The Secret War

My latest review, commissioned by the LRB two years ago but not yet appeared there – so I’ve let Robin Ramsay have it for Lobster Magazine. (For those who don’t know it, Lobster – biennial, internet only, free – is excellent reading for serious Lefties.)

Click to access lob74-the-secret-war.pdf

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Back to Blighty

Back from holiday today. A disappointing Swedish summer, weather-wise, but who cares when you have a friendly pub (krog) down the road, and a snug sommarhus to retire to? Anyway, the Archipelago looks even better in the rain. I’ll resume blogging shortly, after Kajsa and I and some radical Swedish friends have seen Dunkirk together in Stockholm – I don’t suppose it will have the same emotional impact on them as on me – and I’ve returned to Hull on Tuesday. In the meantime I thought this was worth circulating  slightly more widely – the pseudonymous ‘Trotter’s’ response to an earlier post of mine: https://bernardjporter.com/2017/08/12/brexit-and-democracy/#comments. No further comment from me is required, I think. (But you may like Andrew Rosthorns’s – printed above it.)

Kajsa highly recommends The Square (an English title but a Swedish film) when it reaches the UK, and I can see it with subtitles. It’s in line for the ‘best foreign film’ Oscar. I wonder whether it will come to Hull?

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Public School Shenanigans Again

First Eton (see last post). Now it’s Winchester and Charterhouse – both in the top half-dozen English Public schools in terms of ‘prestige’ – that have been caught exam cheating: (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/2017/08/27/exclusive-three-britains-leading-independent-schools-caught/); plus, a while ago, one of the government’s prized ‘Academies’ in east London: (https://www.theguardian.com/education/2017/feb/10/staff-at-outstanding-london-school-suspended-over-alleged-exam-cheating). The tip of an iceberg, or what? But this is what happens when you introduce cut-throat competition into education, in circumstances where funding – from the government – or sales – of places in the posh schools – depend on good positions in exam ‘league tables’.

I had experience of something similar when I was Head of a university Department during the first of the Higher Education TQA (‘Teaching Quality Assessment’) exercises. Our departmental ‘grants’ were supposed to depend on this, and on our place in the resulting ‘league tables’. The cheating on the part some of our rival departments at other universities was obvious, albeit more subtle – we university lecturers were supposed to be clever-clogs, after all. I published a piece about it at the time in the Times Higher Education Supplement (I think: I can’t find the link to it now – if there is one. It was pre-digitalisation and pre-Google. I’ll look it up when I get back to the UK). Colleagues at other universities pinned it on their office doors. I was a hero for a while! – As it happened, my department did alright in the assessment, and without cheating. But that didn’t alter my view of the process as a whole, and of the place of crude ‘competition’ in the subtle business that is education.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

An Eton Scandal

Corruption is even affecting the ‘public’ schools. It’s reported today that a ‘deputy head’ at Eton, no less, one Mo Tanweer, has been sacked for giving out public exam questions to other teachers (or ‘masters’) – and so to their pupils – in advance: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/2017/08/25/eton-colleges-deputy-headmaster-leaves-school-following-investigation/.

How long has this sort of thing been going on, I wonder? Might it help explain the apparent academic success of other Old Etonians, who don’t otherwise seem to be endowed with great intelligence. (Dave and Boris obviously come to mind.) Actually, hostile as I am to public schools generally, this is not the sort of behaviour I would have expected of them. They always used to take pride in instilling honour and honesty in their pupils, if very little else; which is why – notoriously – they were so snooty towards the notoriously amoral and selfish business of industrial capitalism. (See Martin Wiener, English Culture and the Decline of the Industrial Spirit, 1981.) And why they were so relatively incorruptible as colonial rulers.

But then Mr Tanweer isn’t like other Eton masters. (I’ve known a few.) Racists might want to make something of his Pakistani origin. (Predictably, Daily Telegraph bloggers already have.) Myself, I’d highlight his job before he went into teaching, which was in investment banking. Is it usual, I wonder, for public schools these days to recruit ex-finance capitalists as teachers? More evidence, if so, of the inexorable progress of  Marx’s capitalist leviathan.

