Scotland wants change – politicalbetting.com

System

Scotland wants change – politicalbetting.com

Scotland is ready for change – 87% agree Britain needs a fresh team of leaders, 70% agree Scotland needs a fresh team.

Read the full story here

JosiasJessop

In a way, it's not a question of political ideology or party: it's simply a question of competence.

If your government is not competent, it will fail to do what is right for the country. Even if it wants to.

So the question is: how do we increase competence?

Casino_Royale

That market has no liquidity and little value.

It's the 30-35% and 35-40% bands for the SNP vote I'd be interested in.

Nigelb

JosiasJessop said:

In a way, it's not a question of political ideology or party: it's simply a question of competence.

If your government is not competent, it will fail to do what is right for the country. Even if it wants to.

So the question is: how do we increase competence?

That's not just a problem of government, of course.

Nigelb

Speaking of which.

Why are so many carers being taken to court for benefit fraud?
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/apr/07/why-are-so-many-carers-taken-to-court-for-benefit
Five years ago the Tory MP Nigel Mills asked one of Whitehall’s most senior civil servants whether he would apologise for the fact that “many thousands” of unpaid carers were in hardship because official failures had landed them with huge debts running into tens of thousands of pounds...

This was a crap system - and recognised as such - which massively penalised claimant who inadvertently breached earning limits by as little as £1 a week - and failed to notify them of the ongoing breach for years (while still paying the benefit).

It's an absolute scandal that it has not been resolved, and people are still facing criminal prosecutions for simple mistakes.

DecrepiterJohnL

If I were the SNP at the next general election, I'd focus on polls showing a Labour landslide as suggesting first, there is no need to vote specifically to remove the Tories because they are doomed anyway, and secondly that a strong SNP representation is needed to counter an England-dominated Labour Party in the House of Commons.

DecrepiterJohnL

The Rest Is Politics (Rory Stewart & Alastair Campbell)
The News Agents (Emily Maitlis, Jon Sopel & Lewis Goodall)
Political Currency (George Osborne & Ed Balls)
Oh God, What Now? (formerly Remainiacs)
Politics at Jack and Sam's (Jack Blanchard (Politico) & Sam Coates (Sky))
Rock & Roll Politics (Steve Richards)
Pod Save the UK (Nish Kumar & Coco Khan)
Electoral Dysfunction (Beth Rigby, Jess Phillips & Ruth Davidson)

The above-named political podcasts are reviewed by the Standard at
https://www.standard.co.uk/lifestyle/peak-political-podcast-rest-is-politics-news-agents-b1149671.html

DecrepiterJohnL

Labour super-majority – 'the Conservative party could evaporate' | SpectatorTV

If the polls are to be believed, the Conservatives could be reduced to less than 100 MPs after the next election, and Keir Starmer will be sitting with one of the largest majorities in parliamentary history. But what would this super-majority look like, with the Labour Party in effect both the government and the opposition? Fraser Nelson speaks to former Political Secretary to Tony Blair, John McTernan.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5EWIETRCblE

One point made in passing but with betting implications is that the two politicians dominating TikTok are the Labour backbenchers Zarah Sultana and Nadia Whittome. But before rushing to back them as next Labour leader, remember there may be others on that platform who will be elected at the forthcoming election, and that Starmer may be around for another decade or more. McTernon mentions them in the context of Trump having dominated Twitter and JFK television, the new media of their days.

ydoethur

DecrepiterJohnL said:

If I were the SNP at the next general election, I'd focus on polls showing a Labour landslide as suggesting first, there is no need to vote specifically to remove the Tories because they are doomed anyway, and secondly that a strong SNP representation is needed to counter an England-dominated Labour Party in the House of Commons.

To which the obvious rejoinder is, if Labour's Scottish MPs hold the balance between a majority and no majority (which is one possibility) they'll have much more leverage over government policy than any number of SNP members.

Richard_Tyndall

JosiasJessop said:

In a way, it's not a question of political ideology or party: it's simply a question of competence.

If your government is not competent, it will fail to do what is right for the country. Even if it wants to.

So the question is: how do we increase competence?

Stop with the professional politicians who see it as a career rather than a service.

I know. It is pie in the sky and will never happen. But I still think it is the advent of the graduate/SPAD/MP career ladder that is responsible for much of the issue we see today with our frankly atrocious politicians on all sides.

JosiasJessop

Richard_Tyndall said:

JosiasJessop said:

In a way, it's not a question of political ideology or party: it's simply a question of competence.

If your government is not competent, it will fail to do what is right for the country. Even if it wants to.

So the question is: how do we increase competence?

Stop with the professional politicians who see it as a career rather than a service.

I know. It is pie in the sky and will never happen. But I still think it is the advent of the graduate/SPAD/MP career ladder that is responsible for much of the issue we see today with our frankly atrocious politicians on all sides.

How does someone like Farage fit into that? Is he classed as a 'professional' politician?

Richard_Tyndall

JosiasJessop said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

JosiasJessop said:

In a way, it's not a question of political ideology or party: it's simply a question of competence.

If your government is not competent, it will fail to do what is right for the country. Even if it wants to.

So the question is: how do we increase competence?

Stop with the professional politicians who see it as a career rather than a service.

I know. It is pie in the sky and will never happen. But I still think it is the advent of the graduate/SPAD/MP career ladder that is responsible for much of the issue we see today with our frankly atrocious politicians on all sides.

How does someone like Farage fit into that? Is he classed as a 'professional' politician?

Not sure (genuine answer). I would accept he is a professional agitator and I would not vote for him to be my MP but you can at least say he doesn't exactly see politics as a career choice.

There are other reasons why people might not be suitable as MPs apart from the one I outlined and he certainly exhibits some of them.

DecrepiterJohnL

ydoethur said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

If I were the SNP at the next general election, I'd focus on polls showing a Labour landslide as suggesting first, there is no need to vote specifically to remove the Tories because they are doomed anyway, and secondly that a strong SNP representation is needed to counter an England-dominated Labour Party in the House of Commons.

To which the obvious rejoinder is, if Labour's Scottish MPs hold the balance between a majority and no majority (which is one possibility) they'll have much more leverage over government policy than any number of SNP members.

In the context of a landslide, Labour will probably have more MPs from London than Scotland. You are right that the polls might have swung back by the time of the election.

DecrepiterJohnL

Richard_Tyndall said:

JosiasJessop said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

JosiasJessop said:

In a way, it's not a question of political ideology or party: it's simply a question of competence.

If your government is not competent, it will fail to do what is right for the country. Even if it wants to.

So the question is: how do we increase competence?

Stop with the professional politicians who see it as a career rather than a service.

I know. It is pie in the sky and will never happen. But I still think it is the advent of the graduate/SPAD/MP career ladder that is responsible for much of the issue we see today with our frankly atrocious politicians on all sides.

How does someone like Farage fit into that? Is he classed as a 'professional' politician?

Not sure (genuine answer). I would accept he is a professional agitator and I would not vote for him to be my MP but you can at least say he doesn't exactly see politics as a career choice.

There are other reasons why people might not be suitable as MPs apart from the one I outlined and he certainly exhibits some of them.

Erm, Nigel Farage very much did see politics as a career choice, at first in the Conservative Party. After joining Ukip, Farage was an MEP for two decades.

Casino_Royale

Richard_Tyndall said:

JosiasJessop said:

In a way, it's not a question of political ideology or party: it's simply a question of competence.

If your government is not competent, it will fail to do what is right for the country. Even if it wants to.

So the question is: how do we increase competence?

Stop with the professional politicians who see it as a career rather than a service.

I know. It is pie in the sky and will never happen. But I still think it is the advent of the graduate/SPAD/MP career ladder that is responsible for much of the issue we see today with our frankly atrocious politicians on all sides.

Also, what specialty or expertise do they have to be a "special advisor" on? I can understand the CMO, physicist or President of the Institution of Civil Engineers being one, but not a 23 year-old grad with PPE from Durham.

It's a fancy name for a glorified researcher and EA as far as I'm concerned.

ydoethur

DecrepiterJohnL said:

ydoethur said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

If I were the SNP at the next general election, I'd focus on polls showing a Labour landslide as suggesting first, there is no need to vote specifically to remove the Tories because they are doomed anyway, and secondly that a strong SNP representation is needed to counter an England-dominated Labour Party in the House of Commons.

To which the obvious rejoinder is, if Labour's Scottish MPs hold the balance between a majority and no majority (which is one possibility) they'll have much more leverage over government policy than any number of SNP members.

In the context of a landslide, Labour will probably have more MPs from London than Scotland. You are right that the polls might have swung back by the time of the election.

If there is a landslide (which I seem to be alone in not expecting) any tactical voting for the SNP is moot anyway.

And yes, they might well have more MPs from London than Scotland, but London Labour does not have a notably separate organisation or a clearly identified leader (Khan notwithstanding).

ydoethur

Casino_Royale said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

JosiasJessop said:

In a way, it's not a question of political ideology or party: it's simply a question of competence.

If your government is not competent, it will fail to do what is right for the country. Even if it wants to.

So the question is: how do we increase competence?

Stop with the professional politicians who see it as a career rather than a service.

I know. It is pie in the sky and will never happen. But I still think it is the advent of the graduate/SPAD/MP career ladder that is responsible for much of the issue we see today with our frankly atrocious politicians on all sides.

Also, what specialty or expertise do they have to be a "special advisor" on? I can understand the CMO, physicist or President of the Institution of Civil Engineers being one, but not a 23 year-old grad with PPE from Durham.

It's a fancy name for a glorified researcher and EA as far as I'm concerned.

As I recall, Sam Freedman made that point himself after he'd left his role at the DfE. He'd known nothing about the policy area he was working on and his ideas were born of ignorance and implemented in inefficiency.

Well, good for him for fessing up. Clarke or Cummings never have.

I don't see that this self-revelation caused him to stop commenting on education though...

DecrepiterJohnL

ydoethur said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

ydoethur said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

If I were the SNP at the next general election, I'd focus on polls showing a Labour landslide as suggesting first, there is no need to vote specifically to remove the Tories because they are doomed anyway, and secondly that a strong SNP representation is needed to counter an England-dominated Labour Party in the House of Commons.

To which the obvious rejoinder is, if Labour's Scottish MPs hold the balance between a majority and no majority (which is one possibility) they'll have much more leverage over government policy than any number of SNP members.

In the context of a landslide, Labour will probably have more MPs from London than Scotland. You are right that the polls might have swung back by the time of the election.

If there is a landslide (which I seem to be alone in not expecting) any tactical voting for the SNP is moot anyway.

And yes, they might well have more MPs from London than Scotland, but London Labour does not have a notably separate organisation or a clearly identified leader (Khan notwithstanding).

It is not a question of separate organisations. Ken Livingstone blamed the 1992 defeat on Labour's domination by Northern and Scots MPs who did not understand the aspirations of people living in London and the South-East. In any case, I am suggesting how the SNP might frame the election.

Heathener

Fun time at the Tottenham game with my son yesterday, even though it’s quite a faff to get up there.

And I missed the pointless discussion on here about trans issues so a win-win.

A few years from now the majority will look back and wonder what all the trans hatred was about, rather like they do about homosexuality. And how the country was hoodwinked into a fixation about a tiny little country in central Africa called Rwanda.

Gnats and camels.

Richard_Tyndall

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

JosiasJessop said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

JosiasJessop said:

In a way, it's not a question of political ideology or party: it's simply a question of competence.

If your government is not competent, it will fail to do what is right for the country. Even if it wants to.

So the question is: how do we increase competence?

Stop with the professional politicians who see it as a career rather than a service.

I know. It is pie in the sky and will never happen. But I still think it is the advent of the graduate/SPAD/MP career ladder that is responsible for much of the issue we see today with our frankly atrocious politicians on all sides.

How does someone like Farage fit into that? Is he classed as a 'professional' politician?

Not sure (genuine answer). I would accept he is a professional agitator and I would not vote for him to be my MP but you can at least say he doesn't exactly see politics as a career choice.

There are other reasons why people might not be suitable as MPs apart from the one I outlined and he certainly exhibits some of them.

