Andrew Marr's History of Modern Britain

Yeah, I liked it. Marr's got a good voice, and he does the walk and talk well. The stories were great! I never knew about the squatting. And I loved some of the old footage that they pulled out about hats made out of carpets and the disapproval of the Dior collection and stuff like that.

It went kind of well with having watched Vera Drake the other night, too.

loved his impressions.

srsly, i was glad i watched it. my post-war british history is terrible. actually my history is generally terrible, but i'm interested in improving this specifically.

it made me feel like crying on about 3 or 4 occasions. i never realized quite how hard britain was shafted after the war and. the story aboyt j maynard-keynes pretty much laying down his life for his country, the image of atlee fading back into the ranks of middle class gents on the london underground, churchill unable to work out where we headed. so much seemed desperatly sad. "i don't know what the people want anymore..." but... then the fellow, i forget the name, telling the men from the conservative press to join the workers at coal face and just simply the fact the NHS happened, those gleaming wards... brilliant.

Trouble is, once you've read Holroyd's Lytton Strachey biography, or Hermione Lee's biog of Woolf, and thereby know all about j maynard-keynes laying down in other ways (summary: ew) it's hard to shed a tear...

However, these days I incline more towards the Corelli Barnett theory that Britain should have concentrated on getting their industrial/manufacturing infrastructure in place after the war (as Germany and Japan had no choice but to do) before splashing out on the welfare state, since by definition you have to have A to subsidise B.

ha. i knew a bit about jmk and all that naughtiness from a tour of charleston but y know in some ways i agree with tony wilson; "print the myth". perhaps.

maybe, but if labour had failed to put the welfare state together in that first term it's hard to see that the following tory governments would have, it seems like something that had to be done whilst the oppurtunity was there. yes, i guess it's a compromise.

Actually I don't really buy Barnett's thesis at all. Economic progress was made after the second world war. The idea that somehow once everything was great with the economy then we could start looking after the people, well, you don't have to look very far to see what happens when people who go along with that idea actually do when they are in power. The Thatcherites loved Barnett.

I thought it was good. It really brought home just how near-bankrupt this country was for a very long time after the war. That emergency famine plan for the harsh winter of '47 was shocking.

However, these days I incline more towards the Corelli Barnett theory that Britain should have concentrated on getting their industrial/manufacturing infrastructure in place after the war (as Germany and Japan had no choice but to do) before splashing out on the welfare state, since by definition you have to have A to subsidise B.

Nowadays economists are saying that if you don't have A you can build up B and charge foreigners to use hospitals, schools, other aspects of your "knowledge economy", and make up for the lack of A.

I don't believe it myself, but I suspect it is what our government believes.

Ah yes, the elastic definition of a "service-based economy."

3 months of snow!!

Why did AM feel the need to lapse into Churchill's voice every so often? It was very good though. I think he inflated the importance of Morrison's refusal to join the proto-EU on the grounds that 'the Durham Miner's won't wear it'. We'll see how they handle the De-Gaulle/Heath/MacMillan negotiations later (1961?).

Just what was in that giant hostess trolley that the brylcreemed young gent was so pleased about? It looked like he and his charming wife were about to dine on cabbage, peas, mash and.....more peas.

And why did it take until the mid-60's for the miniskirt to arrive, given that (in Stafford Cripps voice) 'the longer the skirt the more valuable material you use'?

Hmm, some uneducated guesses coming up:

1. AM is a closet Associates fan who fondly recalls Billy MacKenzie suddenly breaking into a Churchill impression FOR NO GOOD REASON (which is of course always the best reason) halfway through the song "Skipping" other than he felt like it.

2. Probably the remains of Scooch.

3. Rationing.

xpost

OK, i'll say it again, we didn't 'splash out' on B after the war (indeed if anything we should have 'splashed out' more), and A wasn't nearly as bad as has been made out by Barnett et al.

