Vic wrote:
"I'm sure that Brian will have had that 'I don't get all the bookings I deserve' conversation with Peter as regularly as I did."

Indeed I did. On one occasion he leafed through the empty pages of his diary with an expression of such desolation that it was hard to know what to say.

"It was fairly useless to tell him that in spite of his huge talent, his strange manner in font of an audience and because of the qualities that that have been ascribed to him earlier in this paragraph, he wasn't the easiest person to present at your club or have staying in your home. It was only because he was such a fascinating and unique performer that we continued to book him."

I always thought it was those other attributes, rather than his (perceived) politics that put people off booking him. My local club organizers were very resistant to the idea until I twisted their arms hard. He went down a storm and they were completely converted.

I should say, by the way, that despite all his contrariness I got on well with Peter, and was once invited to dinner at his and Jenny's house with my wife. Once we'd got beyond the initial greeting: "Do you mind if I smoke dope? Because if you do you can always leave," he was the most wonderful host.

"THE CROWN v. BRIAN PETERS on a charge of BEING A GRASPING SKINFLINT... Exhibit A M' Lud."

All publicity is good publicity, thank you Vic.

On a more general note, given the origins of the UK Folk Revival, it's hardly surprising that many of those drawn to it have been of the left. Rosma is quite right that the traditional repertoire is on the whole politically neutral, but the idea that this was the music of the have-nots made it attractive from a left perspective. Leaving aside the many singers who have drafted modern songs into their repertoire in order to make the kind of statement that traditional songs don't usually provide I can think of several performers whose politics are firmly socialist, but whose repertoires barely hint at it.