Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => Politics & Current Affairs => Topic started by: Nearly Sane on August 04, 2025, 03:35:33 PM
-
Representing the constituencies far from the Ventral belt is a tough task
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c70xejr8drro
-
Representing the constituencies far from the Ventral belt is a tough task
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c70xejr8drro
Also holding views far from the fulcrum of views in your party and in broader society is a tough ask too.
I suspect she's just recognised what Tim Farron eventually recognised some while ago, albeit he'd been able to become leader of the LibDems while keeping his personal views rather quiet while Forbes views are too well known to allow her to be electable as a leader of the SNP or as FM. Seems, perhaps, that she is smart enough to realise this and to bow out rather than face ongoing disappointment if she tried to attain more senior elected positions.
-
Also holding views far from the fulcrum of views in your party and in broader society is a tough ask too.
I suspect she's just recognised what Tim Farron eventually recognised some while ago, albeit he'd been able to become leader of the LibDems while keeping his personal views rather quiet while Forbes views are too well known to allow her to be electable as a leader of the SNP or as FM. Seems, perhaps, that she is smart enough to realise this and to bow out rather than face ongoing disappointment if she tried to attain more senior elected positions.
Maybe, I am not as adept as a mind reader as you. The point is surely that if we have a system that penalises parents if youg children in certain constituencies as mentioned in the article then we should wonder if that is a good a system?
-
Maybe, I am not as adept as a mind reader as you. The point is surely that if we have a system that penalises parents if youg children in certain constituencies as mentioned in the article then we should wonder if that is a good a system?
Well firstly, it didn't seem to bother her too much when she was on the way up the greasy pole, which was when her daughter was younger and potentially more reliant on her mother's presence.
But you are correct, it is challenging. But then so are all sorts of other jobs that require one parent to regularly be away from home and/or working highly unsociable hours. And of course she isn't a single mother (unlike some other MSPs and MPs) and therefore has a partner (who actually was a single parent) who can be the regular 'at home' parent to allow Forbes to be away more should they choose. We have (thankfully) moved beyond a world where it must be the mother who stays at home and potentially sacrifices career to allow the father to travel for work. People have to make these kinds of choices all the time and I'm really not sure that the Forbes case is exceptional at all, even in political terms. And often it isn't really a choice but a necessity to make ends meet.
But it is, of course, Forbes choice but it does seem strange that suddenly this is an issue now (when her career seems to be on the wane) when it didn't seem to be even with a younger child when she perceived her career to be on the up.
But on the 'system' - well I'm really not sue we have another solution, unless you think it a good idea for our political system to run entirely on Zoom calls (which I don't). But to serve as a politician is exactly that, service to your electorate and that requires you to work both in your constituency and also wherever the legislature is based. And if you aren't prepared to bare a level of sacrifice for a job that there are countless others ready and willing to step into your shoes, then perhaps it isn't the right job for you.
-
Well firstly, it didn't seem to bother her too much when she was on the way up the greasy pole, which was when her daughter was younger and potentially more reliant on her mother's presence.
But you are correct, it is challenging. But then so are all sorts of other jobs that require one parent to regularly be away from home and/or working highly unsociable hours. And of course she isn't a single mother (unlike some other MSPs and MPs) and therefore has a partner (who actually was a single parent) who can be the regular 'at home' parent to allow Forbes to be away more should they choose. We have (thankfully) moved beyond a world where it must be the mother who stays at home and potentially sacrifices career to allow the father to travel for work. People have to make these kinds of choices all the time and I'm really not sure that the Forbes case is exceptional at all, even in political terms. And often it isn't really a choice but a necessity to make ends meet.
But it is, of course, Forbes choice but it does seem strange that suddenly this is an issue now (when her career seems to be on the wane) when it didn't seem to be even with a younger child when she perceived her career to be on the up.
But on the 'system' - well I'm really not sue we have another solution, unless you think it a good idea for our political system to run entirely on Zoom calls (which I don't). But to serve as a politician is exactly that, service to your electorate and that requires you to work both in your constituency and also wherever the legislature is based. And if you aren't prepared to bare a level of sacrifice for a job that there are countless others ready and willing to step into your shoes, then perhaps it isn't the right job for you.
And perhaps that is exactly what Forbes decided. But you attitude is surely the same as all those politicians who opposed any attempts at making the hours of parliament less idiotic? That making jobs reasonable for parents of young children should be problematic because they are not willing to make the sacrifices that you think they should make? If we want democracy to work, then I would suggest we should not make representing people difficult for parents of young children, and that we should be able to think how that might work for people representing different types of constituencies.
ETA - I don't think there has been any claim that Forbes's case is exceptional other than noting that it is easier to in some ways to represent a constituency near to the parliament?
-
Maybe, I am not as adept as a mind reader as you. The point is surely that if we have a system that penalises parents if youg children in certain constituencies as mentioned in the article then we should wonder if that is a good a system?
I'm not sure what can be done about it. MSPs have to work long hours and much of their work has to be done in Edinburgh.
-
I'm not sure what can be done about it. MSPs have to work long hours and much of their work has to be done in Edinburgh.
Does it? If we have a system where it's difficult to participate in because of having a normal life we restrict the talent pool considerably.
-
Does it?
Yes. MSPs are elected to represent the people of the constituency in the parliament. I'd say it is fundamental to the job that they are there in parliament, representing.
If we have a system where it's difficult to participate in because of having a normal life we restrict the talent pool considerably.
Propose your alternate system. And please don't say "Zoom meetings".
-
Yes. MSPs are elected to represent the people of the constituency in the parliament. I'd say it is fundamental to the job that they are there in parliament, representing.
Propose your alternate system. And please don't say "Zoom meetings".
But parliamentary business can be structured better with more thought and consideration. Your objection is very similar to what people said before the Westminster hours were made slightly better. Huge amounts of MSPs and MPs work is in the constituency as well.
As to an alternative system, j think that pountnh out that we have an issue, and that it shoukd be looked at doesn't carry the burden od proposing a whole solution but as a start, looking at regional hubs for some business, restructuring attendance (Note some of that happened during Covid and was then rolled back). Appropriate use of communicatio technology is no bad thing, and understanding how that would best be used would be part of any solution. We should seek to make participation in our democracy as open as possible.
-
I'm not sure what can be done about it. MSPs have to work long hours and much of their work has to be done in Edinburgh.
Exactly and I think it is really important that legislators have regular opportunities for ad hoc, impromptu meetings with other MP/MSPs etc. Anyone who has had experience of remote working knows that simply never happens when meetings are on Zoom/Teams.
And actually do they work long hours in Edinburgh? My understanding is that the Scottish parliament sits for three afternoons per week (Tue-Thurs) 35 weeks a year. So even with a 5 hour journey an MSP need only spend two nights away from home (35 weeks a year) assuming an early start on Tuesday and getting home late on Thursday. That isn't to say that overall hours aren't long, but the Edinburgh commitments for an MSP do not look too onerous to me.
-
Propose your alternate system. And please don't say "Zoom meetings".
NS - classic 'something must be done about it', affrontery. And his solution ... err ... Zoom meetings, which would affect the functioning of the legislator if mandated and applied in a widespread manner. If opt-in this would create a two-tier system of MSPs, first-class MSPs being those in the room (who have greater access and ability to do their jobs of representing their constituents) and second-class MSPs, on the screen and with diminished ability to be heard, influence and be influenced. Anyone who has experienced hybrid meetings knows they don't really work and it is virtually impossible for those not in the room to be involved to the same degree.
