Over the weekend I watched the film The Queen. I was a little disappointed, given that little new came out from the film, though the plaudits for Helen Mirren were deserved. I expected liberal helpings of dramatic licence, given that so much of the film covered scenes where no-one outside the protagonists would have known what went on. Even so, The West Wing meets Buckingham Palace it isn’t. However, the period covered by the film still echoes today, and that’s not just in view of the upcoming tenth anniversary of Princess Diana’s fatal last tour of the Paris underpasses.
The last few days have underlined how little has changed in how the mob can override intelligent assessments of a situation. In 1997, the mob – aka “the public mood” - demanded that the flag at Buckingham Palace fly at half mast. Of course, the protocol is that the Royal Standard either flies at full mast (when the monarch is resident) or not at all. There is never a reason to fly at half mast because the nation is never without a monarch, succession being instantaneous on a monarch’s death or abdication. There was also the questioning of why the Queen was still at Balmoral in the first few days of September.
Yet the Queen had to be seen to emoting with the public. I think this Dianafication has been evident in the criticism of David Cameron and his “failure” to rush back to Witney in the light of the flooding. It is ironic that the reason he wasn’t there is because he was demonstrating publicly his concern over global poverty and the genocide that took place in Rwanda thirteen years ago.
Now I feel there are two valid viewpoints here: that in the modern media environment, it would have been advisable to have been seen in the constituency, even if it was on the Saturday or Sunday, being briefed on preparations for the floods. David Cameron and his team know this, so it seems odd that they didn’t make such last minute arrangements.
However, it is equally correct to question what, had he cancelled or postponed the African trip (which only lasted a day or so anyway), he could actually have done of any use in Witney, other than he and the press getting in everyone’s way in the effort to get his picture taken? Also, whilst it is natural for many people to expect a future PM to put home affairs first, is it really wrong for a future Conservative government to take an interest in foreign affairs, including the causes of “push” immigration, international political instability and encouraging global trade and the better chances such work gives to peace and security for all?
Finally, one other point, being someone uninvolved in the MSM: it does seem to me that there can be a gulf between the footsoldier hacks and their editors. Iain Dale, covering the last few days in Rwanda, has noted how typically (and understandably) cynical journalists have realised that the work being done by MPs and activists in Rwanda is more than a stunt. Shame no-one has told the majority of headline writers.
