I'd note that despite the return of old hands like Hunt and Gove, the Cabinet is broadly as experienced/inexperienced as MPs as Truss's was. 2 of the Great Offices only reached Cabinet at all this year (at time AG was not a full member).
After 12 years I'm not sure what mix of experience and fresh blood you'd want, but they haven't done that bad in that respect.
The problem is the lack of agreement on what to do and thus mass confusion, and so it's just tiredly moving from crisis to crisis, and failing to address longer term issues.
O/T Mrs. P and I are finally cancelling our daily paper after 43 years for a number of reasons (cost, environment, timeliness).
We have switched to a digital subscription for the time being and could probably have half a dozen for less than the cost of a daily print media delivery.
How do others 'consume' these digital subscriptions - are there any that are formatted like newspapers or are they all like glorified BBC news websites?
I'd really like a paper on an iPad that I could flick through tbh.
I know that the Guardian and the Irish Times both have a digital version of the print newspaper. I haven't looked at them recently, but I think the Guardian one is part of their app, and I've seen my mother-in-law zoom in to articles on the Irish Times version with her iPad.
I'd expect most of the newspapers to do something similar.
WRT diversity, I think that the past 15 years have demonstrated that politicians who are women, and/or from ethnic minorities, are just as capable as being venial and incompetent as upper middle class white males.
That is surely, a step forward, in terms of equality.
O/T Mrs. P and I are finally cancelling our daily paper after 43 years for a number of reasons (cost, environment, timeliness).
We have switched to a digital subscription for the time being and could probably have half a dozen for less than the cost of a daily print media delivery.
How do others 'consume' these digital subscriptions - are there any that are formatted like newspapers or are they all like glorified BBC news websites?
I'd really like a paper on an iPad that I could flick through tbh.
Is it really more environmentally friendly to read digitally than on paper? You'd think so but maybe the obvious answer isn't right. It may be that paper is more easily recycled than the components of digital devices.
I am trying to wean myself off PB (18.000 posts in 5 years FFS!) but one of my few contributions today will be to congratulate @ydoethur on a thought provoking header.
This is an interesting header. But, what I would say in response is that the zombie state of politics is also reflected in the opposition. The labour party have the same problem. The 'stars' of the labour party are people who were in Ed Milibands shadow cabinet. The 2019 intake are low quality. Starmers whole approach is of 'competent managerialism' which isn't going to work against Sunak. The 'truss' episode demonstrates that the markets will impose limits on what you can actually do.
Labour's problem is that there was little intake in 2019, and those few were often of very low calibre, such as my local Claudia Webbe. Hence there are a lot of Miliband retreads and old familiar faces. Thanks to 2019 the PLP have a n old group of MPs compared to Tories. The next GE may well reverse that of course.
I think though that @ydoethur in his interesting header is wearing his rose tinted specs. Parliament has always had a lot of nonentities, yes-men, careerists and time-servers. It is only the veneer of time that makes previous cabinets such as the 1997 New Labour one look good.
The other side of that coin is worth focusing on a bit more.
Thanks to 2019 being such an appalling GE result for the left, there will be a huge new Labour intake in 2024. It's not the case that the next GE "may well" reverse the previous course for Labour, the fact is that it is certain to do so even if Starmer were somehow to contrive not to win the GE faced with what at this moment looks like something close to an open goal. Even if Labour had no more than equal seats with the Conservatives, it looks like there would be something in the order of 100 new Labour MPs. Win and the number will exceed that. That will all reinvigorate the parliamentary party, in much the same way as happened to the Conservatives in 2010.
And there's an added bonus. I doubt whether the number of those on the far left will grow compared to the number elected in 2019. Some have self-imploded (Webbe), others have been deselected (Corbyn effectively, Tarry) and very few are coming through the constituency parliamentary selection process which is being heavily moderated by the national party. So the far left in parliament will be a pretty ineffective rump.
The salary issue needs some context, given that the present PM is richer than God and Javid, Zahawi, Mogg, Hunt, Jenrick, Cox are just the ones I know about who would not notice if their wages were stopped. And Blair, Clegg, Osborne show you can exit into untold wealth. And there's probably others who made fraudulent millions in PPE.
But is that because only wealthy people can afford to go into politics now?
As was the case in the nineteenth century before we started paying politicians?
Imagine having a job where there are websites which exist solely for watching your every move, criticising everything you do, and retweeting every tiny bit of negative information about you.
I don’t have to, I had one for ten years.
What job?
Teaching!
And finally: we apparently want MPs to be one of us, to 'represent' ourselves. Hence we want a certain number of female MPs, a certain number of BAME MPs, a certain number of state-educated ones. Note 'ability' does not creep into this. Yet we also want them to be 'better' than us. To be the same as us, yet better. It's an impossibility.
Yes there is some truth to this. The diversity on the government benches is in large part due to the work that Cameron put in in the late naughties, and those now have a dozen years experience as MPs, so are front benches. Would Sunak have been selected for a safe seat a decade or so earlier?
This was helped of course by the large number of new seats won in 2010, and the unusual number of retirements from the expenses scandal fall out. Polls would suggest that there will be a massive clear out at the next GE too, with perhaps half the government benches being novice MPs. An opportunity but also a problem.
One thing that we do seem to have lost is the presence of MPs of working class origin, and the non-graduates. Rayner is a rare example, and clearly political marmite (I am a fan). I do think this matters, as too many MPs come through the avenues of student politics, think tank, policy wonk, to MP. Either that or a narrow range of careers, often in financial services, giving a very one dimensional character to Parliament.
"presence of MPs of working class origin, and the non-graduates."
What is 'working class' nowadays? IMV the distinctions are becoming very blurred. For instance, is Owen Jones 'working class' ? If so, why not Rishi Sunak?
Agree totally on non-graduates. I've wittered on about the evils of the 50% university targets in the past; but what we are seeing are increasing number of roles which are closed to non-graduates (*). This is utterly wrong and throws lots of people under the bus - the same effect as the 11+, except later in life.
(*) I am a non-graduate.
We have a skills shortage of craftspeople and tradespeople. We don’t have a skills shortage of graduates.
Imagine having a job where there are websites which exist solely for watching your every move, criticising everything you do, and retweeting every tiny bit of negative information about you.
I don’t have to, I had one for ten years.
What job?
Teaching!
Hmmm. Was there really a website that existed solely to watch *your* every move, criticise everything *you* did, and retweeted every tiny bit of information about *you*?
Thanks for the article, BTW. To one of your questions about why politicians are of low quality, I'd put more emphasis on ideological purity. For four or five years, Labour selected a load of people who were total incompetents - but were solidly Corbynite. Likewise, as you state the Conservatives have been concerned more about Brexit purity than sane government, and have forced out a load of people who did not think Europe was the source of all the country's ills.
Both parties need to become broader churches.
I'd also argue that some politicians who are widely derided aren't as bad as they are made out. Gove is a classic example of this: he is widely hated, but also one of the better performers.
And finally: we apparently want MPs to be one of us, to 'represent' ourselves. Hence we want a certain number of female MPs, a certain number of BAME MPs, a certain number of state-educated ones. Note 'ability' does not creep into this. Yet we also want them to be 'better' than us. To be the same as us, yet better. It's an impossibility.
The last paragraph is weird nonsense. It's perfectly possible to have a parliament that includes "females" "BAME MPs" the "state-educated" who also have "ability".
People rightly see it as a sign of something wrong if government is dominated by, for example, rich people who went to elite private schools. Imagine a parliament that only contained white, male, privately-educated MPs. The only people who would just shrug and say "don't ask for more representation for other groups - it's just about ability" would probably be white, male and privately educated.
O/T Mrs. P and I are finally cancelling our daily paper after 43 years for a number of reasons (cost, environment, timeliness).
We have switched to a digital subscription for the time being and could probably have half a dozen for less than the cost of a daily print media delivery.
How do others 'consume' these digital subscriptions - are there any that are formatted like newspapers or are they all like glorified BBC news websites?
I'd really like a paper on an iPad that I could flick through tbh.
I know that the Guardian and the Irish Times both have a digital version of the print newspaper. I haven't looked at them recently, but I think the Guardian one is part of their app, and I've seen my mother-in-law zoom in to articles on the Irish Times version with her iPad.
I'd expect most of the newspapers to do something similar.
The Racing Post certainly has such a digital edition.
On topic, I think the increased professionalisation of politics has a lot to answer for. The behaviours that are rewarded are negative ones on how to equivocate and avoid booby traps, not positive ones to make lucid arguments from first principles.
I think it's very difficult to make a career transition into it at a later age, now, and expect to succeed.
Yes this is the main problem, not the salaries imv - the fact you need to join a party, agree with everything they say on social media for aeons and not hold any opinions of your own; then fight a no hoper seat, then take time out to fight a marginal and after all that unless it's a huge wave election you're probably looking for another job shortly. You need a few quid stashed away to do that - the salary once in is OK I think.
O/T Mrs. P and I are finally cancelling our daily paper after 43 years for a number of reasons (cost, environment, timeliness).
We have switched to a digital subscription for the time being and could probably have half a dozen for less than the cost of a daily print media delivery.
How do others 'consume' these digital subscriptions - are there any that are formatted like newspapers or are they all like glorified BBC news websites?
I'd really like a paper on an iPad that I could flick through tbh.
Obviously, I'm a centre-right Tory, so it won't be to your taste probably, but I have digital subscriptions to the Times and the Telegraph and browse those each morning as well as BBC news. They're very good, particularly the Times.
I subscribe to and receive the Spectator n hard copy each week.
I read other articles (FT/Guardian etc) as and when I find them or friends link to them.
Imagine having a job where there are websites which exist solely for watching your every move, criticising everything you do, and retweeting every tiny bit of negative information about you.
I don’t have to, I had one for ten years.
What job?
Teaching!
And finally: we apparently want MPs to be one of us, to 'represent' ourselves. Hence we want a certain number of female MPs, a certain number of BAME MPs, a certain number of state-educated ones. Note 'ability' does not creep into this. Yet we also want them to be 'better' than us. To be the same as us, yet better. It's an impossibility.
Yes there is some truth to this. The diversity on the government benches is in large part due to the work that Cameron put in in the late naughties, and those now have a dozen years experience as MPs, so are front benches. Would Sunak have been selected for a safe seat a decade or so earlier?
This was helped of course by the large number of new seats won in 2010, and the unusual number of retirements from the expenses scandal fall out. Polls would suggest that there will be a massive clear out at the next GE too, with perhaps half the government benches being novice MPs. An opportunity but also a problem.
One thing that we do seem to have lost is the presence of MPs of working class origin, and the non-graduates. Rayner is a rare example, and clearly political marmite (I am a fan). I do think this matters, as too many MPs come through the avenues of student politics, think tank, policy wonk, to MP. Either that or a narrow range of careers, often in financial services, giving a very one dimensional character to Parliament.
"presence of MPs of working class origin, and the non-graduates."
What is 'working class' nowadays? IMV the distinctions are becoming very blurred. For instance, is Owen Jones 'working class' ? If so, why not Rishi Sunak?
Agree totally on non-graduates. I've wittered on about the evils of the 50% university targets in the past; but what we are seeing are increasing number of roles which are closed to non-graduates (*). This is utterly wrong and throws lots of people under the bus - the same effect as the 11+, except later in life.
(*) I am a non-graduate.
My sister, a non-graduate, is global head of HR for some company of one sort or another. It would be a shame if her career path was now closed off to non-graduates.
Imagine having a job where there are websites which exist solely for watching your every move, criticising everything you do, and retweeting every tiny bit of negative information about you.
I don’t have to, I had one for ten years.
What job?
Teaching!
And finally: we apparently want MPs to be one of us, to 'represent' ourselves. Hence we want a certain number of female MPs, a certain number of BAME MPs, a certain number of state-educated ones. Note 'ability' does not creep into this. Yet we also want them to be 'better' than us. To be the same as us, yet better. It's an impossibility.
Yes there is some truth to this. The diversity on the government benches is in large part due to the work that Cameron put in in the late naughties, and those now have a dozen years experience as MPs, so are front benches. Would Sunak have been selected for a safe seat a decade or so earlier?
This was helped of course by the large number of new seats won in 2010, and the unusual number of retirements from the expenses scandal fall out. Polls would suggest that there will be a massive clear out at the next GE too, with perhaps half the government benches being novice MPs. An opportunity but also a problem.
One thing that we do seem to have lost is the presence of MPs of working class origin, and the non-graduates. Rayner is a rare example, and clearly political marmite (I am a fan). I do think this matters, as too many MPs come through the avenues of student politics, think tank, policy wonk, to MP. Either that or a narrow range of careers, often in financial services, giving a very one dimensional character to Parliament.
"presence of MPs of working class origin, and the non-graduates."
What is 'working class' nowadays? IMV the distinctions are becoming very blurred. For instance, is Owen Jones 'working class' ? If so, why not Rishi Sunak?
Agree totally on non-graduates. I've wittered on about the evils of the 50% university targets in the past; but what we are seeing are increasing number of roles which are closed to non-graduates (*). This is utterly wrong and throws lots of people under the bus - the same effect as the 11+, except later in life.
(*) I am a non-graduate.
"Working Class" is not a hereditary attribute. It means spending a significant part of adult working life in a CDE occupation before entering politics.
Increasingly the changing class structure of the UK means that the graduate/non-graduate distinction is the valid division, at least for people under 40 at present.
I know you are not a Rayner fan, but I think her a great example of how education and intelligence are not the same.
I think that definition is incorrect and most certainly not the way it is used, even by people on the left. And by your definition, Owen Jones is certainly not 'working class' - either by background, education or occupation.
What evidence do you have for Rayner's 'intelligence' ?
As for my own views on Rayner; they are not set. My comments in the past have been the way some - I think including yourself - harped on her about her brilliant apology for the sick 'scum' comment she made. I just reply that she initially doubled down on her comments, and only apologised a month later, *after* a fellow MP was muredered. Her apology was not fulsome, timely or IMO genuine, and I'm amazed some people think it was.
On topic, I think the increased professionalisation of politics has a lot to answer for. The behaviours that are rewarded are negative ones on how to equivocate and avoid booby traps, not positive ones to make lucid arguments from first principles.
I think it's very difficult to make a career transition into it at a later age, now, and expect to succeed.
Yes this is the main problem, not the salaries imv - the fact you need to join a party, agree with everything they say on social media for aeons and not hold any opinions of your own; then fight a no hoper seat, then take time out to fight a marginal and after all that unless it's a huge wave election you're probably looking for another job shortly. You need a few quid stashed away to do that - the salary once in is OK I think.
Basic MP salary would be OK if everything else they're expected to pay for was expendable. They have to cough up at most constituency events.
I am trying to wean myself off PB (18.000 posts in 5 years FFS!) but one of my few contributions today will be to congratulate @ydoethur on a thought provoking header.
I am troubled by the fact you are weaning yourself off PB.
Imagine having a job where there are websites which exist solely for watching your every move, criticising everything you do, and retweeting every tiny bit of negative information about you.
I don’t have to, I had one for ten years.
What job?
Teaching!
And finally: we apparently want MPs to be one of us, to 'represent' ourselves. Hence we want a certain number of female MPs, a certain number of BAME MPs, a certain number of state-educated ones. Note 'ability' does not creep into this. Yet we also want them to be 'better' than us. To be the same as us, yet better. It's an impossibility.
Yes there is some truth to this. The diversity on the government benches is in large part due to the work that Cameron put in in the late naughties, and those now have a dozen years experience as MPs, so are front benches. Would Sunak have been selected for a safe seat a decade or so earlier?
This was helped of course by the large number of new seats won in 2010, and the unusual number of retirements from the expenses scandal fall out. Polls would suggest that there will be a massive clear out at the next GE too, with perhaps half the government benches being novice MPs. An opportunity but also a problem.
