← The Monocle Daily
Loading summary
Transcript61 lines
- [00:00]
A
You're listening to the Monocle Daily, first broadcast on 23 July 2025 on Monocle Radio.
- [00:07]
B
Is Israel serious about annexing the West Bank? Will the next round of Ukraine Russia talks be any more than a trip to Istanbul for all involved? And could city halls be incubators for a new generation of national leaders? I'm Andrew Muller. The Monocle Daily Start hello and welcome to the Monocle Daily. Coming to you from our studios here at Midori House in London. I'm Andrew Muller. My guests Bertu Ersholik and Chris Cermak will discuss the day's big stories. We'll assess the life and legacy of the late Ozzy Osbourne. And our on this day historical series will recall one of the great feats of improvised aviation heroics. Stay tuned. All that and more coming up right here on the Monocle Daily.
- [01:00]
C
Foreign.
- [01:06]
B
This is the Monocle Daily. I'm Andrew Muller. I'm joined today by Bertu Ershelik, a senior research fellow, Middle east security at rusi, and by Chris Charmack, Monocle's senior news editor. Hello to you both.
- [01:18]
D
Hello.
- [01:19]
B
You both have imminent trips which are likely to inflame extreme jealousy in all our listeners, much as they already are in me, frankly. Bertra, first of all, you're going to Jordan, which I have not done for ages and I recall it as delightful.
- [01:35]
A
It is delightful. I agree with that wholeheartedly. So I'm going in a few days time. I'll be there next week for a research focused workshop looking at the future of what can we do about the Middle east brokering peace, which actors can bring about peace or at least conflict resolution. We're in such a, a sort of desperate time, it feels, it seems. And so it's going to be interesting.
- [02:00]
B
Even by local standards.
- [02:01]
A
Even by local standards.
- [02:04]
B
Chris, 6 hours ago you were asking me questions about Ukraine. We were sitting in entirely the opposite chairs. We presently are. And now, and I've always wanted to say this, and now I'm asking the questions, but you, you are shortly leaving us, not permanently, but briefly for Helsinki.
- [02:22]
D
Briefly, I will be going to Helsinki next week. It's actually my first time in Helsinki, so I'm excited for that. There is this Helsinki 50 conference which basically marks 50 years of a landmark agreement called the Helsinki Final act, which basically set up the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, the osce. So they are marking that occasion and I'll be there for that, among other things. And yeah. Excited to go to Helsinki. Never, never been. I've been to Oslo, Denmark. But I've missed, I've missed Finland in my, one of my gaps in those sort of Scandinav Nordic countries.
- [02:55]
B
Have you been soliciting travel tips from our former colleague Marcus Hippy?
- [02:59]
D
I will very shortly, yes. Sadly I don't think he's going to be there, but I'm definitely going to have to get tips because he's talked in the past about us going on a trip to Helsinki. I think he's brought a few different monocle colleagues to Helsinki over the years and I missed that as well. So I'll just have to go without him this time.
- [03:16]
B
Well, we look forward to hearing about that while you are there and after you are back. We will start tonight in Israel where its parliament, the Knesset has today voted and by a thumping margin in favour of a motion in favour of annexing the West Bank. The motion is of the non binding variety. Many parliaments pass such things usually at the whim of some MP or other trying to get their pet cause and or themselves into the newspapers. But in the current fraught circumstances the symbolism is significant. Israel has annexed land it had previously occupied, claiming security considerations before the Golan Heights, taken from Syria in the Six Day War of 1967, effectively annexed in 1988. The big question which I suspect will be preoccupying many of your fellow attendees in Jordan next week is are they serious?
- [04:09]
A
Well, I think this is deeply concerning. There's been buildup towards this moment for some time, but the fact that it has now been done and this is non binding, it's been described as symbolic, but I think it showcases how this movement for asserting Israeli sovereignty over the west bank is moving past being sort of a fringe moment and is becoming more mainstream in Israeli society. And I think that is deeply concerning, especially when you consider the wider backdrop, particularly in Europe where we are in the midst of I think heightened debate and the possibility of France and the United Kingdom here preemptively recognizing or joining other states in recognizing Palestinian statehood. And in the past the Israeli right have, have threatened, have warned that if that were to happen, if France and UK would go so far as to recognize a Palestinian state, that they would respond, react by escalating in the West Bank. And it appears that today's vote as symbolic, as non binding, it as is is a step, dangerous step in that direction. And this of course will have worrying consequences across the border inside Jordan as well, which is very clear that west bank annexation which effectively disrupts, derails any hope of Palestinian statehood is a red line for Jordan as well.
