Trinity reunion: 50 years on —
Trinity reunion: 50 years on —
When English spine meets brickwork, out come two clichés. Both were given their outing in Saturday‘s Times: “England expects” (front page) and Ben Macintyre reduced to finding himself in Agincourt, looking for the “Band of brothers” (page 6).
It took Malcolm quite a while to recover from the way Henry V was taught him, which went very little further than Olivier’s propagandist and bombastic heavy edit. In due course, he had to teach it himself, and always to fifteen-year olds mugging for a GCSE. Eventually he applied himself to the text, seeking something more than the mud-and-blood stuff.
The first problem is that it seems a play without much in the way of dramatic tension. From the beginning we know what to expect:
… can this cockpit hold
The vasty fields of France? or may we cram
Within this wooden O the very casques
That did affright the air at Agincourt? …
Suppose within the girdle of these walls
Are now confined two mighty monarchies,
Whose high-upreared and abutting fronts
The perilous narrow ocean parts asunder: …
… jumping o’er times,
Turning th’accomplishment of many years
Into an hour-glass.
In passing, Malcolm notes the Prologue to Act V tells us the play was performed soon after Essex left for Ireland (24th May 1599) but before the disaster of that campaign was known. This suggests the “wooden O” was the Curtain Theatre, not the Globe (which the Chamberlain’s Men occupied about July of that year). The audience at those early performances would be acutely aware of the historical background and the legendary victory.
Was that enough to carry the play?
Of course, everything seems to depend on the depiction of Henry himself. A year earlier the same audience had seen Prince Hal become King Henry, and in doing so renounce Falstaff and his own youthful follies:
I know thee not, old man: fall to thy prayers;
How ill white hairs become a fool and jester!
I have long dream’d of such a kind of man,
So surfeit-swell’d, so old and so profane;
But, being awaked, I do despise my dream.
Henry V begins with the reminder that Henry is a changed man:
The breath no sooner left his father’s body,
But that his wildness, mortified in him,
Seem’d to die too.
Then there is that long scene which introduces Henry (and is a swine to teach).
It involves the long account by the Archbishop of Henry’s right to the throne of France, a debate over what precautions to take about a possible attack from Scotland, and then the clear decision by Henry:
Now are we well resolved; and, by God’s help,
And yours, the noble sinews of our power,
France being ours, we’ll bend it to our awe,
Or break it all to pieces: or there we’ll sit,
Ruling in large and ample empery
O’er France and all her almost kingly dukedoms,
Or lay these bones in an unworthy urn.
This is before the entry of the French Ambassadors, and the tennis-balls insult. Henry makes the decision personally, and without anger.
Neither Olivier nor Branagh seem quite to follow the text here: Branagh in particular uses the tennis-balls episode as a way of marking Henry’s arrival at maturity and royal stature. Branagh’s Henry is a small and immature figure, who does not yet fit the great shadow he casts, dominated by older, bigger figures of Canterbury, Ely and Exeter – until he stands and delivers his first big speech:
We are glad the Dauphin is so pleasant with us;
… And we understand him well,
How he comes o’er us with our wilder days,
Not measuring what use we made of them.
We notice, in passing, Henry’s first apology for his wild youth – we shall see this again in the play, at a particularly significant moment.
… tell the Dauphin, I will keep my state,
Be like a king, and show my sail of greatness,
When I do rouse me in my throne of France.
That puts the Dauphin effectively in his place. We might have expected the Dauphin to be developed as a worthy opponent for Henry, but that is not so. Shakespeare would then need to alter history even more than he does; and clearly it is not his intention to use such a Punch-and-Judy approach.
The scene ends with Henry’s first great monologue, which establishes two significant ideas.
For that I have laid by my majesty,
And plodded like a man for working-days …
That sounds very much like a foreshadowing of his later words, dismissing Mountjoy’s final demand for ransom:
We are but warriors for the working-day;
Our gayness and our gilt are all besmirch’d
With rainy marching in the painful field.
But I will rise there with so full a glory,
That I will dazzle all the eyes of France,
Yea, strike the Dauphin blind to look on us.
