Howard Jackson

The name alone tests belief, makes us wonder what happens in the mansions of our rulers.  Johnny Cash was right to invoke our

Abingdon School

sympathy for ‘A Boy Named Sue’ but even Johnny failed to imagine the double whammy inherited by the Minister for the Cabinet Office.   Even if most of it was spent at £10,000 a term Abingdon School, Francis or Maude must have had a complicated childhood.  Maybe somebody assumed his names would toughen him and anticipated Francis or Maude battling the school rugger team, similar to what happened to Sue in the Johnny Cash song.   David Cameron understands public school privations as well as anyone although his schooling was only at the charity institution Eton College where as many as thirty boys (whose noses presumably point sideways) do not pay any fees at all.  Cameron probably concluded that the harsh existence of Francis or Maude made him favourite to deal with the civil contingencies his policies would create.   Cameron told the others, ‘When the going gets tough you find a man called Sue or Francis or Maude.’

These are cheap jibes, I know, but the history of satire and politics in Britain up till now has been simple and crude.   When the programme, ‘That Was The Week That Was’, first appeared on TV the satirists were content to giggle at the absurdities of politicians.   They accused them of not being very bright and not much more.  Fifty years ago, though, politicians had tried to appeal to as many voters as possible.  The political parties lined up on the left and the right because that is where politicians were supposed to be.   They represented themselves, the powerful and sometimes even the powerless but whatever their bias they assumed some responsibility to everyone.  Difficult issues that divided the nation were referred to cross party committees and parliamentary commissions.   Consensus was considered desirable.   These courtesies were shattered in the sixties by trenchant and rebellious teenagers.  An absence of manners and an unwillingness to compromise led eventually to a much more abrasive revolutionary champion.  She was called Margaret Thatcher.   Not quite what the left expected but there is a history of unintended consequences and the young of the sixties were always casual about history.   As politics changed so did the satire.   The gentle reminders of ‘That Was The Week That Was’ were replaced by the savage insults of ‘Spitting Image’.   There is a cliché, long unfashionable, that a nation gets the government it deserves.   The same can be said of politicians and satire.   They started the nastiness so they should not be surprised that they are now held to account through foul mouthed ridicule.   Thatcher probably relished such attention, was happy to bathe in a fame that left its stain.   She liked it rough and tough and the head butting puppet of ‘Spitting’ defined her well.

Nobody, though, could have anticipated what followed.  Now the politicians satirise themselves before the satirists.    When did this phenomenon begin?  Was it Tony Blair walking across Camp David, a man with too many teeth wearing too tight trousers and pretending to be a cowboy?   It could have been the palpably false break in the voice when he announced the news about Princess Diana.  Actually, there are too many Tony Blair moments for anyone to say.   Nor should we forget Thatcher on the tank, wearing goggles and wrapped inside freshly laundered white linen.  The moment we saw a crazed woman pretending to be Lawrence of Arabia, Boadicea and John Wayne (take your pick), a nightmare filtered through shimmering desert heat.  The unthinkable had happened.  The politicians were now more terrifying than the puppets on ‘Spitting Image’.

Francis Maude should not be in this company.  He is too like the quiet bloke in those sinister ensemble scenes that occur in a Shakespeare play.   Maude is the gang member whom we imagine saying something like, ‘Perhaps Richard we should count to ten.’    His ability to look harmless has been his political skill.   He can talk about vindictive social engineering and pretend it is logical and essential.   They all do it, of course, but Maude sounds as if he actually believes it, although forty years of neoliberalism has given him plenty of practice.   Cameron is different, he sounds like he is preparing to sell you an encyclopedia.

Last week, though, Francis or Maude acquired a taste for satire and to describe the absurdity of what happened is beyond me.  Imagine this; a minister says that he had no intention of causing a panic by telling people to fill their car fuel tanks.  He only wanted to remind the British people to take sensible precautions.   This is the same British people who have created a Christmas of such excessive consumption and indulgence that even God has abandoned the festival.  The supermarkets are closed for Christmas Day and the people immediately forfeit their favourite carol and sing ‘Please, please, tell us where we can get our bread?’  Less than twenty four hours after Francis or Maude had issued his ‘sensible precaution’ garages were putting up signs that said ‘No petrol for sale.’    That’s right; Francis Maude is one of the people who run the country.   What a pity they cannot swap places with the rioters.  We might have effective government and ineffectual riots.    Inevitably, the response has been quick.   One blog talked about a pending tax on sex and an outbreak of panic shagging by the Brits.  I know, I try to keep the blog family friendly but the image is irresistible and, I hate to say, the notion all too plausible.

But everybody makes mistakes and a slip of the tongue can happen to anyone.  Unfortunately, Francis or Maude also came up with the idea that we should store petrol in our garages, later described as ‘sensible topping up’.  ‘We meant a couple of pints, no more.’  One woman, unaware that Francis or Maude was a devotee of Bertholt Brecht, assumed he was serious and the result was that she was taken to hospital with 40% burns.   And if that is not enough to leave you flabbergasted, not only is Francis or Maude still in a job there are Tories claiming that his comments show a brilliant grasp of strategy.   ‘Look how he has put Unite and Len McCluskey on the back foot,’ say some.   Indeed, William Hague is still defending these remarks as practical advice but then the man whose baseball cap was an earlier defining satirical moment has always played his part.

Elvis was surrounded by idiots and it is tempting to line them up and pick a corresponding character.   But maybe the connection is more abstract than that.  This is about the urge of the famous and powerful to be absurd.   The phenomenon of politicians ridiculing themsleves is mirrored by the descent of Elvis into bizarre and excessive caricature.   Think of Francis or Maude but do not think of the usual Elvis villains – Parker and RCA and so on.   No, remember the white suit and Elvis stoned in the Jungle Room.  It might just give us an idea of what happens to politicians who think their personal whims should define the lives of others.

If you want to read about Elvis and much more click here.

Q.  What is being planned for the future after ‘Treat Me Nice’?

A.  ‘Innocent Mosquitoes’ is being proof read and when this is complete it will be sent to Robin Castle who is responsible for designing the covers and preparing the artwork for all of the books published by Red Rattle Books.  Once this is done it will go for printing and after that it will be made available on Amazon and in bookstores.   Our objective is that readers will be able to purchase the book from Amazon in May.

Q. ‘Innocent Mosquitoes’ sounds very different from the book ‘Treat Me Nice’.

A.  Yes it is although there are two very brief references to Elvis in the book.  The subject, though, is completely different and so is the writing style.   ‘Innocent Mosquitoes’ is a much lighter read than ‘Treat Me Nice’.   We think ‘Innocent Mosquitoes’ will appeal to book clubs, especially those that embrace a wide range of readers.   Indeed, we have already had interest from book clubs.

Q.  So why did you write something so different?’

A.  Because I went to Brazil and because I was interested in the story of Canudos where 30,000 people were slaughtered.   I thought an account of the month long journey and the history of Canudos and Brazil would make a good book.   The style of ‘Treat Me Nice’ was designed to establish accuracy and critical authority.  ‘Innocent Mosquitoes’ evokes the atmosphere of Brazil and the mood of the character.

