Home » Archives by category » News » Politics (Page 1161)
Extra uni places for richest ‘will entrench privilege’

Critics say proposal to let rich students pay premium fees to get places at top universities risks turning clock back to time when breeding mattered more than brains Ministers have been warned they risk turning the clock back to a time when “breeding not brains” mattered after ministers outlined proposals to allow teenagers from the wealthiest families to be able to pay for extra places at the most competitive universities. David Willetts, the universities minister, has argued the extra places will boost social mobility by freeing up more publicly subsidised places for undergraduates from poorer homes. The proposal was panned by both the Universities and College Union and the National Union of Students, who accused the government of “tossing out a poorly conceived policy idea” to mask the chaos it has created in university funding and the shortfall in finances that has created. Under current government plans, annual student numbers are capped to keep costs down, with English universities allowed to charge UK students a maximum annual fee of £9,000 from 2012, which graduates do not have to start paying until they are earning £21,000 a year. However, Willetts suggested universities could increase the numbers of British students by charging some the full annual fees of up to £28,000 a year for the most expensive courses, payable up front, who would not then require the support of the taxpayer. The changes would give more students the chance to attend their first choice university, a suggestion that many see as enabling the children of the wealthiest parents to buy their way in. At present, the government sets a quota of undergraduate places that English universities are allowed to offer each year. The move is being considered at a time when the government is cutting 10,000 publicly funded university places. The UCU general secretary, Sally Hunt, said: “Far from increasing social mobility, it is hard to see how this is anything other than the government entrenching privilege for the wealthy in response to its failing university fees policy. “We risk turning the clock back to a time when breeding rather than brains were required to get on in life. The news is particularly embarrassing for the Liberal Democrats as all their MPs pledged to vote, and campaign, against higher fees.” Hunt added: “Increasing fees for wealthy students to ensure them access to our most prestigious universities goes even further than their original breaking of the pledge and sends an extraordinary message to students from less wealthy backgrounds.” Employers and charities will also be encouraged to sponsor “off-quota” places under the plans to be outlined in a higher education white paper in the summer. Willetts told the BBC Radio 4 Today programme: “People are coming to us with innovative ideas about how you could liberalise the system so it was possible for extra people to get to university. These are people who we wish to go to university and who sadly are being turned away at the moment just because there aren’t enough places. “We would need to have a set of criteria, if this went ahead, that absolutely passed muster as improving social mobility. “I start from the view that, by and large, more people going to university is a good thing for social mobility. Anything that we did if this does go forward would have to pass the test of improving social mobility, not reversing it.” Aaron Porter, president of the National Union of Students (NUS), said the move would create a “two-tier system” in university education. “The government is yet again tossing out a poorly conceived policy idea in an attempt to disguise the chaos it has created in university funding and the shortfall in finances that has created,” he said. “This creates a two-tier system that allows the richest, less able applicants a second bite at the university cherry and denies low- and middle-income students the same opportunity. “Those students who can afford to pay higher, upfront fees will also avoid the interest rates and lifetime of debt that the rest of their cohort will have to consider when considering university.” Willetts denied suggestions that the scheme would allow less qualified applicants to get to a good university by the backdoor. “I don’t think that would be fair,” he told Today. “That’s why one of the crucial criteria would be that people have to have the same high academic standards.” The proposal is most likely to be taken up by highly selective institutions, which turn away thousands of qualified candidates a year. Oxford accepted slightly more than 3,000 British and EU undergraduates out of about 17,000 who applied for the current academic year. That demand is due to intensify as the latest application figures show the number of candidates for this autumn has risen by 2.1% to about 633,000 – another record high. The places may not be covered by access agreements, under which universities are required to outline how they will improve their proportion of students from state schools and deprived backgrounds. Under one version of the scheme, universities might operate a “needs-blind” admissions process, which assesses all candidates regardless of their ability to pay, but then offers places off-quota to candidates from the most privileged homes. The expansion of places will put greater pressure on less popular universities. Ministers have warned that undersubscribed institutions could have government-funded places withdrawn. In a speech last month, the business secretary, Vince Cable, said: “Institutions could very well find themselves in trouble if students can’t see value. In circumstances where places are unfilled, we might withdraw those places, and institutions should not assume they will easily get them back.” This is more likely to happen if more sought-after universities are free to expand in response to student demand. The government is also keen to encourage more corporate sponsorship of university places. The accountancy firm KPMG has unveiled a plan to pay fees for students at universities including Durham, in a training programme leading to an honours degree in accounting. These students also fall outside government restrictions on numbers, chiefly because they are on bespoke courses reserved for one firm’s employees. They do not need financial support as KPMG covers their fees and pays them a salary. The current version of the scheme is, in effect, an outsourcing of corporate training, but the range of education on offer could become more diverse in future. Tuition fees University funding Higher education Students Education policy David Willetts Hélène Mulholland Jeevan Vasagar guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …
Chile approves $7bn dam project

A project to dam two of the world’s wildest rivers for electricity has won approval despite strong public opposition A $7bn (£4.2bn) project to dam two of the world’s wildest rivers for electricity won environmental approval on Monday from a Chilean government commission, despite a groundswell of opposition. The commissioners – all political appointees in President Sebastián Piñera’s government – concluded a three-year environmental review by approving five dams on the Baker and Pascua rivers in Aysen, a mostly roadless region of remote southern Patagonia where rainfall is nearly constant and rivers plunge from Andean glaciers to the Pacific Ocean through green valleys and fjords. Monday’s vote – 11 in favor and one abstention – could prove to be pivotal for the future of Chile, which has a booming economy, vast mineral wealth and a determination to join the elite group of first-world nations. With its energy-intensive mining industry clamoring for more power and living standards improving, some analysts say Chile must triple its capacity in just 15 years, despite having no domestic oil or natural gas. Chile imports 97% of its fossil fuels and depends largely on hydropower for electricity, creating a crisis when droughts drain reservoirs or faraway disputes affect energy imports. Supporters say the economic benefits of the dam project justify carving roads through the heart of Chile’s remaining wilderness and running 1,000 miles (1,600 kilometers) of transmission lines to power the capital, Santiago. The dams together could generate 2.75 gigawatts, nearly a third of central Chile’s current capacity, within 12 years. The Aysen region will receive less expensive energy, jobs, scholarships and $350m in infrastructure, including seaports and airports, said HidroAysen ‘s executive vice president, Daniel Fernandez. But people in the sparsely populated area are divided. Only three dozen families would be relocated, but the dams would drown 14,000 acres (5,700 hectares), require carving clear-cuts through forests, and eliminate whitewater rapids and waterfalls that attract ecotourism. They also would destroy habitat for the endangered Southern Huemul deer : Fewer than 1,000 of the diminutive animals, a national symbol, are believed to exist. “They are all sell-outs,” rancher Elisabeth “Lilli” Schindele said of the commissioners. She lives with her husband and two young children in the Nadis, a sector that would be inundated. Their neighbours have agreed to relocation, but she doesn’t want to leave the 1,235 acres (500 hectares) where they raise cattle and sheep. “There is no land like ours,” she told told The Associated Press. Robert F Kennedy Jr, a lawyer for the US-based National Resources Defense Council, appealed to Pinera to call off the project. “It’s the most beautiful place, I believe, on the planet,” said Kennedy, who kayaks there every year. “I don’t know any place like Patagonia.” Investors have spent $220m on the project so far, but opposition has grown to 61% of Chileans according to the latest Ipsos Public Affairs poll, and the government is concerned about a backlash. More than 1,000 people gathered outside the hearing in the regional hub of Coyhaique, chanting and carrying signs. Some threw rocks at the cars of commissioners, and clashed afterward with hundreds of police, who responded with a water cannon and tear gas. Several protesters were bloodied in the melee, and the commissioners were kept inside for their safety. In downtown Santiago, several thousand people blocking a main avenue in protest also encountered tear gas and police water cannons. The mining and energy minister, Laurence Golborne, had urged opponents to turn to the courts, and they did vow to appeal. “We’re going to keep fighting until this project is unviable,” said Patricio Rodrigo, a spokesman for the Patagonia Without Dams coalition . “This project robs us of our sovereignty.” But the interior minister, Rodrigo Hinzpeter, who sent police to contain the protests, said that “the most important thing is that our country needs to grow, to progress, and for this we need energy.” Chile’s decision has lessons for a world confronting a future without inexpensive fossil fuels and questioning nuclear safety. The country has abundant renewable-energy potential, from dams on its many rivers to year-round sun in its northern deserts, wind along its long Pacific coast, numerous geothermal sites and biomass from its large agricultural industry. But Chile gets less than 5% of its electricity from renewable sources other than hydroelectricity, has done little to encourage efficiency, and lacks a strategy for securing future supplies, although a government commission will make such recommendations by September. Wave, tidal and hydropower Energy Renewable energy Chile guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …
Ex-contestant Stuart Baggs shares his tips for success

So who better to go to, as the new series of The Apprentice begins, than ‘the Brand’ himself for tips on business success. Be warned, he’s given free rein to his ‘ extreme masculinity ‘ … Fit body, fit mind Staying in shape not only helps you be a hit with the ladies, but also a success in business. As you saw on The Apprentice, my good looks and physical stamina helped me stay calm under pressure and to make the correct decision time after time. Keep temptations away It’s all well and good sitting next to the office photocopier, but who among us can honesty say they’d not be tempted to photocopy their body parts all day long! Don’t listen to criticism After all you’re better than them, and one day you’ll be their boss (if you’re not already). Office romance is not acceptable As an attractive red blooded male (see above), I often distract women around me in the work place. This leads to reduced productivity and red faces all round. Watch out for the pitfalls of the office party Remember what happened to John from accounts? His stomach wasn’t the only thing that got pumped that night. Don’t end up as the laughing stock of the office. When firing people, try to put yourself in their shoes Once you’ve realised how pathetic they truly are, it should make it much easier to kick them out without thinking how their five children will eat again. Beware of office politics Don’t allow yourself to be dragged down by the perpetual tribal bitching between the sales and accounts departments. Remain secure in the knowledge that all the fit women work in marketing anyway. Dress to impress, but don’t be afraid to innovate Perhaps wear a colourfull Christmas tie in July. Show those office drones you understand fashion by grabbing it by the balls and twisting hard. Work 24/7 Downtime is for computers not for humans. Why not take the office home with you? If you’re in a relationship try to include at least basic word processing during lovemaking. Spelling mistakes can be correct afterwards. Remember the office is like the jungle He who shouts the loudest gets the prize. Don’t be afraid to confront weaker rivals and offer them helpful advice such as, “Life’s not working out for you really is it?”. Work & careers The Apprentice Reality TV BBC Television guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …
Change in coalition ties ‘inevitable’

As cabinet prepares to meet for the first time since the elections and referendum, PM admits ‘there will be more noise, more debate and more public airing of differences’ David Cameron has admitted that a change in the coalition relationship is “inevitable” following the tensions that surfaced in the run-up to the elections and AV referendum. But the prime minister stressed his commitment to the coalition as Conservative and Liberal Democrat ministers prepared to meet across the cabinet table for the first time since the Lib Dems suffered severe losses in local elections and saw voting reform decisively rejected by the public. The prime minister said in an interview with the Sun that he was still committed to a five-year term in coalition to deliver a “very strong” programme. Insisting the coalition government had “chalked up a lot of achievements”, Cameron said: “The challenge for the next period is going to be: how do you have two parties perhaps wanting to make their voices heard more clearly, but still achieve that coherence? I think the Lib Dem top team and the Conservative top team will still work together very well. But that is going to be the challenge.” He added: “There will be more noise, there will be more debate, there will be more public airing of differences. I think that is inevitable.” Cameron also denied Lib Dem claims that he betrayed the spirit of the coalition by allowing the No to AV campaign to attack Nick Clegg’s broken promises, though he admitted that he ended up playing a “greater part” than he had first anticipated when it became clear it was going to be a much more political campaign. The last cabinet meeting saw tense exchanges when the Liberal Democrat energy secretary, Chris Huhne, confronted David Cameron and George Osborne over No to AV campaign leaflets that he believed smeared Nick Clegg. The dire election results for the Liberal Democrats, in contrast to a stronger-than-expected performance for the Conservatives in the local elections alongside a resounding win for the retention of first past the post in the referendum, did little to improve relations. Vince Cable, the business secretary, accused the Conservatives in the wake of the results of being “ruthless, calculating and thoroughly tribal” and claimed that “some of us never had many illusions about the Conservatives”. Cameron insisted the no campaign had been cross-party, despite being funded almost exclusively by Tory party donors . Defending his role in the referendum campaign, Cameron told the Sun: “If I had gone in and told them, ‘you can do this and you can’t do that’, the whole thing would have broken up acrimoniously.” Asked if he had ever promised Clegg he would not campaign strongly against AV, Cameron said: “No”. He added: “I wanted Conservative party supporters, who at the start were a little uncertain about what they thought about AV, to be clear about what my view was. But the bosses — the British people — have made their decision and I think we should now move on.” Clegg has signalled his intent to demonstrate more Lib Dem muscle as deputy prime minister, notably the Conservative- led NHS reforms. Clegg has threatened to veto the reforms unless they are substantially improved as part of attempts to reassert his party’s independence after last week’s events. Liberal-Conservative coalition Conservatives Liberal Democrats David Cameron Nick Clegg Alternative vote Electoral reform AV referendum Elections 2011 Vince Cable Hélène Mulholland guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …
Change in coalition ties ‘inevitable’

As cabinet prepares to meet for the first time since the elections and referendum, PM admits ‘there will be more noise, more debate and more public airing of differences’ David Cameron has admitted that a change in the coalition relationship is “inevitable” following the tensions that surfaced in the run-up to the elections and AV referendum. But the prime minister stressed his commitment to the coalition as Conservative and Liberal Democrat ministers prepared to meet across the cabinet table for the first time since the Lib Dems suffered severe losses in local elections and saw voting reform decisively rejected by the public. The prime minister said in an interview with the Sun that he was still committed to a five-year term in coalition to deliver a “very strong” programme. Insisting the coalition government had “chalked up a lot of achievements”, Cameron said: “The challenge for the next period is going to be: how do you have two parties perhaps wanting to make their voices heard more clearly, but still achieve that coherence? I think the Lib Dem top team and the Conservative top team will still work together very well. But that is going to be the challenge.” He added: “There will be more noise, there will be more debate, there will be more public airing of differences. I think that is inevitable.” Cameron also denied Lib Dem claims that he betrayed the spirit of the coalition by allowing the No to AV campaign to attack Nick Clegg’s broken promises, though he admitted that he ended up playing a “greater part” than he had first anticipated when it became clear it was going to be a much more political campaign. The last cabinet meeting saw tense exchanges when the Liberal Democrat energy secretary, Chris Huhne, confronted David Cameron and George Osborne over No to AV campaign leaflets that he believed smeared Nick Clegg. The dire election results for the Liberal Democrats, in contrast to a stronger-than-expected performance for the Conservatives in the local elections alongside a resounding win for the retention of first past the post in the referendum, did little to improve relations. Vince Cable, the business secretary, accused the Conservatives in the wake of the results of being “ruthless, calculating and thoroughly tribal” and claimed that “some of us never had many illusions about the Conservatives”. Cameron insisted the no campaign had been cross-party, despite being funded almost exclusively by Tory party donors . Defending his role in the referendum campaign, Cameron told the Sun: “If I had gone in and told them, ‘you can do this and you can’t do that’, the whole thing would have broken up acrimoniously.” Asked if he had ever promised Clegg he would not campaign strongly against AV, Cameron said: “No”. He added: “I wanted Conservative party supporters, who at the start were a little uncertain about what they thought about AV, to be clear about what my view was. But the bosses — the British people — have made their decision and I think we should now move on.” Clegg has signalled his intent to demonstrate more Lib Dem muscle as deputy prime minister, notably the Conservative- led NHS reforms. Clegg has threatened to veto the reforms unless they are substantially improved as part of attempts to reassert his party’s independence after last week’s events. Liberal-Conservative coalition Conservatives Liberal Democrats David Cameron Nick Clegg Alternative vote Electoral reform AV referendum Elections 2011 Vince Cable Hélène Mulholland guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …
How well is creative writing taught?

