MegaSack DRAW - This year's winner is user - rgwb
We will be in touch
[url= http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8547228.stm ]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8547228.stm[/url]
Only a politician, the fewer the better right?
A rare thing - an honest politician with integrity,
Not really suited for the politics of the 80s and the attendant media circus and politics of personality
He certainly didn't squander his time here.
No tails, he wasn't "only a politician".
He'll be sadly missed by a lot of people.
one question i have to ask, he started as mp for devonport and ended as mp for ebbw vale.
Call me cynical if you wish, but who is he working on behalf of, a constituency, we do live in a constituency based democracy, or himself? If you have the interests of YOUR constituency at heart why change?
Oh come on people..."One Foot in the grave" surely.
But seriously - was he the last of the great orators, killed off by the sound byte hunger of the media? Or the icon of the "Loony Left" image that nearly killed off his party?
Michael Foot wrote this;
[center][b]"We are not here in this world to find elegant solutions, pregnant with initiative, or to serve the ways and modes of profitable progress. No, 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."[/b][/center]
Which is largely why I do what I do for a job, and puts the shallow vacuous politicians of today to shame.
The flag in Lubyanka Square will be flying at half mast.
Seemed a decent, principled chap to me.
A thoroughly decent man who did good
A damn fine age to survive to also
who ?
goog - Member
who ?
Why don't you go get an education and then you'll know.
That really rather sad – although I’d not always agree with his politics, he probably is the last true politician and arguably one of the greatest politician this country has seen. If only there was more like him in the current parliament
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."
Its about time we did this.
RIP.
http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2010/03/foot-churchill-labour
Interesting - never realised he supported the Falklands War.
allthepies - Member
> http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2010/03/foot-churchill-labour
Interesting - never realised he supported the Falklands War.
Why should that suprise you, Mr Foot was from a generation that knew democracy and freedom from dictators had to be fought for no matter what side of politics. Though some left leaning people choke on the thought (cause of fatcha), the Falklands war was against a dictatorship that used the war to distract it's people from what was going on in there country. A bog standard way of maintaining control when things are not going so well. At the time it was fairly well known that the so called government of Argentina was killing it's political enemies who were mostly from the left.
In at "6"
Mind you he was as very good politician and honest. Shame his image let him done 🙁
I second that......
'A thoroughly decent man who did good'
Shame that Former Labour leader michael foot has died.
He'll soon be one foot in the grave
I witnessed him speaking at our university union society about 15 years ago.
He was very impressive and interesting. A very intelligent man of integrity.
Hi involvement in worldwar two, and even the run up the world war two is pretty fascinating. He mullered Neville Chamberlain so comprehensively that nobody even considered until recently that Chamberlain might actually have won WW2 for us.
Nick - MemberWhy don't you go get an education and then you'll know.
😆 at you .... captain wot wot
He was great on "Spitting Image" - he'll always be remembered for that.
And helping to get Margaret Thatcher elected, of course.
Just heard a stunningly funny speech on R4 where he gently takes the piss out of Keith Joseph. Haven't heard anything that good from a politician in ages.
RIP - a man of integrity and principle!
The values he lived by would be a good example to the rest of us, and in particular some of the other current political personalities that a couple of other current threads are discussing.
He was great on "Spitting Image" - he'll always be remembered for that.
So will Thatcher.
And helping to get Margaret Thatcher elected, of course.
A lot of fools with the vote back then. Much the same today.
And helping to get Margaret Thatcher elected, of course.
I thought it was The Sun wot done it ?
In 1983 Margaret Thatcher, like Ronald Reagan, argued that the financial institutions should be deregulated and allowed to flourish unrestricted in the 'free market'.
Michael Foot rejected that, arguing that the banks should be nationalised to serve the interests of the British people.
He was dismissed as 'looney left' by Murdoch's mouthpiece.
He was of course completely right. And Governments on both sides of the Atlantic were eventually forced to carry out the wholesale nationalisation of financial institutions due to the disastrous consequences of the deregulated free market.
So Reagan, Thatcher, Murdoch, and the minority of the electorate who voted Tory, have been proved to have been wrong, and Michael Foot was right........ still, no great surprise there.
I can recall quite vividly when he became the Labour leader, and in fell swoop set the public's perception of the Labour movement back decades.
Perception isn't always reality, though.
Usually, the publics perception (of anything) is just plain wrong.
