Feb 04

100 years of Labour governments and the military: MacDonald to Starmer

Last Saturday – 27 January – I gave a paper in Cambridge at the conference organised by the Labour History Research Unit at Anglia Ruskin University’s Labour History Research Unit: How Labour Governs: A Conference to mark 100 years of Labour Governments.  The following summarises my remarks on Labour governments and the defence establishment from 1924 through to 2024 and the prospect of a Starmer administration following the next general election:

Labour and the military: dealing with the chiefs of staff

In office Ramsay MacDonald sought to neutralise the service chiefs’ antipathy towards a party in which so many senior figures, not least the PM, had opposed the Great War.  In 1924 and again in 1929 he appointed proven patriots from the trade union movement to the War Office, and an ennobled ex-colonel to the Air Ministry.  Remarkably, a former Viceroy served as First Lord of the Admiralty in 1924; but his successor five years later – A.V. Alexander – forged a lasting relationship with the Royal Navy, and as such became a role model for service ministers in later Labour governments.  Reappointed as Secretary of State for Air in 1929, Lord Thomson promoted Labour’s claim to be a party of modernity and enterprise.  That claim disappeared with Thomson’s death in the R101 airship disaster and the Treasury’s refusal to fund the RAF’s defence of the Schneider Trophy [see H.C. Gwynne’s 2023 His Majesty’s Airship The Life and Tragic Death of the World’s Largest Flying Machine which combines a history of the R101 and a biography of Thomson, whose importance to and unlikely close friendship with MacDonald has been overlooked for far too long].  Opponents insisted Labour was pacifistic and hostile to the armed forces, citing deep cuts in service spending; and that reputation was reinforced for much of the 1930s.  The Churchill Coalition saw a recasting of Labour’s image, but only Attlee, when sitting in for the Prime Minister, and Albert Alexander back at the Admiralty had regular contact with the chiefs of staff.  Like MacDonald in 1924 Attlee as PM had to deal with service chiefs who were national heroes: Alanbrooke, Portal and Cunningham.  Uniquely he began and ended his premiership heading a war cabinet.  A veteran company commander instinctively suspicious of the top brass, Attlee won over a sceptical Alanbrooke, and later replaced Montgomery as CIGS with Bill Slim, a general much in the same mould as the Labour leader.  Never slow to exercise his considerable powers of command and control Attlee nevertheless backed down when Bevin and the Chiefs of Staff Committee made his 1946 proposal to quit the Canal Zone a resignation issue.

Attlee created a template for Labour prime ministers’ dealings with the service chiefs, initiating the long process of reorganisation that ultimately saw power consolidated in the Chief of the Defence Staff and the Secretary of State for Defence.  Harold Wilson recognised the full implications of Macmillan’s reforms, and the need for a heavyweight to complete the creation of today’s MOD, and to push through radical changes in strategic priorities, service reform and procurement: Denis Healey remains the model Defence Secretary for both major parties – a formidable presence in cabinet unafraid to make and support tough decisions, an intellectual bruiser, an ex-officer with frontline experience, a minister with a bank of relevant knowledge, a grounded politician with a reputation for emotional engagement and approachability, and above all, a departmental minister ready to remain in situ for as long as it took to see through significant change.  Wilson and Healey accommodated Mountbatten their high profile CDS by compromising over Polaris; and later they convinced a sceptical COSC of the need to redeploy service ministers to cross-departmental roles, and crucially, of the case for ending the UK’s military presence east of Suez.

The 1974-9 governments drew on ministers’ earlier experience, helped by Healey’s presence at the Treasury and Callaghan’s wartime service in the Royal Navy (seen to good advantage in 1977 when thwarting Argentinian ambitions in the South Atlantic).  A criticism of the Wilson/Callaghan governments is that they rarely questioned successive Chiefs of the General Staff regarding the Army’s counterterrorism and policing operations in Northern Ireland, witness a hardline Roy Mason’s 1976 move from Defence Secretary to the NI portfolio.  That general criticism would be applied even more forcibly to the Blair and Brown administrations with regard to Iraq and Afghanistan; the former visibly more relaxed in dealing with the military than the latter.  Labour’s personal connections with the armed forces had long since gone, reinforcing Blair’s need in 1997 for a strong personality at the MOD who could quickly master his brief: George Robertson was Defence Secretary at a time when western military intervention in Africa and the Balkans appeared to work, and the services’ begrudging respect helped secure his appointment as Secretary-General of NATO.  Geoff Hoon’s role over Iraq and its related controversies effectively destroyed his reputation (‘Blair’s poodle’), and John Reid was not at the MOD long enough to have any impact.  After that, a succession of short-lived mediocrities set a pattern for serial secretaries of state under Cameron and his successors.  A key aspect of ‘New Labour’ was the politicisation of Blair’s dealings with the CDS and COCS, with less discretion in Whitehall and chiefs of staff more visible in the mainstream media.  This left a lasting legacy, with inter-service tensions and personality clashes ever more visible over the following decade.

Labour’s previous experience provides Keir Starmer and his shadow defence secretary John Healey with a clear indication as to how they should approach matters of national security – and crucially the processes and procedures of defence management.  What should be the incoming Prime Minister’s priorities?

  • appoint a Defence Secretary whose competence is proven, has intellectual muscle, and who really knows the military [read Rory Stewart, The Edge of Politics, pp. 90-1!];
  • signal to your heavyweight appointment that Denis Healey is an obvious role model;
  • reassure the COSC that this is a senior member of the Cabinet who will be at the MOD long-term;
  • the MOD structure is unique so appoint exceptional junior ministers;
  • establish a close working and personal relationship with the CDS, but not to the exclusion of the Secretary of State, and address present high visible tensions within the COSC;
  • reassure the COSC that the emphasis will be on continuity and stability (defence spending in line with NATO’s basic 2.5% GDP), with inclusive decision making and no false promises re resourcing (especially procurement, and recruitment with the Army as small as 73K, and RN and RAF respectively 5% and 9% below target recruitment);
  • be always fully briefed by the Chiefs, but retain a healthy scepticism (no carriers in the South China Sea, and keep the Marines’ capacity for amphibious operations courtesy of Albion and Bulwark) [again, read The Edge of Politics re decision-making and Afghanistan], and if necessary don’t back down (the same for all NSC ministers): command and control;
  • agree early on a clear post-Trident nuclear strategy, with an update estimate of ÂŁ31 billion demonstrably far too low;
  • respect the unglamorous: basic kit and not expensive, over-engineered projects with no overseas sales potential;
  • particularly in the context of the Russian threat focus on the Western Approaches and European defence cooperation i.e. play to [very limited] strengths.

 

Jan 09

Ramsay MacDonald: first Labour PM, but also airman and man of action!

The ever sharp MP and political thinker Jon Cruddas was on yesterday’s Radio 4’s ‘Start the Week’ talking about his new book: A Century of Labour marks the centenary of the first Labour Government.  Ramsay MacDonald formed his first – minority – administration on 22 January 2024, combining the premiership with the position of Foreign Secretary.  Notwithstanding John Wheatley’s Housing Act, foreign policy was probably the party’s biggest achievement in office: MacDonald played an arbitrary role in ending the stand-off between France and Weimar Germany over reparations.  By the autumn of 1924 Labour was out of office and facing five years of Stanley Baldwin in Downing Street.  Those five years saw Baldwin consolidate his control of the Conservative Party, notwithstanding the self-inflicted wound of electoral defeat in December 1923 and a further loss of power in 1929 (a continuity message of ‘steady as she goes’ rarely secures re-election).  That same period saw MacDonald similarly solidify his position as Labour leader, seeing off a call for more red-blooded socialism from old comrades in the Independent Labour Party and sealing his reputation in Europe as ‘the voice of Geneva [home of the League of Nations]’.

 

The split in the second Labour minority government in August 1931 and MacDonald’s leadership of a Tory-dominated National Government saw him enter Labour mythology as a traitor to his class and his party.  MacDonald’s visible physical and mental decline in the early 1930s compounded Labour members’ negative view of their former leader.  In 1977 David Marquand’s masterly biography of MacDonald prompted a grudging reappraisal of his role in Labour so swiftly supplanting the Liberals as the progressive alternative party of government; this after all was a unified alliance of democratic socialists dating from as late as 1918.  Monday’s radio programme was notable for Cruddas highlighting MacDonald’s centrality to the ILP before the First World War and his uneasy partnership with Arthur Henderson in ensuring that, unlike other social democrat movements in Europe, the split between pro- and anti-war factions proved only temporary (a reconciliation helped by Henderson having been eased out of Lloyd George’s coalition government for supporting the European left’s Stockholm peace conference).  In 1924 MacDonald stepped up to the challenge and formed a working administration in the face of deep scepticism and outright opposition (although not from George V or indeed Baldwin, who both recognised Labour’s inaugural leaders as the voice of revisionist moderation): where his party lacked necessary personnel and expertise, not least in the House of Lords, he looked further afield, for example, reassuring the Army by persuading a former Viceroy of India, Viscount Chelmsford, to take over the War Office.

 

Similarly, MacDonald appointed as Secretary of Air his old friend Christopher Thomson, unusual as a left-leaning son of Empire, war hero, and Francophile.  The newly ennobled Lord Thomson combined his establishment credentials with membership of the Fabian Society and an enthusiasm for initiative, innovation and the imperial mission that was rooted firmly in science and egalitarianism (echoed twenty years later by the Attlee government’s understanding of colonial responsibility).  Thomson worked ceaselessly to identify the Labour Party with modernity and technological advancement (echoed forty years later by Harold Wilson on the cusp of office).  Above all he endeavoured to associate Labour in the voters’ minds with flying: party propaganda portrayed MacDonald as a thoroughly modern politician, campaigning across the country courtesy of Brigadier Thomson’s biplane.  Like Sam Hoare, his Conservative predecessor and successor as Secretary for Air, Thomson saw the rapid advances in aviation during the after the First World War as vital to the future cohesion and well-being of the Empire.  Unlike Hoare, Thomson looked to airships rather than fixed-wing aircraft as the agents of imperial consolidation.

