En 1986, Maggie Thatcher abolit le Grand Londres, alors déjà dirigé par Ken Livingston depuis 1981, pour le remplacer par une confédération de conseils de boroughs (les boroughs sont les 32 super-arrondissements de l’agglomération de Londres, dont Westminster, Islington, Camden, Kensington) et ainsi annihiler une entité puissante et ancrée à gauche.
Avec le retour du Labour dans les années 1999, les travaillistes rétablissent un Greater London englobant environ 7.5 millions d’habitants, avec un maire élu au suffrage direct. ‘Ken le rouge’ pas précisément un ami des blairistes perd les primaires labour mais décide de se présenter en candidat indépendant en 2000. Il gagne mais est exclu du parti travailliste. Il négocie ensuite une ré-intégration chez les travaillistes et remporte de nouveau les élections en 2004.
Je ne suis pas du tout un expert de la politique municipale – je sais juste que sur le sujet des transports, Ken est couillu et va dans le bon sens. La ‘congestion charge’, mesure hyper impopulaire, a eu l’effet escompté, en réduisant la circulation dans le centre. La prochaine étape est peut-être d’éradiquer les 4x4 urbains, ces véhicules de guerre urbaine, ces ‘Kensington Tanks’, insultes au bon sens, au bon gout, à l’environnement.
L’autre sujet c’est le métro. Il y a quelques années, Ken avait été obligé d’accepter le montage ‘partenariat-public-privé (PPP)’ imposé par le chancelier Gordon Brown, ‘Metronet’ chargé de la réfection de quatre ou cinq lignes pour plusieurs milliards de livres. Résultat : conformément aux craintes de Ken, Metronet a déposé le bilan récemment. Ken a jubilé : ‘je vous l’avait bien dit!’ et il a exigé des têtes : ‘To me, they are all dead meat’ en parlant des administrateurs de Métronet. Il exige de voir la mairie reprendre les rennes du projet. Certains accusent la mairie d’avoir saboté Metronet en n’accordant pas les subventions qui étaient prévues, mais beaucoup reconnaissent que Metronet a laissé dériver les couts.
Ces sujets sont ultra complexes, mais au delà des politiques menées, ce que j’aime, ce que j’aimerais voir à Paris, c’est le Grand Londres, par opposition à ce Paris riquiqui, mesquin, calcifié. Un inner Paris fortifié de deux millions d’habitants retranchés derrière le périph, ghetto de vieux bourgeois, petites mémés et petits bobos, et tout autour une mosaïque de communes croupions socialement purifiées, ghettos de riches (ouest et sud-ouest) ou ghettos de pauvres (nord et nord-est). Moi je viens du Val de Marne, à l’est, une des rares banlieues encore socialement mixtes. Résultat : malgré la multiplication des entités superposées et redondantes (région Ile-de-France, départements), il ne semble pas y avoir de politique intégrée des transports et du logement, et certainement pas de péréquation des revenus et des moyens entre les ‘communes’ ultra cossues du sud-ouest et les banlieues tragiquement démunies du nord.
Je pense qu’il faudrait supprimer les départements et les communes de la petite couronne, créer un grand Paris englobant, au moins, le 92, le 93, le 94 – et peut-être le 95 et le 77 dans un deuxième temps. Les actuels arrondissements de l’hypercentre (minuscule) et les petites communes de périphérie fusionneraient pour créer des boroughs de taille plus homogène (disons 200,000 à 400,000 habitants)
Lorsque, très très rarement, quelqu’un ose évoquer un Grand Paris, contre tous les conservatismes locaux, on lui répond que ce serait un déni de démocratie et qu’il faut préserver l’identité de Saint-Maur, de Boulogne et d’Issy les Moulineaux. Mais qu’est-ce qui empêcherait que ces trois communes de plus de 100,000 habitants deviennent le centre d’arrondissements du Grand Paris, qui s’appelleraient Boulogne et Saint Maur, avec leurs maires et leurs conseillers d’arrondissement ? Est-ce que, au sein du Grand Londres, un coin comme Richmond, l’équivalent d’un Saint-Germain en Laye disons, ne conserve pas toute son identité ?
Grand Londres et mixité sociale
Autre chose que j’aime à Londres, c’est la mixité urbaine. Malgré des écarts de revenu obscènes, beaucoup plus importants qu’en France et à Paris, j’ai l’impression que le planning urbain fait que les quartiers riches et pauvres de Londres sont largement interpénétrés, garantissant un minimum de mixité sociale. A Londres on trouve souvent une rue commerçante chic où les appartements ‘victoriens’ de deux pièces se louent 1500 livres par mois, et deux minutes plus loin un petit bloc de HLMs (‘council houses’). Mais pas ou peu de mégas grands ensembles de tours, cette aberration urbanistique de Paris, responsables de beaucoup de maux et sans doute des émeutes de novembre 2005.
