“To What Extent Is The Pursuit Of Kleos Presented As Hamartia In Beowulf and The Odyssey?”

“To What Extent Is The Pursuit Of Kleos Presented As Hamartia In Beowulf and The Odyssey?”

The Odyssey is one of the most loved and most debated pieces of all literature: from the unknown source of its authorship and the poetic beauty with which it was constructed, to the story of the relationships of a man returning from war to be with his wife and son. Scholarly debate also provokes the question of how a once-sung epic poem of such stature was canonised and written down: the question of whose Odyssey it is also underpins the extent to which critics have interpreted and translated it[1]. The authorship of the latter epic poem Beowulf is unknown too, although many historians share consensus that it was written during the conversion between Paganism and Christianity. Yet it also continues to preserve the tales of its own eponymous hero. Is it coincidental that two texts which create the cornerstones of literature in their respective societies (one of Classical Antiquity, the other in the Anglo-Saxon period) are so famed, yet there is no single authorship agreed upon by scholars of either text? Indeed, are the unknown authors of these texts holders of their own kleos? Undoubtedly the unknown authorship of the epic poems makes them complex: their heroes’ eternal social and moral characteristics provoke judgement from many of their critics, some of which will be considered in this essay.

The notion of kleos (fame and glory) being won through memorable actions is perhaps the oldest heroic element, and one of its study’s most questionable terms. It is linked to the existential questions “Why am I here?” and “What should I do?” because many, if not most, humans find self-fulfilment and meaning in performing actions that will be remembered positively. Sometimes people want to commit a ‘bad’ action if, in a perverse inversion of the heroic code, this is the only way they feel they can be remembered. Acting in one way or another in order to be remembered is not only an aspect of the hero, it is more so a human phenomenon.

To give an analogy, one might give charity for the ‘sake of’ giving charity. But doing something for sake of doing something at all is morally empty, and, if we all do things that could be done by anyone, there would be no real gain and no personality or difference between Person One, Person Two and Person Three. That leaves two other options: firstly, I could give charity because charity is perceived as ‘good’ by the people around me; secondly, if we ignore the people around me and simply consider me (the giver), and you (the receiver), I could give charity because you would think it is a good action and you would remember me in a positive light for having given you charity. The single governing element that links the second two options is what might be termed social opinion. In other words, caring about what people think about your actions. It is important to note that, for a select few, self-fulfilment is achieved through literally fulfilling base needs or hopes without caring what other people think of them - whether their needs are hunger, intimacy or something else. For anyone who does not find self-fulfilment in material fulfilment, then I suggest that we find meaning in ourselves in relation to how other people, or at least another person, find meaning in us. But for many of us, self-fulfilment is based on how other people judge and remember the success of our actions as much as we do.

The common translation of kleos as fame and glory, though, can lead to a faulty understanding of its Ancient Greek meaning. While it is true that kleos is underpinned by social renown, the form and time in which kleos must be achieved is intrinsic to whether or not it is in fact kleos being achieved. As Gregory Nagy points out in Pindar’s Home[2], kleos is fame or honour which is “conferred by song or poetry”: it can only be achieved in such a way. In the frame of my question, therefore, judging whether the pursuit of kleos is presented as hamartia means that the measure might apparently only be applied to those instances in which a character specifically endeavours to be sang about in the future, after their death. Nonetheless, during the epic Odysseus and other characters do sometimes speak of their own fame or honourable deeds (an act which is called ainos), which confers kleos on to them. The definition is complicated further by the fact that through reciting an epic poem, a bard (Homer in this case) is intrinsically “narrating the deeds of heroes… [which is] restricted to the heroes of the distant past”[3]. Nagy is correct in his thesis that any positive action described in an epic poem confers kleos onto the ‘dead doer’ of said action; but it can also be said that kleos can be pursued or created in the present.

In spite of this, there are examples in the two texts that do not follow the pattern of praising the pursuit of kleos, thus defining hamartia effectively is paramount. Can one’s actions that are performed in an attempt to be praised through song always be honourable and praiseworthy? Is this not a selfish decision? The term hamartia is equally complex and difficult to understand as kleos is; it presents difficulties in answering my question because its definition has been subject to much criticism, and indeed because it refers to drama. Hamartia was first coined by Aristotle in his philosophical text, Poetics [4]to refer to a character’s fatal flaw’ which causes them to make a poor decision that eventually results in a reversal of fortunes. When applied to my essay, the question then becomes: “to what extent is the pursuit of winning honour [conferred by a song that praises your deeds] presented as a fatal flaw that causes an error of judgement?” Even by transgressing the boundaries between poetry and drama in order to utilise the notion of hamartia in my criticism of Beowulf and The Odyssey, the term itself is certainly troublesome, for ‘pursuit’ is an action and thus intrinsically cannot be a characteristic flaw. The reason one pursues something may be the result of lust, obstinacy, stubbornness or pride; moralists have argued that this is the simple definition but even this has been criticised. Nevertheless, both poems were written in somewhat religious societies where the god’s or gods’ relationship with mortals is important and considered; morality is vital in understanding hamartia.

