The Costs of the UK's "wolf pack" media system
A very intersting and perceptive article from the LSE's British Politics and Policy Blog
As Ed Miliband builds his new Labour front bench team without his talented and experienced older brother, Bart Cammaerts wonders if David Miliband’s purdah is just the latest cost of the UK’s strong, national media system and its personality-driven coverage of political life.Read the full article hereLabels: Media, Politics, Popular Culture
Norman Wisdom and the European Parliament
Sir Norman Wisdom has died. He is being described today as a "comic craftsman", and was reportedly (Sir) Charlie Chaplin's favourite clown. I remembered a story from former MEP Richard Corbett, which tells of an unexpected moment of humour in the European Parliament:One classic story is about a debate when a member from Normandy came up with just the right compromise at the right time. One of the French MEPs, using an old French expression, said that this was thanks to "la sagesse normande" (the wisdom of people from Normandy). The English interpretation rendered this as being "all thanks to Norman Wisdom". No one of any other nationality could quite understand why the British and Irish members were in stitches!Labels: Fun stuff, Politics, Popular Culture
Why I'm not voting - yet!
It’s General Election Day here in the UK – and
I am not going to vote!
This is not some misguided protest – it’s simply that the election has been
postponed in our constituency - sadly because of the death of one of the candidates. Who knows what the situation will be by the time we get to vote on 27 May, in
the first by-election of the new parliament?!
Even so, it feels
decidedly strange not to be voting today – I almost feel guilty about it! As an adult,
I can’t remember an election day (of any sort) when I haven’t voted. But it’s good to know that, unlike many around the world, I will get my opportunity.
I am by temperament and tradition
a Labour supporter – sadly a rare breed in this part of the world – so any reflections I have need to be read with that in mind. But here are a few things that have struck me about the Election Campaign just finished.
I suspect that the
Prime Ministerial debates on TV (the first in UK history) have had a marked effect on the outcome of the election. They have certainly focussed media coverage even more closely on
the party leaders and their
styles, rather than on the
substance of policy.
However the remarkable fact is that, in spite of all the efforts of parties and their managers,
the polls have remained static. The one exception to that is, of course,
the striking improvement in Liberal Democrat ratings after the first TV debate – from which point it seems we have genuinely had
a 3 party contest.
Most remarkably, in spite of a
tame media, the Conservative leader
David Cameron’s previously unassailable lead in all opinion surveys not many months ago has now
dwindled to the point where he
may not even command a majority in the new Parliament.
The spectacle of the
Conservative Party campaigning on “Change” has seemed to me to be one of the
sick jokes of this campaign!
The clue is in the title, people: they’re Conservative! Cameron has been outflanked – why did he ever agree to the debates? – by Liberal Democrat leader
Nick Clegg, who actually
does propose
real change: including a much-needed change to our voting system.
Instead of coherent policies, Mr Cameron and his party are content to trot out a load of
hackneyed rubbish about the “evils” of “Big Government” which they contrast with an ill-defined, back-of-the-envelope sketch of a “Big Society”. This is
another sick joke to those of us who remember the leader who shaped the modern Conservative Party, Margaret Thatcher. Mrs Thatcher famously declared
“There is no such thing as society” and
governed on an “everyone for themselves” basis which laid much of the foundation for the grotesque conduct of today’s bankers.
The fact is that without the actions of “Big Government”, skilfully and courageously led by
Gordon Brown,
our banks would have failed and our economy gone down into a brutal Depression, taking the lives and life-chances of many, many people with it.
The Tories “hands off” approach to the banking crisis would have been truly disastrous – and yet now they tell us that Government is the problem!
But, as Mrs Thatcher’s pal Ronald Reagan would no doubt have said, there I go again! I have become a bore on these topics during the campaign –
ask my wife!
In the absence of a Labour Government, which really does seem to be beyond any reasonable expectation, my hope is that as a result of this election
a true progressive coalition will emerge:
a Government willing to govern for the good of the many and not the few. And, please, a Government determined to
change our dreadful electoral system – which it seems will be discredited still further by
any of the likely outcomes of today’s election.