Pourquoi et comment cette meilleure répartition du logement social à Londres ? Je soupçonne deux raisons. La première c’est que, grâce au Grand Londres, les conseils de tous les boroughs, y compris les plus chics, sont obligés de consacrer des budgets significatifs au logement social. Il existe il parait une loi dans ce sens en France, mais des communes comme Neuilly seront toujours prêtes à payer n’importe quelle amende administrative plutôt que de bâtir des HLM qui ferait baisser la valeur des ‘biens’ privés autour. La deuxième raison est historique : les ravages causés par la deuxième guerre mondiale. A l’emplacement des immeubles détruits, on a construit des immeubles sociaux bon marché dès la fin de la guerre, pour loger les migrants venus de toute l’Angleterre pour travailler à Londres.
Pretty Paris v. casual London
C’est aussi l’une des causes d’un autre truc qui me plait à Londres. Je ne trouve pas de mot français, alors je dirais son coté ‘casual’. Paris est magnifique, pittoresque, sublime, majestueux ; Paris est pretty. La moindre pierre est moyenâgeux ou haussmannien, les rues sont propres, la nuit toutes les vieilles pierres sont luxueusement éclairées etc. Londres par contre n’a jamais eu de Baron Haussmann ou de monarque avec des idées urbanistiques, et pour finir les ravages de la guerre l’on obligé à se reconstruire en grande partie ; alors il n’y a aucun unité architecturale, tout n’est pas toujours beau, surtout si on n’aime pas trop le béton (Barbican, National Theatre, National Film Theatre etc), mais au moins il n’y a pas de vaches sacrées et la ville donne l’impression de vivre, alors que Paris – c’est une évidence – est en voie de momification (disneyisation, venisification…) rapide. Alors oui bien sur, Paris est plus beau pas l’ombre d’un doute, c’est super à visiter, mais ce narcissisme chic finit par lasser et par agacer quand on y habite.
9 septembre 2007
Clément's favourite things about London
Clément's top 10 things about London
1. international scene and world outlook: people, business, culture etc.
2. (international) restaurants : Thai, Persian, Indian, Chinese, Italian, etc.
3. Arsene Wenger and Arsenal
4. Theatre
5. Cheap flights to Europe...
6. The parks
7. The BBC
8. English sports writers' sense of humour (don't they need it)
9. The weather ...
10. it's a draw: Jose Mourinho and Polonium 110
1. international scene and world outlook: people, business, culture etc.
2. (international) restaurants : Thai, Persian, Indian, Chinese, Italian, etc.
3. Arsene Wenger and Arsenal
4. Theatre
5. Cheap flights to Europe...
6. The parks
7. The BBC
8. English sports writers' sense of humour (don't they need it)
9. The weather ...
10. it's a draw: Jose Mourinho and Polonium 110
8 septembre 2007
Vince's good things about London (4): Parks
In Paris we have half a dozen tiny parks in the centre. Until recently they had little grass space and it was forbidden to sit on the grass. Parks are basically places for grannies and nannies, with flowers beads you could only contemplate from afar. It is a bit better now that you are allowed to sit down and picnic in Paris’ gardens but it remains they are ridiculously small compared to those of London.
Just to take Central London we have Hyde Park, Regent Park, Battersea Park, Victoria Park, Hampstead Heath…at least five enormous and casual parks. And tens of smaller one like my local Highbury Fields. In the middle of the big ones, one can barely see or hear the city outside. And the centre of Hyde Park is, like some parts of New York’s Central Park, quite wild.
And there is a park culture. As soon as the temperature hits, say, twenty three degrees (ie four or five week-ens a year), Londoners of all ages immediately improvise picnics, and don't move from there for the whole week-end. Groups gather until late. Girls play football ; Indians play cricket. People borrow tire-corkscrews to neighbours. People drink white wine in glass glasses, sometimes moderately. It is really really nice.
Just to take Central London we have Hyde Park, Regent Park, Battersea Park, Victoria Park, Hampstead Heath…at least five enormous and casual parks. And tens of smaller one like my local Highbury Fields. In the middle of the big ones, one can barely see or hear the city outside. And the centre of Hyde Park is, like some parts of New York’s Central Park, quite wild.
And there is a park culture. As soon as the temperature hits, say, twenty three degrees (ie four or five week-ens a year), Londoners of all ages immediately improvise picnics, and don't move from there for the whole week-end. Groups gather until late. Girls play football ; Indians play cricket. People borrow tire-corkscrews to neighbours. People drink white wine in glass glasses, sometimes moderately. It is really really nice.
Vince's good things about London (3): urban wildlife
Jean-Christophe has it in his top ten and I agree.