- [05:36]
B
Chris, we can all remember, I think, Joe Biden, president at the time, visiting Israel shortly after October 7, 2023, and counseling Israel not to make the same mistakes America did after a similar event, that is the terror attacks of September 11, 2001. And it does strike me that despite President Biden's warning, Israel has succumbed to the same kind of giddiness that the United states did in 2001, thinking we can fix, we've got license now to do what we like. We can fix everything all at once. You know, this was why immediately you had the Rumsfeld and Wolfowitzes of the time sending memos about tipping over Iraq, despite the fact that it had nothing to do with 9 11. Does Israel have the same thing going on in its government at the moment? The whole sort of, if not now, then when?
- [06:26]
D
I mean, it has been incredibly striking over the last few, well, year and a half, really. How this did start with Gaza, which we should of course say is ongoing as we speak, despite everything else. And yet, yes, I think there, there's an interesting parallel there because when you look at the US Obviously similarly started with Afghanistan, which was the culprit, if you will, on September 11, but then did move on to Iraq. And I think even within Israel and the context of the Middle east, aside from the sort of responses to Hezbollah getting involved or Iran getting involved, the fact that, yes, this was initially about Gaza because that is where Hamas has its base, that is where Hamas attacked from. To then go from that to say we are thinking of taking over and annexing the West Bank. The west bank is controlled by a different group. So it doesn't really make sense from that perspective to say this is a security issue. It does, I think, just show, as Berju was saying as well, that this is a response to some of the international community's efforts on not only France and the UK Potentially recognizing a Palestinian state, but there's going to be a summit in just a few days of the United nations about recognizing a Palestinian state. So you have to imagine that this is coming in that context.
- [07:44]
B
But it's a bleak thought, but probably a justifiable one. Do we have to assume that the MPs who are driving this in the Knesset, when they talk about annexing the west bank, they are talking exclusively about the the territory of the West Bank. They are not proposing to welcome the 3 million Palestinians living on the west bank into Israel as full citizens?
- [08:09]
A
Well, unfortunately, yes, I think it would be fair to assess that that is a presumption of course, we have seen over the past few weeks and months an acceleration of the rhetoric around displacing, finding alternative options for the Palestinians in Gaza, and that Israel effectively sought the White House's support in speaking with third party countries, including Libya, Indonesia, who might house Palestinians who would quote, unquote, voluntarily seek to move. And so could we see that kind of model being replicated in the West Bank? Potentially, I fear to say this is part of the Israeli mindset now, the deep trauma of 7 October, which has been described as a, as a paradigm shift, I think we really need to get our minds around that. At the same time, though, your point about, you know, the parallels with the post 911 thinking in the American establishment are very sharp. The fact that Israel now looks out and sees adversaries, enemies, aggressors everywhere and is preemptively seeking to prevent, to deter beyond its borders and it's incredibly destabilizing. And today's step, I think, in the Knesset just confirms how far they are willing to go to prevent the two state solution from materializing. I mean, the divergence between where the international community is, where Europe is on promoting, supporting a two state solution and keeping the pathway alive and in the Middle east as well, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, others have been very vocal about the necessity and the urgency of a viable pathway to Palestinian statehood. How far the Israelis are away from that point or the right, let's say, in Israel are away from that. The divergence, I think, in the two visions for how to resolve this just came into sharp relief today, I think.
- [10:12]
B
And just finally on this, Chris, might the Israelis also be seized by the idea of going back to the whole, if not now, then when mindset that it's, you know, it is conventional wisdom that really the only restraint that can be placed on Israel from elsewhere is from the United States. And I think Israel has probably internalized that. The current US Administration really couldn't care less what Israel does. And they might be thinking that if we're going to do this, we should do it now because three and a half years from now President Cortez might not be so indulgent.