What catches Malcolm’s attention here was the curious confusion of pronouns: the singular “I” (presumably Henry as a man) and the plural “we” (Henry as royal personage, the personification of his country).
Malcolm therefore posits:
The dramatic contrast in the play is not between Henry and his opponents, or even between the English national character and the French: it is the conflict between different aspects of Henry’s own personality, between the man and the King.
Malcolm swiftly moves on to the scene at Southampton, when the Scrope plot is exposed.
Olivier omits this scene entirely: its moral ambiguities and questioning of loyalty did not fit the mood of 1944. Branagh, though. developed it into something quite extraordinary. He picks up Exeter’s passing description of Scrope:
the man that was his bedfellow,
Whom he hath dull’d and cloy’d with gracious favours,
That he should, for a foreign purse, so sell
His sovereign’s life to death and treachery!
In Malcolm’s schooldays, and long after, the bedfellow was explained to mean nothing more than “childhood friend”, “close companion”.
Branagh reads into it a homosexual relationship. Branagh’s Henry becomes personal, spiteful, and embarrassingly exposed. This is not the characterisation of a remote royal personage: it is a man teetering on the edge of self-control. We are being shown a very violent streak in Henry here. To Malcolm’s mind, the scene gains in significance by being sandwiched between the two scenes set in the Boar’s Head Tavern, with Falstaff dying upstairs, off-stage,— dying, in part, of a broken heart because of being deserted by his Prince Hal.
The warrior-king, and the cruelty of war
In Act III, Henry spells this out his ultimatum to the people of Harfleur:
look to see
The blind and bloody soldier with foul hand
Defile the locks of your shrill-shrieking daughters;
Your fathers taken by the silver beards,
And their most reverend heads dash’d to the walls;
Your naked infants spitted upon pikes,
Whiles the mad mothers with their howls confused
Do break the clouds.
These are not empty threats: Henry intends to carry them out if he is not obeyed instantly. There is good historical evidence for this aspect of Henry’s character: when he besieged Rouen in 1418, he starved thousands of “bouches inutiles” (the women, children and non-combatants evicted from the city) trapped between the lines.
It is not only his enemies who face Henry’s anger. His former friends receive no special favours:
Fluellen: ... one that is like to be executed for robbing a church, — one Bardolph, if your majesty know the man…
King Henry: We would have all such offenders so cut off: … for when lenity and cruelty play for a kingdom, the gentler gamester is the soonest winner.
Henry’s justification for supporting the sentence seems to be based upon good reasons, but once again there seems to be something like irony in his use of the word “gentler”.
The night before Agincourt
In Act IV we come to the one moment in the play when Henry reveals his true inner self. In the dark and in disguise he meets and argues with the common soldiers, facing death in the next day’s battle.
Williams, not realising he is talking to the King, makes the accusation:
I am afeard there are few die well that die in battle, for how can they charitably dispose of any thing, when blood is their argument?
Despite Henry’s lawyer-like reply, the accusation clearly hurts, and later on he extracts a revenge by nearly provoking a duel between Williams and Fluellen.
In his crucial soliloquy, Henry broods upon the accusation, and consoles himself for the hard life of a king, condemned to sleepless nights on behalf of his subjects, and paid only by
ceremony, … idol ceremony.
Here Henry accepts the truth of Williams’ argument. Why else does Henry refer to and apologise for his father’s and, (since he has benefited too) his own crimes of ambition?
Not to-day, O Lord,
O not to-day, think not upon the fault
My father made in compassing the crown!
I Richard’s body have interred new…
More will I do;
Though all that I can do is nothing worth,
Since that my penitence comes after all,
There are two further examples in this Act which shows Henry’s cruelty. When the French rally in the middle of the battle, Henry’s reaction is sudden and terrible:
The French have reinforced their scatter’d men: —
Then every soldier kill his prisoners;
Give the word through.
When the French treacherously attack the unprotected English camp and kill the poys and the luggage … expressly against the laws of war., we see a truly grim Henry:
I was not angry since I came to France Until this instant. … Besides, we’ll cut the throats of those we have; And not a man of them that we shall take Shall taste our mercy: — go, and tell them so.
