Friday, 27 January 2017

Cup a load of this

© Simon Poulter 2017
For some people, the cup of coffee you see here on the right is a dependency. "It's my crutch" and "I couldn't start my day without it". Indeed, in the first couple of hours of the working day in the City of London, where my office is, you must keep your eyes peeled for fellow desk drones powering along the pavement, a rigid arm extended, cup in hand, like a cross between a Dalek and a Lego figure (perfectly formed for beverage carrying with their holed fists as, effectively, cup holders).

I first witnessed this coffee-cup-as-urban-street-accessory fashion 20 years ago in Seattle, America's self-appointed coffee capital. On every street corner people were engaged in conversation, lidded coffee cups in hand, lattes going cold. In New York, the outstretched arm-and-cup combo soon became a fixture as the coffee chains proliferated (there are more than 200 branches of Starbucks in Manhattan alone). Today, it is a common sight in almost every major city around the world.

Such is the prevalence of takeout coffee in London that the city contributes five million of the seven million cups that the entire UK throws away - every single day. That amounts to around 2.5 billion each year. The chains, mindful of their corporate reputations, have made much of making the cups as recyclable as possible...or so we thought. And, so, we dutifully stand over our office recycling bins, separating cups and plastic lids and the corrugated cardboard collars, thinking that we're doing something good for the planet and Brer Polar Bear. But no. It is now believed that less than 1% of those cups - 1 in 400 - actually ends up being recycled, with the vast majority ending up in landfill. Such is the scale of the problem that environmentalists have called on the government to introduce a tax similar to the 5p plastic bag charge to encourage people to use their own reusable cups and mugs.

However, the reason why it is not so easy to properly process these , however, is a simple case of municipal inefficiency: for all the green virtues of the cups' design - with recyclable cardboard and plastic - they have a fundamental flaw: a thin film of resin that keeps the coffee in which, I'm sure you'll appreciate, is something of a prerequisite. And it's this plastic lining that can't be easily separated from recyclable components by existing recycling techniques.

However, the City of London Corporation, along with the coffee chains and various large employers in the Square Mile, have launched a scheme to introduce recycling bins together with the start-up Simply Cups, which brands itself as "the UK's ONLY active cup recycling scheme". It has developed new techniques to effectively separate the cup components and make them fully recyclable, with the recycled materials ending up being used for everything from park benches to pens which will be then donated to schools, community projects and other beneficiaries.

The Corporation's 'Square Mile Challenge' is asking City firms with more than 500 employees to sign up to the scheme to have Simply Cups bins installed in their offices. The first 30 companies who do will even receive a year’s free collection. McDonald's, Costa and Pret a Manger have already been involved in a trial of the collection service. Simply Cups' Peter Goodwin says that the issue of coffee cups should be treated with the same degree of importance by companies and their employees as paper recycling: "Large numbers of coffee cups are binned in offices as people arrive at work or pop out for coffees throughout the day. We’d like to see responsible disposal of these cups become as commonplace as paper recycling schemes in offices and we hope that seeing the products that can be produced from their recycled cups will help motivate city workers to support the recycling effort."


Of course, use of one's own reusable cup is probably the most economic of all, especially as the coffee chains and their suppliers appear to be taking their time developing cups based on new, fully recyclable materials. But in the meantime, the City of London's campaign will at least create awareness of the enormous daily waste that I, by own admission, contribute to.

Thursday, 19 January 2017

The feeling of helplessness as the Trump card gets played



It might be wrong to reduce the great office of President of the United States by comparing it to a science fiction film, but when the incoming 45th President is little more than a petulant child himself, treading such ground is not without its merits. Because, I can't help comparing Donald Trump's inauguration tomorrow - speeding towards us like one of those pink stretch limousines used for hen nights in Essex (a lot of noise, crass behaviour and fake tans) - with Star Wars Episode III: Revenge Of The Sith

This third of the thoroughly underwhelming Star Wars prequels found the scheming Supreme Chancellor Palpatine (who is really the Sith Lord Darth Sidious) engineering the transformation of the Galactic Republic into the Galactic Empire, with him as Emperor, thus propelling the galaxy into decades of oppression, bolstered by the Dark Side of The Force. Got all that? 

The point I'm clumsily trying to make is that since Trump's unexpected victory on November 8, his transition from President-elect to Commander-in-Chief has been unfolding with us looking on, helpless, as he has, mostly, outlined his thoughts in a random stream-of-semi-consciousness via the medium of Twitter. He'd barely won the election before tweeting, in the early hours of November 11, "Just had a very open and successful presidential election. Now professional protesters, incited by the media, are protesting. Very unfair!".



Perhaps we shouldn't have been surprised: ever since he started using Twitter in 2009, Trump - then just a billionaire businessman with a history of exotic wives and a side career as America's version of Alan Sugar on The Apprentice - had used the platform for his wonky, archly dumbed-down observations, such as claiming President Obama's birth certificate was "a fraud", along with more inciteful suggestions that have mirrored the inflammatory nature of his presidential campaign. 

Since the election on November 8, Trump has, in 140 characters, declared Nigel Farage his preference for UK ambassador to Washington (breaking any number of diplomatic protocols in the process); waged personal war on Meryl Streep, branding her "overrated" and a "Hillary Flunky", just for her thinly-veiled comments about him at the Golden Globes (and this after he once included her in a glowing tweet about Hollywood's greatest talents); derided the cast of the hit Broadway show Hamilton for making a speech to Vice President-Elect Mike Pence, and had a go at Alec Baldwin for his note-perfect Trump impersonation on Saturday Night Live; and he's taken on everything and everyone from CNN and the "unfair" media to the US's own intelligence agencies.

Despite more sensible views to the contrary, Trump refuses to drop his Twitter account, declaring in typically bombastic style that it "has become so powerful that I can actually make my enemies tell the truth.". Methinks some self-inflated opinion of his own authority here. Earlier this week, in Michael Gove's less than objective interview for The Times, the incoming president gave the following, typically rambling statement on keeping his @realDonaldTrump Twitter handle, as opposed to taking over the official Presidential account:

"So I've got 46 million people right now - that's a lot, that's really a lot - but 46 million - including Facebook, Twitter and, ya know, Instagram, so when you think that you're 46 million there, I'd rather just let that build up and just keep it @realDonaldTrump. It's working - and the tweeting, I thought I'd do less of it, but I'm covered so dishonestly by the press - so dishonestly - that I can put out Twitter - and it's not 140, it's now 280 - I can go bing bing bing...and they put it on and as soon as I tweet it out - this morning on television, Fox - 'Donald Trump, we have breaking news'." Twitter, itself, must be beside itself at the publicity. 

