ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 21 มิ.ย. 2022
- A four-part documentary following the history of the Labour Party from 1979 to 1995 when it was on the cusp of a return to power.
Beginning with its bitter fallout and ‘betrayal’ in Government, the documentary features a wide cast - Michael Foot, Dennis Healey, Shirley Williams, Tony Benn, Peter Shore, Neil Kinnock, Jon Lansman, Jeremy Corbyn, Peter Mandelson, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, Robyn Cook, David Blunkett, John Prescott and many more.
OO:OO - Cast into the Wilderness
Out of power and riven with strife, this programme tells the inside story of the Labour Party's bitter civil war with leading players speaking with devastating frankness about the time from 1979-81.
57:14 - Comrades of War
In the early 80's Michael Foot was leader of a divided Labour Party. The 1981 deputy leadership battle between Denis Healey and Tony Benn split party loyalties and Labour sank to its lowest popularity ever.
01:57:02 - Enter the Rose
Senior Labour politicians explore the Labour Party's long years in opposition. In 1983 after a humiliating defeat by Margaret Thatcher, Labour elected Neil Kinnock as its new leader in the hope that he can modernise the party.
02:55:01 - The Pursuit of Power
Key political figures from the Labour Party tell the story of the struggle to modernise the party, culminating in the rise to power of Tony Blair and the arrival of a new breed of Labour politician.
Will need to do a new one Wilderness Years Part 2 - 2010-2024
Thanks for posting. Never caught this when it was on but enjoyed it immensely, even if much of it is painful to watch. The lessons of history are ongoing,
Perfect editing 34:50 - Ashton says idiots thought Healey was an asshole because he told them they were idiots to their face, and then cuts to Bryan Gould saying Healey was an asshole. Lol😂
He was known as a Bully
Thanks so much for posting!
...brilliant documentary! Thanks!
I look forward to when they do the 2010 - 20?? version concerning Brown, Milliband, Corbyn and Starmer's wilderness period.
Not gonna last past 13/14 or 15 years
@@dylanmorrissey7339 we will see
@@thedukeofswellington1827is Starmer Kinnock or Blair I guess…he is remarkably Kinnock like in some ways. We’ll see if he’s the same in elections
It's on the cusp of a return to power now under Starmer.
I still don't know if that'll be the case, the best for Labour will be a hung parliament. Starmer still doesn't strike me as someone that people in Northern heartlands like, or even popular with the marginal seats like my one in Waveney, a key seat to win since Labour held it in 97, 2001 and 2005.
They were in opposition for around 16 years by the time this aired.
Yes this was meant to support the great Blairite revolution!
Which was actually bloody awful
@@ralphdavidson9542yes, so awful
Very interesting. Thanks for posting
A great documentary. The Blair and Brown last year was good, but not as open or deep as this one. It’ll be interesting to see the documentary on the Corbyn years. History repeating itself again.
Excellent and informative documentary.
As an ex-pat of 40 years in Denmark, I do feel that all this SHIT (pardon my French) in the Labour Party could have been avoided by the introduction of proportional representation, like we have in DK....
This means that the various wings of Labour could have formed their own parties, been their own political entities, with avoiding all the squabbling in one party, ultimately weakening it.
Same goes for the Tories.
Does PR in Denmark give a functioning government or does it takes weeks or indeed months to get a coalition together like in other European nations? FFP gives strong government and indeed in the UK where a party loses its majority like in 1978 and 2010 a coalition or a support system from another party can be quickly be enacted, like the Liberals support for Labour in the late 70s and again in 2010 for the Conservatives.
Brilliant Documentry &
Does anyone know where the footage of Foot in Tribune and on the bus at about 40:00 comes from? Is the full piece on YT?
I would like my leaders cunning, smart and devoted to the British people.
Please enable automatic captions for this.
(I don't understand why TH-cam still doesn't allow the user to enable this on any video)
why did they want industry when it was discovered later that you can just print money ?
