Quis Custodiet Custodes? Transparency, trust and accountability

Last April, I wrote about the accountability of public bodies on my blog -

"Some 15 years or so ago, transparency and accountabilitybecame a big issue  in my professional field (of governance). I have only recently begun to question the motives which have been at work. Reassuring at one level in the story it told of how various public organisations were held to account by citizens, it demonstrated one of many apparently superior elements of the capitalist model of governance over the communist one which had been the default system of the countries in which many of us were working post 1989. For example, in 2001 I myself wrote this briefing note on the issue for my beneficiaries in the Presidential Office of a Central Asian State.
But, at another level, the emphasis (in the UK at any rate) on the need for more and m"ore scrutiny of government business has perhaps had a hidden agenda – part of the wider agenda there has been for several decades to convince people that government activities were inherently inefficient and malevolent – and that the private sector would do it much better. But, while we were devoting more and more energy to scrutiny, for example, of local government activities, regulations and controls were being lifted from banks and financial agencies".

 This week a shocking report was issued on the apparent failure of a panoply of control and accountability bodies in the British health system. An article written the day before the report was published summarised the issues very well.

An estimated 400-1,200 patients died as a result of poor care over the 50 months between January 2005 and March 2009 at Stafford hospital, a small district general hospital in Staffordshire. The report published on 6 February 2013 of the public inquiry chaired by Robert Francis QC is the fifth official report into the scandal since 2009, and Francis's second into the hospital's failings.
His first report, published in February 2010, was an independent report under the NHS Act rather than a full-blown public inquiry. It examined the quality of care at Stafford hospital in 2005-09 and the many reasons why it was so bad, such as inadequate staffing, and produced devastating conclusions.

The new public inquiry began in July 2010. Its remit was "to investigate why and how a wide range of commissioning, supervisory and regulatory bodies and systems in the NHS failed to detect poor care at Stafford and to intervene". As such it probed the role of the bodies and individuals all the way from the hospital itself – including the trust's board and its patient liaison group – up to the most senior figures at the Department of Health in Whitehall, including ministers, senior civil servants and key figures in the NHS.
Its brief included its duty "to examine why problems at the trust were not identified sooner; and appropriate action taken. This includes, but is not limited to, examining the actions of the Department of Health, the local Strategic Health Authority, the local primary care trust(s), the Independent Regulator of NHS Foundation trusts (Monitor), the Care Quality Commission, the Health and Safety Executive, local scrutiny and public engagement bodies and the local coroner."
None of the links in what should have been the NHS's chain of monitoring and scrutinising hospital care, and intervening if necessary, did its job properly.
 Andrew Lansley, the then health secretary, commissioned the full public inquiry in June 2010, soon after the coalition took power. It was held under the Public Inquiries Act 2005. Labour in 2009 and 2010 had refused to accede to persistent requests from relatives of victims of the Mid Staffs scandal to hold such an inquiry. Instead ministers commissioned the first Francis report as well as two other, separate inquiries into specific aspects of how the hospital and local healthcare system operated. They were led by Professor George Alberti, the DH's national clinical director for emergency care, and Dr David Colin-Thome, his counterpart at the DH for primary care. They reported in April 2009.

Francis's report into care at Stafford hospital in February 2010, based on evidence from over 900 patients and families, was scathing. "I heard so many stories of shocking care," he said. "They were people who entered Stafford hospital and rightly expected to be well cared for and treated. Instead, many suffered horrific experiences that will haunt them and their loved ones for the rest of their lives."
Francis cited a litany of failings in the care of patients. "For many patients the most basic elements of care were neglected," he said. Some patients needing pain relief either got it late or not at all. Others were left unwashed for up to a month. "Food and drinks were left out of the reach of patients and many were forced to rely on family members for help with feeding." Too many patients were sent home before they were ready to go, and ended up back in hospital soon afterwards. "The standards of hygiene were at times awful, with families forced to remove used bandages and dressings from public areas and clean toilets themselves for fear of catching infections." Patients' calls for help to use the toilet were ignored, with the result that they were left in soiled sheeting or sitting on commodes for hours "often feeling ashamed and afraid". Misdiagnosis was common.

