The credit ratings agency, Moody’s, has given the UK a negative school report.  I try to quote from the source, so here’s what they say:

Moody’s changes the outlook on the United Kingdom’s Aaa rating to negative

Moody’s Investors Service has today changed the outlook on the United Kingdom’s Aaa government bond rating to negative from stable.

The key drivers of today’s action on the United Kingdom are:

1.) The increased uncertainty regarding the pace of fiscal consolidation in the UK due to materially weaker growth prospects over the next few years, with risks skewed to the downside. Any further abrupt economic or fiscal deterioration would put into question the government’s ability to place the debt burden on a downward trajectory by fiscal year 2015-16.

2.) Although the UK is outside the euro area, the high risk of further shocks (economic, financial, or political) within the currency union are exerting negative pressure on the UK’s Aaa rating given the country’s trade and financial links with the euro area. Overall, Moody’s believes that the considerable uncertainty over the prospects for institutional reform in the euro area and the region’s weak macroeconomic outlook will continue to weigh on already fragile market confidence across Europe.

How do we respond to this?

You can ask who the hell are these credit-rating agencies anyway?   That’s Alastair Campbell’s question (here).  And it’s worth asking.

You can claim that it supports your argument on austerity.  It doesn’t matter which side you’re on.  Labour claim it shows the plan’s not working.  Ed Balls says the brave thing now would be to admit that a change of course is necessary.

And arguing for a change of course is no more than the Tories did the last time this happened, in 2009, when Standard and Poor’s issued a similar warning. “It’s now clear that Britain’s economic reputation is on the line at the next general election, another reason for bringing the date forward and having that election now,” said the then Shadow Chancellor, George Osborne (21 May, 2009).

But George Osborne now argues the contrary – that the Moody’s news is an argument not to change course.  It is a “reality-check” that Britain “must not waver” in dealing with its debts.

To which the question must be asked: what would count as sufficient reason for a change of course?  If the austerity measures bite hard, they will reduce spending power, lower employment, reduce tax take and (no matter how hard we try) increase welfare spend.  Borrowing will therefore get worse.

If the response is then to tighten further, when will it ever stop?  It is a genuine question.

To put it another way: how bad would an economic spiral have to be before a change of course were justified?  As bad as Greece’s?  The answer to their nose dive seems to be: more of the same.  Ouch.

To put it another way: is there ever an economic question to which fiscal tightening is not the answer?  If the answer is no, then let’s not waste time with questions or economic metrics.  Who cares about evidence?

"Did you send me that Valentine's card?" "Maybe, maybe not."

To be fair to the Chancellor, Moody’s are keen on fiscal tightening too.  But here is what they say:

WHAT COULD MOVE THE RATING DOWN

The UK’s Aaa rating could potentially be downgraded if Moody’s were to conclude that debt metrics are unlikely to stabilise within the next 3-4 years, with the deficit, the overall debt burden and/or debt-financing costs continuing on a rising trend. This could happen in one of three scenarios, all of which would imply lower economic and/or government financial strength:
(1) a combination of significantly slower economic growth over a multi-year time horizon — perhaps due to persistent private-sector deleveraging and very weak growth in Europe — and reduced political commitment to fiscal consolidation, including discretionary fiscal loosening or a failure to respond to a deteriorating fiscal outlook;
(2) a sharp rise in debt-refinancing costs, possibly associated with an inflation shock or a deterioration in market confidence over a sustained period; or
(3) renewed problems in the banking sector that force a resumption of official support programmes and spill over into the real economy, indirectly causing lower growth and larger budget deficits.

Look at point 1.  Yes, Moody’s doesn’t like the idea of ‘discretionary’ fiscal loosening – for which read, ‘government losing its nerve’.  But before that, they fear ‘significantly slower economic growth… due to persistent private-sector deleveraging”.  For which read, ‘the private sector cutting and running.’

If you’ve ever read my blog, you’ll know which alarm bell bothers me most.  It’s the private sector running, in response to fiscal tightenings achieved and promised, and to the talking-down of expectations.  Who would invest in this climate?

But that is not my point today.  My point is this. On their own, the Moody’s Blues tell us nothing at all.

You can ask who the ratings agencies are to go around putting the wind up markets and governments, lecturing us in a brand of English that resorts to phrases like ‘multi-year time horizons’.

