Podcasts about chartists

In London skilled tradesmen who were feeling a lack of respect of the working poor created a list of demands that would make up the People's Charter. This group called Chartists would drive a lot of political discussions in Wales. It would develop a new notion of democratic movements for the working class populations who were feeling very unrepresented. Follow us on social media: Twitter: https://twitter.com/Welshhistorypod Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/welshhistorypodcast Please consider becoming a supporter at: http://patreon.com/WelshHistory  Music: Celtic Impulse - Celtic by Kevin MacLeod is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)  Source: http://incompetech.com/music/royalty-free/index.html?isrc=USUAN1100297 Artist: http://incompetech.com/ © 2024 Evergreen Podcasts Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

While listing the latest music in numerical order of popularity is a noble endeavour those aren't the kind of Chartists that change the democratic landscape of a country (unless you count when Rage Against the Machine got Xmas number 1 that one time).Hit play and learn how the idea of everyone getting a say got its start humble old Wales.Have your say by telling us what you think over on our socials or join our Patreon where we take you more seriously because you're paying (like the government AMIRIGHT?!)

Tales from The Oval, presented by Tom Holland – host of The Rest is History - and Jon Surtees, launches with a fascinating delve into the history of Kennington.Listen on to discover how The Black Prince, a collection of charismatic medieval Knights, Charles I, a celebrity highwayman by the name of Jerry Abershaw, a forger called William Badger, the founder of Methodism John Wesley and the Chartists all played vital and fascinating roles in the history of The Oval.Before delving into the incredible history of the ground, which will be the focus of future episodes, the first episode explores the ancient history of Kennington and Vauxhall and features an incredible role call of the characters that have populated our part of south London for the last millennium.     Future episodes will be released every Wednesday, with episode 2 – coming on Wednesday May 29th – investigating the history of cricket on Kennington Common, the founding of Surrey CCC and the Club's glorious successes during the late Victorian period.Twitter:@surreycricket@holland_tom@JonnySurteesProducer: Will LewisExecutive Producers: Matt Thacker + Jon Surtees

Englishness has been hijacked by the right. The flag of St. George's Cross is proudly waved at far-right rallies. Conservative politicians insult the Left as being anti-English. And our history has been weaponised by cheerleaders for Brexit, exceptionalism and imperial nostalgia. That's the argument of Caroline Lucas, who came to the Intelligence Squared stage in April 2024 to offer us a radically new way of viewing England and Englishness. Lucas has long been at the forefront of progressive politics in the UK, having twice led the Green Party. Discussing her new book, Another England: How to Reclaim Our National Story with political commentator Grace Blakeley, Lucas explores how to redefine nationalism by centering the English people's history of radical inclusivity, deep-rooted commitment to the natural world and long struggle to win rights for all. These often overlooked stories place the Chartists, the Diggers and the Suffragettes alongside Nelson and Churchill, and draw on a rich literary history to explore our shared challenges of identity and equality today. We are sponsored by Indeed. Go to Indeed.com/IS for £100 sponsored credit. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Englishness has been hijacked by the right. The flag of St. George's Cross is proudly waved at far-right rallies. Conservative politicians insult the Left as being anti-English. And our history has been weaponised by cheerleaders for Brexit, exceptionalism and imperial nostalgia. That's the argument of Caroline Lucas, who came to the Intelligence Squared stage in April 2024 to offer us a radically new way of viewing England and Englishness. Lucas has long been at the forefront of progressive politics in the UK, having twice led the Green Party. Discussing her new book, Another England: How to Reclaim Our National Story with political commentator Grace Blakeley, Lucas explores how to redefine nationalism by centering the English people's history of radical inclusivity, deep-rooted commitment to the natural world and long struggle to win rights for all. These often overlooked stories place the Chartists, the Diggers and the Suffragettes alongside Nelson and Churchill, and draw on a rich literary history to explore our shared challenges of identity and equality today. We are sponsored by Indeed. Go to Indeed.com/IS for £100 sponsored credit. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Jeff Hirsch is editor-in-chief of The Stock Trader's Almanac, as well as the author of the 2011 book Super Boom. Carter Worth is CEO and founder of Worth Charting, as well as a technical analyst with decades of experience on Wall Street. I talked to both stock market experts at the 2024 MoneyShow/TradersEXPO Las Vegas to get their outlooks on the year – and the result is this double-barreled MoneyShow MoneyMasters Podcastsegment.In it, Jeff explains why he expects a strong year for stocks, with gains of 8% to 15% broadly speaking. His work focuses on market cycles, historical patterns, and factors like the presidential election, all of which are pointing toward a positive year. Jeff explains why investor sentiment isn't flashing any major warning signs, noting that “bullish sentiment can be bullish and stay bullish.” He goes on to explain why having a select group of leaders leading isn't necessarily a problem, either, and highlights recent improvement in market breadth. Plus, he shares some of the investments he likes right now, including in natural gas, copper, infrastructure, and more. Finally, Jeff teases a NEW forecast that will replace and supplant the Super Boom one that panned out.Next, Carter talks about the problem with traditional Wall Street strategist forecasts – and the problems this market faces. While he isn't outright bearish, he explains why stocks could struggle to power to, and through, their old highs from early 2022. His expectation? Churning and little net progress for the next six to nine months.That said, Carter does see opportunity in a handful of contrarian and compelling sectors. Among them? Energy and healthcare. He also shares his reasons why gold looks promising, and why his “bias is that rates go lower.” We wrap our discussion with the four key data points he uses as a chartist – and how they help him identify inflection points.Looking for insights and recommendations from experts like Jeff and Carter IN PERSON? Then join us for the Investment Masters Symposium Miami, set for April 10-12, 2024 at the Hyatt Regency Miami. Click here to register: https://www.miamisymposium.com/?scode=061246

At the Newport Rising Festival this year, we were inspired by the story of the Chartist march on Newport in 1839 and their six-point People's Charter to think about the reforms being made to our national democracy in 2024 via the Senedd Cymru (Members and Elections) Bill. Steered by our own Matthew Hexter, our guests discuss the proposed reforms to parliament framed through the six points of the People's Charter and consider whether a modern day Chartist would approve of the recommendations. We recorded this podcast in front of a live audience at The Place, Newport as part of the 2023 Newport Rising Festival. A video version of this podcast is available here: https://youtu.be/80v0CNnR1BA Our guests Chris Haines: https://twitter.com/talesforwales ICNN Senedd Reporter based at Caerphilly Observer Tom Hoyles: https://twitter.com/thoyles Wales and South West England Political Officer, GMB Union Matthew Hexter: https://twitter.com/hexter101 Newport Rising: https://www.newportrising.co.uk Chartism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chartism The Place, Newport: https://www.theplacenewport.com You can continue to find out all latest from us here at the pod via our Twitter/X profile: https://twitter.com/HiraethPod We hope you find this podcast interesting and useful. Please do send feedback, it's always great to hear what our audience thinks. Thank you for listening to the podcast. If you have enjoyed it, please leave us a nice rating or comment on your podcast app or on YouTube and, if you are able to do so, please consider supporting our work from just £3/month on Patreon: http://www.patreon.com/hiraethpod

