Skip to main content

Gordon Brown and Paddington Bear

Paddington, who has turned "50" this week, lived with "The Browns". His childish, sweet, and decent manner fitted in perfectly with this 1950s family (and their awkward bicycle clips). Meanwhile, another Mister Brown, Gordon, turns "1" this year - well, anyway, as Prime Minister.

The jury is still out. Polls are in - he's the least popular of his ilk since John Major, or, some say, ever. Did he get into a spot of bother over some buns and marmalade? More like Northern Rock, a bottled election, and other dithering. The most unlikely supporter, recalling Marilyn Monroe (like Paddington, but less content), has stepped forward, to "sing for" Gordon Brown: none other than significant British poet-critic-publisher, Michael Schmidt.

Eyewear has long felt that Brown has failed to deliver the principled, and left-leaning, direction his originally-exciting ascension promised, last June - however, the Professor of Poetry makes a good case for giving the good man more time. And, surely, anyone Mr. Mugabe wants to excorcise from Number Ten should be allowed to stay a little longer. Brown is not yet a "tragic failure of leadership". David Cameron, that slick salesman, might be.

Comments

i alos think he is being scapegoated by the collective english *Public* consciousness the Me-dia me me me mindset running ragged throughout the bored unpleasant Minds of the ppl who deliver us their fare of opinion.

i think his heart is in the right spot, and far more representative than DC, of a normal British person.

I think this coz of the way he just does his job and doesn't use his family as part of the plank to Power as Dave (dave? hey, it's the new Tones everybody) who is really just a poster leader, chosen for his face and good breeding, who sounds spiff but if he got in, how soon before the common ppl wake up to sir Dave conning the 99% average british person who are not born better titled than noble brave Dave facing the cameras and looking, well, a blank tabla rosa on which We, the (non-royal) british ppl project our desire to be lead by a chap from the old school E fella who was reared pukka, and i think this is where Browns problem lies.

That no matter how high in office a british person goes, there is always the (silent) forces of class and prejudice at work. The sense one needs be a Sir to get on, surely, otherwise, why bother with the massive expense and effort of publically bestowing cash and gifts (honours) which really Swift, i beleive, can only be bestowed by the Mind. Enoblement and elevation into Lord and Lady this or that, as the reward for towing the silent regal force, which ppl like Dave radiate from their person, coz they are in at the top anyway and see it for what it is, summat to control the mass of ppl who think these titles are anything but a con, if the recipient is looking to elevate their own sense of self worth and respect.

Look at Prezza, and the blind home secretary, in fact all the ppl in labour's ranks who are from traditional socialist backgrounds, and what do we see?

a lack of self worth, i detect, and after 11 yrs in power, the core socialist values, the root and branch promises to scale down the Lord bollix, totally unacted.

Indeed we see that Blair was the only one who could get labour elected, and he was a public schoolboy socialist, in it for a career and if it wasn't that his mother was from Donegal, i suspect there may still be conflict in that region his heraculian efforts helped stabilise.

How will Dave be on the fellow equal citizens in that part of his manor, if things flare up again?

the same old tory rhetoric that the local cheps are terries getting to bleddy uppity with the Dave;s yah yah, i will make the world work for we the British (english) ppl?

Who knows, but i think Brown, whilst having the right heart, cannot use the technology of his intellect - writing - to frame his Vision as well as he could.

Before he moved next door, he made a speech about it, his vision, based on what he called the tradition of exporting british democracy, basically the Tory toff delsion. Instead of going for the more realistic tenor of admitting all in the british past, wasn't free speech, fair play and only an interest in making the world a safe place so all us shoppers can love in peace; he sounded disconnected and the talk was that this is coz, being a scottish mp, he is on dicey ground if Alban breaks from the Union, which is the only kingdom that can legally dissolve its relationship with England.

So instead of taking the chance to do an Obama, and wring hope for all british ppl, he played it safe as safe, by sending out a message that he is not a separatist kinda scot bloke. In fact doing what tony did, in reverse.