Q.  Will the Elvis Presley Challenges continue?

A.  Yes they will because they are rapidly increasing in popularity.  The intention is to do at least 53 Challenges.  When they are complete it will amount to year of Elvis Presley Challenges.   Read together they will not only give plenty of information about Elvis and other music figures but also provide a not too serious political almanac.   And, of course ‘Treat Me Nice’ is still available for those people who have not yet bought a copy.

Q. I noticed that one of The Elvis Presley Challenges reviewed the book, ‘The Courageous State’, by the economist Richard Murphy.

A.  I have an interest in economics.  I would think that half the books I read are about economics and the financial crisis.

Q.  Do you read economic text books whilst you listen to Elvis?

A  I do that quite often.   I liked the economist who said on the Richard Murphy blog that Elvis would be no worse running the economy than George Osborne.  Of course, that wouldn’t be difficult.

Q.  The challenge last week was Big Al Downing and you included a musical clip.  Are you going to do that more in the future?

A.  Yes, I probably will.   I should have thought of it before.

Q.  What or who is the next challenge about?

A.   Don’t know yet.   What do you think?

Q.   I think Francis Maude would be quite good.

A.  It could well be.

Q.  Which are the most popular blogs, the musical or the political?

A  They are about the same.

Q.  You are also working for Red Rattle Books?

A  I am but I am in the process of becoming a partner with the company.   They publish my books and I work for them as an editor.  I am now very involved with the company.  I think what the company is trying to do is worthwhile especially as the publishing industry is changing so rapidly and life is getting much tougher for authors.   Red Rattle supports new authors and gives them a first stepping stone in a literary career.  Our plan is to not only publish books by new authors but guarantee that the book they write after the one we publish is read and considered seriously by a prestigous literary agency.   This gives them a shot at the big time so to speak.  This access is not currently available to new authors.

Q.  Which agency is that?

A.  We can’t say at the moment but after we visit the London Book Fair this month we have a meeting in London with an agency and are quite excited by what we might achieve.

Q.   Is there a website that provides details about Red Rattle and tells authors how to contact Red Rattle?

A. Yes and it has links that produce the contact E mail address but if you do not have an email account on your computer you will not be able to send emails direct.   Going into your gmail account via the website is not possible.  It is simple enough, though, to copy and paste the address.   The website was designed and constructed by Wim Folkers who is based in Brussels.

Q.  Will you only publish books by new authors?

A.  No, we will also publish literary and cult classics.   A varied list supports the authors and gives the reader a more interesting choice.

Q.  Any literary classics in mind?

A. ‘Frankenstein’ by Mary Shelley would be a good place to start.

Q.  I should have guessed.  Tell me about ‘Crime Chronicles’.

A. This was set up by Gisela Lehmer who is based in Berlin and Irene Keith who is based in Brussels.  They are interested in reviewing and promoting crime fiction.   So far I have reviewed a couple of books and written an editorial.  The Romanian thriller ‘Attack In The Library’ has just arrived from the publisher and I will review that this week.  ‘Crime Chronicles’ also uses other writers and reviewers.   There is plenty to read on the website.   Wim Folkers also constructed this website.   The illustrations are particularly good.   The website is especially relevant as more mainland and East European crime fiction is being translated into English.   Gisela and Irene are very interested in how the crime genres of individual countries have different styles and concerns.

Q. With the work that you are doing on Red Rattle Books, the Elvis Presley Challenge and ‘Crime Chronicles’ do you have time to write your own books?

A.  It is sometimes difficult but I am still writing both fiction and non-fiction.   There will be more books to follow ‘Innocent Mosquitoes’.

Q. I really enjoyed reading the book ‘Innocent Mosquitoes’.  I liked the way it makes you laugh and cry.   But then I really liked ‘Treat Me Nice’ because I am an Elvis fan and it is so pleasant to read a book that takes him and his music seriously.

A  Thank you and thanks for suggesting Francis Maude for a future challenge.

These are the website addresses for Red Rattle Books and Crime Chronicles.

http://www.redrattlebooks.co.uk/

http://www.crimechronicles.co.uk/

In his 68 TV Special Elvis Presley says something like, ‘I’d like to do my favourite Christmas song, of all the ones I’ve recorded.’   He plays and sings ‘Blue Christmas.’   The scene deceives the viewer.  The song ‘Blue Christmas’ was not actually played in the sit down session where he revealed his favourite Christmas song.   Presley preferred the much bluesier ‘Santa Claus Is Back In Town.’   The TV version of ‘Blue Christmas’ remains essential because half way through Elvis urges his musicians to ‘play it dirty’.   In an instant, Elvis reveals his notion of what constituted grit and fire and we understand immediately how he differed from his critics.   He saw potential for rebellion and protest in the unlikeliest places.   I really only mention it because Big Al Downing plays it dirty, too, and like Elvis his music came from or finished in odd places.

In his biography ‘Elvis’, the muck raker Albert Goldman attempts to dismiss Elvis as no more than a mimic.   Goldman is half right; Elvis did have a talent for mimicry.  His imitation of an upper class Englishman on an alternative take of ‘Is It So Strange’ is both hilarious and eerily accurate.   Goldman conveniently forgot, though, that his ability to bend his voice enabled Elvis to create styles that were unique to him.   Big Al is not as original as Elvis but he is a talented mimic and it meant that he would never be restricted to a solitary genre.

Big Al was noticed by the English on a compilation based on the UK record label, Sue.   The label combined 60s soul music with tougher rhythm and blues.   The music on Sue ranged from Major Lance to Howling Wolf.   Big Al was probably included because he was black and because ‘Yes I’m Loving You’ is such a great record.    Nobody complained that a compilation of rhythm and blues and soul included an archetypal rockabilly hit because nobody really noticed.   There is a website that honours Charlie Gillet.  He was a DJ on Radio London and author of ‘The Sound Of The City’ which provides a very good history of rock and roll and rhythm and blues.  Gillett is now dead and the website evokes a poorly maintained grave.  Some of the comments are quite old.  The hit ‘Yes I’m Loving You’ is mentioned.  One person says that the record is just Fats Domino.   Another disagrees and urges us to listen to the rockabilly guitar solo.   The guitar afficianado understands correctly that ‘Yes I’m Loving You’ owes more to Memphis than New Orleans.  But if UK soul and rhythm and blues fans listened to their Sue compilation and missed the dose of rockabilly planted in the middle it is understandable that someone today can hear the record and only hear Fats.