I've had a pint in his honour today. But NOTHING in comparison to the almighty session that will occur when she goes.
a dam good old age for a fella !
You sad little man, MussEd. You sad little man.
I despise both Brown and Blair in a manner which I find hard to describe. I shall not celebrate their deaths however, as I am not that petty and small minded.
Back on topic - A good innings indeed, for a man who spoke his mind and stuck to his guns. I'd like to see more of his ilk, on any side of the political debate. We'd be better off with more people who spoke their minds in politics.
"In 1983 Margaret Thatcher, like Ronald Reagan, argued that the financial institutions should be deregulated and allowed to flourish unrestricted in the 'free market'.
Michael Foot rejected that, arguing that the banks should be nationalised to serve the interests of the British people.
He was dismissed as 'looney left' by Murdoch's mouthpiece.
He was of course completely right. And Governments on both sides of the Atlantic were eventually forced to carry out the wholesale nationalisation of financial institutions due to the disastrous consequences of the deregulated free market.
So Reagan, Thatcher, Murdoch, and the minority of the electorate who voted Tory, have been proved to have been wrong, and Michael Foot was right........ still, no great surprise there. "
Very well put.
west kipper - MemberPerception isn't always reality, though.
Usually, the publics perception (of anything) is just plain wrong.
As is indeed, Ti29er's perception of political events. Quote : [i]"I can recall quite vividly when he became the Labour leader, and in fell swoop set the public's perception of the Labour movement back decades."[/i]
Actually in the proceeding months after Michael Foot became leader of the Labour Party, Labour could easily have won a general election. By December 1981, a year after Michael Foot had become leader, Thatcher's personal approval rating fell to 25% - she was by then according to opinion polls, the most unpopular British Prime Minister in history. However by 1983 the breakaway SDP, led by the Gang Of Four, very effectively split the Labour vote in two. Thereby saving Thatcher's skin, and shafting Michael Foot (and the British people)
whatever your political views it's difficult to deny that he was a great public speaker, he grabbed your attention and was passionate with it, don't recall anyone since maggy, john smith and to a certain extent paddy pantsdown to be like that. the current crop of front line politicians sound anything but convincing! tj for pm.
Personally, I mistrust that old thing about respecting someone merely because they're 'a great orator'- I mean those words could be used to admire Enoch Powell, or even Hitler, f'rinstance!
Its WHAT they say (and also in Foot's case, not what they look like) that should be taken note of.
CFH - Thanks "old chap" -as I believe you might say- from you I take that as a compliment.
CFH - I don't think MussEd is alone with those sentiments.
I can remember my perfectly sane, law abiding, public sector working parents being rather dissapointed that the Brighton bomb hadn't been more effective! I would only have been 5......
Michael Foot rejected that, arguing that the banks should be nationalised to serve the interests of the British people.He was dismissed as 'looney left' by Murdoch's mouthpiece.
He was of course completely right. And Governments on both sides of the Atlantic were eventually forced to carry out the wholesale nationalisation of financial institutions due to the disastrous consequences of the deregulated free market.
Can I just check what proportion of the US and British banking systems are currently nationalised? I'd be interested to see the argument that nationalised banks wouldn't have made dodgy investment decisions.
You also seem to be ignoring the fact that there is another possibility apart from deregulation and nationalisation.
Can I just check what proportion of the US and British banking systems are currently nationalised?
Of course you can .....please, go ahead.
You also seem to be ignoring the fact that there is another possibility apart from deregulation and nationalisation.
Not at all, I am fully aware that there are of course other options. After all, under Old Labour strict regulation was applied to a private banking sector. That arrangement however, was firmly rejected Thatcher and a substantial minority of the British electorate.
Of course under New Labour we now have an interesting new arrangement - [i]massive[/i] government intervention without any democratic control, ie, privatised banking profits, and nationalised banking losses.
An arrangement which incidentally, the neo-conservative Bush administration found particularly attractive. Which is surprising. Because if you passionately believe that the only way to achieve economic stability and prosperity is through deregulated free markets (and the neo-cons certainly argued the case) then the [u]obvious solution[/u] when faced with an economic crises, would be further deregulation and to ride out the storm by allowing the 'free market' to run it's course without any government interference.
The obscene haste in which the New Conservatives abandoned everything which they had been arguing in favour of for the last thirty years, and the speed in which they were prepared to embrace the socialist solution of government intervention, betrays the fact that they never actually believed in their own rhetoric - despite the fact that they were able to so effectively fool Sun readers.