He mentions rightly foxes, herons on the Thames, and ‘funny ducks’ (here I believe he means coots) ; indeed I saw herons on the Regents Canal in the middle of Camden ; and there are pelicans in St James' park. Better than the filthy pigeons of Paris, huh? By the way there was a famous video on YouTube, showing a London pelican killing and eating a pigeon.
I mentioned foxes in a paper already, and let’s not forget squirrels. Yes it is a guilty taste to like fluffy disneyesques creatures but come on again it is better than the filthy granny dogs that are all over the place in Paris. Of course there are as many squirrels in New York, Montreal or even Madrid, just to mention a few capitals. I once wrote to the department of parks in Paris to ask, candidly how come there are no squirrels at all in Paris’ parks? I received no answer. Good transition to my next topic on the list, parks.
He mentions rightly foxes, herons on the Thames, and ‘funny ducks’ (here I believe he means coots) ; indeed I saw herons on the Regents Canal in the middle of Camden ; and there are pelicans in St James' park. Better than the filthy pigeons of Paris, huh? By the way there was a famous video on YouTube, showing a London pelican killing and eating a pigeon.
I mentioned foxes in a paper already, and let’s not forget squirrels. Yes it is a guilty taste to like fluffy disneyesques creatures but come on again it is better than the filthy granny dogs that are all over the place in Paris. Of course there are as many squirrels in New York, Montreal or even Madrid, just to mention a few capitals. I once wrote to the department of parks in Paris to ask, candidly how come there are no squirrels at all in Paris’ parks? I received no answer. Good transition to my next topic on the list, parks.
Vince's good things about London (2): telly
It is a cliché that I believe is true: British television is the best in the world. And in more than one way. The production industry is the most creative. Broadcasters are the most innovative in terms of programme commissioning, in terms of technology, in terms of business models. When like me one works in the television/media industry, it’s one the best place to be. This is where satellite television began, and where later digital terrestrial television started (as early as 1998). Freeview is the model for free-to-view digital television. UK has one of the highest penetration for digital TV in the world. BskyB, whether you like the Murdoch family or not, has been simply brilliant in building its pay TV empire from scratch, killing incompetent cable lords ; they are bloody marketing geniuses. Technology? UK is where interactive television, high definition, everything was pioneered first in European television industry.
But let's focus on programmes. The gap with France is awe striking. In France I was pretty much using my TV as a monitor for DVDs. Here, almost every evening, be it on the BBC or Channel Four, you can watch something challenging, new, brilliant. Let’s take three examples: news, comedy, documentary.
In news, it’s in-your-face and right-to-the-point. When French anchormen shamelessly flatter the president every 14-July, Jeremy Paxman notoriously asked 14 times the same question to a minister – he was not being rude; he was simply unsatisfied by the answer he was receiving. France Televisions decided to remove its reporters from Iraq because risks were too high; such an issue would simply be unimaginable in British press. No-one is obliged to go to war theatres but everyone feels that is what it takes to be a reporter.
There is an entire television genre that is nearly non-existent – or pathetic - in French television, which has by contrast a long tradition of support and excellence in Britain: Comedy.
In France what? Some good stuff on Canal+ twenty years ago, period. Today what? Camera Café and Kamelott are just about okay but to be honest we never even really tried.
Just compare with British hall of fame (just the ones I know of – I am sure there are plenty of other):
- The Monty Python Flying Circus simply revolutionised humour and television (1969-1974)
- Fawlty Towers by John Cleese in 1975
- Blackadder, by Ben Elton, Richard Curtis and Rowan Atkinson (1983-1989)
- A bit of Laurie and Fry, by Hugh Laurie and Stephen Fry (1989-1995)
- Absolutely Fabulous, by Jennifer Saunders and Joanna Lumley (1992-2004)
And to focus on recent or running shows:
- Peep Show by Mitchell and Webb since 2003 on Channel 4,
- The Smoking Room by Brian Dooley in 2004-2006 on BBC Three,
- Kombat Opera Presents on BBC Two.
So many gems in history and up to this day. In France, writers still basically despise television and broadcasters despise viewers. In Britain, the best comedians and the best writers have been working for television for 30 years, and they have been given near total freedom to experiment the dodgiest, craziest storytelling formats.
Of course they have had Benny Hill or today Little Britain and its toilet humour. Catherine Tate is one gifted comedian if not doing a very innovative show. Roman's Empire may be so mad and weird that you simply lose interest in the plot and the characters, which is a problem in a sitcom comedy. But The Office by Ricky Gervais and I’m Allan Partridge by Armando Iannucci and Steve Coogan, are two examples of out-of-this-world, innovative formats, based on cruelty, embarrassing taste and a very sick, very British sense of humour. The Office seems soo British in fact, and yet it was adapted for American TV, and became a critic and popular hit there too. Canal Plus adapted The Office in France too, I don’t know if it was any good. Is there one French format that ever became popular abroad – apart from, allegedly, Helene et les garcons 20 years ago in Russia?