There has been a huge expansion in creative writing courses in the last decade, but is it something you can teach? Well-known writers give their verdicts It has featured on US higher education programmes for more than a century, but British universities took longer to be convinced by creative writing. The notion that decent writing can’t actually be taught was something Malcolm Bradbury found himself up against 40 years ago, when he was setting up an MA in creative writing at the University of East Anglia (UEA), the first of its kind. The course is now considered by many to lead the field, and has an impressive alumni list including Ian McEwan, Kazuo Ishiguro and Anne Enright. A new book from UEA by Andrew Cowan, novelist and director of the university’s MA course, is intended to offer an insight into the UEA method. It covers how to structure short stories and novels, creating convincing characters, writing believable dialogue and even how to overcome writer’s block. Giles Foden, author and professor of creative writing at the university, says the book “answers many of the criticisms levelled at the subject and, to some degree, opens up the fabled ‘black box’ of our teaching.” The last decade has seen a huge expansion in creative writing courses. More than 90 British universities now offer a range of postgraduate degrees, and around 10,000 short creative writing courses or classes are on offer in the UK each year. But, 40 years on and amid all this clamour to master the art, how well do universities teach creative writing? Can anyone actually teach it at all? Andrew Motion, author, poet and professor of creative writing at Royal Holloway, University of London There was a time when creative writing courses were seen on a par with athletes taking steroids, as if it somehow gave them an unfair advantage. There was this idea that creative writing was something that had to take place in a garret. But aspiring dancers go to the Royal Ballet School, and actors to Rada – why should writing be any different? Now there are many MA programmes and degree courses with a creative writing element. There is also a move to introduce creative writing into GCSE and A-level courses. But teaching is still of variable quality. It’s not about teaching students to avoid making mistakes or ‘bad’ writing; finding out what a blind alley looks like is an important part of the process. David Baddiel, author, comedian and broadcaster There seems to be a real hunger to know about the writing process. The thing is, all writers approach the process differently. I know that I work very differently to someone like Roddy Doyle, for example. He plans out the plot from start to finish before he starts a novel, whereas I tend to improvise until I feel a structure emerging. So I’m not sure writing can be taught as such. Certainly, I think you can pass on your experience as a writer and this can be used to develop latent talent. I haven’t done any kind of creative writing courses myself, but I have got an English degree from Cambridge University, which was a fairly classical grounding. Ultimately, I think the only way to learn is by reading other writers. Will Self, author, columnist and broadcaster I’m still not convinced creative writing can be taught. Perhaps you can take a mediocre novelist and make them into a slightly better one, but a course can’t make someone into a good writer. Ian McEwan and Kazuo Ishiguru both did the UEA MA, but they were both innately good anyway. Some people swear by creative writing courses. I say, go and get a job, a fairly menial one instead. Otherwise what are you going to write about? Writing is about expressing something new and exploring the form in new ways. So unless you want to churn out thrillers or misery memoirs, you can’t work from a pattern book. You need to autodidact. Fay Weldon, author and professor of creative writing at Brunel University Four years ago, when I started teaching at Brunel, I was of the opinion that creative writing couldn’t be taught. I wasn’t taught how to write novels – I just wrote them. But I completely overlooked the years I spent writing copy in an advertising agency and what I learned about the nuances of language – for example, how switching the order of two words can completely change their meaning – or even just the impact of how words look on a page. Now I believe creative writing can be taught, but only by published writers. A student with some aptitude and interest can benefit an awful lot from coaching and mentoring and sharing their work with other students. But there are no rules; you can’t say “this is how you write a short story” or “this is how you structure a novel” because something good that doesn’t follow that pattern will always come along to challenge that. That said, it’s difficult to turn a boring writer into an interesting one. And people who don’t read a lot rarely write well. Judy Astley, author An MA is neat way of putting off actually writing the damn book. By time you’ve finished, you will be so intimidated by submersion in great and good, you may not actually want to write at all. Courses are also very concentrated on literary work – as if commercial is cheap and dirty – and sometimes taught by failed or unpublished novelists. But you go to art school to refine art techniques, so the MA could be useful for some. MR Hall, author I came to novel writing via 12 years of writing for the screen. While I was learning to write screenplays, I did a course with the American screenwriter and creative teacher Robert McKee. His “story” course was enormously helpful in providing basic scaffolding for my ideas. It’s fashionable to dismiss this approach as formulaic, but it’s like learning to compose music. You learn the principles of harmony and counterpoint before you start to write the melodies. And once the basics become instinctual, you’re freed up to break the rules. While you can learn technique, no one can create a voice for you. You either have something to say or you don’t. All the decent writers I know are troubled souls: that’s why they write – as lifelong therapy. But they are far from self-indulgent: a professional writer is a person with the discipline to sit at a desk for hours each day to turn the pain into well-structured words and stories designed to hold attention. Maureen Freely, author and creative writing lecturer, Warwick University There is a huge and growing demand for creative writing courses, but there are universities out there that simply see it as a money-making enterprise. Good courses are taught by published writers who see it as a space to nurture and edit new writers. When I was first starting out, I had an editor who would ask me very tough questions about my work. You need that. There are no hard and fast rules, but writing exercises can help students become more sensitive to the impact of different techniques. Anna Davis, author and director of Curtis Brown Creative, the first literary agency to run its own creative writing courses Publishers and agents spend a lot of time reading and assessing work, and would probably tell you that material produced on reputable creative writing courses is likely to jump to the top, or near the top, of the pile because it has already been vetted and assessed by writing tutors and refined under their guidance, but taking a creative writing course is no guarantee of publication. It is absolutely possible to be successful without this. Curtis Brown Creative’s three-month course started last week and is taught by myself and the novelist Jake Arnott. The aim is to help writers develop exciting new debuts at a time when it’s not easy for first-time authors to break through. We selected our first 15 students from a mountain of applications. In our view, you need all your students to be talented in order to really be able to achieve. We are also bringing our experience of the publishing scene and what is working in today’s marketplace. I think a lot of students want this kind of practical approach, but a lot of courses focus on pretty prose and lose the bigger picture. Andrew Cowan, author and director of the MA in creative writing (prose fiction) at the University of East Anglia While a creative writing course can’t turn someone into a writer, if you have ability and are willing to work hard, a course can help you to improve more quickly. There has been a viral spread of creative writing courses in recent years, but teaching is not always good. You can get someone with a BA, MA and PhD in creative writing teaching on a university course with very limited experience of being published. One criticism that is often levelled at creative writing courses is that they produce “cookie cutter” fiction. But if you look at the list of published graduates from the MA at UEA, you couldn’t get a more diverse range of writers. • The Art of Writing Fiction by Andrew Cowan is published by Longman, an imprint of Pearson. • The Death of Eli Gold by David Baddiel is published by Fourth Estate Higher education Teaching Original writing Fay Weldon Will Self Andrew Motion Janet Murray Maureen Freely MR Hall guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …
How well is creative writing taught?

