Tag Archives: the labour party

Be Careful How you Judge a Poem

I have always been of the view that one should judge a writer by the quality of their writing and not allow one’s own likes and dislikes to intrude when forming such judgements. This is, I believe particularly important when the writer’s political perspective differs from your own.

 

One does not, for example, have to be a Conservative to enjoy the poetry of Philip Larkin, nor does one need to be a man (or woman) of the left to appreciate the work of the poet W. H. Auden. Both poets where (and remain) great men of letters irrespective of whether one agrees with their political stance.

 

My view that one should not allow one’s own political convictions to influence one’s response to literature was reinforced by this article in The Guardian, https://www.theguardian.com/books/2023/jun/28/twitter-rips-into-jeremy-corbyns-pretentious-poetry-except-its-actually-by-shelley.

 

The former leader of the British Labour Party, Jeremy Corbyn, posted an extract from a poem on Twitter in order to advertise his forthcoming book. Many Twitter users reacted by saying that the poem was bad and questioning why it had been posted.

 

In point of fact, the extract in question comes from Shelley’s The Mask of Anarchy which is one of Shelley’s best known poems.

 

How many of those criticising the poem where doing so on the grounds that they disliked Mr Corbyn’s politics, rather than on it’s literary merits? I confess to not knowing the answer to my own question. I do, however have a strong hunch that much of the criticism of the poem stemmed from a dislike of Jeremy Corbyn’s politics and not from the literary merits (or demerits) of the work itself.

 

I am no fan of Jeremy Corbyn’s politics. However, I do, as stated above, believe that readers should be extremely wary of basing their views of poetry (or any other writing) on whether or not they agree with the political perspectives of the writer in question. (Of course in this case the irony is that the poem in question was not even the work of Mr Corbyn)!

Holocaust Denial

A report in The Guardian on how some former members of the British Labour Party have attended events with holocaust deniers (I.E. with those who deny or greatly downplay the Jewish Holocaust), https://www.theguardian.com/news/2020/feb/22/uk-left-activists-at-far-right-events-antisemites-holocaust-deniers.

I Saw A Portrait Of Lord Salisbury Smile

I saw a portrait
Of Lord Salisbury smile,
And heard the late
Bevan turn in his grave.

Corbynites are in denial,
While
One-nation Tories say,
“Disraeli will save
The day”.

Salisbury continues to smile,
While
The bereft,
Left
Remain, in denial.

Free Broadband

A Labour supporter named Bland
Said, “I welcome free broadband,
But as for freedom of choice
And the British taxpayer’s voice,
These concepts I just don’t understand!”.

When A Man Whose Name is Ted

When a man whose name is Ted
Found a young lady in his bed,
She said, “I’m your new neighbour,
And I’ve always voted for Labour,
Which is why my nightdress is red!”.

Should We Abolish Private (fee paying) schools?

At the recently held conference of the UK Labour Party, delegates voted to abolish private (I.E. fee-paying schools), https://www.theguardian.com/education/2019/sep/22/labour-delegates-vote-in-favour-of-abolishing-private-schools.

The above decision strikes me as iliberal and an attack on the freedom of the individual to spend their own money as they see fit.

The philosophical underpinning of the decision is the belief in equality. Why (proponents of a ban on private schools argue) should a tiny minority (a privileged one to boot) be able to avail themselves of private education when the vast majority of the population do not possess the resources to do so. They further argue that many leading positions in society (for example the judiciary) is packed full of individuals who enjoyed the advantages of private schooling, whilst only a small proportion of top judicial appointments are held by those who attended state (non-fee paying) institutions. Private education does, they contend assist in perpetuating and widening the “class divide” in the UK.

If one accepts the logic of the position outlined above, why stop at the abolition of private schools? Should not parents who possess the resources to buy a home in an area with good state (I.E. non-fee paying schools) be prevented from doing so, and if not, why not, for it is surely unfair that some people can aford to move to areas with good schools whilst others can not? And what about parents who (whilst they do not send their children to private school) do pay for private tuition in music, maths, literature etc? Such tuition may well give the ofspring of such parents an advantage. Is not such an advantage unfair and as such should a prohibition not be placed on parents paying for private tuition? If the answer given to the last question by those delegates who voted for the ban on private schools is “no”, on what logic do they base their opposition to private schools, whilst accepting the right of parents to pay for private tuition often (but not always) in their own homes?

I myself do tutor a friend’s son most Saturdays in poetry. Whilst no money is paid (I wouldn’t accept it even where it to be offered) it is, nonetheless private tuition. If I can provide tuition to a friend’s son free of charge why then should not those (if any exist) wishing to pay me for the provision of said tuition be entitled to do so?

I was incredibly lucky and grew up in a house full of books. From a young age I experienced the delight of being read to by my grandfather and other family members. If we follow the extreme Socialist logic to it’s logical conclusion should we not take away some of the books from those households lucky enough to possess them and redistribute them to families with no (or few) books? And if not, why not?

Life is, in the final analysis unfair. Whilst its surely right that proper funding is provided to the state education sector (which is not always the case), that is not an argument in favour of abolishing the right of those who can aford to pay for private education to do so.
Variety is the spice of life and both private and state sectors can learn from one another, with the best aspects of both systems being incorporated (on a voluntary basis) by both institutions. Its also surely right that private schools who enjoy charitable status should prove their commitment to the local community by, for example opening up their facilities (such as swimming pools and playing fields) to local state schools.

I myself was lucky enough to attend a school part funded by the Catholic Blind Institute and part funded by the state. The largest class I remember consisted of perhaps 10-12 children, with other classes being smaller. The ethos of that school (which catered for both boarders and day pupils) was excellent and yes, I do feel privileged to have attended it.

As always I would be interested in the views of my readers.

Kevin