The Fat Man was an influence on Big Al who could and does recreate him when required.  His versions of ‘When My Blue Moon Turns to Gold Again’ and ‘It Must Be Love’ sound as if they were recorded by Fats himself.  Big Al is not as versatile as Elvis but he he could create more sounds than most and he could impersonate virtually anyone.  Later in his career, this would become a feature of Big Al’s stage show.  He would do impressions of Elvis, Jerry Lee, Little Richard and the rest.   On stage the impressions were choreographed.  On record he was less disciplined and Big Al somewhat endearingly often forgot who he was impersonating.  The best example is ‘Oh Babe’ that mixes Larry Williams, Little Richard and Fats Domino in one record.  Neither was he slavish about matching voices to the arrangements we associate with those voices.   His Little Richard impersonation could feature on a rockabilly track and his Fats could appear on a pumping Little Richard style rocker.   The results are initially confusing but subsequently educational and always exhilarating.

Still available is a four set compilation of rock and roll that is identified by the word ‘sugar’ in the title.   These sets consist of three CDs.  The set ‘Raunchy Sugar’ is devoted to Memphis rockabilly and there are two sets called ‘Heavy Sugar’ which concentrate on New Orleans rhythm and blues.   The Memphis set has a photograph of Elvis indolently accepting female adoration.   The New Orleans collection has Fats looking into a pot of gumbo that is being prepared by his wife.   Both men were more complicated than this attempt at thumbprints.   Fats strayed from sexual fidelity and Elvis, as my grandmother used to say, liked his chuck.

Listening to these sets back to back is illluminating.   The arrangements are obviously different.  The Memphis records have sparse instrumentation and feature bold and prominent guitar solos.  The New Orleans records have driving horn riffs.  They may have played it differently but in the fifties the musicians in the two cities heard and played something new.   Obviously, rockabilly fed from rhythm and blues and black music. Fats Domino was making rock and roll records before the white boys in Memphis.   But listen to the CDs back to back and it is clear that the music of each city influenced the other.  Riffs appear in New Orleans records that surprise you and the same happens with some of the hits from Memphis.   There were links.

Rock and roll may be simple, and instinct is important so sometimes the musicians would not have realised that they were importing ideas.   Awareness, though, is obliged to intrude.   The curious and the opportunists are always present.   This is why Elvis and Big Al Downing are important.   Both men could reproduce easily what they heard around them and both were interested in ‘all kinds’.   Much has been written about how Elvis found inspiration in black music.   Less is said about the black musicians who were as curious about white music.   The interest of Ray Charles in country music is well known but he was not alone.   There are two fabulous CDs available called ‘Dirty Laundry’ and these collections document effectively how many black musicians were obliged to record country material simply because it was there, because it was different and sometimes because somebody said they should not.  There were also many black musicians who because of temperament were drawn towards country music but failed because black musicians were not welcomed.   Elvis was white and he had the freedom to cross genres.

Times changed allowing the curious Big Al Downing to add country music to his reportoire as he became older.   Eventually, he was inducted into the Rockabilly Hall Of Fame and secured a nomination as Best New Artist by the Academy Of Country Music.   Elvis made rock and roll acceptable to a pop audience and later his music changed in ways nobody could have predicted.  Goldman never persuaded his readers that Elvis was only a mimic but too many are prepared to dismiss Big Al as a follower.   They should listen to his classics like ‘Down On The Farm’ and ‘Georgia Slop’.   His great moments alone are important but before you seriously assess the man listen to the music of Memphis and New Orleans.   Discover what kept the music distinct but also what pulled it together.   The romantic myth is that rock and roll was sourced by originals.  They played their part but the others should also be remembered.  The missing links – the mimics, the opportunists and the curious – are not often given the credit they deserve.

If you want to read about Elvis, rock and roll and much more click here.

And now for some Big Al Downing

His original name was George Gideon Oliver Osborne but at the age of thirteen years he dropped the name Gideon.  He wanted to be considered normal like his other chums at his expensive London private school.   It clearly failed because Osborne more than any other Cabinet minister looks like the man ready to pull the switch on the gas oven.  He has a vampire smirk that suggests his dark desires will prevail or as Ann Widdicombe once famously said about Michael Howard, ‘There is something about the night about him.’  There have even been rumours about Osborne salivating over cocaine lines with eccentric ladies giggling sweet Gideons in his ear.   But at least he tried.   Some have alleged that the name change was done deliberately to help his career in politics.   Something helped him switch jobs from stacking shelves in Sainsburys to discussing policy in Conservative Central Office.    This happened very quickly; think about Robert Johnson at the crossroads where he became a guitar genius.   The fans of Robert Johnson believe the bluesman sold his soul to the devil.    Most Tories become blank eyed when you mention the devil but a few wonder if perhaps Satan really did put a hand on the shoulder of one of his favourite vampires.

For many on the left, Osborne is the most hateable of those within the present government.  Cameron is more of an empty headed performer than a vicious architect.  We may not like his friends but Cameron is at least nice to his own.  George Oliver is an almost unique mix of social advantage and sycophancy.  His haters think of the photograph of Osborne out in the countryside shooting grouse.   Osborne looks like a parvenu, a spare part amidst all the wellingtons and waxed jackets.  The effect is odd, even mysterious considering his private education, privilege and wealth.   Osborne likes to pretend his family was a typical hard working family of wallpaper manufacturers.  This may explain some of the stickiness but the wealth of the family has benefited much from their membership of the British aristocracy.   Inevitably, his education was ultra expensive but in the case of our economic tiller the return was poor.   Osborne graduated from Oxford with a 2-1 in Modern History.    This can be roughly trranslated as thick posh.   So the left not only hate him, he makes them feel superior.   But he is not the first Tory averse to intellectual curiosity.  He is amongst friends and that helps.

One characteristic above all enrages his enemies.   George Oliver Osborne appears to care about nothing or no one other than himself.    When he inadequately explains his policies and argues incorrectly that high income tax discourages investment (not that 50% on income over £150,000 is high) it becomes clear that he has one ambition and that is to pass money from the poor to the rich.   So far his performance as a chancellor has been awful.   Economic growth, employment, investment have all deteriorated and Britain’s credit rating has acquired hostile caveats.   He persists, though, in arguing that Britain needs more neo-liberalism economics.   He claims that he is friendly to business and understands business but his desire to cut the welfare state indicates a man who has failed to grasp the principles of limited liability.  This exists to ensure that businessmen do not go bankrupt only their businesses.  It is how businessmen and businesswomen are given a second chance.   The welfare state is limited liability for the rest of us.   It allows us to start again after misfortune.   But in case you believed his shameless phrase ‘we are all in it together’ George is not really an equality man.  When it comes to limited liability ordinary people will just have to miss out.  To quote Polly Toynbee from The Guardian, ‘In the US and UK the gap between the income of the top 10% and the bottom 10% multiplied by 14 times in the last 25 years.’   She should have added that growth rates have been disappointing throughout that period, half of what they were when the rich paid high rates of tax on incomes over £150,000.   But the great blunderer does not do statistics and his dewy eyed view of laissez faire indicates he is also averse to modern history.   He has been lucky.  He suits this modern age of madness.