It's amazing that with such a lack of self-editing Trump is able to tweet at all. But there, in that last line, is the crux of the matter: Trump tweets, Fox News runs it as breaking news. The White House press team will be feeling particularly redundant at this moment. Not to mention the strategy teams and all the other political advisors that would normally populate the White House staff.



Trump's supporters and a few commentators will cutely say that this break in protocol is all part of Trump's populist appeal, that he won't stand on ceremony and will tweet exactly what he wants, when he wants to tweet it, and without any consideration for who might be uncomfortable about it. Some will say that without the confines of tweets being filtered through officials and advisers, as any other form of official communication, Trump is doing what he said all along would be central to his philosophy, that "making America great again" means connecting with America, not hiding behind the Washington Beltway.The trouble is, his tweeting is beyond folksy engagement with the supposed disenfranchised of Middle America. Most of it is thin-skinned reaction. Are petulant responses to actors' joshing really what we should be seeing from the US Commander-in-Chief when there are more pressing matters to attend to, like Syria, Russia, China and the global economy? 

It brings me back to another comparison I've made - just after the election result itself - when I noted that America had elected Homer Simpson as its president, a boorish, bar hog with oddly coloured skin who'll drunkenly say anything outrageous to make him look popular. That may have been a persona to get him elected, but so far it doesn't seem to have come to an end. And nor can we expect it to for the next four years at least.



Saturday, 14 January 2017

Costa Brava? Who knows what he is

Diego Costa/Instagram

What a fickle creature football is. Lose two games on the spin and your team is "in a slump". Win two back-to-back and you're in the form of your life. Back in October, the Wednesday after Chelsea had magnificently taken the scalp of former manager José Mourinho's Manchester United, winning 4-0, they travelled across London to what will always be the Olympic Stadium, where West Ham unceremoniously dumped them out of the EFL Trophy, or whatever pseudo-American name some marketing types have come up with for the old League Cup.

That may have been a blip. In the Premier League, Chelsea were on their way in that remarkable 13-game unbeaten run, one which propelled Diego Costa to the top of the league goal-scoring chart, with 14 goals to date. 

This is the Costa who'd been a part of the previous season's malaise under Mourinho, the fiery Costa whose combustible side was rarely far from the surface, who had appeared to be easily provoked by cynical defenders, but was now showing a more mature, focused nature, channeling his fire into being what football people like to term "a handful" in the box.

Costa's prolific goal scoring this season appeared to coincide with Antonio Conte reporting that his star striker was contented, but also admitted that over the course of the summer the Brazilian had once more questioned life at Chelsea. Conte appeared to have settled him, getting him to knuckle down on what he does best, removing the tendency to be a red card waiting to be shown, and getting arguably the best football out of the Brazilian since he signed for the club. A rumoured bust-up between Costa and Conte after the striker was subbed during the home fixture with Leicester in October was dismissed as 'one of those things' that happens all the time in football. Even the very public disagreement between Costa and Pedro during the post-New Year game with Tottenham that ended the unbeaten run was dismissed by fans and club insiders as merely a sign of how badly the players want to win. So, hunky dory then?
Well, perhaps not. Last night's shock revelation that Costa will not play any part in today's visit to the King Power Stadium appeared amidst a flurry of claims and counter-claims amongst pundits. The story emerged in Italy, with Sky's Italian affiliate claiming that Costa had had a robust exchange of views with one of the club's fitness coaches during training this week, leading to Conte allegedly telling the striker to "go to China". By coincidence, Costa's agent - the omnipresent Jorge Mendes - had been seen in the company of Tianjin Quanjian's billionaire chairman Shu Yuhui, with reports circling that the Chinese Super League club was offering the 28-year-old striker a contract worth a staggering £570,000 a week. More stories emerged claiming that Costa himself had ordered his reps to get him a move to China, following the lucrative deals done with Oscar and John Mikel Obi.



Diego Costa/Instagram

And then Costa confused everybody by posting a rah-rah photograph on Instagram of him and Pedro celebrating scoring against Tottenham with the simple caption "Come on Chelsea!!!", followed by a blue heart. Still, though, this walks in the land of ambiguity: such a footballer's social media post isn't much more sincere than a public display of badge kissing. "Come on Chelsea!!!" could be heard a number of ways: the barely concealed frustration of "Come ON Chelsea!!!", the wearisome "Oh, come on Chelsea...", or the perfunctory "Come on Chelsea!!!" that periodically comes from the stands during a lull in noise. Then there is the question of timing, and whether it had been Costa, at all, who'd posted the picture. Unlike many of his Chelsea teammates, Costa is an infrequent presence on Instagram, but when he has appeared it's obviously been him (earlier in the week he'd posted an oblique video clip of the frozen Cobham training ground first thing in the morning, while over Christmas he'd posted images of him relaxing with friends, possibly back in Brazil). Significantly, Chelsea captain John Terry and teammate Cesc Fàbregas (supplier of many of Costa's goals) were quick to 'like' the post. It's hard to imagine either, especially Terry, would endorse a player badly at odds with the club.

So, back to the fickle nature of football. One minute Costa is throwing bibs at his manager and failing to turn up as a presence, the next he is banging 'em in. One minute he is homesick for Madrid, the next he is fine and settled. And, then, news of a bust-up, rumours of a "lower back problem", his manager telling him where to pursue his career, and the player getting dropped from a key away fixture with the imperative of maintaining or even extending Chelsea's five-point lead at the top.

Whatever the truth, whatever the actual facts, there has clearly been a disturbance in The Force at Stamford Bridge. Perhaps this all a load of nothing, and after Conte - who is not afraid to apply the iron rod if necessary - restores Costa after a token suspension, all will resume as if nothing has happened. Roman Abramovich is said to be insisting that Costa is going nowhere for at least the remaining two years of his contract, but we've seen Costa more or less down tools before. The trouble is, Chelsea lack options: they will probably play Hazard through the middle today, with Willian and Pedro flanking; Michy Batshuayi - who cost more than Costa - has yet to convince the Italian that he is a worthy rival to Costa; and prolific 19-year-old prospects Dominic Solanke and Tammy Abraham are amongst the massed ranked of Chelsea youngsters out on loan. Conte's rumoured interest in Swansea's Fernando Llorente may have just cranked itself up a significant notch.


