The Paul Richards Column
History will judge Michael Foot kindly, recalling his immense literary canon, the excoriation of the appeasers in the Conservative Party in 1940, his skill at speech-making, and his overwhelming niceness and decency. Barbara Castle, with whom Foot had a romantic but unconsummated relationship, called him "rational, radical and eminently reasonable" which stands as good an epitaph as any on this sad day.
As with all public figures who make a mark young, and live a long life, much of his career belongs to a different age. There is, I believe, only one remaining man alive elected as a Labour MP in the 1945 landslide.
Foot was born before the First World War. He was editor of the London Evening Standard during the Blitz, aged just 24, and a contemporary of George Orwell at Tribune. He stood for Labour, aged 19, for Monmouth in 1935. His election address read:
"WAR and POVERTY are the twin dangers which threaten our chances for a decent happy life in the world. I want to see a Government in this country which will serve the interests of the deserving many, and not those of the wealthy few.”
It served as a personal credo for the next 70 years.
Foot’s reputation is far more complex than the caricature crafted by those vicious sub-fascist cartoonists in the Mail and Telegraph in the 70s and 80s. His biographers Mervyn Jones (who also died recently) and Kenneth O. Morgan have done a great job in their two books on his life to show the reality. He was not a Communist, despite the Tories’ campaign to portray him as such. Nor was he a pacifist. He supported Thatcher over the Falklands War, just as he supported Churchill over the invasion of Poland. Like Orwell, and hundreds of other young men in 1940, Foot was preparing to join an underground resistance army in the event of German invasion. Legend has it that one of Foot’s first targets for assassination would have been Lord Halifax, the arch Tory appeaser. We will never know whether ultimately he would have been willing to pull the trigger.
His period of office as Leader of the Labour Party is generally regarded as disastrous. But even this sorriest episode of his long life deserves a revisionist rewrite. The party was in such a dire state, it is entirely reasonable to suggest that any other leader would have made things much much worse. Foot’s biographer Mervyn Jones reminds us that:
"When the Labour Party loses power, the sequel is a rigorous, and in some quarters venomous, examination of the defects of the fallen government. There are accusations of missed opportunities, broken promises, decisions and policies that outraged the tenets of socialism, and in particular indifference to, or defiance of the opinions of the party rank and file and the resolutions of party conferences.”
This was the atmosphere in which Foot tried to lead the Labour Party; who could have made a success of it? Jones’s words should also remind us of the dangers of self-indulgence and self-immolation that we might face later this year.
Much of the reaction to Foot’s death has been self-serving. Seamus Milne uses it as the platform for a plea for more left-wingery and return to the 1983 manifesto. Roy Hattersley uses it as the excuse to write about himself, again. The leader writers on the Times talk about the ‘fabled absurdity’ of the ‘83 manifesto. The Tories do what they always do with radical left-wingers: seek to destroy them in life, and say generous and kind things about them in death - imagine what they'll say about Tony Benn.
For many, if not most, Labour members, there is a feeling of sadness and loss, because Michael Foot represented the old Labour Party of GCs, the Reading system, resolutions to party conference, the Durham Miners’ Gala, In Place of Fear, the Tribune rally, the Internationale and heroic election defeats. He belonged to an age when we denounced, rather than feted the ‘Tory Press’, when American Presidents were hate figures not heroes, when Labour politics was largely about protest and complaint, and when wearing badges was enough. Our rational heads know we were right to do away with all that, and become the slick, vote-gathering governing machine created by Blair, Brown, Mandelson and the others. But our romantic hearts yearn for the comforting simplicity of Foot’s ‘no compromise with the electorate’ approach. We’ve sold our souls to win in Stevenage, and there are plenty in the Labour Party who do not consider it a fair swap.
Perhaps that is what we mourn today.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
StumbleUpon
We got it right and then instead of holding our position deviated to far to the right and have created a terrible situation now. Using the media became serving the media.
Without the memebership available in 1997 and 2002 we lose on the doorstep and that will hurt us badly when it comes to getting the vote out.
Some of the things we "did away" with had absolutely no affect on our chances to be elected. We lost most of the elelctions in 80's because the country was afraid of Strike Actions holding the country to ransom not because of some obscure internal party tradition that most of the public did not even know existed.
That was the whole point of New Labour, to mitigate fear and show we could compromise with the employer and employee in a more sensible manner. EG Minimum Wage.
This "doing down" of the left was mostly cosmetic and totally irrelevant. I was never a memeber of a Union and am hardly far left but even I recognise the traditions of Labour brought so much to this country.
What is the party now? A PR exercise in how not to know what you are doing when in power whilst filling your pockets.
So instead of Unions holding the country for ransom, we have a polarised political position where whatever we do, whoever we vote for, we get a right wing governmnet, and so now all the electorate are being held to ransom and a hung Parliament is a possibility with supporters unhappy on both sides of the political spectrum. The public have no say. They cannot even prevent MP's from being corrupt.
They are stuck with it. It was very interesting on Question Time listening to the MP's do all they could to interrupt the debate to prevent any discussion on the conduct of MP's.
Because that is what we have now, a rabble that can't even adhere to the basic principles of democratic debate never mind exercise it.
I was stunned to read some of the comments on Conservativehome, stunned. That they should be in the same situation we are in too.
Paul if you had actually listened to voters in the 1980's and understood them you would have realised that most of them did not give a rats arse about some old lefty conference tradition, as most of the public are uninterested. They were concerned about not having any power for days and weeks on end due to Strike Action which was a problem for both Parties throughout that period.
