Профиль

Just to note - I think critical blindness depends on generations. I came to Larkin (at school) a few years after the Motion biography. So at that point it was an obvious question how his revealed views should impact our understanding of the poems - this was something we were invited to think about.

So I think that there is this Little Englander of the right clearly there in some of the poems, but it is usually held at enough critical distance.

Doubtless Larkin doesn't want to be dismissed so easily by posterity. But it isn't so simple as him thinking it might happen, resenting that, and lashing out at the imagined lack of sympathy. He's able to see that as just an "old-type natural fouled-up guy" he might in part have it coming.

Ah, I don't know about it being openly antisemitic. Certainly Larkin imagines himself a biographer who is his temperamental opposite - but it isn't clear that this unalikeness even translates to dislike of Balakowsky.

There are doubtless extreme cases where the poet's politics is disqualifying. Some people won't want to waste their time with Pount because he was a fascist (and the fascism does protrude uncritically into the poetry). Larkin is not in the same category.

And most of all, what people love about Larkin is his direct humanism: the way that he is able to distil emotion into lyricism. If you read a poem like "An Arundel Tomb" and are concerned about the poet's political affiliation, something has gone wrong.

Larkin *knows* that he is an old fogey. He isn't stupid enough to want to write poetry that simply reflects that worldview or indoctrinates others in it. Sometimes he wants to explore his own attitudes, but he does so thoughtfully.

In a poem like "Annus Mirabilis", which is by no means as great as it is catchy, there is a careful balance between the Little Englander (of the right!) who is cynical about the sexual revolution, and the thought that it really does represent freedom.

I found this interesting, but a bit unsubtle on Larkin's politics and his cultural significance. Like Burnham, I really like Larkin's poetry (A-level English Literature ftw), though doubtless I would have little time for Larkin the person.

✍️ The Most Important Trainer You've Never Heard Of... The story of how an obscure sneaker that didn't even carry the logo of the company that made it, helped to change the world - in ways we're still reckoning with even today... An essay👇 edconway.substack.com/p/the-most-i...

I suspect that rather than trying to argue against this directly, it is more effective to simply say: changing things so that more people die than did previously, without any equally weighty justification, is wrong regardless of whether it counts as killing.

There could also be a lot in common between the two options. Even a voluntary scheme could be regulated so that the cover met standards decided on by the state. I am not decided on what is best here - I would appreciate more guidance from experts!

But a compulsory scheme is also advantageous. It would make it easier to integrate with public provision of services, and maybe be more efficient in other ways too. And it would avoid the problem of people failing to insure even when that would be in their interest.

The question for me is whether the insurance scheme should be compulsory or voluntary. A voluntary scheme has advantages. It allows for the possibility that not buying insurance is rational for some, and that people could choose different levels of insurance.

The benefit of an insurance scheme is that it allows risk sharing. It makes sense for the people who have assets (so that social care would not be free to them) to insure against the situation where their care costs are so large that they would totally deplete their assets.

First, why insurance (rather than a free NHS model)? Basically the free NHS model would (compared to what we currently have) be more regressive in some ways (because social care is already free to the poor), and would require big tax rises.

This is an excellent article, and I think the way to advance things is to think seriously about how an insurance based system should work.

I see what you are getting at here, but if I recall correctly the daily passenger numbers for London Buses and London Underground are about the same. I'm sure the average tube journey is longer than the average bus journey; but still. Maybe you just mean that TfL doesn't operate the buses?

Larry laid his mouse in front of the press to be photographed. Lest you ask, this is a real photograph via the Press Association.

This is true. Indeed I'm happy to describe myself as a socialist and if someone asks what kind I might say social democrat or Fabian. But there is a specific kind of (Anglo) person who says: I am a democratic socialist and *not* a social democrat, and this is indeed a red flag (no pun intended).