Doghouse Blues Interview

Many years ago I lived in London, England, actually a suburb called Hammersmith, for two years. Actually I was based there and travelled a

great deal in Europe, South America and Asia for my job. While at home in Hammersmith I occasionally ventured into London to take in a play and found I greatly enjoyed what the British call a farce which we Americans would refer to as a comedy. Anyway, this is to explain why I recently took a short look at a book by Clive Radford called Doghouse Blues since Clive is undeniably British and his book appears to be something of a farce. What I discovered is that Clive does touch upon political issues in his book and, while the issues he discusses are British, I found some correlation between those issues and some that we have in America. With this in mind I arranged the following interview with Clive to find out more about his book and his politics. Interview follows: Clive, I spent some time in London and reading parts of your book brought back memories of those enjoyable but long ago years. Could you tell me exactly where you live and what your interests are, outside of writing of course? I live in Hempstead, Kent, about 20 miles from Hazelwood, where Roger Fraser and his family live, in Doghouse Blues. Outside of writing, I have interests in music (I play guitar badly!), the theatre and sailing. Before I get into political issues, please tell us a bit more about Doghouse Blues. The satire is largely based on real people and an accumulation of real life experiences, some beyond belief, but nonetheless they happened. It just struck me that real life comedy is much more amusing, especially when it is unintentional, than anything rendered. People utter the most hilarious faux pas in complete ignorance of what they are unintentionally saying, or inadvertently get themselves into situations resulting in embarrassment for them and the amusement of onlookers. Such circumstances make for

humourous writing. In many ways, Doghouse Blues is a diary of Rogers own transgressions, and those he witnesses in others. I normally write contemporary novels about adventure, self-discovery and inner space travel, plus poetry, but Doghouse Blues, a satirical comedy, had been welling up inside of me for some time. It required a different writing style and word set. One of my many failings is that I have a low threshold of boredom. I wanted to write something which challenged my creative abilities outside my normal comfort zone. What did you hope to accomplish with your book? Bring a little bit of light-hearted relief to readers, in a world in which they find themselves bombarded with stifling regulation, and various self-interest groups, telling them how they must think and what they can say. I openly confess that I have never liked being told how I must conduct my life by any party. True, I conform to societal expectations terms of the work ethic and being law abiding, but that does not mean I have swallowed the conformity pill whole. Quite the contrary, like Roger, I tend not to be partizan to any doctrine, creed or viewpoint. I think the vast majority of people feel the same way. Doghouse Blues is a vehicle to say, you are not alone. I and many others kick against the pricks, and grudgingly accept edicts which have no benefit to me. What should readers take away after reading Doghouse Blues? Or should they just be entertained and not necessarily take away anything other than a smile? Additional to the baseline comedy, there are some underlying syntax messages intended to give hope to those who themselves, are the prisoners of modernity and convention. Theres some intentional escapism to bring balance to Rogers demanding life. Many readers, who have reviewed the work, associate with the predicaments in which Roger finds himself. It gives them the feel good factor. They recognise that what they are experiencing in

their lives is shared by others. On a different level, Doghouse Blues can be viewed as pure escapism, and aspirational in terms of life style. Although Roger is constantly challenged by family demands and his job in investment banking, he does experience some high quality life, and manages to counter what he perceives to be drudgery with some good times.

One last non-political question: I read parts of your book on Authonomy, which is a website where authors help other authors with comments and suggestions on as yet unpublished books. Could you tell us of any plans for publishing Doghouse Blues? Or perhaps making it into a Stage Play where Im sure it would be a delightful farce? Actually, Doghouse Blues is available as a Kindle eBook from Amazon at:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Doghouse-Blues-ebook/dp/B00B823VH8/ref=sr_1_1? s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1366614901&sr=1-1&keywords=doghouse+blues

However, the goal is to get the satire published in paperback form by a reputable publisher. In spite of the interest shown on Authonomy and other websites, satire is not exactly in the ascendency at present, as far as the paperback publishing industry is concerned, and remains a low priority for commissioning editors. Many readers have become excited about the possibility of translating Doghouse Blues into a series of half-hour comedy shows for TV, maybe even a screen play, or a stage play as you say. They are all possibilities I intend to pursue. Doghouse Blues is the first part of a trilogy, covering the lives of the Fraser family and their assorted band of oddball friends and work colleagues, between summer 2011 and spring 2012. Doghouse Blues 2 is complete and will be posted on Authonomy later this year. Doghouse Blues 3 is in the embryonic stage because I have been concentrating on other writing projects, including a spy novel, entitled Bullet.