If we take at face value what Henry says here, then it is a horrifying speech. He is saying that everything that has happened in the campaign had occurred because it was done as a calculated exercise: Harfleur, the march across Picardy, the attrition of both sides.
And, yes, there is more of the same. We still have:
The wooing of Katharine.
This, the notes and critics argue, is “comedy”.
At the time of the Treaty of Troyes, Henry was around thirty years old: the Princess Katharine just fourteen.
We have Henry’s declaration of love:
I speak to thee plain soldier: if thou canst love me for this, take me; if not, to say to thee that I shall die, is true,- but for thy love, by the Lord, no; yet I love thee too. And while thou livest, dear Kate, take a fellow of plain and uncoin’d constancy … If thou would have such a one, take me: and take me, take a soldier; take a soldier, take a king …
There is very little plain or soldierly about what Henry is saying. It is not as if the message is hidden too deeply. Katharine is being given a brutal lesson in the realities of diplomacy and politics:
I love France so well, that I will not part with a village of it; I will have it all mine: and, Kate, when France is mine and I am yours, then yours is France and you are mine.
The lesson was well-taught: Henry V’s widow would re-marry: enter Owen Tudor.
This, then, is Malcolm’s reading of the play; and he is aware that it is very different from the usual romantic patriotic view. He recognises the opinion that this play is Shakespeare’s last word on kingship, Henry is the ideal of the Christian monarch, and the play is recalling a golden era in English history.
After reciting Henry’s achievements at Harfleur and Agincourt, and his diplomatic triumph at the Treaty of Troyes, the play ends with the black-cloaked figure of Chorus. The purpose of Chorus throughout the play had been to praise Henry, and to direct the audience to the next development of the story.
At the end, though, there is a very different note. The epilogue is written in the form of a sonnet. In a sonnet we expect the first eight lines (the octave) to describe the situation, and the final six lines (the sestet) to comment thereon. The comment is quite devastating: all of Henry’s achievements ultimately were futile:
Henry the sixth, in infant bands crown’d king
Of France and England, did this king succeed;
Whose state so many had the managing,
That they lost France, and made his England bleed.
The two great battle speeches
Malcolm now returns to the speech before Harfleur, and the address before Agincourt.
He suggests that it is important to bear in mind that, for much of the play, Henry and the English are losing. The landing at Harfleur was too late in the campaigning season. The capture of Harfleur as a base, which should have been cut-and-dried, stretched out over six weeks. The march from Harfleur to Calais was, at best “a calculated risk” (Juliet Barker‘s description), at worst a desperate attempt at bravado. Agincourt itself turned on an astonishing series of French blunders and self-imposed disaster.
The speech before Harfleur
It starts from a note of desperation:
Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more;
Or close the wall up with our English dead.
Then Henry waxes poetical:
In peace there’s nothing so becomes a man
As modest stillness and humility:
But when the blast of war blows in our ears,
Then imitate the action of the tiger;
Stiffen the sinews, summon up the blood,
Disguise fair nature with hard-favour’d rage;
Then lend the eye a terrible aspect;
Let pry through the portage of the head
Like the brass cannon; let the brow o’erwhelm it
As fearfully as doth a galled rock
O’erhang and jutty his confounded base,
Swill’d with the wild and wasteful ocean.
Now set the teeth and stretch the nostril wide,
Hold hard the breath and bend up every spirit
To his full height.
Malcolm notices the sub-text of this: imitate, disguise, lend, all suggesting pretence. It is all play, not the reality of war. The imagery is somewhat over-cooked: tiger, cannon, galled rock. As the scene develops, we appreciate that the attack was unsuccessful, and the siege will grimly continue.
Then Henry addresses his followers, taking care to distinguish the two classes. First, as is polite and proper, the nobility:
On, on, you noblest English,
Whose blood is fet from fathers of war-proof!
Fathers that, like so many Alexanders,
Have in these parts from morn till even fought
And sheathed their swords for lack of argument:
Dishonour not your mothers; now attest
That those whom you call’d fathers did beget you.
Be copy now to men of grosser blood,
And teach them how to war.
