One of the great political drunks

This is where you let you can let it all hang out.

Moderators: Artful Drunktective, mistah willies, oettinger, Oggar, Badfellow, One for the Frog, Frankennietzsche

Post Reply
User avatar
TheDrunkardAnglo
Lord of Benders
Lord of Benders
Posts: 483
Joined: Sun Apr 26, 2015 9:00 am

One of the great political drunks

Post by TheDrunkardAnglo »

In times of true political discourse, I find it comforting to reflect on the shadows of giants. I wonder whether at the time they were in fact giants: I guess some were and some weren’t. A lot of it is based on your own personal political views, values and convictions. When you grew up. Maybe some of todays political class will be considered giants of tomorrow just as some of the politicians of yesteryears are considered today. Perhaps I’m cynical, but I very much doubt it.

Anyway, I was reminded today, through an obscure non-news story, calling for the statue of Harold Wilson in Huddersfield to be torn down. Reminded by how many great characters there were in the 1960s and 1970s in the political arena. The one I would like to bring to my fellow drunkards’ attention is the story of George Brown. When one brings up the 1960s and 1970s most think of Harold Wilson, Ted Heath, Denis Healey, Richard Nixon and the Kennedy Brothers but they’re missing out one of the greatest drunks in political history.

George Brown was a shopkeeper, a WW1 veteran and a Trade Unionist. He enlisted to the RAF on the outbreak of the Second World War but was declined based on his role as a Trade Union Officer. He instead became a Civil Servant in the Wartime National Government. He was elected to Belper in the Labour landslide of 1945. He had the reputation from being on the right of the party and having a confrontational and aggressive approach to those he disagreed with. This mixed with his drinking and a few rumoured Westminster bar brawls meant that he did have a hard time making friends. Modern politics this wouldn’t be too much of a problem, but in this period, you had to get the support of your parliamentary colleagues if you wanted a senior cabinet role.

He didn’t join the Labour cabinet until his mate Hugh Gaitskell won party leadership after their General Election loss of 1951. This had given him a few opportunities to get some public popularity himself. Most famous of this period was when the Soviet First Secretary Nikita Khrushchev and the then Soviet Chairman of the Council of Ministers Nikolai Bulganin were on delegation to the United Kingdom. They were at the private dinner and George had started quite heavily on the sauce. He started to get irritated when Nikita Khrushchev started to boast the Soviet Union had won the second world war. George started to heckle; Nikita chose to ignore. Though the more George Brown drank the louder his heckling became, and the more infuriated Khrushchev was. The two quickly engaged in a shouting match with Hugh Gaitskell jumping in with the point about Social Democrat treatment within the Soviet Union. Twenty-four hours later Khrushchev condemned the whole Labour Party. I don’t think George Brown would have cared much, he was an internationalist and a socialist (I realise for our American audience this is a bad word, for that I’m sorry ) as a result he believed as he said in his speech to the United Nations in 1966 “the principles of freedom, of equality and the importance of the individual which lie at the base of our philosophy of Democratic Socialism are not circumscribed by national boundaries. They are not limited in their application to certain places or countries or races. They apply universally throughout the world.”

After the death of Nye Bevan George Brown ran as the “Gaitskellite” candidate for deputy leader and won. He pushed for a moderate focus on party policy engaging in the debate to replace clause IV of the Labour Party constitution which read “To secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service.” In George Brown and Hugh Gaitskell’s mind it was a necessary step to put aside the commitment to nationalisation as an outdated dogma which would damage the party with “middle England”. This was an unpopular opinion among the left-wing members and it never came about until after George Brown was long gone in 1995 under the leadership of Tony Blair and the rise of New Labour.

When Hugh Gaitskell suddenly died in 1963 George Brown was put in an inevitable position of going for Party Leadership. He was up against the then Bevanite candidate Harold Wilson. The contest was named by Anthony Crosland as The Drunk v The Crook. On this occasion The Crook won. George Brown had split his allies, they agreed with him on the big issues, but felt his drinking and his hot-headed style of politics was too much to be given the leadership of the party and as a result Wilson easily won. Following this bitter defeat Brown was rumoured to have booked a flight to Scotland under a different name to engage in a weeklong bender. On his return he demanded to be made Shadow Foreign Secretary. This was denied though he become Foreign Secretary in the Labour Government reshuffle of 1966.

As Foreign Secretary he set his eyes on membership to the European Economic Community (later the European Union). This was blocked by President Charles De Gaul. This led George Brown to depressive stages of drunkardness. He publicly insulted the wife of the British Ambassador to France and ended up killing off the chap’s career. This was picked up in the British media and led to the phrase “Tired and Emotional” as being a euphemism, in the UK at least, for being drunk or hungover. In this period there are two notable drinking stories. The first on a diplomatic visit to a South American country Brown was said to have lumbered over to a tall, elegant vision in red, and requested the honour of the next dance, to be told, "I will not dance with you for three reasons. The first is that you are drunk. The second is that the band is not playing a waltz, but the Peruvian national anthem. The final reason is that I am the Cardinal Archbishop of Lima." The second story is that he had curtseyed at Princess Margret but was too drunk to stand back up.

