In praise of … Terence Rattigan
A great injustice was done when the plays of Rattigan were swept aside by the Royal Court-led theatrical revolution of the 1950s
It has long been recognised that a great injustice was done when the plays of Terence Rattigan were swept aside by the Royal Court-led theatrical revolution of the 1950s. But the centenary of Rattigan's birth has not only brought a spate of revivals – the latest is In Praise of Love at the Royal & Derngate, Northampton. It has shown that the very qualities for which Rattigan was once so despised are a source of strength. His work was thought to epitomise a deeply English upper-class verbal and emotional reticence. But although it is true that Rattigan was, as Winston Churchill observed on a visit to Flare Path, "a master of understatement", his work is also a sustained assault on our fear of passion and commitment. In After the Dance, a marriage needlessly dies because neither partner can admit to the love they feel. The Deep Blue Sea, arguably Rattigan's greatest play, shows a heroine driven to attempted suicide by the desertion of a lover who cannot fulfil her sexual and emotional needs. And in Cause Célèbre, now at the Old Vic, he does belated justice to Alma Rattenbury, who in the 1930s was thought to have committed a crime worse than murder: the seduction of her 18-year-old chauffeur. It helped, of course, that Rattigan learned about dramatic structure by studying the Greeks at school. But the centenary revivals have forced us to recognise the real truth about Rattigan: that behind the quietly oblique dialogue lies a profound understanding of the human heart and an awareness of the illogicality of love.
Health reforms: Second opinion
Andrew Lansley felt the need to go to the Commons yesterday and express confidence in his bill.
The need for a public vote of confidence is reliably more instructive than the ringing terms in which it is couched, as many a football manager knows to his cost. After being hung out to dry in the press, Andrew Lansley felt the need to go to the Commons yesterday and express confidence in his health bill. He did so even though he has already steered his legislation most of the way through that house, and even as he announced a review so vague that the bill's final shape is utterly unknown. No wonder he sounded miserable.
The pretext for yesterday's pause for thought was the "genuine concern" of many who work in the service; in truth the opposition of the medical profession had long been expected. Having left Mr Lansley alone in the lab to brew up explosive plans, David Cameron wobbled as to the wisdom of exposing the potion to sunlight at the turn of the year, but with the bill about to be published he resolved to take the doctors' brickbats, keep calm and carry on. What has really changed is the party politics.
As Liberal Democrats have studied the small print that Mr Cameron did not bother with until the ink had dried, the realisation dawned that a coalition which they are a part of was proposing to dismantle a nationwide structure in whose founding Liberals had once played a proud part. Mealy-mouthed for too long in addressing Tory excesses, Nick Clegg has been forced by his party to stand up to his partners on this one. With terrible judgment, the Lib Dem health minister Paul Burstow signed off on the abolition of the primary care trusts that his own party's manifesto and the coalition agreement had committed to democratise. Former doctor Evan Harris rallied Lib Dem opposition around this flagrant breach of promise at his party's spring conference and among the lords. He has now set out a long list of "essential amendments" that would effectively rewrite the entire bill. Mr Lansley seemed at pains yesterday not to preclude any of these specific changes. Rarely if ever in history can a defeated backbencher have held the sort of cards in his hand that Mr Harris is holding today.
What matters, of course, is how far the open tone of Mr Lansley's remarks translates into an open mind in refining the bill. No one is pretending that the NHS can drift on as it is – money is tight, and about to get tighter, while the pressure of ever more elderly people will only intensify. But the health secretary can no longer pretend that he has all the answers. Simply delaying things while Messrs Cameron and Clegg go on a roadshow to tell worried members of the public to calm down will not suffice.
Disempowering the expert drug rationers of Nice from doing their nasty job, and sacking commissioners who have been getting better at their work, is institutional vandalism. It ought to stop – and now. Already, half of all trusts are muddling through with temporary executives, who now have no idea where they are supposed to be muddling to. Several MPs yesterday asked Mr Lansley to apologise to those staff who have already lost their jobs in his rush to reform. If his claim to deliberating afresh without prejudice is to have credibility, he must immediately desist from creating new facts on the ground.
The lack of accountability for the new GP consortiums, which could be gobbled up by corporates and prone to conflicts of interest, must also be addressed. Above all, the dogma that the regulator must actively promote competition from all comers has to be rethought. Unless it is, family doctors who value a relationship with their local hospital could end up in court under EU competition law – the point on which Ed Miliband recently rattled an unprepared Mr Cameron. Until yesterday many parliamentarians were understandably reluctant to get embroiled in competition law and governance structures, but these things now move centre stage. For lurking in this detail is the devil who could do for the NHS.
The pretext for yesterday's pause for thought was the "genuine concern" of many who work in the service; in truth the opposition of the medical profession had long been expected. Having left Mr Lansley alone in the lab to brew up explosive plans, David Cameron wobbled as to the wisdom of exposing the potion to sunlight at the turn of the year, but with the bill about to be published he resolved to take the doctors' brickbats, keep calm and carry on. What has really changed is the party politics.
As Liberal Democrats have studied the small print that Mr Cameron did not bother with until the ink had dried, the realisation dawned that a coalition which they are a part of was proposing to dismantle a nationwide structure in whose founding Liberals had once played a proud part. Mealy-mouthed for too long in addressing Tory excesses, Nick Clegg has been forced by his party to stand up to his partners on this one. With terrible judgment, the Lib Dem health minister Paul Burstow signed off on the abolition of the primary care trusts that his own party's manifesto and the coalition agreement had committed to democratise. Former doctor Evan Harris rallied Lib Dem opposition around this flagrant breach of promise at his party's spring conference and among the lords. He has now set out a long list of "essential amendments" that would effectively rewrite the entire bill. Mr Lansley seemed at pains yesterday not to preclude any of these specific changes. Rarely if ever in history can a defeated backbencher have held the sort of cards in his hand that Mr Harris is holding today.
