My few days’ holiday are not really going as planned. I had hoped for better weather and expected to have a car available, so instead of maybe popping across to Kent for a cream tea we are sat indoors watching the persistant drizzle.
However, its not all bad. At least the rain means the street will not be full of children flying down the hill sitting on their scooters and narrowly avoiding unwary cars, kicking their ball into our garden and gawping at us through the front window.
Best of all it means no barbecues. I cannot see what the fascination is with barbecues. The kids love them because it means they can pile up a plate with meat, meat and more meat and not have any vegetable matter at all. They like nothing more than a plate of undercooked meat with no veggies at all. Its almost as if they were French.
As far as I am concerned barbecues are just a form of pollution, spoiling the enjoyment of any good weather we do get. You feel like sitting outside, but can guarantee that someone in the vicinity is going to make sure that the smell of burning flesh is ever-present.
By the way, I am available as a freelance consultant killjoy at very reasonable rates…
By the way, as a fully qualified experienced “freelance consultant killjoy at unreasonable rates” may I ask this ‘Gallowesque’ question :
If the President of a hyper-power commanded his forces to invade and occupy the United Kingdom by force (to protect its military/commercial interests), would you resist by helping in a plan to assassinate that President ?
Yes I would if I thought it would make any difference – which means “no”. I think that very few countries are actually controlled by the person nominally in charge anyway; there is always some sort of establishment really managing everything.
Are you recruiting for a secret army of resistance by any chance?
What sort of crap answer is that, Skuds ?!
In 1938 Nazi Germany, I can just imagine someone saying in England : “Yes I would (resist by force) if I thought it would make any difference – which means ‘no’…very few countries are actually controlled by the person nominally in charge anyway; there is always some sort of establishment really managing everything.”
And ‘no’, I am not recruiting for a resistance army, Skuds. But I am asking awkward, hypothetical moral questions – which are not just ‘playing at words’.
I am no poet, but I am reminded of the Great War poet Wilfred Owen who said : “All a poet can do today is to warn.”
Wilfred Owen warned, George Orwell warned; Noam Chomsky warns, George Galloway warns – and so do many others (including myself).
I hope to God I am wrong, because if I am not…
Well, Owen and Orwell also fought. What did the other two do?
In the 1960’s, Chomsky risked his whole academic career by openly criticising his Government’s war in Vietnam. Bono calls him a “rebel without a pause” – and he made the Independent Front Page Today, Tues 30 May.
So Chomsky ‘fights’ and warns – and his integrity is awesome…
Galloway also ‘fights’ and warns, but in a different way. I don’t like his style particularly, but so bloody what ?
Galloway doesn’t “warn” – he actively campaigns for the other side and lionises terrorists. Fit that into your WW2 analysis.
Chomsky merely apologises for dictators and war criminals, and spreads false history and conspiracy theories.
It’s disgraceful that the official anti-war movement shot their credibility by getting into bed with them. Whether Wilfred Owen would have been duped, who can say?
Judging by Guardian’s Front Page today, it seems like people such as you, led by your Leader Tony ‘Bliar’, are the ones who “have been duped” :
“Gore : Bush is ‘renegade rightwing extremist'” (Guardian, May 31 2006).
Fit that into your “analysis” – it should be pretty easy to do, especially 4 U, considering the amount of ‘mental gymnastics’ New Labour idealogical fanatics have had to do since 1997.
Regarding your ‘Chomsky’ comments, I would not wish to dignify your comments with a response.
Chomsky risked his academic career? Well, he could have got a proper job I suppose. Either way, as I’ve mentioned before, his academic theories on semantics are inflexible and out of date anyway. His defence of people who tried to hide the atrocities of the Yugoslavian conflicts lost all respect I had for the man. Bono hasn’t lived in the real world for ages, and why should I take the word of a celebrity anyway?
As for Galloway, he just blusters and whinges, while sitting on piles of cash.
Sorry, but neither of these guys really stands up to
Oh, and Richard, anyone who uses the ‘Bliar’ tag deserves a (metaphorical) slap. It was original in 2003, now it’s just boring and silly. I didn’t believe him on Iraq, and still don’t, but I don’t understand why people have to be so childish about the debate. It’s attitudes like that which make me (momentarily) reconsider my decision not to support the Euston Manifesto
(sorry neither of them stands up to the examples of Wilfred Owen or George Orwell, neither of whom were perfect themselves)
Danivon – or whatever your real name is –
Telling lies undermines trust and confidence. I have lost confidence in Blair as a Leader, and I don’t trust him (or New Labour) anymore – so even if he might be telling the truth sometimes, I can’t trust him that it is the truth…
As I see it, this is not being “childish” – but if you think so, that’s your problem.