You can debate whether bad reports justify holding the course, or switching it.

But you still have to decide how to get out of the doldrums.  You have to decide whether fiscal tightening in the short run can work, or whether it is just so much dangerous leeching.

You still have to decide whether government gets out of the way, or whether government leads the way.

We like to have a bet on the BAFTA winners in our house.  Although two of us are BAFTA voters, we are privy to no inside-info.  The winner of the predictions game is usually our son Dante, who is good at the BAFTAs, but brilliant at the Oscars.

Meanwhile, let’s see if we’re right on this year’s BAFTAs.  Obviously these are predictions, not votes for who ought to win – that’s a whole ‘nother ball game.

Best Film
• The Artist
• The Descendants
• Drive
• The Help
• Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy

Dominic: The Artist
Sarah: The Artist
Dante: The Artist

Outstanding British Film:
• My Week With Marilyn
• Senna
• Shame
• Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy
• We Need To Talk About Kevin

Dominic:Kevin
Sarah: Shame
Dante: Tinker Tailor

Outstanding debut by a British writer, director or producer:
• Attack The Block – Joe Cornish (director/writer)
• Black Pond – Will Sharpe (director/writer), Tom Kingsley (director), Sarah Brocklehurst (producer)
• Coriolanus - Ralph Fiennes (director)
• Submarine - Richard Ayoade (director/writer)
• Tyrannosaur – Paddy Considine (director), Diarmid Scrimshaw (producer)

Dominic: Tyrannosaur
Sarah: Tyrannosaur
Dante: Tyrannosaur

Foreign language film:
• Incendies
• Pina
• Potiche
• A Separation
• The Skin I Live In

Dominic: Skin
Sarah: Pina
Dante: Skin

Director:
• The Artist - Michel Hazanavicius
• Drive - Nicolas Winding Refn
• Hugo - Martin Scorsese
• Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy – Tomas Alfredson
• We Need To Talk About Kevin – Lynne Ramsay

Dominic: Kevin
Sarah: Drive
Dante: Hugo

Leading actor:
• Brad Pitt – Moneyball
• Gary Oldman – Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy
• George Clooney – The Descendants
• Jean Dujardin - The Artist
• Michael Fassbender - Shame

Dominic: Jean Dujardin
Sarah: George Clooney
Dante: Gary Oldman

Leading actress:
• Berenice Bejo – The Artist
• Meryl Streep - The Iron Lady
• Michelle Williams - My Week With Marilyn
• Tilda Swinton - We Need To Talk About Kevin
• Viola Davis - The Help

Dominic: Meryl, Meryl, Meryl, must be Meryl…
Sarah: Meryl
Dante: Meryl

Supporting actor:
• Christopher Plummer – Beginners
• Jim Broadbent - The Iron Lady
• Jonah Hill – Moneyball
• Kenneth Branagh – My Week With Marilyn
• Philip Seymour Hoffman – The Ides Of March

Dominic: Hoffman
Sarah: Branagh
Dante: Branagh

Supporting actress:
• Carey Mulligan – Drive
• Jessica Chastain - The Help
• Judi Dench - My Week With Marilyn
• Melissa McCarthy – Bridesmaids
• Octavia Spencer - The Help

Dominic: Melissa McCarthy
Sarah: Carey Mulligan
Dante: Carey Mulligan

Documentary:
• George Harrison: Living In The Material World
• Project Nim
• Senna

Dominic: Senna
Sarah: Senna
Dante: Senna

Animated film:
• The Adventures Of Tintin: The Secret Of The Unicorn
• Arthur Christmas
• Rango

Dominic: Tintin
Sarah: Rango
Dante: Tintin

Original screenplay:
• The Artist - Michel Hazanavicius
• Bridesmaids - Annie Mumolo, Kristen Wiig
• The Guard - John Michael McDonagh
• The Iron Lady – Abi Morgan
• Midnight In Paris – Woody Allen

Dominic: Paris
Sarah: Paris
Dante: Paris

Adapted screenplay:
• The Descendants – Alexander Payne, Nat Faxon, Jim Rash
• The Help – Tate Taylor
• The Ides Of March – George Clooney, Grant Heslov, Beau Willimon
• Moneyball – Steven Zaillian, Aaron Sorkin
• Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy - Bridget O’Connor, Peter Straughan