What matters, of course, is how far the open tone of Mr Lansley's remarks translates into an open mind in refining the bill. No one is pretending that the NHS can drift on as it is – money is tight, and about to get tighter, while the pressure of ever more elderly people will only intensify. But the health secretary can no longer pretend that he has all the answers. Simply delaying things while Messrs Cameron and Clegg go on a roadshow to tell worried members of the public to calm down will not suffice.
Disempowering the expert drug rationers of Nice from doing their nasty job, and sacking commissioners who have been getting better at their work, is institutional vandalism. It ought to stop – and now. Already, half of all trusts are muddling through with temporary executives, who now have no idea where they are supposed to be muddling to. Several MPs yesterday asked Mr Lansley to apologise to those staff who have already lost their jobs in his rush to reform. If his claim to deliberating afresh without prejudice is to have credibility, he must immediately desist from creating new facts on the ground.
The lack of accountability for the new GP consortiums, which could be gobbled up by corporates and prone to conflicts of interest, must also be addressed. Above all, the dogma that the regulator must actively promote competition from all comers has to be rethought. Unless it is, family doctors who value a relationship with their local hospital could end up in court under EU competition law – the point on which Ed Miliband recently rattled an unprepared Mr Cameron. Until yesterday many parliamentarians were understandably reluctant to get embroiled in competition law and governance structures, but these things now move centre stage. For lurking in this detail is the devil who could do for the NHS.
Ivory Coast: The final battle
Responsibility to protect loomed large in the debate about intervening in Libya, but was long curiously absent from Ivory Coast.
Responsibility to protect loomed large in the debate about intervening in Libya, but was long curiously absent from Ivory Coast. There, a large modern city with 4 million inhabitants was running out of food and water; looters roamed the streets; and a UN peacekeeping force was – until last night – sidelined to the role of outraged observers. In the end, a final assault by the presidential claimant Alassane Ouattara on the city of Abidjan began when French helicopters opened fire on a military camp of forces loyal to the former president Laurent Gbagbo. In this act, both the UN force and the supporting French one moved to centre stage.
This is not without its risks. Any move by the armed forces of a former colonial master carry the charge that the clock is being turned back and a new puppet is being installed. Until now French forces were only there to protect French nationals, and they also took over the airport. However, the conflict had probably gone too far, and France claimed it was responding to the request of the UN secretary general to neutralise the heavy weapons belonging to Gbagbo's troops. As Gbagbo spent months resisting calls from the African Union to honour the result of an election which he lost and step aside, much of the blame for Ivory Coast's relapse into civil war rests squarely on his shoulders. But not all.
The "New Forces" of Mr Ouattara contain some elements of older militias who also have blood on their hands. The International Committee of the Red Cross stuck by its claim that about 800 were killed when Mr Ouattara's forces swept through the town of Duekoue, and an account of the aftermath by the BBC's Andrew Harding makes disturbing reading. Mr Ouattara's government blamed the UN for withdrawing its forces when the fight for the town took place. As Mr Ouattara and his cabinet-in-waiting owe their survival to UN troops guarding them at a hotel, they should at least take responsibility for the behaviour of their troops. They should be told international support is contingent on correct behaviour. The besieged inhabitants of the Golf hotel have been unable to protect even the homes of their relatives, which have been targeted by Gbagbo's elite paramilitary force, Cecos. Now the situation is reversed, rebel forces have a responsibility to uphold the basic rules of warfare, such as protecting the lives of noncombatants, and taking combatants prisoner where possible. As firing could be heard from the direction of the presidential palace last night, it can only be hoped that the final battle is brief and that Gbagbo's troops seeing the writing on the wall, which had somehow eluded the gaze of their master.
This is not without its risks. Any move by the armed forces of a former colonial master carry the charge that the clock is being turned back and a new puppet is being installed. Until now French forces were only there to protect French nationals, and they also took over the airport. However, the conflict had probably gone too far, and France claimed it was responding to the request of the UN secretary general to neutralise the heavy weapons belonging to Gbagbo's troops. As Gbagbo spent months resisting calls from the African Union to honour the result of an election which he lost and step aside, much of the blame for Ivory Coast's relapse into civil war rests squarely on his shoulders. But not all.
The "New Forces" of Mr Ouattara contain some elements of older militias who also have blood on their hands. The International Committee of the Red Cross stuck by its claim that about 800 were killed when Mr Ouattara's forces swept through the town of Duekoue, and an account of the aftermath by the BBC's Andrew Harding makes disturbing reading. Mr Ouattara's government blamed the UN for withdrawing its forces when the fight for the town took place. As Mr Ouattara and his cabinet-in-waiting owe their survival to UN troops guarding them at a hotel, they should at least take responsibility for the behaviour of their troops. They should be told international support is contingent on correct behaviour. The besieged inhabitants of the Golf hotel have been unable to protect even the homes of their relatives, which have been targeted by Gbagbo's elite paramilitary force, Cecos. Now the situation is reversed, rebel forces have a responsibility to uphold the basic rules of warfare, such as protecting the lives of noncombatants, and taking combatants prisoner where possible. As firing could be heard from the direction of the presidential palace last night, it can only be hoped that the final battle is brief and that Gbagbo's troops seeing the writing on the wall, which had somehow eluded the gaze of their master.
0 comments:
Post a Comment