Okay, now for the politics. In one chapter of your book your main character, Roger, is involved in a discussion with his mother-in-law in which she expresses some definitely anti-EU comments. What exactly are your feelings towards the EU? Like the vast majority of English people, I remain at best ambivalent about the EU. However, in its present form, there is no disputing the fact that membership of the EU for England, has had few benefits, if any, for the massive taxpayer funding it demands. I remain highly sceptical because in the entire history of Western politics, no other venture has gained such high profile support from both the left and the right. As Lady Macbeth maintains, it is a massive gravy train for all those involved in its running. The EUs accounts have never been signed-off by auditors, and there is a widely held view throughout Europe, that corruption is rife within the EU. England voted for participation in a trading alliance, not to be dictated to, by unelected Eurocrats in Brussels and Strasburg, and bankroll their politically motivated schemes, such as the living disaster, known as the Euro. Its become a big issue in England. If Cameron had allowed the vote he promised at the 2010 General Election, it is most likely that voters would elect to leave the EU, and use the 7.5b taxpayer provided funds presently sent to Brussels every year, for internal investment in England. What do you think about the current problem in Cyprus and the strict conditions placed by the EU for a bailout? All Western European countries have their own cultures, traditions and national characters and identities. For the Eurocrats to apply a United States of Europe policy across these vastly disparate and divergent sovereign states was always going to culminate in a huge economic disaster. Many southern European countries have been living beyond their means. They have been subsidised by the more productive northern countries including England. Only Germany and England are net contributors to the EU fiscal

budget. The remaining 25 member states are net recipients. To expect the German tax payer in particular, to go on funding the government excesses of other EU Euro states, is beyond the reasonable. The whole house will come crashing down. It gives credence to the view held throughput Europe that the EU is not a trading organisation. It is political instrument with intentions to subsume all European states under a federal administration, resulting in the expected surrender of national sovereignty. Cyprus was a casualty waiting the happen, as was Greece. Spain, Portugal and Italy may be next. The reality check for Cypriots is undeniable. They have always known, their governments spending regime has been funded by the two net contributors to the EU budget, but chose to turn a blind eye, believing the gravy train would go on forever. Not just Cyprus, but all states worldwide need to return to a regime of self-sufficiency generated from internal industry, not government loans. That latter model is clearly unsustainable, and inevitably will result in major pain and strife. Do you believe the EU will exist in say another 25 years? That is a really good question. The continuing failure of the EU is down to it becoming a series of political objectives. The EECs original intent was to create a cooperative trading zone. That was good idea. When the EEC morphed into the EU, that primary objective became sidelined in favour of federalisation with a common currency and economic convergence. Of course that was always doomed to abject failure. What most Europeans want is a return to a trading zone with ultra-minimal taxpayer funded admin costs, and the European Parliament dissolved along with all its gravy train Eurocrat institutions. Of course, that will never happen as long as all the political parties, left and right, ride on the gravy train that funds their champagne and caviar lifestyles at the tax payers expense. Support is growing throughout Europe for political parties who advocate bringing the EU to an end. Already, the so-called centrerist parties are reacting by promising referendums, but that is merely a feint. If re-elected into national power, that

promise, as always, will melt away. In a different sense, Western Europe has been bursting at the seams with a never ending influx of immigrants and asylum seekers for the past 20 years. Some say that soon, critical mass will be reached, and Bosnia style war will result. If that does happen, the EU will definitely end. I noticed in another chapter that Roger appeared to be quite opposed to building facilities for the London Olympics at taxpayer expense. This bears a striking resemblance to my personal belief that American cities should not build stadiums for professional sports teams yet this goes on all the time. Could you explain your personal views on this issue? I mean the stadiums for the Olympics not the American sports stadiums. The London Dome used to celebrate the third millennium, was the first taxpayer funded building that would allegedly pay for itself, in terms of ticket receipts and building resale value. That turned out to be pie-in-the-sky, and the dome was eventually sold for a song and at a massive loss to the taxpayer. The London 2012 Olympics was similarly funded by the tax payer plus a supplement on London council taxes. The promise made, was that all funds would be recovered from overseas spectators providing foreign currency revenues, and even a profit made which would be returned to those taxpayers who subsidised the venture. However, something like 95% of all tickets sold went to British nationals, thereby negating the possibility of foreign currency coming into England, paying for the Olympic Games, and even helping reduce the national structural debt. The London Dome and the 2012 Olympics were great for those politicians and bureaucrats and their legions of hangers-on, who feasted themselves silly at the tax payers expense, but neither did anything of substance to make a significant contribution to the economy. Both ended up as net losses to the tax payer.