No wonder the UK is in the state it is in when you look at the comments below. It is made clear in the latter part of the documentary that the Kinnock leadership accommodated itself to Thatcherism and Blair continued that process with even more enthusiasm. Now what we see around us is the result of Thatcherism: the majority of people now struggling to pay rents on properties that they have no long-term tenancy on, no chance of affording a home of your own, a semi-privatised NHS which will only decline further, and shit being pumped into water.
At the end of the day, you can rail against Benn all you like, but he was opposed to this ideology and was prescient about what the outcome would be. Be good Tories and adhere to that oft declared Tory principle: take some personal responsibility. If you voted Tory, voted Blair and voted for the Tories since 2010, then it is your fault the country is in the state it is in.
Neil Kinnock IS Kinnock. Bill Kinnock IS Uncle Bill. Aunt Gladys IS Aunt Gladys. And the Labour Party IS... totally missing.
Spitting image
Cheers for finding this.
The national Labour Party was in the wilderness, but they had plenty of councils across the country back then, but the national party never listened to them and took them for granted. People would see the national Labour Party on tv infighting, vote Tory for MP and vote Labour for councils. They knew their local councillors who canvassed, but didn’t trust the national party. Labour can get to power in Westminster by going right and dropping clause IV and everything, but they do that and lose county councils - because they don’t listen to the local party or their constituents. They haven’t changed.
He can’t / couldn’t help it, but ,my goodness, Blair’s voice ! Close your eyes and you can see a public school boy, capped and sporting shorts.
His history of lay preacher and converting to Roman Catholicism, yet plunging us into a war from which President Bush gave him an opt-out.
But surely even saying that betrays a class prejudice. If someone is born into privilege it should never preclude them from leading the Labour Party any more than someone born into destitution should stop someone joining the Conservative Party. All that matters is talent and ability. I heard the other day that last year Edinburgh University did not accept one single undergraduate who had obtained their qualifications from a private school to read Law. How can that ever be right? We are cancelling people based upon what they are born into.
And a turncoat traitor
Blair came from a far more humble background than Benn but you don't seem able to criticise Benn who went to public school - Westminster School.
@@blehoo1Levelling down to level up.
31:08 the fudging and the mudging 😂 wtf does that mean
To avoid making decisions or give a clear answer.
@@SMAXZO I know what he was trying to say it’s just very odd phrasing.
@@wessexfox5197 I guess it's the flow...I mean, slush and mush..can't just leave fudging left hanging, right?
1:08:16 scathing 🤣🤣🤣
Best political drama ive ever watched and im not a Labour man
Some of the most formidable intellectuals are not good leaders.
Because, they are not decision markers, but, only work as either theory builders or abstract problem solvers, which requires a complex mind to understand and appreciate.
From Callaghan to John Smith, the Labour party, got entangled in issues which hardly helped the common person in the streets.
Credit must go to New Labour and Blair who was masquerading as a socialist.
You mean Blair being a turncoat and traitor to his party, just like Callaghan and Healey, the SDP and the anti-Corbyn MPs and Labour Head Office. The result, the shithole we now call Britain with uncontrolled immigration, failing public services and levels of wealth inequality travelling back to the 1800s.
01:32:56 Lmbo
1:35:45 maybe had something to do with running an ira sympathising gay rights campaigner in a staunchly socially conservative working class area in the early 80's
53:20 totally spot on - look at what we witnessed with the PLP undermining Corbyn every step of the way
Story here is of the perpetual struggle in Labour between "The Movement" who pride themselves on pure ideals and don't want to be besmirched by the compromises necessary in exercising power, and "The Party" that wants power to implement progressive policies short of the ideal.
pretty much, although people are complicated. All of these men and women probably had the best of intentions in their hearts and minds, but there is no correlation between beliefs I find to be in line with my values and having the skills to actually win and implement legislation. Tony Benn, was obviously a guy who deeply believed in trade union and 'socialist' values, but as per nearly everyone who worked with him he was borderline uncompromising and in Politics you need to be able to compromise.