One thing that we do seem to have lost is the presence of MPs of working class origin, and the non-graduates. Rayner is a rare example, and clearly political marmite (I am a fan). I do think this matters, as too many MPs come through the avenues of student politics, think tank, policy wonk, to MP. Either that or a narrow range of careers, often in financial services, giving a very one dimensional character to Parliament.
"presence of MPs of working class origin, and the non-graduates."
What is 'working class' nowadays? IMV the distinctions are becoming very blurred. For instance, is Owen Jones 'working class' ? If so, why not Rishi Sunak?
Agree totally on non-graduates. I've wittered on about the evils of the 50% university targets in the past; but what we are seeing are increasing number of roles which are closed to non-graduates (*). This is utterly wrong and throws lots of people under the bus - the same effect as the 11+, except later in life.
(*) I am a non-graduate.
We have a skills shortage of craftspeople and tradespeople. We don’t have a skills shortage of graduates.
We do. Doctors, Nurses, Physiotherapists etc are all suffering skills shortages.
The salary issue needs some context, given that the present PM is richer than God and Javid, Zahawi, Mogg, Hunt, Jenrick, Cox are just the ones I know about who would not notice if their wages were stopped. And Blair, Clegg, Osborne show you can exit into untold wealth. And there's probably others who made fraudulent millions in PPE.
But is that because only wealthy people can afford to go into politics now?
As was the case in the nineteenth century before we started paying politicians?
With the Tories it is largely the membership. The average rural constituency party Committee is retired colonels and solicitors, social climbers to a man, so who they gonna choose: someone who will ask them to dinner at The Big House once a year, or 14 Railway Cuttings? Lots of labour mps seem to "afford it" without side hustles.
I am trying to wean myself off PB (18.000 posts in 5 years FFS!) but one of my few contributions today will be to congratulate @ydoethur on a thought provoking header.
I am troubled by the fact you are weaning yourself off PB.
"Matt Goodwin @GoodwinMJ · 19h Can any sensible US journalists out there tell me what happened to US media? Do journos not visit countries they write about anymore? Do they not read evidence? How can so many apparently serious journalists like this, at NYT etc think this? What has happened to the media class?
Andrew Sullivan @sullydish Replying to @GoodwinMJ Matt, you have no idea how bad it is. Total capture by far-left. Almost all op-eds from tiny fringe of UK leftists. Reporting always skewed to prove Brexit was wrong. The bubble is tight af. 3:54 PM · Oct 27, 2022 ·Twitter Web App"
The US media’s coverage of the UK is on a par with the UK media’s coverage of mainland Europe and Ireland. With a few honourable exceptions, it is entirely superficial, often completely wrong and usually seen through the prism of domestic political bias.
You can add Scotland and Wales.
I am sure that’s true. Spain is a country I know very well and the way it is covered here is absolutely abysmal. The recent coverage of the French presidential election in the UK was just awful. How anyone working for the Telegraph or Spectator could get upset about US coverage of the UK given their coverage of France is beyond me. And let’s not forget that one former UK PM made his name by writing lies about the EU. The hypocrisy is off the charts!
Rishi is 42 years old, which is pretty young to be an exhausted volcano and there are several other young members of the cabinet as well. Kemi is also 42. So any exhaustion is surely ideological and intellectual exhaustion rather than age. I think that there is some truth in this. Most Tories have forgotten what they are for. Their sole raison d'etre seems to be that they are better than the other lot, somehow. Looking at the shadow cabinet as a whole, they might even be right, which is a scary thought.
We live in less ideological times. This is not necessarily a bad thing: most ideologies cause serious problems when taken to extreme but it does leave politicians muddling through and stuff comes at them very fast these days. This new government is not going to be any different in that respect.
Rishi, Suella and Kemi are all 42. Younger than the average voter.
I had a strange moment where I found Suella attractive yesterday.
Is that so strange? I should think that for a healthy man, in the prime of his life, with a normal interest in sex, it would be hard not to find most well turned out woman of the same age or younger attractive.
The salary issue needs some context, given that the present PM is richer than God and Javid, Zahawi, Mogg, Hunt, Jenrick, Cox are just the ones I know about who would not notice if their wages were stopped. And Blair, Clegg, Osborne show you can exit into untold wealth. And there's probably others who made fraudulent millions in PPE.
But is that because only wealthy people can afford to go into politics now?
As was the case in the nineteenth century before we started paying politicians?
It's probably more that if you're pretty smart and successful, and earning a decent wage already, then being an MP, at least a backbench one isn't that attractive a career move. Although the wage, in terms of the general population is a very good wage at 70-80k, it's not much more than any 'professional' (lawyers, accountants, doctors and the like) earn. Add to that being in the public eye, likely hated by 50%+ of the population at any one time, having to maintain two houses and working away from home regularly, and it's not really something which many people what to put themselves into.
That often leaves people for who politics has always been the aim in their career, and those which do it for ambition and ego, and we have enough of those people already in the house.
This is an interesting header. But, what I would say in response is that the zombie state of politics is also reflected in the opposition. The labour party have the same problem. The 'stars' of the labour party are people who were in Ed Milibands shadow cabinet. The 2019 intake are low quality. Starmers whole approach is of 'competent managerialism' which isn't going to work against Sunak. The 'truss' episode demonstrates that the markets will impose limits on what you can actually do.
Labour's problem is that there was little intake in 2019, and those few were often of very low calibre, such as my local Claudia Webbe. Hence there are a lot of Miliband retreads and old familiar faces. Thanks to 2019 the PLP have a n old group of MPs compared to Tories. The next GE may well reverse that of course.
I think though that @ydoethur in his interesting header is wearing his rose tinted specs. Parliament has always had a lot of nonentities, yes-men, careerists and time-servers. It is only the veneer of time that makes previous cabinets such as the 1997 New Labour one look good.
Don't you ever wonder what the selection panel that chose Michael Fabricant must have been like? It could be that he was the only one who turned up but even just for the money that's unlikely. I have tried to picture them but nothing comes to mind.
O/T Mrs. P and I are finally cancelling our daily paper after 43 years for a number of reasons (cost, environment, timeliness).
We have switched to a digital subscription for the time being and could probably have half a dozen for less than the cost of a daily print media delivery. fore How do others 'consume' these digital subscriptions - are there any that are formatted like newspapers or are they all like glorified BBC news websites?
I'd really like a paper on an iPad that I could flick through tbh.
Some newspapers have the normal website vs pretend paper format option, and the latter is what you want. The National is an example, for instance. In that case when you go to the main website there is a blue button labelled "Digital Edition" and you press that to go to the pretend paper format. (Rather illogical as both the website format and the pretend paper options are both digital, but ...). You might have to poke around for your preferred example ...
You read the National? That is true dedication to the cause, that is. Respect.
Sarky!
Amongst others ... but I'd rather have the Scotsman and Herald of old, admittedly so last century now.
Yes, they were both quality reads once upon a time but are now little more than advertising pamphlets put together by a skeleton staff. It is sad.
I have told this story before but when I was a trainee I came across a copy of the Evening Telegraph in a set of title deeds which showed that the property had been repossessed and then sold by a bond holder before the first world war. The paper itself was remarkable with extended coverage of the comings and goings of the Austria-Hungarian court in Vienna and at least 6 pages of international news. What people going home on the tram to Lochee after a day in the Jute mills made of it heaven only knows but the international businesses based in Dundee in those times clearly created a demand for foreign news that is almost inconceivable today.
"Matt Goodwin @GoodwinMJ · 19h Can any sensible US journalists out there tell me what happened to US media? Do journos not visit countries they write about anymore? Do they not read evidence? How can so many apparently serious journalists like this, at NYT etc think this? What has happened to the media class?
Andrew Sullivan @sullydish Replying to @GoodwinMJ Matt, you have no idea how bad it is. Total capture by far-left. Almost all op-eds from tiny fringe of UK leftists. Reporting always skewed to prove Brexit was wrong. The bubble is tight af. 3:54 PM · Oct 27, 2022 ·Twitter Web App"
The US media’s coverage of the UK is on a par with the UK media’s coverage of mainland Europe and Ireland. With a few honourable exceptions, it is entirely superficial, often completely wrong and usually seen through the prism of domestic political bias.
You can add Scotland and Wales.
I am sure that’s true. Spain is a country I know very well and the way it is covered here is absolutely abysmal. The recent coverage of the French presidential election in the UK was just awful. How anyone working for the Telegraph or Spectator could get upset about US coverage of the UK given their coverage of France is beyond me. And let’s not forget that one former UK PM made his name by writing lies about the EU. The hypocrisy is off the charts!
Tell us: what should we know about Spain, and how should it be covered?
O/T Mrs. P and I are finally cancelling our daily paper after 43 years for a number of reasons (cost, environment, timeliness).
We have switched to a digital subscription for the time being and could probably have half a dozen for less than the cost of a daily print media delivery.
How do others 'consume' these digital subscriptions - are there any that are formatted like newspapers or are they all like glorified BBC news websites?
I'd really like a paper on an iPad that I could flick through tbh.
There is a real loss in losing daily newspapers with large circulation and a collective monopoly on current comment and news. Both the 24 hour news cycle and the internet (these of course are linked events) have destroyed the model.
It loses a whole culture of tens of millions imbibing a culture in common ways every morning. And there is nothing that quite replaces newspaper with writing on it, print coming off on your fingers. But newspapers are in a sense out of date as they are printed and distributed. And of course Guardian online is free (as is much of the FT if you work around).
My compromise is to subscribe to the print edition of the Economist for slower news and comment, and online for the 24 hour cycle.
But the only thing I miss about London days and commuting etc is the immediacy of newsprint, and reading the Times in pre -Murdoch days.
I remember the joy of arriving back at Brixton tube station late at night to find the first editions of tomorrow's papers already available. A completely alien world now.
Imagine having a job where there are websites which exist solely for watching your every move, criticising everything you do, and retweeting every tiny bit of negative information about you.
I don’t have to, I had one for ten years.
What job?
Teaching!
Hmmm. Was there really a website that existed solely to watch *your* every move, criticise everything *you* did, and retweeted every tiny bit of information about *you*?
Thanks for the article, BTW. To one of your questions about why politicians are of low quality, I'd put more emphasis on ideological purity. For four or five years, Labour selected a load of people who were total incompetents - but were solidly Corbynite. Likewise, as you state the Conservatives have been concerned more about Brexit purity than sane government, and have forced out a load of people who did not think Europe was the source of all the country's ills.
Both parties need to become broader churches.
I'd also argue that some politicians who are widely derided aren't as bad as they are made out. Gove is a classic example of this: he is widely hated, but also one of the better performers.
And finally: we apparently want MPs to be one of us, to 'represent' ourselves. Hence we want a certain number of female MPs, a certain number of BAME MPs, a certain number of state-educated ones. Note 'ability' does not creep into this. Yet we also want them to be 'better' than us. To be the same as us, yet better. It's an impossibility.
The last paragraph is weird nonsense. It's perfectly possible to have a parliament that includes "females" "BAME MPs" the "state-educated" who also have "ability".
People rightly see it as a sign of something wrong if government is dominated by, for example, rich people who went to elite private schools. Imagine a parliament that only contained white, male, privately-educated MPs. The only people who would just shrug and say "don't ask for more representation for other groups - it's just about ability" would probably be white, male and privately educated.
I agree. The "ability" axis and the "life course experience" axis are quite different. We can have a diversity of people in parliament whose earlier life course is more like "ours", while also asking that they are more capable than we are.
The follow on from this is that the capabilities for which "we" are selecting right now are probably not the ones we should be looking for. As constituency parties become more monocultural, they will tend to select for similar criteria - and at the moment that appears to be the ability to speak with hesitation, deviation, repetition, or knowledge, on any topic while injecting the relevant dog-whistle notes along the way. When the media are also selected on much the same criteria, we get into the current pickle.
ETA: I apply this criticism universally; it is not just the Conservatives that are particularly afflicted with this malaise.
This is an interesting header. But, what I would say in response is that the zombie state of politics is also reflected in the opposition. The labour party have the same problem. The 'stars' of the labour party are people who were in Ed Milibands shadow cabinet. The 2019 intake are low quality. Starmers whole approach is of 'competent managerialism' which isn't going to work against Sunak. The 'truss' episode demonstrates that the markets will impose limits on what you can actually do.
Labour's problem is that there was little intake in 2019, and those few were often of very low calibre, such as my local Claudia Webbe. Hence there are a lot of Miliband retreads and old familiar faces. Thanks to 2019 the PLP have a n old group of MPs compared to Tories. The next GE may well reverse that of course.
I think though that @ydoethur in his interesting header is wearing his rose tinted specs. Parliament has always had a lot of nonentities, yes-men, careerists and time-servers. It is only the veneer of time that makes previous cabinets such as the 1997 New Labour one look good.
Don't you ever wonder what the selection panel that chose Michael Fabricant must have been like? It could be that he was the only one who turned up but even just for the money that's unlikely. I have tried to picture them but nothing comes to mind.
He was slightly lucky in that he was selected for a formerly safe Tory seat that had been lost in a by-election and with the Tories expected to lose in 1992 it wasn't expected to be retaken. So he wasn't up against lots of competition.
Was the budget delayed so that the king could go to COP27 in Egypt? It would fit. Perhaps he's about to disgrace himself further, either going nuts if he attends or having a tantrum if he doesn't.
O/T Mrs. P and I are finally cancelling our daily paper after 43 years for a number of reasons (cost, environment, timeliness).
We have switched to a digital subscription for the time being and could probably have half a dozen for less than the cost of a daily print media delivery.
How do others 'consume' these digital subscriptions - are there any that are formatted like newspapers or are they all like glorified BBC news websites?
I'd really like a paper on an iPad that I could flick through tbh.
There is a real loss in losing daily newspapers with large circulation and a collective monopoly on current comment and news. Both the 24 hour news cycle and the internet (these of course are linked events) have destroyed the model.
It loses a whole culture of tens of millions imbibing a culture in common ways every morning. And there is nothing that quite replaces newspaper with writing on it, print coming off on your fingers. But newspapers are in a sense out of date as they are printed and distributed. And of course Guardian online is free (as is much of the FT if you work around).
My compromise is to subscribe to the print edition of the Economist for slower news and comment, and online for the 24 hour cycle.
But the only thing I miss about London days and commuting etc is the immediacy of newsprint, and reading the Times in pre -Murdoch days.
I haven't read a printed paper in years.
Benedict Anderson in his seminal book "Imagined Communities" claims that mass literacy and the printed press were core factors in the rise of nationalism as a concept. I think that remains true, and is part of why nationalism is fraying around the edges and becoming so reactionary.
It is as easy to read another countries media online as our own. With Google translating, even language isn't a barrier. There are whole communities in our country that barely watch our own national media, preferring either international Social Media, or media from their old countries.
I for one find myself more in tune with The Atlantic than the Daily Mail, which in turn is widely read overseas. Nationalism is losing one of its core pillars by losing national media, not just here either.
Was the budget delayed so that the king could go to COP27 in Egypt? It would fit. Perhaps he's about to disgrace himself further, either going nuts if he attends or having a tantrum if he doesn't.
That only happens if the pen Immigration give him runs out.
O/T Mrs. P and I are finally cancelling our daily paper after 43 years for a number of reasons (cost, environment, timeliness).
We have switched to a digital subscription for the time being and could probably have half a dozen for less than the cost of a daily print media delivery. fore How do others 'consume' these digital subscriptions - are there any that are formatted like newspapers or are they all like glorified BBC news websites?
I'd really like a paper on an iPad that I could flick through tbh.
Some newspapers have the normal website vs pretend paper format option, and the latter is what you want. The National is an example, for instance. In that case when you go to the main website there is a blue button labelled "Digital Edition" and you press that to go to the pretend paper format. (Rather illogical as both the website format and the pretend paper options are both digital, but ...). You might have to poke around for your preferred example ...
You read the National? That is true dedication to the cause, that is. Respect.