When the going gets tough the tough get going is the famous phrase.   Well, when these challenges involve the really nasty I usually sidestep them.    Thatcher was ducked and Cameron was compared to Parker.   This challenge is one of the least pleasant.  Elvis has his faults but George Oliver Osborne operates at his own chilling level.   But an Elvis doppleganger does exist for our chancellor.

Freddie Bienstock like Osborne was supported by family connections.   He had the responsibility of finding songs for Elvis and it required his vigilance and scheming to ensure that Elvis recorded as much cheap rubbish as he did.   He is famous for two incidents, in particular.   On one occasion he told Leiber and Stoller, ‘I don’t care how good it is.  I want a song here tomorrow.’   On another he tried to slip a song past Elvis that several months earlier had been rejected by Elvis after he had heard a couple of bars.  Elvis, though, remembered it and told Freddie. ‘I didn’t like it the first time and I don’t like it now.’

Bienstock was not interested in quality, only in placing songs that earned him, Parker and others decent royalties.   They were the musical equivalents of supply side economists.   The impact on the demand from the public did not interest them.  Osborne has the same feelings about the UK economy.   If Bienstock squeezed from Elvis’ music the affection Elvis had earned from his fans then Osborne is more than willing to sacrifice economic purchasing power.  Make the rich even richer and they will invest and the economy will grow is his one dimensional belief.   Worrying about how customers will buy what is produced and having compassion for the unemployed is for economic softies.   Bienstock had the same hard heartedness towards the talent of Elvis and to his fans being served tripe.   Presumably, this was part of his ego.  He wanted others to realise he could be brutal and competitive within the Elvis environment.   It is easy to imagine Osborne doing the same with awful economic projections and the embarrassing comparisons with the positive effects of the Obama stimulus in the States.   We picture him toughing out the horror with a smirk and a raised eyebrow, his wilfulness making him supreme to the too many competitive males that exist in the coalition.

Special circumstances need to apply for men and women to take pride in failure but they often exist as many of us know from our workplaces.  Perverse ambitions from unqualified men with huge egos applied in the career of Elvis Presley and they apply in the economic policies of the coalition government.   Bienstock employed crazy accountants who were unable to understand long term consequences.  Osborne is luckier.  He has the Treasury and their myopic madness.    All of this takes us back to why Osborne is hated so much and why Bienstock was willing to do such damage.    Neither men cared about what they should have nor understood that they had responsibilities.   Bienstock did not suffer and neither probably will Osborne.    The rest of us are not so lucky.

To read more about Elvis and his music, click here.

The fans are convinced he is innocent and in their chatrooms they have praised the Worcester Review for giving a fair account of the court proceedings.   P J Proby is on trial for wrongly claiming £47,000 worth of benefits – pension, housing benefit and council tax rebate.  Those who think life on benefit is idleness and luxury should note that this was meant to be his total income for eight years.  In the sixties, P J became notorious for splitting his pants when on stage.   £6,000 a year does not leave a lot for clothing.

The singer was first seen in the UK when he appeared in a TV show called ‘Around The Beatles’ which was produced by Jack Good.   It showcased The Beatles well.   The next day, though, Proby was the talking point in the school.   Proby had sung ‘I Believe’ and had delivered a bewilderingly accurate impersonation of Elvis.   People who were averse to Elvis raved about Proby and his imitation.   The conversations demonstrated how admiration for the talent of Elvis could often co-exist with antipathy to the man.   Elvis always drew ridicule and there is a possible irony.   Proby possibly mistook that antipathy and ridicule for success and fame. It may have shaped his self-destruction.

Proby is mentioned in the Nik Cohn book ‘Awopbopaloobop Alopbamboom or Pop From The Beginning’.  Cohn who is a big Elvis fan and a big admirer of Proby describes an innate talent beyond mortals.   In his book, he tells the famous tale of when P J appeared at a music festival.   Proby rehearsed his song with the orchestra and afterwards the musical maestro turned to Proby and said, ‘Mr Proby, how do you do it.’

‘I don’t do,’ said Proby.   ‘I am.’

Now, he is accused of being a benefit cheat and the reasons why are obvious.   James Marcus Smith, his real name, is no longer capable of being P J Proby.  His own flaws have played a part but this is a trapped creature and those who rush to take the disabled off benefits or condemn them to an existence below subsistence levels need to think about the case and life of P J Proby.  He is one of many injured creatures and they need support, especially as the rest of us are often responsible for the injuries.

But back in the sixties Proby was welcomed as a sensation.   He may have been American but Britain now had its own Elvis.  Compared to The Beatles he was insignificant but he did help a British generation sidestep what had become an American irritant.   Jack Good used Proby in two of his musicals – a rock and roll version of Othello and a musical based on the real Elvis.   The show by Good had three leads playing Elvis.  Proby played the 70s star and he produced fabulous vocals.   Unfortunately, Proby had lingering temperamental weaknesses.  He was an alcoholic and he was not averse to being worshipped by women.   Normally, the latter is not a fatal weakness in rock and roll performers.  In fact, it might be an essential competency.  But Proby not only took it to excess he did it in a country that had the News Of The World as its most popular Sunday newspaper.  The press were on to him almost from the beginning.   The British establishment, compared to their mainland European neighbours, may once have had a very liberal attitude towards anarchists but wear a pony tail and split your trousers and you court disaster.   So it proved.   The career of Proby soon deteriorated although he continued to receive offers of work, hence the benefit fraud.   It seemed to distant spectators that James Marcus Smith lacked discipline and he would rather be adored than make an effort.   Maybe he had difficulties and circumstances that the rest of us underestimate.   Even after the decline he recorded singles and CDs.  They may not have appeared frequently but they were issued regularly.  There was always another independent record producer who believed in Proby.

Before he left the States, James Marcus Smith had used the name Jett Powers, so perspective may have been lost almost immediately.   He sang demos for Elvis, and Ernst Jorgenson in ‘The Complete Recording Sessions’ mentions that his demo version of ‘Slowly But Surely’ is superior to the final version by Elvis.  This may be true because Elvis was not inspired at these 1963 sessions.   I have my doubts.   Proby is a fabulous ballad singer but his rock music is mechanical.  He had energy and no doubt the demo would have had plenty but his sense of rhythm was never inspired.   His virtuosity on a ballad, though, was second to none which is why most of us will feel sorry for the man and hope he will be found not guilty.    We think of a reduced life and remember his stunning version of ‘Somewhere’.   When the record was released it appeared as if the future might be his but it was an illusion and the best he could do afterwards was a version of ‘Maria’ that only imitated the earlier success.

P J resented the fame of Elvis.  He once described Elvis as typical of the singers in the American South who made rock and roll music.   He was wrong about Elvis and he misunderstood himself.  Despite his stunning debut on the Jack Good show, Proby was soon overtaken in popularity by Tom Jones.  The Welshman was an inferior talent to both Elvis and Proby but he had versatility and, well, we endured what followed.

