Lord Paul McCartney?
Steven Dreyer
I was fascinated to see that the longstanding rumors that Paul might be
on the list of possible appointments to the House of Lords in Britain,
or to the title of Lord Paul McCartney, have gotten more frequent as the
new year approaches.
Traditionally, Lords have been either appointed by the Monarch for their
loyalty and service and their descendants have inherited the title, or
more recently, Lords have been appointed by the Queen on the advice of
the ruling political party in Britain (three are in competition,
'Conservatives' (aka 'Tories'), 'New Labour' (formerly the party of
workingmen, more recently like American Democrats, more conservative
socially and economically to big business to shed the image of failed
70s social experiments), and the 'Liberal Democrats'--of course, now
with the Labour party under Blair in power.
The House of Lords has been a target of reform-minded Britons for
generations. Its power is virtually symbolic at best, the remnant of a
former upper-house of nobility that 'checked' the commoner's lower
house. Just getting the appointment of specialists, or "expert peers"
instead of mere loyalists or descendants of "life peers" who merely
inherited their title and position, was a step towards finally undoing
the House of Lords.
More recently, other steps have been undertaken which attempt to get rid
of the "life peers" (old, inherited nobility) and only give power to the
appointed peers or "expert peers."
Some see this as the step before just entirely eliminating the House of
Lords itself, which in my own discussions with few 'old'-Labour (ie
traditionally socialist or pro-union anti-big-business/nobility) Members
of Parliament I've done in my own research is what the working people
have been trying to do for centuries.
The fact that the House of Lords even stands today is remarkable. The
monarch is dictated to by the Commons to give speeches on what the
ruling party's Government will attempt in its legislation, and the Lords
at best can look at legislation and try to 'advise' the Commons on it,
via debate. But they have no real power, though they have titles of a
former empire, and get paid.
Some Lords see the House of Lords as a joke and don't even bother to
attend!
In short, the Lords represent everything the working class in Britain is
not--nobility of a former empire, privilege over peasants and workers,
political power by anti-democratic means, ie power by inheritance, not
election.
Where Sir Paul comes into this picture is interesting. He wouldn't have
to be a political member of the dying House of Lords, but he could get
the title "Lord" because Tony Blair's advisors have told the Queen to
give him such title (she hasn't had such power to decide independently
for many years). He would be honored like Lord Andrew Lloyd Weber with
the title.
It was great that Paul got the title "Sir" because it did not imply
political power and was mostly symbolic. However, the title "Lord"
would be highly political in nature, and I know of a number of
working-class, British Beatle fans who see such titles as offensive and
the remnant of the oppression of the working classes and former
peasantry.
So there are more than a few who see the idea of Paul McCartney
accepting the title of "Lord" as betrayal to his working-class family
and origins. Rather than upward social mobility, many working class
Britons see acceptance of such title as selling out.
I'm not arguing either way here, but I wanted to point out that there's
more to that title than just honor. It is highly politically charged,
and Paul accepting it would, almost undoubtedly, hurt his reputation
from the perspective of the working class masses, who traditionally do
not support such titles nor the continuation of the nobility as a
general principle of society.
I would venture a guess that Paul might even politely refuse such a
title as "Lord." Such would be a strong commentary along the lines of
the values Paul was given by his father, who mocked the nobility and
taught Paul of the hard battle fought by working people in Liverpoool
and elsewhere to get their rights in a system dominated by 'nobles', and
to the millions of fans who see him as a member of the counter-culture.
In fact, McCartney made his fortune and fame by working and representing
that counter-culture and helping to create it as it now exists.
McCartney and the Beatles were anti-establishment, anti-war, working
class. Sure, they took the MBE's, but then did so even with a degree of
irreverence and humility.
What a statement Paul could make by refusing to endorse the system of
tyranny that the British Government today is now undoing itself.
Accepting the title of Lord in the age of the destruction of the
nobility's privilege and political power would serve to endorse the
snobbish oppression of the masses Paul has long stood against via
membership in his counter-culture (anti-traditional norms and values
such as marijuana use, which he petitioned to legalize in newspapers as
early as 1967, the investigation of Eastern philosophy and religion,
which the British establishment traditionally had forbidden through its
Anglican Church, freedom for Northern Ireland as a Republic, which the
Monarch and loyalists obviously have fought hard to stop, animal rights,
etc).
So for the sake of argument here I predict Paul will politely refuse the
title "Lord" for the reasons stated above. It doesn't even sound
right--can you hear, as the trumpets blow and the commoners are forced
to bow, the entrance of
"Lord Paul McCartney of Liverpool"?
Though I make no argument either way, I predict he'll refuse, and
re-affirm his loyalty to his working class roots.
Just thinking out loud again--any thoughts?
Steven C. Dreyer
Milwaukee
Rufus Leaking
>on the list of possible appointments to the House of Lords in Britain,
>or to the title of Lord Paul McCartney, have gotten more frequent as the
>new year approaches.
I would hope he'd respectfully decline!!!
Just what we need one of the anti-establishment Icons turning into the enemy!
Dave
"Hid in the reeds are eyes that peek,
voices I don't understand.
Flamingos fly endlessly,
To the silent sky"
vic bonds
funny my father is his father...
but
i think he should accept the title and throw the queen power
and
respect her position in the new camelot come down way
while being the best example of what a lord is..
freeing the people like robin hood in the most respectable
way..
i adore him and am married to him in handfasting and in
santerian and according to maha in juan jain light of tantra
i am his wifes other body..
the underground is my terraine..
so..
i love what you write..
vic
Jamie
[snip]
> Though I make no argument either way, I predict he'll refuse, and
> re-affirm his loyalty to his working class roots.
>
> Just thinking out loud again--any thoughts?
I disagree, Steven. I believe those in Liverpool would be thrilled. Paul has
always been fairly outspoken about things, and those tend to be things that
the working class "masses" support (the Rye hospital, LIPA). I think that
the working class would consider it an honor for Paul as same as the
knighthood, and I think that, if Paul would use it for any political power,
they would know that it would reflect their interests. Paul will always be
born working class, and those in Liverpool won't forget that; they know how
proud of it Paul is, and know that that will never change, no matter what
title he gets.
~Jamie
>
>
> Steven C. Dreyer
> Milwaukee
Jen
Steven Dreyer <sdr...@uwm.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.OSF.3.96.99122...@alpha2.csd.uwm.edu...