Dominic: Ides
Sarah: Ides
Dante: Ides

Original music:
• The Artist
• The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo
• Hugo
• Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy
• War Horse

Dominic: Girl With The Dragon Tattoo
Sarah: Hugo
Dante: The Artist

Cinematography:
• The Artist
• The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo
• Hugo
• Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy
• War Horse

Dominic: The Artist
Sarah: The Artist
Dante: Hugo

Editing:
• The Artist
• Drive
• Hugo
• Senna
• Tinker Tailor Solider Spy

Dominic: Drive
Sarah: Drive
Dante: Drive

Production design:
• The Artist
• Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows: Part 2
• Hugo
• Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy
• War Horse

Dominic: Hugo
Sarah: Hugo
Dante: Hugo

Costume design:
• The Artist
• Hugo
• Jane Eyre
• Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy

Dominic: Tinker Tailor
Sarah: The Artist
Dante: The Artist

Make up & hair:
• The Artist
• Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows: Part 2
• Hugo
• The Iron Lady
• My Week With Marilyn

Dominic: Iron Lady
Sarah: Iron Lady
Dante: Iron Lady

Sound:
• The Artist
• Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows: Part 2
• Hugo
• Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy
• War Horse

Dominic: Hugo
Sarah: War Horse
Dante: War Horse

Special visual effects:
• The Adventures Of Tintin: The Secret Of The Unicorn
• Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows: Part 2
• Hugo
• Rise Of The Planet Of The Apes
• War Horse

Dominic: Harry Potter
Sarah: Harry Potter
Dante: Tintin

The Orange Wednesdays Rising Star Award (voted by the public)
• Adam Deacon
• Chris Hemsworth
• Chris O’Dowd
• Eddie Redmayne
• Tom Hiddleston

Dominic: Chris O’Dowd
Sarah: Eddie Redmayne
Dante: Chris O’Dowd

Edana Minghella, just one of my amazing sisters, has finally given in to our demands for a recorded album.

Here’s the press release:

Edana Minghella – ‘Still on my Feet’

Friday 11 November sees the release of the stunning debut album, ‘Still on my Feet’ by Brighton-based jazz singer, Edana Minghella. Featuring stellar contributions from the likes of Guy Barker and Liane Carroll, this classy collection of standard, and not so standard, tunes, marks Edana out as a ‘new’ jazz voice demanding to be heard.

The effortlessly tasteful backing of regular quartet, Mick Smith (piano), Ken Black (drums), Sarah Bolter (saxophones) and Pete Maxfield (double bass) only serves to reinforce the deep vein of cool that underpins each of the nine tracks on offer here.

“I hope people will pick up on the beauty of these tunes,” says Edana. “How jazz can have a wonderful simplicity, that talented musicians can deliver a ‘less is more’ feel to the music, even when there are strong emotions. And I do want people to be moved by the music.”

No danger there. With a close-up and deeply personal rendition of ‘You Don’t Know What Love Is’, which explodes into an emotionally shredding Barker trumpet solo at its finale, and a raw, yet stunningly controlled, interpretation of Joni Mitchell’s ‘Case of You’, it is clear that here is a singer, and woman, who has been forced to face some of life’s more painful, and bewildering, episodes head on.

“I chose those songs because they were in Ant’s films, says the singer,” (Edana’s elder brother is the Oscar-winning director, Anthony Minghella, who died tragically back in 2008). “They both have huge emotional resonance for me – and I think you hear it in my voice.”

And yet, being Edana, there’s room for effervescence and fun here too. ‘Fifty Ways To leave Your Lover’ teases its way on a stalking double bass before breaking into an outright 70s’ funk stomp that Stevie Wonder would be proud of, while ‘How Deep Is The Ocean’ simply bursts with the pure celebration of love itself.

Production credits on the album go to award-winning vocalist Liane Carroll. “Working with Liane was amazing,” enthuses Edana. “She is the most brilliant jazz vocalist so to have her involved was a real honour.”

The results of this collaboration speak for themselves on ‘Still on my Feet’.

Edana Minghella marks the album’s release with a string of live dates at: Quay Arts Centre, Newport IOW Friday 11 Nov, Bournemouth Swing Unlimited 30 Nov, Brighton The Brunswick 15 Dec and Colour House Theatre, Merton Abbey Mills 17 Dec.