Erm, Nigel Farage very much did see politics as a career choice, at first in the Conservative Party. After joining Ukip, Farage was an MEP for two decades.

Yep fair enough. I suppose the only saving grace is that he has been notably unsuccessful in his attempts to get elected to any UK seat.

Icarus

DecrepiterJohnL said:

The Rest Is Politics (Rory Stewart & Alastair Campbell)
The News Agents (Emily Maitlis, Jon Sopel & Lewis Goodall)
Political Currency (George Osborne & Ed Balls)
Oh God, What Now? (formerly Remainiacs)
Politics at Jack and Sam's (Jack Blanchard (Politico) & Sam Coates (Sky))
Rock & Roll Politics (Steve Richards)
Pod Save the UK (Nish Kumar & Coco Khan)
Electoral Dysfunction (Beth Rigby, Jess Phillips & Ruth Davidson)

The above-named political podcasts are reviewed by the Standard at
https://www.standard.co.uk/lifestyle/peak-political-podcast-rest-is-politics-news-agents-b1149671.html

How many people listen to these?

Foxy

Richard_Tyndall said:

JosiasJessop said:

In a way, it's not a question of political ideology or party: it's simply a question of competence.

If your government is not competent, it will fail to do what is right for the country. Even if it wants to.

So the question is: how do we increase competence?

Stop with the professional politicians who see it as a career rather than a service.

I know. It is pie in the sky and will never happen. But I still think it is the advent of the graduate/SPAD/MP career ladder that is responsible for much of the issue we see today with our frankly atrocious politicians on all sides.

Sounds as if it is time for Starmer, Reeves and Rayner, none of whom are professional politicians by that definition. Mind you neither are Sunak and Hunt.

DecrepiterJohnL

Heathener said:

Fun time at the Tottenham game with my son yesterday, even though it’s quite a faff to get up there.

And I missed the pointless discussion on here about trans issues so a win-win.

A few years from now the majority will look back and wonder what all the trans hatred was about, rather like they do about homosexuality. And how the country was hoodwinked into a fixation about a tiny little country in central Africa called Rwanda.

Gnats and camels.

The transhumanism thread was not about trans issues in that sense. Rather, a new framing of politics. And a very, very long header even without the accompanying video.

Nigelb

Richard_Tyndall said:

JosiasJessop said:

In a way, it's not a question of political ideology or party: it's simply a question of competence.

If your government is not competent, it will fail to do what is right for the country. Even if it wants to.

So the question is: how do we increase competence?

Stop with the professional politicians who see it as a career rather than a service.

I know. It is pie in the sky and will never happen. But I still think it is the advent of the graduate/SPAD/MP career ladder that is responsible for much of the issue we see today with our frankly atrocious politicians on all sides.

Compounded by the ridiculously fast turnover of ministers in departments, so they don't even get to learn on the job.

Foxy

DecrepiterJohnL said:

ydoethur said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

ydoethur said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

If I were the SNP at the next general election, I'd focus on polls showing a Labour landslide as suggesting first, there is no need to vote specifically to remove the Tories because they are doomed anyway, and secondly that a strong SNP representation is needed to counter an England-dominated Labour Party in the House of Commons.

To which the obvious rejoinder is, if Labour's Scottish MPs hold the balance between a majority and no majority (which is one possibility) they'll have much more leverage over government policy than any number of SNP members.

In the context of a landslide, Labour will probably have more MPs from London than Scotland. You are right that the polls might have swung back by the time of the election.

If there is a landslide (which I seem to be alone in not expecting) any tactical voting for the SNP is moot anyway.

And yes, they might well have more MPs from London than Scotland, but London Labour does not have a notably separate organisation or a clearly identified leader (Khan notwithstanding).

It is not a question of separate organisations. Ken Livingstone blamed the 1992 defeat on Labour's domination by Northern and Scots MPs who did not understand the aspirations of people living in London and the South-East. In any case, I am suggesting how the SNP might frame the election.

I think that a very astute analysis by Ken. At one time he was a very canny politician.

squareroot2

DecrepiterJohnL said:

If I were the SNP at the next general election, I'd focus on polls showing a Labour landslide as suggesting first, there is no need to vote specifically to remove the Tories because they are doomed anyway, and secondly that a strong SNP representation is needed to counter an England-dominated Labour Party in the House of Commons.

I expect the word corruption will feature in the election in Scotland and as many words as you like to describe an out of touch self seeking bunch of idiots as you like.

Casino_Royale

Icarus said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

The Rest Is Politics (Rory Stewart & Alastair Campbell)
The News Agents (Emily Maitlis, Jon Sopel & Lewis Goodall)
Political Currency (George Osborne & Ed Balls)
Oh God, What Now? (formerly Remainiacs)
Politics at Jack and Sam's (Jack Blanchard (Politico) & Sam Coates (Sky))
Rock & Roll Politics (Steve Richards)
Pod Save the UK (Nish Kumar & Coco Khan)
Electoral Dysfunction (Beth Rigby, Jess Phillips & Ruth Davidson)

The above-named political podcasts are reviewed by the Standard at
https://www.standard.co.uk/lifestyle/peak-political-podcast-rest-is-politics-news-agents-b1149671.html

How many people listen to these?

I very very rarely do because they're simply too long, often boring, and I don't have the time.

The one interesting one was the Osborne, Danny Alexander and Ed Balls one on the formation of the coalition.

DecrepiterJohnL

Icarus said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

The Rest Is Politics (Rory Stewart & Alastair Campbell)
The News Agents (Emily Maitlis, Jon Sopel & Lewis Goodall)
Political Currency (George Osborne & Ed Balls)
Oh God, What Now? (formerly Remainiacs)
Politics at Jack and Sam's (Jack Blanchard (Politico) & Sam Coates (Sky))
Rock & Roll Politics (Steve Richards)
Pod Save the UK (Nish Kumar & Coco Khan)
Electoral Dysfunction (Beth Rigby, Jess Phillips & Ruth Davidson)

The above-named political podcasts are reviewed by the Standard at
https://www.standard.co.uk/lifestyle/peak-political-podcast-rest-is-politics-news-agents-b1149671.html

How many people listen to these?

Lots. Podcasts of all sorts are the new rock and roll. The explosion in political podcasts is no doubt in part due to The Rest Is Politics selling out theatres for its live tours.

Foxy

As the SNP are in opposition in Westminster and in government in Holyrood, isn't it just logical for those wanting changed governments to vote SNP in the first and against it in the second?

Though until the issue of independence is resolved that will dominate Scottish voting. Holywood needs a better choice of pro-Indy parties. Choosing between SNP, Alba and Scottish Greens is not an appealing prospect.

malcolmg

DecrepiterJohnL said:

ydoethur said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

If I were the SNP at the next general election, I'd focus on polls showing a Labour landslide as suggesting first, there is no need to vote specifically to remove the Tories because they are doomed anyway, and secondly that a strong SNP representation is needed to counter an England-dominated Labour Party in the House of Commons.

To which the obvious rejoinder is, if Labour's Scottish MPs hold the balance between a majority and no majority (which is one possibility) they'll have much more leverage over government policy than any number of SNP members.

In the context of a landslide, Labour will probably have more MPs from London than Scotland. You are right that the polls might have swung back by the time of the election.

Lots of people will not be able to hold their noses and vote for London carpetbaggers. Only lucky that SNP is run by morons and are aligned with the evil green mob to be giving them any hope.

DavidL

Some of the differences between the Tories at Westminster and the SNP at Holyrood are explained by the fact that Scotland knows that we are stuck with the current idiotic government until 2026. Unless the SNP split apart they, and their little green helpers, will continue to foist more madness on Scotland for a long time and there is nothing we can do about it.

The despair felt about this goes well beyond unionist opposition as the most read political site Wings over Scotland makes clear. Indeed, the criticism and contempt expressed there is on a wholly different level to anything the Unionists come up with. Part of the reason for that is that Sarwar makes Starmer seem inspirational and dynamic, brimming with ideas and plans for a better future. It’s not a happy state of affairs.

Nigelb

.

Nigelb said:

Speaking of which.

Why are so many carers being taken to court for benefit fraud?
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/apr/07/why-are-so-many-carers-taken-to-court-for-benefit
Five years ago the Tory MP Nigel Mills asked one of Whitehall’s most senior civil servants whether he would apologise for the fact that “many thousands” of unpaid carers were in hardship because official failures had landed them with huge debts running into tens of thousands of pounds...

This was a crap system - and recognised as such - which massively penalised claimant who inadvertently breached earning limits by as little as £1 a week - and failed to notify them of the ongoing breach for years (while still paying the benefit).

It's an absolute scandal that it has not been resolved, and people are still facing criminal prosecutions for simple mistakes.

As the article notes, this is a problem which has been recognised in some form for nearly two decades.

In that time, we've had eight Labour and nine Conservative Secretary of States for Work and Pensions.

The only incumbent who spent more than two years there was Ian Duncan Smith...

malcolmg

squareroot2 said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

If I were the SNP at the next general election, I'd focus on polls showing a Labour landslide as suggesting first, there is no need to vote specifically to remove the Tories because they are doomed anyway, and secondly that a strong SNP representation is needed to counter an England-dominated Labour Party in the House of Commons.

I expect the word corruption will feature in the election in Scotland and as many words as you like to describe an out of touch self seeking bunch of idiots as you like.

What , crap as they are the corruption is in Westminster where the pig troughs are deep and wide. It is like an open prison for frauds and grifters.

MattW

Good morning everyone.

This may be part of the solution - Abolish the Foreign Office.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68756259

OldKingCole

Icarus said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

The Rest Is Politics (Rory Stewart & Alastair Campbell)
The News Agents (Emily Maitlis, Jon Sopel & Lewis Goodall)
Political Currency (George Osborne & Ed Balls)
Oh God, What Now? (formerly Remainiacs)
Politics at Jack and Sam's (Jack Blanchard (Politico) & Sam Coates (Sky))
Rock & Roll Politics (Steve Richards)
Pod Save the UK (Nish Kumar & Coco Khan)
Electoral Dysfunction (Beth Rigby, Jess Phillips & Ruth Davidson)

The above-named political podcasts are reviewed by the Standard at
https://www.standard.co.uk/lifestyle/peak-political-podcast-rest-is-politics-news-agents-b1149671.html

How many people listen to these?

Good morning one and all. Cloudy than yesterday, but still dry and quite pleasant.

I listen to the Rest is Politics now and again.

malcolmg

Foxy said:

As the SNP are in opposition in Westminster and in government in Holyrood, isn't it just logical for those wanting changed governments to vote SNP in the first and against it in the second?

Though until the issue of independence is resolved that will dominate Scottish voting. Holywood needs a better choice of pro-Indy parties. Choosing between SNP, Alba and Scottish Greens is not an appealing prospect.

Yet they are head and shoulders above the London parties they are up against.

LostPassword

Richard_Tyndall said:

JosiasJessop said:

In a way, it's not a question of political ideology or party: it's simply a question of competence.

If your government is not competent, it will fail to do what is right for the country. Even if it wants to.

So the question is: how do we increase competence?

Stop with the professional politicians who see it as a career rather than a service.

I know. It is pie in the sky and will never happen. But I still think it is the advent of the graduate/SPAD/MP career ladder that is responsible for much of the issue we see today with our frankly atrocious politicians on all sides.

I think that, in part, the professional politicians are filling a gap left by a wider change in society. The rise of meritocracy means that those at the top of society believe they are there on merit, they deserve it, and so they feel no responsibility to public service.

All parties are mad keen for people who have done something else in their life to be candidates, because they know the voters like it. But those people don't put themselves forward. The Spads are left to fill in.

Foxy

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Icarus said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

The Rest Is Politics (Rory Stewart & Alastair Campbell)
The News Agents (Emily Maitlis, Jon Sopel & Lewis Goodall)
Political Currency (George Osborne & Ed Balls)
Oh God, What Now? (formerly Remainiacs)
Politics at Jack and Sam's (Jack Blanchard (Politico) & Sam Coates (Sky))
Rock & Roll Politics (Steve Richards)
Pod Save the UK (Nish Kumar & Coco Khan)
Electoral Dysfunction (Beth Rigby, Jess Phillips & Ruth Davidson)

The above-named political podcasts are reviewed by the Standard at
https://www.standard.co.uk/lifestyle/peak-political-podcast-rest-is-politics-news-agents-b1149671.html

How many people listen to these?