Machines allow us to do more work with less effort. They sound like an obviously good thing. But there is a tension here. New gadgets and new technologies - new simple “machines” - have been invented throughout history. But it looks like the living standard of the average person did not change for most of that time. So what happened to all the extra output from new technologies? And how is this relevant to our age of computers, robots, and AI?  To discuss these themes, I am joined by MIT professor Daron Acemoglu. Acemoglu is a true legend in his field. In 2015, he was ranked the single most cited economist of the past 10 years. And his most famous book, Why Nations Fail, (co-authored with James Robinson) is known by many students of economics as the only history book they ever had to read.  But today's conversation is not about Why Nations Fail. It is about Acemoglu's new book, Power and Progress: Our 1000-Year Struggle Over Technology (co-authored with Simon Johnson). In many ways, this is a typical Acemoglu book: it is a doorstopper that uses an array of historical lessons to draw messages for the present. And as before, it asks economists to take democratic politics more seriously. But in other ways, this is quite different from his previous books. For me, it felt much darker – especially in its portrayal of rich countries such as the US. But Acemoglu affirmed to me that he is still an optimist. He even tells me that the reason is related to the theme of this podcast series... I will let him tell you why. We discuss topics such as: Why have so many machines failed to benefit the common folk?  Why things changed for the better in the late 1800s - and why my past guests are wrong about the reasons? Have we started backsliding again?  Does this explain the political turmoil of today - especially in the US? Why Acemoglu is not against technological progress - but has a message to tech leaders  What has his work in economics taught Acemoglu about humanity? ____ SUPPORT THE SHOW Please consider becoming a supporter of On Humans. Even small monthly donations can make a huge impact on the long-term sustainability of the program. Visit: ⁠⁠⁠⁠Patreon.com/OnHumans ⁠⁠⁠⁠ Get in touch: ilari@onhumans.org _____ Oded Galor (episodes 12 & 13), Brad DeLong (episode 18) / Josh Ober / Ian Morris / Samuel Bowles / Herbert Gintis /John Hicks / H. J. / Robert Allen / Habakkuk / Joel Mokyr / Elon Musk / Pascual Restrepo Other terms and references Malthusian dynamics (of population growth “eating away” any increases in production)  Chartists and Luddites (19th Century British political movements)

The first half of the 19th century witnessed the rise of an extraordinary working-class campaign for political reform: Chartism. What made this movement so remarkable was its size and sophistication – and the level of anxiety it provoked among the British establishment. But who were the Chartists? Why was the authorities' reaction to them so draconian? And did they actually achieve any of their aims? Speaking with Spencer Mizen, Joan Allen answers your top questions about Chartism. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The 1840s were a revolutionary decade. France and Italy had been rocked by revolution; Queen Victoria and Prince Albert feared that Britain might be next. In April 1848, a movement demanding universal male suffrage known as the Chartists announced they would march on Parliament.  Lamps outside Buckingham Palace had been smashed by a crowd shouting republican slogans - the Royal Family fled, fearing for their lives. To the relief of the Royal Family, the revolution never happened; Victoria said her people loved order and security too much to allow the ‘promoters of pillage and confusion any chance of success in their wicked designs.' But the Queen spoke too soon - just 6 months later, in amongst the crowds celebrating her 30th birthday was an out of work bricklayer named William Hamilton. And he was armed. As the Queen's carriage approached, Hamilton pulled a pistol from the pocket of his tattered corduroy trousers, pointed at his target and fired. Dr Bob Nicholson digs deep into the historical records and contemporary newspaper accounts to find out why William Hamilton became the fourth man in less than a decade to attack Queen Victoria. Bob's journey takes him into the world of the Irish community in London, the political unrest of the 1840s, and the infamous floating prisons – the ‘hulks'.

On 21 May 1838 an estimated 150,000 people assembled on Glasgow Green for a mass demonstration. There they witnessed the launch of the People's Charter, a list of demands for political reform. The changes they called for included voting by secret ballot, equal-sized constituencies and, most importantly, that all men should have the vote. The Chartists, as they came to be known, were the first national mass working-class movement. In the decade that followed, they collected six million signatures for their Petitions to Parliament: all were rejected, but their campaign had a significant and lasting impact. With Joan Allen Visiting Fellow in History at Newcastle University and Chair of the Society for the Study of Labour History Emma Griffin Professor of Modern British History at the University of East Anglia and President of the Royal Historical Society and Robert Saunders Reader in Modern British History at Queen Mary, University of London. The image above shows a Chartist mass meeting on Kennington Common in London in April 1848.

On 21 May 1838 an estimated 150,000 people assembled on Glasgow Green for a mass demonstration. There they witnessed the launch of the People's Charter, a list of demands for political reform. The changes they called for included voting by secret ballot, equal-sized constituencies and, most importantly, that all men should have the vote. The Chartists, as they came to be known, were the first national mass working-class movement. In the decade that followed, they collected six million signatures for their Petitions to Parliament: all were rejected, but their campaign had a significant and lasting impact. With Joan Allen Visiting Fellow in History at Newcastle University and Chair of the Society for the Study of Labour History Emma Griffin Professor of Modern British History at the University of East Anglia and President of the Royal Historical Society and Robert Saunders Reader in Modern British History at Queen Mary, University of London. The image above shows a Chartist mass meeting on Kennington Common in London in April 1848.

In the midst of Britain's biggest wave of industrial action in years, the gang turn their attention to the long and bloodied history of strikes. Who do we find on the picket line? Nadia, Keir and Jeremy explore a lineage that stretches back hundreds of years, from matchgirls to miners, from 1840s century Chartists to […]

In the midst of Britain's biggest wave of industrial action in years, the gang turn their attention to the long and bloodied history of strikes. Who do we find on the picket line? Nadia, Keir and Jeremy explore a lineage that stretches back hundreds of years, from matchgirls to miners, from 1840s century Chartists to […]

We explore one reason for the remarkable industrial peace experienced by Britain during the Industrial Revolution.   Peterloo, Luddites and Chartists, saw bodies, but in such small amounts that it was nothing compared to the French Revolution, 1848 and other episodes of repression.Anglican latitudinarianism resulted in a somewhat boring religion for the lower classes, that ignored the excitement of Christ's love.  The Evangelical Revival, known as the Great Awakening in the US, stepped right in.We pay most of our attention to the Methodists, covering John Wesley's conversion and the Methodist approach to the poor.

We're back in 1848, with the Year of Revolutions, a few of which succeeded, most of which were put down – not least in Northern Italy, where Joseph Radetzky, celebrated in a cheerful Strauss tune, proved far less cheerful in his treatment of opponents to Austrian rule. Britain, on the other hand, saw no revolution, though many feared one from the Chartists. In the event, the last shout of Chartism turned out to be little more than a whimper, disarmed by improved economic conditions and channels to funnel protest into less harmful directions. !848 also saw the moment when the majority wing of the split Conservative Party, the Protectionists, opposed to Repeal of the Corn Laws, could have found a new leader in Benjamin Disraeli. But he was just too eccentric, perhaps too Jewish, somehow too foreign, and he was passed over. The first of several occasions when he was denied, until late 1851. Then he at last secured the position of Leader of the Party in the Commons (under the overall leader, Stanley). At least that meant that he was in a leading position just as his party formed a government again. So he was poised to enter government for the first time, and in a senior position too. Illustration: On the barricades on the Rue Soufflot, Paris, 25 June 1848 by Horace Vernet Music: Bach Partita #2c by J Bu licensed under an Attribution-NonCommercial-No Derivatives (aka Music Sharing) 3.0 International License.