If, though, Costa's head has been turned by the eye-watering amount of money on offer from China, Chelsea might just have to accept that living by the sword means dying by it. We've had to put up with plenty of "rent boy" trollery since Abramovich's millions transformed the club's fortunes, with generous remuneration being part of the Chelsea operating model. One might argue that the Chinese largesse is merely free market predation at work. There would be no point complaining about Costa's head turning when plenty of Chelsea players have been drawn to the club by much the same methodology.

Perhaps it will just turn out to be a storm in a Costa coffee cup. But I'm not so sure. On this occasion I do think the smoke goes with a fire. Antonio Conte either needs to put it out, or let it burn itself out, and take Costa's contribution to Chelsea's title bid with it. Or he bags himself yet another striker, and hope that the magic the Costa has been applying can be instantly replicated to keep the title push alive.

Tuesday, 10 January 2017

Look up here, I'm in heaven - Bowie one year on


© Simon Poulter 2017

It probably took me the best part of that Monday morning to take it all in. Because it just didn't seem true, let alone expected. Or even logical. Three mornings previously I'd eagerly started to consume Blackstar, like everyone else blissfully unaware of - or subconsciously ignoring - the clues that, now, seem far less than cryptic. As I had done as a teenager with a new purchase, I listened to the album non-stop throughout the Friday, Saturday and Sunday, first as the overnight iTunes download and then - as soon as I'd been able to get out of the house and down to the FNAC on the Champs-Élysées (then my nearest record shop) -  the CD. Yes, we music heads are somewhat obsessive-compulsive like that: I needed a physical confirmation that Bowie's new album was real. To acquire it required taking Line 9 of the Métro to Franklin D. Roosevelt station, where poster ads for Blackstar adorned the entire length of the platform walls, further proof that, by any dimension, this was a major album launch, from a major artist. The fact that this would only be the second album from that artist in 13 years only added to the sense of occasion.

And it was strange and confounding and oh-so definitely Bowie. Blackstar won nothing but rave reviews. I myself wrote, in what would significantly be the final post of my What Would David Bowie Do? blog: "★is simply stunning. You might have expected me to say that but, trust me, I don't out of slavish sycophanticism. Because, creatively, conceptually and, most of all, musically, it has exceeded expectations. It is the Bowie album I wanted, and we needed."

I wasn't alone. "The overall effect is ambiguous and spellbinding, adjectives that apply virtually throughout Blackstar," wrote Alex Petridis in The Guardian. "It’s a rich, deep and strange album that feels like Bowie moving restlessly forward, his eyes fixed ahead: the position in which he’s always made his greatest music." That appeared on the 7th. How were we - anyone - to know what lay behind Bowie's restlessness.

He was, though, and in the words of Blackstar producer and long-term collaborator Tony Visconti, "at the top of his game". As we now know from David Bowie: The Last Five Years, Francis Whately's wonderful BBC2 documentary screened last Saturday, Bowie was already undergoing treatment for cancer when he brought together a relatively unknown group of jazz-minded musicians at The Magic Shop studio in New York's SoHo, not far from his home. The assumption was that cancer was simply something Bowie was dealing with, but once his death became known, the resultant record's themes of reflection and even acceptance of mortality made perfect sense. "Look up here, I'm in heaven," opened Lazarus, the third track. "I've got scars that can't be seen. I've got drama, can't be stolen, Everybody knows me now".

Whether, though, he knew his condition was terminal as he wrote the album is not fully clear. The lyrical prescience is chillingly uncanny. But by the time Bowie came to make the promo videos for Blackstar's lead single and title track, as well as for Lazarus, he was ready to tell the Swedish video director Johan Renck over Skype that he was "very unwell and I'm probably going to die". The treatment had been stopped. Time - the untameable beast that smoked a cigarette in Rock'n'Roll Suicide - was running out on one of the most unique figures of the 20th century, even if he'd spent much of the 21st century at that point out of sight.

Dying so soon after releasing Blackstar could have been the most Bowie thing he could have done. A theatrical exit, enigmatic to the last. We may never know whether it was his desire to get the album out, or whether some other force kept alive long enough. Or, simply, the emotional release of bringing out his final record exhausting his failing body. But whether, in hindsight, Bowie's death can be explained, it was still unreal. The release of an album for any living artist - let alone such a storied figure as David Bowie, with close to 50 years of recording behind him and all those flirtations with myriad musical styles and changes of image - is always an event of excitement and trepidation.

For the fan, I've always maintained that nothing beats the first play of a new record. It's like disrupting virgin snowfall or unboxing a new iPhone. There is fevered expectation, nervousness even. Will it improve upon its predecessor? Will it be worse? Will it chart new creative territory? Will it move me? For Blackstar these emotions were accentuated by the fact that we had only just come to terms with Bowie being 'back' after extended absence. You could be forgiven for getting giddy at the sight of all those billboards and magazine back cover adverts trailing the arrival of a new album.

Rolling Stone/Jimmy King

We'd been treated to some wonderful, wicked Bowie teasery in the previous three years: waking up on the morning of his 66th birthday to see a tweet from Duncan Jones, his filmmaker son, revealing new music, the beautifully reflective single Where Are We Now?, followed by an entire album - The Next Day. Nothing for close to ten years, not even a hint, and then - BOOM - Bowie was back, back, BACK. The release of the bonkers, brilliant Sue (Or in a Season of Crime) in 2014 to herald the Nothing Has Changed compilation augured that Bowie was in a rich vein of creative form. News of Blackstar merely consolidated this.

Which is why the text I got that Monday morning from a colleague in Finland - already one hour ahead - saying "Sorry man" was so baffling. Sorry about what? After three consecutive days of playing the album non-stop, and even then not being able to catch up with all the reviews that appeared before Christmas, the very last thing I would have expected was for Bowie to be dead. "He can't be," I thought to myself. "He's just brought his new album out." My inner narrative was defiant: you don't write, record and release an album, and then die two days after it comes out.

Monday morning wore on. It was now headline news. Television, radio, online. People were already gathering to enshrine the Bowie mural on the side of Morleys department store on Tunstall Road in Brixton, a ten-minute walk from the house in Stansfield Road where the singer had been born, 69 years before. Mid-morning I received a text from my friend, the musician Steven Wilson, himself another huge fan. We discovered that we'd both received copies of The Laughing Gnome reissue in November 1973 for our birthdays, a week apart. Even more delightful was that they'd been bought as a job lot by my parents from Woolies in New Malden. Within a few days Steven paid his own tribute, adding a stunning, faithful cover of Space Odyssey to the set of his forthcoming Hamburg show. It would become a fitting tour staple.