 

Throughout the 1920s Ramsay MacDonald and Christopher Thomson enjoyed an unlikely friendship.  The latter’s enthusiastic promotion of the R101 project led to disaster in October 1930 when the giant airship on its maiden flight to India crashed in France killing all aboard.  The Prime Minister was devastated by Thomson’s sudden death, the loss of the state built R101 coinciding with trade union and backbench criticism of his government’s failure to address rising unemployment and chronic social deprivation triggered by the Great Crash.   Thomson and the tragic tale of the R101 is now the subject of a well-researched, compulsively readable book by the American historian H.C. Wynne: His Majesty’s Airship The Life and Tragic Death of the World’s Largest Flying Machine (One World, 2023).  Labour’s endeavours to exploit the nation’s aerial achievements ended with the deadly failure of the R101 (in contrast with its privately built rival, the Barnes Wallis designed R100) and the subsequent refusal by Philip Snowden’s Treasury to fund the RAF’s defence of the Schneider Trophy: Supermarine’s super-speed seaplane did indeed secure a third successive victory and permanent retention of the Trophy, success achieved courtesy of a £100,000 donation from the millionairess Lady Huston.

 

The early Labour Party’s association with aviation precedes even Lord Thomson: it starts in the skies above the Western Front, as I suggested over twenty years ago in Mick Mannock, Fighter Pilot: Myth, Life and Politics.  The air ace Edward ‘Mick’ Mannock believed socialist principles – solidarity, mutual respect and shared responsibility – were the key to effective aerial combat.  Had he not died in the summer of 1918 then later that year Mannock VC would have been Labour’s general election candidate in his adopted town of Wellingborough.  Although bereft of their war hero Labour still won in Wellingborough, just as today’s party is quietly confident of winning the byelection triggered by the enforced resignation of Peter Bone.  A lazy description of the Northamptonshire town is that this is historically a safe Tory seat firmly pro-Brexit.  Looking back across a hundred years reveals a radical alternative, with Labour the predominant political force.  Mannock was famous for flying to Wellingborough when on leave in order to meet up with old comrades.  Did a campaigning Ramsay MacDonald similarly arrive by aeroplane, posing as British socialism’s man of action?  Labour’s first prime minister may have worn a wing collar, but he effortlessly portrayed the New Jerusalem as a triumph of cutting edge technology.

Nov 02

Historians in high places can’t be intimidated by hard science

Ironically, it was a passing remark by Helen MacNamara in her evidence to the Covid inquiry that left me shaking my head in disbelief (sadly her observations re the toxic misogynistic culture that prevailed in Downing Street were all too predictable).  The former deputy cabinet secretary believed that, having graduated in History, she and several of her associates were not properly qualified to understand briefings given by the Government’s principal scientific advisers. Ms MacNamara studied History at Cambridge, where one can be fairly confident she was trained to gather, assimilate, analyse and interpret evidence. Yes, specialist scientific information can be hard or even impossible to understand, but presumably the Chief Scientific Adviser and his colleagues were briefing and advising, not drilling down into deeply technical data re the pathogen and its impact. Was it the statistics that phased the high flying bureaucrats and the special advisers?

Sixty years ago, CP Snow was lamenting the ‘Two Cultures’, and since then commentators like Correlli Barnett and of course Dominic Cummings have insisted that ‘generalist’ civil servants are the bane of the British state, unqualified to advise minister on key policy pronouncements. David Edgerton isn’t alone in pointing out that politicians and senior civil servants with humanities degrees have in the past proved perfectly capable of making properly informed decisions, displaying due respect for those scientists, physicians and engineers operating within the state apparatus. In Edgerton’s ‘Warfare State’ pioneers of operational research like Solly Zuckerman and Patrick Blackett transcended artificial barriers between the arts and the sciences, while ministers such as Denis Healey and Michael Heseltine (Greats and PPE respectively at Oxford) were unphased by the challenge of deeply technical policy issues; until recent years successive cabinet secretaries displayed a similar intellectual agility and adaptability.

And yet, when I look back to my own experience with bright undergraduates I can’t help but wonder if Helen MacNamara identified a collective shunning of science and technology among those who have followed a narrow educational path from the age of 16. Too often when I tested my students’ knowledge of basic science (try studying the Attlee Government’s decision to build the Bomb without any comprehension of nuclear fission), I was shocked by how little they knew. Yet all of them boasted three separate science GCSEs: credentialism, the curse of British education, had encouraged the assumption that once Chemistry, Biology and Physics were ticked off the list then there was no further need to engage with matters scientific (an obvious equivalent on the other side of this obsolete binary line is languages). What this illustrates is that, notwithstanding full undergraduate programmes in the history of science, medicine and technology, and combined honours degrees partnering history with say computer science, there remains a paucity of science-oriented courses/modules for undergraduate historians to choose – they exist, and there are far more than even a decade ago, but still not enough.

A key question is always whether an eighteen year-old equivalent of Helen MacNamara has the desire to expand her knowledge in cognate areas that aren’t safe and predictable. The only way to ensure this is to reshape and open up the post-16 curriculum, counter an instinctive wariness of science as being ‘too difficult’, and above all, foster the presumption that learning never ceases. Were we to do this then the next time fast track civil servants and political advisers inside Number Ten and the Cabinet Office confront a crisis as critical as Covid they won’t be afraid to ask the scientists difficult questions and to offer ministers genuinely informed analyses and recommendations. For three years History graduates have been encouraged to recognise and embrace complexity: they possess the necessary transferable skills to pose suitably incisive questions, however challenging the topic. It’s a shame the deputy cabinet secretary and her colleagues were under so much pressure that they forgot this elementary lesson, and in consequence felt intellectually intimidated when engaging with expert opinion.

Oct 27

Not going gently into that gentle good night: saluting an unsung hero

Last Monday I spent ten hours on the train – including Eurostar – travelling to a remote village on the border of Haute Marne and Burgundy in the vast ForĂȘts National Park (vast as in seven Exmoors could fit into it – the distances between towns and villages are such that it feels like Texas with trees; unsurprisingly the area as a whole has the lowest population density in France, a reminder that one key factor in French fears for national security post-1870 was a population that didn’t exceed 40 million until after 1945 – and equally unsurprisingly, this is Le Pen territoire with support for the Rassemblement National, the renamed National Front, rock solid).  48 hours later I was on my way home, enjoying an opportunity to play the flaneur as I ambled from the Gare de Lyon to the Gare du Nord and lamenting the contrast between Paris’s Eurostar terminal (spacious, a food hall, fast and efficient security and customs processes) and the crowded hellhole that is St Pancras International’s terminal.  In three days I travelled from the south coast of England to the farthest reaches of eastern France, and back again – first thing Thursday morning and I was out on the sea wall facing the Isle of Wight walking Django.

I was in France to visit Sean Greenwood, Emeritus Professor of History at Canterbury Christ Church University, who sadly is unwell. Sean is eight years older than me, but when he was my teaching practice supervisor we bonded over Bob Dylan, George Orwell and the shared experience of writing a master’s thesis in modern British history at Kent (whereas I went back to UKC for my PhD, Sean’s doctorate was secured part-time at the LSE with the legendary DC – Donald – Watt as his supervisor).  Until I left Canterbury in the early 1980s I saw a good deal of Sean, but we maintained close contact through common interests and projects, and from 1990 the shared experience of being heads of department in colleges of higher education – he was at Christ Church which in due course became a ‘new’ university and I was at La Sainte Union [LSU] which when it closed in 1997 I and a number of colleagues transferred to the University of Southampton.  Into a new century we both remained active members of professional bodies such as History 2000 and History UK.  We remained in contact after Sean retired and with his partner Deborah moved to rural France and renovated an old water mill; its library holding what remains an astonishingly impressive collection of history books, not least re Sean’s specialist field of British diplomacy in the last century.  Here is someone who could write invaluable university textbooks on Britain and the Cold War and Britain and European integration, and scholarly monographs on the Attlee Government’s policy towards embryonic federalism in western Europe and the life of diplomat extraordinaire Gladwyn Jebb.  Along with fellow Cold War historians like John Kent, Sean was a key figure in advancing a revisionist view of Ernest Bevin as Foreign Secretary, 1945-50.  This questioned an orthodox teleological portrayal of the path to NATO’s establishment in April 1949 and highlighted Bevin’s belief until remarkably late in a ‘Third Way’ for Britain, ideally in partnership with France advancing a form of enlightened colonialism (eg the disastrous ‘groundnuts scheme’) and pivoting western Europe into a position genuinely independent of Soviet Communism and American free market capitalism – a genuinely social democratic foreign policy, but one which by mid-1948 (post the Communist coup in Czecholovakia) had fallen prey to harsh proto-Cold War reality.  Nor was Ernie Bevin and NATO the only fixed position he called into question – his contribution to the ambitious late 1990s ‘Government and Armed Forces’ project’s collection of essays [for which I wrote on Michael Heseltine and defence management reform inside the MOD] was a convincing argument that Sir Thomas Inskip as Minister for Coordination of Defence, 1936-9, was by no means the poodle of Baldwin and Chamberlain, as insisted upon by his anti-Appeasement critics, but instead an able politician endeavouring to optimise and prioritise limited resources (yes, the consequent poor state of the Army contributed to the BEF’s dismal fate in June 1940, but prioritising Fighter Command was triumphantly validated during the Battle of Britain).  Sean’s significance as a Cold War historian was paralleled by his success as a HOD, with History at Christ Church judged exceptional in successive quality audits.  His record as a scholar and a teacher was exemplary, indeed outstanding, and had he not been working in a CHE and then a post-92 university I feel sure his achievements would have been more widely recognised (sadly academic snobbery is with us still): Professor Sean Greenwood, CertEd, BA, MA, PhD, FRHisSoc, we salute you – please, don’t go gently into that good night, or at least not just yet.