In order to understand my thesis I must refute Aristotle’s definition of hamartia and render my question, “To what degree do the poets of Beowulf and The Odyssey present the pursuit of winning honour [conferred by a song that praises a character’s deeds] as an error of judgement?”

The scrutiny of how the poets of these two epics present the pursuit of kleos as hamartia or sound judgement, is most complex and intriguing due to the number of characters who create kleos in a number of different ways. Charles Segal identifies in Kleos and its Ironies[5] that, “the poet views kleos retrospectively” in The Odyssey, and this links most profoundly to those characters who also view kleos in retrospect. Just as the poet would recite the Odyssey aloud to an audience, hence conferring kleos onto the characters in the text, within the recitation itself the poet includes episodes of narrative kleos from the characters’ own perspectives.

The kleos of the eponymous character’s wife, Penelope, has rightfully been the subject of criticism and debate, both as a result of her reversal of the traditional gender position as a wife, and due to the moral reasoning with which she explains her pursuit of it. The first notable passage in which this argument resonates is Book 19, [6]which records the first encounter between herself and Odysseus since he left her to fight the Trojan War 20 years ago. As Charles Segal points out, this is one of two passages within the entire Odyssey in which a character narrates their own kleos in the first person[7]; in fact, this first-person narration perfectly foreshadows the result of her husband’s self-revealing one book later. When Penelope says to the stranger: “If he should come back and look after my life, my fame would be greater thus”, On one level she naturally refers to the kleos which she deserves for remaining faithful to her husband and keeping the household true - and indeed this reversal of traditional roles deserves further kleos itself. But on a deeper level she acknowledges that a secondary superlative kleos (the kleos which she actively pursues) would always be dependent on him coming back to observe it. In fact, when Odysseus does reveal himself in Book 20 [8](now with the opportunity to restore peace and justice in their house and, as an extension, Ithaca), her retrospective explanation for and of her web (which she created during the day and detangled in the night, so that the suitors could not marry her) quite literally endows her with kleos. Furthermore, Segal [9]points out, when Amphimedon recites Penelope’s “wiliness” to Agamemnon in the Underworld, he described her “good sense” and praised “the glory of her arête (virtue) that will never perish.” This declaration is therefore both retrospective - for Homer constructs the recitation so that the slain suitor endows kleos onto Penelope simply because he is describing previous actions of her arête - and prospective in that it predicts her future kleos (which we now sing and praise). Penelope’s pursuit of kleos, moreover, is most certainly not hamartia: although she achieves kleos identifiably thrice, the one time she aspires to do so is purely reliant upon Odysseus coming home and re-assuming his role as King and her lover-protector.

Telemachos is the first and penultimate character to consider the role of kleos, showing much awareness of the epic warrior tradition. Jealous of his father’s kleos, which a young Telemachus believes would have been greater if “he had died,/ If with his companions”, Odysseus’ son’s calculation that “[my father] would have won great glory for his son too” pays homage to the fact that a warrior’s son would claim kleos automatically due to their lineage.” Conversely, Athene in the guise of the mortal King Mentor highlights Telemachos’ own cowardice in only reacting to his father by grieving and so subverts this notion by demanding that he “be as brave as Orestes,” who famously killed his father’s murderer. This call to action indeed shows the importance contemporary Greek society placed on a man showing courage in order to inspire “future generations [to] sing your praises.” In fact, the courage to act and win personal kleos which Athena inspires in Telemachos at the beginning of the tale adds weight to any morality judgement of his actions. Though Telemachos doesn’t realise such until the end, Athena-cum-Mentor’s words of encouragement at the beginning of his Odyssey are a form of divine directive for his pursuit of kleos. Notably, the poet shows great poetic justice within the cycle of the poem’s two main odysseys: foreshadowing from the beginning Telemachos’ attempts to act as an honourable and kleos-worthy King of Ithaca, the last line Odysseus speaks to Telemachos upon his own arrival at end of the poem is a command: “Not to disgrace the family of your fathers, who before were distinguished for strength and prowess on the whole earth.” Thus “sound-minded” Telemachos’ response, “In my present spirit, dear father…. you shall see, That I shall not at all disgrace your family,” is the signal that his pursuit of kleos is anything but a hamartia. The poet constructs a necessary reconciliation of the two most prevalent types of Telemachos’ kleos: that which is sung of his family, and that which praises his own courage.

