Whilst I was not surprised about the way the British establishment and the mainstream media (MSM) dealt with the death of Michael Foot, I was a little put out by the soft ride some of the left gave to the death of this political scoundrel. There is one certainty about the English upper middle classes, no matter how much a member of this class may periodically wave a radical wand, they instinctively recognise a fellow traveller; and judge their own not on what they may say to the masses, but how they behave when the working classes get uppity, and starts making inroads against upper middle class privilege, in other words when push comes to shove.Michael Foot passed this test with flying colours, when as leader of her majesty's loyal opposition, he gave his full support to the Thatcher government sending a task force to invade the Falklands Islands. No thought in Foot’s head about the main enemy being at home, he dumped without a morsel of public regret, decades of pontificating about the evils of imperialism. If ever there was an example of when he could, and should have stood firm against the British government, it was the Falkland’s, a left over from the evils of the British Empire, which Foot proclaimed to have opposed all his life. Like many before him and since, when imperialism laps his own doorstep he understood mere words would not be enough and readily answered his governments call to the colours.
In the 1981 contest for the Deputy Leadership of the Labour Party, Foot preferred and all but encouraged his supporters to vote for Denis Healy, a rightwing pro NATO advocate of nuclear weapons. Far from the 1983 progressive election manifesto being the main reason for Labour’s defeat, it was these two acts of betrayal, especially the Falklands although the two acts are closely linked. For if Tony Benn had been elected deputy leader and Foot had opposed the Falklands war, it is quite possible Thatcher would have been unable to get up the head of steam which enabled her to send the task force south, win the war, and be reelected in its wake.
They say betrayals often comes in three's and in this Michael Foot was no exception, for I, like many others who were around at the time, will never forget, nor forgive Foot's reprehensible treatment of the Bermondsey, LP candidate Peter Tatchell. Who came under a barrage of media attacks due to his progressive politics and sexuality, which resulted in Peter's home being attacked and him being physically assaulted. Instead of standing four square with the Party’s candidate, Foot stood up in Parliament and denounced him, joining the reactionary hounds who were then in the process of tearing Tatchell to bits.
Much has been made of Michael Foot's love of the writer Jonathan Swift; and through him Ireland, all one can say he had a funny way of showing it. As leader of the House of Commons in the Callaghan government, he made the most wretched, shabby and secret deal with the Ulster Unionist MP’s, then as now the most reactionary political force involved in mainstream UK politics. It is also pertinent Foot’s first public statement on losing the 1979 general election, was to express his sympathy with Gerry Fitt on having lost West Belfast to Gerry Adams.
As to his legacy, well we have been living with it since 1997, it was New Labour, for it was Michael Foot who advanced, more than any other, the careers of Neil Kinnock, and Tony Blair. Kinnock in my judgement the worst LP leader ever, now sits in the unelected House of Lords, as befits a lackey of Capital. Whilst Blair; well do I really need to lists the crimes of that sorry excuse for a human being; may he rot in hell.
Posts
8 comments:
Good post there Mick, certainly a rebuff to all of us who look back with rose-tinted spectacles to Foot's career without examining his legacy.
Chris
I am sure Michael Foot in many ways was a decent man, but I do feel on the two big issues he faced in his life time, he failed miserably.
I still have a major problem in understanding why he acted against Tatchell in the way he did. If you read the obits they all highlight high moral values, etc, and the two main causes he supported in his life time, anti nuclear weapons and anti imperialism, yet when he gained the influence to give these causes a boost he betrayed both.
Ah well, none of us are perfect, but I see no reason why we should airbrush our own history.
All the best
The thing I find impossible to forgive him is the worst: the important role Foot played in supporting Indira Ghandi's state of emergency in India in the mid-70s. Foot was an important figure in Parliament and the Labour Party at the time and he backed measures that incldued outlwaying political opposition, imprisoning oppenents of the Congress Party, and suppressing media freedom.
I have posted in comments on Blogs on this; I would have done a real post like Mick has (fortunately)to show this side of Foot but - well I've done my quota of contrarian stuff in the last week.
Though personally I like Foot's literary side, and some of his actions are too woolly to get angry about. But this, added to Mick's sumamry, makes a sorry balance sheet.
I agree, good post.
I recall a claim that Foot was unable to oppose the Falkland adventure because he was a privy councillor. That didn't stop Charlie Kennedy from leading his party in opposition to the invasion of Iraq, though he paid the price. If Foot had been the radical saint he is portrayed to be, he would have declared that the leadership of a compromised party was not worth thousands of dead.
A well articulated post as usual Mick. But 'In the 1981 contest for the Deputy Leadership of the Labour Party, Foot preferred and all but encouraged his supporters to vote for Denis Healy, a rightwing pro NATO advocate of nuclear weapons. Far from the 1983 progressive election manifesto being the main reason for Labour’s defeat, it was these two acts of betrayal, especially the Falklands although the two acts are closely linked. For if Tony Benn had been elected deputy leader and Foot had opposed the Falklands war, it is quite possible Thatcher would have been unable to get up the head of steam which enabled her to send the task force south, win the war, and be re-elected in its wake.'
Are you that dogmatic to believe that Mick? I mean seriously why do you dislike the British electorate that much? So they didn't vote the way you wanted in 1983, get over it. Trying to make excuses for it is a bit churlish. The British public have always seen beyond union flags, tub thumping and raw patriotism at the polls. That is why they voted Churchill out in '45in site of Churchill’s demonstrated victory over Nazism. Old labour lost the elections of 1983 and 1987 due to dogmatically sticking to unpopular policies. It's that simple. The fault was the Labour Left's. Admittedly the lot that came along after were a right bleedin’ shower.
Paul,
I understand the point you are making, but I feel you have misunderstood my point, Foot until then had spent a life time arguing against nuclear weapons and the British Empire, by doing the political summersault which I describe in the quote you comment on. On the Falklands he gave Thatcher a free ride within parliament and amongst the upper echelons of the decision making process.
It also meant there was not a proper parliamentary debate, 'for and against the war.
Yes, I do believe if there had been a proper debate over the Falklands it would have made it all the more difficult for Thatcher to get up a head of steam for sending the task force.
I do not see me saying this as being dogmatic, simply stating a fact; and I still believe the Falklands was not worth the loss of a single British or Argentine squadies life, not least because there were other avenues open to deal with this issue.
From the moment Foot put his own and his party's weight behind the war, all who opposed it came to be regarded as traitors. (This is not an exaggeration, as I was physically attacked twice at that time by people who hardly new me, but had read letters I had written to my local press against the Falklands war)
I am not one of those who believes it would be better to change;) or ignore the electorate, indeed I tend to believe if Labour loose the next election, it will not be because the electorate have major differences over NL's policy. But because they feel NL has been in power for to long and it is this which lays behind the banking, expenses scandals , etc.
As to the right shower who came after Foot, I still get great joy when I think about the pompous goon Kinnock walking on the beach and a wave came in and spoiled his photo shoot, what a prick.
Fair one. I suppose I don't need to tell you of the young Labour member who at the time of the Falklands disagreed with Foot and campaigned against the British involvement at that time. He described it as militaristic and imperialistic. Yet he then went onto....
My point was that I feel the British people are generally intelligent enough to see beyond flag waving and tub thumping. A failure to understand this cost Churchill his job in 1945. Sorry to hear you were assaulted though by some muppet at the time, obviously there are exceptions to this view.
I agree completely with your last paragraph, first sentence and the fact that many on the left have never got this is one of the reasons we have been marginalised for so long.
Post a Comment