>
> So for the sake of argument here I predict Paul will politely refuse the
> title "Lord" for the reasons stated above. It doesn't even sound
> right--can you hear, as the trumpets blow and the commoners are forced
> to bow, the entrance of
>
> "Lord Paul McCartney of Liverpool"?
>
> Though I make no argument either way, I predict he'll refuse, and
> re-affirm his loyalty to his working class roots.
>
> Just thinking out loud again--any thoughts?
>
said: "I'm not even thinking about that, no, I think you can get too high,
so I'm very happy where I am." The initial report came from the London
Times which said the New Year's honours list would be twice as long
honouring a lot of people within popular culture. It also said that Tony
Blair wanted to honour the Beatles. My take is that because Paul is already
"Sir", the next honour in line would be "Lord", whereas George & Ringo would
become "Sirs". My personal feeling is that the Government can honour George
& Ringo(and John, if possible)without honouring Paul again. I doubt it
would bother him. But I also think that Tony Blair admires Paul(in an
interview with the Sun a couple of years ago he called Paul his hero). Like
Paul he's happily married and comes across as a true family man someone with
good morals. And it's quite evident that since Linda's illness & death Paul
has become a respected figure in Britain. No one in the press had anything
negative to say about his Knighthood. The Sun said no one deserved it more
in their editorial, and a BBC commentator called it the most popular
Knighthood of all time. A poll was done by the London Times earlier this
year asking Britons to name people they look up to as moral and/or spiritual
leaders. Paul was the highest ranked non-politician, royal, clergyman.
Tony Blair, The Queen, Archbishop of Canterbury, ect. placed higher. So IMO
if he were to get another gong, it would be for those reasons. Personally I
think he would decline the honour if offered. I say this because a Peerage
is much more political than a Knighthood. And even though Paul has certain
causes he champions, he seems to stay out of politics. Plus, as he said
he's happy where he's at. I haven't seen anything in the newspapers
lately...though they've mentioned Sean Connery and Richard Branson getting
gongs.
Jen
afr
swept into identity transformation, I think he would have to accept this
for the sheer fun of it . . I think McCartney really understands the
ephemeral nature of human identity. And, I think he also knows how to have
a good time with it. ;) a.
Brian Fried
When Paul McCartney MBE became Sir Paul McCartney MBE, there were many a
critic in Britain (and beyond) who felt that it should have been McCartney
who was gifted with the title of "Lord" and not Andrew Lloyd Weber, the
latter of whom's creative output was in serious decline (SUNSET BOULEVARD
was no PHANTOM OF THE OPERA) and who's greatest successes were no where in
comparison to McCartney's. Furthermore, it's been Paul over many other
musicians who's helped promote Great Britain than any other, both as a
Beatle and not.
Against Paul's getting it is not the necessary revamp of the House of Lords.
That was well overdue, IMHO, especially after the Lords' refusal to accept
the same sex legislation approved by the Commons. I'm not gay, but I find
it rather extraordinary that whether rights can be given to same sex couples
is being decided by members of the Church of England, an institution which
stands clearly against same sex couples in total, in open vote. (At least,
I'm assuming the Lords to open vote since the Commons and Senate do here
and it's a copy of the British system.)
The Lords are being trimmed mostly because of the weight of the bureaucracy.
There's something like 2 Lords for every member of Commons now, isn't there?
I mean, before trimming?
No, what's made the Lord Paul so difficult is the Queen's reluctance to
grant peerage to musicians and artists who are not thespians for fear of
outraging the already existing group of peers. The MBE situation in the
sixties, when soldiers given the award returned theirs in protest, seems
to have created an antipathy between rock stars and the older establishment.
It was OK to have them become millionaires, but it wasn't alright for them
to win awards given for true spirit. Thespians got it for work in the
British stage, an accepted institution -- but even then, that's been
limited to serious drama.
If you have any doubts about my comments, look at who got knighted before
Paul McCartney, arguably THE most talented rock musician in Britain and
the grandfather of modern rock: Cliff Richards. (No, that's Paul is THE
most talented rock musician, not Cliff.) Richards was knighted and there
was no backlash. Next up: Paul McCartney, followed by Elton John. That's
the fifties-early sixties generation (who are now approaching senior
citizenship for the most part), the sixties-seventies-early eighties, and
the seventies-nineties generations respectively.
Sir Paul becoming Lord Paul without precedent to insure it's a smooth run
leads to fears that there could be a serious backlash in the existing
peerage, or in other words, a repeat of the MBE fiasco. This is something
the Queen seems very concerned about (and not, it seems to me at least,
HRH Prince Charles).
As for my "serious drama" comment, I'm one of those who feels that Sir Paul
isn't the only who's awards are too long coming. If Paul deserves a Lordship
(and he does, IMO, a move that would certainly endear him further to the
nation he loves), then those comedy pioneers like John Cleese and Michael
Palin should have been knighted long ago -- Monty Python was, as George
Harrison noted, the Beatles of comedy.
Steven Dreyer
Actually, the Lords have no right to override Commons on any legislation
including the same sex legislation, but you're right that the Lords'
relationship with the C of E is influential in outside impact.
Steven
Steven Dreyer
PS--let me modify: they can't override, but they can 'review' without
the ability to change the legislation, and to 'advise' the Commons.
Your system in Canada, Brian, is more recent and advanced, like the
American 2 house system, where we actually vote for our upper houses!
Steven
Steven Dreyer
Well you could see it as another one of "us" selling out to the
establishment after making a fortune creating the
anti-establishment/counter-culture indeed, as you point out. Others
here have argued it would be an honor for Paul to get the award because
in essence, he'd be "showing them!" (ie showing them a working class kid
can make Lord). It's also been argued he really deserves the title,
since he's promoted Britian. True, but does he really need another
award? It just seems too much like the old hippie would be switching
sides, changing teams. Like Rubin and Hoffmann going Wall Street, sell
out after cashing in on the poor suckers in the working class that made
you what you were!
Steven
On 21 Dec 1999, Rufus Leaking wrote:
> >I was fascinated to see that the longstanding rumors that Paul might be
> >on the list of possible appointments to the House of Lords in Britain,
> >or to the title of Lord Paul McCartney, have gotten more frequent as the
> >new year approaches.