I mean, everyone knows about a deal between them, sealed over lunch B4 they came to power: that T would eff out and let gords have his share, and then totally renaged on it, and now, B looks like he feels cheated.

But the two ppl who did the deal, never publically acknowledge it, like GWB ignoring the 100,000 dead Mesopotamian citizens, preffering instead to concentrate on the handful -- in comparison -- of brave dead professional soldiers, specifically trained to kill and know they may be in return, who went to sort out the locals on what turned out to be nothing more than a desire of the handful, what a hundred? ppl who finacially benefit from war as commerical opportunity.


And now the british ppl, feeling cheated by Tone the totally plastic marxist millionaire, want to give a kicking to gordon, and all the hacks in christendom who thought tony and george a bit suss from the off, laughably misplacing their hatred of being conned, onto GB, as the truth is you know TS, the *we* the british ppl, always for the toff talking bollix in a lovely mobulated RP accent which is pure class, sorry classless voice, unfortunately few English ppl can master it, as the fact is, they are conned fron morn till night by the silent very heavy force, that implants in ppls heads, Sir dave's words are all one needs to bask in the fiction of being brave, brave warring nation going around the world to sort out the bullies, thousands of miles away, often in places of great commercial opportunity, indicating, it's a con..

Brown would be better coming clean and not caring what others think of his status, as the fact is, we are all unique single citizens and just coz Liam or slotter bro get next on pretending they are *we*..

until the Title bestowed by others born with more access to feeling good about themself than the acerage working person of no class but human. what, is Liam and slotter, chuck, better? bah..

gar agus peace

Popular posts from this blog

CLIVE WILMER'S THOM GUNN SELECTED POEMS IS A MUST-READ

THAT HANDSOME MAN  A PERSONAL BRIEF REVIEW BY TODD SWIFT I could lie and claim Larkin, Yeats , or Dylan Thomas most excited me as a young poet, or even Pound or FT Prince - but the truth be told, it was Thom Gunn I first and most loved when I was young. Precisely, I fell in love with his first two collections, written under a formalist, Elizabethan ( Fulke Greville mainly), Yvor Winters triad of influences - uniquely fused with an interest in homerotica, pop culture ( Brando, Elvis , motorcycles). His best poem 'On The Move' is oddly presented here without the quote that began it usually - Man, you gotta go - which I loved. Gunn was - and remains - so thrilling, to me at least, because so odd. His elegance, poise, and intelligence is all about display, about surface - but the surface of a panther, who ripples with strength beneath the skin. With Gunn, you dressed to have sex. Or so I thought.  Because I was queer (I maintain the right to lay claim to that

IQ AND THE POETS - ARE YOU SMART?

When you open your mouth to speak, are you smart?  A funny question from a great song, but also, a good one, when it comes to poets, and poetry. We tend to have a very ambiguous view of intelligence in poetry, one that I'd say is dysfunctional.  Basically, it goes like this: once you are safely dead, it no longer matters how smart you were.  For instance, Auden was smarter than Yeats , but most would still say Yeats is the finer poet; Eliot is clearly highly intelligent, but how much of Larkin 's work required a high IQ?  Meanwhile, poets while alive tend to be celebrated if they are deemed intelligent: Anne Carson, Geoffrey Hill , and Jorie Graham , are all, clearly, very intelligent people, aside from their work as poets.  But who reads Marianne Moore now, or Robert Lowell , smart poets? Or, Pound ?  How smart could Pound be with his madcap views? Less intelligent poets are often more popular.  John Betjeman was not a very smart poet, per se.  What do I mean by smart?

"I have crossed oceans of time to find you..."

In terms of great films about, and of, love, we have Vertigo, In The Mood for Love , and Casablanca , Doctor Zhivago , An Officer and a Gentleman , at the apex; as well as odder, more troubling versions, such as Sophie's Choice and  Silence of the Lambs .  I think my favourite remains Bram Stoker's Dracula , with the great immortal line "I have crossed oceans of time to find you...".