Supposedly, Elvis and Proby clashed.  Elvis told Proby to stop drinking.   Elvis was happy for Proby to drink spirits but hated people around him to drink beer.   Proby thought this irrational but the explanation is simple.  Presley’s mother was a beer drinker and seeing people drink beer had unpleasant memories for Elvis.  At one point in his life, Proby lived in a council house in North Manchester.   The Saddleworth Hills are close and it is tempting to imagine Proby venturing on the uplands.   This is where Brady and Hindley buried some of their victims.   It is a confusing landscape, beautiful and welcoming in the summer and terrifyingly hostile in the winter, suitable for a man who could promise so much with certain material but then became ordinary with the alternatives.

Like the rest of us, Proby has mellowed with age which is probably why he now lives in Worcester.   There will be some who will use the fall of Proby as a justification for Parker and claim that without his manager Elvis would have probably suffered a similar fate.    Right now, Elvis might be tempted to swap.   Proby is still alive and at seventy two years of age he even has impressive sideburns.   Both men split their pants on stage and both have been eccentric with money.  Elvis paid his tax without employing an accountant and Proby made no attempt to relate the earnings from his fading career to his benefit support.   The man from Texas deserves a break.  When he states he often lost money from his appearances at the end of his career I am prepared to believe him.   But I have also forgiven Elvis for his mistakes.  Naivety and excess loyalty may be in my nature.

If you want to read about Elvis, rock and roll and much more click here.

Almost 51 years to the day of the concert, Elvis drove his own long, black limousine to the State Governor’s mansion in Nashville.   The Memphis Mafia guarded his Rolls while Elvis was shown around by the daughter of the Governor.    The tour could not have taken long because on his way home from Elvis stopped at the Tennessee State Prison and visited Johnny Bragg, the lead singer for the black vocal group, The Prisonaires.    Nothing defines Elvis and his reach better than what he did that day and it explains why the great gospel singer Jake Hess once called Elvis, ‘The Great Communicator’.

The communication skills are still in demand.   The crowd in Manchester was boozy and enthusiastic.   Afterwards, I drove back towards Liverpool thinking about the Elvis visit to the Governor and his subsequent meeting with Johnny Bragg.    My two daughters talked about Elvis and Amy Winehouse and why certain talented people destroy themselves.   We agreed that the tragedy of Elvis was double edged.  Not only did Elvis self-destruct but the waste deceived people into thinking that the talent was insignificant.   These people watch the odd clip on TV and assume that Elvis was a bit of a dope that got lucky.

The Saturday show of Elvis In Concert is not perfect but then Elvis was always a mixture of the inspiring and irritating.   Some of the songs are included because they are crowd pleasers, songs like The Wonder Of You, My Way and What Now My Love.   These numbers deter many but when they are played live through a modern PA with Elvis supported by a band that was once considered the best that money could buy the listener soon suspends criticism.   Elvis In Concert defines Elvis quite well.   On oldies like I Got A Woman and Heartbreak Hotel he rocks with real force while his performances of How Great Thou Art and Bridge Over Troubled Water stand apart from anything delivered by other performers.   In his 1971 review of a Boston concert, Jon Landau wrote that once you had seen Elvis sing Bridge Over Troubled Water you could die.   He was right.  Last night I saw Elvis sing Bridge and How Great Thou Art which is even better.  I will not say anything to avoid tempting fate.  Finally, we have the performances that show Elvis can be hip. Again the memory of Suspicious Minds’ alone would be sufficient to face death but it is complimented with fabulous versions of ‘Polk Salad Annie’ and ‘You’ve Lost That Loving Feeling’.   No other singer has ever attempted or mastered so much.  Elvis In Concert may flatter what Elvis often delivered on stage in the 70s but at his peak he was more than capable of delivering the show that so enthralled the quite young audience in Manchester.  No wonder we stay loyal.   My only criticism is the 50s melody in the first half which drags.   This is taken from his Las Vegas shows.   His black and white 50s performances or the hits medley from the TV Special would be better.

Elvis In Concert has never had a bad review so the technology that supports the show works.   Elvis also plays his part.   His talent and a personality that embraced visiting the State Governor and Johnny Bragg in the same day make him unique.

To read about Elvis, rock and roll and much more, click here.

These new style recessions are confusing everyone.  Ordinary people either lose their jobs or watch their wages lose value.   Meanwhile, an out of town currency speculator visits Liverpool to watch Arsenal and spends £205,000 on a drinks bill in one of its bars.   The residents of Liverpool are shocked.   ‘There isn’t £205,000 worth of booze in the whole city,’ said someone interviewed by the local radio.  Well, there is and we now have an idea of the kind of throats it goes down.  Admittedly, the beer is better in the North but this is excessive.  ‘Where is this bar?  I think I’ll rob it,’ says another.   Those prone to conspiracy theory suspect something sinister was happening.  Perhaps a couple of billionaires were raising Ayn Rand from the dead.

Similarly, whatever happened to our landed gentry and its affinity to horses, and what kind of world do they live in?   Everybody makes mistakes but few men have been as disloyal to the opposite sex as Cameron has been to Raisa, the lady loaned by the Met to Rebekah Brooks.   And while we are talking about confusion where did the k come from in Rebekah?   The girl is from Warrington.   Nobody spells Rebekah with a k in Warrington.   In fact, Rebekahs, even those with two cs in the middle, are about as rare in Warrington as currency speculators are in Liverpool.

Whatever happened to our honest Prime Minister? You know, the man who calls people chum and who so believed in his ‘proper and upright’ friend Andy Coulson.   David Cameron, he rolls up his sleeves, shouts a lot and is somewhat overweight.  If he had been more careful about his backside he would never have got in this mess.   First, David denies ever riding with Rebekah, maybe he thought it was two cs and a different girl but then he says he did ride a horse with Rebekah but nothing as common as a girl from petty cash.  Later, Cameron, not in shirt sleeves but as grim faced as ever, stated he probably could have ridden the horse and finally, yes he did.   He remembers it now.  He sat on it and it moved forward.  The horse was called Raisa, that’s right, the name of the wife of Mikhail Gorbachev.  The easiest thing in the world, forgetting a horse named after the wife of a leader of a once evil empire.  According to a locked up Russian punk band member, ‘It’s not too pleasant at the moment, either.’   We best not mention the famous beefcake pose of Putin on horseback naked from the waist up, Putin not the horse.  Actually, they are easily distinguishable.   Putin is the one with the face lift and the watery eyes.

Thank God the Met are in the clear.   Rehoming horses is something they do after the poor creatures have been traumatised from confronting the lower classes in street riots and outside football games.   What else can they do?   Horses cannot recover from visiting Anfield football stadium by popping into a bar and spending £205,000 on booze.  Horses don’t like bars.   In Anfield, a neighbourhood in Liverpool where Joe Fagan ex-manager of Liverpool football club was happy to spend all his life, houses can be bought for under £30,000.   Sell a street and you would still be unable to get a round in.   But, just in case Plato is turning in his grave at what is happening to his vison of the elite, we have a rescuer.   The Ferrarri revs into view from a distance and from it emerges a self-effacing gentleman to calm us all.   ‘I can categorically state that he never rode that horse.   I do actually live there.  It’s all rubbish.’   Well, Mr Clarkson, we all make mistakes and the next time you overtake a not so clapped out police horse in your Ferrarri perhaps you should slow down and take a proper look.