In Beowulf, the eponymous character achieves kleos after three main battles, the first of which he engages as a prime model of his society’s warrior-culture. Beowulf’s first arrival on the scene is in preparation for battle in Denmark: having crossed the seas from the land of the Geats, “he was the mightiest man alive, highborn and powerful” and ready to fight the monster named Grendel, who was terrorising the Danes in their famous hall, Heorot. Indeed the poet suggests the motivation for Beowulf’s first fight as the pursuit of immediate honour among the Danes when the warrior explains his “fixed purpose when I set to sea” to the Danish King, Hrothgar’s, wife. Within the framework of my question it is arguably true that such pursuit of kleos is not hamartia: Beowulf knew he lived in a warrior-culture and so his actions would result in “heightening Hygelac’s fame” and the awarding of a “huge prize” by Hrothgar. It is notable, therefore, that before defeating Grendel, Beowulf proposes that his purpose is to “prove myself with a proud deed”; for although the reader knows in retrospect that within this epic form kleos is intrinsically being achieved many years after the battle, any notion of eternal fame (what Nagy would deem real epic kleos) is only hinted at later on in the text. In fact, only during the celebration at Heorot does Hrothgar endow eternal kleos on to Beowulf, by declaring: “You have made yourself immortal by your glorious action.” Moreover, the narrator comments during his recitation of the battle that “as long as either lived, he was hateful to the other”, and so we can infer that the battle between Beowulf and Grendel was in fact necessary. A combination of the warrior-culture of Beowulf’s contemporary society and the opinion of the poet therefore, suggest that the hero's decision was perhaps even unquestionable.

However, the pursuit of kleos during Beowulf’s fight with Grendel’s avenging mother occurs amid a seemingly transitional phase in his maturity and humility within the epic plot. At this crucial point Beowulf has achieved the greatest extent of kleos: being “known to all men: now and forever”, and he has adopted two of Hrothgar’s sons “for kindly guidance” in becoming great warriors. Paradoxically, the poet suggests Beowulf is “indifferent to death” and yet he demands that Hrothgar “take care of my young company, my comrades in arms” if he dies. There is a suggestion that he has developed a paternalistic relationship not just with these ‘sons’, but also with the rest of the Danes; this presents the transition from simply being a ‘warrior’ who pursues kleos to a ‘warrior-king’ who fights both to protect his people. The poet presents a further dichotomy, though, between Beowulf finding the courage to defeat Grendel’s mother as a result of the importance of “his name and fame”, and the fact that his victory becomes reliant on divine intervention, for example when “he saw a blade that boded well.” That Beowulf additionally relied on the “locks and chains [of his chainmail]” to be protected from defeat by Grendel’s mother further shows that this victory was not due to his own strength alone. Therefore the extent to which Beowulf’s pursuit of kleos is presented as hamartia during his second fight is complicated by the emphasised significance of divine intervention in this fight. Beowulf now cares for both his fame and his comrades: yet the poet repeats the line “holy God decided the victory” to encourage his listener to question whether the success in battle is the result of fate, the strength of the hero himself, or a combination.

Indeed, Hrothgar’s reflection of the fight when the hero arrives in Heorot seems to answer this question. In response to Beowulf - who voices his appreciation that “the outcome would have been quick and fatal, if God had not helped me” - Hrothgar appears to evaluate Beowulf’s motivation to fight with praise. The poet chooses for the half-Dane to say, “your fame has gone far and wide, you are known to everyone”, which could either be interpreted as an endorsement of Beowulf’s motivation to fight in order to gain such kleos, or as a comment that this kleos is a result of his “even-tempered, prudent” approach. Certainly, the word “prudent” suggests that Beowulf had made a calculated and caring decision for the future (whether it be to perform an action which would gain him kleos, or one which protects his people too). In addition, Hrothgar’s belief that Beowulf’s actions have “draw[n] “the Geat nation and us neighbouring Danes, into shared peace”, hence resolving “hatreds we have harboured in the past”, intensified the worthiness of his kleos. Moreover, this fulfils the reason for which Beowulf originally declared his entering Denmark, specifically: “proffer[ing]... a way to defeat his [Hrothgar’s] enemy”, by in fact creating a “pact” between the Danes and Geats. Overall, that the kleos which Beowulf has won in defeating Grendel’s mother (praiseworthy in its own merit) also results in reconciliation between two fighting countries suggests that by “calm[ing] the turmoil and terror in (Hrothgar’s) mind”, its pursuit is not an example of hamartia - it is, in fact, positively multiplied.