>
vic bonds
afr wrote:
> You know, he has had such a remarkable life and at such a young age was
> swept into identity transformation, I think he would have to accept this
> for the sheer fun of it . . I think McCartney really understands the
> ephemeral nature of human identity. And, I think he also knows how to have
> a good time with it. ;) a.
this is true ava.
buddy holly come over to me from paul the other day and spent some
time with me. buddy is paul..and paul is buddy..
buddy is the one who hears the helicopter..
it equivs withdeath..
his nightmare.
he and harpo love each others..i am close to harpo
and i am have linda near in me like paul has buddy..
life is good...
and it is fun..
i love chatting with saints..within..
and i am perfectly sane..
ava I love you because you are more jungarian in interp
on druid transmigration.
when one is a druid before trans comes we go in enclipse..
vic
Jamie
> Well you could see it as another one of "us" selling out to the
> establishment after making a fortune creating the
> anti-establishment/counter-culture indeed, as you point out. Others
> here have argued it would be an honor for Paul to get the award because
> in essence, he'd be "showing them!" (ie showing them a working class kid
> can make Lord). It's also been argued he really deserves the title,
> since he's promoted Britian. True, but does he really need another
> award? It just seems too much like the old hippie would be switching
> sides, changing teams. Like Rubin and Hoffmann going Wall Street, sell
> out after cashing in on the poor suckers in the working class that made
> you what you were!
>
Or, one could look at it as, if Paul was going to do anything political, as
changing the ways from the inside. Like Paul, right now, can only use his celebrity
clout in terms of political influence. If he wanted to actually change anything, a
Lordship would be quite beneficial.
~Jamie
>
> Steven
>
> On 21 Dec 1999, Rufus Leaking wrote:
>
> > >I was fascinated to see that the longstanding rumors that Paul might be
> > >on the list of possible appointments to the House of Lords in Britain,
> > >or to the title of Lord Paul McCartney, have gotten more frequent as the
> > >new year approaches.
> >
Steven Dreyer
Hello Jamie,
Well, even if that were true, then shouldn't he at least get the higher
title of Duke or Earl or something? That way he wouldn't be as tied
into the political establishment with the cursed title "Lord"!
Steven
On Wed, 22 Dec 1999, Jamie wrote:
> Steven Dreyer wrote:
>
> > Well you could see it as another one of "us" selling out to the
> > establishment after making a fortune creating the
> > anti-establishment/counter-culture indeed, as you point out. Others
> > here have argued it would be an honor for Paul to get the award because
> > in essence, he'd be "showing them!" (ie showing them a working class kid
> > can make Lord). It's also been argued he really deserves the title,
> > since he's promoted Britian. True, but does he really need another
> > award? It just seems too much like the old hippie would be switching
> > sides, changing teams. Like Rubin and Hoffmann going Wall Street, sell
> > out after cashing in on the poor suckers in the working class that made
> > you what you were!
> >
>
> Or, one could look at it as, if Paul was going to do anything political, as
> changing the ways from the inside. Like Paul, right now, can only use his celebrity
> clout in terms of political influence. If he wanted to actually change anything, a
> Lordship would be quite beneficial.
>
> ~Jamie
>
> >
> > Steven
> >
> > On 21 Dec 1999, Rufus Leaking wrote:
> >
> > > >I was fascinated to see that the longstanding rumors that Paul might be
> > > >on the list of possible appointments to the House of Lords in Britain,
> > > >or to the title of Lord Paul McCartney, have gotten more frequent as the
> > > >new year approaches.
> > >
Steven Dreyer
Bot moreover, even Isaac Newton settled for the title "Sir," which I
think is even more noble than going for the "lord"!
stev.
Jen
Brian Fried <bfr...@chat.carleton.ca> wrote in message
news:83qd3r$nve$5...@bertrand.ccs.carleton.ca...
> When Paul McCartney MBE became Sir Paul McCartney MBE, there were many a
critic in Britain (and beyond) who felt that it should have been McCartney
who was gifted with the title of "Lord" and not Andrew Lloyd Weber, the
latter of whom's creative output was in serious decline (SUNSET BOULEVARD
was no PHANTOM OF THE OPERA) and who's greatest successes were no where in
comparison to McCartney's. Furthermore, it's been Paul over many other
musicians who's helped promote Great Britain than any other, both as a
Beatle and not.>
No dobut Lloyd Webber was given a peerage because he was a financial backer
of the Conservative party. I do remember when he was given a Knighthood(in
'92, I think)a newspaper article(possibly in the Guardian)saying that Paul
probably deserved it more than Webber.
<If you have any doubts about my comments, look at who got knighted before
Paul McCartney, arguably THE most talented rock musician in Britain and the
grandfather of modern rock: Cliff Richards. (No, that's Paul is THE most
talented rock musician, not Cliff.) Richards was knighted and there was no
backlash. ?
Yeah, well Cliff's a favorite of the Queen....and he can still top the
charts...
<Sir Paul becoming Lord Paul without precedent to insure it's a smooth run
leads to fears that there could be a serious backlash in the existing
peerage, or in other words, a repeat of the MBE fiasco. This is something
the Queen seems very concerned about (and not, it seems to me at least, HRH
Prince Charles).>
I do wonder if there would be a backlash, especially within the press. When
he was given the Knighthood, it received good press coverage from the
broadsheets and tabloids alike. But I wonder if some would feel that 'pop
stars' aren't deserving of peerages.
Jen
Jen
that counter-culture and helping to create it as it now exists. McCartney
and the Beatles were anti-establishment, anti-war, working class. Sure,
they took the MBE's, but then did so even with a degree of irreverence and
humility. What a statement Paul could make by refusing to endorse the system
of tyranny that the British Government today is now undoing itself.
Accepting the title of Lord in the age of the destruction of the nobility's
privilege and political power would serve to endorse the snobbish oppression
of the masses Paul has long stood against via membership in his
counter-culture (anti-traditional norms and values such as marijuana use,
which he petitioned to legalize in newspapers as early as 1967, the
investigation of Eastern philosophy and religion, which the British
freedom for Northern Ireland as a Republic, which the Monarch and loyalists
obviously have fought hard to stop, animal rights, etc). >
Maybe I'm way off base here, but Paul does not strike me as someone who's
*too* anti-establishment or counter culture. In fact I think that's why
many in the music industry(and pop culture in general)prefer John over Paul.