Documentary. Well here OK, French production is okay, partly because it is heavily subsidised. But again, Brit programmes are more ambitious and more innovative. They invented and developed the docu drama, that has rejuvenated the whole genre. They are always at the world top in popular science; history and natural history documentary. Planet Earth, the most ambitious, most expensive and most awesome series ever was funded by the BBC, Japanese NHK and Discovery… and made by Brits. Coasts is great. And on a lower key, every other day, you come across remarkable factual programmes on the remotest subjects.
France does intellectual programmes for the elite (ARTE)and boring rubbish for the rest. UK does intelligent entertainment for the masses. One reason is very well known: because France Televisions has to rely on advertising revenues for about a third of its revenues, it feels obliged to compete with commercial broadcasters TF1 and M6. The BBC, by contrast, has never carried, and will never carry any advertising (on TV or radio by the way), and the much-loved beeb is entirely funded by the licence fee, that is about twice what it is in France. (Channel Four does lives on advertising but it is State-owned and therefore does not have to make profits and pay dividends and can develop long term programming strategy).
As a result, France 2’s schedule is always competing directly with that of TF1 and always losing in audience terms (the 20h news), and doing more of the same, always. The BBC does not NEED to do high audiences, so they do what they honestly feel is good, new, interesting, in every genre ; and guess what: they DO excellent audiences.
But let's focus on programmes. The gap with France is awe striking. In France I was pretty much using my TV as a monitor for DVDs. Here, almost every evening, be it on the BBC or Channel Four, you can watch something challenging, new, brilliant. Let’s take three examples: news, comedy, documentary.
In news, it’s in-your-face and right-to-the-point. When French anchormen shamelessly flatter the president every 14-July, Jeremy Paxman notoriously asked 14 times the same question to a minister – he was not being rude; he was simply unsatisfied by the answer he was receiving. France Televisions decided to remove its reporters from Iraq because risks were too high; such an issue would simply be unimaginable in British press. No-one is obliged to go to war theatres but everyone feels that is what it takes to be a reporter.
There is an entire television genre that is nearly non-existent – or pathetic - in French television, which has by contrast a long tradition of support and excellence in Britain: Comedy.
In France what? Some good stuff on Canal+ twenty years ago, period. Today what? Camera Café and Kamelott are just about okay but to be honest we never even really tried.
Just compare with British hall of fame (just the ones I know of – I am sure there are plenty of other):
- The Monty Python Flying Circus simply revolutionised humour and television (1969-1974)
- Fawlty Towers by John Cleese in 1975
- Blackadder, by Ben Elton, Richard Curtis and Rowan Atkinson (1983-1989)
- A bit of Laurie and Fry, by Hugh Laurie and Stephen Fry (1989-1995)
- Absolutely Fabulous, by Jennifer Saunders and Joanna Lumley (1992-2004)
And to focus on recent or running shows:
- Peep Show by Mitchell and Webb since 2003 on Channel 4,
- The Smoking Room by Brian Dooley in 2004-2006 on BBC Three,
- Kombat Opera Presents on BBC Two.
So many gems in history and up to this day. In France, writers still basically despise television and broadcasters despise viewers. In Britain, the best comedians and the best writers have been working for television for 30 years, and they have been given near total freedom to experiment the dodgiest, craziest storytelling formats.
Of course they have had Benny Hill or today Little Britain and its toilet humour. Catherine Tate is one gifted comedian if not doing a very innovative show. Roman's Empire may be so mad and weird that you simply lose interest in the plot and the characters, which is a problem in a sitcom comedy. But The Office by Ricky Gervais and I’m Allan Partridge by Armando Iannucci and Steve Coogan, are two examples of out-of-this-world, innovative formats, based on cruelty, embarrassing taste and a very sick, very British sense of humour. The Office seems soo British in fact, and yet it was adapted for American TV, and became a critic and popular hit there too. Canal Plus adapted The Office in France too, I don’t know if it was any good. Is there one French format that ever became popular abroad – apart from, allegedly, Helene et les garcons 20 years ago in Russia?
Documentary. Well here OK, French production is okay, partly because it is heavily subsidised. But again, Brit programmes are more ambitious and more innovative. They invented and developed the docu drama, that has rejuvenated the whole genre. They are always at the world top in popular science; history and natural history documentary. Planet Earth, the most ambitious, most expensive and most awesome series ever was funded by the BBC, Japanese NHK and Discovery… and made by Brits. Coasts is great. And on a lower key, every other day, you come across remarkable factual programmes on the remotest subjects.
