The new northern forest

It looks at first glance like another environmental good story that follows in the wake of a number of other positive announcements in recent times – the government is to support the planting of 50 million trees in order to make a new northern forest that will spread across an entire swathe of the north, from Liverpool in the west to Hull in the east. There’s a more detailed look at the project here, on the Woodland Trust website. I previously wrote on this blog about how we need more trees in this under-wooded country and so in this respect it seems like a great thing. But as Patrick Barkham points out in the Guardian, there is more than a suggestion of greenwash on the part of the government about the announcement of the new northern forest – at the same time, HS2 and fracking in northern England are destroying valuable existing habitats and trees that have stood for hundreds of years.

He makes the point that tree planting diverts funds and attention away from other conservation efforts and makes it seem more acceptable to destroy  existing woodland habitats because of the argument that new habitat is being created in order to replace it. This is clearly a dangerous view: woodland that has existed for centuries is infinitely more valuable than a field filled with newly-planted saplings. It reminds me of the poem by W. H. Auden:

A small grove massacred to the last ash,

An oak with heart-rot, give away the show:

This great society is going to smash;

They cannot fool us with how fast they go,

How much they cost each other and the gods.

A culture is no better than its woods.

W. H. Auden, from ‘Woods’ (1953)


But I feel that there is something to celebrate in this announcement and Barkham agrees. He adds:

‘The government is beginning to recognise the value of green infrastructure. The Woodland Trust and new community forests will involve children in the joyful pleasure of planting a tree. Woodlands close to urban areas will help us all enjoy high-quality green space, essential for our mental and physical wellbeing.

‘So we should embrace the Northern Forest, without letting 50m saplings obscure a more urgent task: halting the loss of our last ancient woodlands.’

I recently watched George Monbiot’s brilliantly lucid explanation about why the British countryside is so denuded of trees.

To me it demonstrates that conservation efforts need to do much more than plant trees – they also need to address the root causes of why our countryside is in such a terrible state – and that has to do with a whole system of subsidies and taxation that encourages poor stewardship and resists the very idea of ‘the wild’. Michael Gove recently stated that the subsidy regime will change to encourage wildlife but is it realistic to expect that the Conservative party will willingly make some of its greatest supporters actually have to do something for a good chunk of their income that they do not have to do at the moment? The encouraging thing is that there does seem to be a political and cultural awakening to the fact that land given over to wildlife, land which has a positive rather than a negative impact on biodiversity, is not a middle-class luxury but an essential for all of us – it is not just good for wildlife but good for humans too. This should simultaneously be celebrated and fought for: at the moment there is plenty of talk and little action – and this government needs to be held to account to see whether it will really deliver on its stated aspirations.



Labour and a mandate for change

Journalist, activist and full-time Labour cheerleader Owen Jones (is there really only one of him?) thinks that socialism is on the way; Blairite Nick Cohen  fears a Corbyn government; Corbyn himself has hit a plateau of confidence and security as Labour leader; the Conservatives have presided over a disastrous year of British history during the shambolic Brexit negotiations; the essential creed of Conservatism that it is the defense of property rights and other vested interests is becoming increasingly exposed each day by the fact that the mythical carrot dangling out in front of voters that they too can become part of the prosperous, unmortgaged, property-owning club without having to sell their kidneys and/or their daughters has become less and less realistic to more and more people; the Conservatives are sitting on a demographic time bomb in terms of voting intention and party membership; Labour’s grass roots base has flourished with the rise of Momentum; younger voters have been emboldened  by the shit storm that is Brexit to come out and vote in greater numbers; the economy has stalled and household debt and homelessness has soared; and austerity is now hitting mainstream state provision (like primary schools, police, the NHS and firefighters) in a way that – from my own observations in a safe Conservative constituency in the south – is troubling even many traditional Conservative voters. The conclusion seems clear: Corbyn is going to be the next prime minister.

Only, for all of the things in Corbyn’s favour, the idea that there will be a Labour victory with a sizable majority still seems somehow hugely implausible.  And, without it, any radical program that could even come close to being described as socialism, would be impossible.  The latest polling, for instance, suggests that Labour and the Conservatives are virtually neck and neck.  So why is this? The ‘S’ word is clearly a factor. Socialism is a divisive ideology as a mainstream political platform in the UK and until Jeremy Corbyn assumed the leadership of the Labour Party, the spin-doctored Labour centrists had it down on the blacklist of ‘words you should never, ever use,’ along with Militant, Trotsky, Lenin, Stalin, communism, the 1970s, the 3-day week, Arthur Scargill, miners and Clause IV. That was all part of the Blairite strategy of moving Labour firmly into the Murdoch-approved neoliberal centre ground, in which rather than being seen, in tabloid speak, as a ‘bunch of beardy lefty loons’, they might instead be positioned as competent, professional technocrats interested in ideologically nebulous concepts like social mobility and justice.

Owen Jones is aware of the toxic nature of the word ‘socialism’ in mainstream public opinion, which is why he is doing his best to reclaim it as something positive. ‘Socialism will liberate the individual. And here’s how,’ is his pinned tweet at the time of writing, linking to an article in the Guardian about how neoliberalism robs people of freedom because it also robs them of their security. He has history on this kind of project – his first book ‘Chavs: The Demonisation of the Working Class’, which propelled him into relative stardom – mounted a thought-provoking and passionate argument against the lazy dismissal of an entire section of society as a kind of undesirable and unwanted underclass. Many on the left, Jones included, argue that the tabloid press is one of the main problems – the tabloid world is one that is outwardly full of clichés, stereotypes and casual dismissal; and on closer examination turns out to be a concerted and relentless propaganda campaign waged by billionaire media moguls to strip people of meaningful consciousness of what is really going on in the world. Fake news, in other words.