-
NS - classic 'something must be done about it', affrontery. And his solution ... err ... Zoom meetings, which would affect the functioning of the legislator if mandated and applied in a widespread manner. If opt-in this would create a two-tier system of MSPs, first-class MSPs being those in the room (who have greater access and ability to do their jobs of representing their constituents) and second-class MSPs, on the screen and with diminished ability to be heard, influence and be influenced. Anyone who has experienced hybrid meetings knows they don't really work and it is virtually impossible for those not in the room to be involved to the same degree.
Are you OK, hun?
-
Are you OK, hun?
Perfectly ... although you seem to be living in the 1950s (normal life - err what exactly is that) rather than the modern world. No wonder you are clearly a fan of Forbes.
-
But parliamentary business can be structured better with more thought and consideration. Your objection is very similar to what people said before the Westminster hours were made slightly better. Huge amounts of MSPs and MPs work is in the constituency as well.
Even if it is a standard 9 - 5 job, the issue is that Forbes constituency is remote enough from Edinburgh that she can't easily get back and forth. Changing the hours isn't going to help.
As to an alternative system, j think that pountnh out that we have an issue, and that it shoukd be looked at doesn't carry the burden od proposing a whole solution but as a start, looking at regional hubs for some business,
There are already regional hubs for some business. Democracy in the UK has been organised in a hierarchical way by region for as long as I can remember. Perhaps Forbes could have been a good councillor in her region instead of going for the position in central government.
This is not to criticise Forbes for her decisions but to point out that regional hubs already exist and haven't mitigated the problems that Forbes and other representatives from far flung parts of Scotland (or the UK generally) have to put up with.
restructuring attendance (Note some of that happened during Covid and was then rolled back). Appropriate use of communicatio technology is no bad thing, and understanding how that would best be used would be part of any solution. We should seek to make participation in our democracy as open as possible.
I don't think government or representative democracy can be done effectively using remote working. There are some small improvements to be made, I'm sure, but the fundamental issue here is that Forbes has to spend long periods away from her family.
-
And actually do they work long hours in Edinburgh? My understanding is that the Scottish parliament sits for three afternoons per week (Tue-Thurs) 35 weeks a year.
I don't think the work of an MSP consists entirely of attending parliament three afternoons a week. There will be committees, informal meetings, representations to attend and work back in the constituency. On top of this, Forbes was the deputy First Minister, which is a senior government role. If her family lived next door to Holyrood she probably wouldn't see much of them.
I accept that, as things stand, it's really difficult for MSP's to achieve a good work-life balance. I just don't see how that can be changed in any significant way.
-
Even if it is a standard 9 - 5 job, the issue is that Forbes constituency is remote enough from Edinburgh that she can't easily get back and forth. Changing the hours isn't going to help.
True and this has always created tensions between MPs (and presumably MSPs) depending on where their constituency lies.
I've know a few MPs over the years - most notably one with a constituency about one hour (on a good day) from Westminster and another in a rural Welsh constituency a good 5 hours drive (and about a week by public transport!!!). Their views on working schedule are completely different. The relatively local MP really hated late working as a late session made it difficult to get home in the evening as the trains became increasingly unreliable. So he would be happy with shorter working hours over a greater number of days. For the remote constituency it was quite the opposite - once he was down in London he'd quite happily work long into the night (and then back to his local flat) if it meant he could get away earlier back to his constituency. But of course a late working session would mean a bunch of other MPs tip over from being able to get back in that evening to not being able to get back.
So shifting hours merely moves the challenges from some MPs/MSPs to others.
-
Even if it is a standard 9 - 5 job, the issue is that Forbes constituency is remote enough from Edinburgh that she can't easily get back and forth. Changing the hours isn't going to help.There are already regional hubs for some business. Democracy in the UK has been organised in a hierarchical way by region for as long as I can remember. Perhaps Forbes could have been a good councillor in her region instead of going for the position in central government.
This is not to criticise Forbes for her decisions but to point out that regional hubs already exist and haven't mitigated the problems that Forbes and other representatives from far flung parts of Scotland (or the UK generally) have to put up with.I don't think government or representative democracy can be done effectively using remote working. There are some small improvements to be made, I'm sure, but the fundamental issue here is that Forbes has to spend long periods away from her family.
can it be done entirely by remote working, no bit since no o e has suggested that why raise it. Regional hubs can be used as more than just councils. They can be used for parliamentary business as well. If we make large decisions centralised then that is anti democratic. We improve things by being open to change, and change is incremental, maybe these changes would not be sufficient for Forbes case but that isn't a reafon not to look at what can be achieved
-
Perfectly ... although you seem to be living in the 1950s (normal life - err what exactly is that) rather than the modern world. No wonder you are clearly a fan of Forbes.
Could you outline your justification for any of that post?
-
Could you outline your justification for any of that post?
I've actually written a rather lengthy post to do exactly that - but the system is refusing to allow me to post it. This usually means there is some rude word ... but I cannot find it for the life of me.
Suffice to say that 'normal life' is a hugely movable feast these days and huge swathes of people either choose to or are unable to live what once might have been considered a 'normal life'. The examples I used in the post that is being refused include airline pilots, professional cricketers, nurses, care assistants and pretty well anyone whose normal work place is central London but who do not earn enough to live anywhere close to London.
-
Could you outline your justification for any of that post?
Still refusing my post.
Bottom line - what on earth do you mean by a normal life.
-
Still refusing my post.
Bottom line - what on earth do you mean by a normal life.
In the context being a patent of a small child.
-
can it be done entirely by remote working, no bit since no o e has suggested that why raise it. Regional hubs can be used as more than just councils. They can be used for parliamentary business as well. If we make large decisions centralised then that is anti democratic. We improve things by being open to change, and change is incremental, maybe these changes would not be sufficient for Forbes case but that isn't a reafon not to look at what can be achieved
Err, Edinburgh is a regional hub in Uk democratic and parliamentary terms.
And if you want sub-regions in Scotland, presumably these would need to cover a reasonable number of constituencies, which would presumably by Highlands and Islands:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highlands_and_Islands_(Scottish_Parliament_electoral_region)
Not really sure that's going to help as I imagine it is probably harder (or at least as hard) to travel from (as an example Orkney) to Inverness (as a sensible regional hub) than from Orkney to Edinburgh.
-
In the context being a patent of a small child.
Yup, covered that in the post that refused to post too, specifically:
'And presumably for parents the ability to wave their kids off to school every morning and read a story to them every night.'
There are plenty of people for whom this is just a pipe dream. We ran a children's nursery for 20 years and had numerous parents where this was simply impossible, simply because they worked in London and worked long hours.
-
Yup, covered that in the post that refused to post too, specifically:
'And presumably for parents the ability to wave their kids off to school every morning and read a story to them every night.'
There are plenty of people for whom this is just a pipe dream. We ran a children's nursery for 20 years and had numerous parents where this was simply impossible, simply because they worked in London and worked long hours.
Which is just something you pulled out your arse. I think that people who work should have the ability not to feel as if having a small child is a problem. If you think that there shouldn't be thar aim then you are the one living in the 50s and wanting workers to have less rights .
I think it's important in a democracy that we shouldn',t have a situation where people with small children find it difficult to be an MSP or an MO. There has been much progress on that over time, and I think you probably supported all of it. Not sure where raising the question that there might be more to do has triggered you in this way.
-
Forbes flagging some is the issues, and highlighting that she is far from the only one to have raised the issue
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cde327y33zzo
-
I'm going to try to post my earlier post (which the system refused to accept) in chunks, which will hopefully work and/or will allow me to work out which bit was deemed 'problematic'!