Sarky!
Amongst others ... but I'd rather have the Scotsman and Herald of old, admittedly so last century now.
Yes, they were both quality reads once upon a time but are now little more than advertising pamphlets put together by a skeleton staff. It is sad.
I have told this story before but when I was a trainee I came across a copy of the Evening Telegraph in a set of title deeds which showed that the property had been repossessed and then sold by a bond holder before the first world war. The paper itself was remarkable with extended coverage of the comings and goings of the Austria-Hungarian court in Vienna and at least 6 pages of international news. What people going home on the tram to Lochee after a day in the Jute mills made of it heaven only knows but the international businesses based in Dundee in those times clearly created a demand for foreign news that is almost inconceivable today.
Thanks - I have missed that story, and it really resonates with me. I use britishnewspaperarchive for some of my research and the sheer content and quality of local newspapers in the C19 and early C20 makes them a superb source for all sorts of things, including some really out of the way stuff. The detailed coverage of local government, and council meetings, is so good, for one thing. But by comparison it is utterly disheartening to look at theit successors, a few exceptions such as the Southern Reporter aside.
Of course, also, every bit of those was typeset afresh by hand for every issue (with the likely exception of the occasional daily/weekly stablemates where the weekly gave a roundup of the previous week's news; it's also possible that actual stereotype plates were mailed to distant newspapers for syndicated stuff, but I don't know if that happened).
I think the key reason it is hard to recruit talent is the soulless futility of it. That nagging doubt that the colour of a government makes bugger-all difference. That the likelihood of you yourself as one minuscule little cog in the machinery are ever going to make a significant difference are so infinitesimally small that the game is simply not worth playing.
Where you really do have significant, substantive differences between the main parties, and there is something genuinely at stake, eg in Scotland, you get higher voter engagement, more committed activists and a higher calibre of people willing to engage in politics.
One of the weaknesses of the header is it only highlights the bad examples. It might have been enlightening to look at places that do have generally high quality politicians, like the Nordic countries.
On topic, I think the increased professionalisation of politics has a lot to answer for. The behaviours that are rewarded are negative ones on how to equivocate and avoid booby traps, not positive ones to make lucid arguments from first principles.
I think it's very difficult to make a career transition into it at a later age, now, and expect to succeed.
I think that's right up to a point, but I'd qualify it. The header is great, and the Tories are objectively and indisputably worn out, but it overstates the case.
* I know several senior Tories and they're generally competent and some more so (notably Gove, though I know Ydo doesn't agree). Not my politics but that's not the point. * Email and social media help you cut through the trivial gotcha attitude of the press, as people like being treated like adults. I spent many midnight hours on that and built up a very loyal personal following that way (my posts here are typical of the style). In SW Surrey, the LibDem leader (Paul Follows) has built huge personal support almost entirely by being hyperactive on social media. * Selectorates are pretty open-minded in most seats, and will consider older candidates who've done well in another sphere (I was 47 when selected, and working in another country with no local contact at all). They do expect a record of activity for the party in your spare time, and why not? * The salary isn't really a big deal for most people keen on politics. The gotcha media culture and level of vitriol is.
But talented people do often drop out. An underrated factor in MPs not standing again is that many MPs quietly come to feel unsure about their own parties, and quietly stand down because of that. I doubt if Ken Clarke votes Tory, but loyalty and friendship over decades means he quietly keeps his counsel. I'm reasonably sure that some current Tory MPs don't really feel the party deserves re-relection.
Also, it does dawn on you in a few years if you're not going to make it to the top. I'm philosophically relaxed about being a small part of what I see as a noble cause, but for some the knowledge that they'll just be a reasonably competent cog just isn't enough, if they did well in another sphere.
Imagine having a job where there are websites which exist solely for watching your every move, criticising everything you do, and retweeting every tiny bit of negative information about you.
I don’t have to, I had one for ten years.
What job?
Teaching!
And finally: we apparently want MPs to be one of us, to 'represent' ourselves. Hence we want a certain number of female MPs, a certain number of BAME MPs, a certain number of state-educated ones. Note 'ability' does not creep into this. Yet we also want them to be 'better' than us. To be the same as us, yet better. It's an impossibility.
Yes there is some truth to this. The diversity on the government benches is in large part due to the work that Cameron put in in the late naughties, and those now have a dozen years experience as MPs, so are front benches. Would Sunak have been selected for a safe seat a decade or so earlier?
This was helped of course by the large number of new seats won in 2010, and the unusual number of retirements from the expenses scandal fall out. Polls would suggest that there will be a massive clear out at the next GE too, with perhaps half the government benches being novice MPs. An opportunity but also a problem.
One thing that we do seem to have lost is the presence of MPs of working class origin, and the non-graduates. Rayner is a rare example, and clearly political marmite (I am a fan). I do think this matters, as too many MPs come through the avenues of student politics, think tank, policy wonk, to MP. Either that or a narrow range of careers, often in financial services, giving a very one dimensional character to Parliament.
"presence of MPs of working class origin, and the non-graduates."
What is 'working class' nowadays? IMV the distinctions are becoming very blurred. For instance, is Owen Jones 'working class' ? If so, why not Rishi Sunak?
Agree totally on non-graduates. I've wittered on about the evils of the 50% university targets in the past; but what we are seeing are increasing number of roles which are closed to non-graduates (*). This is utterly wrong and throws lots of people under the bus - the same effect as the 11+, except later in life.
(*) I am a non-graduate.
We have a skills shortage of craftspeople and tradespeople. We don’t have a skills shortage of graduates.
I am off to Glasgow today to see the graduation of my daughter who has got a first class honours from the Open University in her early 30s. She was not exactly a dedicated scholar in her youth but has been increasingly finding herself against a glass ceiling where every promoted post she might go for requires a degree to even apply despite her relevant experience. I am proud of her achievement but it seems a bit silly that she has had to do this.
This is an interesting header. But, what I would say in response is that the zombie state of politics is also reflected in the opposition. The labour party have the same problem. The 'stars' of the labour party are people who were in Ed Milibands shadow cabinet. The 2019 intake are low quality. Starmers whole approach is of 'competent managerialism' which isn't going to work against Sunak. The 'truss' episode demonstrates that the markets will impose limits on what you can actually do.
Labour's problem is that there was little intake in 2019, and those few were often of very low calibre, such as my local Claudia Webbe. Hence there are a lot of Miliband retreads and old familiar faces. Thanks to 2019 the PLP have a n old group of MPs compared to Tories. The next GE may well reverse that of course.
I think though that @ydoethur in his interesting header is wearing his rose tinted specs. Parliament has always had a lot of nonentities, yes-men, careerists and time-servers. It is only the veneer of time that makes previous cabinets such as the 1997 New Labour one look good.
Don't you ever wonder what the selection panel that chose Michael Fabricant must have been like? It could be that he was the only one who turned up but even just for the money that's unlikely. I have tried to picture them but nothing comes to mind.
He was slightly lucky in that he was selected for a formerly safe Tory seat that had been lost in a by-election and with the Tories expected to lose in 1992 it wasn't expected to be retaken. So he wasn't up against lots of competition.
Probably put in a bunch of work at local party level.
O/T Mrs. P and I are finally cancelling our daily paper after 43 years for a number of reasons (cost, environment, timeliness).
We have switched to a digital subscription for the time being and could probably have half a dozen for less than the cost of a daily print media delivery.
How do others 'consume' these digital subscriptions - are there any that are formatted like newspapers or are they all like glorified BBC news websites?
I'd really like a paper on an iPad that I could flick through tbh.
There is a real loss in losing daily newspapers with large circulation and a collective monopoly on current comment and news. Both the 24 hour news cycle and the internet (these of course are linked events) have destroyed the model.
It loses a whole culture of tens of millions imbibing a culture in common ways every morning. And there is nothing that quite replaces newspaper with writing on it, print coming off on your fingers. But newspapers are in a sense out of date as they are printed and distributed. And of course Guardian online is free (as is much of the FT if you work around).
My compromise is to subscribe to the print edition of the Economist for slower news and comment, and online for the 24 hour cycle.
But the only thing I miss about London days and commuting etc is the immediacy of newsprint, and reading the Times in pre -Murdoch days.
I haven't read a printed paper in years.
Benedict Anderson in his seminal book "Imagined Communities" claims that mass literacy and the printed press were core factors in the rise of nationalism as a concept. I think that remains true, and is part of why nationalism is fraying around the edges and becoming so reactionary.
It is as easy to read another countries media online as our own. With Google translating, even language isn't a barrier. There are whole communities in our country that barely watch our own national media, preferring either international Social Media, or media from their old countries.
I for one find myself more in tune with The Atlantic than the Daily Mail, which in turn is widely read overseas. Nationalism is losing one of its core pillars by losing national media, not just here either.
I subscribed to the FT digital during lockdown - initially out of solidarity with a friend who has a weekly column, but discovering it was actually good in the process; but I haven't touched a printed paper in years.
I even stopped the once-a-year birthday or "special event" newspaper buying to go in the box-o-newspapers (which I slightly regret, in retrospect, but only slightly) simply because it slipped my mind that they are even a thing and once you've missed one, why carry on.
I would welcome more considered and thoughtful politicians, but one of the big problems on that front is they don’t have many avenues in which to test and properly debate their ideas.
News media is now obsessed with the “gotcha” moment and every interview is diluted into a scrappy battle of wills with a constantly interjecting journo trying to catch the person out. Add that to the online outrage wagon and it all becomes a very hostile environment for independent and interesting thinkers and doers.
In fact I would take it one step further and say that’s how you get politicians like Liz Truss, able to spout out the usual Tory shibboleths (“low taxes”, “sound money”, “small state”) but without a clue of what they mean and how to get there in a sensible and pragmatic way.
As for the solution? Not sure there is one, sadly. The genie does not go back in the bottle.
"Matt Goodwin @GoodwinMJ · 19h Can any sensible US journalists out there tell me what happened to US media? Do journos not visit countries they write about anymore? Do they not read evidence? How can so many apparently serious journalists like this, at NYT etc think this? What has happened to the media class?
Andrew Sullivan @sullydish Replying to @GoodwinMJ Matt, you have no idea how bad it is. Total capture by far-left. Almost all op-eds from tiny fringe of UK leftists. Reporting always skewed to prove Brexit was wrong. The bubble is tight af. 3:54 PM · Oct 27, 2022 ·Twitter Web App"
The US media’s coverage of the UK is on a par with the UK media’s coverage of mainland Europe and Ireland. With a few honourable exceptions, it is entirely superficial, often completely wrong and usually seen through the prism of domestic political bias.
You can add Scotland and Wales.
I am sure that’s true. Spain is a country I know very well and the way it is covered here is absolutely abysmal. The recent coverage of the French presidential election in the UK was just awful. How anyone working for the Telegraph or Spectator could get upset about US coverage of the UK given their coverage of France is beyond me. And let’s not forget that one former UK PM made his name by writing lies about the EU. The hypocrisy is off the charts!
Tell us: what should we know about Spain, and how should it be covered?
I would say even among British historians (with notable exceptions like Charles Esdaile and the late JH Elliot) the coverage of Spain is appallingly superficial, and dependent upon 19th century stereotypes. The Spanish are treated variously as proud, cruel, priest-ridden, and inept.
A good example is Antony Beevor's history of the Spanish Civil War. It's a good history of the Civil War, but the potted overview of Spanish history prior to it is riddled with inaccuracies.
The state of Germany - an existing wind farm to be demolished to make way for an open cast lignite mine. Can those environmental people fuck off to Germany and glue themselves to their roads and vandalise their artworks please.
This is an interesting header. But, what I would say in response is that the zombie state of politics is also reflected in the opposition. The labour party have the same problem. The 'stars' of the labour party are people who were in Ed Milibands shadow cabinet. The 2019 intake are low quality. Starmers whole approach is of 'competent managerialism' which isn't going to work against Sunak. The 'truss' episode demonstrates that the markets will impose limits on what you can actually do.
Labour's problem is that there was little intake in 2019, and those few were often of very low calibre, such as my local Claudia Webbe. Hence there are a lot of Miliband retreads and old familiar faces. Thanks to 2019 the PLP have a n old group of MPs compared to Tories. The next GE may well reverse that of course.
I think though that @ydoethur in his interesting header is wearing his rose tinted specs. Parliament has always had a lot of nonentities, yes-men, careerists and time-servers. It is only the veneer of time that makes previous cabinets such as the 1997 New Labour one look good.
Don't you ever wonder what the selection panel that chose Michael Fabricant must have been like? It could be that he was the only one who turned up but even just for the money that's unlikely. I have tried to picture them but nothing comes to mind.
He was slightly lucky in that he was selected for a formerly safe Tory seat that had been lost in a by-election and with the Tories expected to lose in 1992 it wasn't expected to be retaken. So he wasn't up against lots of competition.
Probably put in a bunch of work at local party level.
He was a carpetbagger, who fought a hopeless seat in the North east in 1987 and was at the time of his selection chairman of Brighton Pavilion Conservatives.
"Matt Goodwin @GoodwinMJ · 19h Can any sensible US journalists out there tell me what happened to US media? Do journos not visit countries they write about anymore? Do they not read evidence? How can so many apparently serious journalists like this, at NYT etc think this? What has happened to the media class?
Andrew Sullivan @sullydish Replying to @GoodwinMJ Matt, you have no idea how bad it is. Total capture by far-left. Almost all op-eds from tiny fringe of UK leftists. Reporting always skewed to prove Brexit was wrong. The bubble is tight af. 3:54 PM · Oct 27, 2022 ·Twitter Web App"
The US media’s coverage of the UK is on a par with the UK media’s coverage of mainland Europe and Ireland. With a few honourable exceptions, it is entirely superficial, often completely wrong and usually seen through the prism of domestic political bias.
You can add Scotland and Wales.
I am sure that’s true. Spain is a country I know very well and the way it is covered here is absolutely abysmal. The recent coverage of the French presidential election in the UK was just awful. How anyone working for the Telegraph or Spectator could get upset about US coverage of the UK given their coverage of France is beyond me. And let’s not forget that one former UK PM made his name by writing lies about the EU. The hypocrisy is off the charts!
Tell us: what should we know about Spain, and how should it be covered?
I would start with measures that UK citizens are now subject to in Spain that they were not previously. It’s not because they’re being singled out in revenge for Brexit, it’s because they’re not citizens of an EU member state and so are subject to different laws if they want to visit, settle, drive, take their pets etc.
Was the budget delayed so that the king could go to COP27 in Egypt? It would fit. Perhaps he's about to disgrace himself further, either going nuts if he attends or having a tantrum if he doesn't.
That only happens if the pen Immigration give him runs out.
Or if photographers are too close to him who aren't walking away fast backwards... Having made the "shoo, shoo, get a move on, you peasants" hand gesture at the signing ceremony, he made it again when Liz Truss came for an audience. Commentators chose to concentrate on him saying "Dear oh dear" instead.
Imagine having a job where there are websites which exist solely for watching your every move, criticising everything you do, and retweeting every tiny bit of negative information about you.
I don’t have to, I had one for ten years.
What job?
Teaching!
Hmmm. Was there really a website that existed solely to watch *your* every move, criticise everything *you* did, and retweeted every tiny bit of information about *you*?
Thanks for the article, BTW. To one of your questions about why politicians are of low quality, I'd put more emphasis on ideological purity. For four or five years, Labour selected a load of people who were total incompetents - but were solidly Corbynite. Likewise, as you state the Conservatives have been concerned more about Brexit purity than sane government, and have forced out a load of people who did not think Europe was the source of all the country's ills.
Both parties need to become broader churches.
I'd also argue that some politicians who are widely derided aren't as bad as they are made out. Gove is a classic example of this: he is widely hated, but also one of the better performers.
