OK.

Hi everyone, hopefully you can hear me. OK so.

Hope you're all getting on. OK, this is the second lecture this week I recorded the.

Other lecture this morning on leisure and entertainment and sport.

And hopefully that video will be up on vital right now, either now or very shortly. So I'll check on that after this lecture as well. Excuse me if there are any ever any issues around.

Around, you know, accessing the lectures online on vital. Just let us know. Sometimes it's a bit unclear how well they've uploaded.

OK, so today then we're talking bout Churchill. The lectures entitled Churchill Malan myth. I'm sure you know we have already engaged with.

Churchill's personality and also his own writings already on this module so.

In class with my groups, we looked at the way in which.

His histories might be considered part of us or mythmaking process in those in those post war years so.

We viewed him and his writings as kind of, you know, really important part of how we might think about the cultural memory of the Second World War.

So today we're not so much thinking about the military or political perspectives, but more of Churchill as a kind of cultural figurehead, so.

Culturals Churchill's cultural significance.

Obviously reaches out beyond the war. Decades later, he is still venerated as a great wartime leader, and for many he's a key emblem of British national identity.

The prevalence of Churchill in so many contemporary cultural products and discourses has been so significant.

He now exists in British culture as a symbol. You might argue more than a historical actor.

To be clear, then Churchill has meaning, but this meaning does not necessarily arise from the actual biography of Churchill or the biographical history or Churchill.

Instead, the roots of this meaning are more likely to be found in the mythmaking that has surrounded Churchill.

So in the course of this lecture I want to consider popular perceptions of Churchill and how they've been negotiated in relation to historical events. You'll notice that there is an optional question.

On this module, so one of your essay questions ask you to think about the role of Churchill and the maintenance of morale.

So I'd argue that his role in the maintenance of morale is less about what he actually did and more about what he actually meant, so there's quite a lot to that in his kind of his manner of constructing rhetoric, and also the kind of image he portrayed as well.

That seems quite apt. Today I'm speaking on the day of the US election results. You know, you might argue more than ever. Electoral politics now is is more about image and rhetoric rather than other things such as policy for instance.

So these these kind of trends do to continue throughout the 20th century and beyond.

Also see today, though Churchill's image was used in Second World War propaganda and popular culture.

To connote British British strength.

British defiance and ultimately British victory and his Second World War speeches have been credited with maintaining morale on the Homefront. Before we do that.

If we're going to try to differentiate between Church of the Man and Churchill, the myth we first need to know something about his biographical history so it will turn to that in a second. And you know, if you just take a look on the slides here, I'm sure you've all seen films containing depictions of Winston, Winston Churchill, you know, still a very frequently returned to kind of emblem of Britishness.

So I'm sure you will have your kind of preconceptions about about Churchill, the kind of broader meanings behind his personality and his role would be really interesting to see how after today and also after the seminar, whether your sort of thoughts on him have changed at all.

So Churchill is an interesting character 'cause we tend to think of him as being a Second World War figurehead.

This kind of is prominent status, I suppose in a lot of peoples minds, but he's actually had a very long history of British politics before this, and he was a key player in the First World War.

Even even before this, the story of Churchill's relationship to the wars actually begins in his childhood.

Which chart was Churchill himself wrote about?

In his memoir My Early Life, which was published in 1930, the book proved to be hugely popular with the British public even then, prior to his key role as national leader during the Second World War. So he was already kind of generating.

The kind of public persona for himself through his writings as well as his political career by the early 1930s.

In fact, Churchill uses writing to set out his stall as an important political figure.

He deliberately sought to intervene in an craft his own place within history, by writing it himself, which we know.

Through the seminar we've had already, but he was doing this even before World War Two, as historian Paul Addison notes, Churchill wrote some of the histories that place him as the central character of the Second World War. The memoirs and histories that he wrote of the first and Second World War.

With his attempts, and this is a quote Addison to lay claim to a place in history as a prophetic statesman and genius of grand strategy.

Churchill's ambition to be regarded as a leader and his interests in Britain's military standing were cultivated at a young age. He was born in 1874 in Oxfordshire, too well off family.

His mother was a wealthy Harris and his father was Lord Randolph Churchill, the Conservative MP.

He attended Harrow and then the Military Academy. Sand Hurst and in fact the young Churchill then was no stranger to militarism or indeed to combat.

As a young boy, he developed a love of toy soldiers and war games, and historian Kenneth Brown.