-
Does it? If we have a system where it's difficult to participate in because of having a normal life we restrict the talent pool considerably.
Err, what exactly do you mean by a normal life. Seems to me you are implying 9-5 job, 5 days a week an easy 20mins from home. And presumably for parents the ability to wave their kids off to school every morning and read a story to them every night. Well the real world waves hello.
-
So do airline pilots have the ability to participate in a normal life ... hmm don't think so. What about professional cricketers ... or nurses, or care assistants working shifts patterns. And what about if your work is face-to-face in central London unless you are earning enough to actually be able to live in central London (which likely means having to work very long hours anyhow)?
-
So all sorts of people have jobs which won't allow then the luxury of 'normal life' in such a traditional manner. So what do they do - well they either choose to continue to work in those professions and accept the consequences or shift careers.
-
Still won't post my last bit
-
I think that people who work should have the ability not to feel as if having a small child is a problem.
I don't think the issue is that she thinks having a small child is a problem - I think she is recognising (as many people do) that some jobs are much more challenging than others when you have a small child. And typically these will be jobs which require you to be aways for considerably periods of time or require you to work in different locations which are a considerable distance from each other.
This would hardly be news to her as she knew full well that being an MSP (or MP) requires you to work in both your constituency and wherever the legislature is based. There is no getting away from those requirements if you are going to do your job effectively, I'm afraid.
-
Forbes flagging some is the issues, and highlighting that she is far from the only one to have raised the issue
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cde327y33zzo
OK trying to reply to this one and again the system is refusing my post - I really cannot see where any word I am using could result in a block from the system
Really, really annoying.
Basic message of the blocked post - a creche and a day nursery are entirely different things and a creche is not aimed at her care needs so to complain that it is only open for 3 hours is non-sense as that's what creches are all about. What she needs is a nursery (an entirely different beast).
-
I don't think the work of an MSP consists entirely of attending parliament three afternoons a week. There will be committees, informal meetings, representations to attend and work back in the constituency.
I never said it did - indeed I was clear that there is loads of work in the constituency too. But in terms of formal activities as an MSP they are three days a week (tue-thurs), 35 weeks a year. The parliament itself sits in the afternoons, the committee meetings are scheduled in the mornings.
On top of this, Forbes was the deputy First Minister, which is a senior government role. If her family lived next door to Holyrood she probably wouldn't see much of them.
True, but again this is her choice - she could have chosen to maintain a role as a back bench MSP which would have better supported her work/life balance. And you are correct that regardless of where she was based or where her constituency was being in a senior position in government will require very long working hours which will necessarily impact on family life.
I accept that, as things stand, it's really difficult for MSP's to achieve a good work-life balance. I just don't see how that can be changed in any significant way.
That's right and I cannot see how there can be significant changes that would make a major difference without radically affecting the effectiveness of the parliament and the democratic process such as remote working.
But my point upthread (part of the post that got blocked) is that there are many jobs which aren't easily compatible with family life and cannot be made to be. And therefore people choosing those jobs either have to accept the (known) trade-offs or decide to move to a different job (if that is possible). As an extreme example my dad was in the merchant navy. Before he became a family man he'd be away from the UK for months on end traveling to Australia etc. Clearly incompatible with family life - so when he married and had kids he left the navy and took a shore job.
-
"Cancel culture row over Kate Forbes Fringe event" - ffs!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4gl7jgpzkno
-
"Cancel culture row over Kate Forbes Fringe event" - ffs!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4gl7jgpzkno
I'm beginning to get rather irritated as the 'cancel culture' or someone is 'cancelled' claims being thrown around left, right and centre when the reality is that someone hasn't been 'cancelled', they've simply not been invited to something where there is no obligation on them to have received an invite.
Organisations, whether festivals, book publishers, newspapers etc are under no obligation to invite any particular person to contribute to their festivals/publications etc. It is up to them who they do and who they do not invite. It is called editorial control. So if they choose not to invite someone that doesn't mean they have been cancelled as there was no obligation for them to receive an invite in the first place. And nor is there an obligation for them to be invited back - that's up to the organisers.
So is Owen Jones cancelled by the Telegraph if they don't invite him to write a regular column for them - nope. Is Jacob Rees-Mogg cancelled if the Morning Star don't invite him to write a regular column for them - nope. Is Richard Dawkins cancelled if a christian festival doesn't invite him to give a talk - nope.
So it is perfectly acceptable for an organisation with a particular political and/or religious ethos to choose not to invite people to participate in their events who have radically differing political and/or religious opinions. And before you start wailing about 'freedom of speech' - this isn't a never has been about forcing all events/publications etc to invite/publish views that the do not agree with. Nope 'freedom of speech' is about ensuring that there are forums to allow all opinions etc to be voiced - and there are, including for Forbes who will no doubt be welcomed at all sorts of other events where her views resonate with theirs (and those events will likely choose not to invite people with radically differing views to Forbes).
So freedom of expression also includes the right to allow organisers of events and publications to choose who they invite and who they do not invite to participate in their festivals/publications. I've not been invited to perform at Glastonbury yet again (despite being a pretty decent singer) - have I been cancelled? Of course not.
Bottom line - 'I've been cancelled' is increasingly becoming a lazy slur when all that has actually happened is that a person has simply not been invited or invited back when their is no obligation for them to be invited/invited back in the first place.
I would also like to point out that Forbes' 'draw' as a speaker will have changed somewhat since her recent announcement - a current Deputy FM and MSP will be a different level of draw than a former Deputy FM and MSP or even a soon-to-be former Deputy FM and MSP
-
I'm beginning to get rather irritated as the 'cancel culture' or someone is 'cancelled' claims being thrown around left, right and centre when the reality is that someone hasn't been 'cancelled', they've simply not been invited to something where there is no obligation on them to have received an invite.
Organisations, whether festivals, book publishers, newspapers etc are under no obligation to invite any particular person to contribute to their festivals/publications etc. It is up to them who they do and who they do not invite. It is called editorial control. So if they choose not to invite someone that doesn't mean they have been cancelled as there was no obligation for them to receive an invite in the first place. And nor is there an obligation for them to be invited back - that's up to the organisers.
So is Owen Jones cancelled by the Telegraph if they don't invite him to write a regular column for them - nope. Is Jacob Rees-Mogg cancelled if the Morning Star don't invite him to write a regular column for them - nope. Is Richard Dawkins cancelled if a christian festival doesn't invite him to give a talk - nope.
So it is perfectly acceptable for an organisation with a particular political and/or religious ethos to choose not to invite people to participate in their events who have radically differing political and/or religious opinions. And before you start wailing about 'freedom of speech' - this isn't a never has been about forcing all events/publications etc to invite/publish views that the do not agree with. Nope 'freedom of speech' is about ensuring that there are forums to allow all opinions etc to be voiced - and there are, including for Forbes who will no doubt be welcomed at all sorts of other events where her views resonate with theirs (and those events will likely choose not to invite people with radically differing views to Forbes).
So freedom of expression also includes the right to allow organisers of events and publications to choose who they invite and who they do not invite to participate in their festivals/publications. I've not been invited to perform at Glastonbury yet again (despite being a pretty decent singer) - have I been cancelled? Of course not.
Bottom line - 'I've been cancelled' is increasingly becoming a lazy slur when all that has actually happened is that a person has simply not been invited or invited back when their is no obligation for them to be invited/invited back in the first place.