Beowulf’s arrival to his home in Geatland subsequently enlightens the listener of his motivation to pursue kleos before ever entering Denmark. He immediately tells Hygelac (his uncle) that he has “won credit for you, my king, and for all your people”, which shows how important it is to win fame for the family name; in this deeply ancestral and tribal society, any examples of previous kings or princes who had disgraced reputations are part of a shame culture, to which the poet directly contrasts the honour of Beowulf (who is himself “Hygelac’s thane”. Indeed, Beowulf takes pleasure in giving the physical treasures he’d won from Hrothgar in Denmark to Hygelac because he realises “It is still upon your grace that all favour depends”, which is testament to the value heroes placed upon gaining honour from their king, and consequently from the people around him. Accordingly the acknowledgment of such repute and loyalty is recognised by Hygelac when he claims Beowulf had “behaved with honour and took no advantage” in contrast to when “He had been poorly regarded for a long time.” This indeed links to heroic epics of the past, most notably The Odyssey, in which Telemachos’ pursuit of his own kleos is instigated by the opportunity to mimic or imitate the greatness of his father, and make their family name more honourable. Such sentiment, moreover, is given true justice at the end of Beowulf’s life, when the last word he speaks is “them” (his dead family), which contrasts the first words “We” (his and his men’s origin). The poem’s penultimate praise of Beowulf by Hygelac, therefore, shows a deeper emotion behind his pursuit of kleos: haunted by, and trying to refute, his old name of shame, the heroic warrior had won fame for himself and his uncle - in the hope of gaining social praise in the future and present.

After Hygelac and his successor dies, though, Beowulf becomes the King of Denmark - thus in the latter part of the epic, the poet presents the second heroic model: the tender-yet-resolute warrior-king. The poet at first evokes great and epic sympathy for the paternalistic “warriors’ protector” as he realises the only way to defend his people is to engage in battle with a dragon who was terrorising Denmark. Having won many battles thus far and feeling “unsettled yet ready, sensing his death”, Beowulf’s fear that “he must have thwarted ancient ordinance of the eternal Lord” is utilised by the poet to advise the listener that divine intervention is a necessary element of human existence, and indeed in showing the hero that his power is mortally finite. Nonetheless, the poet secondly emphasises the complexity of the warrior-king through the kleos which he still pursues, for he wants to “pursue this fight for the glory of winning” in spite of his humility and awareness that “fate, overseer, decides.” Indeed, Beowulf seems to have been weakened by being forced to “unwillingly inhabit another home” when fighting the dragon, and yet is reminded by Wiglaf that “you would never let your name and fame be dimmed while you lived.” The poet’s sympathy for Beowulf’s position is thus testament to the heroism of the model warrior-king: socially he has “cared for and stood by things in my keeping” yet is physically “letting go of the life and lordship I have long maintained”. Even at the point of his death, Beowulf pursues a time (Ancient Greek for a physical symbol of kleos) to be erected in the form of “Beowulf’s Barrow”, for he hoped he would be praised Danes and men in the future. Moreover, the almost mathematical transaction of “treasure…. bought and paid for by Beowulf’s life” suggests the harshness of his heroically tragic and indeed praiseworthy last action: Beowulf the character died defending his name and his people.

The response of the Geats and the poet to the death of Beowulf is telling of the model warrior and warrior-king’s lasting impact. On one level Wiglaf is the first to internalise the heroic-code to which Beowulf subscribed, declaring: “A warrior will sooner die than live a life of shame.” This statement sheds light immediately on Beowulf’s former state of being “indifferent to death” before fighting Grendel’s mother; it emphasises the warrior’s motivation to pursue kleos as an opposite to being shamed for inactivity in the face of danger - which Beowulf continued to represent when he fought the dragon. Wiglaf had indeed just shown his own “courage” by assisting the “shepherd of our land” (Beowulf) in defeating the dragon; his declaration is truly justified to the extent that, within the epic poem we hear, the poet endows kleos on him by reciting the speech. On a secondary level, however, Wiglaf highlights the importance of Beowulf having “in days gone by…. kept our coffers and our kingdom safe” when the Danes couldn’t defend themselves by suggesting that his death would cause a “bad blood feud.” The model warrior-king is thus Beowulf: his heroic stature is based on him having been a powerful fighter who “behaved” in a way that would ensure his kleos, while such acts of courage also inherently protected his countrymen.

