Not the first time - or the last

It’s always diverting when a respectable looking stone is lifted and a writhing heap of worms is revealed beneath. This is what has happened during the past week, when the blogosphere scored its first major hit and the shameful Downing Street spin operation was exposed in all its squalor. Not that the dodgy characters involved went to any trouble to conceal their nefarious activities, many of which appear to have been blatantly trumpeted around various Whitehall hostelries.

The true significance of Guido Fawkes’s coup, however, has not been to show up the vacuity of Gordon Brown’s vaunted ‘moral compass’, but to nail the vapid sycophancy and hypocrisy of the mainstream print and broadcasting media’s ‘lobby system’. One of the funniest spin-offs of last week’s pantomime has been the procession of broadsheet lobby correspondents fulminating about the vileness of the disgraced Damian McBride who for years had been their main conduit to the Prime Minister. Now that he is no longer their feeding hand they tumble over one another to bite and maul him.

Governments have always sought to muzzle the press – it is natural and inevitable for them to do so – and the lobby, supposedly a discreet mechanism for privileged access to ministers by trustworthy fearless fact-finders of the proudly independent Fourth Estate, has since at least the 1930s devoted itself all too willingly to the role of pliant poodle, as James Margach chronicles in his book Abuse of Power: the war between Downing Street and the media (1978).

I was nearly twelve when Britain declared war on Germany in 1939. I can still remember the tired, flat voice of our Prime Minister, Neville Chamberlain, announcing the failure of all his efforts to appease the unappeasable:

“It is the evil things that we shall be fighting against – brute force, bad faith, injustice, oppression and persecution.”

What most of us didn’t know then, or until long afterwards, was that Chamberlain himself was not above using bad faith and dirty tricks in pursuing what he sincerely believed to be a virtuous path. In crafting his personally conceived and executed appeasement policy, Chamberlain took great pains to lean on the press far more heavily than any of his predecessors had done. From the time he took over the premiership from Baldwin in May 1937, determined to avert war by placating Hitler to the utmost in the vain – and vainglorious - belief that he single-handedly could tame the Nazis, Chamberlain concentrated great efforts to ensure that the bulk of the British press went along with him.

He did this partly by frequent personal contacts at ministerial level with newspaper proprietors, and even more assiduously through the Downing Street Press Office run on his behalf by a civil servant who was also a Chamberlain loyalist, George Steward, whose job was not only to ensure that the press was constantly fed the Prime Minister’s views and his opponents inside and beyond the Conservative Party briefed against, but also to leak to a contact at the German Embassy Chamberlain’s private thoughts and views about the utterances of the British press.

As Richard Cockett chronicles in Twilight of Truth: Chamberlain, Appeasement and the Manipulation of the Press [1989] the reason why Chamberlain laid such great emphasis on press manipulation was because he had been informed by Lord Halifax after his meetings with Hitler and Goebbels in Berlin in November 1937 that the Führer was extremely sensitive to criticism of the Nazi regime in the British press, and particularly to personal attacks upon himself - notably in the cartoons of David Low; and that any improvement in Anglo-German relations depended upon such criticisms being muted. Steward was therefore deputed to assure the Germans that the premier was doing all in his power to damp down such criticisms, even to the extent of “ignoring the provisions of the British Constitution and customary Cabinet usage”.

But besides Steward, Chamberlain had an even more shadowy and sinister helper in this enterprise in the shape of Sir Joseph Ball (1885-1961), who is described in the Dictionary of National Biography as “a quintessential eminence grise” whose influence cannot be measured by the brevity of the printed references to him. “Moving for most if his life in the shadow of events and deeply averse to publicity of any sort he gave very little away and accounts of his career …are curt and uninformative.“

Ball was in fact one of Chamberlain’s few personal intimates, and they used to spend fly-fishing holidays together. The scanty available facts make him sound like a character out of a novel by John Buchan or ‘Sapper’. After working at Scotland Yard, he joined MI5 at the outbreak of war in 1914 and rose to be head of its investigation branch, remaining in the secret service until 1927, when he joined the Conservative Party as Director of Publicity, later becoming the first Director of the Conservative Research Department. The party chairman who recruited him, Lord Davidson, said that Ball was “steeped in the Service tradition, and has had as much experience as anyone I know in the seamy side of life and the handling of crooks.” An experienced ‘spook’ as well as extremely right wing, Ball did not scruple to use dirty tricks and espionage, successfully planting agents in Labour Party headquarters and Odhams Press, which did most of Labour’s printing, so that he obtained advance intelligence of Labour’s plans.

An ardent supporter of Chamberlain’s appeasement policies, Ball not only sometimes briefed the Lobby on Chamberlain’s behalf; he also engaged in dirty tricks against Chamberlain’s critics inside the Conservative Party – the anti-appeasers grouped round the recently resigned Foreign Secretary, Anthony Eden, and Winston Churchill. As Ball later admitted to one of them, their telephones were tapped, and their reputations were smeared in Truth, the formerly radical weekly paper which had been founded by Henry Labouchere but which Ball had clandestinely purchased. Eden was derided in its pages as “emotionally unstable” [we’ve heard that before somewhere!] and his group were sneeringly dubbed “the glamour boys”. One of them, Harold Nicolson, drily noted in his Diary that ‘the rude article about me in Truth saying that I have “the mincing manner of a French salon”, that I lack virility and should retire from public life and bury myself in books…was all rather true, I suppose”.