I would also like to point out that Forbes' 'draw' as a speaker will have changed somewhat since her recent announcement - a current Deputy FM and MSP will be a different level of draw than a former Deputy FM and MSP or even a soon-to-be former Deputy FM and MSP
Yes, it's lazy terminology. Take it uo with the BBC. And yes, people do have a right to choose what thet put on but along with the removal of the Women who Wouldn't Wheesht book from the National Library of Scotland, see Teans, thread, this removal of access for legal views ilhas a silencing effect.
-
Yes, it's lazy terminology. Take it uo with the BBC. And yes, people do have a right to choose what thet put on but along with the removal of the Women who Wouldn't Wheesht book from the National Library of Scotland, see Teans, thread, this removal of access for legal views ilhas a silencing effect.
But the Library one is also the same.
From what I've read there are about 500 books in the collection for the exhibition which are supposed to represent books people have found in local libraries that have shaped them. Well although I'm sure this particular book is available from the National Library I doubt very much that it is standard fair in local libraries (as it is a highly specialist book) and therefore not really the type of book the project was thinking about.
And note again that the public call was to recommend or nominate books - this wasn't a public ballot (or we'd get Booky McBookface) so the organisers would have made a selection from the (presumably huge number) of recommendations to reflect the kind of books people have come across in their local libraries that have been important to them.
And as there are only 500 books (from the approx hundred million published in the last 100 years) about 99.9995% of books also didn't get to be finally selected. Are you really suggesting that this book is in the most important or significant 500 books published in the last 100 years.
So once again - it wasn't 'cancelled' it just wasn't selected as it isn't really the kind of book they were asking the public about. Of course there are all sorts of 'write-in' campaigns around certain political issues and I suspect those books also didn't make the cut either as that isn't what the exhibition is about.
-
But the Library one is also the same.
From what I've read there are about 500 books in the collection for the exhibition which are supposed to represent books people have found in local libraries that have shaped them. Well although I'm sure this particular book is available from the National Library I doubt very much that it is standard fair in local libraries (as it is a highly specialist book) and therefore not really the type of book the project was thinking about.
And note again that the public call was to recommend or nominate books - this wasn't a public ballot (or we'd get Booky McBookface) so the organisers would have made a selection from the (presumably huge number) of recommendations to reflect the kind of books people have come across in their local libraries that have been important to them.
And as there are only 500 books (from the approx hundred million published in the last 100 years) about 99.9995% of books also didn't get to be finally selected. Are you really suggesting that this book is in the most important or significant 500 books published in the last 100 years.
So once again - it wasn't 'cancelled' it just wasn't selected as it isn't really the kind of book they were asking the public about. Of course there are all sorts of 'write-in' campaigns around certain political issues and I suspect those books also didn't make the cut either as that isn't what the exhibition is about.
It was chosen not to appear despite having many nominations because of its content.
I note that it's three years since Jerry Sadowitz had his gig cancelled - see thread
https://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=19094.msg848654#msg848654
Meanwhile the govt is criminalising oaps for wee cardboard signs.
-
Yes, it's lazy terminology. Take it uo with the BBC. And yes, people do have a right to choose what thet put on but along with the removal of the Women who Wouldn't Wheesht book from the National Library of Scotland, see Teans, thread, this removal of access for legal views ilhas a silencing effect.
Oh and unexpectedly it is a lie:
https://www.thenational.scot/news/25387374.national-library-scotland-responds-claim-banned-book/
So all 535 recommended books have been displayed - with 200 in the main display and the other 323 available on the shelves in an open reading room. Oh and the book received err .. just four ... recommendations!
So nope not banned, not cancelled. Not even not selected, but part of the exhibition, just not in the top 200 in the main display. And are you really saying that this book is in the top 200 books that have shaped people's lives over the past 100 years :o
But then it is easy to scream 'cancelled' and 'banned' when the facts suggest something entirely different.
-
It was chosen not to appear ...
Wrong - it was selected and displayed in the open reading room along with 323 of the 535 nominated. It just didn't make the final cut of 200 in the main display.
... despite having many nominations because of its content.
Err - four nominations. You clearly have a different definition of many than the rest of us. But hey ho, why bother with facts when you have a political agenda to promulgate.
-
Wrong - it was selected and displayed in the open reading room along with 323 of the 535 nominated. It just didn't make the final cut of 200 in the main display.
Err - four nominations. You clearly have a different definition of many than the rest of us. But hey ho, why bother with facts when you have a political agenda to promulgate.
From the article
'National Library of Scotland chief executive Amina Shah said the book should not be included in the most public-facing display due to the potential impact on key stakeholders and the reputation of the library. Drummond Bone, the chair of the board, agreed.'
-
From the article
'National Library of Scotland chief executive Amina Shah said the book should not be included in the most public-facing display due to the potential impact on key stakeholders and the reputation of the library. Drummond Bone, the chair of the board, agreed.'
So what - it was nominated with measly four nominations. And it is on display - I suspect those in the top 200 books in the main display got rather more than four nominations.
So it isn't cancelled or banned - nope it is on display in the exhibition. But hey ho, why let the facts intrude when you have a political agenda to promulgate.
Are you really suggesting that this book is in the top 200 books that have shaped people's lives over the past 100 years.
-
So what - it was nominated with measly four nominations. And it is on display - I suspect those in the top 200 books in the main display got rather more than four nominations.
So it isn't cancelled or banned - nope it is on display in the exhibition. But hey ho, why let the facts intrude when you have a political agenda to promulgate.
Are you really suggesting that this book is in the top 200 books that have shaped people's lives over the past 100 years.
So it was it's content whereas you said it just didn't make the final cut in contradiction to me saying that ot was its content.
-
So it was it's content whereas you said it just didn't make the final cut in contradiction to me saying that ot was its content.
I doubt it given that it only had 4 nominations - clearly the write-in campaign didn't work very well! I suspect many others had far more and those would be the ones most in line to be in the most public display. But ultimately this is a curated collection and as I mentioned earlier this book (or any similar book of essays on political topics) aren't really what the exhibition is about - it is about books that people have come across in local libraries that have shaped their lives.
And I note you have failed to answer my question - do you really think this book is amongst the top 200 books that have shaped people's lives over the past 100 years?
So NS seeing as you are rather nearer to Edinburgh why don't you pop along to the National Library and tell me whether it is on display or not. If it has been banned or cancelled then surely it would be ... err ... banned or cancelled not freely available and on display in the Library as seems to be the case.
-
I doubt it given that it only had 4 nominations - clearly the write-in campaign didn't work very well! I suspect many others had far more and those would be the ones most in line to be in the most public display. But ultimately this is a curated collection and as I mentioned earlier this book (or any similar book of essays on political topics) aren't really what the exhibition is about - it is about books that people have come across in local libraries that have shaped their lives.
And I note you have failed to answer my question - do you really think this book is amongst the top 200 books that have shaped people's lives over the past 100 years?
So NS seeing as you are rather nearer to Edinburgh why don't you pop along to the National Library and tell me whether it is on display or not. If it has been banned or cancelled then surely it would be ... err ... banned or cancelled not freely available and on display in the Library as seems to be the case.
And yet the statement by chief executive is that it was its content.
-
And yet the statement by chief executive is that it was its content.
No it didn't - there is no mention whether this book was in the top 200 for nominations (not that it was a Booky McBookface competition). But realistically it would have to have been a really sh*t call out if it only took 4 nominations to be in the top 200 books of the past 100 years.
So again noting no answer to my question - do you really think this book is amongst the top 200 books that have shaped people's lives over the past 100 years?