I think you are simply very wrong about Chomsky (and probably Galloway) – dangerously wrong in my view. But I know nothing I say will change your own ‘hard-wired’ view, so I won’t go on…
As for the Euston Manifesto, anyone with any global knowledge of realpolitik, or any moral sense of history, would see it for what it is – an apology for US empire-building (Orwell called it ‘Oligarchical Collectivism’ (1984).
My ‘real’ name is Owen.
When did you ever trust Blair? I never did. I opposed his leadership bid, his change to Clause 4, his restructuting of the party policy-making apparatus, several of his policies. I don’t trust any politicians, including Skuds, or myself, or even you Richard, let alone ones who are currently in positions of power. But ‘Bliar’ is not a clever way of saying he lies, it’s just lazy.
My views on Chomsky are far from hard-wired – I used to agree with him on politics. But over time I came to realise that he may be a great hyperbolist, but he is a little detatched from reality, and sees conspiracies where there are none. Combine that with dogmatism and… well.
As for Euston, I don’t go that far, but I said I don’t agree with it. It just sometimes seems that the shrill left make it look less barking in comparison.
Owen, I accept the use of the word ‘Bliar’ is – as you say – “lazy”, but sometimes it’s not…one word can often ‘get it in one’.
I made a stupid mistake today, I was angry for making the mistake, and I was in immediate physical pain because of that mistake.
My immediate response was “F…”. That one word perfectly encapsulated how I felt at that moment. I did not say : “Oh dear, I made a mistake here – silly me…”
“F…” and “Bliar” are not very accurate terms, neither are they very nice to use (and they are “lazy” terms), but they do sometimes sum up the situation exactly ie there is a ‘truth’ to them.
Blair is a f…… liar – yet he still remains in power (and still believes he’s not a liar). He represents this country as Prime Minister, and his Party followers have to perform mental gymnastics which a political kangaroo would be proud.
The whole absurd, lethally dangerous, situation reminds me of Hans Christian Andersen’s ‘The Emperor’s New Clothes”.
Chomsky, as I see it, represents the little girl…and he is also a threat to power because he is “knowing too much, and saying it too well”.
I’m assuming, Owen, that you are Owen R……s. If so, hi ! If not, still hi !
Yes, that’s me. I didn’t actually set out to hide my identity, but I just used my existing pseudonym from somewhere else, and it was easier.
Using expletives when injured/shocked/angry is fine. It’s a reaction. One thing about the interweb is that people too often just react when they actually have the facility to sit and think before hitting the ‘send’ or ‘submit’ button.
Too often I’ve seen the results of online discussion where people ‘react’ rather than go through the process of ‘digest-comprehend-consider-respond’. It often degenerates…
Anyway, I don’t have to worry about mental gymnastics. I opposed the war. Most Tory MPs supported it, most Labour ones did – as British politics usually boils down to one or the other option being in power, Iraq becomes moot. Besides, I feel I can do more to change the Labour Party from within than from outside – a view which was endorsed by one of your other heroes – Eric Blair.
Owen, I take your point – and it’s well said.
Re your position : “I feel I can do more to change the Labour Party from within than from outside”, I respect that.
Re my position : I have never joined any political party in my life – and I certainly have no inclination to do so now.
Re : Eric Blair’s ‘membership’ of the Labour Party – that’s an interesting one. As a democratic socialist, he was definitely a member of the Independent Labour Party (ILP) – but resigned in 1939 because of its pacifist stance.
During the war, as you probably know, he worked for the left-wing ‘Tribune’, so he probably continued with a ‘nominal’ membership of some kind.
After the war, he took a great interest in the 1945 Election – as many of his friends were standing. But, I am unsure whether he continued his Labour Party membership. If he did, I sense it was not on a very committed basis.
To me, the critical question is : If he was alive today, what would he do ?
That is a hypothetical question, but something tells me he would have distanced himself from the New Labour project – to such an extent that he would not have renewed his Labour Party membership.