For more information call Andy Strickland on 07803 212 095 or go to: www.edanaminghellajazz.com

Either way, one lick and it’s love!

Glad to see the Guardian agrees.

Most of the coverage, you’ll have noticed, is frighteningly shoddy, patronising, alarmist and cheap – everything we all hate about British politics.

Plus ca change.

But I’m not seeing much on the particular aspect which concerns me, so I’ll have to set it out myself.

It is the part of AV where it works as just its supporters hope it will. It’s also the very part of AV I don’t like.

Here goes. Bear with me. It’s not too nerdy. I promise.

Think of a constituency much like that of my home-town, the Isle of Wight.

Here the natural relative majority is Tory at, say, 45%.

(By “relative” majority, I mean more votes than any other candidate, but not more than half the vote – what the Americans sometimes call a “plurality”. More than 50% would be an “absolute” majority, and in that case AV would not apply.)

LibDems are second on, say, 31%.

Labour are very much third on, say, 20%. Other parties make up the remaining 5%.

Under FPTP, the Tories clearly win. Grrr.

I don’t live on the Isle of Wight anymore. In my day, a vote for Labour was a “wasted” vote and if you were left-minded, you voted Liberal instead. Steve Ross, our Liberal guy, had a strong personal vote, so voting tactically for him made real sense. He was our MP for many years in what I think is “really” a Tory seat.

These days Steve is gone and the seat is Tory-held on a relative (not absolute) majority.

Were I to return to the Island and cast my vote there, AV supporters would seek to console me.

They’d say – vote for Labour first, then LibDem second. If all your Labour colleagues do the same, then your combined vote will hit 51%, and the LibDem will get in. Otherwise your least favourite candidate, the Tory, will win the seat with just 45% under FPTP.

This is exactly the kind of situation in which AV shows its power.

It allows a “coalition of opposition” to the relative-majority candidate.

It delivers an MP with more “support” (51%) than the relative-majority Tory (45%) of the existing system.

And that has to be fairer, right?

Well, happy as I am in this imagined scenario to see the Tories lose, I just don’t think it’s fair.

I don’t think it’s fair that the second choices of me and my Labour mates are conjoined with the LibDem vote to trump the first-choices of the Tory voters.

My Labour candidate came last. His values and views are not widely supported in the local community. So why should his supporters’ second choices count equally against the first choices of the Tory candidate, who, after all, has more support in the community than any other single candidate?

What AV completely fails to take into account is strength of feeling. I really want Labour to win. My second choice might well be LibDem, but I don’t – in anything other than the technical sense – support the LibDems. At the moment, it is fairer to say I despise them.

At the same time, I have to accept that the Tory voters probably really want the Tory candidate to win. These strong preferences ought to count for much more than my very weak and reluctant second “preference” for the LibDem candidate.

They do not. The Tory voter’s strong first preferences are trumped by my weak and reluctant second preferences being lumped together with the support for the LibDem candidate.

In precisely the real-world example where AV might “work”, it delivers results which in my view are unfair.

There’s a cartoon going round saying AV is like ranking your preferences for Parma Violets, Smarties or dog shit.

If the shop doesn’t have those Parma Violets, and if you don’t (or can’t) identify Smarties as your second preference, you might just end up with a little stripey bag of dogshit.

Of course, this is a loaded and biased example.

Because Smarties are quite a nice second choice.

What if, like me – and I think like very many others – you want your first choice so much more than your subsequent choice that all the other choices are simply gradations of shit?

If everyone has the choice of sweeties or shit, then a system under which the most people get what they think is a sweetie is the fairest one.

That system is first past the post.

One last example. It’s loaded too, but it’s also a genuine story.

I remember one Christmas with the in-laws. You know the score. Eating and presents done, and all the family – aunts and cousins and all the generations – sits down to watch the TV. It’s a sticky moment: how to decide, in the company of people who come together once every other year, which channel to watch?

On this occasion, most wanted the action film. The youngsters piped up for a kids’ programme. But the old’uns didn’t want the action film or the kids’ programme. They wanted a musical. The line of least contention – everyone’s second choice – was, if I remember rightly, a game show.