And finally: we apparently want MPs to be one of us, to 'represent' ourselves. Hence we want a certain number of female MPs, a certain number of BAME MPs, a certain number of state-educated ones. Note 'ability' does not creep into this. Yet we also want them to be 'better' than us. To be the same as us, yet better. It's an impossibility.
The last paragraph is weird nonsense. It's perfectly possible to have a parliament that includes "females" "BAME MPs" the "state-educated" who also have "ability".
People rightly see it as a sign of something wrong if government is dominated by, for example, rich people who went to elite private schools. Imagine a parliament that only contained white, male, privately-educated MPs. The only people who would just shrug and say "don't ask for more representation for other groups - it's just about ability" would probably be white, male and privately educated.
That's not my point, which I probably did not express well. You may be shocked to hear this, but I am a flawed individual. I fear that you are as well. Indeed, I may hasten to suggest that everyone on PB is. We will have some posters and readers who are liars; some who use prostitutes; some who swear in public; perhaps even some who indulge in domestic abuse. None of us will be perfect.
Yet that sort of behaviour might cause MPs significant issues (rightly, in some cases). We rightly expect MPs to be better than all of that, but if they are, then they are not *like* us. Like someone having an affair who complains about an MP having one.
So instead, we pretend that what matters is the 'group' someone is in - and assume that anyone who is not in that group cannot comprehend what it is like to be in that group. I'd much rather have someone totally unlike me as MP, who might be able to think and consider what it is like to be *me* (or my neighbours, or friends), than a middle-class, middle-aged heterosexual male like myself who is unable to consider what it might be like to be female. Or gay. Or Asian. Or elderly.
And as Sunak shows: even when they are a member of a group, if they have 'wrong' ideas then they are suddenly not a member of that group in some people's eyes.
And BTW, I've argued for inclusion consistently on here. But only if they are also good at the job - however you define the job of a politician (and that's a whole other issue).
The state of Germany - an existing wind farm to be demolished to make way for an open cast lignite mine. Can those environmental people fuck off to Germany and glue themselves to their roads and vandalise their artworks please.
O/T Mrs. P and I are finally cancelling our daily paper after 43 years for a number of reasons (cost, environment, timeliness).
We have switched to a digital subscription for the time being and could probably have half a dozen for less than the cost of a daily print media delivery. fore How do others 'consume' these digital subscriptions - are there any that are formatted like newspapers or are they all like glorified BBC news websites?
I'd really like a paper on an iPad that I could flick through tbh.
Some newspapers have the normal website vs pretend paper format option, and the latter is what you want. The National is an example, for instance. In that case when you go to the main website there is a blue button labelled "Digital Edition" and you press that to go to the pretend paper format. (Rather illogical as both the website format and the pretend paper options are both digital, but ...). You might have to poke around for your preferred example ...
You read the National? That is true dedication to the cause, that is. Respect.
Sarky!
Amongst others ... but I'd rather have the Scotsman and Herald of old, admittedly so last century now.
Yes, they were both quality reads once upon a time but are now little more than advertising pamphlets put together by a skeleton staff. It is sad.
I have told this story before but when I was a trainee I came across a copy of the Evening Telegraph in a set of title deeds which showed that the property had been repossessed and then sold by a bond holder before the first world war. The paper itself was remarkable with extended coverage of the comings and goings of the Austria-Hungarian court in Vienna and at least 6 pages of international news. What people going home on the tram to Lochee after a day in the Jute mills made of it heaven only knows but the international businesses based in Dundee in those times clearly created a demand for foreign news that is almost inconceivable today.
My Grandparents took the Telegraph because it used to not rely on the wire services, but rather had its own correspondents on the ground, so the quality of its foreign coverage was so much better than other papers. My Grandfather opined that it was because so much of the readership were retired soldiers and colonial officers!
It has lost that advantage now, but as we can directly read the Jerusalem Post, Kyiv Independent or South China Post we just don't need it anymore.
Surely propaganda and I doubt every Ukrainian hideout is like this. There does seem to be a stark contrast with the way Russians appear to treat both objects and people. Why is it that wherever the Russians go there appears to be mess and chaos. Clearly it is not intrinsic to them but what is it about their upbringing that teaches them to have so little respect?
Imagine having a job where there are websites which exist solely for watching your every move, criticising everything you do, and retweeting every tiny bit of negative information about you.
I don’t have to, I had one for ten years.
What job?
Teaching!
And finally: we apparently want MPs to be one of us, to 'represent' ourselves. Hence we want a certain number of female MPs, a certain number of BAME MPs, a certain number of state-educated ones. Note 'ability' does not creep into this. Yet we also want them to be 'better' than us. To be the same as us, yet better. It's an impossibility.
Yes there is some truth to this. The diversity on the government benches is in large part due to the work that Cameron put in in the late naughties, and those now have a dozen years experience as MPs, so are front benches. Would Sunak have been selected for a safe seat a decade or so earlier?
This was helped of course by the large number of new seats won in 2010, and the unusual number of retirements from the expenses scandal fall out. Polls would suggest that there will be a massive clear out at the next GE too, with perhaps half the government benches being novice MPs. An opportunity but also a problem.
One thing that we do seem to have lost is the presence of MPs of working class origin, and the non-graduates. Rayner is a rare example, and clearly political marmite (I am a fan). I do think this matters, as too many MPs come through the avenues of student politics, think tank, policy wonk, to MP. Either that or a narrow range of careers, often in financial services, giving a very one dimensional character to Parliament.
"presence of MPs of working class origin, and the non-graduates."
What is 'working class' nowadays? IMV the distinctions are becoming very blurred. For instance, is Owen Jones 'working class' ? If so, why not Rishi Sunak?
Agree totally on non-graduates. I've wittered on about the evils of the 50% university targets in the past; but what we are seeing are increasing number of roles which are closed to non-graduates (*). This is utterly wrong and throws lots of people under the bus - the same effect as the 11+, except later in life.
(*) I am a non-graduate.
We have a skills shortage of craftspeople and tradespeople. We don’t have a skills shortage of graduates.
I am off to Glasgow today to see the graduation of my daughter who has got a first class honours from the Open University in her early 30s. She was not exactly a dedicated scholar in her youth but has been increasingly finding herself against a glass ceiling where every promoted post she might go for requires a degree to even apply despite her relevant experience. I am proud of her achievement but it seems a bit silly that she has had to do this.
Congratulations to her. That's a fabulous achievement. In terms of academic rigour the OU is one of the top, if not the top, uni in the country although neither the OU or its graduates ever seem to get quite the credit it deserves for it.
"Matt Goodwin @GoodwinMJ · 19h Can any sensible US journalists out there tell me what happened to US media? Do journos not visit countries they write about anymore? Do they not read evidence? How can so many apparently serious journalists like this, at NYT etc think this? What has happened to the media class?
Andrew Sullivan @sullydish Replying to @GoodwinMJ Matt, you have no idea how bad it is. Total capture by far-left. Almost all op-eds from tiny fringe of UK leftists. Reporting always skewed to prove Brexit was wrong. The bubble is tight af. 3:54 PM · Oct 27, 2022 ·Twitter Web App"
The US media’s coverage of the UK is on a par with the UK media’s coverage of mainland Europe and Ireland. With a few honourable exceptions, it is entirely superficial, often completely wrong and usually seen through the prism of domestic political bias.
You can add Scotland and Wales.
I am sure that’s true. Spain is a country I know very well and the way it is covered here is absolutely abysmal. The recent coverage of the French presidential election in the UK was just awful. How anyone working for the Telegraph or Spectator could get upset about US coverage of the UK given their coverage of France is beyond me. And let’s not forget that one former UK PM made his name by writing lies about the EU. The hypocrisy is off the charts!
Tell us: what should we know about Spain, and how should it be covered?
I would say even among British historians (with notable exceptions like Charles Esdaile and the late JH Elliot) the coverage of Spain is appallingly superficial, and dependent upon 19th century stereotypes. The Spanish are treated variously as proud, cruel, priest-ridden, and inept.
A good example is Antony Beevor's history of the Spanish Civil War. It's a good history of the Civil War, but the potted overview of Spanish history prior to it is riddled with inaccuracies.
I'm interested.
I'm just not sure where to go to read more about it.
On reading that one does wonder why the Russian front hasn't completely collapsed. I hope it is accurate, but it makes you wonder.
I had to give up reading that article. The reason the woman in detention intentionally broke the toilet is just heartbreaking. I was initially upset about the awful report from 8 October, about the fate of a group of 30 new conscripts from the Moscow region; but now wish the surviving 13 fuckers had also suffered a humiliating death.
"Matt Goodwin @GoodwinMJ · 19h Can any sensible US journalists out there tell me what happened to US media? Do journos not visit countries they write about anymore? Do they not read evidence? How can so many apparently serious journalists like this, at NYT etc think this? What has happened to the media class?
Andrew Sullivan @sullydish Replying to @GoodwinMJ Matt, you have no idea how bad it is. Total capture by far-left. Almost all op-eds from tiny fringe of UK leftists. Reporting always skewed to prove Brexit was wrong. The bubble is tight af. 3:54 PM · Oct 27, 2022 ·Twitter Web App"
The US media’s coverage of the UK is on a par with the UK media’s coverage of mainland Europe and Ireland. With a few honourable exceptions, it is entirely superficial, often completely wrong and usually seen through the prism of domestic political bias.
You can add Scotland and Wales.
I am sure that’s true. Spain is a country I know very well and the way it is covered here is absolutely abysmal. The recent coverage of the French presidential election in the UK was just awful. How anyone working for the Telegraph or Spectator could get upset about US coverage of the UK given their coverage of France is beyond me. And let’s not forget that one former UK PM made his name by writing lies about the EU. The hypocrisy is off the charts!
Tell us: what should we know about Spain, and how should it be covered?
I would start with measures that UK citizens are now subject to in Spain that they were not previously. It’s not because they’re being singled out in revenge for Brexit, it’s because they’re not citizens of an EU member state and so are subject to different laws if they want to visit, settle, drive, take their pets etc.
Yeah but we already know this, and the point is quite a boring one. Particularly because grinding your axe about Brexit is your bread & butter.
How do I get under the skin of modern Spain? What should we know about it? Where do we go to find out more? What do they think about themselves? How do they see the future?
Imagine having a job where there are websites which exist solely for watching your every move, criticising everything you do, and retweeting every tiny bit of negative information about you.
I don’t have to, I had one for ten years.
What job?
Teaching!
Hmmm. Was there really a website that existed solely to watch *your* every move, criticise everything *you* did, and retweeted every tiny bit of information about *you*?
Thanks for the article, BTW. To one of your questions about why politicians are of low quality, I'd put more emphasis on ideological purity. For four or five years, Labour selected a load of people who were total incompetents - but were solidly Corbynite. Likewise, as you state the Conservatives have been concerned more about Brexit purity than sane government, and have forced out a load of people who did not think Europe was the source of all the country's ills.
Both parties need to become broader churches.
I'd also argue that some politicians who are widely derided aren't as bad as they are made out. Gove is a classic example of this: he is widely hated, but also one of the better performers.
And finally: we apparently want MPs to be one of us, to 'represent' ourselves. Hence we want a certain number of female MPs, a certain number of BAME MPs, a certain number of state-educated ones. Note 'ability' does not creep into this. Yet we also want them to be 'better' than us. To be the same as us, yet better. It's an impossibility.
The last paragraph is weird nonsense. It's perfectly possible to have a parliament that includes "females" "BAME MPs" the "state-educated" who also have "ability".
People rightly see it as a sign of something wrong if government is dominated by, for example, rich people who went to elite private schools. Imagine a parliament that only contained white, male, privately-educated MPs. The only people who would just shrug and say "don't ask for more representation for other groups - it's just about ability" would probably be white, male and privately educated.
That's not my point, which I probably did not express well. You may be shocked to hear this, but I am a flawed individual. I fear that you are as well. Indeed, I may hasten to suggest that everyone on PB is. We will have some posters and readers who are liars; some who use prostitutes; some who swear in public; perhaps even some who indulge in domestic abuse. None of us will be perfect.
Yet that sort of behaviour might cause MPs significant issues (rightly, in some cases). We rightly expect MPs to be better than all of that, but if they are, then they are not *like* us. Like someone having an affair who complains about an MP having one.
So instead, we pretend that what matters is the 'group' someone is in - and assume that anyone who is not in that group cannot comprehend what it is like to be in that group. I'd much rather have someone totally unlike me as MP, who might be able to think and consider what it is like to be *me* (or my neighbours, or friends), than a middle-class, middle-aged heterosexual male like myself who is unable to consider what it might be like to be female. Or gay. Or Asian. Or elderly.
And as Sunak shows: even when they are a member of a group, if they have 'wrong' ideas then they are suddenly not a member of that group in some people's eyes.
And BTW, I've argued for inclusion consistently on here. But only if they are also good at the job - however you define the job of a politician (and that's a whole other issue).
"Matt Goodwin @GoodwinMJ · 19h Can any sensible US journalists out there tell me what happened to US media? Do journos not visit countries they write about anymore? Do they not read evidence? How can so many apparently serious journalists like this, at NYT etc think this? What has happened to the media class?
Andrew Sullivan @sullydish Replying to @GoodwinMJ Matt, you have no idea how bad it is. Total capture by far-left. Almost all op-eds from tiny fringe of UK leftists. Reporting always skewed to prove Brexit was wrong. The bubble is tight af. 3:54 PM · Oct 27, 2022 ·Twitter Web App"
The US media’s coverage of the UK is on a par with the UK media’s coverage of mainland Europe and Ireland. With a few honourable exceptions, it is entirely superficial, often completely wrong and usually seen through the prism of domestic political bias.
You can add Scotland and Wales.
I am sure that’s true. Spain is a country I know very well and the way it is covered here is absolutely abysmal. The recent coverage of the French presidential election in the UK was just awful. How anyone working for the Telegraph or Spectator could get upset about US coverage of the UK given their coverage of France is beyond me. And let’s not forget that one former UK PM made his name by writing lies about the EU. The hypocrisy is off the charts!
Tell us: what should we know about Spain, and how should it be covered?
I would say even among British historians (with notable exceptions like Charles Esdaile and the late JH Elliot) the coverage of Spain is appallingly superficial, and dependent upon 19th century stereotypes. The Spanish are treated variously as proud, cruel, priest-ridden, and inept.
A good example is Antony Beevor's history of the Spanish Civil War. It's a good history of the Civil War, but the potted overview of Spanish history prior to it is riddled with inaccuracies.
Yes, absolutely this too. Coverage is so superficial - folklore and Franco.
O/T Mrs. P and I are finally cancelling our daily paper after 43 years for a number of reasons (cost, environment, timeliness).
We have switched to a digital subscription for the time being and could probably have half a dozen for less than the cost of a daily print media delivery. fore How do others 'consume' these digital subscriptions - are there any that are formatted like newspapers or are they all like glorified BBC news websites?
I'd really like a paper on an iPad that I could flick through tbh.
Some newspapers have the normal website vs pretend paper format option, and the latter is what you want. The National is an example, for instance. In that case when you go to the main website there is a blue button labelled "Digital Edition" and you press that to go to the pretend paper format. (Rather illogical as both the website format and the pretend paper options are both digital, but ...). You might have to poke around for your preferred example ...
You read the National? That is true dedication to the cause, that is. Respect.
Sarky!
Amongst others ... but I'd rather have the Scotsman and Herald of old, admittedly so last century now.
Yes, they were both quality reads once upon a time but are now little more than advertising pamphlets put together by a skeleton staff. It is sad.
I have told this story before but when I was a trainee I came across a copy of the Evening Telegraph in a set of title deeds which showed that the property had been repossessed and then sold by a bond holder before the first world war. The paper itself was remarkable with extended coverage of the comings and goings of the Austria-Hungarian court in Vienna and at least 6 pages of international news. What people going home on the tram to Lochee after a day in the Jute mills made of it heaven only knows but the international businesses based in Dundee in those times clearly created a demand for foreign news that is almost inconceivable today.
