“I would prefer not to.”
This text is open to a wide variety of interpretations. Some readers may find it poignant, while others could deconstruct it from a psychological perspective. However, it can be seen as an existential drama about choice and movement.
The main character opts to stay still. This life strategy has disastrous personal consequences. Nevertheless, the individual gains a degree of dignity and freedom via this choice. Under capitalism, movement, circulation and growth are seen as valuable, while reflection is not perceived as important. Refusing to participate in the race is viewed by authority as a crime.
If we say yes too often, we are open to excessive exploitation. By preferring no, we can draw some of the lines we want. Flexibility, agility and contentment can only be maintained if we have the kind of courage embodied by the character depicted by Melville.
“If there be no Opposition, there is no democracy.”
Sir Ivor Jennings, constitutional expert.
The struggling Tories recently made a plea for some collaboration from Labour. With the Government engaged in the awkward process of Brexit, it might seem that Labour should put the troubled country first and engage with their traditional adversaries. Most Labour supporters can see this is a risible idea, but swing voters may be confused about why the party should remain resolutely opposed to the policies of the Tories.
The truth is that the Brexit process is unlikely to go well regardless of Labour’s tactics. Working with the Tories would only serve to discredit Labour. Nor is it clear that Brexit is the biggest issue facing the UK. Terrible inequality and mounting environmental problems are major difficulties for British capitalism.
The inadequate Taylor Review was short on substance and the Tories are ideologically hostile to a regulated labour market. As a consequence, Labour has to try even harder to represent struggling employed and unemployed people. Cooperating with the Tories would lead everyone to think ‘they are all the same.’ Labour moderates who do not recognise this fact have learnt nothing from the Corbyn surge.
Some writers are their stories. They have witnessed remarkable things. They have overcome massive obstacles. Nevertheless, it is their personal literary style which separates them from ordinary survivors of trauma, poverty or discrimination. Maya Angelou is an inspirational author and teacher of this type.
Many readers will be familiar with her personal tale of suffering and abandonment. They will know her description of the terrifying American South during the Depression. However, they might not have read Mom & Me & Mom. This illuminating text revisits the complex dynamics of her tough family.
However, the later work does in part reveal that writers can find it hard to let go of their best material. Jeanette Winterson is another superb author who has kept raiding her early life for content when her most famous effort has been completed. However, Angelou developed a brilliant honesty which distinguished her from many of her contemporaries. Perhaps she inherited or copied this trait from her mother:
“Baby, now they are treating you as if you are a horse’s ass. Let me tell you something. All you have to do is get your work done. If these people live, they will come back to you. They may have forgotten how badly they treated you, or they may pretend that they have forgotten. But watch: They will come back to you.”
Experienced economists like William Keegan are convinced that Brexit will make ordinary British people poorer. Liberals might recognise that EU citizens may be unfairly inconvenienced by the complex process of disentanglement. Socialists may be aware of the interdependence of modern economies.
While the referendum result has put the Labour Party in an awkward position, it does seem that any stampede for Brexit may be regretted in time. Of course, the nuanced position in the manifesto was designed not to upset the electorate. And it is vital to present a united front to the public.
Nevertheless, there is the urgent question of state capacity. Contrary to the rhetoric of British patriotism, the current state seems to lack the collective authority, talent, resources and tact to make a success of Brexit. These weaknesses could be more apparent than real. Perhaps there is simply a lack of state cohesion. However, the longer the perceived incompetence continues the less viable the policy of Brexit will appear. Just because people have participated in a flawed referendum, it does not mean that they should be punished for being misled. This implies that the Labour leadership would be wise to consider adjusting its policy in the next manifesto.
This biography was not written by a fan of the Prime Minister who tore up the rules of the political game. The pragmatism, cynicism and occasional unpleasantness of the Liberal orator are viewed through quite a censorious lens. Nonetheless, the achievements of Lloyd George as a pioneering Chancellor are not forgotten. The result is a complex text which is marked by the envy that a politician can harbour for a statesman.
Ideologically Roy Hattersley has few issues with the centrist Lloyd George. They both wanted to help the poor without bringing about a genuine social transformation. However, the admiration Lloyd George had for Keynesian economics and his contempt for the aristocracy meant that the Liberal did have a radical content. It was his antipathy to the socialism of the Labour Party which meant that some of his egalitarian rhetoric was deceptive.
As a biographer, Hattersley has the advantage of knowing some political realities. For example, he showed that he was aware that the electorate will not be told what an election is about. Theresa May should have consulted this text before losing her majority unnecessarily in the ‘Brexit’ general election. As a social historian, Hattersley is much less acute. This is evidenced by the sections on Irish Home Rule. Hattersley provocatively wrote:
“A negotiated peace might still have been possible if the Republicans- some of whom clearly killed for killing’s sake- had not been afraid that the leadership would settle for too little.”
The brave campaign of Jeremy Corbyn this year might not have ignited yet. However, he showed his customary wit and passion today in West Kirby. A large crowd had assembled and the newly elected Metro-Mayor Steve Rotherham was present to give support to kind local MP Margaret Greenwood.
While left populism has not made a great deal of progress outside Greece and South America, Corbyn’s Labour is polling well ahead of the demoralised French Socialist Party, for example. In part, this must be due to the impressive drive of Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell. Today, Corbyn’s oratory was quite fierce as he knows there are not many days left before the general election.
The specifics of the Labour manifesto have been chewed over by the media. The fact that it has been costed has given it a degree of credibility. Labour might have a lot of ground to make up, but on policy they have shown patches of radicalism. Nevertheless, Corbyn’s words made me think about what democracy should mean. Perhaps Pericles put it best:
“Its administration favours the many instead of the few; this is why it is called a democracy.”
This text argues that the coalition between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats was a positive thing for the people of the UK. It contends that compromise between the political extremes is always healthy. Further, it suggests that liberalism is an ideology which can stand next to conservatism as well as it can work with socialism.
On a human level, this book is a genuine irritant. The core idea is that the reader should empathise with Nick Clegg and his family. This may be an unwelcome thought for those profoundly affected by austerity or betrayed over the costs of being a student. However, it is the arrogance of the former Deputy Prime Minister which is ultimately of importance.
Clegg attacks Marx for being opposed to freedom, rationality and individualism. When engaging in philosophy, Clegg does not bother to engage with the target of his critique. Regardless of what later Marxists have done in practice, Marx was not hostile to the best Enlightenment values. Instead, Marx wanted freedom to be rolled out to groups excluded from it. In The German Ideology Marx and Engels wrote about how people could be liberated from social arrangements which were inimical to individual freedom:
“In all expropriations up to now, a mass of individuals remained subservient to a single instrument of production; in the appropriation by the proletarians, a mass of instruments of production must be made subject to each individual, and property to all. Modern universal intercourse can be controlled by individuals, therefore, only when controlled by all. “