The grip of tabloid culture on political views and voting intention and its role in enforcing a kind of cultural hegemony amongst the electorate is loosening in a much more complex and diverse media environment in which people under the age of 40 almost never buy a newspaper and social media (in itself a highly segmented and diverse channel – Facebook is as different to Snapchat as the Daily Mail is to the Guardian) takes up an ever-increasing proportion of people’s media consumption. In that sense, Labour’s prospects are looking up – in a more decentralised media environment, the plutocrats in theory should have less power and influence, though arguably both the Brexit referendum and Trump’s election have shown how the apparently heterogenous and fragmented nature of social media can also be subverted to achieve dogmatic ends that represent the interests of capital.

Regardless, I’m not sure that socialism is necessarily what people want anyway. Do a straw poll and ask people what ‘-ism’ they do want. My guess is that nine out of ten cats will tell you that they want roof-over-my-head-ism, food-on-the-table-ism, health-service-that-works-ism, good-education-for-my-kids-ism and the like. A socialist, of course, would say that his or her ideology would guarantee all this and more. But I am very sceptical of anyone trying to sell me a political creed above the real-world consequences of what that would mean for real people. The twentieth century taught us to be wary of ideologues – and, although it may reek a little of centrist dad, I think that it’s a lesson that’s well worth remembering in a time of increasing extremism on all sides of the political spectrum. Jean-Paul Lyotard famously defined the postmodern condition as a incredulity to metanarratives – in other words a rejection of sweeping discourses about the world in favour of small, localized stories. We live in this postmodern world, or what Mark Fisher called the world of capitalist realism, in which other forms of economic system are effectively unimaginable. So I’d suggest to Jones that he abandons the ‘grand narrative’ dogmatism of trying to sell socialism to the masses and instead focus on something like what Jeremy Corbyn has been doing at PMQs – finding individual instances of problems that people have and how the government may be able to make a difference by doing something that it’s not doing at the moment. Here’s an example of this:

‘I have a question from Steven, who works for a housing association. He says that the cut in rents will mean that the company that he works for will lose 150 jobs by next March because of the loss of funding for that housing association to carry on with its repairs. Down the line, that will mean worse conditions, worse maintenance, fewer people working there, and a greater problem for people living in those properties. Does the Prime Minister not think it is time to reconsider the question of the funding of the administration of housing, as well as, of course, the massive gap of 100,000 units a year between what is needed and what is being built?’

What is important is that the solutions are effective (as in providing a better quality of life for as many people as possible instead of enriching a tiny part of the population) rather than rigidly ideological in nature (the state always being the solution).  The likelihood is that they will offer a direct challenge to the dominant neoliberal consensus and therefore be what you might call a ‘leftist’ policy, but in terms of selling this to the electorate, it needs to feel that it is primarily problem-solving in nature – and rooted in a value system of care, compassion and justice.

The opportunity for meaningful change comes at that point when it seems inevitable and unarguable that there needs to be a new type of social contract. And this is what I am referring to in my title when I talk about a mandate for change. It feels that this is almost within Labour’s grasp. At the end of the Second World War many people wondered what they had been fighting for if was not to have a better deal from the state in a number of different ways. Winston Churchill, who, even at the height of his own personal popularity in May 1945, understood that there was a great appetite for the state to provide a much higher level of welfare to its citizens and put him out of a job, suggested that if the British public voted for Labour, they would encounter ‘some sort of Gestapo’.


This was Labour leader Clement Attlee’s quietly impassioned response:

‘The prime minister made much play last night with the rights of the individual and the dangers of people being ordered about by officials. I entirely agree that people should have the greatest freedom compatible with the freedom of others. There was a time when employers were free to work little children for sixteen hours a day. I remember when employers were free to employ sweated women workers on finishing trousers at a penny halfpenny a pair. There was a time when people were free to neglect sanitation so that thousands died of preventable diseases. For years every attempt to remedy these crying evils was blocked by the same plea of freedom for the individual. It was in fact freedom for the rich and slavery for the poor. Make no mistake, it has only been through the power  of the state, given to it by parliament, that the general public has been protected against the greed of ruthless profit-makers and property owners. The Conservative party remains as always a class party. In twenty-three years in the House of Commons, I cannot recall more than half a dozen from the ranks of the wage earners. It represents today, as in the past, the forces of property and privilege. the Labour Party is, in fact, the one party which most nearly reflects in its representation and composition all the main streams which flow into the great river of our national life.’

Attlee embraces many individual causes that his party had been successful in helping to change – things that seemed retrospectively so obviously to be the right thing to do that he created that same culture of inevitability about the Labour Party’s own right to form the next government. What he does not do is to bang the drum about socialism – indeed, he doesn’t mention it.

Twenty-year-old RAF pilot Tony Benn returned from Egypt in June 1945 on the troop ship Carthage, which was also carrying many servicemen who had fought with General Slim in Burma. They decided to organize hustings on board and Benn spoke on ‘Why I will vote Labour,’ even though as a twenty-year-old he was actually ineligible to cast a vote (the voting age was then twenty-one). On that ship, on 7 June 1945, Benn said this to the troops:

‘One of the most pressing problems of all is housing. Before the war, slums were a running sore – disease and squalor were rampant in many areas. the submerged tenth were a forgotten minority. The position now is even more serious than it was then. Inability to effect ordinary repairs and the damage caused by enemy action is incalculable. Are we going to let Jerry builder do his worst and breed a new series of slums for the next generation, or are we going to plan decent homes for the future.’