-
No it didn't - there is no mention whether this book was in the top 200 for nominations (not that it was a Booky McBookface competition). But realistically it would have to have been a really sh*t call out if it only took 4 nominations to be in the top 200 books of the past 100 years.
So again noting no answer to my question - do you really think this book is amongst the top 200 books that have shaped people's lives over the past 100 years?
Again the quote is
National Library of Scotland chief executive Amina Shah said the book should not be included in the most public-facing display due to the potential impact on key stakeholders and the reputation of the library. Drummond Bone, the chair of the board, agreed.'
I don't understand the relevance of your question
-
I don't understand the relevance of your question
The relevance of the question is that it is the purpose of the exhibition:
https://media.nls.uk/news/major-exhibition-a-love-letter-to-libraries
https://media.nls.uk/news/national-library-of-scotland-unveils-landmark-centenary-programme
So the whole purpose of the exhibition is to curate a collection of the most important books that have shaped people's lives since the opening of the library 100 years ago. And to select the most significant 200 for the main display with other nominations available on the shelves in an open reading room.
So I ask yet again - do you really think this book is amongst the top 200 books that have shaped people's lives over the past 100 years?
-
The system is refusing to allow me to post again - think it might be the quotes I originally tried to add to the post above.
Won't allow me to post, but both the links above indicate that the purpose of the call was to identify a small selection of books over the past 100 years that are considered to be the most important in shaped people's lives, via both public recommendations and also by asking key Scottish literary figures.
So I ask yet again - do you really think this book is amongst the top 200 books that have shaped people's lives over the past 100 years?
-
Presumably then that can include books that are changing people lives in current times too?
-
Dear World,
MSP/MP/Politician, not a job, not a career, not a profession.
It is a vocation, you for go normal life, if you choose that path, tata normal life, simples!
As for Mrs Forbes, well done that lady, giving up one sacred duty to perform another sacred duty.
Gonnagle.
-
The system is refusing to allow me to post again - think it might be the quotes I originally tried to add to the post above.
Won't allow me to post, but both the links above indicate that the purpose of the call was to identify a small selection of books over the past 100 years that are considered to be the most important in shaped people's lives, via both public recommendations and also by asking key Scottish literary figures.
So I ask yet again - do you really think this book is amongst the top 200 books that have shaped people's lives over the past 100 years?
And it was excluded because of the content according to the quote which yiu have ignored again.
-
The system is refusing to allow me to post again - think it might be the quotes I originally tried to add to the post above.
Won't allow me to post, but both the links above indicate that the purpose of the call was to identify a small selection of books over the past 100 years that are considered to be the most important in shaped people's lives, via both public recommendations and also by asking key Scottish literary figures.
So I ask yet again - do you really think this book is amongst the top 200 books that have shaped people's lives over the past 100 years?
Thar says nothing about why my opinion is particularly relevant.
-
Dear World,
MSP/MP/Politician, not a job, not a career, not a profession.
It is a vocation, you for go normal life, if you choose that path, tata normal life, simples!
As for Mrs Forbes, well done that lady, giving up one sacred duty to perform another sacred duty.
Gonnagle.
If we make being a politician a vacation where people should expect not to have a normal life then we make it exclusive, and more likely to be used bu charlatans and pretenders, and not representative
-
And it was excluded because of the content according to the quote which yiu have ignored again.
Stop lying - it hasn't been excluded at all. It is one of the 543 books selected for the exhibition, but not in the 200 which are part of the most public display. It is displayed in the open reading room of the exhibition (along with 342 other books). Presumably the 200 in the most public display received somewhat more public attention (i.e. more nominations) than the rather woeful 4 this received.
So the whole cancelled/banned despite huge levels of public nomination is rather crumbling to dust. The truth is that it is part of the exhibition (so not banned or cancelled) and the level of public nominations for this book was somewhat pitiful.
And still waiting for an answer - do you really think this book is amongst the top 200 books that have shaped people's lives over the past 100 years? If not then it shouldn't be in the 200 selected for most public display.
-
Thar says nothing about why my opinion is particularly relevant.
It is relevant because the purpose of the process was to was to identify a small selection of books over the past 100 years that are considered to be the most important in shaped people's lives. So unless you consider it to be amongst the top 200 books that have shaped people's lives over the past 100 years then you would surely not think it should be in that final 200 selection.
It is also quite hard to argue that a book published just last year is in the top 200 books that have shaped people's lives over the past 100 years.
-
It is relevant because the purpose of the process was to was to identify a small selection of books over the past 100 years that are considered to be the most important in shaped people's lives. So unless you consider it to be amongst the top 200 books that have shaped people's lives over the past 100 years then you would surely not think it should be in that final 200 selection.
It is also quite hard to argue that a book published just last year is in the top 200 books that have shaped people's lives over the past 100 years.
Again that's not addressing why my opinion is relevant.
-
Stop lying - it hasn't been excluded at all. It is one of the 543 books selected for the exhibition, but not in the 200 which are part of the most public display. It is displayed in the open reading room of the exhibition (along with 342 other books). Presumably the 200 in the most public display received somewhat more public attention (i.e. more nominations) than the rather woeful 4 this received.
So the whole cancelled/banned despite huge levels of public nomination is rather crumbling to dust. The truth is that it is part of the exhibition (so not banned or cancelled) and the level of public nominations for this book was somewhat pitiful.
And still waiting for an answer - do you really think this book is amongst the top 200 books that have shaped people's lives over the past 100 years? If not then it shouldn't be in the 200 selected for most public display.
I am not lying. It was as the quote covers, from the article you posted, excluded from the most public part of the display because of its content.
And given you spilt out a post to repeat your, to me irrelevant question, which I answered, and answered your answer to that, putting it in here again is doubly pointless
-
I am not lying. It was as the quote covers, from the article you posted, excluded from the most public part of the display because of its content.
Nope you are still lying unless you can prove that the book was 'excluded' - which would require you to prove that it received more nominations than those in the top 200. Over to you.
The book was one of 543 that received sufficient nominations to be included in the exhibition but presumably did not have enough support from the public (only 4 nominations) to persuade those responsible for the final curation decisions to include in the most prominent 200 (along with 342 others, which I would imagine will include many of far greater merit than this book).
And given you spilt out a post to repeat your, to me irrelevant question, which I answered, and answered your answer to that, putting it in here again is doubly pointless
The question is absolutely relevant because unless you actually think that this book is one of the top 200 books that have shaped people's lives over the past 100 years (in which case I think you need to give your head a really good wobble) then surely you should agree with the decision not to include it in that top 200 (regardless of the reasons for not including it).
So unless you are arguing that this book is one of the top 200 books that have shaped people's lives over the past 100 years then surely you should agree that it shouldn't be included in the most prominent 200.
-
Nope you are still lying unless you can prove that the book was 'excluded' - which would require you to prove that it received more nominations than those in the top 200. Over to you.
The book was one of 543 that received sufficient nominations to be included in the exhibition but presumably did not have enough support from the public (only 4 nominations) to persuade those responsible for the final curation decisions to include in the most prominent 200 (along with 342 others, which I would imagine will include many of far greater merit than this book).
The question is absolutely relevant because unless you actually think that this book is one of the top 200 books that have shaped people's lives over the past 100 years (in which case I think you need to give your head a really good wobble) then surely you should agree with the decision not to include it in that top 200 (regardless of the reasons for not including it).
So unless you are arguing that this book is one of the top 200 books that have shaped people's lives over the past 100 years then surely you should agree that it shouldn't be included in the most prominent 200.
No, I am using the quote from your atmrticke to point out that the Chief Executive Ms aside it wax excluded for the content.
