Trevor Phillips - Tory mouthpiece or just thick?

I think neither bats nor newts should take precedence over humans.
That’s probably an unpopular view with some people, but that’s my opinion anyway.

PN
^ Mollygo I'm not sure behaving in that way to everyone makes it any better.^
Of course it doesn’t, any more than evading giving straight answers is better.
But calling out one group for doing either of those things whilst excusing the other group for doing it ?
Does that make things better?

Newts were a Johnson story.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-53276461

I wouldn't worry too much about them.

Bats are another ball game, though. A few years ago a neighbour had an extension to his house held up for weeks and weeks because a bat survey had to be carried out. The survey was done because the house was near a stream.. Bats must be the most highly protected mammal in the UK. You're not even supposed to handle them.

Thank goodness political interviewers don't seem to know about them...

Doodledog I think it's the democracy element that concerns me.

Mollygo I'm not sure behaving in that way to everyone makes it any better.

Eazybee intelligence and education are not the same thing. I think it's reasonable to suggest that those of us on here would have been hard put to have reached any discernable level of education if we came from a background comparable to Angela Rayner's. Probably better not to comment on deemed levels of intelligence.

I have observed and researched AR since her first appointment as shadow Secretary of State for Education under Jeremy Corbyn, much coming from her own words.

That sounds interesting, if rather obsessive. What sort of research did you do?

theworriedwell

Well the newt or bat issue often causes hold ups or turning down planning applications so I think that is actually a useful piece of information. Maybe I'm over invested in planning issues but then why shouldn't I have access to that information like other people get information about things they care about?

I'm not suggesting you shouldn't. I don't think it's secret.

My point is more that the takeaway from an interview about housing is that AR said that newts shouldn't take precedence over the homeless. Anyway, I am in danger of diverting a conversation from politics to newts myself, so will say no more on the amphibian situation .

Chocolatelovinggran

Calling people " thick", "uneducated ", and
" ignorant" is deeply unpleasant.
Is the assumption that posters who resort to such puerile insults are themselves highly intelligent, well educated and well informed?
In my experience, the people whom I know who do qualify for any or all of the above can offer a more nuanced argument for the behaviours of others - including those whom they have never met.

👏👏👏👏👏

AR may clearly be “uneducated” in the formal sense as in academia, as she left school early to have her first child.

However this doesn’t make her unintelligent nor politically unaware.

To get where she is now, without the advantages many many MPs around her had, I think is pretty amazing!

Well the newt or bat issue often causes hold ups or turning down planning applications so I think that is actually a useful piece of information. Maybe I'm over invested in planning issues but then why shouldn't I have access to that information like other people get information about things they care about?

Wyllow3

It wasn't just channel 5 on the "newts", and it was all rather pathetic and scouring the barrel.

No, as I said, they were referencing a headline - I didn't catch which one, but it was based on the interview. So, an interview results in a headline, which then feeds a 'news' item on a TV show, and goodness knows how many comments on social media. It's no wonder politicians (of all shades) watch every word.
Didn't Paxman once say that when he did the now[in]famous interview with a Conservative politician whose name escapes me [Michael Howard perhaps?]he only asked the same question over and over again because he had to fill in a bit more time and he didn't have any more questions to ask?
Quite possibly, but he got a lot of kudos for being a 'no nonsense' interviewer, and there was talk of 'Doing a Paxman' to mean a tough interview. I think he was quite good (possibly by comparison to the more deferential style of previous questioners) but barking out the same question over and over is not particularly incisive, and more to the point, it wastes time.

I posted about the Kuenssberg interview with Bridget Phillipson the Sunday before the budget. LK asked repeatedly about the budget, and was told every time that BP couldn't comment. I had been looking forward to hearing about her plans for education, but they barely got a mention because of the totally pointless questions about the budget.

She did say that newts can’t come before people needing housing, and quite right too.Come to that there’s too much consideration given to bats.
I agree. I've nothing against newts, but surely they can be 'rehoused' if their habitat is endangered by a housing estate? Or maybe not. Either way, picking on that comment is a clear attempt to divert the question of how we've reached the housing crisis we are in, and move it to a discussion of newt preservation. A valid debate, perhaps, but not the same thing at all.

Not spaghetti I know you don't know where I live so you won't know what a mess they've made and how the govt inspectors have had to step in. This isn't just about unpopular decisions and even our council admits that. It was all an oversight/a mistake/bad timing. Truly it is a mess.