I’d certainly vote for that on 27 May, if it were on the ballot paper!Labels: Media, Politics, Rant
The BBC, the BNP and politics as entertainment
This evening, the BBC will allow the leader of Britain's racist, fascist party, the BNP, to appear on its "Question Time" programme. Whilst I appreciate that this is a deeply controversial move, I have tended to agree with those who have argued that the best way to combat this objectionable party is to expose its representatives to public scrutiny. That way - the argument goes - they will be shown in their true light and people will be able to make an informed decision as to whether to vote for them.I was therefore particularly struck this morning by the comments of Diane Abbott. Ms Abbott is a current Labour MP and the first black woman to be elected to parliament in the UK. Moreover she is an insider in world of BBC political journalism, appearing regularly on the Corporation's "Daily Politics" programme (fronted by arch-Conservative Andrew Neil - hardly a poster-boy for balanced, impartial journalism).Ms Abbott says that "Question Time" is the wrong platform for the BNP. She goes on (my emphases):"If you are a black or Asian viewer tonight and you switch on the television and you see Nick Griffin on Question Time - it's not a programme that's going to scrutinise his views, it's not that sort of programme, it's politics as entertainment.
"The first time I went on Question Time was 22 years ago. People were really pleased - they didn't remember what I said but they saw a young black woman on Question Time and they thought 'Now black people are part of the mainstream'. That is the effect the BNP will get tonight, that's what they want from it, that's why they're so thrilled"Ms Abbott's view deserves serious attention, not least of course because, as a black woman, she understands the issues at stake infinitely better than I ever could. I suppose one might ask whether the BNP is actually elevated to the British political mainstream by its success in elections, rather than by the appearence of its representatives on the media. But the role of the BBC is more complex than that. By trivialising politics - treating it as entertainment - by directing attention to its own presenters as personalities, and by its relentless cynicism about "mainstream" politicians, the Corporation has done a great deal to create a climate which the loathsome BNP can exploit for its own malicious ends.Politics as entertainment will not do - especially from a "public service broadcaster", funded by public money. Only mature, informed debate and scrutiny of all parties will serve the public and enhance the life of our diverse community.Labels: Media, Politics
When governments are gone
I came across a quotation this morning from Prof Lawrence Lessig, which I thought had a relevance to our current political climate - where basically all MPs (and especially those of the governing party) are damned and vilified. There is an assumption, spoken or implied, that if only we could get rid of the current crop of politicians, then all would be well. Lessig said:“When government disappears, it's not as if paradise will take its place. When governments are gone, other interests will take their place.”Clearly there is a need for reform and for change at the heart of our parliamentary system. But we should resist the simplistic and dangerous calls akin to "a plague on all their houses". If the mainstream parties and politicians are swept away, then the vacuum will be filled by others who are far more dangerous - others like the British National Party.Our media and commentators should exercise a degree of responsibility in their dash to sell papers and grab ratings. There are more serious things at stake.Labels: Media, Politics
On MP's expenses
I have to confess that I haven't really been following the outrage about MP's expenses all that closely. I'm more than a bit jaded by the media agenda, and I tend to suspect the motives of most journalists - print or TV/radio or (of course, dear reader) bloggers!So here is a handy summary from Bishop Alan, which I found extremely helpful. Amongst his observations:"What's interesting is that some MP's have obviously interpreted the rules using their own moral instinct about what it was right or wrong to claim, whilst others have had no scruple about doing anything, however bizarre, as long as it didn't actually contravene the rules."The full post is here: MP's expenses chocolate bunny rageThe answer is in our own hands. But we need to make informed judgements about our politicians - and how we do that, given the standard of media and public debate ...? Well, I just don't know.Labels: Media, Politics
Rowan Williams starts a debate
As it happens, I was watching "The West Wing" last night - the episode late in Season One entitled "Let Bartlet Be Bartlet". In it, the President's staff urge the President to try and shape the public agenda, rather than playing safe and shying away from unpopularity. Chief of Staff Leo McGarry puts it this way:
"We're going to raise the level of public debate in this country, and let that be our legacy."
Couldn't help thinking about that in the context of the hysterical knee-jerking which has followed Archbishop Rowan Williams' interview and lecture about the Law and Faith Communities ...!
The level of public debate in this country is subterranean!(See "What did the Archbishop actually say?")Labels: Church, Media, Politics, Rant
The difficulty of naming a day
Prevailing wisdom is that Gordon Brown is consulting the opinion polls before deciding whether to call a General Election.
The truth is far more prosaic, as Dave Walker suggests:
Labels: Fun stuff, Politics
David Cameron, the truth and another good story
Beginning to sound uncharacteristically like an apologist for the Tory party here, but ... what is all this fuss about David Cameron jetting off to Rwanda and ignoring his constituents?