My Grandparents took the Telegraph because it used to not rely on the wire services, but rather had its own correspondents on the ground, so the quality of its foreign coverage was so much better than other papers. My Grandfather opined that it was because so much of the readership were retired soldiers and colonial officers!
It has lost that advantage now, but as we can directly read the Jerusalem Post, Kyiv Independent or South China Post we just don't need it anymore.
The Times used to have a very rigid distinction between foreign and domestic news. Go and look at a copy of 23rd November 1963 - you won't discover until (I think) page 13 that JFK had been assassinated...
The Tories on just 18% (!!) in the Midlands. Surely some kind of record low?
London Lab 46% Con 24% LD 12% Grn 9% Ref 9%
Rest of South Lab 52% Con 25% LD 10% Ref 6% Grn 5%
Midlands and Wales Lab 52% Con 18% Ref 10% LD 8% Grn 6% PC 3%
North Lab 55% Con 19% LD 9% Grn 5% Ref 5%
Scotland SNP 47% Lab 37% Con 7% LD 4% Ref 3%
(PeoplePolling/GB News; 1,185; 26 October)
Quite striking that the Tories are now doing less badly in London than almost anywhere else. Also that there must be quite a few southeastern Blue Wall seats on those figures where Labour are in reality the main challengers even though Labour supporters are used to voting LibDem tactically. What were the overall figures?
Imagine having a job where there are websites which exist solely for watching your every move, criticising everything you do, and retweeting every tiny bit of negative information about you.
I don’t have to, I had one for ten years.
What job?
Teaching!
And finally: we apparently want MPs to be one of us, to 'represent' ourselves. Hence we want a certain number of female MPs, a certain number of BAME MPs, a certain number of state-educated ones. Note 'ability' does not creep into this. Yet we also want them to be 'better' than us. To be the same as us, yet better. It's an impossibility.
Yes there is some truth to this. The diversity on the government benches is in large part due to the work that Cameron put in in the late naughties, and those now have a dozen years experience as MPs, so are front benches. Would Sunak have been selected for a safe seat a decade or so earlier?
This was helped of course by the large number of new seats won in 2010, and the unusual number of retirements from the expenses scandal fall out. Polls would suggest that there will be a massive clear out at the next GE too, with perhaps half the government benches being novice MPs. An opportunity but also a problem.
One thing that we do seem to have lost is the presence of MPs of working class origin, and the non-graduates. Rayner is a rare example, and clearly political marmite (I am a fan). I do think this matters, as too many MPs come through the avenues of student politics, think tank, policy wonk, to MP. Either that or a narrow range of careers, often in financial services, giving a very one dimensional character to Parliament.
"presence of MPs of working class origin, and the non-graduates."
What is 'working class' nowadays? IMV the distinctions are becoming very blurred. For instance, is Owen Jones 'working class' ? If so, why not Rishi Sunak?
Agree totally on non-graduates. I've wittered on about the evils of the 50% university targets in the past; but what we are seeing are increasing number of roles which are closed to non-graduates (*). This is utterly wrong and throws lots of people under the bus - the same effect as the 11+, except later in life.
(*) I am a non-graduate.
We have a skills shortage of craftspeople and tradespeople. We don’t have a skills shortage of graduates.
I am off to Glasgow today to see the graduation of my daughter who has got a first class honours from the Open University in her early 30s. She was not exactly a dedicated scholar in her youth but has been increasingly finding herself against a glass ceiling where every promoted post she might go for requires a degree to even apply despite her relevant experience. I am proud of her achievement but it seems a bit silly that she has had to do this.
Congratulations to her. That's a fabulous achievement. In terms of academic rigour the OU is one of the top, if not the top, uni in the country although neither the OU or its graduates ever seem to get quite the credit it deserves for it.
Also because of the extra application it needs to do a degree part time at home.
Imagine having a job where there are websites which exist solely for watching your every move, criticising everything you do, and retweeting every tiny bit of negative information about you.
I don’t have to, I had one for ten years.
What job?
Teaching!
Hmmm. Was there really a website that existed solely to watch *your* every move, criticise everything *you* did, and retweeted every tiny bit of information about *you*?
Thanks for the article, BTW. To one of your questions about why politicians are of low quality, I'd put more emphasis on ideological purity. For four or five years, Labour selected a load of people who were total incompetents - but were solidly Corbynite. Likewise, as you state the Conservatives have been concerned more about Brexit purity than sane government, and have forced out a load of people who did not think Europe was the source of all the country's ills.
Both parties need to become broader churches.
I'd also argue that some politicians who are widely derided aren't as bad as they are made out. Gove is a classic example of this: he is widely hated, but also one of the better performers.
And finally: we apparently want MPs to be one of us, to 'represent' ourselves. Hence we want a certain number of female MPs, a certain number of BAME MPs, a certain number of state-educated ones. Note 'ability' does not creep into this. Yet we also want them to be 'better' than us. To be the same as us, yet better. It's an impossibility.
The last paragraph is weird nonsense. It's perfectly possible to have a parliament that includes "females" "BAME MPs" the "state-educated" who also have "ability".
People rightly see it as a sign of something wrong if government is dominated by, for example, rich people who went to elite private schools. Imagine a parliament that only contained white, male, privately-educated MPs. The only people who would just shrug and say "don't ask for more representation for other groups - it's just about ability" would probably be white, male and privately educated.
That's not my point, which I probably did not express well. You may be shocked to hear this, but I am a flawed individual. I fear that you are as well. Indeed, I may hasten to suggest that everyone on PB is. We will have some posters and readers who are liars; some who use prostitutes; some who swear in public; perhaps even some who indulge in domestic abuse. None of us will be perfect.
Yet that sort of behaviour might cause MPs significant issues (rightly, in some cases). We rightly expect MPs to be better than all of that, but if they are, then they are not *like* us. Like someone having an affair who complains about an MP having one.
So instead, we pretend that what matters is the 'group' someone is in - and assume that anyone who is not in that group cannot comprehend what it is like to be in that group. I'd much rather have someone totally unlike me as MP, who might be able to think and consider what it is like to be *me* (or my neighbours, or friends), than a middle-class, middle-aged heterosexual male like myself who is unable to consider what it might be like to be female. Or gay. Or Asian. Or elderly.
And as Sunak shows: even when they are a member of a group, if they have 'wrong' ideas then they are suddenly not a member of that group in some people's eyes.
And BTW, I've argued for inclusion consistently on here. But only if they are also good at the job - however you define the job of a politician (and that's a whole other issue).
Sure. But sometimes when people say that a representative body isn't very representative because for example women or non-whites are proportionately very few on it they DON'T mean that women should represent women, non-whites should represent non-whites, etc.
Usage of "represent" can be a pitfall. If you have for example an 80% white 20% black population and an elected 600-strong representative body is 99% white 1% black, it is totally legitimate to ask why there aren't more black people on it and to observe that the reason there aren't is not going to be a good one and indeed the reason will be structural racism.
I wonder if that’s why Sunak & Macron haven’t spoken yet? Waiting for something concrete to discuss/announce? Could just be timetabling, but I’d have thought Macron would have been one of his earliest calls.
The Tories on just 18% (!!) in the Midlands. Surely some kind of record low?
London Lab 46% Con 24% LD 12% Grn 9% Ref 9%
Rest of South Lab 52% Con 25% LD 10% Ref 6% Grn 5%
Midlands and Wales Lab 52% Con 18% Ref 10% LD 8% Grn 6% PC 3%
North Lab 55% Con 19% LD 9% Grn 5% Ref 5%
Scotland SNP 47% Lab 37% Con 7% LD 4% Ref 3%
(PeoplePolling/GB News; 1,185; 26 October)
7% in Scotland ... soon we'll get a subsample with them lower than the SLDs and Kippers.
Already kinda happened: the same polling company recorded the Scottish Conservatives at 3% a couple of weeks ago, the same as Reform, the Greens and Others, and less than half of the Liberal Democrats.
"Matt Goodwin @GoodwinMJ · 19h Can any sensible US journalists out there tell me what happened to US media? Do journos not visit countries they write about anymore? Do they not read evidence? How can so many apparently serious journalists like this, at NYT etc think this? What has happened to the media class?
Andrew Sullivan @sullydish Replying to @GoodwinMJ Matt, you have no idea how bad it is. Total capture by far-left. Almost all op-eds from tiny fringe of UK leftists. Reporting always skewed to prove Brexit was wrong. The bubble is tight af. 3:54 PM · Oct 27, 2022 ·Twitter Web App"
The US media’s coverage of the UK is on a par with the UK media’s coverage of mainland Europe and Ireland. With a few honourable exceptions, it is entirely superficial, often completely wrong and usually seen through the prism of domestic political bias.
You can add Scotland and Wales.
I am sure that’s true. Spain is a country I know very well and the way it is covered here is absolutely abysmal. The recent coverage of the French presidential election in the UK was just awful. How anyone working for the Telegraph or Spectator could get upset about US coverage of the UK given their coverage of France is beyond me. And let’s not forget that one former UK PM made his name by writing lies about the EU. The hypocrisy is off the charts!
Tell us: what should we know about Spain, and how should it be covered?
I would start with measures that UK citizens are now subject to in Spain that they were not previously. It’s not because they’re being singled out in revenge for Brexit, it’s because they’re not citizens of an EU member state and so are subject to different laws if they want to visit, settle, drive, take their pets etc.
Yeah but we already know this, and the point is quite a boring one. Particularly because grinding your axe about Brexit is your bread & butter.
How do I get under the skin of modern Spain? What should we know about it? Where do we go to find out more? What do they think about themselves? How do they see the future?
Sincere questions.
If you've not read it, "After the fall" by Tobias Buck is a good place to start. 2008 was brutal in Spain, and the aftershocks haven't fully settled down yet. (Yes, one of the regions really did build a massive airport that got next to no use.)
O/T Mrs. P and I are finally cancelling our daily paper after 43 years for a number of reasons (cost, environment, timeliness).
We have switched to a digital subscription for the time being and could probably have half a dozen for less than the cost of a daily print media delivery. fore How do others 'consume' these digital subscriptions - are there any that are formatted like newspapers or are they all like glorified BBC news websites?
I'd really like a paper on an iPad that I could flick through tbh.
Some newspapers have the normal website vs pretend paper format option, and the latter is what you want. The National is an example, for instance. In that case when you go to the main website there is a blue button labelled "Digital Edition" and you press that to go to the pretend paper format. (Rather illogical as both the website format and the pretend paper options are both digital, but ...). You might have to poke around for your preferred example ...
You read the National? That is true dedication to the cause, that is. Respect.
Sarky!
Amongst others ... but I'd rather have the Scotsman and Herald of old, admittedly so last century now.
Yes, they were both quality reads once upon a time but are now little more than advertising pamphlets put together by a skeleton staff. It is sad.
I have told this story before but when I was a trainee I came across a copy of the Evening Telegraph in a set of title deeds which showed that the property had been repossessed and then sold by a bond holder before the first world war. The paper itself was remarkable with extended coverage of the comings and goings of the Austria-Hungarian court in Vienna and at least 6 pages of international news. What people going home on the tram to Lochee after a day in the Jute mills made of it heaven only knows but the international businesses based in Dundee in those times clearly created a demand for foreign news that is almost inconceivable today.
My Grandparents took the Telegraph because it used to not rely on the wire services, but rather had its own correspondents on the ground, so the quality of its foreign coverage was so much better than other papers. My Grandfather opined that it was because so much of the readership were retired soldiers and colonial officers!
It has lost that advantage now, but as we can directly read the Jerusalem Post, Kyiv Independent or South China Post we just don't need it anymore.
And Matt is free on Twitter. What else do people read the DT for?
"Matt Goodwin @GoodwinMJ · 19h Can any sensible US journalists out there tell me what happened to US media? Do journos not visit countries they write about anymore? Do they not read evidence? How can so many apparently serious journalists like this, at NYT etc think this? What has happened to the media class?
Andrew Sullivan @sullydish Replying to @GoodwinMJ Matt, you have no idea how bad it is. Total capture by far-left. Almost all op-eds from tiny fringe of UK leftists. Reporting always skewed to prove Brexit was wrong. The bubble is tight af. 3:54 PM · Oct 27, 2022 ·Twitter Web App"
The US media’s coverage of the UK is on a par with the UK media’s coverage of mainland Europe and Ireland. With a few honourable exceptions, it is entirely superficial, often completely wrong and usually seen through the prism of domestic political bias.
You can add Scotland and Wales.
I am sure that’s true. Spain is a country I know very well and the way it is covered here is absolutely abysmal. The recent coverage of the French presidential election in the UK was just awful. How anyone working for the Telegraph or Spectator could get upset about US coverage of the UK given their coverage of France is beyond me. And let’s not forget that one former UK PM made his name by writing lies about the EU. The hypocrisy is off the charts!
Tell us: what should we know about Spain, and how should it be covered?
I would say even among British historians (with notable exceptions like Charles Esdaile and the late JH Elliot) the coverage of Spain is appallingly superficial, and dependent upon 19th century stereotypes. The Spanish are treated variously as proud, cruel, priest-ridden, and inept.
A good example is Antony Beevor's history of the Spanish Civil War. It's a good history of the Civil War, but the potted overview of Spanish history prior to it is riddled with inaccuracies.
I'm interested.
I'm just not sure where to go to read more about it.
I think that the works of Charles Esdaile, JH Elliott, and Henry Kamen should give you a very good idea of what has made Spain the country it is and why it became the country it is.
Elliott is very good on just what a strategist's nightmare it was to defend the Hapsburg inheritance in the sixteenth and seventeenth century. Spain was always at war, because it had no option but to be at war. The world feared Spain, and Spain feared the rest of the world.
O/T Mrs. P and I are finally cancelling our daily paper after 43 years for a number of reasons (cost, environment, timeliness).
We have switched to a digital subscription for the time being and could probably have half a dozen for less than the cost of a daily print media delivery. fore How do others 'consume' these digital subscriptions - are there any that are formatted like newspapers or are they all like glorified BBC news websites?
I'd really like a paper on an iPad that I could flick through tbh.
Some newspapers have the normal website vs pretend paper format option, and the latter is what you want. The National is an example, for instance. In that case when you go to the main website there is a blue button labelled "Digital Edition" and you press that to go to the pretend paper format. (Rather illogical as both the website format and the pretend paper options are both digital, but ...). You might have to poke around for your preferred example ...
You read the National? That is true dedication to the cause, that is. Respect.
Sarky!
Amongst others ... but I'd rather have the Scotsman and Herald of old, admittedly so last century now.
Yes, they were both quality reads once upon a time but are now little more than advertising pamphlets put together by a skeleton staff. It is sad.
I have told this story before but when I was a trainee I came across a copy of the Evening Telegraph in a set of title deeds which showed that the property had been repossessed and then sold by a bond holder before the first world war. The paper itself was remarkable with extended coverage of the comings and goings of the Austria-Hungarian court in Vienna and at least 6 pages of international news. What people going home on the tram to Lochee after a day in the Jute mills made of it heaven only knows but the international businesses based in Dundee in those times clearly created a demand for foreign news that is almost inconceivable today.
My Grandparents took the Telegraph because it used to not rely on the wire services, but rather had its own correspondents on the ground, so the quality of its foreign coverage was so much better than other papers. My Grandfather opined that it was because so much of the readership were retired soldiers and colonial officers!
It has lost that advantage now, but as we can directly read the Jerusalem Post, Kyiv Independent or South China Post we just don't need it anymore.
And Matt is free on Twitter. What else do people read the DT for?
