Confidence and its importance in society

I was watching Jeremy Kyle this afternoon, in between moving random bits of furniture on my overly long summer break. The situation was that the woman thought that her boyfriend of nine months was cheating on her. On his shows, Kyle provides the background through talking to the people involved. In the studio, the backdrop of which looking like one of the less impressive pieces at the Saatchi Gallery, was the woman herself, the boyfriend in question and the woman’s daughter who thought that the boyfriend wasn’t lying. The talky bits seemed rather comical, as Kyle himself laughed at the story of underwear being posted through letterboxes. The boyfriend, however, was not in the same mood – he was bricking himself. The ‘all-important’ lie-detector results come in and actually, the boyfriend was faithful and Jeremy Kyle goes from being comedy compere to bedside-speaking care bear in little more than five seconds in telling the woman to stop being paranoid, as the daughter described.

I believe that shows like Jeremy Kyle show to people that people are far too insecure. It might be good to have fear, but an anxiety that questions every aspect of not just your, but other people’s lives, is unhealthy. The whole incident started, as was stated on the show, by text messages to women that she didn’t know. No-one likes to be lied to, but unless you are certain and can confirm suspicions, for instance perfume on shirts and skimpy lingerie in pockets, there should be little that should drive you to such conclusions, because you’re confident in you and your partner. If you are confident that he is cheating, what’s wrong with splitting up? It may be stressful but being free is indeed liberating to move with the breeze that propels you into the future? 

To show I am no agony aunt writing such hodgepodge and thus wasting your time, I am surprised to find such loss of self-confidence, but I know (because I am confident… or arrogant) that I shouldn’t. The culture in which we live and participate is centred on perfection – nice house; nice car; nice husband/wife; sex more than once a week – and we are consequentially self-destructing as a society, in a state of micromanagement and a lack of focus on the wider issues in the world. Society needs other people’s approval constantly. It’s why Jeremy Kyle always has an audience and ratings, so that middle-class people like me can say that life could be worse; it’s why people go on Jeremy Kyle, so that they can be told that they are the dog’s bollocks.

It almost seems that people are afraid of being responsible. When you make a mistake upon the advice of friends or family, it is about as easy to point your finger and go running up to bedrooms and slamming doors as it is to flick a light switch. The reasoning needed to realise your own faults and listening to yourself is a hell of a lot harder – that takes balls of steel more than ever, when people are telling us that we're pathetic and on several rungs below those people who are famous for exposed vulvas in limousines or ridiculous boob jobs. 

 Meanwhile, the people in power, rightly unimpressed with its never-ending downhill trend in the financial world, has blamed the Eurozone, the previous government, lazy workers, benefit scroungers, the disabled, bank holidays among many other groups in society for the current failure to keep borrowing and the deficit down. What is needed by those who have the ability to set things straight in the mess we are in and which we all created, through borrowing too much and high costs of living, is confidence. Yes we can, Obama said innumerate times on his election campaign in 2008. And may I reply, By Jove, I think we should all get it. 

YouTube - ever the heir apparent to the throne of popular entertainment

Television seems more than ever to be a waste of time. The BBC, with the licence fee frozen and Daily Mail readers and the Government constantly asking for ‘value for money’, and ITV, with its shortfall in advertising revenue, are on heavy cost-cutting drives. They are dispensing with the great majestic buildings that symbolised television’s influence during post-war Britain –Television Centre in White City and the Granada Studios on Quay Street in Manchester are being replaced by essentially one building in Salford, supposedly more efficient and more suited to the television of today. We return to Alexandra Palace and the modern equivalent of the constant big band music that used to play endlessly on just one channel. This is a symbol for television – it has accepted defeat, just as radio did in the 1960s at a time the number of viewers watching Coronation Street dwarfed that of The Archers. The Internet is on the march to dominance.

Just as people treated television with suspicion, the same is happening with this growing medium, or more specifically, YouTube. The newspapers’ views on the internet is one of ridicule and yet of fear. They find it ludicrous that someone unknown to middle-age journalists has so many followers. Yet this was probably the same with Cliff Richard, the Sex Pistols, riding on the waves of cultural change, to the bemusement of the elders of society.