I know I probably should have watched this and had some intelligent debate with Mr Unruly about the merits of the welfare state etc etc but instead I spent most of the time squealing "ooh! my grandma had that hoover!"

i wanted more info on why the european coal board thing was the proto-EU. sounds likea dodgy theory.

I wanted more info on lots of things in it, which is, I think, part of why I liked it. It's the kind of gateway programming that can lead on to the harder stuff: books.

otm

I flinched slightly at the 'Durham miners' bit, suddenly remembering that this was a take on history.. not history itself. Obvious, but it was such an interesting programme that you ended up sitting back and just letting it soak in.

Two questions:

Why did the public form lines to pass food to the squatters?

Churchill and the canary: WTF?

It made me want to go out and buy this book- has anyone read it? Apparently reviews have been saying it's a masterpiece.

it made me feel like crying on about 3 or 4 occasions.
Seconded! Like you say, particularly the JMK stuff.

The link didn't work for me, but maybe you're referring to Dominic Sandbrooke's 'Never Had It So Good', which really, really is a masterpiece. The second part 'White Heat' (1963-70) is out now too.

Thirded! The little boy gathering coal made me blow my nose loudly, as did the little kid on the trike in his squalid front-room.

The book I was thinking of is David Kynaston's Austerity Britain 1945-51. Here's the url for a Guardian review:
http://books.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,,2082865,00.html

I also want to read those Sandbrooke ones, more so now after the recommendation.

i wanted more info on why the european coal board thing was the proto-EU. sounds likea dodgy theory.

That is, literally, the organisation that the modern-day EU started life as - the treaty of Rome changed its name and purpose considerably, but did take over the existing organisation rather than create something from scratch.

i thought it was a bit unfair on stamford crips. calling him "a pain in the bum" when y know they were having to deal with the prospect of famine.

Yeah, I'm sure he wasn't the cheeriest of guys, but that was a bit below the belt.

According to my ancient neighbour from home, far from the cheers 'documented' by history, East Enders in fact booed and jeered the visiting royalty.

xpost: I got the impression that they were mainly dealing with the prospect of famine because all the good produce was being exported to try and pay off war debts, no?

and the snow. there was a lot of snow.

what happens when a country goes bankrupt? can it happen?

Cap in hand to the IMF, as happened with Callaghan in the '70s.

However, these days I incline more towards the Corelli Barnett theory that Britain should have concentrated on getting their industrial/manufacturing infrastructure in place after the war (as Germany and Japan had no choice but to do) before splashing out on the welfare state, since by definition you have to have A to subsidise B.

Germany is a weird example to use here. Having A didn't prevent its B from collapsing and risking total dismantellment comparable to that of the UK's.

The Sandbrooks are both very good - he's doing one on the 70s now.

and the snow. there was a lot of snow.

Yes, I remember saying "holy shit!" at all the snow. But if the people had been allowed to keep their own produce before the snow, they wouldn't have been so badly off, maybe?

If I have one complaint about that programme, it's that the timeline was slightly tricky to follow. Especially since at times I may have been saying "holy shit! Look at all that snow!" while Andrew Marr was saying what year it was.

interesting the response to this show has been so positive. i was thinking that some may have accused it of being "blairite". a further-left-than-me friend has yet to email me back his thoughts, i'm thinking he'll say it was unfair on the labour party.

I know in my case it was partly relief at seeing a history programme that didn't have endless "reconstructions" of ye olde events, all done in blurry vision so you can't see the glue on the beards. I am sick of that kind of history programme.

I got a bit confused by the timeline as well - was he dotting about a bit? I'm almost certain he mentioned the Korean War before the 1947 Bad Winter, although I might not have been paying proper attention due to being excited at seeing my grandma's hoover.

they didn't need reconstructions cos of the news reels. there weren't a lot of news reels in the days of edward the confessor. it was pretty similar in set up to the simon schama and david starkey programs when you take that into account.

Gosh, did they not have news reels then?

What I meant was, I simply don't like those stupid reconstructions. I'm perfectly capable of imagining things based on still pictures, or even based on descriptions being given by the person presenting the programme. I realise that it's a personal dislike, but there it is.