There is/was a deal at WHSmith in airports where you bought the Telegraph and got a free bottle of water
Or in reality, you bought a bottle of water and got a free DT, but if they worded it like that it wouldn't have counted towards circulation figures
Thank you for your header @Ydoethur and it is difficult not to agree that the conservatives are exhausted after 12 years in government and labour will not have a better chance to gain office in 2024
However, I notice that Rishi in just a few days has risen above Starmer on best PM, the economy and taxes and I do not think his decision to remain in the UK to concentrate on the COL crisis rather than attend COP27 will be a negative
We cannot underestimate just how important the Autumn statement is going to be with a near certaintity of energy and bank windfall taxes, possibly higher taxes on the wealthy and because he quotes the 2019 manifesto an inflation rise for pensioners and most of those on benefits
On Braverman I expect he will seek a closer cooperation with Macron on the channel crossings and quietly sideline the Rwanda policy and he seems to making progress with the EU and the Irish on the NIP which I expect will be resolved through negotiation
The danger for labour is Rishi will steal all their clothes and of course they will have to provide a programme for government that meets the OBR and market approval which will inhibit them considerably in their ambitions
Finally, I would not rule out Rishi becoming the new Blair and winning in 24, but it seems unlikely but those who say it is all over now, 2 years from a GE, are being entirely irrational
The Tories on just 18% (!!) in the Midlands. Surely some kind of record low?
London Lab 46% Con 24% LD 12% Grn 9% Ref 9%
Rest of South Lab 52% Con 25% LD 10% Ref 6% Grn 5%
Midlands and Wales Lab 52% Con 18% Ref 10% LD 8% Grn 6% PC 3%
North Lab 55% Con 19% LD 9% Grn 5% Ref 5%
Scotland SNP 47% Lab 37% Con 7% LD 4% Ref 3%
(PeoplePolling/GB News; 1,185; 26 October)
Quite striking that the Tories are now doing less badly in London than almost anywhere else. Also that there must be quite a few southeastern Blue Wall seats on those figures where Labour are in reality the main challengers even though Labour supporters are used to voting LibDem tactically. What were the overall figures?
Those look like very high Ref and Green figures for London. Most polls have them on 3-4% each.
O/T Mrs. P and I are finally cancelling our daily paper after 43 years for a number of reasons (cost, environment, timeliness).
We have switched to a digital subscription for the time being and could probably have half a dozen for less than the cost of a daily print media delivery. fore How do others 'consume' these digital subscriptions - are there any that are formatted like newspapers or are they all like glorified BBC news websites?
I'd really like a paper on an iPad that I could flick through tbh.
Some newspapers have the normal website vs pretend paper format option, and the latter is what you want. The National is an example, for instance. In that case when you go to the main website there is a blue button labelled "Digital Edition" and you press that to go to the pretend paper format. (Rather illogical as both the website format and the pretend paper options are both digital, but ...). You might have to poke around for your preferred example ...
You read the National? That is true dedication to the cause, that is. Respect.
Sarky!
Amongst others ... but I'd rather have the Scotsman and Herald of old, admittedly so last century now.
Yes, they were both quality reads once upon a time but are now little more than advertising pamphlets put together by a skeleton staff. It is sad.
I have told this story before but when I was a trainee I came across a copy of the Evening Telegraph in a set of title deeds which showed that the property had been repossessed and then sold by a bond holder before the first world war. The paper itself was remarkable with extended coverage of the comings and goings of the Austria-Hungarian court in Vienna and at least 6 pages of international news. What people going home on the tram to Lochee after a day in the Jute mills made of it heaven only knows but the international businesses based in Dundee in those times clearly created a demand for foreign news that is almost inconceivable today.
My Grandparents took the Telegraph because it used to not rely on the wire services, but rather had its own correspondents on the ground, so the quality of its foreign coverage was so much better than other papers. My Grandfather opined that it was because so much of the readership were retired soldiers and colonial officers!
It has lost that advantage now, but as we can directly read the Jerusalem Post, Kyiv Independent or South China Post we just don't need it anymore.
And Matt is free on Twitter. What else do people read the DT for?
I wish you hadn’t written that. I typed ‘Matt’ into Twitter’s search bar and got presented with a stream of young Asian ladies with very tight-fitting attire.
Maybe I’m showing my age, but I find the Telegraph cartoonist much more entertaining.
A couple of brief comments on the splendid (dare I say otherwise?) thread header.
1. Looking at the photo of Sunak's Cabinet, I do wonder if we are prone to exaggerate the diversity of the Cabinet and the extent to which it reflects 'modern Britain'. Men in suits and ties look pretty dominant to me.
2. While I too have concerns about the quality of modern politicians, I'm old enough to recognise that every generation looks back nostalgically and claims 'politicians were better in my day'. It's also true that politicians' reputations usually improve each year after they have left office (Truss will be, I fear, a rare exception). It's a bit like the pop music stuff - they can't write a good tune these days, can they?
A couple of brief comments on the splendid (dare I say otherwise?) thread header.
1. Looking at the photo of Sunak's Cabinet, I do wonder if we are prone to exaggerate the diversity of the Cabinet and the extent to which it reflects 'modern Britain'. Men in suits and ties look pretty dominant to me.
2. While I too have concerns about the quality of modern politicians, I'm old enough to recognise that every generation looks back nostalgically and claims 'politicians were better in my day'. It's also true that politicians' reputations usually improve each year after they have left office (Truss will be, I fear, a rare exception). It's a bit like the pop music stuff - they can't write a good tune these days, can they?
I used to think I hated modern pop music, but then my wife and I discovered Miss Li.
Upshot seems to be that everyone is losing all of their existing car industry, and some proper effort has to be made to attract new investment to build a new car industry for the electric vehicle age - and so far Britain is missing out.
Mr Sunak also intends to look to review the Equality Act to make it clear that sex means biological sex rather than gender.
This would mean that biological males cannot compete in women’s sport and other single-sex facilities such as changing rooms and women’s refuges will be protected.
It would also mean clarifying that self-identification for transgender people does not have legal force, meaning transgender women have no legal right to access women-only facilities.
A Downing Street source said that protecting women and girls is a priority for Mr Sunak’s administration.
"Matt Goodwin @GoodwinMJ · 19h Can any sensible US journalists out there tell me what happened to US media? Do journos not visit countries they write about anymore? Do they not read evidence? How can so many apparently serious journalists like this, at NYT etc think this? What has happened to the media class?
Andrew Sullivan @sullydish Replying to @GoodwinMJ Matt, you have no idea how bad it is. Total capture by far-left. Almost all op-eds from tiny fringe of UK leftists. Reporting always skewed to prove Brexit was wrong. The bubble is tight af. 3:54 PM · Oct 27, 2022 ·Twitter Web App"
The US media’s coverage of the UK is on a par with the UK media’s coverage of mainland Europe and Ireland. With a few honourable exceptions, it is entirely superficial, often completely wrong and usually seen through the prism of domestic political bias.
You can add Scotland and Wales.
I am sure that’s true. Spain is a country I know very well and the way it is covered here is absolutely abysmal. The recent coverage of the French presidential election in the UK was just awful. How anyone working for the Telegraph or Spectator could get upset about US coverage of the UK given their coverage of France is beyond me. And let’s not forget that one former UK PM made his name by writing lies about the EU. The hypocrisy is off the charts!
Tell us: what should we know about Spain, and how should it be covered?
I would start with measures that UK citizens are now subject to in Spain that they were not previously. It’s not because they’re being singled out in revenge for Brexit, it’s because they’re not citizens of an EU member state and so are subject to different laws if they want to visit, settle, drive, take their pets etc.
Yeah but we already know this, and the point is quite a boring one. Particularly because grinding your axe about Brexit is your bread & butter.
How do I get under the skin of modern Spain? What should we know about it? Where do we go to find out more? What do they think about themselves? How do they see the future?
Sincere questions.
If you want to know more about modern Spain, you will generally struggle to find much in English. Giles Tremlett has just written a decent, very breathless, potted history of Spain that is worth a read. For me, the best historian of the country writing in English is Paul Preston.
In terms of general themes for Spain:
1. Catalan nationalism and its interaction with Spanish nationalism is absolutely pivotal to what has happened there for the last 200 years. You cannot begin to understand Spain without knowing that. Most recently it has led to the rise of Spain’s first post-Franco far-right party, Vox. 2. The environment - much of central and eastern Spain is on course to becoming semi-desert. Long-term water shortages are changing the country. But at the same time it could become a solar and wind energy superpower. 3. Immigration. There has been a huge influx of Latin Americans into Spain over recent years, alongside smaller but significant arrivals from Africa - North and sub-Saharan. How that plays out will be fascinating, but it’s likely to lead to major change. Start with those three, but there’s so much more.
A couple of brief comments on the splendid (dare I say otherwise?) thread header.
1. Looking at the photo of Sunak's Cabinet, I do wonder if we are prone to exaggerate the diversity of the Cabinet and the extent to which it reflects 'modern Britain'. Men in suits and ties look pretty dominant to me.
2. While I too have concerns about the quality of modern politicians, I'm old enough to recognise that every generation looks back nostalgically and claims 'politicians were better in my day'. It's also true that politicians' reputations usually improve each year after they have left office (Truss will be, I fear, a rare exception). It's a bit like the pop music stuff - they can't write a good tune these days, can they?
Loving the fallacy in 1. Presumably you also find the army pretty non-diverse because they all wear exactly the same uniform?
Upshot seems to be that everyone is losing all of their existing car industry, and some proper effort has to be made to attract new investment to build a new car industry for the electric vehicle age - and so far Britain is missing out.
I agree, although I can't stand graphs that sneakily fail to start the y-axis from zero to reinforce their point (there can be a justification for doing this but often there isn't). Particularly in this case where the point is sound enough without it.
Mr. Royale, Spain is covered by Chris Wickham as one (of many) part of The Inheritance of Rome. So it's not a dedicated history to Spain by any stretch but I did find it very enlightening for the period 400-1000 AD (for Europe, North Africa, and bits of the Middle East).
Upshot seems to be that everyone is losing all of their existing car industry, and some proper effort has to be made to attract new investment to build a new car industry for the electric vehicle age - and so far Britain is missing out.
We bought an English-made (but German-owned) car in the spring: an electric Mini. We absolutely adore it. It is easily the best car we have had, and we’ve had some excellent vehicles, including an XC90.
I was slightly horrified to hear on the news last week that manufacture of the electric Mini is moving from Oxford to China. That 100% guarantees that there will not be a repeat purchase, as it breaks my No Dictatorships rule. Looks like it’ll be an electric Fiat500 next time the wee car needs replacing.
Brexit has screwed the very people who voted for it. Ironically, Remain type demographics have done comparatively ok, or at least not too bad, from Brexit.
"Matt Goodwin @GoodwinMJ · 19h Can any sensible US journalists out there tell me what happened to US media? Do journos not visit countries they write about anymore? Do they not read evidence? How can so many apparently serious journalists like this, at NYT etc think this? What has happened to the media class?
Andrew Sullivan @sullydish Replying to @GoodwinMJ Matt, you have no idea how bad it is. Total capture by far-left. Almost all op-eds from tiny fringe of UK leftists. Reporting always skewed to prove Brexit was wrong. The bubble is tight af. 3:54 PM · Oct 27, 2022 ·Twitter Web App"
The US media’s coverage of the UK is on a par with the UK media’s coverage of mainland Europe and Ireland. With a few honourable exceptions, it is entirely superficial, often completely wrong and usually seen through the prism of domestic political bias.
You can add Scotland and Wales.
I am sure that’s true. Spain is a country I know very well and the way it is covered here is absolutely abysmal. The recent coverage of the French presidential election in the UK was just awful. How anyone working for the Telegraph or Spectator could get upset about US coverage of the UK given their coverage of France is beyond me. And let’s not forget that one former UK PM made his name by writing lies about the EU. The hypocrisy is off the charts!
Tell us: what should we know about Spain, and how should it be covered?
I would say even among British historians (with notable exceptions like Charles Esdaile and the late JH Elliot) the coverage of Spain is appallingly superficial, and dependent upon 19th century stereotypes. The Spanish are treated variously as proud, cruel, priest-ridden, and inept.
A good example is Antony Beevor's history of the Spanish Civil War. It's a good history of the Civil War, but the potted overview of Spanish history prior to it is riddled with inaccuracies.
Yes, absolutely this too. Coverage is so superficial - folklore and Franco.
FWIW, Kenneth Clark who made the feted Civilisation series felt he hadn't given Spain its proper place in the story.
O/T Mrs. P and I are finally cancelling our daily paper after 43 years for a number of reasons (cost, environment, timeliness).
We have switched to a digital subscription for the time being and could probably have half a dozen for less than the cost of a daily print media delivery. fore How do others 'consume' these digital subscriptions - are there any that are formatted like newspapers or are they all like glorified BBC news websites?
I'd really like a paper on an iPad that I could flick through tbh.
Some newspapers have the normal website vs pretend paper format option, and the latter is what you want. The National is an example, for instance. In that case when you go to the main website there is a blue button labelled "Digital Edition" and you press that to go to the pretend paper format. (Rather illogical as both the website format and the pretend paper options are both digital, but ...). You might have to poke around for your preferred example ...
You read the National? That is true dedication to the cause, that is. Respect.
Sarky!
Amongst others ... but I'd rather have the Scotsman and Herald of old, admittedly so last century now.
Yes, they were both quality reads once upon a time but are now little more than advertising pamphlets put together by a skeleton staff. It is sad.
I have told this story before but when I was a trainee I came across a copy of the Evening Telegraph in a set of title deeds which showed that the property had been repossessed and then sold by a bond holder before the first world war. The paper itself was remarkable with extended coverage of the comings and goings of the Austria-Hungarian court in Vienna and at least 6 pages of international news. What people going home on the tram to Lochee after a day in the Jute mills made of it heaven only knows but the international businesses based in Dundee in those times clearly created a demand for foreign news that is almost inconceivable today.
My Grandparents took the Telegraph because it used to not rely on the wire services, but rather had its own correspondents on the ground, so the quality of its foreign coverage was so much better than other papers. My Grandfather opined that it was because so much of the readership were retired soldiers and colonial officers!
It has lost that advantage now, but as we can directly read the Jerusalem Post, Kyiv Independent or South China Post we just don't need it anymore.
And Matt is free on Twitter. What else do people read the DT for?
There is/was a deal at WHSmith in airports where you bought the Telegraph and got a free bottle of water
Or in reality, you bought a bottle of water and got a free DT, but if they worded it like that it wouldn't have counted towards circulation figures
Oh yes, I used to refuse to take the DT and took only the water ...
Mr Sunak also intends to look to review the Equality Act to make it clear that sex means biological sex rather than gender.
This would mean that biological males cannot compete in women’s sport and other single-sex facilities such as changing rooms and women’s refuges will be protected.
It would also mean clarifying that self-identification for transgender people does not have legal force, meaning transgender women have no legal right to access women-only facilities.
A Downing Street source said that protecting women and girls is a priority for Mr Sunak’s administration.
Imagine having a job where there are websites which exist solely for watching your every move, criticising everything you do, and retweeting every tiny bit of negative information about you.
I don’t have to, I had one for ten years.
What job?
Teaching!
And finally: we apparently want MPs to be one of us, to 'represent' ourselves. Hence we want a certain number of female MPs, a certain number of BAME MPs, a certain number of state-educated ones. Note 'ability' does not creep into this. Yet we also want them to be 'better' than us. To be the same as us, yet better. It's an impossibility.
Yes there is some truth to this. The diversity on the government benches is in large part due to the work that Cameron put in in the late naughties, and those now have a dozen years experience as MPs, so are front benches. Would Sunak have been selected for a safe seat a decade or so earlier?
This was helped of course by the large number of new seats won in 2010, and the unusual number of retirements from the expenses scandal fall out. Polls would suggest that there will be a massive clear out at the next GE too, with perhaps half the government benches being novice MPs. An opportunity but also a problem.
One thing that we do seem to have lost is the presence of MPs of working class origin, and the non-graduates. Rayner is a rare example, and clearly political marmite (I am a fan). I do think this matters, as too many MPs come through the avenues of student politics, think tank, policy wonk, to MP. Either that or a narrow range of careers, often in financial services, giving a very one dimensional character to Parliament.
