The Observer Years: Orwell

(Observer Books, £8.99)

Students of the English language, and for that matter politics, will be well aware of George Orwell’s published books. Orwell was, after all, kind enough to leave us some essays which outlined his thoughts on the literary process, and sets for us some rules on good composition. 

A wise man once told me that Orwell’s ‘Politics and the English Language’ and ‘Why I Write’, should be part of all aspiring non-fiction writers’ essential collections and memorised to heart before their pen has ever been set to paper.

Those who have read Orwell’s books may be less familiar with his work as a journalist and as a prolific critic of literature. Writing for an eclectic range of titles, including: The Adelphi, The New Statesman, New Writing, Horizon, Tribune and Contemporary Jewish Record; Orwell’s collection of articles and essays should be regarded with the same reverence that his polemic books enjoy.

In the ‘Observer Years’, Orwell’s insightful contributions to the Sunday newspaper from 1942 to 49 have been comprehensively compiled. In 2 sections, divided between articles and reviews, this book is ideal to dip into for brief distraction - what I term as a bathroom book - but it should be noted that it is difficult to put down.

The first part of the book contains Orwell’s articles, which range from Indian independence, the threat of Communist Russia, to political profiles. The larger part of this section, however, is a series of war reports dispatched from Europe as the Allies made their bloody way to Germany following D-Day. It is these that particularly catch the eye, as Orwell observes with his unnerving sharpness of thought, the complex post-liberation muddle of French politics. With his unswerving attention for detail, he regards the ruinous state of occupied Germany and the difficulties ahead in reconstructing this obliterated nation.  He also looks ahead to the 1945 General Election and curiously for Orwell, a man known for his strong convictions, does not make any firm prediction for the outcome.

The second part of this book concerns itself with Orwell’s book reviews, and whilst not as informative as his war reporting, does illuminate a keen intellect and an analytical mind. His reviewing style does not become mired with the miniature of the books detail, but instead Orwell analyses the themes and contrasts them with other authors’ ideas.  In many cases he looks at two contemporary books which tackle the same issue, with either similar or opposing conclusions.  It is clear that Orwell must have been a fertile reader, and whether tackling poetry, politics or potholing, among much else, his background knowledge was remarkable.

It is easy to understand how Orwell gained his reputation as a free thinking and uninhibited critic, as he does not shy from rebuking renowned authors. He dismisses ‘Vessel of Wrath’ by H G Wells as a collection of overpriced scraps, which are littered with tired and discredited ideas. Many critics would have been more reticent when reviewing a book from a feted author like Wells, and Orwell’s closing paragraph which acknowledges the prior greatness of his works, serves to rather emphasize the lack of esteem with which he held this particular offering.

The main virtue of ‘The Observer Years’ is to remind the reader that George Orwell was first and foremost a journalist. It was his abilities in the art of reporting which shaped all of his works, including his fiction. He had the gift of being able to describe what he saw with clarity, interpret a confusing world for his readers and then project the implications into the future.  This book may not be for everyone, but it is well worth reading.

England 59 Italy 13

As a change of pace from recent posts, and to show that there is more to life than politics, here is a match report from the England Italy game on Saturday:

Memories of the World Cup winning team of 2003 may seem a distant memory to most England fans. To reach the long envied heights of your sport playing ‘total rugby’, only to plunge so far and so fast, was a difficult adjustment for the Twickenham faithful to bear.

The stilted progression of both players and coaching staff through this lean period has attracted much criticism, none more so than Martin Johnson’s elevation to the top job. His belief in bringing young players into the set-up has at last been vindicated and the emergence of Chris Ashton’s raw talent will lead to greater expectation for this team.

This was Ashton’s day. He was always in the right place and his eagerness to play positively seems to have galvanised a back line which has often shown promise but lacked imagination. His four tries, the first time since 1914 this has been achieved, takes his tally to 6 after just two games and his ninth in 9 games. Here is a man in form. Ashton said: “I thought the time was right to do it”, when questioned about the continuance of his controversial swallow dive and played down his individual performance. He said: “I’m just glad to be in the team. A winning team and I hope to go on winning”.

Mark Cueto broke his run of 19 tests without a score and Ashton expressed his happiness for him, joking: “he’s getting on and needs to get tries while he still can”.

Toby Flood looks to be a new man. Against the Italians he was the play maker and most of the inventive play was initiated by him. His kicking now looks as assured as Jonny Wilkinson’s did a decade ago.

The forwards, up against the powerful Italian pack, dominated from the start. They have at long last stopped the chronic indiscipline which has plagued their performances over recent years. With the procession of needless penalties which keep the opposition’s score flowing now stemmed, England can now concentrate on their attack.

59 points did not flatter England and it was only the Italian’s obstinate pride which stopped the score being even greater.

England:
15 Ben Foden; 14Chris Ashton; 13 Mike Tindall (capt);
12 Shontayne Hape; 11 Mark Cueto; 10 Toby Flood; 9 Ben Youngs;
1 Alex Corbisiero; 2 Dylan Hartley; 3 Dan Cole; 4 Lois Deacon; 5 Tom Parker;
6 Tom Wood; 7 James Haskell; 8 Nick Easter.