The ending of Beowulf is therefore interpreted as an imperfect reconciliation of the apparent selfishness of a warrior entering battle in the pursuit of kleos, and of a king who safeguards his men from danger (which increases his kleos further). At his funeral, Beowulf is mourned as “a man and a king”, with which the poet highlights the contrast between the glory of his ruling powers and the emotion which the Geats felt for the death of a relatable human who had been humbled by his last actions. The narrator’s comments that “a man should praise a prince who he holds dear” can thus be interpreted as a meta-poetic, or its criticism: in showing an awareness of the epic poetry tradition of which he was a part, there could be a sense that Beowulf’s author too is fulfilling his role as a bard praising “a man”, and yet he is ambiguous as to whether this a “prince… he holds dear.” Notably, scholars of the canonised Beowulf text disagree on the exact authorship of the original oral[10] poem, and yet there is relative consensus that the poem was constructed during the conversion of the Anglo-Saxons from Paganism to Christianity. Thomas D. Hill states in his essay, The Christian Language and Theme of Beowulf, [11]that the Beowulf poet is presenting a radical synthesis of pagan and Christian history- which is seemingly without parallel in Anglo Saxon or Anglo-Latin literature - and yet this poet perhaps intentionally distances himself from the “Geat people[‘s]” sorrow for Beowulf. Nonetheless, the last words the Beowulf poet sings of the poem eponymous hero are thus, “They say… he was the man most gracious and fair-minded, kindest to his people and keenest to win fame.” This last praise for Beowulf is testament to his heroic traits: his decisions were rational and made with an awareness of their impact on others because he was “fair minded”, which itself contrasts to the excess of the superlatives “kindest” and “keenest.” In spite of the apparently contrasting beliefs of Paganism and Christianity, the Beowulf poet presents the eponymous hero’s pursuit of kleos and “fame” as “fair-minded” and not hamartia.

But are examples of the pursuit of kleos being presented as hamartia non-existent in either text? There are a number of occasions in each poem in which pursuing or illustrating one’s own fame blindly is suggested as hamartia because the circumstances are misjudged: Odysseus tells the Cyclops his name upon escape from the animal’s cave, which nearly causes his own death and that of his comrades, and instigates the Sea-God’s attempts to prevent him from ever reaching Ithaca again. In Beowulf, the poet interweaves stories such as Brecca’s unsuccessful attempt to win fame by beating Beowulf in a sea battle, or of previous feuds in which one figure has tried to win honour but has gained a negative reputation instead. These - and many other similar episodes or historical events - are only glimpsed upon in this essay to highlight the more profound episodes in which the characters have learned to consider that their action is the right one. Ian Johnston points out that The Odyssey overall celebrates “a certain aspect of human experience” in which a character must survive and endure difficulty to realise a “domestic community, and to do so in such a way that we demonstrate and assert our own excellence.[12]” The greatest kleos created in The Odyssey is Odysseus’ successful return home (nostos), which in turn justifies the domestic kleos won by both Penelope (his wife) and Telemachus (his son); the lasting kleos of the Beowulf poem is its eponymous character’s death whilst protecting his people, who in turn sing his kleos as a community.

My aim has indeed been to show that judgement of the pursuit of kleos should be circumstantial and based on contrasts to when such pursuit was hamartia. The focus of this essay has illustrated, therefore, that in Homer’s Odyssey and Beowulf, the notion of actively pursuing honour [conferred by a song that praises a character’s deeds] is not presented as an error of judgement in and of itself; in the specific examples selected, the epic heroes demonstrably calculate that such decisions would be sound. Neither of the epic poems’ exact authorships is known - and they seem to be created in different societies - yet the epic poem’s messages are both similar: the emotional and rational responses of surrounding characters are necessarily considered if the listener is to judge the pursuit of kleos at all.

---

[1] http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p004y297 - Bragg M, 2015; In Our Time: The Odyssey, BBC Radio 4 – accessed 29/03/15

[2] Nagy G, 1994: Pindar's Homer: The Lyric Possession of An Epic Past, The Johns Hopkins University Press

[3] Nagy G, 1994: Pindar's Homer: The Lyric Possession of An Epic Past, The Johns Hopkins University Press

[4] http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/poetics/section6.rhtml - accessed 5/11/14

[5] Segal C, 2001; Singers, Heroes, and Gods in the "Odyssey" (Myth and Poetics), New York

[6] Cook A, 1993: Odyssey: Homer, W. W. Norton & Company & Inc., New York

[7] Segal C, 2001; Singers, Heroes, and Gods in the "Odyssey" (Myth and Poetics), New York

[8] Cook A, 1993: Odyssey: Homer, W. W. Norton & Company & Inc., New York

[9] Segal C, 2001; Singers, Heroes, and Gods in the "Odyssey" (Myth and Poetics), New York

[10] http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0542xt7 - Bragg M, 2015; In Our Time: Beowulf, BBC Radio 4 – accessed 8/05/15

[11] Hill, Thomas D. The Christian Language and Theme of Beowulf. In Companion to Old

English Poetry. Eds. Henk Aertsen and Rolf H. Bremmer, Jr. (Amsterdam: VU

University Press, 1994). 63-77.

[12] http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/Mythology/OdysseyNotes.htm - accessed 27th July 2015

Zac Goldsmith: Lack of Voter Turnout Not Result Of Apathy

The Tory candidate campaigning to become London's next Mayor told students that he believed low voter turnout was the result of feeling "disenfranchised" not being apathetic, calling for increased direct democracy. 