"presence of MPs of working class origin, and the non-graduates."
What is 'working class' nowadays? IMV the distinctions are becoming very blurred. For instance, is Owen Jones 'working class' ? If so, why not Rishi Sunak?
Agree totally on non-graduates. I've wittered on about the evils of the 50% university targets in the past; but what we are seeing are increasing number of roles which are closed to non-graduates (*). This is utterly wrong and throws lots of people under the bus - the same effect as the 11+, except later in life.
(*) I am a non-graduate.
We have a skills shortage of craftspeople and tradespeople. We don’t have a skills shortage of graduates.
I am off to Glasgow today to see the graduation of my daughter who has got a first class honours from the Open University in her early 30s. She was not exactly a dedicated scholar in her youth but has been increasingly finding herself against a glass ceiling where every promoted post she might go for requires a degree to even apply despite her relevant experience. I am proud of her achievement but it seems a bit silly that she has had to do this.
Congratulations to her. That's a fabulous achievement. In terms of academic rigour the OU is one of the top, if not the top, uni in the country although neither the OU or its graduates ever seem to get quite the credit it deserves for it.
Also because of the extra application it needs to do a degree part time at home.
Edit: not thinking: I meant, spare time from a FT job ...
Upshot seems to be that everyone is losing all of their existing car industry, and some proper effort has to be made to attract new investment to build a new car industry for the electric vehicle age - and so far Britain is missing out.
I agree, although I can't stand graphs that sneakily fail to start the y-axis from zero to reinforce their point (there can be a justification for doing this but often there isn't). Particularly in this case where the point is sound enough without it.
The advantage is that it enables you to see more clearly the detail of the short-term fluctuations at the time of the pandemic. Sometimes using an axis from zero can be a way to hide information, rather than reveal it.
The red flashing warning sign I keep a look out for is not running out of ideas (although that is certainly true), but is instead complacency towards the public.
In the run-up to 97, Tory MPs were doing all manner of nonsense - they were complacent and thought they could get away with anything. In 2007, Labour thought they'd be in power for ever (shortly there will be an election at which Labour will increase their majority etc.)
I think there are certainly similar signs now for the Tories - but maybe Rishi can turn it around.
"Matt Goodwin @GoodwinMJ · 19h Can any sensible US journalists out there tell me what happened to US media? Do journos not visit countries they write about anymore? Do they not read evidence? How can so many apparently serious journalists like this, at NYT etc think this? What has happened to the media class?
Andrew Sullivan @sullydish Replying to @GoodwinMJ Matt, you have no idea how bad it is. Total capture by far-left. Almost all op-eds from tiny fringe of UK leftists. Reporting always skewed to prove Brexit was wrong. The bubble is tight af. 3:54 PM · Oct 27, 2022 ·Twitter Web App"
The US media’s coverage of the UK is on a par with the UK media’s coverage of mainland Europe and Ireland. With a few honourable exceptions, it is entirely superficial, often completely wrong and usually seen through the prism of domestic political bias.
You can add Scotland and Wales.
I am sure that’s true. Spain is a country I know very well and the way it is covered here is absolutely abysmal. The recent coverage of the French presidential election in the UK was just awful. How anyone working for the Telegraph or Spectator could get upset about US coverage of the UK given their coverage of France is beyond me. And let’s not forget that one former UK PM made his name by writing lies about the EU. The hypocrisy is off the charts!
Tell us: what should we know about Spain, and how should it be covered?
I would start with measures that UK citizens are now subject to in Spain that they were not previously. It’s not because they’re being singled out in revenge for Brexit, it’s because they’re not citizens of an EU member state and so are subject to different laws if they want to visit, settle, drive, take their pets etc.
Yeah but we already know this, and the point is quite a boring one. Particularly because grinding your axe about Brexit is your bread & butter.
How do I get under the skin of modern Spain? What should we know about it? Where do we go to find out more? What do they think about themselves? How do they see the future?
Sincere questions.
If you want to know more about modern Spain, you will generally struggle to find much in English. Giles Tremlett has just written a decent, very breathless, potted history of Spain that is worth a read. For me, the best historian of the country writing in English is Paul Preston.
In terms of general themes for Spain:
1. Catalan nationalism and its interaction with Spanish nationalism is absolutely pivotal to what has happened there for the last 200 years. You cannot begin to understand Spain without knowing that. Most recently it has led to the rise of Spain’s first post-Franco far-right party, Vox. 2. The environment - much of central and eastern Spain is on course to becoming semi-desert. Long-term water shortages are changing the country. But at the same time it could become a solar and wind energy superpower. 3. Immigration. There has been a huge influx of Latin Americans into Spain over recent years, alongside smaller but significant arrivals from Africa - North and sub-Saharan. How that plays out will be fascinating, but it’s likely to lead to major change. Start with those three, but there’s so much more.
I was in Madrid over the weekend, and took the chance to see the paintings of Goya. He captures brilliantly, the sheer stupidity and arrogance of Ferdinand VII 'El Rey Felone'. And then his later works are absolutely nightmarish.
The red flashing warning sign I keep a look out for is not running out of ideas (although that is certainly true), but is instead complacency towards the public.
In the run-up to 97, Tory MPs were doing all manner of nonsense - they were complacent and thought they could get away with anything. In 2007, Labour thought they'd be in power for ever (shortly there will be an election at which Labour will increase their majority etc.)
I think there are certainly similar signs now for the Tories - but maybe Rishi can turn it around.
You would hope the fate of Liz Truss would jolt them out of it.
A couple of brief comments on the splendid (dare I say otherwise?) thread header.
1. Looking at the photo of Sunak's Cabinet, I do wonder if we are prone to exaggerate the diversity of the Cabinet and the extent to which it reflects 'modern Britain'. Men in suits and ties look pretty dominant to me.
2. While I too have concerns about the quality of modern politicians, I'm old enough to recognise that every generation looks back nostalgically and claims 'politicians were better in my day'. It's also true that politicians' reputations usually improve each year after they have left office (Truss will be, I fear, a rare exception). It's a bit like the pop music stuff - they can't write a good tune these days, can they?
Loving the fallacy in 1. Presumably you also find the army pretty non-diverse because they all wear exactly the same uniform?
Excellent point. Totally destroyed my comment. I'm so thick I should go in to politics.
The Tories on just 18% (!!) in the Midlands. Surely some kind of record low?
London Lab 46% Con 24% LD 12% Grn 9% Ref 9%
Rest of South Lab 52% Con 25% LD 10% Ref 6% Grn 5%
Midlands and Wales Lab 52% Con 18% Ref 10% LD 8% Grn 6% PC 3%
North Lab 55% Con 19% LD 9% Grn 5% Ref 5%
Scotland SNP 47% Lab 37% Con 7% LD 4% Ref 3%
(PeoplePolling/GB News; 1,185; 26 October)
Quite striking that the Tories are now doing less badly in London than almost anywhere else. Also that there must be quite a few southeastern Blue Wall seats on those figures where Labour are in reality the main challengers even though Labour supporters are used to voting LibDem tactically. What were the overall figures?
Lab 51% Con 20% LD 9% Ref 7% SNP 5% Grn 5% PC 1% oth 3%
Yes, already we are seeing some Sunak trends: Con doing comparatively less badly in London, Con collapse in Midlands, and Reform sweeping up the racist vote.
Upshot seems to be that everyone is losing all of their existing car industry, and some proper effort has to be made to attract new investment to build a new car industry for the electric vehicle age - and so far Britain is missing out.
The only two big volume manufacturers are JLR and Nissan. Nissan are powering along at 500,000+ vehicles a year but it's all based on models that are approaching the end of their lifecycle. JLR are still doing decent volumes but their future looks cloudy. They have given up in the powertrain business (new RR has a BMW engine) and are going to attempt to move Jaguar upmarket to be an electric only Bentley/RR competitor. I mean, it's a strategy but who knows if it will work. They probably need to ditch the Jaguar brand and sell it to some Chinese company who have the capital to make a success of the plan.
Imagine having a job where there are websites which exist solely for watching your every move, criticising everything you do, and retweeting every tiny bit of negative information about you.
I don’t have to, I had one for ten years.
What job?
Teaching!
And finally: we apparently want MPs to be one of us, to 'represent' ourselves. Hence we want a certain number of female MPs, a certain number of BAME MPs, a certain number of state-educated ones. Note 'ability' does not creep into this. Yet we also want them to be 'better' than us. To be the same as us, yet better. It's an impossibility.
Yes there is some truth to this. The diversity on the government benches is in large part due to the work that Cameron put in in the late naughties, and those now have a dozen years experience as MPs, so are front benches. Would Sunak have been selected for a safe seat a decade or so earlier?
This was helped of course by the large number of new seats won in 2010, and the unusual number of retirements from the expenses scandal fall out. Polls would suggest that there will be a massive clear out at the next GE too, with perhaps half the government benches being novice MPs. An opportunity but also a problem.
One thing that we do seem to have lost is the presence of MPs of working class origin, and the non-graduates. Rayner is a rare example, and clearly political marmite (I am a fan). I do think this matters, as too many MPs come through the avenues of student politics, think tank, policy wonk, to MP. Either that or a narrow range of careers, often in financial services, giving a very one dimensional character to Parliament.
"presence of MPs of working class origin, and the non-graduates."
What is 'working class' nowadays? IMV the distinctions are becoming very blurred. For instance, is Owen Jones 'working class' ? If so, why not Rishi Sunak?
Agree totally on non-graduates. I've wittered on about the evils of the 50% university targets in the past; but what we are seeing are increasing number of roles which are closed to non-graduates (*). This is utterly wrong and throws lots of people under the bus - the same effect as the 11+, except later in life.
(*) I am a non-graduate.
We have a skills shortage of craftspeople and tradespeople. We don’t have a skills shortage of graduates.
We do. Doctors, Nurses, Physiotherapists etc are all suffering skills shortages.
Doctors I accept. Should nurses and physiotherapists need a degree?
O/T Mrs. P and I are finally cancelling our daily paper after 43 years for a number of reasons (cost, environment, timeliness).
We have switched to a digital subscription for the time being and could probably have half a dozen for less than the cost of a daily print media delivery. fore How do others 'consume' these digital subscriptions - are there any that are formatted like newspapers or are they all like glorified BBC news websites?
I'd really like a paper on an iPad that I could flick through tbh.
Some newspapers have the normal website vs pretend paper format option, and the latter is what you want. The National is an example, for instance. In that case when you go to the main website there is a blue button labelled "Digital Edition" and you press that to go to the pretend paper format. (Rather illogical as both the website format and the pretend paper options are both digital, but ...). You might have to poke around for your preferred example ...
You read the National? That is true dedication to the cause, that is. Respect.
Sarky!
Amongst others ... but I'd rather have the Scotsman and Herald of old, admittedly so last century now.
Yes, they were both quality reads once upon a time but are now little more than advertising pamphlets put together by a skeleton staff. It is sad.
I have told this story before but when I was a trainee I came across a copy of the Evening Telegraph in a set of title deeds which showed that the property had been repossessed and then sold by a bond holder before the first world war. The paper itself was remarkable with extended coverage of the comings and goings of the Austria-Hungarian court in Vienna and at least 6 pages of international news. What people going home on the tram to Lochee after a day in the Jute mills made of it heaven only knows but the international businesses based in Dundee in those times clearly created a demand for foreign news that is almost inconceivable today.
My Grandparents took the Telegraph because it used to not rely on the wire services, but rather had its own correspondents on the ground, so the quality of its foreign coverage was so much better than other papers. My Grandfather opined that it was because so much of the readership were retired soldiers and colonial officers!
It has lost that advantage now, but as we can directly read the Jerusalem Post, Kyiv Independent or South China Post we just don't need it anymore.
And Matt is free on Twitter. What else do people read the DT for?
I wish you hadn’t written that. I typed ‘Matt’ into Twitter’s search bar and got presented with a stream of young Asian ladies with very tight-fitting attire.
Maybe I’m showing my age, but I find the Telegraph cartoonist much more entertaining.
Upshot seems to be that everyone is losing all of their existing car industry, and some proper effort has to be made to attract new investment to build a new car industry for the electric vehicle age - and so far Britain is missing out.
The only two big volume manufacturers are JLR and Nissan. Nissan are powering along at 500,000+ vehicles a year but it's all based on models that are approaching the end of their lifecycle. JLR are still doing decent volumes but their future looks cloudy. They have given up in the powertrain business (new RR has a BMW engine) and are going to attempt to move Jaguar upmarket to be an electric only Bentley/RR competitor. I mean, it's a strategy but who knows if it will work. They probably need to ditch the Jaguar brand and sell it to some Chinese company who have the capital to make a success of the plan.
Imagine having a job where there are websites which exist solely for watching your every move, criticising everything you do, and retweeting every tiny bit of negative information about you.
I don’t have to, I had one for ten years.
What job?
Teaching!
And finally: we apparently want MPs to be one of us, to 'represent' ourselves. Hence we want a certain number of female MPs, a certain number of BAME MPs, a certain number of state-educated ones. Note 'ability' does not creep into this. Yet we also want them to be 'better' than us. To be the same as us, yet better. It's an impossibility.
Yes there is some truth to this. The diversity on the government benches is in large part due to the work that Cameron put in in the late naughties, and those now have a dozen years experience as MPs, so are front benches. Would Sunak have been selected for a safe seat a decade or so earlier?
This was helped of course by the large number of new seats won in 2010, and the unusual number of retirements from the expenses scandal fall out. Polls would suggest that there will be a massive clear out at the next GE too, with perhaps half the government benches being novice MPs. An opportunity but also a problem.
One thing that we do seem to have lost is the presence of MPs of working class origin, and the non-graduates. Rayner is a rare example, and clearly political marmite (I am a fan). I do think this matters, as too many MPs come through the avenues of student politics, think tank, policy wonk, to MP. Either that or a narrow range of careers, often in financial services, giving a very one dimensional character to Parliament.
"presence of MPs of working class origin, and the non-graduates."
What is 'working class' nowadays? IMV the distinctions are becoming very blurred. For instance, is Owen Jones 'working class' ? If so, why not Rishi Sunak?
Agree totally on non-graduates. I've wittered on about the evils of the 50% university targets in the past; but what we are seeing are increasing number of roles which are closed to non-graduates (*). This is utterly wrong and throws lots of people under the bus - the same effect as the 11+, except later in life.
(*) I am a non-graduate.
We have a skills shortage of craftspeople and tradespeople. We don’t have a skills shortage of graduates.
We do. Doctors, Nurses, Physiotherapists etc are all suffering skills shortages.
Doctors I accept. Should nurses and physiotherapists need a degree?
They do now. So Foxy is quite right objectively about the shortage.
"Matt Goodwin @GoodwinMJ · 19h Can any sensible US journalists out there tell me what happened to US media? Do journos not visit countries they write about anymore? Do they not read evidence? How can so many apparently serious journalists like this, at NYT etc think this? What has happened to the media class?
Andrew Sullivan @sullydish Replying to @GoodwinMJ Matt, you have no idea how bad it is. Total capture by far-left. Almost all op-eds from tiny fringe of UK leftists. Reporting always skewed to prove Brexit was wrong. The bubble is tight af. 3:54 PM · Oct 27, 2022 ·Twitter Web App"
The US media’s coverage of the UK is on a par with the UK media’s coverage of mainland Europe and Ireland. With a few honourable exceptions, it is entirely superficial, often completely wrong and usually seen through the prism of domestic political bias.
You can add Scotland and Wales.
I am sure that’s true. Spain is a country I know very well and the way it is covered here is absolutely abysmal. The recent coverage of the French presidential election in the UK was just awful. How anyone working for the Telegraph or Spectator could get upset about US coverage of the UK given their coverage of France is beyond me. And let’s not forget that one former UK PM made his name by writing lies about the EU. The hypocrisy is off the charts!