It was a proper, polite, wholesome compromise. Some ten minutes in, I was bored out of my tiny mind. I looked around. The kids were bored too. So were the adults. So were the old’uns. Nobody was really watching. Nobody was getting what they wanted.

We had chosen our channel under a kind of impromptu AV. I remember wishing we’d done it on a show of hands: old-fashioned first past the post. At least then we’d have gone for the channel which made the biggest single group of people happy. Instead we were all sitting there politely enduring the compromise nobody wanted.

Strength of feeling matters. First choices matter. That’s why I’m voting No to AV.

The Indie journalist, blogger and tweeter Johann Hari posted an article today about Tory scare-mongering on the UK’s deficit.  (You can see it here.)

Hari calls the scaremongering the biggest lie in British politics.

Peter Hoskin, writing in The Spectator’s online “coffeehouse” has issued a swift rebuffal.  (You can see it here.)

One of Hoskin’s points is that the deficit (if not the debt) is the highest on record.  He produces a chart based on Treasury figures to prove his point.  (You can see it below.)

You may be surprised to know that I really like this chart.

Look at the ten Labour years before the crash in 2008.

See “Brown’s waste” there?  See Labour profligacy there?  See a decade of irresponsible spending there?

Me neither.

Harold Macmillan, when asked by a journalist what might blow a government off-course, replied, “Events, dear boy.  Events.”

As an interested, if not entirely innocent, bystander, I am following Opposition Labour’s discourse pretty closely.  It’s not a pretty sight.

Not because of the content – although there is precious little of that.

What worries me is the mood.  It is stuck.

Brave a Labour blog or a Guardian article on Labour’s future and it won’t be long before you come across a solemn sentence starting with the words, “Only when…” which goes on to bemoan the persistence of the party’s ghosts, and forlornly to lament the time required to heal.  Only when the past has been examined, understood, reconciled; only when apology has been issued and accepted; only when the contract between party and public has been redrafted and signed anew; only then will Labour come in, chastened, from the cold. The long march towards rehabilitation, on this gloomy and widely-shared analysis, might not be over in time for 2015.

But I’m not convinced that so much self-flagellation needs to be endured, that so much navel-gazing needs to be indulged in.  I think that with some shows of bold and charismatic leadership, some indications of fresh and intelligent policymaking and above all an injection of energy and confidence, the party could reposition itself in short order.  The requisite self-belief is not yet there, but it could easily come.

Remember how quickly the Tories and LibDems got into bed with each other?  They formed a legislative agenda and modus operandi in the space of a weekend.  Labour can and should aspire to such agility.

Managed properly, the public will not only not resist, but positively welcome the reinvigoration of Labour.  Last May was not so much a turning towards Conservatism as a turning away from some specific Labour problems; the public wanted change, but not so much that it really preferred the alternatives on offer.  Voters left it until the last minute to decide because the broad brush of what Labour stands for was, and is still, what the public wanted.  All parties claim to be progressive – for a reason.

I admit it’s only a hunch (and my old politics tutors would kill me for talking about “the public” as if it were one sentient being) but I have a hunch that that public doesn’t want atonement from Labour.  Last May, yes, it perhaps wanted to punish Labour.  It was uncomfortable with Iraq.  It was uncomfortable with Brown.  It was uncomfortable with the deficit.  But electoral defeat was the punishment, and it was instantaneous.  Look how new members – and old – flocked to the party in the days after the election.  The public can move on very swiftly.  It does not want to see Labour in a protracted period of psychoanalysis.  It wants a responsible, mature, vigorous Opposition.  Capable, if need be, of running the country.

The narrative on the economy must be sorted.  In the interregnum of last year, Labour failed to prevent the Tories branding the party as profligate.  That mud has stuck despite Ed Balls’ spirited start.   Labour now finds itself in the unhappy position of having to consider the old, humiliating strategy of promising to match the Tories’ spending plans in order to shield itself from attacks on the economy.  I’m not convinced it would work this time, or, even if it would work, whether it is the right strategy – given that the Tories’ spending plans are so repellent.  But that’s for a separate discussion.  (In the meantime Labour could recover ground with cleverer and more consistent use of language on all issues but particularly the economy.  This is a perennial problem for the more subtle economics of the left.  The right have this one easy; corner-shop speak is so much easier to sell.  “Maxing out the credit cards,” etc.)

