A talk by Professor Stephen Fielding on New Labour and whether 1997 heralded a new dawn.
Based on an exhibition he curated to mark the 20th anniversary of the new Labour win in 1997.
And echoing a couple of recent articles on New Labour that bewail that the current Labour can’t draw more on its successes.
The talk was good cos it avoided the hind-sighted wisdom so common amongst journalists.
A reminder too that many of us had been anti-EEC as late as 1987.
Pertinent quotes such as Tony Blair – “Socialism for me was never about nationalisation or the power of the state, not just about economics or even politics. It is a moral purpose to life, a set of values, a belief in society, in co-operation, in achieving together what we cannot achieve alone.”
Other pleasant memories – the defeat of Portillo.
We remember the extraordinary skill of pilots that flew Lancasters at low-level, and the crews who delivered a new kind of mine to destroy dams that powered and supplied the Nazi war machine.
53 were killed; 40% of those who took part.
“Best show I have ever see ” – a mate.
And some people really felt it.
And if the Nottingham Playhouse was set up to tell Notts stories, this certainly does that.
The Government setting up the miners to force a strike. Then fouling up the closures to be announced. An uncontrolled union response leaving no space to call a ballot and starting the strike after the winter. Notts miners feeling by-passed and a split results. And so much more.
The play convincingly conveys the sense of heat down the pit. Visuals are often excellent. One or two brilliant jokes. Certainly not just one perspective.
Perhaps some of the political analysis needed a bit longer conversation and less vernacular.
Can’t all be covered but when NACODS almost struck is omitted and the wives and the women against pit closures is only referred to.
Don’t get the title.
There was a time when I would repeatedly watch the repeat episodes of “World at War”, until I got fed up with the Allies’ failures. (Norway, France, Singapore, North Africa, Dieppe.)
The interview that stuck was from episode 2 by Jock Colville, a civil servant, who explained how Chamberlain, Halifax and Churchill met in the Cabinet Room and Chamberlain asked Churchill if he saw any reason why a Lord couldn’t be Prime Minister and Churchill just stared out of the window, cos he knew it was a trap.
In the same episode, Boothby explained the “Norway debate” and how in essence, many MPs had been frustrated with Chamberlain not wanting to take the war with the Nazis. Labour played a key role in pushing the issue once the problems with the British operation in Norway had been grasped, despite Churchill putting up a big defence of his operation in the debate. They pushed for a vote and too many Conservatives did not support Chamberlain.
So the dramatic start “Darkest Hour“, with Churchill not attending the “Norway debate” was annoying, and the film kept taking these kind of liberties.
Fighting over the leadership after Churchill had been made P.M., the military chiefs having no plan on the Dunkirk evacuation, the King giving Churchill the backbone to carry on refusing to make a deal with the Nazis, Churchill holding a focus group in a London Underground carriage, Churchill meeting with MPs in a large stairwell, Chamberlain wiping his forehead being mistaken for a signal..
Regarding the history, one example of the criticism – by The National Review.
I never doubted Gary Oldman as Churchill, or his interpretation of Churchill as a livelier character than other clichéd portrayals of him as miserable.
But in this movie, politicians are quick to dispute, rather than talking things through.
So what to take from the movie? The performances. The scenery, especially the high tiered Commons chamber of the time. The importance of Parliament. Bringing form to the “Blood, toil, tears and sweat” speech.
But the movie is probably unfair on Churchill cos he did know his own mind, and hey, I don’t rate Churchill – Taff Vale, Gallipoli, the 1926 strike, the Gold standard, famines in India, and the foul-ups in WW2.
Graphic from wiki.
Happy Independence Day, India!
Bit disappointed that the focus of 70th anniversary in some BBC programmes is the partition rather than the end of British colonial rule in the Indian sub-continent.
Even if the canals, irrigation, railways and much else was good for the people, those assets were not mobilised to prevent massive famines; self-rule had to happen.
I saw the news coverage and it took one sentence for the story to become about the killings at partition.
It’s as if the story was – these people couldn’t cope without ‘the calming hand of we British’.
I don’t know enough about what happened, but a lot of people died in the famine of 1943, for which more should have been done; and I’m not clear about to what extent we British didn’t play up tensions between different religious groups in the years before.
So for me, the story should have been – ‘we British should have got out cos it was right and cos we got some things terribly wrong.’
One other thought – if people in the ‘south’ of the USA are tearing down statues representing an oppressive and unjust past, just what should we be doing with statues of people like Clive of India?