Tell us: what should we know about Spain, and how should it be covered?
I would start with measures that UK citizens are now subject to in Spain that they were not previously. It’s not because they’re being singled out in revenge for Brexit, it’s because they’re not citizens of an EU member state and so are subject to different laws if they want to visit, settle, drive, take their pets etc.
Yeah but we already know this, and the point is quite a boring one. Particularly because grinding your axe about Brexit is your bread & butter.
How do I get under the skin of modern Spain? What should we know about it? Where do we go to find out more? What do they think about themselves? How do they see the future?
Sincere questions.
If you've not read it, "After the fall" by Tobias Buck is a good place to start. 2008 was brutal in Spain, and the aftershocks haven't fully settled down yet. (Yes, one of the regions really did build a massive airport that got next to no use.)
Upshot seems to be that everyone is losing all of their existing car industry, and some proper effort has to be made to attract new investment to build a new car industry for the electric vehicle age - and so far Britain is missing out.
That reminded me strongly of this graph. Anyone care to guess what it is?
Comments
After 12 years I'm not sure what mix of experience and fresh blood you'd want, but they haven't done that bad in that respect.
The problem is the lack of agreement on what to do and thus mass confusion, and so it's just tiredly moving from crisis to crisis, and failing to address longer term issues.
I'd expect most of the newspapers to do something similar.
That is surely, a step forward, in terms of equality.
Thanks to 2019 being such an appalling GE result for the left, there will be a huge new Labour intake in 2024. It's not the case that the next GE "may well" reverse the previous course for Labour, the fact is that it is certain to do so even if Starmer were somehow to contrive not to win the GE faced with what at this moment looks like something close to an open goal. Even if Labour had no more than equal seats with the Conservatives, it looks like there would be something in the order of 100 new Labour MPs. Win and the number will exceed that. That will all reinvigorate the parliamentary party, in much the same way as happened to the Conservatives in 2010.
And there's an added bonus. I doubt whether the number of those on the far left will grow compared to the number elected in 2019. Some have self-imploded (Webbe), others have been deselected (Corbyn effectively, Tarry) and very few are coming through the constituency parliamentary selection process which is being heavily moderated by the national party. So the far left in parliament will be a pretty ineffective rump.
As was the case in the nineteenth century before we started paying politicians?
People rightly see it as a sign of something wrong if government is dominated by, for example, rich people who went to elite private schools. Imagine a parliament that only contained white, male, privately-educated MPs. The only people who would just shrug and say "don't ask for more representation for other groups - it's just about ability" would probably be white, male and privately educated.
You need a few quid stashed away to do that - the salary once in is OK I think.
I subscribe to and receive the Spectator n hard copy each week.
I read other articles (FT/Guardian etc) as and when I find them or friends link to them.
What evidence do you have for Rayner's 'intelligence' ?
As for my own views on Rayner; they are not set. My comments in the past have been the way some - I think including yourself - harped on her about her brilliant apology for the sick 'scum' comment she made. I just reply that she initially doubled down on her comments, and only apologised a month later, *after* a fellow MP was muredered. Her apology was not fulsome, timely or IMO genuine, and I'm amazed some people think it was.
I think ministerial salaries are too low.
https://edition.cnn.com/2022/10/26/energy/europe-natural-gas-prices-plunge/index.html
London
Lab 46%
Con 24%
LD 12%
Grn 9%
Ref 9%
Rest of South
Lab 52%
Con 25%
LD 10%
Ref 6%
Grn 5%
Midlands and Wales
Lab 52%
Con 18%
Ref 10%
LD 8%
Grn 6%
PC 3%
North
Lab 55%
Con 19%
LD 9%
Grn 5%
Ref 5%
Scotland
SNP 47%
Lab 37%
Con 7%
LD 4%
Ref 3%
(PeoplePolling/GB News; 1,185; 26 October)
That often leaves people for who politics has always been the aim in their career, and those which do it for ambition and ego, and we have enough of those people already in the house.
I have told this story before but when I was a trainee I came across a copy of the Evening Telegraph in a set of title deeds which showed that the property had been repossessed and then sold by a bond holder before the first world war. The paper itself was remarkable with extended coverage of the comings and goings of the Austria-Hungarian court in Vienna and at least 6 pages of international news. What people going home on the tram to Lochee after a day in the Jute mills made of it heaven only knows but the international businesses based in Dundee in those times clearly created a demand for foreign news that is almost inconceivable today.
The follow on from this is that the capabilities for which "we" are selecting right now are probably not the ones we should be looking for. As constituency parties become more monocultural, they will tend to select for similar criteria - and at the moment that appears to be the ability to speak with hesitation, deviation, repetition, or knowledge, on any topic while injecting the relevant dog-whistle notes along the way. When the media are also selected on much the same criteria, we get into the current pickle.
ETA: I apply this criticism universally; it is not just the Conservatives that are particularly afflicted with this malaise.
It would fit.
Perhaps he's about to disgrace himself further, either going nuts if he attends or having a tantrum if he doesn't.
Benedict Anderson in his seminal book "Imagined Communities" claims that mass literacy and the printed press were core factors in the rise of nationalism as a concept. I think that remains true, and is part of why nationalism is fraying around the edges and becoming so reactionary.
It is as easy to read another countries media online as our own. With Google translating, even language isn't a barrier. There are whole communities in our country that barely watch our own national media, preferring either international Social Media, or media from their old countries.
I for one find myself more in tune with The Atlantic than the Daily Mail, which in turn is widely read overseas. Nationalism is losing one of its core pillars by losing national media, not just here either.
Of course, also, every bit of those was typeset afresh by hand for every issue (with the likely exception of the occasional daily/weekly stablemates where the weekly gave a roundup of the previous week's news; it's also possible that actual stereotype plates were mailed to distant newspapers for syndicated stuff, but I don't know if that happened).
Where you really do have significant, substantive differences between the main parties, and there is something genuinely at stake, eg in Scotland, you get higher voter engagement, more committed activists and a higher calibre of people willing to engage in politics.
One of the weaknesses of the header is it only highlights the bad examples. It might have been enlightening to look at places that do have generally high quality politicians, like the Nordic countries.
* I know several senior Tories and they're generally competent and some more so (notably Gove, though I know Ydo doesn't agree). Not my politics but that's not the point.
* Email and social media help you cut through the trivial gotcha attitude of the press, as people like being treated like adults. I spent many midnight hours on that and built up a very loyal personal following that way (my posts here are typical of the style). In SW Surrey, the LibDem leader (Paul Follows) has built huge personal support almost entirely by being hyperactive on social media.
* Selectorates are pretty open-minded in most seats, and will consider older candidates who've done well in another sphere (I was 47 when selected, and working in another country with no local contact at all). They do expect a record of activity for the party in your spare time, and why not?
* The salary isn't really a big deal for most people keen on politics. The gotcha media culture and level of vitriol is.
But talented people do often drop out. An underrated factor in MPs not standing again is that many MPs quietly come to feel unsure about their own parties, and quietly stand down because of that. I doubt if Ken Clarke votes Tory, but loyalty and friendship over decades means he quietly keeps his counsel. I'm reasonably sure that some current Tory MPs don't really feel the party deserves re-relection.
Also, it does dawn on you in a few years if you're not going to make it to the top. I'm philosophically relaxed about being a small part of what I see as a noble cause, but for some the knowledge that they'll just be a reasonably competent cog just isn't enough, if they did well in another sphere.
I even stopped the once-a-year birthday or "special event" newspaper buying to go in the box-o-newspapers (which I slightly regret, in retrospect, but only slightly) simply because it slipped my mind that they are even a thing and once you've missed one, why carry on.
News media is now obsessed with the “gotcha” moment and every interview is diluted into a scrappy battle of wills with a constantly interjecting journo trying to catch the person out. Add that to the online outrage wagon and it all becomes a very hostile environment for independent and interesting thinkers and doers.
In fact I would take it one step further and say that’s how you get politicians like Liz Truss, able to spout out the usual Tory shibboleths (“low taxes”, “sound money”, “small state”) but without a clue of what they mean and how to get there in a sensible and pragmatic way.
As for the solution? Not sure there is one, sadly. The genie does not go back in the bottle.
A good example is Antony Beevor's history of the Spanish Civil War. It's a good history of the Civil War, but the potted overview of Spanish history prior to it is riddled with inaccuracies.
So I doubt it, somehow.
Or if photographers are too close to him who aren't walking away fast backwards... Having made the "shoo, shoo, get a move on, you peasants" hand gesture at the signing ceremony, he made it again when Liz Truss came for an audience. Commentators chose to concentrate on him saying "Dear oh dear" instead.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRoxNbUPips
Perhaps he often makes it when anybody is too close to him not doing exactly what he wants.
Yet that sort of behaviour might cause MPs significant issues (rightly, in some cases). We rightly expect MPs to be better than all of that, but if they are, then they are not *like* us. Like someone having an affair who complains about an MP having one.
So instead, we pretend that what matters is the 'group' someone is in - and assume that anyone who is not in that group cannot comprehend what it is like to be in that group. I'd much rather have someone totally unlike me as MP, who might be able to think and consider what it is like to be *me* (or my neighbours, or friends), than a middle-class, middle-aged heterosexual male like myself who is unable to consider what it might be like to be female. Or gay. Or Asian. Or elderly.
And as Sunak shows: even when they are a member of a group, if they have 'wrong' ideas then they are suddenly not a member of that group in some people's eyes.
And BTW, I've argued for inclusion consistently on here. But only if they are also good at the job - however you define the job of a politician (and that's a whole other issue).
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/oct/23/climate-activists-mashed-potato-monet-potsdam-germany
https://www.voanews.com/a/german-climate-activists-aim-to-stir-friction-with-blockades/6660047.html
https://crisis24.garda.com/alerts/2022/10/germany-climate-activists-staging-roadblock-protests-in-berlin-oct-19
I agree with you, though, that is a truly mad decision.
It has lost that advantage now, but as we can directly read the Jerusalem Post, Kyiv Independent or South China Post we just don't need it anymore.
From a Ukrainian hideout. I bet Russians are jealous compared to the search for wood they face 😂
https://twitter.com/NOELreports/status/1585900982902214656
I'm just not sure where to go to read more about it.
How do I get under the skin of modern Spain? What should we know about it? Where do we go to find out more? What do they think about themselves? How do they see the future?
Sincere questions.
@GoodwinMJ
*NEW*. Is there evidence of a Rishi Bounce?
Conservative national vote is up 6 points
Labour 51% (-2)
Conservatives 20% (+6)
Lib Dems 9% (-2)
@PeoplePolling
Oct 26.
All fieldwork after Sunak appt. PM.
Usage of "represent" can be a pitfall. If you have for example an 80% white 20% black population and an elected 600-strong representative body is 99% white 1% black, it is totally legitimate to ask why there aren't more black people on it and to observe that the reason there aren't is not going to be a good one and indeed the reason will be structural racism.
@GoodwinMJ
"Which of the following would best manage Britain's economy in the years ahead?"
Con gvt with Rishi Sunak 19%
Lab gvt with Keir Starmer 32%
Don't know 38%
This is a clear improvement. Last week only 5% backed Truss & Cons on economy, though Cons still trail Lab by some way
Elliott is very good on just what a strategist's nightmare it was to defend the Hapsburg inheritance in the sixteenth and seventeenth century. Spain was always at war, because it had no option but to be at war. The world feared Spain, and Spain feared the rest of the world.
Or in reality, you bought a bottle of water and got a free DT, but if they worded it like that it wouldn't have counted towards circulation figures
Thank you for your header @Ydoethur and it is difficult not to agree that the conservatives are exhausted after 12 years in government and labour will not have a better chance to gain office in 2024
However, I notice that Rishi in just a few days has risen above Starmer on best PM, the economy and taxes and I do not think his decision to remain in the UK to concentrate on the COL crisis rather than attend COP27 will be a negative
We cannot underestimate just how important the Autumn statement is going to be with a near certaintity of energy and bank windfall taxes, possibly higher taxes on the wealthy and because he quotes the 2019 manifesto an inflation rise for pensioners and most of those on benefits
On Braverman I expect he will seek a closer cooperation with Macron on the channel crossings and quietly sideline the Rwanda policy and he seems to making progress with the EU and the Irish on the NIP which I expect will be resolved through negotiation
The danger for labour is Rishi will steal all their clothes and of course they will have to provide a programme for government that meets the OBR and market approval which will inhibit them considerably in their ambitions
Finally, I would not rule out Rishi becoming the new Blair and winning in 24, but it seems unlikely but those who say it is all over now, 2 years from a GE, are being entirely irrational
Maybe I’m showing my age, but I find the Telegraph cartoonist much more entertaining.
1. Looking at the photo of Sunak's Cabinet, I do wonder if we are prone to exaggerate the diversity of the Cabinet and the extent to which it reflects 'modern Britain'. Men in suits and ties look pretty dominant to me.
2. While I too have concerns about the quality of modern politicians, I'm old enough to recognise that every generation looks back nostalgically and claims 'politicians were better in my day'. It's also true that politicians' reputations usually improve each year after they have left office (Truss will be, I fear, a rare exception). It's a bit like the pop music stuff - they can't write a good tune these days, can they?
SMMT
@SMMT
UK car production down -6.0% in September with 63,125 vehicles rolling off factory lines.
https://mobile.twitter.com/SMMT/status/1585509346561216512
Upshot seems to be that everyone is losing all of their existing car industry, and some proper effort has to be made to attract new investment to build a new car industry for the electric vehicle age - and so far Britain is missing out.
This would mean that biological males cannot compete in women’s sport and other single-sex facilities such as changing rooms and women’s refuges will be protected.
It would also mean clarifying that self-identification for transgender people does not have legal force, meaning transgender women have no legal right to access women-only facilities.
A Downing Street source said that protecting women and girls is a priority for Mr Sunak’s administration.
https://archive.ph/2022.10.27-204710/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/10/27/age-appropriate-sex-education-set-enforced-sunak-administration/
In terms of general themes for Spain:
1. Catalan nationalism and its interaction with Spanish nationalism is absolutely pivotal to what has happened there for the last 200 years. You cannot begin to understand Spain without knowing that. Most recently it has led to the rise of Spain’s first post-Franco far-right party, Vox.
2. The environment - much of central and eastern Spain is on course to becoming semi-desert. Long-term water shortages are changing the country. But at the same time it could become a solar and wind energy superpower.
3. Immigration. There has been a huge influx of Latin Americans into Spain over recent years, alongside smaller but significant arrivals from Africa - North and sub-Saharan. How that plays out will be fascinating, but it’s likely to lead to major change.
Start with those three, but there’s so much more.
You mean we aren't sure???
(Nice thread by the way, @ydoethur )
I was slightly horrified to hear on the news last week that manufacture of the electric Mini is moving from Oxford to China. That 100% guarantees that there will not be a repeat purchase, as it breaks my No Dictatorships rule. Looks like it’ll be an electric Fiat500 next time the wee car needs replacing.
Brexit has screwed the very people who voted for it. Ironically, Remain type demographics have done comparatively ok, or at least not too bad, from Brexit.
The red flashing warning sign I keep a look out for is not running out of ideas (although that is certainly true), but is instead complacency towards the public.
In the run-up to 97, Tory MPs were doing all manner of nonsense - they were complacent and thought they could get away with anything. In 2007, Labour thought they'd be in power for ever (shortly there will be an election at which Labour will increase their majority etc.)
I think there are certainly similar signs now for the Tories - but maybe Rishi can turn it around.
But what Talleyrand said applies.
Con 20%
LD 9%
Ref 7%
SNP 5%
Grn 5%
PC 1%
oth 3%
Yes, already we are seeing some Sunak trends: Con doing comparatively less badly in London, Con collapse in Midlands, and Reform sweeping up the racist vote.
https://twitter.com/MattCartoonist