"A chronic shortage of staff, particularly nursing staff, was largely responsible for the substandard care," Francis found in his first report.
In addition, morale was low and "while many staff did their best in difficult circumstances, others showed a disturbing lack of compassion towards their patients", he added. "Staff who spoke out felt ignored and there is strong evidence that many were deterred from doing so through fear and bullying."
He laid much of the blame on the trust's ruling board. The action they took to investigate and resolve concerns "was inadequate and lacked an appropriate sense of urgency". Its members also "chose to rely on apparently favourable performance reports by outside bodies, such as the Healthcare Commission, rather than effective internal assessment and feedback from staff and patients". He was particularly critical of the trust's failure to take patients' complaints seriously enough.
Crucially, Francis also highlighted the key impact of the trust board's decision to try to save £10m in 2006-07, as part of its desire to gain foundation trust status. "The board decided this saving could only be achieved through cutting staffing levels, which were already insufficient." It also ignored staff's concerns, he added.

Needless to say, the scandal is being used by both left and right in their battle for votes. The disaster occurred on the New Labour “watch” and arguably was linked to the major structural changes the Labour Government had been pushing for 10 years to give both market mechanisms and private companies a stronger role in England’s (Scotland has not bought this “commodification” model) National Health Service. The Coalition Government in power since 2010 has gratefully built on that principle and is using the scandal of care in that hospital to bolster its argument for the need for the dramatic increase in marketization they have introduced in recent months.

Until this latest report, however, no one was really looking at the effectiveness of the control bodies. The incredible growth of regulatory and auditing bodies in Britain in the last 25 years was the subject more than a decade ago of a considerable literature. And English municipalities were required in 2000 to set up “Scrutiny” committees. This 2010 House of Commons research report gives a brief overview; and a blogpost of  mine in that same year gave a wider perspective.

But perhaps it is time we looked at the counter-productive aspects of all this – in the spirit of Ivan Krastev’s new book entitled In Mistrust We Trust: Can Democracy Survive When We Don't Trust Our Leaders? 

The print at the start of the blog illustrates the famous Panoptican of control dreamed up by the English philosopher, Jeremy Bentham 

Perfidious Albion again?

Glorious sun yesterday in Sofia with pavement cafes full of people tasting an early spring day as I emerged from the Rodina Hotel after some swimming and exercise.

Although the English newspapers seemed to have moved on to other topics, feelings are still very high in this part of the world about the latest example of perfidious Albion – threatened restrictions on the free movement of labour from January 2014. Britain was, after all, one of the governments pushing for early entry of Bulgaria and Romania ten years ago (and indeed was one of only three EU members to allow open access after 2004 to citizens of the 7 new member states who joined then).

The accusation of inconsistency misses a crucial point – that it was a Labour Government (1997 to 2010) which did these things. The Cameron government which is now in charge is a government of upper-class ideologues who want to go one better than Thatcher in the breaking of the old “social contract” which the UK benefited from the end of the second-world war to about 1980. Further marketization, attack on welfare benefits are the basic strategy – although they were not mentioned in the respective manifestoes of the coalition partners. Of course open immigration fits such a neo-liberal approach - but loses the votes necessary to pursue such policies. Immigration has been a major issue in British (or at least English) politics for the past 50 years – and some of the reasons are set out in the fascinating diagram which shows thevarious waves of immigration to Britain in the last couple of centuries – particularly those of the last 60 or so years. Although an English politician did in the 1960s make an infamous speech warning of “rivers flowing with blood” if the immigration (of West Indians then) continued, the UK had, until the early 1980s, a net negative flow of migration. More people were leaving than coming in.
This all changed 30 years ago – due to a new flow of Asian immigrants many of whom do not easily integrate. When 7 central European countries joined the European Union in 2004, the UK was one of only 3 countries (the others being Ireland and Sweden) to allow unrestricted entry on to the labour market for the citizens of those 7 countries. The government advisers had anticipated only a small flow – but grossly underestimated the scale. That’s why 3 years later, the government took a more restrictive approach to Bulgaria and Romania – for a period which runs out in January next year.        