The MintPress podcast, “The Watchdog,” hosted by British-Iraqi hip hop artist Lowkey, closely examines organizations about which it is in the public interest to know – including intelligence, lobby and special interest groups influencing policies that infringe on free speech and target dissent. The Watchdog goes against the grain by casting a light on stories largely ignored by the mainstream, corporate media.The well propagated myth is that Britain functions democratically. This, of course, flies in the face of a system where a monarchy established by the Normans in 1066 still holds weight in society. More than 1,000 laws passed through the British parliament have been vetted by the representatives of the Royal Family. There 792 unelected peers and 26 unelected bishops in the House of Lords in comparison to merely 650 elected members of parliament.Even to get to this very limited level of political representation where all people could vote regardless of property ownership it took over 300 years of struggle – from the Putney Debates and the Levellers to the Chartists and the Suffragettes. It even entailed people sacrificing their lives for the right to vote with the slaughter of protestors in Manchester at the now infamous Peterloo Massacre. It took centuries of agitation, prison, deportation to penal colonies and World War I for the British establishment to grant universal suffrage. And it was not even until after 1928 that all people over 21 were allowed to vote for political representation in parliament.But Britons still live in a managed society. Today, Lowkey is joined by Kit Klarenberg to discuss the ways in which elements within the British establishment have been able to impose their will on the supposed democratic system in Britain over the past 100 years.Starting with Ramsay MacDonald, the Labour Prime Minister smeared with a fake letter in the 1920s to Harold Wilson being spied on and conspired against through Operation Clockwork Orange, the intelligence services have been a vital constituency for any political leader to win over and keep on side.The sweeping aside of Boris Johnson as Prime Minister has made headlines across the world, as Conservative Party figures fight for the leading role in the country. However, it seems there may have been more than meets the eye to the drip feeding of negative stories about Johnson over the past six months.Lowkey and Kit Klarenberg examine the evidence of possible interference in the political system to achieve the removal of Boris Johnson from power.Kit Klarenberg is an investigative journalist exploring the role of intelligence services in shaping politics and perceptions. He writes for The Grayzone and MintPress News.Join Lowkey today for a critically important discussion about current events and the future of the world, and do not forget to subscribe on YouTube or your favorite podcast platform.Lowkey is a British-Iraqi hip-hop artist, academic and political campaigner. As a musician, he has collaborated with the Arctic Monkeys, Wretch 32, Immortal Technique and Akala. He is a patron of Stop The War Coalition, Palestine Solidarity Campaign, the Racial Justice Network and The Peace and Justice Project, founded by Jeremy Corbyn. He has spoken and performed on platforms from the Oxford Union to the Royal Albert Hall and Glastonbury. His latest album, Soundtrack To The Struggle 2, featured Noam Chomsky and Frankie Boyle and has been streamed millions of times.Support the show

The well propagated myth is that Britain functions democratically. This, of course, flies in the face of a system where a monarchy established by the Normans in 1066 still holds weight in society. More than 1,000 laws passed through the British parliament have been vetted by the representatives of the Royal Family. There 792 unelected peers and 26 unelected bishops in the House of Lords in comparison to merely 650 elected members of parliament.Even to get to this very limited level of political representation where all people could vote regardless of property ownership it took over 300 years of struggle – from the Putney Debates and the Levellers to the Chartists and the Suffragettes. It even entailed people sacrificing their lives for the right to vote with the slaughter of protestors in Manchester at the now infamous Peterloo Massacre. It took centuries of agitation, prison, deportation to penal colonies and World War I for the British establishment to grant universal suffrage. And it was not even until after 1928 that all people over 21 were allowed to vote for political representation in parliament.But Britons still live in a managed society. Today, Lowkey is joined by Kit Klarenberg to discuss the ways in which elements within the British establishment have been able to impose their will on the supposed democratic system in Britain over the past 100 years.Starting with Ramsay MacDonald, the Labour Prime Minister smeared with a fake letter in the 1920s to Harold Wilson being spied on and conspired against through Operation Clockwork Orange, the intelligence services have been a vital constituency for any political leader to win over and keep on side.The sweeping aside of Boris Johnson as Prime Minister has made headlines across the world, as Conservative Party figures fight for the leading role in the country. However, it seems there may have been more than meets the eye to the drip feeding of negative stories about Johnson over the past six months.Lowkey and Kit Klarenbeg examine the evidence of possible interference in the political system to achieve the removal of Boorish John from power.Kit Klarenberg is an investigative journalist exploring the role of intelligence services in shaping politics and perceptions. He writes for The Grayzone and MintPress News.Join Lowkey today for a critically important discussion about current events and the future of the world, and do not forget to subscribe on YouTube or your favorite podcast platform.The MintPress podcast “The Watchdog,” hosted by British-Iraqi hip hop artist Lowkey, closely examines organizations about which it is in the public interest to know – including intelligence, lobby, and special interest groups influencing policies that infringe on free speech and target dissent. The Watchdog goes against the grain by casting a light on stories largely ignored by the mainstream, corporate media.Support the show

"a fissure cracking open the foundations their world rested on"

Show Notes In the tradition of our annual holiday episodes, I've gone a little wild with the title of today's episode. Today, I'll read you a Christmas Ballad titled “It is Christmas Day in the Workhouse,” which was first published in the 1870s  and which floats around with several variant titles. Before that, though, I'll share a mini biography of its author, English journalist, poet, dramatist, and novelist George R. Sims. But first! let's take a quick trip around the world in George R. Sims's lifetime: Around the World Feb 11 1847 - Thomas Edison is Born 1848 marked the beginning of several revolutions against European monarchies, notably in Sicily, France, Germany, Italy, and the Austrian Empire April 10 1848 - Chartists gather across the Thames from the Houses of Parliament  for a demonstration in which they planned to march en masse to deliver a petition, but police had them trapped and the event ended with a fizzle rather than a bang Jul 4 1855 - Walt Whitman's "Leaves of Grass" Is Published 1868 - Elizabeth Blackwell establishes a Women's Medical College Nov 17 1877 - Charles Darwin received an Honorary Doctorate of Law from Cambridge University During Darwin's honorary degree ceremony, a prankster dangled this stuffed monkey dressed in academic robes from the gallery of the Senate House, which 'excited some mirth'. April 1888- February 1891 the Whitechapel Murders were committed by an unidentified person who came to be known as Jack the Ripper Sep 23 1889 - Nintendo Founded to produce handmade hanafuda cards 1899 - Kate Chopin Publishes "The Awakening" Sep 8 1903 - The American Federation Of Labor Grants A Charter To Granite Quarry Workers Feb 2 1914 the first film featuring Charlie Chaplin, "Making a Living," is released Jan 11 1922 - Researcher John Macleod and chemist James Collip administered the first dose of their newly developed Insulin Injection to 14yo diabetic, Leonard Thompson George R. Sims Bio George R. Sims was born 2 September 1847 to father, George Sims, and mother, Louisa Amelia Ann Stevenson Sims. He would be the first of the couple's six children. Between them, they raised their children with the London theater and progressive politics. Louisa was a president of the Women's Provident League and her father, Chartist leader John Dinmore Stevenson, lived with the family. Sims began writing for in school, where he quickly began to publish poetry and journalism in The College Gazette and later  The Welcome Guest, Fun, Weekly Dispatch, and The Referee. For The Referee, he wrote a popular column of miscellany called 'Mustard and Cress' under the pseudonym 'Dagonet' from 1877 until he died. And it is under that pseudonym that he reported, from 1888-1891 on the Whitechapel Murders.  His best-known ballad is “It Is Christmas Day in the Workhouse,” which was often parodied during his lifetime but which struck me as having strong ‘eat the rich' vibes in a Christmas season marked by the exploitation of wage workers here in the US.  [transition music] Click here to read the poem! [transition music] Thank you for listening! I hope you all have a happy Christmas Eve. Keep an eye on our feed for a second holiday episode from Eleanor.  Take care! Resources https://archiveshub.jisc.ac.uk/search/archives/86dc0be7-20fa-36d2-8606-be3459167766 Music This episode featured "Deck the Halls (brass arrangement)" performed by Michel Rondeau.

