ORIGINAL MESSAGE
NAME: Vic Coughtrey
Then & NowDATE: 20 September 2015
CONNECTION WITH QE: pupil 1954-59
I've often thought that we should have a thread concerning politics) but have chickened out up to now because I could well imagine the difficulty of keeping political opinion, as distinct from mere unbiassed commentary, from rearing its dangerous head. "Never discuss politics or religion" was a favourite maxim of my grandmother. Or, as others say, "my political views are between me and the ballot box". Perhaps it should remain so, as far as this site is concerned. However, political commentry, analysis, history and anecdotes (of which we've had a few already) don't have to betray any opinions, unless, of course, you write for a newspaper. For example, it's not easy to guess how some of the The BBC's political correspondents might vote. Anyway, tempted by Martyn Day's unexpected little twist in W7/20 and with fingers crossed, I've decided to step into the (possibly hot) water by starting this thread. Please note that, egged on by a couple of private messages, I've now (14/10/15) slightly adjusted the above message to shift the emphasis from all-but-banning the expression of political opinion to just being slightly nervous about it. RESTRICTED THREAD: please make politics the main subject of your reply.
Then & NowDATE: 20 September 2015
CONNECTION WITH QE: Pupil 54-59
In answer to Martyn's reply W7/20 it was the SPGB of which I was a member for a few months in the mid-1960s and for another few months in the early 1970s. By a huge coincidence, at about the same time as Jas Cowen's comment about capitalism and communism in W7/19 was reminding me of the party, someone who is still a member contacted me via my personal website to ask why I disappeared in 1967! What a memory (perhaps aided by party records). It was the first contact I'd had with any member of the party for over 40 years! Some might describe the SPGB as being far more extreme than the Workers Revolutionary Party (now the Socialist Workers Party) mentioned by Martyn, since it describes the SWP and all other political parties (except for 'affiliated' parties in other countries, which have exactly the same manifesto) as 'capitalist' and the manifesto implies the abolition of money, the armed forces and government itself. However, the word 'extreme', like the word 'left', which I (knowingly) wrongly used of them in my green footnote to Jas's reply, is not really appropriate, since the SPGB would say that the left-right spectrum applies only to capitalist parties and regimes and the word 'extreme' is confined to the spectrum. The SPGB and its affiliates are, they say, the only true non-capitalist parties, so they are not in that spectrum and their ideas represent common sense, not extremism. The SPGB is a fascinating yet little-known part of British political life, which has not changed the language of its manifesto since the party was founded in 1904. Since armed struggle can only ever lead, they say, to a change of capitalist regime (if any change at all), the true revolution will never be achieved through violence. It is surely the only political party which urges you not to vote for it unless you have read and understood the manifesto and genuinely wish to see the terms of it fulfilled. Only when this applies to the majority of people worldwide, will the true socialist revolution have come about. Perhaps not surprisingly, the party gets only a handful of votes in the few seats it contests. As a child, I invented a utopia which I much later found, to my great surprise, to be pretty much in line with the writings of Marx. I think my two short spells of membership of the SPGB must have been due to a desperate bid to recapture the daydreams of my strange childhood. The party is, after all, about as close as you'll get to the vision and philosophy of Marx, as I understand it. And no, you'll get very little clue as to my present political leanings from any of this. In any case, they're mainly to do with single issues - a fragmentary approach which is anathema to the SPGB and, like charity and well-meaning reform, only helps capitalism.
Then & NowDATE: 21 September 2015
CONNECTION WITH QE: Inmate 1956-63
IS THIS THE FIRST JEREMY CORBYN JOKE? I was talking to a friend a few days ago about Jeremy Corbyn and he asked if the fellow played for Queen's Park Rangers. When I said "No" he replied, "That's a shame. They could do with a good left winger!" Fnarr! Fnarr!
DATE: 21 September 2015
CONNECTION WITH QE: Pupil 1948-1953
Political Preparation. At my primary school in Furzehill Road Borehamwood our teacher in 4A prepared the pupils who she thought had some chance of gaining a Grammar School place - the 'scholarship' as it was still called. Knowing that QE also conducted personal interviews, we were rehearsed: "Now Alan, you will be asked what newspapers your family takes". "Dad takes the Daily Worker Miss". "Any other paper?" "Well, Mum reads the Daily Express. I follow Rupert Bear in it". The advice was to mention the Express and not refer to the Bear.