They were of course right. The banking sector is far too important to be left to the mercy of the free market. It is for that very precise reason that it should be removed from the whimsical fancies of the 'free market' (and it has) and brought under democratic control so that it can serve the best interests of the nation. And why Michael Foot was right.
west kipper - Its WHAT they say that should be taken note of
have to disagree slightly, i think foot said what he thought and believed in what he said. i think brown and cameron say what they think we want to hear and don't sound like they believe any of it 😯
just a difference of opinion.... but then that's politics!
Ernie_lynch - some good points well presented!
Ernie, I have a go at you when you're not on form; you are on form now, well said.
Stu, we're not really disagreeing then, I should have clarified with " Its what they MEAN" rather than say.
...mentioned earlier in the thread already, but [url= http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/04032010/63/pilgrims-pay-tribute-foot.html ]he was one of our best Argyle fans too.[/url] I feel the only way for the FA to recognise and remember his contribution to the Green Army (he was on the board for a few years and all) is to give them a season in the premiership. 😀
Wasn't he a bit of an HG Wells scholar as well?.
WK - Yes he was, and Swift and Bertrand Russell and a few others. There is no disagreement that he was a man of extraordinary talents and deeply held views.
I listened to his "Last Word" obituary on Radio 4 this evening and it brought a tear to my eye.
In an age when the term "socialist" has become wholly perjorative, it gives me strength to reflect on the life of a truly great man who never deviated from his principles of compassion and fairness. He may well have been the first victim of the modern age of politics where one is judged by what one looks like rather than what one has to say. I was a teenager when the Gang of Four split the Labour vote in 1983 and I didn't understand the significance of the rift at the time. Nearly three decades later his oratory abilities are to be admired and I hope that his legacy is a world where the "inveterate peacemongers" prevail.
was he the last of the great orators, killed off by the sound byte hunger of the media? Or the icon of the "Loony Left" image that nearly killed off his party?
Well, he was too centrist (for the time!) for the Militant tendency but he certainly had the Loony Left image thrust upon him and either didn't know or care how to correct it, and preferred to explain his ideas and beliefs instead. In this respect, he displayed a great deal of integrity but also showed poor judgment in politicking and winning elections that might actually have let him put his ideas into practice.
Bumped into him once at Westminster tube station, he was very apologetic and wished me a good day, a great man imo when Tony Benn goes it will be the end of an era, a time when politicians seemed to have honesty and integrity, even if you disagree with the thinking you could resspect them. I dont think you can say that now.
Pigface, Tony Benn has very intelligently reinvented himself as everyone's favourite grandfather.
What everyone seems to forget is that he was one of the people largely responsible for the rift between the hard left and moderate wings of the real Labour Party, which made them unelectable for a generation and allowed that bloody woman and her disgusting cronies into power.
Michael Foot's true legacy is that he managed to keep both factions of the party together, which, despite a few deserters meant that there still [b]was[/b] a Labour Party when John Smith took over after Kinnock had drunk deeply from his own poisoned chalice.
There is a brilliant excerpt from one of his speeches on iPlayer from Radio 4 this week:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00r3423/Pick_of_the_Week_07_03_2010/
Starts around 27:40.
Very, very funny.
Wonder what he did with all the KGB money? Supose that went to continually support Tribune.
mt - Member
Wonder what he did with all the KGB money? Supose that went to continually support Tribune.
Clearly there is no evidence or even a suggestion that he took anything from anyone. However, had he had a relationship with the Communist block it would have been born of the same idealism that saw many young men of his generation sign up with the communists as the only people standing up against facism prior to WW2. Like most of them it would have been idealsim not money that attracted them to do it.
In my book its a great shame there weren't more like him.
Have a look in Olag Gordievsky's book. It reckons he was being paid by the KGB, from the late 40's till the early 70's when Foot became a cabinet member. His KGB name was Boot? Perhaps Stalin had a sense of humour. The Sunday Times was sued by him and he won but he did not try and sue the book publisher or Gordievsky. I do agree though that he was an honerable man but does not mean that I agree with the way he looked at the world or did what he thought was right. The above is matter of record and like many a committed person did things that would sometimes suprise us. On the face of it you would think that his close association with Lord Beverbrooke looks very odd given his political views.
Do agree that more principaled politicians of all types are needed.