YouGov poll: Goldsmith is the straight Mayoral Candidate today

Speaking to a group of students at JFS School, based in Kenton, Zac Goldsmith today explained that the thought the absence of large numbers of potential voters at recent general elections was "not because they feel apathetic" but rather "people feel disenfranchised."

The MP for Richmond Park, who was recently elected by Conservative Party members to fight Labour's Sadiq Khan in the race to succeed Boris Johnson as the head of City Hall, stated that direct democracy would provide people with a "sense of empowerment."

The mayoral candidate additionally declared "Parliament is flawed,"  pointing out the absurdity of the tradition of not shaking other MPs' hands in Parliament - because this would be a sign of "peace."  He instead suggested his proposition to allow the public to "initiate referendums locally and [consider] planning permission" would encourage people to influence the decisions that affect them.

And Zac defended his criticism of the government on the grounds of principled opposition. Asked why he continues to attack the government's attempts to expand Heathrow Airport via building a third runway, Goldsmith responded "I will have to hold my party to account at times." But he highlighted that his recent campaigning, which has included stewardship regarding the environment, shows he is in fact a "proper Conservative."

But he deemed the "smirk[s]" of Conservatives who dislike Jeremy Corbyn a problem because it disregards the importance of holding the government to account. The MP said that he still lamented the "loss of a strong opposition."

Asked why a poll last Friday showed the general public feel more connected to Khan, Goldsmith responded: "I don't think people vote for people on the basis of their background." He added that he was always honest because "I am what I am, I never try to act as anything different from that."

On anti-Semitism, the mayoral candidate said he supported David Cameron's policy of "zero-tolerance" and that he wanted to clamp down on "educational breeding grounds." He also pointed to social media as the new home of terror and hate talk, stating that his policy would include "extensive police monitoring."

UK Public Wants Johnson Not Osborne, Say Polls

Boris Johnson is George Osborne's main competition to become Tory Leader

Opinion polls from two of UK’s leading research companies reveal that the general public would prefer Boris Johnson to become the next Prime Minister over his main rival George Osborne, although Tory voters still want Osborne.

According to joint research by The Huffington Post UK and Survation, the Mayor of London is the nation's favourite candidate to succeed Conservative leader David Cameron, winning 25% of votes. That means he is currently beating the PM’s heir apparent, Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne, who trails behind with ten percentage points less.

The news will stun the party and David Cameron, who previously said he would not stand for election in 2020 and named Osborne as his personal choice of successor. Osborne currently holds the second most senior position in government behind the PM, while Boris Johnson has been seen as a controversial pain by the leader and his peers. Reports recently surfaced that the London Mayor had been paid by Cameron to not cause any hassle at the Conservative Conference before the general election.

The Chancellor is a close ally and friend of the Prime Minister

The polling company's head of political research, Gideon Skinner, summarised: “There is a striking divide in views of George Osborne, reflecting his position at the centre of political debate.
“Conservative supporters put him at the top of the list to be their next leader, but voters of other parties say he is much less likely to win their vote.”

Notably, among those skilled manual workers who are required to win the marginal seats in a a general election, Johnson still beats Osborne with 33% to 9%. This suggests that workers would preferred to live under a government headed by the often-campaigning London Mayor, Boris Johnson, than the man who decides how our economy is run.

And pollsters Ipsos MORI have also released data for the Evening Standard, suggesting that voters would most likely vote Tory in 2020 if Johnson was leader of the party. 27% would support a Johnson-run government party versus 17% for Home Secretary, Theresa May, and 15% for Osborne.

Is the Tory leadership still a three-person race?

However, Ipsos MORI revealed that Tory voters preferred Osborne, with the Chancellor winning 32% compared to Johnson’s 29%. This would result in Osborne winning the role, though, as voting for the leadership is calculated internally within the party’s official membership. It would remain to be seen whether non-party supporters would register as members in order to vote for Johnson.

And the race to the helm of the party also heats up today as Nick Morgan announced to the Daily Mail that she would consider running for the leadership. The Education Secretary explained: ‘I hope that, in the not too distant future, there will be another female leader of a main Westminster political party.” And she added that her decision on whether to become a candidate “will depend on family”.

Could Education Secretary Morgan become the next female Tory Prime Minister?

Corbyn’s "Political Earthquake": “Don’t Take What You’re Given.”

Labour Leader Jeremy Corbyn used his first party conference speech to urge the British public to stand “against justice” as part of a “kinder politics.”

Having thanked his rivals in this summer’s Labour leadership race, Corbyn referred to his rise to the party’s helm as the “political earthquake” that woke up Britain.  He announced his appreciation of the “courage and dignity” of former leader Ed Miliband, but pointed out that he’d won the party leadership with a “large mandate: a mandate for change.”