But mostly my contention is that Labour will be ready when it decides to be ready.  And I hope/pray/worry that the day when it needs to be ready could be more imminent than most insiders seem to imagine.  The Coalition is not set in stone.  Libya could change everything.  The referendum could change everything.  Another economic crisis could change everything.  Not in 2015, but in months.

Events, dear boy.  Events.  Labour should stop atoning and start preparing.

Today Oxford came out as another university set to charge the maximum £9,000 fees.

If the Tory-led government’s actions were, as they claimed, a) “progressive” and b) not going to put poorer people off applying to university, why does Oxford have to spend 10% of its fee income “protecting access” for the disadvantaged?

Surely the government’s progressive loan repayment scheme has that covered?

I’m joking of course. There was nothing in the government shake-up that corresponds with any decent-person’s definition of “progressive.” The fact that a few graduates may pay a little less, or more slowly, doesn’t make it progressive. If I say water is now ten pounds a bottle, it is no defence that a few people, in certain constrained circumstances, might get it for a couple of quid. I’ve still made water a luxury item.

~ o ~

As a comprehensive schoolboy at Oxford, I was active in the “target schools” programme, encouraging those from state schools to apply to Oxbridge. In my experience the problem was not institutional bias against the state sector, but simply getting the state-sector applications in the first place. So I’m all for access. But I’m not sure I’d have been so keen to pay for the encouragement of others to apply. I’d have wanted every cent of my education fees spent on my education, thanks.

The truth about the government’s macho stance on access is that it will probably amount to nothing. Offa has a tiny staff and limited powers. If the government, driven by fears of the cost of financing higher-than-anticipated tuition fee loans, did give real teeth to Offa, it would be accused of social engineering in a cack-handed and unfair way. Above all, students would NOT see £2700 over three years spent on “broadening participation” as good value for their money.

So I think this element of the reforms will fizzle out in time. I suspect that’ll be fine by the government, because it will have served its purpose – namely to muddy up the debate on fees and to dress up dramatic cuts as moral righteousness. This “moral ingredient” strategy is successfully deployed by the government in many other areas. Don’t be fooled. If this government really valued access to higher education… well, it wouldn’t start from here.

The 3rd Annual Minghella Film Festival closed last night with a June Tabor concert in the unlikely – but wonderful – venue of Freshwater’s Memorial Hall. (June and her collaborator, pianist Huw Warren, needed a Steinway, and the Mem Hall has one, not to mention an established reputation for world-class concerts.)

June has been part of our family soundtrack ever since she recorded Anthony’s songs for the television version of his play, Whale Music, in 1982. It was such a thrill to have her on the Island and performing live, after nearly three decades of knowing her only through her recordings.

She themed her sets around ideas of the sea and our maritime history – appropriate to the Isle of Wight setting, but also to her latest album, Ashore.

It was a wonderful, transporting night. June doesn’t do frills, in music or in presentation. Her concession to image was a smart black Chinese silky jacket with red trim, but she wore it over what might have been her gardening clothes. On each wrist there was a watch, with the face inside rather than out. Her focus is on unadorned purity and simplicity of sound, and in this there is no lack of passion. At her most intense moments, as for example in her haunting solo King of Rome, she clenches her left fist in apparent pain.

Her voice is one of the most distinctive in English folk, resonant in the lower registers but with a capacity for dainty jauntiness when the mood takes her. Her speaking voice is surprising, almost girlish. She has no interest in being cool. She’ll sing daft ditties by William Makepeace Thackeray. Then she’ll take your breath away with a superb, simple, angry rendition of Elvis Costello’s Shipbuilding.

My favourite, King of Rome – I confess I requested it weeks in advance – tells the true story of Charlie, a pigeon racer from the west end of Derby, who sends his bird to Rome in 1913. On the day of the race, a storm blows in and a thousand birds are lost. Everyone tells him he should have known better. All that land and sea! Charlie says: “Yeah, I know – but I had to try. A man can crawl around, or he can learn to fly. And when you live round here, the ground seems awful near…”

That sense of dreams seeming a long way from coming true chimes with our experience of growing up on the Isle of Wight in the 1970s and 1980s. You looked across at Portsmouth and the mainland and you knew the action was somewhere that way, but never here. Youth was one big wait – for the time to go to college and not come back.