It's the most wonderful time of the year - the annual Comradio Christmas episode. This year our theme is the beard. From what beards tell us about sociology and policy to the rich history of hairy faces, including what Atlee said about beards, how the Chartists delayed the age of the Victorian beard, New Labour's approach to beards, the role of the beard in Abraham Lincoln's electoral success, fake beards, beard taxes, the edicts about beards that have been used for political ends through the ages, and The Charge of The Light Brigade. All leading us to our thrilling conclusion: the truth about Santa's beard.     Our Patreon   Buy our merch     Second Row Socialists on Twitter     Comradio on Twitter       Alternative Left Entertainment     Follow ALE on Twitter     Why does Santa have a beard but Mrs Claus doesn't? - BBC Science Focus Magazine    Beards augment perceptions of men's age, social status, and aggressiveness, but not attractiveness - Dixson and Vasey (2012)    Women are more attracted to men with beards, says study - Sophie Foster for Wales Online (2020)    A multivariate analysis of women's mating strategies and sexual selection on men's facial morphology - Tessa R. Clarkson et al (2020)    ALMOST HALF OF WOMEN REFUSE TO DATE MEN WITH HIPSTER BEARDS, SURVEY FINDS - Sarah Young for The Independent (2018)     Let's talk about Oscar Isaac's magnificent Dune beard - Gabrielle Paiella for GQ (2020)     The Beard-Battle that Almost Split Christendom - Luke T. Harrington for Christianity Today (2016)    What's In A Beard? - Rabbi Yirmiyahu Ullman    The men evading Tajikistan's de-facto beard ban - Global Voices Online in The Guardian (2015)    5 UK Sikh doctors ‘removed' for refusing to shave beards - Naomi Canton for Times of India (2020)    Sikh Front-Line Workers Make Enough Sacrifices. Their Beards Shouldn't Be One. - Harman Singh in HuffPo (2020)    Depiction thought to be Loki with no beard    Beard: Masculinity in Early Modern England - Will Fisher (2001)    Peter the Great's Beard Tax - Amelia Soth for JSTOR Daily (2021)    The Beard Movement in Victorian Britain - Christopher Oldstone-Moore (2005)    Five Things You Didn't Know About The Crimean War - The Royal Collection Trust    Roger Fenton's Crimean War photographs at the US Library of Congress     Pioneer photographer's stark images of Crimean war go on display - Caroline Davies (2017)    The Charge of the Light Brigade - Alfred Lord Tennyson (1854)    The six reasons beards are everywhere - BBC Radio Four    The Bear Book: Readings in the History and Evolution of a Gay Male Subculture - Les Wright (1997)    “Grow the Beard, Wear the Costume”: Resisting Weight and Sexual Orientation Stigmas in the Bear Subculture - Patrick B. McGrady (2016)    Understanding the Bear Movement in Gay Male Culture - Eric Manley et al (2008)    What is a Blind Item? - Mary McMahon    This Trans Woman Kept Her Beard And Couldn't Be Happier - Patrick Strudwick for Buzzfeed (2015)     Why famous dudes grow beards to deal with existential crises - Luke Winkie for Vox (2020)    Rick and Morty - Abradolf Lincler    Santa, is that you? But where's your white beard? - Peter Holley in WaPo (2014)

'The Brandon Estate community mural is huge. On the wall are images of the Chartists, kite-flyers, the Empire Windrush ship arriving from the Caribbean...'The Brandon Estate community mural is huge. On the wall are images of the Chartists, kite-flyers, the Empire Windrush ship arriving from the Caribbean, bee-keepers in white suits, and children scrambling over a woolly mammoth.

Bull market and bear market are said to be two opposite phases in a market. In a bull market, stock prices continue to rise over a period of time, whereas in a bear market, prices continue to decline over a period of time. The market rise can be attributed to several factors such as a positive economic outlook, strong corporate earnings, etc, and vice versa in the case of a declining market.   One of the commonly accepted definitions of bull and bear market phases is that when the stock price rises 20% or more from its recent low or 52-week low, it is said to have entered a bull phase. On the other hand, as and when a stock falls 20% or more from its recent peak or 52-week high, it is said to have entered a bear phase.   Can every 20% rise or fall be defined as a bull or bear phase? The answer is NO! Because in a volatile market a 20% fall after a steep rally can be termed a market correction. And, a 20% rise after a steep fall can be called a pull-back rally.   So, here's another way of defining or confirming a bull and bear market phase based on market technicals. Chartists call it ‘Golden Cross' & ‘Death Cross'.   The bull market is said to be confirmed when the 50-day moving average of the stock or index crosses the 200-day moving average. This is also called the Golden Cross.   We get the bear market confirmation when the 50-day moving average of the stock or index falls below the 200-day moving average. This is also called the Death Cross.   This brings us to the next question, what should one do in a bull market and bear market?   The answer is simple! In a bull market, look for buying opportunities on every dip. And in a bear market, look for selling opportunities on a rise.   Having said that, historically data suggest that bull markets tend to last longer when compared to bear market phases.   According to Forbes research, a study of the last 100 years reveals that the average length of a bull market is 2.7 years, while that of a bear market is less than 10 months.

#ACFM host Keir Milburn takes #NovaraFM producer Chal Ravens on a tour of Leeds, one of northern England’s historic epicentres of industry, trade and capital. From trouble at the flax mill to face-offs with fascists, Keir maps out a working class history that's as much about violence as it is about solidarity. We meet Chartists […]

The British Museum was fortified against attack. Manchester was in the hands of the Chartists. Over 3 million people signed a petition fighting for the right for all men to vote. Chartism is about more than a few blokes waving around a petition. It's a vital part of British history. Find out more with expert Mark Crail. To view that extra special 30 minutes, delving into the lives of the Chartists & providing great tips for family historians - please visit: ko-fi/genealogystories. The extra session can be purchased for the price of a cuppa coffee. I take a latte, thanks! For more information see: www.genealogystories.co.uk/mark-crail Resources Mentioned: https://www.chartistancestors.co.uk/ (https://www.chartistancestors.co.uk/) Chartism: A New History by Malcom Chase

Karl Heinrich Marx, The Communist Manifesto, “The Civil War in France”, Das KapitalFrederich Engels, Kant, Voltaire,  Eduard Gans, Karl von Svigny, Bruno Bauer, Hegel, Charles DanaUniversity of Bonn, University of Berlin,  University of JenaPoets' Club, Chartists, Communist LeagueRheinische Zeitung, New York Daily TribuneTsar NicholasRevolutions of 1848Ushttp://www.thebibliophiledailypodcast.carrd.cohttps://twitter.com/thebibliodailythebibliophiledailypodcast@gmail.comRoxiehttps://www.youtube.com/channel/UCyAfdi8Qagiiu8uYaop7Qvwhttp://www.chaoticbibliophile.comhttp://instagram.com/chaoticbibliophilehttps://twitter.com/NewAllegroBeat

Calls for a $70,000 Bitcoin price is picking momentum among technical market analysts as the cryptocurrency (BTC) makes way into Tesla’s balance sheets. Cheds, an independent cryptocurrency analyst who enjoys a massive following on Twitter, saw the BTC/USD exchange rate rising by at least 70 percent in the coming sessions. “Just an observation,” he said while citing a fractal-like Relative Strength Indicator for his bullish analogy, adding that whenever the indicator enters into a “power zone,” it sends the Bitcoin prices higher. The “zone” represents the overbought areas in the chart above. An RSI reading above 70 shows Bitcoin in an exceeding valuation area that typically amounts to a sell-off. However, in the last two breakouts above 70, the cryptocurrency overstayed its welcome above 70, which led the spot price higher by 70-100 percent. “Based on this theory, the [bitcoin] price should hit about $70k before cooling off, sometime in the next 3-4 weeks,” said Mr. Cheds. For complete show notes and for the full premium experience with video, visit our YouTube channel at http://CryptoNewsAlerts.net

