The Tribune

With election fever in Britain building up towards polling day on December 12, this is perhaps a good moment to reflect on parliamentary relationships of the past compared with the deteriorating quality of modern-day political discourse, group values and affinities.

The House of Commons in the Westminster Parliament boasts a rich history of eloquent speakers and fine oratory. In a country known for the combative nature of its politics, the most effective parliamentarians have not only shown a mastery of the English language in proposing or defending policies but are remembered for their employment of irony and sarcasm as well as humour. One of the most famous, of course, was Winston Churchill whose eloquence and genius in the use of English roused a nation at the time of its greatest peril in the Second World War. He was also adept at humiliating his political opponents with cutting phraseology, and some of his most famous barbs have entered the informal public lexicon.

Nonetheless, even allowing for the distortion of the rosy lens through which history is sometimes viewed, those are now seen as gentler times. Despite their fiery exchanges, previous generations of parliamentarians practised restraint and courtesy – though one notable exception was the volatile Labour MP and government minister, Aneurin Bevan, who infamously labelled Tories as “vermin” - and there seemed to have been greater mutual respect in their dealings with one another. But these days such attitudes seem to have been replaced by animosity and distrust to such an extent that the House of Commons chamber has become a bear pit of hostility bordering on hatred. This has developed into an unedifying spectacle while political debate up and down the country has also become increasingly personalised and polarised, with Brexit probably being the worst example.

All this has led me to think about the peculiarly close and cordial relationship between Churchill as the Conservative leader of Britain’s wartime national coalition government and Clement Attlee, the Labour Party leader who served as Deputy Prime Minister from 1940 to 1945. Thrown together in 1940, the two men forged a cross-party coalition to deal with Hitler and then contested each other at the ballot box in 1945 for mastery of post-war Britain, with Attlee winning the election by a landslide and Churchill later returning to power again in the 1951 poll. Despite their political differences - with Churchill favouring free enterprise and capitalism and Attlee seeking to develop the fundamental role of the state in order to transform the lives of the poor - they continued their relationship, which transcended party lines, for the rest of their lives. Attlee acted as a pall bearer at Churchill’s state funeral in 1965 even though he himself was deathly frail by then, and this was seen as a mark of their deep mutual esteem.

A new book on this subject by celebrated Irish-born author, Leo McKinstry, has been described as a masterpiece full of illuminating insights and a deft account of what has been called a relationship “unprecedented in the annals of British politics” and, in modern parlance, a terrific double act - a five-year wartime partnership followed by a decade of peacetime cooperation unlikely ever to be repeated. During the war, both placed the national interest above party politics and Attlee, despite many challenges, was loyal to Churchill throughout. Based on mutual respect, they had in common a deep love of country and were proud to show their patriotism.

That said, however, on personal grounds they were surely unlikely bedfellows, even as temporary allies. Consider the basic differences between the two that could not have been greater.

Churchill was charismatic, buccaneering, impulsive, full of humour and a larger-than-life figure who thought he was destined to play a role in saving the free world. By contrast, Attlee was shy, self-effacing and undemonstrative. He was cautious and orderly, adopted a sparse conversational style and, by all accounts, was an uninspiring orator. Then, Churchill, known to imbibe prodigious amounts of alcohol, was said to go to bed on cognac while Attlee settled for an early night and a cup of hot cocoa - and, to top it all, Churchill took his holidays in Monte Carlo and Attlee went to Frinton (British readers will appreciate the difference).

The fact that this relationship continued after Attlee prevailed in the 1945 election and embarked on an ambitious programme of radical change, including the creation of the National Health Service and expansion of the welfare state, may seem extraordinary to the present-day observer. Inevitably, Churchill was shocked by defeat but formally he behaved impeccably and accepted the result as an exercise of democracy. It was significant that after the Tories returned to power in 1951 he did not attempt to scuttle what Attlee had done in the intervening period.

Son of a successful solicitor, Attlee was always involved in his family’s social work activities with the poor. But it was not until his eyes were opened to reality by visiting the Limehouse Boys’ Club in London’s East End opened by his school, Haileybury (as it happens, my own alma mater), that he understood what poverty really meant. This changed his views on life in a fundamental way and he became a socialist but one who believed in duty, loyalty and responsibility with a strong ethical code based on his Christian beliefs.