Labour promised food, work and homes, full employment and a national health service. Out of the bombed ruins of Britain’s cities, they planned to build a New Jerusalem. Their motto was: ‘Let us face the future.’

Likewise, Labour now should not be trying to sell the British people an ideology; they should be creating the conditions in which meaningful social change can take place and establishing that same sense of inevitability which existed at the end of the Second World War. That may not be socialism – many  on the harder left would argue that a much better and less austere welfare state is capitalism’s greatest weapon against genuine socialism (and a form of accelerationism would suggest that austerity is actually a positive weapon in bringing people to genuine consciousness about the reality in which they live – see for instance the popularity of I, Daniel Blake as a consciousness-raising meme only made possible by brutal welfare policies) – but a new political direction which not only has a sense of basic decency and compassion, but which is also able to deliver the benefits of this outlook to as many people as possible, feels like it would be a positive development in this country’s recently disastrous national life. I don’t think that has to revolve around a conscious self-identification with leftist politics (in fact it would be better not to) – instead, it has more to do with a determination that there can be a better way of life for the majority of people in this country. And the moment that breaks out of a sense of political tribalism and into the mainstream is the moment that Labour does get a mandate for change.


Rafael Nadal as secular experience


I‘ve been a lover of tennis pretty much my whole life. For me it combines the excitement of direct confrontation – the psychological, individualistic and gladiatorial aspects of boxing – with the hand-eye co-ordination, whole-body athleticism, dexterity and skills of the best of any games involving a ball. My earliest defining tennis memory was listening on the radio to Boris Becker winning Wimbledon for the first time in 1985 when my family was on the way back from a camping trip in Dartmoor. I remember sitting on a rug amongst the dry, floral-smelling, sun-blasted heather as Becker defeated Kevin Curren in four sets. Since then I have followed the game almost constantly. Yet in terms of being a fan of a particular player, or being drawn into the (essentially silly) debate over who is the greatest male tennis player of all time (or – to use an acronym I have always hated – the GOAT), I have always stayed well clear. On the odd occasion that I do look at reader comments when I’m reading online articles, all I generally see is a lot of tedious, tendentious polemics about why Roger or Rafa or Nole or Andy is so great – the first sure sign of a tennis superfan is that they always call their idol by their first name or an affectionate nickname. Just to be clear: I will use the conventional system of writing out names in full on first mention, then surnames afterwards.


For all the superficial fandom around tennis, the best thing ever written that supports the idea of Federer being the greatest of all time, is also one of the deepest and best written pieces that you’ll ever read about sport. David Foster Wallace’s Roger Federer as Religious Experience was written in 2006 – while Federer was still rising to the zenith of his incredible career. The reason that I wanted to write this piece is because, for all of his undoubted greatness, the tennis era that is at last reaching its close, has not just been the era of Federer – it has been, primarily, the era of Federer and Nadal (with Novak Djokovic not far behind and deserving of an honourable mention) – and I believe that Nadal deserves an essay that is a counterpoint to Foster Wallace’s. One of the inspiring things that I have learned from Nadal is to persevere, even when the odds are against you. It strikes me that I most likely cannot emulate Foster Wallace – my essay will be a poor relation to his – but I owe it to Nadal to try.  This is where he and Federer are similar – they both excel in the thing that I believe most people really love to watch sport for: the art of the impossible. In short, when we watch sport we are looking for miracles, and this is what Foster Wallace was writing about Roger Federer – the religious experience he mentions in the title of his essay is of witnessing the creator of something miraculous; a magician who with little apparent effort does things with a tennis racquet that were unthinkable in the exact moment that he hit the ball. I guess that’s something that all writers want to try and pull off too – that quality of putting something on a page that was unimaginable to a reader before they read it and wondrous after they had done so. I am not interested in arguing the toss over who is the greatest player of all time. Instead I want to explore the opposite of ‘religious experience’ – if a gift has not been given to you by the gods, then how do you go about inventing something out of the debris that lies around in a godless universe? The first answer to that is that you rely on industry over faith – and that can be a blueprint for life as well as for tennis.


People have inevitably often compared Nadal and Federer to one another; and a common framing of the two players’ styles is to juxtapose Federer’s seemingly effortless grace and beauty with Nadal’s very palpable effort, power and intensity. Roger Federer glides noiselessly across the court like a ballet dancer and barely seems to sweat. Nadal by contrast is – and it will seem like a charmless and uncomplimentary description, but I think he would understand – a ‘grunt’ – the noun used by American soldiers in the Vietnam war to describe an infantryman. He is a soldier. He goes on the court to fight and he will not stop fighting until all hope has disappeared. As the modern cliché goes, he leaves everything out there. He literally grunts with effort as he pounds his heavily spun forehands into his opponent’s side of the court.  Foster Wallace casts Nadal as ‘war’ and Federer as ‘love’. The battle between them is brutality versus beauty. Many would argue that there is no genius in Nadal’s brutality – just a lot of physical effort, fitness, resilience and determination. But for anyone who really studies the game, they know that Nadal is much more than this – in fact, for me, he has altered the definition of what genius can be – and effortlessness has nothing to do with it.


Nadal is a pugilistic competitor; all muscle and bustle and intensity – his backhand is a hard, compact right hook; his forehand a scything left uppercut. Yet unlike so many of the trash-talking boxers of the modern-day, Nadal’s intensity is concentrated on his opponent only in an abstract way – as well as winning on his own terms, his aim is to break down his opponent’s game and their physical ability to play their game, but there is almost never any direct psychological confrontation – eye-balling, sledging and the like. That is a strange apparent contradiction in Nadal’s character. In match-play he is perhaps one of the fiercest competitors in any sport and of any era. But as soon as each game has finished he seems quiet, polite and unassuming. Off-court he is charming and boyish, even a little meek and naïve-seeming. At those sometimes awkward meetings at the net in a changeover between games, he always lets his opponent cross in front of him. It is almost as though, in order to balance out the ferocity and intensity of his match play, he needs to be studiedly polite and calm when he is not playing.


