All in the family
Wednesday, August 6, 2008 My paternal grandfather died 36 years ago. I was 13. He was 72. When he married my grandmother in 1928 they spent their honeymoon on a ship bound for India where they lived for eight years. (My father was born in Calcutta in 1930.)
After they came home they lived in Sheffield. When war broke out my grandfather joined the army and was one of 330,000 soldiers evacuated from Dunkirk. He later served in the Middle East and became a colonel. After the war the family moved to Sussex and, much later, my grandparents retired to Dorset where they had a beautiful thatched cottage with a large garden full of strawberries, apple trees and roses.
In retirement my grandfather spent much of his time in the garden but he had lots of interests - music, painting, sailing ... I still have some of his many comic illustrations and I can hear him now, playing the piano and singing one of his own Flanders and Swan style ditties.
Perhaps I was too young, but the one thing I don't remember him talking about was politics. Yesterday, however, going through some of the many scrapbooks and papers he left behind, my aunt found a number of short essays he had written. They were typed on the same old-fashioned mechanical typewriter that was given to me to use when I was ten or eleven.
It was the first time my aunt had seen the essays, and they were certainly new to me. One is entitled "Socialism". Written in 1950, it reads:
No one can convince a socialist. His arguments, his theories, are unanswerable. He has a cast iron case. Equality of opportunity for everybody, raising the standard of living of the underdog, pooling wealth; you cannot say these things are wrong.
The more I see of socialism, the less I like it ... Its ideals are so commendable that it has enabled its clever intelligentsia to gain the support of masses who see in it an easy way of getting some of the wealth of others. It is a breeder of revolution, of mutiny, and of mass movements. It is next door to communism ...
Someone will say, "What about the evils of private monopoly?" My answer is that private monopoly is to be preferred to government monopoly. Freedom of enterprise will cure private monopolies if they are a nuisance, but government control only creates an army of officials and the removal of the human touch ...
The theory that because coal is found in the ground it should be owned by the government on behalf of the people, is going to lead to everything that comes out of the ground being government owned, and the land itself, and the houses which stand upon the land ...
A government's job is to guide, govern and co-ordinate, not to run businesses. Quite obviously if six different companies are trying to run buses on the same route their efforts will require co-ordination. And if their combined efforts threaten to put the railway out of business, that again will require co-ordination. That is where the referee blows his whistle.
What are the alternatives? To stop trying to standardise life. To recognise quality as well as quantity. To encourage private enterprise and private ownership, the kind which made a man bring up his son in a way that would fit him to carry on the tradition with a proper sense of his personal responsibility to his dependents, his employees, and not in the fear that he will be legislated out of existence.
To rule by persuasion and not by regimentation. To fix minimum standards, by all means, but not uniform standards. To treat England as it is, an old country with a solid backbone, and not as though it were a Russia or an India ...
Let the laird live in his castle and the poet in his cottage, but don't expect them both to live in a council house. I shall probably be told that they can still do so, and that all the socialists are doing is to remove some of the more glaring inequalities. My answer to that is that the planners will not be satisfied until they have ironed out everybody to a uniform standard of living, irrespective of breed, taste, position, culture and attainments. It is the thin end of the wedge towards communism, and state ownership of everything; the end of all personal liberties.
Any movement which starts trying to kill private enterprise must be wrong. Without private enterprise you may as well cease to live. The growth and increases of government departments is also another bad sign, and if I am told it is necessary for the all-out effort of recovery from the war I shall say that I don't believe it and that the restrictive effect of government control will more than off-set its theoretical advantages.
What do we want? Not the kind of die-hard conservatism which refuses to entertain any change, but the kind which will preserve valuable traditions which are now being thrown overboard by the socialists and adapt them to modern conditions.
What can I say ... it runs in the family!
Reader Comments (28)
Don't let his thoughts die Simon, promote them every day, in every way. A clever and articulate man, whom I am no doubt you are very proud of.