It is the thing that made me watch only one episode of Simon Schama's programme about art. He would tell one part of the story, then some poorly paid actors would act out the same thing he had just told, with no dialogue, but with dreadful music over the top, and then sometimes he would say it again for emphasis, and it irritated me.

I think on balance history will say that the Welfare State is one of the lasting achievements of Britain's progressives. Perhaps the greatest achievement was not so much the thing in itself but the change in mindset that was required politically. The Depression had laid the ground-work for the change public mood. The 1945 Labour manifesto puts it this way,

"The great inter-war slumps were not acts of God or of blind forces. They were the sure and certain result of the concentration of too much economic power in the hands of too few men. These men had only learned how to act in the interest of their own bureaucratically-run private monopolies which may be likened to totalitarian oligarchies within our democratic State".

But despite the change in public mood Acrobat raises an interesting point. I'm also not certain about whether the Tories would have carried the welfare state as far as Atlee's administration even with the public's hunger for action. Indeed Churchill wanted a return to "normality" with the restoration of pre-war market mechanisms free from state control. Churchill famously remarked of course,

"No Socialist Government conducting the entire life and industry of the country could afford to allow free, sharp or violently worded expressions of public discontent. They would have to fall back on some form of Gestapo, no doubt very humanely directed in the best instance. ..."

He saw the Labour government as a threat to the free-market order that he believed in with a passion and thus I doubt that he would have much truck with state-based resolutions in his period as a Tory. He had I believe quite Gladstonian instincts in this instance, and wished to decrease state interference lest Britain fall under some kind of English "national socialism".

Atlee's government capitalized on a widespread feeling of discontent and set about curbing irresponsible Capitalism as they saw it. I think Labour was really the only affective to make those vital post-war changes. Labour changed the nature of welfare from a social stigma to part of the social contract, a political attitude which politicians in order to be electable have to remain faithful to, even in our market-driven political debates.

x-post to CJ

your Grandma's hoover? (with double-stretch hose)

http://www.adclassix.com/images/55hoovervacuum.jpg

I think we'll see this next week :

http://www.74simon.co.uk/pink652.gif

By the way I didn't see the show Acrobat, would I have felt it was Blairite? LOL

The Hoover Senior is one of the design classics of the vacuum cleaner world. This cleaner was sold all over the world, and production lasted for over twenty years. In the USA it proved to be the most popular vacuum cleaner on the market, and was produced in a plethora of slightly different versions, whereas in the UK it proved to be a little less successful, due to the popularity of the smaller and less expensive Junior model, which was more suitable for the smaller British home.

The first of the Senior design appeared in 1957 in the US as the model 65 and 1959 in Europe as the 652, as shown on the left. These early models, with their distinctive pink coloured trim suffered due to problems with their use of plastics in the design; the vinyl dustbags were fragile, and tore easily, and if the cleaner was used for a prolonged period, heat from the motor caused the plastic dome covering it to melt and distort. But this aside, the performance of this cleaners on carpets was unquestionably good. In April 1960, Which? magazine, a British consumer publication, tested twenty-one vacuum cleaners, and the Senior was the only machine to score ten out of ten for carpet cleaning performance, and was summed up by the magazine as 'outstanding'.

The Hoover Senior was the final upright vacuum cleaner to be designed by Henry Dreyfuss' offices. This machine represents the wheel of design turning full circle, with the Senior incorporating many of the styling motifs of the first of the machines from the Dreyfuss office, the Hoover 150. The domed plastic motor cover, the floor nozzle that gently curves down, and the the tapered metal chassis all provide a link between the two cleaners. However, whilst the model 150 and its sister models reflect the industrial influences as seen in other appliance designs of the 1930s, the Senior is a far more colourful proposition. The Senior heavily draws on automotive imagery; the bright two-tone colour scheme, the wide, wrap-round headlamp lens, the fake grille at the base of the handle and the prominent, metallic badge on the front of the appliance.