IMO, John epitomized what the 60's were about. While he and Yoko were
campaigning for peace and appearing on Mike Douglas with people like Jerry
Rubin, Bobby Seal and Ralph Nader, Paul was just putting together his new
band Wings and raising a family. I've always been fascinated by a quote of
Paul's(I think from 1984, not sure what interview)in reference to the
anti-marriage mood of the 60's:
"People started to say that family life was finished, that the family as a
unit was gone. We saw all that talk come and go: 'People don't want to get
married anymore; women are asserting themselves.' We just didn't go for it.
We knew that was supposed to be the fashion. Many of our friends were not
getting married but were having common-law marriages and calling their kids
funny names like Zowie or Wow or Moondust. Can you imagine a kid at ten
with a name like Zowie? All the other kids in school would make fun of him.
It was a media trip. Maybe some journalists or some artist friends of mine
in London weren't getting married, but everyone I know in Liverpool was.
And I'm sure Philadelphia steel workers were still getting married. They
didn't listen to all that rubbish."
I can't imagine a true counter-culture, 60's radical, women's lib'er making
a statement like that. There was a piece in British GQ a couple of months
ago by Dylan Jones entitled "Why McCartney is better than Lennon". In it he
says[in reference to both John & Paul's eagerness to wallow in the joys of
domesticity]'With Lennon this decision was almost militant - John and Yoko
against the Man! In Bags! In Bed! In the Amsterdam Hilton! - but in
McCartney's case it was exactly the opposite. If Yoko Ono was Lennon's way
of shouting at the world, Linda Eastman was McCartney's means of settling
down.' Further on in the article he says '[He]has a dignity that's hard not
to love. He is someone to admire almost in spite of himself....how could
you not love a man who recorded nursery rhymes as though they were
standards; a man who determinedly put his family before his career; who has
spend the best part of the last 30 years singing about Moses baskets and
moonbeams? Heroes are to be applauded for what they do, not what they say,
as they so often change their minds(just look at Lennon)'. When Paul
accepted Visa sponsorship for his 89/90 world tour, there was inevitably a
backlash. A Visa representative(trying to do some damage control)told the
Wall Street Journal at the time "What we've determined is he[Paul]is very
establishment. There isn't anybody more establishment than Paul McCartney.
He's got a family of four, he jets home at every available moment, he's a
twenty year vegetarian...it could almost get boring". Now I'm not saying I
necessarily agree with that statement, but I know there's people who would.
So back to the initial topic, I don't think accepting a peerage, if offered
would be hypocritical or go against his beliefs. He obviously has a great
affection for his country, and especially the people of Liverpool. And in
a way it would be an inspiration to the young Liverpudlians to say 'you
don't have to let your working class routes hold you down. With hard work,
determination(and a little luck)you can realize your dreams/potential.
Jen
Steven Dreyer
Hi Jen,
I think much of what you say is true but I disagree with the conclusion.
He's a family man, respects most of the law, usually doesn't support
insurgency movements etc. (I was, however, really surprised to see the
quote from the Visa corp. saying they'd 'determined he was very
establishment'--who gave them the power to decide that? First they
decide if I can get a loan for a farm or something now they're telling
me longstanding pop icons are not anti-establishment?)
On the other hand, even if you ask Paul what the Beatles were about, he
says "All You Need is Love, Give Peace a Chance" etc. Very
counter-culture. He still advocates the legalisation of marijuana. He
helped make the term "hippie" go mainstream in America, particularly by
the statement with things like his hair, which he still wears long,
which, people tend to forget, began as THE counter-culture statement.
He STOOD for the commoner, he was one of "us" in the new generation that
rejected many traditional and oppressive and racist practices endorsed
by the establishment. His music used ideas which questioned authority
(at least through the 70s!), and mocked 'snobby' old aristocrats (esp
"Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey," "Give Ireland Back to the Irish," "The
Pound is Sinking," "Her Majesty" etc.)
I respectfully disagree, Jen, but I think we've captured the essence of
the debate. Paul, though as he's aged naturally has become more
conservative, has always been counter-culture. For that matter, he
lives an 'alternative' lifestyle, as we know from his vegetarianism,
drug use and experimentation, aversion to organized politics, life
isolated on farm, etc., which in part I'd identify as the DEFINING
CHARACTERISTICS OF ONE OF THE COUNTER-CULTURE! Not to even mention
Transcandental Meditation, hippie-like norms and values, and musical
revolution!
Steven C. Dreyer
Brian Fried
> PS--let me modify: they can't override, but they can 'review' without
> the ability to change the legislation, and to 'advise' the Commons.
> Your system in Canada, Brian, is more recent and advanced, like the
> American 2 house system, where we actually vote for our upper houses!
Not quite. In Canda we have two houses, The House of Commons and the Senate.
The House of Commons are elected by the people, with representation by
population. This is sort of like the House of Representatives, although --
if I recall my PoliSci right -- the House of Representatives doesn't keep
trying to lower the amount of seats in the House. The Commons, like in
Britain, establishes the party with the most seats (but not votes) as the
one in power, with a majority being more seats than all other parties
combined. That's ALL parties, for like Britain we have three major parties
(well, it depends on you consider our Tories) and some independents. The
Prime Minister is the leader of the party in charge. An election can be
called only with the approval of the Queen (in England) or the Queen's
representative (in Canada), which usually comes only when the Prime
Minister requests one.
Discounting those Senators here in Ottawa who come from either (a) the
annual draft, (b) those sent to wear the Maple Leaf or be Canucks elsewhere
so others can fill their places, or (c) just signed as independent
contractors, the other group is NOT elected.
The Senate is a group appointed by the Queen's representative, the
Governor General of Canada. The chosen are actually recommended by the
Prime Minister. Senators sit for life, which means until 76, and -- like
the House of Lords -- attendance is not mandatory. Similarly, like the
House of Lords, the Upper House *can* stop a bill cold. This does not
happen in Canada because the Senators' ranks are usually amplified one way
or another when important votes come along. There was Liberal backlash
against the induction of a Goods and Services Tax (the dreaded GST here,
which is like the VAT only added at the cash instead of in the price on
the shelf) and so the Prime Minister, Brian Mulroney of the Progressive
Conservatives, added nine PC-affiliated Senators to stack the vote.