France does intellectual programmes for the elite (ARTE)and boring rubbish for the rest. UK does intelligent entertainment for the masses. One reason is very well known: because France Televisions has to rely on advertising revenues for about a third of its revenues, it feels obliged to compete with commercial broadcasters TF1 and M6. The BBC, by contrast, has never carried, and will never carry any advertising (on TV or radio by the way), and the much-loved beeb is entirely funded by the licence fee, that is about twice what it is in France. (Channel Four does lives on advertising but it is State-owned and therefore does not have to make profits and pay dividends and can develop long term programming strategy).
As a result, France 2’s schedule is always competing directly with that of TF1 and always losing in audience terms (the 20h news), and doing more of the same, always. The BBC does not NEED to do high audiences, so they do what they honestly feel is good, new, interesting, in every genre ; and guess what: they DO excellent audiences.
Vince's good things about London (1): Arsenal
Good things about (North) London : The football Arsène Wenger and Arsenal.
I was living in Paris during the golden years of the ‘French’ Arsenal, with Wenger and his dream team of Henry-Pires-Viera-Bergkamp. It became the favourite team of many French, and certainly mine. In a European tie against Paris or Marseille (which I despise equally) I would have supported Arsenal without hesitation. The best French players, a beautiful game, it was easy to love Arsenal; even non-French and neutral football lovers recognized it was playing one of the most beautiful football ever. And they were not only stylish: the ‘unbeaten’ season 2003-2004 (38 games, no defeat) remains a feat that no other team has ever made in Europe’s major leagues in a century. Fever Pitch, the funny and lovable book by Nick Hornby, our local Holloway writer, and a self-confessed pathological Arsenal supporter, had made me realise what an institution Arsenal is in North London, long before the coming of Arsenal. Then, long before reaching his 10th year as a coach (1996-2006), Arsene Wenger had already become the greatest manager in more than a century of Arsenal history.
Living in Islington, was clearly a good option I moved to London to work in Camden Town, but surely the perspective of being at the heart of Arsenal’s borough played a role. I now live less than a mile away from the Stadium - and Jean-Christophe less than half a mile.
Of course, sadly, Arsenal has gone through bitter seasons since I have come to Islington: all the great players of the golden years have gone and no trophies were won during the 2005-2006 and the 2006-2007 seasons. One could blame Wenger and the club to have somehow sacrificed these two seasons, focusing on developing young talents without enough experienced players to claim silverware in the short term (we have become magnificent losers these days); but one thing I admire a lot is the respect and loyalty of English fans, of Arsenal fans, and that of neutral football analysts towards a man like Wenger. Paris and Marseille, to pick the most obvious French failures, have always been pathetically managed, and when they happened to put their fingers on good men they could never recognize them and keep them ; Paris and Marseille supporters are disgustingly prone to burn their idols and shout at yesterday’s hero. Not the English supporter, certainly not the Arsenal supporter. Arsenal and David Dein consistently put faith in Wenger. The respect for Wenger and Arsenal, even when we do not win, makes me proud to be French and Islingtonian; when I was living in Paris, PSG made me ashamed of being Parisian. Mick the man-with-a-van, of Cypriot ascent, born in Islington, always call him Mister Wenger. It is amazing and emotional to see the respect that Wenger has created in merely ten years in this city.
One thing I like with Arsenal and English football in general, is the public. I have been to some PSG games, everybody knows it is not a pretty sight neither on the pitch nor in the stadium or outside the stadium (god, even the stadium itself is ugly too). The Arsenal public by contrast consist of couples, families, ordinary folks. PSG: a bunch a fashion-media-business VIPs, a lot of racist resentful male lumpenproletariat who come not to support their team but to assault the ‘others’ ; Arsenal supporters going up Upper Street on match days? groups of middle-aged couples in red and white shirt, grandfather-father-and-son, two twenty-something-girls, husbbands and wives. Going to the historic Highbury stadium (1904-2006) alongwith Teun Draiasma during their last season there felt like a pilgrimmage and an immense emotion for me.
Finally, it’s not only Arsenal, it’s English football; it’s the genuine passion for football in this country ; it’s the other big teams with their century-long traditions and highly charismatic coaches (sir Alex, the villain José) ; it’s the fact that nearly everybody loves football and supports a team.
Take my small company based in Camden, North London. We have three Arsenal supporters, two Tottenham supporters, two Liverpool supporters (including a 22-years-old pretty young woman), one Charlton supporter (our Chief Analyst), one QPR supporter, one Newcastle supporter. Oh and one Manchester City supporter. Thank god no Chelsea or ManU fans (unless they are hiding in the closet). Sometimes it’s too much. I find myself reading all papers starting by the end – the last 20 pages of every paper are dedicated to sports, of which at least ten to football, every single day. Sometimes I am fed up with the tenth article on Wayne Rooney’s latest injury, but generally – and Clément is very right to point that out – football commentators in the press or on TV are ways better than their French colleagues. In England the aristocracy of journalists dedicate to the beautiful game, they are stars, they earn plenty. And football on television? You remember how pathetic was the late 'Telefoot'? How our generation had to bear Thierry Roland and his nerdy git colleagues to have glimpses of the championnat, every Sunday morning? Well, here we have 'Match of the Day', one of many monuments of the BBC. Every saturday and sunday nights, after a kitsch jingle, we have the classy Gary Lineker and his analysts Alan Hansen, Lee Dixon, Alan Shearer, delivering excellent and entertaining comments. That is a good transition with the next topic on my list: television.