England has actually benefitted from the professionals and students who have come to England – it is actually Bulgaria and Romania who have suffered from the loss of highly-skilled doctors and young people. The real fear is, of course, that the 2014 relaxation will first bring in the gypsies – who have been the bane of France and Germany (German cities have become very concerned about the scale and effects of such immigration) - after which, the British Conservatives fear, they will lose votes (in England) to the nationalist UKIP and thereby the next General Election in 2015. Pity that the Conservatives are so insular that they did not think of cooperating with the French, Germans (and Italians) to explore ways of dealing with immigrants who harass and steal from the public. My understanding is that deportation (as France found out) is a difficult option legally.

Tom Gallagher makes an important wider point in his article on the issues -

That world citizen Tony Blair actually turned up in the Romanian parliament in May 1999 and promised  them that the gates of Europe would be flung open for them if they would help NATO in its confrontation with the Serbian ruler Milosevic over his ill-treatment of his Albanian subjects in Kosovo.
Not only did they comply, but they made huge economic sacrifices to prepare Romania for full membership of the EU in 2007. Britain was their chief sponsor and the 20 million Romanians were regularly told that their living standards would start to approach the EU norms if they swallowed the harsh medicine. Instead, it will take centuries for this to occur. They privatised their industry, abandoned their price subsidies and allowed massive economic dumping by powerful EU states only to find that they cannot make ends meet at home with derisory salaries.  Their sleazy political elite allied to the British Liberals and Labour have been the only real local beneficiaries of membership. 

The satirical poster is one of Franz Juttner's - "The British sing hymns - but think of war"

welcome to my new Taiwan and Ukraine readers!

I wish I knew more about my readers! I am told only how many there are each day, week and month - and which countries they are reading in. In recent weeks we have apparently been joined by readers from Taiwan and Ukraine. Yesterday indeed the Taiwanese pushed the United States off the top ratings they normally enjoy!
So a warm welcome to readers in both Taiwan and Ukraine!
Hope you find the posts interesting - and please don't hesitate to let me know what you feel about the posts......what subjects interest you......
You helped boost my readership figures in January to their highest monthly level - just under 3000

The aquarelles are Grigor Naidenov's - whcih I was very pleased to find in a pile of unframed paintings here last week. I have greatly taken to his cafe scenes (of Sofia in the 1940s) since first bidding for an oil last year - and then an aquarelle in December. I know nothing about him except that he was born in 1885 and died at a ripe age in his 90s. I had some fun with Yassen selecting appropriate frames and passe-partouts!

The Crisis on screen

It’s not easy to transfer ideas and argument about financial and economic crises onto the big screen. Sure we had Rollover with Jane Fonda and Kris Kristofferson – an amazingly prescient film in 1981 about financial speculation which I only recently came across in a pile of remaindered DVDs.

In 1987 Michael Douglas played Gordon Gekko (“Greed is good”) in Wall St - Money Never Sleeps

In 2010 Michael Moore gave us Capitalism – a Love Story

And, in 2011, Matt Damon starred in Inside Job 

But, for various reasons, the big money which decides which films sound to be box-office winners doesn’t readily support a pitch for a film which sounds to be a glorified lecture. And agit-prop stuff rarely translates into good cinema. But Robert Reich now looks set to become the first American academic to take economics successfully into the movie halls

Reich has been rated as one of the top 10 business thinkers in America. You don’t forget him easily – he is less than 5 feet; was Secretary of State for Labour in Clinton’s first administration; coined the phrase "symbolic analysts" in his 1992 book Work of Nations; has been one of the few self-avowed American “liberals” (which is now a term of abuse in America) consistently to take on the neo-Cons there; wrote in 2010 an aggressive book about the global crisis - Aftershock; and was, again, one of the few American academics to have strongly and visibly supported the Occupy Now movement.

Today’s Guardian has an excellent story on the success at Sundance film festival of the film Inequality for All - based on his Aftershock book

Reich charts the three decades of increasing median income after the second world war, a period he calls "the great prosperity" and then examines what happened in the late 1970s to put an end to it. The economy didn't falter. It kept on growing. But wages didn't.
The figures that Reich supplies are simply gobsmacking. In 1978, the typical male US worker was making $48,000 a year (adjusted for inflation). Meanwhile the average person in the top 1% was making $390, 000. By 2010, the median wage had plummeted to $33,000, but at the top it had nearly trebled, to $1,100,000.

