for narrative with heroes rather than faceless armies (cf. Kahneman and Taleb, if you don’t believe me).  Smith and Gallup are certainly two of my heroes – but I’m sure even their egos acknowledge the effort of countless engineers, producers, marketers and roadies in their success.  Music going mainstream isn’t redeeming more souls: it’s making more money.

The power of ideas to take hold of collective consciousness rests in no small part upon their novelty, and the networks of their proponents, as well as their utility.  In art, what part does ability play?  Music conservatoires produce dozens of supremely gifted musicians each year, but which of them has the X Factor? There seems little correlation with ability.  Difference from what went before, and the creation of a narrative that can shift units seem to have a far more significant role.  Is there that much difference between the romanticism of, say, Lord Byron’s poetry, and The Figurehead?

I’m not saying talent doesn’t exist.  There’s a definite arc in The Cure’s output from 1978, dropping off sharply after 1991 when Smith and Gallup hit their mid 30s – the same can be said of athletes and mathematicians.  Creativity is exhausting, and those rare talents usually have stories that explain their early hunger: once success sates them, the creativity seems to dry up along with it.  Once we’ve been through the trauma of love and loss, who wants to go through all that again without taking out some form of insurance?  I’m not trying to explain why some artists make it to the bigtime.  I’m simply saying that music is over-rated.  We are not alone in our solitary prayers to the heroes of popular culture – how else are they popular?  Rather we should stop the hero reverence and give each other more credit in our ability to relate to each other, and to simple cultural pleasures – which is all music (and art, and drama, and stories) is.  The difference is that the need to sell tickets and books has reduced the universalities of culture to individual transactions.  Sing out loud, and sing together instead.

Cities, culture, capital, migration.


This history of capitalism co-incides with the history of human migration from rural to urban, from areas of infrequent exchanges of capital to dense nodes of interaction.  Look at a satellite photograph of streetlights at night, and you’ll notice how the most brightly illuminated are the wealthiest places – and the most popular destination for migrants, acting rationally as they seek work and livelihoods.

And thus it has always been ever since the early modern period, when mercantilism began together with its infrastructure: banks, central banks, mints, factories, mass housing, mass transport, mass education and mass hygience.  “Cities are Good for You“, as Leo Hollis tell us.

Over 50% of the world’s population live in cities, and this is rapidly increasing.  In Europe, rural areas are dying: parts of (mostly rural) Romania and Bulgaria are predicted to lose 50% of their populations by the end of the century.  In the UK, many villages are “dormitory towns”, stuck in a cycle of decay where services are unsustainable due to population loss married with unaffordable house prices.  In China and India, rural to urban migration continues its inexorable growth.

At the same time we witness a global homogenisation of culture.  Is this a co-incidence?

Of course not – “urban” culture is capitalist culture: mass produced pop or its tinged sub-genres of R&B or hip hop, with its easily-consumed nuggets of downloads, concerts and merch; endless re-franchising of plot and a production line of genetically enhanced actors in films; a melting pot of “foodie” cuisine rehashed in the pidgin global English in chain restaurants and their spin offs from Perth to Dubai to Moscow to Durban.

“Traditional cultures” are rural, obviously.  The endless concentration of labour in cities destroys them and concentrates wealth in the owners and shareholders of those brands, franchises and platforms.

We also see a boom in “artisinal” traditional crafts: micro breweries and distilleries, vanity publishing, crowdfunded theatre, homegrown.  I don’t see these as sustainable, or creating genuine competition – the global conglomerates will simply purchase any small upstarts (think Tyrells, Green & Black).  They’re all pretty much exclusively “posh”: high-end, expensive, low volume.

As I hinted in my last post – this is where “progressives” often get confused.  Maybe the most effective resistance in reaction against this blandness is Brexit, Trump, One-Nation, The Freedom Party in Austria, PiS in Poland.  These movements are coalitions of the right and what was previously known as “the working class”.   Those who call themselves “progressives”, and who identify themselves as “left wing” or “liberal” are also the principal consumers of this global culture – the theatres, the cinemas, the restaurants, the ballet, the ubiquitous Christmas markets, the 90% of sales from 10% of goods whether they be in bookshops, Spotify or the uniform of branded hoodie and smart-casual shoes.

Labour movements around the world are dead.  The socialist parties in France, in Greece, in Spain and Italy have been decapitated.  Trade Unions are no more.  Wage growth is no more.  Traditional cultures are no more, and villages will soon be no more.

The working class betrayed itself by using debt to pretend it is bourgeois, because bourgeois has better production standards, prettier faces and faster beats.  Capitalism has headed off the urban poor at the pass – maybe we should walk the other way and take back our ancestral homes, our ancient customs and rituals of hearth and village green.  Capitalism concentrates wealth (“capital city” is not a co-incidence); maybe decentralisation is our best bet at redistribution.