His competitiveness and his refusal to give in, allied with his shot-making ability and athleticism, means that he ranks as one of the greatest defensive players of all time, if not the greatest. I have lost count of the number of times I have watched a Rafael Nadal match and felt in awe of his ability to rescue a point from an apparently hopeless situation. He wins points that he has no right to win; points that were running in his opponent’s favour right up until the moment Nadal hit the final shot of the rally and changed everything. There are many other great defensive players of recent years – like Novak Djokovic, Andy Murray, Leyton Hewitt and Gael Monfils – but none have the same consistency and ability to switch from defense into attack so quickly and decisively. I could use any number of points as an example but a few stand out in my mind. Like against his compatriot Fernando Verdasco in the Australian Open in 2009.

Nadal serves pretty much in the centre of the service box to left-hander Verdasco’s backhand and gets a hard bunt back that sends his momentum backwards. He whips a forehand back to Verdasco who in turn absolutely pummels one of his prodigious forehands right down the middle, forcing Nadal to practically kneel on the floor and scrape a backhand reply. Nadal spins 360 degrees clockwise to prepare himself for Verdasco’s next shot – another booming forehand that lands halfway between the service box and the baseline to Nadal’s right hand side. Nadal hits a weakish mid-court backhand, allowing Verdasco to hit deep again, but onto Nadal’s forehand side this time. Nadal’s pressured topspin reply is far too short, landing closer to the net than the service line, and it allows Verdasco to storm toward the net and land what looks like the killer blow – he absolutely leathers a topspin forehand deep and hard to Nadal’s backhand side. Miraculously, Nadal, who sprints across the baseline and lunges for the ball, somehow manages to get it back, forcing Verdasco to play yet another shot – and it is one of the most extraordinary shots I have ever seen – a sliced forehand smash hit about as hard as a tennis ball can be hit and that rises no more than a few centimetres above the ground. In the clip on YouTube you can hear a gasp from one of the commentators which seems to say ‘not even Nadal is going to be able to do anything with that.’ But, unbelievably, Nadal scrambles it back over the net again with a dexterous backhand flick on the run that seems almost casual but which requires absolutely ridiculous, machine-like timing, and then, when Verdasco hits his next shot deep to Nadal’s forehand and stands at the net, Nadal strikes a crisp half-volley cross-court winner as though it was the simplest thing in the world and almost immediately raises his arm to the sky to take the acclaim of the crowd. They love it. This is what they have come to see. He should not have won that point; Verdasco played brilliant attacking tennis and didn’t make anything that could remotely be called a mistake. In hindsight you might think that he could have played his final shot to the other side of the court – but at the same time he must have been stunned that it had come back to him at all.

In the same match, Verdasco plays another brilliant shot in another rally which he seemed to have almost total control of. The shot is a vicious, sliced backhand which lands virtually on the sideline and has so much sidespin that it jags sharply outwards and stays wickedly low. Undeterred by the brilliance of the shot, Nadal sprints from the other side of the court and rasps a whipped forehand down the line, past the stranded Verdasco, who stands with a bemused, disbelieving smile: ‘How did he do that?’ his smile seems to ask.

Against Ryan Harrison in the US Open in 2013 Nadal puts up a weak lob and Harrison, moving on to a high-bouncing ball that has only just landed on his side of the net, smashes the ball into Nadal’s forehand corner. The point looks finished but Nadal sprints at least six or seven metres beyond the edge of the court, and as far back as he can go, leaps and counter-smashes into the open court around the outside of the net post – a swerving, banana shot of a winner. The commentator on the YouTube clip says, in awe: ‘He can do anything with a forehand.’


Of course it is entertaining and inspiring to watch Roger Federer’s seemingly effortless brilliance, but I always find it strangely emotional watching these points where Nadal is apparently reeling and has no chance, yet somehow manages to turn the situation on its head. Something inside me switches when I watch him convert doughty defence into devastating attack – it’s like Mohammed Ali in Kinshasa, swinging on the ropes as George Foreman pounds his body and head, only to come off the ropes and deliver the knockout blow. They’re goosebump moments – it feels like the art of the impossible. I’m going to confess something here – sometimes the beginnings of tears even well up in the corner of my eyes. The feeling doesn’t last for long, but in that moment, Nadal has taught me a kind of beautiful lesson. He has demonstrated the triumph of perseverance, the potential rewards of not giving up, and the value of fighting when everything seems lost. I’ve taken spiritual succor from that in my life.