4th REPLY
NAME: James (Jas) Cowen
.jpg "James Cowen gallery")
Then & NowDATE: 12 October 2015
CONNECTION WITH QE: pupil 56-63
Well there is nothing more in conversation I enjoy than talking about politics and religion even more so than talking about radio and TV generally, about life in the 50s and 60s, products on the market, country houses, steam railways and about sport. Many an hour has been spent talking with James Hoy, the antique and junk shop owner in Ludgershall and putting the world to rights. Yet, as the expression goes "It takes two to tango". I am not keen on engaging in a monologue with no discussion and replies from others, so I will wait on this to see if there are any entries from others, whom as usual I would encourage to contribute something and not just read others' postings. I am told by Vic that many do access this site without adding anything and I know this is so from talking to other OEs. Just like John Finnett at school used to urge me to join in Herts Schools debates and not just to listen to others I myself would urge others to take part even if only a little. On 12/10/15, the latest day for which I have visitor stats is 8/10/15. On that day there was an astounding total of 448 visits. The daily average for September was 416. Some of these visits could have been by the same people going on the site more than once in the same day, and many others were no doubt by people who arrived via Google but found that the site wasn't what they were looking for. Even so, these stats are difficult to understand, in the light of the number of messages received.
5th REPLY
NAME: James (Jas) Cowen Then & NowDATE: 12 October 2015
CONNECTION WITH QE: pupil 56-63
I could comment much about Jeremy Corbyn but will for now limit it to the subject of his dispute with the second wife over his son going to QEs against his wishes, as mentioned elsewhere. It would seem to me important to have compatibility with your wife about agreement on children's schooling before marriage. Comparisons might be made of incompatibility with others in the Labour party including the shadow cabinet unless the points of difference can be resolved amicably and by essential compromising the position of one or the other. Is anyone able to say how the lad did at QEs? As regards Martyn's post I did like the joke.
6th REPLY
NAME: James (Jas) Cowen Then & NowDATE: 13 October 2015
CONNECTION WITH QE: pupil 56-63
In regard to Alan's reply 3, the reference to the Daily Worker paper may have some political connotation as regards the left wing political views in there compared to the right wing Daily Express. Whether there really would be any alarm expressed by EHJ in the sense of rejection of candidates is I would think doubtful.
DATE: 14 October 2015
CONNECTION WITH QE: Pupil 1948-1953
I have lived through three periods of politics. The first as a child in WWII in a cohesion that even an eight year old could sense. The second, the post war dominated by the determination of the returned and the recovering for something better for all after that appalling conflict. And segueing into the last 30 years towards the simple idea of families and firms, the one set serving the other in a market. And the one period provides a platform to re-view the other periods. Is there any real politics remaining in the mainstream? All crowded onto a centre ground. Questioning this triangulated social space is to be cast out as - well select your paper and choose an epithet. Yah or Boo. Where is the substance? So much now taken as scientific law? Beware ideology; in fact only use the word pejoratively. Then the Labour Party elects a new leader who speaks in terms outside the frame of conventional wisdom. And contumely is heaped upon him. Any engagement? What is the problem? Aren't we supposed to be a representative democracy? This last period seems to have turned us away from deep questions.
DATE: 14 October 2015
CONNECTION WITH QE: Pupil 1957-64
John Knowles, my best man, and an OE, has just sent me an email pointing out the Labour Party is now led by Tom and Jerry (Watson and Corbyn)
Then & NowDATE: 14 October 2015
CONNECTION WITH QE: Pupil 54-59
... and of course Jerry is invincible.
DATE: 24 October 2015
CONNECTION WITH QE: Pupil 1957-64
... and he's a cartoon character from many decades ago.
11th REPLY
NAME: James (Jas) Cowen Then & NowDATE: 31 October 2015
CONNECTION WITH QE: pupil 56-63
I enjoyed the references to Tom and Jerry (re Watson and Corbyn). In a similar vein Quentin Letts, the Daily Mail political and theatre correspondent, was in a similar jesting mood on Thursday 22nd October. I quote: 'At the Commons home affairs select committee Mr Keith Vaz, the chairman, expressed some surprise that Tom Watson was so close to the police investigation. "You're not Sherlock Holmes, are you?" he asked.' No not Sherlock Holmes, he is Watson.
12th REPLY
NAME: James (Jas) Cowen Then & NowDATE: 03 May 2016
CONNECTION WITH QE: pupil 56-63
I do not know whether some OEs would like a break from the EU referendum discussions and indeed the many appeals from both sides on Facebook to them no doubt as well as me, but I for one am interested enough to want to vote and welcome being given facts to consider on both sides. In regard to my old Cambridge college (Sidney Sussex) the political luminaries, who were there in past years, are apparently all for Vote Leave. How persuasive should this be? I will continue to study the issues. My wife and i both currently think we want to support Vote Leave too for many reasons. I had an interesting encounter at a bus stop in Bournemouth on Wednesday of this week. I was standing there with my wife, cousin Caroline and her husband John, when a lady there, who seemed of an age advanced on mine, suddenly said to me "Are you coming out?". At first I thought this was some reference to sexual inclinations, her seeing more in me than I in fact know. However after a while in repeat questions to an astonished me I heard the word 'voting' and realised she wished to know my views on whether we should stay in or leave the EU. We had a good chat about the pros and cons and came to a good measure of agreement in our views. It was in fact a pleasing encounter after all.