I’m sure many of those in middle-age have their presupposed ideas of the types of videos on YouTube: that it’s You’ve Been Framed on demand, that it’s full of uninteresting people talking about their trips to the supermarket or being unfunny. I say this to those who have this mentality –how you are wrong. YouTube is big business now, with a hierarchy that mimics that of television, the numerous fanbases who devote hours to the life of another person, and the huge sums of money that are being made online.

For me, it’s truly fascinating – not only is the way that we entertain ourselves is evolving, but also the source itself. To call YouTube a community is no longer a case. YouTube is the stage, the studio – it’s almost like those great days of music hall. The modern equivalent of the bill is the homepage. Clicking the most popular button is like viewing the headline acts. Whereas Bruce Forsyth and Des O’Connor were topping the bills in the fifties, we have AmazingPhil, Danisnotonfire and Charlieissocoollike among the many myriad of obscure usernames that are known universally amongst the youth of today – like the two names in music hall, Phil, Dan and Charlie are royalty in YouTube terms. Just as Brucie and Des had girls screaming at the stage door, Phil and Dan attract several thousand views and likes.

If we think of these YouTube stars as lonely and outcasts, for whom the internet is their only friend, I urge you to go to a gathering, where sometimes thousands of fangirls and boys make it their objective to get up close and personal with their favourite personalities from the web. And just as these people are subscribed to their channels to make sure they don’t miss a beat, they will turn up in droves to get an autograph, or a hug, or a photo. Notice the intimacy compared to television personalities – after all, in comparison to being at a stage door, security is minimal. But then again, I’m sure as possible that a hug will result in a lifetime dedication to their favourite YouTuber.

Will this change? I’m not sure, but things are changing. The ‘Summer in the City’ gathering was organised partly by Channel Flip, a company that specialises in producing videos specifically for web users, in the same way that TalkBack Thames produces programmes for the BBC, or how the BBC itself produces programmes. What is more, YouTube carries advertising. What was once seen as a community for sharing is now clearly a business for Google, its owner. Just as television is a business for News Corporation or the BBC’s commercial arm.

Nevertheless, whilst the BBC and all other television companies try to provide variety, mainly now than ever through adding channels, it will be beaten constantly in this regard by the internet, for its ability to cater for an audience without the money involved or the facilities, the latter property represented nicely by that all too common backdrop in YouTube videos - bedrooms.

If we study the evolution of media very vaguely, we see that radio provided the foundation for the operation of the television industry (listen to Radio 4, and then watch BBC1 – the presentation is similar). Radio is not as popular as television. And now YouTube is learning from television and the idea that this evolution is coincidental would be an unwise judgement. 

My love of France and the French

May I point this out from the start? British people aren’t supposed to like the Gallic tribe from across the English Channel. It was on par with high treason in times past, but now is seen as something just a bit odd and something, perhaps, awkward – which is worse in today’s world? I do not see the French as arrogant, pompous and overly philosophical, all things that are detested in Anglo-Saxon society, the society supposedly down-to-earth and pragmatic. I see the French as down-to-earth and pragmatic, exactly like us, which makes the small differences in terms of culture and history even more potent, like comparing two different vintage wines from the same region – the ‘notes’ and the ‘hints’ of various substances, be it fruit or wood, declare the winner.

And the winner is, between the United Kingdom and France, in my humble opinion, is France. The lifestyle is something I envy greatly. I know very well of Americans who dream to live in Haussmann apartments, looking onto streets clogged with taxis and buses, living over shopfronts or – in the case of the not-so well off – three or four households. Paris, to the British, is full of three things – shit, cigarettes and sarcastic waiters. I love Paris, more than I love London. The elegance of such a bustling yet reassuringly compact city is so appealing. Yes, there are no nightclubs. But they have cafés, where you join the ranks of old men sipping espresso and reading Le Monde - strobe lighting and florescent make-up do not make up for the great institution of the sit-down session with a book or a paper. 