Apart from that, Mr Tanweer’s main interests are reported to be ‘poker and golf’. ’Nuff said.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Brexit and Freedom

It’s just possible that the popular backlash against Brexit has started, if a survey showing that a quarter of those who voted for it last year now feel that Farage, Johnson et al ‘misled’ them, is to be credited: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/brits-believe-they-were-misled-over-brexit_uk_599bf511e4b04c532f441339.  If so – or even if not – there can be no conceivable democratic argument for denying us a second referendum, once the precise terms of the divorce settlement are settled, so that we’ll know for the first time what we are voting for. ‘The people have spoken’ – having been lied to – just won’t do.

In particular, people might think again when they come to realize that with Brexit European domination is merely being exchanged for American, as Theresa May scrambles to butter up Trump for a commercial arrangement to replace our EU one. ‘National independence’ is never pristine and absolute, as Britain’s ex-colonies discovered when they escaped their colonial master’s formal bonds, only to leave them equally vulnerable to less visible ones. In this case American informal hegemony, in what Trump has always insisted will be America’s own interests, may well be less satisfactory in all kinds of ways – environmentally, for example; for our military if Trump gets his way over Afghanistan (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/21/donald-trump-address-nation-outline-new-afghanistan-strategy/); and for our system of healthcare – than anything we may suffer today within the EU. And of course we’ll have much less chance of influencing the former, as an isolated and friendless medium-sized country negotiating in desperation with a behemoth. Better the devil we’ve known for forty years, than the delusion that there won’t be a devil at all.

One problem seems to be that voters don’t see ‘informal’ ties and pressures, however powerful they may be, as clearly as they do formal ones, like ‘unions’ and ‘federations’ and ‘empires’ – entities you can draw lines around on a map. That was one of the arguments of my last book, British Imperial: What the Empire Wasn’t: that in the latter’s case its apparent solidity on those great red-besplattered world maps was misleading. Real power was exercised more subtly, and by others. Similarly, freedom from the EU won’t make Britain truly free.

Posted in Uncategorized | 3 Comments

Dad

One of the effects of the London Blitz of 1940-41, and of the German air raids that continued thereafter, was the exodus of civilians from the most vulnerable parts of the city, initially temporarily, consisting mainly of women and children ‘evacuated’ into the countryside (I was one of them); and then more permanently after the end of the war, when Londoners were moved out of their bombed-out slums into brand new ‘housing estates’ in the surrounding suburbs and beyond. That process was facilitated by a programme of quality but affordable house-building by the post-War Labour government, at a time of abject national poverty, which must put all subsequent governments to shame. (Not all the re-housed welcomed it, incidentally, missing the close social camaraderie of their old haunts.) As a result, London grew enormously in area; especially to the east, where it swallowed up much of what had always been before then a comparatively rural Essex. That’s the origin of the much-derided ‘Essex Man’ and ‘Essex Girl’ of popular perception today: crude and vulgar, with unpleasant ‘Estuary’ accents; but nonetheless producing many of today’s most notable entrepreneurs and entertainers, including Jamie Oliver, Graham Gooch, Steve ‘Interesting’ Davis (who lived near me), and most of the great West Ham football team of the 1960s – including the three key players in England’s 1966 World Cup win.

This influx (or exflux) of ‘East Enders’ required, of course, not only homes, but also what were regarded then as the normal social necessities of life, including medical facilities, transport, churches, and schools. That’s where my Dad comes in. He came from the older, more traditional Essex, not exactly rural in his case (his father was a factory worker at Marconis in Chelmsford), but surrounded by countryside and talking in a dialect very different from either ‘Cockney’ or ‘Estuary’: rustic, almost bucolic, and a lot more musical and attractive to my ear – compare today’s Suffolk. His grandfather, I recently learned from research undertaken by my friend Sylvie Slater, was illiterate – but good with horses. Dad got a scholarship to the local Grammar School, and then won a place at a teachers’ training college (St Mark and St John, then in Chelsea), where he also succeeded in acquiring a London ‘External’ BA.