Truth - and Ball – were also virulently anti-Semitic. They blamed opposition to Chamberlain’s policies on ‘Jewish-Communist influences’. Leslie Hore-Belisha – he of the beacons – who resigned as Chamberlain’s Minister of War, was fiercely attacked by Truth for alleged dodgy financial dealings and as a ‘war monger’ (which, as there was a war on, he should have been).

It would be enlightening to know what Ball’s true role was in the politics of the 1920s and ‘30s; but he was careful to cover his tracks and destroyed almost all his personal and business papers. He remained unshakeably pro-Chamberlain and anti-Churchill even after the latter had become Prime Minister in the crisis of May 1940. Just before Chamberlain died, later that year, Ball wrote to him exulting over their close association “in your great search for peace”. He was, he said, determined that come what may the full great truth about Chamberlain’s sustained effort to save the peace of the world should be told. History, however, has pronounced a different verdict.

There is nothing new under the sun. Spin is as old as the hills. Chamberlain had his Ball. Brown has his Balls. For how much longer?

A comment too far

I've reluctantly asked Michael not to post in the Arena any more, and to remove my registration from his site. This is because while I don't mind being called stupid, ignorant, mistaken, or anything else of that sort, I am NOT prepared to be dubbed 'dishonest'.

If Michael, or anyone else, believes that because I disagree with their views I am dishonest, that is their problem. I can only envy someone who is so cocksure of their own world-view that they feel free to deal with disagreement in that way.

Anticant's Arena is, and will remain, an 'open' site on which anyone is welcome to post comments - as long as they are sincerely held opinions and do not launch personal attacks on me or anyone else posting here.

I may be old-fashioned, but I continue to believe, as I always have done, that to call your opponent dishonest, unless you have tangible proof, is a blow below the belt and breaches the Queensberry Rules of debate.

There are all too many perfectly sincere people whose views I consider lunatic, and criticise here and elsewhere. But the fact that they are barmy doesn't make them dishonest. Things might be simpler if they were!

Blogging for Peace

After a year’s almost daily blogging, I ask myself why I keep on doing it? After a busy life of writing, campaigning, and counselling, I’ve reached an age, and a stage of precarious health, where I might do better to lay off the computer and let my mind as well as my body vegetate more.

The answer is complex. Firstly, I blog out of anxiety amounting to fearfulness over the present dreadful state of the world, and the continuing absence of discernible constructive moves to reduce hatred, curb violence, and promote peace.

I find it symptomatic that a well-drafted [because drafted by me!] petition to the peoples of the world to work for the reduction of violence posted by a small group of like-minded friends some months ago has so far attracted less than fifty signatures. We’d hoped – vainly – that it would interest at least as many people as were squabbling over the vicissitudes of scatterbrained Paris Hilton, if not the million or so calling for the abolition of whaling in the Pacific. But no: the prevailing level of global violence is not, it seems, of compelling concern to many bloggers.

I blog in order to have civilised discussions with like-minded, and other-minded, people. I do not blog to ‘win’, or to have slanging matches with those I disagree with. I avoid name-calling and trading insults: bloggers who deal in those currencies aren’t welcome on my sites, and I avoid theirs. Life is too short.

I blog, hopefully, to elucidate different points of view and to move towards constructive solutions. I don’t mean that I expect to reach a mushy sort of ‘consensus’ where everyone pays lip-service to skin-deep agreements; but I do hope to play my small part in rallying the silent solid centre of peaceable, live-and-let-live folk against the rabid extremists on both the Left and the Right.

I blog for tolerance. I blog against hatred and prejudice. I echo Lieutenant Cable in South Pacific:

“You’ve got to be taught to hate and fear,
You’ve got to be taught from year to year,
It’s got to be drummed in your dear little ear,
You’ve got to be carefully taught.

“You’ve got to be taught to be afraid
Of people whose eyes are oddly made,
And people whose skin is a different shade,
You’ve got to be carefully taught.

“You’ve got to be taught before it’s too late,
Before you are six or seven or eight
To hate all the people your relatives hate.
You’ve got to be carefully taught.”

This pernicious philosophy is even more virulent than it was half a century ago, when those wise words were written.

Above all, I blog for friendship – an unexpected bonus, and indeed a blessing, which I have happily discovered through my travels and travails around the blogosphere.

To all my blogging friends and acquaintances, I say ”Thank You” for enhancing my life and for making these latter arduous days richer and much pleasanter than I had anticipated.

Thinks.....

Having been tagged a Thinking Blogger by Yankee Doodle [thanks again YD!] my brains fall apart when I endeavour to decide who to nominate in my turn. The rules say “five”, but as YD broke them I shall do the same and nominate six deserving bloggers who always make me think, and – more importantly - often make me laugh.