The Canadian Senate differs from the House of Lords in that there is no
representation of Church. The House of Lords sits representatives from the
Church of England as well as appointed Lords and those who inherit the title.
I would assume that the Lords have the power to stop a bill by voting
against it just like the Senate. (Aussies might have the same system too.)
Finally, in order for a bill to become law, the Governor General (like
the Queen) has to sign it. They have the ultimate veto power.
"Congratulations Canada on getting power!"
- Columbia University students to reporter J.B. Dixon on
THIS HOUR HAS 22 MINUTES' "Talking to Americans"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Fried bfr...@chat.carleton.ca Carleton U., Ottawa, Canada
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"What do you say? Will the human race be run in a day?
Or will someone save this planet we're playing on?"
Paul McCartney, 'Pipes Of Peace', 1983
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Fried
matter if Paul was once associated with the "counter culture" of the 1960s,
by today's standards he's certainly become "establishment."
Paul's conservativism is notable right from the beginning. He is the first
to accept the Beatle suits if it will make them more acceptable. He is the
last to grow a mustache and let his hair grow long... and when he does let
his hair grow long, it doesn't go nearly as low as the hippies. Paul
encourages others to express themselves, but nowhere does that make him
counter culture. In fact, he's more of a conservative art lover in his
practices (look at the way he works with the bookstore Indica, as a patron
of sorts) rather than as a hippie trying to make a statement.
In terms of population representation, Paul has ALWAYS been in the norm
except for one thing: vegetarianism. Even then, with the backlash against
genetically altered fruits and vegetables and the rise of ecologism,
Paul and Linda's lifestyle is becoming more attractive to a greater
percentage of people around the world -- and Britain.
Paul's mocking of the establishment never becomes an outright challenge
like John's in "Imagine" (however hypocritical it is) or "Power to the
People." Of the songs you mention, "Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey" mocks the
pomposity of the military in a children's song, which disected leads to an
idea of a child acting bullish and not behaving so he can't get his pie.
"Give Ireland Back to the Irish" expressed the same concern of many in the
country at the time, that going into Ireland with full force was a mistake.
(At the same time, anti-Vietnam statements were still being made too.)
"Her Majesty" is not a knock of the Queen and far from it... the Beatles
always claimed a love of the monarchy. Finally, "The Pound is Sinking"
talks about the present state of currency and the behaviour of those who
were losing it all in currency speculation and the tough times they were
facing.
Paul IS the working class shmoe who made good with his dreams. He now
composes pieces played by national istitutions like the London Philharmonic.
He has always been right there for Liverpool and local causes he believes in.
It's his stance on the legalisation of marijuana which puts him at odds
with the government of the present (and past). That's a stance many people
express in all fields. Outside of that, when has Paul really stood against
the culture of the people and the government? When it was run by people
who still thought they were in the same situation as the 1930s and 40s?
The 50s? Heck, with the institutionalising of rock & roll as mainstream
culture by the 1960s and clearly by the 1980s, the counter culture became
THE culture, and so any hint of "counter culture" has become the thing of
history, not the present.
Steven Dreyer
Hey Brian,
Thanks for the interesting info. on the Canadian system--you got me on
that Senate issue, I did not know they still were appointed! (Which is
really embarrassing for a)an American neighbor who should know that and
b) somebody who had a major in Poli Sci as an undergraduate in college!)
That fact is something which now intrigues me. I wonder about their
power.
I do have to say that having lived in Britain and having studied their
Government while a Visiting Scholar at UEA, I gathered the Lords could
not 'stop a bill cold.' For instance, the Nursery Education Voucher
Scheme (which I am studying) was denounced by the Lords after the
Commons passed it. They argued and fought each other but in practice,
their 'advising' of the Commons didn't amount to anything. The Commons
simply voted to continue their deliberations and the legislation and the
House of Lords were cut out of the picture. So while in the unwritten
Constitution, the Lords technically still have the power to advise, in
practice they hold at best symbolic power, and at best will only
occasionally get the Commons to change the wording of a bill for
instance. They have no real political power.
Question: do the Canadian Senators have the status of 'removal'? (ie
are senile life peers ever removed, or are they allowed to sit even if
they're drooling on themselves and speaking in tongues during
deliberations?) Those life appointments can be very humorous in
Britain!
Best to you,
Steven
Steven Dreyer
PS
Another interesting parallel is that the American Senate (its former
British-style upper house) was not elected by popular vote for most of
America's history, until the Constitutional Amendment of the early 20th
Century was passed. They were appointed by representatives of each
state, who simply selected party loyalists endorsed by the national
parties in Washington. Rather than a life appointment, though, our
upper house, by design, has 6 year terms (as opposed to the House
of Representatives' 2 year terms) to, without the extremes of
aristocracy, allow the more powerful body to conduct business (and to
work more closely with the executive branch/President) without the
burden of constant re-election. Unlike the Canadian Senate,
our Senate is, however, smaller than the lower-house/House of Reps,
which is four times larger!
Just some interesting points I thought you might find fun.
Merry Christmas,
Steven
vic bonds
Brian Fried wrote:
> Steven, I think Jen's hit the nail right on the head here. It doesn't
> matter if Paul was once associated with the "counter culture" of the 1960s,
> by today's standards he's certainly become "establishment."
>
> Paul's conservativism is notable right from the beginning. He is the first
he is conservatist because he is wild beyond your wildest dreams
...when you hang with maha you are wild..
>
> to accept the Beatle suits if it will make them more acceptable. He is the
> last to grow a mustache and let his hair grow long... and when he does let
> his hair grow long, it doesn't go nearly as low as the hippies. Paul
> encourages others to express themselves, but nowhere does that make him
> counter culture. In fact, he's more of a conservative art lover in his
would you call his art conservative
i would not
he paints red women
ghosts and vampire queens...
ha.
vic
Steven Dreyer
Correction: I've gotten the terms backwards here, the inherited peers
are indeed "Hereditary Peers" not "Life Peers" (appointed by expertise,
though sometimes called "Expert Peers"). Sorry for that. Steven
On Tue, 21 Dec 1999, Steven Dreyer wrote:
Brian Fried
> Thanks for the interesting info. on the Canadian system--you got me on
> that Senate issue, I did not know they still were appointed! (Which is
> really embarrassing for a)an American neighbor who should know that and
> b) somebody who had a major in Poli Sci as an undergraduate in college!)