Lots. Podcasts of all sorts are the new rock and roll. The explosion in political podcasts is no doubt in part due to The Rest Is Politics selling out theatres for its live tours.

I think podcasts and other narrow-casting are part of the problem. Politics is increasingly niche, about personalities rather than policy and ignored by the majority. We rarely see prime time discussions where politicians have time to speak, just soundbites, photo-opportunities and gotcha type aggressive interviews compare with this between Edward Heath and Michael Foot on our first referendum.

https://youtu.be/CuZrzwm6CJs?feature=shared

OldKingCole

Richard_Tyndall said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

JosiasJessop said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

JosiasJessop said:

In a way, it's not a question of political ideology or party: it's simply a question of competence.

If your government is not competent, it will fail to do what is right for the country. Even if it wants to.

So the question is: how do we increase competence?

Stop with the professional politicians who see it as a career rather than a service.

I know. It is pie in the sky and will never happen. But I still think it is the advent of the graduate/SPAD/MP career ladder that is responsible for much of the issue we see today with our frankly atrocious politicians on all sides.

How does someone like Farage fit into that? Is he classed as a 'professional' politician?

Not sure (genuine answer). I would accept he is a professional agitator and I would not vote for him to be my MP but you can at least say he doesn't exactly see politics as a career choice.

There are other reasons why people might not be suitable as MPs apart from the one I outlined and he certainly exhibits some of them.

Erm, Nigel Farage very much did see politics as a career choice, at first in the Conservative Party. After joining Ukip, Farage was an MEP for two decades.

Yep fair enough. I suppose the only saving grace is that he has been notably unsuccessful in his attempts to get elected to any UK seat.

He was reasonably successful in the city, I believe. Although apparently somewhat eccentric, according to one of my sons, who knew him slightly.

Edit: sorry about the typo.

DecrepiterJohnL

The Racing Post has just emailed a story about Lady Bamford's Oaks winner, Soul Sister, being retired to the paddocks with a mating planned with Sea The Stars.

Lady Bamford is also known for sending meals to an ailing Boris Johnson in Downing Street and hosting his and Carrie's wedding reception.

This reminded me that Lord Bamford of JCB (and supplier of kit for Boris's stunts and £4 million for Boris's election campaign) resigned from the House of Lords last month.
https://hansard.parliament.uk/lords/2024-03-01/debates/3A7CE52E-A553-4DD8-BAD4-9431007EEFCE/RetirementOfAMemberLordBamford

By coincidence, his name is being thrown around TwiX in blatant whataboutery. Apparently HMRC is investigating a shortfall in the region of £500 million, or 17 Olympic swimming pools' worth of Angela Rayner and three double decker buses.
https://www.cityam.com/jcbs-bamford-brothers-could-owe-as-much-as-500m-in-hmrc-probe-reports/

Nigelb

Foxy said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Icarus said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

The Rest Is Politics (Rory Stewart & Alastair Campbell)
The News Agents (Emily Maitlis, Jon Sopel & Lewis Goodall)
Political Currency (George Osborne & Ed Balls)
Oh God, What Now? (formerly Remainiacs)
Politics at Jack and Sam's (Jack Blanchard (Politico) & Sam Coates (Sky))
Rock & Roll Politics (Steve Richards)
Pod Save the UK (Nish Kumar & Coco Khan)
Electoral Dysfunction (Beth Rigby, Jess Phillips & Ruth Davidson)

The above-named political podcasts are reviewed by the Standard at
https://www.standard.co.uk/lifestyle/peak-political-podcast-rest-is-politics-news-agents-b1149671.html

How many people listen to these?

Lots. Podcasts of all sorts are the new rock and roll. The explosion in political podcasts is no doubt in part due to The Rest Is Politics selling out theatres for its live tours.

I think podcasts and other narrow-casting are part of the problem. Politics is increasingly niche, about personalities rather than policy and ignored by the majority. We rarely see prime time discussions where politicians have time to speak, just soundbites, photo-opportunities and gotcha type aggressive interviews compare with this between Edward Heath and Michael Foot on our first referendum.

https://youtu.be/CuZrzwm6CJs?feature=shared

The only political podcast I ever listen to (infrequently) is Pod Save America.
While it's unabashedly liberal, it does have interesting (and sometimes Republican) guests, occasional long form interviews, and detail hard to glean elsewhere.

It's also quite entertaining.

Can't really see the point in listening to UK politics podcasts.

TimS

Foxy said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

JosiasJessop said:

In a way, it's not a question of political ideology or party: it's simply a question of competence.

If your government is not competent, it will fail to do what is right for the country. Even if it wants to.

So the question is: how do we increase competence?

Stop with the professional politicians who see it as a career rather than a service.

I know. It is pie in the sky and will never happen. But I still think it is the advent of the graduate/SPAD/MP career ladder that is responsible for much of the issue we see today with our frankly atrocious politicians on all sides.

Sounds as if it is time for Starmer, Reeves and Rayner, none of whom are professional politicians by that definition. Mind you neither are Sunak and Hunt.

Nor was Boris. Nor Liz Truss. So it doesn’t strike me that the grad/SPAD/MP route is the primary cause of our troubles.

The French system definitely has had a problem with the groupthink of “enarchs” who all went to the ENA then on to government jobs, but they did at least go through a very gruelling selection process and then spend years being taught the ropes of public administration. Le Pen of course being the outsider there, and that being part of her appeal (as was Sarkozy).

Nigelb

S Korean elections this week.

DecrepiterJohnL

Foxy said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Icarus said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

The Rest Is Politics (Rory Stewart & Alastair Campbell)
The News Agents (Emily Maitlis, Jon Sopel & Lewis Goodall)
Political Currency (George Osborne & Ed Balls)
Oh God, What Now? (formerly Remainiacs)
Politics at Jack and Sam's (Jack Blanchard (Politico) & Sam Coates (Sky))
Rock & Roll Politics (Steve Richards)
Pod Save the UK (Nish Kumar & Coco Khan)
Electoral Dysfunction (Beth Rigby, Jess Phillips & Ruth Davidson)

The above-named political podcasts are reviewed by the Standard at
https://www.standard.co.uk/lifestyle/peak-political-podcast-rest-is-politics-news-agents-b1149671.html

How many people listen to these?

Lots. Podcasts of all sorts are the new rock and roll. The explosion in political podcasts is no doubt in part due to The Rest Is Politics selling out theatres for its live tours.

I think podcasts and other narrow-casting are part of the problem. Politics is increasingly niche, about personalities rather than policy and ignored by the majority. We rarely see prime time discussions where politicians have time to speak, just soundbites, photo-opportunities and gotcha type aggressive interviews compare with this between Edward Heath and Michael Foot on our first referendum.

https://youtu.be/CuZrzwm6CJs?feature=shared

Indeed, although I would recommend TRIP's Leading series of long interviews with figures from Hillary Clinton to David Lammy. Also Times Radio's Exit Interviews series with MPs who are not contesting the next election.

squareroot2

malcolmg said:

squareroot2 said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

If I were the SNP at the next general election, I'd focus on polls showing a Labour landslide as suggesting first, there is no need to vote specifically to remove the Tories because they are doomed anyway, and secondly that a strong SNP representation is needed to counter an England-dominated Labour Party in the House of Commons.

I expect the word corruption will feature in the election in Scotland and as many words as you like to describe an out of touch self seeking bunch of idiots as you like.

What , crap as they are the corruption is in Westminster where the pig troughs are deep and wide. It is like an open prison for
frauds and grifters.

Good morning Malc. Have you planted your turnips yet? You only have till April 15th for an early crop...

There has been a lot of corruption in Scotland. We await to see if the Police charge anyone and if so how many feel.the bracelets.

Corruption is endemic in Westminster so its not really news. .. People just sigh.

Morris_Dancer

Good morning, everyone.

I listen to podcasts, but history rather than politics. It's excellent background for when I'm doing chores or exercising (just the right level of attention needed when on the bike to keep me engaged without losing track of how fast/slow I should be going).

Carnyx

FPT

Casino_Royale said:

Carnyx said:

turbotubbs said:

bondegezou said:

turbotubbs said:

bondegezou said:

turbotubbs said:

bondegezou said:

turbotubbs said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

turbotubbs said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

Another example. Jimmy Saville had his name on buildings and a tombstone that was vandalised. Were these acceptable actions?

I guess as before there is a line.

Saville committed awful crimes during his life. As far as I know, Colston did not.

from his wikibio:

During Colston's involvement with the Royal African Company from 1680 to 1692, it is estimated that the company transported over 84,000 African men, women and children to the Caribbean and the rest of the Americas, of whom as many as 19,000 may have died on the journey.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Colston

Not a crime AT THE TIME….

We should be wary of judging historical figures with modern laws.

We live in the present day, and in the present day we can choose who we wish to celebrate now. Do we want to celebrate a slave trader?

I could choose to celebrate a philanthropist who did much good in his life.

Of course we can choose who to celebrate. I just find it rather odd that we judge historical figures against modern standards, as if we would all have been anti slavery if we had been educated as those figures were.
People are of their time. There character, and personality are formed from the world they live in. Should we tear down statues of Roman emporers because of the old slavery thing?

Statues go up and come down all the time. Just because someone once erected a statue to you doesn’t mean that that statue has to remain for all eternity. Our towns and cities change around us all the time. We make choices.

There have been many philanthropists we can celebrate. Why celebrate the one who was a slave trader? Most of Colston’s contemporaries thought slavery was fine. They were wrong. It was horrendous. The African slave trade was one of the greatest horrors to ever have occurred.

I don’t quite know how I have become a Colston defender. Your point was about applying nuance to appraising historical figures.
If you dont like Colston as an example how about Churchill?

I’m not seeking to pull down any Churchill statues. I think we should talk about Churchill’s good and bad side. I wish we could do that without having to worry about hurting the feelings of the snowflakes who don’t want anyone to ever mention the bad stuff.

Can we talk about Colston good side then? Or must his name be obliterated from history, as has happened now in Bristol?

But it hasn't. He - or rather his statue - has been put in the city museum with considerable display material.

The name has been taken off the concert hall as he's not considered a good example today. Matter of opinion, but it's certainly arguable - and much more so than the older assessment of him as immaculate.

It was put on display in a way that celebrates and memorialises its violent destruction- on its side and covered in red daubed paint - for all time.

They should have cleaned him up and put him on display with the contrasting views. But they didn't.

It'd have been better to leave him in the harbour.

That isn't presenting Colston in a fair or neutral way.

Casino_Royale said:

Carnyx said:

Casino_Royale said:

StillWaters said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

turbotubbs said:

Benpointer said:

Casino_Royale said:

logical_song said:

Casino_Royale said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

Mordaunt who as far as I can see would naturally probably bring the silly culture wars to an end is held as being "too woke", despite not being woke at all.

Nah, she's Woke.

Read her "book".

Good, 'woke' just means respecting others.

No, it doesn't - as has been exhaustively explained to you on numerous occasions on here.

But, you either don't want to listen or are a professional timewaster. Possibly both.

I'd like to engage with you on this.

Some of the views and actions by those on the extreme of what they themselves would term 'progressive politics' are of course ridiculous, offensive and dangerous. I doubt anyone on here would disagree with that for the most egregious examples. It is right to object to such extemes and many on the left do so.

At the other end of the spectrum, I beleive we'd all agree* on some basic universal fairness, equality, and inclusion rules that should apply - e.g. no one should be discriminated against on the basis of gender, race, disability, sexual orientation, etc. etc. (*Although, historically, it wasn't always thus.)

So the issue is surely where to draw the line?

I probably embrace a few diversity and inclusion measures that you find unnecessary or troubling (e.g. I think unconscious bias awareness is good thing; I don't mind the National Trust explaining how some of its stately home were built on slave profits). But these are issues of scale or interpretation, not fundamental diametrically-opposed views.

So I find it a bit baffling that so many on the right get so het up about 'woke' - a term they, not the left, use.