Sep 23

Herbert Fisher, the International Brigader from a famous family forgotten for eight decades

This is an article in the current issue (no. 158) of The Historian, the magazine of the Historical Association.  It was triggered by walking with my dog Django in the churchyard of St Nicholas in Brockenhurst on a mission to find Adeline Vaughan Williams’ grave in the Fisher family plot.  I found the grave and an intriguing reference to the Spanish Civil War on another Fisher headstone…

Hearing the call to arms

 

Herbert Douglas Fisher, the International Brigader from a famous family forgotten for eight decades

 

The intellectual aristocracy of late Victorian and early Edwardian Britain constitutes a Venn diagram of familiar names – the Stracheys and the Stephens, the Wedgwoods and the Darwins, the Keynes and the Trevelyans. These affluent, upper middle-class pillars of public life espoused a secular, liberal view of the world. Their depth of learning and keen sense of duty generated strongly held opinions on every aspect of science, culture and society. These were high profile members of the great and the good, equally at home in the Treasury or the London Library, Trinity high table or the Palace of Westminster. Neither by the early twentieth century was this a wholly male world: women writers and thinkers like Virginia Woolf drew deeply on the work of pioneering feminists like George Eliot and Philippa Fawcett. By the late 1900s Cambridge and Bloomsbury constituted the twin epicentres for these hard-working, well-intentioned and yet at the same time highly privileged scientists, scholars, artists and public servants. An unlikely outpost would be deep in the New Forest, for Brockenhurst was home to three generations of high achievers, all boasting a healthy respect for professionalism and for the power of the intellect: the Fisher family. The Fishers were a model of late Victorian patriarchy. Head of the household was Herbert Fisher, his first name passed down to son and grandson. Fisher was father to eleven children, almost all of whom made waves in later life.

Herbert Fisher’s varied career combined writing popular histories with keeping the future Edward VII on the straight and narrow. Well into middle age Herbert married Mary Jackson, a child of the Raj. One of Mary’s sisters, Julia Jackson, was the second wife of Lesley Stephen, founder of The Dictionary of National Biography. Their children included (using their married names) Virginia Woolf and the artist Vanessa Bell, thereby linking the Fisher clan with the Bloomsbury Group. Vanessa’s eldest son, Julian Bell, features later in this story. Another of Mary’s sisters, Adeline Jackson, was the wife of Oxford’s Regius Professor of History, Henry Halford Vaughan. Herbert and Mary Fisher’s eldest daughter married Frederick Maitland, doyen of English legal history, while their eldest son would become H.A.L. Fisher, distinguished don and wartime President of the Board of Education. Here then was a dynasty of historians, but here also was a family swift to respond in times of national emergency.

H.A.L. Fisher – the second Herbert – served King and Country by patrolling the corridors of power. The others saw active service in the Boer War and the First World War: Jack died in South Africa, while William and Charles Fisher both saw action at the Battle of Jutland.  Charles, a renowned classicist and cricketer, died when HMS Invincible took a direct hit.  William survived the battle and in due course rose to become an admiral. He had chosen the Royal Navy as a career, but in 1914 none of his brothers were under any obligation to fight as they were all too old. This was certainly the case for Edmund Fisher, Mary and Herbert’s sixth child. He was aged forty-five when repeated attempts to join the Royal Field Artillery finally bore fruit. At the start of the war Edmund had shut down his highly successful architectural practice to work as a ward orderly. From mid-1917 he saw active service as a second lieutenant with the Ulster Division until invalided home with severe appendicitis early the following year: on Easter Sunday 1918 he died of peritonitis.

Like his mother and father Edmund Montagu Prinsep Fisher was buried in a dedicated burial ground at St Nicholas Church on the edge of Brockenhurst village. Nor was he the only sibling whose last resting place was where they considered their real home: in 1951 Adeline, Herbert and Mary’s third daughter and Ralph Vaughan Williams’ first wife, was interred alongside her parents. Edmund Fisher shares a headstone with his wife, Janie Freshfield, who survived him by almost half a century. Close examination of the badly worn inscription reveals a third name, their son Herbert. Astonishingly, the headstone lists this third Herbert as having died in Spain in March 1938. Once more a male member of the Fisher family had heard the call to arms and felt it his duty to fight; but this time in a very different sort of war, defending the Spanish Republic. Hidden in the long grass, unseen from the Anzac war memorial that stands at the heart of St Nicholas’s graveyard, the headstone constitutes a very different sort of commemoration. The men and women who journeyed from around the world to join the International Brigades are remembered in a variety of locations. Least likely, and long ignored, is a half-forgotten family plot in Hampshire and a stone slab bearing the name Herbert Douglas Fisher, son of Edmund and Janie.

Herbert Fisher was eight when his father died. He inherited Edmund’s fine eye for ceramics, and in 1929 left the family home in Chelsea to serve a three-year apprenticeship at the Ashtead Pottery in Surrey. Located on the North Downs, Ashtead was a benevolent institution for disabled ex-service men, and Fisher drew on a family connection with the company chairman, Sir Stafford Cripps. Cripps was both a well-known barrister and a maverick figure within the Labour Party, but during the war he had run a chemical factory. He advised Herbert to maintain a life very different from the rest of the family – in the Potteries. Thus in 1932 Fisher secured work as a department manager at W.T. Copeland & Sons, a major producer of industrial china and earthenware.

Witnessing first-hand working-class life in Stoke-on-Trent radicalised Fisher, previously a devout Anglican. His night-time reading shifted from the Bible to Marx. In January 1935 he described to Hugh Derry, an old school friend, how he felt when supervising undernourished and under-paid packing girls in ‘a sort of Dante’s Inferno’.[1] By the following year socialism, he told Derry, had become ‘the only religion worth having’, with Fisher evangelical in his secular, materialist analysis of poverty and capitalist exploitation.[2] The archetypal fellow traveller, Fisher’s idealism was tempered by the harsh political reality of a demoralised Labour Party and a Communist Party contemptuous of social democracy. Hope came in 1935 when Stalin initiated a dramatic change in the party line. Henceforth the Comintern – the Moscow-based Communist International – promoted an anti-fascist ‘Popular Front’ strategy of communist alliance with other parties of the left, most crucially in France and Spain.

Fisher became ever more enthusiastic in his embrace of left-wing politics. So much so that after four years at Copeland his employers forced him out. He moved to the Tunstall pottery firm of W.H. Grindley & Company. As a manager and member of the National Society of Pottery Workers he was in a unique position to improve working conditions. Fisher saw adolescent workers as especially vulnerable to Grindley’s unashamed exploitation of its workforce. Thus he organised a camping holiday for young families, and he called on directors to raise wages: on 7 December 1937 he described to his friend Eleanor Clough how, ‘I was forced to undermine the moral integrity of those above me. To put back their self-respect they had to get rid of me.’[3] Sacked in September 1936, Fisher marked his dismissal by joining the Communist Party of Great Britain. He was no longer in work, but he did have a party card.

Meanwhile, after fourteen months of brutal fighting the Spanish Republic remained in desperate need of more weapons and more volunteers. The failure of Spanish conservative forces to regain power in July 1936 had seen an abortive military coup translate into a visceral struggle between the Second Republic’s recently elected leftist government and the Nationalist insurgents united around Francisco Franco, a fiercely traditionalist general determined to destroy secular liberalism. The arrival of foreign volunteers and the formation of the International Brigades, matched by the intervention of Hitler and Mussolini in support of the Nationalists, had seen Spain’s civil war transcend frontiers and acquire an ideological and great power dimension. Keen to contain the war and avoid a European-wide confrontation, the governments of leading liberal democracies like Britain, France and the USA keenly maintained a policy of non-intervention. The Republic therefore relied heavily upon the Soviet Union for military support: a growing dependence upon Stalin saw the Communists, whether Spanish or from outside, exercise growing influence inside both the government and the military. Nowhere was this more obvious than within the International Brigades (IB), first formed in the autumn of 1936. The IB battalions were overwhelmingly under communist control, their exploits securing them an elite status within the Republic’s hard-pressed, overstretched armed forces.

Herbert Douglas Fisher was young and fit, with no family responsibilities and no job. Having only just joined the Communist Party he had no responsibilities. Thus, unlike the early communist fighters in Spain, many of whom were veteran activists back home, he was expendable. It is scarcely surprising, therefore, that he was encouraged to join the International Brigades. The Communist Party of Great Britain was coming under considerable pressure from the Comintern and thus the Kremlin to boost the size of its contingent. Across the winter of 1937-8 a total of 267 volunteers left London for Spain. Among them was the future trade union leader Jack Jones, the gifted philosopher and mathematician David Guest, the Olympic rower and gold medallist Lewis Clive, and the now ex-pottery manager Herbert Fisher. Born into a Lancashire working-class family Jones was more typical of the British volunteers than the others; he was also the only one who made it home.