If you read carefully, then you will spot - hidden away deep in the text of this alarmism - the admission that:
"On Sunday [Mr Cameron] visited Witney, his West Oxfordshire constituency, where 3,000 homes have been flooded. He said he had been in touch with the local council leader since arriving in the Rwandan capital Kigali."
So, just to get things straight, he's not ignoring his constituents then. That's just an impression the rest of the article tries to create.
I thought the BBC had said it wasn't going to misrepresent people any more?!
We can spot the media's current narrative by noticing the description (elsewhere) of Mr Cameron as "embattled". Seems as if the fashion is changing - once again, why let the truth get in the way of a good story?Labels: Media, Politics
Davis doesn't go there
I am no great fan of the Conservative politician David Davis. I suppose if pressed, I would probably confess to grudging respect for him - a respect enhanced by an episode this week, recounted by the BBC's Nick Assinder.Shadow home secretary David Davis wins the prize for the shortest, sharpest answer yet given by a guest at the monthly lunch for political journalists. Davis was asked, first what advice he thinks Alastair Campbell would have given him had he been running his campaign to be leader of the Tory party and, second, what he believed David Cameron's biggest mistake had been so far.After no more than a nano-second's pause, Mr Davis replied: "He would have advised me not to answer the second question."
It was the only time I have witnessed a guest getting a round of applause half way through his appearance. Labels: Fun stuff, Politics
A remarkable day
Reflecting on the departure of Tony Blair as PM is extraordinary – it’s one of those days which I‘ve known is coming, which I thought I had adjusted to … and yet now it has happened, it seems so strange!
I remember how strange it was, back in May 1997, to hear him referred to as “the Prime Minister”, after 17 years during which that had inevitably meant a Tory, and usually Margaret Thatcher. And now “the Prime Minister” is Gordon Brown, or as Nick Robinson of the BBC called him this afternoon – even after he had gone into Number 10 to begin forming his government – “the Chancellor”! It’s not just me who will have difficulty adjusting!
A strange day, too, in that – as happens all too rarely – it revealed the human side of our political life. You can’t help but reflect what it must be like for Tony Blair and his family, leaving the pressurised and surreal world they have inhabited for so long. You can’t help but wonder at Gordon Brown’s feelings, as the moment he must have thought about for so long finally arrived. And those remarkable scenes in Parliament!
Were those indeed heartfelt and generous tributes? Did they – just for a few moments – put aside the pantomime roles and recognise the service Mr Blair has rendered to the country, and what it has cost him and his family? I think so. It certainly seemed like it!
If only our public life would continue in that vein! But probably not ...[!] Days like today are rare exceptions. But they are just a glimpse, a mere suggestion, that behind it all, there are genuine people, struggling to do their best in public service. Didn’t the (former) Prime Minister say as much, as he left the despatch box for the last time?
Labels: History, Politics
Michael White on the media beast
Some quotes from Michael White of The Guardian, responding to Tony Blair's analysis of the modern media and their effect on public life. (The emphases are mine)."The consequences [of the modern media being driven by instant technologies and 24/7 global markets] are hard to dispute. ... The tricky bit is how society responds to the problems thereby created, notably the fast-declining levels of public trust in public institutions, by no means confined to politics and politicians in an information-rich age where the boundaries between facts and comment - and between both and entertainment - have all but collapsed."
"But as a political reporter for 30 years, I believe [Tony Blair] is more right than wrong, as John Major often was.
Margaret Thatcher was luckier with the media - until the very end.
A high proportion of allegations routinely made against governments, Labour and Tory, in the media are untrue - though they are widely accepted as true.
Dealing with that fact of life was what led Blair and Alastair Campbell into the jungles of spin after 1997 - an error, he admitted today."
"As for the tired claim that newspapers are accountable to their readers, TV to the viewers - well, that's humbug, although you will read a lot of it in tomorrow's papers.
The media has little of the external accountability which other walks of life now face.
It's a major player in the triangle between government and governed, but rarely acknowledges its own role."
Read the whole article here.Labels: Media, Politics
Biting back
Tony Blair's characterisation of today's media as "like a feral beast" - a phrase they seem to have siezed upon with a greater or lesser amount of glee - has provoked the response he predicted. The BBC sums up the press biting back here.