I think the fuss over the Colston statue is as good a place to start as any. Slave trader = bad. But philanthropist = good. He did good works with his I’ll gotten gains. But those I’ll gotten gains were legal at the time, and his use of them would not have been frowned upon by society at the time.

So rather than tear down his statue and remove his name from things he created, how about a bit more nuance. Explanation. But the great danger is the extremes don’t want to engage in debate. The win is the only thing.

I’m sorry to be ignorant but who took down the Colson statue?

I’d agree taking it down is ridiculous and self-defeating however would a notice really not be called out for “wokeness”.

A mob of agitators threw it in the harbour

Haven’t read the below article but attaching based on headline so no ideas if it is good/bad/indifferent

https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/jun/08/who-was-edward-colston-and-why-was-his-bristol-statue-toppled-slave-trader-black-lives-matter-protests

Colston could have been anybody. It's just the activists needed a target at the time to advance their reputations and their cause, and he was it.

No, he was always a major figure in Bristol and the issue had been building up for years. It may have come as a surprise to you and many others, but not to anyone who knew Bristol.

Err, I lived in Bristol for several years you moron and still have friends there now.

Colston wasn't a big issue outside an activist minority- even the Labour mayor wasn't bothered by it.

You lose the argument immediately if you call people morons, old fruit. Helpful hint straight out of Viz.

And how do you know I don't know Bristol or have friends there myself? You don't. So that doesn't work either.

As for your assertion that it would be better to leave him in the harbour - I thought you didn't approve of vandalism and wokery. But you forget that it wasn't presenting Colston in a fair and neutral way to leave thje statue where it was in the first place. And the Merchant Venturers refused to compromise. So we are where we are.

squareroot2

Nigelb said:

Foxy said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Icarus said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

The Rest Is Politics (Rory Stewart & Alastair Campbell)
The News Agents (Emily Maitlis, Jon Sopel & Lewis Goodall)
Political Currency (George Osborne & Ed Balls)
Oh God, What Now? (formerly Remainiacs)
Politics at Jack and Sam's (Jack Blanchard (Politico) & Sam Coates (Sky))
Rock & Roll Politics (Steve Richards)
Pod Save the UK (Nish Kumar & Coco Khan)
Electoral Dysfunction (Beth Rigby, Jess Phillips & Ruth Davidson)

The above-named political podcasts are reviewed by the Standard at
https://www.standard.co.uk/lifestyle/peak-political-podcast-rest-is-politics-news-agents-b1149671.html

How many people listen to these?

Lots. Podcasts of all sorts are the new rock and roll. The explosion in political podcasts is no doubt in part due to The Rest Is Politics selling out theatres for its live tours.

I think podcasts and other narrow-casting are part of the problem. Politics is increasingly niche, about personalities rather than policy and ignored by the majority. We rarely see prime time discussions where politicians have time to speak, just soundbites, photo-opportunities and gotcha type aggressive interviews compare with this between Edward Heath and Michael Foot on our first referendum.

https://youtu.be/CuZrzwm6CJs?feature=shared

The only political podcast I ever listen to (infrequently) is Pod Save America.
While it's unabashedly liberal, it does have interesting (and sometimes Republican) guests, occasional long form interviews, and detail hard to glean elsewhere.

It's also quite entertaining.

Can't really see the point in listening to UK politics podcasts.

I used to listen to The Week in
Westminster religiously. I cannot stand politics any more.
The sounds of politicians voices whilst they are lying irks me so.much these days.

Some politicians voices just make you want to scream.. eg Rayner.

DecrepiterJohnL

MattW said:

Good morning everyone.

This may be part of the solution - Abolish the Foreign Office.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68756259

Because the FCO has too many colonial-era pictures on its walls? I'm always suspicious of management reorganisations whether in politics or business. They rarely deliver the promised benefits. Indeed, from the article, the case for abolishing the Foreign Office is partly that its recent merger with the Department for International Development has, in their words, "struggled to deliver". That last reorganisation failed but our proposed new reorganisation...

OldKingCole

Carnyx said:

FPT

Casino_Royale said:

Carnyx said:

turbotubbs said:

bondegezou said:

turbotubbs said:

bondegezou said:

turbotubbs said:

bondegezou said:

turbotubbs said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

turbotubbs said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

Another example. Jimmy Saville had his name on buildings and a tombstone that was vandalised. Were these acceptable actions?

I guess as before there is a line.

Saville committed awful crimes during his life. As far as I know, Colston did not.

from his wikibio:

During Colston's involvement with the Royal African Company from 1680 to 1692, it is estimated that the company transported over 84,000 African men, women and children to the Caribbean and the rest of the Americas, of whom as many as 19,000 may have died on the journey.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Colston

Not a crime AT THE TIME….

We should be wary of judging historical figures with modern laws.

We live in the present day, and in the present day we can choose who we wish to celebrate now. Do we want to celebrate a slave trader?

I could choose to celebrate a philanthropist who did much good in his life.

Of course we can choose who to celebrate. I just find it rather odd that we judge historical figures against modern standards, as if we would all have been anti slavery if we had been educated as those figures were.
People are of their time. There character, and personality are formed from the world they live in. Should we tear down statues of Roman emporers because of the old slavery thing?

Statues go up and come down all the time. Just because someone once erected a statue to you doesn’t mean that that statue has to remain for all eternity. Our towns and cities change around us all the time. We make choices.

There have been many philanthropists we can celebrate. Why celebrate the one who was a slave trader? Most of Colston’s contemporaries thought slavery was fine. They were wrong. It was horrendous. The African slave trade was one of the greatest horrors to ever have occurred.

I don’t quite know how I have become a Colston defender. Your point was about applying nuance to appraising historical figures.
If you dont like Colston as an example how about Churchill?

I’m not seeking to pull down any Churchill statues. I think we should talk about Churchill’s good and bad side. I wish we could do that without having to worry about hurting the feelings of the snowflakes who don’t want anyone to ever mention the bad stuff.

Can we talk about Colston good side then? Or must his name be obliterated from history, as has happened now in Bristol?

But it hasn't. He - or rather his statue - has been put in the city museum with considerable display material.

The name has been taken off the concert hall as he's not considered a good example today. Matter of opinion, but it's certainly arguable - and much more so than the older assessment of him as immaculate.

It was put on display in a way that celebrates and memorialises its violent destruction- on its side and covered in red daubed paint - for all time.

They should have cleaned him up and put him on display with the contrasting views. But they didn't.

It'd have been better to leave him in the harbour.

That isn't presenting Colston in a fair or neutral way.

Casino_Royale said:

Carnyx said:

Casino_Royale said:

StillWaters said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

turbotubbs said:

Benpointer said:

Casino_Royale said:

logical_song said:

Casino_Royale said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

Mordaunt who as far as I can see would naturally probably bring the silly culture wars to an end is held as being "too woke", despite not being woke at all.

Nah, she's Woke.

Read her "book".

Good, 'woke' just means respecting others.

No, it doesn't - as has been exhaustively explained to you on numerous occasions on here.

But, you either don't want to listen or are a professional timewaster. Possibly both.

I'd like to engage with you on this.

Some of the views and actions by those on the extreme of what they themselves would term 'progressive politics' are of course ridiculous, offensive and dangerous. I doubt anyone on here would disagree with that for the most egregious examples. It is right to object to such extemes and many on the left do so.

At the other end of the spectrum, I beleive we'd all agree* on some basic universal fairness, equality, and inclusion rules that should apply - e.g. no one should be discriminated against on the basis of gender, race, disability, sexual orientation, etc. etc. (*Although, historically, it wasn't always thus.)

So the issue is surely where to draw the line?

I probably embrace a few diversity and inclusion measures that you find unnecessary or troubling (e.g. I think unconscious bias awareness is good thing; I don't mind the National Trust explaining how some of its stately home were built on slave profits). But these are issues of scale or interpretation, not fundamental diametrically-opposed views.

So I find it a bit baffling that so many on the right get so het up about 'woke' - a term they, not the left, use.

I think the fuss over the Colston statue is as good a place to start as any. Slave trader = bad. But philanthropist = good. He did good works with his I’ll gotten gains. But those I’ll gotten gains were legal at the time, and his use of them would not have been frowned upon by society at the time.

So rather than tear down his statue and remove his name from things he created, how about a bit more nuance. Explanation. But the great danger is the extremes don’t want to engage in debate. The win is the only thing.

I’m sorry to be ignorant but who took down the Colson statue?

I’d agree taking it down is ridiculous and self-defeating however would a notice really not be called out for “wokeness”.

A mob of agitators threw it in the harbour

Haven’t read the below article but attaching based on headline so no ideas if it is good/bad/indifferent

https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/jun/08/who-was-edward-colston-and-why-was-his-bristol-statue-toppled-slave-trader-black-lives-matter-protests

Colston could have been anybody. It's just the activists needed a target at the time to advance their reputations and their cause, and he was it.

No, he was always a major figure in Bristol and the issue had been building up for years. It may have come as a surprise to you and many others, but not to anyone who knew Bristol.

Err, I lived in Bristol for several years you moron and still have friends there now.

Colston wasn't a big issue outside an activist minority- even the Labour mayor wasn't bothered by it.

You lose the argument immediately if you call people morons, old fruit. Helpful hint straight out of Viz.

And how do you know I don't know Bristol or have friends there myself? You don't. So that doesn't work either.

As for your assertion that it would be better to leave him in the harbour - I thought you didn't approve of vandalism and wokery. But you forget that it wasn't presenting Colston in a fair and neutral way to leave thje statue where it was in the first place. And the Merchant Venturers refused to compromise. So we are where we are.

Wouldn’t it have been a hazard to small boats or something?

Disclaimer; I don’t know Bristol. Haven’t been there for years!

Foxy

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Foxy said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Icarus said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

The Rest Is Politics (Rory Stewart & Alastair Campbell)
The News Agents (Emily Maitlis, Jon Sopel & Lewis Goodall)
Political Currency (George Osborne & Ed Balls)
Oh God, What Now? (formerly Remainiacs)
Politics at Jack and Sam's (Jack Blanchard (Politico) & Sam Coates (Sky))
Rock & Roll Politics (Steve Richards)
Pod Save the UK (Nish Kumar & Coco Khan)
Electoral Dysfunction (Beth Rigby, Jess Phillips & Ruth Davidson)

The above-named political podcasts are reviewed by the Standard at
https://www.standard.co.uk/lifestyle/peak-political-podcast-rest-is-politics-news-agents-b1149671.html

How many people listen to these?

Lots. Podcasts of all sorts are the new rock and roll. The explosion in political podcasts is no doubt in part due to The Rest Is Politics selling out theatres for its live tours.

I think podcasts and other narrow-casting are part of the problem. Politics is increasingly niche, about personalities rather than policy and ignored by the majority. We rarely see prime time discussions where politicians have time to speak, just soundbites, photo-opportunities and gotcha type aggressive interviews compare with this between Edward Heath and Michael Foot on our first referendum.

https://youtu.be/CuZrzwm6CJs?feature=shared

Indeed, although I would recommend TRIP's Leading series of long interviews with figures from Hillary Clinton to David Lammy. Also Times Radio's Exit Interviews series with MPs who are not contesting the next election.

Short attention spans are across the board now. Everything has to enrage within seconds in order to keep viewers. A return to more sedate reflective long form interviews and analysis just isn't going to cut it in the modern world. There is a niche market for it in podcasts and on PB, but never going to be mainstream again.

Ever wonder why ADHD is so epidemic? Just look at how we live now.

Carnyx

OldKingCole said:

Carnyx said:

FPT

Casino_Royale said:

Carnyx said:

turbotubbs said:

bondegezou said:

turbotubbs said:

bondegezou said:

turbotubbs said:

bondegezou said:

turbotubbs said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

turbotubbs said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

Another example. Jimmy Saville had his name on buildings and a tombstone that was vandalised. Were these acceptable actions?

I guess as before there is a line.

Saville committed awful crimes during his life. As far as I know, Colston did not.

from his wikibio:

During Colston's involvement with the Royal African Company from 1680 to 1692, it is estimated that the company transported over 84,000 African men, women and children to the Caribbean and the rest of the Americas, of whom as many as 19,000 may have died on the journey.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Colston

Not a crime AT THE TIME….