After a bit of flattery (noblest), the appeal is through ancestry and family pride (fathers of war proof), dynasty (in these parts from morn till even fought, going back to the campaigns of Edward III), legitimacy and shame (attest, dishonour not your mothers), and the established idea of showing-a-good-example to the-lower-orders. It is essential to remember that the only task of a medieval noble, his sole purpose in being, the root of his privilege, was to prove himself in combat and ensure his posterity: everything else could be done for him. He was marked by his ability to mount and fight from a horse, and by his suit of war-proofed armour.
Then Henry turns to the lower orders themselves, the bowmen and infantry.
And you, good yeoman,
Whose limbs were made in England, show us here
The mettle of your pasture; let us swear
That you are worth your breeding; which I doubt not;
For there is none of you so mean and base,
That hath not noble lustre in your eyes.
I see you stand like greyhounds in the slips,
Straining upon the start. The game’s afoot:
Follow your spirit, and…
They are yeomen: the class between the nobility and the landless serfs: wishing to climb the social ladder, but fearful of falling lower. They are skilled in their farming, but the farming is pasture, reminding us that the wealth of England, down to Shakespeare’s own parents and beyond, was sheep.
They, too, are reminded of their breeding: an ambiguous term, which could refer both to their own parentage and to their skill in animal husbandry.
They are upwardly mobile, like Shakespeare himself and all the other Elizabethan “new men”, ambitious to leap class barriers, which amounts to the noble lustre in their eyes.
They have simple country pleasures, such as hare-coursing, so the simile of greyhounds in the slips. Their sport today is reassuringly everyday familiar: the game’s afoot. Malcolm speculates if there is a twinkle of a joke there. Wouldn’t “game’ be protected, and chasing it amount to poaching? Which, of course, any yeoman (including a young Shakespeare) would covertly indulge in at the lord’s expense.
Then the rallying cry:
upon this charge
Cry ‘God for Harry, England, and Saint George!’
Malcolm notices the sequence here: the unifying religion, then the familiar ‘Harry’ as a personal appeal to comradeship. Then the more remote nationalism. Only finally to a religious hero.
The address before Agincourt
This is the crunch moment, up against impossible odds, when Henry had to rally some sparks of spirit. The English army trekked across northern France, an unnecessary journey which should have taken just over a week, but had now extended into three, in foul weather, which was worsening to constant rain. Now, just a short march from the English town of Calais, they were brought to battle by a larger (though not, as Shakespeare and some school histories have it, vastly overwhelming) French force. It is also not true, as Juliet Barker shows, that the French tactics were unco-ordinated.
That’s the history: here’s the theatre. This speech, too, is worthy of close analysis. It is something more than mere rabble-rousing:
If we are mark’d to die, we are enow
To do our country loss; and if to live,
The fewer men, the greater share of honour.
God’s will! I pray thee, wish not one man more.
Henry enters, having just overheard Westmoreland wishing for reinforcements. His opening merely recognises the inevitable: there are no additional resources. Instead he offers honour, an abstract, but one of the marks of chivalry.
This of itself needs a passing comment. Chivalry was the morality which controlled the man on the horse, who was the military equivalent of the modern tank (and, curiously, needed about the same size of support team).
A knyght ther was, and that a worthy man,
That fro the tyme that he first bigan
To riden out, he loved chivalrie,
Trouthe and honour, fredom and curteisie.
Those essentials of knighthood would translate into modern English as the code of the noble class: giving one’s word and keeping it, no matter what; offering due respect and deserving respect from others; generosity of spirit and well as of pocket; the good manners of the Court. Henry picks up one those, fredom, to continue:
By Jove, I am not covetous for gold,
Nor care I who doth feed upon my cost;
It yearns me not if men my garments wear;
Such outward things dwell not in my desires:
Then he reverts to his first theme: honour, that most prickly issue of the Medieval and post-Medieval period.
But if it be a sin to covet honour,
I am the most offending soul alive.
No, faith, my coz, wish not a man from England:
God’s peace! I would not lose so great an honour
As one man more, methinks, would share from me
For the best hope I have. O, do not wish one more!
Rather proclaim it, Westmoreland, through my host,
That he which hath no stomach to this fight,
Let him depart; his passport shall be made
And crowns for convoy put into his purse:
We would not die in that man’s company
That fears his fellowship to die with us.