That fitted him to become a teacher – a huge step ‘up’, class-wise – at almost exactly the time that the growing London suburbs were requiring teachers, to civilize the bombed-out East End immigrants who were flooding in. Which he did; first at a Junior School, then becoming headmaster of a ‘Secondary Modern’ – that tier of schools designed to cater for the boys and girls who had failed the ‘11-Plus’, and so were deemed not fit for the ‘Grammars’. He would have preferred a Grammar himself, I’m sure, or one of the new ‘Comprehensives’ when they came along; but without having been to a proper university, that was out of the question. Social mobility in the fifties and sixties had its limits. Still, I never heard him complain.

The story doesn’t end there; and it’s a story I’d like to pursue. People like my father are nearly always lost to ‘history’, undeservedly, it seems to a historian like me. I ought to try to correct this in his case, out of filial love and duty if nothing else. And there is another consideration. This movement of poor East Enders into the Essex suburbs, and their transformation into a new, distinctive and ultimately significant stratum of British society, seems to me worth trying to understand from a social-historical point of view; as is the way it sucked in people like my father from the country areas around. Which is my serious reason for embarking on this project.

In fact it’s the only way for me to do it, because I have only the minimum of primary material to work with relating to my father directly. He died young, when he was 52 and I was 21. My mother survived him for forty years, and when she died I expected to find some papers at least; but there were none. She clearly had no sense of history, except as it pertained to the Queen Mother, about whom she had a file of newspaper cuttings. She had even destroyed, or mislaid – or perhaps he did – the music my father composed as a self-taught but talented amateur musician; together incidentally with all my own juvenilia – childish attempts at drawing, painting, writing (a thin book about Essex history and some science fiction) – which I also rather regret. But it’s the absence of anything from my father that I most miss now. Which leaves me having to search around for related material in other archives – the Essex Records Office for Essex Education Committee papers? contemporary newspapers? maybe his school, college, and local Methodist Church? – to fill out my own reminiscences, and those of his relatives and any friends and colleagues who may still be alive. There’s also a Facebook site for former pupils of the school he headed (now closed). I ought to know my way around this kind of material; I’ve been evidence-hunting about much older obscure people, after all, for decades now. And this will have the virtue of placing him in his historical context, which should be of wider interest than simply his story alone.

Besides, it will give me something to work on in my dotage. I need to research and write to give me the will to stay alive. This blog helps, but not quite enough. I’ll let you know how it goes.

Posted in Uncategorized | 4 Comments

Scandi Noir

An eccentric Danish inventor builds his own submarine and takes it out into the Baltic. With him is a female Swedish journalist, who’s writing a feature about him. The sub mysteriously sinks. The Dane is rescued, but there’s no sign of the journalist. He claims he put her off on an island, but later changes his story – to what we don’t know; the police are keeping stum – and she’s nowhere to be found. They search the sunken sub, and find no trace of her there, but do find evidence that he may have sunk the sub deliberately. The Danish police arrest him for suspected murder. All news dries up – Danish sub judice rules, one assumes. In the meantime it’s revealed that he’s also working on a private space rocket, which may be relevant – we don’t know.

A case for the old Kurt Wallander, surely? Or does it seem too far-fetched? But it’s all true. (Google it. The submariner’s name is Peter Madsen.)