> That fact is something which now intrigues me. I wonder about their
> power.
If you think it's embarrassing, J.B. Dixon (Rick Mercer) got a Russian
studies graduate student at Columbia to comment on Russia's bombing of
Canada. He's also gotten Americans to congratulate us on: joining North
America, getting power, getting running water in our cities, building our
first highway, getting a new monarch, and more.
<snip>
> House of Lords were cut out of the picture. So while in the unwritten
> Constitution, the Lords technically still have the power to advise, in
> practice they hold at best symbolic power, and at best will only
> occasionally get the Commons to change the wording of a bill for
> instance. They have no real political power.
According to people I've asked, the Lords do have the authority to vote
against the bill. Recommendations come first, in the hopes of amending it.
Our system follows the same way, with it rarely happening because of
pressure from the lower house and just plain lack of voting strength (I
think it needs a stronger majority in the Canadian senate, IIRC).
> Question: do the Canadian Senators have the status of 'removal'? (ie
> are senile life peers ever removed, or are they allowed to sit even if
> they're drooling on themselves and speaking in tongues during
> deliberations?) Those life appointments can be very humorous in
> Britain!
Incompetent senators, when they are discovered to be so, are removed. Most
don't even show up to deliberations, and that's helped lead the charge for
an elected Senate a la Les Etats Unis [US]. Basically, most Canadians don't
care about the Senate, and it gets rarely reported on.
Ottawa Senators get removed from the team if they fail to show up because
they claim they deserve more and should get a renewed contract for bigger
bucks.
Brian Fried
more Members of Parliament than we do Senators by a longshot here in Canada.
In fact, IIRC, the Ontario legislature (each province has a legislature
and a Lieutenant Governor General) was larger than the Senate, and
probably still it (I think we're under 75 of them, but I'd have to check
for sure).
vic bonds
he is a druid and they are the oak roots grassroots
people and it is about time for the religious left
the santerian types of pyramidal stonehedge
arthurian lore to have a say in the politics of
the monarchy
i am the
shepards daughter the
golden fleece is my middle name
and
i am the
buffulo calf woman of the lakota
indians in america
i am mahas "wife"
i am the Woman
Queztalcoatal of the Planet..
and i am amazed
that i can say this..
i am a disciple of carlos castaneda
grau and
he lives..
paul knows him
love.
victory
with wings.
Jamie wrote:
> Steven Dreyer wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > Though I make no argument either way, I predict he'll refuse, and
> > re-affirm his loyalty to his working class roots.
> >
> > Just thinking out loud again--any thoughts?
>
Seanswind
In some ways, it would be irresponsible to decline such an opportunity.
vic bonds
Seanswind wrote:
> I kind of hope Paul accepts- and uses his power to be politically influential.
> In some ways, it would be irresponsible to decline such an opportunity.
that is the truth..
he is a witch and can come out of the broom closet and defend the rights
of druidistic beliefs.
wings.
Steven Dreyer
Hi Seanswind,
You know, the more I think about it, the more it sinks in that it could
be a useful tool for his social stands than a sellout. Initially, it
just seemed really strange to hear the idea being discussed. He's
probably accepted it already, so what can you do?
I don't think though it would in any way be 'irresponsible' to make a
statement by declining or returning awards from a system you cannot
support--in fact, I think those brave enough to do it are more noble
than the so-called "nobles" who do accept titles at birth without ever
doing a thing to earn them. (I think Lennon's returning of the MBE to
Queen Elizabeth II to protest the Vietnamese situation was of the
highest integrity, and not irresponsible whatsoever--he even included
some typical Lennon humor in it by protesting the slow sales of "Cold
Turkey" as a sidenote!)
I don't know--I guess it's where you start from poltically that may
influence your view on this. If you are a conservative then such an
award might be alright entirely. If you are a labour-supporter or
liberal, it's likely you probably already see aristocracy as unjust,
though that's not invariable.
Steven
Seanswind
>I don't know--I guess it's where you start from poltically that may
>influence your view on this.
I'm quite liberal- and generally view the aristocracy and the present House of
Lords as unjust-
But as I see it there are two alternatives: abolish the House of Lords, which
ain't gonna happen, or
If you can't beat 'em, join 'em: maybe the best way to make change is to work
from the inside--
If any significant animal rights legislation came before Parliament, for
instance, Paul could use his position to review and impact the leglislation.
.
I would cheer loud if Paul turned down the lordship-- wouldn't have a problem
with it at all- but I do think his acceptance would not be a disaster.
Brian Fried
Some critics, particularly music critics who believe in artists taking a
stand, may approve the action. Social critics looking at the fabric of
British society might argue it's a bad thing. Paul McCartney is a hero to
Britons, having accomplished a lot and not receiving near the recognition
he deserves. Failure to get into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame? Beat to a
Lordship by Andrew Lloyd Weber, who's musicals are tremendously cliche?
There are also some who might comment (and I'm sure this will come up
eventually) that the turning down a respected award -- possibly the MOST
respected reward he can receive -- is a John-like thing to do, and he's
only trying to get a Lennonesque image now to replace his old stuffy one.
If the Lordship is seen as an award for outstanding achievement then I
don't see how Paul really could turn it down. At heart he IS a monarchist,
and has made no public statement against the monarchy or traditional
institutions. He is clearly against the government's present policy on
marijuana, but I find it rather interesting that while Paul actively seeks
its legalisation, even as far back as 1967 does he say that it's *HIS*
personal choice and should not influence others to do the same.
The only real constraint I see with Paul and a Lordship (aside from the
bowing which Paul would take first as light humor from his mates and then
tell them to skip it) is the obligation to sit in Parliament. Paul prefers
working in the studio or on some other artistic project, so it would
distract him from what is truly necessary (a Knighthood doesn't really
interfere with his musical activities). Of course, considering the
circumstances, I'm pretty sure Paul might be able to skip out on duties if
need be, or if this is really the case then some other title might be
better suited for him.
The Thinker, Edgar
I would gather from accepting the Knighthood that Paul is a monarchist, but
I don't seem to recall many instances where he's gone out of his way to
support its existence, other than, as I agree with you, in tacitly
endorsing it by operating within its boundaries.