“Progressives” and totalitarians.

It’s quite unusual in the current atmosphere to find an article written by a woman which doesn’t put the boot in.

As a reward, I actually read this article by Rachel Cooke. She asks “are we going to outlaw love affairs now?”, in an article examining the increasingly totalitarian approach western society seems to be taking towards deviance, despite a concurrent fixation of corporate and mainstream culture to be “inclusive”.

This contradiction is possible because the people making these accusations of harassment and offence and blasphemy can’t be bothered to think too much.  Yes, the powerless are fighting back – but that doesn’t mean they’re automatically right.

Sensors and GPS coupled with block chain technology could mean that any minor misdemeanor is punished automatically by charging our bank accounts or alerting our insurance providers.  It sounds effective and fair and efficient – but do we really want to live in a world where no-one is capable of doing anything “wrong”, when “wrong” is subjective and political?

I also think that the drive towards “morality” – from the alt-right evangelists in the USA to anti-abortionists in Poland and Northern Ireland to drug-busting Duterte to emigrant-stopping Orban – is the same drive that sees righteous people calling themselves “progressives” call for the kind of moral censorship that Cooke writes about in her article.  Censorship is censorship, whether it comes from the right or the left.  Totalitarianism is totalitarianism, whether of the fascist or communist kind.


“Cause the world needs more lawyers”

Image: Summit Entertainment 2016

Have you seen La La Land?  I found it profound.  It speaks about capitalism itself, and a thought experiment I’ve been trying out on friends:

Imagine an Ayn Rand-inspired world where there is no public subsidy or taxation to incentivize or disincentivize purchasing, and where employees keep 100% of their wages.  Would the resulting purchases be a complete reflection of what society valued most?  If we wanted something, we would buy it.  If we needed something, we would buy it.  If we didn’t, we wouldn’t.

What would become of art?  Museums and galleries, concert halls, theatres and opera venues would close overnight.  Those institutions are usually heavily subsidized, even despite expensive ticket prices.  We don’t value the high production costs highly enough, despite our bourgeois pretentions of sophistication.

Yet the message of La La Land is “follow your dreams”.  In response to Mia’s protestation that she should have done something useful with the last six years of life rather than chase an acting career, Sebastian tells her sarcastically, “’cause the world needs more lawyers”.  Whatever the word is for irony that isn’t ironic – fact? – Sebastian is spot on.  Actually, the world does need more lawyers, and it needs fewer actors.  Why?  Because administration to manage the complexity of protecting capital has ballooned with the concentration of wealth.

The real irony is that the very ubiquity of art and the very glibness of messages such as “follow your dreams” has cheapened it so much that it has become commonplace.  Art is free: on Spotify, on Pinterest, on YouTube and everywhere: it has been reduced to background for our conspicuous consumption.  It’s clickbait, it’s ‘send us your email address with your competition entries’.  It provides context for our purchases – I’m a goth, so I must buy these clothes and wear my hair this way, not that way.   Art is dead other than the high-end kind, which is more about capital and tax efficiency than supporting aspiring art graduates.  Published writers make far less than the minimum wage on average – “follow your dreams” is a route to starvation, and freezing on the streets.

We seem determined to ignore the ugly realities of capitalism, or turn those ugly realities into beauty, because the alternative is acceptance that Things Can Certainly Not Get Better.  From the opening dance of drivers stuck in a traffic jam, La La Land shouts capitalist realism – if only we workers opened our eyes and saw traffic jams, unemployment and poverty for what they are: failures of our democracy and of our society, of an unsustainable increase in living standards for two generations paid for by fossil fuels, colonialism and exploitation that we pretend no longer to tolerate.  We understood that workers in the Soviet Union were fed lies and propaganda, so why is it so hard to accept that Hollywood is our equivalent?  La La Land hides this message in plain sight.




Fear of ghosts.


I know posting this image is unfair: it is so ubiquitous that it is entirely unsurprising.

But I couldn’t help but wonder if the woman is listening to Fear of ghosts by The Cure:

and the further I get
from the things that I care about
the less I care about
how much further away I get…

I am lost again
with everything gone
and more alone
than I have ever been

We all do it.  I do it.  Endlessly scrolling through irrelevant content, somehow missing the fact that it makes no difference.  Again, as I’ve posted before, the content is not important. We do it to avoid other people because we are petrified of having to interact with each other.

In the 2000s I used to hear all the time about “Anti-Social Behaviour”.  Now, despite being more connected than we have ever been – whether measured through transport modes and nodes, whether through telecommunication types and interactions, whether measured through the number of people we claim to know – we are also more alone than we have ever been.

That is not a paradox because of vanity: we measure our success in how important we are, how popular we are, how busy we are.  The further we get from the things that we care about, the less we care about how much further away we get.