Interesting…
I had wondered about the significance of ‘Danivon’. I used to be registered on a few bulletin boards as Elwood, just because it was my login on loads of mainframes when I worked for ICL.
I have a similar attitude to Owen in being less than happy with some of our party’s leadership’s decisions and think I can do more to change it from within than without.
Unfortunately there is very little that can be done unless a few hundred thousand like-minded souls also join (or re-join).
“Unfortunately there is very little that can be done…”
The Conservative Party did not say that when they got rid of Thatcher.
As I see it, your silence has become consent.
A huge ‘democratic deficit’ has opened up within the Labour Party ie between the opinion of its Members, and the policy of its Executive.
The Iraq War and the Hospital are just two examples…
I don’t think the Tories were upset with what Thatcher did – just that she became an electoral liability. And was her departure prompted by the wider party or just the so-called men in grey suits at the top?
I think there is a greater expectation within Labour that the party membership decide party policy, which is what makes it all the more depressing when firm policy decisions are made by the annual conference and are ignored (council housing for example).
What you refer to as a democratic deficit may apply in the case of Iraq but I think the hospital is a different matter.
Crawley CLP has always had a new hospital as a cornerstone of policy, but the wider party has not. Since the Tories opened hospitals in everywhere surrounding Crawley it was always going to be hard to justify building one here too on purely objective grounds, and they knew that when Redhill and Haywards Heath got their facilities. They made opening a new major hospital in Crawley about as viable as building a new international airport in Haywards Heath.
Crispin Blunt MP already accuses the Labour government of trying to buy votes by doing what it has for Crawley Hospital. I think he would rather see it closed down completely.
Is Blair now an “liability” to the real Labour Party ?
Methinks he is.
This New Labour Prime Minister is far from being an “electoral liabilty” to the Tory Party – the longer he stays the more popular David Cameron becomes.
I have no doubt that if a General Election was called next year, and things stay as they are, Cameron will ‘walk it’.
Somehow. the Labour Party must re-become as different from the Con Party as ‘chalk from cheese’.
That will not happen with Blair there.
I was away for a bit, so excuse the jumping back in.
1) As far as I’m aware, Orwell left the ILP and (re)joined the LP later.
2) ‘What would he do now?’ Who knows. Hitchens would take the contrary view to yourself, based on his opposition to totalitarianism and support for WWII. Noone truly knows the answer, and all it is posed for is to add an air of authority to the ‘answer’
3) Skuds is right about the Hospital – Soames had no problems with the prospect of closure in the mid 90s. I can’t see Smith being able to make a blind bit of difference, and my view of his political expediency on that matter is too rude for a family website.
4) I am not silent, although I don’t air dirty linen in public too often.
5) Danivon comes from the character ‘Danivon Luze’ in the book ‘Sideshow’ by Sheri S Tepper.
I don’t think I would call this a family website – despite the fact that my family all read it to keep up with what I am doing.
Welcome back.
1. Owen, I would be personally very interested to know the whereabouts of your source, when you state that Orwell “(re)joined” the Labour Party after leaving the Independent Labour Party in 1939 ?
2. Which ‘Hitchens’ are we talking about here ? It matters. And I disagree with you when you say “Who knows?” what Orwell would do (or say) if he was alive today. We can make a pretty good guess by the many writings he has left us.
What would ‘Danivon’ do now if he was an elected Labour member for a Crawley Ward ? Who knows ? But there are those around who could make a pretty good guess 🙂
3. Agreed
4. You ought to.
5. I prefer ‘Owen’
Richard:
1) Source? My admittedly faulty memory. I think when ‘1984’ was causing controversy, he mentioned that while there could be parallels with the Labour government of the day, he was still a supporter and member of the Labour movement.
2) Christopher Hitchens. Pro-war, identifies hugely with Orwell. You may be able to predict what I’d do, maybe not, but at least I can disabuse you of any incorrect assumptions on that front. But I haven’t been dead for 56 years.
4) Only if it serves a purpose.
Owen :
1. I’ve been doing a little homework on this…Orwell states in a letter (6 months before his death) that he is a “supporter” of the Labour Party.
That does not make him a “member”.
I am a “supporter” of the Labour Party, and vote accordingly in the General Elections ( not the Locals:) – but that is a long way from being a “member” in my book.