This has segued through stomach to fellowship. The stomach was the seat of anger, the opposite of self-control, according to the theory of the four humours. Apart from the shame of walking out on one’s fellows, Henry manages therefore to lob in a belittling hint of pettiness. It is going to be the fellowship theme that will be developed further.
First, though, a touch of the domestic. At first it seems little more than a momentary reflection on the church holy-day back home:
This day is called the feast of Crispian:
He that outlives this day, and comes safe home,
Will stand a tip-toe when the day is named,
And rouse him at the name of Crispian.
He that shall live this day, and see old age,
Will yearly on the vigil feast his neighbours,
And say ‘To-morrow is Saint Crispian:’
Then will he strip his sleeve and show his scars.
And say ‘These wounds I had on Crispin’s day.’
Half way through that section, the appeal changed. It becomes an invitation to project into an imagined certain future, when faced by the uncertainty of an impending battle. It also invites the hearer to imagine a prosperity in which there is the wherewithall to provide the “feast”. Within that is a hidden, cruder appeal: the promise of wealth from plunder or ransom, the substantial motive for going to war.
Then comes the moment of “lightening”, a wry invitation to imagine reaching old age, and being able to “improve” on the personal history:
Old men forget: yet all shall be forgot,
But he’ll remember with advantages
What feats he did that day, …
The previous speech, before Harfleur, had clearly distinguished between the orders of society. Now Henry deliberately blurs and overlaps them. This may be a perceptive recognition of the growing cameraderie that would inevitably have developed over months together. It might invite speculation that Shakespeare talks from experience, if he spent some of his “lost years” in a spell with the army in Flanders. It invites the common soldiery, drawn from the yeoman class, to identify with the highest nobility as their “best mates”:
Then shall our names,
Familiar in his mouth as household words
Harry the king, Bedford and Exeter,
Warwick and Talbot, Salisbury and Gloucester,
Be in their flowing cups freshly remember’d.
The slow, settling, sonorous long vowels of the personal names, the commonplace of “Harry”; then “flowing cups”, again the domestic and cheering tone, as he moves towards a peroration:
This story shall the good man teach his son;
And Crispin Crispian shall ne’er go by, …
It’s the inheritance and posterity line again, the dream of establishing, or continuing a dynasty, that Henry used in the earlier speech. Then the rhythm increases: the vowels shorten, the language veers to simple monsyllables:
From this day to the ending of the world,
But we in it shall be remember’d;
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
Three soaring promises there: one of an eternal memory, a kind of heaven on earth, kinship with the king himself, and superiority over all those at home:
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne’er so vile,
This day shall gentle his condition:
Again the carrot of social advancement:
And gentlemen in England now a-bed
Shall think themselves accursed they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin’s day.
But not just that: “they’re at home in bed: we’re here doing the job of real men”; “you’re not just country yokels, you’re better than the landed gentry”; and the where, when, what and who of the final line. Notice, though, there is something deliberately missed out: at no point does Henry give a reason why the battle is necessary: the one question of all those the common soldiers had proposed to him the night before:
if the cause be not good, the king himself hath a heavy reckoning to make, when all those legs and arms and heads, chopped off in battle, shall join together at the latter day and cry all ‘We died at such a place;’ some swearing, some crying for a surgeon, some upon their wives left poor behind them, some upon the debts they owe, some upon their children rawly left. I am afeard there are few die well that die in a battle; for how can they charitably dispose of any thing, when blood is their argument? Now, if these men do not die well, it will be a black matter for the king that led them to it .
It’s the most commonplace that is frequently overlooked: the live Mills bomb we have used as a doorstop because Granny did the same. We employ the cliché to avoid thought, but the implication may indicate strange truths (witness the white South African who announced he felt “the Blacks needed a fair crack of the whip”).
What is the English journalist saying, when he falls back to relying on Shakespeare? It is a desire to link with the “tradition”, that strongest, most potent, and potentially most poisonous aspect of our culture. It is a piece of self-inflation (as, also, Malcolm’s essay here).