"Something happened in the late 1970s," we hear him tell his Berkeley class. And much of the rest of the film is working out what happened.
Some inequality is inevitable, he says. Even desirable. It's what makes capitalism tick. But at what point does it become a problem? When the middle classes (in its American sense of the 25% above and below the median wage) have so little of the economic pie that it affects not just their lives but the economy as a whole.

Reich's thesis is that since the 1970s a combination of anti-union legislation and deregulation of the markets contrived to create a situation in which the economy boomed but less of the wealth trickled down. Though for a while, nobody noticed. There were "coping mechanisms". More women entered the workforce, creating dual-income families. Working hours rose. And increasing house prices enabled people to borrow.
And then, in 2007, this all came crashing to a halt. "We have exhausted all the options," he says. There's nowhere else left to go. It's crunch time
 In the film, he tells how he made strategic alliances with older boys who could protect him from the bullying he suffered by virtue of his small size (He is less than 5 ft) . And years later, he discovered that one of them had travelled down to Mississippi to register voters and had been tortured and then murdered. "That changed my life," he says.
"He has never cashed in," says Kornbluth, the film's Director. "He's an incredibly smart guy and he could have found a way to correlate that into money as so many people do. But he never has. He has absolute integrity. It's almost shocking now for someone not to do that. I mean one of the film-makers I admire is Mike Leigh. And he does McDonald's commercials and I was like 'Whoa!' when I found out but I can't hold it against him. You can't hold it against anybody who's trying to make a living. But it makes Rob all the more amazing. He doesn't sit on boards. Or on think tanks. He draws a modest salary. He has this absolute moral compass. And he's still trying to change the world."

In the 60s and 70s, this wasn't such a surprising thing. Reich recounts how he grew up "in a time of giants". His first job was working for Bobby Kennedy. Changing the world was what everyone wanted to do.
The world has changed. Just not in the way many thought it would. We fell victim to what Reich calls "the huge lie". That the free market is good. And government is bad. Government makes the rules, Reich keeps on reminding us, over and over. And it decides who benefits from those rules, and who is harmed. And increasingly, that boils down to the rich and the poor.

Perhaps the most surprising voice in the film is Nick Hanauer's. He's just your ordinary, everyday billionaire. One of the 1%. Except that he believes – like Warren Buffett – that he doesn't pay enough tax. And that hammering the middle class, the ones who buy actual stuff, who create demand, which in turn creates jobs and more taxes, is simply bad for the economy. "I mean, I drive the fanciest Audi around, but it's still only one of them… Three pairs of jeans a year, that will just about do me."
The system simply isn't working, he says. It's put the millionaires and the billionaires, the Nick Hanauers and the Mitt Romneys – the people that Republican rhetoric describes as job creators – at the centre of the economic universe, rather than what Hanauer calls the true job creators – the middle classes.
The problem is, he says, is that they've been attacked from every side. He was one of the initial investors in Amazon, a business of which he's "incredibly proud", but he points out that on revenues in the last three months of 2012 of $21bn (£13bn), Amazon employs just 65,600 people. "If it was a mom and pop retailer, it would be 600,000 people, or 800,000 or a million."
Globalisation and technology have played their role. But so has the government. For decades, under both Republicans and Democrats the highest rate of tax didn't dip below 70%. Now, Hanauer says he pays 11% on a six-figure income. Hanauer believes that if he was taxed more, he would be better off, because his company – he's a venture capitalist and his family own a pillow factory – would sell more products, and he would, therefore, make more money.

The caricature is by a Romanian painter of the inter-war period - Joseph Iser

Bulgarians and Romanians teach the English manners!

The Guardian has today a piece about the scale of offence the British Government has caused here in Bulgaria by the restrictive attitude it is apparently taking to the lifting in a year of the current restrictions to the entry of Bulgarian and Romanian workers.
Quite rightly people here are saying it was apparently OK for Brits to come in their thousands a few years back and snap up houses in Bulgarian villages for 6,000 euros or so - so why is the reverse movement not acceptable?

Romanians have also reacted very strongly with a lot of the energy being poured into a campaign to produce posters advertising the positive aspects of Romania – many of them with a gentle mocking tone eg one which simply says “Charles bought a house here in 2005 and Harry has never been photographed once naked”. Nice one!! See the last half of this post for more on this....