However, as Steven and I exchanged messages, the enormity of Bowie's death still didn't sink in. I guess that's classic denial. I later blogged about it, of course, not so much in grief as trying to process it all. There was some backlash to such melodrama, the "snowflake" accusations of the cold-hearted who felt it necessary to shower discorn on the mass outpouring of what would be the first of so many celebrity deaths in 2016. Obviously, none of us were friends with Bowie, or related to him. But that glib dismissal of the "Diana-isation" of Bowie's death cruelly and ignorantly glossed over the power of art, of music, and indeed of Bowie's art and music.

He wasn't some mythic, messianic man of the people. That was why we was considered so cool. He wasn't one of us. For much of his career, he wasn't one of anything discernible. He was David Bowie. He may have been born in Brixton, growing up in the suburbia of Bromley, but as soon as David Robert Jones became David Bowie, and all permutations thereafter, he became a pop star unlike any of his peers. And that was the point. That was his point.

© Simon Poulter 2017
I am too young - well, I was too young - to have experienced Bowie the first time around, whether the tousle-haired, Newley/Brel-obsessed folkie, the supreme songsmith opening his 'classic' 1970s account with the remarkable Hunky Dory or commencing the first of his characterisations with Ziggy Stardust.

Even if I score some points for The Laughing Gnome being the first single I ever owned, I formally entered Bowiedom with Ashes To Ashes and its album Scary Monsters (And Super Creeps). And then, as so often was the case with Bowie, no sooner had he embraced, briefly, New Wave and the New Romantic eras, than he was shape-changing again with Let's Dance. Only later did I dive into his 1970s canon, discovering the most extraordinary body of work, and an incredible eight-year run of nine albums of original songs, plus the live albums (and the Pin Ups collection of covers).

There were - are - many ages of Bowie. The folkie, the progressive rock pioneer, the glam rocker, the soul boy, the Berlin lab experiment, the lost years of the late '80s and misguided attempts to embrace youth with drum'n'bass in the '90s, and then the second golden era, as a relaxed, contented Bowie emerged with HoursHeathen and Reality. Indeed the latter spawned Bowie's final concert tour, and it was interesting to hear bassist Gail Ann Dorsey say in the BBC documentary how relaxed Bowie was on the Reality Tour. "He was funny - that was the real David Bowie".



It was not something I'd ever thought of about Bowie. Not that I thought him a po-faced automaton, but his characters and guises masked the Brixton boy beneath. After his death I poured over interviews with him on YouTube, and only then did I become mournful. Because throughout was the very antithesis of measured, PR-controlled rock legend, but the chuckling, jovial soul with a recognisable, self-depreciating south London sense of humour. He was, in interviews with Michael Parkinson, Jools Holland and Chris Evans, a Bowie I'd never previously considered, a Bowie you'd want to hang out with in the pub. All fans at some point yearn for personal contact with their heroes, but this sensation was different. It was final realisation that the Thin White Duke, the whey-faced Pierrot clown, Ziggy and all the others were simply costumes. That was when I realised that we'd lost someone unique and peerless. And that was also when I realised that it was OK to mourn. Because Bowie was more than just a pop star, more than a poster on the teenage bedroom wall. He'd been a part of my upbringing. And in that sense, he would be irreplaceable.

Thursday, 5 January 2017

If you get it wrong you'll get it right next time

Picture: Getty Images

I start the year on a negative note. Now, I accept that after all the merde that passed our way in 2016, commencing 2017 with the triviality of a lost football match doesn't seem all that bad, and truly it isn't. But, like most Chelsea fans, I would sincerely hope, last night's defeat to Spurs will stick in the craw for a long time. Why? Because it simply should. This is Tottenham we're talking about, after all.

Why one team should be considered the one to beat over any other with whom you've had history - and Arsenal, Liverpool and Manchester United come immediately to mind - is not immediately clear, and is really just a symptom of the irrationality that is football fandom. Every opponent should be the one to beat, which is surely the logical objective of the game. But like Jerry Seinfeld and his postman neighbour Newman, Chelsea fans have a simmering dislike of Tottenham, going back to who-knows-when, and for no reason whatsoever other than Spurs are simply a rival worthy of our dislike.

But let's not get caught up in all that. Tottenham are, so far this season, looking more resilient, more potent and more disciplined than the side that collapsed in the final stages of last season. That contemptuous draw at Stamford Bridge on May 2 marked not only the end of Spurs' serious challenge to Leicester City for the league title, but also the inexplicable moment that Eden Hazard finally switched on the Eden Hazard we once knew, and had been absent without leave since the beginning of the season. Luckily for Chelsea, that Hazard is still with them. 

Just not last night. First off the bat, Chelsea weren't bad. Spurs' 2-0 win may have ended Chelsea's remarkable 13-match unbeaten run, but that may have been almost inevitable. Yes, perhaps if things had gone differently last night, and César Azpilicueta and Victor Moses had not missed their marked man not once but twice and in identical circumstances, the game might have had a different outcome. But let's not ignore the fact that Tottenham were the better composed side last night. Their MO wasn't that dissimilar to the start they made in May and indeed the way they took the lead at Stamford Bridge in November. In Dele Alli, Tottenham have a true gem, and in Wanyama they had a solid object in midfield to disrupt Chelsea's counter-attacking play. And, perhaps, if Diego Costa had been a little sharper, or if Pedro had run into the space that caused the visible ire between him and Costa, or Hazard himself had been more accurate when he had a shooting chance, then Chelsea may have extended the record to 14 unbeaten.

But it wasn't to be. As Gary Cahill, eloquent in his post-match interviews, said, "we are not robots". An important point. In the previous 13 games Chelsea had been imperious, whether winning emphatically over Manchester United and Everton, or grinding out more modest victories over West Brom, Sunderland and Crystal Palace. It became too easy to think that Antonio Conte had simply found the switch to turn this form on after those early season disasters against Liverpool and Arsenal, the latter of which prompting his change to the 3-4-3 formation that unlocked the success that followed.

This morning Chelsea are still top of the league and five points clear. Last night's defeat may have opened things up a little for the chasing pack, but the Premier League is still in Chelsea's hands if they want it. For us fans, we'll deal with wounded pride (which is, frankly, the biggest casualty). Conte's men will want to reflect, as they watch the video replay at Cobham today, on why they were unable to find the gears to really counter Tottenham and repeat that life-affirming reversal in May. Conte himself - a breath of fresh air at Chelsea following the rank negativity of Mourinho - will want to look at whether he put Cesc Fàbregas on too late to make a difference (his link-up play with Costa was evident from the moment he came on) and whether he should have replaced N'Golo Kanté earlier when it was obvious that his passing and positioning had been uncharacteristically off-kilter.

