The BBC has started a 10 part series on the history of the Conservative movement:
The changing face of British conservatism
You might think ‘Oh yeah,,,I know what that’ll be like’….but reading the article based upon it the programme may give a far more rounded view of the Tories than you might expect.
Or that’s the impression I got on first read…on a second reading I think perhaps it is no more than an ‘Occupy’ tract against Capitalism, trade, progress, work and the Establishment.
For instance:
Thomas Carlyle set himself up as the great enemy of the newly dominant idea of utilitarianism.
This preached that people should be managed on the basis that they liked pleasure and shied away from pain.
So you should never pay someone more in “poor relief” than the lowest wage.
Life seemed to be governed by a “cash nexus” of contracts and transactions.
And in this Carlyle saw the death of the old, more caring, Christian society.
Hmmm…isn’t that just what Occupy and Giles Fraser preach now on the BBC? The argument about ‘poor relief,’ ie welfare, being too high compared to wages is of course very current politically…are the BBC trying a bit too hard to influence thinking however modestly?
And how about this:
‘….this brings us to a character who sums up the spirit of this series: Lord George Bentinck.
Here was an MP who was so keen on horse riding that he turned up to the Commons covered in mud, and didn’t bother speaking for his first eight years in Parliament.
But when Free Trade loomed, he reared up out of his apathy and joined Disraeli to defend the old social systems.
A ‘Tory’ MP who never bothered to speak for 8 years in Parliament and then only to defend the status quo…he ‘sums up the spirit of this series’?
Really?… what does that mean? All Tory MPs are lazy reactionaries defending privilege and advantage?
Strange that it is a Labour MP that has rarely appeared in Parliament for over 3 years…Gordon Brown…remember him?
Or how about this:
In 1864, when the merchants of Bradford invited him to advise them on the design of a prestigious new building, he gave them a fiery lecture on how they should stop worshipping “the goddess of getting-on” and rediscover old traditions of artisanship and social harmony.
Ah yes…can’t have anyone getting on can we….wanting to improve their quality of life…or as the BBC calls it the evil of ‘consumerism’.
or how about this:
John Arthur Roebuck revived an old Tory idea – that class hierarchies could best be maintained by letting each class enjoy their own pleasures
Ah yes, the Tories are a class apart….out of touch with the workers.
Then there was Enoch Powell and Mary Whitehouse…and finally, the nail in the coffin…the final programme on …….drum roll….Maggie!
Can’t imagine what that will be like.
No mention of the “Cant and Cotton Men” among the Whig MPs, or “Liberals”, who were so despised by the Tories.
These sanctimonious nonconformists used to employ pauper apprentices – literally, child slaves – to clean beneath the cotton looms. Involuntary amputations were common.
They got their overseers to beat the crap out of any who tried to escape. And opposed Tory legislation limiting child labour and imposing health and safety measures.
A history of the Liberal Party would be a real eye opener to many people. It should be compulsory reading in schools.
Like a history of the sainted Democratic Party, perhaps?
I think this article is over the top. The clue is in “Conservative” when the presenter actually said “conservative with a small “c”. Surely we all (who studied 19th. century history) recognise the arguments of paternalism v utilitarianism and landed interest v new money. I think the main thread is the importance of northern experiences to the development of political thought and social attitudes in a fluid situation unparalleled in any country before this time, as the Industrial Revolution and the subsequent flight from the countryside threatened to destroy the institutions of the state and the very fabric of society – a state and society at the zenith of their power having seen off the anarchic and subsequent Napoleonic challenges.
Give it a chance.
The Tory! Tory! Tory! documentary they screened several years was pretty fair on Maggie. They didn’t make it though, it was made by an independent production company.
Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=auPDcTrsW5k
Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABn3EmUcU7g
Part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJVTbeiS7s4
The BBC on the Conservative movement eh?
I’m sure that will be fair and balanced.
Bit like asking the Klu Klux Klan to do a documentary on the Civil Rights Movement.
Or vice versa
In my mind the BBC long ago lost the credibility to make any serious history programmes, owing to their inability to remain objective and impartial. This is not unusual with any historical interpretation because the author/producer/presenter usually has axe to grind, or an interpretation to sell. But of course we can usually go off and make another purchase and get another point of view. This is not the case with the BBC . We never get a programme which presents the opposite view or interpretation. It is as if they believe that their view is the only valid one. The fact that we have to pay for this output even if we don’t watch it, makes it an almost totalitarian state of affairs.
I don’t think that any state funded broadcaster can produce the balanced ,pluralistic output that a democracy requires. The fact that they are funded by the state must in the end influence them into a statist position and to take sides in the political debate.
The BBC has been in forefront of re-writing our history, from a liberal left interpretation only, over the past several decades and has never broadcast any other balancing interpretation. In doing so they have seriously undermined our national culture and self confidence and swayed the political consensus to the left by this abuse of power.
The BBC is the most anti democratic influence that we have in this country and the sooner they are closed down the better.
Anyone remember the BBC series on the British Empire from the 70s? Why does that never get repeated? Would it seem dated by being too dry and objective? I can’t remember it that well, but it seems to have been deleted from the archives.
At least ‘Document’ is back to tell us how the British brutally crushed the Mau Mau. Expect balanced coverage including the inter communal strife, Mau Mau atrocities, and setting it in context e.g. atrocities in Communist China at the time.
Yes, this BBC series is worth a listen.
On the French Revolution, BBC commentators in the past have been inclined to take the side of Thomas Paine, rather than Edmund Burke. The argument between the two is brilliant, with the pro-French Revolution enthusiast Paine appearing to take the initiative in the argument, drawing on his own participation in the actual revolution. Burke’s more measured criticism of the Revolution can appear very general in its principles. But Paine’s enthusiasm for the French Revolution lessened somewhat when he was imprisoned and sentenced to death in Paris. (The Americans got him out, and Paine remained loyal to a version of the American Revolution.)
“In 1864, when the merchants of Bradford invited him to advise them on the design of a prestigious new building, he gave them a fiery lecture on how they should stop worshipping “the goddess of getting-on” and rediscover old traditions of artisanship and social harmony.”
It’s a shame the BBC didn’t ask someone for advice on the redesign of Broadcasting House. Somebody who could have given them a fiery lecture on the worship of the several false gods and goddesses the BBC genuflects to and the need to rediscover old traditions of British broadcasting and social harmony.
First read you thought it was fair, second read you conclude its an Occupy tract.
That suggests a touch of schizophrenia. Maybe u should get checked out?
I have no doubt what so ever that the Biased BBC will be using this program as evidence that they cover right of centre issues and are therefore impartial. The fact that they give a left wing colouration to the piece will be removed from any consideration.