Little wonder that the author of the link I’ve just given suggests that the ineptness of the British Government has, remarkably, managed to produce a positive sense of national pride amongst Romanians – probably the first since the Romanian football team was playing well some 17 years or so back in the World Cup Final.

But it all makes life a bit difficult for people like me who live in the two countries (little wonder that the old lady selling wine from the Karlove and Rila areas in the shop on Rakovski street frostily told me yesterday to speak Bulgarian yesterday!!) I will have to resort (as I generally do!) to my Scottish identity...
And Scotland does generally have a good record of greeting its immigrants who have, admittedly, never come on the scale of West Indians in the 1950s to England, for example. It is the Scottish weather which discourages - rather than its people!
The only immigrant group which has complained recently about experiencing prejudice in Scotland is.......the English! For most of the 20th Century it was the Irish who experienced great discrimination....the urban poor (at least in the West of Scotland) was a synonym for the Irish immigrant and their descendants who experienced great religious (and political) intolerance.... 

It will be interesting to see how the UK Ambassadors in the 2 countries will handle the affair. The UK Ambassador in Romania must be particularly angry and embarrassed. He had recently gone on the charm offensive and issued a video about the beauties of the UK!! The UK government has been caught on the hop on this one (the info about the negative campaign was, I understand, leaked) so has not so far even had the time or decency to apologise.
But of course this government of upper-class twits would never entertain a second thought about offending foreigners! Indeed it revels in it - imagining that the more Europeans it offends, the greater their popularity amongst the electorate!!
And it's interesting that an article in today's Independent UK newspaper about the Romanian campaign has already attracted 850 comments - although a lot of them seem to be about the last war! And most of the others moaning about the quality of life in the UK. The (Scottish!) writer Alex Massie has a sensible article in (right-wing) Spectator pointing out how illogical, indeed "contemptible", the arguments are for discrimination against Bulgarian and Romanian workers.   

Reasoned discussion is difficult in such an environment - but the Bulgarians and Romanians are teaching us a lesson (in both tone and smartness) on how to deal with prejudice. The civilised and generous terms in which the Editor of Gandul ("The Thought"), the Romanian newspaper which spearheaded the campaign, has explained their approach should embarrass British populists -

We invaded Britain two years ago as a tourist, leaving many pounds and my soul. London seemed to me one of the most cosmopolitan, multicultural and tolerant cities that we visited. Everywhere people were attentive and eager to help, especially when they saw us confused standing in the street with map in hand. I beat London on foot, from Clapham Common to Kensington Gardens, and everywhere I had a comfortable feeling of "home". A feeling I discovered in Barcelona, ​​New York, Paris or Amsterdam, a feeling that I am on the streets in the centre of Bucharest, Brasov or Sibiu, but leaves me when I get in the neighbourhood Pipera or villages swimming through mud.
 People who are "everywhere at home" feel part of Western civilization and act accordingly. I know many Romanian who went to learn, work and live honestly in the UK. I never heard anyone complaining of discrimination. On the contrary, they are appreciated, successful and obviously did not have any cultural complex. Of course, exceptions can always rely on, but my impression is that the general atmosphere among British to Romanian is significantly different from what some newspapers anti-immigration and some conservative politicians tries to portray. Therefore, as the news about the "hordes" of Romanian and Bulgarian will invade the United Kingdom after lifting labour market restrictions should be treated with leniency. Who wanted to leave in the last 10-15 years has already left.
Also, a campaign like the one that the British government would like to discourage Romanians and Bulgarians from coming for work cannot be done without humour. The best way to fight stereotypes is to laugh at them.
 Hence our "Why do not you come over?" campaign aimed at the Brits- as a possible answer to the fears of the British and the frustrations of Romanian who feel that they get an injustice. We are not barbarians. We invite you to discover and see the reality with your own eyes - this is the message of the campaign which soon hit the international press.
Romania has unsuspected resources of talent and intelligence, and when they are channelled into worthwhile projects foreign reaction is initially surprise, then admiration. Intelligent ideas and humour have come to the newspaper thought the comments box on our Facebook page and discussion forums at The Guardian and The Huffington Post shows if needed, they are the most valuable country brand.
 As for me: London, here I come! (Google translation)

Here's a nice bit of coverage of some of the local rituals one can find at this time of the year here in Bulgaria  