Nadal is not always the outsider in a rally, though – he is often the bully as well, something that is perhaps suggested in an odd facial tic of his – the Nadal sneer, which, strange though it may sound, is not an entirely unattractive thing. I think it is not entirely unattractive because he is not sneering at his opponent; my feeling is that it is a look of almost carnal pleasure in his own game when he is playing his most ruthless and uncompromising tennis, and when his competitiveness has reached a kind of fever pitch.   At this highest level of intensity he often does tend to bully his opponents and can run through matches very quickly, especially when he is dictating points with his phenomenal forehand, which has been a – possibly the – major factor in his overall success as a tennis player. It is a remarkable stroke, quite unlike any other in the game. Many great forehands (like that of Thomas Berdych or Juan Martin del Potro) are flat and hard; some are hard and precisely controlled with enough topspin to make for perfect placement (like that of Roger Federer), but Nadal’s greatest forehand weapon is the extreme spin – and consequent bounce – that he uniquely manages to generate with an extreme grip, open stance and wristy, whipping action, which in its most extreme variation ends with a lasso-like twirl above his head (usually called ‘the buggy whip’). His forehand bounces so high because it is revolving at a faster rate than any other tennis ball hit by anybody else, probably in the history of the game, averaging somewhere around 3,500 rpm, but sometimes getting up to 5,000 rpm. That is why Nadal’s grunts of effort sometimes look misleading – the ball does not always seem to travel quite as fast as you might expect, but velocity is only part of what Nadal imparts when he hits a ball on his forehand side – the main thing is the spin. When he is able to place these fast-spinning topspin forehands deep in his opponents’ half of the court, it is very difficult for his opponent to counter effectively. Commentators often talk about Nadal’s ‘weight of shot’, which sounds like it might not really be a thing – but it actually is – the difficulty of hitting a heavily spinning ball is far harder than hitting a ball with no spin. You can test this yourself by throwing a tennis ball against a wall with different types of spin. You will notice that if you impart extreme topspin on the ball with your fingers, it will angle sharply downwards on impact. Imagine that the wall is a racquet and you realise that it is necessary to compensate for that spin, which would otherwise tend to drag the ball towards the ground. Nadal’s opponents have to contend with this and the many variations of the degree of topspin he imparts.  It is probably the biggest single factor in his dominant head-to-head record (23-15) against Roger Federer who has historically struggled to cope with Nadal’s high-bouncing forehands on his own backhand side. (Federer has recently been more successful in negating this, though, and has won the last four encounters between the two men.) In general, though, even if his opponents are struggling with his forehand, Nadal does not tend to go in for the quick kill – he is better at grinding an opponent in to the dust by maneuvering them around the court, using his groundstrokes to gain incremental advantages with each shot, and tiring his opponent out by moving them around until he can either force an indirect error, or hit a shot that is impossible for his opponent to return. This is the classical clay court style and one of the reasons that Nadal is so brilliantly suited to clay more than any other surface.


There is not a weak part of Rafael Nadal’s game – he has a strong and reliable serve, an epic forehand, a punchy backhand, great recovery shots, a wonderful volley and one of the best smashes in the game. His athletic prowess and power is astonishing; his competitiveness and commitment are practically unparalleled, and his reading of the game is invariably smart.  But he is more vulnerable on some surfaces than others and his challenge at Wimbledon in the later part of his career has faded spectacularly – since last winning the championship in 2010 and losing in the final in 2011, he has lost in the second round, first round, fourth round, second round and fourth round. In 2016 he didn’t compete at all due to injury. On grass, a quick, slick surface with skiddy bounces, the ball tends to stay lower, the points are much quicker and there is not the same opportunity to manoeuvre opponents around the court. Nadal tends to sit very deep on returns and although this strategy works well on clay, it is far less effective in faster surfaces. His own forehand is also less effective because the bounce is so much lower – whereas on clay and hard courts the Nadal forehand rears up to startling heights; on the grass it instead falls into players’ ordinary hitting zones, probably making it much easier to hit than on other courts. Recurrent tendinitis in his knees have not helped either – as being able to bend the knees to get down to low balls is one of the essential skills for a grass-court baseliner.


But on clay, Nadal has reigned supreme for more than a decade, hence one of his most popular nicknames – The King of Clay. He has won the French Open ten times (‘la decima’) – beating Federer four times in the final and with an overall win-loss record between 2005 and 2017 of 79-2. In three of those victories he went the whole tournament without losing a single set (2008, 2010, 2017).  His overall win-loss percentage on clay is 91.7 per cent – better than Federer’s record on grass (87.2 per cent) and Djokovic’s on hard courts (84.2 per cent).  He has also won two of the other most important clay court tournaments ten times each – the Monte Carlo Open and the Barcelona Open. He has won the Rome Masters seven times and the Madrid Open five times. With fifty-three career titles on clay he is the most successful player of any era on the surface and there is a strong case for saying that he is the strongest ever player on a single surface.


As well as the ten French Opens, he has also been one of only five players (and the youngest of them all) to achieve the career grand slam of all the major championships at the age of 24. His overall record of sixteen grand slam titles places him second in the all-time list, just three behind his great rival Federer.


And yet… and yet… Nadal is not for everyone. People get irritated by his meticulous routines –  the picking his shorts out of his bottom, the micro-adjustments of his hair as he stands waiting to serve, his precise lining up of his drinks bottles, the way he scrapes the lines with his feet on the clay court. They are annoyed by the time he takes between points, which is often seen as a form of gamesmanship, designed to wrest the psychological initiative away from his opponent and break any momentum they may have been building. Perhaps more serious is his propensity for taking medical timeouts and toilet breaks at crucial moments in a match when he is losing; for instance, in the Australian Open final against Stan Wawrinka in 2014. And there have also been some unsubstantiated rumours of doping, rumours that Nadal has strenuously denied. In 2016, an ex-sports minister in the French government, Roselyne Bachelot, alleged on French television that Nadal feigned injury in 2012, when he missed the final six months of the season because of knee problems, in order to hide a positive drug test. Nadal is suing Bachelot and the case is ongoing.