In the great movie, ‘Notorious’, by Alfred Hitchcock there are two scenes that involve horses.  Both have glamour but they are dark and sinister.   Cary Grant and Ingrid Bergmann are out riding at a stable in Rio de Janeiro.  They make a gorgeous couple.  Cary has an open necked shirt and has never looked more handsome.  Bergmann does what she does better than anyone else.  She wears a trilby.  What makes the scene sinister is the intention of Devlin (Grant) to lend Alicia (Bergmann) to Nazi agent Alex Sebastian (Claude Rains).   Devlin stampedes Alicia and her horse, and Sebastian rides to the rescue.  He collects not just the horse but Alicia.   Sebastian claims his woman through masculine assertion.  The movie, ‘Notorious’, is full of men too vain to have real compassion.   The boss of Devlin is easily flattered when he hears he has been described as handsome and Sebastian is as impressed as Alicia by the good looks of Grant.

According to the Met, Raisa was returned to them in poor condition.   She died in pasture not long afterwards.  Alicia also suffered whilst she was on loan to Sebastian but like Raisa was rescued in the only way possible.  Devlin claimed her back.  He walked in and took her away.   This is what the powerful do with people and their animals.  The other scene in the movie that has horses also has a romantic and exotic setting.   Devlin and Alicia are at a ractrack that faces the Copacabana beach.  They have no interest, though, in the racing.  Devlin learns that the plan is working.  Unfortunately, Sebastian has had sex with Alicia, the girl that Devlin loves.    If the world of ‘Notorious’ is cruel, the villains within the film all have elegant manners.  They sip brandy, smoke cigars and wear bow ties while they arrange a murder.   Hitchcock makes clear that he has no illusions about the rich and, of course, in his later movie ‘Marnie’ his fragile heroine falls over the edge into craziness whilst out riding amongst them.   As the Americans almost said about Hitch, ‘You can take the boy out of the East End but you can’t take the East End out of the boy.’

Elvis also had affection for horse riding.  Often, he would return from a ride around the grounds of Graceland and without leaving his saddle sign autographs for waiting fans.   He became so obsessed with the freedom horse riding offered him that he tried to create his own ranch where he and his friends would escape the world.   He probably believed that the man who sat on top of the horse was worthwhile and likeable.   Fresh air and motion does that to people.  The ranch plus essential accessories like not too far apart barbecue stands led Elvis to spend over a million dollars on the venture.  Parker finally intervened although by then Elvis was already becoming bored.   There are only so many times you can ride around the outskirts of Memphis.  I am no fan of the Dutchman but this may have been one of his better moments.    Parker said that Elvis needed to regain focus and, just as important, stop spending so much money.    The irony is that Parker had a father who trained horses and Parker was an animal lover.    Indeed, there is nothing wrong with liking horses and nobody should be begrudged the pleasure of the saddle, I suppose.   Horses trample the countryside and ruin the bridle paths but they do make a lovely sight or they would if only some of the people on top of them could behave a little more honestly and, like currency speculators, not get carried away with themselves.

If you want to read more about Elvis, rock and roll and much more click here

The mens’ toilet at Wembley was crowded.  The bloke who stood next to me was tall, broad and loud. ‘Stewart Downing,’ said the large man in a voice loud enough for everyone to hear, ‘man of the bleeding match.  When I saw that I thought I was back on the drugs.’

I said nothing.

‘Let’s be honest, mate,’ he said.  ‘We were dogshit.’

‘We have played better,’ I said.

Bliss and disbelief occur often in football.   Liverpool had just won a penalty shoot out to clinch the 2012 Carling Cup Final despite missing their first two penalties.   Later, in the car, the disbelief and the bliss was compounded by the Analysis programme on BBC Radio 4.  The Trade Union economist, Duncan Weldon, demonstrated how, during the last ten years in the UK, wages had flattened for ordinary people.  He challenged the self-serving establishment view that it was an unavoidable consequence of globalisation and technology.   He compared countries with neo-liberal policies with the few remaining social democracies and stated that the latter had been far more successful at protecting the jobs and living standards of working people.   The penalty shoot out was bizarre by even the somewhat dodgy Cup Final standards of Liverpool Football Club.  Neither is economic heresy normal for the BBC.

The social democrats are fighting back and Richard Murphy, the number one economics blogger in the UK, is leading the fight.   He wrote ‘The Courageous State’ in three months.  This compares to Elvis producing the classic albums ‘Elvis Is Back’ and ‘Elvis Country’ in a matter of days or, for the more serious, Joseph Conrad writing ‘Heart Of Darkness’ in a month.    I have spent my life deferring to superior talent but this effortless mastery is definitely sickening.

In the week before the Cup Final, ex-cabinet minister, David Laws, wrote an article for The Guardian newspaper defending the chancellor, George Osborne.   Laws is the man who made fifty million in the City and who believes that the free market always produces the best possible outcomes.   He resigned from the Government because of expenses claims which culminated in him being paid money to which he was not entitled.   I have no way of verifying this but I am prepared to bet some of my own cash that he supports Harry Redknapp for the job of England football manager.  The article by Laws was short on analysis and quoted just one statistic, the rate of inflation.  Instead, he intimidated with a superior tone and used words like serious and informed.    He had the comfort of knowing that other people thought like him and that these people were invariably powerful.  That’s right, he agrees with the idiots who created the current economic mess.

Richard Murphy may not thank me for featuring him on an Elvis blog but it should not do him too much harm.  He is combative, confident and energetic enough to be everywhere.  He was interviewed today on Sky News about Barclays Bank and the £500m underpayment of tax.

‘We ain’t done anything wrong, mate.   It’s all legal,’ said a spokesman from the Bank.

Richard Murphy used to work as a tax consultant.  He knows the dirty secrets and the insatiable greed of the rich.  Indeed, his book has a good section on why they are so callous.   He is not a man who made a £500m fortune without a hint of personal doubt and subsequently felt obliged to claim expenses to which he was not entitled.   This merely makes him a better human being and is not the reason we should trust Richard Murphy rather than David Laws.  Murphy has qualities that make opportunists and networkers like Laws sneer.   He is capable of original thought and he is not afraid of facts.    The most alarming that his book ‘The Courageous State’ reveals is the £20bn unpaid tax, and the 97% portion of the UK money supply created by the private sector.   Before Thatcher, the State created most of the money, now it creates a mere 3%.  This 97% is debt disguised by the banks as assets (my words not those of Richard Murphy).   Debt attracts interest and this interest is paid to the rich and the bankers.   No wonder their bonus payments amount to billions.