Football, as I've often quoted Danny Baker, "is chaos". There is no logic to it, no rhyme or reason. Chelsea can start a season poorly, then go on a record-seeking run, and then end it with an off night. That's why we love the game, warts and all. No team is infallible, just as there is no such thing as a perfect 10. Sometimes irresistible forces encounter immovable objects, and they tussle until one is the victor. That wasn't exactly the case last night. Chelsea weren't bad, it's just that Tottenham were better. 

The job now for Antonio Conte is to pick his players up. They won't have lost their mojo in a single, tough encounter (though the mystery is still unsolved as to how this same team lost it in the weeks between winning the league and restarting their campaign a season ago) but they will need to think about what didn't go right for them against one of the toughest opponents they will face this season, and build on it. There's the matter of an FA Cup 3rd Round tie against Peterborough on Sunday to think about - and think hard about (their 2015 4th Round exit to Bradford City should still be fresh in their memories...), followed by the resumption of Premier League hostilities that will see Chelsea play Liverpool (away) and Arsenal (home) in the space of five days at the end of this month. And we are only at the half-way stage of the season, anyway. 

Mental discipline and mindset were the reasons Chelsea fared so poorly last season. Antonio Conte has reversed that. There is confidence oozing through the side. Last night was an aberration. This morning, as the players file into the meeting room at the Cobham training ground, my hope is that someone on the staff is a fan of the late Scottish folk-rocker Gerry Rafferty, and as a musical pick-me-up, plays them his 1979 it Get It Right Next Time. Because if you get it wrong...

Monday, 12 December 2016

Just because you can, doesn't mean you should


"When Qantas created the 'Kangaroo Route' [from Australia] to London in 1947, it took four days and nine stops. Now it will take just 17 hours from Perth non-stop." So declared, yesterday, the chief executive of Australian airline Qantas while announcing plans to launch the first regular passenger flight directly between Australia and Europe.

Just think about it: 17 hours, probably sat in economy class. Not even in my most slovenly moments of box-set binge-watching could I imagine being able to remain mostly inert, squeezed into an airline seat for the equivalent of how much I'm normally awake during an average day. With four toilets between 232 passangers. Even an upgrade to business class wouldn't make much difference.

Despite my phobia that Australia contains most things that can kill you, it remains a country I would love to visit. But with my occasional flights out to the US West Coast at the very edge of long-haul tolerance (my longest-ever journey - San Francisco to Taipei - was partially aided by an accidental over-prescription of sleeping pills), the only way I could ever manage going Down Under would be by stopping halfway in Dubai or Los Angeles. I know a direct flight would keep the overall trip relatively brief, but I just don't think the risk of DVT, air rage (mine or others') or being sat next to someone with personal hygeine issues for 17 hours is worth shaving half a day off the flying time.

Even the prospect of flying on a Boeing Dreamliner - a plane that actually lives up to its manufacturer's hype and is both more comfortable for the passenger and more economic for the airline - doesn't make the ordeal any easier to contemplate. You'd still feel housebound at 38,000ft, and there are still only so many episodes of Curb Your Enthusiasm and Friends you can take.

Monday, 5 December 2016

Time still on their side - the Rolling Stones' Blue & Lonesome

Three weeks ago I spent a delightfully indulgent morning in New York City trawling through the 54-year history of the Rolling Stones at Exhibitionism, their own lavish, Bowie Is-style showcase of memorabilia, which had crossed the Atlantic following a successful run in London during the summer.

At first it felt odd to be in New York's West Village looking at a history so seeped in London's musical heritage - such as the faithful recreation of the squalid Edith Grove flat shared by Mick Jagger, Keith Richards and Brian Jones as The Greatest Rock'n'Roll In The World™ was being formed in 1962. It was in this "pigsty" (Richards' own word) that he and Jagger, his fellow Glimmer Twin, consolidated their love of blues music and, indeed, their enduring - if somewhat tempestuous relationship. That love of the blues had been forged somewhere east of their Chelsea digs, in suburban Dartford where, on October 17, 1961, the former friends from primary school were reacquainted on Platform 2 of the town's station, with Richards sparking up a conversation about the records his future partner-in-crime was holding: Chuck Berry's Rockin’ At The Hops and The Best of Muddy Waters.


Much has been written about how London's middle class suburbs not only succumbed to the music of the Mississippi Delta, but even exported it back there (the Stones famously turning up at Chess Studios in Chicago to record their 12x5 album and discovering Muddy Waters - their hero - up a ladder painting the building's front). While this might sound a little arriviste, the Stones have put back into America everything they took out of it, which is why the choice of Manhattan for Exhibitionism's second run seemed perfectly normal.


Even if the band's roots are firmly in London - in Dartford, Chelsea, the Crawdaddy Club in Richmond that they made their own - they long ago stopped being 'just' a British band. As the recently released tour film ¡Olé! Olé! Olé! depicted, they long ago became a global brand, perfectly at home in Buenas Aires, Caracas or São Paulo, and as much a religion in many of these places as they are rock royalty. One of the points underlined by the film is how, 54 years since their first gig at London's 100 Club, the Stones remain in rude health and still prepared to chart new ground (the film sees them touring Latin America, playing Havana, a rare occurrence for a Western rock band), making you question if any of today's X-Factor crop will be around in five years' time, let alone ten times that period.

The Rolling Stones' endurance, perhaps more so than Paul McCartney, who still tours, is that they are as vital and as invigoratingly entertaining today as a live act, as they ever have been, perhaps more so. They can't need the money, so let's leave that thought at the door, which makes the night-after-night playing of Honky Tonk Woman, Sympathy For The Devil or Satisfaction (and that riff) an endeavour of both consumate professionalism and an enduring love of doing so. Of course, being paid handsomely helps, too: this year they will earn some $65 million from touring alone which, even if you factor in the cost of touring (including wages for non-'full members', like bassist Darryl Jones - who, after 20 years feels he should be an official Stone), will still furnish Jagger, Richards, Charlie Watts and Ronnie Wood's bank accounts handsomely.

© Simon Poulter 2016
Snobs, cynical musos and the jealous might sniff at such business, with all that griping about how these and other heritage tour wrinklies are clogging up channels for younger artists. But the reality is that the world is a better place with the Stones continuing to perform, even if that means the only way of seeing them is to pay inflated ticket prices for vast stadium appearances.