We recall the bravado of Henry V, and likely do so with Olivier’s curious pronunciation and emphases in our heads. Perhaps, though, the play is the thing, and we might usefully return to the whole text, and strip from it trite jingoism. For the text is an exercise in psychology: that of the eponymous Henry, but also of those, on stage and in the audience, seduced by his rhetorical expertise.
Now the silly season is over (except in Labour Party elections), Rawnsley is back, bright and bushy-tailed. However he starts with a journo’s dissimulating mock-stutter:
I have been trying – so far, I confess, without success – to discover who minted the phrase “political honeymoon”. It is a strange expression: marriage is rarely an appropriate metaphor for a country’s relationship with its leader. It describes an odd quirk of electorates. The public tell pollsters that they are most enthusiastically in favour of a leader in his or her opening period in office, precisely the time when voters know least about the person who has just taken charge.
If we must look only at the two-word cliché, I’d suggest referring to the numerous histories of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. He could, of course, have simply looked up the expression, though that might have bust his word-limit. On which, may I selflessly advocate the local borough library. Get a library card (today it’s just another of those debit/credit card shapes that fill our wallets) and use its number to log on to the on-line resources. My standbys are the Oxford English Dictionary and the Dictionary of National Biography. Now, if only I could equally access, for free, the untold wealth of JSTOR …
With the OED we find a healthy history of how the “honeymoon” metaphor evolved:
1.a. The period immediately following marriage, as characterized by love and happiness. Later also: a period of love and happiness at the beginning of a similar relationship. Now chiefly with reference to the ending of such a period. In early use also without article.
Let’s pass over that swiftly, except to note the cynical Now chiefly with reference to the ending of such a period.
We move on to:
b. An initial period of friendly relations, goodwill, or enthusiasm. Freq. in political contexts. Now chiefly with reference to the ending of such a period.In early use also without article.
Hello! Something of interest there already! The earliest citing for 1.a. is 1546, in John Heywood’s collection of English proverbs, or rather (since the 16th century never did anything concisely — though this being the 1562 “second edition”):
A dialogue conteyning the number of the effectuall prouerbes in the Englishe tounge, compact in a matter concernynge two maner of maryages. With one hundred of Epigrammes, and three hundred of Epigrammes vpon three hundred prouerbes; and a fifth hundred of Epigrams. Wherevnto are now newly added a syxt hundred of Epigrams, by the sayde John Heywood.
“Honey moon”, then was current before the mid-sixteenth century — which may say something about the English conceit of “romantic love”
Then we see, again from that OED entry, that it had pretty soon become a metaphor Freq. in political contexts. The third citation under 1.b is explicitly political:
1655 T. Fuller Church-hist. Brit. iv. 158 Kingdoms have their honey-moon, when new Princes are married unto them.
Which we can acquire on-line.
Just that citation was used by for The Washington Times, reflecting (18 November 2008) on the election of Barrack Obama:
… my attitude towards the president-elect is utterly dissimilar to what I experienced on my real honeymoon. I didn’t chose him, I don’t trust him (if he knows of me he doubtlessly reciprocates such sentiments), and I don’t look forward to a long relationship with him.
The only part of the metaphor I can relate to is the bit about “comparing the mutual affection of newly-married persons to the changing moon which is no sooner full than it begins to wane.” By my calculation, that means that the honeymoon will be over by December 4th. In fact, already, my positive passions are feeling rather “wane.” According to the Oxford English Dictionary the early references to the political honeymoon metaphor start in 1655 (Fuller): “Kingdoms have their honeymoon, when new Princes are married unto them”; 1795 (Burke) “Spain, in the honey-moon of her new servitude”; and 1867 (Goldwin, Smith) “The brief honeymoon of the new king and his parliament.” In each of those early examples, the circumstances of the honeymoon are mandatory, begrudging and short. I think Burke’s best catches the moment (“the honey-moon of her servitude”).
Since that is the Washington Times (i.e. the voice of Sun Ayung Moon‘s Unification Church), rather than the other daily newspaper, one of record and respect, from DC, we can pay as little regard as we can.
Except, then, Blankly’s reputation has not enhanced as Obama’s has. Yet Blankly (deceased, mainly to be recalled as Speaker Newt Gingrich‘s public organ) does come up with a decent point:
It is curious how the sexual metaphor – with all its ambiguities – is often used in politics.