I must admit to being a socialist all my life and dispair of what Nu Labour has done.Unfortunately Socialism has become a dirty word under this so called administration. It is now deemed to involve interference in the lives and businesses of it's citizens and even sovereign states.It seems to mean sipping champagne with the very bankers who have pushed the world into recession. It seems to mean giving away vast sums of taxpayers money to underpin dodgy banks when the shipworkers, miners, steelworkers, carmakers et al were thrown to the wolves.
Socialism does not mean that all people are equal but it's aims are that everyone has equal access to the likes of education, housing, employment and healthcare. Socialists believe in helping those less fotunate which will mean taxes are diverted from those who have a good income to those such as the elderly and disabled who do not. The NHS was a socialist ideal and once the envy of the world. Now it is a disgrace. You have the perversion of hundreds of thousands of patients being forced to take nicotine replacement treatments to ensure that a doctor will even see them, while cancer patients are being refused drugs on costs grounds. Socialism neither bans nor supports any religions but Gordon Brown is foisting his Scottish Presbyterian upbringing and views unto the rest of the UK.
He and his ilk have shamed the word Socialism and unfortunately Nu Labour is full of toadies who were brought in under Tony bLIAR. They will be wiped out at the next election but from what I see of the Tories it is going to be more of the same.
I am sure that there are many like me who believe in freedom of the individual while still holding a social responsibility. At the next election is there anyone out there who deserves our votes?
Michael.
You say 'It seems to mean giving away vast sums of taxpayers money to underpin dodgy banks when the shipworkers, miners, steelworkers, carmakers et al were thrown to the wolves'.
You forgot publicans.
Is this what the Government mean by a 'level playing field'?
Thanks for sharing these wise words, Simon. Well observed, well written.
Thanks for that, Simon -
How lucky you were to have had a Grandad like that !
Solzhenitsyn once complained that it was almost impossible to define 'Socialism' in a way which would be even widely - let alone universally - accepted.
With all due respect to Michael above, one of the many things I resent about the 'socialists' I have met - especially the Middle Class variety - is their subtle insistence that they enjoy some sort of monopoly on Decency: clearly, they do not.
And socialists seem particularly susceptible to the notion that The Idea is more important than The Human Being (that awkward impediment to The Perfect World).
More pertinently, the facile belief among many of them that the State alone can provide the New Jerusalem they so earnestly crave is (and always was) dangerously misguided and naive - and INEVITABLY involves coercion and a dehumanising (and dehumanised) bureaucracy: the dictatorship of the elect few - rather than the dicatorship of one.
Dictators can be toppled. But a Dictator State.....................that's a bit trickier (as we are now ALL learning to our cost) - especially when it starts spreading across national boundaries.
If only there were more people around like Simon's Grandad....................
Michael, with regard to your question, is there anyone who deserves our votes at the next election, I know how you feel and frankly I do not believe that voting for any of the 3 major parties is an option - they are all as bad as each other and will lie through their teeth to get our votes and then do, exactly as labour did, and throw their manifesto in the bin and bring out the real paperwork!
For my part I feel that I need to make a protest vote and will therefore probably vote for UKIP or even the BNP, on the grounds that no-one can possibly be worse than what we have or what is waiting in the wings! The big 3 have had their own way for far too long and need taking down a peg or 2.
Who anyone votes for is their choice, but if we seriously want to see some radical changes and we want this country to get back to resembling something like 'Great' again, then we have to oust the 3 that believe they are the only options!
Martin V.
I also have no time for middle class socialists with Che Guevara t-shirts, vegetarian lifestyles and cuban coffee. Like those students climbing up lampposts in Beijing calling for a free Tibet. They did it in the full glare of the world's media knowing that at worse they would be deported. They have never faced armed vehicles nor would they as being shot would affect their chances of running daddy's business or getting that job 'In the City'.These are the sort of shallow people that Nu Labour attract and I want no part of their brand of socialism.
Lyn.I appreciate what you say about a protest vote but it does not solve the problem of who will represent us. Unless Labour has a fundamental change in direction there is no one to vote for who believes in the rights of the individual but also believes in social responsibility.
Chas. You are right that publicans have been shafted but with few exceptions they brought it upon themselves. Indeed, it was the vintners who pressed for no exemptions and therefore a total ban as they were the ones screaming for a level playing field. The turkeys voted for their own Christmas.