No one would dispute that creatively, their best is behind them, as far back as those louche days of recording Exile On Main Street, Beggars Banquet and Sticky Fingers. But their mastery is undimmed. Richards is still inventing every day, be it chords or tunings, and in many respects is keeping the blues alive as the genre's originals continue to dwindle; Watts remains one of the sharpest drummers in the game, while Wood is a vastly underrated guitarist whose history goes back as long the as peer group of suburban six string-slingers like Clapton, Page and Beck; and Jagger, the ultimate frontman, a paradox of bandy-legged, arm-flailing 28-inch-waisted campness combined with the steely business sense of a corporate CEO.

With Jagger, Richards and Watts in their 70s, and Wood catching up at 69, it is still remarkable that, even with the slick circus around them, the Stones have the energy or the inclination to keep going. But they do, and if anything appear to be doing so with as much relish as ever. Which is why it might be tempting to expect Blue & Lonesome, their new studio album of blues covers, to be a lazy afternoon of bar room standards that any half decent pub band with a Stratocaster-playing lead could knock out. Thankfully, it's not. Instead, it's an accomplished, joyful jaunt through long forgotten songs, reanimating them with the right measure of authenticity, vintage amps and even more vintage guitars, and even Jagger himself demonstrating that, despite the knighthood and executive status, he is still a pure bluesman at heart. His harmonica work throughout Blue & Lonesome is some of the best you'll ever hear.

Recorded over the course of three days last December at British Grove Studios in Chiswick - just a couple of miles from the site of the Crawdaddy Club in Richmond where their residency established the band forever -  Blue & Lonesome's 12 songs dig deep into the artists that, as callow teens, the Stones soaked up, from blues harmonica master Little Walter, whose Just Your Fool kicks off the album, to the likes of Howlin' Wolf, Magic Sam and Little Johnny Taylor, whose Everybody Knows About My Good Thing includes a cameo by Eric Clapton, that other veteran from the south-west London blues scene.

© Simon Poulter 2016
Blue & Lonesome is no nostalgic meander, or even an attempt by the Stones to complete a 54-year cycle. This is more than homage, too, no faithful but predictable covers of standards, in the manner of those 'Pays Tribute To...' records K-Tel used to knock out via Woolies.

This is a band aware of their roots, reaching out to enjoy them again, as dynamically as they did in the first place. Then, it was with cheap instruments and an even cheaper home life, but always through the shared love of a music created many thousands of miles away amid the heat, sweat and toil of the American South.

The originals of the form may be all-but gone, but the music is being kept alive by, perhaps, the most famous exponent of the blues, the British band that became a global phenomenon and, six decades later, still are.

Friday, 25 November 2016

New dawn for a national treasure - Kate Bush

Of all the 1970s, 1978 comes off as having the least cultural significance. It was no 1971, with its ground breaking albums, or 1976 with the arrival of punk, 1977 with the death of Elvis and the Queen's silver jubilee or 1979 and the coronation of Margaret Thatcher and the subsequent decade of that combined ostentation with social division.

By the start of 1978, punk's vanguard of The Damned, the Sex Pistols and Television had already collapsed, leaving The Clash to keep that particular revolution going, sort of. Out of it emerged the New Wave and the punkish, somewhat less threatening likes of The Jam, The Police, XTC, Siouxie & The Banshees, Nick Lowe, Ian Dury and even Dire Straits and their bluesy pub rock. Elsewhere, rock's establishment was consolidating its lot: Bowie spent much of '78 on an epic world tour, the Low and Heroes albums behind him, while the Rolling Stones delivered the patchy Some Girls ahead of Keith running into drug trouble in Toronto. The Who released Who Are You? (yes kids, long before CSI...) and then Keith Moon shuffled off this mortal coil at the age of 32 from a prescription drug overdose.

Three years previously, a member of one of the other behemoths of the age had set in train the career of a British national treasure. While mixing Pink Floyd's Wish You Were Here album, guitarist David Gilmour was handed a demo tape by a schoolgirl from south-east London: Kate Bush. "I was intrigued by this strange voice," Gilmour recently told the BBC. "So I went to her house, met her parents down in Kent, and she played me - gosh - it must have been 40 or 50 songs. And I thought, I should try and do something." Gilmour arranged for the prodigy to have a more professional tape made before arranging executives from EMI Records to come down to Abbey Road studios to hear it. On the back of what they heard, EMI signed the-then 16-year-old, who had already amassed a catalogue of 200 songs in various forms.

On January 6, 1978, the first single from Bush's forthcoming debut album The Kick Inside was released: Wuthering Heights. It was, by any stretch of the imagination, an extraordinary entrance. Released in a week when the UK singles chart was topped by Paul McCartney's unthreatening Mull Of Kintyre and included such rock monsters as Figaro by Brotherhood of Man, Bonnie Tyler's It's A Heartache and Terry Wogan's The Floral Dance, it was hard to place a song based on an Emily Brontë novel (Bush shares a birthday with the writer) with a vocal sung in a pixie-squeak of a high register.


Who was this 19-year-old, with an audacious song that might be prog rock, might be a MoR ballad, or might be simply avante garde? Whatever it was it went to Number One and stayed there for a month, the first time a female singer-songwriter had got to the top with a self-written song. Four months later Bush released the spine-tinglingly beautiful The Man With The Child In His Eyes, which went to No.6 in the charts. It had been one of the songs that had clinched her signing to EMI, when Gilmour had arranged for executives to hear Bush's demos at Abbey Road Studios. "I said to them, 'Do you want to hear something I’ve got?'," Gilmour recalled to the BBC. "They said sure, so I played them The Man With A Child In His Eyes and they said, 'Yep, thank you — we’ll have it.' It’s absolutely beautiful, isn’t it? That’s her singing at the age of 16, and having written those extraordinary lyrics."

By the end of 1978 Bush was already releasing her second album, Lionheart, capitalising on the success of her debut, though the somewhat uninspiring nature of the record - the idiosyncratic hit single Wow not withstanding - suggested a rush job. Regardless, 1978 was still the year that founded one of the most remarkable, if idiosyncratic, music careers, one that has never, ever wielded to convention or commercial expectations. Much like her occasional collaborator Peter Gabriel and the Bowie and Roxy Music she idolised as a teenager, Bush has successfully - and resolutely - bucked convention. It's hard to think of any other artist - with perhaps the exception of Björk who would release an album called 50 Words for Snow which included a song that indeed contained 50 words for snow, and it not coming across as profoundly pretentious.

That album, though, was only her 10th, and it came more than three decades after her first. Bush has always steadfastly dictated the pace of her career, sometimes haphazardly, it would appear. Her 22-night, 2014 residency at the Eventim Apollo in Hammersmith were her first gigs for 35 years. She had toured only once, in 1979, and while the death of her lighting engineer, Bill Duffield, is reported to have induced a long-standing aversion to live performance, she suggested to BBC 6 Music's Matt Everitt last Sunday that her absence from the stage was perhaps down to other forces. "After 1979 the intention had always been to do another set of shows after the first two albums," she explained. "There was never any intention to go such a long time without shows - things just went in a different direction."