As for the attacks on democracy and divisive "New" Labour inquisitorial "you can't be in gang" child play within the Labour Party and the farcical NEC which is a poor joke in itself that fails to adhere to any kind of consistent decision making and seperation of it's own power in a judicious and objective sense.
Well that is hardly "modern" unless you are emulating Iran or Zimbabwe aswas.
Maybe thats the plan, modern Labour for North Korean policy!
Sort yourselves out go to a library and read a book on democracy and why we have one, because it is fading. When it's gone it's civil unrest and conflict time.
No country in the world can afford to stop representing people and the ones that do are dictatorships and they can only rule by fear, and if politicians continue to make rules for themselves and breach the Rule of Law, as long as they are unaccountable for their actions, as long as people are ignored whilst strange and impractical new rules come from an ever increasingly eccentric and right wing Parliament, our democracy will continue to suffer.
There is no ideology in politics at the moment and this is a good and a bad thing. So far people in the UK are wary of any ideologies but what they do want to see is practical legislation that affects their lives, greater fairness, and clean politiicans who want to improve the UK.
At the moment they are getting neither.
In fact I do believe the MP's are creating some Constitutional legislation explaining to us all how WE should be behaving responsibly. Ironic considering many of us have lived better and more constructive lives than they have and have never sold out.
Such a piece of legislation is of course nonesense and is as redundent and illigitimate as they are.
Most of them (mainly the senior ones) do not represent us, they represent private companies and therefore though they can change the law, they cannot change society.
They are powerless and that is a Constitutional Fact.
You do not have legitimacy in the eyes of the people and you can devise whatever legislation you like. People will only go through the motions when they have to. But they won't respect the spirit or values inherent in the changes made.
As respect for politicians declines, the weaker the legislation becomes especially when it is as incoherent, unapplicable, ignorant and clumsy as it is currently.
That is why Labour, needs to clean itself up completely.
The longer this takes, the longer it will be before you ever enjoy a broad coalition ever again.
I wonder. Even people who disagreed with Michael's political views had a great deal of respect and/or affection for him, and instinctively know he was honest and believed in what he said.
Will the same really be able to be said of the people you mention? I see Blair will be doing a tour in September to try to flog his memoirs. £5million. I bet Max Factor are rubbing their hands with glee at the thought of all that slap he will be buying for his book signings.
I hate to mention it but Blair's memoirs will be in the shops by September and, if there is any justice in the world, in the cut-price remainder bins by Christmas!
Jeff, I reckon they'll be giving it away with a copy of The Stage or Daily Mirror by November, or a packet of soap powder.
The cover is horrifc. It doesn't look particularly good, but you know there'll be a lot of hype around it come September!
A
At least one can admire your candour, Alex. What is the cover? I imagine it is a picture of the "Great Man" himself. Is he wearing a tiara, or is he using the wrong shade of eye shadow?
Still, however bad things are, I hope that he and the lovely Cherie have not copied the cover of John & Yoko's "Two Virgins" LP?. Now that would be MORE tan horrific! :)
http://iaindale.blogspot.com/2010/03/tony-blair-for-journey.html
"The Journey" what a title - it sounds as if it is going to have a dollop of religion in it as well - his "conversion" to Catholosism and all that, in which case perhaps he should have called it either "I'M Confessing" or "Father forgive me, for I Know Not What I Have Done"
"Foot was born before the First World War. He was editor of the London Evening Standard during the Blitz, aged just 24, and a contemporary of George Orwell at Tribune. He stood for Labour, aged 19, for Monmouth in 1935."
The First World War broke out in 1914 and Mr Richards is right that Michael Foot was born before then, on 23 July 1913.
It follows that he was 22 years old at the date of the General Election in 1935: the election was on 14 November of that year.
And, given that there was an interval of 25 years between the outbreak of the two World Wars, Michael Foot, like anyone else born before the First World War, could not be 24 years old during it, let alone when be became acting editor of the Evening Standard in 1942 (when, of course, he was at least 28). By then the Blitz was over (or at least hardly continuing), having petered out in May 1941 when the Luftwaffe moved east.
And if Michael Foot "supported Churchill over the invasion of Poland", I assume that Mr Richards is referring to the decision of the government led by Neville Chamberlain to declare war on Germany when Germany invaded Poland. Sir Winston Churchill joined that government on the day war was declared.
It is, I suggest, possible to pay tribute to Michael Foot without getting your facts wrong or attacking "vicious sub-fascist cartoonists in the Mail and Telegraph in the 70s and 80s" and other imaginary targets.
"...we are here to provide for all those who are weaker and hungrier, more battered and crippled than ourselves.That is our only certain good and great purpose on earth, and if you ask me about those insoluble economic problems that may arise if the top is deprived of their initiative, I would answer, "To hell with them." The top is greedy and mean and will always find a way to take care of themselves. They always do."
..Speech before the 1983 general election."
"It's quite a change to have a prime minister who hasn't got any political ideas at all."
On John Major, 1991."
But I take issue over your comments on Roy Hattersley- and about it being "rational" to denounce traditional "old Labour" values!
I think this partialy explains why we've reached this point of
a confused identity- and a great yearning to return to the core of our values.
Michael Foot was indeed a great man.
Thankyou, Jo.
Labour politics should be about protest and complaint. We are here not to support the world as it is, but to change it.