I think it WOULD be more than noble to turn down the Lordship, if that's
what he wanted to do, as I've argued before partly to not sell out to the
establishment and endorse its tyranny over "alternative" lifestyles and
liberty of spiritual endeavor, etc. Lennon's example of returning the MBE
was indeed most noble; think as well of the war-decorated American soldiers
who most admirably had the courage to give up their pieces of medal by
throwing their battle honors and insignia back at the steps of the American
establishment in the 1960s and 1970s.
The right to liberty in experimenting with marijuana, in self-regarding
manners, for the purposes of self-enlightnment (within reason); to
experiment mediatation and non-Western philosophies and modes of
spirituality; to support protection for animals against inhumane and
needless torture; to support the rights rights of gay and lesbians to live
peaceably within society without stigmatization and dehumanization; to
promote the rights of working people to vote for democratically elected
representatives (HOL); to raise awreness of the need to be "cosmically
conscious"; to grow one's hair, live one's own life without the dictates of
the Church and closed-minded of the previous generations, and overall the
right to live in a culture that has been denounced by the establishment are
all worth standing up for.
Perhaps Paul has seen it this way.
Stev.
At heart he IS a monarchist,
and has made no public statement against the monarchy or traditional
institutions. He is clearly against the government's present policy on
marijuana, but I find it rather interesting that while Paul actively seeks
its legalisation, even as far back as 1967 does he say that it's *HIS*
personal choice and should not influence others to do the same.
--
------------------------
"If you don't like it, well that's just too bad"--JL '80
Jamie
> I would gather from accepting the Knighthood that Paul is a monarchist, but
> I don't seem to recall many instances where he's gone out of his way to
> support its existence, other than, as I agree with you, in tacitly
> endorsing it by operating within its boundaries.
>
> I think it WOULD be more than noble to turn down the Lordship, if that's
> what he wanted to do, as I've argued before partly to not sell out to the
> establishment and endorse its tyranny over "alternative" lifestyles and
> liberty of spiritual endeavor, etc. Lennon's example of returning the MBE
> was indeed most noble; think as well of the war-decorated American soldiers
> who most admirably had the courage to give up their pieces of medal by
> throwing their battle honors and insignia back at the steps of the American
> establishment in the 1960s and 1970s.
War heros returning an honor as protest is noble; they risked their lives for
their country and the medals respresent that. John didn't get his MBE for any
such behavior, and by all accounts considered it a bit of a joke. He had even
given it away to his aunt Mimi. He didn't care about it in the first place,
thus it was no cost to him to return it. A noble gesture would be to give up
something that one cares about, in order to bring about a change for the
greater good. I've not sure an argument for Paul giving up a Lordship that fits
that.
~Jamie
Jamie
greater good. I've not sure there is an argument for Paul giving up a Lordship
that fits that.
~Jamie
Brian Fried
actions his former home (but still the nation to which he had his citizenship)
took against Northern Ireland. It was a valid statement which John debased
only by adding that it was also a protest for "Cold Turkey" falling from
the charts.
Jen
He is clearly against the government's present policy on
> marijuana, but I find it rather interesting that while Paul actively seeks
its legalisation, even as far back as 1967 does he say that it's *HIS*
personal choice and should not influence others to do the same.
>
marijuana(in recent years). Outside of the New Statesman interview where he
said it should be decriminalized, what has he said or done to push for it
being legal? He didn't even have enough balls to add *his* name to The
Independent on Sunday's decriminalization campaign(had Geoff Baker list his
instead). I'm not denying his support for legalization/decriminalization,
but to say he's "actively" involved is false, IMO.
Jen
Jen
Seanswind <sean...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19991230120828...@ng-bd1.aol.com...
I hope, if offered, he does refuse the honour. I think the House of Lords is
a joke. It's an un-elected body that has influence over legislation and
public policy that affects millions of Britons. It's great that they got
rid of many of the hereditary peers, but it doesn't make it anymore
democratic. Whatever political party is in power can still pack the upper
house with their cronies...which according to The Independent is what Tony
Blair is planning on doing (and no doubt what the Conservatives did when
they were in power). They say Blair wants to offer Paul a peerage for
'services to music'. Isn't that essentially why he received a Knighthood?
He's already been honoured for that, so what's the point of moving him to
the House of Lords? My first thought is that the Government, similar to
what they tried to do with his daughter Stella, may be using him. When
Labour came into power, they created this 'committee for cool', to rebrand
Britain. This appeared to stem from a Newsweek cover story entitled "Cool
Brittania" - proclaiming that London was the coolest city in the world
(incidentally, this article came out in 1995 when the Conservatives were
still in power). Anyway, Stella's name was added to the committee, among
others from different spectrums of British society. Shortly after her
mother's death, she resigned, "officially" sighting work pressures. But the
newspapers reported that the "real" reason she resigned was because the
government added her name without her approval, and that she felt the they
were trying to cash in on her trendy name and image. I fear something
similar could be happening if it's true that the Prime Minister wants to
give Paul a peerage. Paul is definitely highly revered by the press
(broadsheets and tabloids alike - except when their reviewing one of his
classical pieces) and the British public. This is clearly evident in the
reaction his Knighthood was given (The Sun saying 'no one deserves it more',
The Daily Telegraph saying he's become 'a by word for respectability', a BBC
commentator saying 'this must be the most popular Knighthood of all
time...no one has brought so much happiness to so many people'), and the
public outpouring of sympathy when Linda died. Can you imagine what a coup
it would be for Tony Blair if Paul accepted an honour to join the House of
Lords as a Labour peer (as opposed to say, a crossbencher who has no
political affiliation). You couldn't get much cooler than that. So I'm a
bit cynical about the motives for a peerage. If it's just to make Tony
Blair look good, then I hope he turns it down, and doesn't allow himself to
be used. I understand those that say it would be an opportunity for him to
use his position to advance animal rights legislation, marijuana
legalization, ect. But if he's really interested in that, then he should
run for office and try to get elected as an MP. The *only* cool thing about
accepting it would be knowing that it would piss of some of his "peers",
like Mick Jagger and Pete Townshend who have yet to be honoured by the
government, but no doubt would love to be called Sir Mick or Sir Pete.