Then there is the emotional attachment to the player – for many, as Foster Wallace argued – Federer embodies beauty with all the grace and elegance that goes with it. Tennis may have lots of power in it, but connoisseurs of the game also want an aesthetic experience when they are watching, rather than just a lot of bang-bang-wallop-boom. Federer offers angles, subtlety and variation. He renders that awful cliché ‘change-up’ (that makes me want to scream when I hear commentators Andrew Castle and John Lloyd use it) obsolete because he has such an enormous repertoire of shots to call on at any given moment that there is no such thing as a change from a standard variation – there is no standard variation. The excitement of watching Federer is that he could do almost anything at any time.


Nadal by contrast often tends to fall into an almost metronomic pattern in matches, especially on the clay, of pounding his forehands down again and again until his opponent makes a mistake. He does not use the same degree of variation and surprise as Federer; he does not have that same extensive vocabulary. That may feel dull in comparison, but I think it is merely a different type of aesthetic that is no less thrilling to watch and which encapsulates the remorseless, relentless passion that Nadal has both for playing tennis and for winning tennis matches. That passion is often evident when Nadal energises himself and the crowd with one of his famous exhortations of ‘Vamos!’ – often punching the air and occasionally kicking his knee up to his chest. And for me, Nadal has the ability to involve me emotionally in his matches in a way that Federer almost never does. Federer produces brilliance as though it has been given to him by the gods and he has a right to that gift – in the face of his own genius he mostly seems unmoved and is coolness personified. Nadal by contrast makes it plain that effort and determination, blood, sweat and tears are at the heart of his success, and when his brilliance comes to the surface he celebrates it passionately as though he himself climbed the highest of mountains to discover the spring from which the water of genius flows. The fact that he has to grunt and grind and pummel and pound doesn’t detract from this genius – it adds to it. In a secular universe in which the gods have declined to come amongst us with their presents of prodigious talents, finding out that you can attain it for yourself with dedication and guts and passion is a comforting and consoling experience that is worth celebrating.

Dame Vera Lynn’s new book


Dame Vera Lynn's new book Keep Smiling Through


Dame Vera Lynn’s new book Keep Smiling Through: My Wartime Story is published today by Century. Vera turned 100 earlier this year and I have been fortunate enough to work with her and her daughter Virginia Lewis-Jones in telling the remarkable story of her visit to entertain the troops in Burma in 1944.

Her visit coincided with the turning point in the war in the Far East and she was close to the front as the pivotal battles of Kohima and Imphal were being fought. Vera had just turned twenty-seven, and had only been out of the country once before, but she wanted to do ‘her bit’ to help.

This book tells her story but also the story of many of the servicemen who met her and heard her sing. They were in many cases highly charged, emotional moments, as troops came away from ferocious fighting in the malaria-ridden jungle to hear a beautiful female voice from home sing messages that felt to them had been sent directly from their wives, sweethearts and mothers. Vera not only sang, but chatted to the soldiers and toured makeshift hospital wards, speaking to men who were very badly wounded and in a lot of pain. It is no exaggeration to say that in many cases they regarded her as an angel.

As well as the personal stories, the book also gives a lot of background to the wider campaign in Burma and tells the story of how the fortunes of the Fourteenth army were transformed under the legendary, straight-talking, square-jawed, soldier’s soldier, General ‘Bill’ Slim.

At the time of writing, Vera is the best-selling female artist of 2017 in terms of album sales; wouldn’t it be an amazing thing if she could top the charts for both music and books in her centenary year?


A new charter – and a new chance – for trees in the UK



I wanted to write something about the launch of the tree charter on 6 November, which hasn’t been widely covered in the media, but I did find this great piece by Boudicca Fox-Leonard (what a name!) in the Telegraph that seems to cover most of what I wanted to say, which either means I’m not nearly as original as I thought I was, or I’m in exalted company in thinking along the same lines as Ms Fox-Leonard!

Her piece begins with a wonderful sentence: ‘In slides the shovel, out comes a clod of earth; a delicate sapling is dropped into the neat hole and soil repacked around it.’ She mentions the fact that our percentage of tree cover in the UK is far below the European average. Across the UK it stands at around 13 per cent and in England it is just 10 per cent. Compare this to France (36.76%), Spain (36.7%), Italy (35%) and Germany (32%). Even allowing for the fact that Britain is an island with a high population density, the comparison is enormously unfavourable, yet 2016 was the worst year for planting on record. She also points out that the government pledged to plant 11 million trees by 2020 and that this pledge is unlikely to be kept. In other words, not enough is being done to improve the situation.

Why do I think it is important that more trees are planted? I have two main answers to that question – the first is personal; and the second is more about the benefits that I believe trees provide to our society as a whole.

I love spending time amongst trees and I am lucky enough to live on the edge of the New Forest, which has some beautiful woodland (though less than you might think). In the Telegraph article I cited above, Boudicca Fox-Leonard mentions the Japanese word ‘shinrin-yoku’, which literally means forest-bathing, and I find there is something immeasurably restorative about being immersed in the dappled light and many-hued greens and browns of forests.

A number of studies have been done which show that trees do exert a positive psychological impact not just on me, but on people in general. A study published in the journal Nature combined satellite imagery, individual tree data, and health surveys from 31,109 residents of the greater Toronto, Canada area. It found that people who live in areas with higher street tree density report better health perception compared with their peers living in areas with lower street tree density.

Trees also provide more tangible benefits:

  • They capture carbon and store it, which means that mass tree-planting can be an effective part of helping to reduce the impacts of climate change.
  • Tree-planting can help to reduce flooding by increasing water penetration and retention.
  • They offer habitats for many different types of wildlife.
  • Urban trees can play a key role in reducing urban heat island effect and regulating temperature in cities.

