1 comments about Gordon Brown.

1. It is nothing unusual for a modern British prime minister to be surrounded by jealous and manipulative rivals who are after his (or in the most striking instance her) job. The post is not, strictly speaking, a directly elected one like president of the United States or president of France. Following a general election, or occasionally the departure of the incumbent from office, the monarch summons the leader of the party with a majority in the Commons, or failing that the leader of another party that looks possibly able to form a government, and asks him or her to do so. Established practice in the matter is clear and always adhered to, but in the last resort it is a matter of convention not of statute.
   
   So the trick is to become leader of the right party. Throughout the 20th century the dominant party was the Conservative party, which has a record of deposing its leaders worthy of imperial Rome. Since 1997 there now seems to be at least a serious possibility that it has lost its hegemony, and Labour has not had enough time in office through the mere 100 years of its existence for generalisations in this respect to be made with any confidence. The old Labour party was factious and fractious but never in the end did the deed. With Blair's electorally-dominant 'New' Labour I think we are waiting to see what happens this time. Blair effectively stole a march on Gordon Brown for the leadership, but there was apparently some sort of deal, or understanding at least, between them that he would, or might, or could possibly, hand over the premiership to Brown. What this deal amounted to depends on who you listen to. What is perfectly clear is that the current governance of Britain is characterised by intense partisan infighting between the two and their respective votaries. I'm quite sure it all loses nothing in the telling by the all-pervasive political commentators, but I'm just as sure that they are not inventing it. At a recent meeting of the parliamentary Labour party the mildest and most docile members lost patience and told the pair of them with scant respect or civility to stop the whole nonsense.
   
   For this the upstarts deserve our thanks in more ways than one. In particular even those who routinely follow politics with some interest are suffering a severe overload of obsessional garrulity from the pundits, and I would personally attribute declining popular interest in political issues not least to that. This particular book is still warm off the presses and you can obtain it at remaindered prices already. I gather there are others on the same topic, and some are allegedly 'better', but for anyone whose tolerance stretches to one only this one will do not badly at the right price. The book sketches in Brown's background and makes a half-hearted attempt at explaining some facets of his personality on this basis. I imagine any reader's guess in that respect is as good as the author's. Here is a man with a compulsion to dominate but severely lacking in self-confidence, a man who wants the most public office in the land but who is secretive in a most peculiar way - attempts at finding anything embarrassing in sexual respects have come up with nothing and I would guess that the secretiveness is more a matter of hiding possible failures than anything of that sort. Where the book reads convincingly is in presenting a coherent picture of its subject. Whether the coherency has been purchased at some cost in over-simplification I couldn't say, but I should think almost certainly. The style is literate and easy to read despite some signs of haste, and the writer is clearly well informed. I would not expect him to give clues as to his sources in many cases, but he could have raised this book to another level entirely if he had marshalled his arguments more systematically. The book is replete with accounts of meetings that Mr Bower was not present at, and it regularly attributes thoughts, reactions and motivations to Brown that even his inmost coterie would have had to conjecture. What I would have liked Mr Bower to do would have been to show the basis and development of his own reasoning, how he weighs up this or that statement or piece of behaviour, and what differing degrees of confidence he has in coming to various conclusions. Presenting it all as fact detracts from the interest of the book as an analysis. Also the general picture begins to seem odd after a while. Throughout the book Blair is depicted almost entirely as giving way to Brown, and I would need some convincing of that. Another aspect that is partly welcome and partly unsatisfactory is the detail given of Brown's economic management. If there were quite as many gross errors as there seem to have been then he has been extremely lucky - by comparative standards, which are all we've got, this government has contrived to seem more competent than most in that respect.
   
   The picture I ended with is of a man I wouldn't want as prime minister in his current frame of mind, seething with frustrations, harbouring obsessive grudges and full of unresolved contradictions. Whether achieving his final goal would exorcise some of these phantoms I can't tell. My guess before the recent general election would have been that Blair had decided to block him if he could, as 50 years ago Attlee made sure he blocked Morrison. My guess now is that Blair no longer can.

1 comments about Hannah Regina.

1. I picked this book up in London on a lark as I hadn't seen it at home and was pretty surprised that I hadn't heard anything about it before. Basically the author says that George III was married, possible with children, before he publically married his German princess, Queen Charlotte. If that were true than not only would the remainder of the House of Hanover been unfit to sit upon the throne, including Queen Victoria of course, but so would the House of Windsor. By that assertion alone one would assume it would cause a few waves, but no.
   The data is certainly interesting and thought-provoking, although it's so one-sided it's hard to take the claim completely seriously. The writer doesn't offer the other side of his claim, such as that George III, when Prince of Wales, never married Hannah, a quaker girl.
   On top of that complaint I add that the writing and sequence of the book is very all over the place and sometimes hard to follow. I wish the writer had given a history and then delved into his arguments instead of going off on larks and jumping around.
   Either way, it's an interesting read and makes one want to do a little more research on the subject.