How did Britain's working class fight to overthrow early capitalism? In the early 19th century, the industrial revolution was rapidly creating a big new social class in Britain: the working class. Workers produced huge amounts of new wealth for the ruling capitalists, but had appalling conditions and no say in politics. Sound familiar? Trade unions appeared for the first time, formed by workers to fight in the workplace. But they quickly realised that this alone was not enough. The bosses used political power to restrain or reverse what the workers could win by industrial struggle alone. The Chartist movement was the world’s first working-class party. Its ‘People’s Charter’ demanded a massive extension of democratic rights for workers – with the goal of using that to improve their material conditions. But increasingly, experience taught Chartist workers that petitioning alone was not enough either. Ultimately, revolutionary struggle was the only way for workers to gain power – or even win more rights within the capitalist system. How did the Chartists develop their ideas and methods of struggle? What was the outcome of the movement? And what can we learn from it today? This episode of Socialism looks at Britain’s revolutionary working class: Chartism. Further reading Newport Rising 1839: https://www.socialistparty.org.uk/articles/8303 Class struggle and the early Chartist movement: http://socialismtoday.org/archive/129/chartism.html Debate: The class character of Chartism: http://socialismtoday.org/archive/130/chartism.html Debate: Class, leadership and the Chartist movement: http://socialismtoday.org/archive/131/chartism.html Newport council destroys workers' mural: https://www.socialistparty.org.uk/articles/17541 The Pentrich uprising: revolution and counter-revolution in 19th century Britain: https://www.socialistparty.org.uk/articles/25680

The revolutionary traditions of the British working class are glossed over by the establishment. One such tradition is that of the Chartists. Decades before the formation of the TUC, the British working class dramatically entered onto the stage of history, threatening the ruling class with a mass insurrectionary movement and a general strike. In the process, the Chartists succeeded in building the political party of the working class in history, which drew the support of the young Marx and Engels. In this session, Rob Sewell presents his new book, Chartist Revolution, which delves into this radical episode in British history. He analyses the moment when the working class began to flex its muscles and demand key political rights, such as the right to vote, and how revolutionary conclusions were forced in the struggle itself. In this we find a tremendous legacy. We stand on the shoulders of giants. It is only by rediscovering our revolutionary past that we can learn the lessons that will serve to educate and inspire all those who wish to change the world.

What did the Chartists want? Who attacked the chimps? Who was Papua New Guinea's first female judge? Jake Yapp & Natt Tapley & Lizzie Roper find out in today's Date Fight!