Richard Murphy is right.  The State has been enfeebled and those economic libertarians who are joyfully welcoming this should consider an alternative history to their romanticised view of the industrial revolution.   The two leaps forward in human development were precipitated by the rise of Rome and Athens, and the emergence of powerful nation states in the 18^th Century.   (These are my words again.)

‘The Courageous State’ argues for the nation state to assert itself once more.   A civilised society is obliged to maximise the development of the potential of its citizens and to reduce the income gap between the very rich and the poor.   Richard Murphy is offended by an economy where the richest do not pay tax and the poorest pay more of their money in tax than those who have more.   Only in our crazed world of neo-liberalism are his views described as extremist.

‘The Courageous State’ is a 300 page book and the future of the world is a big subject.  There are omissions.  Faith in his future is undermined by the knowledge that too much economic power has shifted to outside the nation state.   Richard Murphy admits this but we need another book to convince politicians that it is in their interests to cooperate with each other rather than their financiers.  Also, within the left, somebody needs to talk about the tyranny of government AND the tyranny of the market.  I have no doubt that Murphy will rise to the challenge.

Murphy is right to argue that we should use a different language for tax. We are citizens and we do not give money to the Government in the way the British press describes.  We pay the Government what we owe it for services such as roads and hospitals.   But when Murphy says that it is the money of the Government and not ours he does not help the argument.

The book offers clever alternative circular economic models to the familiar co-axial graphs of economic theory.  In some, the circles are too conveniently concentric but the underlying assumptions are valid.   Diagram 10.14 sums up brilliantly what is wrong with neo-liberalism and its sole emphasis on money and is a fabulous moment of epiphany that demonstrates how lives are wrecked and distorted by narrow economic ideology.

I hope this inspiring economist is not offended by being included on an Elvis blog.   60 years ago the establishment argued that Elvis could not sing but he prevailed and now people realise he could warble better than the rest of them.  He also inspired other rockabilly singers such as Johnny Cash and Jerry Lee Lewis.    These men were not prepared for the world to stay the same.   Like Richard Murphy, Elvis was not alone.  Murphy has Ann Pettifor, Paul Krugman, Roger Bootle and Robert Skidelski for company.   He is not the only brave economist talking sense.   I am a pessimist by nature but on Sunday I enjoyed bliss and disbelief for almost the whole 200 mile journey back to Liverpool.   With heroes like Richard Murphy around we may yet be pleasantly surprised.

If you want to read about Elvis, rock and roll and much more click here

It may not be the ultimate expression of misanthropic despair, the competition is very tough, but the phrase ‘And so it goes’ that

'And so it goes.'

was coined by Kurt Vonnegut in his novel, ‘Cat’s Cradle’ has enough acid to challenge the rivals.  Nothing sums up better the contempt for the human race that Vonnegut felt and never overcame.   The conviction within the phrase and the short but diamond clear novel is obvious.  Humans have an unmatched ability to persist infinitely with self-serving and self-deceiving absurdity.

Oddly, this ability exists alongside a reverence for the last word and for those who utter it.   Sometimes, our admiration is inspired merely by an individual sounding as if he has concluded an argument.   Stalin was blessed with this gift.   Cynics assume he was simply a dictator who ruthlessly used power but he was more than that.  After his death, his bureaucrats expressed bewilderment at how they found it impossible to claim the moral high ground against a man who both accidentally and deliberately caused the deaths of millions.    We value the last word and those who have the gift of expressing it.   Too often we assume it contains a truth when usually it is no more than a consequence of an emotional force or will.

Famous Flames Records have released a compilation of 3 CDs called ‘The First Rock And Roll Record’ which is intended to be definitive.   This debate has existed for some time and is likely to remain in the future.   The chosen name Famous Flames fits well the giants of the past.   But I would rather argue with Joseph Stalin than have to persuade James Brown that the title of his backing group always had retrospective overtones.  Maybe a James Brown record will eventually appear on the label.  Perhaps he will have the last word and why not?   His emotional force and willpower bested many.

‘The First Rock And Roll Record’, though, is where the Famous Flames label begins.  And, as Elvis once famously said to a fourteen year old girl who he kissed as she stood by the stage, ‘Well, you gotta start somewhere.’   The concept behind the CD is taken from the book, ‘What Was The First Rock And Roll Record?’ written by authors Jim Dawson and Steve Propes.   The lists of songs on the CD collection and within the book are different but not by much.  The same areas of music are mined.   As the headline quote on the CD booklet and the introduction to the book make clear, the title is disingenous.

‘Rock and roll was an evolutionary process – we just looked around and it was here ….   To name any record as the first would make any of us look a fool.’

This was said by songwriter, Billy Vera.   Now, there is a man who is comfortable with independent thought.  He may have even stood a chance with Uncle Jo, on second thoughts, possibly not.  Billy Vera understands that rock and roll had too many strands to be invented by one man.   The notion that Elvis or anyone else invented rock and roll emerged well after the time it enjoyed its peak in popularity.  The idea of a first rock and roll record exists as an abbreviated explanation of what happened.   Elvis was important for various reasons but not because he invented rock and roll.  He did, though, make records that distinguished him from others and he did make the leap from roots music to something modern. This was greedily grabbed by a new generation needing an alternative aesthetic.  This is why his double A sided single ‘Hound Dog’/ ‘Don’t Be Cruel’ was so important.

Time plays havoc with original judgements and the danger is that our revised opinions and impressions are no more reliable than what we originally thought.   Listen to ‘That’s All Right’ by Arthur Crudup in the context of this collection.  Fifty years later it no longer feels like a simple gut bucket blues that Elvis transformed into something revolutionary.   Charlie Patton may be the exceptional talent and master but Crudup sounds more modern.   The Elvis record is powerful and breathtaking but was he actually doing anything that original?   Well, he did something because it created imitators.   So many years after the event, we not only expect innovations and transformations to be significant for the people who were there at the time, we need it to sound radical for those who have been programmed with subsequent innovations.

Ultimately, the collection is obliged to mislead.  Historical accuracy is desirable but the past can never be understood by those tainted by what was once the future.  Of course, the more successful last worders often exploit viciously the elusiveness of history.   The headstrong listener, though, will acknowledge both the vital and thrilling roots of rock and roll and the seminal contributions of the exceptional.   Elvis, Fats Domino, Little Richard, Ike Turner, Bo Diddley or Ray Charles may not have invented anything but their classic contributions stand out from the rest.   They pierced the airwaves or they did for those who were listening back then.