Then & NowDATE: 03 May 2016
CONNECTION WITH QE: Pupil 54-59
For my part, I find it difficult to grasp that it has come to this - that this question is even being asked. I have long assumed that whatever birth pangs there might be, Winston Churchill's vision of a united Europe with Britain an essential part, was unstoppably on the road to reality. But I think 'vision' is the key word here. It seems to me that whereas the majority of people in other European states are already living the vision, we in Britain have never progressed beyond the "what do we have to put into it and what do we get out of it?" stage. Even for most of the Remain camp, this is still the only basis for discussion. I noticed that a man taking part in an anti-terrorism demonstration in Brussels, when interviewed, said "we Europeans will not tolerate such attacks on us". Not "we Belgians" but "we Europeans". But we, if we don't get what we what, threaten to throw the toys out of the pram. When I say 'we', I'm of course referring to the United Kingdom or 'the Countries of Britain" as the Welsh language has it. The Leave campaign, in demanding something called 'independence' for the UK (which, as the Prime Minister has pointed out, is an illusory concept), seems not be be taking on board the likelihood that there probably won't be a UK for much longer if the result of the referendum is 'no', since the Scots will then demand another referendum on independence from Westminster and the 'yes' vote must surely succeed this time. Even in Wales, where there is little likelihood of outright independence from Westminster in the foreseeable future, a vote to leave the EU would boost demands for more devolution to at least the present Scottish level. People here are used to seeing the European flag flying over many projects. My own county borough of Blaenau Gwent is within the European 'Objective One' and large amounts of European money have part-funded an ongoing transformation of our three main towns (Tredegar, Abertillery, Ebbw Vale). As far as I can see, a vote to leave would be the responsibility of England alone.
DATE: 16 May 2016
CONNECTION WITH QE: Pupil 1948-1953
I share Vic's dismay at this referendum. The framing of the debate is so narrow. Within living memory countries of the EU were embroiled in a total conflict which destroyed millions of people and devastated the life-capital of the whole continent. Following the end of this conflict the frame of reference was to build relations so as to ensure 'never again'. Where is that frame now? How can we have forgotten so many of those values so that they no longer shape our relationship with Europe? I find these current debates, mostly shallow, blinkered, selfish and petulant. And that goes for both Brexits and Remains [sic]. However I do intend to vote to stay in the EU and then to vote for real engagement where the original framing is supported.
DATE: 18 May 2016
CONNECTION WITH QE: Pupil 1960 to 1967
Over the years, I have had discussions with a number of Director Generals at the EU commission and many senior commission officials. It is they who make the directives which become law in each of the member countries. There is no point in entering in discussions with the elected MEPs because they have no power. Those you need to lobby are the commission officials despite the fact that they are the unelected paid civil servants within the EU. The concept of a united European Union is as idealistic and utopian as communism was in the early part of the twentieth century. The problem with both is that they are operated by human beings with all their vested interests and desire for power. What we see now is that the EU is becoming as dystopian as the Soviet Union was before its collapse. What is happening at the moment is redolent of the late 1930s when appeasement was so popular because the alternative was the unknown. Nonetheless, I have to say I have no interest about whether there is a majority on 23rd June for remaining in or leaving the EU as it is only a matter of time before it does inevitably break up. Sadly however that break up will be both acrimonious and dangerous.
16th REPLY
NAME: James (Jas) Cowen Then & NowDATE: 12 August 2016
CONNECTION WITH QE: pupil 56-63
Well the EU referendum has come and gone and it remains to be seen whether your dire predictions, Roger, will come to pass. It has certainly brought about quite a great change in the immediate UK political scene. I enjoyed the Gogglebox special on Channel 4 with the usual gang of viewers giving their opinions on the progress of events and the results. I do not mind myself if the comments were made watching, in one sitting, all the video recordings, unlike Christopher Stevens, the Daily Mail TV critic. It is a shame that there is still such bitterness from the Remainers against the Brexit voters. In my opinion it was sad to see Susannah Read laying in to Nigel Farage about "the lies" of the Brexit campaign when he was not one of the main official Brexit team and did not compose any of their slogans. I agree very much with Tom Utley's article in the Daily Mail of Friday 5th August ("A 94th birthday bash for my mother in law showed me how bitterly divided the country is"). Members of his family were not on speaking terms with others when they knew how the others voted. Thankfully there has not been bloodshed or even bitter words in our family.