Talks about the young Churchill having a playroom in the family home.

With tables filled with rope on row of toy soldiers.

When, as a young man, he graduated from Santa as he fought in the likes of the Cuban War of Independence and became a war correspondent.

He was actually captured and held as prisoner.

Prisoner of war while working as a correspondent during the Second Boer War.

So you know you have a very eventful life, you know, even before 20th century.

So keen to develop his career.

In 1900, he followed his father's foot in his father's footsteps.

And stood for Parliament and want to see as a Conservative MP.

He was MP for Oldham, though in 1904 he switched parties and joined the Liberals.

In these early years of his parliamentary career, Churchill swiftly gained a reputation for his public speaking.

And he sought to make his mark as an authority on military matters.

In his maiden speech, age 26, to the House of Commons, in 1991, he addressed MP's on the matter of South Africa.

Following the Bible and he said that there are appearances, that the birds are weakening and there were desperate and feverish efforts I've made.

So long cannot be indefinitely sustained. If that be so, now is the time for the government and the Army to redouble their efforts. It's incumbent on members.

Like myself, who represent large working class constituencies to bring home to the government. The country does not want to count the cost of war until it's won.

Immediately.

You know, he sounds kind of authoritative here.

Look sorry, I'm just not just lost the screen there. Second, for some reason will just see where I am.

OK, I think we're still here. That's good.

Right?

Sorry bout that.

So yeah, he you know he's already kind of striking this authoritative tone.

And this is a trait that would be key.

A key feature of his political career with his expertise on international matters.

Being established and you know with that credibility.

Visit kinda earlier.

Military experiences.

Churchill was appointed First Lord of the Admiralty in 1911.

Which put him in charge of all naval matters.

However, Churchill was about to enter into a crisis that.

That threatens to bring his whole political career to a premature end.

So the man that we tend to think of as the quintessential wartime leader was keen for Britain to get involved in the First World War.

As first Lord of the Admiralty, he wanted to see the Royal Navy play a key role in the conflict.

But his eagerness to see the Navy used to fill effect led to some questionable decisions.

Most notably, Churchill was criticised for his handling of the Navy during Gallipoli.

Even before the First World War Church of the game, the reputation for being gung ho.

This perception was reinforced by the events surrounding Gallipoli.

Which came out a crucial moment in the First World War. There was a shell scandal going on at this time. The government then headed by Askwith was being criticized for the fact there was a shell shortage on the frontlines. Gallipoli compounded this idea that the war was being mismanaged by the Liberals.

So what happened then? What happened at Gallipoli? Well in early 1915?

The British government were looking for alternative ways to gain an advantage. While the war on the Western Front was being taken up by slow grinding trench warfare.

That are down campaign. Is it sometimes known involved Allied troops attempting to gain control of the straight from the Ottoman Empire? A German ally as it provided a route through to Russia is on the side of the Allies.

They must use a naval attack to take Constantinople or Istanbul.

Oil and zinc grippli and the attack then don't failed.

Politically, the failure of the attack was hugely significant in Britain.

It was linked to the fall of the Liberal government, which was then replaced by a coalition.

The failure of the plan also saw Churchill get into disagreement with the First Sea Lord Admiral Fisher, resulting in Fisher resigning.

To the dismay of many Conservatives.

Remember Churchill at this point was a liberal, having defected from the conservative so you know he didn't have many fans in the Conservative Party at this time.

So with the Asquith government in crisis, the Conservatives agreed to enter into a coalition. If Churchill was demoted.

Churchill remained in government with his new lower rank as Chancellor of the did she of Lancaster for a little while longer.

Following the Gallipoli disaster, Churchill went to Dundee on 5th of June 1915.

To address what was by then his constituency. And he said, I've not come here to trouble you with personal matters.

Or to embark on explanations or to indulge in reproaches or recriminations, in wartime and man must do his duty as he sees it, and take his luck as it comes. Or goes. I will not say a word here or in Parliament which I cannot truly feel, will have a useful bearing.

Ipon the only thing that matters ipon. The only thing I care about, namely the waging of victorious war upon the enemy.

So though the damage is already done to his position as First Lord of the Admiralty.

Churchill was a man concerned with his future represents his future reputation.

And in the same speech he addressed the issue of the of Gallipoli directly telling his constituents.

You must expect losses both by land and sea, but the fleet you are employing there is your Sir plus fleet after all other needs have been provided floor.