It is nothing less than a national tragedy that we do not have more trees, more protection for woodland and a culture that more meaningfully celebrates trees and the amazing benefits that they can give us. Many of the reasons for this are given in this superbly argued piece by George Monbiot, which specifically looks at what might happen after Brexit and the death of the current EU subsidies regime.

It is clear to me that something needed to be done and the launch of the tree charter seems like a positive first step.

The Woodland Trust first started the call for a tree charter 2015 by in response to the crisis facing trees and woods in the UK. Up until this point there has been no clear, unifying statement about the rights of people in the UK to the benefits of trees, woods and forests. The UK’s trees and woods face:

  • low planting rates;
  • lack of legal protection;
  • inconsistent management;
  • declining interest in forestry and arboriculture careers;
  • threats from housing and infrastructure development, pests, diseases and climate change.

Each one of these issues was being addressed in isolation by a small number of concerned organisations and tree lovers.

The Woodland Trust reached out to all sections of UK society to define the new charter, and to build a people-powered movement for trees. More than 70 organisations and 300 local community groups answered the call and helped to collect over 60,000 tree stories from people, demonstrating the important role that trees play in their lives. These stories were read and shared, and helped to define the 10 Principles of the Tree Charter, ensuring that it stands for every tree and every person in the UK.

On 6 November 2017, on the 800th anniversary of the 1217 Charter of the Forest, the new Charter for Trees, Woods and People was launched at Lincoln Castle – home to one of the two remaining copies of the 1217 Charter of the Forest. It now rests in the Lincolnshire Archives.

I think that the launch of the new charter is an important step in not only achieving the much-needed increase in planting rates, but also in terms of making trees a more crucial, better-understood and better-appreciated part of our wider culture. As Boudicca Fox-Leaonard wrote, ‘It only takes a minute to plant a tree, but the effects last more than our lifetime.’

Sign up to the tree charter and a tree will be planted for you.


My strange role in the death of neonicotinoids in the UK

My very first blog on my new website was an open letter to Michael Gove about neonicotinoids – the controversial family of pesticides that many scientists believe has been one of the primary causes of major reductions in insect and bird populations over the past fifteen years. I suggested that Mr Gove make a move to ban the use of neoniciotinoids.

I first published my blog on 6 November but didn’t get around to actually sending the letter to Michael Gove until 8 November. On 9 November there was a surprise announcement: Michael Gove backed a total ban on neonicotinoids.

I cannot take all the credit for this decision – after all many groups have been lobbying for the ban for some time and Greenpeace has collected more than 130,000 signature in the UK calling for it. But, at the same time, I couldn’t help but think that the timing very neatly coincided with my intervention.

The reaction from the environmental lobby has been almost universally positive. Green Party MP Caroline Lucas wrote:

Greenpeace UK tweeted:

But at the school gates that same afternoon I was talking to a friend of mine who suggested to me that the news might not be quite as positive as it at first seemed. If farmers are not using neonicotinoids, she said, then they would have to use something else and many of the alternatives are pretty horrendous as well. She also said that because the alternatives have lower efficacy then they will be used in greater quantities.

There was a similar theme in Hannah Lownsbrough’s piece in the Guardian, in which she called for Michael Gove to adopt ‘a bold stance when confronted with similar evidence about other dangerous pesticides.’

And this brilliantly demystifying document on the subject of pesticide use from the Soil Association makes the much more general point that ‘Regulation on pesticides is slowly improving but is still inadequate to fully protect the environment and human health.’

Nonetheless, I was encouraged not just by Michael Gove’s decision but for his justification in making it. He wrote that:

Environmental change on such a scale is profoundly worrying. Not least because of the critical role played by bees and other pollinators. These particular flying insects are absolutely critical to the health of the natural world. Without a healthy pollinator population we put the whole ecological balance of our world in danger.

It strikes me that someone who accepts this premiss is  not only going to make a good decision on neonicotinoids but should also support more adequate legislative regulation on pesticides in general. I hope I’m right.


American Pastoral and the need for a new American Dream



I am reading the novel American Pastoral by Philip Roth at the moment (a really thought-provoking novel) and I was struck by this passage in the book – a speech that the narrator imagines himself giving to his fiftieth anniversary high school reunion, but never does.

Let’s remember the energy. Americans were governing not only themselves but some two hundred million people in Italy, Austria, Germany, and Japan. The war-crimes trials were cleansing the earth of its devils once and for all. Atomic power was ours alone. Rationing was ending, price controls were being lifted; in an explosion of self-assertion, auto workers, coal workers, transit workers, maritime workers, steel workers – laborers by the millions demanded more and went on strike for it. And playing Sunday morning softball on the Chancellor Avenue field and pickup basketball on the asphalt courts behind the school were all the boys who had come back alive, neighbors, cousins, older brothers, their pockets full of separation pay, the GI Bill inviting them to break out in ways they could not have imagined possible before the war. Our class started high school six months after the unconditional surrender of the Japanese, during the greatest moment of collective inebriation in American history. And the upsurge of energy was contagious. Around us nothing was lifeless. Sacrifice and constraint were over. The Depression had disappeared. Everything was in motion. The lid was off. Americans were to start over again, en masse, everyone in it together.

The same day as I read this summary of American post-war enthusiasm and power, I read Gary Younge’s article in the Guardian: My travels in white America – a land of anxiety, division and pockets of pain.

The article paints virtually the flip-side of Roth’s narrator’s analysis of just over seventy years ago. It is a picture – in working class white America in particular – of failing health,  a national opioid epidemic, a lack of jobs and prospects, and a loss of belief in the idea of social mobility – that crucial myth at the heart of the American dream that no matter who you are and where you come from, you can make it in America. It’s a startling picture of how far America has fallen, especially when you contrast these two pieces together.