@@SplashTasty Thanks. To mind mind., it's hard to avoid the conclusion that Tony Benn was, despite his erudition, little more a narcissist. He paraded as a man of the people but ultimately was an egotist who deluded the people.
@@SplashTasty I think Tony Benn was a disaster. He is often romanticised by followers who were taken in and he was a very effective propagandist on his own behalf. But I think his main interest was himself and he was greedy for power. He vandalised Labour and made it unelectable in the public mind. His shenanigans wasted years and years in the reform of the party and helped give Thatcherism an open road.
Well that gives too much leeway for the old Right who had run out of ideas by the 70’s. It was inevitable that parts of Labour would be influenced by the New Left of the 1960’s and the social movements of the anti war and civil rights.
Roy Hattersley pretty much summed up why Labour was such a catastrophic failure for 15years until Blair became leader.
They only focused on trying to appeal to the poorest people in the country which was around 10% of the electorate…. I’m sorry but if you disregard 90% of the people who are eligible to vote and show no interest in them or their aspirations you will lose as you become a niche party!
Isn't there some validity in Tony Benn's point that if you renounce everything you believe in for the pursuit of power, then fail to achieve it you' end up as emperor with no clothes?
I've never understood why Labour don't say they're red tories to get elected but then when they get into power they help the poor more and more, that's the opposite to what all Conservative governments do and if anything less corrupt.
@@stevebbuk9557But they didn't renounce everything they believed in - there were huge differences in terms of policy between New Labour (even at its most moderate) and the Tories.
Also, Benn was always an outlier, not at all representative of the main traditions of the British Labour movement; opposing Benn was NOT betrayal of Labour values, in fact, it was the opposite.
I was talking primarily of Kinnock and the 1992 election. But Blair had shifted Labour massively from the manifesto he stood on in 1983.@@Fort976
@@stevebbuk9557 Benn was not representative of the wider Labour movement and traditional Labour voters, although he always spoke like he thought he was. It's why how, the more powerful he got within the Labour Party, the fewer votes they got. I think though that the comment he made was directed at Neil Kinnock, who had been a man of the left of the Labour Party like Benn. Roy Hattersley summed up the dilemma that Kinnock was in. That Kinnock would not have won the leadership if he had not been of the left, that he was of the left meant he had no chance of winning a general election, and that if he tried to move to the centre, he'd be accused of abandoning his beliefs.
1:24:20 well they need to do it again because labour is unelectable
23 pts ahead of the Tories
@@briandelaney9710 The Tories have destroyed Britain since 1979, including the red Tories of Labour under Blair/Brown/Starmer.
In your view maybe. The Opinion Polls would appear to show the opposite.
I am happy to state now that, in my opinion, the Tories will get as big an @rse kicking at the next election as Labour got in 1983.
@@andypandy9013 Why the capital letters for opinion polls? The poll lead will narrow considerably before the election and is fragile. Former Home Secretary ( correct use of capitals, take note) David Blunkett has said recently that Labour has a major challenge to even achieve a small majority ( I paraphrase). Regardless, it does not matter if the worst government in UK political history is replaced by a Starmer administration committed to the same policies as the Tories. That is precisely why Britain is in a doom loop of decline with two parties adopting the same failed neoliberal policies that are the root of the problem.
@@eightiesmusic1984
As an English Teacher (correct use) I do not need lessons regarding punctuation or format from you. Thank you very much.
better in opposition than government
Best in government. Radical reform
Benn is so arrogant and sanctimonious. Causes all this uproar, then says he didn’t expect to win? He would’ve made a great American politician.
Benn would’ve been a horrible Prime Minister. He was so arrogant and unpleasant to work with that he would have alienated his entire cabinet.
@@richmotroni He was indeed despised by large swaths of the Labour party, not least by his Cabinet colleagues from the 74-79 government.
Kinnock was the arrogant and sanctimonius one
@@tomgibson6801 How?
@@tomgibson6801 lol grow up.
18:02 oh dear lord! What a scruffy old communist mess.
79 to 94 is 15 not 16 years
this was from 1995
What if Callaghan had continued as Labour Leader and Leader of the Opposition?