- [10:51]
D
Well, I mean, yes, I think there's absolutely a thinking there. We should point out to that, to Burji's point as well, about what to do with the Palestinians who are currently in the West Bank. Of course, Donald Trump himself has suggested that those in Gaza should perhaps just leave and that this sort of idea of displacing Palestinians came in a way from him. Surely it's something that the far right in Israel has always thought about, about and wanted, but he was the one who actually expressed it. And so I think, yes, Donald Trump has given Israel license not only for its attacks, but even for this kind of suggestion that they are going to annex the west bank. And not only annex it, but yes, to maybe move the Palestinians elsewhere to displace them. Because that too, to Berjer's point, is not an obvious situation. I do remember even speaking to a Palestinian, the head of the there's a Palestinian museum, oddly enough, surprisingly very small in Connecticut in the United States. And the head of that museum, I remember after the October 7th attacks was still saying that in his mind, a two state solution was not the answer. There would actually have to be a coexisting of Palestinians and Israelis. And that was something he still hoped for and believed in the future. But I think that too now, aside from a two state solution, that one state solution idea with Palestinians and Israelis together looks extremely far away.
- [12:18]
B
Well, Istanbul now, where Ukrainian and Russian representatives have begun meeting as we speak. Like two previous such encounters, this is likely to be very far from the president to president summit that Ukraine's Volodymyr Zelenskyy has offered his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin, before Ukraine's delegation will be led by Ukraine's Security Council chief, Rustem Umarov. While Russia has once again been unable to scare up anyone more senior than former Culture Minister Vladimir Medinsky, Ukraine has signalled that it is willing to work to bring the war an end. Russia merely that it expects the talks to be difficult, by which, Chris, I think we can infer that Russia intends to make the talks difficult. Is this going anywhere?
- [13:03]
D
I mean, as usual? Sadly, probably not, no. Russia has also clearly made clear that they don't expect much from this. I think what's interesting for me, and this is what we were talking about essentially, Andrew, earlier today on the briefing, it's how the dynamics here have shifted because yes, maybe nothing, nothing was always particularly expected from this, but nonetheless, the fact that Donald Trump had issued this ultimatum and threat of tariffs if a ceasefire was not agreed in 50 days had put the pressure on Russia to try and make a move here, at least come to the table. Ukraine took advantage of that by basically proposing these talks and saying, come on, we've got this deadline from Trump, let's get to work on it. So the onus on Russia was to respond until you had this situation now in Ukraine with, with Volodymyr Zelenskyy confronting anti corruption agencies in his country drawing protests for that in his country, which will continue tonight. So this is happening in parallel with these talks from Russia and it is something with Russia and it is something that much of not only Ukraine, but Europe is focused on at that moment. So that at this moment. So that too, I think, just reduces further the pressure for Russia to make any kind of concessions today in those peace talks.
- [14:23]
B
But there's been a problem which a lot of people have identified for some time now with stopping this war, which is that Russia doesn't want the war to stop. Russia gains nothing from stopping the war. Is there now an additional problem that following US President Trump's recent big idea, that Russia now feels like, well, we've been given 50 days. We've got 50 days in which we can let fly at Ukraine as much as we like and we can try to establish further facts on the ground and on previous form. If we come back to this in 50 days, he'll have forgotten all about it or changed his mind or moved on to something else.
- [15:02]
A
I think it certainly plays into Putin's hand in the wider Russian establishment in that stall tactics, war of attrition, buying time, slowing things down, making as much progress on the ground in Ukraine as possible during this window and at the end of the 50 days, then Putin will assess where he is, what he's gained, what he's lost, if anything, and where to go from there. So it's very much sort of the mentality of, well, we'll cross that bridge when we get there. For now, they're playing the game of, you know, they've sent a low level, mid level at best, a delegation to Istanbul. From Turkey's perspective, it's important that the prosp, from a process oriented perspective, that these talks are ongoing, Istanbul's hosting, facilitating these talks, I think there's very little expectation that, that they will actually lead anywhere, unfortunately, just to follow that up.
