Politically

The American presidential election in November 1956 coincided with two of the greatest crises of the postwar era: Suez and Hungary.

In July of that year, the Suez Canal had been nationalised by Egypt’s President Nasser. It provoked alarm and outrage in Britain and France, and it led to a joint Anglo-French-Israeli invasion of Egypt that in turn produced an international outcry.

Meanwhile, in October an uprising in Hungary against Soviet rule prompted an invasion by the Red Army and a brutal campaign of repression.

This series is about the interplay of these three overlapping dramas – the Suez crisis, the Hungarian revolution and the American presidential election – and their consequences for the world. Between them these events shattered the illusions of the postwar world: about British power, about Soviet tolerance of dissent, about American commitment to democracy, about European solidarity, about the future of the Middle East and about the power of international institutions.

Seventy years on David Runciman explores how these events in late 1956 represent a watershed in twentieth-century history.

Today: why the Suez Canal mattered and how President Nasser triggered British and French fears.

On 26th July 1956, almost four years to the day since he seized power in a military coup, Gamal Abdel Nasser, the President of Egypt, informed a crowd of 100,000 people in Cairo’s Liberation Square that he was nationalising the Suez Canal.

Nasser’s action prompted a diplomatic, political and ultimately military crisis that would cost a British prime minister his job and his reputation. It also exposed how, in an age increasingly hungry for the oil that was transported through the canal, the old European powers feared the waning of their authority and with it their prosperity. The Suez canal had been acquired by Britain in the course of building its global empire. Would its loss signal the end of Britain’s imperial illusions?

Producer: Martin Williams

The American presidential election in November 1956 coincided with two of the greatest crises of the postwar era: Suez and Hungary.

In July of that year, the Suez Canal had been nationalised by Egypt’s President Nasser. It provoked alarm and outrage in Britain and France and it led to a joint Anglo-French-Israeli invasion of Egypt that in turn produced an international outcry. Meanwhile, in October an uprising in Hungary against Soviet rule prompted an invasion by the Red Army and a brutal campaign of repression.

This series is about the interplay of these three overlapping dramas – the Suez crisis, the Hungarian revolution and the American presidential election – and their consequences for the world. Between them these events shattered the illusions of the postwar world: about British power, about Soviet tolerance of dissent, about American commitment to democracy, about European solidarity, about the future of the Middle East and about the power of international institutions.

Seventy years on David Runciman explores how these events in late 1956 represent a watershed in twentieth-century history.

The US Presidential election took place on 6th November. The sitting president Dwight D Eisenhower was seeking re-election on a platform promising “peace and prosperity.” But he faced a dilemma.

At midnight, British and French paratroopers had landed at the Suez Canal and were engaged in hand-to-hand fighting with the local Egyptian population. At the same time Soviet tanks and soldiers were fighting pitched battles with Hungarian civilians on the streets of Budapest.

Britain was America’s closest ally. The USSR was America’s fiercest foe.

How could Eisenhower support a British invasion whilst condemning a Soviet one?

Producer: Martin Williams

The American presidential election in November 1956 coincided with two of the greatest crises of the postwar era: Suez and Hungary.

In July of that year, the Suez Canal had been nationalised by Egypt’s President Nasser. It provoked alarm and outrage in Britain and France and it led to a joint Anglo-French-Israeli invasion of Egypt that in turn produced an international outcry. Meanwhile, in October an uprising in Hungary against Soviet rule prompted an invasion by the Red Army and a brutal campaign of repression.

This series is about the interplay of these three overlapping dramas – the Suez crisis, the Hungarian revolution and the American presidential election – and their consequences for the world. Between them these events shattered the illusions of the postwar world: about British power, about Soviet tolerance of dissent, about American commitment to democracy, about European solidarity, about the future of the Middle East and about the power of international institutions.

Seventy years on David Runciman explores how these events in late 1956 represent a watershed in twentieth-century history.

The former Green Party leader speaks to James Naughtie about her years in Parliament, and how it feels to see her party thrive just as she stands down.

In fourteen years, Caroline Lucas never held ministerial office and so had to find other ways to exercise power and influence. She discusses working with others, listening to people you disagree with, and getting arrested for your beliefs.

Producers: Giles Edwards and Najiba Feroz.

The former Chancellor reflects with James Naughtie on tough choices and political resurrection.

Jeremy Hunt held four Cabinet jobs - including almost six years as Health Secretary, and then Foreign Secretary under Theresa May. After he was defeated by Boris Johnson in their battle for the Conservative leadership, he thought his ministerial career was over, only to be called back by Liz Truss after her mini-budget.

In this episode of Reflections he discusses all that with James Naughtie, as well as a famous radio moment the two shared.

Producers: Giles Edwards and Joel Massey.

The former Governor of California oversaw the world's fifth largest economy for sixteen years, ran three times for the Democratic nomination for President of the United States, and over the course of his public life has known every president from John F. Kennedy to Donald Trump.

In this interview with James Naughtie, Jerry Brown reflects on the importance of limits in the Jesuitical and Buddhist traditions, and how he took that idea into politics; on how his views on forgiveness informed his decisions to commute the sentences of people on California's Death Row; and on why if, in his words, you believe that inclination of the soul is to sin "you have to be somewhat sceptical about politics".

Producer: Giles Edwards.

There’s no doubting just how divisive Brexit was. Whatever side of the debate you sat on, the strength of feeling ran high. It split opinion, ruptured political parties and toppled Prime Ministers. In the years after the referendum the country watched while Westminster was dominated by intense wrangling , and much of Whitehall’s bandwidth was focused on Brexit. New political identities emerged - leavers and remainers - and in 2019, an entire General Election was dominated by Brexit.

Alex Forsyth speaks to Paula Surridge, Professor of Political Sociology at the University of Bristol and Rob Ford, Professor of Political Science at the University of Manchester, about the political climate pre and post-Brexit, and what we can learn about how it continues to shape our politics today.

Presenter: Alex Forsyth

In the decade since the Brexit referendum, much has been said about the effect the decision to leave had on the UK. But what is the view from Europe? What did the EU make of Britain's decision to leave the European Union, and how have they adapted in the years since?

Alex Forsyth speaks to Mujtaba Rahman, managing director for Europe at the Eurasia Group, and Jannike Wachowiak, a Research Assistant at UK in a Changing Europe, about the EU's relationship with Britain today and their appetite for reintegration.

Presenter: Alex Forsyth

The UK's fishing and farming industries were at the core of Brexiteer's arguments for regaining British sovereignty over our land and produce. For many in the industries and the areas where they worked, the EU's fishing and farming frameworks had long been a source of frustration and a symbol of wider disillusions with the EU project. Why did the two industries resonate so deeply with voters? And how have they fared in the years since Brexit?

Alex Forsyth speaks to Jill Rutter, senior fellow at the Institute for Government, and Joel Reland, senior researcher at UK in a Changing Europe, about the impact Brexit had on UK fishing and farming.

Presenter: Alex Forsyth

The UK's membership within the EU meant that when it came to science and academia, the UK and EU were close collaborators. In both sectors, close ties meant that countries could share funding, innovation, research and people without friction. But after Brexit, the UK was removed from many of the research and funding frameworks, and the end of freedom of movement restricted researchers and students from travelling to the EU for study. How did the changes imposed after Brexit impact research, innovation and study in the UK?

Alex Forsyth speaks to Dani Payne, head of education and social mobility at the independent think tank the Social Market Foundation, and Sarah Main, who was the executive director of the campaign for science and engineering during Brexit and in the years that followed, about what Brexit meant for UK science and academia.

Presenter: Alex Forsyth