We should be wary of judging historical figures with modern laws.

We live in the present day, and in the present day we can choose who we wish to celebrate now. Do we want to celebrate a slave trader?

I could choose to celebrate a philanthropist who did much good in his life.

Of course we can choose who to celebrate. I just find it rather odd that we judge historical figures against modern standards, as if we would all have been anti slavery if we had been educated as those figures were.
People are of their time. There character, and personality are formed from the world they live in. Should we tear down statues of Roman emporers because of the old slavery thing?

Statues go up and come down all the time. Just because someone once erected a statue to you doesn’t mean that that statue has to remain for all eternity. Our towns and cities change around us all the time. We make choices.

There have been many philanthropists we can celebrate. Why celebrate the one who was a slave trader? Most of Colston’s contemporaries thought slavery was fine. They were wrong. It was horrendous. The African slave trade was one of the greatest horrors to ever have occurred.

I don’t quite know how I have become a Colston defender. Your point was about applying nuance to appraising historical figures.
If you dont like Colston as an example how about Churchill?

I’m not seeking to pull down any Churchill statues. I think we should talk about Churchill’s good and bad side. I wish we could do that without having to worry about hurting the feelings of the snowflakes who don’t want anyone to ever mention the bad stuff.

Can we talk about Colston good side then? Or must his name be obliterated from history, as has happened now in Bristol?

But it hasn't. He - or rather his statue - has been put in the city museum with considerable display material.

The name has been taken off the concert hall as he's not considered a good example today. Matter of opinion, but it's certainly arguable - and much more so than the older assessment of him as immaculate.

It was put on display in a way that celebrates and memorialises its violent destruction- on its side and covered in red daubed paint - for all time.

They should have cleaned him up and put him on display with the contrasting views. But they didn't.

It'd have been better to leave him in the harbour.

That isn't presenting Colston in a fair or neutral way.

Casino_Royale said:

Carnyx said:

Casino_Royale said:

StillWaters said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

turbotubbs said:

Benpointer said:

Casino_Royale said:

logical_song said:

Casino_Royale said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

Mordaunt who as far as I can see would naturally probably bring the silly culture wars to an end is held as being "too woke", despite not being woke at all.

Nah, she's Woke.

Read her "book".

Good, 'woke' just means respecting others.

No, it doesn't - as has been exhaustively explained to you on numerous occasions on here.

But, you either don't want to listen or are a professional timewaster. Possibly both.

I'd like to engage with you on this.

Some of the views and actions by those on the extreme of what they themselves would term 'progressive politics' are of course ridiculous, offensive and dangerous. I doubt anyone on here would disagree with that for the most egregious examples. It is right to object to such extemes and many on the left do so.

At the other end of the spectrum, I beleive we'd all agree* on some basic universal fairness, equality, and inclusion rules that should apply - e.g. no one should be discriminated against on the basis of gender, race, disability, sexual orientation, etc. etc. (*Although, historically, it wasn't always thus.)

So the issue is surely where to draw the line?

I probably embrace a few diversity and inclusion measures that you find unnecessary or troubling (e.g. I think unconscious bias awareness is good thing; I don't mind the National Trust explaining how some of its stately home were built on slave profits). But these are issues of scale or interpretation, not fundamental diametrically-opposed views.

So I find it a bit baffling that so many on the right get so het up about 'woke' - a term they, not the left, use.

I think the fuss over the Colston statue is as good a place to start as any. Slave trader = bad. But philanthropist = good. He did good works with his I’ll gotten gains. But those I’ll gotten gains were legal at the time, and his use of them would not have been frowned upon by society at the time.

So rather than tear down his statue and remove his name from things he created, how about a bit more nuance. Explanation. But the great danger is the extremes don’t want to engage in debate. The win is the only thing.

I’m sorry to be ignorant but who took down the Colson statue?

I’d agree taking it down is ridiculous and self-defeating however would a notice really not be called out for “wokeness”.

A mob of agitators threw it in the harbour

Haven’t read the below article but attaching based on headline so no ideas if it is good/bad/indifferent

https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/jun/08/who-was-edward-colston-and-why-was-his-bristol-statue-toppled-slave-trader-black-lives-matter-protests

Colston could have been anybody. It's just the activists needed a target at the time to advance their reputations and their cause, and he was it.

No, he was always a major figure in Bristol and the issue had been building up for years. It may have come as a surprise to you and many others, but not to anyone who knew Bristol.

Err, I lived in Bristol for several years you moron and still have friends there now.

Colston wasn't a big issue outside an activist minority- even the Labour mayor wasn't bothered by it.

You lose the argument immediately if you call people morons, old fruit. Helpful hint straight out of Viz.

And how do you know I don't know Bristol or have friends there myself? You don't. So that doesn't work either.

As for your assertion that it would be better to leave him in the harbour - I thought you didn't approve of vandalism and wokery. But you forget that it wasn't presenting Colston in a fair and neutral way to leave thje statue where it was in the first place. And the Merchant Venturers refused to compromise. So we are where we are.

Wouldn’t it have been a hazard to small boats or something?

Disclaimer; I don’t know Bristol. Haven’t been there for years!

Could have been, actually. It's the Floating Harbour, which isn't tidal (the whole point of building it 200++ years ago) so there's no issue of a boat setting down on it, but even so it might have been an issue for larger vessels repurposed as nightclubs etc.

Nigelb

DecrepiterJohnL said:

MattW said:

Good morning everyone.

This may be part of the solution - Abolish the Foreign Office.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68756259

Because the FCO has too many colonial-era pictures on its walls? I'm always suspicious of management reorganisations whether in politics or business. They rarely deliver the promised benefits. Indeed, from the article, the case for abolishing the Foreign Office is partly that its recent merger with the Department for International Development has, in their words, "struggled to deliver". That last reorganisation failed but our proposed new reorganisation...

I was amused that one of its proponents interviewed on Today talked of a "laser like focus" - and then proceeded to list about a dozen different 'priorities' for the putative reorganisation.

RochdalePioneers

DecrepiterJohnL said:

If I were the SNP at the next general election, I'd focus on polls showing a Labour landslide as suggesting first, there is no need to vote specifically to remove the Tories because they are doomed anyway, and secondly that a strong SNP representation is needed to counter an England-dominated Labour Party in the House of Commons.

Looking at the poll in the header, I think the SNP have a rather basic problem. They are in government and people are sick of the governments. Hard to say "vote SNP to get rid of corruption, incompetence and cuts" when those are everything the SNP government is.

A plague on both your houses is an obvious line for the electorate to take.

Sandpit

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Icarus said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

The Rest Is Politics (Rory Stewart & Alastair Campbell)
The News Agents (Emily Maitlis, Jon Sopel & Lewis Goodall)
Political Currency (George Osborne & Ed Balls)
Oh God, What Now? (formerly Remainiacs)
Politics at Jack and Sam's (Jack Blanchard (Politico) & Sam Coates (Sky))
Rock & Roll Politics (Steve Richards)
Pod Save the UK (Nish Kumar & Coco Khan)
Electoral Dysfunction (Beth Rigby, Jess Phillips & Ruth Davidson)

The above-named political podcasts are reviewed by the Standard at
https://www.standard.co.uk/lifestyle/peak-political-podcast-rest-is-politics-news-agents-b1149671.html

How many people listen to these?

Lots. Podcasts of all sorts are the new rock and roll. The explosion in political podcasts is no doubt in part due to The Rest Is Politics selling out theatres for its live tours.

The economics of podcasting is an interesting one, in that you can start with a basic studio with a couple of mics and cameras for less than a grand, so the barrier to entry is not very high. Joe Rogan famously works with just one producer and one researcher, and at the other end Mrs Sussex had about 35 people making her short-lived podcast effort!

Interesting that all of those mentioned above are already well-known commentators though, who will likely bring an audience. It’s not easy to make big money though, certainly not from something very UK-centric such as politics, so many are going to be publicity vehicles for other projects such as selling theatre tickets or speaking engagements. A million views on Youtube pays about a grand in ad revenue, but most podcast sites don’t pay anything so you need to read your own ads on-air, normally organised through an agency.

Taz

Nigelb said:

Speaking of which.

Why are so many carers being taken to court for benefit fraud?
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/apr/07/why-are-so-many-carers-taken-to-court-for-benefit
Five years ago the Tory MP Nigel Mills asked one of Whitehall’s most senior civil servants whether he would apologise for the fact that “many thousands” of unpaid carers were in hardship because official failures had landed them with huge debts running into tens of thousands of pounds...

This was a crap system - and recognised as such - which massively penalised claimant who inadvertently breached earning limits by as little as £1 a week - and failed to notify them of the ongoing breach for years (while still paying the benefit).

It's an absolute scandal that it has not been resolved, and people are still facing criminal prosecutions for simple mistakes.

Yet another scandal where people are unjustly stigmatised.

When will we learn.

Malmesbury

DecrepiterJohnL said:

MattW said:

Good morning everyone.

This may be part of the solution - Abolish the Foreign Office.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68756259

Because the FCO has too many colonial-era pictures on its walls? I'm always suspicious of management reorganisations whether in politics or business. They rarely deliver the promised benefits. Indeed, from the article, the case for abolishing the Foreign Office is partly that its recent merger with the Department for International Development has, in their words, "struggled to deliver". That last reorganisation failed but our proposed new reorganisation...

The FCO has been moribund for decades. Like the Treasury, a legend in their own minds.

Keep the pictures. Bin the “leadership”.

malcolmg

squareroot2 said:

malcolmg said:

squareroot2 said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

If I were the SNP at the next general election, I'd focus on polls showing a Labour landslide as suggesting first, there is no need to vote specifically to remove the Tories because they are doomed anyway, and secondly that a strong SNP representation is needed to counter an England-dominated Labour Party in the House of Commons.

I expect the word corruption will feature in the election in Scotland and as many words as you like to describe an out of touch self seeking bunch of idiots as you like.

What , crap as they are the corruption is in Westminster where the pig troughs are deep and wide. It is like an open prison for
frauds and grifters.

Good morning Malc. Have you planted your turnips yet? You only have till April 15th for an early crop...

There has been a lot of corruption in Scotland. We await to see if the Police charge anyone and if so how many feel.the bracelets.

Corruption is endemic in Westminster so its not really news. .. People just sigh.

Well almost 3 years and usual suspects, police and especially crown office , seem unable to see what is in front of their eyes. I am not holding my breath in expectation of anyone being in court given past experience.

Taz

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, everyone.

I listen to podcasts, but history rather than politics. It's excellent background for when I'm doing chores or exercising (just the right level of attention needed when on the bike to keep me engaged without losing track of how fast/slow I should be going).

I listen to a couple of finance podcasts. Merryn Talks Money, II's On the Money, and a couple of others.

Stuartinromford

OldKingCole said:

Carnyx said:

FPT

Casino_Royale said:

Carnyx said:

turbotubbs said:

bondegezou said:

turbotubbs said:

bondegezou said:

turbotubbs said:

bondegezou said:

turbotubbs said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

turbotubbs said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

Another example. Jimmy Saville had his name on buildings and a tombstone that was vandalised. Were these acceptable actions?

I guess as before there is a line.

Saville committed awful crimes during his life. As far as I know, Colston did not.

from his wikibio:

During Colston's involvement with the Royal African Company from 1680 to 1692, it is estimated that the company transported over 84,000 African men, women and children to the Caribbean and the rest of the Americas, of whom as many as 19,000 may have died on the journey.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Colston

Not a crime AT THE TIME….

We should be wary of judging historical figures with modern laws.

We live in the present day, and in the present day we can choose who we wish to celebrate now. Do we want to celebrate a slave trader?

I could choose to celebrate a philanthropist who did much good in his life.

Of course we can choose who to celebrate. I just find it rather odd that we judge historical figures against modern standards, as if we would all have been anti slavery if we had been educated as those figures were.
People are of their time. There character, and personality are formed from the world they live in. Should we tear down statues of Roman emporers because of the old slavery thing?

Statues go up and come down all the time. Just because someone once erected a statue to you doesn’t mean that that statue has to remain for all eternity. Our towns and cities change around us all the time. We make choices.