- [15:55]
B
Bertru Turkey playing host again. Why do both sides seem to trust Turkey? I mean, obviously there's a certain geographical elegance to Turkey being the place that hosts these talks. Istanbul in particular, the literal gateway to the Black Sea. But Turkey does seem to have found a way to maintain actually quite good relations with both countries.
- [16:18]
A
That's right. And I don't think that's any small feat. I think Turkey diplomatically has been quite agile and flexible as a NATO member state in balancing its relationship with Russia, which has not been easy. Turkish predating Ottoman rivalry with Russia, of course, is a long and fraught history. But since the, since Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Turkey has played a very careful balancing act of supporting Ukraine politically militari in terms of supplying armed drones and other arsenal, but also not buying into or not implementing Western sanctions against Russia. And in this way Turkey has positioned itself as an actor that has value to the United States and the international community as a party that can speak to both sides. But make no mistake that Turkey and Russia are not close allies. It's a very fraught competitive relationship and they have sort of encountered, confronted each other in Libya, in Syria and other in the caucuses. So this is veryit's very delicate but it's important for an actor like Turkey, I think to be able to facilitate these talks. I think the process matters. I think Turkey has demonstrated that it is. Well, it's applied its responsibilities under the Montreux Convention in blocking Russian naval vehicles in the Black Sea, vessels in the Black Sea. And so these matter, especially at a time when the broader context is Turkey's growing important significance potential. However, we could describe it in Europe's security architecture and that is the backdrop. And I think the visual of this is if we think back, I think it was in February and it was after the Zelenskyy Oval Office call out and Zelenskyy visited Turkey and under the rain, President Erdogan, Turkish President Erdogan held an umbrella over President Zelenskyy's head and it was after this incident in the White House. In that sense, I think the telegraphing of that was clear in that Erdogan was not only ready to defend and protect Ukraine's interest. Of course Turkey supports Ukraine's territorial integrity, but also Turkey's messaging was there directed at Europe and that we are on your side in this and you can sort of lean on us.
- [18:48]
B
And Chris, just finally on this, you mentioned earlier, as indeed we discussed on the briefing earlier, the uproar occurring in domestic Ukrainian politics over President Zelenskyy's apparent suborning of Ukraine's anti corruption bodies. Does that make Ukraine's position at these talks weaker? Because clearly this is an absolute propaganda gift to Russia and to Ukraine's detractors among conservative Americans in particular.
- [19:16]
D
Yes, I think it is a distraction for Ukraine itself because Ukraine is protesting at this moment about its own government rather than focusing on the war with Russia. But also absolutely. I think it creates a dangerous perception that always existed in Ukraine, right. That it is a nation that has in the past been quite high in corruption indexes. This has always been a problem that Ukraine had, but something that it was praised for over the mass last year, few years, particularly since Russia's full scale invasion, for getting a handle on, for tackling the anti corruption agencies were helped. Europe helped set those up in the first place. And I think the danger is that just in this moment as well, where Donald Trump has turned, where he has suggested that he is more on Ukraine's side, he's willing to give them weapons to offer more support, even if the Europeans are paying for them. This kind of thing plays into that narrative that what are we doing with our money? If Europe and the US are giving money money to Ukraine, where does it go? Does it go to the right people or does it just end up in the pockets of corrupt politicians? To put it quite directly, Zelenskyy is obviously defending this move. He's saying he's still very much wanting to tackle anti corruption measures and so on and so forth. He met with the agencies today. But nonetheless that perception is now going to be top in the mind of many people both in Ukraine and outside. Once again.
- [20:40]
B
Well, to New York City and to a mayoral race which may prove to be some sort of illustration of a wider global tre. Mayoral race, however, may be the wrong term. Though the election is not until November, the Republican contender has as much chance of winning as I do. The incumbent and one former state governor are running as semi disgraced independents. And the Democratic nomination has been locked up by New York State assembly member Zoran Mamdani, who will be the next mayor of New York City if he makes it to November without punching a baby. People around the world hopeful of discovering the antidote to hyper conservative populism are wondering if someone like Mamdani might be it. But first of all, there are reports that the mayor of this city, that is London, that is Sir Sadiq Khan, is advising Mamdani. Should Mamdani listen? Or is New York perhaps not London and London not New York?