On 21 November 1937 Special Branch listed Fisher as having passed through Dover. He duly made his way from Dunkirk to Paris, and to the Comintern office that organised the passage of volunteers south to Spain. Under regular surveillance by the French authorities, the Brigades’ transit centre was an open secret. At the start of December Fisher took a train down to BĂ©ziers, describing the town to Janie Fisher on 24 November 1937 as ‘charming
hot sunshine and lovely food’ – unlike his proletarian comrades he enthusiastically embraced Mediterranean cuisine.[4] All passengers on their way to Spain were under strict orders not to congregate nor communicate. On arrival at the base of the Pyrenees Fisher and his fellow volunteers were led over the mountains, across the border and down into Catalonia. By the time these new recruits passed through Barcelona the Anarchists and the POUM, an anti-Stalinist Marxist workers party, were no longer the predominant political force. Social revolution was no longer a priority, with the authorities reassuring a previously alarmed middle class that the war effort was focused solely on saving the Republic. Fisher no doubt applauded the degree of discipline and control imposed by the new regime. The Catalan government was now Communist dominated, aligned with Madrid and ruthless in suppressing dissent. The new recruit did not live long enough to experience disillusion, let alone read Homage To Catalonia, George Orwell’s recollection of the bloody power struggle that had convulsed the city the previous spring.

Orwell had fought with the POUM militia on the Aragon front, which at the time was relatively quiet. However, in the spring of 1938 Franco switched the focus of his attack away from Madrid and east into Aragon and towards Valencia. In late 1937 a successful winter offensive had seen the Republic’s restructured, much improved Popular Army seize the provincial capital of Teruel, high in the southern Aragonese mountains. Early the following year the Nationalists overcame appalling weather conditions and fierce resistance to recapture the city. They gained fresh momentum at a critical moment for the outcome of the war: air supremacy plus superior armour and artillery saw the insurgents succeed in splitting Catalonia from Madrid and the rest of the Republic. Soviet military aid was vital for the survival of the Republic, but it never matched the level of support the rebels received from Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy: the Luftwaffe airmen of the Condor Legion and the Blackshirt militia of the Corpo Troppo Volontarie formed the vanguard of the Francoist forces’ merciless advance to the Mediterranean coast.

By late February 1938 Herbert Fisher had spent three months at Tarazona da la Mancha, an outpost of the International Brigades’ main training depot in Albacete. Preparation for front-line duties was now all but complete. Overseen by the ruthless, often manic, commandant AndrĂ© Marty, the induction of volunteers was a brutal reality check. Yet, despite the harsh discipline and the intensity of the training, Fisher relished the environment. Surviving letters to family and friends are genuinely enthusiastic about the other trainees, who were mostly tough Canadians already hardened to military life (but ‘many of them have had occasion to visit the doctor which I have not!’ he told Janie Fisher on 9 January 1938), and about the local population, all of whom were extraordinarily generous despite living in stark poverty.[5]  On 6 February 1938 he reassured Hugh Derry that: ‘Although Spain in England is still a controversial subject, in loyalist Spain the people are of one mind. We know they all want to win the war and back up the government by the way they help us. This makes a peaceful atmosphere in this country at war
only bitterness of experience has brought this singleness of purpose and peace of mind to a people, whose education has been sadly neglected by past rulers.’[6]

Spurred on by a Paul Robeson concert and a morale-boosting speech from the radical writer Charlotte Haldane, Fisher was keen to enter the fray. As he told Janie Fisher on 14 December 1937, ‘I must go on with the fight – for me it has shifted from the potteries to Spain. It is quite natural, and many people who have been engaged in productive work and have gained working class experience have done just what I have done.’[7] Fisher had been in Spain over three months before finally he came under fire. This contrasted starkly with those raw recruits who earlier in the war had found themselves thrown into battle ill-prepared and ill-equipped. By mid-1938 the completion of basic training had become a priority. Even Marty, a man wholly indifferent to the well-being of his supposed comrades, could see the argument for producing soldiers with some chance of survival, rather than simply despatching lambs for the slaughter. An idealistic Fisher insisted in letters home that the maintenance of discipline and morale was more humane than ‘military life in the service of the capitalist forces’. Thus back on 9 January 1938 he had complained to Janie Fisher how ‘the British press do not do justice to the huge strides the Popular Front Government has made during the past few months’.[8]

The Nationalists’ spring dash for the sea saw a reversion to throwing freshly arrived volunteers into the line, their unnecessary deaths confirming the case for deploying fully trained soldiers. Fisher himself felt fully trained, and on 12 February 1938 joined the XV International Brigade’s British Battalion, known originally as the XVI Saklatvala. By early March the Battalion was holding ground in a cypress grove outside Belchite. As a runner for his company commander Fisher was in continuous danger. In due course all his company’s officers were killed, and by mid-March Fisher himself was listed as missing in action. Ten months later the news of Herbert Fisher’s disappearance was finally passed on to his mother, by someone he had become friendly with at Albacete. John Penman was a Fife miner and a staunch party member who had spent five years in Russia digging coal in the Donbass and Siberia and tunnelling metro lines in Moscow. In the retreat from Belchite he had been captured by the Nationalists. As a commissar Penman was lucky not to be shot, and in early 1939 he formed part of a prisoner exchange. Once back in London he wrote on 8 February 1939 to Janie Fisher passing on the meagre information he had gleaned concerning the loss of her son: ‘He gave his life in a cause in which he sincerely believed and you should be proud of him as I and others are that knew him.’[9]

The wording on the Fisher family headstone in Brockenhurst is a direct consequence of John Penman’s letter to Janie Fisher. She lived for another twenty-four years, and in all that time saw no reason to consider any different narrative. Yet from scanty evidence in Moscow and London the International Brigades archivist Jim Carmody and historian Richard Baxell pieced together an alternative version of Herbert Fisher’s final months, which a later generation of Fishers considers the more credible. In May 1938 did Fisher [IB identity number 1472] join the Servicio Sanitario Internacional (SSI), the International Brigades Medical Service, serving as a sanitario with one of the two Sanidad units assigned to the British? It would make sense if in fact he had survived the torrid baptism of fire at Belchite. Neither Carmody nor Baxell could say their version of events was definitive. Baxell worked on the assumption that this little known Brigader had lived. Hence he felt confident in questioning the claim of Bill Alexander, arguably the British Battalion’s most impressive commander, that Fisher had died in the Battle of the Ebro. How could Alexander be so sure when he had been repatriated home before the battle began, having sustained serious wounds at Segura de los Baños?

The alternative narrative is that Herbert Fisher did not die at Belchite nor in battle a few months later. More likely, he was badly wounded when Republican forces in Upper Aragon launched their last great offensive of the war: twelve divisions – including the battle-hardened 35th and its three International Brigades – crossed en masse from the east to the west bank of the Ebro River in a concerted effort to counter the Nationalists’ earlier success in splitting the Republic. The Popular Army incurred huge losses trying to break out of its bridgehead across the river, and then in resisting a ferocious counter-offensive by the Nationalists. One of Fisher’s fellow sanitarios with the British Battalion, Alun Menai Williams, described the battle as ‘twelve weeks of organised, unyielding, mass slaughter’.[10] Exposed to relentless strafing and ground fire, a succession of stretcher-bearers died while carrying the wounded from the trenches to ambulances and emergency medical posts.

The British Battalion and its Sanidad support numbered around 650 men: casualties sustained at the battles of Jarama, Brunete and Belchite had seen the XVI undergo serial reconstruction, and by mid-1938 two-thirds of the troops were Spanish. On the far bank of the Ebro the Battalion was once more decimated: after the first fortnight of fighting only 150 men were left out of 558. This was when David Guest and Lewis Clive were killed, and Jack Jones saw his right arm shattered. Horrendous casualties were sustained in hilltop battles outside Gandesa and in a final fighting retreat to the river. By the last week in September the XVI Battalion was back on the east bank, where it was stood down for the last time – since late July 48 of its 106 British Brigaders had been killed, taken prisoner or listed as missing in action. Across two years over five hundred British volunteers in Spain – around a quarter – had died. Around five thousand of all Brigaders had been killed during this time – about one in seven – and a similar number were unaccounted for.

The miraculously unscathed and the walking wounded were entrained to Ripol, a town in the foothills of the Pyrenees close to the French frontier. The Ebro offensive was by now in its death throes, success seen solely in the Republic’s ability to survive a further four months. The Popular Army’s combat effectiveness had been shattered. Furthermore, its foreign fighters were due to depart, in a last desperate gesture to court the support of France, Britain and the United States. The Munich agreement ceding the Sudetenland to Germany from Czechoslovakia soon ended Republican hopes of the civil war becoming part of a Europe-wide great powers conflict. Although over seven thousand Brigaders were fit enough to leave Spain, a further three thousand or so were still in hospital. Exiled Germans and Italians faced the prospect of internment in France, but not the British, for whom League of Nations representatives negotiated an unhindered passage home. In Barcelona on 28 October 1938, two hundred thousand Catalans lined the streets to see the men of the XVI Battalion take their place in the International Brigades’ farewell parade. Three weeks later the British contingent left Catalonia, a sealed train taking them through France to the Channel. At Victoria Station on 7 December thousands gave a heroes’ welcome to the surviving veterans of the two thousand or so volunteers who since July 1936 had travelled from Britain to fight fascism in Spain. Sadly, Herbert Douglas Fisher was not among those now safely home.

