BERNARD CRICK WHEN YOUNG.
The news of his death in December, 2008, brought back memories of him at UCL in the early 1950's, when we crossed swords in a students' union debate. He was, of course, strongly socialist, dogmatic and voluble, but what stands out most in my memory was his intellectual drive. He wrote an article in a Labour Newsletter for students, which was unusually reflective; clearly the subject-matter worried him. It was written in 1951/1952, just after the Conservatives' victory in the General Election, when he wondered about the nature of the Tory Party and their supporters. He used an inexact analogy of the British body politic as a lame man. From his viewpoint, the left leg was fit and robust, but the other leg was seriously impaired. At best he assessed the Conservatives (the right limb) as lacking any clear principles and policies, and as willing to change and adapt to measures and conduct which they had formerly opposed. They seemed opportunistic, and they were certainly inconsistent and unpredictable, yet large numbers of electors habitually voted for them. Why?
While reading his article it became clear to me that many parts of his diagnosis contained some truth, but that he had fundamentally failed to recognize the reality, that Conservatism was not - and still is not - a political party in the same sense as Labour, with a coherent set of principles, doctirnes and programmes, capable of being translated into policies and, eventually, legislation. He had not understood the nature and makeup of his opponents.Ironically W.S.Gilbert's character in Iolanthe, Private Willis, explains it best:-
" Every little boy and every little gal that's born into this world alive
is either a little Liberal or a little Conservative."
Toryism was then, and still is now, fifty plus years later, a state of mind. In discussions in the students' union at college a number of socialists used to argue with me, as one of the few Conservatives who would speak up, wondering why on earth the Conservatives were becoming so popular and consistently winning elections. My reply, referring to states of mind and temperament, they found very hard to understand.
I lost touch with Bernard Crick after our time at UCL, and only resumed contact many years later, when he was knighted, when I sent him a letter of congratulations and received a friendly reply. To many people he must have been an acquired taste, but he was a sincere democrat and a profound academic thinker. His support as an Englishman for Scots autonomy was generous, fairminded and welcome. In the obituary in the Times on 22 / 12 / 2008 he is described as a pluralist and a democrat. Strangely enough, I would accept that description for myself. He was certainly a character with a strong personality - and a deeply sincere student of modern politics. His memory commands respect.
Michael B. Buck.
While reading his article it became clear to me that many parts of his diagnosis contained some truth, but that he had fundamentally failed to recognize the reality, that Conservatism was not - and still is not - a political party in the same sense as Labour, with a coherent set of principles, doctirnes and programmes, capable of being translated into policies and, eventually, legislation. He had not understood the nature and makeup of his opponents.Ironically W.S.Gilbert's character in Iolanthe, Private Willis, explains it best:-
" Every little boy and every little gal that's born into this world alive
is either a little Liberal or a little Conservative."
Toryism was then, and still is now, fifty plus years later, a state of mind. In discussions in the students' union at college a number of socialists used to argue with me, as one of the few Conservatives who would speak up, wondering why on earth the Conservatives were becoming so popular and consistently winning elections. My reply, referring to states of mind and temperament, they found very hard to understand.
I lost touch with Bernard Crick after our time at UCL, and only resumed contact many years later, when he was knighted, when I sent him a letter of congratulations and received a friendly reply. To many people he must have been an acquired taste, but he was a sincere democrat and a profound academic thinker. His support as an Englishman for Scots autonomy was generous, fairminded and welcome. In the obituary in the Times on 22 / 12 / 2008 he is described as a pluralist and a democrat. Strangely enough, I would accept that description for myself. He was certainly a character with a strong personality - and a deeply sincere student of modern politics. His memory commands respect.
Michael B. Buck.
posted by Michael Buck at 1:47 PM
0 comments
