Where are the Big Beasts?

[terminal7]

This is not really a political musing - so hopefully it will not be relocated.

I know everything back then was much better etc . . .

However, as someone who tends to keep informed of the state of the nation, I just starting thinking that I can hardly name more than a very small handful of the Labour front bench. Then I thought that beyond a slightly bigger handful, I cannot name too many ministers outside the CV-19 front line speakers. It took me a few moments to even remember the head of the Lib Dems. Less longer to recollect the only Green MP. I will leave the DUP and the SNP aside as Parliament is less important for them given the various forms of devolved power.

My point is where have all the Big Beasts gone? Clearly some have passed on, others have been put out to pasture (particularly in the Cons), some have retired. It just seems that very few 'heavyweights' are coming through.

Maybe I should take off my rose tinted varifocals?

T7

[Mike4]

Did anyone else mis-read the thread title?



But I agree with your point. We need more Dennis Healys and Norman Tebbits.

[staffordian]

I can't help thinking that this is at least in part due to the rise of career politicians.

Gone are the days when labour politicians rose through the ranks having survived the rough and tumble of trade union life.

And fewTory politicians these days seem to have had a career at the helm of a blue chip company or suchlike.

And, of course, many of the erstwhile big hitters saw service in WW2.

I'm pretty sure any of the above routes to Westminster would result in more rounded and experienced characters than a few years in Oxbridge studying PPE, then a few more years kowtowing to an MP as a political advisor, which seems the favoured route into politics these days.

[vagrantbrain]

I think the smart ones now take roles as SPADs or consultants instead of standing as MPs - all the power to influence policy without the inconvenience of having to attend fetes and kiss babies, or have the tabloids scrutinise your expenses.

[UncleEbenezer]

I think the smart ones now take roles as SPADs or consultants instead of standing as MPs - all the power to influence policy without the inconvenience of having to attend fetes and kiss babies, or have the tabloids scrutinise your expenses.

Ministers come and go, but Sir Humphrey gets on with the job.

[88V8]

Gone are the days when labour politicians rose through the ranks having survived the rough and tumble of trade union life.
And few Tory politicians these days seem to have had a career at the helm of a blue chip company or suchlike.
And, of course, many of the erstwhile big hitters saw service...

I would like to see a pre-qualification for Parliament.
That one must have been.. something of yea importance ..... or done.. something of yea merit.... or served in the Forces to a certain rank.

Uni-SPAD-MP to me is not a valid path to govt.

I also wish MPs to display some backbone as to their own pay. They have set aside recommended increases so often that the salary is now mediocre, and the expenses are not a patch on former times.

Mediocre pay attracts mediocrities.
And it has.

V8

[Arborbridge]

Maybe I should take off my rose tinted varifocals?

T7

I don't think so - or maybe I should too!

It seems to me that most of our current crop are pygmies. We will all have differing opinions, but after the Blair epoch with Gordon Brown, perhaps going into the Cameron years at a pinch, we seem to have lost anyone one can pick out as memorable or exceptional. What happened to "Statesmen"? People who had weighty arguments for difficult times, people who played the long game on the international stage for the good of humanity? Well, maybe that never quite happened, but they could make it seem like it might!
We don't even have speakers with memorable phrases any more - though I expect a poster will now remind me of a few, without being too party political.

Amd I had the same trouble remembering who the Lib Dem leader was. Anodyne compared with their leaders of the past who had heft and personality.

Is some of this our fault: we expect sin free angels beyond reproach. Let's face it, some of the weighty individuals could be quite notorious too: genius often goes with such bursting energy. But the current zeitgeist is to cancel out such people before they can do any good.

Arb.

[terminal7]

Ministers come and go, but Sir Humphrey gets on with the job.

. . . . and their other private sector jobs - or waiting to slot into their promised private sector jobs.

Not sure I agree Uncle E with this any longer. J Heywood seems to have left an increasingly dubious legacy. S Case's recent performances were like a limpet to obfuscation. And there are others - not getting on with the job but protecting their political masters.

I could go on - but this is a diversion to the point of the thread.

T7

[staffordian]

Is some of this our fault: we expect sin free angels beyond reproach. Let's face it, some of the weighty individuals could be quite notorious too: genius often goes with such bursting energy. But the current zeitgeist is to cancel out such people before they can do any good.

Arb.

I think this is a very good point.

For one reason or another, I don't think many of the ones who come to my mind would be considered acceptable these days. They might not have been considered acceptable in their day, but no-one got to hear or judge to the degree they can and do now.

Racial views, drinking habits, womanising (or the opposite?) etc were either considered acceptable at the time, were ignored or were covered up via the Old Boys network.

And I do subscribe to the view that geniuses are often flawed.

[bungeejumper]

Racial views, drinking habits, womanising (or the opposite?) etc were either considered acceptable at the time, were ignored or were covered up via the Old Boys network.

Indeed, I think alcoholism was rampant - you had to be pretty far gone to be pushed out of a ministerial job. (George Brown and Reginald Maudling spring to mind, although Private Eye was never shy of declaring other cabinet members to be tired and emotional, so there were many, manybadly kept secrets.)

