The Rest is Politics and Alistair Campbell

It reviewed it with the benefit of hindsight. It couldn’t unknow what it knew.

I like Planet Normal but I do find Liam's regular mocking of Alison Pearson regarding her knowledge of economics as really odd. He does it all the time and in front of guests, announcing she's the guru of the bond market or something. It sounds very sexist and that's clearly not her area so why do it.

I like Political Currency. I like the fact that they were opponents that respect each other's views. Their talks are very interesting.

Triggernometry is another favourite and very easy to listen to particularly Konstantin who I think just talks sense.

The RIP is impossible to listen to. Alistair Campbell is what he is (a sexist oaf in my view) but he's not trying to pretend he's something hes not. I disagree with him on most things anyway. Rory Campbell on the other hand is always wrong about everything but has such a condescending tone as if he's talking to children. It's infuriating.

Some people, even when presented with clear evidence, and even with hindsight and 20/20 vision, only see what they want to see, or are perhaps simply too thick and obtuse to draw the right conclusions,

I was a subscriber and thought it was wonderful. Then there were some guests and some issues that they obviously didn’t agree with and I was so disappointed that they talked over or disrespected the guests that it seemed to me that I wasn’t going to get the informative discussions that I wanted.

Also they became a bit smug and, though it might seem strange, they both seemed very predictable and conventional

That’s misrepresenting the findings of the inquiry. They evaluated the information the government had at the time.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing. It has 20/20 vision.

The Chilcot inquiry found that the government presented the facts in a more persuasive light than the facts on the ground merited.

It concluded that judgments about the WMD threat were expressed with unjustified certainty, given that weapons I I inspectors found no evidence of any WMD and that peaceful options had not been exhausted before Britain joined the invasion.

That is not the action of a measured government. It reeks of unconscious bias.

And my judgment of that government would be the same.

AC's attitudes and history do put me off TRIP. Similarly I'm put off Allison Pearson because she was at best wildly mistaken (perhaps not strong when it comes to science?) and at worst a wilful minimiser for political reasons over covid - at the time it seemed much more likely to be the latter and I swore never to pay a penny to the Telegraph after one of her columns at the time. This was not, I hasten to add, because I agreed with all the restrictions - there were things I disagreed with along with some I did. The Telegraph's minimisation at the time, as delivered by AP, was just too much though, too jaw-droppingly, manipulatively anti-science. The end result unfortunately is that I just can't see her as a reliable source of information, or even opinion. It's not a million miles away from the way I was put off the Guardian when I realised just how much manipulation and misrepresentation was going into their trans issue coverage.

It's not about being closed minded in any of those cases, it's about just not being able to look at a person or source the same way again once they appear to have been willing to wilfully misrepresent things because of an agenda. That's not just having a different opinion.

Precisely. And it wasn’t just the US and UK who believed that SH had WMD. All the major nations did including Russia, China and Much of the western world. The debate was never about IF he had them it was where they were that was debated.
And whilst it was a horrid war and had horrific repercussions the alternative had he had WMD could have been devastating. What would have been said and done had there been an attack from Iraq?

The war didn’t happen in a vacuum and it’s important to remember those in leadership positions had to make horrible decisions based on the flawed intelligence that was available to them.

I agree OP. I was a subscriber and loyal listener for a while, but became really frustrated about their views on women’s issues and especially the GC debate.

It’s not so much that they take a different view on this than I do, but that AC proudly says that the only research he’s done is to ‘ask Grace’. It’s so insulting! On most other issues they seem to do plenty of research and appear to be well-informed, but AC’s attitude seems to be that on the GC debate he needn’t trouble himself to do any research, or gather a range of views - because it’s ’just women’ he can just go with whatever his daughter says. I cancelled my subscription over this and emailed them to let them know the reason, but naturally they didn’t respond.

@JimBobsWifeI agree, Mandelson was more insightful. I find Polly McKenzie’s views interesting and fun-her votes for babies definitely had valid points even if the actual practice is a non starter.

But the leader of the opposition supported Blair. Whoever had been PM the result would have been the same.

It's clear from what's been revealed afterwards that there were detractors who had concerns, including David Kelly who I mentioned upthread. They were silenced. Blair was determined to support Bush come what may. He's pretty much said as much in interviews in recent years.

I don't doubt there was an appetite for war from many quarters based on what had happened in the preceding years but I don't think you can characterise that Blair government as measured.

One of Camerons lost legacies is how he put fighting in Syria the HoC up for a whipped vote, and then abided by the decision.

Otherwise that would have been another war for the UK to get involved in.

I also enjoy How To Win An Election although it was much better with Peter Mandelson. Sally whats-her-name is a bit of a blank slate. I like Danny Finkelstein, he's a thoroughly good egg.

The government did take measured decisions based on the information available at the time. Interestingly Howard who was the Tory leader with access to the same information said he’d have made the same decision. His party also voted for the war.

I tried TRIP and the News Agents and found them both too smug. I do enjoy podcasts with differing views where they can discuss without raising their voices and clearly enjoy each other's company. Not Another One is Miranda Green, Ian Martin, Tim Shipman and Steve Richard’s. It meanders a lot but can be good. My favourite is How To Win an Election - Sally Morgan (ex Blair advisor) Polly McKenzie (ex Clegg advisor) and Danny Finkelstein (various Tory posts and speechwriter for William Hague) with Hugo Rifkind hosting as part of his Times Radio show. I find Matt Chorley’s podcasts from his show also good.

There probably is an humorous aside about The Rest is Science and Ms. Frys rather affected giggling. But I'm damned if I can find it.

They did indeed. What a shame.

My husband listens regularly and I sometimes hear it when we’re both in the car. I can’t get past Rory’s vocal fry, it’s like fingernails on a blackboard!

Sadly the electorate chose to ignore you.

If a government can't take measured decisions two years after a major event, they shouldn't be in power.