I was living in Paris during the golden years of the ‘French’ Arsenal, with Wenger and his dream team of Henry-Pires-Viera-Bergkamp. It became the favourite team of many French, and certainly mine. In a European tie against Paris or Marseille (which I despise equally) I would have supported Arsenal without hesitation. The best French players, a beautiful game, it was easy to love Arsenal; even non-French and neutral football lovers recognized it was playing one of the most beautiful football ever. And they were not only stylish: the ‘unbeaten’ season 2003-2004 (38 games, no defeat) remains a feat that no other team has ever made in Europe’s major leagues in a century. Fever Pitch, the funny and lovable book by Nick Hornby, our local Holloway writer, and a self-confessed pathological Arsenal supporter, had made me realise what an institution Arsenal is in North London, long before the coming of Arsenal. Then, long before reaching his 10th year as a coach (1996-2006), Arsene Wenger had already become the greatest manager in more than a century of Arsenal history.
Living in Islington, was clearly a good option I moved to London to work in Camden Town, but surely the perspective of being at the heart of Arsenal’s borough played a role. I now live less than a mile away from the Stadium - and Jean-Christophe less than half a mile.
Of course, sadly, Arsenal has gone through bitter seasons since I have come to Islington: all the great players of the golden years have gone and no trophies were won during the 2005-2006 and the 2006-2007 seasons. One could blame Wenger and the club to have somehow sacrificed these two seasons, focusing on developing young talents without enough experienced players to claim silverware in the short term (we have become magnificent losers these days); but one thing I admire a lot is the respect and loyalty of English fans, of Arsenal fans, and that of neutral football analysts towards a man like Wenger. Paris and Marseille, to pick the most obvious French failures, have always been pathetically managed, and when they happened to put their fingers on good men they could never recognize them and keep them ; Paris and Marseille supporters are disgustingly prone to burn their idols and shout at yesterday’s hero. Not the English supporter, certainly not the Arsenal supporter. Arsenal and David Dein consistently put faith in Wenger. The respect for Wenger and Arsenal, even when we do not win, makes me proud to be French and Islingtonian; when I was living in Paris, PSG made me ashamed of being Parisian. Mick the man-with-a-van, of Cypriot ascent, born in Islington, always call him Mister Wenger. It is amazing and emotional to see the respect that Wenger has created in merely ten years in this city.
One thing I like with Arsenal and English football in general, is the public. I have been to some PSG games, everybody knows it is not a pretty sight neither on the pitch nor in the stadium or outside the stadium (god, even the stadium itself is ugly too). The Arsenal public by contrast consist of couples, families, ordinary folks. PSG: a bunch a fashion-media-business VIPs, a lot of racist resentful male lumpenproletariat who come not to support their team but to assault the ‘others’ ; Arsenal supporters going up Upper Street on match days? groups of middle-aged couples in red and white shirt, grandfather-father-and-son, two twenty-something-girls, husbbands and wives. Going to the historic Highbury stadium (1904-2006) alongwith Teun Draiasma during their last season there felt like a pilgrimmage and an immense emotion for me.
Finally, it’s not only Arsenal, it’s English football; it’s the genuine passion for football in this country ; it’s the other big teams with their century-long traditions and highly charismatic coaches (sir Alex, the villain José) ; it’s the fact that nearly everybody loves football and supports a team.
Take my small company based in Camden, North London. We have three Arsenal supporters, two Tottenham supporters, two Liverpool supporters (including a 22-years-old pretty young woman), one Charlton supporter (our Chief Analyst), one QPR supporter, one Newcastle supporter. Oh and one Manchester City supporter. Thank god no Chelsea or ManU fans (unless they are hiding in the closet). Sometimes it’s too much. I find myself reading all papers starting by the end – the last 20 pages of every paper are dedicated to sports, of which at least ten to football, every single day. Sometimes I am fed up with the tenth article on Wayne Rooney’s latest injury, but generally – and Clément is very right to point that out – football commentators in the press or on TV are ways better than their French colleagues. In England the aristocracy of journalists dedicate to the beautiful game, they are stars, they earn plenty. And football on television? You remember how pathetic was the late 'Telefoot'? How our generation had to bear Thierry Roland and his nerdy git colleagues to have glimpses of the championnat, every Sunday morning? Well, here we have 'Match of the Day', one of many monuments of the BBC. Every saturday and sunday nights, after a kitsch jingle, we have the classy Gary Lineker and his analysts Alan Hansen, Lee Dixon, Alan Shearer, delivering excellent and entertaining comments. That is a good transition with the next topic on my list: television.
