Moving

I've moved.

I'm now at:

http://trainsofthoughtlondon.wordpress.com/

Looking forward to seeing you there

Nine Elms

Have you been to Nine Elms recently? It’s changed a lot!

Last time I was there, it was purely industrial. Today, it is a sea of housing developers’ flags and echoes to the sound of foundations being dug.

I was there visiting a friend in a flat in Battersea. There are about to be a lot more new flats in the huge triangle of land that sits between Vauxhall, Battersea Power Station and the Thames.

Unfortunately, while it is new, it is also plug ugly. Unlike the Olympic Park, now being carefully designed and directed by the planners from the Mayor’s office, this prime residential land almost opposite Westminster is too valuable to be properly planned. It is being developed in direct response to prospective buyers who want shiny, smart, international style flats that could be anywhere. London is simply where they land thanks to a coincidence of tax and time zone.

While I find it ugly, perhaps I should accept that London has always bent and bowed to suit various wave of immigration. If you visit the East End, you’ll find mosques that were synagogues that were churches. However, there is a part of me that warms to the fact that previous generations of immigrants have painted their own veneer onto the canvass of traditional London terraces. While many of the new, international elite are repeating this approach (think of all the Belgravia terraces and their subterranean swimming pools), those buying off plan in Nine Elms are buying a bland vision of the anonymous international city. It’s what they want, but I find it a shame.

Thankfully, Battersea power station sits in the centre of the new development, anchoring the area to its past. In the meantime, my plea to the developers is to remember the relationship between what you’re building and the city in which your residents will be living. The principles of integration should apply to oligarchs’ architecture as well as asylum seekers.

Running late...

... I said I'll post every Wednesday and, so far, I've not done too badly.

This week, however, I've been overtaken by various work events that are urgent if not important.

However, I'll see you back here tomorrow for a description of Nine Elms.

I'm sure you can't wait...

Learning from the Pope

The resignation of the Pope reflects one of the more welcome trends of the last century; the tendency towards competence in public office. For the first time ever, the Pope didn't resign because he was forced out by a cabal of cardinals; he resigned because he felt he was no longer up to the job.

This is a surprisingly recent idea. While the applicant's ability to do a job has always been considered relevant to an appointment, it has generally been a relatively minor consideration; to be prioritised below social class or divine influence.

Indeed, our largely accidental empire emerged as a result of the extreme incompetence of much of our then-new civil service. A British tradition of muddling through (in which we took considerable pride) allowed commercial entities to build vast imperial interests, before collapsing and being taken over by the state.

The assumption of a ruling class destined to lead a worker class regardless of ability continued to permeate British corporate life right through to the sixties and seventies.

Today, we assume that anyone competent to do a job should obviously be permitted to do it. That's why arguments about female bishops make the Church of England look so absurd to the majority.

You only have to look at the challenges faced by another country of a similar size to ours to see how far we’ve come. Japan, another similarly industrialised country, is allowing itself to become ever more weighed down by the weight of incompetent leaders kept in post by long service, dynastic loyalty or a fear of change.

While everyone who works in any organisation is certain that their boss is an incompetent joker who can only have got the job through offering sexual favours to his or her equally incompetent manager, it is probably true that, overall, our institutions are currently led by a more competent group of individuals than at any point in the past thousand years (I make no comment on the administrative capabilities of the Romans - looking from the outside, they seem pretty much up to the mark).

There is, however, a glaring exception. One area of British life in which competence is not considered and where the old Imperial traditional of muddling through reigns supreme. This is, of course, Government.

To quote Sir Humphrey:
 
Bernard, there are only six hundred and thirty MPs. If one party has just over three hundred it forms a government. Of that three hundred one hundred are too old and silly, one hundred are too young and too callow, which leaves just about a hundred MP’s to fill one hundred governmental posts. There’s no choice at all, they’ve had no selection, no training.

Not much has changed in the last thirty years. I'm not sure I can think of a single member of the cabinet who has proven competence in policy development, change management or leadership - surely the definition of the job of a cabinet minister.

In the US, the President's cabinet is appointed from the widest possible field of possible competent candidate. That's why Barack Obama, when first elected in 2008, appointed a Republican as Defence Secretary and his arch-rival as Secretary of State.

Now that even Popes have to be able to live up to performance standards, how about we take a lead from the Catholic church and adopt the principle of competence in our political life? It’s only an idea, but surely worth trying? All it would require is for Prime Ministers to be able to appoint the best person for the job to be Government ministers as opposed to MPs, and for a mechanism to be developed for them to be held accountable by Parliament.

Meanwhile, this is presumably only a first step for the Catholic church? Given the acceptance that the Pope should be competent, surely the next step must be for the Pope to be the most competent person possible. Running an organisation with a budget of billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of people requires highly specialist skills. Sir Terry Leahy, recently retired from Tesco, might be just the man. A dedicated Everton fan (the footballing branch of the Catholic faith), Sir Terry's loyalty card experience might be just what the ailing European branch of the church is looking for. And it would mean that, for the first time, the correct answer to the question "Is the Pope a Catholic?" would be "Not necessarily, but he’s great at consumer segmentation"...

 

Echoes

On Sunday, we walked from the Golden Hinde at London Bridge to Hatton Garden. The reason for the walk was entirely prosaic, taking us from the place we had lunch to the place we were having tea.

Hatton Garden, in Clerkenwell, is named after Christopher Hatton, Lord Chancellor of England under Elizabeth I. A favourite of the Queen, in 1581 he was given the garden of the Bishop of Ely’s palace. The site has carried his name ever since (the site of the old palace, incidentally, is the adjacent Ely Place).