There have been many philanthropists we can celebrate. Why celebrate the one who was a slave trader? Most of Colston’s contemporaries thought slavery was fine. They were wrong. It was horrendous. The African slave trade was one of the greatest horrors to ever have occurred.

I don’t quite know how I have become a Colston defender. Your point was about applying nuance to appraising historical figures.
If you dont like Colston as an example how about Churchill?

I’m not seeking to pull down any Churchill statues. I think we should talk about Churchill’s good and bad side. I wish we could do that without having to worry about hurting the feelings of the snowflakes who don’t want anyone to ever mention the bad stuff.

Can we talk about Colston good side then? Or must his name be obliterated from history, as has happened now in Bristol?

But it hasn't. He - or rather his statue - has been put in the city museum with considerable display material.

The name has been taken off the concert hall as he's not considered a good example today. Matter of opinion, but it's certainly arguable - and much more so than the older assessment of him as immaculate.

It was put on display in a way that celebrates and memorialises its violent destruction- on its side and covered in red daubed paint - for all time.

They should have cleaned him up and put him on display with the contrasting views. But they didn't.

It'd have been better to leave him in the harbour.

That isn't presenting Colston in a fair or neutral way.

Casino_Royale said:

Carnyx said:

Casino_Royale said:

StillWaters said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

turbotubbs said:

Benpointer said:

Casino_Royale said:

logical_song said:

Casino_Royale said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

Mordaunt who as far as I can see would naturally probably bring the silly culture wars to an end is held as being "too woke", despite not being woke at all.

Nah, she's Woke.

Read her "book".

Good, 'woke' just means respecting others.

No, it doesn't - as has been exhaustively explained to you on numerous occasions on here.

But, you either don't want to listen or are a professional timewaster. Possibly both.

I'd like to engage with you on this.

Some of the views and actions by those on the extreme of what they themselves would term 'progressive politics' are of course ridiculous, offensive and dangerous. I doubt anyone on here would disagree with that for the most egregious examples. It is right to object to such extemes and many on the left do so.

At the other end of the spectrum, I beleive we'd all agree* on some basic universal fairness, equality, and inclusion rules that should apply - e.g. no one should be discriminated against on the basis of gender, race, disability, sexual orientation, etc. etc. (*Although, historically, it wasn't always thus.)

So the issue is surely where to draw the line?

I probably embrace a few diversity and inclusion measures that you find unnecessary or troubling (e.g. I think unconscious bias awareness is good thing; I don't mind the National Trust explaining how some of its stately home were built on slave profits). But these are issues of scale or interpretation, not fundamental diametrically-opposed views.

So I find it a bit baffling that so many on the right get so het up about 'woke' - a term they, not the left, use.

I think the fuss over the Colston statue is as good a place to start as any. Slave trader = bad. But philanthropist = good. He did good works with his I’ll gotten gains. But those I’ll gotten gains were legal at the time, and his use of them would not have been frowned upon by society at the time.

So rather than tear down his statue and remove his name from things he created, how about a bit more nuance. Explanation. But the great danger is the extremes don’t want to engage in debate. The win is the only thing.

I’m sorry to be ignorant but who took down the Colson statue?

I’d agree taking it down is ridiculous and self-defeating however would a notice really not be called out for “wokeness”.

A mob of agitators threw it in the harbour

Haven’t read the below article but attaching based on headline so no ideas if it is good/bad/indifferent

https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/jun/08/who-was-edward-colston-and-why-was-his-bristol-statue-toppled-slave-trader-black-lives-matter-protests

Colston could have been anybody. It's just the activists needed a target at the time to advance their reputations and their cause, and he was it.

No, he was always a major figure in Bristol and the issue had been building up for years. It may have come as a surprise to you and many others, but not to anyone who knew Bristol.

Err, I lived in Bristol for several years you moron and still have friends there now.

Colston wasn't a big issue outside an activist minority- even the Labour mayor wasn't bothered by it.

You lose the argument immediately if you call people morons, old fruit. Helpful hint straight out of Viz.

And how do you know I don't know Bristol or have friends there myself? You don't. So that doesn't work either.

As for your assertion that it would be better to leave him in the harbour - I thought you didn't approve of vandalism and wokery. But you forget that it wasn't presenting Colston in a fair and neutral way to leave thje statue where it was in the first place. And the Merchant Venturers refused to compromise. So we are where we are.

Wouldn’t it have been a hazard to small boats or something?

Disclaimer; I don’t know Bristol. Haven’t been there for years!

Suddenly a win-win outcome suggests itself.

(A couple of more serious undercurrents. First is that where a statue is matters. Putting it on a big plinth in a public thoroughfare is a lot more in-your-face than at ground level in a place where it has to be sought out.

The other is that the amount of civic space and headspace available for statues and memorials is finite and Victorians especially took rather more than their fair share. Consider the typical English churchyard- massive ancient stone blocks and tiny modern plaques.)

RochdalePioneers

Foxy said:

As the SNP are in opposition in Westminster and in government in Holyrood, isn't it just logical for those wanting changed governments to vote SNP in the first and against it in the second?

Though until the issue of independence is resolved that will dominate Scottish voting. Holywood needs a better choice of pro-Indy parties. Choosing between SNP, Alba and Scottish Greens is not an appealing prospect.

Differential voting in different elections is definitely a thing - we know that. But so is a mid-term protest vote. In the decaying mess that is the SNP's Scotland you do have to wonder how many people are up for giving them a mid-term drubbing.

The party message is that everything good in Scotland is them, and everything bad in Scotland is Westminster / the Tories. In reality that is laughable and the poll in the header shows people can see right through it.

The challenge in seats like mine is that it has ben a 2 horse race between corrupt incompetence and incompetent corruption. What a choice!

Malmesbury

TimS said:

Foxy said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

JosiasJessop said:

In a way, it's not a question of political ideology or party: it's simply a question of competence.

If your government is not competent, it will fail to do what is right for the country. Even if it wants to.

So the question is: how do we increase competence?

Stop with the professional politicians who see it as a career rather than a service.

I know. It is pie in the sky and will never happen. But I still think it is the advent of the graduate/SPAD/MP career ladder that is responsible for much of the issue we see today with our frankly atrocious politicians on all sides.

Sounds as if it is time for Starmer, Reeves and Rayner, none of whom are professional politicians by that definition. Mind you neither are Sunak and Hunt.

Nor was Boris. Nor Liz Truss. So it doesn’t strike me that the grad/SPAD/MP route is the primary cause of our troubles.

The French system definitely has had a problem with the groupthink of “enarchs” who all went to the ENA then on to government jobs, but they did at least go through a very gruelling selection process and then spend years being taught the ropes of public administration. Le Pen of course being the outsider there, and that being part of her appeal (as was Sarkozy).

There is no magic bullet.

But a situation where political control of billions of spending and many thousands of employees is handed to some one who has never done anything on that scale, has no idea what they really want to do, or how to do it, is not a plan for success.

Add in rotating the figureheads every year or so….

Taz

In all the rather favourable press and media coverage about the organised price increase from Nail Technicians no mention at all about this being effectively collusion/acting as a cartel.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cld404v6lkeo

DecrepiterJohnL

OT Amol Rajan: 7 lessons from my first series of University Challenge
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-68741802

It is the University Challenge final tonight. @Sunil_Prasannan's old college takes on @Leon's. Oxbridge have yet again failed to trouble the judges although they did both reach the Boat Race final last month.

Malmesbury

I hear the anti-ULEZ idiots have come up with an actually funny strategy.

Apparently they put up “bat nesting” boxes on the camera poles, which can’t just be (easily) removed due to rules on bat protection.

Casino_Royale

DecrepiterJohnL said:

OT Amol Rajan: 7 lessons from my first series of University Challenge
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-68741802

It is the University Challenge final tonight. @Sunil_Prasannan's old college takes on @Leon's. Oxbridge have yet again failed to trouble the judges although they did both reach the Boat Race final last month.

He needs Jungle, I'm afraid.

Theuniondivvie

As the polling suggests people may want change but they’ve not much of a clue what change Labour is offering, despite them loudly and repetitively mentioning it.

I’ve been struck by the paucity of detail in Labour’s Scottish change mantra; their usual mo is to offer a few fluffy aspirations that cynical chaps like me doubt will ever be fulfilled, but this time nada. Perhaps they’ve got a raft of absolutely cracking policies for Scotland that will kill the Nats stone dead for a generation but they’re scared that they’ll be pinched, however I won’t be holding my breath.

On a slightly connected note, I see Wes ‘Unctuous’ Streeting has been berating middle class lefties obstructing private sector involvement in the NHS. I assume if he opens the floodgates to capital this will affect that great Unionist creation the Barnett formula?

guybrush

DecrepiterJohnL said:

The Rest Is Politics (Rory Stewart & Alastair Campbell)
The News Agents (Emily Maitlis, Jon Sopel & Lewis Goodall)
Political Currency (George Osborne & Ed Balls)
Oh God, What Now? (formerly Remainiacs)
Politics at Jack and Sam's (Jack Blanchard (Politico) & Sam Coates (Sky))
Rock & Roll Politics (Steve Richards)
Pod Save the UK (Nish Kumar & Coco Khan)
Electoral Dysfunction (Beth Rigby, Jess Phillips & Ruth Davidson)

The above-named political podcasts are reviewed by the Standard at
https://www.standard.co.uk/lifestyle/peak-political-podcast-rest-is-politics-news-agents-b1149671.html

Anyone remember the PB/Polling Matters Podcast feat Kieran Pedley. Now reborn as the IPSOS podcast. Fell asleep to it on many occasions...

Stuartinromford

Malmesbury said:

I hear the anti-ULEZ idiots have come up with an actually funny strategy.

Apparently they put up “bat nesting” boxes on the camera poles, which can’t just be (easily) removed due to rules on bat protection.

Or so they think...

Dr Joe Nunez-Mino of the Bat Conservation Trust however disagrees with the legal aspect highlighted by the box’s notice.

He said: “All 18 species of bats and their roosts are protected by law, because of their significant historical decline. You need a licensed bat worker to carry out a check on a bat box, but that does not mean they cannot be legally removed with a correct authority.

“The licensing authority in this case would be Natural England, they have power to make decisions based on the evidence available."

He also said a bat box placed next to a busy road would be highly unlikely to be used by any bat species, so would not be very useful for conservation.


https://www.romfordrecorder.co.uk/news/24218113.rainham-ulez-activists-use-bat-box-bid-block-camera/

DecrepiterJohnL

A&E in critical condition as NHS overwhelmed by patients
More than 150,000 people were forced to wait over 24 hours in an accident and emergency department last year before a hospital bed could be found for them
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/a-and-e-in-critical-condition-as-nhs-overwhelmed-by-patients-d3ss06vrb (£££)

Sandpit

Nigelb said:

Foxy said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Icarus said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

The Rest Is Politics (Rory Stewart & Alastair Campbell)
The News Agents (Emily Maitlis, Jon Sopel & Lewis Goodall)
Political Currency (George Osborne & Ed Balls)
Oh God, What Now? (formerly Remainiacs)
Politics at Jack and Sam's (Jack Blanchard (Politico) & Sam Coates (Sky))
Rock & Roll Politics (Steve Richards)
Pod Save the UK (Nish Kumar & Coco Khan)
Electoral Dysfunction (Beth Rigby, Jess Phillips & Ruth Davidson)

The above-named political podcasts are reviewed by the Standard at
https://www.standard.co.uk/lifestyle/peak-political-podcast-rest-is-politics-news-agents-b1149671.html

How many people listen to these?

Lots. Podcasts of all sorts are the new rock and roll. The explosion in political podcasts is no doubt in part due to The Rest Is Politics selling out theatres for its live tours.

I think podcasts and other narrow-casting are part of the problem. Politics is increasingly niche, about personalities rather than policy and ignored by the majority. We rarely see prime time discussions where politicians have time to speak, just soundbites, photo-opportunities and gotcha type aggressive interviews compare with this between Edward Heath and Michael Foot on our first referendum.

https://youtu.be/CuZrzwm6CJs?feature=shared

The only political podcast I ever listen to (infrequently) is Pod Save America.
While it's unabashedly liberal, it does have interesting (and sometimes Republican) guests, occasional long form interviews, and detail hard to glean elsewhere.