While his comrades were marching down the Ramblas, listening to a grateful Dolores Ibárruri – the legendary La Pasionaria – hail them as heroes and martyrs, Fisher was fighting for his life in a hospital twenty-seven miles north of Barcelona. The SSI had taken over a medieval infirmary in the town centre of Vic (in Spanish, Vich) and the beds of wounded Brigaders filled the dark, vaulted wards. A long painful journey from the Ebro had seen Fisher arrive in Vic on 25 September 1938. Back in England, with John Penman yet to arrive home, none of his family knew whether he was dead or alive. They probably contacted Bill Rust, the Daily Worker’s correspondent in Spain, as late in November he wrote to Peter Kerrigan asking for information of Fisher’s whereabouts. Rust was the British Communist Party’s most senior representative in Spain and Kerrigan served as a base commissar. The two men strictly imposed Stalinist orthodoxy and party discipline, and yet at the same time they displayed a genuine concern for the welfare of their fellow countrymen. Kerrigan would almost certainly have known that Fisher had died of his wounds on 11 November, but presumably he was too preoccupied with evacuating the hospital to inform Janie Fisher. Herbert Fisher was buried in Vic, where today a memorial records the names of those Brigaders interred at a site that was shunned by fearful residents until the restoration of democracy in 1976.

With scanty records and multiple Fishers serving in Spain the confusion surrounding Herbert Fisher’s final months is understandable – he does not appear at all in the database of one reputable website. Did the fog of war swallow him up in the spring of 1938, or did he survive a further eight months? When late in life the Lincoln Battalion’s Harry Fisher wrote his memoirs, he listed Herbert as having died in the spring of 1938. This may explain why the Polish volunteer Chaskel Honigstein, who died of his wounds on 4 October, was designated the last Brigader to die in Spain. The American’s claim chimed of course with what John Penman had told Janie Fisher, hence the reference to March 1938 on the headstone she shares with her husband and son. Clearly, neither Rust nor Kerrigan provided her or close relatives with accurate information.

Those relatives included the Stephen sisters, cousins of Edmund Fisher on his mother’s side and better known as Virginia Woolf and Vanessa Bell. Julian, the older of Vanessa’s two sons, was killed by shrapnel at Brunete sixteen months before Herbert Fisher finally succumbed to his wounds. Bell had been in Spain for only a few weeks. Joining the British Medical Unit had been a compromise choice, intended to placate his mother and his aunt. The two women believed driving an ambulance was far safer than volunteering to fight, but with cruel irony Bell’s vehicle took a direct hit. Here was the golden boy, struck down in his prime with an abundance of talent unfulfilled. Successive generations of the Bloomsbury Group, not least his younger brother Quentin, mythologised Bell. Leonard Woolf, and on occasion even his wife, polemicised in support of the Spanish Republic, but Julian represented a younger Bloomsbury’s direct engagement in left-wing politics: given his growing political ambitions, admirers asked, what might he have achieved had he lived? Unrecognised until now is that the Woolfs and the Bells had another personal connection with the war in Spain: the third Herbert Fisher was Julian Bell’s second cousin.

The sophisticated world of Bloomsbury seems a long way from the rural quiet of a Brockenhurst churchyard. Recording Fisher’s death in Spain below the graveside details of his father’s life accorded with a tradition established during and after the First World War: the names of offspring missing in action presumed dead would often be included on the headstones of their parents when they died. This appears to be the case at the family plot in St Nicholas churchyard. The weathered headstone contrasts starkly with the quietly imposing commemorative stone in Vic. Visitors to the Catalan burial ground can scarcely ignore the name of Herbert Douglas Fisher, a committed socialist and anti-fascist who, despite his distinguished family, died far from home and was soon forgotten. Whatever the circumstances of his death, here surely was a brave man fighting for a fine cause. Herbert deserves rediscovery after eighty years of obscurity. Hampshire was home to several men and women who served in Spain – Bill Alexander, for example, was born in Ringwood, and David Guest taught in Southampton – but the memory of Herbert Douglas Fisher is unique to the New Forest. Herbert, the least known member of his extended family, links Brockenhurst directly with Barcelona in a Catalan connection previously unknown and yet surely deserving of celebration.

 

Thank you to Richard Baxell, Linda Palfreeman, Vanessa Winchester (niece of Herbert Fisher), and the staff of the Marx Memorial Library and the University of Warwick Modern Records Centre.

 

Further Reading

Palfreeman, L., ÂĄSalud! British Volunteers in the Republican Medical Service During the Spanish Civil War, 1936-1939 (Sussex Academic Press, Brighton, 2012)

Preston, P., A Concise History of the Spanish Civil War (Fontana, London, 1996)

Tremlett, G., The International Brigades: Fascism, Freedom and the Spanish Civil War (Bloomsbury, London, 2020)

 

[1] Herbert Fisher to Hugh Derry, [?] January 1935, University of Warwick Modern Records Centre [MRC].

[2] Ibid., ‘Spring 1936’, MRC.

[3] Herbert Fisher to Eleanor Clough, 7 December 1937, MRC.

[4] Herbert Fisher to Janie Fisher [mother], 24 November 1937, MRC.

[5] Herbert Fisher to Janie Fisher, 9 January 1938, MRC.

[6] Herbert Fisher to Hugh Derry, 6 February 1938, MRC.

[7] Herbert Fisher to Janie Fisher, 14 December 1937, Marx Memorial Library [MML].

[8] Herbert Fisher to Vera Reid and to Janie Fisher, 3 December 1937 and 9 January 1938, MRC.

[9] John Penman to Jamie Fisher, 8 February 1939, MML.

[10] Alun Menai Williams, From the Rhondda to the Ebro: the story of a long life and its survival in the first half of the 20th Century (Warren & Pell, Pontypool, 2004), p. 176.

Aug 23

Taking on George Orwell fifty years ago: writing an unsupervised MA thesis and meeting remarkable people along the way

As a researcher still active in the digital age how does it feel to look back on a thesis that you wrote half a century ago?  In what ways was your day-to-day experience of research and writing then so very different from that of today’s postgraduate, and in what ways has nothing changed?  What are the chances today of being left alone for twelve months to write forty thousand words on a subject of one’s own choice?  This autumn marks fifty years since I began my History MA, packing more reading into one year than in the whole of the previous three.  For a future doctoral student this was the perfect apprenticeship.  1973-74 was the year I got drunk with Quentin Bell, took tea with a Fleet Street legend and found myself berated by Stephen Spender – all before I turned twenty-two.  We encourage our students to be adventurous and inquiring, but what chance an MA student in the present cautious climate enjoying the equivalent of a liquid lunch with Virginia Woolf’s nephew?  This is most definitely not a lament for the ‘good old days’, as frankly leaving a young PGR unsupervised for almost a year is indefensible and in different circumstances my thesis might never have been written.  Rather this is the recollection of a world all but disappeared, and yet one that existed within the working lives of older academics still fully engaged with their subjects.

An epic essay on the Copernican revolution and a half-decent degree saw me offered a postgraduate quota award.  The University of Kent at Canterbury was both collegiate and collegial, staff, students and ex-students fitting seamlessly into a small and welcoming cathedral city very different from the tourist behometh of today.  Both graduates and junior lecturers intended moving on and yet somehow never did.  Politics teaching at UKC relied heavily on a cohort of Nuffield College alumni who presumably left Oxford with the intention of one day returning, but who in due course became pillars of the local community.  One of them was Graham Thomas, the idiosyncratic creator of Kent’s British Cartoon Archive.  Students either loved or loathed his final year seminar on fascism.  For me the long anecdotes, the aperçus, the wry humour and the ritual lighting of the untipped Senior Service were all pure joy.  Graham Thomas rescued me when a review panel of early modern historians gently pointed out that a thesis on the working and personal relationship of poet Andrew Marvell and political theorist James Harrington necessitated access to a so far undiscovered cache of correspondence.  I thought I was on safer ground back in the twentieth century until Graham advised that, ‘A thesis on the OAS [The Day of the Jackal was very big at the time] would be terrific, but not if you end up dead in the toilet of a dodgy Marseilles bar.’  With me eager to challenge Orwell’s assertion in ‘Inside the Whale’ that 1920s writers and thinkers were largely apolitical, I suggested ‘The response of British intellectuals to Fascist Italy’.  We shook hands and agreed to meet some time the following year (‘I think I’ll need to see a draft
’ – ten months later the relaxed supervisor turned into an exceptionally rigorous editor).  Graham’s hands-off if high risk approach worked.  So much so that he scarcely changed his modus operandi for my doctoral thesis later in the decade – if minimal supervision worked the first time around then let’s do it again.  The next time common sense prevailed, and I wisely sought experts in the field to compensate for Graham’s light touch.

Back in 1973 the absence of supervision meant no reports, no records of discussion, no agreed objectives ahead of our next meeting, no necessary skills training, and no discussion of future employment opportunities.  There didn’t seem any obvious process for monitoring my progress as a one-year research student.  I didn’t have a funding body keen to know if it was getting value for money; although I’m sure the then Social Science Research Council did request annual reports after I commenced my PhD three years later.

Looking back, it’s striking how little archival work I undertook.  Unlike today undergraduate dissertations rarely involved research off-campus, and this clearly influenced my scheme of work.  I may even have been told that archives were reserved for doctoral research.  In any case many of my primary sources were available in printed form: I profited greatly from the volume of diaries and collected letters published over the preceding decade.  The death of Leonard Woolf and the publication of Michael Holroyd’s ground-breaking biography of Lytton Strachey had prompted a flood of Bloomsbury material, much of it previously unpublished.  Because the Woolfs, Maynard Keynes and various other Bloomsbury illuminati were central to my thesis I contacted Quentin Bell, Virginia Woolf’s first biographer.  It was easy: I phoned the University of Sussex switchboard and they put me straight though to Professor Bell.  He invited me to lunch at Falmer, ‘and if we have time then I’ll take you to meet Duncan.’  I’m afraid we never did get to Charleston and a post-prandial stroll with Duncan Grant – how wonderful that would have been.  On the day in question my genial and generous host left me with a deep appreciation of chilled Chablis, an imminent hangover and an empty notebook.