Hatton Garden was just one of the many signs of Elizabeth’s favour that enabled him to become fabulously rich. He built Holdenby House, then the largest private house in the land. The extravagance of Holdenby left Hatton nearly bankrupt, and he started investing in the voyages of Francis Drake to rebuild his wealth. The attempt failed and he died penniless, but not before Drake renamed his ship “The Golden Hind” in his honour (his coat of arms was topped by the image of a golden hind).

 

Perhaps this could be a new game. Based on the idea of six degrees of separation, find the historical link between any two places in central London. Given this city’s rich history, it’ll be there…

Home sweet home office?

On Sunday, I had coffee in Somerset House. It was very nice, thank you.

The week before, I had visited the Government building in Marsham Street; home of the Home Office.

It got me thinking.

These two buildings are almost identical, other than being built 200 years apart. Both are prestige buildings for civil servants, with money spent on projecting the spirit of the age.

Somerset House was built in 1776 and was the first major building intended exclusively as Government offices. Designed by William Chambers, best known for the Gold State Coach that is seen only at monarchs’ coronations, it is a building that expresses the confidence of an emerging imperial power in the grand Palladian style that was about to pass out of fashion.

2 Marsham Street, the Home Office building, was designed in 2005 by Terry Farrell, Britain’s leading postmodern architect. Commissioned in the age of “cool Britannia”, it is expensive (£331m; or a fiver from each of us) and expansive. Terry Farrell’s a good chap, as recent architects go. He built Charing Cross station, which I think is the best new riverside building in central London. He built TV-AM in Camden which I don’t love, but many do. He rescued Paternoster Square from 1960s hell. Oh, and he built the MI6 building that James Bond made famous.

If anyone could build today’s successor to Somerset House, it would be Terry Farrell.

So… why is it not as good? Is it simply the cynicism of our age? In 200 years’ time, will our descendants kick out the civil servants from 2 Marsham Street (as we did from Somerset House in 2009), unable to comprehend such a glorious building not being open to all? Will it become a focal point, as Somerset House has become? I don’t know, but somehow, I doubt it.

The Gherkin is fabulous. So is Canary Wharf tube station. And Southwark. And the British Library (from the inside). However, these buildings are huge, subterranean or only beautiful from within. We seem to have lost the knack of making truly beautiful buildings that enhance the streets they sit in.

Why?

Not quite a democracy...

Did you know that an election for a London public body will take place next month with just 160 voters from a resident population of over 100,000? I live in the area but am unable to vote, as this is one of the last remaining elections in which a property qualification applies. Not owning the requisite half acre of land, I am disenfranchised. If you lived round here, you probably would be too.

The election takes place on the 27^th February and is for the position of Verderer of Epping Forest.

Epping Forest is London’s largest open space. Misguided West Londoners tend to believe that this distinction belongs to Wimbledon Common, Richmond Park or Hampstead Heath but they are wrong. These spaces may be more famous for their wombles, deer and cruising gentlemen, but Epping Forest has more space, more trees and much, much more antiquity.

A direct descendent from the Forest of Essex (which, nine hundred years ago, covered the entire county), Epping Forest is one of only 5 sites in Britain with more than 2,000 ancient trees (containing a remarkable 50,000 trees over 400 years old).

Despite the impressive flora, the word forest, in this context, means a royal hunting ground, not a woodland. In order to protect the deer and boar prized by the monarch, a discrete legal code evolved known as forest law. Forest law was enforced through a dedicated network of courts (the Forest Eyre and the Swainmote), and built on the network of Verderers.

Verderers were the people who were responsible for maintaining the ‘vert’ (the vegetation of the forest; from which the name derives) and the ‘venison’ (the hunting animals which relied on the vert) for the King. They acted as a cross between magistrates (enforcing sanctions for infringement) and administrators (approving sale of timber and regulating enclosure). While elected by the local freemen, their duty was to the King.

Five hundred years have passed since forest law drifted into disuse and the role of Verderer is redundant through most of England. A handful of us, however, still get the right to elect four Verderers every seven years. Well, we do if we fulfil the legal requirements to be registered as a Commoner of the Forest. These are that you “you must own or occupy not less than half an acre of land not covered by buildings within the ancient boundary of Epping Forest… as set forth in the perambulation made by authority of Parliament in the 17th year of King Charles I.”

I’m OK on the boundary – the official map published by the City of London corporation may not include my house (and my road is marked as an unpaved track) but it’s clearly where I now live. However, my garden is about half an acre short of the required half acre. Bizarrely, I could stand - but wouldn't then be able to vote for myself.

In 1878, Epping Forest was disafforested. This meant that, legally, the forest was no longer a royal hunting ground and forest law (in practice, hardly ever enforced) no longer applied. Instead, the Epping Forest Act 1878 handed stewardship of the Forest (slightly surreally) to the City of London Corporation: the governing body of the square mile of the City of London; itself the world’s oldest continuously elected local Government with a Royal Charter dating back to 1327.

In 1971, all elements of forest law (by then, Britain's oldest statute) was abolished… with the exception of the appointment of verderers for the three remaining former royal forests (the New Forest, the Forest of Dean and Epping Forest). In these three forests, a tiny thread of Norman legislation remains.

So, should you have half an acre of land (not covered by buildings, remember) in this this area, then now is the time to register. As you can see, you've got until 29th January to get your name added and to become part of nine hundred years of forest history.

If, on the other hand, you would rather simply go for a walk in the woods, then you could do that instead.  Epping Forest is about a ten minute walk from Trainsofthought Towers and the reason I'm thinking about it this week is that, regardless of how it’s governed, it is stunning in the snow. On Sunday, I took my rather chilly three-year old daughter for a rather chilly walk. The trees were perfectly traced with snow and the entire landscape was monochrome. It was beautiful. Then we threw snowballs.