Category Archives: Society

Arts, Books, History, Society, Spain

Book Review: ‘The Life and Death of the Spanish Republic’…

SPANISH CIVIL WAR

Following the bombing of a London warehouse in 1940 during the Blitz, copies of a book awaiting distribution of Henry Buckley’s eyewitness account of the Spanish civil war nearly never saw the light of day. A handful, however, did survive, and this posthumous publication of The Life and Death of the Spanish Republic should go some way to establishing his reputation as one of the finest foreign journalists to write on Spain.

Buckley died in 1972, but was the Daily Telegraph’s foreign correspondent in Madrid from 1929. For a decade he furiously filed dispatches from all corners of the country as its young democracy sparked, and eventually ignited and burst into full-scale civil war. With Spain’s current economic crisis in the forefront of global news, it would be fascinating to see what a reporter of Henry Buckley’s stature would have made of its present predicament.

Following a posting in Berlin, Buckley arrived in Madrid to find Spain about to be ripped apart by its own unresolved social and economic tensions. Through countless meetings and conversations with politicians, generals and workers he paints and depicts a vivid portrait of a country where ‘the mass of the people were solid in their desire to fight for their independence and for the future of the Republic as opposed to feudalism’, even though the military superiority of General Franco was to crush the country’s first experience of democracy.

In 1940, Daily Telegraph correspondent Henry Buckley published his eyewitness account of his experiences reporting form the Spanish civil war. The copies of the book, stored in a warehouse in London, were destroyed during the Blitz and only a handful of copies of his unique chronicle were saved.

In 1940, Daily Telegraph correspondent Henry Buckley published his eyewitness account of his experiences reporting form the Spanish civil war. The copies of the book, stored in a warehouse in London, were destroyed during the Blitz and only a handful of copies of his unique chronicle were saved.

Buckley’s reportage is not only of significance and great historical value, but is a model for foreign correspondents to follow. He offers passion and detailed knowledge on several leading political figures of the Republic, many of whom he knew personally, but who remain deeply controversial to this day in a Spain still struggling with the legacy of the civil war. In his collation, for instance, Buckley recalls with energy and vigour his conversations with José Antonio Primo de Rivera, the charismatic young leader of the fascist Falange movement. Whilst he is highly critical of the thugs hired by the young lawyer and parliamentarian, Buckley refers to him as ‘one of the nicest people in Madrid’, and makes narrative on the revolutionary leader’s ‘charming’ English accent.

Henry Buckley’s greatest quality as a correspondent is his sensitivity to both the human suffering and the broader significance of the conflict – his accounts are rich in colour and historical detail, as well as portraying a deeply personal tone.  As a pious and devout Christian, coupled with being a reporter for a British broadsheet newspaper, he faced multiple internal conflicts. He is clearly dismayed by the position taken by the Church, and angered by British and French non-intervention, as Franco’s better armed and organised troops gain advantage over the internationally isolated Republic. Buckley notes how the outcome of the war ‘depended almost entirely on Paris and London’, and how foreign-based financiers backed Franco over the Republic with their credit.

Journaling events with honesty and humility, often in chaotic circumstances, he openly admits when he cannot verify things, but rigorously doing so when he can. The chronicled entry concerning the vastly exaggerated Nationalist claims about the number of dead in Madrid ahead of the fall of the capital is a pointed example.

Prior to his eventual escape over the Pyrenees with the defeated Republican forces in 1939, Buckley wearily noted how democracy’s fight against the forces of Franco appeared doomed from the outset, gloomily writing that the Republic’s disadvantages were in ’everything but manpower so overwhelming that it was inadequate to try and regard it as an equal struggle’.

The Spanish civil war is a subject that has been widely covered in the last 50 years, but Buckley’s work is a rare account which generates much excitement. Its re-emergence is a reminder – to both the specialist and general reader alike – that the best frontline reporting endures long after the final shot has been fired.

Standard
Britain, Government, Legal, Society

Proposed changes to libel law would inhibit the free press…

LIBEL LAW REFORM

The Ministry of Justice has announced that the Government will back Lord Justice Leveson’s proposals for ‘costs protection’ in defamation and libel cases, making it easier for individuals to sue media companies. Under the current rules, if someone brings a case for libel and loses, they have to pay the defendant’s legal costs as well as their own. If proposals by justice minister, Helen Grant, go through, a judge will be able to impose a ‘one-way’ costs order. The effect of this will mean the poorest claimants will not have to cover the defendant’s bill for legal costs if they lose their case, and those on average incomes may only have to pay a proportion of it.

Taken in isolation, the perceived notion of changing the law to ensure that victims of libel (whatever their means) can take on powerful media organisations will be a good one. For one may argue that legal protection from defamation and invasion of privacy ought not to be restricted to the wealthy and well-heeled. In practical terms, though, its effect upon the free press would be iniquitous. The floodgates would be opened as individuals – aided by no-win, no-fee lawyers – freed from the risk of having to pick up the tab for losing a weak case, would sue media organisations on the flimsiest of pretexts. By removing the restraint imposed by the danger of losing, the plan opens the door to any number of opportunistic and vexatious claims.

If the proposals are adopted, journalists and editors might be dissuaded from reporting stories that they fear could trigger a legal battle. Even if they believe that they have right on their side (and could easily win the libel suit), knowing that they would have to cover the costs of a losing litigant would, undoubtedly, make them think twice before reporting the story, however legally defendable they might be.