There has been a huge expansion in creative writing courses in the last decade, but is it something you can teach? Well-known writers give their verdicts It has featured on US higher education programmes for more than a century, but British universities took longer to be convinced by creative writing. The notion that decent writing can’t actually be taught was something Malcolm Bradbury found himself up against 40 years ago, when he was setting up an MA in creative writing at the University of East Anglia (UEA), the first of its kind. The course is now considered by many to lead the field, and has an impressive alumni list including Ian McEwan, Kazuo Ishiguro and Anne Enright. A new book from UEA by Andrew Cowan, novelist and director of the university’s MA course, is intended to offer an insight into the UEA method. It covers how to structure short stories and novels, creating convincing characters, writing believable dialogue and even how to overcome writer’s block. Giles Foden, author and professor of creative writing at the university, says the book “answers many of the criticisms levelled at the subject and, to some degree, opens up the fabled ‘black box’ of our teaching.” The last decade has seen a huge expansion in creative writing courses. More than 90 British universities now offer a range of postgraduate degrees, and around 10,000 short creative writing courses or classes are on offer in the UK each year. But, 40 years on and amid all this clamour to master the art, how well do universities teach creative writing? Can anyone actually teach it at all? Andrew Motion, author, poet and professor of creative writing at Royal Holloway, University of London There was a time when creative writing courses were seen on a par with athletes taking steroids, as if it somehow gave them an unfair advantage. There was this idea that creative writing was something that had to take place in a garret. But aspiring dancers go to the Royal Ballet School, and actors to Rada – why should writing be any different? Now there are many MA programmes and degree courses with a creative writing element. There is also a move to introduce creative writing into GCSE and A-level courses. But teaching is still of variable quality. It’s not about teaching students to avoid making mistakes or ‘bad’ writing; finding out what a blind alley looks like is an important part of the process. David Baddiel, author, comedian and broadcaster There seems to be a real hunger to know about the writing process. The thing is, all writers approach the process differently. I know that I work very differently to someone like Roddy Doyle, for example. He plans out the plot from start to finish before he starts a novel, whereas I tend to improvise until I feel a structure emerging. So I’m not sure writing can be taught as such. Certainly, I think you can pass on your experience as a writer and this can be used to develop latent talent. I haven’t done any kind of creative writing courses myself, but I have got an English degree from Cambridge University, which was a fairly classical grounding. Ultimately, I think the only way to learn is by reading other writers. Will Self, author, columnist and broadcaster I’m still not convinced creative writing can be taught. Perhaps you can take a mediocre novelist and make them into a slightly better one, but a course can’t make someone into a good writer. Ian McEwan and Kazuo Ishiguru both did the UEA MA, but they were both innately good anyway. Some people swear by creative writing courses. I say, go and get a job, a fairly menial one instead. Otherwise what are you going to write about? Writing is about expressing something new and exploring the form in new ways. So unless you want to churn out thrillers or misery memoirs, you can’t work from a pattern book. You need to autodidact. Fay Weldon, author and professor of creative writing at Brunel University Four years ago, when I started teaching at Brunel, I was of the opinion that creative writing couldn’t be taught. I wasn’t taught how to write novels – I just wrote them. But I completely overlooked the years I spent writing copy in an advertising agency and what I learned about the nuances of language – for example, how switching the order of two words can completely change their meaning – or even just the impact of how words look on a page. Now I believe creative writing can be taught, but only by published writers. A student with some aptitude and interest can benefit an awful lot from coaching and mentoring and sharing their work with other students. But there are no rules; you can’t say “this is how you write a short story” or “this is how you structure a novel” because something good that doesn’t follow that pattern will always come along to challenge that. That said, it’s difficult to turn a boring writer into an interesting one. And people who don’t read a lot rarely write well. Judy Astley, author An MA is neat way of putting off actually writing the damn book. By time you’ve finished, you will be so intimidated by submersion in great and good, you may not actually want to write at all. Courses are also very concentrated on literary work – as if commercial is cheap and dirty – and sometimes taught by failed or unpublished novelists. But you go to art school to refine art techniques, so the MA could be useful for some. MR Hall, author I came to novel writing via 12 years of writing for the screen. While I was learning to write screenplays, I did a course with the American screenwriter and creative teacher Robert McKee. His “story” course was enormously helpful in providing basic scaffolding for my ideas. It’s fashionable to dismiss this approach as formulaic, but it’s like learning to compose music. You learn the principles of harmony and counterpoint before you start to write the melodies. And once the basics become instinctual, you’re freed up to break the rules. While you can learn technique, no one can create a voice for you. You either have something to say or you don’t. All the decent writers I know are troubled souls: that’s why they write – as lifelong therapy. But they are far from self-indulgent: a professional writer is a person with the discipline to sit at a desk for hours each day to turn the pain into well-structured words and stories designed to hold attention. Maureen Freely, author and creative writing lecturer, Warwick University There is a huge and growing demand for creative writing courses, but there are universities out there that simply see it as a money-making enterprise. Good courses are taught by published writers who see it as a space to nurture and edit new writers. When I was first starting out, I had an editor who would ask me very tough questions about my work. You need that. There are no hard and fast rules, but writing exercises can help students become more sensitive to the impact of different techniques. Anna Davis, author and director of Curtis Brown Creative, the first literary agency to run its own creative writing courses Publishers and agents spend a lot of time reading and assessing work, and would probably tell you that material produced on reputable creative writing courses is likely to jump to the top, or near the top, of the pile because it has already been vetted and assessed by writing tutors and refined under their guidance, but taking a creative writing course is no guarantee of publication. It is absolutely possible to be successful without this. Curtis Brown Creative’s three-month course started last week and is taught by myself and the novelist Jake Arnott. The aim is to help writers develop exciting new debuts at a time when it’s not easy for first-time authors to break through. We selected our first 15 students from a mountain of applications. In our view, you need all your students to be talented in order to really be able to achieve. We are also bringing our experience of the publishing scene and what is working in today’s marketplace. I think a lot of students want this kind of practical approach, but a lot of courses focus on pretty prose and lose the bigger picture. Andrew Cowan, author and director of the MA in creative writing (prose fiction) at the University of East Anglia While a creative writing course can’t turn someone into a writer, if you have ability and are willing to work hard, a course can help you to improve more quickly. There has been a viral spread of creative writing courses in recent years, but teaching is not always good. You can get someone with a BA, MA and PhD in creative writing teaching on a university course with very limited experience of being published. One criticism that is often levelled at creative writing courses is that they produce “cookie cutter” fiction. But if you look at the list of published graduates from the MA at UEA, you couldn’t get a more diverse range of writers. • The Art of Writing Fiction by Andrew Cowan is published by Longman, an imprint of Pearson. • The Death of Eli Gold by David Baddiel is published by Fourth Estate Higher education Teaching Original writing Fay Weldon Will Self Andrew Motion Janet Murray Maureen Freely MR Hall guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …

Teaching resources: Some great ways to use them effectively, from the Guardian Teacher Network

Continue reading …
The way we eat now

We’re awash with TV chefs, recipe books and health campaigns, but how well are we eating – and what does our food say about us? Jon Henley sits down to dinner in five British homes In a polished but well-used kitchen in west London, Anna is cooking supper. It’s organic salmon, Asian-style, a variation on a Jamie Oliver recipe: grilled fillets of fresh pink fish served with beansprouts, cucumber, ribboned carrot, mango, coriander and a whizzy dressing, topped with lightly toasted cashew nuts and agave nectar. And this, note, is an ordinary weekday evening. Anna and her boyfriend Karl are back after 7pm from a full day’s work and this, they promise, is entirely representative of how they eat. Karl, who mostly does the weekend cooking, can’t suppress a smile. He is, he concedes, a lucky man. “Anna’s obsessed by food,” he says. “Constantly reading cookbooks, wanting to try things out. On me!” Before he knew her, he says, he was deluded enough to think he was eating healthily. “But I had no idea of the quantity of natural sugar in my diet, or the carbs.” He has learned “a huge amount”, he says, and feels “better. Really, so much better. Healthier. What we eat is just so important.” It’s a truism, of course: our food matters. We have long understood this. Bad food does us no good. Back in 1875, in The Condition of the Working Class in England, Friedrich Engels asserted bluntly that a diet of potatoes and weak tea “unavoidably engenders a multitude of diseases”. So why is it that so many of us still don’t get it? Why, amid the welter of TV chefs, cookery books and healthy-eating plans, of five-a-day campaigns and supermarket traffic-light labels, do so many of us still eat so poorly? Partly, of course, it’s about money: healthy food, in general, costs more than unhealthy food, sometimes a lot more. The quickest and cheapest way to get 100 calories of food energy into your body is through sugars, fats and processed starches. The most nutritious food – fruits, fresh vegetables, lean meats, fish, grains – are, for many, too expensive. Three years ago Tim Lobstein, director of childhood research at the International Association for the Study of Obesity , looked at the cost of getting those 100 calories from various types of food. One hundred calories-worth of broccoli, he found, cost 51p, whereas 100 calories of frozen chips cost 2p. Good quality, lean, meat-filled sausages were 22p per 100 calories; cheap, fatty ones 4p. Fresh orange juice would yield 100 calories of food energy for 38p, while sugar-saturated squash would do the same for 5p. Big food, our all-powerful western food industry – which long ago discovered, as the American writer and real-food campaigner Michael Pollan says, that “the more a food is processed, the more profitable it gets” – is at least partly to blame here. “Essentially,” Pollan says succinctly, “the system we have evolved is based around wealthy farmers feeding the poor crap, cheap food, and poor farmers feeding the wealthy high-quality, expensive food.” Food poverty, as a result, has moved on from Victorian times, when all much of the population could afford to eat was bread and potatoes. These days, people on lower-than-average incomes suffer from poor access to healthy food; as Martin Caraher and Elizabeth Dowler of City and Warwick universities, co-authors of Challenging Food Inequalities , point out: “It’s more often a problem of dietary imbalance than under-nourishment.” That’s not just because healthier food is more expensive (it isn’t, always), but also because it is harder to get. Big supermarkets offering a wide variety of quality foods at fair prices are not thick on the ground in deprived inner cities, favouring wealthier suburbs and out-of-town sites for car-owning customers. And shopping from convenience and corner stores can cost up to 13% more for a nutritionally adequate diet, the academics found. The consequences? Illnesses related to poor diet – including obesity, anaemia, diabetes, raised blood pressure, heart and vascular disease, strokes and cancers of the stomach and oesophagus – all tend to be more prevalent in low-income groups. But it’s by no means always about money. A 2007 Food Standards Agency survey found that better-off people were eating ever greater quantities of junk, fast and processed food too: when we’re tired or it’s late or we just can’t be bothered, restaurants, takeaways and ready meals are easier and quicker. Whatever Jamie says. (Plus, sugary, fatty and processed foods taste really good.) And the flip side of that same expense coin is that it is perfectly possible, with skill and imagination, to eat healthily for not very much money. But you need energy and determination and to really understand and care about what you eat. These days, of course, caring about what you eat is not just about ingesting food that will do you good (or at least, food that won’t do you too much harm). It means – again, providing you have the means – thinking about where your food comes from and how it’s grown: is it free-range, fairtrade, organic? Locally grown, minimum food miles? Has it been sustainably caught, humanely raised, non-GM farmed? Is it from a small-scale, independent producer or a big-food multinational monolith? Will the grower get a fair return for his produce, or is an evil supermarket chain constantly driving down prices? All of which means that real awareness of what we eat – food that is better for us, and for the environment – is essentially a middle-class preoccupation. Sociologists agree that most people who eat badly do so not because they are uninformed about nutrition, nor because they live too far from a decent supermarket, but because bad food costs less, and tastes good. And so food has become, more than ever, one of the main indicators of social and class distinction in our society. If we’re well-off, we’re more likely to eat well: fresh, unprocessed, nutritious, locally produced, bought at a farmers’ market or small independent supplier. (We may also, of course, choose not to eat well, for reasons of time and convenience.) If we’re not well off, we’re more likely to eat badly: preserved, processed, high in sugar, fat and starch, mass-produced, bought from a convenience store or deep-discounter. (We may also, of course, be poor yet choose to make eating well our top priority). “Tell me what you eat, and I’ll tell you what you are,” wrote the early 19th-century French writer and gastronome Jean Anthelme Brillat-Savarin. Here, five households do just that. The single mother: Sheila Gumbi “It shocks me that some parents don’t take the time to cook,” says Sheila Gumbi. “When I see the things they feed their children . . . It’s not the way I was brought up.” Sheila, 32, was born in Malawi and now lives in a rundown flat on the South Acton estate, one of Europe’s largest. She works part-time for a local charity, volunteers at the community centre and, with wages and benefits, gets by with her 13-year-old son Tyrone on £120 a week. “I’m constantly having to juggle,” she says, preparing a chicken and prawn curry, with vegetable rice and salad, in her clean if crumbling kitchen (she hopes to be rehoused soon). “I have been in a position where I’ve had to decide: do I buy food, or do I pay this bill? I hate it, but that does sometimes mean it’s tinned food for me and my boy.” Generally, though, Sheila can buy pretty much the food she needs, spending maybe £50 a week. On Fridays, when she works late, there might be a takeaway or a frozen ready meal from Iceland, although to avoid that she’ll often cook big the night before. Otherwise, it’s home-cooked and fresh every day: fufu (a thick African paste of maize meal), fish, curries (goat meat when she can), stir-fries, big thick dumpling soups, shepherd’s pie, lasagne, macaroni cheese. Dessert is always fruit, some from a part-time stall Sheila runs on the estate. Tonight’s sauce is from a jar; at weekends she makes her own. Dinner is at 5.30pm sharp, eaten with Ty on the sofa. “There’s no room here for a table,” Sheila apologises. “It’s really not good. Eating isn’t just about food, it’s about sitting down together, round a table.” Tyrone, no mean cook himself, is on free school meals. “I don’t like to bring money into it,” says Sheila. “But I know other mothers on benefits, with three children, they get more money than me, a lot more, but they’re always struggling because they only eat convenience foods.” The very best food is, she shrugs, impossible. “Will I pay £12 for a chicken that will give just two servings?” she says. “No I won’t. I could feed two of us for two days for £12. I’d like to buy free-range eggs. I’d love to have a big pot and put a lobster in it. I’ll buy really good food if I have the money: I want to give my boy the best. But it’s not always.” Every day Sheila blesses her parents, who “brought me up healthy: they gave