You know Michael, you are probably right that a protest vote will not solve the issue, but then again, if a previously little know party do succeed, or at least give us a hung parliament, they may just surprise us!
Sometimes it needs something drastic and dramatic, as this would be, to shake everything up and to start getting our values in the right order again.
The other question, I guess, is which is better, to cast a protest vote, or not vote at all? Many people I speak to are not happy with any of the main 3 parties, and are therefore looking at not voting at all - what will that achieve in the end? We will finish up with one of them in power, or a coalition between 2 or even all three! (Am not too well up on politics and government, but I assume this could happen?).
All we can do, is wait and see.
Lyn, you sound like my mum, God bless her. Whenever the Government of the day was screwing up, as they are oft to do, she would say "well there's nothing we can do about it", and I used to tell her that there is something we can do about it, we can vote!
You say that people you have spoken to "are looking at not voting at all". I am sorry Lyn, but anyone who really believes in that is an idiot!
If you are going to wait and see, as you say, then I am afraid you will be in for a very long wait indeed. The perfect Government which you are waiting for is not queuing up, like a line of busses, just around the corner, and then going to suddenly all turn up at once.
The perfect Government hasn't ever been formed yet, and I doubt if it ever will.
So you must take your pick out of the three main parties and the many other smaller ones that exist. Women fought for the right to vote in this country, and there are many thousands of people in other countries who are still fighting for the right to get one, so please don't let anyone talk you into not voting.
Peter, I didn't say I would not vote, but that I would not vote for one of the main 3! I would wait and see what other options there are before making my mind up on who to vote for, though, depending on their policies.
Other people I have spoken to are saying they may not vote as they do not have faith or believe in any one of the major 3 parties. If that is the case, then I believe there is good reason to at least try and pursuade these people to look at other options, rather than just not voting.
If one of the minor parties do really well, even if they do not win representation in parliament, it might help to shake up those that have become so complacent!
It angers me too when people say 'there is nothing we can do' - that is why a small group of us in out town are doing our best to give our local town council as much grief as possible, mainly for not bothering to ask the people of the town what they want before they just go ahead and do it! We are unlikely to get anything stopped or to get much, if anything changed, but I look at it like the lottery, if you are not in the lottery, you have no chance at all of winning - likewise, if we do not stand up and say our piece and put across our views and those of the other town residents, then we have no chance at all of anything being changed or done to improve the way in which the town council wastes our money!
Well said, Lyn !
I, too, am getting increasingly fed up with the Do-Nothing Groaners of this world.
What does it take, for God's sake, to pen a letter of protest, or fire off a quick e-mail (preferably followed up by a phone call - when the respondent discourteously fails to reply) ?
Mind you - our job isn't made any easier with screaming headlines around such as:
'SMOKING YOBS THROW HEROINE ONTO LIVE RAIL'
- and various permutations thereof.
Martin asks
"What does it take, for God's sake, to pen a letter of protest, or fire off a quick e-mail (preferably followed up by a phone call - when the respondent discourteously fails to reply) ?"
It takes even less, Martin, to put your little "X" on a voting paper. Letters, emails and phone calls, can all be ignored, our Xs can't!
I don't quite understand your comments about the yobs who threw the woman on the line? Of course the papers are going to pick up on that one, just the same as they would, had the woman asked them to remove their feet from the seat in front of them, and the yobs had done the same.
A yob is a yob, is a yob, no mater if he or she smokes, chews gum or mugs people. You can't expect the papers to keep quiet about it.
Martin and Peter - thanks.
I will say though that our little group do a bit more then just write letters (although we do, to the local papers, quite regularly), and send emails.
We attend council meetings where we need to submit questions in advance, so they can do the usual and wriggle out of giving any kind of satisfactory response - councillors don't answer questions off the cuff! We then get the response in writing as well as it being read out. We are not permitted to then discuss the answer, although sometimes we have been allowed to - depends on who is chairing and whether or not he is a friend of one of our members!
We have organised a protest march through the town and also have our own website.
All in all, for 3 people who all suffer from depression, anxiety, stress and panic attacks, we are not doing too badly.