Whatever that direction was, the surprise decision to appear in a live setting once more was no less artistically bold and imaginative as any of Bush's songwriting. The 22 Before The Dawn shows - captured in a triple live album released today - brought together Bush's longstanding love of theatricality (Lindsay Kemp - who'd worked closely, in more ways than one, with Bowie had been another early influence and mentor). Part rock concert, part performance art theatre, the shows were split into three acts - the first featuring hits like Hounds of Love and Running Up That Hill, with the second and third based on the two long songsuites from the Hounds Of Love and Aerial albums, The Ninth Wave and A Sky Of Honey.

Photo: Ken McKay

"I was really nervous every night," Bush told Everitt, explaining how she worried she would lose her place in the middle of her often complex compositions. "I naturally tend to race ahead in my mind, I'm always thinking about situations and running them through. Maybe it's that kind of primeval thing where you're trying to think, 'Can I get to that tree before the tiger gets me?' So my head is always moving ahead, just trying to get to the conclusion of whatever this journey is. And once we started running the show I had to be absolutely in that moment. "But I was so terrified that if my mind wandered off that when I came back I wouldn't remember where I was."

Although such apprehension has been a hallmark of much of Bush's career, she relished the challenge of creating the Before The Dawn concept. "The idea of putting the show together was something that I found really interesting and really exciting. But to actually step into it was something that I had to really work hard on because I was terrified of doing live work as a performer again," she said in the BBC interview, which portrayed Bush not as a reclusive, publicity-shy British eccentric, but as the mum and occasional pop star she has studiously worked at being seen to be.

The comfort and appeal of family life in rural Devon has certainly played a part in restricting musical output. The clear message from her encounter with Everitt is that we shouldn't expect any new material from Bush anytime soon. "The thing about [the Before The Dawn show] is that most of the material was already written. And to start something like that from scratch is another whole world of work, isn't it? It was an extraordinary thing to be involved in, especially to have got the response that we did. It was really magical. But I don't know. I don't know what I'm going to do next."

Bush explained that production of the Before The Dawn album (there are no plans at all for an accompanying video release) has taken up a lot of time, an attention to detail as fastidious as her production of new material to begin with. "​I'm desperate to do something new," she told Everitt, "I've been working on this project for a really long time now. I haven't written a song for ages." And asked if this new release represented a "full stop" to her career, Bush simply replied warmly but vaguely: "Oh no, I don't think so. I think it's just a rather big comma."

Friday, 18 November 2016

With an air of familiarity, the holy trinity returns

Facebook/Amazon Prime

Not since Clarkson, Hammond and May unceremoniously left the old Top Gear (henceforth known as "the show we shall not mention"), and Chris Evans was charged with reviving it to much expectation - somewhat unfulfilled, as it turned out - has there been, er, as much expectation about a TV show making its debut.

However, we should identify exactly what the expectations were for The Grand Tour, CH&M's vehicle for Amazon Prime, which was streamed for the first time last night. Because this was, essentially, the show-we-shall-not-mention in a different location, replete with daft blokeish banter between the presenting trio, gloriously photographed filmed sequences made even better by 4K ultra-HD technology, and exotic cars tyre-screeching their way around race tracks, accompanied by yet more daft, blokeish banter.

Despite the BBC retaining certain intellectual elements of the show-we-shall-not-mention, there was little attempt in the first Grand Tour show to compensate with anything different: the Dunsfold Aerodrome hangar studio was replaced by a giant military field hospital-style tent, pitched for the first show in the Mojave Desert; James May appeared to have received a partial makeover - well, a jacket and a new pair of suede shoes, and...um...that's it.

Clarkson remained bumptious and risk-taking with a near-the-knuckle joke early on about gypsies, Hammond remains impish and slightly irritatingly full of himself (and still with that porn star goatee), and May continues to be the fogeyish maiden aunt of the trio. Which meant that it simply worked. What the BBC failed, horrendously, to address with its continuation of the show-we-shall-not-mention is that it made no real attempt to offer anything different, presenters aside. 

Because it was this particular triumvirate of presenters who made it work. They are the holy trinity of the first show's title (even if it was meant to refer to the Porsche, McClaren and Ferrari which featured in the main film of the episode). Under CH&M, the show-we-shall-not-mention was an excuse to tune in on a Sunday evening to. It was, essentially, three oafs in a pub, like that other Sunday evening tradition, Last Of The Summer Wine - three man-children doing silly things, except with expensive cars rather than bathtubs and Nora Batty's stockinged calves. 

Whatever they say in press interviews about not actually getting on, CH&M's chemistry is rare in TV land, and this proved all the more endearing over the 12 years of the old show. No wonder Amazon wrote such a substantial cheque to secure their services. It did, though, take The Grand Tour a considerable amount of time to get to air. Early on, some cleverly made social media promos suggested that they were taking ages to even come up with a name for he new show, eventually settling on what is obviously a cunning play on both GT cars and the initials of the-show-we-shall-not-mention. 

While the revived show-we-shall-not-mention was soldiering on in the face of clear critical and audience resistance, CH&M including Clarkson's old schoolmate and producer Andy Wilman, were developing the concept for The Grand Tour. For all that time, however, the end result us overwhelmingly more of the same, which makes it all the more entertaining. This is only a mild tinkering with the format, a change to the can design rather than New Coke.

Opening with grey, melancholy footage of Clarkson handing in his security pass at a grim, rainy London institution (yes, we get it...), before taking off for Los Angeles, whereopon colour returned in the form of a vivid blue Ford Mustang Rocket, which Clarkson powered out of LA and into the desert, where, in a moment of faux soppiness, he is reunited with May and Hammond in similar vehicles. In Hollywood terms, the scene was an extended 'establishing shot', presumably for Amazon Prime's new audiences, but also a reminder to devotees of the old show-we-shall-not-mention of what they had missed after CH&M left the BBC.

Facebook/Amazon Prime
It's clear, though, what power they have. All three of them - even May - seem to harbour rock star aspirations, judging by the show's live musical opening, with the Hothouse Flowers doing Johnny Nash's I Can See Clearly Now before CH&M joined them on stage like a reforming supergroup to introduce each other amid bantz about the various institutions each had been fired from (though obviously not Clarkson, who merely had his contract at the BBC not renewed...).

