Let England Shake - Starting with London's Troxy

When the house lights finally dimmed at 8.50pm, the sparse stage of the Troxy (with a nest of keyboards, drums and guitars stage left, monitors perched on pieces of household furniture) was taken over by the presence of PJ Harvey. Head to toe in a flowing black dress, emphasised by a 14-belt black Ann Demeulemeester corset and knee high boots, the stage character was captured in her crazed black feather headdress - surely the largest headdress of this tour so far? It was as if she was wearing the black angel from Angels in America.

The first strum on one of two tuned autoharps opened Let England Shake and Polly Harvey had the stage and the audience in her hands.

The set was made up of the same material showcased in earlier shows across Europe. But this was not a simple going through the motions.

Firstly, Polly was living the "heavy words" of this war-laden album and on many occasions (such as for The Last Living Rose, or Hanging In The Wire) she held her final poses whilst the lights faded to black around her, seeming lost in the emotion she was trying to express through her songs.

Secondly, the band is much tighter than when they performed a webcast from Paris two weeks ago. In particular, Mick Harvey seems to have settled into his various roles and appeared relaxed, to the point of joking with John Parish about the levels of dry ice accompanying Written On The Forehead. 

But most impressive of all was Polly's voice. On the album, the transition from her White Chalk days of an often fragile voice is not complete; England and On Battleship Hill retain some of that fracture on the album. But in the Troxy they took on a belligerence and drive that gave fresh strength to these songs, and delivered the moving poetic lyrics with new power.

All tracks on the album got an airing, and were occasionally interspersed with careful forays into her back catalogue. Down By The Water and C’mon Billy were particularly impressive as they took on a more gothic feel through the combined autoharp and guitar mix. Big Exit was full of energy, as were a raucous Meet Ze Monsta and Angelene.

For me highlights (of many) were Let England Shake, Bitter Branches, and Silence. The only disappointment was Written On The Forehead, which was about the only occasion I thought the guys were out of synch with Polly.

I've seen Polly four times now, each a radically different sound and drama experience. It is pretty pointless trying to compare this show with Somerset House (Uh Huh Huh tour), the Royal Festival Hall (White Chalk), or the Beacon Theatre New Yorker gig. This was 100% Polly, and I am dazed by the power of this evening's performance and content.

At the NME Awards she said that this was "just the beginning" for her. I've no idea where she'll be taking us in the future, but, on the experience of tonight, it can only be an amazing ride.

Don't call me religious

Towards the end of March citizens in the UK will be taking part in the national census. The Office of National Statistics (ONS) describes this as "Taking a snapshot across the nation, on one day once a decade", suggesting that it "helps plan services across the whole of the UK.” Notwithstanding the fact that the Tory-led coalition is systematically undermining services across the whole of the UK, I believe the capture of good census data is important. It helps us, for example, understand the rich diversity within the UK and the complexities of the communities we live in. This, in turn, helps forward-thinking organisations identify those who should be receiving services and then to redesign services to reach them.

However, one question in particular risks giving a distorted view of life in the UK: the one on religious belief.

As in 2001 (the time of the last census), the question being asked in England and Wales is "What is your religion?" The first option to respond with is "No religion", followed by six religions and an "any other religion" option. In Scotland, the question is "What religion, religious denomination or body do you belong to?" The first option to respond with is "None", followed by three Christian denominations and a further five options.

These questions are flawed.

Their leading nature implies I have a religion, and frames the question as if everyone does have religious belief. The fact that the first response is "No religion" or "None" does not make sense in the context of the questions as they are posed.

The British Humanist Association (BHA) is leading a campaign against these questions (see http://census-campaign.org.uk/). Last year, the BHA presented the ONS with rational arguments against the question, proposing that the primary question should at least be along the lines of "Do you have a religion?" Interestingly, when the ONS itself had tested a version of this ("Do you regard yourself as belonging to a religion?") this decreased the number of people identified as religious, and increasing the proportion of non-religious people. Strangely, they used the fact that this question reduced the number of people identifying as following the Sikh religion (as it meant some identifying as Sikh, whether practising or not, no longer ticked the Sikh box) as a reason not to ask a more biased question!

In practice then, the question as asked leads those who consider they have an identity, though not necessarily a faith, to be counted as if they are practising believers. The Board of Deputies of British Jews is encouraging all Jews, practising or not, to tick the Jewish religion box, and I'm sure other faith organisations are encouraging their followers likewise.

So does it matter? Yes! Try this not altogether ludicrous parallel question that could conceivably be asked:

What animals do you abuse?
a) None
b) Horses
c) Sheep
d) Gerbils
e) Other

If you think the question makes an unfair implied assumption about you, despite giving you the option to say "None", then you should support the BSA campaign against the equally absurd religious questions being posed in England, Scotland and Wales.

The fallacy of "efficiencies" in Lansley's NHS

One of the sad facts about the swathing cuts Health Minister Andrew Lansley is wielding is the negative impact this will have on the health of the population in England.

Ask anyone in the NHS - whether frontline, support or backroom staff; whether commissioner or provider; whether local or regional - and one thing they will tell you is that dealing with structural change takes away from doing the day job. This applies, whether or not the changes being undertaken are good for the nation's health (e.g. some targets, such as the 18-week target or smoking cessation), or, like the nonsense that underpins Lansley's current efforts (e.g. the notion of "efficiencies").

Of course we should be ensuring that public services, like any other, are as efficient as possible. But to deny the fact that, for years, the NHS has been not only seeking, but delivering efficiencies year on year, would be crass. PCTs and Health Trusts have been "rationalising" backroom functions and layers of management cumulatively. Yet Lansley insists on peddling an image of a bloated NHS with wasteful managers in PCTs doing nothing and being paid astronomically for it.

Some questions Lansley might usefully consider answering honestly include:

1. Which layer of the NHS has delivered value for money in the provision of secondary health, through year on year rigorous commissioning and close monitoring against contracts? (Answer - the PCTs he is demolishing)

2. Which layer of the NHS has reduced the gaps in health inequalities (that mean that people in the same region can have life expectancies 10+ years worse than others) through the targeting of services at the most vulnerable? (Answer - oh yes, it's those PCTs again)

3. Which layer of the NHS has the talented workforce with the skills to commission robust secondary care that meets the needs of local populations, rather than pretending we can all have an NHS built around our individual needs? (Answer - PCTs, with their expert commissioners)

Lansley asserts that GPs are "best placed" to commission health care in England, because they know the needs of individual patients. The reality he chooses to ignore is that any health care provision that comes from a finite resource (a resource, by the way, the coalition is reducing, in real terms, against the rising demands of an aging society) requires my needs to be measured against those of my neighbours and others. The proposed GP consortia will struggle to deliver the influence and pressure PCTs have delivered in screwing the best value out of providers because of this lack of scale.

And please, do your best not to have a rare condition in the second half of a financial year. In the first half, you may get lucky with your GP spending well above the allocated amount of money on "your" healthcare, to give you an appropriate, but expensive intervention.  But when the year is halfway through, and the consortia are over-spending without a bail-out from Lansley, because they do not have the detailed financial skills to manage finite resources that reside in PCTs, don't expect to be able to get the same high-cost treatments.

I predict that, by the end of this parliament, the health of the weakest and most vulnerable will have deteriorated; the so-called postcode lottery for treatments will be more stark than ever before; and that a fresh NHS restructure will be looming. And Lansley will have achieved the Tories' aim of beginning the systematic breaking apart of one of our most treasured and necessary institutions - an NHS free at the point of delivery for all.