Another enjoyable but ultimately fruitless excursion was to seek advice from Michael Holroyd, biographer extraordinaire.  Outside his pre-gentrification Edwardian villa in Ladbroke Grove I met my first Rastafarians.  Deaf to the drum’n’bass bouncing off his windows Michael made me a pot of tea but announced that he had to leave in twenty minutes – I assumed that he was off to the Garrick or to chair a Society of Authors meeting, but it turned out he was due back at the laundrette.  In general though, the speculative phone call seemed to work as did the chance to meet literary grandees giving guest lectures in Canterbury.  Stephen Spender, eager to talk about WH Auden, found himself persistently questioned about the fascist-sympathising South African writer Roy Campbell.  Spender sent me packing, no doubt venting his spleen in that night’s journal entry.  More accommodating was Sir Colin Coote, who knew the Duce was a wrong ’un from the moment he arrived in Rome.  The reports he filed made uncomfortable reading for many Daily Telegraph readers, but his reputation as an uncompromising foreign correspondent earned him the editor’s chair.  Sir Colin was charming, and a fount of information.  My choice of interviewees was arbitrary, and the results piecemeal, but it added the personal touch to my ever-expanding selection of correspondence, confidences and commentaries: contrary to popular perception, everyone in the 1920s seemed to have an opinion on Mussolini.

Unsurprisingly I wrestled with the definition of intellectuals, drawing on Gramsci and Lucien Goldman and eschewing French cultural theorists (out of ignorance not choice).  David Caute’s work, notably The Fellow Travellers, was a big influence.  I can remember discussing problems of methodology with friends who were back after a year abroad and seemed far more sophisticated than me; and with my drinking companions in the college bar, both of whom were doctoral students destined for stellar business school careers.  I don’t think I met another postgraduate all year, not least because there were so few of us.

For a university only eight years old Kent’s Templeman Library had an impressive stock of books and periodicals.  Long runs of mid-century magazines facilitated case studies of the New Statesman and the Criterion, the former floundering until the arrival of Kingsley Martin and the latter too easily swayed by Ezra Pound’s Blackshirt sympathies.  My reading ambitions could never be fully met in Canterbury, so I decamped to London.  It’s clear from the thesis’s bibliography that completion was only possible thanks to my spending long days seeking out half-forgotten texts at the LSE, and in the old reading room of the British Museum.  Searching for necessary books or journals depended upon bulky guides to requisite libraries (‘Virginia Woolf, diaries vols. I-V, Hogarth Press: BL, BLPES, Sussex’) and whole floors of card catalogue cabinets, each topped with piles of forms on which to fill in required information.  In this respect the research process was both analogue and mechanical.  It was also by today’s standards incredibly time consuming.

My ever-expanding ‘data base’ was made up of multiple filing cards and bulging ring binders.  They embraced just about every writer in Britain who ever visited Fascist Italy or commented from afar on the virtues or otherwise of Signor Mussolini.  DH Lawrence of course had a great deal to say about dictatorship Italian-style, as did Bertrand Russell, HG Wells and Wyndham Lewis.  Someone else fascinated by Italy was Aldous Huxley, his early novels a revelation.  Harold Nicolson’s real-time record of visiting Rome with ‘Tom’ Mosley was pure Peaky Blinders.  In my head a structure had emerged, and by late spring 1974 the time was right to put pen to paper.

Chapter by chapter I wrote and finetuned a first draft, before creating a second draft of the whole thesis on my portable typewriter.  I amended my manuscript by hand, endeavouring to maintain a legible final version.  Graham Thomas corrected and commented where appropriate, and on instruction I added further scribblings – and that was it.  Faculty secretaries moonlighted as thesis typists, and within weeks I had in my hands a scarcely unrecognisable final text: a top copy and two carbons, with all corrections neatly Typexed.  With no on-campus binding service students were directed to a Victorian printshop just outside Canterbury.  Today’s bound theses are compact and well presented, but my MA looks enormous.  Given a minimum number of words (twenty-five thousand) but no upper limit, I wrote forty thousand.  The font was Garamond twelve-point and the spacing multiple, but one-third of every page was left blank for the insertion of footnotes.  My carbon copy isn’t paginated and I haven’t counted, but there are a lot of pages!

Roderick Kedward, authority on Occupied France and writer of a much-praised undergraduate guide to mid-century fascism, had agreed to act as external examiner.  There was no viva.  Presumably there was an examiners’ report, but I never saw it.  All I got was a short official letter confirming the award of an MA and inviting me to the next graduation ceremony.  Years later I met Rod Kedward, who sadly died this April.  He was very friendly, but freely confessed to having no recollection of reading my thesis.  I wasn’t offended of course – year on year snowed under with marking why would he remember my ambitious effort to take on George Orwell?

The pandemic meant much of my last book was researched and written at home.  As always, I was amazed by how much information was available via the internet.  Digital technology and speed of communication facilitates a breadth and depth of research, and a speed of completion, inconceivable in the 1970s.  Looking back across the past thirty years, it is striking how quickly the academic community took all of this for granted.  There are now of course numerous researchers who have known no other environment.  Yet, notwithstanding the arrival of word processing, the quotidian experience of scholarly inquiry – of historical investigation – up until the mid-1990s was not that different from when I began my MA.  The digital transformation when it occurred was astonishingly fast, but before that change was incremental.  What did occur was the assumption that all history postgraduates should be familiar with relevant archives, and that formal monitoring of progress and performance was in the interest of both institution and student (on this key aspect of quality assurance did CNAA-regulated polytechnics lead the way?).  Left alone for twelve months to sink or swim, my MA year saw a quantum leap in knowledge and maturity.  I gained a greater degree of self-assurance and of self-awareness, plus a degree; all this and a lot of fun.  Ironically, the reasons why I enjoyed myself were the same reasons as to why the system had to change.

 

Aug 07

Father of the Free French Navy: Thierry d’Argenlieu, Gaullist and Carmelite

A family friend, Simone Guyonvarch, lives part of the year in Sutton and part of the year on the Quiberon peninsula.  Her father, like many mariners from southern Brittany, served in the Free French Navy during the Second World War.  Postwar he stayed in the Navy, serving as a ship’s carpenter and literally sailing around the world on board the aircraft carrier Dixmunde (formerly the escort carrier HMS Biter).  Simone kindly lent me a folder of  fascinating documents covering her dad’s time in the FNFL, as well as a copy of Thierry d’Argenlieu’s wartime memoirs, Souvenirs de Guerre.  Photographs in the folder showed General de Gaulle and Amiral d’Argenlieu inspecting M. Guyonvarch’s chasseur, moored on the Isle of Wight’s River Medina.  We all know who Charles de Gaulle was, but who was Thierry d’Argenlieu?  Last winter I wrote a 2000 word magazine piece on the Free French’s sailor priest; but History Today said no and BBC History never got back to me, hence its appearance here:

Sea-going priests with ships in their sights are hard to find, but not in France.  Georges Thierry d’Argenlieu was a key player within the Free French, the political and military coalition that rallied around General de Gaulle following the fall of France in June 1940.  That summer he co-founded Les Forces Navales Françaises Libres [FNFL], the Free French Navy.  Mariner, priest and political animal, Father d’Argenlieu rose from lieutenant to admiral in seven years, the strength of his religious faith matched only by the depth of his loyalty to Charles de Gaulle.

Born into a Breton family with a long naval tradition, d’Argenlieu became an officer in the Marine Nationale, the French Navy.  His achievements before and during the First World War earned him the LĂ©gion d’Honneur.  A devout Catholic, d’Argenlieu joined the Secular Order of Discalced Carmelites, before transferring to the naval reserve and studying for the priesthood.  Within ten years of ordination PĂšre Louis de la TrinitĂ© was the Carmelites’ Prior Provincial in Paris.

In September 1939 Lieutenant d’Argenlieu returned to active service.  Ten months later he was helping organise the defence of Cherbourg when ordered to cease fighting.  D’Argenlieu was appalled by news of the armistice and vowed to fight on.  As a prisoner-of-war he escaped from a German truck and secured passage to Jersey.  The last ship out of St Helier brought him to England.  In London he bonded immediately with de Gaulle, and the fledgling Free French gained the service of an able administrator.  A somewhat cold and ascetic character, d’Argenlieu would prove a competent if unbending emissary and, surprisingly, a first-class propagandist.

De Gaulle always had a healthy respect for high-flying prelates, and from the outset he and d’Argenlieu got on well.  Neither man felt the same affection towards Vice-Admiral Muselier.  Both a sailor and a politician, Émile Muselier’s rackety past included several clashes with Admiral François Darlan, the Chief of the Naval Staff.  It was a deep loathing of Darlan as much as de Gaulle’s famous broadcast of 11 June that brought him to London.  In August 1940 Muselier promoted d’Argenlieu to capitaine de frĂ©gate.  Together with a young officer called Voisin they created the Free French Navy.

Three destroyers and five submarines – including the huge Surcouf – had been seized by the Royal Navy and handed over to the Free French.  An assortment of small ships fleeing France created a combined force of around thirty vessels.  In due course the Admiralty added corvettes for convoy duty and power boats for coastal patrol.