It's interesting though that some of them seem to admit, somewhat shamefacedly, that the PM has a point.
The BBC's Political Editor Nick Robinson is gracious enough to concede at least some of Mr Blair's argument [here], and indeed to link to an article by Michael White (for a long time one of the very best political observers) which both supports the PM and snipes at Mr Robinson.
Of course the real test will be whether Mr Blair manages to kick-start a much needed debate leading to a real improvement in the quality of the media reporting of our public life.
Initial indications are that the contributions from much of our media will not be gracious or constructive. They have no interest in dialogue with their prey, nor in the public interest they claim to represent.Labels: Media, Politics, Popular Culture
Parting shots
Prime Minister
Tony Blair has given
a remarkable speech analysing the effect of today’s media culture on modern public life. It is thoughtful and reasoned: the sort of thing a politician can only say nowadays when he is on the point of retirement! As he himself says, “I know it will be rubbished in certain quarters. But I also know this has needed to be said.”
The speech really repays reading in full [here]. But these are just a few of the things that particularly struck me.
[Blair quotes, my emphases]
“My principal reflection is not about ‘blaming’ anyone. It is that the relationship between politics, public life and the media is changing as a result of the changing context of communication in which we all operate; no-one is at fault - it is a fact; but it is my view that the effect of this change is seriously adverse to the way public life is conducted; and that we need, at the least, a proper and considered debate about how we manage the future, in which it is in all our interests that the public is properly and accurately informed.”
“We devote reams of space to debating why there is so much cynicism about politics and public life. In this, the politicians are obliged to go into self flagellation, admitting it is all our fault. …
And, believe it or not, most politicians come into public life with a desire to serve and by and large, try to do the right thing not the wrong thing.
My view is that the real reason for the cynicism is precisely the way politics and the media today interact. We, in the world of politics, because we are worried about saying this, play along with the notion it is all our fault.”
“They [the media] are not the masters of this change but its victims. The result is a media that increasingly and to a dangerous degree is driven by ‘impact’ Impact is what matters. It is all that can distinguish, can rise above the clamour, can get noticed.
Impact gives competitive edge. Of course the accuracy of a story counts. But it is secondary to impact. It is this necessary devotion to impact that is unravelling standards, driving them down, making the diversity of the media not the strength it should be but an impulsion towards sensation above all else.”
“The audience needs to be arrested, held and their emotions engaged. Something that is interesting is less powerful than something that makes you angry or shocked. The consequences of this are acute.
First, scandal or controversy beats ordinary reporting hands down. News is rarely news unless it generates heat as much as or more than light.
Second, attacking motive is far more potent than attacking judgement. It is not enough for someone to make an error. It has to be venal. Conspiratorial. …
Third, the fear of missing out means today's media, more than ever before, hunts in a pack. In these modes it is like a feral beast, just tearing people and reputations to bits. But no-one dares miss out.
Fourth, rather than just report news, even if sensational or controversial, the new technique is commentary on the news being as, if not more important than the news itself.
So - for example - there will often be as much interpretation of what a politician is saying as there is coverage of them actually saying it. In the interpretation, what matters is not what they mean; but what they could be taken to mean. …
In turn, this leads to a fifth point: the confusion of news and commentary. Comment is a perfectly respectable part of journalism. But it is supposed to be separate. Opinion and fact should be clearly divisible. The truth is a large part of the media today not merely elides the two but does so now as a matter of course. ...
The final consequence of all of this is that it is rare today to find balance in the media. Things, people, issues, stories, are all black and white. Life's usual grey is almost entirely absent.
‘Some good, some bad’; ‘some things going right, some going wrong’: these are concepts alien to today's reporting. It's a triumph or a disaster. A problem is ‘a crisis’.
A setback is a policy ‘in tatters’. A criticism, ‘a savage attack’. NGOs and pundits know that unless they are prepared to go over the top, they shouldn't venture out at all.”
“I do believe this relationship between public life and media is now damaged in a manner that requires repair. The damage saps the country's confidence and self-belief; it undermines its assessment of itself, its institutions; and above all, it reduces our capacity to take the right decisions, in the right spirit for our future.”
[Quotes end - do
read the speech!]
As you will probably know,
I tend to go on a bit about the media - and here I go again:
In my view, the media are making public life an arena into which fewer and fewer people will wish to venture – at least for the motives we would all hope our public figures would hold. The
all-pervading, sneering cynicism which is the “default setting" in our media is
warping our society beyond recognition.