It's also quite entertaining.

Can't really see the point in listening to UK politics podcasts.

I listen to way more US podcasts than UK ones, they are simply more interesting. PSA is a good one as you mention, as is Bill Maher among the liberal ones. Among the centrist ones Tim Pool’s nightly podcast is a good summary of the day’s news, and of the Conservatives probably Dave Rubin and Matt Walsh - oh, and dozens of comedians with podcasts, too many to recall, some of which are news/politcs based and mostly fall into the ‘disaffected liberal’ area.

No_Offence_Alan

ydoethur said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

If I were the SNP at the next general election, I'd focus on polls showing a Labour landslide as suggesting first, there is no need to vote specifically to remove the Tories because they are doomed anyway, and secondly that a strong SNP representation is needed to counter an England-dominated Labour Party in the House of Commons.

To which the obvious rejoinder is, if Labour's Scottish MPs hold the balance between a majority and no majority (which is one possibility) they'll have much more leverage over government policy than any number of SNP members.

That didn't work for the Scottish Conservatives under May. She paid more attention to the DUP than to them.

Nigelb

I doubt @viewcode 's Human/Transhuman axis would help much with the US polling conundrum.

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/04/07/voter-age-biden-trump-2024-election-00150923
...That would be a signal that the polls are once again struggling to measure the presidential race accurately after underestimating Trump in the previous two presidential elections. Maybe the young-voter numbers are wrong, and the polls are understating Biden; or maybe the older-voter numbers are wrong, and Trump is even stronger than he appears; or both.

“Seems like we know how to poll white, middle-aged people really well,” said John Della Volpe, the director of polling for the Harvard Kennedy School Institute of Politics and an expert on polling young voters. “But if they’re younger, older, Black, Hispanic — there seems to be no consensus about what’s the best practice these days.”

Is there a fundamental realignment underway of the American electorate? A systemic error in polling? A little bit of both?..

viewcode

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Heathener said:

Fun time at the Tottenham game with my son yesterday, even though it’s quite a faff to get up there.

And I missed the pointless discussion on here about trans issues so a win-win.

A few years from now the majority will look back and wonder what all the trans hatred was about, rather like they do about homosexuality. And how the country was hoodwinked into a fixation about a tiny little country in central Africa called Rwanda.

Gnats and camels.

The transhumanism thread was not about trans issues in that sense. Rather, a new framing of politics. And a very, very long header even without the accompanying video.

It was less than 1200 words long. PB word limits go like this.

* It used to be a limit of 800 words.
* Then Cyclefree started publishing around the 1200 word mark
* She was teased incessantly about this (the "Cyclefree limit"), and pulled it back, but articles around that mark kept appearing occasionally.
* Then somebody else - I think it was Ydoethur - published an absolute monster at around 1800 words (the "Ydoethur limit"?) and the site expanded again.

DecrepiterJohnL

Tories’ campaign poster is pulled in storm of derision
The social media post, which featured fighter jets built abroad and a prime minister with record low ratings, was intended to talk Britain up

The poster featured a montage of images, not all of them strictly British
A football team that has not won a big trophy in decades, a prime minister with record low ratings, a Swiss-owned container ship, a US fighter jet and a large image of a smiling King.

This is the unusual medley of images that the Conservative Party used in a campaign poster declaring Britain to be the second most powerful country in the world.

The seemingly triumphalist montage made its way into the world last week. And it has already left it. The post was hastily deleted after being published on social media following a breach of protocol relating to its use of an image of the King, along with other criticisms.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/tories-campaign-poster-is-pulled-in-storm-of-derision-p8k3b2gks (£££)

The Times should explore whether CCHQ is back to its old trick of shitposting or intentionally posting bad content in order to get talked about.

MattW

Malmesbury said:

I hear the anti-ULEZ idiots have come up with an actually funny strategy.

Apparently they put up “bat nesting” boxes on the camera poles, which can’t just be (easily) removed due to rules on bat protection.

IME the law protects bats, not nesting boxes.

An empty nesting box can aiui be removed.

How many of these have bats nesting in them?

Another lot of idiots looking at themselves in the mirror and saying how clever they appear.

They may well need Planning Permission to install one.

Malmesbury

I hear the anti-ULEZ loons

Stuartinromford said:

Malmesbury said:

I hear the anti-ULEZ idiots have come up with an actually funny strategy.

Apparently they put up “bat nesting” boxes on the camera poles, which can’t just be (easily) removed due to rules on bat protection.

Or so they think...

Dr Joe Nunez-Mino of the Bat Conservation Trust however disagrees with the legal aspect highlighted by the box’s notice.

He said: “All 18 species of bats and their roosts are protected by law, because of their significant historical decline. You need a licensed bat worker to carry out a check on a bat box, but that does not mean they cannot be legally removed with a correct authority.

“The licensing authority in this case would be Natural England, they have power to make decisions based on the evidence available."

He also said a bat box placed next to a busy road would be highly unlikely to be used by any bat species, so would not be very useful for conservation.


https://www.romfordrecorder.co.uk/news/24218113.rainham-ulez-activists-use-bat-box-bid-block-camera/

Indeed - but each instance has to be checked out by a “licensed bat worker”, first.

Carnyx

No_Offence_Alan said:

ydoethur said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

If I were the SNP at the next general election, I'd focus on polls showing a Labour landslide as suggesting first, there is no need to vote specifically to remove the Tories because they are doomed anyway, and secondly that a strong SNP representation is needed to counter an England-dominated Labour Party in the House of Commons.

To which the obvious rejoinder is, if Labour's Scottish MPs hold the balance between a majority and no majority (which is one possibility) they'll have much more leverage over government policy than any number of SNP members.

That didn't work for the Scottish Conservatives under May. She paid more attention to the DUP than to them.

TBF the small detail [edit] to remember* is that the Scons were Tories (for all that they were marketed as the Ruth D says No party). They had to do what she said. What were they going to do, cross the floor and let Labour in? But Mrs May couldn't treat the other Says No party like that.

Same applies to Slab. If SKS gets a landslide, he can buckle down to keeping the English voters happy and not letting Slab have any leeway with any deviance from the necessary policies.

*apols to Ydoethur - got out of sequence momentarily ...

Carnyx

Malmesbury said:

I hear the anti-ULEZ loons

Stuartinromford said:

Malmesbury said:

I hear the anti-ULEZ idiots have come up with an actually funny strategy.

Apparently they put up “bat nesting” boxes on the camera poles, which can’t just be (easily) removed due to rules on bat protection.

Or so they think...

Dr Joe Nunez-Mino of the Bat Conservation Trust however disagrees with the legal aspect highlighted by the box’s notice.

He said: “All 18 species of bats and their roosts are protected by law, because of their significant historical decline. You need a licensed bat worker to carry out a check on a bat box, but that does not mean they cannot be legally removed with a correct authority.

“The licensing authority in this case would be Natural England, they have power to make decisions based on the evidence available."

He also said a bat box placed next to a busy road would be highly unlikely to be used by any bat species, so would not be very useful for conservation.


https://www.romfordrecorder.co.uk/news/24218113.rainham-ulez-activists-use-bat-box-bid-block-camera/

Indeed - but each instance has to be checked out by a “licensed bat worker”, first.

Plenty of those around in the local naturalists' trusts, and the like, though.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Sandpit, some podcasts have ads. But don't forget Patreon, Subscribestar, or other subscription services. Lots of YouTube and Twitch channels largely rely on that over subs to their actual channels. I imagine it's similar for podcasts.

Carnyx

MattW said:

Malmesbury said:

I hear the anti-ULEZ idiots have come up with an actually funny strategy.

Apparently they put up “bat nesting” boxes on the camera poles, which can’t just be (easily) removed due to rules on bat protection.

IME the law protects bats, not nesting boxes.

An empty nesting box can aiui be removed.

How many of these have bats nesting in them?

Another lot of idiots looking at themselves in the mirror and saying how clever they appear.

They may well need Planning Permission to install one.

Not their property either, so they need to negotiate rental too.

SirNorfolkPassmore

Malmesbury said:

I hear the anti-ULEZ loons

Stuartinromford said:

Malmesbury said:

I hear the anti-ULEZ idiots have come up with an actually funny strategy.

Apparently they put up “bat nesting” boxes on the camera poles, which can’t just be (easily) removed due to rules on bat protection.

Or so they think...

Dr Joe Nunez-Mino of the Bat Conservation Trust however disagrees with the legal aspect highlighted by the box’s notice.

He said: “All 18 species of bats and their roosts are protected by law, because of their significant historical decline. You need a licensed bat worker to carry out a check on a bat box, but that does not mean they cannot be legally removed with a correct authority.

“The licensing authority in this case would be Natural England, they have power to make decisions based on the evidence available."

He also said a bat box placed next to a busy road would be highly unlikely to be used by any bat species, so would not be very useful for conservation.


https://www.romfordrecorder.co.uk/news/24218113.rainham-ulez-activists-use-bat-box-bid-block-camera/

Indeed - but each instance has to be checked out by a “licensed bat worker”, first.

At taxpayer expense, and to check a box which has sod all chance of having a bat in it because it's a brand new box by a busy and polluted road.

It's not an hilarious prank - it's just another way anti-ULEZ cretins are wasting my money with zero impact, either ecologically or to the policy they're campaigning against. They're nothing more than a gammon version of Just Stop Oil.

Malmesbury

Carnyx said:

Malmesbury said:

I hear the anti-ULEZ loons

Stuartinromford said:

Malmesbury said:

I hear the anti-ULEZ idiots have come up with an actually funny strategy.

Apparently they put up “bat nesting” boxes on the camera poles, which can’t just be (easily) removed due to rules on bat protection.

Or so they think...

Dr Joe Nunez-Mino of the Bat Conservation Trust however disagrees with the legal aspect highlighted by the box’s notice.

He said: “All 18 species of bats and their roosts are protected by law, because of their significant historical decline. You need a licensed bat worker to carry out a check on a bat box, but that does not mean they cannot be legally removed with a correct authority.

“The licensing authority in this case would be Natural England, they have power to make decisions based on the evidence available."

He also said a bat box placed next to a busy road would be highly unlikely to be used by any bat species, so would not be very useful for conservation.


https://www.romfordrecorder.co.uk/news/24218113.rainham-ulez-activists-use-bat-box-bid-block-camera/

Indeed - but each instance has to be checked out by a “licensed bat worker”, first.

Plenty of those around in the local naturalists' trusts, and the like, though.

Do they wait by the Bat Phone?

DecrepiterJohnL

Trump raises $50m in a night, with help from Melania
Hedge fund bosses and casino moguls were among guests who handed over $250,000 for a seat at the former president’s table
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/trump-raises-50m-in-a-night-with-help-from-melania-5z3sn2hs8 (£££)

The Donald is still in the game.

Sandpit

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Sandpit, some podcasts have ads. But don't forget Patreon, Subscribestar, or other subscription services. Lots of YouTube and Twitch channels largely rely on that over subs to their actual channels. I imagine it's similar for podcasts.

Yes very true, a lot of creators have a free podcast and a Patreon / Substack etc site for bonus content, or use YouTube’s Super Chat service as a tip jar, which can also generate revenue. In theory you only need a few thousand people throwing you a fiver a month to make a good living from it, if you don’t have too many costs to cover.

DecrepiterJohnL

BREAKING: New scandal engulfs Labour as Angela Rayner found to be living rent-free in Dan Hodges' head
https://twitter.com/MrDarcyDog/status/1776969296859509216

Well, it made me laugh.

Nigelb

viewcode said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Heathener said:

Fun time at the Tottenham game with my son yesterday, even though it’s quite a faff to get up there.

And I missed the pointless discussion on here about trans issues so a win-win.

A few years from now the majority will look back and wonder what all the trans hatred was about, rather like they do about homosexuality. And how the country was hoodwinked into a fixation about a tiny little country in central Africa called Rwanda.

Gnats and camels.

The transhumanism thread was not about trans issues in that sense. Rather, a new framing of politics. And a very, very long header even without the accompanying video.

It was less than 1200 words long. PB word limits go like this.

* It used to be a limit of 800 words.
* Then Cyclefree started publishing around the 1200 word mark
* She was teased incessantly about this (the "Cyclefree limit"), and pulled it back, but articles around that mark kept appearing occasionally.
* Then somebody else - I think it was Ydoethur - published an absolute monster at around 1800 words (the "Ydoethur limit"?) and the site expanded again.

Can PBers not read ?
Or are we all suffering ADHD ?

I am happy with headers both short and long, if well written.
No problems with yours - other than being unpersuaded by the thesis you well described.

SirNorfolkPassmore

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Trump raises $50m in a night, with help from Melania
Hedge fund bosses and casino moguls were among guests who handed over $250,000 for a seat at the former president’s table
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/trump-raises-50m-in-a-night-with-help-from-melania-5z3sn2hs8 (£££)

The Donald is still in the game.

That'll pay his legal fees for a fortnight or so, then.

Nigelb

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Trump raises $50m in a night, with help from Melania
Hedge fund bosses and casino moguls were among guests who handed over $250,000 for a seat at the former president’s table
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/trump-raises-50m-in-a-night-with-help-from-melania-5z3sn2hs8 (£££)

The Donald is still in the game.

That's assuming he's telling the truth about the numbers.

Nigelb

This is a fun thread with which to test (or expand) your vocabulary.

23 incredibly specific things you've probably noticed that also have incredibly specific names:

1. Spoliation — when parts of an older building are reused to make a new one.
https://twitter.com/culturaltutor/status/1776942670406963341


Perhaps most relevant to PB.

"Eristic"

A rhetorical term for a way of talking where the aim is simply to win the argument, not to arrive at the truth or even prove your own view correct.
Argument for argument's sake.

Malmesbury

MattW said:

Malmesbury said:

I hear the anti-ULEZ idiots have come up with an actually funny strategy.

Apparently they put up “bat nesting” boxes on the camera poles, which can’t just be (easily) removed due to rules on bat protection.

IME the law protects bats, not nesting boxes.

An empty nesting box can aiui be removed.

How many of these have bats nesting in them?

Another lot of idiots looking at themselves in the mirror and saying how clever they appear.

They may well need Planning Permission to install one.

IIRC *suspected* bat activity has to be checked out first. Halts building sites all the time.

It wouldn’t surprise me if someone got the idea from their loft conversion being stopped by bats.

If people are going to protest, they should try to do so in gentle ways that has some humour. A fake bat box is far better for society than some alternatives.

Taz

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

Malmesbury said:

I hear the anti-ULEZ loons

Stuartinromford said:

Malmesbury said:

I hear the anti-ULEZ idiots have come up with an actually funny strategy.

Apparently they put up “bat nesting” boxes on the camera poles, which can’t just be (easily) removed due to rules on bat protection.

Or so they think...

Dr Joe Nunez-Mino of the Bat Conservation Trust however disagrees with the legal aspect highlighted by the box’s notice.

He said: “All 18 species of bats and their roosts are protected by law, because of their significant historical decline. You need a licensed bat worker to carry out a check on a bat box, but that does not mean they cannot be legally removed with a correct authority.

“The licensing authority in this case would be Natural England, they have power to make decisions based on the evidence available."

He also said a bat box placed next to a busy road would be highly unlikely to be used by any bat species, so would not be very useful for conservation.


https://www.romfordrecorder.co.uk/news/24218113.rainham-ulez-activists-use-bat-box-bid-block-camera/

Indeed - but each instance has to be checked out by a “licensed bat worker”, first.

At taxpayer expense, and to check a box which has sod all chance of having a bat in it because it's a brand new box by a busy and polluted road.

It's not an hilarious prank - it's just another way anti-ULEZ cretins are wasting my money with zero impact, either ecologically or to the policy they're campaigning against. They're nothing more than a gammon version of Just Stop Oil.

They are but they are great comedy value.

They trigger exactly the same people who defend to the hilt the right of Just Stop Oil to piss people off and slow walk on main roads.

SouthamObserver

Foxy said:

As the SNP are in opposition in Westminster and in government in Holyrood, isn't it just logical for those wanting changed governments to vote SNP in the first and against it in the second?

Though until the issue of independence is resolved that will dominate Scottish voting. Holywood needs a better choice of pro-Indy parties. Choosing between SNP, Alba and Scottish Greens is not an appealing prospect.

The only thing that resolves the issue of independence is independence and it's hard to see how that happens any time soon. With around half of Scots backing a split, the SNP is always going to have a very high floor in terms of vote share. The big long term issue for Scottish politics may be whether the SNP can hold together or whether there will be a Catalonia-style split between constitutionalists and unilateralists. First past the post prevents that at the moment.

Taz

Star of David merged with Swastika WON'T be probed by Scottish police as new hate crime law row explodes

I am sure this decision was taken correctly and a relative of an SNP minister allegedly having made this offensive sign was not taken into account.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/star-of-david-merged-with-swastika-won-t-be-probed-by-scottish-police-as-new-hate-crime-law-row-explodes/ar-BB1lfthi?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=U531&cvid=743121a80f75421dab15cdeb6ae0bf86&ei=14

DecrepiterJohnL

guybrush said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

The Rest Is Politics (Rory Stewart & Alastair Campbell)
The News Agents (Emily Maitlis, Jon Sopel & Lewis Goodall)
Political Currency (George Osborne & Ed Balls)
Oh God, What Now? (formerly Remainiacs)
Politics at Jack and Sam's (Jack Blanchard (Politico) & Sam Coates (Sky))
Rock & Roll Politics (Steve Richards)
Pod Save the UK (Nish Kumar & Coco Khan)
Electoral Dysfunction (Beth Rigby, Jess Phillips & Ruth Davidson)

The above-named political podcasts are reviewed by the Standard at
https://www.standard.co.uk/lifestyle/peak-political-podcast-rest-is-politics-news-agents-b1149671.html

Anyone remember the PB/Polling Matters Podcast feat Kieran Pedley. Now reborn as the IPSOS podcast. Fell asleep to it on many occasions...

Also, some are part of larger organisations. For instance, The News Agents is produced by Global, which owns radio stations like LBC, Capital, Heart and Classic FM. Or The Rest Is Politics (or TRIs History or Entertainment or Football) comes from Goalhanger, the production company of Gary Lineker.

kinabalu

Nigelb said:

viewcode said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Heathener said:

Fun time at the Tottenham game with my son yesterday, even though it’s quite a faff to get up there.

And I missed the pointless discussion on here about trans issues so a win-win.

A few years from now the majority will look back and wonder what all the trans hatred was about, rather like they do about homosexuality. And how the country was hoodwinked into a fixation about a tiny little country in central Africa called Rwanda.

Gnats and camels.

The transhumanism thread was not about trans issues in that sense. Rather, a new framing of politics. And a very, very long header even without the accompanying video.

It was less than 1200 words long. PB word limits go like this.

* It used to be a limit of 800 words.
* Then Cyclefree started publishing around the 1200 word mark
* She was teased incessantly about this (the "Cyclefree limit"), and pulled it back, but articles around that mark kept appearing occasionally.
* Then somebody else - I think it was Ydoethur - published an absolute monster at around 1800 words (the "Ydoethur limit"?) and the site expanded again.

Can PBers not read ?
Or are we all suffering ADHD ?

I am happy with headers both short and long, if well written.
No problems with yours - other than being unpersuaded by the thesis you well described.

Brevity obsession sucks

(3)

kjh

Carnyx said:

MattW said:

Malmesbury said:

I hear the anti-ULEZ idiots have come up with an actually funny strategy.

Apparently they put up “bat nesting” boxes on the camera poles, which can’t just be (easily) removed due to rules on bat protection.

IME the law protects bats, not nesting boxes.

An empty nesting box can aiui be removed.

How many of these have bats nesting in them?

Another lot of idiots looking at themselves in the mirror and saying how clever they appear.

They may well need Planning Permission to install one.

Not their property either, so they need to negotiate rental too.

Do bats pay rent? I put a box on my house some years ago. Never crossed my mind to charge them. I wonder how much I have missed out on.

Luckyguy1983

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

Malmesbury said:

I hear the anti-ULEZ loons

Stuartinromford said:

Malmesbury said:

I hear the anti-ULEZ idiots have come up with an actually funny strategy.

Apparently they put up “bat nesting” boxes on the camera poles, which can’t just be (easily) removed due to rules on bat protection.

Or so they think...

Dr Joe Nunez-Mino of the Bat Conservation Trust however disagrees with the legal aspect highlighted by the box’s notice.

He said: “All 18 species of bats and their roosts are protected by law, because of their significant historical decline. You need a licensed bat worker to carry out a check on a bat box, but that does not mean they cannot be legally removed with a correct authority.

“The licensing authority in this case would be Natural England, they have power to make decisions based on the evidence available."

He also said a bat box placed next to a busy road would be highly unlikely to be used by any bat species, so would not be very useful for conservation.


https://www.romfordrecorder.co.uk/news/24218113.rainham-ulez-activists-use-bat-box-bid-block-camera/

Indeed - but each instance has to be checked out by a “licensed bat worker”, first.

At taxpayer expense, and to check a box which has sod all chance of having a bat in it because it's a brand new box by a busy and polluted road.

It's not an hilarious prank - it's just another way anti-ULEZ cretins are wasting my money with zero impact, either ecologically or to the policy they're campaigning against. They're nothing more than a gammon version of Just Stop Oil.

I'd say Just Stop Oil has more in common with both the aims and the methods of those who erected the Ulez cameras, not those vandalising them.

FF43

SouthamObserver said:

Foxy said:

As the SNP are in opposition in Westminster and in government in Holyrood, isn't it just logical for those wanting changed governments to vote SNP in the first and against it in the second?

Though until the issue of independence is resolved that will dominate Scottish voting. Holywood needs a better choice of pro-Indy parties. Choosing between SNP, Alba and Scottish Greens is not an appealing prospect.

The only thing that resolves the issue of independence is independence and it's hard to see how that happens any time soon. With around half of Scots backing a split, the SNP is always going to have a very high floor in terms of vote share. The big long term issue for Scottish politics may be whether the SNP can hold together or whether there will be a Catalonia-style split between constitutionalists and unilateralists. First past the post prevents that at the moment.

I'm guessing the SNPs medium and maybe long term future is a version of old Fianna Fáil, back in the day. A vaguely nationalist cronyist party of almost perpetual government.

No_Offence_Alan

Luckyguy1983 said:

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

Malmesbury said:

I hear the anti-ULEZ loons

Stuartinromford said:

Malmesbury said:

I hear the anti-ULEZ idiots have come up with an actually funny strategy.

Apparently they put up “bat nesting” boxes on the camera poles, which can’t just be (easily) removed due to rules on bat protection.

Or so they think...

Dr Joe Nunez-Mino of the Bat Conservation Trust however disagrees with the legal aspect highlighted by the box’s notice.

He said: “All 18 species of bats and their roosts are protected by law, because of their significant historical decline. You need a licensed bat worker to carry out a check on a bat box, but that does not mean they cannot be legally removed with a correct authority.

“The licensing authority in this case would be Natural England, they have power to make decisions based on the evidence available."

He also said a bat box placed next to a busy road would be highly unlikely to be used by any bat species, so would not be very useful for conservation.


https://www.romfordrecorder.co.uk/news/24218113.rainham-ulez-activists-use-bat-box-bid-block-camera/

Indeed - but each instance has to be checked out by a “licensed bat worker”, first.

At taxpayer expense, and to check a box which has sod all chance of having a bat in it because it's a brand new box by a busy and polluted road.

It's not an hilarious prank - it's just another way anti-ULEZ cretins are wasting my money with zero impact, either ecologically or to the policy they're campaigning against. They're nothing more than a gammon version of Just Stop Oil.

I'd say Just Stop Oil has more in common with both the aims and the methods of those who erected the Ulez cameras, not those vandalising them.

Methods? Just Stop Oil are unaccountable, unrepresentative vandals, the ULEZ was introduced by someone who won a democratic election. Or is that "seizing power" in your view?

Donkeys

Drones have attacked Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant.

Looks like I picked the wrong Eid to stop sniffing glue!