He famously said on his drinking that “many members of parliament drink and womanise – now, I've never womanised".

In catastrophic pound devaluation George Brown was too drunk to attend Privy Council meeting, which resulted him in storming into the Prime Minister’s office drunk and abusive. This ended in his resignation. The upcoming election of 1970 he lost his seat.

He was then given a peerage, he responded “It's ridiculous to give me that stupid title. I'm not a lord and I wish I could drop the damn thing.” He later insisted that he should be called “Lord George” in the House of Lords instead of “lord Brown” which is convention. The drunkard pedantic that he is changed his name to “George George-Brown” and as a result was called “Lord George-Brown” in the chamber.

As the 70s went on he became disillusioned by the lack of democracy in the Trade Union movement and the Labour Party and resigned publicly with the statement 'This is the saddest night of my life… After 45 years I've left for the same bloody reasons I joined.'' His departure was only slightly undermined by him drunkardly falling into the gutter outside Labour Party HQ immediately after, only to be helped to his feet by onlooking journalists. The Times ran the story "Lord George-Brown drunk is a better man than the Prime Minister undrunk."

Suffering cirrhosis of the liver, he died after a stroke on the 2nd June 1985.

He wasn’t just a mean drunk, he did achieve some great things. Arguably was a leader in Labour’s successful General Election of 1964. He laid the founding steps for Britain’s entrance into the soon to be European Union (I know) and one of the authors of Resolution 242 of the UN Security Council. He was silent critic of the Vietnam War whilst a very vocal supporter of the “Special Relationship”. He was a flawed character like we all are, a hell of a drunk, but ultimately someone who did try to do some good.


p.s. well done if you got to the bottom of this essay
Major Strasser: What is your nationality?
Rick: I'm a drunkard.
Captain Renault: That makes Rick a citizen of the world.

User avatar
mistah willies
Drinking Like W.C.
Drinking Like W.C.
Posts: 6747
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2013 9:48 pm
Location: A ship upon the vast ocean of the Mighty MDM
Contact:

Re: One of the great political drunks

Post by mistah willies »

TheDrunkardAnglo wrote:
Tue Jun 09, 2020 3:07 pm
Brown was said to have lumbered over to a tall, elegant vision in red, and requested the honour of the next dance, to be told, "I will not dance with you for three reasons.
The first is that you are drunk.
The second is that the band is not playing a waltz, but the Peruvian national anthem.
The final reason is that I am the Cardinal Archbishop of Lima."
The second story is that he had curtseyed at Princess Margret but was too drunk to stand back up.
A fine essay on the boundaries of endrunardtivity, and quite elucidative as well as hallucinogenic my young friend. Well done.

It's worth re-reading, for the amount of history involved.

Now, there are a couple of tidbits I'd like to share, if you'd be so willing to read.

One is this: the division between the two sides of the brain have always been there, and likely will continue to be.

Some fear change, or perhaps inspire fear and are addicted to anger at the "other".
Some are open and willing to search for inclusion, but at the cost of endangerment to their own.

Two is this: Moderation is key. (Well, I'm not talking about DRINKing).
Rather, the idea that in order to continue, the pendulum will always swing back to the middle for a bit, and then continue to the other side of the political gambit. You see; work truly gets done when we are collectively fed up with the extremist ends of the spectrum and regroup as a true collective. In the middle.

Indeed, it necessarily takes both sides to get real work done for us all. There is absolutely nothing wrong with true understanding for each others' points of views, compassion for each other's sense of safety, and bartering/concessions in order to just get things done. All thoughts and inquiries need to be addressed in any meeting of the minds, or else there is no point to the meeting, the conversation.

When the pendulum comes to the middle, that is the time to do good work, because that is folks will finally agree to work together. Together.

Inevitably, irresistibly, unforgettably, the pendulum will continue its dark, harrowing unforgiving swing into the opposhite plane (yes, oppoShite) and we will all end up fighting again.

That's how we are, we humans, that's how it's always been, and will always continue. Yet, we need those who are highly protectionist, and those who are more welcoming of new adventures.

Now for a DRINK! to your fine essay, hombre.


*hiccup*


/
Can we drink now? ---peetie44
At rock bottom, there is no down. ---The Oett
^ ^ ^ Yes his entire cutlery set and all utensils are made from assorted broken bottles.--- The Artful Detective
Just remember Hugh: a good cocktail in a shitty glass is better that a shitty cocktail in a pretty glass.---The Badfellow
I'll buy the first round if you promise to stop being a cunt. --- Dear Booze

Post Reply