As I noted yesterday, I was on Debate Night in Scotland last night.
You can watch here, assuming you have a TV licence.
How did it go? I clearly upset some people. I pleased others. I got more than my rightful share of applause. That is about as good as it gets.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
RM came across as very much the technocrat – ‘these are the facts of the matter’. ‘This is how much it’s going to cost’ etc.
The rest of the panel was just political soundbite blow. eg ‘Cost of living crisis’ over and over again. With no solutions offered.
Richard was very good on this show. I’ve always thought it would be fun to have one night of such a debate show without any politicians on. I get that kind of defeats the point, but we might get more genuine answers for once.
Thanks
I almost never watch debate programmes. I had a look this morning. It was hard work. What struck me about Richard’s contributions was that they provided a summarised conceptual overview of where the roots of several problems of government lay; in funding and taxation, and as a framework for debate. Neither the audience nor the panel seemed to me adequately to grasp the significance; they wandered off into safer, banal political territory, discussing in the same dismal tropes of Party circularities, the usual unusable, failed political tripe we have heard for the last forty years. The panel in particular could only discuss issues within a framework and language in which political slogans, standard over-simple, long-exploded explanations, and a world of easy to digest symptoms that fail to fix any problems are paraded as the solutions to everything. If what I saw last night is “it”; we are doomed.
The most risible point was reached when the Conservative MSP effectively deconstructed the complete idiocy of the votes of 24% of the registered electorate giving the Conservatives an 80 seat majority in Parliament, and the capacity to govern without effective opposition; as a sensible critique of the SNP majorities providing any entitlement to act; without even comprehending that she had savaged her own case. The audience didn’t miss it.
If I am honest, she really did not cover herself with glory
I think she had no idea how clueless her arguments were
re your 1st para – spot on Mr Warren, spot on.
What Richard was putting forward contradicted much of what passes for “conventional wisdom” in economic matters. In turn, the other parties, unable to handle info that contradicted their “religious positions” chose to ignore it & as you say – spouted trite nonesense, designed to divert. I’d suggest that they (parties and audience) are functionally incapable of engaging with what Richard said – or indeed with many of the commentators in this blog. This of course suits the assembled imbeciles (RM excepted) on the panel. A discussion that exposes realities & the ignorance of the politicos cannot happen because Uk serfs would start to wake up -& we can’t have that, can we.
I am not sure they were imbeciles – but they certainly had not got the imagination to see solutions to issues
Well, I think my second paragraph gave the audience more credit than the panel, save Richard.
We have reached the stage that nobody representing a political party is prepared to commit to anything usable, or rises above the commonplace, predictable or platitudinous. They have reduced politics to a fairy story; as if they challenged anything important. They are shadow boxing. They are terrified of the Press and social media (which is itself manipulated by vested interests); so refuse to say anything at all which suggests commitment; which has any substance, or usable content. It is becoming the politics of the non-political. Leave it all to the Bank of England is the new orthodoxy! God help us, the BoE management has been disastrous since the Financial Crash; which they failed to predict, didn’t understand, cobbled short-term solutions they didn’t understand, executed badly, and have left us in an unresolved fix they have failed either to address or resolve.
The young Asian lady at the end raised a good point. All the British political leaders have, quite rightly, condemned the actions of Hamas and have called for international law to be respected. Israel’s actions have not been condemned by most of our leaders.
The bombing of civilians and denial of water, food and medical supplies to a civilian population is also a war crime. When the Russians did it in Ukraine, we called it terrorism. If I were a citizen of the wider region I would probably conclude that British leaders feel Israeli lives were of more value than those of the Palestinians. This is not in our national interest.
Calls to ‘Stand by Israel” are not accompanied by much reference to the wider context. The root cause of the conflict lies in the treatment of the indigenous Arab population. Until we talk about the rights of Palestinians on an equal basis to the rights of Israelis, there will be no peace. Haaretz, the liberal Israeli Newspaper, as well as a good proportion of the Jewish population of Israel , agree. This is not an anti-Semitic view. IMHO Netanyahu is part of the same category of leader as Trump or Bolsonaro.
The British newspapers are mainly concerned with Hamas terrorism but I have an impression the graphic pictures on our TVs have focused attention on the wider issues , and as the population learns more, there has been a swing in public opinion towards the Palestinians while rejecting terrorism.
I spoke with her afterwards and thanked her for her question. It was well placed.
This is a disaster that exacerbates a situation that was already dire.
The need for humanitarian support – including for refugees is real.
The Tory MSP’s reaction was wholly inadequate.
I loved your £5.00 per head intervention. She appeared not to understand.
🙂
I watched last night and felt vindicated on why I follow your blog. One person on the panel spoke uncommon good sense and that was your good self, Richard!
Thank you