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Cricket Nostalgia

I misspent much of my youth watching county cricket. (Maybe not misspent. Where else could I have learned about skill, subtlety, chance, patience, honour – in other words ‘playing the game’?) At that time Essex didn’t have a single venue, but travelled around the county, holding ‘cricket festivals’ in Romford, Brentwood, Ilford, Leyton, Chelmsford, Colchester, Southend and various other municipal parks. I cycled to all of them, on my trusty Rudge Pathfinder. Seating was carried around the county in lorries, plus a scoreboard mounted on the side of a van, and a double-decker bus converted into a toilet. There was a printing tent, where detailed scorecards were kept up to date by old-style type setters, with future scores and wickets left for us to fill in as the game progressed. They always progressed for three days. This was real cricket, not the instant sort that was introduced later, for people with restricted attention spans. I carried my own scorebook – the lines printed green on cream paper – and kept up with the game, entering in runs, no-balls, wides, wickets, wicket maidens (the best – you joined up the dots with a big ‘W’) religiously. During the breaks for lunch and tea I ran out with the other boys (only boys, I think) to plead with my heroes for their autographs. On rainy days we sheltered under the trees, waiting for play to resume. It didn’t matter. We were in Elysium.

My greatest heroes were Trevor Bailey and Douglas Insole. Both of them died recently – Bailey in a fire at his home in Southend, Insole just a few days ago. Bailey was a legendary all-rounder: a great defensive batsman – they called him ‘Barnacle Bailey’, though I once saw him straight drive a six over the sightscreen – and a cunning medium-pace bowler. His most famous feat was a heroic stand he shared in with Willie Watson to save a Test against Australia. He later became a fine radio commentator. Insole was an unconventional batter, who was sadly neglected by England, I always thought, though he got a few games, and scored a century against South Africa; a cavalier stroke-player very much in the mold of Dennis Compton – and the antithesis of, or complement to, Bailey. He captained Essex, and later became a distinguished cricket administrator.

There were others: Dickie Dodds, an opening batsman who always tried to hit his first ball for six, went prematurely white-haired, and retired in protest against having to play on Sundays – he belonged to some odd religious sect; Ray Smith, a bowler who went in at number 11 but often scored the fastest century of the season from there; Ken Preston, a fearsome quickie; Roy Ralph, a fat ex-tailor who only came into the team at the age of 40 when it was realized he was also a cunning spin bowler; Michael Bear, an average batsman who kept his place because of his phenomenal fielding, which was reckoned to save the side 40 runs a game… I may add more as I remember them. But for the moment it’s only Insole and Bailey who come into my mind as I reminisce about those blissful days in the sun. (It’s only the sunny days I remember.) And this wonderful verse by Francis Thompson; modified to fit my memories of Essex (Thompson’s were of Lancashire):

For the field is full of shades as I near the shadowy coast,

And a ghostly batsman plays to the bowling of a ghost,

And I look through my tears on a soundless-clapping host

As the run-stealers flicker to and fro,

To and fro: –

O my Insole and my Bailey long ago!

(‘At Lords’)

That brings tears to my eyes too, as I ‘near the shadowy coast’ myself. Younger and non-cricketing readers probably won’t understand.

Posted in Uncategorized | 14 Comments

Trumping and Repeating (Trivial)

Anders Borg, ex-Finance Minister, is in the news in Sweden for exposing his penis and grabbing other people’s crotches (here it’s called ‘Trumping’) at a drunken party. (See https://www.ft.com/content/c7ce0f46-7a88-11e7-9108-edda0bcbc928.) If only our British scandals were as harmless.

It was only after posting my last piece on this blog, on ‘democracy’, that I noticed I’d said it all before, a mere six months ago: https://bernardjporter.com/2017/02/05/is-democracy-to-blame/. Sorry. Is this dementia creeping up on me?

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Brexit and Democracy

Is it democracy? Is that where the fault lies, if such it be? Brexit was a democratic decision, albeit narrowly. Trump was elected by enough of the people, at any rate, to satisfy the ground rules of American democracy. Is democracy – the will of the people – inherently fallible?