Had it not been used in this great enterprise, it would have been lying idle in your southern ports.

So this point, Churchill was concerned that he had done irreversible damage to his political career.

Years later, his wife, commenting Churchill, told Churchill's biographer Martin Gilbert that I quote.

The dardennes haunted him for the rest of his life. He always believed in it when he left the Admiralty, he thought he was finished. I thought he would never get over the hands. I thought he would die of grief.

Unsurprisingly, Churchill copes with his demotion by seeking to get even further involved with the war.

Remember, this is a man who you know loved, war games who had been brought up surrounded by military toys and and so on going through sand. Hurst. This is kind of a natural part of his makeup. Churchill resigned from government in.

In November.

In 1915 and went to command. One of the battalions fighting on the Western Front.

By summer 1916, he was back in Britain, trying to rebuild his political career and the year after in 1917.

He took out the post of Minister of Munitions under Lloyd George, his competence, while the competence that he showed in this role gave him the basis upon which to build a peacetime political career.

Join the in several years and church will continue to hold. Important posts in government.

After the war, he moved himself into domestic affairs, where he took a hard line against socialism.

And in 1924, he returns to Conservatives and was appointed Chancellor.

Though he was criticized for returning to the the Gold Standard in 1925.

So red you can see a little bit of kind of opportunism there as he goes between difficult different political parties.

So how did he manage to become Prime Minister in such a crucial point in Britain's history?

Well, that's just a map from the previous.

Discussion on Gallipoli.

So the start of the Second World War Britain was led by Neville Chamberlain, perhaps best known for his policy of appeasement.

Churchill stood in direct contrast to Chamberlain in many ways.

As I said, Churchill had a reputation for being bullish, gung ho, and a little bit too enamored with war.

Churchill had opposed Britain's policy of appeasing Hitler in the run up to World War Two.

At this time, other MP saw this is kind of typical Churchill. They thought of him as someone.

Who would be keen to wage battle on the flimsiest of pretexts?

In the church it was not uniformly popular at this time.

The issue of Gallipoli hungover him from the First World War.

Among even Conservatives, he had reputation as a great talker, but he was also thought to be somewhat reckless and combative.

Nevertheless, these attributes did make him popular with the press.

And the public liked him, even if his colleagues were less convinced, and Angus colder goes into this in his book. The People's War surrounds or page 7980.

Through that part of the book he talks about Churchill and his kind of popular differing levels of popularity in Britain.

So his rise to power is not the story of 1 politician backstabbing another.

Churchill actually had a good working relationship with Neville Chamberlain, so it wasn't as if he was going sort of head to head with him.

When Chamberlain became Prime Minister in 1937, he was already an old man and his policy of appeasement hadn't set him up in the minds of the public as a kind of Great War leader. So we didn't have a great image soon into the Second World War, Chamberlain had also had his own.

Gallipoli style misstep.

To contend with over Norway.

Which I think some spoke about Election 2.

The failures in Norway in spring 1940 hastened the end of Chamberlian.

As you know, in early May 1940 there were debates in the House of Commons about what happened in Norway, and Chamberlain was criticised heavily.

As first Lord of the Admiralty, again, by this time Churchill was also criticised, but he used his superior.

So public speaking skills to Mount a decent defense and kind of bring people around a little bit.

However, it wasn't inevitable that Churchill would step into Chamberlain shoes.

So now we just have to consider fluctuations and developments in public perceptions of Churchill.

Before he came from Minnesota and then after.

So one of the ways we might try to gauge public opinion about Churchill is through the records of Gallup polls.

For those that haven't encountered Gallup polls before, this was an offshoot of the American based Gallup Poll Company and it was independent of government. That's to say that it prided itself on being an impartial organization.

Now, British Gallup conducted monthly surveys of members of the public on a wide range of topics. Typically, the data was collected by interviewing around 1000 people.

1000 people at a time.

And these interviews took place face to face, often in the home of the Interview E.

The sample was also careful to draw upon a range of respondents from different geographical areas so as to improve the representativeness of the results.

George Gallup, the founder of the polls, was confident about his method.

Although he recognized that it was not perfect.

And actually quite far ahead into the future. In 1976, he reflected.

Must occur on the screen. There it would be folly to argue that behavior can be predicted with perfect accuracy. It cannot and never will be already enough evidence has been accumulated a number of different fields to prove that behavior can be predicted with a high degree of accuracy. The goal is to increase this accuracy.