me the knowledge of food, made me confident in the kitchen. There’s no such thing as can’t, you know. There are just different priorities.” The young couple: Anna King & Karl Walker “I think the main problem,” says Anna King, a nutritional therapist , “is that most people simply don’t realise how important what we eat is. We wait till we’re obese or very ill – with cancer, cardiovascular disease – before we change our diets.” Anna, 31, and her partner Karl Walker, 34, a sustainability consultant, are unabashed foodies. These days, some of the cooking Anna does at home is professional: she is planning and testing menus for clients. But, she confesses, she has always “loved food. Just adored it. It’s a huge part of my life”. The west-London couple spend £70-£75 a week on food shopping: a weekly online shop at Ocado, topped up with organic staples from the local wholefood store – hummus, oatcakes, bee pollen, agave. They eat little red meat, once or twice a week, and no takeaways. Fish is sustainably caught or organically farmed, if possible; fruit and vegetables are bought locally. “I’m very conscious of carbon miles,” says Karl. “We always go for English when we can, and organic. With things like mangoes, of course, that’s not possible. It’s hard sometimes to get what you want.” Breakfast is organic granola with natural yoghurt and fruit for Karl; a homemade shake of berries, yoghurt and assorted ultra-nutritious (but top-secret) ingredients for Anna, who also tries to make herself a home-whizzed juice (fruit and/or veg) every day. Lunches, on weekdays, are soups, salads and often leftovers from last night’s supper. Tonight’s supper was that organic salmon, Asian style. Dessert was berries, strawberries, yoghurt, mint, crushed nuts and agave. It was utterly delicious. It’s a myth, says Anna, that eating well is expensive. “You can eat healthily for very little: lentils, salads, sprouts. People say they never have the time, but it’s not difficult at all. Tins of chickpeas, tomatoes: I do a very good stew with those plus kale and a tiny bit of chorizo.” They resent food-industry manipulation: “Even probiotic yoghurts are chock full of sugar. There’s a lot of misrepresentation. It’s all low-fat this, low-calorie that, and precious little of it is natural.” Food, says Karl, “is political. It is a question of choices.” Anna’s line is simple: “There are lots of things in this world we can’t control. I find it really empowering that I can control my health and the way I feel through what I eat.” The pensioner: Maurice Nadeem “The thing is,” says Maurice Nadeem, “I don’t actually cook. My wife was a very good cook, you see, she used to do all the cooking. And there was the mess. So now what I do is, I put things in the microwave, really.” Maurice will be 82 this year. He served in the Royal Pakistan Air Force and then for five years with the RAF (“I was told I was the first Pakistani to be commissioned,” he says, proudly) before studying law at Leeds university in the 1960s, where Jack Straw was among his classmates. He practised as a London solicitor before retiring. Maurice has never cooked for himself. He was catered for in his service days and used to adore his wife’s curries, he says; he would still enjoy a really good proper home-cooked curry more than anything in the world if he could. Sadly, he finds them too strong for him these days. So he shops at the supermarket nearest his central-London home, a Waitrose, where he buys essentially ready-cooked meals, often Indian, which he reheats. There’s also bread, crackers, cheese, eggs, canned soups and plenty of fresh fruit. Understandably, this is not cheap: Maurice spends maybe £100 a week on food, sometimes as much as £120. Breakfast is “quite filling”: two slices of toast, a boiled egg, two cocktail sausages and two bananas. He generally skips lunch, or if he’s feeling peckish may make himself a cheese sandwich or heat up a can of tomato soup. A dedicated committee man throughout his life, he remains sociable, going most Mondays to a local day centre for older people. Maurice’s main meal of the day is at 4pm. His regular is microwaved chicken biryani: a hint of curry, but mild enough for his digestion. He says his service background has instilled in him the importance of personal fitness: “I eat what I need and no more; I drink in strict moderation; I make sure always to have plenty of fruit. And I take a brisk three-mile walk every day. That’s discipline. Old habits die hard.” Maurice thinks he eats pretty well, although he’d like to do a bit of cooking for himself. “Waitrose has cooking lessons,” he says. “I might try. It’s never too late, is it?” The three-child family: The Booth-Farmers “We used to buy organic when our first child was born, but it’s just ridiculously expensive now,” says Catherine Farmer. “In fact, we did an experiment a while back,” says her husband, Giles Booth. “Everything we used to buy that was organic or from the supermarket premium range, we bought from the value range instead. To see what exactly we could live with.” It’s expensive, life with three children, especially if you want to feed them well. And Catherine, 43, a radio producer, and Giles, 44, a studio manager, will have to be more careful in future: she is soon to lose her job. Food is important to the Booth-Farmers and their children, Henry, 11, William, eight, and Tilly, five. “We do try to cook fresh every day,” says Catherine, over chilli in the family kitchen in Lewisham. “Pasta, curries, that kind of thing. On Sundays we roast a chicken that will do for sandwiches on Monday, and curry or a pie. Then for stock. We try.” Buying no ready meals bar pizza for the kids, once a week, and just the occasional takeaway (fish and chips of a Friday night), the family spends £600 a month on food: “Stupid amounts, really,” says Catherine. “It’s definitely getting more expensive. And I don’t think we’re extravagant, or wasteful. Not many people still boil up a chicken stock.” They have an allotment in Greenwich for potatoes, tomatoes, carrots, lettuce, sweetcorn, cabbage and the rest – and freeze a lot. The Booth-Farmers’ recent cost-cutting exercise showed them they can live with cheap, value-range beans, canned tomatoes and biscuits (though not smoked salmon, ice-cream or ketchup. Nor, says Giles, will he sacrifice his Maldon sea salt). If they have to cut back more, it’ll probably mean Asda rather than Sainsbury’s. They are particularly conscious of food for their children’s health: when he was born, doctors feared Henry might go on to develop diabetes, so babyfoods were homemade from the start. Catherine campaigned hard a few years ago to improve the children’s “really appalling” school dinners, and they now go off with lunchboxes of (for example) brown-bread ham sandwiches and grapes, or last night’s supper in a food flask. “We really like our food, and we both really like cooking,” says Giles, who, in his spare time, runs a delightful (and useful) blog ( suppertime.co.uk ) of short, simple everyday family recipes. “We’re not foodies. But good food is a real priority.” The flatsharers: Kieren Eyles and Mike McGrath “OK,” says Kieren Eyles. “Here’s a new house rule: if you use a chopping board, you have to clean it up after.” Undeterred, his flatmate Mike McGrath responds: “And I think you’d find it would be better, mate, if you used the old parmesan first.” Kieren, 32, who used to work in the pub business but is waiting on a PhD application, and Mike, 31, a fundraiser for a microfinance charity, share a flat in Wandsworth. They cook and eat together most nights if they’re in; tonight, it’s spaghetti carbonara with fresh steamed spinach and peas. Both like their food. They do a communal online shop for £90-£100 every three weeks or so (“Sunday afternoon,” says Mike, “you should see us”), topped up with maybe £50 a week between them on fresh produce: probably £40 a week each on food, in all. “I do have to be careful,” says Mike. “Food’s a big chunk of my budget.” Attitudes to eating among twenty- and thirtysomethings have changed a lot over the past 10-15 years, Mike reckons: “Generally, I think people are much more aware. One friend used to eat nothing but stir-fried sausages and supernoodles, and now cooks amazing stuff, three different kinds of naan bread. And another house I lived in, they only ate junk food. They’ve stopped that now; a conscious decision.” Mike, whose dad is “sports mad” and whose mum was a cookery teacher, makes a big effort to eat healthily, although he confesses to being “a bit partial to the naughty stuff. You know, chocolate and all that. And I’m from Birkenhead. So I like my pies and my pasties.” Kieren says they always aim for five-a-day “or more”, and “we’re very good about fruit”. Their favourite dishes? Mike says he’s “big into curries and stews, and stir-fries”. Kieren says he makes a mean chocolate fondant with berry compote. Dinner parties, they modestly agree, can be “quite awesome”. That’s all quite embarrassing, says Mike: “You’d better not say it was me who talked about berry compote.” Food & drink Health & wellbeing Health Family Jon Henley guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …
The way we eat now

We’re awash with TV chefs, recipe books and health campaigns, but how well are we eating – and what does our food say about us? Jon Henley sits down to dinner in five British homes In a polished but well-used kitchen in west London, Anna is cooking supper. It’s organic salmon, Asian-style, a variation on a Jamie Oliver recipe: grilled fillets of fresh pink fish served with beansprouts, cucumber, ribboned carrot, mango, coriander and a whizzy dressing, topped with lightly toasted cashew nuts and agave nectar. And this, note, is an ordinary weekday evening. Anna and her boyfriend Karl are back after 7pm from a full day’s work and this, they promise, is entirely representative of how they eat. Karl, who mostly does the weekend cooking, can’t suppress a smile. He is, he concedes, a lucky man. “Anna’s obsessed by food,” he says. “Constantly reading cookbooks, wanting to try things out. On me!” Before he knew her, he says, he was deluded enough to think he was eating healthily. “But I had no idea of the quantity of natural sugar in my diet, or the carbs.” He has learned “a huge amount”, he says, and feels “better. Really, so much better. Healthier. What we eat is just so important.” It’s a truism, of course: our food matters. We have long understood this. Bad food does us no good. Back in 1875, in The Condition of the Working Class in England, Friedrich Engels asserted bluntly that a diet of potatoes and weak tea “unavoidably engenders a multitude of diseases”. So why is it that so many of us still don’t get it? Why, amid the welter of TV chefs, cookery books and healthy-eating plans, of five-a-day campaigns and supermarket traffic-light labels, do so many of us still eat so poorly? Partly, of course, it’s about money: healthy food, in general, costs more than unhealthy food, sometimes a lot more. The quickest and cheapest way to get 100 calories of food energy into your body is through sugars, fats and processed starches. The most nutritious food – fruits, fresh vegetables, lean meats, fish, grains – are, for many, too expensive. Three years ago Tim Lobstein, director of childhood research at the International Association for the Study of Obesity , looked at the cost of getting those 100 calories from various types of food. One hundred calories-worth of broccoli, he found, cost 51p, whereas 100 calories of frozen chips cost 2p. Good quality, lean, meat-filled sausages were 22p per 100 calories; cheap, fatty ones 4p. Fresh orange juice would yield 100 calories of food energy for 38p, while sugar-saturated squash would do the same for 5p. Big food, our all-powerful western food industry – which long ago discovered, as the American writer and real-food campaigner Michael Pollan says, that “the more a food is processed, the more profitable it gets” – is at least partly to blame here. “Essentially,” Pollan says succinctly, “the system we have evolved is based around wealthy farmers feeding the poor crap, cheap food, and poor farmers feeding the wealthy high-quality, expensive food.” Food poverty, as a result, has moved on from Victorian times, when all much of the population could afford to eat was bread and potatoes. These days, people on lower-than-average incomes suffer from poor access to healthy food; as Martin Caraher and Elizabeth Dowler of City and Warwick universities, co-authors of Challenging Food Inequalities , point out: “It’s more often a problem of dietary imbalance than under-nourishment.” That’s not just because healthier food is more expensive (it isn’t, always), but also because it is harder to get. Big supermarkets offering a wide variety of quality foods at fair prices are not thick on the ground in deprived inner cities, favouring wealthier suburbs and out-of-town sites for car-owning customers. And shopping from convenience and corner stores can cost up to 13% more for a nutritionally adequate diet, the academics found. The consequences? Illnesses related to poor diet – including obesity, anaemia, diabetes, raised blood pressure, heart and vascular disease, strokes and cancers of the stomach and oesophagus – all tend to be more prevalent in low-income groups. But it’s by no means always about money. A 2007 Food Standards Agency survey found that better-off people were eating ever greater quantities of junk, fast and processed food too: when we’re tired or it’s late or we just can’t be bothered, restaurants, takeaways and ready meals are easier and quicker. Whatever Jamie says. (Plus, sugary, fatty and processed foods taste really good.) And the flip side of that same expense coin is that it is perfectly possible, with skill and imagination, to eat healthily for not very much money. But you need energy and determination and to really understand and care about what you eat. These days, of course, caring about what you eat is not just about ingesting food that will do you good (or at least, food that won’t do you too much harm). It means – again, providing you have the means – thinking about where your food comes from and how it’s grown: is it free-range, fairtrade, organic? Locally grown, minimum food miles? Has it been sustainably caught, humanely raised, non-GM farmed? Is it from a small-scale, independent producer or a big-food multinational monolith? Will the grower get a fair return for his produce, or is an evil supermarket chain constantly driving down prices? All of which means that real awareness of what we eat – food that is better for us, and for the environment – is essentially a middle-class preoccupation. Sociologists agree that most people who eat badly do so not because they are uninformed about nutrition, nor because they live too far from a decent supermarket, but because bad food costs less, and tastes good. And so food has become, more than ever, one of the main indicators of social and class distinction in our society. If we’re well-off, we’re more likely to eat well: fresh, unprocessed, nutritious, locally produced, bought at a farmers’ market or small independent supplier. (We may also, of course, choose not to eat well, for reasons of time and convenience.) If we’re not well off, we’re more likely to eat badly: preserved, processed, high in sugar, fat and starch, mass-produced, bought from a convenience store or deep-discounter. (We may also, of course, be poor yet choose to make eating well our top priority). “Tell me what you eat, and I’ll tell you what you are,” wrote the early 19th-century French writer and gastronome Jean Anthelme Brillat-Savarin. Here, five households do just that. The single mother: Sheila Gumbi “It shocks me that some parents don’t take the time to cook,” says Sheila Gumbi. “When I see the things they feed their children . . . It’s not the way I was brought up.” Sheila, 32, was born in Malawi and now lives in a rundown flat on the South Acton estate, one of Europe’s largest. She works part-time for a local charity, volunteers at the community centre and, with wages and benefits, gets by with her 13-year-old son Tyrone on £120 a week. “I’m constantly having to juggle,” she says, preparing a chicken and prawn curry, with vegetable rice and salad, in her clean if crumbling kitchen (she hopes to be rehoused soon). “I have been in a position where I’ve had to decide: do I buy food, or do I pay this bill? I hate it, but that does sometimes mean it’s tinned food for me and my boy.” Generally, though, Sheila can buy pretty much the food she needs, spending maybe £50 a week. On Fridays, when she works late, there might be a takeaway or a frozen ready meal from Iceland, although to avoid that she’ll often cook big the night before. Otherwise, it’s home-cooked and fresh every day: fufu (a thick African paste of maize meal), fish, curries (goat meat when she can), stir-fries, big thick dumpling soups, shepherd’s pie, lasagne, macaroni cheese. Dessert is always fruit, some from a part-time stall Sheila runs on the estate. Tonight’s sauce is from a jar; at weekends she makes her own. Dinner is at 5.30pm sharp, eaten with Ty on the sofa. “There’s no room here for a table,” Sheila apologises. “It’s really not good. Eating isn’t just about food, it’s about sitting down together, round a table.” Tyrone, no mean cook himself, is on free school meals. “I don’t like to bring money into it,” says Sheila. “But I know other mothers on benefits, with three children, they get more money than me, a lot more, but they’re always struggling because they only eat convenience foods.” The very best food is, she shrugs, impossible. “Will I pay £12 for a chicken that will give just two servings?” she says. “No I won’t. I could feed two of us for two days for £12. I’d like to buy free-range eggs. I’d love to have a big pot and put a lobster in it. I’ll buy really good food if I have the money: I want to give my boy the best. But it’s not always.” Every day Sheila blesses her parents, who “brought me up healthy: they gave me the knowledge of food, made me confident in the kitchen. There’s no such thing as can’t, you