Exposing the international consultancies

I read three journals – 2 dailies and one weekly – The Guardian and Der Spiegel online and Le Monde whenever I can find it in a shop (easier in Romania than in Bulgaria) by virtue of the latter’s thin, sensuous paper (I deeply regret the disappearance of its copious footnotes!). Yesterday The Guardian invited me to take part in a survey – I suspect to explore the commercial possibilities of erecting a paywall to protect some of its content. I was, however, happy to participate in the survey since I have become increasingly disillusioned with the superficial (if not biased) nature of some of this famous liberal paper’s recent drift and wanted a chance to say something about my misgivings. I recognise the glorious role the paper had played in unmasking the machinations and manipulations of the Murdoch Empire’s media empire but, for my money, it has played a most curious (and unacceptable) role of "the establishment" in the Julian Assange affair.  

In filling out the questionnaire I duly took the chance to sound off about this – and also about the overly New Labourist views of correspondents it uses such as Polly Toynbee. 

But, after the article she has published today, I take that back and offer my apologies. Her article gives great coverage to a long-overdue attack on the criminal role of International Financial Consultancies in government

Westminster is rarely a palace of pleasure, but Thursday brought the magnificent spectacle of Margaret Hodge walloping the big four accountancy firms for their role in helping companies deprive the Treasury of taxes everyone else has to pay. Four heads of tax – at PWC, Ernst & Young, Deloitte and KPMG – wriggled and obfuscated, hiding behind the polite euphemisms of their trade. Never say avoidance or, God forbid, evasion – but call it "tax planning" and "tax efficiency".
As she came at them from all sides, Hodge and the astute MPs on her public accounts committee ripped off the accountants' veil of respectability. She waved a monstrous map showing the tax avoidance device one of the four had created for a company operating with circles of subsidiaries sited in off-shore havens: "That stinks!" she said. Yet there the four sat piously deploring "complexity" in a tax system that keeps adding volumes to the code just to chase down their devilish loopholes.
When the burglar is unscrewing your window locks, would you pay him a fat fee to clean your windows while he's at it? Yet that's what the government does. Last year these four firms said they earned some £400m from the state, and they help to denude this same state of the tax that pays them. But far worse, the government has invited the burglar in to be consulted on the best kind of locks for the future. Now the old lag is in the pub selling the pin code to the locks to all his burglar friends.

And I now see that it was an article of Polly Toynbee's that I extensively quoted from in one of my posts about the Murdoch Empire last year. I think I've absorbed too many of the wisecracks on Craig Murray's (otherwise admirable) website about "The Guardian" newspaper!!

Migration and mobility of labour

A feisty reply from a young Bulgarian this week to the recent comments about Bulgaria from the Leader of the British Independence Party .

Speaking last week on BBC's Question Time, Nigel Farage apparently slammed Bulgaria as “a country in a terrible state, where the judiciary is not independent and the mafia basically runs the economy” and from which therefore Bulgarians would be wanting to flee when Britain lifts its current restrictions on the entry of Bulgarian and Romanian workers in exactly one year. That this was no isolated comment can be seen from this article published recently by one of his colleagues in the European Parliament.

What was impressive about Ralitsa Behar’s open letter was not just its clarity of argument but its civilised courtesy (and that she focused on this marginal figure rather than the UK Government which is apparently considering a negative campaign to disourage further immigration from these 2 copuntries). She concedes the scale of the political and administrative problems countries such as Bulgaria and Romania have (she cleverly resists the temptation of suggesting that they are not dissimilar to those of other, older member countries who will not be mentioned here!!), corrects some of the factual errors in Farange’s (good English name that!!) outburst but basically takes exception to

Such statements such as "If I was a Bulgarian, I would be packing my bags now, wanting to come to Britain" are bold and somewhat inappropriate. And since you were focusing on the problems in our country and why we would choose to come live in your country, let me tell you why I chose to "pack my bags (after successfully obtaining her degree from the University of Edinburgh), wanting to go back to Bulgaria".
Firstly, Bulgaria is a country with great potential. I am a firm believer that young people, who study abroad should come back to Bulgaria to pursue their career goals. Having a degree from a foreign university, I realised that my know-how would be much more needed here, than in the UK. After all, we are the future of our country and I believe that we are the ones who can bring this country forward.