The nature of political discourse has changed to such an extent that mutual respect by adversaries on the floor of the House of Commons, backed up by cooperation, concession and compromise, has been replaced by animosity, distrust and personal antipathy. Few now understand the need in a civilised society to try to reconcile conflicting views and agree to disagree amicably without long-term ill-feeling and personal vilification.

Historians call Churchill the giant of war and Attlee the hero of peace. In war and peace, both had the capacity to raise their eyes above petty party squabbles and poisonous partisanship and look at what they perceived as the national interest. How rare have such attitudes become in today’s fractious politics.

Why books are like old friends to me and mean so much

Visitors who examine the bookshelves in someone else’s house and ask whether the owner has read all of them do not appreciate the true meaning and value of books to the bibliophile.

The answer will normally be “no”, though it is likely that one will have delved into all of them without reading every page. But what is important is to know one’s books are there, having been acquired over the years either through one’s own purchase or as a Christmas or birthday gift or perhaps - shame on you - borrowed from someone and not yet returned.

Book lovers never feel alone in the company of what are their prized possessions, whether they are neatly stored in special shelves installed from ceiling to floor - which I personally prefer - or in free standing book cases. Some are old friends and some are newcomers and, even if you have not read all of them from cover to cover, you will go on buying new ones because you cannot help doing so.

Surrounded by your collection - each one of which you are familiar with even if you have not picked it up recently - is a comforting feeling of contentment and it induces a sense of well-being because all of them are probably linked to something in your life, not to mention the ones you never liked and therefore dumped.

Some say that personal book collections represent or resemble the values, tastes and interests of the individual concerned. But sometimes books are acquired over time in a haphazard manner and some unread books serve to remind you of your own lack of knowledge and impel you to learn something new.

The primary purpose of reading is, of course, to increase one’s learning and gain a broader understanding of issues and other places. But there is also pleasure and entertainment in having one’s imagination stimulated as one enters different worlds and becomes drawn into the lives of others through fiction or biography – all brought into a form of reality by the written word.

It is also nice to look at hardback books with their varying sizes, colours and designs for they contribute to the decoration of a room and give it warmth and atmosphere. They may not be indexed properly, but any serious book owner knows exactly where to find what he or she is looking for because they know their books in the same way a farmer knows each of his milking cows. The joy is in being able to read a particular book when you feel like doing so or when it happens at any particular moment to resonate with something significant and can provide specific information. Some of them you want to read again and again when the mood takes you because they can influence your mood and your attitude.

From schooldays, it was drummed into us that if you start a book you must finish it. Nowadays, there is so much reading to be done on the internet, but nothing compares with holding a book in both hands – it beats a Kindle any day.

My own bookshelves contain a somewhat heterogeneous collection. Does that indicate a catholic taste? Perhaps. But I have found that my books have somehow built up over the years with limited planning on my part. It remains a mystery how they have stayed intact, having been packed and repacked so many times moving from one country to another during the course of a diplomatic career. If needs must, you can take certain things away from me in extremis, but please do not mess with my books - they are, indeed, like old friends and mean so much, both as a learning tool and as memories of happy past events as well as a valuable guide for the future.

Another flight can only help build business

One of the best pieces of news recently was the announcement by BA that they are increasing the frequency of their direct flights to London from four to five times a week with effect from April next year. Reportedly, this service to and from Grand Cayman via Nassau is one of BA’s most profitable routes. Those who use it often will not find that hard to believe since the flights are invariably full.

The airline is quoted as saying this extra flight should benefit the business sector. That is fine, but I wonder whether the potential boost to tourism by increasing the airlift from Europe might not be more important. Apart from visitors wanting to enjoy what The Bahamas offers tourists as a sought-after destination, travelling here from Europe on a nine-hour flight will encourage them to stay longer and spend more than visitors on short-haul flights from most places in the US.

In light of this, it has always seemed to me that more emphasis should be placed on promotion of The Bahamas in European countries especially in the UK where the market for potential tourists is enormous. Traditionally, Britons have been attracted to Barbados which is seen as a more welcoming and less expensive place for a holiday than The Bahamas, and for some reason it seems they tend to feel more comfortable there. But, for visitors put off by higher prices, one way of keeping accommodation costs down would be greater use of Airbnb.

In my view, this country has so much more to offer the visitor than Barbados. So perhaps more needs to be done to explain to travel companies in the UK why it is a significantly more desirable tourism destination. Meanwhile, that extra weekly BA flight is a helpful and welcome development.