Amid reports of splits within the shadow cabinet at the party’s conference, he signalled the direction of his labour party: “Our common project must be to embrace the emergence of a Modern Left movement and harness it.” Having explained that he did want to scrap Trident, he explained “I want to listen to people”, and added that his successful campaign showed “The party at its best: democratic, inclusive, and growing.”

Members of Corbyn's Shadow Cabinet Watch His Speech. Photo Credits: Telegraph.

    

In response to the Conservative Party’s recent labelling of his policies as a “threat to national security”, Corbyn questioned the government’s policies on tenants, youths, self-employment and stagnating wages. He repeated the mantra: “Where’s the security?”

But the Conservatives weren't alone in Corbyn’s backlash, with the labour leader also telling off the “media commentariat” for speculating. Joking about a false report that he supported a meteor strike that would “wipe out humanity”, he said: “Sorry media commentariat, this is where real people debate real issues.”

Corbyn appeals for "Kinder Politics." Photo Credits: Independent.

The Labour MP for Islington further emphasised that becoming party leader doesn't change his role as an active member of parliament. “I’m not going to stop standing up on those issues [of human rights] and being that activist,” he said.

Yet the most passionate part of Corbyn's first speech came when he called upon Labour and the rest of Britain to “put the people’s values back into politics.” Causing impromptu applause and standing ovation, Corbyn stated: “the British people never have to take what they’re given.”

JW3 Labour-Ship Hustings: Where Is The Love?

As Over 300 people attended the Labour Leadership Hustings at JW3, with many more watching a live stream online, I ask who loves who?

Watching the Labour Leadership hopefuls throw their rhetoric at a JW3 hustings audience consisting of both Jews and non-Jews alike, a devastated party tried to pick up the pieces of a sobering affair. One gets the feeling that a number of questions still remain red-button issue: can the Jews learn to love Labour again? And are Labour learning to be true “friends” of Israel and the Jews?

  Let me clarify. Firstly, a great number of Jews do support Labour and voted for them at the election. Approximately one-third said they would - according to a Jewish Chronicle survey. Equally, it is true that Labour has been known to have had a “strong relationship” with the British Jewish Community at different points of the two group’s political and social history. But it is even more true that Blair’s years were perhaps the best for Israel and consequently best for the Jews. Many friends and colleagues remind me of this, and Labour under Ed was - and still is - criticised for causing a lost link between much of Anglo-Jewry and Labour as a party. I can’t help but ask whether this lost link is a boil on the buttocks that the Labour leadership candidates seek to fix, or a pain in the heart that they really care about. I suppose you could say it’s a bit of both…

   So that JW3, proud hosts of the event, is the home of the Jewish community in London and its audience was ready to respond to the quatrain of hopefuls with questions and remarks regarding the changing or unchanging Labour stance on anti-Semitism and Israel was unsurprising.

    Helpfully but wrongly, Jeremy Corbyn idealised that threats to Israel or criticism of the Holy Land and its government are not inextricably linked to anti-Semitism in Israel and our United Kingdom! The truth is that while not all Jews are full supporters of the Israeli government, just as not all supporters of Israeli activity are not Jewish, increased conflict in the Middle-Eastern regions historically always results in increased anti-Semitism and animosity towards Jews in our community.

 I recall a lifelong Labour voter asking Sarah Sackman how he could vote for her in the General Election if the Labour government would be catastrophic for Israel and subsequently unsafe for many Jews here in England. She confidently explained that she would stand up for all Jews - even if she did criticise the Israeli government - were she elected his MP; however even this charming answer could not change the Labour Party’s position. Indeed, change may be on the cards (just ask Harriet Harman), but for many people in last night’s audience it seemed that a Labour government with the party’s most recent views would be simply “unelectable”.

  If anti-semitism is to be truly cured as the Reds “hope”, to use Burnham’s words, then the Leadership will have to make their message clear. And this is the background on top of which any response to the hustings may be considered.

  It’s time to admit, therefore, that the deliberations deliberations of this blog are the product of out-of-sorts circumstances. Unable to buy a ticket in time, a friend at The Jewish Chronicle said the event, which they were partnering, was completely oversubscribed…. so I could only hope to schmooze the doorman or woman minutes before it commenced.

  In fact, after having quickly gone home to eat dinner with my family and change into more comfortable attire, as I saw the JC event organiser walk escort the speakers I stalked down to the backroom where they were preparing. So walking straight past Yvette Cooper (I didn’t exchange too many pleasantries because she was soon to be on stage) and through another room into the conference hall, a fellow journalist and prominent member of the community simply told me to sit down. And so I arrived at the hustings somewhat illegitimately: I shouldn’t have been there.

