shewhomust (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
shewhomust) wrote2010-03-03 10:13 pm
shewhomust) wrote2010-03-03 10:13 pm
Blogging as an alternative to throwing things at the radio
I've been infuriated this evening by the Radio 4 coverage of the death of Michael Foot.
Michael Foot wasn't in any way one of my heroes: I don't place much faith in politicians of any party. He deserves some respect, certainly, for reaching the eminence of leader of the party without jettisoning all his principles on the way (though I never quite forgave him for backing the decision to send a task force to the Falkland Islands, allowing Margaret Thatcher her war. The nearest I ever came to personal contact with him was hearing him speak at my first ever Miners' Gala - and then seeing his car sweep past us as we tried to hitchhike back to London.
But next time I hear a BBC journalist being supercilious about the politics of character, the deplorable modern tendency to personal attacks and the obsession of the tabloid press with superficial detail, I shall think of tonight's six o' clock news, with its repeated descriptions of Foot as an untidy figure, with his wild hair and choice of the wrong jacket for a Remembrance Day parade. The public found these things unacceptable, the broadcaster assured us. Oh, it was the public who found it unacceptable, was it? The Press had nothing to do with it?
Foot became leader of the Labour Party when it was deeply divided: I was going to ask, "When was the Labour Party not deeply divided?", but that's just a cheap reflex action. No cheaper, though, than the BBC's explanation of the split as being between the Bennite left and the "traditional right wing of the party". A similar BBC report online says: "As the militants gained strength, moderate Labour members followed David Owen and the other members of the so called Gang of Four as they defected from the troubled party and formed the SDP." The moderates, that is, were so moderate in their commitment to the party that they shortly afterwards departed to found an opposing party; the militant troublemakers were the ones who actually believed in the constitution and policies of the party.
As for those policies, the description of Foot's 1983 Election Manifesto as "the longest suicide note in history" was brought out yet again (thank you, Gerald Kaufman). I had forgotten, though, that the problem was that it contained policies which had been put forward, debated and voted for by the party conference, that is, by the members of the party. This process (which gave disproportionate weight to the votes cast by trades union delegates on behalf of their members whom they may or may not actually have consulted) wasn't perfect - but I like it better than one where policies are refined by consultants and focus groups until they are guaranteed not to offend the Daily Mail.
Sorry, writing this down is not having the calming effect I hoped for; I think I'd better go to bed and read Diana Wynne Jones.
Michael Foot wasn't in any way one of my heroes: I don't place much faith in politicians of any party. He deserves some respect, certainly, for reaching the eminence of leader of the party without jettisoning all his principles on the way (though I never quite forgave him for backing the decision to send a task force to the Falkland Islands, allowing Margaret Thatcher her war. The nearest I ever came to personal contact with him was hearing him speak at my first ever Miners' Gala - and then seeing his car sweep past us as we tried to hitchhike back to London.
But next time I hear a BBC journalist being supercilious about the politics of character, the deplorable modern tendency to personal attacks and the obsession of the tabloid press with superficial detail, I shall think of tonight's six o' clock news, with its repeated descriptions of Foot as an untidy figure, with his wild hair and choice of the wrong jacket for a Remembrance Day parade. The public found these things unacceptable, the broadcaster assured us. Oh, it was the public who found it unacceptable, was it? The Press had nothing to do with it?
Foot became leader of the Labour Party when it was deeply divided: I was going to ask, "When was the Labour Party not deeply divided?", but that's just a cheap reflex action. No cheaper, though, than the BBC's explanation of the split as being between the Bennite left and the "traditional right wing of the party". A similar BBC report online says: "As the militants gained strength, moderate Labour members followed David Owen and the other members of the so called Gang of Four as they defected from the troubled party and formed the SDP." The moderates, that is, were so moderate in their commitment to the party that they shortly afterwards departed to found an opposing party; the militant troublemakers were the ones who actually believed in the constitution and policies of the party.
As for those policies, the description of Foot's 1983 Election Manifesto as "the longest suicide note in history" was brought out yet again (thank you, Gerald Kaufman). I had forgotten, though, that the problem was that it contained policies which had been put forward, debated and voted for by the party conference, that is, by the members of the party. This process (which gave disproportionate weight to the votes cast by trades union delegates on behalf of their members whom they may or may not actually have consulted) wasn't perfect - but I like it better than one where policies are refined by consultants and focus groups until they are guaranteed not to offend the Daily Mail.
Sorry, writing this down is not having the calming effect I hoped for; I think I'd better go to bed and read Diana Wynne Jones.
no subject
I sure that's true, though!
no subject
no subject
no subject
Me? I know what a socialist is because I see one every time I look in the mirror. Disappointment and despair I can live with. Giving up is another matter. Had I a flag it would be at half mast today.
no subject
The people's flag is... No, let's not go there!