- [21:36]
A
I think in terms of the space for creative politics at the local level, at the grassroots level, and then London and New York are both cosmopolitan and hubs and centers of global cities really that matter on the world stage. I think there is a correlation there. I think New York is different. It has its own sort of sensibilities, its own dynamics. I think American politics, New York matters greatly in the context of wider American politics, highly polarized, polarizing politics. So New York is distinct in that way. But again, the space for creative agency, grassroots politics, politics being kind of scaled up to influence mega policy decisions, I think that matters. And making space for non majority or marginalized disenfranchised voices. I think London can certainly serve as a meaningful blueprint for New York in that sense.
- [22:38]
B
Do cities work though, Chris? Perhaps as a training ground for national office because they are an opportunity to demonstrate whether or not you can actually govern, like whether you can get the stuff done that does really matter to people. People getting potholes filled, bins collected, etc. But even beyond that, this, this week for example, it's reported in Baltimore that they have had the lowest number of murders ever recorded in a city where violent crime's been a problem. This is on the watch of Brandon Scott, who was a guest on Monocle Radio's the Big Interview last year, I think, and his approach to murder, for example, has been much criticized by people who think you're being, or he's being soft on criminals and a bit touchy feely about it. To which his answer is I don't care it work? Yes.
- [23:24]
D
I mean I think there's absolutely a case to make for cities being testing grounds for certain measures that might be sort of extended to the national level. That's often what happens. And obviously Baltimore is an example maybe of a city where if the mayor really proves himself with these measures, then you gain a national profile. What's interesting to me, and I think maybe, let's say the danger with a place like New York in my mind by comparison is New York is always in the front line, right? It's always in the public eye and you basically always have a mayor of New York considering whether they have a national ambition after that. Rudy Giuliani, Mike Bloomberg, I mean you've always had New York mayors go for that bigger stage. At the same time, what's so interesting if you compare say the Giuliani's and the Bloombergs to Mamdani is they tried to govern somewhat from the center. They were moderate Republicans or in Bloomberg's case, once a Republican, once a Democrat, once an Independent. Who knows where he is now? Mamdani is coming from the far left and I think that's what's going to be the most interesting thing about this because of course he's going to win the New York mayoral race. At this point that seems pretty clear. But he is going to have to show that he can also govern and that he can also show some progress in New York because New York does have a crime problem. It is something that needs to be faced. And Republicans in the US love to bash New York. They're going to love to bash Dash Mamdani. And just to combine the two, I did see A headline which I did have to laugh. This is from the Daily Telegraph, so of course. But nonetheless, Sadiq Khan has finally met a would be mayor worse than him. This is the narrative right from, from the right in countries, the big bad democratic mayors that can't really run their cities, crime runs rampant, et cetera, et cetera. Is Mamdani going to kind of lean into just being the anti Trump, which he can do very effectively and sort of work from the left and be the hero of the left with his rhetoric. That's not gonna be enough to actually get something done on the national stage to bring people together to confront Trump in a way that will actually convince people in more centrist states, more centrist cities as well, that he has what it takes. I'm just, I'm really fascinated to see what he's actually going to do if.
- [25:54]
B
He gets into built difficulty though. Bertra, just finally on this, in trying to convert a city leader into a national figure is that in a big, big cities are more likely to trend liberal and vote left. Not exclusively, but more likely because they tend to be cosmopolitan places. A brief wrap up I was doing basically from my own recollection, so this may not be scientific, of big city mayors who in relatively recent years have become national leaders. See if you can spot what's in common. I come up with Boris Johnson, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Jacques Chirac, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and more recently Nikosurdan. It tends to be conservatives who can make that leap.
- [26:36]
A
That's quite a lineup there.
- [26:38]
B
I was pleased with it.
- [26:40]
A
Well done. Yes. Conservative leaning towards heavy handed authoritarian tendencies, I suppose of some of those names. Potentially. Yeah. It's difficult and I think the challenge is how to translate these lofty, highly romantic, romanticized ideas and principles has been espousing and is known for into the act of actual governance. How do you bring down the cost of groceries? How do you raise minimum wage? How do you justify and find consistency across these pledges and the difference between the electoral campaign, the ideology that feeds into this narrative and then succeeding post election, post win, I think are two different stories. So let's hope that he and his team are aware of these challenges and are prepared.