Would Labour have won in 1987 or 1992 even if it couldn't in 1983?
Till around 1981, Labour was leading in opinion poll. Labour would have remained a credible united force capable of governing at the very least
They might have won in 1987 with Healey
I'm not British and I am not a Socialist, but to give an impartial observation here; the move away from "orthodox" Socialism and towards New Labour was really an inevitable evolution of the party. It is a very interesting issue for me, coming from a right-wing point of view I am used to seeing the same thing happen with right-wing parties gradually moving closer to the centre over time. From what I know of British people, even the working class have their reservations about Socialism. I wonder if this is on account of their innate "Britishness" which almost gives them a sort of Stockholm Syndrome in relation to the upper classes in British society, which manifests itself most notably in their love for the monarchy - a force which seems to captivate them just as much as it does the upper & middle classes. I imagine this is why Blair was so popular and why the shift towards New Labour was so powerful, and likewise why even someone as unbearable as Boris Johnson succeeded in destroying Corbyn in 2019 (many believe this to have been due to Brexit but I would argue it had as much to do with Corbyn being un-electable. This is not a dig at Corbyn; on the contrary it is an observation that all political parties start off with a manifesto governed by a clear ideological platform, but gradually abandon it through various compromises in order to appease the greatest number of people they can and therefore get elected, which is the overarching goal of politicians.
It was also inevitable that segments of Labour would be influenced by the New Left of the 1960’s which Corbyn etc were a part of Foot was of an older generation of left wingers (Bevanites) The old Right of the Party had it all their way up to 1980 and had run out of ideas
The Liverpool Trots...what a bunch of gangsters.
It was nice to watch some short snippets of the programme in between the 50,000 ads every 2 minutes
Being 58 I lived through this ... as a Socialist I want a Socialist society, yet the people who vote Do Not Vote For It. The prime examples are 1983 2017 and 2019 .
So lets look at what has happened Labour have won when they have taken a liberal outlook ( I do not like what I am saying) I am just reflecting on what has happened over my time of political activity. Thay are taking a liberal stance again .... To Win Again!.
My Dad explained to me a long time ago ... he said this, "Labour changed society for The Better in 1945 to1951 but when people have to pay more tax "they don't tell you that thay vote tory, BUT THEY DO! " ... His words stand up today!.
My own view is that people in England are simply strongly bound to voting Tory, its hard for Labour to make headway among an English voting public..(either in the rural areas or wealthy suburbs, the working class Tory vote is also strong..I hate saying this as well..My friends parents doing working class jobs in the 1980s all voted Thatcher and now complain about a NHS in a mess..I think people get the governments they vote for..
I think electoral reform could help Labour..
@@kailashpatel1706 You have to get into power to do that !!!
@@merseydave1 Labour was in power between 1997 and 2010 and did not move the dial forward on that issue at all..
In 2017 right-wing Labour MPs and Labour Head Office acted utterly traitorously dueing the election campaign to make sure that Corbyn did not win, and even then he nearly did in a massive turnaround for the Labour vote. That's why the establishment went after him full bore, and installed the Manchurian establishment candidate Starmer.
I am old enough to remember when the left wing had a stranglehold on the Labour Party in the 1970s through the 1980s. When the ridiculous 1983 General Election Labour Manifesto, with its pledges of Unilateral Nuclear Disarmament and sweeping nationalisations, was described as "The longest suicide note in history". As indeed was proved when the results came in. And again at the next General Election. And the one after that. And the one after that.
From 1979 to the present time in 2023 Labour have only held power for 30% of those last 44 years - the 13 years from 1997 to 2010.
Peter Mandelson put it very well recently when talking about the General Elections from 1979 onwards:
"Defeat, defeat, defeat, defeat.
Blair, Blair, Blair.
Defeat, defeat, defeat, defeat."
I very much hope that the current Labour Party can finally learn the lesson from their past.
Blair only won because of Brown in 2005.
@@Dbdbe1
Frankly, I do not agree with you but OK then:
"Defeat, defeat, defeat, defeat.