There is no point in you repeating your question on two different parts of thread when it has been specifically asked. So I suggest for the sake of clarity, you stop repeating it when part of the thread os specifically dealing with it.
-
Presumably then that can include books that are changing people lives in current times too?
Of course it can, but please note that the remit for selection was shape people's lives not change people's lives (subtly different). But clearly a book that has only been available for a year will only have ... err ... a year to shape people's lives while one that has been around much longer will have had a greater time (and therefore ability) to shape people's lives.
-
No, I am using the quote from your atmrticke to point out that the Chief Executive Ms aside it wax excluded for the content.
FFS NS - stop lying. The book has not been excluded - it is part of the exhibition.
-
FFS NS - stop lying. The book has not been excluded - it is part of the exhibition.
It has been excluded from the most public part of the exhibition because of content, as the article you paired made clear with the quote from the chief executive.
-
If we make being a politician a vacation where people should expect not to have a normal life then we make it exclusive, and more likely to be used bu charlatans and pretenders, and not representative
Dear Sane,
Vacation ;D No sorry not making, it is a vocation, you become a servant of the people, the very people who elected you, as for charlatans and pretenders, earth calling Sane come in Sane!
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Sane,
Vacation ;D No sorry not making, it is a vocation, you become a servant of the people, the very people who elected you, as for charlatans and pretenders, earth calling Sane come in Sane!
Gonnagle.
servants have no places in democracy
-
Dear Sane,
Vacation ;D No sorry not making, it is a vocation, you become a servant of the people, the very people who elected you, as for charlatans and pretenders, earth calling Sane come in Sane!
Gonnagle.
If I were being cynical, I could point out that some politicians don't know their vacations from their vocations, but I'm above all that. Honest.
-
It has been excluded from the most public part of the exhibition because of content, as the article you paired made clear with the quote from the chief executive.
As have 342 other books. Have they been excluded/banned NS - or just not included in the more prominent 200. Seems it is only you folks whining on about being excluded - perhaps you should have run a more successful nomination campaign. I guess you must be pretty embarrassed that the book only received 4 nominations despite your claim that it had 'many nominations because of its content'.
And of course your starting comment on this thread was a complete lie:
'the removal of the Women who Wouldn't Wheesht book from the National Library of Scotland, see Teans, thread, this removal of access for legal views ilhas a silencing effect'
Regardless of whether the book is in the 543 in the exhibition (it is) or the most prominent 200 (it isn't), there is no question that it is held and available in the National Library of Scotland. Here is its catalogue page:
https://search.nls.uk/discovery/fulldisplay?docid=alma99118465025604341&context=L&vid=44NLS_INST:44NLS_VU1&lang=en&search_scope=MainCatalogue&adaptor=Local%20Search%20Engine&tab=MainCatalogue&query=any,contains,the%20women%20who%20wouldn%27t%20wheesht&offset=0
So it is part of the Library collection, available to anyone, it is part of the 543 books in the exhibition but was not selected for inclusion in the more prominent 200. And there you are screaming 'cancelled', excluded, banned'. Yawn.
-
As have 342 other books. Have they been excluded/banned NS - or just not included in the more prominent 200. Seems it is only you folks whining on about being excluded - perhaps you should have run a more successful nomination campaign. I guess you must be pretty embarrassed that the book only received 4 nominations despite your claim that it had 'many nominations because of its content'.
And of course your starting comment on this thread was a complete lie:
'the removal of the Women who Wouldn't Wheesht book from the National Library of Scotland, see Teans, thread, this removal of access for legal views ilhas a silencing effect'
Regardless of whether the book is in the 543 in the exhibition (it is) or the most prominent 200 (it isn't), there is no question that it is held and available in the National Library of Scotland. Here is its catalogue page:
https://search.nls.uk/discovery/fulldisplay?docid=alma99118465025604341&context=L&vid=44NLS_INST:44NLS_VU1&lang=en&search_scope=MainCatalogue&adaptor=Local%20Search%20Engine&tab=MainCatalogue&query=any,contains,the%20women%20who%20wouldn%27t%20wheesht&offset=0
So it is part of the Library collection, available to anyone, it is part of the 543 books in the exhibition but was not selected for inclusion in the more prominent 200. And there you are screaming 'cancelled', excluded, banned'. Yawn.
And again ignoring the quote from the Chief Executive about it being excluded from the most public part of the exhibition because of its content
-
If I were being cynical, I could point out that some politicians don't know their vacations from their vocations, but I'm above all that. Honest.
Dear Trent,
Some!!
Dear Sane,
servants have no places in democracy
The highest calling, and as science is finding out, the greatest buzz in the world.
I could quote a certain Holy book but this forum prefers the science.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/owning-pink/201406/what-drives-you-help-others
https://www.apa.org/monitor/dec06/helping
There is more, lots more but the science is in its infancy, not caught up yet with certain Holy scripture✝️
Gonnagle.
-
Dear World,
MSP/MP/Politician, not a job, not a career, not a profession.
It is a vocation, you for go normal life, if you choose that path, tata normal life, simples!
I agree.
There are some professions (or vocations) which aren't really compatible with family life as we would routinely know it. Those include jobs where you are required to work very long hours, shift patterns with anti-social hours, and those which require you to work considerable amounts of time away from home and/or in several places.
There are lots of these jobs (or vocations) and an individual will need to make a choice, either to choose this job or to have what we would typically consider a normal family life. To think you can have both is, I'm afraid, cakeism.
As for Mrs Forbes, well done that lady, giving up one sacred duty to perform another sacred duty.
Gonnagle.
Forbes has chosen to step back from politics for family life - that's her choice although with a partner she would probably have found it easier to balance the two than had she been a single mother for example. Also (as I mentioned before) I think she's recognised that her career isn't going to go any further within the SNP so timing is ... err ... how shall we put it - convenient. This didn't seem to be an issue when she was finance minister nor when she seemed very keen to go for the top job.
But I think there is something else here. I think politics is moving more towards the 'portfolio' career that we see elsewhere. So whereas once there were politicians who would be MPs for decades on end, we now see more choosing to dip in and dip out of frontline and/or elected politics and to intersperse this with other careers. And actually that isn't a bad thing at all.
-
I agree.
There are some professions (or vocations) which aren't really compatible with family life as we would routinely know it. Those include jobs where you are required to work very long hours, shift patterns with anti-social hours, and those which require you to work considerable amounts of time away from home and/or in several places.
There are lots of these jobs (or vocations) and an individual will need to make a choice, either to choose this job or to have what we would typically consider a normal family life. To think you can have both is, I'm afraid, cakeism.
Forbes has chosen to step back from politics for family life - that's her choice although with a partner she would probably have found it easier to balance the two than had she been a single mother for example. Also (as I mentioned before) I think she's recognised that her career isn't going to go any further within the SNP so timing is ... err ... how shall we put it - convenient. This didn't seem to be an issue when she was finance minister nor when she seemed very keen to go for the top job.
But I think there is something else here. I think politics is moving more towards the 'portfolio' career that we see elsewhere. So whereas once there were politicians who would be MPs for decades on end, we now see more choosing to dip in and dip out of frontline and/or elected politics and to intersperse this with other careers. And actually that isn't a bad thing at all.
Dear Prof,
Well look at that ;) I mostly agree with your post but for me I look at it in a far more simpler way, a Politician takes an oath much like our wonderful armed services, private life becomes secondary, but once you choose to step down, the country should thank you and help as you enter private life.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Prof,
Well look at that ;) I mostly agree with your post but for me I look at it in a far more simpler way, a Politician takes an oath much like our wonderful armed services, private life becomes secondary, but once you choose to step down, the country should thank you and help as you enter private life.