Vince's favourite things about London
Vince's favourite things about (living in) London
1. Arsenal
2. The BBC (Beeb and the best telly in the world)
3. The London wildlife (squirrels, duck and foxes)
4. London Parks (and the park culture)
5. Londoners (humour, resilience, global village)
6. The Greater London (as opposed to the Paris ghettos)
7. London Roads (and the civilised driving)
8. London Press
9.The Curzon Soho
Not-so-good things about London
1. Transports (the third-world tube nightmare)
2. Cost of Life
3. Real Estate (the property ladder obsession)
4. Education
5. Binge drinking
1. Arsenal
2. The BBC (Beeb and the best telly in the world)
3. The London wildlife (squirrels, duck and foxes)
4. London Parks (and the park culture)
5. Londoners (humour, resilience, global village)
6. The Greater London (as opposed to the Paris ghettos)
7. London Roads (and the civilised driving)
8. London Press
9.The Curzon Soho
Not-so-good things about London
1. Transports (the third-world tube nightmare)
2. Cost of Life
3. Real Estate (the property ladder obsession)
4. Education
5. Binge drinking
2 septembre 2007
JC's favourite things about London
First thank you to Vince for inviting me as guest blogger!
Brits love to do lists, or at least newspapers and magazine do, which is probably an easy way to fill space. Time out themes almost every issue on some list or another (the last one "name and shame" - a favourite local sport - of places that have let London down.
I go back to basics by listing my 10 favourite things London:
1. The National Theater, its plays, its terrace and the South Bank
2. Arsenal and Arsene
3. Low rise buildings and seeing the sky without twisting my neck
4. The Serpentine gallery annual pavilion
5. Foxes in the streets, Herons on the Thames and funny ducks (up for adoption) in parks
6. Ethnic food (including French cuisine and groceries)
7. The Barbican
8. Free museums (thank you Labour)
9. The National Film Theater10. Queuing at bus stops: here and here.
Next time, I will list my 10 top things I regret not having done yet London. Not going to the proms will probably be there.
Brits love to do lists, or at least newspapers and magazine do, which is probably an easy way to fill space. Time out themes almost every issue on some list or another (the last one "name and shame" - a favourite local sport - of places that have let London down.
I go back to basics by listing my 10 favourite things London:
1. The National Theater, its plays, its terrace and the South Bank
2. Arsenal and Arsene
3. Low rise buildings and seeing the sky without twisting my neck
4. The Serpentine gallery annual pavilion
5. Foxes in the streets, Herons on the Thames and funny ducks (up for adoption) in parks
6. Ethnic food (including French cuisine and groceries)
7. The Barbican
8. Free museums (thank you Labour)
9. The National Film Theater10. Queuing at bus stops: here and here.
Next time, I will list my 10 top things I regret not having done yet London. Not going to the proms will probably be there.
'Freakonomics' by Steven Levitt
A best seller in the UK, this American book by young economist Steven Levitt is quite entertaining. No big picture theory on inflation, growth or trade – Levitt is much more into micro-economics, individual economic behaviour and more specifically, how we respond to incentives. Lots of counter-intuitive outcome from economic anecdotes. Once a kindergarten decided to start charging $2 parents who pick up their kids late, and guess what happened? Well there were more parents coming late. Why that? Because a $2 penalty on top of a $50 monthly fee is too small to be a deterrent AND the penalty freed parents from any sort of embarrassment or guilt – they would not try their best to come on time any more. Carers are paid for the extra time waiting for late parents aren’t they, so why worry? The most ironic bit is that when the fee was finally cancelled, the late rate did not come to what it was previously but grew even higher. Parents had lost the sense of obligation they used to have and now it was without financial consequence anyway. The lesson? Unless you are ready to create significant monetary incentive, keep the moral incentive that works.
The most interesting part is the story of this young student economist who spent years hanging around with a Black drug gang in Chicago for years. Because the local boss was an educated man before turning a thug, the student had serious business discussions with him; ultimately he also accessed the full accountability of the gang for five years. Local gangs in Chicago work like franchises. A ‘Board of Directors’ of 12 big bosses gives the monopolistic licence for crack dealing in a given neighbourhood in exchange of a 30% of revenues. Just like white upper class is mimicking Black ‘gangsta’ looks, real gangsters like to mimic white corporate America. The gang accounting showed that only the local boss makes good money ($150,000 per year) while – contrary to conventional wisdom - the many ‘foot soldiers’ hardly make a living. Far from driving fancy cars, they usually live at their mother’s. And they take enormous risks. One chance out of five to get killed by a rival gang, one chance out of two to go to jail, in a period of five years. So why in the world would you want to become a drug dealer? Simply because you have a chance to become a boss if you are good and lucky. Although the probability to become one is very small and does clearly not the risk, young unqualified boys try their chance, just like pretty Wisconsin farm girls go to Hollywood – nothing rational in it, just an act of faith.