However, while Gallup polls are very useful, there are some notes of caution that we should add. You know any discussion about their use and Representative Ness.

First of all, where questions of wartime leadership were concerned, we need to be sensitive to the potential for some respondents to have misgivings about criticizing those in power.

For fear of being unpatriotic, for example.

Miss Ackley I think the construction of some of the Gallup questions can almost be there almost as intriguing as the responses that they received.

Take for example, question from the May 1942 survey.

Who is the world's greatest living man?

So they already, you know, as if there are issues here about how this question is framed as a highly gendered question.

We can read a lot into how how that questions framed. How do we define great greatness, greatest graces in powerful, or is something to be admired?

Great in terms of someones achievements, it's unclear.

So Gallup polls aren't perfect and we do need to keep this in mind. But when we use them, but a lot of the questions and answers to give, you know if we if we look to the questions and answers they can give us a kind of window into popular opinion 'cause you know you can just see up there on the example. There we have church, you look 42%.

Stalin roosavelt Hitler. So 4% of people said Hitler, you know which again makes you wonder exactly what people were assuming by by the question.

So yeah, we need to be sort of skeptical and critical when approaching this kind of source material, but in Gallup polls we can see some of the evolution of Churchill into a wartime leader because his rise to Prime Minister was in no way guaranteed in the years and months leading up to the war.

So March 1939. Gallup asked supporters of the government if if Mr Chamberlain retires, who would you like to be Prime Minister?

The vast majority said Eden with 38%.

You can see that.

So Churchill was a distant.

Sort of, yeah, distant.

Joint second with Halifax with 7% for supporters.

This time the Gallup figures suggest that most people weren't even interested in seeing a change in Prime Minister. In October of 1939, huge 65% of people said they were satisfied with Chamberlain as Prime Minister.

But Churchill had begun to attract attention.

So despite the popularity of both Chamberlain and Eden, it's interesting that in November 1939.

Gallup asked the question if you had the choice between Chamberlain and Churchill, which would you have as Prime Minister?

Chamberlain still still was at the top.

Uh.

But 30% were backing Churchill, so the fact that there was a significant proportion of people there, but also the fact that question was even asked in this way.

Is an indication that the Churchill Premiership was not unimaginable by this point?

So again, we won't look to how the question was being pitched and asked why that particular question was being asked.

Indeed, the polls suggest that even if there were questions about.

His leadership potential, Churchill was generally popular with the public in March 1940, so the the example in the middle there.

The public were asked which five leaders they would like to see in a smaller war cabinet and Churchill topped this list with 67%.

The head of the other contender for Prime Minister Eden was 65%.

And why had a Valley with 24%?

In Halifax with 34% there.

At this point, however, Eden was still most people's preferred option for Prime Minister over Churchill.

Nevertheless, when in May 1940 would debate in the House of Commons Force Chamberlain out of office. It was Churchill who took over.

Although he wasn't hugely popular with all Tory MP's.

Churchill was the man with enough of the cross party support to lead a national government.

And when he did take over as Prime Minister, the vast majority of people supported that decision. So Gallup asked people in general, do you approve or disapprove of Mr. Churchill? You can see there 88% of people said they approved. In fact, Churchill's approval ratings remained high.

So the his approval ratings via the Gallup polls did remain high throughout the war.

So what might be the reasons for that? Well, we might look to the disjuncture between.

The perceptions of Churchill among the population and perceptions of him within the House of Commons.

In July 1942, a group of MPs were so concerned about Churchill's leadership they actually put forward. A motion of no confidence in the way the war was being fought. These MPs, who especially critical of the way Churchill place themselves at the front and centre of battle, and they felt he should be doing more to delegate and work with military officials.

Instead, Churchill was spreading himself thin as both Prime Minister and Minister for defense.

The point of ambiguity 42.

Churchill was up to.

So 91 approval ratings reaching 93% in the in the Gallup polls by December 1942.

So with figures as high as these, it's not hard to wonder if notions of patriotism didn't sway a significant number of respondents.

So let's consider them the relationship between Churchill and support for the war in the public mind.

The skilfulness of Churchills or a tree.

Has been used to explain his resilience to, despite some political setbacks in his career.

And there's some evidence for this to be found in mass observation.

On September the 2nd.

1941 One 50 year old Woman wrote in her mass observation diary are big beautiful Oak trees nearby being cut down for wartime needs and the tanks are knocking down all the young trees. What will be left? Churchill cheer me up again? Thank God for that man.