Currently, I am still chasing the council for information they promised on a consultation process they said had been gone through, when we saw no information on it. That was back in March we questioned this and they still have not managed to provide the proof they say they have to show the consultation did happen!
I have come to the conclusion that none of these, or certainly, precious few, can be trusted and are in office for their own ends and prestige and how much they can line their back pockets with. Central government, to my mind, are no better.
As I have said many times before, and will no doubt say again, it is about time that government, local and national, remembered that they are our SERVANTS - NOT our Masters! They are where they are in order to protect and further the interests of their constituents, not their own agenda.
Peter -
The point I was trying to make about the Recent Unfortunate Incident is that it's just the sort of thing that the Antis seize upon, as part of their crusade to 'de-normalise' smoking'. A kind of guilt-by-association, if you will, which helps to reinforce the image of the Typical Smoker as a thuggish young sociopath from the Lower Orders with little concern for anyone else, and an utter contempt for the Law Of The Land.
You think I exaggerate (well, it has been known) ?
Consider the opening paragraph (complete with sub-text) from the report in the 'Daily Mail':
"All she did was what ANY GOOD CITIZEN might do - ask two young men on a railway platform to stop smoking."
Er, excuse me ?
Mugging a pensioner, bullying a schoolgirl, shooting up heroin, spraying graffiti, soiling the platform with litter ? No, they were doing something that would have passed without remark just over a year ago: having a fag on a platform.
Well - we must put a stop to THAT !!
So now, it seems, it's the positive duty of The Good Citizen not merely to uphold the Law in its broader sense, but also to police even minor - and totally harmless - infractions of it.
Perhaps I should phone the police (anonymously) every time I see some colleague pocket a piece of paper from work (aka the 'shopping list') - contrary to Section 2 of the Theft Act 1968, (as amended) ?
A more sensible reaction, I'd have thought would have been something along the lines of:
"Look at those young men smoking. I don't know. I mean - technically - it's against the law, isn't ? Still - they're not doing any harm.......etc etc"
That's the way we USED to do things in England.
It's the subtle change in attitude among certain members of the public that I find rather disturbing, frankly.
Well, I consider myself a Good Citizen, as well as someone with a certain respect for the Law, but if I take upon myself to prod every minor miscreant in the chest with a Hodges-like 'You can't do that here - it's AGAINST THE LAW !!, I must not be surprised if - just occasionally - something a little more challenging than a Philosophical Discussion ensues.
Doubtless, the lady in question - if the average response on the 'Mail Online' is anything to go by - will soon be nominated for the George Cross (for valorous conduct in defence of the Smoke-Free Eden that we all so earnestly crave).
I detest yobs as much as anyone - and I hope they are suitably punished for their outrageous behaviour.
But I also detest the irresistible rise of the Sanctimonious Busybody.
In my view, both yobbishness AND busybodying are manifestations of something we used famously to despise in this country: BAD MANNERS. The problem today, is that the latter is now sanctioned by the State.
And, at this stage in our Nation's history, I think I know which I fear more...........
And now I'm waiting for a young SMOKER to be thrown off the platform by an outraged member of the Respectable Classes - and we'll see how the Media handles THAT one. One suspects, somehow, that the 'tone' would be somewhat different...................
That - Peter - was the point I was trying to make.
As to the 'little X' - well, I would love to have SOMEBODY to give it to. And I'm still looking, believe me.................
And, Lyn -
Sorry, nearly forgot to say 'Bravo' to you !
I support your sentiments (and your activities) with all my heart: THAT'S what I call 'being a Good Citizen'...................
Thank you Martin
And well said in your last post about the 'smoking yobs' - I totally agree with you.
Lyn -
And thank YOU !
Would it be breaching the Rules of Blogging Etiquette to ask for the URL of your website ?
When I become Protector of the Realm, I shall invite you and your group to a Liberation Banquet at my country retreat (somewhere in Hampshire).
Keep it up !
Martin,
Well said - my thoughts, too.