Then & NowDATE: 12 August 2016
CONNECTION WITH QE: Pupil 54-59
The referendum result here in Blaenau Gwent might have astonished me, had I not chatted to a number of intending voters in the weeks between posting my reply 13 and June 23rd (the park where we take our daily 'constitutional' is a place of considerable social interaction and making of friends). We are in an EU 'Objective One' area and have visibly and greatly benefitted from EU money over the years, with one EU-funded or part-funded project after another sporting the EU flag on its information board. Yet 'Leave' achieved not just a majority here but the largest in Wales! The comments made each day as we made our way round the lake and in the cafe afterwards confirmed my life-long opposition to referenda. In his dismal abrogation of responsibility in calling a referendum in the first place, to appease the Johnsonites, DC was requiring the largely uninformed and disengaged to make the complex calculations and the type of history-changing decison for which we elect and pay our MPs. So what did my fellow-strollers and park cafeteria frequenters say? It depended almost entirely on their social background. Former businessmen thought that a Brexit would be insane. Former miners and steelworkers had three meaningful words to say: 'immigration', 'Poles', 'blacks'. Hopeless to try to explain the difference between immigration (hardly likely to be affected by Brexit) and trans-Euro migration (which may well have to continue under any trade deal). Waste of time pointing out that very many of the inhabitants of this region are descended from the refugees and migrant workers (especially Poles) who were made use of in large numbers a hundred years ago to hew coal and smelt iron, and without whom the towns of Blaenau Gwent would still be nothing but sheep-farming hamlets. Useless to mention that my dentist is Greek, four out of five of the doctors in my GP practice are Asian and the Polish shop has a lot of great food you won't find in Tesco. The dentist and the doctors are not depriving anyone of jobs and probably not the Poles either. As to the black Africans, there is just the usual panic of an erstwhile all-white community when the first (very few) black faces appear on the streets. Farage may not have lied, but he helped to ensure that the argument for Leave was very largely based on anti-immigration / migration sentiments. If the perceived problem is that the 'immigrants' will take what few jobs are going in this very high unemployment county borough, there is a huge irony. For years people in this town have been pinning their hopes for a great economic revival on the 'Circuit of Wales' project. It would be one of the main motor racing venues in Britain and would offer permanent employment to hundreds and temporary employment to thousands (during its construction on the moors). Brexit will probably scupper it. Yes, I was sadly wrong in reply 13 that a Brexit vote would be solely the fault of the English but I've been proved right about the increased level of agitation for more devolution. Wales is now to be seen divided into Welsh Wales and English-leaning Wales, with Welsh Wales the stronger in the Assembly. As for the Scots ... Didn't someone keep on about British sovereignty? As remarked in replies 13 & 14, the campaigns were disgraceful on both sides, presenting two columns of a balance sheet of material advantages and disadvantages for us instead of getting down to what the EU is and what it is supposed to stand for. Of course, we cannot ignore the alarming revelations by Roger, as an 'insider', in his reply 15 but surely it is precisely because of the possibility of an "acrimonious and dangereous" break-up of the Union that Britain had a duty to hang in there and take a leading part in trying to prevent such a catastrophe?
Then & NowDATE: 05 November 2016
CONNECTION WITH QE: Pupil 54-59
Am I alone in thinking that the editor of the Daily Mail could and should be charged with sedition? In publishing the photos of the three High Court judges, following their Brexit verdict, above the headline "Enemies of the People" and forcefully denying that they had the right to to support parliament as the only institution that can reverse statute law, he is attacking the very lynchpin of our sovereingty, even as his paper claims to be such an avid supporter of that sovereignty. He even brings the sexuality of one of the judges into it. That front page stood out to me as nothing less than a grossly populist incitement of 'the people' to disaffection against our judiciary and parliament and should not go unpunished. Originally I typed "... denying that they had NO right ..." I trust everyone realised that was not what I meant!
DATE: 06 November 2016
CONNECTION WITH QE: inmate 1957-64
Clearly that sort of media disgracefulness is aimed at the uneducated mob who were brainwashed into voting Leave by persuasive untrue information fed by certain right wing MPs!
DATE: 06 November 2016
CONNECTION WITH QE: Pupil 1957-64
No Vic you are not alone [reply 18]. Apart from anything else the paper is inciting social media trolls to target the judges, with possibly violent consequences. The editor is the enemy of the people, not the judges. My late father-in-law used to buy the Mail every day and I was always struck by the level of bile that permeated it. A few years ago I was at a meeting where a very senior police officer from the Herts Constabulary was present. We were discussing crime levels which, in Hertfordshire, are pretty low, but which are far outweighed by the fear of crime. When asked what we could do about that he said banning the Daily Mail would solve the problem at a stroke.