Finally I note where Roger expresses a decidedly anti-Keynesian viewpoint claiming that Keynesian economics simply provides a justification for governments to spend money they dont have building things they dont need. Is this how you feel? Keynesian economics is an illusion, grasped by desperate and failing politicians to compensate for disingenuous economic policies. The concept of spending more and more public money on capital ventures such as new airports, rail links, and town halls, as a means to provide prosperity, is pure Hans Christian Anderson. Such projects merely take funds from the Treasury, or worst still, are financed by more national loans which increase the structural deficit, resulting in increased unemployment and higher taxes. Would a responsible parent, encourage a spendthrift teenager to continue to rack-up expenditure on a credit card, as a means of the relieving the everspiralling debt incurred? Of course not, the credit card would be cut up, and the teenager put on a strict regime of fiscal responsibility. The only way to relieve Englands structural deficit is by exporting manufactured goods and professional services. That draws foreign currency into the Treasury via taxation to bring down the national debt, and provides a solid foundation for economic stability. In the US, we have built a huge accumulated government debt in recent years by excessive deficits followed by more excessive deficits. Do you have any idea how we will ever get out of this mess? That really is monster of a question. I find it hard enough to get my head around strategies to extricate England from the structural debt we have been burdened with, by the consequences of the 2008 global financial services meltdown, coupled with a Labour Government which continued to spend money it did not have, right up until the time when it left office. Solving the worlds largest economy fiscal deficit crisis is many rungs higher

on the challenge level. The one I do know is that in this day and age, the US can not spend its way out of recession, like Hoover did in the 1930s. That may have worked then, but at that time, economies worldwide were a lot less interconnected. Domestic economic strategies could be used by countries to cure their own financial ailments. Today, and for at least the past 30 years, there is a tightly coupled relationship between the worlds major trading blocks. Any steps that the US Treasury take to correct the present situation, such as economic isolationist policies, will like the butterfly effect, have knock-on consequences for Europe and the Asia-Pacific regions, especially, which then backfire on the US. I think the solution lies more in basic house-keeping strategies, and would come back to this concept of you cant spend what you dont have. Setting expectations which cannot be delivered is fools gold mentality. Politicians are more concerned about getting re-elected, than spelling out stark pragmatism and practicality to the electorate. Realism has to take precedence over fanciful social programmes. Right now, the US simply cant afford them. The welfare budget has to be considerably reduced. A policy of self-sufficiency and self-reliance instilled in the population, and a return to economic fundamentals instituted across the nation by the lawmakers on Capitol Hill. Additionally, the massive costs of the multi-layered national, federal and state government has to be markedly reduced. I suppose what I am really saying is that the whole world, not just the US, has to recognise that economic prosperity only can come from industry, meaning manufactured consumer goods. There is no tradable value in social workers or civil servants. They are an overhead, which needs to be kept to an absolute minimum. The days of big government, whether they are the EU or the US system is over. We simply cant afford them. For politicians to go on blindly, heads buried in the sand in abject denial, will be the worst form of irresponsibility foisted on the people they represent, and if not checked and corrected, will result in global economic breakdown. Wars will follow, bedlam and Armageddon will result. Time for those in power to swallow the realism pill and tell the electorate the truth, dont you think?

Clive, speaking for those who read this, we really appreciate the information about your book and your insights into British Politics. And certainly the sad but true comment on U.S. Government deficit spending. I would like to thank you and wish you the best of luck in getting your book published in printed form and hope that you will let me know when this is done so we can have a follow up interview. Meanwhile, those in the audience who would like to read aClives delightful book for free please go Amazon UK and buy the e-book version. To read a few chapters before you buy you can go to www.authonomy.com and search for Doghouse Blues. Note that if you do, you can sign up to be an Authonomy member and read works from a number of other interesting authors. And, most importantly, you can put Clives book on your shelf which will be very helpful to him and be a great way to show your appreciation for his great work in writing Doghouse Blues. Of course buying the e-book would be even better!