The British may not be Francophiles, like me, but they like France as a country. Just as Paris is compact, so is France. It is twice the size of the UK in size, but the range of terrain is nevertheless extraordinary. You can ski in the Pyrenees or the Alps; catch the sun on the Cote d’Azur or Provence or on the Bay of Biscay. If you want easy cycling, the rolling hills of Champagne and the forests of the Ardennes are perfect, and the Massif Central provides beautiful horizons and landscapes, as you cross the Millau Viaduct. Such things are lovely. I love them.

But that’s not what I love about France. What I admire in the French people, which we seem to look over, is the appreciation of being alone. The British are incredibly social – it’s why the class system exists. The lone ranger is somewhat of an outcast. You club, you eat, you drink and you live socially. The Americans seem to be more so, with their obsession with cliques in high school and work outings (though even the British look at those with slight disdain). And I hate it. I hate it with a passion. If you can’t tell already, I’m an introvert and I look forward to periods of being completely on my own, no distractions or disturbances. I wouldn’t mind if someone just came up for a quick conversation about an interesting topic (like literature or philosophy) but more than that stinks of tribalism.

In France, it is quite acceptable to sit in a café or restaurant, sit outside and light a cigarette perhaps, and not just have a drink but also a three course meal, on your own. I did something similar in Rouen. I was sat outside, my Le Monde fluttering away by sudden gusts of wind, and I saw similar people do what I did – they ate a steak-haché aux frites (burger and chips, albeit without the bun), reading the paper, or simply contemplating about life. I propose the theory that this is part of France’s idea of personal privacy – you cannot take photographs of people on the street without their permission, hence a lot of footage of people on television, especially archive footage, is blurred.  I would be upset, of course, if the Eiffel Tower or a historic part of Paris was demolished. I would be distraught if France was cut off from the rest of the world, and I was banned from visiting. But I would be completely inconsolable if France had dumped the idea that it was socially acceptable to be able to appreciate solitude.  Because, it is the main reason why France is not only my favourite country, but, as with many Englishmen who have sought peace from English life, that peril, it is my refuge of choice. 

Café de France, Place d'Italie, Paris - my first point of call upon arriving in Paris

Music - the art of geniuses, although not in the right way

As a musically-obsessed teenager, it is simply a duty, on behalf of other music gourmands, to scour the charts and come to the swift conclusion that the music of today is dreadful, nothing more than satanic chants and nonsensical lyrics. We say that ‘this is not like the 60s, 70s, 80s or 90s,’quietly ignoring the absolutely terrible chart-toppers back then, the music hall numbers and acts, now seen as kitsch and innocent. We point to the Beatles and the Who, Queen and the Sex Pistols, Dire Straits and Motorhead, and Oasis and Blur respectively. And then we look at today’s selection. Yes, we have good bands, such as the Arctic Monkeys and Snow Patrol, influenced by bands past as the Rolling Stones were by blues artists in America. But the crap has stayed firm, and so has its techniques, by which they become anthems at weddings and kids’ birthday parties.

The method of creating one of these simple but memorable computer-created piles of techno rubbish is simple. No, we don’t go straight to the playing of random musical instruments. You sit down and you outline your demographic. Music like this is comparable to designing a kids’ toy which you think will be the bestseller come Christmas. The demographic that will guarantee No. 1 on the charts are pre-teenagers – they don’t care about slamming guitar solos, or beautiful melodies. The growing popularity and glamorisation of ‘popping’ and ‘hopping’ in the ‘club’, that mysterious ersatz-Olympus of all pop stars with plenty of ‘swag’, the new deities of today, means that such music can create that same atmosphere in your bedroom, as their twelve year-olds can get dressed up in swimsuits (which they call ‘dresses’) and bop up and down to addictive beats.

Often, for the ladies, it’s a repetitive piano riff, with a smooth synth. It’s not that fast, perfect for jogging, rather than a stroll or a sprint. If there is anything to like about these songs, it’s these bits. Add to that a heavily autotuned voice (not a complaint about the singer’s voice, just the fact that they use autotune), and it really sounds like something from heaven, to which the reaction is natural, as if it came from the sky – suspicious at first but comforted and more at ease upon further interaction.