No floundering from what I saw.
A couple of wry grins was all.

Badenoch the other day told Starmer that he should call an election because of the opinion poll. And yet, a few years ago she said that we are a democracy and that we decide things by having elections and not opinion polls.

easybee - I didn't notice any floundering.

theworriedwell I think you will see if you look back that I don't like the choices made but I'm aware that other people have other ideas about what is best for the area as a whole.

Personally there's a lot that's been decided that I think is pretty stupid but I'm hoping that as the housing matures I will be proven wrong.

It's in everyone's interest that things work out well.
🤞

eazybee

Angela Rayner is uneducated; she lacks intelligence and political knowledge and is clearly unsuitable for her role as Deputy Prime Minister and Housing secretary.
I have observed and researched AR since her first appointment as shadow Secretary of State for Education under Jeremy Corbyn, much coming from her own words.

At present she is a high-ranking Minister in the present Government and therefore liable for criticism.
I expect someone given such an important position entailing responsibility for the welfare of others to be well-educated and experienced in political matters.
Her floundering responses to perfectly reasonable questions posed by Trevor Phillips yesterday revealed her total lack of ability.

What has your research uncovered, please?
Examples of how unintelligent she is, for example?

The thing is, she has achieved more than most, I'd say.

I think we must have been watching two different interviews.

Angela Rayner is uneducated; she lacks intelligence and political knowledge and is clearly unsuitable for her role as Deputy Prime Minister and Housing secretary.
I have observed and researched AR since her first appointment as shadow Secretary of State for Education under Jeremy Corbyn, much coming from her own words.

At present she is a high-ranking Minister in the present Government and therefore liable for criticism.
I expect someone given such an important position entailing responsibility for the welfare of others to be well-educated and experienced in political matters.
Her floundering responses to perfectly reasonable questions posed by Trevor Phillips yesterday revealed her total lack of ability.

She did say that newts can’t come before people needing housing, and quite right too.Come to that there’s too much consideration given to bats.

Doodledog

And now we have it. An item on Jeremy Vine (TV on Ch5) showing a headline saying that AR says that 'newts can't be prioritised over housing', referencing the interview with Trevor Philips 🙄.

I really think that this sort of thing works against democracy and is very poor journalism. How can politicians relax and answer questions in an unguarded manner when both journalists and armchair commentators on SM are going to scour everything they say in the hope of being able to accuse them of lying or hit them with a 'gotcha'?

I also get bored with interviewers wasting half the interview time repeating the same question when the interviewee has said they can't answer it (because of an embargo or similar). It's pointless, and doesn't show the interviewer in a good light, whatever they think.

When Paxman popularised this style of interviewing it made a refreshing change from the more usual fawning over politicians that had been prevalent, but now it's just tedious. Paxman got credit for 'asking difficult questions', and there's nothing wrong with that - political questions should be designed to find out what viewers want to know - but that's not the same as just repeating the same thing knowing full well that it can't and won't be answered, and not leaving time for asking those that can.

I am perfectly able to think for myself, and feel the same when Tory ministers are treated in this way, incidentally. It's not about 'sides' for me.

Didn't Paxman once say that when he did the now[in]famous interview with a Conservative politician whose name escapes me [Michael Howard perhaps?]he only asked the same question over and over again because he had to fill in a bit more time and he didn't have any more questions to ask?

PoliticsNerd I worked in a police station in the 70s and 80s. That's not what a police interview sounded like. You did make me laugh though.

Not spaghetti you obviously don't live where I do where the LA have made a pigs ear of planning. I was listening carefully because I'd really like to know what the penalties would be as I'm hoping that us council tax payers aren't going to be left with the bill. What we have been left with is bad enough.

Calling people " thick", "uneducated ", and
" ignorant" is deeply unpleasant.
Is the assumption that posters who resort to such puerile insults are themselves highly intelligent, well educated and well informed?
In my experience, the people whom I know who do qualify for any or all of the above can offer a more nuanced argument for the behaviours of others - including those whom they have never met.

If the birth rate is falling and if the government is to stop illegal migration then why do we need to build all these new houses?

You’re right about it being clichéd PoliticsNerd. It’s exactly the same whichever government is in power. Equally chichéd is the reasoning used by those who disagree that it happens whichever government is in power.

It wasn't just channel 5 on the "newts", and it was all rather pathetic and scouring the barrel.