Show Hide image

So close to catastrophe, I glimpse an even more desperate parallel self

Well, that’s it, the book is done and you will hear no more about it from me in this column. Apart from this. It so nearly didn’t get done. Or, to be precise, so nearly didn’t happen.

Let me explain. The writer, these days, trusts to the computer, to the internal movements of electrons, rather than to the physical reality of ink pressed on to the paper by effort of hand on pen or hand on typewriter key. This has its advantages and its drawbacks. You know what the advantages are so I won’t go into them. Ease of editing, basically. The drawbacks: for one thing, the computer offers too many opportunities to slack off. Anthony Burgess once made the point that you couldn’t say you had been writing if there had been no clatter from the study all day. Industry should make a noise. Nowadays, you can make exactly the same noise looking for exotic pornography as you can when seeking, through your deathless prose, to purify the dialect of the tribe.

The other drawback is that, once you start relying on electrons, you enter the quantum universe, where things behave strangely and can wink in or out of existence unpredictably.

Vanishing act

Which should give you a clue as to where this is heading. An early adopter of computer technology – I was programming in Basic and Fortran on the school computer (a behemoth of a tele - printer, basically, connected to a central intelligence in Reading, if that is not a contradiction in terms) in the mid-1970s – I know about the importance of backing up, the ephemerality of electrical essences. You can leave your manuscript in a taxi or, as in Thomas Carlyle’s case, have an illiterate housemaid use it to light a fire but if you’ve backed it up, you’re laughing, right? And I back it up here, I back it up there. I back it up sodding everywhere. External hard drive, memory stick, Dropbox account, that should cover it.

Ah, yes, but it all depends what you’ve backed it up with, doesn’t it? So when, one morning, the morning I was due to hand over the first proper draft (and I was on time! When has a book ever been handed in not only on time but a little bit early? And who would have bet on me to be the first person ever to do it?), I cracked open the plastic piano and clicked on the master folder in which lurked my deathless prose. I was a little perturbed to discover that half the files in it had simply disappeared.

“A little perturbed” is one way of putting it. “Feeling as though the very fabric of the universe had suddenly unravelled” is another. There are no words accurately to describe my sensations. When P G Wodehouse’s heroes have a setback and everything goes black or they quiver like an aspen in the breeze, these are deliberately debased comic tropes. But they have to have been debased from something, something that expressed a closer connection to lived experience, and the sensation of having lost about 50 per cent of a book, an irreplaceable 50 per cent and, moreover, a book that had to be handed over on that day for it to be published at all, produced a physical sensation of horror unlike anything I had felt ever before – apart from the time my first child, recovering from a fever, aged about two, had a seizure, her eyes rolling up in her head, and for all the world looking as though the life was swiftly ebbing away in front of me. Even then, an instinct to command the situation kicked in and 999 was called, the frantic mother was soothed, for someone has to be in control, and everything turned out OK. Here, there was every indication that everything was fucked up for good.

No accidents

As it turned out, the back-ups were fine and I sent them off immediately before my computer could eat any more of them. This is the interesting thing: I don’t believe it. We all make narratives of our lives, or experience them as such, and in terms of narrative, my easy recovery of the files doesn’t fit in.

This does not feel right. I have not written a book before; therefore, I should never write a book or, just as I am about to send it off, it should be snatched away by electronic whim. Or, as in the multiple-universe theory – a spin-off from quantum theory – there is a universe, now, in which I am wandering, hollow-eyed and desolate, wondering how to pay back my advance and contemplating the ruin of my reputation. And also wondering if I was subconsciously responsible – like the writers who leave their manuscripts in the back of cabs. There are no accidents. Reader, if you visit that universe, be kind to that wretched unfortunate, and put some money in the paper cup he is holding out in shame and need towards you.

Nicholas Lezard is a literary critic for the Guardian and also writes for the Independent. He writes the Down and Out in London column for the New Statesman.

This article first appeared in the 27 August 2012 issue of the New Statesman, The end of the political cartoon?

Photo: Getty Images
Show Hide image

How can Britain become a nation of homeowners?

David Cameron must unlock the spirit of his postwar predecessors to get the housing market back on track. 

In the 1955 election, Anthony Eden described turning Britain into a “property-owning democracy” as his – and by extension, the Conservative Party’s – overarching mission.

60 years later, what’s changed? Then, as now, an Old Etonian sits in Downing Street. Then, as now, Labour are badly riven between left and right, with their last stay in government widely believed – by their activists at least – to have been a disappointment. Then as now, few commentators seriously believe the Tories will be out of power any time soon.

But as for a property-owning democracy? That’s going less well.

When Eden won in 1955, around a third of people owned their own homes. By the time the Conservative government gave way to Harold Wilson in 1964, 42 per cent of households were owner-occupiers.

That kicked off a long period – from the mid-50s right until the fall of the Berlin Wall – in which home ownership increased, before staying roughly flat at 70 per cent of the population from 1991 to 2001.

But over the course of the next decade, for the first time in over a hundred years, the proportion of owner-occupiers went to into reverse. Just 64 percent of households were owner-occupier in 2011. No-one seriously believes that number will have gone anywhere other than down by the time of the next census in 2021. Most troublingly, in London – which, for the most part, gives us a fairly accurate idea of what the demographics of Britain as a whole will be in 30 years’ time – more than half of households are now renters.

What’s gone wrong?

In short, property prices have shot out of reach of increasing numbers of people. The British housing market increasingly gets a failing grade at “Social Contract 101”: could someone, without a backstop of parental or family capital, entering the workforce today, working full-time, seriously hope to retire in 50 years in their own home with their mortgage paid off?

It’s useful to compare and contrast the policy levers of those two Old Etonians, Eden and Cameron. Cameron, so far, has favoured demand-side solutions: Help to Buy and the new Help to Buy ISA.

To take the second, newer of those two policy innovations first: the Help to Buy ISA. Does it work?

Well, if you are a pre-existing saver – you can’t use the Help to Buy ISA for another tax year. And you have to stop putting money into any existing ISAs. So anyone putting a little aside at the moment – not going to feel the benefit of a Help to Buy ISA.

And anyone solely reliant on a Help to Buy ISA – the most you can benefit from, if you are single, it is an extra three grand from the government. This is not going to shift any houses any time soon.

What it is is a bung for the only working-age demographic to have done well out of the Coalition: dual-earner couples with no children earning above average income.

What about Help to Buy itself? At the margins, Help to Buy is helping some people achieve completions – while driving up the big disincentive to home ownership in the shape of prices – and creating sub-prime style risks for the taxpayer in future.

Eden, in contrast, preferred supply-side policies: his government, like every peacetime government from Baldwin until Thatcher’s it was a housebuilding government.

Why are house prices so high? Because there aren’t enough of them. The sector is over-regulated, underprovided, there isn’t enough housing either for social lets or for buyers. And until today’s Conservatives rediscover the spirit of Eden, that is unlikely to change.

I was at a Conservative party fringe (I was on the far left, both in terms of seating and politics).This is what I said, minus the ums, the ahs, and the moment my screensaver kicked in.

Stephen Bush is editor of the Staggers, the New Statesman’s political blog.