Of course, it can’t just be all synth. Boys like doing this kind of thing too, with their girlfriend, covered in so much fake tan, that you may as well be boogieing with a traffic bollard. If you want boys to enjoy this tune as much as their female counterparts, there has to be one of two things – a ‘donk’, where all melody is turned off for ten seconds for a crappy bass beat. The males can prove off their manliness and ‘street’-ness by nodding their head, wearing a baseball cap, or making a gun with their hands. Yep, teenagers aren’t pathetic whatsoever.

Let's be frank, however, the lyrics are always crap. There is nothing to say about the lyrics whatsoever. Does it have the same beat to the song? Does it sound nice? Yes. Is there a vague reference to sexual intercourse? Yes. It doesn’t matter, seeing as the Europeans, who eat this stuff up and play it 24/7 on radio stations in France and Spain throughout the summer, don’t know what the words mean anyway.

So, it’s been printed onto CDs, it’s been sent to the radio stations, we’ve paid the radio stations handsomely to have it played every hour for the next month. All the producers do is sit back and watch the money roll in. It’s even better in reality; songwriters get paid peanuts, the singer gets more exposure and perhaps they’ll listen to their older, better work. The DJ will get more gigs and play in more exclusive clubs in London, Paris, Barcelona, Berlin, New York to name a few cities regarded as meccas for this kind of music. The men who create these music are not talentless freaks with nothing better to do – they’re bloody boffins. 

Civil servants should me more than neutral - they should be servants of the people

As someone avidly interested in politics, feeling tension inside Government becomes ever stronger, as the ministers and secretaries rush to get all sorts of laws passed in haste, with little consultation as possible. One can tell that they hate civil servants. The sort of haste means that strong political manipulation is being carried out. Who needs an ant colony when you can open a national newspaper and sense by the very headline that Whitehall is a battlefield?

The Government announced that ministers will be able to give civil servants the sack and replace them with their own lackeys. I have watched enough episodes of The Thick of It that it would be disastrous to see the many Ollie Readers, the Special Advisers, being employed as part of the civil service. But that’s not what angers me most of all – I am particularly outraged that the Government is reduced to such low-level tactics, to such engineering of the system, in order that these ‘masterplans’, which so far have proved ineffective and, at times, detrimental, are passed. It shows that the Government is weak, the Goliath under attack not just by the peasants storming the Bastille that is the Cameron ministry but from its own associates – although, not strictly employees, as they are allied to the State, and not to the political parties, unlike the SPADs and the MPs.

I go back to the idea that civil servants are owned by the State, by the people who contribute. As much as I hate the reference to the ‘taxpayer’ (because, actually, once the Treasury’s got their hands on it, they can do as they wish), these people are paid by us, like all public sector workers. They should, like the NHS, work for the people, and cater for their needs. I know this sounds very utopian, but the civil servants should work to protect the people from the Government, as ambassadors. It is vital that the Government is restricted and is one of the foundations of democracy. The United States does this through the courts, through such processes as impeachment. But I believe that judges and panels are still too close to government, and the political motivations too apparent (as I fail to see how having an affair affects your decisions in Government). Civil servants provide a suitable distance.

I also believe in an institution on par with the ENA (École Nationale d’Administration) in France, that trains the brightest among all classes and creeds. I am fully aware of the flaws in the ENA, in that after sixty years, the idea of a school, picked on the basis of sole intelligence, as was proposed by de Gaulle, has been diluted, but that does not mean that this country should do the same. Intelligence should come first, no matter what – not family links, not affirmative action, just the ability to protect people’s interests by restraining government authority.

It angers me today that the Government is refusing to back down, against popular opposition to cuts, cuts and more cuts, driving the economy into deeper recession. And this is with the civil service trying to curtail governmental action. It only frightens me further to think what the government would do if the brownnosers were too busy brownnosing.