In Europe, the original 652 was replaced circa 1962 by the 652a, which featured a two-speed motor, boosted from 420 watts to 625 watts when the tools were fitted. It first appeared in two tone grey, which was quickly replaced by a green and cream combination. By 1967, it had been replaced by the 6525a in two tone green (above left), and then the blue and white 6525c in 1970, which had a four position carpet height adjuster. It was phased out in 1973, and replaced by the U4002, although various exclusive models (the 6525e) and commercial variants (the U4082) carried on until the 1980s.

Despite its contemporary styling, the basic mechanical design and layout actually predates the work of Dreyfuss' design office by nearly thirty years, and is instantly recognisable as being a desendant of the original Hoover model 'O' of 1908. The soundness of this basic layout is indicated in the fact that it continued in production in domestic form until the 1990s, in the form of the European Powerplus models and the American Decade 80, and, nearly 100 years after introduction, the basic layout still survives as the US-market commercial Guardsman model. The differences between European and American versions were very subtle; the most notable being that US-market cleaners had their power switch located on the back of the handle, whilst European-market machines had a foot operated switch. There seems to be no obvious reason as to why this was the case, but it was a situation that both preceeded and outlasted production of this model. The cleaner was also given a different name in each of the two markets - In the USA, it was known as the Convertible (yet more automotive imagery), whilst in Europe it was initially marketed as the Hoover Deluxe, before becoming the Senior in the early 1960s, a name which harked back to the earliest days of the Hoover Company. Confusingly, when the Hoover Dial-a-Matic was launched in Europe in the mid 1960s, it was known as the Convertible in that market.

The design of the cleaner was however far from perfect. If the machine was tipped forward while switched off, heavy debris could fall out of the dustbag and through the cleaner onto the floor. This was not rectified until 1975, but a more serious shortcoming was the design of the connection of the accessory hose to the cleaner. Unlike most modern upright vacuum cleaners where the hose is permanently fixed to the machine, in the 1950s affixing the hose to an upright cleaner could involve unclipping covers, pulling levers, turning dials and unhooking belts. But this machine was far less complex for users. The adaptor for the hose slotted into the rear of the machine, a simple procedure which could be carried out whilst the motor was still running. Additionally, on all models save for early European examples and American low-end models, attaching the hose automatically operated a switch allowing the motor to operate at a higher speed. This ease of operation was compared to the operation of automobiles in publicity for the American market - New Hoover Convertible - The Cleaner with the Automatic Shift! read early advertising for this machine, headed with a rather innacurate illustration that furthered the motor car inspired allusions featured in the text.

The problem lay in the way the connector let a lot of the suction escape through the floor nozzle. The connection was far from airtight, and despite a motor using 625 watts of power, suction through the hose was at best barely adequate; indeed, for such an expensive machine it was downright appalling - this aspect of the cleaner was outperformed by the European Junior, which at 250 watts used less than half the power of its larger sibling.

But overall, the Senior was, and still is, an efficient and reliable machine, capable of cleaning carpets very efficently.

Yeah that floor nozzle wasn't all that.

i'm not sure if you'd have found it "blairite" just that it sort concluded that both sides couldn't really deal with what was coming, consumerism, americanism. i'd definetely try and download or torrent it.

x post avalon

i'm not sure if you'd have found it "blairite" just that it sort concluded that both sides couldn't really deal with what was coming, consumerism, americanism.

I think if that was the show's central criticism then I can see where it was coming from. Afterall the reserve of the 1940s have way to the boom and affluence of the 1950s. Americanism in comercial and political terms was an inevitability to some extent. Atlee and Bevin knew that the empire was finished; that we could no longer sustain an imperial system. Due to this sense of decline some bad decision-making was undertaken by Atlee, like the secret formation an atomic arsinal abd a rather over-bearing pro-American policy. Afterall our war-torn economy depended on the American loan.