Replacements: Steve Thompson (49 for Hartley); David Wilson (62 for Cole);
Simon Shaw (45 for Deacon); Hendry Fourie (62 for Wood);
20 Danny Care (55 for Youngs); 21 Jonny Wilkinson (55 for Flood);
22 Matt Banahan (49 for Cueto).

Italy:

5 Luke McLean; 14 Andrea Masi; 13 Gonzalo Canale;
12 Alberto Sgarbi; 11 Mirco Bergamasco; 10 Luciano Orquera; 9 Fabio Semenzato;
1 Salvatore Perugini; 2 Leonardo Ghiraldini; 3 Martin Castrogiovanni;
4 Carlo Antonio Del Fava; 5 Quintin Geldenhuys; 6 Valerio Bernabo; 7 Alessandro Zanni;
8 Sergio Parisse (capt).

Replacments: 16 Fabio Ongaro (66 for Ghiraldini);
17 Andrea Lo Cicero (49 for Bernabo); 18 Santiago Dellape (46 for Del Fava);
19 Robert Barbieri (56 for Lo Cicero); 20 Pablo Canavosio (78 for Parisse);
21 KrisBurton (79 for McLean); 22 Gonzalo Garcia (62 for Sgarbi).

Referee: Craig Joubert (South Africa).

The emergence of Social Liberalism

For a recent essay I had to answer the question 'was the new Liberalism simply a response to the emergence of socialism?'  Here is a precis of some of the more interesting aspects:

Liberalism’s evolution during the latter half of the Nineteenth Century can be defined as what John Stuart Mill describes the ‘struggle between liberty and authority’. He argued that individuals should be free from the state, provided they do not harm another’s liberty; they should even be free from control if they cause harm to themselves.

Mill went on to warn against the consensus of majorities and assumed wisdom within society, which he believed leads to an assumption of infallibility in dominant ideas and a suppression of free thought. Mill suggests that this creates conformity which stifles progress, and therefore that individualism is desirable in society.

William Gladstone’s Liberalism was characterised by support for free trade, mistrust of imperialism and a desire that the ‘state withdraw where it had no business to meddle’. As the ‘franchise’ extended and clerical workers gained political influence, the Liberal Party became divided between the conflicting interests of property and supporters for various reforms.

The party’s politicians became more concerned with notions of rights and justice; the Radicals were particularly interested in social equality, ending Britain’s urban deprivation and extreme poverty. Gradually during this period British Liberalism evolved from being predominantly the champion of individual rights, to an ideology which was concerned for the rights of the many, leading to the first elements of welfare.

New Liberalism somewhat evolved from the progressive Liberals desire to reunite the Liberal Party with a socialistic and individual liberty agenda. However they rejected socialist theory in its ‘universal’ application as they were deeply sceptical of the Labour Party, which they believed to be uninterested in the rights of the individual.

The economist John Hobson’s work became influential with the Progressive Liberals as he argued for a new economic strategy which sought for the government to take a greater role managing both the public’s consumption, as well as encouraging the public to save. This would ultimately lead to a shift in ideology for the Liberal Party, away from a Laissez-fair to more interventionist policies.

Hobson went on to argue that he believed that there were ‘compatibilities’ between socialism and Liberalism, however he did not believe there were ‘interconnections’. He believed that the ideologies of Liberalism, which take personal freedoms as its aim and socialism, which to varying extents, seeks to ‘subordinate’ the individual towards a collective state effort are not as contradictory ideals as they may appear on first inspection. Hobson thought that a compromise which could unite these two ideologies of the individual and the state, could lead to a ‘rationalisation’ of capitalism and build a more ‘cooperative’ society in Britain.

Leonard Hobhouse’s vision of a Liberal rationalisation became known as ‘social liberalism’ and was designed as an answer to the philosophical issue of whether any connection between Liberalism and socialism existed in reality. Hobhouse argued for three principles of ‘rational reconstruction’. These consisted of an effective social system, the liberation of individuals, and a ‘philosophic socialism’ which sought a government which operated for the ‘common good’.

The Twentieth Century has paradoxically seen Liberalism decline across most of the world as a political force exclusive to Liberal Parties; whilst liberalism has become the dominant background theory which pervades political thought across the political parties and is now the accepted ideological framework for most modern societies.

It is to this curious contradiction that ‘new’ or ‘social’ Liberalism developed, being characterised by a strong moral and social ethos, concerned that society reflects the efforts of individuals and eliminates illegitimate advantage. There is a desire for fairness and welfare; but with a central theme of supporting the moral significance of the individual. There can be no liberty, if the individual does not have decent housing, is not given a good education, and is not protected from exploitation. This new Liberalism accepts the intervention of the state, to provide fair conditions so that every individual has the opportunity to enjoy and explore their liberty.

This therefore perhaps explains the peculiar situation in Britain, whereby political parties of the ‘left’ and ‘right’ appeal to the ‘centre’ in general election campaigns; as the public now feel so secure in their liberty that they believe that so long as these freedoms are not challenged, then a party which is defined by personal freedom is somewhat irrelevant.

It is inaccurate and simplistic to describe new Liberalism as simply a response to socialism. New Liberalism is influenced by similar aims and shares the principles of equality and social justice with socialism; however its abhorrence of authoritarianism and class conflict combined with a strong belief in liberty with individual personal freedom, creates a coherent and independent political ideology which is in itself distinct from socialism.