Skip to main content

WHY IS BRITAIN?

The recent General Election in Great Britain and Northern Ireland has revealed that a large number (tens of millions) of voters, and the winning party (The Tories) have an answer to the questions What is Britain For? and Why is Britain? - and they are depressing answers.

The economy, and nationalism.

It seems the narrow priorities celebrated by our political parties, given as the narrative purpose for the existence of Britain, is that it is better that it survive and defend its borders and its economic growth, than that it not survive.

The losing parties are much the same, with the slightly more profound idea that the economic well-being generated by growth and commerce be shared a bit more equitably.

But, at the end of the day, there is no vision to lift us beyond a perpetual cycle of birth, treatable illness, merciful death, and, in between, work, or unemployment, profit or loss, then pensions or penniless retirement.

The reason I am a Catholic, and a poet, is that I find this vision of existence - secular, materialist, and capitalist- mainly driven by those in engineering, science, politics and finance - to be depressingly limited and technological. What is Britain for?

Where is a driving aesthetic, or moral, or ethical, or even philosophical, description of the purpose of a nation, or gathering of nations? What is the historical endgame? Where do we aim for, what is the goal?

America has such a story, because its narrative of hope and achievement is underpinned by a society less secular, and less scientific - Americans are bigger dreamers, bigger believers - but the stories British politics tells us, and we accept, are mean, petty, shallow and self-interested.

Britain once sought an empire; that may have been wrong morally, but at least it was an impressive goal with reach. Since Suez, it has merely sought to punch above its weight. Now it merely seeks to stave off ruination, and slow decline.

The Tories will cuts Arts funding; and the British, especially the English, will continue to stave off emptiness with a diet of celebrity gossip, box sets, music festivals, drink, drugs, sex, and books by comedians and footballers. It is a dismal future, only marginally improved by choirs, some plays, and a handful of new poems and novels each year worth reading and recalling - and a few great songs. What makes British life worth living should not be just procreation and assisted suicide, not just atheism, bake-offs, a bit of shits and giggles, and so-called aspiration - Champagne for breakfast, a fake tan and a villa in France.

What is Britain for?

For power, for greatness, for profit, for self-defence, for business?

I wonder when it might become about justice, saving the environment, creating more and various art forms, and richer, more nuanced and complex life experiences? Maybe even, just a little, about trying to impress God.

Comments

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...".