1 comments about The Harold Nicolson Diaries 1907-1963.

1. A very rewarding book containing some letters and many diary entries of a well-positioned and thoughtful English political and literary figure of the first half of the last century.
   
   A good purchase for those desiring background information on an important stretch of years in England and Europe; it encompasses first hand takes on the likes of Winston Churchill and events such as the Paris Peace Conference. Those with a special interest in the poet and wife of Mr. Nicolson, Vita Sackville-West, will also enjoy reading this book.
   
   Nicely edited by the diarist's son.

No comments about Biographical Register of the English Cathedral Priories of the Province of Canterbury c.1066-1540.

1 comments about Jane - a Pin-Up at War.

1. This book is about Christabel Leighton-Porter, the model for 'Jane' the pin up who helped many an Englishman make his way through the war. This wonderful little read is complete with many pin up drawings, cartoons, news clippings, and best of all many exposing nudes of the model Christabel. A very sexy read that bares all for the reader. (...)

No comments about My Years With Gorbachev and Shevardnadze: The Memoir of a Soviet Interpreter.

No comments about St. Patrick and Irish Christianity (A Cambridge Topic Book).

No comments about ROTTEN: NO IRISH - NO BLACKS - NO DOGS. THE AUTHORIZED BIOGRAPHY: JOHNNY ROTTEN OF THE SEX PISTOLS..

5 comments about Van Morrison: No Surrender.

1. I'm in the US, and have not kept up with the various Van scandals that seem to have made the news in the last 15 years. Johnny Rogan certainly has, and seems to like to repeat media gossip. He also has much to say about Northern Ireland during the period when Van was far away and ignoring the politics as far as I can tell. Rogan really wants to connect Van and Ian Paisly, mostly because they lived in more or less the same area in the 60s. I don't really see the point in this, and can't follow Rogan's reasoning.
   Rogan has made effort to reveal more of the 60s and 70s music business scene that is typically seen in music bios, and I appreciate that. However, he does not discuss the music, its influences and techniques as I would like, and Rogan and I seem to have very different musical tastes. I bought this book because I read a lot of Van biographies, but I recommend this only for the fanatic, or someone willing to spend money on a book you will throw down in annoyance many times.



2. This is by no means a profound biography, and its focus is clearly the man, not the music. I found it very entertaining, though, taken with a grain of salt, and can't imagine that the detail about the pop music business and Ireland in the 60s and 70s wouldn't be of interest to a fan. The book goes into great detail about Van's boorish, antisocial behaviour and his hilarious tendency to think he's the next W.B. Yeats. If you
   see Van as a hero, this is going to hurt your feelings. If you can take this is stride I don't see why it should spoil your admiration for his music. Lots of interesting detail about a flawed, but fascinating musician.



3. Ok, this is definitely a bias opinion from a Van fan. I love Van's music and tried to find a good biography. Since this was a recently new book that came out and it had 400+ pages of details I just assumed that I would be equally interested as any fan would. Rogan's vocabulary is quite nicely written for anyone who can appreciate literature however I found it to be a difficult read. And I do read a good amount of books. Unfortunately the book has way more detail about what was going on at the time than Van himself. It seems like Rogan likes to set the scene but ends up going on tangents that feel like you wasted your time and hard earned money. Unfortunately I didn't get past the first few chapters as the details got too unbearably dull for me.



4. A lot of research but the ultimate goal seems to be character assassination, and a totally spurious association with Ian Paisley ( I suppose that helps book sales to the prurient public). Van has been exemplary in avoiding getting embroiled in the Troubles and this seems to be a belated effort to drag him into the mire.
   
   The author's judgement of Van's output seems equally flawed - Warm Love is dismissed whereas some of the more turgid later stuff is praised. There is also far too much repetition.
   
   Who is Johnny Rogan?



5. The book is very well researched as the author seems to have interviewed everyone who ever even nodded at Van Morrison as they walked down a Belfast street. What's nice is that all those he interviewed have something in common--they all hate Van! Everybody in the book hates Van in fact. I'm pretty sure even Van hates Van. And there is a very good reason for all this hatred--Van the Man is a despicable human being. I read the book, and it's not a short one, and the man hasn't got a redeeming quality. He hates everybody and everything, but he especially hates the thing that has made him millions and millions of dollars, and that is of course, the record business.
   
   I was confused by the title when I ordered the book and I have to say it gets a little annoying because the author keeps trying to bring the whole protestant connection in. It appears 'No Surrender', is a protestant rally cry and the author keeps banging his head against a wall painting Van as an angry protestant when it's quite clear that Morrison has absolutely no allegiance to religion, or anything else that isn't Van Morrison.
   
   Normally this would be a two star affair, but I'll chuck the author an extra star just for the pain-staking research and for having to listen to so many people trash the subject of his book.
   
   Van, have I told you lately that I hate you, and so does everybody else.

No comments about The 'Magnificent Castle' of Culzean and the Kennedy Family.