I begin with ZOLA. To me, Zola is the Prince of Bloggers. Always erudite, frequently whimsical in his own endearing way, often very funny, though always with an underlying seriousness, Zola beaming in from Northern Finland is caring, sometimes a little despairing, but never for long. A daily visit to ‘Zola-Ink-Spots’ is like a dip into a rich bran tub: you never know what you are going to find next. Long may he blog.

Next, JOSE. From his vantage point in the Canary Isles, Jose surveys the world scene with a questioning eye. His long life and travels have taught him that little – if anything – is what it seems. He looks beneath the surface to descry deeper causes. A passionate advocate of the welfare of the little people of the earth – which means most of us – against the scams and skulduggery of powerful corporate institutions both governmental and private, Jose can be relied upon to make you think, even when you don’t agree with everything he says. The title of his blog, ‘Respect’, reflects Jose’s attitude to his fellow human beings.

Ms MELANCHOLY brings the insights of therapy and the fresh air of the Pennine Hills, where she is lucky enough to live [as I once did], to her blog which is a delightful mix of domestic gossip and wise insights into the human condition. I always feel soothed when I visit her site, or see that she has commented on mine. She is a fount of calm wisdom, and not nearly as gloomy as her blogging name implies.

For sheer guts, industry, and dedication to a self-imposed task, Ken Frost of NANNY KNOWS BEST gets top marks. An inveterate foe of official and unofficial bossiness, Ken provides ludicrous examples of idiotic rulings and behaviour by tinpot jobsworths who alas abound in NuLab Britain. Some of Nanny’s offerings would make you howl with laughter if they weren’t so infuriating – and indeed, dismaying. Always something to think about there!

Finally, two American friends whose blogs always give food for thought. The inimitable WOOK [Emmett Smith] has a wide-ranging fund of knowledge and wry observation which he deploys both seriously and playfully. I suspect that Wook is pretty appalled at the idiocies of the human race in this day and age, and that being facetious is his escape route from furiously sallying forth and knocking heads together. A frequent commentator in both the Arena and the Burrow, Wook tickles and stimulates us with his folksy turns of phrase.

On a more serious level, THE BAREFOOT BUM [Larry Hamelin] philosophises bravely and eloquently in the causes of liberalism and free thought – scarcely mainstream American enthusiasms, alas – and argues his case vigorously with all comers. He’s always insightful, and often amusing. I enjoy debating with him and his colleague James very much.

So there you are, Lady and Gentlemen! I hope these awards will bring you new visitors and more comments – which is always gratifying when one has slaved away over a warm keyboard to impart one’s precious thoughts to an uncaring world.

And what’s more, you are each now entitled to nominate five more Thinking Bloggers!

The rules are as follows:

1. If, and only if, you get tagged, write a post with links to 5 blogs that make you think,

2. Link to this post so that people can easily find the exact origin of the meme,

3. Optional: Proudly display the ‘Thinking Blogger Award’ with a link to the post that you wrote. (It comes in Gold and Silver).

The Bugs:

Thinking Blogger (Gold)

Thinking Blogger (Silver)

Why bother blogging?

Jose – of all people! – says he is withdrawing from anticant’s arena because he is not prepared to consider the views of another blogger, Yankee Doodle, whose comments, he says, are lacking in “respect” to him. Untypically for such an even-tempered person, Jose seems to be offended by having a cherished point of view contradicted. But is it logical to state one’s beliefs, as Jose frequently and properly does, with a qualifying “only in my opinion”, and then to take umbrage when someone questions them?

Surely, if we adopt this attitude, we shall close ourselves off from new information and different perspectives, so that political blogging becomes a pointless exercise. I blog in order to discover what others are thinking, and to identify new sources of insight into what is going on in this increasingly disturbing and uneasily dangerous world. We all of us have our preconceptions and preferences – largely drawn from reading and reflection rather than from direct experience – and the great virtue of the internet is that there are all shades of opinion, and a great deal of expertise, out there to be consulted, considered, and – sometimes – rejected.

I do not expect to agree with, or to receive deference from, everyone whose blog I peruse or exchange comments with. All I ask is that people keep a civilised standard of politeness and good humour, and in the end agree to disagree if there is nothing further to be gained from the exchanges.

In this instance, however, I find it hard to believe that there is nothing to be gained from studying such well-informed posts as those of Yankee Doodle, who is obviously engaged on much thorough hard-working research. He says things which are alarming and even distasteful, but which we need to know and evaluate. To ignore the implications of his material would, I believe, be very negligent. In a comment I posted on the thread which has upset Jose, I asked: “Do you think there is a mephistophelian hook-up between the Bush, bin Laden and Saudi families to screw America? Interesting thought....” On reflection, I would substitute “Western civilisation and democracy” for “America”. Yankee Doodle is building up a series of pointers to an extremely disturbing answer to my question, and so I for one shall continue to read his blog with great interest and concern.