  More to the point, I am 64% Tory - according to a policy test I completed online. However, approximately 20% of my views align with Labour ideas:I am quite socially liberal and willing to listen to “the other side.” So much so that a Lefty journalist-friend of mine (who loves our Conservative MP Mike Freer) incessantly brands me “closet Lefty” - while I call myself a “floater voter.” Nonetheless, whether Conservative Jews like myself could Learn to love Labour remains to be seen.

 From my seat at least, I was at a national party event with the female version of Ed Miliband (hell yes, that’s Ms Cooper); Jeremy: the Reddest-faced leadership candidate I’ve ever seen; Kendall, the young Blair-esque lady; and the well-presented Shadow Health Secretary Burnham. Last but not least: Chairman of the debate, Jewish Lefty columnist and fantastic Executive Editor of The Guardian’s Comment section, Jonathan Freedland. You can imagine how I, Right Man among many a Labour-loving Jew and Gentile, felt….

  I had, however, been privileged enough to have taken a seat in the “main service”.  Beating other event ticket holders who watched a livestream of the conversation whilst accommodated in the “overflow” services, Chairman Freedland warned us that he didn’t want shouting or heckling - his and George Galloway's comments on Question Time a couple of months ago instigated a storm. He hoped it would present the open and civilised “discussions” that Party Labour so dearly love; though in the splash zone, any animosity between audience and candidates was felt fully. The direction of the leader’s voices, both physically and politically, was loud. But not necessarily clear.

  Liz Kendall wanted to appear to have a very new and improved sense of direction. For as soon as the media labelled her as heralding the rebirth of New Labour, her rhetoric has followed one line: stop being “the same party with a new face.” Throughout her speeches, the words “electable” and “relevant” are deemed favourable; while “protest party” is condemned as Satanic. Without a doubt “relationships” and “discussion” are to be praised: Candidate number one wants to lead Labour as Prime Minister in 2020, and holds a banner of  “economic responsibility” proudly around her head. Ring any “Don’t just hope for change, vote for it” bells?

 Andy Burnham could, then, sadly be the brother who lost. Unfortunately for him, his views could be overshadowed by the Tory-feared Chukah-Umanah or Liz, and it’s difficult to see how he would transfer skills from his current role in order to cure social and economic inequality as opposed to just in Hospitals. But Burnham can be credited for two impressive traits: he wants to be a Diplomat (having promised his first foreign visit as Leader to be to Israel in commemoration of the Balfour Agreement) and he deeply values community. One gets the sense that Burnham’s Cabinet would be Callaghan-united and strong; and one closely in touch with the people. Furthermore, he pleasingly argues that Jewish values concur with those at the “heart of our Labour Party”. Most importantly, his Leadership of the Party would be one of “hope”.  

  Then there’s Corbyn - but we’ll get him over and done with quickly. The radically Left-Hand-Man can be praised for holding strong and consistent values, and for understanding the difference between the Israeli state, Jews and the existence of Israel. Although shouldn’t that be expected of anyone? To disregard him as a candidate or a person with valid views would be wrong - after all he is an “inclusive guy” who preaches “diversity.” But he wants to be “friends” with anyone if that will allow “debate”, and he doesn’t mind inviting Terrorists to Parliament. His politics consists of appreciation and multi-culturalism, but it is difficult to appreciate his belligerence and see how he could lead a modern party.

  To finish, let’s just say that an Yvette win would doom the Labour Party if history repeats itself. I admire her aspiration for equality and the conviction with which she wants to fight for a state that cares for the people it serves; what’s more, she is an experienced and principled lady who wants to work out “how do you actively support Israel?” But it’s her sob-story that really pushes my bad buttons, because Cooper yet suffers from a lack of economic aspiration (cue Yeats: Romantic Britain’s dead and gone, It’s with Miliband in the Grave). I know this because Lefties believe in a collectively conscious state anyway and need no persuading on the issue, so Cameron’s version of welfare and help “at the point of need” has the added bonus of economic security. To that end, Cooper would find it difficult to rally up the support - 92 seats, according to Liz - that Labour so desperately needs. And it’s this sense of direction (or lack thereof) that Labourites would be prudent to consider before branding Cooper a Coup.

  Moreover, by the time the audience’s pre-submitted questions had swayed in the direction of domestic public services, each of the four candidates had promised to strike down the government’s latest Welfare Bill. While Corbyn was one of 48 Labour MPs to completely oppose the Bill, the other three candidates controversially abstained and so are left to “offer an alternative”.

  As the Labour Leadership hopefuls vie for support by outlining their alternatives to the Conservative Government at this landmark JW3 event, some of us were still asking “why was this night different from any other night?” At least we can all agree that the issue of Israeli and British Anti-Semitism was not quite settled!