Gonnagle.
I am with you on the service element - I've know a few MPs over the years (in more than one party) although no MSPs. And I'm very aware that the sacrifice doesn't just start when they are first elected. In most cases they've had to hold down a second job (alongside their paid job) to ensure that they ultimately get nominated in a winnable seat and that often means standing for election (with all that campaigning etc) in a seat that they cannot win as teething ground to be used to persuade the selection committee in a winnable seat that they should be a candidate. And from my experience of those I know that aspect is perhaps more sapping of normal life than once actually elected.
On stepping down - well I think the word I'd use is respecting decisions whether that be to spend more time with family or perhaps to take on a different professional challenge outside of politics.
Should we thank them - hmmm, well I guess that will depend on whether we think they've done a good job. And that will come down to political position - not sure I felt like thanking Cameron when he stepped down (having foisted brexit on us) nor Johnson with the chaos of his government and all the lying. I think it was more 'thank goodness, good riddance'.
-
My take is that in a representative democracy we should strive to make it possible for people who get elected to be ... erm representative. And if the job is set up so that it excludes people wanting to live 'normal' lives then we are excluding normal.
A lot of the changes in how the idea of representation has been ti extend that. So paying MPs as the Chartists campaigned for was all about ensuring that people from different backgrounds, and situations could choose to run for election, and thinking about how parents of young children can do that seems related to me. As already mentioned there have been a number of reforms in Westminster, many introduced by thd Blair govt, to make it more supportive of 'nornal' life, and unless you think that was wrong, taking a position that further reforms might be beneficial is just hypocritical.
And I want people involved who think they can do a good job, not just because they are willing to 'serve' or give up a 'normal' life, else we are not just losing representation, we are making it elitist and based around an idea of service that isn't for me a beneficial one. I note that Prof D selects two MPs who should not be thanked, and that both of them went to Eton, and I would suggest too much of the approach of give up any chance of a normal life flips the system to people whose idea of public service is based around that approach.
Being an MP, MSP, and others is if you do it right a brutally hard job which is badly rewarded in comparison to what many who might consider standing can make so it's encouraged people who are either already rich or want to abuse the job to do it.
-
My take is that in a representative democracy we should strive to make it possible for people who get elected to be ... erm representative.
I think you are misunderstanding the meaning of 'representative' in a representative democracy. It does not mean that the make-up of elected members of parliament should be demographically representative of the population (although that might be desirable). Nope it means that the person elected is expected to 'represent' all of their constituents. So the point is that the elected person 'represents' a group of people.
Now in reality, certainly for Westminster, we have a single MP - so that single person cannot be 'representative' of the make up of the electorate in their constituency. But in terms of a representative democracy they are required to represent all of their constituents.
-
I think you are misunderstanding the meaning of 'representative' in a representative democracy. It does not mean that the make-up of elected members of parliament should be demographically representative of the population (although that might be desirable). Nope it means that the person elected is expected to 'represent' all of their constituents. So the point is that the elected person 'represents' a group of people.
Now in reality, certainly for Westminster, we have a single MP - so that single person cannot be 'representative' of the make up of the electorate in their constituency. But in terms of a representative democracy they are required to represent all of their constituents.
Thanks for the civics leading so in return i'll help you out with a reading for comprehension lesson. At no point does my post claim that a representative democracy means that the make up of parliament has to reflect the dmigraphics. Rather it suggests that given we are a representative democracy, then we shoukd make sure that it is as open as possible b for people to be those representatives, and that if we don't then we are failing in thr democracy part.
-
My take is that in a representative democracy we should strive to make it possible for people who get elected to be ... erm representative. And if the job is set up so that it excludes people wanting to live 'normal' lives then we are excluding normal.
A lot of the changes in how the idea of representation has been ti extend that. So paying MPs as the Chartists campaigned for was all about ensuring that people from different backgrounds, and situations could choose to run for election, and thinking about how parents of young children can do that seems related to me. As already mentioned there have been a number of reforms in Westminster, many introduced by thd Blair govt, to make it more supportive of 'nornal' life, and unless you think that was wrong, taking a position that further reforms might be beneficial is just hypocritical.
And I want people involved who think they can do a good job, not just because they are willing to 'serve' or give up a 'normal' life, else we are not just losing representation, we are making it elitist and based around an idea of service that isn't for me a beneficial one. I note that Prof D selects two MPs who should not be thanked, and that both of them went to Eton, and I would suggest too much of the approach of give up any chance of a normal life flips the system to people whose idea of public service is based around that approach.
Being an MP, MSP, and others is if you do it right a brutally hard job which is badly rewarded in comparison to what many who might consider standing can make so it's encouraged people who are either already rich or want to abuse the job to do it.
Moving on from my previous post about your misunderstanding of what 'representative' means in a representative democracy.
I don't disagree that we should remove unnecessary barriers that might prevent certain groups of people from being able to become and be successful as MPs/MSPs etc. But you can only go so far. The job requires the elected official to work in two separate places (their constituency and wherever the assembly is) unless you think that MPs can do their job without ever meeting other elected members face to face (which I don't) or not visiting their constituency and meeting constituents face to face (which I don't either). So they have to work in two places and that will necessarily curtail what we might consider as normal family life. And the challenges will be greater for MPs/MSPs representing constituencies that require considerable travel distance/time to the assembly.
I'm sorry but there is no getting away from this fact. We can try to limit the disruption to family life (and plenty of changes have been brought in) but it cannot be eliminated if we want our MPs/MSPs to do their job properly (which I do). And there is always a tension between MPs/MSPs whose main base is in their constituency (who will want to work long hours over few days when at the assembly) and those who base themselves closer to the assembly who would prefer shorter hours over longer days as they can go back to their family each night when working at the assembly.
-
Moving on from my previous post about your misunderstanding of what 'representative' means in a representative democracy.
I don't disagree that we should remove unnecessary barriers that might prevent certain groups of people from being able to become and be successful as MPs/MSPs etc. But you can only go so far. The job requires the elected official to work in two separate places (their constituency and wherever the assembly is) unless you think that MPs can do their job without ever meeting other elected members face to face (which I don't) or not visiting their constituency and meeting constituents face to face (which I don't either). So they have to work in two places and that will necessarily curtail what we might consider as normal family life. And the challenges will be greater for MPs/MSPs representing constituencies that require considerable travel distance/time to the assembly.
I'm sorry but there is no getting away from this fact. We can try to limit the disruption to family life (and plenty of changes have been brought in) but it cannot be eliminated if we want our MPs/MSPs to do their job properly (which I do). And there is always a tension between MPs/MSPs whose main base is in their constituency (who will want to work long hours over few days when at the assembly) and those who base themselves closer to the assembly who would prefer shorter hours over longer days as they can go back to their family each night when working at the assembly.
See previous post on your misreading of me post which led you to misreprsebt it, and again you have managed the same here. At no point does I suggest that it is possible to make a perfect system, just that we should make all efforts to make it as open as possible, and merely saying 'Tough' is the same approach taken by some people before previous reforms that I would suggest you will have supported.
-
See previous post on your misreading of me post which led you to misreprsebt it, and again you have managed the same here. At no point does I suggest that it is possible to make a perfect system, just that we should make all efforts to make it as open as possible, and merely saying 'Tough' is the same approach taken by some people before previous reforms that I would suggest you will have supported.
The classic 'something should be done about it' grump which I and others pulled you up on earlier in the thread. So what should be done NS - pointless to simply grump about something without any kind of solution.