The Leveson inquiry was set up in response to real and serious abuses by a handful of journalists, the consequences of which are now working their way through the criminal justice system. Whilst there is no-doubt that the newspaper industry requires better, tougher and reactive self-regulation, a free press is a critical part of our democracy and civil society. It would hardly be conducive to investigative journalism, or even equitable, if media organisations have to pay out every time a false charge of defamation is raised against them.

There is no question that libel cases cost too much, and that action’ of libel, defamation and invasion of privacy cause real suffering. But one-way costs are as disproportionate as they are fraught with unintended consequences.

It is both unjustifiable and unfair to allow the criminal misdeeds of a tiny minority of corrupt journalists to crimp the activities of journalism as a whole.

A vigorous and unfettered press is as important as ever, and it must be preserved and protected. The Ministry of Justice must go back and revise its proposals on libel law reform.

Standard
Britain, Business, Government, History, Politics, Society

A Royal Mail sell off makes business sense but there are risks…

ROYAL MAIL PRIVATISATION

In a world that is fundamentally different to that of the 1980s, the announcement by the Government this week that it will proceed with a £3 billion sale of Royal Mail, is the right way forward for the business if it is to survive. Margaret Thatcher baulked at the prospect and was, famously, a privatisation too far. Mrs Thatcher remarked in the Eighties that she was ‘not prepared to have the Queen’s head privatised’. Later, Michael Heseltine, and more recently, Peter Mandelson, had their privatisation plans for Royal Mail scuppered by dissenting MPs in the House of Commons.

Vince Cable, the Business Secretary, however, notified the Stock Exchange this week of the Government’s intention to float the company, which will probably take place in November. The announcement represents a further expression of economic confidence as the economy slowly recovers from a deep and difficult 5-year recession. The privatisations of British Gas and British Airways, some three decades ago, coincided with a rising tide of opportunism. The parallels are noticeable as that is beginning to be felt once more.

The sale of Royal Mail affords something similar, too, to those earlier flotations: the spread of share ownership. More than 15,000 employees are to receive 10 per cent of the shares, with the rest being offered to institutional investors and ordinary members of the public.

While not without risks, the Government’s plan does have much to recommend it. Royal Mail has suffered from both chronic under-investment and deep-rooted inflexibility as the world around it has radically changed. Royal Mail is heavily unionised and has lumbered on, but the effect has been missed opportunities on a vast scale as rivals have been able to compete on the more lucrative parcel-delivery markets, even as the digital revolution and e-mail decimated traditional letter deliveries.

Moya Green, who took over in 2010, has brought Royal Mail back into the black, which was largely helped by the Government’s takeover of its £5 billion pension deficit. Following the flotation and barring unforeseen disasters, the first dividends, totalling £133 million, will be paid in July.

Despite the Government’s plan and opportunity, the Communication Workers Union has responded in time-honoured fashion by threatening to strike. How it envisages industrial action will help its members or Royal Mail is not wholly clear. The CWU will be holding a strike ballot early next month to protest against potential changes in pay and conditions.

Some of the union’s wider concerns will be shared by many, such as the protection of minimal universal services, guaranteeing a six days-a-week service at a uniform and affordable tariff. This has after all been the hallmark of Royal Mail since its inception and is much prized. But the legislation underpinning the privatisation, which passed through Parliament two years ago, protects the universal service and will remain enshrined in law. That guarantee has been reaffirmed by the Government following its announcement to privatise.

The digital and communication revolution has hit Royal Mail hard, with a fall of 10 million in the volume of letters sent daily. That decline has been arrested to some extent because of the huge increase in goods that are ordered online and need to be delivered.

The benefits of privatisation should not be underplayed. A fleeter-footed business, no longer restricted by government investment rules and with access to private capital, will be better placed to undertake the sweeping modernisation and rationalisation the organisation still needs to go through if it is to compete and vie for business successfully. Upon being privatised, Royal Mail would then not have to compete for scarce government funding which it currently does against other government departments and budgets, such as schools, hospitals, and the police.

But there are risks. The most immediate is that the shares are sold too cheaply, repeating the mistakes of previous flotations and leaving taxpayers cheated and resentful. Over the longer term, the challenge will be a regulatory one. Though it is almost certain that the Royal Mail will continue to be bound by the universal service obligation mandating a six-day nationwide postal delivery – bar senior management tinkering with a system that could loosen some of those ties – what is unclear is how such a costly service will be funded in the future. There may be hope that booming business elsewhere, such as through online shopping, will enable cross-subsidy funding. Critics have warned of unaffordable hikes in stamp prices or even state bailouts.

Mrs Thatcher’s unwillingness to sell off Royal Mail was not only a sentimental attachment to tradition, but sprang from a hard-headed assessment of the political pitfalls of tampering with a venerable national institution. While such hazards remain, a flotation of the Royal Mail is the right decision for the Treasury, and arguably the right decision for the organisation.

In predictable style, Labour has denounced the sale – yet, it was the last government that ended the Royal Mail monopoly and opened up the postal market to competition, thereby making the eventual privatisation inevitable.

Royal Mail can be categorised as one of the foundation stones of the modern British state, one that can trace its origins to 1516, when Henry VIII established the office of Master of the Posts. For it to remain an important part of the national story, it now needs to be a commercially viable venture that is ready and willing to compete in a market with far different demands and pressures.

Standard