Voters elect officials in representative democracies who pass laws, interpret laws, enforce laws, or appoint various other representatives to do one of the above. The terms of elected officials, the particulars of their laws, the structure of courts that interpret laws, and the makeup of the bureaucracies that are necessarily created to govern are different in every country.  In China, the people elect the People's Congresses who then elect the nearly 3,000 National People's Congress members, who then elect the Present and State Councils. The United States has a more direct form of democracy and the people elect a House of Represenatives, a Senate, and a president who the founders intentionally locked into a power struggle to keep any part of the government from becoming authoritarian. Russia is setup similar. In fact, the State Duma, like the House in the US are elected by the people and the 85 States, or federal subjects, then send a pair of delegates to a Federal Council, like the Senate in the US, which has 170 members. It works similarly in many countries. Some, like England, still provide for hereditary titles, such as the House of Lords - but even there, the Sovereign - currently Queen Elizabeth the second, nominates a peer to a seat. That peer is these days selected by the Prime Minister. It's weird but I guess it kinda' works.  Across democracies, countries communist, socialist, capitalist, and even the constitutional monarchies practice elections. The voters elect these representatives to supposedly do what's in the best interest of the constituents. That vote cast is the foundation of any democracy. We think our differences are greater than they are, but it mostly boils down to a few percentages of tax and a slight difference in the level of expectation around privacy, whether that expectation is founded or not.  2020 poses a turning point for elections around the world. After allegations of attempted election tampering in previous years, the president of the United States will be voted on. And many of those votes are being carried out by mail. But others will be performed in person at polling locations and done on voting machines.  At this point, I would assume that given how nearly every other aspect of American life has a digital equivalent, that I could just log into a web portal and cast my vote. No. That is not the case. In fact, we can't even seem to keep the voting machines from being tampered with. And we have physical control over those! So how did we get to such an awkward place, where the most important aspect of a democracy is so backwater. Let's start  Maybe it's ok that voting machines and hacking play less a role than they should. Without being political, there is no doubt that Russia and other foreign powers have meddled in US elections. In fact, there's probably little doubt we've interfered in theirs. Russian troll farms and disinformation campaigns are real. Paul Manafort maintained secret communications with the Kremlin. Former US generals were brought into the administration either during or after the election to make a truce with the Russians. And then there were the allegations about tampering voting machines. Now effectively stealing information about voters from Facebook using insecure API permissions. I get that. Disinformation goes back to posters in the time of Thomas Jefferson. I get that too.  But hacking voting machines. I mean, these are vetted, right? For $3,000 to $4,500 each and when bought in bulk orders of 16,000 machines like Maryland bought from Diebold in 2005, you really get what you pay for, right? Wait, did you say 2005? Let's jump forward to 2017. That's the year DefCon opened the Voting Machine Hacking Village. And in 2019 not a single voting machine was secured. In fact, one report from the conference said “we fear that the 2020 presidential elections will realize the worst fears only hinted at during the 2016 elections: insecure, attacked, and ultimately distrusted.” I learned to pick locks, use L0phtCrack, run a fuzzer, and so much more at DefCon. Now I guess I've learned to hack elections. So again, every democracy in the world has one thing it just has to get right, voting. But we don't. Why? Before we take a stab at that, let's go back in time just a little.  The first voting machine used in US elections was a guy with a bible. This is pretty much how it went up until the 1900s in most districts. People walked in and told an election official their vote, the votes were tallied on the honor of that person, and everyone got good and drunk. People love to get good and drunk. Voter turnout was in the 85 percent range. Votes were logged in poll books. And the person was saying the name of the official they were voting for with a poll worker writing their name and vote into a pollbook. There was no expectation that the vote would be secret. Not yet at least. Additionally, you could campaign at the polling place - a practice now illegal in most places. Now let's say the person taking the votes fudged something. There's a log. People knew each other. Towns were small. Someone would find out.  Now digitizing a process usually goes from vocal or physical to paper to digital to database to networked database to machine learning. It's pretty much the path of technological determinism. As is failing because we didn't account for adjacent advancements in technology when moving a paper process to a digital process. We didn't refactor around the now-computational advances. Paper ballots showed up in the 1800s. Parties would print small fliers that looked like train tickets so voters could show up and drop their ballot off. Keep in mind, adult literacy rates still weren't all that high at this point. One party could print a ticket that looked kinda' like the others. All kinds of games were being played.  We needed a better way.    The 1800s were a hotbed of invention. 1838 saw the introduction of a machine where each voter got a brass ball which was then dropped in machine that used mechanical counters to increment a tally. Albert Henderson developed a precursor to a computer that would record votes using a telegraph that printed ink in a column based on which key was held down. This was in 1850 with US Patent 7521. Edison took the idea to US Patent 90,646 and automated the counters in 1869. Henry Spratt developed a push-button machine. Anthony Beranek continued on with that but made one row per office and reset after the last voter, similar to how machines work today.    Jacob Meyers built on Berenek's work and added levers in 1889 and Alfred Gillespie made the levered machine programmable. He and others formed the US Standard Voting Machine Company and slowly grew it. But something was missing and we'll step back a little in time. Remember those tickets and poll books? They weren't standardized.    The Australians came up with a wacky idea in 1858 to standardize on ballots printed by the government, which made it to the US in 1888. And like many things in computing, once we had a process on paper, the automation of knowledge work, or tabulating votes would soon be ready to take into computing. Herman Hollerith brought punched card data processing to the US Census in 1890 and punch cards - his company would merge with others at the time to form IBM.    Towards the end of the 1890s John McTammany had aded the concept that voters could punch holes in paper to cast votes and even went so far as to add a pneumatic tabulation. They were using rolls of paper rather than cards. And so IBM started tabulating votes in 1936 with a dial based machine that could count 400 votes a minute from cards. Frank Carrell at IBM got a patent for recording ballot choices on standardized cards. The stage was set for the technology to meet paper. By 1958 IBM had standardized punch cards to 40 columns and released the Port-A-Punch for so people in the field could punch information into a card to record findings and then bring it back to a computer for processing. Based on that, Joseph Harris developed the Votomatic punched-cards in 1965 and IBM  licensed the technology. In the meantime, a science teacher Reynold Johnson had developed Mark Sense in the 1930s, which over time evolved into optical mark recognition, allowing us to fill in bubbles with a pencil. So rather than punch holes we could vote by filling in a bubble on a ballot.   All the pieces were in place and the technology slowly proliferated across the country, representing over a third of votes when Clinton beat Dole and Ross Perot in 1996.    And then 2000 came. George W. Bush defeated Al Gore in a bitterly contested and narrow margin. It came down to Florida and issues with the ballots there. By some tallies as few as 300 people decided the outcome of that election. Hanging chads are little pieces of paper that don't get punched out of a card. Maybe unpunched holes in just a couple of locations caused the entire election to shift between parties. You could get someone drunk or document their vote incorrectly when it was orally provided in the early 1800s or provide often illiterate people with mislabeled tickets prior to the Australian ballots. But this was the first time since the advent of the personal computer, when most people in the US had computers in their homes and when the Internet bubble was growing by the day that there was a problem with voting ballots and suddenly people started wondering why were still using paper.    The answer isn't as simple as the fact that the government moves slowly. I mean, the government can't maintain the rate of technical innovation and progress anyways. But there are other factors as well. One is secrecy. Anywhere that has voting will eventually have some kind of secret ballots. This goes back to the ancient greeks but also the French Revolution. Secret ballots came to the UK in the 1840s with the Chartists and to the US after the 1884 election. As the democracies matured, the concept of voting rights matured and secret ballots were part of that. Making sure a ballot is secret means we can't just allow any old person to look at a ballot.    Another issue is decentralization. Each state selects their own machines and system and sets dates and requirements. We see that with the capacity and allocation of mail-in voting today.    Another issue is cost. Each state also has a different budget. Meaning that there are disparities between how well a given state can reach all voters. When we go to the polls we usually work with volunteers. This doesn't mean voting isn't big business. States (and countries) have entire bureaucracies around elections. Bureaucracies necessarily protect themselves.    So why not have a national voting system? Some countries do. Although most use electronic voting machines in polling places. But maybe something based on the Internet? Security. Estonia tried a purely Internet vote and due to hacking and malware it was determined to have been a terrible idea. That doesn't mean we should not try again.    The response to the 2000 election results was the Help America Vote Act of 2002 to define standards managed by the Election Assistance Commission in the US. The result was the proliferation of new voting systems. ATM machine maker Diebold entered the US election market in 2002 and quickly became a large player.    The CEO ended up claiming he was “committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to” Bush. They accidentally leaked their source code due to a misconfigured server and they installed software patches that weren't approved. In short, it was a typical tech empire that grew too fast and hand issues we've seen with many companies. Just with way more on the line. After a number of transitions between divisions and issues, the business unit was sold to Election Systems & Software, now with coverage over 42 states. And having sold hundreds of thousands of voting machines, they now have over 60% of the market share in the us. That company goes back to the dissolution of a ballot tabulation division of Westinghouse and the Votronic. They are owned by a private equity firm called the McCarthy Group.    They are sue-happy though and stifling innovation. The problems are not just with ES&S. Hart InterCivic and Dominion are the next two biggest competitors, with equal issues. And no voting machine company has a great track record with security. They are all private companies. They have all been accused of vote tampering. None of that has been proven. They have all had security issues.   In most of these episodes I try to focus on the history of technology or technocratic philosophy and maybe look to the future. I rarely offer advice or strategy. But there are strategies not being employed.    The first strategy is transparency. In life, I assume positive intent. But transparency is really the only proof of that. Any company developing these systems should have transparent financials, provide transparency around the humans involved, provide transparency around the source code used, and provide transparency around the transactions, or votes in this case, that are processed. In an era of disinformation and fake news, transparency is the greatest protection of democracy.    