So for this woman listening to Churchill speeches with something that gave her hope and they lifted her spirits.

Angus colder has suggested that Churchill's radio performances were an integral part of maintaining morale on the home front.

And he writes Churchill. Never try to adapt his technique to radio. He rated into the microphone and perhaps in the summer of 1940 this helped to make listeners feel. Though being they were putting domesticity behind them for the time being, he radiated courage over the microphone when he spoke nearly seven out of 10 people heard him. So even in the early days of the war, before he became Prime Minister, his speeches were being well regarded.

You know that scene is one of those key strengths.

On Monday the 2nd October 1939.

One diarist wrote. I spoke to several people about Mr Churchill's speech on Sunday evening.

And they were all more or less the same opinion.

They considered to be a very fine speech, cleverly worded and confidently spoken. One of the few political speeches that have ever been really worthwhile since the start of the war. I can only echo the feelings of others in this respects. The prestige of church has always been high about it. After his speech he was placed on a higher pedestal than the Prime Minister.

I cannot understand why he's not been including the cabinet for so many years.

So the idea of Churchill and the emergence of Churchill.

The statesman Churchill, the wartime leader, provided propagandists with a really useful source of material, you know. So it became clear that the public did view Churchill with this kind.

Reverence.

So once he became Prime Minister, images of Churchill and extracts from the speeches.

Were made there.

We used to try and draw people together in unity and this again.

You know it's it's. It's a constant theme in wartime propaganda. Clearly this whole idea of unity.

So.

You know you can see with these two posters.

Yeah, and in the next few months who should have a gap to fails? Particularly so that all munition workers, all those who engaged in war industries, should make it further effort. And so on and so on.

So we you know we we need to avenge our battleships that you know that have been lost.

And the sort of stern, authoritative image of Churchill there at the top and echoed on the other poster as well.

The you know this other poster. The bottom here I'm just trying to see it myself.

Yeah, more of our engine's mean more landing, so again, really trying to.

No urge people to work harder to continue working hard for the for the war effort kind of believe the war effort and two again like I said.

In the lecture about the blitz kind of maintain a particular mindset when it comes to the war, and you know all efforts are going on towards towards eventual victory.

And again, yeah, so it's that kind of image of him as well as a kind of authoritative, stern, trustworthy sort of patriarch as well, which comes through in these.

In his post is very, very strongly. He's kind of aligned with the military. He's aligned with you. He's kind of leading, he's talking straight up the citizen.

So yeah, an attempt to again draw people together in unity.

So following the Dunkirk evacuation in 1940, Churchill's speeches gave the impression of a man who knew about military tactics and will get the job with victory done.

In the House of Commons on 4th of June 1940.

He said our thankfulness, the escape of our army, and so many men whose loved ones have passed through an agonizing week, must not blind us to the fact that what has happened in France and Belgium is a colossal military disaster.

But this speech was not kind of panicked and it was not about criticizing the British Army.

He said he used it as a kind of rallying call continuing. I have full confidence if we all do, if all do their duty. If nothing is neglected and if the best arrangements are made as they are being made, we shall prove ourselves once again able to defend our island home, to ride out the storm of war and to outlive the menace of tyranny if necessary. For years, if necessary alone.

You know so.

Kind of really powerful rhetoric. The you know the tone and the language kind of building up there and also when he when he talks about being alone.

Probably there are not towards it. Trying to get America involved in the war as well. This speech also contained one of the best known Churchill quotes, the which is on the screen here which will fight them on the beaches. We shall fight on the landing grounds. We shall fight in the fields and in the streets which will fight in the Hills. We shall never surrender. So this is one of the most famous.

Quotes from Churchill.

This quote is still being used in 1943 by London Transport, which indicated home causing the idea and rhetoric of Churchill was to the Second Wars propaganda campaign.

In fact, in a bid to counteract the propaganda potential of Churchill, the Germans launched their own kind of anti Churchill propaganda as well.

You can see.

Here.

So yeah, on the say if the translation here on the 30th September 42 of the Berlin Sports Stadium, Hitler announced the man who invented bombing offensive against the city of civilian population in May 1940. I warned him. Then for almost four months, but in vain. Then we struck hard and destruct so thoroughly he suddenly began to whimper, and declared that this was barbaric and shocking. That and the England would take revenge. So kind of squarely blaming Churchill for the kind of.