I guess Orwell felt the same way…
2. Nice one.
4. To encourage fellow supporters and members ?
Did you feel that ?
That was Orwell swivelling in his grave (mostly to the left) when he heard what the Labour Party had become 🙂
1. I concede the point. Perhaps he wasn’t fully paid up, but he did identify with the Party – particularly the more libertarian strands.
2. You didn’t think I meant Peter? At least Christopher pretends to be a socialist.
4. I can do that internally, or discreetly anyway.
As for Orwell in his grave, perhaps. I think he saw worse in Spain from the Republican government.
1. Orwell did indeed “identify” with the (Old) Labour Party and its Values, but I honestly feel that the present New Labour philosophy would have been anaethema (spelling?) to him, especially as a committed Democratic Socialist.
2. Was it Hitchens (Christopher) who wrote “Orwell’s Victory” – I do get a bit confused about them both.
3. I thought you were very externally discreet with your letter in the Crawley News this week – “What is answer to travellers, Tories?”.
What I could never understand with Labour was why they never created an official travellers site right from the start – as required by law. All that will probably happen now is that the Tories will seize the initiative, and create a site – say in Broadfield – and then more firm action can be taken – with full police co-operation.
I take your last point about Orwell and Spain -but I think Animal Farm can now equally apply to Blair et al
And seeing propaganda photos in both local rags of the CBC Leader (a Councillor) and the CBC Chief Executive (an Officer), together ‘holding hands’ (metaphorically speaking), is an ominous shape of things to come – especially for council house tenants…
Strewth.
27 comments on a post which was originally about my car breaking down. Quite how it evolved from that to George Orwell I don’t know (and now veering towards travellers and council house sales!)
Looks like there is a need for a decent forum/discussion board – but such places rarely contain such well-behaved discussions.
Anyway, the legal requirement for travellers sites, when it previously existed was an obligation on county councils and not districts. The local Labour party is not unanimous in recognising the need for one. Several councillors are dead set against it in principle. You know who they are – they all broke the party whip in January.
The Tories are unlikely to do what you say. Most of them are against the principle of sites. Even if they did, Broadfield would not be top of their list. They campaigned here by issuing a newsletter falsely claiming that Labour wanted to put a site here and that they were against it. Remember that they only control the council because of their 4 councillors in Broadfield, which is still marginal. Likewise Ifield and Southgate.
They cannot afford to piss off the population of Broadfield or they lose their majority. A site in Pound Hill or Maidenbower would do them less damage – if they put a site in Maidenbower they would probably still win it – but they are not going to do that.
As for the council housing… its a big case of “told you so”. The irony would be if the defend council housing candidates had been responsible for any of our losses in May.
So, Skuds, is there still a legal requirement for CBC to provide an official travellers site, or is it ‘legal loophole’ that it does not apply to Districts – only county councils.
If it is only a ‘legal loophole’, the local Labour Party only has itself to blame – and the Con Party will ‘con’ accordingly. They are very good at it, as you know.
The Housing Issue is one that can not be put down to traditional party lines, unless we can secure the 4th Option that DCH ask for the council’s accross the country have little choice. it isn’t a case of the government saying “do you want to sell them” but saying “we don’t want you to keep them, and will make it as hard as possible for you to do it.”
Richard, yes CH wrote “Orwell’s Victory”, and a cracking bit of polemic it is too. Not a patch on the man himself, of course.
The ‘legal requirement’ to provide sites was abolished by the Tory government years ago. Since then the ODPM, or whatever it’s called now, have tried to encourage them, but there is not yet a return to compulsion. Crawley was exempt under the previous law, because of its previous status as a New Town, but that would have lapsed by now.
On Council Housing, I agree to a point. The majority of Labour members support the 4th option, and a pretty high number want to keep council housing even without it if possible. It is the government, not the Party, which is sticking to the Housing Act, and I am pretty unhappy about it. What I do know is that the alternative might be to remove the tenant’s ballot, or to include private companies as an option as well as Housing Associations.
As I see it, through my political prism (prison?), is that ‘Council Housing’ is the only ‘Old Labour’ issue left.
No wonder New Labour (ie the Government) want to make life as difficult as possible…Like Clause 4 etc they want to destroy that whole idea – now I hear Aneurin Bevan (not just Orwell) swivelling in his grave – of course to the left.