Providing transparency around financials can be a minefield. Yes, a company should make a healthy margin to continue innovating. That margin funds innovators and great technology. Financials around elections are hidden today because the companies are private. Voting doesn't have to become a public utility but it should be regulated.    Transparency of code is simpler to think through. Make it open source. Firefox gave us an open source web browser. ToR gave us a transparent anonymity. The mechanisms with which each transaction occurs is transparent and any person with knowledge of open source systems can look for flaws in the system. Those flaws are then corrected as with most common programming languages and protocols by anyone with the technical skills to do so. I'm not the type that thinks everything should be open source. But this should be.    There is transparency in simplicity.  The more complex a system the more difficult to unravel. The simpler a program, the easier for anyone with a working knowledge of programming to review and if needed, correct. So a voting system should be elegant in simplicity.   Verifiability. We could look at poll books in the 1800s and punch the vote counter in the mouth if they counted our vote wrong. The transparency of the transaction was verifiable. Today, there are claims of votes being left buried in fields and fraudulent voters. Technologies like blockchain can protect against that much as currency transactions can be done in bitcoin. I usually throw up a little when I hear the term blockchain bandied about by people who have never written a line of code. Not this time.    Let's take hashing as a fundamental building block. Let's say you vote for a candidate and the candidate is stored as a text field, or varchar, that is their name (or names) and the position they are running for. We can easily take all of the votes cast by a voter, store them in a json blob, commit them to a database, add a record in a database that contains the vote supplied, and then add a block in chain to provide a second point of verification. The voter would receive a guid randomly assigned and unique to them, thus protecting the anonymity of the vote. The micro-services here are to create a form for them to vote, capture the vote, hash the vote, commit the vote to a database, duplicate the transaction into the voting blockchain, and allow for vote lookups. Each can be exposed from an API gateway that allows systems built by representatives of voters at the federal, state, and local levels to lookup their votes.    We now have any person voting capable of verifying that their vote was counted. If bad data is injected at the time of the transaction the person can report the voter fraud and a separate table connecting vote GUIDs to IP addresses or any other PII can be accessed only by the appropriate law enforcement and any attempt by law enforcement to access a record should be logged as well. Votes can be captured with web portals, voting machines that have privileged access, by 1800s voice counts, etc.   Here we have a simple and elegant system that allows for transparency, verifiability, and privacy. But we need to gate who can cast a vote. I have a PIN to access by IRS returns using my social security number or tax ID. But federal elections don't require paying taxes. Nextdoor sent a card to my home and I entered a PIN printed on the card on their website. But that system has many a flaw. Section 303 of the Help America Vote Act of 2002 compels the State Motor Vehicle Office in each state to validate the name, date of birth, Social Security Number, and whether someone is alive. Not every voter drives. Further, not every driver meets voting requirements. And those are different per state.    And so it becomes challenging to authenticate a voter. We do so in person, en masse, at every election due to the the staff and volunteers of various election precincts. In Minnesota I provided my drivers license number when I submitted my last ballot over the mail. If I moved since the last time I voted I also need a utility bill to validate my physical address. A human will verify that. Theoretically I could vote in multiple precincts if I were able to fabricate a paper trail to do so. If I did I would go to prison.    Providing a web interface unless browsers support a mechanism to validate the authenticity of the source and destination is incredibly dangerous. Especially when state sponsored actors as destinations have been proven to be able to bypass safeguards such as https. And then there's the source. It used to be common practice to use Social Security Numbers or cards as a form of verification for a lot of things. That isn't done any more due to privacy concerns and of course due to identity theft.    You can't keep usernames and passwords in a database any more. So the only real answer here is a federated identity provider. This is where OAuth, OpenID Connect, and/or SAML come into play. This is a technology that retains a centralized set of information about people. Other entities then tie into the centralized identity sources and pull information from them. The technology they use to authenticate and authorize users is then one of the protocols mentioned.    I've been involved in a few of these projects and to be honest, they kinda' all suck. Identities would need to be created and the usernames and passwords distributed. This means we have to come up with a scheme that everyone in the country (or at least the typically ill-informed representatives we put in place to make choices on our behalf) can agree on. And even if a perfect scheme for usernames is found there's crazy levels of partisanship. The passwords should be complex but when dealing with all of the factors that come into play it's hard to imagine consensus being found on what the right level is to protect people but also in a way passwords can be remembered.    The other problem with a federated identity is privacy. Let's say you forget your password. You need information about a person to reset it. There's also this new piece of information out there that represents yet another piece of personally identifiable information. Why not just use a social security number? That would require a whole other episode to get into but it's not an option. Suddenly if date of birth, phone number (for two factor authentication), the status of if a human is alive or not, possibly a drivers license number, maybe a social security number in a table somewhere to communicate with the Social Security databases to update the whole alive status. It gets complicated fast. It's no less private that voter databases that have already been hacked in previous elections though.    Some may argue to use biometric markers instead of all the previous whatnot. Take your crazy uncle Larry who thinks the government already collects too much information about him and tells you so when he's making off-color jokes. Yah, now tell him to scan his eyeball or fingerprint into the database. When he's done laughing at you, he may show you why he has a conceal and carry permit.    And then there's ownership. No department within an organization I've seen wants to allow an identity project unless they get budget and permanent head count. And no team wants another team to own it. When bureaucracies fight it takes time to come to the conclusion that a new bureaucracy needs to be formed if we're going anywhere. Then the other bureaucracies make the life of the new one hard and thus slow down the whole process. Sometimes needfully, sometimes accidentally, and sometimes out of pure spite or bickering over power. The most logical bureaucracy in the federal government to own such a project would be the social security administration or the Internal Revenue Service.     Some will argue states should each have their own identity provider. We need one for taxes, social security, benefits, and entitlement programs. And by the way, we're at a point in history when people move between states more than ever. If we're going to protect federal and state elections, we need a centralized provider of identities. And this is going to sound crazy, but the federal government should probably just buy a company who already sells an IdP (like most companies would do if they wanted to build one) rather than contract with one or build their own. If you have to ask why, you've never tried to build one yourself or been involved in any large-scale software deployments or development operations at a governmental agency. I could write a book on each.    There are newer types of options. You could roll with an IndieAuth Identity Provider, which is a decentralized approach, but that's for logging into apps using Facebook or Apple or Google - use it to shop and game, not to vote. NIST should make the standards, FedRAMP should provide assessment, and we can loosely follow the model of the European self-sovereign identity framework or ESSIF but build on top of an existing stack so we don't end up taking 20 years to get there.  Organizations that can communicate with an identity provider are called Service Providers. Only FedRAMP certified public entities should be able to communicate with a federal federated identity provider. Let's just call it the FedIdP.  Enough on the identity thing. Suffice it to say, it's necessary to successfully go from trusting poll workers to being able to communicate online. And here's the thing about all of this: confidence intervals. What I mean by this is that we have gone from being able to verify our votes in poll books and being able to see other people in our communities vote to trusting black boxes built by faceless people whose political allegiances are unknown. And as is so often the case when the technology fails us, rather than think through the next innovation we retreat back to the previous step in the technological cycle: if that is getting stuck at localized digitization we retreat back to paper. If it is getting stuck at taking those local repositories online we would have retreated back to the localized digital repository. If we're stuck at punch cards due to hanging chads then we might have to retreat back to voice voting. Each has a lower confidence interval than a verifiable and transparent online alternative. Although the chances of voter fraud by mail are still .00006%, close to a 5 9s. We need to move forward. It's called progress. The laws of technological determinism are such that taking the process online is the next step. And it's crucial for social justice. I've over-simplified what it will take. Anything done on a national scale is hard. And time consuming. So it's a journey that should be begun now. In the meantime, there's a DARPA prize. Given the involvement of a few key DARPA people with DefCon and the findings of voting machine security (whether that computers are online and potentially fallible or physically hackable or just plain bad) DARPA gave a prize to the organization that could develop a tamper proof, open-source voting machine. I actually took a crack at this, not because I believed it to be a way to make money but because after the accusations of interference in the 2016 election I just couldn't not. Ultimately I decided this could be solved with an app in single app mode, a printer to produce a hash and a guid, and some micro-services but that the voting machine was the wrong place for the effort and that the effort should instead be put into taking voting online.  Galois theory gives us a connection from field theory and group theory. You simplify field theory problems so they can be solved by group theory. And I've oversimplified the solution for this problem. But just as with studying the roots of polynomials, sometimes simplicity is elegance rather than hubris. In my own R&D efforts I struggle to understand when I'm exuding each.  The 2020 election is forcing many to vote by mail. As with other areas that have not gotten the innovation they needed, we're having to rethink a lot of things. And voting in person at a polling place should certainly be one. As should the cost of physically delivering those ballots and the human cost to get them entered.  The election may or may not be challenged by luddites who refuse to see the technological determinism staring them in the face. This is a bipartisan issue. No matter who wins or loses the other party will cry foul. It's their job as politicians. But it's my job as a technologist to point out that there's a better way. The steps I outlined in this episode might be wrong. But if someone can point out a better way, I'd like to volunteer my time and focus to propelling it forward. And dear listener, think about this. When progress is challenged what innovation can you bring or contribute to that helps keep us from retreating to increasingly analog methods.  Herman Hollerith brought the punch card, which had been floating around since the Jacquard loom in 1801. Those were individuals who moved technology forward in fundamental ways. In case no one ever told you, you have even better ideas locked away in your head. Thank you for letting them out. And thank you for tuning in to this episode of the History of Computing Podcast. We are so, so lucky to have you.

