More reflections while still off-line.
Peter Mandelson
This afternoon (written Monday 20th April) Sir Keir Starmer is to explain to the House of Commons he Government’s mis-handling of the appointment of Lord (I think he’s still a lord) Peter Mandelson as Ambassador to the US.
Somewhere in Bagehot’s famous account of the British Constitution he writes, in justification of the Monarchy, that the people “love a marriage more than a ministry.” That is probably still true today.
What is certainly true is that the British media much refer to titillate the public, and therefore promote their profits or viability, with a minor scandal rather than furnish details of serious issues.
Yes, it was probably a mistake to make Mandelson our ambassador (though the appointment was widely praised at the time,) but it is not all that important in the wider scheme of things, where people are being frightened , driven from their homes, maimed and killed, some of them with the connivance of our government, the atmosphere is being further polluted by the explosion of bombs, and the cost of that is being provided by reductions in help to feed people on the verge of starvation.
BBC
Last week the BBC announced it is to reduce its staff by a tenth. This is stupid.
After the threat of nuclear war, which has now risen closer to the surface than at any time since the Cuban Crisis of 1962 (when those in charge turned out to be adult) the second greatest danger to liberal civilisation is disinformation.
Last week I caught a snatch of a Radio 4 programme which claimed that those attempting to undermine liberal democracy do so by reducing trust in the established sources of information. They (the Tech Bros?) are being very successful, especially via social media and by taking over the ownership of the established sources.
The BBC with all its faults remains to most trusted source of information in the UK and probably the rest of the world. As hedge funds and possibly the Russians and Chinese aim to extend their empires it is ludicrous to contemplate reducing the BBC’s effectiveness. Its resources, staff and language services should be increased in order to save civilisation as we thought we knew it.
President Trump.
Following from the above, Mr Trump’s pronouncement on current situations, in speeches and on social media, clearly bear no relationship to reality but merely express what he wold like to be happening rather than what is actually happening.
I’m reminded of the final speech of Koko, the Lord High Executioner, in the G&S Opera “The Mikado.” Koko Explains why he hasn’t actually executed the heir to the throne, though he claimed he had “with most affecting particulars.”
Viz;
“It’s like this: When your Majesty says, ‘Let a thing be done,’ it’s as good as done – practically it is done - because your majesty’s will is law. Your Majesty says, ‘Kill a gentleman’ and a gentleman is told off to be killed. Consequently, that gentleman is as good as dead, - practically he is dead – and if he is dead, why not say so ?”
Unfortunately Trump is not a character in a comic opera, but in charge of the mightiest military force and the largest treasury in the world. We can only hope and pray that the we survive long enough for the American electorate to put the brakes on him in November.
Leo XIV
On which three cheers for the Pope, who in the words of our Prayer Book “continues all such good works ( or words, perhaps) as are set before him,” by saying the thigs our politicians seem freighted to say.
The BBC with all its faults remains to most trusted source of information in the UK and probably the rest of the world.
ReplyDeleteIs the problem one of branding? That is, people don’t realise that they are supposed to trust the BBC as it is the authoritative voice of the regime, and persist in deciding for themselves what sources of information to trust, based on things like the evidence of their own lying eyes?
As such, perhaps a rebranding might be in order? The BBC’s informational output has basically two functions: one, to keep people informed about current events, and two, to tell them definitively what they should be believing.
So perhaps we should make these two channels explicit, and present them to people?
And then to make sure the message is clear we should call the first, ‘News’ and the second, ‘Truth’.
How does that sound?
The second channel already exists - it’s called GB News.
ReplyDeleteit was probably a mistake to make Mandelson our ambassador (though the appointment was widely praised at the time,) but it is not all that important in the wider scheme of things
ReplyDeleteThis is true, and if Mr Starmer had been honest at the start and said that he knew Mr Mandelson was a bad character but appointed him anyway because he thought that Mr Mandelson’s skills were needed in the post of ambassador to Mr Trump, and he was willing to take the risk that nothing worse than what was already known would come out; but that the risk had gone wrong, worse had come out, and that was his failure of judgement and so he was removing Mr Mandelson from the post, then probably it would all have blown over.
The problem is that Mr Starmer couldn’t be honest and admit that he had made a judgement call that had gone wrong. Instead he lied; dissembled; hid behind process; and tried to cast the blame onto others to save himself. And that goes to his character. Especially because these are exactly the same things that Mr Johnson did, which Mr Starmer pilloried him for at the time. So Mr Starmer ends up looking worse than Mr Johnson, because although they have both lied and tried to sacrifice others to save themselves, Mr Johnson never claimed to be virtuous whereas Mr Starmer made himself out to be morally superior. Instead other words the public can see that while Mr Johnson was a liar and a knave he was up front about his knavish lies, while Mr Starmer is a liar and a knave and a hypocrite .
Basically it’s that old saying from American politics; it’s never the crime that brings you down, it’s the cover-up. Although few cover-ups can have been as badly botched as this one.
(Though, I still think Mr Starmer will last out the year — and as someone who thinks the country needs a proper right-wing government for a change, and the sooner the better, I really hope that Mr Starmer leads the Labour party into the next general election.)
I was wondering whether Mandelson was still a lord. While Smug Ollie was scrupulously polite (obsequious?) to committee members, he rather sneeringly just called his "lordship" Mandelson. I was surprised that Ollie felt bullied when he was simply told to "Get On With It".
ReplyDelete