Trump’s slogan ‘Make America Great Again’, or ‘MAGA’, is an admission of this slump in fortunes; it essentially says: ‘we lost’ – the implicit premiss is that America is no longer great. So how do you appeal to a set of people (white Americans) who, accustomed to at least feeling like victors and having the sense that opportunity is at their fingertips, suddenly find themselves on the wrong side of history? With an emotive call to bring back the glory years, of course, however wrong and misguided that may be. And before you start thinking that this is the thesis of a snooty Brit, a similar thing is happening this side of the Atlantic as well, though here the slogan is: ‘Taking back control’.

The death of the American dream is a theme that has been around for as long as the American dream has been a thing and in Roth’s novel, written in 1995, the dream turns sour for its hero ‘Swede’ Levov, just as it does in The Great Gatsby, written before the Second World War. Yet for an outsider, as I am, it strikes me that America has lost its way now – and the American dream has become so problematic to so many – because, in a number of crucial areas, America is spectacularly ill-adapted to thrive in the twenty-first century.

Of these, America’s interlinked love of fossil fuels and its egregious per capita consumption,  stand out in particular as being utterly unsustainable in a world in which resource shortages are likely to become more and more acute. This article in Scientific American gives an overview of just how insane this level of consumption is when compared to almost every other nation on earth. For instance, with less than five per cent of world population, the US uses one-third of the world’s paper, a quarter of the world’s oil, 23 per cent of the coal, 27 per cent of the aluminum, and 19 per cent of the copper. The average American use as many resources as 35 average citizens of India and consume 53 times more goods and services than the average person in China. And it’s not only developing nations that America outstrips, but developed ones as well: American fossil fuel consumption is double that of the average resident of Great Britain and two and a half times that of the average citizen of Japan.

It strikes me that rampant consumerism does not have to be an essential part of the American dream, yet it has come to be synonymous with it. Nowhere in the American constitution does it guarantee the freedom to consume. And surely the expectation of needing to consume enormous amounts of raw materials is part of the problem of setting expectations about what life can offer for Americans. The opioid crisis is more than a drug crisis – it’s a spiritual band aid for diminished material aspirations and the slow, dawning realization that the post-war idea of the American dream is properly dead.

Trump’s big theme (other than himself) is freedom, a theme at the heart of the American dream and a theme which he embodies with a careless abandon – constantly demonstrating his own freedom to offend, to be inconsistent, to do what he wants, when he wants. He represents a kind of unashamed philistine  grossness – that it’s okay to be offensive, that greed is good, and that violence is not only necessary but to be encouraged. Since being in office, he has defended the freedom of companies to pollute and contribute to climate change, and the freedom of American citizens to carry deadly assault rifles, amongst others.

George Monbiot has convincingly shown how the excuse of ‘freedom’ is used to justify all manner of terrible things. He writes:

In the name of freedom – freedom from regulation – the banks were permitted to wreck the economy. In the name of freedom, taxes for the super-rich are cut. In the name of freedom, companies lobby to drop the minimum wage and raise working hours. In the same cause, US insurers lobby Congress to thwart effective public healthcare; the government rips up our planning laws; big business trashes the biosphere. This is the freedom of the powerful to exploit the weak, the rich to exploit the poor.

This kind of destructive freedom is the same kind of freedom that is at the heart of America’s unbridled consumerism and Trump is its enthusiastic ambassador. The trouble is that a freedom for one group can often mean the restriction or deprivation of other people’s freedoms; and, increasingly, America’s indulgence in its freedoms is not just a problem for the wider world, but a problem for itself as well.  The scientific consensus is that man-made climate change is making events like destructive hurricanes and flooding, drought and wildfires more common – and these are wreaking terrible damage in America. Not only that, but the lifestyle expectations that accompany these levels of consumption are no longer realistic and will become even less so as the fossil fuel age begins its inexorable decline. Trump is a throwback and what America needs is a way of working out how the idea of the American dream can survive in an era of diminishing material aspiration.


An open letter to Michael Gove MP

Dear Mr Gove,

Two worrying reports about insects have come to my attention in the past couple of weeks – the first a widely reported study from Germany that has seen a 75 per cent drop in insect numbers over the past 25 years; the second a report about the steady decline in honey crop from the British Beekeepers Association.

In a survey of members of the British Beekeepers Association, 62 per cent said that they believed neonicotinoids are to blame, a belief which seems to be supported by the fact that suburban beekeepers (away from agricultural land) are returning better yields that rural beekeepers.

The first of these reports is frankly terrifying to me – a 40 year-old with two young children. I had hoped that my children might get to see as much of the beauty of the natural world as I have managed to do in my life. Now I spend more time worrying about whether they will live for as long as me, as mass extinctions of wild animals gain in speed. I think that it is our generation’s responsibility to reverse this trend. I know that you have expressed the commitment to try and leave the environment in a better state at the end of your term than at the beginning. I am dubious of your ability to do this, not least because the juggernaut of environmental destruction seems to have a scary amount of momentum that is going to be difficult to stop.

But, hey, one thing at a time – and this letter is all about insects.

It has been said many times, but it seems to need saying again: bees and other pollinating insects are vital for agriculture and a healthy ecosystem. I believe that the government has a responsibility to do their best to protect bees and it seems that a ban on neonicotinoids seems like a sensible starting point.

Do you support this move and, if you do not, how can you defend keeping neonicotinoids?

Let’s not wait until it’s too late to take decisive action – I think you can do something to make the world a slightly better place right now. Please use that power well.

Yours sincerely,

Kevin Telfer