Blair, Blair, Blair & Brown.
Defeat, defeat, defeat, defeat."
Happy now? 🙂
Brown did not win the 2005 election, Blair was PM and Labour leader at the time so he did.
Anyway, it was Peter Mandelson who said it. Not me.
Amazing how people get outraged that a left wing party should have left wing policies.
Labour MPs who disagree with a manifesto too left wing for their liking should refuse to go forward for selection or be deselected. The right has won and should be happy that it can continue to implement Thatcherism indefinitely with the support of a majority of the population under FPTP even if the left lives rent free in its head.
Neil Kinnock was/is so bloody embarrassing, appalled he’s a fellow Welshman.
You need to add your commercials at the appropriate times!!!
The person who posts the video has no control about when the adverts appear. They’re put in by TH-cam, and the timing will vary each time you watch.
This isn’t the same as TV you know!
I’m surprised you put up with them.
1:49:41 "I warn you not to be ordinary" could still be a sogan of the left (and alas, many others, today, albeit with a very different meaning.
It's amazing that Labour actually believed that Benn, Foot, Healy or even Kinnock could ever be voted PM ...
Healey was a much more plausible candidate than the other three. Tough old bruiser but also a very clever and accomplished man. Read his autobiography.
Lord Healey was too bored to bother to even beat Michael Foot ... do you actually think he had the energy to go against Thatcher ?
@@Dbdbe1agree
Denis Healey is the greatest leader Britian NEVER had!
If the comment is any guide it seems unlikely that evangeloss54 does that much reading.
Corbyn proving he has spoken bollocks for many a year.
The man who saved socialism in Britain and the last chance to reverse Thatcherism. No history book will share your opinion as the verdict on his leadership. The electorate has an unerring ability to be fooled by the Tories ( over 100 years and counting, including the red Tories since Blair) and voting against their own self interest in every election since 1979, despite warnings of the consequences throughout the eighties. They cannot complain about a system that is rigged in favour of the rich ( the whole point of Thatcherism) when they vote for it, including so called 'new' Labour and the red Tories in control of Labour now.
supporters of tony ben here come off very well in retrospect.
Only those who can spell Benn.
@@ralphdavidson9542 yes, obviously ours in an age in which the labour movement must prioritise spelling pedantry above all other concerns. is it labour or labor BTW? my spellcheck doesn't know
@@ralphdavidson9542 ignoramus
True
Don't agree with this at all to be honest. Benn's challenge of Healey, especially when Foot wanted unity, looks completely ludicrous in retrospect, especially only a couple years from an election when Thatcher was really struggling with the economy and didn't exactly look on track to win. Obviously the Falklands helped her hugely, but the years of stupid infighting in Labour did poor Foot absolutely no favours when he was destroyed at that election. Also, the left-wing Euroscepticism has aged like milk in my opinion.
Oh Tannenbaum, oh Tannenbaum, Labour hängt am Gartenzaun!
Und dass nicht nur zur Sommerszeit, nein auch im Winter wenn es schneit.
Oh Gaslatern, oh Gaslatern, wie haben dich die Hunde gern.
Next. Labour the Starmer Tory years
Boooo
What do you know back in the wilderness for 13 years haha
Roy Hattersley was truly odious.
Were back in Government (1997-2010) Hong Kong returns to Chinese Rule, Scotland first Parliament since 1707 & Wales first Parliament since 1536 occurred during the period.
What did he really achieve though?
what's wrong with devolution?
And?
More took power in 1999.@@thedualtransition6070
The handover of Hong Kong was arranged and scheduled by the previous Tory government. Nothing to do with Blair.
Tony Benn being incredibly prescient through this whole thing
Tony Blair IRA lover.
Oh p!ss off!!!! 😠
What a ridiculous comment to make, the man helped to bring peace to an embattled country which was sick of conflict, as a reminder Big Ian shared power with Martin Mc, does that make him a terrorist lover too ?
Yes stupid comment
Well rounded argument ffs