BLOG
April 27, 2005 06:57PM
Apologies for the sparse posting this month. Many of you will know that I've been working hard on the election and have had little time for blogging.
Electioneering, I feel it right to tell you, is not as fun as you might think. The most exciting moments of the campaign so far have been having a tennis ball thrown (quite well, but not quite well enough) at me, being called a 'liar' by an angry gentleman and being recognised by the local Liberal Democrat candidate whilst asking for one of his leaflets. (On reflection, actually asking for a leaflet was so unrealistic and suspicious that I deserved to be caught out.) For my efforts, I have sustained a nasty cut to my finger on an especially rusty and sharp letterbox, some dark rings under my eyes and a level of misanthropy not desirable in one seeking elected office.
Yesterday, however, brought a welcome morale boost. Brian Sedgemore, a former Labour MP, defected to the Liberal Democrats. Sedgemore was an MP in a safe Labour seat for over 20 years and in that time did little to distinguish himself other than hold to a set of ridiculous economic views that were known as the 'Alternative Economic Strategy', in the 70's and 80's. In reality they were neither an alternative nor a strategy but, rather, a string of embarrassing far-left shibboleths that no serious person would have any time for: nationalisation of the top 25 British companies, import controls and price controls. These proposals were laughed to scorn by (the then Chancellor of the Exchequer) Denis Healy; this was the high water mark of Brian Sedgemore's influence on government thinking.
On explaining his decision to leave for the Liberal Democrats, Sedgemore had this to say:
"I'm renouncing Tony Blair, the Devil, New Labour and all their works. I don't do this lightly. I know that some of my friends will be angry, and I will be rubbished by the New Labour spin machine."
My only hope is that I, as someone who isn't part of a 'spin machine', can put Mr. Sedgemore's mind at rest. I am not angry and I have yet to meet another Labour Party member who is angry. By 'renouncing Tony Blair, the Devil, New Labour and all their works' you have done the Labour party a great service. You have reminded sensible electors that New Labour has no common cause with the ageing Bennite fringe of political opinion, that we are a party of the broad centre and centre-left who don't see endangering the economy as an act of progressive politics. You have also reminded voters that the proper home - dare I say the 'Real Alternative' - for such silliness is the Liberal Democrats.
view comments(2) |
post comment
April 17, 2005 07:46AM
To keep myself sane during the election campaign I have avoided reading any political books and have concentrated instead on the sort of curiosities and sidelines that I rarely otherwise explore. One particular controversy that has always intrigued me is the question of Shakespearian authorship. Who wrote Shakespeare? deals with this question with all the precision and critical scrutiny that one comes to expect from any other facile conspiracy theory.
The aptly named Thomas Looney puts forward the case for Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford as Shakespeare. Among the supposedly compelling points are that de Vere's family crest depicted a lion shaking a spear. This, say the Oxfordians, shows that Oxford was Shake-speare - I kid you not. Counterveiling evidence, such as the small matter of Oxford being dead while a large part of the Shakespearian canon was still unwritten, do nothing to faze Looney and his followers - Freud among them.
Francis Bacon holds second place as a candidate of the Shakespearian heretics for reasons no less preposterous. Bacon, a genuinely great mind and genius in his own right, doesn't need this silliness detracting from his reputation. We are crudely informed that the sonnets were written by a homosexual - those familiar with the mysterious Fair Youth in Shakespeare's sonnets will know what I mean - and Bacon, as presumably the only homosexual in Elizabethan England, must be the man. Similar 'proof' is put forward for Oxford - only he could be the man behind the even more mysterious Dark Lady because he - wait for it - had a mistress and she was dark haired! But the Baconian case gets sillier still...
The famous long word of Love's Labour's Lost - honorificabilitudinitatibus - you'll be shocked to learn can be made into an anagram. 'Hi ludi, tuiti sibi, Fr. Bacono nati' or 'These plays, produced by Fr. Bacono, guarded for themselves' certainly proves something, but politeness dictates that I say not what. One contributor does even better: 'But thus I told Franiiiiii Bacon'. Of course, the over-indulgence of 'i's' isn't a desperate attempt to make an anagram where none exists. We are told (wrongly as it happens) that iiiiii makes six in roman numerals and that six in French pronunciation, preceded by 'Fran', is heard as 'Francis'. Desperate, desperate stuff.
The Earl of Rutland, Christopher Marlowe (another writer from beyond the grave) and the Earl of Derby have similarly absurd defenders but you've seen enough to get the idea. Shakespeare Authorship studies are interesting in the sense that you begin to look at Elizabethan England from a different angle. Marlowe was, in all seriousness, probably working as a secret agent and was almost certainly assassinated after talking too openly under the influence of drink. Francis Bacon, the 'philosopher king' as his followers would have it, a man heavily involved in affairs of state and always at the centre of court intrigues , died from a cold he caught whilst stuffing a dead chicken with snow in a failed experiment to preserve meat. The Earl of Derby spent five fascinating years travelling Europe. He almost certainly entered the court of Navarre - which gives rise to the spurious claim that he was yet another author of Love's Labour's Lost - and travelled Spain, Italy and Russia. The Earl of Rutland received a mysterious stipend from Queen Elizabeth - which gives rise to predictable speculations - and later became the ambassador to Denmark, receiving King Christian IV in London.
All of this and more is valuable and worthwhile. History is at its best when brought to life and Shakespeare Authorship studies do this almost by accident. This accidental benefit is the only reason to begin reading anything to do with Shakespeare Authorship. By no means should one read the ramblings of these conspiracy theorists for the reason they were originally intended.
view comments(2) |
post comment
April 15, 2005 08:00PM
Tonight I was privileged to meet the Lord Chancellor (Lord Falconer) and spend some time talking to him. I've met a few high-ranking politicians before but two things particularly marked out this encounter as one which I'll remember. Firstly, and least important of all, he remembered my name as he said his goodbye's. Secondly, he recounted to me a very interesting story about how Tony Blair and himself, as young Labour activists, were canvassing in an estate in Hackney. They delivered their leaflet campaigning for unilateral nuclear disarmament - Labour Party policy at the time - when an eldery lady approached them and said to them that she'd personally disarm Russia as soon as she had hot water restored to her council flat. It brought home to them the other-worldly nature of Labour politics at the time and shamed them into realising that Labour was failing ordinary people like that eldery lady.
It is with that - and an excellent record in government - in mind that I can say that I'm proud to be representing the Labour Party in May. Those calling for changes to Labour's ideological direction will be disappointed. It's forward, not back!
view comments(0) |
post comment
Next
