It is an interesting truth, rarely commented on, that poets are allowed to have any political leanings they wish, so long as they are left-leaning. Witness the reaction to my concern, expressed briefly enough, that the election of Hollande would a) galvanise the extreme right in France, and b) unsettle the European markets: both mainstream views that have been reiterated in The Economist, the FT and on the BBC this last week. Indeed, opposition to a 75% tax rate for millionaires is enough to brand one, in the new lynch mob of Facebook, as an Il Duce-loving Pound figure.
Frankly this is absurd. Any reader of Eyewear over the years will know that my views skew to the centre-left. I did not vote for Boris Johnson, for instance. Nor do I support the darker anti-immigrant statements of Sarkozy (even his own party did not), which reminded me at times of David Blunkett. Indeed, I have been an outspoken critic of a French ban on the veil. Sadly, it seems that only being anti-banking, and anti-austerity measures is "politically correct" among many poets.
However, concern for the house of cards that is the Eurozone means I do not want to see Greece default, the Euro collapse, and agreement between Germany and France break down - which would lead to more extremist options prevailing, as has happened today in Greece; as I predicted yesterday. As for punitive tax regimes about 60%, they are symbolically effective but make little money, and simply send the message that France is not open for business - hardly a wise move in a recession.
Frankly this is absurd. Any reader of Eyewear over the years will know that my views skew to the centre-left. I did not vote for Boris Johnson, for instance. Nor do I support the darker anti-immigrant statements of Sarkozy (even his own party did not), which reminded me at times of David Blunkett. Indeed, I have been an outspoken critic of a French ban on the veil. Sadly, it seems that only being anti-banking, and anti-austerity measures is "politically correct" among many poets.
However, concern for the house of cards that is the Eurozone means I do not want to see Greece default, the Euro collapse, and agreement between Germany and France break down - which would lead to more extremist options prevailing, as has happened today in Greece; as I predicted yesterday. As for punitive tax regimes about 60%, they are symbolically effective but make little money, and simply send the message that France is not open for business - hardly a wise move in a recession.
Comments
By the way, Lung Jazz kicks ass.
All the best,
Simon @ G&P
Whatever your position, it is also empirically true that Sarkozy was wildly unpopular, profligate in his spending while imposing hardship on others, and in latter weeks was trying to win appeal to the far right. You say the far right will make a resurgence with Hollande in power but at least he isn't encouraging them.
Also, given the situation in Europe I think it has to be a good thing that there is now a leader who will question the status quo of austerity and at least open a dialogue about what will and won't work, and how and why. Austerity and the current misery have now gone on longer than the Depression, longer than WW1. It's about time for a leader who will question that and possibly start to propose alternative methods. There will be plenty of world-class economists to back him up.
If you then consider last week's votes in the UK, it is an interesting sign that the popular tide is beginning to turn. People are fed up, and for the same reasons in both countries. This too is empirical, regardless of your own views.
As for Facebook, I personally have poet, writer and artist friends who hold a variety of political opinions. Whatever you think about this or that, in the middle of immediate and general jubilation, you *have* to have known you were voicing a controversial opinion. And it was just an opinion, not strongly argued, not rhetorically underpinned. So why the surprise when people took issue?
A couple of points: Katy, you're absolutely right that alternative methods are necessary. The finance-engineered crash and subsequent recession has so far failed to be matched its Roosevelt - Obama for a while seemed to be heading in that direction, but was hampered by a combination of his own timidity and 'market' unease -and whilst I don't think Hollande is comparable in any way (FDR's something of a hero: aside from his politics, that man could really carry off a cigarette holder), it's good that alternative (moderate, centre-left) views are being brought to the table.
Todd: first I wanted to know what you meant by describing Mitterand as 'a bird-eating monster'? Was he a big fan of KFC? Is he part tarantula? We need clarity. In addition, your assertion that austerity 'is not a take it or leave it position' is all well and good, but surely you have to admit that there are other ways of going about things than the current neo-liberal status quo - like, for example, actually holding the banks to account for their reckless mismanagement, or investing properly in infrastrcuture and industry rather than shoring up 'the markets' with borrowed finance so that there might be a servicable economy to fall back on should there be another recession in the future? At the moment, the problem is that the 'answers' are all coming from the very people and organisations that created the mess; austerity, really, a Trojan horse, an ideologically-motivated attack on the post-war welfare state dressed up as emergency necessity. You don't have to reject austerity as a programme outright to notice that the people being hit again and again by its measures tend to be the less well-off. More importantly, from the point of view of the 'markets', is the fact that in many instances austerity in its unrestrained form has been proven to fail: the double-dip recession in this country is testament to that.
Simon @ G&P
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5223077
Cheers for that: I genuinely had no idea. The man was clearly a prong of the first degree.
Simon @ G&P
From the off, for as long as I've been following him, he got it in the neck for all sorts of reasons that, as far as I could see, boiled down to upsetting the egos of a London-centric po-biz crowd who used to talk at the poets on fire forum until that gaffe died due to an absence of chat. During the years 2007-9 it seemed all the young po-biz wannabes joined that debating chamber, only to keep silent, as though there was an unspoken rule that you had to be seen to join that group in order to be accepted by their peers. You may recall there were all kinds of made up rules and regulations handed down in diktats from the owner, all centered around the idea of showing 'respect', but which only served to make the timid newbies more frightened of saying the wrong thing and drawing the ire of its owner. An entire generation of young poets reared to be silent and now, the once healthy cut and thrust of British poetry criticism has atrophied to strategic likes and smileys the kids learned was the primary currency in the critical debate moderated by a one person poetry executive over at poets on fire.
It is ironic that many contemporary middle aged poets have this vicarious liberal persona online, lots of links to the worthy causes thousands of miles away, petitions to be signed, friends to accept, lots of politicking to be done in the name of some wishy washy lip-service utopia; whereas when it comes to tolerating an opinion that runs counter to their own, omg! it's like you murdered their pet cat.
Where's the innovative voices, the ones forged in the heat of critical difference and going their own way? Nowhere because the kids are soo scared of upsetting the egos huffing and puffing on fb.
I agree with Katy when she says that people honestly dissenting from your point of view does not equate to forming a lynch mob. Surely it is possible to fundamentally disagree with someone about something without being totally disagreeable!
Best wishes from Simon