When we pushed and pushed you on this earlier all you came up with was firstly more Zoom. Well news for you on-line meetings are already used extensively where appropriate (and they cannot be used in all circumstances without significantly impacting the ability of parliament to function effectively). Over the past few years I've held Zoom (well actually Teams) meetings with several ministers in the Department for Education as this was the most effective way to hold the meeting as there were invitees from all over the country.
Your second suggestions was regional hubs - which I pointed out would often make the situation worse as travel would be just as difficult (or even more difficult than to Edinburgh or London) and you'd end up with even greater logistical complexities of having to work in three places (constituency, regional hub and assembly location) rather than two.
-
The classic 'something should be done about it' grump which I and others pulled you up on earlier in the thread. So what should be done NS - pointless to simply grump about something without any kind of solution.
When we pushed and pushed you on this earlier all you came up with was firstly more Zoom. Well news for you on-line meetings are already used extensively where appropriate (and they cannot be used in all circumstances without significantly impacting the ability of parliament to function effectively). Over the past few years I've held Zoom (well actually Teams) meetings with several ministers in the Department for Education as this was the most effective way to hold the meeting as there were invitees from all over the country.
Your second suggestions was regional hubs - which I pointed out would often make the situation worse as travel would be just as difficult (or even more difficult than to Edinburgh or London) and you'd end up with even greater logistical complexities of having to work in three places (constituency, regional hub and assembly location) rather than two.
Your position is that it's not worth making the effort. Just to point out the more Zoom meetings is actually you quoting Jeremyp not me from his reply no7, where he is saying not to say it. So your account above is wrong.
-
My take is that in a representative democracy we should strive to make it possible for people who get elected to be ... erm representative. And if the job is set up so that it excludes people wanting to live 'normal' lives then we are excluding normal.
A lot of the changes in how the idea of representation has been ti extend that. So paying MPs as the Chartists campaigned for was all about ensuring that people from different backgrounds, and situations could choose to run for election, and thinking about how parents of young children can do that seems related to me. As already mentioned there have been a number of reforms in Westminster, many introduced by thd Blair govt, to make it more supportive of 'nornal' life, and unless you think that was wrong, taking a position that further reforms might be beneficial is just hypocritical.
And I want people involved who think they can do a good job, not just because they are willing to 'serve' or give up a 'normal' life, else we are not just losing representation, we are making it elitist and based around an idea of service that isn't for me a beneficial one. I note that Prof D selects two MPs who should not be thanked, and that both of them went to Eton, and I would suggest too much of the approach of give up any chance of a normal life flips the system to people whose idea of public service is based around that approach.
Being an MP, MSP, and others is if you do it right a brutally hard job which is badly rewarded in comparison to what many who might consider standing can make so it's encouraged people who are either already rich or want to abuse the job to do it.
Dear Sane,
Good at their job, willing to serve and give up normal life because as you so rightfully say Being an MP, MSP, and others is if you do it right a brutally hard job if they do it right!
You cannot have a normal life if you choose to be a MP/MSP, it is not possible, once again, not a job, not a career, not a profession a vocation
To end Sane auld son! anyone can be a MSP/MP but kiss goodbye any normal life especially in this modern world where even if you cough wrongly someone is watching.
Gonnagle.
-
Your position is that it's not worth making the effort. Just to point out the more Zoom meetings is actually you quoting Jeremyp not me from his reply no7, where he is saying not to say it. So your account above is wrong.
JP certainly mentioned Zoom in reply 7:
"And please don't say "Zoom meetings"."
To which you replied (my emphasis):
"As to an alternative system, j think that pountnh out that we have an issue, and that it shoukd be looked at doesn't carry the burden od proposing a whole solution but as a start, looking at regional hubs for some business, restructuring attendance (Note some of that happened during Covid and was then rolled back). Appropriate use of communicatio technology is no bad thing, and understanding how that would best be used would be part of any solution."
So can you enlighten us as to what you meant by 'communication technology' if not remote conferencing/meeting technologies, i.e. Zoom and similar. And you seemed to think that what was put in place during covid should be used more ... which was ... err ... remote conferencing technologies, i.e. Zoom and similar.
So pretty clear to us that your solution was effectively 'more Zoom' (although other similar platforms are available).
-
Dear Sane,
Good at their job, willing to serve and give up normal life because as you so rightfully say Being an MP, MSP, and others is if you do it right a brutally hard job if they do it right!
You cannot have a normal life if you choose to be a MP/MSP, it is not possible, once again, not a job, not a career, not a profession a vocation
To end Sane auld son! anyone can be a MSP/MP but kiss goodbye any normal life especially in this modern world where even if you cough wrongly someone is watching.
Gonnagle.
I agree - and any person considering becoming an MP/MSP will need to consider the impact it will have on normal life and would presumably consider that the upsides of being and MP/MSP outweigh the impact of normal life. And for a person considering not just being a back bencher, but in an executive role then the impact will be greater still.
And here is my issue with Forbes. So just a couple of years ago (when her child was even younger) she has comfortably enough to stand for leader which would have impacted normal life even greater. Since then what has changed - well not impacts on family life, so it is hard not to conclude that the key determinative here isn't the downside of impact on normal life (which hasn't changed and she was prepared to take an ever greater hit as she wanted to be leader).
Rather what has changed is that she has hit a road-block in her ambitions, recognising that the 'greasy pole' is perhaps greasier than she'd previously thought. So the balance between her political ambitions and the impact on normal life has become tipped, due to her ambitions not being able to be met rather than any change in impact on normal life.
And of course a person's priorities between professional ambition and a focus on family life will often change over time. Now I'm not saying this isn't unreasonable and it is of course her choice, but I feel there is a lack of honesty here. But it is hard to accept that someone prepared just a couple of years ago to take an even greater hit on family life to become leader (and then agreed to become deputy) now considers the hit (which hasn't changed) to be too great to even be involved in politics at all without considering that a change in perspective on her professional ambitions is a key determinative here.
-
JP certainly mentioned Zoom in reply 7:
"And please don't say "Zoom meetings"."
To which you replied (my emphasis):
"As to an alternative system, j think that pountnh out that we have an issue, and that it shoukd be looked at doesn't carry the burden od proposing a whole solution but as a start, looking at regional hubs for some business, restructuring attendance (Note some of that happened during Covid and was then rolled back). Appropriate use of communicatio technology is no bad thing, and understanding how that would best be used would be part of any solution."
So can you enlighten us as to what you meant by 'communication technology' if not remote conferencing/meeting technologies, i.e. Zoom and similar. And you seemed to think that what was put in place during covid should be used more ... which was ... err ... remote conferencing technologies, i.e. Zoom and similar.
So pretty clear to us that your solution was effectively 'more Zoom' (although other similar platforms are available).
You wrote that after bring pushed I wrote more Zoom meetings. I didn't and communication technology is a lot wider than conferencing.
None of which gets away from the issue that you think that it is not worth making any effort to make sure that we can make sure that we aren't excluding people from paric8oatung fully on the democratic process
-
You wrote that after bring pushed I wrote more Zoom meetings. I didn't and communication technology is a lot wider than conferencing.
Then explain what you meant by 'communication technology' if not more Zoom (or other similar remote working platforms). Noting that you linked this to technology used during covid which was rolled back afterwards. Given that that only technologies used in covid that have been rolled back since that I'm aware of are remote conference-type technologies I'm really struggling to see what you could have meant other than 'Zoom'. Please help us out here - maybe you mean carrier pigeons?