I’d guess Blankly is referring precisely to “political honeymoon”, but were we to consider just how often sexual expressions get used in political contexts, wow! there is can of worms.
I attended closely to the YouTube feed of the “debate” between Jeremy Corbyn and Owen Smith over the leadership of the Labour Party.
It seemed to me that two strong issues went AWOL, by both parties (and — let’s be honest here — there really are two tribes inhabiting the Labour reservation).
So these two essential questions:
What should the Party be doing to improve the lot of left-behind workers?
That is essentially the same question as “What went wrong in the #Brexit campaign?”, or “How to counteract the attraction of UKIP?”, and many others which go back to alienation of the working-class vote.
The answer is quite simple, and comes in different forms of essentially the same thing:
It isn’t enough (though both Corbyn and Smith seem to argue so) to rely on central government racking up “minimum wage” levels.
What that achieves, instantly, is to erode differentials. Indeed it often means that the next wage-tier above minimum is absorbed into a lumpen-proletarian base. It also negates any pressure on the employer to innovate to improve productivity: after all, the combine has a quiescent work-force, which can be refreshed by adding under-25s or “adult apprentices”, who come cheaper than minimum. Or, of course, by using zero-hours contracts. Cue Dilbert from 1993:
There are “costs” to beefing up the unions.
Labour becomes more expensive.
Which means, in the short term, unemployment may rise.
It also means there is more cash floating round the system. That may be “inflationary”, but it also means there is an increase in demand — and both services and manufacturing should benefit. Meanwhile, in the present context, #Brexit has ensured that imports are more expensive, and domestic production should be more competitive. Which should create a demand for skilled employment.
Why did Labour lose the 2015 General Election?
Because of the Big Lie and the Big Bribe.
The Big Lie was that the previous Labour Government’s investment in public services broke the economy and caused the 2007 Crash.
Pause for breath on that one. It wasn’t the collapse of one US over-levered operation after another, until Lehman Brothers were made to walk the plank. It wasn’t the reckless lending of uncontrolled fringe bankers. It wasn’t the Stock Markets taking flight. No: it was because Labour had civilised public education and public health care. No more outdoor school toilets. No lying on hospital trolleys for hours. So: the Tory remedy was to bring back public squalor (Psst: try private health care and schooling!)
The Big Bribe was to pay off those who vote at the expense of those who don’t.
So the seniors get their “triple lock” of guaranteed public pension pay-offs, to be paid for by austerity pay-freezes for those at the bottom of the heap. Oh, and if you’re got money in pension-funds, rush off and invest in a Ferrari or a Spanish time-share. You know you really, really need to. If you’re paying cooperation tax, here’s a let-off.
But to pursue either of those, would involve a real “debate”.
Country-people when going to the Metropolis say they are on their way to the Smoke. [JC Hotten, 186o]
Tomorrow it’s hit the A64 for the A1. It’ll be the first time in quite a while that we’ve done it by road. Since our point of interest in Norf Lunnun is right beside the 91 bus route, and there are excellent trains (Virgin Rail permitting) from York to Kings Cross, that’s been the norm.
This time, though, we’re bringing back a Habitat chair and sofa, and it’s the rational way.
The real reason for doing so is this was the first major purchase we made, when we first married. That means the things are almost through their fifth decade — which counts as half-way to official antique status. When — perhaps that should be “if” — we get them home here, some restoration is needed.
Note I said “first major purchase”. The very first acquisition was a revolving bookcase, and that cost (as I recall) all of about six pounds. The Pert Young Piece has that.
On the trip I want to catch the revival of O’Casey’s The Plough and the Stars at the Lyttelton. This will be my first viewing since one in Dublin. The reviews suggest the National Theatre production might, just might be a bit more polished than last time.
Then there are two promising exhibitions at the British Museum.