Appointed the new navy’s chaplain, d’Argenlieu visited camps full of sailors fresh from the Norway campaign and keen to get home.   He urged his fellow countrymen to stay and fight with the Free French, but few felt inspired by de Gaulle’s message of resistance.  Accepting the legitimacy of Marshal Petain’s administration, the majority obeyed Darlan’s order to cease fighting.  Not to do so was seen in Vichy, the seat of government, as an act of treason.  In due course a court martial sentenced the absent d’Argenlieu to death.

Most regular officers in the Marine Nationale were Catholic, conservative, anti-republican and instinctively anti-semitic.  They were soon seen by the Germans as valued collaborators in the administration of occupied France.  The Vichy government was similarly trusting, especially in 1940-42 when Darlan served as Petain’s deputy.  Joint operations with the Royal Navy had done little to counter a historic distrust of the British, especially after French ships were seized or interned.

Muted anger turned to open fury when on 3 July 1940 Admiral Somerville’s Force H attacked the French fleet at Mers-el-KĂ©bir. Although some ships fled the Algerian port for Toulon, several others were sunk or severely damaged.  Nearly 1300 officers and men died.  The attack raised morale in London, and sent a powerful message to Washington, but it alienated French public opinion and boosted the popularity of Petain’s regime.  Anglophobia was now a powerful propagandist force in France.

The losses at Mers-el-KĂ©bir severely tested Muselier and his fellow officers’ support for de Gaulle’s pro-British strategy.  Britain’s sinking of French ships, by no means for the last time, made recruitment that much more difficult.  Nevertheless, fishermen from Normandy and Brittany risked crossing the Channel to join Les Forces Navales Françaises Libres.  The FNFL based itself in Cowes, with a headquarters and training depot across the Solent at Emsworth.  This was still a tiny force and yet Free French propaganda created the image of a mass movement: a widely circulated photograph of sailors marching through London on Bastille Day 1940 made the entire complement seem a fraction of a far greater force.

D’Argenlieu accompanied de Gaulle on the disastrous expedition to French West Africa in September 1940.  The capture of Dakar would be a major strategic gain, but ships and ground forces loyal to Vichy resisted all efforts by the Royal Navy taskforce to seize control and enter the port.  A mixture of force and persuasion proved disastrous for the Free French, and d’Argenlieu sustained a nasty leg wound.  The failure of the operation severely dented de Gaulle’s standing in London.  A handful of Free French naval officers had found themselves on the side of their former comrades’ enemy in a fiercely conducted naval encounter – for all intents and purposes Britain was now fighting France.

De facto war was confirmed in subsequent Royal Navy and Free French operations to consolidate or secure control of other French colonies south of the Sahel and stretching deep into the interior.  De Gaulle’s credibility had been partially restored, and in Marie-Pierre Koenig and Philippe Leclerc the Free French had found their fighting generals: one the hero of Bir Hakeim in June 1942, the other the liberator of Paris in August 1944.  The West Africa campaign had seen d’Argenlieu directly involved in fighting between his embryonic navy and ships of the Marine Nationale.  This naturally enhanced his standing with de Gaulle, and it wasn’t long before he was promoted to contre-amiral.

D’Argenlieu’s fierce loyalty to his master saw him entrusted with sensitive missions, most notably as High Commissioner of the Pacific Territories in 1941-42.  More Gaullist than de Gaulle, his readiness to thwart American intentions in New Caledonia cemented the Roosevelt administration’s suspicion of the Free French.  Equally infuriating for the White House was Muselier’s success in seizing St Pierre et Miquelon, France’s only territory in North America.

Although unbending as a diplomat, d’Argenlieu was always a keen networker.  Back in London he charmed useful contacts like Lord Mountbatten, the one chief of staff with a kind word for de Gaulle.  The two men would meet again in postwar Saigon, with d’Argenlieu deaf to Mountbatten’s message of compromise.

In August 1943 d’Argenlieu took command of the renamed Les Forces Navales en Grande-Bretagne.  This kept him away from old enemies stationed in North Africa who had switched sides once the Allies were in full control: commanding the new Naval HQ in Algiers was AndrĂ© Lemonnier, the cruiser captain who had seen off d’Argenlieu and his Royal Navy allies in September 1940.  All elements of the Marine Nationale outside Metropolitan France were now merged with the men and ships of the FNFL.  Only 6000 of the 42,000 personnel were Free French, bringing with them around eighty vessels.  Their flagship was the battleship Richelieu, its crew having switched sides after the Germans occupied all of France in November 1942.  The Richelieu and the other state-of-the-art ships previously holed up in Dakar constituted the core of France’s renewed credentials as a maritime force.  The new navy relied heavily on the British and the Americans compensating for French ships previously sunk or scuttled: London and Washington authorised a small but significant transfer of destroyers, frigates and the odd submarine.

Fusing the rival navies was made that much easier by Darlan’s assassination in Algiers at the end of 1942.  The Marine Nationale’s commander in chief had been an arch collaborationist.  Yet, ironically, before he died Darlan fulfilled his pledge that the Toulon fleet would be scuttled to prevent the Germans seizing it – in July 1940 Churchill had dismissed that promise, hence the attack at Mers-el-KĂ©bir.

Darlan had done a deal with the Americans, as had General Henri Giraud, the Allies’ choice of military commander in Algiers.  It became increasingly clear that Giraud had no power base in North Africa let alone within France, so once more de Gaulle was back in the ascendancy.  Muselier was tarnished by his close association with Giraud, to the obvious advantage of d’Argenlieu.

Unsurprisingly, when de Gaulle crossed to France on 14 July 1944 d’Argenlieu joined him on the destroyer La Combattante: seven months later the former HMS Haldon would sink after hitting a mine off Hull.  Free French ships had an unenviable record of avoidable mishaps, but d’Argenlieu spent little time inquiring into why this should be – he was focused on higher matters, both spiritual and secular.  Naturally he walked beside de Gaulle on his famous walk to Notre Dame on 25 August 1944.

After the Liberation the heroes of 1940-41 feared they would be forgotten, but not in the Bulletin de la Marine Française.  The magazine dedicated frequent photo shoots to d’Argenlieu, giving Lemonnier minimal coverage.  The June 1944 issue applauded d’Argenlieu’s success creating rest and recreation centres in London and Cowes, while August’s Bulletin highlighted an emotional return to Cherbourg.  Fittingly, the farewell issue saluted the ships and sailors of the FNFL as they were in mid-1943 prior to merging with their former Vichy foes.

The summer of 1945 saw the soon to be Admiral d’Argenlieu appointed as Governor General in Indo-China.  His inflexibility over the following eighteen months would see the Viet Minh commence a nine-year war to end French rule.  Leclerc led an expeditionary force in a ruthless counterinsurgency operation, and yet increasingly he saw the need to negotiate.  He failed to convince d’Argenlieu that this was an unwinnable campaign, the two men having loathed each other since their first meeting in London five years before.

The advent of the Fourth Republic saw de Gaulle out of power, and d’Argenlieu was soon back with the Carmelites.  He served the order faithfully until his death in 1965, but remained Chancellor of the Ordre de la LibĂ©ration, the honour created by de Gaulle in November 1940 to reward the staunchest of his supporters.  Most elevated among the order’s thousand or so companions were those who had founded the Free French at the very moment of national humiliation.  These were the loyalist of the loyal, with whom d’Argenlieu worked relentlessly to forge a powerful and enduring myth of national resistance.  When de Gaulle returned to office in May 1958 d’Argenlieu quietly celebrated the creation of the Fifth Republic.  Unlike other veteran Gaullists he stayed silent over the decision to quit Algeria.  Thierry d’Argenlieu was by now a largely forgotten figure, other than in the presidential office where his portrait took pride of place.

Naval officers like d’Argenlieu who rallied to de Gaulle were Catholic, conservative, and often monarchist; but their dislike of the Third Republic never extended to virulent anti-semitism and a readiness to place ideology above patriotism.  Appalled by the notion of surrender, let alone collaboration, they fought alongside the British even when their emotions as loyal Frenchmen were sorely tested.  De Gaulle’s broad alliance embraced radicals and socialists – even at times Communists – but those he trusted most were men from the same mould as himself.  This is what so infuriated Petain and all those intent on an anti-republican counter-revolution in France: why in God’s name was a senior Carmelite at the head of a navy dependent on the goodwill of their oldest enemy?

D’Argenlieu had the last laugh, his closeness to de Gaulle ensuring power and influence even after the uneasy fusion of Free French and Vichy naval forces.  Other Free French veterans had more painful experiences.  Yet all of them could reflect on the desperate days of 1940 and know that with the passage of time their refusal to surrender would be duly vindicated and universally honoured.

Jul 19

My new book on Richard Thompson, guitar maestro and songwriter extraordinaire

I wrote a short book about for Bloomsbury Music’s 331/3 series on individual artists and albums, but things didn’t work out and it’s now been published by Takahe, the small outfit in Coventry run by Steve Hodder.  It was Takahe which in 2020 published Slouching Towards Big Pink – essays on Bob Dylan and The Band, Woody Guthrie, and Franklin Delano Roosevelt.  The new book is about the great English songwriter and guitarist Richard Thompson, who read it in manuscript and corrected the odd factual error – he’s going to plug the book on his Facebook page. Here’s how to purchase a copy, with the blurb from the back cover replicated below:

Adrian Smith, FLYING SOLO: RICHARD THOMPSON AND THE MAKING OF HENRY THE HUMAN FLY  (Takahe Publishing, 2023)  £10.95

Available from the publisher: Publications (takahepublishing.co.uk)

Available from Amazon: Flying Solo: Richard Thompson and the Making of Henry The Human Fly: Amazon.co.uk: Smith, Adrian: 9781908837295: Books

Richard Thompson’s vision, originality and technical prowess marks him out as a songwriter and guitarist of remarkable endurance, as inventive and relevant today as at the outset of his solo career half a century ago.  In Flying Solo: Richard Thompson and the Making of Henry The Human Fly Adrian Smith explains why a debut album dismissed at the time as eccentric and disappointing came to be seen as strikingly original, its preoccupation with the strange and subversive anticipating contemporary songwriters and naturalists like Jonny Flynn and Robert Macfarlane.  Flying Solo traces Henry The Human Fly’s impressive afterlife back to Richard Thompson’s formative years with Fairport Convention and his determination to echo The Band by making music that transcended time, fusing native myths and folk traditions with modern day arrangements, instrumentation and production.