It’s not that we didn’t feel pride in the Island. We did. We felt a deep sense of belonging – to a place distinctive, beautiful and unique. You can’t grow up on the Island and not have the images of its cliffs and bays burned into your brain. You can’t spend your formative summers there without carrying forever the ability somehow to smell the warm red of its local brick. Nettles. 1976. Ladybirds. I can close my eyes any day in London and hear the old SRN6 Hovercraft booming across Ryde sands onto the slipway.

But you always knew you’d be going. And that created a forlorn relationship, not just between generations, but also between youth and home. The story, however idyllic, had tragedy built in. The Victorian shelters on the Esplanade, where small dramas of smoking and snogging were played out in grey off-season drizzle, were hardly “ours” any more than they belonged to summer’s “grockles”. Because we were all visitors in the end. Of all the inhaled images of the Island, the most intoxicating are those connected with arrivals and departures.

King of Rome speaks to me because it is about the need to dream and to act on dreams, however small. The possibility, even the likelihood, of being blown off course, swept away and never seen again. And despite that, the need to try. Anyone who grew up on the Island in that period knows that sensation.

When my brother was young, he used to accompany our granny down to the beach at Ryde, where she used to dream of love returning. Her sad story inspired Anthony to write, and to escape. The ground seemed awful near.

As June Tabor paints her picture of lost dreams, the hairs stand up on the back of your neck. You cannot help but wallow in the inexpressible sadness of it all. “Charlie we told you so. Surely by now you’d know – when you’re living in the west end, there ain’t many dreams come true.”

It comes as such a shock, even if you know the song, that suddenly there’s a wing-flash up in the blue; that the bird, after weeks of battling, has somehow made it back. Charlie come outside quick, he’s perched up on your roof! The King of Rome!

It is fitting, then, that the Film Festival inspired by Anthony happens on the Isle of Wight and not anywhere else. It’s where the dreams are formed that matters, not where they are played out. It’s about returning to the perch, coming home, about knowing where you belong.

If you can pin a life of achievement onto one moment, Anthony’s was perhaps Oscar night, 1997, when The English Patient swept the board. This was a film shot mostly, of course, in Rome. And feted five thousand miles away in LA.

And yet it felt like a homecoming. Nobody thought it was odd, least of all us, when he held his trophy aloft and declared, “this is a great day for the Isle of Wight.”

I’m genuinely interested in what motivates Conservatives.  I know some staunch supporters, including one substantial Tory donor, and they are not bad guys.  So I do wonder what it is that separates us.  Is it just an argument about how you get to a fairer, happier, more prosperous, more decent society?

Or is it an antecedent difference?  Are there different moral underpinnings?  I see Conservatism as the credo of the selfish – the antithesis of morality – but it has to be more complex than that.  I am pleased, therefore, to see that Tim Montgomerie is going to be writing a series on Conservative Home about the “moral truths of Conservatism”.  I’ll be following this with interest.

Tim Montgomerie’s opening salvo is linked below.  It has provoked my knee-jerk response.  But perhaps I’ll learn something as the instalments come in.

http://conservativehome.blogs.com/thetorydiary/2011/02/conservatives-must-fight-for-the-moral-high-ground.html

Tim says:

Conservative values are about personal responsibility; rewarding effort; standing by people who save for the future; honouring veterans and those who put something back into the community, rather than always taking from it; protecting the most disadvantaged.

To which I say:

“Conservative values are about personal responsibility;”

i.e. not helping others, but, rather, insisting they help themselves. Not hugely kind. Not hugely moral.

“rewarding effort;”

one would hope that effort rewards itself both personally and financially and doesn’t much require government intervention. Unless “rewarding effort” is code for cutting taxes, which of course fits with not helping others (see above) because it reduces the scope for government to redistribute.

“standing by people who save for the future;”

what does standing by savers mean? Increasing interest rates? Surely not. Or punishing those who cannot save? Or targetting those who will not save? Keeping inflation down?  (As if anybody believes in promoting inflation.) I just don’t know what ”standing by” savers means.

“honouring veterans and those who put something back into the community, rather than always taking from it;”

hard to argue with that.  But is it the unique territory of Conservatism?  Don’t we all honour those who give, those who give back?

“protecting the most disadvantaged.”

Hurrah!  Shame the disadvantaged are last on the list!