But, at the same time Atlee's government ingrained long-term changes which curbed the market in key respects. The nationalization of industry avoided mass unemployment, we reached full employment (98%) in 1947 I believe. Housing and education became top priorities and of course Bevin was responsible for forwarding the National Health Service in the teeth of Tory opposition and the BMA. I agree with there was too much rhetoric sometimes and not enough socialist planning, but the welfare state, despite the problems in generated improved the lives of ordinary people. So I suppose I agree with program's criticisms to a degree, but it would be unfair to say they were inaffective against changing economic conditions. I think they did quite well considering. It could have been better but it could have been a hell of allot worse.

you are saying the years of the atlee govt didn't have enough socialist planning. enough for what?

Well there wasn't enough economic expertise in the Labour government at the time. Economists say that many of the food shortages suffered under the Labour administration could have been avoided if Atlee had more knowledge of how economies actually work. (As it was, many of the political elite at the time were History and Classics graduates!). So one level there wasn't enough socialist planning to achieve better standards of living in those hard times. More generally Atlee's government wasn't ambitious enough in terms of tackling many of the root causes of social inequality, the most important source of social privilege being the public schools. Atlee came from a public-school background himself and didn't lift a finger to curb the trend towards good education for the few but poor education for many.

No-one in any party had any idea of how economies work at that time. Later on, MacMillan clearly didn't and appointed a succession of hopeless chancellors too.

bloody socialists can't handle the economy innit

"there wasn't enough economic expertise in the Labour government at the time"

bloody JM Keynes and his lack of economic expertise.

he was dead by what 1947?

Two key Britflicks of the period I almost forgot is the astonishing 'The Bed Sitting Room' with Milligan, Ralph Richardson, Cook and Moore etc the last gasp of old England railing against the (literally) white heat of the future. Still criminally unavailable on DVD.

And Richard Attenborough's 'Oh! What a Lovely War', similar themes, but it looked incredibly dated when I saw it recently.

Haven't seen 'The Bed Sitting Room' in years, I don't think I likedit much, but good to see it mentioned!

Likewise.

http://eur.i1.yimg.com/eur.yimg.com/i/uk/aut/corti4.jpg

http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/265000/images/_267043_mcgahey300.jpg

I was betting they were going to play Panic but they played How Soon Is Now instead. Could have predicted Material Girl, Opportunities, White Riot and possibly Don’t You Want Me. No show for Ghost Town though. B- for Carmodizing Marr!

I wondered if they were really going to show, yet again, the clips of Yuppie 1: flipping his filofax in the air, and Yuppie 2: waggling a wad of cash in his shirt pocket. And they did! Intercut with Loadsamoney!
Gah. Every time!

Otherwise it was Maggie's greatest hits: Maggie in a tank, Maggie's not for turning, Spitting Image Maggie vegetable sketch, Maggie are a grandmother, Maggie leaves No.10 for the last time.

And in the '80s mobile phones were "like a brick" lolz.

I put on a performance of The Bed Sitting Room in my third year at grammar school. Worked quite well.

Does anyone know what that orchestral music with a minimal industrial beat was that was playing under the North Sea gas bit? I definately recognised it, but couldn't place it at all.

i have the 70s/heath one in the can which i'm interested in (mostly cos Heath govt has always been = posh-dullard's "seeds of destruction" time in my head). i knew i'd not get much out of the 80s/maggie one, but will watch next week's just for completion's sake.

and blimey but "impression watch" was on overtime this week.

have seen too many dox on this subject now, basically.

Wait a minute didn't he manage to miss out on a major stock market crash?

i'd never knowingly seen footage of the "sheffield rally" before.

Oh for gods sake, did I miss this again? I am a moron.

What was that he said right at the end? Paraphrasing but something along the lines of "And after all we've been through, it remains that being born British is still a huge stroke of luck."

Fuck off, you freaky-eared Blair-rimmer.

he did a thing on the scottish enlightenment too - i thought that was good but almost hilariously simplistic and far too deferential to "the great men" - as if he were angling back and away from any alt history from the last 40 years

That Kinnock "well alright!!!" footage from the Sheffield rally is possibly the single most embarassing televisual moment in history. Whether that actually cost him the '92 election is another matter, though.