Henry The Human Fly is seen as a bridge between folk rock’s finest hour – Fairport’s Liege & Lief – and the much acclaimed I Want To See The Bright Lights Tonight, the first and the best of Richard and Linda Thompson’s six albums.  The couple’s break up saw Thompson relocate to America and establish himself as an artist in his own right on both sides of the Atlantic.  A succession of outstanding albums meant that for too long Henry The Human Fly was overlooked; rediscovery thanks to streaming means we can now locate it as an important milestone in the long career of a truly great talent.

Jul 04

Hottest June since 1940 – historians can’t ignore that!

According to the Met Office last month’s mean temperature of 14.9 celsius makes it the hottest June since 1940.  A marked feature about weather patterns in the 1940s is the harshness of the winters across Europe, as the German Army found to its cost in Russia from late 1941.  For the British it’s a postwar winter that is etched into the national psyche, with the ice and snow lasting well into the ostensible spring (with extensive flooding once the big melt began).  The morale of the British Expeditionary Force in northern France during the winter of 1939-40 must surely have been affected by the freezing weather – visits from Gracie Fields and George Formby provided a brief distraction from the cold, but by the time spring arrived life in and behind the defensive positions must have been pretty miserable – and then the Germans made it a whole lot worse.  The decade’s best known June is of course 1944, but that was a month marred by bad weather: The 6th marked a brief if fortuitous break in the storms lashing the Channel (Ike: ‘Let’s go!’), while continuous bad weather from the 19th to the 21st June left the Mulberry A Harbour at Omaha Beach so badly damaged that the caissons were beyond repair.  Four years earlier the evacuation of over 338,000 troops from Dunkirk was over by 6th June (it effectively ended two days earlier), but the good weather stretched back into May, ensuring calmness in the Channel for long periods of time.  There was a consistent warmth across 24 hours but without the extremes seen in June 2023, and without long periods of clear blue sky.  The absence of the latter was crucial as low cloud cover went some way to reducing the impact of the Luftwaffe strafing the packed beaches.  Some have argued that the light breeze also ensured a degree of smoke cover from aerial attack, but I suspect the jury is out on that one.  Of course extensive fighting continued post-Dunkirk, and again good weather must have been a key factor in the relative success of subsequent evacuations further south (the loss of the Lancastria and the surrender of the 51st (Highland) Division heavily qualifying any claim that such operations could be seen as successful).  Of course the Germans also benefited from good weather in their offensive preparations, but long days of sunny skies were hugely beneficial to both the Army and the Royal Navy in preparing for an anticipated invasion.  For the RAF pilot and air crew training benefited hugely from an exceptionally fine June, as did operational squadrons in 11 and 12 Groups, already in fierce combat over the Channel ahead of the Battle of Britain (for which the starting date is usually given as 10th July 1940).  Fighter Command further benefited from a warm and sunny spring in that aircraft production continued round the clock – Spitfire production at Supermarine’s Woolston works in Southampton reached its optimum output prior to the catastrophic air raids on 23rd August and 15th September 1940.  American reporters in England that spring and early summer were astonished by the plethora of cricket matches still being played, and many a returned member of the BEF had a few choice words to say about the presence of so many dressed in whites not khaki; but the sun shone and the wickets were dry – it’s hard to imagine Ben Stokes not taking the opportunity to knock off a quick 155.  Thinking of England’s talisman, if you were on the beach at Dunkirk queuing for days to reach the mole who would you want as your company commander, keeping up morale and insistent that he’ll get you home come hell or high water?

Jun 16

An unlikely role model for Keir Starmer – a more palatable Campbell Bannerman

David Campbell Bannerman has been in the news a great deal recently as a cheer leader for Boris Johnson.  He is chair of the self-styled Conservative Democratic Organisation, a body loud in its criticism of Rishi Sunak’s premiership and its insistence that Johnson is innocent of all findings of the Commons’ Privileges Committee. Campbell Bannerman’s chequered political career has been built around a deep loathing of Brussels and enthusiastic support for chancers like Farage and Johnson.  In the heady days of UKIP he defected from the Conservative Party, only to rejoin post-Brexit.  As a parliamentary candidate he’s a serial loser from whom Sir Keir Starmer has nothing to learn when it comes to planning and implementing an electoral strategy.  The same, however, can’t be said of an earlier member of the Campbell Bannerman family, as I suggested in a piece which appeared on the New Statesman website last autumn and remains topical:

Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman led the Liberals to stunning success in the 1906 general election and a majority of 125 in the Commons: six years after a catastrophic election result the Liberals gained 216 seats, including that of former prime minister Arthur Balfour.  It would be nine years before the Conservatives and their Liberal Unionist allies returned to government and seventeen years before they again ruled alone. Like Clem Attlee in 1945, ‘C.B.’ was singularly lacking in charisma, and yet he engineered a historic victory for his party.  Keir Starmer points to Attlee, and to a lesser extent Wilson and Blair, as his role models.  Yet he could learn a lot from Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman’s success in reuniting his party, silencing dismissive criticism on both sides of the House, and creating what in due course would prove one of the great reforming administrations.

Starmer’s reputation for competence rests on his tenure as Director of Public Prosecutions, and within Whitehall Campbell-Bannerman was similarly seen as an instinctive reformer and an able administrator.  The four decades preceding the First World War saw the question of Home Rule for Ireland prove every bit as divisive as Brexit.  Prior to the 1906 election Campbell-Bannerman neutralised Irish Home Rule in the same way that Starmer steers clear of detailed debate over the UK and Northern Ireland’s future relationship with the EU.  The Liberals’ political enemies were starved of ammunition, in the same way that hard line Brexiteers are denied tangible evidence of Labour seeking a rapprochement with Brussels over current trading relations.  Although Campbell-Bannerman left Ireland on hold, he recognised the advantage a large parliamentary majority gave him in exploiting a demoralised opposition.  The newly elected Liberal Government swiftly seized the initiative, pushing through a raft of welfare and foreign policy reforms.  At home, trade union and employment rights were extended, building regulations were strengthened, and the penal system reformed to separate young offenders from adult criminals.  While short-sightedly the question of votes for women was still off the agenda, ‘New Liberal’ plans for old age pensions and national insurance were well advanced when terminal illness forced Campbell-Bannerman to resign in April 1908.  Overseas success included formation of the Union of South Africa, dĂ©tente with Russia and a deepening of the Entente Cordiale.  Admittedly, C.B.’s vision of Britain’s future relations with France and the Tsar was very different from that of his Foreign Secretary, Sir Edward Grey – Campbell-Bannerman was almost certainly kept in the dark about plans for military collaboration, although he more than held his own in talks with Clemenceau, another radical prime minister: a Francophile and a free trader, Sir Henry prioritised Britain’s prominence in European power politics over the extension or consolidation of its already overstretched empire.   A priority for Labour in its honeymoon period – whether ruling alone or supported by the Liberal Democrats – must be to restore membership of the single market, or to secure an equivalent status.

The Liberals’ electoral strategy embraced a progressive alliance with the then Labour Representation Committee.  In January 1906 the pact bore fruit, ensuring the future Labour Party a foothold in the House of Commons.  Few anticipate Labour candidates standing down for Liberal Democrats, and vice versa, but Sir Keir can learn from Campbell-Bannerman the value of talking to your natural allies.

Above all, Starmer should embrace Campbell-Bannerman’s systematic exploitation of a demoralised government’s bitter infighting.  By 1905 Balfour’s administration was riven by factionalism, his Tory-dominated coalition split over Joseph Chamberlain’s Empire-based vision of protectionism, Tariff Reform.  For eighteen months prior to polling day the Liberals ruthlessly publicised their opponents’ divisions, portraying Tariff Reform as a direct threat to the material well-being of families already hard hit by rising prices and deepening inequality.  Party strategists identified a select number of salient issues, all seen as illustrative of government incompetence and inertia, and all portrayed as evidence of the need for fundamental change.

In the 1906 campaign Liberal propaganda was simple, easy to comprehend and devastatingly effective.  By then Campbell-Bannerman had one big advantage over Starmer, in that he was already in office.  When Balfour’s cabinet imploded in late 1905 the Liberal leader had ignored the reservations of his party’s big beasts and accepted the King’s invitation to form a minority government.  Come the new year he went to the country.  Campbell-Bannerman had a keen sense of timing, shrewdly managing risk and sensing exactly when to seize an opportunity.  Keir Starmer needs to hone these qualities and be ready to run with fresh ideas as they become available.  The release of Gordon Brown’s constitutional review will be one such moment.  As a keen advocate of parliamentary reform Sir Henry would be the first to embrace an ambitious blueprint for reshaping a malfunctioning British state.

Campbell-Bannerman secured an astonishing reversal of fortune for his party within a single parliament.  An Edwardian politician may not be Sir Keir’s default choice for inspiration, and yet Sir Henry’s credentials as a role model remain unexpectedly relevant in an era no less turbulent and polarised than his own.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Older posts «