The compliation although impressive and essential is not perfect.  Too often records are included because they merely include the words rock and roll.   The first track ‘The Camp Meeting Jubilee’ which was recorded in 1916 mentions rock and roll but is a conventional example of the gospel music of that period.   The record will be treasured by music fans but its inclusion ignores how gospel music and rock and roll not only followed separate paths but also existed in opposition to each other.   This opposition was not resolved (or blurred) until the arrival of Ray Charles.   And, if the mere mention of rock and roll makes a record eligible, consideration should have been given to ‘Now You Has Jazz’ by Bing Crosby and Louis Armstrong.   This record swings far more than the Judy Garland offering ‘The Joint Is Really Jumpin’ Down At Carnegie Hall’.   Crosby and Armstrong delivered a great example of how even the distinction between rock and roll jazz is confused when the latter is danceable.  Neither is the chronology exact and Elvis has been deferred so he occurs behind Carl Perkins.   This is a deceit that offends this particular fan but the weirdest chronological judgement is the Hank Williams 1947 recording ‘Move It On Over’ which finds itself inexplicably sandwiched between two 1929 recordings.   It is also surprising that Jerry Lee Lewis is not included although ‘Hot Rod Race’ by Arthur Shibley and his Mountain Dew Boys anticipates The Killer brilliantly.   The carps are more than compensated by the glories.  This is a stunning collection that mixes R&B, country, hardcore blues, gospel and Benny Goodman.   It also includes the truly exquisite ‘How High The Moon’ by Les Paul and Mary Ford.   So I forgive its ideological sleight of hand.   Uncle Joe, though, would have expected untampered dates.   He would have not been quite so forgiving.

To read more about Elvis, the creation of rock and roll, American music and much more, click here

Only the possibility that the England national team will be battered in the European Nations Cup can stop the movie being made.   The characters are irresistible, the tale is heartwarming and the climax fabulous.  There is also something that the experts call a narrative ark and last week all suddenly became available to the aspiring scriptwriter.

First, there is Milan Mandaric, a billionaire who has lived in exceptional comfort in the Western World since 1969 but who resembles the tortured character Ivan Denisovich Shukov in the novel by Solyzhenitsn.    The suit may be expensive but his face has wrinkles that qualify as contours and there is a remote expression that insists upon an absence of comfort.   Mandaric looks as if he is on a weekend break from a Gulag.   He is an emaciated version of the chess playing wrestler in the Stanley Kubrick movie, ‘The Killing’.   This Russian bore, who was not one of Kubrick’s better moments, spent most of his time quoting third rate know all philosophy.   The doleful perplexed eyes of Mandaric threaten equally awful dialogue.

Next we have Fab Fabio Capello, the man who resigned from the job of England manager while Harry was simultaneously escaping being sent to prison.  Even his friends would struggle to describe this chap as handsome.  A man who looks like Desperate Dan after a lobotomy must have really struggled for admiring looks in Turin, a city known for more exacting physical standards than those encountered by Mandaric in Portsmouth.   At the beginning, Capello was actually popular with the English press.  They discovered Capello, when he was not sticking his sausages upright in his mashed potato, collected fine art.   ‘Look, he is intelligent,’ cried the English football writers.  They made the same mistake with Sven Goran Erikkson.  They assumed he had brains because he wore glasses and was Swedish.  ‘He has to be, doesn’t he?’ they said.

Finally, amongst our charismatic icons we have ‘our ‘Arry’.   Surely, the England football team has to be successful with a manager called Harry.   And there are precedents, as the French can testify from the last time they argued with one of our Harrys.   Everyone is agreed that this Harry has a way with people and it can be seen in his face.   He uses half a dozen expressions in a millisecond.  Harry says hello in the way most of us have a conversation.  It is the most active face in football and it makes you wonder if he is using an alternative to skin, some kind of synthesised rubber.   There is also the mystery of why the handsome son, Jamie, can look so much like his father and yet be so much better looking.  Maybe this is the existential mystery that haunts Mandaric so much.

Better than our screen gods, though, is the tale itself.   This is a heartwarming, no, we must not be modest, this is a supreme story about kinship between men separated by background, (Harry originally wanted to be a second hand car salesman and honest I am not laughing), culture, country, wealth (but not for long if Harry can help it) and language.  The last barrier was eventually bridged by Mandaric helping Harry with his English.   The two men became so close, Milan lent Harry £157,000.  We will never know if Harry accepted the money with tears in his eyes but in the movie tears will be mandatory.   Harry needed this money quickly which was why his spiritual partner responded with a selfless rescue.  The money was put where it would be safe, somewhere that they call a tax haven.  Unfortunately, not everyone understands kinship and mutual devotion.   There is an organisation called the HMRC.  This attracts obsessed zealots who, when they are not ignoring £20.5 billion of unpaid tax, ruthlessly persecute innocent individuals.  These innocents sometimes put money that they know is not taxable into an account where the holder does not have to pay tax.   I know, I can hear the odd mind beginning to whirr as I type.  If it’s not taxable why would …..?   Shame on you.  This is a tale about kinship and spiritual unity.

Then, we had the climax.  The last twenty four hours were told breathlessly by newscasters.   Harry was set free and Capello refused to manage the England team any longer.  ‘No, I’m not running away because the English team is rubbish.’   And he probably was not.   He missed his fine arts and he was well disillusioned with the modern English sausage.    

Capello will receive a £1.5m pay off which is not bad for supervising the most abject World Cup performance by an England team.   He was actually paid £6m a year which is an awful lot of gourmet sausages and a truly incredible amount of mashed potato.   Fortunately, Fabio works hard for his £6m.  The FA released a film of a recent training session.   Fabio can be seen clearly in the video.  He stands and watches.  All right, watching does not sound a lot but to paraphrase an old joke, it’s a dark and lonely business and somebody has to do it.

And the narrative ark mentioned earlier?   This will definitely appeal to the patriotic Englishman.  They had wotcha to gotcha all in one day.   The watching was the once aspiring second hand car salesman warily listening to what was happening in court and the getting was Harry desperately being shoehorned into the job of England manager within minutes of leaving the courtroom.  The same media that is aghast at Suarez refusing to shake the hand of Evra has no qualms about our Harry, a man whose nickname is Readies Redknapp,* and who said, ‘At the end of the day no one gives a monkey about you once your career’s over so in my view you should make the bucks while you can.’*    Fortunately, our sports journalists do not take everything our ‘Arry says at face value.  They have the skill to put in context his remark, ‘if there’s a chance to earn a few quid, take it because it doesn’t last for ever’*.  The press were vindicated because Harry soon confirmed he was the ‘least greedy person on the planet.’+

Meanhile, the FA is thinking and until the media confirm Harry has the job the media will fret.   Some have suggested Harry plays himself in the movie.  They quote the advert for the Wii game when the least greedy person on the planet was paid to make a fool of himself and his family.  Harry is versatile.  He does not just do dignity.

The word innocent has been used a lot this week.   Innocent was how Elaine Dunphy described Elvis.  His openness and innocence were what made him unique she claimed.   Perhaps Harry and Elvis have openness in common and, although he was a victim, Elvis could on occasions be a rogue.  But Elvis paid his 90% tax and he never had one scheme to avoid paying tax.   Not one cent of his fortune left the country and none of those around him gave Elvis gifts.   Neither did they acknowledge his vulnerability.    Greed consumed them all.   Harry has had a second chance and needs to take it.   I am not talking about the England job or the money.

* Broken Dreams – Vanity, Greed and the Souring of British Football.   Tom Bowyer Pocket Books

+ Police records.