I think it's probably better to be born British than I dunno Sudanese. In a count your blessings way more than anything.

SO good

I still have all these and never got around to watching them, maybe this weekend. I still haven't watched all the Edwardians in Colour yet :/.

I got the book as well, which goes into things in a bit more detail (e.g. the Labour government of 74-79, which was covered in about 20 seconds on TV).

Fuck off, you freaky-eared Blair-rimmer.

Cosine.

he's more of a brownite imo. at least his missus was one of those 'we must get brown in, he will unveil the true socialist nu-lab project', c. 1997-2007. she seems less convinced of that now.

i thought the show was aight.

Didn't see the show, am 2/3rds thru the book. In his favour: can write, drops the occasional lol-riffic anecdote (cf. Anthony Eden's probable Dad), covers a lot of sources. Against: SUCKS THATCHER'S COCK LIKE IT'S A SAMBUCA LOLLIPOP, absolutely clueless re: popular culture, utter disregard for/lack of understanding of any political stance outside Parliamentary showboating.

he's an 80s leftie who got 'mugged by reality' rite? ie had kids, wanted to be successful/stacking cheques.

Also he uses a lot of cliche quotes as opinions e.g. "cap in hand to the IMF" even as, to be fair to dude, he's explaining what a fuck up the IMF thing was.

that's pretty bad. and he said he actually wrote it with his own hands, which most of these dudes (eg paxman) don't

It's worth a read. I wouldn't accuse it of being a lightweight book but there are hurdles to jump, especially his economics stan-ism and shit like "British comedy history = Goons-Monty Python-Little Britain" ?!?!?!? In that regard he's a bit like Norman Davies whose work I enjoy pre-Reformation but who's so crazily slanted/inaccurate on culture post-1700 that you question the worth of his other stuff.

Oh and he's unhealthily uncritical of Roy Jenkins too.

the current 'start the week' is hilares

andrew marr pronounces 'celtic' with a soft c :/

bleh

http://www.scotsman.com/news/Andrew-Marr-39embarrassed39-after-revealing.6758057.jp

Open secret that one

IIRC it's more than just an affair, there is another issue...

Issue being the operative word. That super injuction was pretty shite.

turns out it's not his issue after all, though?

if you google the journalist in question's name, there's a blog post from 2009 about this affair on the first page of results

I'm not sure anyone that isn't a journalist is that arsed about this debate. Who Andrew Marr shags is not really a matter of great public interest.

Relieved about the side-issue but have no idea who the man-teef was. I just want to know if the partner held onto his ears for traction, or not.

lol. guido fawkes has the name in question if you're interested.

agree with Marr that this sort of shit really isn't any of the public's business but agree with Hislop that superinjunctions are a dick move esp from a journalist

I don't give GF hits because he's a fucking tosser who allows his BTL contributors to make stalkery sexual threats on female journalists they've got ideological/career jealousy problems with.

Pretty sure ILX would've failed that test at various points...

MDC, the content BTL on that site is waaaaaay beyond any 'researchin ur life' BS (which we don't allow here and take down when it appears) and involves comments about raping a young woman with a cheese grater, to name but one example.

It almost sounds like you're excusing that sort of comment with false equivalencies, which I find disappointing, to say the least.

Ewww. Trust me I'm not going onto the Guido site to actually look for comments like that so obviously had no idea what was involved. It was a facetious aside and nothing more.

urgh. i've never felt moved to look BTL on GF (not that i frequent it regularly, just saw people mention it today).

(Also excusing any sort of similar content was far from the intention)

I was alerted to it by the victim, and probably didn't help by being all American and saying my friend should go legal on GF for persistent cyber-bullying.

Ok

When will we feel the benefits of being Labour Britain?

The podcast team answer listener questions:https://t.co/mTS496nOxF pic.twitter.com/kzTj8ljJYv

— The New Statesman (@NewStatesman) November 25, 2024