As for womanising, just about everybody (except Profumo) seemed to get away with it. Paddy Pantsdown even managed to enhance his popularity by bonking his secretary. But the ultimate shocker came with the belated news of John Major's affair with Eggwina Currie. Four years! It's the quiet ones you've got to watch.

BJ

[Arborbridge]

Is it coincidence that the PM we have now comes from the notorious zone? He is one of the few who showed boundless energy and optimism and got away with his flaws nevertheless. One case where voters were not put off.

Yet, careers can be wrecked by seemingly unimportant events. I felt sorry for that chap with the bicycle who had a row with policeman at the No 10 gate and lost his job, when other ministers can make vast errors with consequences and not resign.

I remember for a long time, there were complaints about ministers not taking the rap, and it was said that the last minister to resign over a point of honour was Lord Carrington at the beginning of the Falklands crisis.

We seem to swing from acting like snowflakes one moment and then ignoring mischiefmaking the next.


Arb.

[UncleEbenezer]

Ministers come and go, but Sir Humphrey gets on with the job.

. . . . and their other private sector jobs - or waiting to slot into their promised private sector jobs.

Not sure I agree Uncle E with this any longer. J Heywood seems to have left an increasingly dubious legacy. S Case's recent performances were like a limpet to obfuscation. And there are others - not getting on with the job but protecting their political masters.

I could go on - but this is a diversion to the point of the thread.

T7

Um, just to clarify, my intended point was that there's nothing new to the minister being a mere figurehead for those who really govern.

Perhaps I should've said not Sir Humphrey, but the real long-term Establishment figures who tell them what to do, like Murdoch and Rothermere.

[XFool]

This is not really a political musing - so hopefully it will not be relocated.

I feel your pain...

[XFool]

Ahem... I know what you mean, sadly, I am of the opinion this may also be an aging 'thing'.

I remember - a long time ago now - I was standing at the edge of a busy road and it suddenly occurred to me: "I have no idea whatsoever what is the make or model of any of these cars."

Not that I was ever particularly a car person, we didn't even have a car at home, but when young I instantly knew and could easily recognise every vehicle on the road. How?

[Rhyd6]

In the early 1960s I had the opportunity of working in No.10 in the typing pool, this was short term to cover annual leave. Shorthand typists were recruited throughout the length and breadth of Britain for this position. As far as the typing pool was concerned there were very few "Big Beasts". A lot of them were "tired & emotional" all parties, gropers all parties and downright rude quite a few. One or two I had dealings with as a lowly no-body I remember because of their treatment. Barbara Castle was unfailing polite and was never dismissive or rude and James Callaghan was always the gentleman, if he saw you rushing down the corridor he always stayed and held the door open for you, most just let it slam in your face, we didn't count for anything with a number of the "Big Beasts".
I also think that we've lost a lot of the political interviewers like Robin Day, these days interviewers seem to rush onto the next question before the person they are interviewing has chance to expand on their answer. Since the retirement of John Humphries even the Today programme I feel, hass become same old, same old with the odd exception.

R6

[Sussexlad]

I suspect a lot of it is to do with the modern day media. All they do is look for the daily headline with which to whip the poor sap sent out to do the rounds for the day and boost their own sense of importance. I doubt the BBC slagged off Churchill for the loss of a few planes on an otherwise successful bombing mission ! Their endless negativity is so depressing, it's no surprise that the nation's mental health is apparently deteriorating.

[stewamax]

I also think that we've lost a lot of the political interviewers like Robin Day, these days interviewers seem to rush onto the next question before the person they are interviewing has chance to expand on their answer.

Exactly. The best political interviewers were in my view not the loudest or most argumentative but those who - very politely - could drop a dangerously barbed question and then keep quiet. The late John Freeman (qv Face to Face etc) was a past master at this. Eddie Mair is not bad either.
The DimbleBros are not in the same league, but dad Richard Dimbleby certainly was: he was phenomenally well briefed, had a formidable memory and politely eviscerated politicians and the like on Panorama

[88V8]

I find Times Radio good in terms of not interrupting, but some of their presenters are not on top of the subject.
However, one does not feel that the presenters have an agenda, which one certainly does feel with the Today programme.

V8

[Arborbridge]

I find Times Radio good in terms of not interrupting, but some of their presenters are not on top of the subject.
However, one does not feel that the presenters have an agenda, which one certainly does feel with the Today programme.

V8

I believe they have the same agenda as the Times + the agenda of attracting more readers to the Times.
So that's two agendas in one

If you think the BBC is biassed in some way and that the Times isn't, I would suggest thinking again.

Arb.

[UncleEbenezer]

If you think the BBC is biassed in some way and that the Times isn't, I would suggest thinking again.

Arb.

Being biased and having an Agenda are not the same.

The BBC very clearly has an in-your-face Agenda which can get very tiresome. But accusations of bias (to the BBC as a whole, as opposed to particular programmes) would need to be rather more focussed and nuanced: for example, who gets offered an uncritical platform. And it can be unintentional: for many years Farage - not at all a proponent of BBC Agendas - got more airtime than any other politician, even prime minister (for most of that time) Blair. And that airtime was - until they belatedly started to take him seriously - a whole lot less critical than they'd give to any elected politician or serious candidate.