Henrik Ibsen seems to have thought so. ‘The majority is never right. Never, I tell you.’ Anti-democrats from ancient times onwards have always feared so, and for the same reason as Ibsen. ‘For who are the people that make up the biggest proportion of the population – the intelligent ones or the fools?’ (This is Dr Stockmann in An Enemy of the People.) We have ample reason to think that many of those who voted for Brexit did so for ‘foolish’ reasons: misinformed, irrelevant to the main issue, or stupid in other ways. The same can also probably be said for the other side; but because they were mainly more intellectual (not the same of course as intelligent) they’ve been better able to spot and point out the fallacies coming from the other side. Which is only to say that majorities are not to be depended upon on anything. Relying on them, even to express their own wishes, let alone their best interests, can have unfortunate and even fearsome outcomes. The best you can probably say for democracy is that – as Churchill once put it – it is ‘the worst system of government: apart from all the rest’.

But it can be refined. One of the problems with our present Anglo-American so-called democracies is that they are crude. Votes are taken infrequently, and counted and represented through a method that doesn’t necessarily reflect the real desires of the voters. In both Britain and America this is mainly the fault of the ‘first past the post’ constituency system, which – as in the present and all recent British cases – can endow parties that garner only minorities of voters overall with disproportionate power. Proportional representation, modified in order to represent local interests too, would solve this: albeit at the cost of perpetual coalitions, which would force governments to compromise in line with the popular will. (I’ve written about this before: https://bernardjporter.com/2016/02/29/first-past-the-post/.) Even when referenda are called on ‘single issues’, those issues are usually muddied with others, as was clearly the case in the Brexit referendum, when many people voted not so much on the European issue as because they were dissatisfied with ‘austerity’, or resented extra-European immigration, or were fed up with the Conservatives, or with ‘Westminster government’ generally. (See https://bernardjporter.wordpress.com/2016/06/16/is-it-really-about-the-eu/)

Furthermore, often the information supplied to the electorate in order to guide their choices is unreliable, due to lies and deception (that £350 billion for the NHS; our unfree press is of course much to blame for this); or to simple ignorance on the part of the general population; compounded by no less ignorance on the part of the ‘experts’ arguing for one side or another. Who really knew what the effects of Brexit would be? I was a pretty well-briefed Remainer, but have been as surprised as anyone by some of the outcomes of the vote. It’s only now that the true implications of Brexit can be glimpsed. Wouldn’t it be better to have a new vote on the basis of this new knowledge, than still to rely on a vote taken in almost total ignorance? The argument, by Brexiteers, that this would be ‘undemocratic’ because the ‘will of the people’ has already been expressed is self-evidently risible. Any true democracy should be able, firstly, to decide issues on the basis of full and untainted evidence, and, secondly, to change its mind. That’s the problem with the crude, direct, instantaneous form of democracy that was represented by the referendum.

Actually our (British) system of government, deficient as it is in many regards but wise in this one, was supposed to deal with just this problem by making it obligatory for acts of state to be effected only after several debates and votes in Parliament, and then with the possibility of their being withdrawn later on. Certainly that applied, and should apply, to existential acts of state, which EU withdrawal clearly is. At the time of the EU referendum a majority of MPs were Remainers, and would have voted that way in the Parliamentary debates that followed if they had not voluntarily given up their constitutional right to do so. So the ‘checks and balances’ implicit in the British constitution were set at nought. That was because our Right-wing press would have called them ‘traitors’ and ‘undemocratic’ if they hadn’t. In fact the probable result of any Parliamentary resistance would have been another general election, with new MPS elected partly on their attitudes to Europe; but after a more intelligent public debate, and probably a new general election on the basis of that. If Corbyn had won that election, or come as close as he did in the last one, he would have recruited thousands of young voters, endowed with a new interest and confidence in politics, who would probably have turned the tables on the Brexiteers. It’s well known that the young were mainly Remainers, but were out-voted by us old crusties. (See https://bernardjporter.com/2017/08/06/the-old-have-shafted-the-young/.) A democracy that doesn’t represent those citizens who are most likely to be affected by its decisions – my generation will all be dead by the time Brexit really hits home – isn’t a true democracy at all.

So it isn’t democracy that’s to blame, per se. Only the present forms of it. True democracy requires ‘checks and balances’. The US system is supposed to have these. Let’s see if they can work any better than ours.

Posted in Uncategorized | 6 Comments