know. There are just different priorities.” The young couple: Anna King & Karl Walker “I think the main problem,” says Anna King, a nutritional therapist , “is that most people simply don’t realise how important what we eat is. We wait till we’re obese or very ill – with cancer, cardiovascular disease – before we change our diets.” Anna, 31, and her partner Karl Walker, 34, a sustainability consultant, are unabashed foodies. These days, some of the cooking Anna does at home is professional: she is planning and testing menus for clients. But, she confesses, she has always “loved food. Just adored it. It’s a huge part of my life”. The west-London couple spend £70-£75 a week on food shopping: a weekly online shop at Ocado, topped up with organic staples from the local wholefood store – hummus, oatcakes, bee pollen, agave. They eat little red meat, once or twice a week, and no takeaways. Fish is sustainably caught or organically farmed, if possible; fruit and vegetables are bought locally. “I’m very conscious of carbon miles,” says Karl. “We always go for English when we can, and organic. With things like mangoes, of course, that’s not possible. It’s hard sometimes to get what you want.” Breakfast is organic granola with natural yoghurt and fruit for Karl; a homemade shake of berries, yoghurt and assorted ultra-nutritious (but top-secret) ingredients for Anna, who also tries to make herself a home-whizzed juice (fruit and/or veg) every day. Lunches, on weekdays, are soups, salads and often leftovers from last night’s supper. Tonight’s supper was that organic salmon, Asian style. Dessert was berries, strawberries, yoghurt, mint, crushed nuts and agave. It was utterly delicious. It’s a myth, says Anna, that eating well is expensive. “You can eat healthily for very little: lentils, salads, sprouts. People say they never have the time, but it’s not difficult at all. Tins of chickpeas, tomatoes: I do a very good stew with those plus kale and a tiny bit of chorizo.” They resent food-industry manipulation: “Even probiotic yoghurts are chock full of sugar. There’s a lot of misrepresentation. It’s all low-fat this, low-calorie that, and precious little of it is natural.” Food, says Karl, “is political. It is a question of choices.” Anna’s line is simple: “There are lots of things in this world we can’t control. I find it really empowering that I can control my health and the way I feel through what I eat.” The pensioner: Maurice Nadeem “The thing is,” says Maurice Nadeem, “I don’t actually cook. My wife was a very good cook, you see, she used to do all the cooking. And there was the mess. So now what I do is, I put things in the microwave, really.” Maurice will be 82 this year. He served in the Royal Pakistan Air Force and then for five years with the RAF (“I was told I was the first Pakistani to be commissioned,” he says, proudly) before studying law at Leeds university in the 1960s, where Jack Straw was among his classmates. He practised as a London solicitor before retiring. Maurice has never cooked for himself. He was catered for in his service days and used to adore his wife’s curries, he says; he would still enjoy a really good proper home-cooked curry more than anything in the world if he could. Sadly, he finds them too strong for him these days. So he shops at the supermarket nearest his central-London home, a Waitrose, where he buys essentially ready-cooked meals, often Indian, which he reheats. There’s also bread, crackers, cheese, eggs, canned soups and plenty of fresh fruit. Understandably, this is not cheap: Maurice spends maybe £100 a week on food, sometimes as much as £120. Breakfast is “quite filling”: two slices of toast, a boiled egg, two cocktail sausages and two bananas. He generally skips lunch, or if he’s feeling peckish may make himself a cheese sandwich or heat up a can of tomato soup. A dedicated committee man throughout his life, he remains sociable, going most Mondays to a local day centre for older people. Maurice’s main meal of the day is at 4pm. His regular is microwaved chicken biryani: a hint of curry, but mild enough for his digestion. He says his service background has instilled in him the importance of personal fitness: “I eat what I need and no more; I drink in strict moderation; I make sure always to have plenty of fruit. And I take a brisk three-mile walk every day. That’s discipline. Old habits die hard.” Maurice thinks he eats pretty well, although he’d like to do a bit of cooking for himself. “Waitrose has cooking lessons,” he says. “I might try. It’s never too late, is it?” The three-child family: The Booth-Farmers “We used to buy organic when our first child was born, but it’s just ridiculously expensive now,” says Catherine Farmer. “In fact, we did an experiment a while back,” says her husband, Giles Booth. “Everything we used to buy that was organic or from the supermarket premium range, we bought from the value range instead. To see what exactly we could live with.” It’s expensive, life with three children, especially if you want to feed them well. And Catherine, 43, a radio producer, and Giles, 44, a studio manager, will have to be more careful in future: she is soon to lose her job. Food is important to the Booth-Farmers and their children, Henry, 11, William, eight, and Tilly, five. “We do try to cook fresh every day,” says Catherine, over chilli in the family kitchen in Lewisham. “Pasta, curries, that kind of thing. On Sundays we roast a chicken that will do for sandwiches on Monday, and curry or a pie. Then for stock. We try.” Buying no ready meals bar pizza for the kids, once a week, and just the occasional takeaway (fish and chips of a Friday night), the family spends £600 a month on food: “Stupid amounts, really,” says Catherine. “It’s definitely getting more expensive. And I don’t think we’re extravagant, or wasteful. Not many people still boil up a chicken stock.” They have an allotment in Greenwich for potatoes, tomatoes, carrots, lettuce, sweetcorn, cabbage and the rest – and freeze a lot. The Booth-Farmers’ recent cost-cutting exercise showed them they can live with cheap, value-range beans, canned tomatoes and biscuits (though not smoked salmon, ice-cream or ketchup. Nor, says Giles, will he sacrifice his Maldon sea salt). If they have to cut back more, it’ll probably mean Asda rather than Sainsbury’s. They are particularly conscious of food for their children’s health: when he was born, doctors feared Henry might go on to develop diabetes, so babyfoods were homemade from the start. Catherine campaigned hard a few years ago to improve the children’s “really appalling” school dinners, and they now go off with lunchboxes of (for example) brown-bread ham sandwiches and grapes, or last night’s supper in a food flask. “We really like our food, and we both really like cooking,” says Giles, who, in his spare time, runs a delightful (and useful) blog ( suppertime.co.uk ) of short, simple everyday family recipes. “We’re not foodies. But good food is a real priority.” The flatsharers: Kieren Eyles and Mike McGrath “OK,” says Kieren Eyles. “Here’s a new house rule: if you use a chopping board, you have to clean it up after.” Undeterred, his flatmate Mike McGrath responds: “And I think you’d find it would be better, mate, if you used the old parmesan first.” Kieren, 32, who used to work in the pub business but is waiting on a PhD application, and Mike, 31, a fundraiser for a microfinance charity, share a flat in Wandsworth. They cook and eat together most nights if they’re in; tonight, it’s spaghetti carbonara with fresh steamed spinach and peas. Both like their food. They do a communal online shop for £90-£100 every three weeks or so (“Sunday afternoon,” says Mike, “you should see us”), topped up with maybe £50 a week between them on fresh produce: probably £40 a week each on food, in all. “I do have to be careful,” says Mike. “Food’s a big chunk of my budget.” Attitudes to eating among twenty- and thirtysomethings have changed a lot over the past 10-15 years, Mike reckons: “Generally, I think people are much more aware. One friend used to eat nothing but stir-fried sausages and supernoodles, and now cooks amazing stuff, three different kinds of naan bread. And another house I lived in, they only ate junk food. They’ve stopped that now; a conscious decision.” Mike, whose dad is “sports mad” and whose mum was a cookery teacher, makes a big effort to eat healthily, although he confesses to being “a bit partial to the naughty stuff. You know, chocolate and all that. And I’m from Birkenhead. So I like my pies and my pasties.” Kieren says they always aim for five-a-day “or more”, and “we’re very good about fruit”. Their favourite dishes? Mike says he’s “big into curries and stews, and stir-fries”. Kieren says he makes a mean chocolate fondant with berry compote. Dinner parties, they modestly agree, can be “quite awesome”. That’s all quite embarrassing, says Mike: “You’d better not say it was me who talked about berry compote.” Food & drink Health & wellbeing Health Family Jon Henley guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …