Comments by "Ash Roskell" (@ashroskell) on "Professor Tim Wilson"
channel.
-
2
-
A slight aside here, professor. But I just wanted to remind you of how much I admire your channel and your work on it. And to say thank you for it. We really NEED people like you, commenting over this election period. I don’t agree with all of your views, and I sometimes want to shout at the screen. But that’s rare. Yet, one of the things I admire most about you is your openness to criticism and your ability to NOT take it personally, but rather, welcome divergent opinions.
Your style, frankness, openness, patent honesty, depth of knowledge and, as I’ve said before, your capacity to blend compassion with rational, logical thinking, is a rare and valuable quality that I cherish.
At times like these, when the pressure is on and anyone who wants to do justice to certain topics will be kept up late at night, it is services like yours that do the most good. I believe there is genuine value in a sincere reminder that there are people out there who value, greatly what you do for us (whether they split their infinitives or notwithstanding) and who wish to encourage and support you. All I have are my words and my sincere gratitude. But what I have is yours.
Thank you, Professor Wilson.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
If Braverman had ever been either, “transparent,” or, “honest,” she never would have been Home Secretary in the first place. For all we know, she could be simply laying out a new negotiating position for something else she’s not telling us, which would be totally in keeping with her MO. Let us see if she really will be instrumental in bringing down the Rwanda Bill? And, as you say, anyone prepared to burn down the house with everyone in it, will NEVER be considered leadership material, even by the bigoted and congenitally stupid.
2
-
It’s time we faced the fact that there has been a consistent and concerted effort to take over the media at every level by the right, over the last 10 years. Since the Tories have stopped threatening the BBC’s license fee and almost daily whining about them being a, “leftie,” organisation, I have been paying closer attention to why that might be? The public were tossed a bone, in the form of a resigning Chairman, Richard Sharp, under a cloud of Tory sleaze scandal and then, radio silence from the front and back benches? Which just so happens to coincide with a suddenly more favourable coverage of Tory policies, downplaying of scandals and burying leads.
Just look at how they covered the, “Let them die,” revelation about Sunak from the Covid Enquiry? He’s our current, serving PM! Yet the BBC’s reporting of that shockingly callous indifference was buried right at the very end of a litany of allegations against his enemy at large, Boris Johnson. A couple of sentences of coverage, tacked on to the very final seconds of the report I saw, in a blink-and-you’ll-miss-it, moment.
We’ve seen the launch of a right wing, “news,” station and Parliament unable to get any answers from the regulator about MP’s blatantly breaking the law by anchoring programs and dressing up political opinion as news. If you watched any of the enquiries into those, the regulator comes off as pusillanimous at best. We have most of the press leaning to the right, which has done for decades, but never with such impunity and insolence. And they all seem to have their, “message,” agreed before anything goes to print or broadcast.
Something is deeply rotten in the state of Denmark. And the coverage of the King is just an example of something we will likely see more and more of in the coming years: careless arrogance from the people in charge.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
From the paranoid perspective of an Israeli government advisor, all they’re seeing is that the people funding HAMAS (Iran, et al) are now the ones calling time and offering back hostages, right at the point that Israel was about to smash a central support hub for HAMAS’s whole operation. Now there are Israelis who are chomping at the bit, thinking they may find other things when they get in there? Whether that be intelligence, billions of dollars worth of fighting technology and weapons, who knows what else? The actual remaining hostages, perhaps?
But, because this call from HAMAS to accept Israel’s ceasefire proposal (And being Israel’s terms and conditions, so you would think they would accept them instantly?) come from Iran and their allies, Netanyahu instinctively feels the need to get in there and see what it is that they’re so keen to protect.
Humanitarian concerns will have not have even crossed Netanyahu’s mind, nor those of his opponents in this complex war.
And we must never forget, so long as Netanyahu is fighting this war, he is keeping the sword of Damocles from dropping on his head, in the form of elections, criminal charges and facing the corruption charges of which he is already accused. In that respect Netanyahu is very much like Vladimir Putin. Now, he is a warlord or he is nothing. It is not just in his political interests to keep this war raging (so long as he can maintain a significant minority of supporters), it is his lifeline.
We are asking a proud, callous, sociopathic man to face shame, indignity after indignity, humbling and probably jail time or even self termination (the YouTube algorithm makes my comments disappear if I use more appropriate words), or he can fight a war. He is THE WORST person to be leading Israel at this crucial moment in their history.
Whatever happens, this cannot end well for the Israelis. As for the Palestinians . . . Well, it’s already gone about as badly as it can and will get worse. But the innocent paying for the crimes of the guilty is a feature, not a bug, in this conflict, on both sides.
Unless American pulls the plug, which they show no signs of doing, there can be no end to this conflict until Palestine ceases to exist. We are watching a genocide. And we’re doing very little about it, except helping to protect the perpetrators from Iranian missiles.
2
-
Indeed, the Tory party lost all of its, “states,” men and women, years ago. I felt that the likes of Cameron were more like the donors and influencers within the elite, holding the fort until more talented MP’s could rise again. Then, after he resigned, we were left with the genuinely untalented leftovers who would NEVER have risen so high in less chaotic times. The, “characters,” the chancers and Neo-Libs, who, as you point out, acted with callous indifference, entitled cruelty, incompetence and corruption.
It is truly sad that the, (oxymoronically named) “Conservatives,” are now having their civil war in the public domain, in this unedifying, unbecoming manner. But that’s what you get when no one has any ideology or ideas. The Tories have no, “story,” to tell about national identity, national character, our destiny or even our general direction.
I think they do know what direction they all agree upon, in which they really want to take the country, but they know they cannot sell that story to the British people, as it would horrify even their most rabid supporters. A Neo-Liberal hellscape, in which corporations from all over the planet own everything, including security, policing and healthcare, is not any voter’s idea of a good time.
You’re right. They’re all out of fig leaves, and they don’t even have sufficient self respect or decency to step into the shadows, admit defeat and see to their domestic squabbles in the privacy of their own homes. We must partake in the public spectacle as if politics was just I’m A Celebrity Get Me Out Of Here!
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Oh, I can tell you who is better off because of Brexit. Those business, “insiders,” who got tip offs from inside Westminster and who, “shorted,” (bet against) the Pound on the international markets. They made a killing and went back for seconds when Liz Truss told her, “think tanks,” all about her insane Neo-Liberal plan to turn Britain’s entire economy over to the business owners. One cannot help wondering how much of that was her and Kwasi Kwarteng and how much of it was the brainwashing of those quangos and far right infiltration units that she spent all of her free time plotting with? Because she really behaved like a Manchurian Candidate throughout her mercifully brief tenure.
But we must never be tempted to fall for the line that, just because the country has been haemorrhaging money, someone in-country hasn’t been profiting. That way, madness lies. We often think policy makers are being wilfully self destructive and even illogical, but there’s always an evil method to their madness.
And, of course, Boris profited immensely, as he was able to back-stab his way to power, which he would have sustained, even (dare I say) maintained to this day with laurels to polish, if only he’d had just enough of an IQ not to mess it up, so wilfully and in such an entitled, spoiled, idiotically callous fashion. But he did profit by Brexit, along with all those who hung on his coat tails, and whom we witness publishing bitter memoirs or galavanting in jungles to be tormented by the British viewing public.
At least the people who vote to toss a former MP into a pit of black widows, or to eat a rhino’s testicles, know their votes have a more meaningful outcome (certainly more gratifying) than general enfranchisement has granted them in the last 20 years.
2
-
2
-
@hutsuls : Appreciated. But, rather than going down a rabbit hole of conspiracy theorists, what I actually want to understand is why HE specifically chooses to, “believe,” this extraordinary thing. I doubt I will be persuaded, but I want to know what specifically persuaded HIM? Who HIS sources are? BTW, I am not, “shouting,” those alt-cap words, but I have no way to put italics or underlining into my text.
There are probably a million different theories about how, when and where just about every famous person has died, been abducted or been replaced by lizard people on the web, so I wouldn’t have any problem constructing a theory of my own, collating all of my, “sources,” and building a web page called, “I’m right dot com @, ‘educate yourself!!!’ for the insecure bubble dwellers incorporated,” and have my own following and donation pages by sundown.
I’m just too old and too bored with all that rubbish to bother.
I am simply going to repeat the question, each time I witness him making this assertion. Though probably way more briefly in future. It’s HIS reasoning I’m after and which, incidentally, I believe we are all entitled to, since Prof Wilson is a professional educator, broadcasting to the public, with a significantly large, consistent (if not, “loyal”) audience. He of all people ought to know that he has a responsibility to that audience. You just can’t go around saying stuff like that without offering a shred of evidence to back up your assertions! He has criticised many others for doing the same thing.
2
-
2
-
2
-
Opening with Robert Peel was rather an elegant touch, I thought. I gave myself a quick refresher by reading Katie Carpenter’s brief summary on the Corn Laws, on the Parliamentary website, before continuing. Notably, Peel knew that repealing the laws would cost him dear and, sure enough, he lost his premiership amid a civil war within the Conservatives.
Yet, he was ultimately vindicated.
All of the fears expressed by the Corn Law supporters were proved false. There was no surge in foreign wheat, glutting the British markets. Prices did not plummet to unmanageable figures. Instead, the people at, “the coal face,” (so to speak) who dealt and traded with Spain, Norway and the other bogey men countries mentioned in pro Corn Law petitions, came up with solutions that benefitted all parties and took the broader consequences of international trade into account.
One could hypothesise that a new form of, “internationalism,” or, an awakening within the trading classes, as to a broader influence on the country’s affairs through international trade, began. Not for nothing had Napoleon dismissed the British as a, “nation of shop keepers,” well within living memory. The British have always had a better grasp of economics and reale politic than their leaders have given them credit for.
2
-
2
-
We don’t want the BBC doing investigative work, do we? Exploring the motives and workings of our institutions and government, might leave too many people being informed? I 100% believe that this cutback is a direct result of pressure from our Tory, “government.”
There is a direct correlation between the government’s sudden radio silence about the BBC and that institution’s sudden apparent silence on any news that looks bad for the Tories. We have gone from almost daily attacks on the BBC, even from the Dispatch Box, continually threatening the licence fee, occurring all the way up to Boris Johnson’s tenure at Downing Street, to this apparent acquiescence on the part of the Beeb, frequently quashing headlines that would embarrass the government, demonstrating appalling pro-government biases (which themselves have grabbed headlines) and having the old boy network appointees quietly slipped into positions of leadership throughout the whole organisation.
The irony, of course, is that people like me, who were once fierce defenders of that license fee, find the best argument for ending it in their becoming a propaganda mouthpiece for whatever government happens to be in power! It has been truly distressing to watch the decline in standards of this precious jewel in the nation’s crown.
The three things that speak most loudly to me of, “Britishness,” have always been 1) Our independent judicial system, still able to make judgements that can even stymy the worst laid plans of Prime Ministers, as both Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak have found, to their chagrin. 2) Our NHS, providing healthcare from cradle to grave, FREE at the point of need; still heroically standing, however embattled. And 3) Our independent journalism, with its finest exemplar, setting the standard that the world still follows (or aspires to) in the BBC. An organisation with literal global reach, scope and influence. People huddled in trenches in some God forsaken African war zone or East European war zone, or some Middle Eastern hell hole, dodging missiles and trying to find out what’s really going on out there so they can decide what to do next, do NOT tune in to Fox, CNN, Al Jazeera or the RT propaganda outlets. They tune in to the BBC World Service, to get unalloyed, simple FACTS, coming from gallant journalists worthy of the name, often risking their lives or their freedom, just to get the TRUTH out to the world about matters of ultimate urgency.
And our government has done more to undermine those three institutions in the last 13 years than any previous government in the last 13 decades! This cut back will lead directly back to some influential Tory, or Tories, I have no doubt.
2
-
I have encountered, about a thousand times, YouTube commenters who spot an, “ad hominem,” and think they have invalidated everything else you say on that basis. Usually they follow up their remarks with their Wiki, or online dictionary definition of the term, in the hopes that they can get you arguing about what an, “ad hominem,” remark is and indeed, whether or not you used one, rather than the topic in hand.
In other words, people who get upset about ad hominem attacks are generally incapable of discussing the matter in hand and are trying to distract you.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
It would seem only fair that Johnson should be forced to face his own constituency, if he did choose to remain in politics and win, lose or draw there, where he owes the greatest responsibility.
As to the behaviour of Mogg and Dorise, et al (👈 may have misspelled, “Dorise?” Sorry) they should first be reminded that this is THEIR committee, formed by THEM, and that it has a Conservative majority. Harriet Harmon has zero power over the other members as the Chair, simply performing an administrative role of organising and as spokesperson, so singling her out is wrong headed to begin with.
Yes, Parliament ought to have strict rules about respecting the process and they should be swiftly enforced. For instance, while these people are tossing around allegations about the committee, like churlish, entitled school children, they should be made to prove them or withdraw their remarks with an apology, or face legal consequences. At the very minimum, they should face censure and sanction through the Parliamentary processes?
2
-
I think it is worth asking yourself, who are you explaining this stuff to? Is there a single Jew on Planet Earth who can grasp the points you’re making, who supports Trump, let alone suspects he of all people is, “the chosen one?” I seriously think you will not find one. You may find a handful of wealthy, powerful Jews who are on trump’s gravy train in one form or other, but no one else.
Trump was, “chosen,” by the GOP to reach the ignorant, the lowest achievers, the fearful and cowardly. It is a deliberate strategy, calculated to reach people who are simply incapable of following your points.
I’m afraid you are preaching to the choir in this case.
2
-
Here’s a revolutionary notion. How about we WELCOME the much NEEDED migrants to our workforce, generating economic activity and the taxes that PAY for stuff? Y’know? Just spit-balling here.
Meanwhile, we just go back to PROCESSING asylum seekers, instead of dumping them in prison hulks and repurposed B&B’s, putting back some of that extra cash from those taxes to expand the immigration services, who were doing a very good job until the Tories messed up their mojo? They were just overwhelmed by a problem that is being felt WORLD WIDE!
So we NEED diplomatic, WORLD WIDE treaties and solutions to address migration on a GLOBAL scale! If we stopped giving the middle finger to Europe long enough to negotiate SHARED policies and solutions for mass migration, we might be better off?
How about we talk to other leaders about devoting a new, entire department of Interpol (or Europol, or any other international police forces, including America’s FBI) to these people smugglers? Coordinated policing, concentrated on the key places they operate from is what’s going to stop the trafficking! And, “Stop The Traffickers,” can be Labour’s new slogan.
2
-
2
-
2
-
Seldon writes with almost brutal frankness and honesty, and with a captivating prose style. He seems to have a co-writer on nearly all of his most recent projects. He self describes his biography of Boris Johnson as a, “cautionary tale of individual and institutional failure,” which was spot on.
I was fascinated by the parallels he drew between the careers and personalities of Johnson and Lloyd George, which I found deeply insightful. Contrasting their differences too was salient.
He hopes we can learn lessons from contemporary history and I will always give my time and attention to a true believer in history as a project for learning. After all, it was Johnson’s idol, Winston Churchill, who told a journalist that the way to get good at leadership in politics was to study, “History, history and history. Therein lay all the secrets of statecraft.”
Therefore, on that basis, I am willing to hear out Seldon’s argument. Like you, I doubt very much if Seldon will convince me that Truss was a better PM than . . . well, frankly, anyone. But, “scatty,” or not; relying on his co-writers or not, he deserves to be heard with an open mind.
If Seldon were to stand a serious chance of convincing me, the focus would necessarily have to be on how much, “worse,” Johnson was than I realised, rather than convincing me that Truss had any redeeming characteristics as a political leader. We already know she has literally nothing that she can point to and call an, “achievement.” And she has so much damage to account for, which continues to pass unacknowledged by her or any of her people, let alone apologised for. Her electoral defenestration was as close as we’ll ever get to, “accountability,” with her.
But, Seldon will entertain me and enlighten me, whether he convinces me or not. So, I’ll get the audiobook to see me through the home improvements I’m working on and my mornings walking the doggle. It will be worth a listen.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Thank you for exploring Seldon’s book a bit further with us.
The mere fact that Truss has the instinct to, “defend,” her record and not to, “account,” for it, even APOLOGISE for it, shows more of that, “personal and institutional failure,” that Seldon refers to in the introduction to his book on Johnson that is characteristic of the current brand of Tory and speaks to the core of what is really wrong with them.
For over a decade now the Tories have fostered this culture of thin skinned, defensive aggression in their ranks and lauding these qualities in their leaders, aping the Republican manner of doing politics and Americanising their approach to every topic. This aggressive, divisive and unreasoning approach has rendered actual debate impossible and dialectics out of the question.
And we do need a healthy, capable opposition that can hold the government’s feet to the fire on important policy issues, rather than squandering every opportunity by either uniformly running off to America, rattling their begging tins at their Republican puppeteers, or writing op eds for the domestic client press that read as being wholly out of touch with reality, let alone the British people, set on driving further wedges into society.
If you were to ask me, “What makes a, ‘good,’ politician, Ash?” I would probably describe someone with a POSITIVE vision, FUTURE FOCUSSED, whilst being realistic about the present, well EDUCATED in law and history, but most of all, like Winston Churchill in 1941, able to UNITE the British people with a sense of joined destiny, purpose and prosperity.
I don’t think I need say much more about those politicians who do the diametric opposite of what I just described. I need only say, “Liz Truss,” and the point is made.
That is why, for me, Seldon’s book on Truss will face a tall order convincing me that Truss was not the worst PM Britain has ever had since Walpole first, sort of, created the post. But, because he believes in the salutary, educational value of contemporary history, I look forward to reading (listening to) his book.
2