It used to be said that we get the government we deserve. Nowadays, increasingly,
we get the government our media allows us. The standard of political thought and debate, and essentially the level of engagement by most people with politics and public life
is now so low that I'm afraid
our disease of cynicism may be terminal.
Labels: Media, Politics, Popular Culture, Rant
Cameron moves to the Left
Just in case anyone was in any doubt about the
quality of political reporting and analysis in the UK, here is the
latest political story:
Tory leader David Cameron has changed his hairstyle!!The BBC analyses the implications
here.
Amongst the
profound insights the Corporation brings us is this:
"Several commentators noticed the change on Wednesday and had come up with their own theories for it. Some thought it was an attempt to look more masculine, but others said a left parting was more feminine.
"Daily Mail sketchwriter Quentin Letts said image was important to voters and told the BBC: 'Cameron seems to be changing direction - which is of course a very good metaphor for what he's doing with his party.' "But a spokesman said of Mr Cameron's change: 'There is no political significance in his decision to do so.'"Naturally the
Daily Mail had to be involved somewhere - good to know that "newspaper" is keeping up its standards!
The BBC report ends by
sonorously informing us that a recent photo of Mr Cameron appeared to show
his first grey hairs!
Is it any wonder, given this quality of media coverage of the political issues of our day?!! Any serious politician, or
anyone who cares for the quality of our democracy would be
tearing their hair out!Labels: Media, Politics, Rant
"The love of God is broader ..."
Thanks to
Karin for blogging this
Thought for the Day from Giles Fraser.
It closes with a quotation from one of my
very favouite hymns:
"For the love of God is broader than the measure of man's mind
And the heart of the eternal is most wonderfully kind
But we make his love too narrow with false limits of our own
And we magnify his strictness with a zeal he will not own."
[Pity about the exclusive language - but I quibble!!]
Labels: Church, Media, Politics
Community
I have had the opportunity to listen to 2 wise Christian leaders in recent weeks –
Archbishop Sentamu and
Rev Graham Carter, current President of the Methodist Conference. Both were inspiring and much of what each said seemed to me to echo the other.
(My reflections on what they said are mine alone – sadly I cannot vouch for the reliability of my memory, so I should emphasise that these are my impressions of what I heard!)
They both touched on the subject of
community, in terms of how we relate to
other Christian denominations and, as Christians, to
other faith groups, whilst remaining true to our own distinctive beliefs. To me, and doubtless to others too, this had resonance for the differing groups within the CofE and the Anglican Communion too!
Graham Carter made the point that unity and community is about
much more than simply going down a statement of faith and
ticking boxes. Both he and Abp Sentamu stressed the importance of
listening to each other with respect, but that those of other faiths did not expect – or want – Christians to abandon our beliefs. We should however
engage in dialogue and
work together wherever we can, as a recognition and reflection of
our common humanity. Both leaders were also very clear that we cannot expect – nor should we claim – to understand God, nor to know the entire truth.
In her blog,
Kathryn has recently reminded me of
Henri Nouwen’s book of reflections,
Bread for the Journey. I have started to use these again – and just the other day there was this reflection on community:
Community, a quality of heart.
The word community has many connotations, some positive, some negative. Community can make us think of a safe togetherness, shared meals, common goals and joyful celebrations. It also can call forth images of sectarian exclusivity, in-group language, self-satisfied isolation, and romantic naiveté. However, community is first of all a quality of the heart. It grows from the spiritual knowledge that we are alive not for ourselves but for one another. Community is the fruit of our capacity to make the interests of others more important than our own (see Philippians 2:4). The question therefore is not “How can we make community?” but “How can we develop and nurture giving hearts?” [Emphases mine]
Are we as a Church – am I as an individual –
exclusive, self-satisfied and isolated? Or are we – am I –
open-hearted, looking outwards, seeing the interests and concerns of others as more important than my own?
May God build in us, and through us, broad, inclusive communities where we can share our humanity in safety, trust and love.
Labels: Anglican Communion, Church, Ministry, Politics, Theology
A Christian Response?