- [27:33]
D
Can I just jump in there and say this is the point that's fascinating. Right. Because conservatives have often used the mayorship to show that they are the ones that can work with the left. They come from the right and into the center and they are the ones who can win in a leftist sort of area. Big city like New York, that's something that Mandani is not going to have. He has to go the other way. But New Yorkers aren't going to let him, so what's he going to prove?
- [27:57]
B
Chris Chermak and Bertu Ersherlik, thank you both for joining us. You're listening to the Daily on Monocle Radio. We will be back shortly. You are listening to the Daily with me, Andrew Muller. Eighteen days ago, Birmingham heavy metal pioneers Black Sabbath played what was billed in advance as singer Ozzy Osbourne's last ever show at the top of a long bill comprised of just some of the uncountable artists they'd influenced. Seventeen days later, that is yesterday, Ozzy Osbourne died, aged 76. All things considered, an astonishingly advanced age. Aside from Black Sabbath's colossal impact on rock and roll, Osbourne had become a pop culture fixture via reality te a trajectory from bat eating Prince of Darkness to globally adored Daft uncle. But first, by way of waking everyone up, well, I'm joined with more on Ozzy Osbourne and his legacy by Justin Quirk, creative director, editor and author, author of the acclaimed study of 80s metal. Nothing but a good time. Justin. First of all, it's. I think it's worth looking at just how completely unlikely the Black Sabbath story is. How they could possibly have got from where they started to where they got to.
- [29:52]
C
I mean, it's astonishing. I mean, I was trying to think earlier of any band where you could track a similar trajectory. I mean, there's everything counting against them at the start. You know, there's partly their own background and circumstances. You know, for listeners who don't know it, Aston in the Midlands at the time, very hard working class area dominated by networks sort of analogous to Detroit in the bad years. In some ways, on top of that, you had sort of Aussie's own chaotic lifestyle, this upbringing of really quite extreme poverty that went through sort of delinquency up until, including, you know, prison sentence for burglary, I think at one point. But crucially, just the fact that nobody existed who sounded remotely like them, you know, they essentially had to invent an entirely new genre and language for what they wanted to do. Something slower, heavier and darker than anything that had gone before. They essentially created this entire genre out of whole cloth.
- [30:50]
B
Did they ever reflect much on why they ended up sounding like that? Because you're right, obviously they weren't the first band to have played rock and roll on loud electric guitars. But there was something just so, so difficult about them, something. Something much darker, something much bleaker I.
- [31:09]
C
Think you get into the heart of it there, where I think you get two things that you can define about. And there's an obvious sonic element that really sets them apart. You said they had this much slower, very bass driven sound. Tracks like Nib, a great example of this, if anyone wants to listen to them. Tony Omi's guitar sound unique down tuned to lower the string tension because he'd lost his fingertips in a factory accident. So I couldn't handle regular guitar tension. And then Ozzy's voice, which is one of those great rock and roll calling cards. He's got this sort of, not necessarily a brilliant technical voice, but that sort of tone where you know it's him immediately. But what I think they really nailed was more than any band, they grasped that not just that the 60s had ended, but they had ended extremely badly for many people in many ways. And if there was escapism in their music, it was about survival rather than enjoyment. And, you know, think what they're doing comes sort of, you know, two years after the height of Flower Power. And is this phenomenal sort of backlash to it. There's just something so bleak about those first records. I mean, when I first heard them aged 11, I honestly got, and this is no word of a lie, 30 seconds into track one and was so freaked out by it, I ripped it off the turntable and put it at the back of the cupboard, like I bought a haunted old object into the house or something. And those first albums, I'd say the first five, there's an incredible greatest hit. So with Bruegel's the Triumph of Death on the COVID they have this absolutely palpable malevolence that I think is unlike anything that came before it.
- [32:38]
B
I mean, they did clearly tap into something. They became monumentally successful and then proved as individual human beings, sensationally ill equipped to deal with it.
- [32:49]
C
For.