Advent of Total War and you know seeing him as a dangerous man?

But

so.

Another one here with Churchill kind of branded as a monster, making you know German people. German families suffer.

You know, so we always see these kind of posters created from both sides during war time. So we see Hitler being caricatured and demonized. We see we see church or being sort of demonized, but it's always an indication of how seriously the enemy.

Takes opposing war leaders if they are kind of caricatured in this way so people are people are being compelled to direct their anger towards those wartime leaders. And as I mentioned in the lecture I did just before on sport and leisure, kind of laughing at the enemy as well, or putting them in a position of ridicule was also a way to create not only sort of hatred. Also sort of disdain.

And yeah.

Yet sustained tools, enemy leaders as well.

Of course, you must be careful then, to distinguish between wartime propaganda.

These messages, imagery and more ordinary people actually thought during the war.

Certainly Churchill was a compelling figure and his image and his speeches were part of a concerted effort to maintain the morale of those at home through patriotism, passion and defiant talking.

The Gallup polls that we briefly showed you earlier.

Suggested in this respect, the image of Churchill as a symbol of British defiance was quite successful, but Churchill did not go without the criticism of the British public.

During the second war, either.

So while we do need to be cautious about the Gallup polls, well.

So they are sort of important sources to think about, and while some mass observation Diaries were very positive about.

About Churchill.

It's also possible to find accounts from people who found him less inspiring.

So one mass observation diarist wrote on the 1st of October 1941 on the on the screen there the morning's papers report Churchills War Coventry. Given in the Commons in the face of widespread criticism of speech, seems to be very negative.

In fact it does not answer any of the many leading questions which are coming from all quarters.

And another secretary wrote in her diary in November 1941. last Sunday I was talking to a former elementary school teacher whose now more work. He's extremely critical of our handling of the war, contemptuous of most members of the government, and even expressed doubt about Churchill.

Is the first man I had met who does seriously criticize the Prime Minister? Although you do meet a number of people with scornful of some of the more ancient inhabitants of cabinet posts.

Yet these people usually praise Churchill.

So this last quote you know suggests that perhaps criticism of Churchill was unusual.

And it was more common to encounter those who are sort of encouraged by his leadership and saw him in a in a positive light.

That's the second quote there.

So as we know, the success of his wartime leadership, arguably.

Came at the expense of his peacetime image.

1945 Churchill failed to win reelection.

Perhaps the idea of Churchill as a leader was no longer considered appropriate. Now that the war was over.

There's also the possibility that his presence in propaganda meant that people associated him with the war and struggle to see him. Beyond that kind of war. Leadership role.

Perhaps this was something that people were keen to forget. They were keen to forget the war they wanted to move on from it, and then have a different sort of writer beginning.

Once time had passed, Churchill did in fact become Prime Minister again between 1951 and 1955.

But I think this is Premiership. During World War Two that most defines his career. His image was and still remains a fundamental part of the war.

Staff are important to be considered this image.

How ubiquitous it was, how success?

Still it was and how it lives on in the nation's cultural memory.

Well, history and rhetoric all too often become blurred and simplified, so you know many ways he stands as a. You know, very useful kind of symbol. Useful example for us on this module.

Well, you know that the line between myth and reality is sometimes blurred when we think about the war through the lens of cultural memory and.

So if you are interested in sort of doing more reading on Church or Reynolds.

Who we looked at in the seminar on Churchill has it has a book length version of.

The researcher contributed to the article with Doctor Reynolds looks in a great deal of detail about the way in which church are kind of constructed. His particular histories of the second war.

Not yet. I think you should get into that book in a lot of detail that will serve you really well for looking at the for answering the essay question on Churchill.

Also make sure you get some of the references that I gave you today as well, whether I put them on for you, I'll put them on vital next to the lecture if they're not contained on these PowerPoints.

Yeah, so that's it really. I'm hopefully you're all thinking about your source commentaries, so I'll I'll certainly be talking to my group about these when we meet next week. So do you know, do you have a good look at your module Handbook check?

Check how you which source country you want to do first. As you know you will then be getting some feedback on that source commentary. So then you know you'll be able to use onto your on your second source commentary, so you just have to think about the first source commentary as ever. If you got any questions about the module about the source countries, just email myself or you'll shooters.

Your your seminar tutors.

OK alright so thanks very much for listening for the day and I will see you all in class if I teach you and if not good luck on the module. OK, thank you, thank you.

Bye everyone.