They interviewed me from Moscow in the midst of the breaking news about this morning's rush hour accident on the Metro, so they were a bit pushed and they had to leave a lot out. But it is always a pleasure to work with them.
Philip Hammond once confused Bashar al-Assad with Saddam Hussein. He failed to prevent swingeing defence cuts while advocating all manner of military adventures.
George Osborne has indicated his desire to be Foreign Secretary in the mercifully unlikely event of a Conservative victory next year (YouGov has the normal service of a Labour lead restored tonight), so Hammond, who would have been Chief Secretary to the Treasury if it had not been for the Coalition, is merely being lined up for a job swap.
Meanwhile farewell to William Hague. His new role in the General Election campaign is presumably due to his enormous success in 2001, when he prevented the much-reduced Labour majority that would have been better for Britain, better for the world, better for the Labour Party, and better for the mental health of Tony Blair.
His legacy as Foreign Secretary? A certain resetting of the relationship with China, yes. And his work on violence against women. But chaos in Libya, the Caliphate in Iraq and Syria, and the gratuitous antagonisation of Russia with sanctions, visa bans, and the rest. Hammond, though, is even worse.
Skype?
ReplyDeleteI assume it was an edited 15-minute piece, though?
Oh, yes. They were all over the place because of the accident. I kept hearing people shouting things in Russian in the background.
DeleteSkype is invaluable. I'd be an hour away from a studio even if I were in better health, and in any case they only texted me at 11:30pm about going at 9am.
Fine by me. Such is the hectic life of a "publisher and political activist" (their words) who is sought after by a channel reaching 644 million people in more than 100 countries.
The London lot are very good, and the Moscow lot were remarkable in view of the circumstances under which they were working.
RT does everyone outside the world's big cities on Skype. It saves them a fortune. Plus it's true, you are not well and I assume they know that since they obviously know you. You always scrub up well, loving the summer linen rather than the pinstripe and of course the trademark tie and handkerchief combo. But that only makes you all the more remarkable. You can carry it off with the walking stick and still be the man in the room all the men want to be and all the women want to be with. You have never lost it, you never will.
DeleteNow, we are thoroughly off-topic.
DeleteBut yes, they do seem to do everyone on Skype. They did Tim Wigmore of the New Statesman like that on this story about 24 hours ago, and I assume that he lives in London.
They always do Neil Clark like that from Oxford, John Laughland from Paris, Mark Almond from Oxford again, and so on.
As you say, it saves them a fortune in cars or what have you.
One does like to make an effort, darling. One's public expects it. Evidently.
They probably know a perfect English gentleman won't make a fuss about his fee. Dare you risk dressing down for them next time? You'd either never be on again or be paid properly when you were. Take the risk.
DeleteWhen I am at work, I dress for work.
DeleteAnyone who mistakes Mr. Lindsay for *that* kind of English gentleman has never worked with him or with many English gentlemen, RT has done both. But one never talks about such matters, does one, Mr. L?
DeleteIndeed, one does not. The very height, or depth, of vulgarity.
DeleteI am a trade unionist, that's all I'm saying on the subject. That, and that I am a much cheaper date than George Galloway, even though he doesn't drink.
On that note, and since no one seems to want to talk about the reshuffle, to bed.
The man in Britain one of the biggest news networks in the world most wanted to hear from on this was David Lindsay? I despair, I fucking despair!
ReplyDeletePlease do not swear on my blog.
DeleteNo need for that kind of language. To have called him up about something like this, RT must think a great deal of Mr. L. I doubt that they have ever heard of you, whoever you are. That is what you hate. Tough, he has worked very hard for 20 years. Unsung and often mistreated. If that is finally changing, not a moment too soon.
DeleteYou are very kind.
DeleteNot at all.
Delete"Before Red Tory and Blue Labour there was David Lindsay. He was arguably the first to announce a postliberal politics of paradox, and to delve into the deep, unwritten British past in order to craft, theoretically, an alternative British and international future. It is high time that the singular and yet wholly pertinent writings of this County Durham Catholic Labour prophet receive a wider circulation." It is getting one now.
But as you hinted earlier this week, a prophet is always without honour in his own country. I do not need to tell you that "country" is very broadly defined in that text.
We are straying fascinatingly off-topic (the reshuffle in general, and Hague and Hammond in particular), but off-topic, all the same.
DeleteWho booked you, Olga?
ReplyDeleteThe very same. Olga Tarbeeva, senior producer at the London Bureau and all round good egg.
DeleteShe could have anyone she liked, of course. Gosh.
You didn't even mention (or challenge) the presenter's opening remarks about Hammond being "hard-line" and "against the rights of sexual minorities" because he opposed gay marriage.
ReplyDeleteWhat a ridiculous opening presentation on Philip Hammond.
He is very, very, very hardline, as I set out in my own remarks, broadcast and otherwise. The bits that weren't are in this post. He is even more hawkish than William Hague.
DeleteHe specifically mentioned his opposition to gay marriage as evidence of being "hard line" and "against the rights of sexual minorities".
ReplyDeleteIncredible that you're a Christian and you are also against gay marriage yet you didn't even challenge that ridiculous assertion.
You're an American, aren't you? Or you want to be.
DeleteHe doesn't know how interviews work or what RT is. Or what the Tory party is, even. And you are right, culture wars stuff: how did that work out for you?
DeleteFurther to my last comment.
ReplyDeleteEven the BBC was a bit more fair to opponents of gay marriage than RT.
If they'd opened a slot on a Tory reshuffle by saying a Tory Minister was "against the rights of sexual minorities" just because he takes the standard Christian view of gay marriage, they'd have been (rightly) deluged with complaints alongside a Daily Mail article on BBC "liberal bias" and forced to apologise.
You are meant to be a Christian who also opposes gay marriage yet you didn't even challenge the presenter's blatant prejudice.
Does the presenter even know you also oppose it? Clearly not since you kept quiet.
Shameful.
Everything in that earlier Anonymous comment was right, then.
DeleteYou don't know how interviews work. You don't know what RT is. You don't know what the Conservative Party is. And you think that you have just invented the culture wars.
The Daily Mail, indeed!
You copped out and kept quiet when the presenter absurdly criticised Hammond (and implicitly half the Tory Party) for opposing SMS, as if taking the standard Christian view of marriage makes you an ogre.
ReplyDeleteA Catholic who appears on telly and lets that go unchallenged?
You're a joke.
No, I am an interviewee. I wasn't actually questioned by the presenter at all. I certainly didn't hear anything that he said until it was broadcast. And in any case, I should have had to have been asked about this in order to have answered on it. You just do not have a clue how these things work.
Delete