- [32:50]
B
For the fans they cultivated who were extremely loyal as the. The speed with which just a couple of weeks ago Sold out demonstrates. Did the soap opera become part of the appeal at some level? I mean, I was trying to add up earlier how many times Ozzy Osbourne had been sacked, fallen out with, thrown into a canal by his bandmates. And I ran comfortably into double figures.
- [33:16]
C
It was quite exhausting when you. I mean, it's the full Spinal Tap. I mean, obviously in terms of why they fell in and out so much. You obviously enormous and I mean really Herculean levels of drug and alcohol intake unbelievably punishing tours. I mean, they were working on A schedule where their first five albums, which I would say are all nailed on brilliant end to end. They released them in three years. Five records in three years, from about 76 onwards. You got quite serious creative differences. There were legal disputes over both the ownership of the name and contractual issues over what terms various members would or wouldn't tour over health issues, primarily with drummer Bill Ward. But what was almost more interesting, and I think to your point there, of what kept the fans engaged, was what brought them back together. And I think the eternal truth for a band of their kind of standing is that whatever your personal difference is the respect that history accords you will be down to the times when you could stand to be in a room together, together and get on the stage together. And they clearly had this real bond that I think you can only get from going through that with other people. And the post in the last 24 hours from his bandmates have been really extremely moving. And Geezer Butler posted last night and just said four kids from Aston. Who'd have thought it?
- [34:35]
B
Black Sabbath was not the. Well, it was not the whole of it. It's the cornerstone of his legacy, but it's not all of it. There was, of course, a solo career as a musician and a kind of separate career as a pop culture phenome and via reality television. Do you see those as in any way linked to the Sabbath thing?
- [34:58]
C
Yeah, I think they have to be. I mean, his solo work is really remarkable in the 80s, not just for its quality, but also that he managed what rock bands very seldom manage, which is he sort of bridged into a new decade. You know, it's often very, very hard for people to jump into a new decade from the one which they defined very strongly. But I think what links that then to the later reality TV work is that I think he grasped very strongly from 881 onwards that that decade was going to be about the music video and mtv. And in the same way, I think, in the noughties, he, or at least the people around him, grasped that that decade was going to be about reality television. And for someone like me, obviously, the show is not what I would class as his best work, but it played no small part in introducing him to an entirely new generation of fans. And I think also, you know, without being too cynical, I think it gained him a degree of financial security that I'm not certain he would have had otherwise, given the contractual hoopla that the band had been through at various times before that.
- [36:07]
B
And just finally, Justin, if there are listeners for whom Black Sabbath and Osbourne solo work may have passed them by and whose curiosity has been piqued aside from recommending finding obviously that they read your book that title again, nothing but a good time. Is there a particular Sabbath or Osborne record you would suggest they sit down and start with?
- [36:30]
C
Well, the obvious ones are just on any of the greatest hits, but I'd say if you want to go a little bit off piste, I would recommend Planet Caravan off Paranoid, which is this very sort of strange ghostly ambient track. Really gives an idea of their range and qualities. And then from all these 80s metal phase, go for Shot in the Dark.
- [36:47]
B
Justin Quirk, author of Nothing But a Good Time. Thanks for joining us. You're listening to the Monocle Daily. And finally on today's show, our on this Day historical series recalls an air disaster that wasn't you will, at some point in your professional life, have screwed something up at work, failed to fully enact a crucial procedure, neglected a key detail, assumed something rather than checked it. You have probably felt sheepish or foolish afterwards, or at least should have. Nobody is being paid to balls things up. You have probably also, in the aftermath of any such mishap, availed yourself of off of the consolation that, well, grand scheme of things, no real harm done, etc. But then you have probably never waved off an airliner without sufficient fuel on board. On July 23, 1983, someone did, and the crew did not discover this until they were 12 and a half thousand metres above the ground. Hello, Kevin, we think we have problems with our future fuel system.
- [38:08]
D
We are diverting to Winnipeg.
- [38:12]
B
Yes, there have been bad dramatizations. It is probably important to make clear, for the benefit of listeners who may be somewhat anxious flyers or merely just trying to enjoy their day generally, that this story does have a happy ending and indeed an uplifting moral to the effect that it reminds and reassures of the stone cold nervelessness of those who serve aboard passenger aircraft whose capacities in an emergency most of us will never fully appreciate, even if we rank among the most frequent of flyers.