Jen
Steven Dreyer
Right on Jen! We have to figure he's already turned it down, or was not
offered it, since he wasn't appointed this year (unless he's on a future
list). I guess that since the talk was so big that he'd be given it,
just as with the Knighthood, the 'word' was being put out for public
reaction and Paul's reaction, and Paul gracefully declined. Just a
guess.
Steven
lstoll
>
> I understand those that say it would be an opportunity for him to
> use his position to advance animal rights legislation, marijuana
> legalization, ect. But if he's really interested in that, then
> he should run for office and try to get elected as an MP.
Excellent post, Jen. -laura
lstoll
>
> It's more than that, though. Lennon returned his MBE in protest for the
> actions his former home (but still the nation to which he had his citizenship)
> took against Northern Ireland. It was a valid statement which John debased
> only by adding that it was also a protest for "Cold Turkey" falling from
> the charts.
I think Jamie is right though. As you say, John made a statement in the
name of a good cause but he didn't make a sacrifice because the MBE
didn't mean anything to him. -laura
Jamie
> It's more than that, though. Lennon returned his MBE in protest for the
> actions his former home (but still the nation to which he had his citizenship)
> took against Northern Ireland. It was a valid statement which John debased
> only by adding that it was also a protest for "Cold Turkey" falling from
> the charts.
Actually, he listed several things, the situation in Ireland could've been one of
them, but I can't remember. One of John's faults, IMO, was that his "causes"
changed so much it prevented him bringing about any real change.
~Jamie
Jen
Steven Dreyer <sdr...@uwm.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.OSF.3.96.100010...@alpha2.csd.uwm.edu...
Not necessarily, unfortunately. The article in The Independent said that
the Government was planning on creating 25 new "working" peers, and that
Paul was rumored to be one of them. I'm assuming this is their attempt to
try and "balance" out the House of Lords, which still has more Tory peers
than Labour peers. So I'd guess then that the Government can appoint peers
at times other than the Birthday or New Year's honours. And if it's their
attempt to pack the upper house with *their* "cronies", then doing it during
a non-holiday time would attract less press coverage. Nevertheless, I think
making Paul a Lord would attract a considerable amount of press coverage no
matter when they did it. One has to hope that either these rumors aren't
true, or that he was offered something and turned it down. I do hope the
latter is true(or will be true - if he hasn't been offered yet). There's
too much political baggage associated with a becoming a Lord. Plus I think
it's wrong to give him another honour without first recognizing George and
Ringo, too. I guess we'll have to wait and see.
Jen
The Thinker, Edgar
marijuana(in recent years).
By example; during interviews he makes no apologies for his use of it, his
arrest, nor the Beatles' stance on it. I thought this was very evident in
the ANTHOLOGY video series, where Paul surprisingly just talks openly.
Moreover, I think FLAMING PIE's tracks, especially "The Song We Were
Singing" which includes references to pipe smoking and philosophical
reflection as a positive action, also set such an example.
He's already set the protest overtly; all he is doing now is living by his
proclamations. I don't expect to see him out with the Black Crowes
promoting funding for legalization, though the Beatles did support
organizations promoting legalization by licensing products for the
Anthology exclusively to hemp-growers and their political underpinnings.
The message is still there, it's just more mature now, not that I
necessarily agree.
Steven
--
"If you don't like it, well that's just too bad"--John Lennon
Jen <jsn...@mindspring.com> wrote in article
<84u5ik$hs1$3...@nntp4.atl.mindspring.net>...
Brian Fried
not a valid one, then how does one justify Sir Andrew Lloyd Weber's
appointment into the House of Lords on the very same occassion that James
Paul McCartney MBE became Sir James Paul McCartney MBE?
This returns us to one of the earlier points I mentioned. The appointment
of MBEs to John Lennon, Paul McCartney, George Harrison and Ringo Starr in
1965 brought protests from MBE holders who received them for milirary service
because it was felt that the Beatles had not served their country in the same
manner nor were defending the honour of their nation in the same manner.
Years later, Cliff Richards was knighted as almost a test case. If
Richards had received the same amount of protest above, Paul McCartney
(who, from various editorial pieces in the UK is noted to have deserved
one for quite some time) would not have received his the year after.
Irregardless of the title or event, there is a direct conflict between the
arts and the political realm. Politics, and titles therein, contain
certain socially regarded perceptions which run counter to the arts. For
example, if you're an artist you're counter culture, whereas politicians
are establishment.
The appointment of a peerage to Sir Paul is clearly, from the actions of
Prime Minister Tony Blair, an honour for service to music and to the nation.
Quite frankly, if you look at Q or MOJO or any other UK music publication,
the esteem in which Sir Paul is held is much, much higher than in any American
publication and he is seen as a grandfather of modern British music. His
status is cherished by many in the UK, and the very idea that Paul should
have been awarded with a Lordship and Lloyd Weber a knighthood (when stated)
did not receive anywhere near the level of dissatisfaction with that comment
that we're now seeing.
To me, Paul deserves the title because of his achievements. It's long overdue,
just as his knighthood was overdue. You can't give one guy the higher
honour for much less achievement in the arts, and there's an awareness
that Paul deserves his. If he turns it down, then it will be in reference
to other activities he has.
But as to whether or not he could accept it, well C'Mon people, form a
party and do something about it.
afr
politics. ;)
a.
Seanswind
>The British seem to be adopting a bit of Reaganism in their politics.
Ahem. Ever heard of Margaret Thatcher- she pioneered Reagan's social-darwinism
and rich-get-richer politics. Tony Blair, despite his Clintonisms, is a
welcome change- be happy Britain has a Labour government!
afr
misinterpret how I was using "Reaganism." I meant it in the sense of
moving show-biz folks into political positions.
a.
lstoll
>
> Brian Fried wrote:
> >
> > It's more than that, though. Lennon returned his MBE in protest for the
> > actions his former home (but still the nation to which he had his citizenship)
> > took against Northern Ireland. It was a valid statement which John debased
> > only by adding that it was also a protest for "Cold Turkey" falling from
> > the charts.
>
> name of a good cause but he didn't make a sacrifice because the MBE
> didn't mean anything to him. -laura
I see I left out a period. It should read:
As you say, John made a statement in the name of a good cause. But he
didn't make a sacrifice because the MBE didn't mean anything to him.
-laura
P.S. to Hazel: (Paul is right?)