Simon, I always think it is wonderful when a person writes some thoughtful little piece, and many years later, it is discovered, and consequently put on public view, stimulating a response. It also has that little sentiment that your grandfather would never have dreamt that young master Simon would have access to this world wide forum.
Simon, just one little piece of humour which I hope makes you smile as much as it did me. When I first read the sentence "When he married my grandmother in 1928 they spent their honeymoon on a ship bound for India where they lived for eight years." I thought, that's a long time to live on a ship!
Hi Martin
The website address is: http://www.communigate.co.uk/worcs/pag/ - unfortunately the main host has posted this message just now : WEBSITE NOT AVAILABLE
Thank you for visiting. Regrettably, this website has had to be suspended for essential maintenance. Please try again later.
Hope it is back soon. Have to admit though, I have been on to the member of our group who maintains our website as it does need some tidying up at the moment and updating, but I hope you find what is there of interest. Please also feel free to sign our visitors book.
Thanks for your interest.
Michael Peoples
How can pubs and clubs have a 'level playing field', when some have gardens (large, medium and small) and some don't. Some allow their members and customers to drink outside and some do not, due to street drinking bans.
It is mainly the pubs and clubs with no gardens and no drinking outside that are closing down.
Where is the 'level playing field'?
Martin V
The headline you show:
'SMOKING YOBS THROW HEROINE ONTO LIVE RAIL'. I have also seen 'men push woman onto railway'.
I first heard that a woman was pushed and she fell onto the track. She could have lost her balance.
Isn't it amazing how stories get exaggerated?
I do not condone the men pushing the woman. If I was the one of those men, I would have told her to get stuffed, which is probably what they did on the first occasion.
Aren't we told, time and time again, not to tackle dangerous criminals, but to alert the police?
And of course Chas, thanks to this government, the most dangerous criminals around nowadays are those who drive cars and those who smoke! We are far more dangerous than people weilding knives and guns, for example, that is why so many are being released early from prison, to make room for the likes of us who are by far the most dangerous!
Sorry for being so sarcastic, but it does seem that way these days!
"Aren't we told, time and time again, not to tackle dangerous criminals, but to alert the police?" (Chas)
Not if you live in the patch of Northumbria Police! Their Chief Constable recently went on television to exhort the public to 'have a go', we're all responsible for crime in our midst etc, etc.
My theory is that lack of funding, coupled with government targets and paperwork, have driven him to suggest the public as untrained and unpaid law enforcers (why not, publicans are expected to?). I jest - but only just.
Im not responable for all the crime that hapens in my earea Linda. Mind you I dont get to know my local poliecnamn like you do all I can do is phone 999 and hope they come out if I knew chas like you do id call him out strait away. Is he nice?
We had an untraned pit bull terror living near me but I woulernt like to meet that in a pub or a dark ally I can tell you.
Shirley Duffy
Lyn -
Thanks for that: I've saved it for 'later'..............
Lyn
Further to your earlier post about voting for UKIP or the BNP. I quite understand what you mean as the three main parties all do seem brainwashed with anti smoking propaganda but just imagine for one moment that we had a result of a hung parliament with no overall majority but the BNP or UKIP won more seats than any other party, all of the others would band together to form a majority and shout the BNP or UKIP down so nothing really would change. The only way would be for one of those two parties to win a landslide victory which I very much doubt the BNP would because the media would play the race card with their whole campaign. Incidentally I tried to look at the BNP's manifesto but could find no reference to their stance on the smoking ban. Presumably all parties have their anti smoking zealots! UKIP would be given the same treatment by the media but they would use Europhobia for them.
Lyn, I am trying to access your website, is it going to be up and running again soon?
Timbone - just checked this morning and it is accessible.
Sylvia - I see your point and am not as well up on politics as I could be and a lot of what goes on with regards to how governments are formed and so on, I find quite mystical (I'm sure they change the rules as they go, so suit themselves). However, I cannot justify giving my vote to any one of the 3 main parties as they have all openly lied and cheated to us, the people they should be representing - that is what they are paid by us to do.
At the end of the day, somehow, I believe, we need to get the press on the side of the people, not the politicians and for the press to back the people rather than the politicians. How to do this is another matter entirely.