I was saddened today to hear of the death of Michael Foot, journalist, writer and former leader of the Labour Party whilst in opposition from 1980 to 1983.
Foot was the leader of the Labour party at the time I discovered politics. It was a time that we can barely remember let alone understand- when great ideologies confronted each other across the dispatch box. On the one side, Thatcherism– in all its free market elitism and on the other, a Labour ideal of the rise of moral egalitarianism, and the battle for a fairer and more equal society.
It was a time before sound bites, and when media manipulation was not the primary skill required by a political leader. Rather, the ability to debate with passion and integrity, and to move people by the power of your voice- these things were still of value.
And Foot was part of this long tradition- a Labour man from a very non working class background, who nevertheless will forever be associated with ‘Old Labour’, whose core principles still have a hold over me.
Foot also presided over a party whose radical policies of nuclear disarmament and opposition to war in the Falkland islands were formed in a time of chaotic social change. It was a time when the left wing of the party, under the strong influence of supporters of Tony Benn.
And yet Labour suffered their heaviest ever defeat in the General Election in 1983.
Foot, aged 67, frail and always scruffy in his Donkey Jackets, crumpled suits and wild hair, resigned soon afterwards.
Principled, passionate, intelligent and perhaps a little eccentric. How I miss politicians like Foot. I suspect we will not see his like again…
By way of a tribute- here are some clips. Each one a little time capsule from a different time. From the dark years of mass unemployment, the decimation of Britain’s industrial base, and before the euphoria (then betrayal) many of us felt under Tony Blair…
this fragile tent 
Pingback: Michael Foot again « Poumista
David Cameron was talking absolute rubbish when he declared on television recently that Michael Foot fought the Nazis.
Michael Foot never joined up. Instead he enjoyed a cushy number, plus a good salary of course, sitting behind a desk, whilst other people, (such as my late father) volunteered to serve in the forces. My Dad was lucky, because he survived and returned home safe, but many others didn’t, as Mr Cameron and other politicians of all parties know only too well.
Michael Foot enjoyed the fruits of victory after World War 2 took its toll and he was ‘manna from Heaven’ to the Conservative Party, as he was perceived to be a ‘raving looney’ by the electorate who chose to support the Tories, instead of a Labour party leader whose rantings, shoutings and spoutings, as well as the affair of the ‘Donkey Jacket of course made him appear to be a buffoon.
I was outraged to see David Cameron speaking on on television telling the public that Michael Foot ‘fought Nazism’, because it’s simply not true and it does nothing to preserve Mr Cameron’s own credibility.
Let’s be absolutely clear about this. Foot never fought!
I had at least one relative who was a conscientious objector during two world wars, who served as a stretcher bearer, receiving wounds for which he was decorated. He was a ‘left winger’ but unlike Michael Foot, he didn’t ‘dodge the column’.
Other conscientious objectors volunteered to serve as firemen, medics, stretcher bearers, bomb disposal officers, etc and many lost their lives, or received terrible injuries.
Does anyone happen to know by any chance what London firemen were earning during the Second World War?
I ask, because I venture to suggest that their annual wages were somewhat less than the sums that ‘Comrade’ Foot was receiving!
Yours sincerely
Lomond Handley (Ms)
Haslemere Surrey
Hi Ms Handley
Thanks for your comment.
Michael Foot was always someone who divided opinion, and it is clear that he still manages to raised strong opposition and criticism. Some of this criticism may well be deserved. I do not know anything about his war service, and you may well have a valid point. However, he will always be judged on his performance 40 years after the war.
And in this, he failed as a politician, but I would argue that he still embodies much that is good and worthy of celebration at the point of his passing.
You may well disagree. I do not think he would mind.
Best wishes
Chris