Her open letter was published on Sofia Weekly and it (and the positive response it has had) is well worth reading. 

I can sympathise with her arguments since I too felt the need to migrate twice in my life - first to London (England for us Scots has always been another country) after completing my degree at Glasgow University but felt compelled (for the same reasons she has expressed so well) to return to Scotland where I had a marvellous opportunity (for 25 years) to help reshape government systems. Sadly the political route I had chosen could offer me none of the security a family man required – and the (much-maligned) European Union gave me the chance in the last 22 years to reinvent myself as a nomadic “consultant”. Now my home is here - in the Balkans and Carpathians. 

And I am not the only example of emigration; many European indeed are escaping the European gloom to further shores. And a recent survey showed that almost half of Brits would like to leave the country! (although I'm a bit dubious about the size of the sample, there's little doubt that a lot of English people are now deeply unhappy about the quality of their life in the country and imagine what life (particularly retirement) would be like elsewhere). That, of course, is a very different (and more privileged) position from the stark survival realities which most often have faced emigrants over the ages.
Again Scotland has its own bitter experience of that - which is reflected in the work of many Scottish artists - the painting which heads the post is one painted in 1883 about the pain of leaving a loved home (Lochaber)  

The UK has an appropriately elitist (if not downright class) and hypocritical view of immigration. Those who shape opinion have always recognised the great contribution it has made both to its intellectual life (in the first part of the 20th century); eating habits (as Italians, Indians and others have arrived in different waves); and to the economy. 

From the comfortable homes of the middle (and “chattering” classes) it has been easy to recognise the last of these – less easy for those on the margins of work. And the populist attack on immigration has been an increasingly difficult temptation for politicians to resist! So it has become a major issue in the increasingly simplistic and polarised process which passes these days for political discourse in England.
And “experts” have also underestimated the immigrant flows in recent years. The Office for National Statistics apparently (??) predicted fewer than 20,000 eastern Europeans would enter each year after the 2004 wave of new EU members (to which UK gave open entry) but its figures show that about 350,000 were working in Britain last year. The latest census has now revealed that Polish is now the UK’s second language!
Projections which are now being made about immigration from Bulgaria and Romania inot Britain (reflecting the poor state of the current UK economy) when that becomes easier in 2014 are now being viewed with some cynicism   

For more technical overviews see here and here. And here is a good post from a UK Migrants' Rights website

Neglected old masters

There are two Bulgarian painters I consider hugely neglected and underrated – Marin Ustagenov (1872-1937) and Nicolai Boiadjiev (1904-1963).

Both were superb painters of the human body – as I saw for myself for one of them when, exactly 2 years ago, Sofia’s City Art Gallery organised the first ever exhibition of Boiadjiev’s paintings –

In 1958 he had been expelled from the Union of Bulgarian artists for his refusal to work on prescribed themes and focussed instead on drawing. His work never seems to come on the market.

The painting on the left is Boiadjiev's "Righteous Job"

Until yesterday I had been able to view any of Ustagenov’s paintings in the flesh – only in a great book which was published here in 2005. The photo is of one of the reproductions in the book.

He had been a war artist during the Balkan and First World Wars; studied at Munich and became one of the first Bulgarian restorers. 

He participated in the restoration of Boyana Church and Monastery Zemen and was still working on this at his death. After the 1944 Communist takeover he was, presumably because of his religious themes, declared an enemy of the people; his heirs harassed ; and the study of his work removed from the curriculum at the Academy of Arts – "airbrushed from history".

But the Loran Gallery (Oborishte 16 in the Embassy area of Sofia) has at last done him proud – with an exhibition (which ends in the middle of February). And, also for the first time they have enabled us to see many of his paintings online. 
Congratulations Loran Gallery – about which I have blogged before 

People here tell me that a lot of archival material on Bulgarian artists has been lost. I'm not quite sure what they mean about this. Some painters lost a lot of their artwork during the 2nd World War - Vesselin Tomas, for example, through not being allowed by Germany to take them back home and others through allied bombing of Sofia. But if we mean documentation of lives and friendships we do have artists such as the great caricaturist Ilyia Beshkov who produced diaries with drawings....  An issue for further exploration with some art historians here perhaps....