One is based on the discoveries of two drowned cities — Thonis-Heracleion and Canopus — at the mouth of the River Nile. For the last twenty years an underwater team, led by Franck Goddio, have been exploring these sites. What adds interest (at least for me) is one of the cities, Thonis-Heracleion, was a trading port, while the other, Canopus, was more of a religious site. As I understand, the main focus isn’t the Egypt of the ancient Pharoahs: it’s much more getting towards the “Hellenistic period”. In terms of Egyptian history that means it runs from the conquests of Alexander the Great into the Ptolomaic dynasty. For any passing ignoramus, after Alexander’s death, one of his generals (Ptolomy) declared himself Pharaoh; and his descendants ruled until the Romans took over in 30BC — the last of that lot was Cleopatra. Got that? Cleo was a Greek, not Shakespeare’s gipsy or Antony’s serpent of old Nile.
There’s another exhibition at the BM on Sicily, due to close in a week or so time, which I like to catch. What I know of Sicilian history comes essentially from John Julius Norwich.
Pause there for a moment.
There’s a nicety about how that book is differentially sold. In the American market the sub-title is An Island at the Crossroads of History. That reflects the layer upon layer of different cultures over the millennia: Phoenicians, Greeks, Carthaginians, Romans, the Byzantines of the Eastern Roman Empire, Arabs from North Africa, and the Normans of Robert Guiscard (that cognomen being a distortion of the Latin for weasel). So there’s layer upon layer of different cultures. Meanwhile, for the British book-trade, John Julius is subtitled A Short History from the Ancient Greeks to Cosa Nostra.
One needs to read John Julius with close attention. For example (page 77 of my paperback):
King Roger II of Sicily — there was no King Roger I — was duly crowned on Christmas Day, in Palermo Cathedral.
Absolutely correct. Roger I was merely the Great Count of Sicily, brother and understrapper of the Weasel, and the subject of John Julius’s preceding half-dozen pages.
Let joy be unconfined
Beyond all that, the chief delight of a few days in London is access to a wide choice of book-sellers.
In the absence of further flesh-rending among the comrades, and it all being remarkably quiet among the May-bellines, silly-season attention turns to the political equivalent of Johnstone’s Paint Trophy
For UKIP are electing a new Führer
As might be expected, this is a spat between Arthur Daley wannabes and similar assorted also-rans.
To save the rest of us the bother, Ian Dunt at politics.co.uk gives us a run down of the names in the frame. Stay awake at the back!
He is ambiguous about the One Who Is Blocked: since I’m one serially “blocked” by any Twittering Kipper, I know how it feels.
Yet Woolfie has credibility issues
For a start he “forgot” his conviction for drunken driving, both when he stood as Police and Crime Commissioner and in his electoral campaign for the European Parliament. In the former of those cases the conviction would be an instant disqualifier — and the application/nomination process is adamant on the issue.
Tim Fenton, of zelo-street (“the Crewe end of the telescope”) is close enough to Woolfie’s stamping ground in Chester to peer under the stones, and argues that the claim to be a barrister is … err … not quite kosher:
… he has given the impression that he is a barrister, when he is not. Nor has he explained how he came to cease being a barrister. Indeed, the Sun’s take on him, claiming “The barrister wants the party to fill the space left by Jeremy Corbyn and his warring factions” is still live.That story goes on “The 48-year-old barrister is favourite to take over from Nigel Farage in a leadership race which starts in earnest today”. But the Barristers’ Register of the Bar Standards Board cannot locate anyone called Steven Woolfe. The BBC has hinted at his no longer practising, telling “Steven qualified initially as a barrister but moved into financial services and is presently legal adviser to a company whose clients include hedge funds”.And The Week describes him as “The former barrister hoping to lead Ukip”. Yet Woolfe has not yet moved to explain why this should be. Why did Woolfe cease to be a practising barrister? Did some event occur that caused the BSB to take action? Was it merely a personal choice? And why is he waiting for the questions to be asked before getting the information out there? There’s another one for the party’s vetting procedures.
What a tangled web we weave
There’s a running battle going at wikipedia about Woolfe’s entry: at least a dozen attempts at correction in just the last week, some a couple of dozen more over the last month.
When first we practise to…
Stop it right there, Sir Walter! We are in the presence of lawyers!
I took a look at Mr Woolfe’s Linked-In page, I detected a distinct odour of the Leadsoms. Consider:
In the days when I sat on appointment panels, there would have been enough meat on such bare bones to put an applicant though the mincer.