- [38:55]
C
Above and beyond.
- [38:57]
D
That's the Air Canada.
- [39:00]
B
The flight in question was Air Canada 143 from Montreal to Edmonton via Ottawa. The aircraft, a Boeing 767. The plane was not especially full. Just 61 passengers, along with the eight crew and all aboard would have been anticipating a comfortable, mundane flight. All aboard had indeed had a comfortable, mundane flight until roughly over Red Lake, Ontario, the left engine failed. This is not grounds for panic. Airliners can fly on one engine and AC143's pilots, Captain Bob Pearson, first Officer Maurice Quintal, began working on plans to divert to Winnipeg. Then the right engine failed and so did the electronic flight instruments in the cockpit. This is grounds for panic, although at the very real risk of giving away the ending, nobody did. Even when they leafed through the flight manuals for the section explaining how to fly a767 with no engines and discovered that there wasn't one. In these self evidently sub optimal circumstances, AC143 did have a couple of things going for for it. One was the 767's Ram Air Turbine, an ingenious propeller device which can be deployed from stricken aircraft to generate electricity from the onrushing wind. This restored at least sufficient hydraulic power to make the aircraft's ailerons and rudder respond to the pilots wrestling with the joystick. The other was the fact that Bob Pearson's hobby was flying gliders. He was now flying flying an extremely big one. What he needed to figure out, and fast, was where he was flying at 2. They were not going to make it to Winnipeg. First Officer Quintal recalled a former military airfield at Gimli in Manitoba. He'd been stationed there while serving with the Royal Canadian Air Force. It lacked the emergency services one would prefer to have had on hand for what was likely to be a bumpy landing at best. But it was a flat surface and they were not in a position to be fussy. What Quintal didn't know was that the Gimli airfield was now substantially a motorsport venue, which, as AC143 dropped towards it, was hosting the Winnipeg Sports Car Club's Family day and was accordingly a swarm with vehicles and people. Short of someone dropping a WASP's nest in AC143's cockpit, it is difficult to imagine that things could have been worse. On final approach, AC143 was coming in too high, too fast, sideways. With the left wing perilously dipped In a bid to take some speed off, and on two sets of wheels. They'd had to rely on gravity to lower the landing gear. And the nose wheels hadn't locked. As startled Winnipegian motorsports enthusiasts bolted for safety, Pearson straight straightened the aircraft up and planted it in a shower of sparks caused by the fuselage grinding along the asphalt, somehow hitting nobody in its noisy screech to a halt, a fire erupted in the plane's nose. Winnipegian motorsports enthusiasts dealt with the blaze with portable extinguishers intended to address exploding Go karts. The only injuries sustained during the entire incident were bumps and and scrapes incurred as passengers were bundled down the slides, descending precipitously from the uptilted rear of the plane. The velocity as you descend it was.
- [42:49]
C
Quite incredible, and when you hit the.
- [42:50]
B
Tarmac you bounced out about 10ft, skinning.
- [42:53]
D
Your elbows and slamming yourself back into the pavement.
- [42:56]
B
The plane itself was sufficiently intact that after repairs and a new coat of paint, it returned to the Air Canada fleet and remained in service until 2000 date. What had happened was essentially this. Before takeoff from Montreal, the computer system which monitored the 767's fuel had been playing up. The fuel load had therefore been calculated manually at Montreal, again at Ottawa, and among various miscommunications, it had been forgotten that the plane, new to Air Canada, ran on metric measurements. Those who had checked its fuel method measures had been thinking in Imperial. This day, 42 years ago, endures as a lesson in the virtues of a final check before hitting send. God, it's going to be annoying if anyone writes in pointing out a factual error in this. And that is all for this edition of the Monocle Daily. Thanks to our panelists today, Bertu Ershelik and Chris Chermack, also to Justin Quirk. Today's show was produced by Hassan Addison and researched by Henry King. Our sound engineer was Steph Chungu. I'm Andrew Muller here in London. The Daily returns at the same time tomorrow. Thanks for listening.
- [44:28]
C
Sam.