Facebook/Amazon Prime
It was, though, then clear, from the preview compilation introduced by Clarkson that what lay ahead in terms of films, japes and larks would be remarkably similar to the tonality of their lengthy incarnation on the-show-we-shall-not-mention. In what must be a challenge for both the BBC and Amazon's copyright lawyers, there were in fact plenty of familiarities: a test track at an old military faciilty in England, a news segment (jokingly called 'Conversation Street'), and a celebrity participation segment (albeit one that turned out quite badly for the celebrities involved).

These were, however, simple mechanics to make CH&M's fanbase feel at home in a different setting. The filmed sequences were hilarious but also visually stunning (almost worth the purchase of a 4K television alone), and while retaining the innate depth of petrolheadedness of the trio's previous show, were still as much about one of television's most unique presenting chemistries. 

Whatever you might think about Clarkson, his past demeanours, lack of political correctness and his teeth (which look horrendous in ultra-HD...), about Hammond and his exaggerated delivery or May and his near-narcoleptic presence at times, theirs is a formula that Amazon has cleverly exploited. Because it looks like The Grand Tour is going to be worth the subscription price alone.

Monday, 14 November 2016

This is not America

© Simon Poulter 2016

It would be something of an understatement to say that I’ve visited America a lot. Indeed, the pages of my old passport were almost exclusively full of US entry stamps. I guess, then, that I am an Americanophile: I have embraced - pretty warmly, as it goes - its music, its culture, its fashions and its habits. Like many, I’ve been drawn in by aspiration and an odd mix of glamour and normality, by what I’ve seen on television and on the cinema screen.

Because everywhere here is a film set or a line from a song. New York is no exception. Almost 200 movies are shot in the city every year, and every avenue, every cross street, every square and every park has a ring of familiarity about it. The same was the case when I first visited the country 24 years ago, spending a month touring the West Coast. Unlike most new experiences of a different country, I felt perfectly at home on the very freeways I saw in CHiPs as a child, or amongst the hills and mountains which doubled for Korea in M*A*S*H or rural Georgia in The Dukes Of Hazard. Even for a city fame for its smog, the LA sky was as blue as I’d seen on all those myriad Glen A. Larson productions.

It’s this familiarity that has kept me coming back again and again. It requires no effort to fit right in. It might take a little getting used to tipping at first, but apart from that, even something as mundane as having breakfast in a diner immerses you in your own scene from a movie. There’s a convenience here, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, a ‘can-do’ spirit and an energy not replicated anywhere else.

You could say, then, that America and I have enjoyed a highly addictive relationship. Until now. Last week's gold-blinged, Cheeto-tanned, bizarrely-bouffant presidential election result has called into serious question my loyalty as a tourist.

For a start, the good times are over. By that I mean being a British tourist able to take advantage of exchange rates that, at one point, meant that a single pound bought you more than two dollars. That was the sort of incentive that made buying everything from CDs to the MacBook I’m writing this on worth the splurge. But at risk of sounding mercenary, the pound’s prevailing weakness since the Brexit referendum means that you start to notice your hotel charging $25 for breakfast, or Pret-à-Manger asking almost eight dollars for a tuna baguette.

The price of a sandwich has brought this year’s dramatic political events into sharp focus. The economic impact in the UK of June’s referendum on Europe is only just being understood. Christmas will be a big test, as families come to terms with inflationary prices. Here in the US, inflation has also been on the rise, feeding into the very rhetoric that fuelled the Trump victory, as he appealed to America’s squeezed middle. The parallels with the Brexit result are brutal. Listening to chatter in coffee shops and on the subway, it’s clear how America was polarised last week in a shockingly similar way to the deep chasm June's referendum carved between the liberal values of inclusion and conservative division, but also between the so-called metropolitan elites and the fiscally challenged provinces.

New York is something of a paradox in this regard: average rent here is $3208 (£2545), with a one-bedroom apartment costing around $2829 (£2244) a month; Donald Trump’s grotesque palace and HQ is here on 5th Avenue, and yet he took just 10% of the vote in this city. In Washington DC, his soon-to-be home, he took just 4% of the vote. Head out into the middle American heartlands, however, and the reasons for his victory become blindingly obvious, as small-town sentiment warmed overwhelmingly to his Route 1 philosophy. The racism and xenophobia - both implied and overt - that coloured the British referendum were a central pillar of the Trump stump, with the added air of latent misogyny to create a cartoon-like monster out of the tangerine-tinged billionaire.

As I blogged last week, Trump’s campaign persona was largely that of a Homer Simpson-like figure, loudly bragging in a bar about what he’d do if he was president. The reality, of course, is that he will, now, become president, but time will only tell whether  as to whether Trump follows through on his campaign promises. The “beautiful wall” he said would be built along the Mexican border is more likely to be just a fence, he told the CBS TV network yesterday. Hmm… What else? The ban on Muslims entering the country? Let’s see.

The bigger fear is what threat he poses to world economics and even world peace that his critics claim he will be. As some were pointing out in the aftermath of Tuesday’s result, presidents don’t just get their own way without due political process. But you can’t help feeling that America - particularly from a liberal-minded point of view - has just commenced an era of almost helpless nightmare. The prospect of Trump forming a government - with his ultra-conservative running mate Mike Pence, the excruciating Sarah Palin, New Jersey governor Chris Christie, former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich and ex-New York mayor Rudy Giuliani all being mentioned for cabinet positions - has an air of comic villainy about it. Like The Joker forming a syndicate of all the worst super criminals in Gotham City. He’s already started by appointing Stephen Bannon, head of the far-right Breitbart News, as his chief strategist. Except, it’s not a joke. This is the world’s most powerful democracy. The world’s largest economy. The seat of the last global recession. If you have a mortgage, savings, even a job with an institution reliant on global trade, Trumpageddon should worry you. Because it worries me.


Rational argument would dictate that Trump’s presidency should not cut me off from the America I’ve enjoyed as a tourist. Unless white, middle-aged Englishmen are added to the list of people Trump wishes to keep out, all the things I come to America for should still be there for me. But something quite profound has happened. Something has changed in the last seven days about a country normally so tolerant, so beholden of The New Colossus - “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free” - that it somehow doesn’t feel like America anymore. Stupid, I know. But when your president-elect’s first words of congratulations come from a notorious white nationalist and Holocaust denier, from French and Dutch far-right politicians, and from the gurning Nigel Farage, it’s probably time to give the country a miss for a while, at least until it can elect a president who offers more than just populist bar-room jingoism, and can instead make the values of respect, dignity and tolerance central to their philosophy.