The most interesting part is the story of this young student economist who spent years hanging around with a Black drug gang in Chicago for years. Because the local boss was an educated man before turning a thug, the student had serious business discussions with him; ultimately he also accessed the full accountability of the gang for five years. Local gangs in Chicago work like franchises. A ‘Board of Directors’ of 12 big bosses gives the monopolistic licence for crack dealing in a given neighbourhood in exchange of a 30% of revenues. Just like white upper class is mimicking Black ‘gangsta’ looks, real gangsters like to mimic white corporate America. The gang accounting showed that only the local boss makes good money ($150,000 per year) while – contrary to conventional wisdom - the many ‘foot soldiers’ hardly make a living. Far from driving fancy cars, they usually live at their mother’s. And they take enormous risks. One chance out of five to get killed by a rival gang, one chance out of two to go to jail, in a period of five years. So why in the world would you want to become a drug dealer? Simply because you have a chance to become a boss if you are good and lucky. Although the probability to become one is very small and does clearly not the risk, young unqualified boys try their chance, just like pretty Wisconsin farm girls go to Hollywood – nothing rational in it, just an act of faith.
1 septembre 2007
the curious sight of a fox at night-time
At last I spotted my first fox in London.
I say ‘my first fox’ because I understand it is a pretty common sight in the streets of Northern London at night-time.
I have been in London for more than two years now and I had not seen a single one. All my friends had had their glimpse of foxes, and some even saw one when leaving my flat one evening.
So I was frustrated and curious. Recently I saw a TV programme about the ‘tens of thousands’ of foxes estimated to live in London, most of them in the North. It is thought they live in parks and along railtracks, only going out at night to scavenge rubbish, rodents, hens. Londoners have mixed feelings for them. Some – like me – are excited at the idea of wildlife in the city and think foxes are cute ; but many just think foxes are a nuisance. Some animal lovers go fox-spotting at night ; but some exasperated poultry-owners whose hens were savaged by a fox, go and hire pest-controllers to kill the local fox. Yes many Londoners keep hens in their back yards and yes foxes are not a protected species: you are free to shoot one if you spot him in your garden.
So three weeks ago, a bit after midnight, coming back from Highbury and Islington tube station, I spotted in the distance a small animal crossing Station Road. It tought ‘it’s a very big cat’, then ‘oh no it’s a small dog’. Then I realise that was it – a fox, my first sight. Shy, harmless animal with red fur and big tail, wandering the streets for bins. So I guess that makes me more of a true Londoner. Since then I open my eyes wide at night, and yesterday, I spotted number two, just in Offord Road in front of my house. The young, skinny fellow, seemed not afraid nor aggressive and let me approach within three meters (which makes one suspect some people might actually feed them). Then he continued his tour casually, slowly, in the middle of the road.
I say ‘my first fox’ because I understand it is a pretty common sight in the streets of Northern London at night-time.
I have been in London for more than two years now and I had not seen a single one. All my friends had had their glimpse of foxes, and some even saw one when leaving my flat one evening.
So I was frustrated and curious. Recently I saw a TV programme about the ‘tens of thousands’ of foxes estimated to live in London, most of them in the North. It is thought they live in parks and along railtracks, only going out at night to scavenge rubbish, rodents, hens. Londoners have mixed feelings for them. Some – like me – are excited at the idea of wildlife in the city and think foxes are cute ; but many just think foxes are a nuisance. Some animal lovers go fox-spotting at night ; but some exasperated poultry-owners whose hens were savaged by a fox, go and hire pest-controllers to kill the local fox. Yes many Londoners keep hens in their back yards and yes foxes are not a protected species: you are free to shoot one if you spot him in your garden.
So three weeks ago, a bit after midnight, coming back from Highbury and Islington tube station, I spotted in the distance a small animal crossing Station Road. It tought ‘it’s a very big cat’, then ‘oh no it’s a small dog’. Then I realise that was it – a fox, my first sight. Shy, harmless animal with red fur and big tail, wandering the streets for bins. So I guess that makes me more of a true Londoner. Since then I open my eyes wide at night, and yesterday, I spotted number two, just in Offord Road in front of my house. The young, skinny fellow, seemed not afraid nor aggressive and let me approach within three meters (which makes one suspect some people might actually feed them). Then he continued his tour casually, slowly, in the middle of the road.
Inscription à :
Articles (Atom)