Ekklesia reports the response of
Faithworks leader Revd Malcolm Duncan to the controversy over the
Sexual Orientation Regulations. Mr Duncan argues for a
truly Christian response - ie one which reflects the love of Jesus. He says
"Christians are called to follow Jesus’ example, and he says remarkably little about sexuality in scripture. Rather,
he treats all people he comes across with love and acceptance, and
does not refuse his service to anyone, even if he does not agree with their lifestyle."
He concludes
"The proposed SORs are an opportunity for Christians to
demonstrate the love and grace of Christ. However, vociferous opposition, a lack of constructive dialogue, and threats of civil disobedience mean that
the Church is in danger of sounding homophobic and is doing little to give itself a credible voice."
[My emphases.]The complete report is
here, and Mr Duncan's explanation of his position here.How very refreshing to hear an evangelical voice raised for love and grace, not to mention constructive dialogue. Could it catch on?!
Labels: Anglican Communion, Church, Politics, Theology
The Offence of Religious Festivals
Stimulated by current objections around whether we should celebrate
Christmas at all, when this might be offensive to some,
John Bell of the
Iona Community offered this "
Thought for the Day" on
BBC Radio 4. (The emphases are mine.)
Thought for the Day, 7 December 2006
John Bell
Today is Thursday, but
I don't hear many people objecting. At least I haven't noticed anyone in Glasgow ripping calendars from office walls in protest against the workplace being
invaded by a religion which not everyone espouses.
I mean,
Thursday celebrates Thor the god of weather and crops. And Thor was the son of Odin or Woden the god of war, education and poetry whose name is honoured every
Wodensday or Wednesday. Such revelations tempt me to exclaim,
'By Jove!' But that would offend countless millions who don't want to be reminded that Jove or Jupiter is the god of oaths, treaties and marriages.
It's not just Christmas trees, flashing stars and civic nativity scenes that are suspect. For the sake of linguistic purity we'll have to go the second mile...except that would be quoting Jesus and non-believers would demand we say goodbye (or God be with you) to all that!
If you think this is an allusion to the
annual displacement activity of taking Christ out of Christmas, you're dead right. But it's not because Christmas needs to preserved as the prime opportunity for the churches to engage in furtive evangelism via Bing Crosby's voice and charity greeting cards. No,
I would want to defend Christmas as I'd defend Hanukkah or Ramadan or any comparable religious festival of a celebratory nature. For it seems to me that they have
a humanitarian potential in reminding us of realities such as
love, justice and generosity which transcend mundaneness and ego-centricity. And I believe that
such festivals, which can include and enhance the lives of believers and non-believers alike,
are increasingly necessary as the economies of the western world offer
an alternative and much more sinister pantheon of deities for honouring.
Some of these deities hide behind advertised products I would not be allowed to mention here on air, but if I ask who comes to mind when I speak of
fulfilment through eating fast foods, or
success through having brand named clothing, you'll know the kind allurement I'm referring to. And you might also recognise that encouraging people to believe that having is more important than being is a
much more socially exclusive activity than erecting a Christmas tree or hanging up tinsel.
To speak from a purely Christian perspective, a festival like
Christmas which is centred on
peace, humility and generosity is
hardly a threat to a profit-driven secular society which can fund a foreign war but cannot eradicate child poverty.
It is not a threat, but it might be a corrective.
Labels: Politics, Popular Culture, Theology
A revisionist view of Suez
Anyone who has been following the analysis of the
Suez Crisis 50 years on might be interested in
Andrew Roberts' re-assessment here. It is clear from this that
Mr Roberts is
no champion of "high-minded liberal internationalism", but it's intersting to read a view so
radically different from the one I grew up with.
For example,
Mr Roberts contends that "[US President] Eisenhower himself years later admitted that not supporting [British PM] Eden over Suez had been
his greatest foreign policy mistake."
He also states:
"
On the eve of victory, just as General Hugh Stockwell telegraphed Downing Street to say that within 48 hours the entire Canal Zone would be in British hands,
Eden was stabbed in the back by a cabal of unscrupulous Cabinet colleagues, short-sighted allies and a small and unrepresentative group of Tory liberal internationalists.
"It is undoubtedly true that Suez tragically proved that Britain was no longer a Great Power, but this was
their fault, not Eden's. "
I enjoy reading
Andrew Roberts' "counterfactual" history - it might be
a little harsh to place this in the same category!
Andrew Roberts' full Suez articleAndrew Roberts' websiteBBC's "Remembering Suez" section - a more conventional viewpoint
Labels: History, Politics