In this talk from last year's Revolution Festival, Josh Holroyd discusses the rise of the working class in Britain, and the lessons from the revolutionary movement of the Chartists. Find out more on this fascinating topic by getting a copy of Rob Sewell's new book on 'Chartist Revolution', out now through Wellred Books. wellredbooks.net/chartist-revolution.html ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Peterloo massacre took place over 200 years ago in Manchester. This brutal event marked a turning point in the development of the working class and the labour movement in Britain. In the following decades, workers established a mass movement capable of striking fear into the hearts of the ruling class: Chartism. The Chartists were the first mass working-class political movement in the world. In the 1830s and 40s they mobilised hundreds of thousands of workers around their Charter, the main demand of which was for universal male suffrage to end the political monopoly of the capitalist class. However, the rest of their programme went even further. As Engels stated, if the Chartists' programme had been put into practice, it would have amount to the overthrow of the entire British establishment. In this discussion, Josh Holroyd discusses why it is vital that we understand the history of the workers’ movement. Marxism is only scientific if it generalises the lessons of these real movements, most of which are airbrushed out of history by the ruling class. It is only Marxism that can preserve and build upon these lessons.

Islington characters were involved in the Russian Revolution, Indian Independence and the Spanish Civil War...

"especially lust, plenty of it"

Welcome to the first episode of A World to Win with Grace Blakeley! A World to Win is a new podcast from Tribune bringing you a weekly dose of socialist news, theory, and action with guests from around the world. --- “Who do we remember? Do we remember the Home Secretaries that imprisoned the Chartists? Or do we remember the Chartists for what they stood for, albeit unsuccessful in the immediate time?” –Jeremy Corbyn Today, Grace is joined by Jeremy Corbyn to discuss to the UK government’s disastrous handling of the coronavirus pandemic, the rise and fall of Corbynism, and the future of socialism within the Labour Party. For the first time ever, hear Jeremy on the “absurd” discussions he had with the government about its herd immunity strategy and why the furlough scheme was unlikely to have been implemented without significant pressure from key figures in the Opposition. Thanks to our producer, Conor Gillies, and our graphic designer, Kevin Zweerink, for their hard work on this episode. Remember, you can support the show by signing up as a patron.

Read the full text here: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/rudolf-rocker-anarchosyndicalism Rudolf Rocker (1873-1958) was an anarchist writer, historian, and activist. He wrote extensively on anarchist movements and thinkers. He is perhaps best known for his book "Nationalism and Culture," which criticizes nationalism, religion, and the state. In this chapter, Rocker documents early proto-anarchist and socialist movements that emerged in the early- and mid-nineteenth century. He examines the Luddites, the Chartists, trade unionism, and early socialism in England.

This month we get to know the first wave of socialist thinkers – the Utopian socialists – including Robert Owen, Étienne Cabet, Jean Claude Leonard de Sismondi, Henri de Saint-Simone, Charles Fourier, and more. We also get to see how Radical associations in Britain – like the trade unions, co-ops, and Chartists – paved the way for a socialist movement.

Part of the Power and the People Theme Study for Paper 2.   The Chartists weren't the only game in town in the 1800s when it came to reform movements. There were also the Anti-Corn Law League, the anti-slavery Abolitionists and the various social and factory reformers. What tactics did they use and what success did they achieve?   No Geographers were harmed in the making of this podcast. 

Speaking at a day school in Manchester earlier this year, Josh Holroyd of Socialist Appeal discusses the events surrounding the Peterloo massacre of 16th August 1819, when thousands of protestors demanding political rights were brutally repressed by local representatives of the ruling class. As Josh explains, the Peterloo massacre marked a turning point for the working class in England. In the years that followed, powerful trade unions were forged in order to fight back against the attacks of the capitalists. And within decades, mass political movements such as the Chartists were on the rise, striking fear into the hearts of the bourgeoisie. 200 years on, we stand on the shoulders of giants as we attempt to build on these revolutionary traditions - fighting for socialism in Britain and internationally.

In this video from the 2018 Revolution Festival, Alan Woods (editor of In Defence of Marxism) discusses the events of the English Civil War - England's revolution. The civil war in the 17th century saw the forces of Parliament battling against the monarchy of Charles I, fighting for power over England. In essence, this was a revolutionary struggle for domination by the rising bourgeois class of merchants and bankers - an attempt to usurp the old feudal institutions of the monarchy. Pivotal to the success of the 'Roundheads' (the supporters of Parliament) in the conflict against the Royalists was the role played by Oliver Cromwell, leader of the New Model Army. And within Cromwell's army were an even more radical wing - the Levellers - who wanted to go even further, anticipating the mass movements of the Chartists in the 19th century and their demands for universal democratic rights. The task today is to fight for a new revolution - one that throws both the monarchy and the capitalists into the dustbin of history where they belong.

The Chartists were a huge political movement, able to mobilise a lot of public support; born out of unhappiness with the Great Reform Act, their demands were simple and clearly designed to improve the representation of the working class in Parliament. But the movement collapsed by the 1850s, ending in abject failure. Or did it...?

What was the problem with elections in the 1800s? How did a meeting at St Peter's Field lead to the Great Reform Act? And how Great was it anyway? This is background to the Chartist movement which will be covered in the next episode. 

A champagne-loving industrialist who enjoyed hunting, a literary critic and an upstanding Victorian gentleman: this does not sound like a description of your typical advocate of proletarian revolution or the co-author of the Communist Manifesto. Yet Friedrich Engels was all those things and more. Deliberately keeping in the shadows of his comrade-in-arms Karl Marx, Engels led an eventful life, fighting in the 1848 German revolution, attending secret meetings with Chartists and keeping two homes in Manchester: a respectable one that fitted his image of a bachelor businessman, the other a boarding house where he lived with his working-class lover Mary Burns and her sister, and future wife, Lizzie. Rajan Datar charts the life and work of Friedrich Engels with the help of leading scholars of Marxism: Jonathan Sperber from the University of Missouri, Terrell Carver from Bristol University, Belinda Webb-Blofeld from Kingston University and Christian Krell from the Friedrich Ebert Foundation. Photo: Statues of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in Berlin. (Getty Images)

Chartists are discretionary traders. This is true for those who have a CMT designation. How can you define your edge if you are looking at the same charts everyone else is looking at? Charts need to be interpreted. That's discretionary. You don't have the same emotional makeup that your chart-teaching coaches have. You don't have the same life experiences that they do. If you haven't backtested your rules, you don't know your numbers. What is the expected value of a trade that you put on in a head and shoulders formation? It's integral to know if you are trading too big or too small for the risk that you are willing to take. What is your optimal bet size for any trade that you put on? What is your risk of ruin? Don't optimize for share size or contracts...that's amateurish. Forget tiers... Most indicators are lagging indicators, they don't give you trade signals for entries or exits. Indicators are emotional band-aids and won't relieve you of having to live with the uncertainty that we are traders must live with. We must make decisions with imperfect and incomplete information. That's the world we choose to live in.  Learn to develop your inner voice - for free. 

Paper by Professor Patrick Geoghegan (TCD) at 'Law and The Idea of Liberty in Ireland: From Magna Carta to the Present' (ILHS, Dublin, November, 2016).

Paper by Professor Patrick Geoghegan (TCD) at 'Law and The Idea of Liberty in Ireland: From Magna Carta to the Present' (ILHS, Dublin, November, 2016).

Spend this Christmas with Howard, Kulap, Stard, and Brody Stevens! We'll hear everyone chat about Brody's favorite baseball movie, how he became the Prince of Periscope, and the number one Christmas song as they count down the Top 5 Christmas Songs Music Chart. Then, Howard is Santa Claus and bears gifts for all during the Movie Chart. Later, they give Chartists a special thanks for their GIFTS, and Howard gives us an update on "Hey Gang." Download the Who Charted? Holiday Bundle here: http://store.earwolf.com/store/digital/3880/who-charted-holiday-bundle and check out Hey Gang! over at http://www.howardkremer.com/!

Chartists rely heavily on moving averages to spot key patterns. Two of these are the so-called “Golden” and “Death” crosses. This week I explain how they work.

From the early trade unions of the 18th century, through to the Luddites and Chartists of the 19th century, there was a profound desire to protect or improve living standards. This talk looks at what ordinary people really thought about their world and what types of records we should be exploring to discover how they tried - and sometimes succeeded - in changing their part of it.

Pollsters and percentages have, to a degree, done away with that species of political rumour that precedes and predicts revolutions. Professor Pick outlines how this type of rumour operated in the context of a feared Chartist revolution in Victorian Britain.This lecture is...